MINOR Cttee: 9 August 2017 Item No. 1

Application no: 17/00207/OUT

For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Berry Court Farmhouse New Road Little London RG26 5EU

Proposal Outline application for the erection of 3 no. bungalows and 1 no. house; creation of a new vehicular access to Silchester Road; use of the existing access for pedestrians only; creation of a village green; and formation of a car park to serve the village green and St Stephen's Hall

Registered: 20 January 2017 Expiry Date: 11 August 2017

Type of Application: Outline Planning Application

Case Officer: Katherine Fitzherbert-Green 01256 845716

Applicant: Mr & Mrs D & J Snook Agent: Mr Ian Lasseter

Ward: Pamber And Silchester

Ward Member(s): Cllr Marilyn Tucker Cllr Roger Gardiner

Parish: PAMBER CP OS Grid Reference:

462032 159202

Recommendation: It is RECOMMENDED that the application be REFUSED for the below reason:

Reasons for Refusal: 1. The application includes the provision of new housing outside of a Settlement Policy Boundary

and has been accompanied by insufficient justification to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, that the proposal is of a scale and type that meets a locally agreed need in order to be considered as an exception to the general policy of restraint for housing in the countryside. There is no justification within the Development Plan or any other material considerations that would establish the principle of development or would comprise sufficient weight to bring forward development as a departure from the Development Plan. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies SS1 and SS6(e) of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

General comments This application has been brought to the Development Control Committee at the request of Councillor Gardiner for the following reason: “I would like to take this to DC for the reasons previously stated. I.e. there is sufficient evidence of need in the ward to justify approval. Much of this evidence is anecdotal based on my conversations with residents. Although current build in the area should satisfy the "need requirement" there is no evidence that this has or will satisfy the needs of local residents.” Planning Policy The application site is located outside of any Settlement Policy Boundary as identified within the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 – 2029 and therefore lies within a countryside location. National Planning Policy/Guidance The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied within the determination of planning

applications. Paragraph 212 of the NPPF is clear that the policies within the NPPF are material considerations which Local Planning Authorities should take into account from the day of publication (27 March 2012). It is considered that the following sections of the NPPF contain policies material to the assessment of this application:

Achieving Sustainable Development

Core Principles

Section 4 (Promoting sustainable transport)

Section 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes)

Section 7 (Requiring good design)

Section 8 (Promoting healthy communities)

Section 10 (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change)

Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)

Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment)

Decision Taking National Planning Practice Guidance. Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029

Policy SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development)

Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing)

Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside)

Policy CN1 (Affordable Housing)

Policy CN3 (Housing Mix for Market Housing)

Policy CN6 (Infrastructure)

Policy CN7 (Essential Facilities and Services)

Policy CN8 (Community, Leisure and Cultural Facilities)

Policy CN9 (Transport)

Policy EM1 (Landscape)

Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation)

Policy EM5 (Green Infrastructure)

Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk)

Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Use)

Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development)

Policy EM11 (The Historic Environment)

Policy EM12 (Pollution) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance

Design and Sustainability SPD - Appendix 5 - Construction Statements - Appendix 6 - Storage and Collection of Waste and Recycling - Appendix 7 - Places to Live - Appendix 14 - Countryside Design Summary - Appendix 16 - Residential Amenity Design Guidance

Residential Parking Standards SPD

Non-residential Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Guidance 2003

Affordable Housing SPD

Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards SPD

Landscape Character Assessment SPG

Landscape and Biodiversity SPD

S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance (Revised April 2015)

Adopted Interim Green Space Standards

Other material documents/legislation Guidance note – Policy SS6(e) - New Housing in the Countryside The Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2015 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006) Description of Site The site is located within the village of Little London, positioned approximately 1km east of the village of Pamber Green, 1.5km northeast of Pamber End, 2.2km southeast of Tadley and 3km west of Bramley. The village is served by the north-south Silchester Road. The application site extends across 1.36 hectares of agricultural land which is presently used for grazing positioned to the west of Silchester Road and towards the southern periphery of the village. The site is broadly rectangular, has a level topography and is screened from Silchester Road by mature hedgerow which sits parallel to a drainage ditch which forms the eastern boundary of the site. Hedgerow continues along the remainder of the boundaries with a stream to the north which extends east to west beyond the site. Properties within the vicinity of the site both to Silchester Road to the east and New Road to the north are of a mixed character and appearance commensurate with the period of build and provide variety to the public domain in terms of scale, massing and external appearance. Whilst predominately detached, there are a small number of semi-detached units. Sitting opposite the northeast corner of the site is St Stephens Hall, a single storey building within a community use. The wider landscape comprises open countryside together with Berry Court Business Park to the south west which comprises commercial units together with a solar park and a detached farmhouse. Proposal The application seeks outline planning permission to establish the principle of erecting three bungalows (1no 3bed and 2no 4 bed) and a dwellinghouse at the site with access to be taken from Silchester Road. The number of bedrooms to be provided within the dwellinghouse remains uncertain whereby the application form cites this to be ‘unknown’ but the accompanying drawing states this to be five bedrooms. The dwellings are to be provided in conjunction with the creation of a village green as an area of public open space with a play area, together with a modest sized car park. The application requests that all matters (i.e. access, layout, scale, landscaping and appearance) be reserved for later consideration. It is suggested that the existing field entrance to the site could become a pedestrian link to an ‘L’ shaped car park which would additionally be served by a new vehicular access towards the south east corner from Silchester Road. An illustrative plan has been provided to support the application which envisages how the site could be arranged. This plan has no weight in the determination process but simply illustrates a possible linear arrangement of properties extending north through the site fronting on to the village green which is to border the eastern boundary with retention of the existing boundary vegetation. The northernmost dwellinghouse is illustrated as sitting within its own gated curtilage. Supporting information The application as submitted was accompanied by the following documents:

Location Plan

Site Layout Plan (illustrative)

Planning Statement

Six letters of support to the applicant provided as part of the submission package

Flood Risk Assessment

Pamber Housing Need Survey Report

Noise Assessment. Supplementary information In response to comments received from the BDBC Biodiversity Officer, a Hedgerow Assessment, Dormice Survey and Ecological Walkover Survey were submitted as additional supporting documents. Consultations Councillor Gardiner – “I am aware of the application and the history regarding the previous application on this site. I am supportive of the application and await the comments of the Parish Council”. Parish Council – No comments received. Planning Policy – Objection

Proposal is contrary to Policy SS6 (criteria e) whereby insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate a local need specifically for Little London with insufficient evidence that there is an exceptional case for the proposed new homes in the countryside.

The provision of the village green could have the ability to improve the existing facility of St Stephen’s Hall however it is unclear whether this meets an identified local need.

Conservation – No objection Biodiversity – Final comments: No objection subject to conditions.

The site provides opportunity for biodiversity/habitat enhancement through landscaping, bat and bird nesting/roosting boxes;

There is a need to retain the integrity of the boundary hedgerows and the wet ditch adjacent to the northern boundary for habitat connectivity for wildlife.

Trees – Objection

Insufficient information to assess the impact of the proposed development.

Concerns that the formation of the car park and associated services will impact and damage the rooting area of important and existing mature trees located on the eastern boundary adjacent to Silchester Road.

Landscape – No objection

Major changes required to the site layout in order to address boundary conditions, and to integrate the edges of the development into the surrounding countryside.

Environmental Health – No objection subject to conditions.

Consider that the yard (approx. 35m west) used for the storage of agricultural equipment would not have a significant adverse impact upon the development site due to an intervening paddock.

Introduction of residential development on agricultural land has potential for contaminated land.

Environment Agency – Objection.

The submitted Flood Risk Assessment does not meet the requirements set out within the NPPF and PPG and does not provide a suitable assessment of risk having regard to assessing the impact of climate change, flood plain storage and floor levels to inform the assessment of climate change and the design and layout.

Highways – No objection subject to conditions.

The indicated vehicular access point onto Silchester Road is at the southeast end of the site in the proximity of traffic calming deflection islands.

Any design would need to investigate a suitable layout and position for visibility splays and vehicle movement through the islands and manoeuvring at the access.

Design details required of the construction of the footpath link and the access road with turning suitable for refuse vehicles and collection vehicles for recycling receptacles.

Facilities for short stay cycle parking should be included. HCC Archaeology – No objection.

Site located within an area of limited archaeological potential. HCC Lead Local Flood Authority – No comment due to site application relating to fewer than 10 dwellings. Southern Gas – No objection. Thames Water – Insufficient information to determine the waste water infrastructure needs of the development. A drainage strategy for foul water is required. Public Observations Objection 167 representations have been received expressing objection to the proposal on the following grounds (in summary): Principle of development – general

The development is on a green-field site/agricultural land within the countryside, outside of the settlement boundary where development is generally restricted.

The site is not on previously developed land, is not part of a rural exception scheme, is not a re-use of an existing building or a replacement building, does not support an existing rural business and is not allocated by a Neighbourhood Plan.

Strategic countryside gap between Tadley and Basingstoke is being reduced.

Site is outside of the historic development line of an adjacent settlement that retains the basic shape of its medieval origin.

Little London is not a village, it is a hamlet, in a rural location.

Question the loss of agricultural land which may one day be required for producing food.

Countryside to the south of Little London between Pamber and Basingstoke is being built over or earmarked for housing development thus eroding the gaps between settlements. Effort should be made to protect not just Little London but other similar small settlements within the Borough.

Solar park and light industrial units already on the Applicant’s site. The proposal would take away the last remaining open space at this end of the village.

The application 15/02132/OUT confirmed that the site was not within a defined settlement but also infers that the site is clearly part of the village which is primarily linear.

Location of the site is unsuitable for people with impaired mobility given the flood risk.

The area does not have the amenities to support further building developments.

Principle of development - housing

Proposal would extend the village boundaries.

Proposed housing is several hundred yards away from the road.

No need for the proposed development with approximately 78 houses for sale in the Parish or within a 3 mile radius of Little London.

Applicant claims a need for housing for people with mobility. Little London has a rural setting with few facilities which could make those with reduced mobility feel stranded from mainstream services.

The proposed dwellings do not constitute opportunities for downsizing.

Development comprises backland development.

Permission has been refused for backland housing (e.g. at Kinghern Kennels, Silchester Road in 2001). The reasons for refusal should be adopted for the Local Plan 2011-2029.

The Housing Needs Survey: ­ Identifies the need for 10-15 affordable homes (i.e. affordable rent/shared ownership), not

11 market dwellings. ­ Has results addressing more than one settlement. ­ Has not identified any need for housing specifically in Little London. ­ Recommends 1 – 2 bed properties for affordable housing or rent in the Parish. ­ Identified only one person who wished to specifically be within Little London due to on call

duties at Berry Court Farm. ­ Has not been subject to official checks to confirm whether the perceived need for a house

was genuine or for what reason the resident was requesting new housing.

Of the people surveyed for the Housing Needs Survey, only three had incomes suitable to afford the £500k – 800k bungalows proposed.

Three of the 11 houses needed are for people wishing to downsize in 5 – 10 years’ time.

The current application has a mix-matched interpretation to Policy SS6.

Policy SS6(e) requires an assessment of any permissions granted which could help to meet the identified need which has not been done.

At least 16 new homes have been approved in the Parish and not yet constructed.

The schemes (approved or in the planning process) would satisfy the need raised in the Housing Needs Survey.

Previous application was not required to fulfil the Borough’s housing commitments.

Pamber Parish Council are investigating a Neighbourhood Plan which would enable residents to establish a vision for the settlement rather than development being imposed.

It is unlikely that Charnwood Borough Council would allow dwellings in the countryside and neither should BDBC.

A five Bedroom House was built locally and was on market for about a year before being sold, questioning the demand for a big house in Little London.

Only six houses have been sold in Little London in 2016 with only one in a reasonable price bracket. The prices do not meet the affordable housing criteria for people to live in villages.

Principle of development – village green/play area/car park

The application uses a precedent set by other applications for mixed use development granted in 2008 (BDB/46403 and BDB/68407) which did not propose a village green but is on land formally known as ‘Nash’s Green’. These are not comparable schemes.

Village green is not large enough for organised activities or playing sport.

No need for a village green which is well served by Pamber Forest, Silchester Village Green, Sherfield on-Loddon Village Green and a play area in Bramley.

Question whether the Council can grant the creation of a village green which is controlled through the Commons Act 2006.

By applying through the planning system for a village green appears to disqualify an application under the Commons Act 2006 to register the land as a village green. The applicant could then apply to develop the remaining land for housing or a village hall.

Concern over the current law on the registration of a village green by a land owner can be coupled to a planning application for housing on the same land.

Term ‘Village Green’ is misleading as it is not registered.

Parish Council was not consulted whether they would accept a village green.

A high voltage cable crosses the village green which could be a health hazard for activities such as ball games or kite flying.

The settlement is linear and a small green where people would have to drive to, not large enough for organised activities, is a poor attempt.

No need for a play area given proximity to Pamber Forest which includes a natural log play area.

No need for a car park.

Village Hall Management Committee have not been consulted on whether a car park is wanted.

Village hall is largely used at present for village events which the majority of people attend on foot.

Concern regarding the safety of siting of the children’s play area behind a hedge and close to a stream.

Concern as to who will maintain the village green.

Affordable housing

Proposal does not address need for affordable housing (i.e. affordable rent and shared ownership) identified by the Pamber Housing Need Survey Report.

Little London has enough expensive housing and believe affordable housing is required.

Affordable housing is being added all the time in nearby Basingstoke.

No need for more housing aimed at executive and downsizing markets.

Impact upon the character of the area/Design

Unable to assess whether the development would respect the local landscape or relate to surrounding development.

Insufficient information on the location and layout for the proposal. Little London hasn’t changed since the early 1960s albeit with some infilling along the eastern side of Silchester Road, residential conversions and modernisation of properties.

The integrity of the countryside and the landscape around Little London is virtually intact and remains a linear settlement with countryside coming right up against back garden boundaries of dwellings.

Development is out of keeping with the character of the area.

Concern regarding new lighting in the countryside around the car park and the access path which will be required to make the development viable.

Loss to rural outlook

Car park will be an eyesore.

Detract from the enjoyment of the scenery when travelling on the bus through Little London.

The village has been subject to industrial units, a bus garage, various barns and a solar farm which ruin the village as well as hardstanding on Bramley Road.

Highways and Transport

Little London has no paved footways or street lighting whereby access for families with young children would need to be by car or on foot.

Travelling to the proposed village green/car park would add to existing volumes of traffic.

Road traffic is busy/unbearable.

In spite of traffic calming measures, vehicles go through the village at speed.

The road has a number of blind corners with reduced visibility.

Silchester Road is a busy cut-through for traffic, especially staff driving to AWE

Well use route for cyclists and horse-riders.

Field entrance was created without planning permission.

Existing field entrance is unsuitable for a pedestrian entrance as leads onto a muddy lay-by, which will be required to be re-surfaced.

The School Bus exits onto the layby.

The area does not have the facilities to support any increase in footfall/traffic.

If a large vehicle passes through, there is little room for pedestrians to walk on the road and be safe.

Parking

The village hall had sufficient parking prior to the size of a lay-by being reduced through clearance works of the adjoining ditch.

Villagers have offered to replace the drainage pipe removed and re-establish the lay-by.

Sufficient parking is already available for St Stephens Hall and is well used.

Concern regarding maintenance and security of the car park.

Local car parks must be kept locked to stop unauthorised access.

Proposed parking will attract anti-social behaviour and unwelcome elements.

The development would encourage cars to use the green.

Who will maintain the barriers and maintain security which will be required at the car park?

To have a larger number of cars parked on the road, requiring most users to cross the road would be dangerous.

Unlikely that majority of parents would use the car park that is further away (as opposed to continuing to park on the road/layby/current car park).

Access

Proposed access is a few metres after a sharp bend in the road so visibility is reduced and then becomes a highway safety issue.

The access to the play area is dangerous as alongside a busy road with no pedestrian pavement or walkway.

No indication where the access to the development will be made and of the safety considerations.

Creation of an additional road in what is a primarily a linear development is not respectful of the qualities of the local landscape nor relates to the surrounding development.

Residential Amenity

Noise disturbance from late night use of the car park. Natural Environment

Little London benefits from protected countryside to the north east, Silchester Common SSSI and Pamber Forest SSSI which are largely open to the public.

The existing old hedgerow to the solar farm required to provide screening has not been properly maintained. The hedge has been allowed to grow into trees and not topped, thus allowing gaps in the hedge.

Damage to existing hedgerow which has been part of the character of the village for over a century.

The hedge to the site shields views of the solar farm and should be retained.

Wildlife habitats will be destroyed.

The Dormouse Survey is not thorough and insufficient to conclude that dormice are not present in the hedgerow.

The timing of the search for nibbled nuts in May is unlikely to find evidence of dormice. The work is best carried out in late autumn/early winter. Nuts as a food source are not available until early autumn. Nibbled nuts will deteriorate/decompose by the following spring.

A search for summer nests in early May is unlikely to find evidence as dormice emerge from hibernation as late as April and nest-building will not begin immediately.

The hedgerow is an important wildlife corridor as dormice do not cross open spaces. Removal of 4m of the hedgerow would cause serious fragmentation of the habitat and isolate endangered populations.

There are known dormouse populations in nearby woodlands so this development would have a harmful effect on a vulnerable species.

Flooding/Drainage

Proposed houses are located within a flood plain.

Land is prone to flooding (Flood Zone 3a).

Redevelopment of agricultural land would increase the vulnerability of the area to flooding.

The area will still be floodable even with a buffer zone.

Flooding could result in the village green being unusable for a lot of the year.

The site is a valuable flood plain when the weather is inclement.

The ditch is not maintained on a regular basis.

Development may lead to sewage flooding requiring a drainage strategy to be submitted.

Not aware of any required upgrade to the sewer system in New Road.

The stream on occasions has raw sewerage pumped into it.

Southern Water have an environmental duty not to contaminate land or water courses, it does not require a mandatory contribution from this development to ensure this obligation is upheld or improved.

The submission does not include a Surface Water and Sustainable Drainage Scheme and relies on the existing stream and ditch to deal with run-off adding to flooding risk.

Sewage system cannot cope with heavy rainfall leading to auxiliary pumping and tankerage and a back-surge of sewage to low-lying nearby properties, the addition of new housing would increase the frequency and extent of the problem.

Proposed benefit of a mandatory contribution to upgrade the sewer system – who and how many residents will benefit?

Thames Water have been unable to determine the waste water needs due to insufficient information supplied by the applicant.

Water system already under pressure evidenced by flooding a few years ago.

Concern regarding proximity of the proposed development to the Thames Water Sewage Pumping Station.

Utilities

Improved Broadband should be in place prior to any additional homes being considered.

BT Openreach Plan for Hampshire is for 95% coverage for the county by the middle of 2019 irrespective of this development. A planning application will not guarantee the broadband.

Superfast broadband is not a benefit whereby this leads to a downgrade of other broadband services, forcing residents to pay more for the ‘improved’ service.

The application has no bearing upon the need for extending superfast broadband which is part of a larger UK plan for rural Britain.

Pressure upon utilities (i.e. water, sewerage, telecommunications, power).

Other Matters

No details provided as to the on-going responsibility for the maintenance of the car park, village green, access path or play area.

A clear demand must be established prior to committing the Council to new, unnecessary expenditure.

Concern raised regarding the distribution of publications seeking support for the application.

Concern regarding biased lobbying associated with the application by supporters containing incorrect and misleading information.

Concern raised regarding the conduct of a member of the Parish Council.

Impartial consideration by the Parish Council

Set a precedent for other development.

The applicant has established a static home and caravan park within the land edged blue in the application which should be cross referenced and considered with this application.

Representations and consultations have been made prior to the positioning of the static home and caravan park therefore the situation at Berry Court has changed. The intensification of activities around Berry Court has a material effect on the rural locality, not least with increased traffic and disturbance.

The combined effect of the planning applications for these caravan parks and this development needs to be considered in unison to make a proper assessment.

Location plan contains an incomplete blue line.

Distribution of leaflet of the proposal attempting to influence outcome by omitting to mention the building of four dwellings.

Objections are actually of personal nature and not based purely on planning.

Concern that supporters to the application do not live within the immediate vicinity of the site. Most are from outside of the village.

Lack of consultation with local residents as to whether a village green, car park or play area is wanted.

Objections raised to the previous application continue to apply. Support 103 letters have been received expressing support to the proposal on the grounds of (in summary): Principle of development – general

The policy guidance against the proposal is purely guidance.

The application accords with the observations of Councillors from the previous DCC, in that it is for four dwellings and no village hall.

The determination of the application should be focussed on policy guidance and the provisions of the Local Plan for development not the minutia of investigation to be reserved for a detailed planning application.

Development will occur at some point in the future with this proposal protecting land to the east of Silchester Road from further speculative applications.

Proposal is much needed for children and OAPs.

Proposal would help support the Plough Pub.

Small developments will keep the village alive.

There is Parish Council endorsement for limited development in compliance with the Local Plan.

The proposal accords with planning policy which provides for exceptions to meet a local need.

Village boundary would not be extended. Principle of development – housing

The Government aims to accelerate the delivery of houses, including affordable homes for young people.

Local Authorities are expected to identify opportunities for villages to thrive where this would support services and enable people to live where they grew up.

Rural exception sites should be considered positively to meet identified housing needs even if this relies on an element of general market housing to ensure homes are genuinely affordable for local people.

The Government is determined to increase the rate of build and favours small sites.

An appeal would be inevitable and forthcoming legislation would be material to that appeal.

Housing adjacent to the car park would deter anti-social behaviour.

The proposal would bring much needed homes.

The proposal does not comprise a big developer coming in building a 100 houses as other areas have had to deal with.

Village properties have been extended into large houses with no new modest properties being built in Monk Sherborne. It is impossible to purchase a village property.

Pleasing that the development is trying to cater for this area of the market in a village.

The development would meet the needs of the local community in that the housing mix is appropriate for the community and is consistent with the Housing Needs Survey.

This application would form part of the eleven dwellings needed for this area.

The Parish Council have explored exception sites in Little London, Pamber End and Pamber Heath for providing low cost housing.

Principle of development – village hall/car park/play area

The village green would be a bonus for the village.

All villages should have a village green.

The proposal would make the village a proper village and not just a through village.

The applicant is endeavouring to leave a lasting legacy for the village, namely a green open space.

The proposal offers a space for villagers to get together and have a good time, have village fetes and community parties etc. The village needs a place to congregate.

A playground/recreation area would add a sense of vibrancy and energy and possibly encourage families to move to the village.

There is community gain with a village green, contribution towards the sewer system and plans to bring superfast broadband to the village.

The village lacks play facilities.

Note that other villages have village greens with no pavements or street lighting.

Location close to the village hall is beneficial to present and future residents.

The applicants have supported the village for over 40 years and have been active in its wellbeing and also in the management of St Stephen’s Hall for 28 years.

Impact on the character of area/design

Proposal appears tasteful and fitting with the area.

Bungalows will have minimum visual impact due to the height. Residential Amenity

The development would not overlook or impact upon adjoining properties.

Have been assured that an acoustic fence will be erected to protect a neighbouring property. Highways and Transport

More parking would help St Stephen’s Hall to flourish and increase its bookings.

The car park would keep cars from blocking the roads.

The works to the lay-by has created a safer situation. It was previously used for vehicles belonging to residents.

Proposal would remove the need for on street parking Flooding/Drainage

Grampian conditions could secure an upgrade of the sewer system.

The previous application confirmed that flood risk can be mitigated. Natural Environment

Grampian conditions could secure dormice mitigation.

Request for a dormouse survey is incredible, puts up front costs on the applicant before it is known whether plans are likely to be approved and adds further delay to planning.

A dormouse survey needs to be set up in May and run until September so a report would not be available until next year.

Dormice could be a reserved matter. Dormice are protected and the mitigation is relocation, not a reason for refusing planning.

The proposed village green would minimise the potential disturbance to wildlife and even enhance the environment.

Alteration to the proposal to have only one entrance with houses set back from the hedgerow benefits wildlife.

Benefits to wildlife from improvements to the sewer system with raw sewage no longer overflowing into the local ecosystem.

Wildlife will benefit from improved/maintained planting, attracting different species.

The visual and environmental impact of the development would be negligible. Other Matters

The development would prevent other building in the area.

Need to consider the silent majority who are keen to live in the villages.

The solar farm has been a problem but this development is a benefit.

There has never before been the gift of land.

The existing village hall is run-down and in need of repair.

The objections to housing appear to favour the village stagnating.

Concern that a circulated standardised objection letter does not all have authentic signatures. Only bona-fide letters should be accepted, not ‘standard’ circulated pre-typed objections. Checks should be made on the letters to check authenticity of the signatures.

Relevant Planning History 15/02132/OUT Outline application for the erection of 4 no. houses,

2 no. bungalows, village hall with associated

parking, landscaping and access.

Refused 14.11.2016

The planning history is of relevance to the consideration of this current application which forms a resubmission with a reduced scale of development. The previous application was refused for two reasons comprising: 1. The proposal is for the erection of six new dwellings within the countryside and does not

meet the requirement of small scale development (four dwellings or fewer) and there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify a departure from the Development Plan. Sufficient evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that such proposals would meet a locally agreed need in any case. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

2. The provision of a new village hall has not met an identified local need, as detailed within Policy CN7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. In addition, a new facility would likely have a detrimental impact on or result in the loss of an existing essential facility and it has not been demonstrated that the existing facility is no longer needed, nor has it been demonstrated that it is no longer practical, desirable or viable to retain it. The proposed village hall does not therefore meet the requirements of Policy CN7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

Assessment The key issues for consideration arising from this proposal comprise the need and principles of this development against the national and local planning policy context whilst having regard also to the impact upon the character and appearance of the area and landscape setting, traffic generation and highway safety, residential amenity, the natural and historic environment, and the local infrastructure. Environmental Impact Assessment The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 set out that Environmental Impact Assessment’s (EIA's) are needed for certain developments whereby the proposal is to have a likely significant effect on the environment. Screening is undertaken against selection criteria set out within the Regulations. In having regard to the development proposed, the Local Planning Authority is of the opinion that it would be unlikely to have significant effects by

virtue of the size, scale and characteristics of the development, its location outside of any defined sensitive area, the use of natural resources, and the production of waste, pollution and nuisances. EIA was therefore deemed to not be required. Principle of development Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan for the area is the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. At a national level, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) constitutes Policy to which the Local Planning Authority must have regard. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision taking but informs the Local Plan process and thus is a material consideration.

Housing The Local Plan establishes appropriate locations for new development, including housing development, being explicit in its aims (as set out within Paragraph 4.70) to ‘direct development to within the identified Settlement Policy Boundaries and specific site allocations. Within the countryside it is the intention to maintain the existing open nature of the borough's countryside, prevent the coalescence of settlements and resist the encroachment of development into rural areas. The countryside is therefore subject to a more restrictive policy'. This application site lies outside of any Settlement Policy Boundary and is therefore within the countryside as defined by Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of Housing) of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. Policy SS1, criteria f) permits exception sites located outside of defined Settlement Policy Boundaries where it meets specific criteria set out in other policies in the Plan, including Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside). Policy SS6 of the Local Plan states that new housing outside Settlement Policy Boundaries will be permitted where, amongst other criteria, it is on previously developed land; is part of a rural exception scheme or is small scale to meet a locally agreed need. These criteria confirm that new housing development in the countryside is to only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. The proposal, being on agricultural land does not fall within the definition of ‘previously developed land’ as set out within the NPPF and the Local Plan. Furthermore, the development does not comprise a rural exception scheme to provide rural affordable housing for people with local connections or for rural workers and the site is additionally not allocated within any Neighbourhood Plan. - Policy SS6(e)

The application has been promoted against Policy SS6(e) which provides for small scale developments in the countryside as exceptions to the general policy of restraint, where it can be demonstrated that it would meet a local need. Policy SS6(e) has a number of requirements which have to be met in order for planning permission to be forthcoming. The starting point requires that the development to be ‘small scale’ (i.e. four dwellings or fewer) and ‘of a scale and type that meet a locally agreed need’. Only a proposal that satisfies this first requirement can then continue to be considered against the remaining detailed criteria (parts ix, x and xi) which relate to location, impact upon the character of the area and amenity. The development proposal is small scale; this is not a matter of dispute. In addressing whether the development would meet a ‘locally agreed need’, it is necessary to ensure that a proposal has been supported by sufficient evidence to objectively demonstrate that it meets a specific and clearly-identified unmet housing need in the local area. To assist, the Local Planning Authority has produced a supporting guidance note which sets out the nature and level of evidence deemed appropriate to demonstrate a local need for exceptional development of this nature. In particular, the guidance note advises that ‘it will be necessary to show that the need arises in the settlement where the homes are proposed’ which is pertinent whereby a site sits within a Parish that contains more than one village/settlement.

The application has been supported by a Planning Statement which draws upon the Pamber Housing Needs Survey (2016) to evidence a ‘locally agreed need’. The Housing Needs Survey was undertaken by Action Hampshire on behalf of Pamber Parish Council in November 2016. The survey identified seventeen households requiring either rented or shared ownership affordable homes and eleven households seeking open market housing. The quantum of market housing is defined within the Housing Needs Survey as meeting requests from those who ‘want to purchase a property in the open market and includes existing homeowners who may wish to downsize as well as those interested in the Starter Homes initiative’ and all ‘whom want to remain living in the Parish’. It is therefore unclear if the market housing identified comprises a personal desire or ‘want’ as opposed to a necessity. The application has nonetheless been presented as contributing towards the eleven market dwellings identified for the Parish. The application was also accompanied by anecdotal evidence from private individuals both from within the village and from outside (whose connection to Little London is unclear) indicating a desire for new housing. This information is indicated by the Agent to provide sufficient demonstration of a demand, and therefore a ‘need’ for the proposed development. The application has additionally been subject of local representations expressing support for further housing within the village, equally however representations have also questioned the need to expand the existing market stock. The supporting information has been given consideration by the Council. It is not disputed that the Housing Needs Survey demonstrates that there is a housing need, however the survey was conducted for Pamber Parish as a whole and does not assess the specific need arising from Little London which is the settlement that this proposal relates to. In addition, the Survey does not provide detail of the individual responses to the Survey therefore it is unclear as to whether the market housing need requires eleven new dwellings given that some of the respondents expressed a wish to downsize or upsize, which itself would free up other housing stock. The Housing Needs Survey alone and as presented is therefore considered insufficient to determine a ‘locally agreed need’ for Little London. Policy SS6(e) additionally requires that the ‘scale and type’ of housing proposed relates to the ‘locally agreed need’. In the absence of a demonstrated local need, it is unclear as to how the mix and type of housing has been informed by local requirements. The proposal is for 1 no. three-bedroom bungalow, 2 no four bedroom bungalows and 1 no five-bedroom dwelling (unconfirmed) whereas the Survey identifies that smaller units of one, two and three bedroom properties were deemed the most popular to meet the need of grown-up children living at home with their parents and/or downsizers. It is therefore unclear how the predominately large dwellings proposed would meet this desire. Notably, there has been an interest expressed within the survey for the provision of bungalows, however ‘both were not necessarily looking for homes now. Most were looking at options for the future in 5-10 years’ time’. Therefore based on the information available there does not appear to be clear and strong justification for the type and mix of dwellings based on an evidenced locally agreed need. Based on the evidence provided, it is considered that the application as submitted fails to provide a clear demonstration of a local need specifically for Little London or for the type and scale of housing proposed in order to justify an exceptional circumstance as to recommend planning permission. This conclusion has been disputed by the Applicant’s Agent who states in correspondence that, whilst Policy SS6 is an exceptions policy, this ‘does not mean that there have to be exceptional circumstances to justify a grant of planning permission’ and that there ‘is no requirement within the policy to demonstrate exceptional circumstances’. The Agent has additionally disputed the use of the Council’s guidance note in assisting with interpreting Policy SS6(e) suggesting that limited weight can be afforded to the note in the absence of any public consultation or formal adoption. The Local Planning Authority does not agree with the Agent’s interpretation of the planning policy or the views with respect to the guidance note. The Officer assessment in relation to this application is considered to be consistent in the approach taken when applying Policy SS6(e) with requiring a clear demonstration for the need of housing outside of a Settlement Policy Boundary.

Such justification was acknowledged by a Planning Inspector within a recent appeal at The Forge, Sherborne St John (PINS ref APP/H1705/W/16/3170616) whereby it was stated that ‘detailed and comprehensive evidence’ was required. Similarly, an appeal at The Street, Bramley (PINS ref APP/H1705/W/16/3165156) drew reference to the Council’s guidance note with the Inspector specifically stating that “an applicant should demonstrate that their proposal meets a specific and clearly identified unmet housing need in the local area in terms of number, size, type, and tenure”. These decisions confirm that, whilst not formally adopted by the Council as supplementary planning guidance, the Council’s guidance note to Policy SS6(e) has a role within the planning process to assist both applicants and the Local Planning Authority. Therefore in being consistent in its decision-taking, it remains the view of the Local Planning Authority that insufficient evidence has been provided to support this proposal for new homes in the countryside and is contrary to

Policy SS6(e) of the Local Plan. - Policy SS6(e) – parts ix, x and xi

Part ix to Policy SS6(e) requires that the development is ‘well related to the existing settlement and would not result in an isolated development’. In this regard, the site is considered to be situated within the physical extent of the village, being positioned to the south of the main defined ribbon of development within Little London and to the west of Silchester Road in proximity to existing residential properties. The village itself contains a public house, bus stops, a post box and a number of small businesses. There are two bus stops served by the southbound hourly Number 14 to Basingstoke and northbound by the Number 14 to Pamber Heath and are in walking distance of the site. Both the adjacent villages of Tadley and Bramley contain convenience stores and a Post Office. The previous application concluded that occupiers of the development site would have access to local facilities by means other than the private car, with walking, cycling and public transport considered realistic options. Despite the likelihood that travel by a private vehicle is likely to remain the preferred mode of transport, it would therefore be difficult to demonstrate that the application site is isolated, either in a physical sense or in terms of inherent accessibility to services and facilities from the village of Little London. The previous application at this site was not refused on the grounds of any conflict with criteria ix of the Local Plan and it would be unreasonable to now conclude otherwise. Parts x and xi have regard to the impact of a development upon matters of landscape quality and character; and seek to ensure that development would relate to the character, form and appearance of the surrounding development and respect residential amenity respectively. These parts relate equally to considerations given to the proposal having regard to Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan and are considered within the relevant sections below.

Community facilities - village Green with play area and car park The NPPF promotes mixed use developments and encourages the provision of community facilities that would improve health, social and cultural wellbeing as well as meeting local needs, particularly where these are sustainably located. Locally the provision of new community and infrastructure facilities are considered within Policy CN8 which endorses the grant of permission whereby there is evidence of need that cannot be met by existing provision. This outline planning application seeks planning permission for community facilities for Little London to be provided in conjunction with the proposed housing. The provision of the community facilities has not been sought by the Local Planning Authority to mitigate the impact of the housing development upon the local infrastructure as required by Policy CN6 and therefore to secure these facilities through any legal agreement would not meet the requirements of CIL. Instead, the supporting statement to the application indicates that the land would be ‘gifted’ following the grant of planning permission, although the recipient(s) of such a ‘gift’ is not confirmed. This has been the subject of concern as expressed within the representations. Therefore, had the application been recommended favourably, the proposed facilities would remain in the ownership of the applicant (as land owner) and any disposal to a third party (e.g. Parish Council) would remain a private

matter to be agreed between the relevant parties, along with any maintenance/management agreements. Concern has additionally been received through the representations of the opportunity to create a village green through the grant of planning permission as opposed to the Commons Act 2006. In this regard, the application simply seeks planning permission for the change of use of the land from agricultural to an area of open space, play area and a car park. This does not have regard to the formal registration of land as a ‘village green’ which is a process undertaken through the Commons Act 2006 as separate legislation to confirm that an area of land has been used by local people for lawful sports and pastimes ‘as of right’ for at least 20 years.

NPPF/Sustainable development

The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policy for England and places sustainable development at the heart of the decision-taking process, incorporating roles for economic, social and environmental protection as outlined within core land-use planning principles. This intends for development to be provided in such locations to be accessible and in proximity to the community which it serves, whilst also ensuring that facilities and services “are able to develop and modernise in a way that is sustainable, and retained for the benefit of the community” (para 70). This includes within countryside locations where new homes should only be provided where there are special circumstances (paragraph 55). In accepting that the application presents a conflict with the Local Plan, the NPPF requires local planning authorities to actively manage their housing land supply. In this regard, the Council is currently able to demonstrate that it has a 5 year Housing Land Supply (HLS) of 6.2 years therefore Paragraph 49 of the NPPF is not engaged. Notwithstanding this, Paragraph 49 continues to require applications for housing to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development which is seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. In this regard, the economic role of the NPPF requires proposals to contribute to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy. The proposed development would not provide a direct economic benefit and from a small scale development, the resultant benefits of wage spend from the construction process and future occupier spending would be limited within this rural area. The social aspect of sustainable development would however be met through the positive contribution made to the housing stock and the creation of new recreational opportunities to contribute towards social recreation and well-being. Finally, the development site currently comprises agricultural land which is intrinsic to the character of this rural location, with ecological value primarily held within the boundary hedgerows and trees. New landscaping could be secured along with ecological mitigation, however the environmental benefits are expected to be limited given the likely reliance upon the private vehicle. Given the limited benefits of the proposed development due to its small scale and location, it is not considered that the contribution towards sustainable development would outweigh the conflict arising with the Local Plan and in particular the requirements of Policy SS6(e) as well as the objectives of the NPPF set out within paragraphs 17 and 55 as to justify a positive recommendation for planning permission. Affordable Housing Local Plan Policy CN1 requires the provision of 40% affordable housing as part of new residential development with a tenure split of 70% rented and 30% intermediate products. Whilst the requirements of the Local Plan are acknowledged, the Council is additionally mindful of the Planning Practice Guidance which was updated in May 2016 to confirm that contributions for affordable housing and other ‘tariff style’ financial contributions should not be sought from small-scale residential developments of 10 units or less, with a maximum combined gross (internal) floor space of no more than 1,000m2. The application proposal at Berry Court Farm is for a scheme of four dwellings and whilst the scale of the dwellings is indicative at this outline stage, it has been confirmed that the total gross internal floor area illustrated at this stage would extend to 752.8sqm.

On this basis, the proposal would fall within the PPG’s thresholds and is not liable for contributions towards affordable housing. Housing Mix Policy CN3 requires developments for market housing to provide a range of house types and sizes to address local requirements, with the mix to be appropriate to the size, location, density and character of the site and surrounding area. The policy also requires that the mix is to be supported by evidence to justify the proposed housing mix, with supporting text stating this is to be based on an assessment of “a range of sources of housing evidence” such as the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), and the Rural Housing Survey. At this outline stage, the illustrative site layout accompanying the application suggests the provision of 1 no three-bedroom bungalow, 2 no four-bedroom bungalows and 1 no five-bedroom house. No evidence has been provided to support the suggested mix of dwellings or to demonstrate that this has been determined according to the local requirements whereby the Housing Needs Survey and the SHMA highlight the greatest need for one, two and three bedroom units with a lower proportion of four bedrooms or larger units being required in the future respectively. If the scheme had been deemed acceptable in other regards, the final housing mix in accordance with Policy CN3 would be determined at a reserved matters stage. In addition to housing mix, Policy CN3 requires provision of 15% of the homes to be ‘accessible and adaptable’ to enable people to stay in their homes as their needs change. In the absence of any such units (of either description) being illustrated within the application submission, such provision could have been secured via condition had the development been considered acceptable in other regards. Loss of Agricultural Land The development proposal would result in the loss of approximately 1.36 hectares of agricultural land which is identified through the Agricultural Land Classification System (ALC) held by Natural England as Grade 3. The ALC grading sits at a strategic level and is not intended for site specific use, nevertheless the land is in agricultural use for grazing and objection has been raised to the loss of this land from potential agricultural production. The NPPF (para 112) requires Local Planning Authorities to ‘take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile land (BMV)’ and that where ‘significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality’. The emphasis of Government is clear that BMV agricultural land (i.e. grades 1 – 3a) ‘should’ be avoided as a preference but does not place any absolute prohibition on the use of BMV agricultural land. This recognises the strategic need to increase housing supply for which greenfield development is to be expected and is as planned for within the Local Plan. The loss of this agricultural land would be notable in the immediate visual and physical context, however there is no definition in the NPPF of what constitutes ‘significant development’ for the purposes of paragraph 112. Therefore whilst the proposal is a ‘major’ development as categorised by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the loss of this land is not deemed ‘significant’ when viewed against the context of available agricultural land in the wider landscape. It is therefore considered reasonable to accept the loss of this parcel of agricultural land to accommodate the proposed development. Impact on the character of the area/ design Policy EM10 of the Local Plan requires development to be informed by the local context in terms of design and siting in order to contribute towards local distinctiveness and be visually attractive. This sits consistent with the NPPF which requires that new development gives regard to its setting, responds positively to the character of the area. Furthermore, Appendix 7 of the Council's Design

and Sustainability SPD also states that "a site must have consideration towards the character of the local area. The built context should be reflected in some way within a new development. Ensuring that these local built contextual characteristics are reconsidered in new development improves orientation between places, and helps foster a sense of local identity". The site is situated in the countryside, but also outside of any designated area of landscape importance, for example an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site is positioned in the landscape character area of North Sherborne, as defined in the Council's Landscape Assessment, June 2001. Currently, the land is generally flat and enclosed by hedging, including substantial hedging to the road frontage. The land is used as a paddock, prior to which it was in arable production. In the wider context, the site sits between Morgaston Wood to the south and Pamber Forest to the north and displays the typical characteristics of arable farmland enclosed by a strong structure of hedgerows with trees. In terms of built form, the character of the immediate area is dominated by the existing residential properties aligned in parallel to provide linear frontage development and providing a strong street scene with natural surveillance and clearly defined public and private spaces. The properties generally exhibit post-war architecture and are of varying sizes, with many being bungalows and chalet-bungalows, interspersed with more historic buildings. To the west is the original farmyard, now Berry Court Business Park, with most of the agricultural buildings now in use for commercial purposes. Given the established character of the area, the proposed development would inevitably have a consequence upon the landscape character, however given the undulations in topography and verdant form of the surrounding and wider countryside, the impact of the development would be localised to that of the area immediate to the site rather than having any visual intrusion upon the amenity of the wider landscape.

Local Impact

Locally, the application site is positioned with a relationship to notable built influences (e.g. properties, business park, solar park, road network). Therefore whilst the land currently provides open vistas, it is not considered to be open countryside in the wider sense. The proposed development would generate a new visual intrusion to the public domain but this is not considered to result in adverse demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area given the relationship to the established built environment. As such, no objection has been received from the Landscape Officer to the principle of development with the proposed built development affecting only a minimal area of the overall site. As such, longer views across and beyond the site would principally be retained. Concern is nonetheless raised regarding the detail of the proposal, with there being a need for a sensitive layout and landscaping (to include boundary treatments). With all matters reserved, the final scale, layout and external appearance of the development does not form part of the application before the local planning authority, with the accompanying drawing being illustrative only. Given the location of the site, it would be unreasonable to refuse the proposal on the grounds of landscape impact and the development is therefore considered to accord with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan. Design Principles Consistent with the NPPF, Policy EM10 of the Local Plan requires proposals to apply a high standard of design, to make efficient use of land and have regard to the local context in terms of design, siting and spacing. Whilst the application has been submitted in outline, it has been accompanied by an illustrative site layout which reveals the development envisaged by the applicant at this stage. The site layout suggests siting the proposed dwellings to the west of the site with the village green and car park to the east thus creating both physical and visual enclosure. Properties would also be orientated to front onto the open space and car park providing natural surveillance. The layout at this stage has received no overriding objection, however it is expected that revisions would be

required to achieve a satisfactory arrangement in landscape and flood risk terms. As such, were planning permission to be granted, further consideration would need to be given to the layout at a reserved matters stage. No information is provided of the external appearance of the proposed properties, which is again a reserved matter along with scale. Notwithstanding this, an indicative scale is revealed within the proposed site layout which suggests a single dwelling sited to the north with three bungalows extending in parallel in a southerly direction. Concern is raised at this stage to the extension of the footprint to these bungalows across the full width of the plots with minimal separation. This arrangement is not considered to reflect the space and separation between existing properties within the locality and could be read as a continuous built form. Had scale and layout been a consideration at this outline stage, the proposal as illustrated is considered to be contrary to the requirements of Policy EM10 of the Local Plan. Any final design stage for this site would therefore need to ensure that the development positively contributes to local distinctiveness whilst accounting for the natural constraints on the site. Such consideration would also need to extend to the detailing of the elevations, fenestration and roofscape as well as boundary treatments and the palette of materials to ensure use of a good quality materials of a type, colour and texture commensurate with the area. Impact on neighbouring amenities Policy EM10 considers the effect of development upon neighbouring residential amenities, addressing aspects such as privacy and private open space, light, noise and disturbance. In this regard consideration is given to both existing residential development in the vicinity of the site as well as the potential relationships between the proposed dwelling units. The proposed development is located such that the proposed dwellings would not have a boundary sitting contiguous with any existing residential property with the nearest dwellings fronting Silchester Road to the east of the site. The illustrative siting and arrangement of the dwellings is not considered to generate any demonstrable harm upon the privacy and amenity of these existing properties. Whilst there would be a change to the existing outlook currently enjoyed by properties sitting in proximity to the site, any right to a view is not enshrined within the planning legislation, and the change in outlook in itself would not warrant a refusal of the current application. The illustrative site layout accompanying this application demonstrates that the site can accommodate the requested number of dwellings with provision of private amenity space. The relationships between the proposed dwellings would be a matter for consideration at a reserved matters stage to ensure that each property achieves an appropriate level of privacy, amenity, daylight and sunlight. Such consideration would also extend to ensuring that the massing of the dwelling proposed at Plot 1 is not unacceptably overbearing upon the adjacent bungalow proposed at Plot 2. At this outline stage, the proposal is considered to accord with Policy EM10 (criteria 2b) of the Local Plan.

Noise and disturbance Policy EM12 of the Local Plan and the NPPF seek to ensure that the planning system should avoid the generation of “unacceptable levels” of noise pollution where this would give rise to “significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life” or harm to areas that are relatively undisturbed by noise. The application has been accompanied by a Noise Assessment which gives consideration to the impact of external noise sources upon the living environment of the proposed occupiers. This report has been considered by Environmental Health who have identified deficiencies within the information provided which could have been addressed by suitably worded conditions had the development been deemed acceptable in other regards. The proposed provision of open space for public use together with the car park and access would generate a new level of activity which would be most notable to the existing dwellings of Fair Oak,

New Haven and West View which would have a relationship, in particular, to the siting of the proposed access and therefore receive the associated noise and activity from comings and goings at the site. The position of the access is however not for consideration at this stage and in any event, the low volume of traffic expected to be generated by the development is not considered to result in such adverse disturbance as to warrant a refusal of permission on amenity grounds. It is also notable that the access and any noise generating activities on the open space would have a relationship to the front of these dwellings and would be heard against the existing background noise. Given the intervening distances involved, it is considered that the development would not generate undue noise and disturbance to the detriment of the amenities of existing neighbours. Notwithstanding this, had planning permission been recommended it would have been reasonable to secure delivery and operation hours for the construction period. The proposal therefore accords with Policy EM12 of the Local Plan. Highways and Parking Policy CN9 (Transport) requires that highway movements are not of an inappropriate type or level as to compromise highway safety with safe and convenient access for potential users and with a compatible on site layout with appropriate parking and servicing provision. The need for appropriate parking is additionally reflected within Policy EM10 with respect to ensuring that the amount, design, layout and location accords with parking standards. The site is situated within the ‘Rural’ area for the purposes of assessing NPPF Sustainable Transport Modes and the provision of residential motor vehicle and secure cycle parking provision plus refuse/recycling facilities.

Traffic generation The development proposes a traffic generating use from a variety of vehicle types accessing the site with the increase in traffic being a subject of concern raised within the representations. The volumes and type of traffic would vary according to the construction and operational phases of the development and, whilst there would be localised impacts, this would not have an overriding material impact upon the roads and junctions local to the site. The highway network has been deemed capable of accommodating the traffic movements with no adverse harm to highway safety. Notwithstanding this, had the proposal been deemed acceptable in other regards, it would have been necessary in planning terms to secure conditions for the submission of full construction details for the differing aspects of the development as well as requiring a Construction Traffic Management Plan. At this outline stage, the proposed development is considered to accord with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Local Plan.

Access and parking The development proposes to connect to the local highway network via a combined vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access from Silchester Road together with a second link provided to the north of the site for pedestrians only. Representations to the application have raised concern to the position of these access points and the Highways Officer has similarly provided comment regarding the position of the proposed access in relation to traffic calming deflection islands along Silchester Road. Whilst the concerns are acknowledged, the site layout is illustrative only with the position of the two accesses not being a matter for consideration at this outline stage. In having regard to the proposed dwellings, full details have not been provided of the overall quantum of parking for the site and its distribution which would be detailed within any final site layout plan. It is however evident from the illustrative site layout plan that vehicular parking could be provided within garages and upon driveways within the curtilage of each property. It would be expected that the development would meet the required levels of parking as set out within the Residential Parking Standards SPD. This provision would have been secured through a planning condition. The application additionally proposed an area of public car parking to serve the village and representations both in support and against the application have provided comment to the need for the car park which forms part of the application. With there being no moratorium upon the provision of parking, or even over-parking, within Little London or across the Borough, no objection is raised in principle to this provision. The detailed layout and scale of the car park would be a

matter for a reserved matters submission. At this outline stage, the proposal accords with Policy EM10 (criteria 2e) of the Local Plan. Storage and Collection of Waste and Recycling

The development would be expected to provide adequate provision for the storage of two wheeled containers and a glass collection box together with adequate space for containers to be presented for emptying by the collection operatives. The detail of such provision would be presented at the reserved matters stage and therefore no objection has been raised by the Highways Officer to this outline application. Flood Risk and Drainage The NPPF requires that new development should be either directed away from areas at highest risk or alternatively demonstrated to be flood resilient and resistant. This applies a sequential approach, taking advice from the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authorities to ensure that risks of flooding are adequately managed, whilst also accounting for future climate change. This requirement is reflected locally within Policy EM7 which seeks to ensure that development is appropriately located.

Fluvial Flood Risk The Environment Agency Flood Risk Maps positions the majority of the application site as falling within Flood Zone 1 given the site a low risk of flooding (less than 1 in 1000 annual probability) however Flood Zones 2 and 3 are present to the north of the site and extend along the length of the northern boundary encroaching into the space illustrated for Plot 1 within the proposed site plan. The NPPF advises that "Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere". Flood risk has additionally been raised as a concern by third parties noting the relationship of the site to water courses, with a main river extending along the northern boundary and a drainage ditch to the east. Given the size of the site and the sensitive form of development, the application has been accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment, albeit this was prepared in relation to the previous application at this site with a differing site area, but for a similar form of development. The previous application was not refused on flood risk grounds. The FRA has been considered by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency acknowledge that only a small area of the site is at risk from flooding and that there is an intention to locate the built development within Flood Zone 1. Notwithstanding this, the site does encompass all flood zones and in the absence of detailed modelling of the area to inform an assessment of climate change as well as the design and layout of the development; an objection has been received. This is on the grounds that the application does not demonstrate that all the built development can be located in Flood Zone 1. In addressing this concern, the Environment Agency request the required information ahead of determining the application, suggesting that this should not be secured by planning condition. It is however pertinent to note that the design and layout of the proposal are not matters for consideration at this outline stage and that only a small area affected is at risk from flooding. As such, there is scope to ensure that any reserved matters adopts a layout that minimises the risk of flooding to the proposed properties, which in turn may also influence the resultant scale and type of properties proposed. It is therefore considered unreasonable to refuse planning permission at this outline stage whereby the harm arising could be addressed or mitigated through a planning condition to secure an appropriate siting supported by the required assessment of climate change. This approach is consistent with guidance in the NPPF which advises that local planning authorities ‘should consider whether unacceptable development could be made accepted through the use of planning conditions’. The site also lies within the Basingstoke Upstream Critical Drainage Area. Although the Council has produced a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), there are no specific policies with

regard to Critical Drainage within the adopted Local Plan. It would have therefore been reasonable to advise of this constraint by way of an informative. This seeks to encourage the applicant to apply sustainable drainage techniques to control surface water runoff in the construction of this development within matters to be addressed by Building Regulations legislation.

Pluvial Flood Risk The northern boundary of the site has been identified as potentially being at risk from surface water flooding with the Flood Risk Assessment indicating that a buffer zone would be applied within proximity to the watercourse to protect the proposed properties from harm. The FRA additionally indicates that the site would be subject to the implementation of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDs) where practicable incorporating measures to increase on site water retention and infiltration to compensate for any increase in surface water run-off generated as a result of the proposals. This FRA was not the subject of objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) when considered against application 15/02132/OUT, but the LLFA have not provided comments to this current proposal noting that this falls below the thresholds for the size of development that the LLFA would now consider. Thames Water nevertheless have requested that the provision of a drainage strategy detailing on and/or off site drainage works to be secured by planning condition and it would have been considered reasonable to accord with this request had permission been recommended.

Foul water The application has received a number of comments from interested third parties regarding the potential for this development to provide an upgrade to the foul infrastructure. All Water utility companies, including Thames Water, which serve the site, have a legal obligation under Section 94 of the Water Industries Act 1991 (WIA 1991) to provide developers with the right to connect to a public sewer regardless of capacity issues. This, when read in conjunction with Section 91(1) of the Act in effect makes it impossible for Thames Water to object, or for the Council to refuse to grant planning permission for development on the grounds that no improvement works are planned for a particular area. The Act specifically requires Thames Water to accommodate the development whatever the circumstances.

Water Supply

Southern Water is the statutory undertaker for the provision of a water supply to service the development with any provision to be secured under the Water Industry Act 1991 as the legal mechanism to connect to the local network. Natural Environment

Landscaping The development at this outline stage has reserved consideration of landscaping. It would therefore be necessary for any reserved matters to ensure that the development would be sensitively integrated into the landscape character. This would require safeguards to retain and protect the established hedgerows to the site together with the integration of additional buffer planting using locally native species, including trees planting. It would additionally be necessary to demonstrate that new planting would be able to establish and existing planting retained in perpetuity and without conflict with the positioning of utilities. The landscaping of the site would additionally need to provide careful consideration to the boundary treatments to the properties in order to avoid the use of suburban boundary treatments such as close boarded fencing. Given that landscaping is reserved for later consideration, the concerns raised to date would not warrant the refusal of the development on landscape grounds against policies EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan.

Trees

The development site contains tree cover limited to the field margins or within adjacent residential gardens with no trees subject to any tree preservation order or afforded protection through conservation area legislation. The application has therefore been subject to consultation with the Tree Officer in which an objection received in the absence of any Arboricultural Assessment to inform the site layout, with specific reference to the siting of the proposed car park and Plot 1. With layout not being a matter for consideration at this outline stage and noting that the illustrative layout is unlikely to be deemed acceptable on flood risk, design and landscape grounds, it is not considered reasonable to refuse the application on the absence of relevant supporting arboricultural information. Had a positive recommendation been forthcoming, it would have been considered necessary to condition the submission of a Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment to ensure that important existing mature trees can be retained which contribute towards the visual amenity of the area and provide ecological value.

Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation The Council has a duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to have full regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity which extends to being mindful of the legislation that considers protected species and their habitats. These requirements are reflected within Policy EM4 of the Local Plan drawing from the NPPF (para 118). The site is not located within any area designated for its ecological importance with the ecological interests primarily restricted to the site boundaries comprising trees and mature hedgerows, with the grassland central to the site being of a rough or semi-improved nature and is used for grazing. The application has been the subject of local concern relating to matters of impact upon biodiversity form the loss of habitats which support wildlife, in particular the removal of a section of hedgerow (approx. 4m) which is alleged to support dormice. The application has therefore been supported by a resubmission of the previous ecological walk-over survey and Hedgerow Survey commissioned to accompany the previous application 15/02132/OUT. These surveys indicated that the site has no overriding ecological constraints which would otherwise prevent development from occurring, although acknowledges the potential for nesting birds and hazel dormice to be present within the hedgerow. This conclusion has not been met with any objection from the Biodiversity Officer. The application additionally recommends new ecological enhancements to include additional hedgerow planting, provision of bat and bird boxes along with complementary lighting schemes. Had permission been recommended, it would have been reasonable to secure such provision by planning condition with a requirement to provide a Habitat Enhancement and Management Plan for approval by the Local Planning Authority.

Hazel Dormice

In recognition of the potential for the boundary hedgerows to contain hazel dormice, the Applicant’s ecological consultant was commissioned to undertake a visual inspection of the hedgerow located to the east of the site to search for signs of dormice. This survey was not conducted at the optimum time of year for finding dormice which has been the subject of concern raised within the public comments. No evidence of dormouse was found however, given that only a limited section of hedgerow is to be removed and with new hedgerow planting proposed to enhance the habitat, it has been concluded that the development would not generate adverse impacts upon the favourable conservation status of local dormice. No objection has been raised by the Biodiversity Officer to the application subject to appropriate planning conditions to apply a precautionary approach to the development and to secure wildlife mitigation. This approach is consistent with the conclusions drawn to the previous application at this site under 15/02132/OUT. The proposal would accord with Policy EM4 of the Local Plan.

Conservation of the Historic Environment

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires consideration of a proposal upon the setting of a heritage asset, which could comprise a listed building or conservation area. This requirement is reflected within the NPPF which requires that, when determining applications, account should be taken of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of assets. When substantial harm is considered to arise, this needs to be weighed against the public benefits. Locally, Policy EM11 of the Local Plan affords consideration to areas of historic or architectural interest and is relevant when considering the impact of the development upon the historic environment. The application site is located within relative proximity to listed buildings, comprising 'Old Post Cottage', 'The Barn' and 'Kinghern Cottage' to the north east and to the west, 'Berry Court Farm House' (also known as Racketts Farmhouse) and 'West Wit'. Racketts Farmhouse and Kinghern Cottage are dwellings of vernacular character, which would have originally been set within a substantially rural setting. Since that point, their settings have become more developed and urbanised, with new dwellings built alongside and around them. Despite this, the area retains a semi-rural character with land predominately in agricultural land use. The development would be located approximately 50 m to the South West of Kinghern Cottage, and 125 m to the East of Racketts Farmhouse at their respective closest points. Due to the presence of a significant number of relatively modern buildings for differing uses around these listed buildings, it is considered that the character and appearance of the setting of these listed buildings would be preserved in the public interest to ensure accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Policy EM11 of the Local Plan. Contaminated Land The NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing development from contributing to or being put at risk from unacceptable levels of pollution. Local Plan Policy EM12 also seeks to protect health and the natural environment from polluting effects as a result of existing, historic or nearby land uses and activities. On the grounds that the proposed development would be sensitive to the impacts of soil contamination, conditions securing the submission of a ground investigation and details of any necessary remediation would have been reasonable to impose had planning permission been recommended to ensure accordance with Policy EM12 of the Local Plan. Energy Efficiency Policy EM9 of the Local Plan sets out a requirement to ensure that water resources within new development are used sustainably through the imposition of a water efficiency standard of 110 litres or less per person per day. The proposal has not been accompanied by any information demonstrating that such levels of water consumption will be achieved within the development; therefore a planning condition is to be imposed to secure this standard. Community Infrastructure Contributions Policies CN1, CN6, CN7 CN8 and CN9 of the Local Plan and the accompanying S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance seeks to ensure that development does not result in an adverse effect on existing infrastructure, and makes appropriate provision to mitigate documented impacts. It is therefore common to anticipate that development would by way of Obligation (legal agreement) make appropriate provision/improvements in line with the advice provided within the NPPF. As previously indicated with respect to affordable housing, the Local Planning Authority has to be mindful of the Planning Practice Guidance which sets out that ‘tariff style’ financial contributions should not be sought from small-scale residential developments of 10 units or less, with a maximum combined gross (internal) floor space of no more than 1,000m2. In accordance with this requirement, no financial contributions have been

secured towards off site public open space, playing fields, play space or community facilities. Other matters The public observations received to the application raise a wide range of considerations to the planning application. A number of these are presented under ‘other matters’ whereby these comments are not considered to constitute material planning considerations within the assessment of this application. The other comments detailed in this section have been taken into account within the assessment and subsequent recommendation to this application. Conclusion Local Plan policy SS6 allows a limited number of exceptions to be made to the general policy of restraint on housing in the countryside. Policy SS6 recognises that there will be some limited circumstances where it is appropriate to allow new housing development in the countryside, relevant to this application is SS6(e) which allows small scale proposals (one to four dwellings) that meet an agreed local need. In this case the application proposals do not demonstrate that local need requirements would be met through this development. As such the proposals do not meet the tests to be considered a justified exception to the general policy of restraint on housing in the countryside and therefore is contrary to Policies SS1 and SS6 (e) of the Local Plan. In addition no material considerations have been identified which would justify a departure from the Development Plan and therefore it is recommended for refusal. Informative(s):- 1. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-

Seeking further information following receipt of the application.

In this instance:

The applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit. In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

17/00207/OUT

Location Plan

17/00207/OUT

Proposed site layout (illustrative)

MAJOR

Cttee: 9 August 2017 Item No. 2

Application no: 16/03524/RES For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Land At Minchens Lane Bramley Hampshire

Proposal Reserved matters application for Phase 2 for the access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of 58 dwellings with associated estate roads and open space (pursuant to Outline planning permission 14/01075/OUT for 200 dwellings)

Registered: 17 October 2016 Expiry Date: 10 April 2017

Type of Application: Approval of reserved matters

Case Officer: Trevor Campbell-Smith 01256 845661

Applicant: Charles Church Agent:

Ward: Bramley And Sherfield Ward Member(s): Cllr Venetia Rowland Cllr Nicholas Robinson

Parish: BRAMLEY CP OS Grid Reference: 465297 159586

Recommendation: The application be APPROVED subject to the conditions listed at the end of this report.

Reasons for Approval

1. The proposed development would deliver housing development, including affordable housing, in accordance with the Borough's Housing Land Supply requirements. The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies SS1 and CN1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and Policy H1 of the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan (2017).

2. The proposal would conserve the biodiversity value and nature conservation interests of the

site and as such the proposal would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and Policy RE3 of the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan (2017).

3. The proposed development would be of an appropriate design and relate to surrounding

development in a sympathetic manner and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, Policy D2 of the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan (2017) and Appendix 7 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document.

4. The proposed development preserves the landscape character and scenic quality of the

area and as such is considered to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and Policy D1 of the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan (2017).

5. The proposed development would not result in an undue loss of privacy or cause undue

overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing or noise and disturbance impacts to neighbouring properties and as such complies with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

General Comments This application is brought to the Development Control Committee in accordance with the Council's

scheme of delegation due to the number of objections received and the Officer's recommendation for approval. Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) Achieving Sustainable Development Core Planning Principles Section 4: Promoting Sustainable Transport Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7: Requiring Good Design Section 10: Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change Section 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development) Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing) Policy SS5 (Neighbourhood Planning) Policy CN1 (Affordable Housing) Policy CN3 (Housing Mix for Market Housing) Policy CN6 (Infrastructure) Policy CN7 (Essential Facilities and Services) Policy CN8 (Community, Leisure and Cultural Facilities) Policy CN9 (Transport) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM5 (Green Infrastructure) Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk) Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Use) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Bramley Neighbourhood Plan (2017) Policy H1 (New Housing Development) Policy H2 (Provision of Housing to Meet Local Needs) Policy D1 (Protecting, Complementing and Enhancing the Historic Character and Rural Setting of Bramley) Policy D2 (Design of New Development) Policy RE3 (Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment) Policy T1 (Improving the Footpath and Cycle Network) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Design and Sustainability SPD - Appendices 1-3 (Overarching policies) - Appendix 5 (Construction Statements) - Appendix 6 (Waste and Recycling) - Appendix 7 (Places to Live) - Appendix 14 (Countryside Design Summary) - Appendix 16 (Residential Amenity Design Guidance)

Residential Parking Standards SPD Affordable Housing SPG Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards SPD Landscape Character Assessment SPG Landscape and Biodiversity SPD

Trees and Development SPG Adopted Interim Green Space Standards (July 2013) Other material documents The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 Manual for Streets Hampshire County Council 'Companion Guide to Manual for Streets' Description of Site The site is located north of the Clift Meadow recreation ground, with the Reading to Basingstoke railway line to the east and Minchens Lane to the west. The site is currently agricultural land accessed via Minchens Lane and occupies the south east part of the original field. Immediately to the east of the site the dwellings approved to phase one of the development of the site are in an advanced stage of construction. The site boundaries consist of mature trees and hedgerows. There is a gentle fall across the site in a south-easterly direction from the northern part of the site to the south. There are 400Kv overhead electricity power lines which cross the northern part of the site to the National Grid sub-station at Bramley Frith Wood. To the east of the site beyond the railway line is an existing residential development known as Moat Close. To the south of the site is Clift Meadow, an area of public open space which contains a pavilion, a multi-use games area (MUGA), tennis courts, a cricket pitch and associated parking. Minchens Lane lies along the whole western boundary of the site, at the southern end of which lies the Clift Surgery and a small office development of converted farm buildings known as Minchens Court and Minchens Barns. At the northern end of the site is Minchens House. To the west of Minchens Lane is open countryside. Proposal This application seeks the approval of the reserved matters pursuant to permission granted under 14/01075/OUT to address matters of, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping for 58 dwellings (Plot no’s 58 to 115). The development would comprise of 14no. 2 bed flats in two blocks, 14no. 2 bed houses, 22no. 3 bed houses and 8no. 4 bed houses and would also include associated highways, parking and landscaping. Revised plans submitted on the 5th April 2017 amended the scheme in several respects, namely:

- Total number of units proposed in this phase reduced from 66 to 59. - Reduction in the height of the apartment buildings. - Re-siting of the southern apartment building to a position further away from the southern

boundary. - Enlargement of the landscape buffer to the southern and eastern boundaries. - Uninterrupted hedge along the southern boundary fully retained. - Barn hips introduced to roofs of 13 plots distributed throughout the proposal. - Introduction of weather boarding to plots distributed throughout the proposal. - Slate roofs are removed and replaced with brown or red clay tiled roofs throughout the

proposal. - Additional architectural detailing added to a number of plots in the form of brick string and

dental courses and bay windows. - Reduction of frontage parking to maximise landscaping in the street scene. - Footpath provided along the southern boundary of the site. - Plots 58 to 63 set further back to provide additional landscaping and a greater separation

with phase 1. Amended plans were received on the 21 June 2017 which sought to address highways concerns to

include reduction in number of dwellings proposed from 59 to 58. Consultations Bramley Parish Council: - Final Comments “Thank you for the email below re the revised planning application for Minchens Lane phase 2 reserved matters. I can confirm that Bramley Parish Council have met to consider the revised application. Councillors stated that they felt the revisions showed no changes to their objections, particularly in relation to the lack of cycle path, and will therefore be upholding their original objections to the application (attached for your information). Please feel free to contact me if you have any queries.” Comments in respect of amended plans received 5 April 2017 “Further to your email below, I can confirm that Bramley Parish Council would like to object to the above planning application. Several concerns were expressed in respect of the phase 2 application.

The barn hip roof lines are almost all on ridge lines oriented north/south and will do nothing to

break up the urban look of this part of the development when viewed from the Street, although it

will work when viewing from within the site. Plots 63, 64, 65, 72, 84, 85 and 116 would appear to

be good subjects for barn hip roofing in order to soften the ridge lines when viewed from The Street

or Clift Meadow.

Great concern was also expressed at the lack of a footpath/cycleway in the southeast corner of the

site, which was clearly shown on the indicative master plan presented to Basingstoke & Deane on

18 Nov 2014. Having Cycle-ways connecting all parts of the development to the main road across

the eastern side of Clift Meadow is an important feature. Bramley Neighbourhood Plan was “made”

at the March Borough Council meeting, and highlights the importance of developing cycle-ways to

avoid the use of cars which cause the considerable congestion and frustration at the railway

crossing. Policy T1 of the NDP states that:

‘Opportunities will be taken to develop, improve and extend the footpath and cycle way network in order to provide better connectivity within the village, safe routes to school and better access to the countryside and to surrounding destinations. Such opportunities include where planning permission is granted for development near to the footpath and cycle way network concerned.’

Initial Comments: “I can confirm that Bramley Parish Council have now met to consider the above planning application, and have asked me to object on their behalf. The Parish Council worked with their developers and their agents over many months. Critical to gaining the community’s support was the pledge from the developer that the development would be in keeping with the more visually appealing earlier developments in the Parish, and also very much in keeping with the immediate local character. Thus the Heron Homes development around Bramley Green Road was used as the model. It was considered by all parties that blocks of flats or similar blocks seen in the Taylor Wimpey development at German Road were wholly inappropriate for the Minchens Lane Site. In conversation 2.5 storey dwellings were defined as 2 storey houses with a ‘loft conversion’. Other conditions are laid out in the attached agreement (appendix A) between the Parish Council and the Developer. This document did form part of the outline application bundle sent to BDBC. The open day held by the developer and the Parish Council showed to the community a development in keeping with the contents of the agreement.

It is clear from this application that the blocks of flats (as shown in the diagram below, taken from the application) will be 3 storeys, and not 2 storey houses with a ‘loft conversion’. Block A is listed as a 2.5 storey building, and yet it is a block of flats, an urban dwelling not for a rural setting. Moreover, it is planned that these blocks will be on the hill and will completely dominate the skyline. Further, the materials listed state that Marley Eternit Rivendale Blue Black tiles will be used on some plots. Whilst these are suitable for urban developments, Bramley is a village, and Minchens Lane is particularly rural. In this area of Bramley and throughout the majority of the areas, red tiled roofs are prominent; the proposed blue tiles will be completely out of keeping with the surrounding area. Also missing in this application is the safe cycle route along the eastern boundary which links with access from across Clift Meadow joining with a northern area across the top of site. Throughout discussions with the developer concerning the Minchens Lane development, Persimmon homes were kept fully informed on the progress of the Neighbourhood Plan and given copies of information pertinent to the Character of the Village and the material used in existing homes. This was to ensure that the development, as agreed with Persimmon Homes, would be in keeping with the character of the village, and would not detract from the rural aspect of the village in any way. This Reserved matters for phase 2 ignores all the information provided, is not in keeping with the Policy D2, Design of New Development in the Neighbourhood Plan, or with policy SS1 Of the Adopted Local Plan or with Policy SS6 of the Adopted Local Plan. The Local Plan has been adopted and the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan has been approved by the External Examiner subject to some minor amendments to which the Parish Council has agreed. The main points of Policy D2 of the Neighbourhood Plan have not been amended by the Examiner. The development, albeit it is for 200 houses, is bordering the policy settlement boundary of the village and in that respect is, New Housing in the Countryside, Policy SS6. Point e) in that policy reads:

ix) It (development) is well related to the existing settlement and would not result in an isolated form of development; and x) The development will respect the qualities of the local landscape and be sympathetic to its character and visual quality; and xi) The development will respect and relate to the character, form and appearance of surrounding development, and respect the amenities of the residents of neighbouring properties.

The Examiners report on the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan, paragraph 30 where there is the examination concerning the preparation of the plan states:- “I am satisfied that the pre-submission consultation and publicity has met the requirements of Regulation 14 in the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. The consultation and publicity went well beyond the requirements and it is clear that the qualifying body went to considerable lengths to ensure that the local residents and interested parties were able to engage in the production of the plan. I congratulate them on their efforts”. Paragraph 35 of the report:- “I have been supplied with a detailed evidence base in background supporting documents. This has provided a useful and easily accessible source of background information”. So with respect to the Neighbourhood Plan which carries the wishes of the community to achieve the vision for Bramley in the future, there is the Policy H1, New Housing Development. The examiner in approving the Plan refers to Policy SS1 of the Local Plan that states that “Sites outside of the defined Settlement Policy Boundary will be considered to lie in the Countryside (Policy SS6)”. Policy H1 states:- “New housing development outside the Bramley Settlement Policy Boundary will only be supported if it is in accordance with relevant Local Plan policies for new housing in the countryside. The Bramley Settlement Policy Boundary is shown in Illustration 6a. All new housing developments must make a proportionate contribution to the provision or improvement of local services, facilities and infrastructure, at a rate, scale and pace to meet the needs and requirements that are expected

to arise from that development, in order to maintain or improve upon levels of provision in Bramley extant in 2016, including the provision of public green space in accordance with Basingstoke and

Deane Borough Council’s Green Space Standards.” Policy D1 in the Neighbourhood Plan, “Protecting, Complementing and Enhancing the Historic Character and Rural Setting of Bramley” also approved. Supporting this is the Paragraph 87 in the report which states:- “The Bramley Village Character Assessment is a comprehensive evaluation of the key qualities and characteristics of the defined character areas. This detailed assessment provides a clear understanding and evaluation of the defining characteristics of the area as a basis for the implementation of Bramley Policy D1.” Policy D1 reads:- “Development in and around Bramley village must protect, complement or enhance the Character Area(s) identified in the Bramley Village Character Assessment within or adjacent to which it is located. Development will be supported where it protects, complements or enhances the relevant Character Area(s) with regard to:

a) the scale and form of the development, b) the density of the development, c) the materials used in the development, d) important views identified in Appendix D and shown in Illustration 6c”.

Following on from this is Policy D2, “Design of New Development” which reads “New development in Bramley must deliver good quality design. In order to achieve this all new development must wherever possible

a) Respond to the existing traditional built form in terms of enclosure and definition of streets and spaces; b) Be well integrated with its surroundings by reinforcing existing connections and creating new ones; c) Provide convenient access to community services and facilities; d) Have good access to public transport or otherwise help reduce car dependency; e) Make positive use of the local topography, landscape and water features, trees and plants, wildlife habitats, existing buildings, site orientation and microclimate; f) Provide buildings, landscaping and planting to create well defined streets and attractive green spaces within the development which satisfactorily meet the needs of users; g) Make use of views and landmarks visible from within and from outside the site in order to organize the layout of the development and make it legible for visitors; h) Provide streets which encourage low vehicle speeds and which can function as safe, social spaces; i) Integrate car parking within landscaping so that it does not dominate the street; j) Clearly distinguish between public and private spaces; k) Contribute to the provision of a safe environment l) Provide convenient, well-screened storage space for bins and recycling, and for bicycles; m) Provide a Connectivity Statement explaining how the development will provide for a fibre optic connection.

Policy D2 will be applied flexibly when very high quality, innovative designs are proposed.” The Bramley Village Character Assessment is an Appendix to the Plan which the examiner refers to in her report and supports the policies. The relevant area for this development is Area B, with houses with red brick and tiled roofs, only 2 storey buildings. Some houses have front facia tiles in keeping with the area. (Ref Bramley Village Character Assessment, Appendix C. www.bramleyndp.org.uk) The Parish Council question how the presented Application for Reserved matters for Minchens Lane comes anywhere near meeting these requirements in the plan, which is approved by Basingstoke and Deane and fully conforms to the adopted Local Plan. It is conflict with Policy SS6 of the Local Plan, points ix), x) and xi) above. It is conflict with D1 of the Neighbourhood Plan, built form and materials used. It is in conflict with Policy D2 of the Neighbourhood Plan

Persimmon Homes have had all this information as regards the Character of Bramley. They are asking for approval for phase 2, which is in conflict with the Neighbourhood plan which is in accord with the Adopted Local Plan. Bramley Parish Council asks that the developers take note of the character of the buildings in Bramley, and ensure that materials used and the buildings erected are in keeping with the rural nature of the village. In summary the Community gave its approval to the Parish Council to support the development based upon the formal agreement reached with and the statements made by the developer and their agent. The Bramley Community expects the Borough Council to ensure that the developer is compelled to meet its commitments in their entirety. Highways: No objection subject to conditions Landscape: No objection subject to conditions Biodiversity: Acceptable, no adverse comments Trees: No objections subject to amendment of position of bin and cycle store to Block A and conditions. Environmental Health: No response received. Drainage Authority: No comments. Waste Team: Please could the bin and the cycle store nearest plot 100 be swapped around and a pathway provision made so that the bins could be collected from the kerbside without manoeuvring into the car park? Urban Design: No objection Housing: No objection. Parks and Open Spaces: No Objection. Play Space Officer: Further information required. Environment Agency: No comments. Scottish and Southern Energy: No comments received. Thames Water: Requires a drainage strategy. HCC Archaeology: - No objection. HCC Emergency Planning: No comment. West Berks Emergency Planning: No objection ONR: Does not advise against this development. Southern Gas Network: Advise of the presence of a gas main near to the site. Natural England: No objection. Network Rail: No objection.

Public Observations Fourteen representations have been received to the application expressing objection on the following grounds (in summary):

Detrimental impact of additional traffic and congestion.

The impacts of the development will be worsened if the level crossing is closed.

No cycle path is provided adjacent to the eastern boundary.

Additional noise will detract from the ruralness of the village.

The development will impact detrimentally on house prices.

Due to the proximity of the proposed housing to the railway line the dwellings will be visible from the houses on the other side of the line.

The proposal does not comply with Bramley Neighbourhood Plan Policy D2 or Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan Policy SS1.

The proposal does not take into account Bramley's rural character.

The proposed flats are an urban feature out of keeping with the area.

Some dwellings are meant to have cupolas.

All of the affordable housing is in a cul de sac to the eastern side of the site adjacent to the railway line.

The proposed roofing materials are out of keeping with those predominant in Bramley. Relevant Planning History

14/01075/OUT Outline application for the erection of 200 open

market and affordable dwellings with associated

new vehicular and pedestrian accesses, estate

roads, footpaths and cycle ways, public open

space and surface water attenuation features

Approved 27.03.2015

14/01457/FUL Construction of 3m wide combined footpath-

cycleway with associated low level lighting and

landscaping, erection of 2 new bridges, resurfacing

and extension of existing car park and creation of

new pedestrian access

Approved 15.12.2014

15/02304/RES Reserved matters application for Phase 1 for the

layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of 57

dwellings, (pursuant to Outline planning permission

14/01075/OUT for 200 dwellings)

Approved 26.02.2016

15/03638/ROC Removal of condition 7 (relating to the Code of

Sustainable Homes) of planning permission

14/01075/OUT

Approved 25.01.2016

16/04505/RES Reserved matters application (Phase 3) for the

erection of 6 dwellings with associated landscaping

and open space, including equipped play space

(pursuant to Outline planning permission

14/01075/OUT for 200 dwellings)

Approved 24.05.2017

Assessment The main planning considerations are whether the proposed housing development as set out in the Reserved Matters submission gives rise to a form of development appropriate in appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (the reserved matters). This follows the grant of outline planning

permission under 14/01075/OUT which established the principle of development. The outline permission remains extant by virtue of the implementation of phase 1 of the development. Environment Impact Assessment The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended) sets out that Environmental Impact Assessment’s (EIA's) are needed for certain developments whereby the proposal is to have a likely significant effect on the environment. The outline application was “screened” in accordance with criteria set out within the Regulations whereby it was determined that the proposal is a Schedule 2 development as defined by the then 2011 Regulations (10(b) Infrastructure Projects). The development at the outline stage was determined to not exceed thresholds set out within the 2011 Regulations for requiring EIA and would be unlikely to have significant effects by virtue of the size, scale and characteristics of the development. The development site is also located outside of any defined sensitive area and would not result in any significant use of natural resources, produce significant waste, pollution or nuisances. EIA was therefore not required at the outline planning stage. In the absence of any substantial change to the wording of the relevant part of the Regulations, the nature of the development or its impact upon the environment in the interim, it has been determined that this reserved matters application would similarly not constitute EIA development. An Environmental Statement was therefore not required to accompany this reserved matters application in accordance with the 2017 Regulations. Layout The NPPF states that planning should, "always seek to secure high quality design" and attaches "great importance to the design of the built environment" (planning principles and paragraph 56). Paragraph 57 states that, "It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider development schemes". It goes on to state that, "Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions" (paragraph 64). Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and Policy D2 of the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan advocate a high quality and robust design led approach to new development. The submitted Design Code and Design and Access Statement indicate that the approach to the proposed layout is based around the following principles:

A logical next step in the organic development of the area.

New housing well connected to a range of facilities and services.

A well designed and attractive area of new housing.

A walkable neighbourhood. The proposed layout plan in conjunction with the respective elevational details (discussed below) is considered to reflect what was envisaged at the outline stage allowing for well-designed street scenes and key vistas, with appropriate levels of landscaping (as set out below), strong perimeter blocks of properties with dwellings mainly fronting the streets and with properties also mainly fronting the perimeters of the development/buffers. The design of the development is considered to be of an acceptable standard. The Urban Design Officer initially requested amendments to the proposed scheme in the form of widening the space between the built forms to the south western corner of phase 2 relative to those permitted in phase 1, a reduction in the density of the proposal and a reduction in the scale of the flat blocks A and B. The Parish Council also raised an objection in respect of the initial plans. However, other than in respect of a cycle path (discussed below) this did not relate to layout. Revised plans reducing the number of proposed dwellings from 66 to 59, revising the proposed layout and amending the design of the flat blocks were received on the 5 April 2017, and subsequent to this, the Urban Design Officer has raised no objection to the proposal. As a result of

the amendments received on the 21 June 2017 the layout is further revised in as much as the number of dwellings proposed is reduced from 59 to 58 and this allows room for the widening of footpaths in the south eastern part of the site. The layout of this revised proposal is considered to be acceptable. The concerns of Bramley Parish Council with regard to the absence of a cycle path along the eastern boundary is noted. The route along the eastern side of the site is a shared surface and the Highways Officer is satisfied that the design of the highways and footpaths linkages within the site would enable safe cycle use throughout the proposal. Therefore, taking into account the amended plans, it is considered that the layout of the proposed development#’

Affordable Housing Of 58 homes proposed within phase two, 25 are to be affordable which comprises 43.1% of the proposed built form. The distribution of the affordable housing, whereby all the affordable units are gathered together adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site, has been the subject of objection. In response, the Housing Officer acknowledges that, whilst it is always preferable to see an even spread of affordable housing tenures and accommodation sizes throughout given developments, a wide range of factors affect the practical ability to achieve such outcomes. As such no objection has been raised to the distribution of affordable housing in this phase of the development. The Housing Officer is additionally satisfied with the tenure mix proposed in respect of this phase of the development and confirms that it falls within the overall tenure mix principles that were established at the outline planning stage when granting 14/01075/OUT. It is considered that the proposed tenure mix is acceptable.

Housing Mix The Local Plan contains a housing mix policy (Policy CN3) that is based on the latest evidence (including the recently published Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)) and provides flexibility for developers to provide a mix of market housing. The policy does not require any percentage of dwellings to be smaller units and states that development proposals will be required to provide evidence, proportionate to the scale of development to justify the mix of housing proposed. Of the proposed 33 market units, seven units would be of 2-bedrooms in size which equates to 20% of the development, with the remainder to be 3 or 4 bedrooms providing family sized accommodation. Therefore whilst an overall mix would be provided to accord with the policy, the number of smaller units is limited which is disappointing given the need for smaller units within the Borough. The application only though one phase of a larger scheme. There is an opportunity to address this imbalance in later phases. This is brought to the attention of the applicant through an informative for further consideration in subsequent phases of the development.

Highways The issues raised by objectors with regard to traffic generation and impacts upon the wider highway network have been addressed and accepted in principle with the granting of outline permission under 14/01075/OUT. Reserved Matters applications can only consider matters related to scale, appearance, layout and landscaping. Whilst the overall quantum of traffic to be generated at the site remains acceptable, the Highways Officer raised concerns to the proposed layout in highway terms. These concerns relate to footpath links and path access, the design of traffic calming measures, the adequacy of visibility splays, parking design as well as emergency and service access and vehicle tracking. In order to address these concerns the applicant submitted revised plans (received on the 21 June 2017) and the Highway Officer has raised no objection to the proposed development on the basis of these plans. The Highway Officer has recommended a number of conditions relating to the following issues:

Development must be carried out in accordance with approved plans.

Details to be submitted with regard to the shared surface route.

Ensuring connection to highway prior to occupation of dwellings.

Details of wheel stops to prevent vehicles overhanging the highway.

No occupation of dwelling until vehicle parking as per approved plan is provided.

Bike parking to be provided in accordance with approved plans.

Certification of correct construction of roads prior to the occupation of dwellings With regard to construction in accordance with approved plans and the provision of cycle parking, a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with approved plans would be imposed in any case and it is considered that separate conditions in this regard are not necessary. The other conditions suggested by the Highway Officer are considered to be both reasonable and necessary and as such it is considered that the development is in compliance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

Open Space and Play space The Open Space Officer has confirmed that the proposed site layout is acceptable in terms of open space and play. As such it is considered that the proposal complies with Policies CN8 and EM5 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

Impact on neighbouring amenities Local Plan Policy EM10 requires that new development provides for a high quality of amenity for occupants of the development. This has regard to amenity space, privacy, access to natural light and outlook. The vast majority of properties have been arranged with distances between rear elevations to meet the 20m back to back distance as set out within Appendix 16 (Residential Amenity Design Guidance) of the Design and Sustainability SPD. The back to back distance between plots 77 and 108 measures 19.5 m but this distance is considered to be adequate to prevent undue overlooking to the detriment of the occupiers of either dwelling. A reason for refusal could not be substantiated on a shortfall of 0.5m. Residents would also be 'buying in' to the relationships as opposed to having them imposed upon them. The relative position of each plot next to its proposed neighbour(s) is considered to be acceptable and would not give rise to a detrimental impact on the amenity or living conditions of future occupiers within the development. In this respect the proposal is considered acceptable. The nearest existing residential dwellings to the development are no's. 3 to 10 Oakmead which sit to the south of the attenuation pond that forms part of the site layout approved under Phase 3. Given that there is second floor accommodation within Block B, the Residential Amenity Design Guidance recommends a minimum back to back separation of 28 m to prevent detrimental overlooking impacts. The closest relationship between the proposed development and the existing properties would be between the southern elevation of the two and half storey flat blocks (Block B) and no. 10 Oakmead with a proposed separation of 44m between elevations. This separation considerably exceeds the recommended minimum and it is further noted that an existing intervening hedgerow to the south of the application site would also be retained to protect ground level amenity. As such it is considered that the proposed development would not lead to undue overlooking or loss of privacy, overbearing impacts or loss of light to the detriment of the residential amenities of the occupiers of dwellings to the south of the site. To the east of the site, the nearest dwellings would be no's 11 to 37 Moat Close which lie to the opposite side of the railway line. The closest relationship in this instance is between the side elevation of Block B and the north western corner of No. 13 Moat Close at a distance of 54 m. Given this separation, the intervening railway line and the landscape strip, which is designed to retain and allow the reinforcement of the existing tree and hedge planting along this boundary, it is considered that the proposed dwellings would not lead to undue loss of light, overbearing or overlooking impacts to the detriment of the residential amenities of neighbours to the east of the site.

With regard to the relationship of the proposed dwellings and those permitted in Phase 1 of the development, the only directly related dwellings would be the flats in plots 27 to 34 of Phase 1 and the dwellings at plots 60 to 63 of this phase. The front elevations of these dwellings would be sited with an intervening distance of 17 m with these frontages also observed from within the public realm. As such, it is considered that this relationship would not give rise to undue overlooking, overbearing or loss of light impacts as to have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of the dwellings approved under Phase 1. Concern has been raised in letters of objection that the proposed dwellings, and in particular the flat blocks, would be visible to the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings where previously there was an open field. It is undeniable that the proposed development would lead to the introduction of built form into a situation where previously there was none and lead to a change in outlook for those dwellings which directly address the site and for those looking into the site from elsewhere. It must be noted however that planning legislation does not enshrine the right to a view and the separation distances between the proposals and neighbouring dwellings are sufficient to prevent the proposal from being adversely detrimental to residential amenity. Appearance The individual plots have been designed in a neo-vernacular style to reflect the village character of Bramley, including consideration being given to a suitable palate of materials for the development which shows rural influence. Further negotiations have been carried out to ensure that the materials schedule is appropriate in range, type and colour; details of which require formal approval as secured by condition at the outline stage. It should be noted that in response to Parish concerns Slate roofing has been removed and tiled roofs are now proposed. The Urban Design Officer raised concerns to the original submission with regard to the detailing shown on the proposed dwellings including requesting more articulated frontages. It was also considered that the number of windows should be increased and windows of a larger size be included (especially at the ground floor) and also requested the use of more ornamental brickwork. As stated above amended plans were received on the 5 April 2017 and the Urban Design Officer has raised no objection to the proposal on the basis of the amendments received. The plans submitted on the 21 June 2017 make no alteration to the detailing and materials as set out in those plans. Having reviewed the proposed house types, the materials palate submitted and the built form within the wider settlement of Bramley, it is considered that the level of detailing and materials to be used within the proposed dwellings would not appear out of keeping within the context of the wider settlement where a variety of house types and ages are evident. It is accepted that greater detailing and a wider materials palette would deliver a higher quality development but it is considered that, on balance, the scheme as submitted is acceptable and that a reason for the refusal on this basis could not be substantiated. Bramley Parish Council have raised concern with regard to the siting and distribution of units with barn hipped roofs. Amended plans received on the 5 April 2017 introduced barn hipped roofs to the phase. However the Parish retain their concern. The concern raised relates to the fact that these units are orientated on a north-south axis with none orientated east-west or addressing the southern boundary of the site which will lead to urbanisation of the views from Clift Meadow and The Street. Whilst this concern is noted, it is considered that the relatively small reduction in bulk that a barn hipped roof form represents in comparison to the full gabled form proposed, is marginal and the application as presented is acceptable in this regard. As such it is considered that a reason for the refusal of the application related to this matter could not be substantiated. Scale The proposal consists mainly of two storey dwellings but also includes two blocks of flats of two and a half storeys and four dwellings of two and half storeys. After initial concerns raised by the Parish Council and Officers, the amended plans provided a revised design of the proposed flat blocks reducing the maximum height from 11.45m to 10.3m, lowering the eaves, introducing

eaves dormers and reducing the number of flats contained within each block from eight to seven. The application has been designed such that the dwellings and flats would appear acceptable both in isolation and when viewed in a group context. The resultant form, massing and appearance of the dwellings with respect to "scale" is considered to be acceptable. Landscaping The proposed development seeks to provide new landscaping with tree and shrub planting within the street scene. Initial concerns were raised with regard to the width of the proposed landscape buffer to the eastern side of the site and the proposed formation of gaps within the hedge to the southern boundary. Revised plans addressed these issues, amending the layout to allow for the provision of a more generous landscape strip to the boundary of the site with the railway line and removing the proposed gaps in the hedge to the southern boundary. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable in landscape terms subject to compliance with conditions secured at the outline planning stage regarding the details of structure planting to the eastern boundary of the site, the management of the hedge to the southern boundary, landscape and planting details, details of the proposed hard surfacing and details of the proposed boundary treatments. The Landscape Officer has confirmed no objection and the proposal is therefore considered acceptable in landscape terms and is considered to be in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan.

Trees The Tree Officer’s initial comments regarding this application raised an objection to the proposal on the basis that the development would lead to harm to existing trees of value within the site. In addition an objection was raised to the relationship of the built form to existing trees which was considered to be poor and likely to result in the loss of such trees. As stated previously, amended plans were submitted on the 5 April 2017 and the Tree Officer was consulted with regard to the revised proposal. The Tree Officer considers that the revised proposal is more sympathetic to existing trees, taking into account important landscape buffers and other green infrastructure. Furthermore it is considered that the revised layout is acceptable and makes provision for more substantive landscape tree planting on the eastern boundary which will provide screening to soften and enhance the development. The only outstanding concern of the Tree Officer relates to the relocation of the cycle and bin store in the south east corner linked to Block B (Plots 104-111) which is considered to initiate a potential future conflict with the retained Oak (T19) on the eastern boundary. This tree is classified as a Category A2 Tree (BS5837:2012 (Trees of high quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 40 years)). For this reason the Tree Officer requested that the structure is relocated to the opposite side of the car parking. The applicant has confirmed however that this cannot be done without compromising adequate parking to service the development and accordingly it is considered both necessary and reasonable to require the submission of an arboricultural method statement with regard to this detail in order to ensure the ongoing wellbeing and stability of the tree. Other Matters

Drainage Thames Water have identified sewer capacity issues with regard to the proposed development. In this regard their comments duplicate those made in their consultation response to the Outline application made under 14/01075/OUT. In that instance Thames Water requested a condition that required the submission of a Drainage Strategy to be approved prior to the commencement of works on site. Such a condition was imposed on the permission relating to 14/01075/OUT and therefore it is not necessary to repeat this condition at this reserved matters stage.

Biodiversity The initial comments of the Biodiversity Officer raised objection to the proposal because the road to the eastern boundary of the site was to run hard up against the adjacent hedgerow. The Biodiversity Officer was concerned that this would adversely affect the hedgerow and as such, any protected species such as reptiles, birds or dormice utilising this ecological corridor. Amended plans submitted on the 5 April 2017 sought to address this issue and the Biodiversity Officer has confirmed that the amendments are satisfactory and that the buffer zone now indicated along the eastern boundary hedgerow is sufficiently wide to benefit the movement of terrestrial protected species such as dormice and reptiles. The Biodiversity Officer has confirmed that the revisions made in the drawings submitted on the 21 June 2017 would not change his comments in this regard. As such it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the biodiversity interests of the site and the proposal would comply with Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

Community Infrastructure Contributions Contributions with regard to improvements to community infrastructure were secured in respect of the outline permission granted under reference 14/01075/OUT and as such no further contributions are required in respect of this Reserved Matters application. Conclusion For the aforementioned reasons, this reserved matters application is considered to be an acceptable form of sustainable development, consistent with the parameters of the outline planning permission. The layout, landscaping, scale and appearance have been assessed in detail and, subject to conditions, would deliver an acceptable form of development. Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings

listed on the Drawing register submitted on the 21 June 2017, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2 No development or other operations shall commence on site until a Tree Protection Plan in

accordance with BS 5837:2012 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved tree protection shall be erected prior to any site activity commencing and maintained until completion of the development. No development or other operations shall take place other than in complete accordance with the Tree Protection Plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Details are required prior to commencement because insufficient information has been submitted with the application and to ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard protected/important landscape trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

3 No development shall take place on site until a tree protection plan and method statement for works to erect the bin and cycle store serving Block B has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Details are required prior to commencement because insufficient information has been submitted with the application in this regard, to ensure that the trees to be retained are in a safe and healthy condition to the benefit of the local amenities and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

4 Notwithstanding the submitted drawings, no development shall commence until details for

the construction of the shared surface route [identified as RD004 on drawing 15-042/200] to provide an amenable environment for pedestrian use, by restricting motorised vehicle speeds and the use of appropriate surface finish materials for travel by foot, pushchair, wheelchair; have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved surfacing shall be in accordance with a schedule of works that has first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Details are required prior to commencement because insufficient information has been submitted with the application and in the interests of amenity and highway safety in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

5 No dwelling shall be occupied until there is a direct connection from it, (less the final

carriageway and footpath surfacing), to an existing highway made up in accordance with the hereby approved specification programme and details as shown on drawing number 15-042/200 Rev F. The final carriageway and footway surfacing shall be commenced within three months and completed within three months of the final occupation. REASON: To ensure that roads are constructed to a satisfactory standard and in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

6 Construction of parking shall not commence until details of provision for parking bays

adjacent to footpaths to be equipped with wheel stops that restrict vehicle overhang have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The construction of parking with wheel stops installed shall be completed prior to occupation of any dwelling and thereafter maintained. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and amenity in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

7 No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until vehicle parking spaces as shown on

the approved drawing A36-PL-06E are allocated in accordance with the drawing and have been constructed in accordance with details to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Details to be submitted shall indicate the surfacing, marking out and above ground-level signage of the unallocated spaces and provision to be made for their ongoing maintenance and management. There shall be no restriction on the use of the unallocated car parking spaces shown on the approved plan by either occupiers of, or visitors to, any of the dwellings hereby permitted and they shall remain available for general community usage. REASON: To provide adequate car parking and management in accordance with the Residential Parking Standards SPD, Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

8 No part of the development shall be occupied until documentation is supplied to certify the

communicating road construction has been built in accordance with suppliers/manufacturers' instructions and approved methods; and will withstand repeated use by a waste collection vehicle of 26 Tonne maximum gross weight. REASON: To ensure convenience of arrangements for refuse collection and in the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

Informative(s):- 1. 1.1 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be

complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the

approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met.

1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £97 per request or £28 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

2. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-

seeking further information following receipt of the application;

seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the application;

considering the imposition of conditions.

In this instance:

the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit.

In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

3. The mix of dwelling sizes of the open market housing within the phase hereby approved is

weighted to larger dwellings. It is advised that the development within later phases should give due consideration to providing a greater mix of units, which includes a quantum of smaller dwellings to redress this imbalance. As such the applicant is advised that this matter will be a material consideration in any later reserved matters submission.

4. The Tree Protection Plan should reflect the current British Standard BS 5837 2012 'Trees in

Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction'. Further helpful advice is contained in the council's adopted Landscape and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document (2008) which is available at www.basingstoke.gov.uk.

5 This development will result in new postal addresses, please contact the council's Street

Naming and Numbering team on 01256 845539 or email shirley.brewer@basingstoke.gov.uk to commence the process. Details can be found on the council's website.

16/03524/RES

Location Plan

16/03524/RES

Planning Layout

16/03524/RES

Illustrative Street Scenes

Plots 83 – 93

Plots 71, 103-115

Minors Cttee: 9 August 2017 Item No. 3

Application no: 17/00400/HSE

For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address 2 Tanhouse Cottages Ashford Hill Road Headley RG19 8AP

Proposal Erection of single storey rear/side extensions with link to existing dwelling following demolition of existing detached workshop. Erection of front porch, replacement windows and internal alterations. Erection of replacement gates

Registered: 9 February 2017 Expiry Date: 11 August 2017

Type of Application: Householder Permission

Case Officer: Christina Duckett 01256 845509

Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Pearce Agent: Mr Philip Shell

Ward: Kingsclere Ward Member(s): Cllr Donald Sherlock Cllr Ken Rhatigan

Parish: ASHFORD HILL WITH HEADLEY CP

OS Grid Reference: 452921 162706

Recommendation: the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal 1 The proposed development would cause considerable but less than substantial harm to the

setting of the Grade II Listed Building and to its significance as a modest historic cottage in a rural context. The harm caused would result from the cumulative adverse impact of the size, scale, layout, form, massing and detail of the proposed extensions. The public benefits of the development would not sufficiently outweigh that less than substantial harm, and as such the proposals would not comply with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (Section 12) and associated guidance; and Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

2 The design of the proposal, including the size, scale, layout, form, massing and detail of the

proposed extensions, is such that it is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (Section 7) and associated guidance; Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029; and Appendices 13 and 14 of the Council's Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document.

General Comments This application has been brought to the Development Control Committee at the request of Councillor Rhatigan for the following reasons: “The size and bulk of the proposals are subjective. I do not consider the proposals would have a detrimental effect on the listed building and would therefore like the Development Control Committee to determine” Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) Section 7 (Requiring Good Design)

Section 11(Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment) Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Sustainable Development) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy EM11 (The Historic Environment) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPDs and SPGs) and interim planning guidance The Historic Environment: Listed Buildings Design and Sustainability SPD: Appendix 13: Extending your Home and Replacement Dwellings Design and Sustainability SPD: Appendix 14: Countryside Design Guidance Landscape and Biodiversity SPD Residential Parking SPD Other material documents Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a duty on Local Planning Authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses. Description of Site The application site lies in the open countryside outside the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 2 Tanhouse Cottages is located on a country lane, Ashford Hill Road, part of isolated and sporadic development to the east of the village of Headley. The detached property which is the subject of this application is Grade II listed, as is its neighbour, a house referred to as Tanhouse on the list entry, which lies immediately to the west/northwest and which is similarly located within a plot of comparable size to that of the application site. There are no other near neighbours. Tanhouse, the neighbouring property, is of timber-framed construction with rendered infill panels, tile hanging and timber-boarding, and has a steeply-pitched tiled roof. The property which is the subject of the current application is believed to date from the eighteenth century and is described in the list description for Tanhouse Cottage as a small cottage with symmetrical front of one storey and attic, 2 windows. Tile roof, half-hipped at one end, with catslide at the rear; 2 gabled dormers with cills at eaves level. Rendered walls. Small casements. Boarded and gabled porch.' Originally a modest two bay cottage, the property is a maximum of 1.5 storeys high, built of brick and timber frame under a steeply-pitched roof. It has timber windows which are believed to be of late C20th date. The original building makes up only a relatively small part of the existing building and the older part is much altered. The cottage has been extended previously to the southeast of the original cottage, by a linear extension to the cottage which is 1.5 storeys high with a single storey element beyond it, at the southeastern end of the property, closest to the approach and parking area. The cottage has also been extended to the rear (on the southwest elevation) by a single storey lean-to extension which runs the full length of the 1.5 storey high part of the cottage as extended. This lean-to extension replaced a former very low catslide extension to the rear, referenced in the list entry, which is believed to have been used as a piggery.

The render and porch described in the list entry have been removed, as has a chimney stack. Cottage-style side-hung casement windows have been replaced on a like for like basis with single-glazed windows of light section, appropriate to the character of the property. Presently the accommodation in the cottage as extended comprises a kitchen, utility room, two reception rooms, two bedrooms and two bath/shower rooms at ground floor level, with two bedrooms and a bathroom over. The house is approached from a drive leading to a parking area, both to the east/northeast of the original cottage. Trees and other planting provide screening from the lane. There is some intervisibility between the house and its neighbour at the front and rear of the property, although some screening is afforded by boundary treatments. Land rises to the rear of the site. Some groundworks related to this application have been undertaken such that ground levels have recently been altered. Aerial photographs suggest that vegetation within the site has been lost in recent years. An outbuilding, of no particular architectural or historic interest, is set back from the frontage of the original two bay cottage. The outbuilding would appear to be of C20th date, giving the appearance externally of relatively lightweight and insubstantial construction. The outbuilding has a simple rustic appearance and is finished with waney-edge timber boards under a coloured profiled metal roof. The plan dimensions of the existing outbuilding, scaled from drawing 16/402/05 are 6.2m x 16.45m, ie it has an area of around 101sqm. The outbuilding was originally used for agricultural purposes and has been used as a workshop/store ancillary to the dwelling. The outbuilding has a relatively low eaves height. A photograph taken prior to commencement of development supplied in support of the application shows that the extent of wall visible externally reduces towards the rear of the site due to changes in external ground levels. The height of the outbuilding to the eaves from external ground level prior to recent groundworks as shown on the drawings ranges from approximately 0.31m at the rear to 0.83m at the front of the building (measurements scaled from drawing 16/402/05). The height to the ridge as drawn measures 3.4m at the front of the building. The recent groundworks have not affected the absolute heights of the outbuilding (but the heights from external ground levels immediate to the building as proposed would be greater than they were previously). Proposal At pre-application stage and during the determination period for this application, a number of concerns have been repeatedly raised by the case officer including concerns relating to the scale of works proposed, the nature of the proposed design, and the adverse impact of such works on the listed building. Although some changes have been made to the proposal and amended plans have been submitted, a number of those concerns remain. The proposal now includes the following: (i) demolition of the existing outbuilding; (ii) replacement of the outbuilding by a single storey structure with plan dimensions of 6.2m x

14.45m at ground floor level, in a similar position to that of the outbuilding, with a basement approximately 4.9 x 6.2m in plan. The part above ground would be clad in stained horizontal timber boards with a grey aluminium sheeted roof with timber- and aluminium-framed window and doors and rooflights over. The eaves height of the structure would be at door head height (measured at 2m on drawings). The ridge height would be approximately 4m above external ground level;

(iii) erection of a flat-roofed brick single storey rear extension to the original cottage; (iv) erection of a flat-roofed glazed link with aluminium-framed units between (ii) and (iii) above.

The proposed works would provide a new kitchen/dining/family room, two new bedrooms, two new bathrooms, a utility room, a cellar, part of an ensuite bathroom to an existing bedroom, and an entrance hall. The proposal also includes: (v) replacement of painted timber single-glazed windows (vi) internal alterations, including removal of a previously altered staircase within the original

cottage and associated works to the first floor; (vii) removal of existing gate, erection of fencing, new gate and gate piers, initial proposals

having been modified in response to concerns expressed by the case officer; (viii) substantial groundworks, to reduce levels local to the proposed extension (involving the construction of an associated retaining wall), and to terrace the rear garden. (Some of the

groundworks have already been undertaken, such that the application is partially retrospective);

(ix) surfacing of the driveway and parking area, and creation of other areas of hardstanding; (x) addition of a new porch. (xi) construction of an outdoor fireplace with chimney. It is noted that not all of the works described above require planning permission. The existing part of the property would, subsequent to the proposed works, comprise two reception rooms, a sun room, two bedrooms and part of a shower room at ground floor level, with a bedroom, dressing room and bathroom at first floor level. In total, were the proposal to be implemented, the property as extended would include five bedrooms and four bath/shower rooms as well as four reception rooms. No significant changes to vehicular access or parking arrangements are proposed (other than level changes) and the proposal has no identified impact on trees. Consultations Parish Council: No comments received. Biodiversity: No objection Public Observations None Relevant Planning History 17/00401/LBC Erection of single storey rear/side extensions with

link to existing dwelling following demolition of

existing detached workshop. Erection of front porch

and internal alterations. Erection of replacement

gates

Concurrent application

for Listed Building

Consent

BDB/63609 Creation of new vehicular access Approved 19.07.2006

BDB/63607 Creation of new vehicular access Approved 19.07.2006

BDB/62585 Erection of a single storey side extension Approved 17.03.2006

BDB/62581 Erection of a single storey side extension Approved 17.03.2006

BDB/31735 Demolition of rear chimney to level below roof Approved

BDB/28230 Two storey side extension and alterations Approved

BDB/28229 Two storey side extension and new access Approved

BDB/18782 Erection of 4-bed detached house and garage on

0.09HA

Refused

Assessment Impact on Heritage Assets Aspects of the proposal such as the proposed demolition of the outbuilding and the proposed internal changes and replacement of windows are considered, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions, to have no adverse impact on the significance of the listed building which is the subject of this application. These matters are discussed in the report relating to the concurrent application for Listed Building Consent reference 16/00401/LBC. However, the proposed extensions are considered harmful to the significance of the listed building which is the subject of this application. Proposed works to effect changes to ground levels relate to the proposed extensions. Were the application scheme to be implemented, the cumulative effect of the proposed extensions and associated changes to ground levels and that of the previous extensions would be such that the essential character of the property as a small cottage, as referenced in the list entry, would be unacceptably eroded and that modern elements would dominate over the original elements of the building which presently warrant its inclusion on the list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. The total footprint, floor area and volume of existing and proposed extensions would be large relative to that of the original building. Further, whilst the floor area of the element of the proposed extension which would replace the existing outbuilding would be comparable to that of the existing outbuilding, and the absolute maximum height of these elements would also be comparable, the height from local ground level to eaves and ridge of the proposed new element would be considerably greater than that of the existing outbuilding, as a result of proposed changes in ground level and due to the difference in volume between the existing and proposed elements. The existing external ground level at the front of the outbuilding and the internal floor level prior to development were some 1m below the proposed external and internal floor levels, which are comparable to the internal floor level of the ground floor of the existing cottage. The impact of the element proposed to replace the existing outbuilding on the listed building would be augmented by the fact that the new element would be linked to the main part of the cottage by a flat-roofed extension. This means that, experienced in three dimensions, given the arrangement of the original cottage, of the extensions constructed to date and of the proposed extensions, the expanse of new work on the elevation presented on the approach to the cottage would be extensive, and would be disproportionate to the size and scale of the original cottage. The effect would be that the modern work would dominate over the original building. Other factors compound the adverse impact that the proposal would have on the listed building: the fact that the span of the roof to the proposed element to replace the outbuilding would be greater than that of the original part of the cottage is part of the reason for the dominance of the proposed extension; the angle of the pitch of the roof of the proposed replacement element being lower than that of the original cottage and than that of the local vernacular renders it incongruous. The more substantial appearance of the construction of the proposed element relative to that of the existing outbuilding and the domestic character of the elevational treatment proposed are all contributory factors. Whilst what is proposed is not a new dwelling, it is of the scale of a new dwelling, has the appearance of a new dwelling and would have a comparable or greater adverse

impact on the listed building than that of a new dwelling. The fact that there would be no separation between the proposed works and the existing property increases that impact. The degree of harm that would be caused by the proposals cannot be categorised as substantial in the terms of the government's Planning Policy Guidance on conserving and enhancing the historic environment as the bar to be reached for such harm is so high that it may not arise in many cases. The harm caused in this case may therefore properly be described as 'less than substantial harm.' Measured on a linear scale of harm, such harm would, however, be considerable. The National Planning Policy Framework makes it quite clear that where development would result in less than substantial harm to a listed building or to its setting, such development should only be permitted where that harm is outweighed by public benefits including heritage benefits. In this case, it is considered that the public benefits do not outweigh the harm which would result from the proposed development. It is therefore considered that the proposals fail to comply with Section 12 of the NPPF (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment), Policy EM11 (Historic Environment) and related Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance. The application site forms part of the wider setting of the adjacent listed building to the west: given the existing and proposed layouts of buildings on or near the site it is not considered that the proposals would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the setting of the listed building to the west of the application site beyond those noted under the general heading of impact on the character of the area/design, below. Impact on the Character of the Area/Design Issues relating to adverse impact on the character of the area and design are intrinsically linked to those relating to impact on the listed building which is the subject of this application as noted above. Particular attention needs to be paid to the quality of design given the importance of the preservation of the special architectural / historic interest and/or setting of the listed building. The application site is part of a small character area, made up of the site and the neighbouring listed building property to the west, which is isolated from other development and has, despite the addition of previous additions to both properties, an attractive, unspoilt and rural character which would be harmed by the proposed development. Although presently largely screened from public view the proposal would be visible from neighbouring property. It is considered that by virtue of the characteristics noted above in the descriptions of the existing buildings and of the proposed works, notably in respect of the form and massing of the latter, the proposal would be out of keeping with the local pattern of development. It is also noted that the extensive proposed area of hard surfacing would have an urbanising effect. Attention is drawn to the requirement of Policy EM10 (c) that proposals should 'have due regard to the density, scale, layout, appearance architectural detailing, materials and history of the surrounding area, and the relationship to neighbouring buildings, features and heritage assets.' Further, it is noted that in Appendix 13 to the relevant SPD that extensions should be subservient and that extensions which are 'overly large in size and scale and are disproportionate in relation to the original house will not be favoured.' The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy EM10 of the adopted Local Plan and to the relevant appendices to the Council's Design and Sustainability SPD.

Impact on Neighbouring Amenities Given the layout of the properties and the screening presently afforded by boundary treatments including a party fence between rear gardens, the proposal is not considered to have an unacceptably adverse impact on neighbour amenity in terms of overlooking, privacy, or noise. Issues relating to lighting could be addressed by condition. Parking The amount of parking and space for vehicle manoeuvring available within the application site is considered acceptable and in line with residential parking standards. Changes within the site adjacent to the existing access as shown on the submitted drawings are intended to improve safety. Biodiversity The Bat Scoping Survey by Crossman Associates dated 27 January submitted in support of the application indicates that the cottage is of negligible interest for bats. The survey did not extend to the workshop building but the Biodiversity Team has confirmed that this building has negligible suitability for roosting bats. It is recommended that a condition is attached to any permission that should any bats be found during development then works should stop and advice be sought from a suitably qualified ecologist or Natural England. It is recommended that the bat enhancement works contained within the report should be encouraged in line with Policy EM4 of the Local Plan to seek biodiversity enhancements with regards to development. Subject to imposition of a condition, and attachment of an informative to the above effect, the proposals are considered acceptable in the context of Policy EM4 of the adopted Local Plan and associated guidance. Informative(s):- 1. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-

offering a pre-application advice;

In this instance:

The applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit. In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

17/00400/HSE

Location Plan

Block Plan

17/00400/HSE

Existing Dwelling - Plans and Elevations

Existing Workshop Plans and Elevations

17/00400/HSE

Proposed Elevations

17/00400/HSE

Proposed Floor Plans

Cttee: 9 August 2017 Item No. 4

Application no: 17/00401/LBC

For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address 2 Tanhouse Cottages Ashford Hill Road Headley RG19 8AP

Proposal Erection of single storey rear/side extensions with link to existing dwelling following demolition of existing detached workshop. Erection of front porch and internal alterations. Erection of replacement gates

Registered: 2 February 2017 Expiry Date: 11 August 2017

Type of Application: Listed Building Consent

Case Officer: Christina Duckett 01256 845509

Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Pearce Agent: Mr Philip Shell

Ward: Kingsclere Ward Member(s): Cllr Donald Sherlock Cllr Ken Rhatigan

Parish: ASHFORD HILL WITH HEADLEY CP

OS Grid Reference: 452921 162706

Recommendation: the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal 1 The proposed development would cause considerable but less than substantial harm to the

setting of the Grade II Listed Building and to its significance as a modest historic cottage in a rural context. The harm caused would result from the cumulative adverse impact of the size, scale, layout, form, massing and detail of the proposed extensions. The public benefits of the development would not sufficiently outweigh that less than substantial harm, and as such the proposals do not comply with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; the National Planning Policy Framework (Section 12) and associated guidance; and Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

2 The design of the proposal, including the size, scale, layout, form, massing and detail of the proposed extensions, is such that it is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (Section 7) and associated guidance; Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029; and Appendices 13 and 14 of the Council's Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document.

General Comments This application has been brought to Development Control Committee at the request of Councillor Rhatigan for the following reasons: ““The size and bulk of the proposals are subjective. I do not consider the proposals would have a detrimental effect on the listed building and would therefore like the Development Control Committee to determine” Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment)

Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Sustainable Development) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy EM11 (The Historic Environment) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPDs and SPGs) and interim planning guidance The Historic Environment: Listed Buildings Design and Sustainability SPD: Appendix 13: Extending your Home and Replacement Dwellings Design and Sustainability SPD: Appendix 14: Countryside Design Guidance Landscape and Biodiversity SPD Other material documents Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a duty on Local Planning Authorities to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses. Description of Site The application site lies in the open countryside outside the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 2 Tanhouse Cottages is located on a country lane, Ashford Hill Road, part of isolated and sporadic development to the east of the village of Headley. The detached property which is the subject of this application is Grade II listed, as is its neighbour, a house referred to as Tanhouse on the list entry, which lies immediately to the west/northwest and which is similarly located within a plot of comparable size to that of the application site. There are no other near neighbours. Tanhouse, the neighbouring property, is of timber-framed construction with rendered infill panels, tile hanging and timber-boarding, and has a steeply-pitched tiled roof. The property which is the subject of the current application is believed to date from the eighteenth century and is described in the list description for Tanhouse Cottage as a small cottage with symmetrical front of one storey and attic, 2 windows. Tile roof, half-hipped at one end, with catslide at the rear; 2 gabled dormers with cills at eaves level. Rendered walls. Small casements. Boarded and gabled porch.' Originally a modest two bay cottage, the property is a maximum of 1.5 storeys high, built of brick and timber frame under a steeply-pitched roof. It has timber windows which are believed to be of late C20th date. The original building makes up only a relatively small part of the existing building and the older part is much altered. The cottage has been extended previously to the southeast of the original cottage, by a linear extension to the cottage which is 1.5 storeys high with a single storey element beyond it, at the south-eastern end of the property, closest to the approach and parking area. The cottage has also been extended to the rear (on the southwest elevation) by a single storey lean-to extension which runs the full length of the 1.5 storey high part of the cottage as extended. This lean-to extension replaced a former very low catslide extension to the rear, referenced in the list entry, which is believed to have been used as a piggery. The render and porch described in the list entry have been removed, as has a chimney stack. Cottage-style side-hung casement windows have been replaced on a like for like basis with single-glazed windows of light section, appropriate to the character of the property. Presently the accommodation in the cottage as extended comprises a kitchen, utility room, two

reception rooms, two bedrooms and two bath/shower rooms at ground floor level, with two bedrooms and a bathroom over. The house is approached from a drive leading to a parking area, both to the east/northeast of the original cottage. Trees and other planting provide screening from the lane. There is some intervisibility between the house and its neighbour at the front and rear of the property, although some screening is afforded by boundary treatments. Land rises to the rear of the site. Some groundworks related to this application have been undertaken such that ground levels have recently been altered. Aerial photographs suggest that vegetation within the site has been lost in recent years. An outbuilding, of no particular architectural or historic interest, is set back from the frontage of the original two bay cottage. The outbuilding would appear to be of C20th date, giving the appearance externally of relatively lightweight and insubstantial construction. The outbuilding has a simple rustic appearance, finished with waney-edge timber boards under a coloured profiled metal roof. The plan dimensions of the existing outbuilding, scaled from drawing 16/402/05 are 6.2m x 16.45m, ie it has an area of around 101sq m. The outbuilding was originally used for agricultural purposes and has been used as a workshop/store ancillary to the dwelling. The outbuilding has a relatively low eaves height. A photograph taken prior to commencement of development supplied in support of the application shows that the extent of wall visible externally reduces towards the rear of the site due to changes in external ground levels. The height of the outbuilding to the eaves from external ground level prior to recent groundworks as shown on the drawings ranges from approximately 0.31m at the rear to 0.83m at the front of the building (measurements scaled from drawing 16/402/05). The height to the ridge as drawn measures 3.4m at the front of the building. The recent groundworks have not affected the absolute heights of the outbuilding (but the heights from external ground levels immediate to the building as proposed would be greater than they were previously). Proposal At pre-application stage and during the determination period for this application, a number of concerns have been repeatedly raised by the case officer including concerns relating to the scale of works proposed, the nature of the proposed design, and the adverse impact of such works on the listed building. Although some changes have been made to the proposal and amended plans have been submitted, a number of those concerns remain. The proposal now includes the following: (i) demolition of the existing outbuilding; (ii) replacement of the outbuilding by a single storey structure with plan dimensions of 6.2m x

14.45m at ground floor level, in a similar position to that of the outbuilding, with a basement approximately 4.9 x 6.2m in plan. The part above ground would be clad in stained horizontal timber boards with a grey aluminium sheeted roof with timber- and aluminium-framed window and doors and rooflights over. The eaves height of the structure would be at door head height (measured at 2m on drawings). The ridge height would be approximately 4m above external ground level;

(iii) erection of a flat-roofed brick single storey rear extension to the original cottage; (iv) erection of a flat-roofed glazed link with aluminium-framed units between (ii) and (iii) above. The proposed works would provide a new kitchen/dining/family room, two new bedrooms, two new bathrooms, a utility room, a cellar, part of an ensuite bathroom to an existing bedroom, and an entrance hall.

The proposal also includes: (v) replacement of painted timber single-glazed windows; (vi) internal alterations, including removal of a previously altered staircase within the original

cottage and associated works to the first floor; (vii) removal of existing gate, erection of fencing, new gate and gate piers, initial proposals

having been modified in response to concerns expressed by the case officer; (viii) substantial groundworks, to reduce levels local to the proposed extension (involving the

construction of an associated retaining wall), and to terrace the rear garden. (Some of the groundworks have already been undertaken, such that the application is partially retrospective);

(ix) surfacing of the driveway and parking area, and creation of other areas of hardstanding; (x) addition of a new porch. (xi) construction of an outdoor fireplace with chimney It is noted that not all of the works described require listed building consent. The existing part of the property would, subsequent to the proposed works, comprise two reception rooms, a sun room, two bedrooms and part of a shower room at ground floor level, with a bedroom, dressing room and bathroom at first floor level. In total, were the proposal to be implemented, the property as extended would include five bedrooms and four bath/shower rooms as well as four reception rooms. No significant changes to vehicular access or parking arrangements are proposed (other than level changes) and the proposal has no identified impact on trees. Consultations Parish Council: No comments received. Biodiversity: No objection Public Observations None. Relevant Planning History

17/00400/HSE Erection of single storey rear/side extensions with

link to existing dwelling following demolition of

existing detached workshop. Erection of front

porch, replacement windows and internal

alterations. Erection of replacement gates

Concurrent application

for planning permission

BDB/63609 Creation of new vehicular access Approved 19.07.2006

BDB/63607 Creation of new vehicular access Approved 19.07.2006

BDB/62585 Erection of a single storey side extension Approved 17.03.2006

BDB/62581 Erection of a single storey side extension Approved 17.03.2006

BDB/31735 Demolition of rear chimney to level below roof Approved

BDB/28230 Two storey side extension and alterations Approved

BDB/28229 Two storey side extension and new access Approved

BDB/18782 Erection of 4-bed detached house and garage

0.09HA

Refused

Assessment Impact on Heritage Assets Aspects of the proposal such as the proposed demolition of the outbuilding and the proposed internal changes and replacement of windows are considered, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions, to have no adverse impact on the significance of the listed building which is the subject of this application. In respect of the proposed internal changes, it is noted that the impact on historic fabric is negligible: the majority of changes proposed lie outwith the original cottage. The staircase to be removed is not original. The existing windows, although of relatively recent date, are considered appropriate to their context: their condition justifies their replacement subject to approval of details. However, the proposed extensions are considered harmful to the significance of the listed building which is the subject of this application. Proposed works to effect changes to ground levels relate to the proposed extensions. Were the application scheme to be implemented, the cumulative effect of the proposed extensions and associated changes to ground levels, and that of the previous extensions would be such that the essential character of the property as a small cottage, as referenced in the list entry, would be unacceptably eroded and that modern elements would dominate over the original elements of the building which presently warrant its inclusion on the list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. The total footprint, floor area and volume of existing and proposed extensions would be large relative to that of the original building. Further, whilst the floor area of the element of the proposed extension which would replace the existing outbuilding would be comparable to that of the existing outbuilding, and the absolute maximum height of these elements would also be comparable, the height from local ground level to eaves and ridge of the proposed new element would be considerably greater than that of the existing outbuilding, as a result of proposed changes in ground level and due to the difference in volume between the existing and proposed elements. The existing external ground level at the front of the outbuilding and internal floor level prior to development were some 1m below the proposed external and internal floor levels, which are comparable to the internal floor level of the ground floor of the existing cottage. The impact of the element proposed to replace the existing outbuilding on the listed building would be augmented by the fact that the new element would be linked to the main part of the cottage by a flat-roofed extension. This means that, experienced in three dimensions, given the arrangement of the original cottage, of the extensions constructed to date and of the proposed extensions, the expanse of new work on the elevation presented on the approach to the cottage would be extensive, and would be disproportionate to the size and scale of the original cottage. The effect would be that the modern work would dominate over the original building. Other factors compound the adverse impact that the proposal would have on the listed building: the fact that the span of the roof to the proposed element to replace the outbuilding would be greater than that of the original part of the cottage is part of the reason for the dominance of the proposed extension; the angle of the pitch of the roof of the proposed replacement element being lower than that of the original cottage and than that of the local vernacular renders it incongruous. The more substantial appearance of the construction of the proposed element relative to that of the existing outbuilding and the domestic character of the elevational treatment proposed are all contributory factors. Whilst what is proposed is not a new dwelling, it is of the scale of a new

dwelling, has the appearance of a new dwelling and would have a comparable or greater adverse impact on the listed building than that of a new dwelling. The fact that there would be no separation between the proposed works and the existing property increases that impact. The degree of harm that would be caused by the proposals cannot be categorised as substantial in the terms of the government's Planning Policy Guidance on conserving and enhancing the historic environment as the bar to be reached for such harm is so high that it may not arise in many cases. The harm caused in this case may therefore properly be described as 'less than substantial harm.' Measured on a linear scale of harm, such harm would, however, be considerable. The National Planning Policy Framework makes it quite clear that where development would result in less than substantial harm to a listed building or to its setting, such development should only be permitted where that harm is outweighed by public benefits including heritage benefits. In this case, it is considered that the public benefits do not outweigh the harm which would result from the proposed development. It is therefore considered that the proposals fail to comply with Section 12 of the NPPF (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment), Policy EM11 (Historic Environment) and related Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance. The application site forms part of the wider setting of the adjacent listed building to the west: given the existing and proposed layouts of buildings on or near the site it is not considered that the proposals would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the setting of the listed building to the west of the application site beyond those noted under the general heading of impact on the character of the area/design, below. Impact on the Character of the Area/Design Issues relating to adverse impact on the character of the area and design are intrinsically linked to those relating to impact on the listed building which is the subject of this application as noted above. Particular attention needs to be paid to the quality of design given the importance of the preservation of the special architectural / historic interest and/or setting of the listed building. The application site is part of a small character area, made up of the site and the neighbouring listed building property to the west, which is isolated from other development and has, despite the addition of previous additions to both properties, an attractive, unspoilt and rural character which would be harmed by the proposed development. Although presently largely screened from public view the proposal would be visible from neighbouring property. It is considered that by virtue of the characteristics noted above in the descriptions of the existing buildings and of the proposed works, notably in respect of the form and massing of the latter, the proposal would be out of keeping with the local pattern of development. It is also noted that the extensive proposed area of hardsurfacing would have an urbanising effect. Attention is drawn to the requirement of Policy EM10 (c) that proposals should 'have due regard to the density, scale, layout, appearance architectural detailing, materials and history of the surrounding area, and the relationship to neighbouring buildings, features and heritage assets.' Further, it is noted that in Appendix 13 to the relevant SPD that extensions should be subservient and that extensions which are 'overly large in size and scale and are disproportionate in relation to the original house will not be favoured.' The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy EM10 of the adopted Local Plan and to the relevant appendices to the Council's Design and Sustainability SPD. Biodiversity The Bat Scoping Survey by Crossman Associates dated 27 January submitted in support of the application indicates that the cottage is of negligible interest for bats. The survey did not extend to the workshop building but the Biodiversity Team has confirmed that this building has negligible

suitability for roosting bats. It is recommended that a condition is attached to any permission that should any bats be found during development then works should stop and advice be sought from a suitably qualified ecologist or Natural England. It is recommended that the bat enhancement works contained within the report should be encouraged in line with Policy EM4 of the Local Plan to seek biodiversity enhancements with regards to development. Subject to imposition of a condition, and attachment of an informative to the above effect, the proposals are considered acceptable in the context of Policy EM4 of the adopted Local Plan and associated guidance. Other matters Other planning issues are discussed in the report which relates to the concurrent application for planning permission reference 17/00400/HSE. Informative 1. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-

offering a pre-application advice;

In this instance:

The applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit. In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

17/00401/LBC

Location Plan

Block Plan

17/00401/LBC

Existing Dwelling - Plans and Elevations

Existing Workshop Plans and Elevations

17/00401/LBC

Proposed Elevations

17/00401/LBC

Proposed Floor Plans

Cttee: 9 August 2017 Item No. 5

Application no: 17/00847/FUL

For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Site Adjacent To Meadowside Bidden Road Upton Grey RG25 2FE

Proposal Erection of 5 no. dwellings, detached garage and associated site works. Change of use of land from agricultural to C3 Residential

Registered: 6 March 2017 Expiry Date: 14 June 2017

Type of Application: Full Planning Application

Case Officer: Brian Conlon 01256 845244

Applicant: Newlyns LLP Agent: Mr Martin Runcie

Ward: Upton Grey And The Candovers

Ward Member(s): Cllr Mark Ruffell

Parish: UPTON GREY CP OS Grid Reference: 470286 148418

Recommendation: the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions listed at the end of this report.

Reasons for Approval 1. The proposal represents a sustainable form of development which respects the character of

its surroundings and the adjacent Conservation Area, as such complies with the Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).

2. The proposed development would provide safe access and adequate parking provision in

accordance with highway requirements, and as such would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029) and the Council's Residential Parking Standards SPD.

3. The proposal would not result in any significant harm to the amenities of residents in the

vicinity of the site. Therefore proposal accords with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029).

4. The proposal would not result in any significant harm to existing trees and would lead to a

net-gain in biodiversity in the vicinity of the site. In this respect, the proposal accords with Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029) and Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).

General comments This application has been brought before the Development Control Committee by virtue of the number of objection letters received and the recommendation for approval. Planning Policy The site lies outside any Settlement Policy Boundary and is therefore considered to lie in a countryside location. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) Core Planning Principles Section 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes) Section 7 (Requiring good design) Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)

Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) Decision taking Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Sustainable Development) Policy CN1 (Affordable Housing) Policy CN3 (Housing Mix for Market Housing) Policy CN6 (Infrastructure) Policy CN9 (Transport) Policy EM1 (Landscape) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Use Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy EM11 (The Historic Environment) Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing) Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Appendix 5 Design and Sustainability SPD (Construction Statements) 2008 Appendix 6 Design and Sustainability SPD (Waste and Recycling) 2008 Appendix 7 Design and Sustainability SPD (Places to Live) 2008 Appendix 14 Design and Sustainability SPD (Countryside Design Summary) 2008 Appendix 16 Design and Sustainability SPD (Residential Amenity Design Guidance) 2012 Basingstoke Environment Strategy for Transport (BEST) 1999 Residential Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2008 Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Guidance 2001 Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards SPD Landscape and Biodiversity SPD Other material documents Upton Grey Conservation Area Appraisal (2004) National Planning Practice Guidance Description of Site The application site is a rectangular corner of a larger ploughed field located on the north-eastern edge of the village of Upton Grey. The field is located to the rear of the existing residential developments of Woodmanfield and Meadowside. The field is gated and accessed off a driveway serving Meadowside. The site is an open field which contains hedgerows and a number of mature trees running along the south-eastern, south-western and north-western boundary with Meadowside itself. The land is broadly flat however beyond the south-eastern field boundary the land rises gently. Proposal This full planning application seeks permission for the erection of 5 dwellings made up of three detached and two semi-detached dwellings. Two of the dwellings would be 4 bedroom chalet style bungalows, whilst three would be smaller 2 bedroom bungalows. The layout is similar to that proposed under approved application 15/03967/OUT with the access road continuing from Meadowside and round into the development. All bungalows/chalet bungalow would face northwards onto this access road as approved.

Consultations Upton Grey Parish Council – No objections Biodiversity - No objection, subject to conditions. Environmental Health - No objection, subject to conditions. Trees - No objection, subject to conditions. Public Observations 4 letters of objection and are summarised below:

Concern over drainage as Woodmanfield (adjacent to Meadowside) was flooded with raw sewage three years ago.

The village has taken too much development and existing infrastructure including the pumping station has not been upgraded.

This development would also be built on agricultural land outside the village settlement boundary and therefore contrary to planning policy.

Proposal will lead to more development on agricultural land

Bungalows can easily be converted to two-storey houses.

Lack of demand for low cost affordable housing.

Insufficient infrastructure within the village. Relevant Planning History

15/00700/OUT Outline application for the construction of: 1 2-bed

bungalow and 4 linked 2/3 bed bungalows

Withdrawn 05.05.2015

15/03967/OUT Outline application for erection of a 2 bed

bungalow and 4 linked 2/3 bed bungalows.

Granted 13.07.2016

Assessment Principle of development The principle of developing the site for residential purposes was established under application 15/03967/OUT granted at Planning Committee in July 2016. This granted outline consent for up to five bungalows on the site. This application seeks consent for a quantum of development consistent with this previous consent (5 dwellings) in an almost identical layout, albeit with an adjustment to the number of bedrooms and style of dwellings proposed. Since the original consent was granted, there has been no material changes in relevant planning policy applicable to such development. Policy SS6 of the Local Plan continues to allow a number of strict exceptions where the LPA will permit new dwellings in the countryside. In considering this revised development, it continues to be the case the development proposes a mixture of dwellings sizes, the majority being bungalows, although as a full application this submission now includes details showing two of the proposed units as chalet bungalows. Under the previous approved application, the dwellings indicatively shown were understood to be single-storey whilst containing attic rooms in the roof. The previous application suggested an indicative mix of two and two/three bedroom bungalows, of which details would be finalised at a Reserved Matters Stage. It was accepted that there was a need for small nits/bungalows in this location. Since the approval of application 15/03967/OUT, the Council has produced a guidance note to provide clarity as to the type of evidence required to justify an exception under Policy SS6 (e) of

the local plan. As this full application is now for 5 dwellings unlike the outline consent which was for ‘up to’ 5 dwellings, it would exceed the threshold of units covered by this policy (up to four). Notwithstanding this conflict, no new information has been provided to demonstrate that the development meets a locally agreed need as defined by the Council’s guidance note, despite providing a mixture of smaller dwellings. Notwithstanding this fact, there remains extant planning permission for up to 5 dwellings on the site, which could be proceeded to Reserved Matters and in effect, delivered. Therefore this fall-back position is a material planning consideration in determining the principle of this revised application. Notwithstanding the extant permission and assessment against the Local Plan, Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) requires proposals to be considered in accordance with the development plan, unless any other material considerations dictate otherwise. In this regard, the NPPF is a material consideration and sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. The three dimensions to achieving sustainable development are defined within the NPPF as: economic, social and environmental. The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to actively manage their housing land supply, for growth for 10 years and, where possible, for 15 years. The Council continues to be able to demonstrate that it currently has a 5 year housing land supply (HLS) (6.2 years). As such Paragraph 49 of the NPPF is no longer engaged. However, it continues to require applications for housing to be considered in the context of the presumption of sustainable development. The NPPF focuses on promoting sustainable development and Paragraph 55 of the Framework identifies that, 'housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities'. Policy SD1 of the Local Plan reflects this approach. Furthermore, Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states quite clearly that in order to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, LPA's should:

"plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes);

identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand;"

It is therefore necessary for the LPA to again consider carefully to what degree this revised proposal would meet the sustainable development goals of the NPPF in terms of its economic, social and environmental merits. The economic role of the NPPF requires proposals to contribute to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy. The social role requires planning to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities and states that it should create a high quality built environment. The environmental role states that the natural built and historic environment should be protected and enhanced and should mitigate and adapt to climate change. The proposed development would encourage development and associated economic growth through the actual physical building works of 5 dwellings. Furthermore the future occupants would also contribute to the local economy and ensure the continued viability of local facilities such as the pub, village shop and contribute to services in adjoining villages. These are important considerations whereby the proposal could be recognised to comply with an economic role as defined by the NPPF. In terms of the social role, the proposal would provide 5 dwellings in the village (2 chalet bungalows and 3 bungalows). It remains the case that the borough is experiencing an ageing population and appropriate 'accommodation suitable for 'downsizing', including such dwellings as proposed here, is inherently supported through the LPA's housing mix policies and the NPPF. This development would continue to have a 'positive' social aspect which would increase the supply and

mix of such houses within the village, allowing existing social ties to be maintained and providing the foundation for future community life. In this regard the development would, through specific provision of bungalows and chalet bungalows, provide social benefits to the local community in a way which would enhance and maintain the vitality of the existing rural community of Upton Grey. With regard to the environmental role of this development, it is important to consider the location of the development and whether the scheme would result in an isolated form of development and conflict with Paragraph 55 of the NPPF. This particular site is located immediately adjoining the north-eastern extent of the existing settlement of the village. It occupies an area of land to the rear of an existing cul-de-sac development (Meadowside). The development would not extend any further along the Bidden Road than any existing built form. In this regard, the proposed development cannot be considered to physically remote. With regard to access to services and public transport, the number 210 bus serves the village from outside the Hollington Arms approximately 300m west of the site. However, given the infrequency of this service, it is unlikely to make it a realistic option to access employment and leisure opportunities for residents further afield. However, in terms of local facilities and services the centre of Upton Grey village is itself a short walk from the application site. The village contains a village shop, Post Office and Pub all within walking distance along Bidden Road. Whilst there are no footpaths along the stretch of road, there is good visibility and wide grassed verges for much of the route into the village centre. Furthermore, the site allows easy cycling to Upton Grey and other nearby villages. The development is therefore considered to respond to climate change through its integration with the existing settlement of Upton Grey and the opportunity it allows for occupants to utilise community facilities by means other than private car. Finally, any new development would also be expected to demonstrate a degree of inherent sustainability through compliance with Council supported energy efficiency and Building Regulations standards thereby fulfilling an environmental role. In making a balanced judgement on the suitability of the proposal in terms of sustainable development as determined by the NPPF. The development is well related to the existing settlement and would not result in an isolated form of development. Furthermore, to a degree, the scheme meets a social need. Whilst there has been an increase in the size of two dwellings when compared to the previously approved application 15/03967/OUT, there remains extant residential development on the site. Therefore, on balance and based on the above, the proposal is considered to remain acceptable in principle. Housing Mix Policy CN3 of the Adopted Local Plan in line with the aims of the NPPF, seeks to ensure that a proposed housing mix addresses specific housing needs/shortfalls as oppose to meeting specific Borough wide standard housing mix threshold for development. As discussed above, the SHMA (2015) evidence base states that it is important to provide a range of dwelling sizes to meet housing needs and infers that although there remains a need for small dwellings there are housing market needs across the board and that in planning for future housing the LPA should not necessarily be prescriptive in terms of the mix, size and type of dwellings. The proposed mix of housing would be 3x two bedroom bungalows and 2x four bedroom chalet bungalows. Therefore a 60% of the total proposed units would fall into the smaller unit category in accordance with this policy. The application therefore meets this policy requirement in terms of housing mix proposed. Loss of Agricultural Land The loss of this small isolated part of a much wider field system has already been accepted under application 15/03967/OUT. It therefore remains the case that development of this land would not

give rise to any significant effects on agriculture. Impact on the character of the area/design Paragraph 17 of the NPPF identifies that decision makers should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Policy EM10 of the Local Plan states that development should respond to the local context of buildings in terms of design, siting, density and spacing and reinforce attractive qualities of local distinctiveness. Paragraph 4.3.1 of Appendix 7 of the Council's Design and Sustainability SPD, states that "a site must have consideration towards the character of the local area. The built context should be reflected in some way within a new development. Ensuring that these local built contextual characteristics are reconsidered in new development improves orientation between places, and helps foster a sense of local identity". This part of Upton Grey is characterised by ribbon development, in cul-de-sacs directly off the Biden Road. In addition to those houses which front the road, there are later examples of back land development, namely those houses served by Little Hoddington, Woodmanfield and Meadowside. There is also an unnamed cul-de-sac serving houses off the Biden Road near the pub. Those houses along the road and served by cu-de-sacs display a range of architectural styles and are of varying ages and sizes. These houses consist of a mixture of two-storey houses and bungalows. The site benefits from being set back behind the existing development of Meadowside and as such there is minimal visibility of the site from Biden Road unless approaching from the northeast. The development would ultimately be viewed with a backdrop of those existing houses at the end of Little Hoddington, and therefore have limited harm. Like the previously approved scheme, the dwellings would be arranged in a linear arrangement served off a single shared driveway with rear gardens facing southwest to an existing tree line. This would replicate a similar arrangement to Meadowside itself, with the existing field boundaries to the south and west forming the further extent of the development. The development is not considered to generate any greater level of harm than that of the approved development. In terms of wider impacts on the countryside, the site would continue to be visible from across the field to the south and northeast, and when travelling west along the Biden Road. It remains the case that the only discernible difference to such views would be the setting of residential development against the backdrop of exiting residential development. In this regard, there remains little material harm to the intrinsic rural character or appearance of the surrounding countryside or any extended views from the north, south, east and west of the site. The new dwellings would have a ridge height of between 6.75m and 7.1m. This maximum height range is considered appropriate in context to the previous application which placed no restriction upon maximum ridge height, despite it being envisaged that the development would not exceed 6.5m. Whilst marginally greater, in context to surrounding development, this scheme cannot be argued to cause any harmful impact on the surrounding countryside given its siting to the side and rear of existing development. Furthermore because of the topography and adjoining ridge heights, the scheme would be no more visible or exceed the height of surrounding two-storey houses. The design of the dwellings are considered to appear as single-storey structures, whilst plots 1 and 5 would have accommodation in the roof space. There would be no windows at the front of the development at roof level except for a single skylight serving the stairwell of plot 1. The dwellings are to be clad in timber with a brick plinth. The windows and doors are to be painted timber, which is supported. In summary, the scheme is not considered to be harmful to the character or appearance of its surroundings and would thus accord with the objectives of Policies EM1 and EM10, along with Paragraph 53 of the Framework all of which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that new development is sensitive to the character and appearance of its surroundings.

Heritage Assets In terms of the impact on the Conservation Area, the site remains a considerable distance away from the historic core of the village which itself contains many listed and historically significant buildings. There would be no part of the development visible from within the central or historic core of the village, and as such there would be no discernible impact on the character of the Conservation Area of the setting or fabric of any listed buildings. On this basis the development is considered to preserve the setting, character and appearance of the Conservation Area and thereby complies with Policy EM11 of the Local Plan and the Local Planning Authority have discharged their responsibilities under Sections 72 and 66of the Listed Building and Conservations Areas Act. Impact on neighbouring amenities There are neighbouring properties located in close proximity to the application site. In particular no. 7, 8 and 9 Little Hoddington located to the southwest and no. 7-10 Meadowside located to the northwest. A distance of approximately 25m separates the rear elevation of 10 Meadowside from the front elevation of plot 2. 15m separates the side elevation of 7 and 8 Meadowside to the front elevation of plot 5. A distance of 27m separates the side elevation of plot 5 to the south west and the corner of the nearest semi-detached neighbour at Little Hoddington. There would be no overlooking windows to the front of the dwellings nor would there be any overbearing and/or loss of light caused by the development. Therefore, the residential development of this site is not considered to cause any significant harm to the amenities of surrounding occupiers. Whilst the scheme would result in a minimal increase in residential activity off Meadowside, for example through traffic movements, this would be modest given the scale of the development and unlikely to be significantly more harmful than residents already experience. With regard to any disturbance from the actual construction of the development, this can be controlled by planning conditions restricting construction to appropriate hours. As such, this application is not considered to conflict with the Policy EM10 of the Local Plan. Amenities of future occupants Appendix 16 of the Design and Sustainability SPD states that as a general rule each dwelling should have a minimum garden depth of 10m and 50-60sqm as a minimum size. The layout shows that the proposed dwellings would have rear gardens which exceed these amenity standards and therefore no objection is raised in this regard. Highways and Parking The proposals would utilise an existing dropped kerb off Meadowside. Whilst Meadowside is already used by a number residential units, it is not considered that the proposed use and level of additional vehicular movements would result in a significant increase in movements or conflicts between vehicles. The proposals are for a residential use, of similar quantity as approved under application 15/03967/OUT. On this basis the proposals would not result in any significant impacts on highway safety. Policy CN9 sets out that development should provide appropriate on-site parking and should not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. The proposal includes parking areas for sufficient numbers of vehicles, cycle storage and refuse storage within the application site for each dwelling and visitors. Amended plans were negotiated during the application process to show that the appropriate number of bins could be stored close to the existing access onto Meadowside.

As with the previous application, conditions are recommended to secure parking provision and implementation of refuse and bin storage. On this basis sufficient parking provision and highway safety matters have been demonstrated and the proposal would comply with Policies CN9 and EM10 in these respects. Biodiversity There remains a need to protect the boundary hedges on site which link in to the surrounding rural landscape and to mitigate for impacts on nesting birds and foraging bats which may be utilising the boundary habitats on site. There is an opportunity to enhance the site for biodiversity by the introduction of a Schwegler bat tube in one of the new dwellings and by planting suitable native shrub and herbaceous species as recommended within the survey report in line with Policy EM4 of the Local Plan. In this regard, no objection is raised from a biodiversity perspective subject to a condition that ensures all works are to be undertaken in adherence with the mitigating strategies and biodiversity enhancement recommendations contained within the Biodiversity Survey by Lowans Ecology and Associates dated May 2017. Trees Mature trees stand within the existing mature hedgerow which defines the southern boundary of the site. The site benefits greatly from the presence of these mature trees and hedgerow. A tree survey has been prepared in accordance with British Standard 5837: 2012 to support the development proposal. This has identified the crown and root constraints associated with the existing trees and has been used to inform the layout and design of the proposed development. This will be conditioned. Flood Risk The proposed development is located in Flood Zone 1 (Low Probability). Paragraph 103 (footnote 20) of the NPPF sets out that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) should be submitted for all developments over one hectare in size. This development falls beneath this threshold and therefore no FRA is required. Following concern expressed by third parties to surface water flooding, it remains necessary and reasonable to attach a restrictive condition to prevent any development from occurring on site until a final surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (which shall include details of management and maintenance). It is normal to impose such conditions on development schemes where surface water concerns exist in order to ensure that an adequate drainage system can be designed so as to ensure that surface water runoff is managed. Thames Water has a legal obligation under Section 94 of the Water Industries Act 1991 (WIA 1991) to provide developers with the right to connect to a public sewer regardless of capacity issues. This, when read in conjunction with Section 91(1) of the Act in effect makes it impossible for Thames Water to object, or for the Council to refuse to grant planning permission for development on the grounds that no improvement works are planned for a particular area. The Act specifically requires the utility company to accommodate the development whatever the circumstances. Therefore, with regard to third party representations raised in the past concerning foul water drainage, it is Thames Water’s responsibility to resolve any existing issues experienced by residents and not for this application or proposal to address. Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing The application has been scoped in line with the CIL Regulations 2015 and the following tests have been considered;

(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. Through the Council's 'scoping' process, consideration has been given to whether five dwellings in this location would attract contributions to mitigate for the impact of additional residents. Notwithstanding the provision of affordable housing which is discussed below, the Parish Council have identified a need for outdoor gym equipment at the nearby playing field to increase opportunities and therefore capacity at the site. This is estimated to cost £3,992. As no additional information has been forthcoming to demonstrate whether this project is a planned, costed or CIL compliant scheme which the development could contribute towards, such contribution and a legal agreement are not sought or required in this instance. With regards to Affordable Housing, in November 2014 the Government introduced national thresholds for seeking affordable housing and tariff-based contributions through a Written Ministerial Statement and changes to the Planning Practice Guidance. At that time the Council determined planning applications in accordance with this position. This position was challenged by Reading Borough Council and West Berkshire Council in July 2015 forcing a judicial review into the introduction of these national thresholds at which point the Government withdrew their guidance. However, following a government challenge to the judicial review outcome through the Court of Appeal, the position was upheld on 11 May 2016, resulting in the Government re-introducing the relevant sections of the NPPG on 19 May 2016. Accordingly and notwithstanding the position set out in Policy CN1 of the Adopted Local Plan (which introduced the requirement of financial Affordable Housing contributions for sites of less than 5 units), Affordable Housing contribution cannot be secured for developments of the scale proposed in this application. Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following

approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:

P01 Rev B, P02 Rev D, P03 Rev B, P10 Rev B, P11 Rev C, P12 Rev A, P20 Rev B, P21 Rev C, P30 Rev B, P31 Rev C, P40 Rev C, P41 Rev D. REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the

date of this planning permission.

REASON: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

3 No development above ground level shall commence on site until details of the types and

colours of external materials to be used, including colour of mortar, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: Details are required because insufficient information has been submitted with the original submission. In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029).

4 No development above ground level shall commence on site until details of the materials to

be used for hard and paved surfacing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved surfacing shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the adjoining buildings are first occupied and thereafter

maintained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Details are required prior because of insufficient information contained within this submission and in the interest of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029).

5 No development above ground level shall take place until there has been submitted to and

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of screen walls/fences/hedges to be erected. The approved screen walls/fences shall be erected in accordance with the approved details before the dwelling hereby approved is first occupied and shall subsequently be maintained as approved. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, details of which shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before replacement occurs.

REASON: These details are required because of insufficient information contained within this submission and in the interest of the amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029)

6 Development works are to be undertaken in adherence with the mitigating strategies and

biodiversity enhancement recommendations contained within Chapter 5 Recommendations and precautionary mitigation measures of the Biodiversity Survey by Lowans Ecology and Associates dated May 2017.

REASON: To prevent impacts on protected species under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and to enable a net gain for biodiversity in accordance with EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029).

7 No development shall take place, until a Construction Method Statement that demonstrates

safe and coordinated systems of work affecting or likely to affect the public highway and or all motorised and or non-motorised highway users, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

The Statement shall include for:

i. means of access (temporary or permanent) to the site from the adjoining

maintainable public highway, including the associated traffic management arrangements;

ii. the parking and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors off carriageway (all to be established within one week of the commencement of development);

iii. loading and unloading of plant and materials away from the maintainable public highway;

iv. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development away from the maintainable public highway;

v. wheel washing facilities or an explanation why they are not necessary; vi. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and

facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; vii. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; viii a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and ix. the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the

disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the traffic sensitive public highway A340 Aldermaston Road, particularly during the Monday to Friday AM (08:00 to 09:00) and PM (16:00 to 18:30) periods.

x. the routes to be used by construction traffic to access and egress the site so as to

avoid undue interference with the safety and operation of the public highway and adjacent roads, including construction traffic holding areas both on and off the site as necessary.

REASON: Details are required prior to commencement because detail absent from the application and to ensure that the construction process is undertaken in a safe and convenient manner that limits impact on local roads and the amenities of nearby occupiers, the area generally and in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

8 No work relating to the construction of the development, hereby approved, including works

of demolition shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays, nor on Sundays or recognised public and bank holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

9 No deliveries of construction materials or plant and machinery and no removal of any spoil

from the site shall take place before the hours of 09:30 nor after 16:00 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays, nor on Sundays or recognised public and bank holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

10 Prior to first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, vehicle and cycle parking as

shown on drawing P02 Rev D shall be constructed and fully implemented within the application site, and the areas of land so provided shall be thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details and shall not be used for any purposes, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that a satisfactory parking is provided in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).

11 A scheme for the storage (prior to disposal) of refuse and recycling, and details of the

refuse and recycling collection point(s), provided not more than 15 m carrying distance from a highway which is a carriageway, and details of the transit route between the storage and collection points, for each dwelling, shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented within the curtilage of each property together with the transit route prior to first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, and the areas of land so provided shall be thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of general amenity, to ensure convenience of arrangements for refuse and recycling storage and collection and to ensure that no obstruction is caused on the adjoining highway, in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

12 Protective measures, including fencing, ground protection, supervision, working procedures

and special engineering solutions shall be carried out in accordance with the: CBA Trees arboricultural development statement, (Ref. CBA10763v1) dated May 2017. Any deviation from the works prescribed or methods agreed in the report will require prior written approval from the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy EM1 of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.

13 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no building, structure or other alteration permitted by Classes A, B, C and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be erected within the curtilage of plots 1 and 5 without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose.

REASON: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site in the interests of the amenity of the area and to safeguard the important trees on or adjoining the site, in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

14 No works shall commence on site until details of the proposed surface water and foul

drainage and means of disposal have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and no building shall be occupied until all drainage works have been carried out in accordance with such details as approved by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: Details are required prior to development as inadequate information has been provided with the application and in order to ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily drained in accordance with Policy EM7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

15 No works pursuant to this permission shall commence until there has been submitted to

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:-

(a) A desk top study carried out by a competent person documenting all the previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report Nos. 2 and 3 and BS10175:2011, and a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as being appropriate by the desk study in accordance with BS10175:2011- Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice;

and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

(b) A detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed. The scheme must include a timetable of works and site management procedures and the nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and if necessary proposals for future maintenance and monitoring.

If during any works contamination is encountered which has not been previously identified it should be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. The additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme, agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model

Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11’. REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

16 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of Condition 15(c) that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of Condition 15(c) has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority in advance of implementation). Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority such verification shall comprise;

as built drawings of the implemented scheme; photographs of the remediation works in progress; certificates demonstrating that imported and/or material left in situ is free of contamination.

Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under Condition 15(c), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

17 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until a technical

report and a certification of compliance demonstrating that the development has achieved the water efficiency standard of 110 litres of water per person per day (or less) has been submitted (by an independent and suitably accredited body) to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: Details are required prior to occupation because insufficient information was provided within the application and to improve the overall sustainability of the development, in accordance with Policy EM9 of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

Informative(s):- 1.1 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be

complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated. 1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to

be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met.

1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of

up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is

£97 per request or £28 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

2. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-

In this instance:

the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, seeking further information following receipt of the application;

In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

3. With respect to the Means of Access Condition consent under the Town and Country

Planning Acts must not be taken as approval for any works carried out within or project under or project over any footway, including a Public Right of Way, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the publically maintained highway. The development may involve works within the public highway. It is an offence to commence those works without the permission of the Local Highway Authority, Hampshire County Council. In the interests of highway safety the development must not commence on-site until permission has been obtained from the Local Highway Authority authorising any necessary works, including street lighting and surface water drainage, within the publically maintained highway. Public Utility apparatus may also be affected by the development. Contact the appropriate public utility service to ensure agreement on any necessary alterations. The construction of the vehicular crossing(s) will require approval and licensing by the Local Highway Authority, further advice about works within the public highway can be obtained from Hampshire County Council's Area Office, telephone 0300 555 1388.

4. If this development will result in new postal addresses or changes in addresses, please

contact the council's Street Naming and Numbering team on 01256 845539 or email shirley.brewer@basingstoke.gov.uk to commence the process. Details can be found on the council's website.

17/00847/FUL

Location Plan

17/00847/FUL

Proposed Site Plan

Proposed Street Scene

Cttee: 9 August 2017 Item No. 6

Application no: 17/01140/ROC

For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Rexford House Union Lane Plastow Green Headley

Proposal Variation of condition 1 of 16/04381/FUL to allow enlargement of the kitchen and plant room, and positioning of the scheme further to the north west

Registered: 23 March 2017 Expiry Date: 1 June 2017

Type of Application: Removal/Variation of Condition (Sec 73)

Case Officer: Trevor Campbell-Smith 01256 845661

Applicant: Sherbourne Rexford Ltd

Agent: Mr Mark Pettitt

Ward: Kingsclere Ward Member(s): Cllr Donald Sherlock Cllr Ken Rhatigan

Parish: ASHFORD HILL WITH HEADLEY CP

OS Grid Reference: 453246 161818

Recommendation: the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions listed at the end of this report.

Reasons for Approval 1. The proposed development is of an acceptable size, bulk and design when assessed

against the extant planning permission for the site and would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the character or visual amenities of this rural location and as such is considered to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Polices EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

2. The development would provide a safe and suitable access and would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety and adequate parking would be secured to serve the proposed development and as such the proposal would comply with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

3. The proposed development would not result in an undue loss of privacy or cause undue

overlooking, overshadowing, or overbearing impacts to existing neighbouring properties, and as such would comply with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

4. The proposal would conserve and provide a framework for the enhancement of the

biodiversity value and nature conservation interests of the site and as such the proposal would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

5. The proposal would preserve the setting of the neighbouring Grade II Listed Building, Fair View and as such would comply with guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

General comments The application is brought before the committee due to the number of objections received and the Officer’s recommendation for approval in line with the council’s scheme of delegation.

Planning Policy The site is located outside any Settlement Policy Boundary and as such is considered to be in a countryside location. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) Core Planning Principles Section 6 (Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes) Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) Section 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment) Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing) SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside) CN1 (Affordable Housing) CN3 (Housing Mix for Market Housing) CN6 (Infrastructure) EM1 (Landscape) EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) EM6 (Water Quality) EM5 (Green Infrastructure) EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) EM12 (Pollution) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Appendix 13 Design and Sustainability SPD (Extending your Home and Replacement Dwellings) Appendix 14 Design and Sustainability SPD (Countryside Design Summary) The Historic Environment: Buildings of Local Interest SPG The Historic Environment: Listed Buildings SPG Ashford Hill with Headley Village Design Guide Other Relevant Legislation The Planning and (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Description of Site The site is triangular in shape and has been fairly recently cleared of all the buildings which were on the site and formed Plastow Green Farm including an historic dwelling which was a diminutive one and a half storey cottage of vernacular scale and proportions included on the local list of Buildings of Local Architectural and Historic Interest. In addition there were a number of outbuildings on the site located to the north west of the dwelling. The site is bordered by mature landscaping consisting of trees and hedges. The site can be accessed from an existing pedestrian and vehicular access along the front southern boundary and also an access point at the south western corner of the site and drive which runs along the northwest side of the site. Proposal This application seeks relief from Condition 1 of 16/04381/FUL which granted the erection of a 5 bed dwelling and attached garage/cartshed with annexe accommodation over. This application

would allow for amendments to the approved plans to allow for the following revisions to the approved scheme:

Increased size of the kitchen at ground floor level by 1.59m x 5.88m.

Increased size of the plant room at ground floor level by 1.52m x 4.22m.

Relocation of the proposed dwelling and associated parking and turning and landscaping approximately 3 m to the north west.

Consultations Parish Council: “The Parish Council objects to this planning application based on the fact that the proposal extends the original footprint which was an original condition of the permission being granted.” Conservation: No objection. Landscape: No objection. Biodiversity: No objection subject to informative. Highways: No objection subject to conditions. Trees: No objection subject to condition. Public Observations Three letters of objection raise the following:

No notification of this application has been received from the council.

The site has been cleared and the nesting bird and reptile informative ignored.

The resulting waste from the site clearance was burnt causing a nuisance to neighbours.

A field outside the application site has been hard surfaced for parking encroaching on the countryside.

The proposed new siting will encroach upon the amenities of neighbours.

The pretentious and grandiose building will be out of character. Relevant Planning History

13/02498/HSE Conversion of former workshop building to

residential use; the removal of existing outbuildings

and partial demolition of main house to facilitate

the erection of side and rear extensions; and, the

erection of a four bay cart shed and associated

remodelling works.

Approved 17.02.2014

14/01147/FUL Erection of a replacement dwelling and four bay

cart shed (to replicate development under that

approved 13/02498/HSE). Re-use of existing

materials where appropriate and the removal of

existing outbuildings

Approved 12.09.2014

15/01948/FUL Erection of 6 bedroom dwelling and three bay

garage and erection of replacement cottage to be

used as ancillary accommodation and associated

works (Amended scheme to that approved under

14/01147/FUL)

Refused 03.08.2015

15/04068/FUL Erection of dwelling and reconstruction of cottage

with link to dwelling for ancillary accommodation,

and erection of a three bay garage

Approved 29.03.2016

16/04381/FUL Erection of 5 bed dwelling and attached

garage/cartshed with annexe accommodation over.

Associated parking, turning, landscaping, private

amenity space, and new access

Approved 10.03.2017

Assessment Principle of Development. Policy SS6 of the Local Plan provided the principle of a one for one replacement of an existing dwelling on a site in the countryside. In this instance the principle of development was established by the granting of 16/04381/FUL which remains extant and is therefore a significant material consideration. Planning History There is an extensive planning history at the site. Planning permission was granted for applications 14/01147/FUL, 15/04068/FUL and 16/04381/FUL which remain extant, relating directly to the application site and are material considerations when determining this current planning application. Whilst some of the previous proposals included retaining the original farmhouse, which was a building of local interest, further surveying confirmed that the building was not capable of retention without a risk of loss of structural integrity and it was demolished. The most recent of the approved schemes 15/04068/FUL and 16/04381/FUL proposed a larger dwelling closer to the cottage to be rebuilt and physically linking the two. In addition, the proposed rebuilt cottage contained accommodation which was considered to be ancillary to the proposed main house, with a gym and study as well as a bathroom, guest room and games/recreation room on the first floor. The extant planning permissions are a material consideration when considering the current proposal, setting out what could be erected on the site and what has previously been considered acceptable by the Local Planning Authority. The dwelling approved under 16/04381/FUL was for a new two storey dwelling which would have 5 bedrooms. The main roof ridge of the property would be approximately 8.9 m in height. Attached to the main house would be a garage/cart shed with a one bedroom annexe in the roof space above with a roof ridge height of approximately 7 m. The proposed dwelling and garage would be 'L' shaped and occupy a central location within the site. The main dwelling would have brick elevations and a plain clay tile roof with the garage and annexe of timber weatherboarding and brick with a plain clay tile roof. The approved scheme also proposed a new vehicular access onto Hillhouse Lane, towards the eastern most corner, with a blocking up of the existing vehicular point, which is located further along the south eastern boundary. The previously approved and extant permission at the site represents a fall-back position for the applicant and as such it is considered that the matters for consideration in respect of this application concern any additional impacts upon the character of the area, neighbouring amenity, trees, or biodiversity arising from the proposed amendments to the previously approved scheme Impact on the character of the area/ design and Historic Assets The proposed relocation of the proposed dwelling three metres to the north west of its previously approved position is not considered to have a detrimental impact upon the character of the area or

upon visual amenity given the limited scale of change relative to the distance from the main public vantage point at Union Lane, and that the revised scheme moves the proposed dwelling further away from Union Lane. The proposed enlargement of the kitchen at the dwelling and the plant room to the rear of the proposed cart shed are both modest in scale, designed to be in keeping with the development as a whole and of single storey height. Accordingly it is considered that the proposal would not lead to detrimental impacts upon the character of the area. The Landscape Officer has confirmed that he has no objection to the proposed amendments. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires consideration of a proposal upon the setting of a heritage asset, which could comprise a listed building or conservation area. The site does not sit within or adjoin the curtilage of any statutory listed building, with the nearest, Fair View, a grade II listed building which is located approximately 50 m North West of the proposed development. Given the distance between the two sites across an open field and the lack of historic connection between the two sites, it is considered that the amendment to the development now sought would not have any new adverse harm upon the setting of these heritage assets as to result in harm to their significance. As such, when the extant permission at the site is taken into account the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its design and impact on the character and visual amenities of the area and the setting of the nearby listed building. The proposal is therefore considered to be in compliance with Policies EM1, EM4, EM10 and EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. Trees The Tree Officer's initial comments raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions that reflect those imposed upon 16/04381/FUL. The Tree Officer has subsequently confirmed that he has revisited the site and observed that tree protection measures in accordance with an approved drawing, ref: 161006-250 Rev A are in place at the site and that these are satisfactory. Accordingly it is considered appropriate to impose a condition which requires adherence to the measures detailed in the plan in the interest of the character and amenity of the site and the landscape character of the area. Impact on neighbouring amenities There are no residential properties immediately adjoining the site. The nearest properties to the proposed dwelling are Fair View which would be approximately 80 m to the northeast, Ulandi which would be approximately 50 m to the southwest and The Elms which would be over 100 m to the southwest of the proposed dwelling. These separation distances are considered to be sufficient to prevent the proposed amendments to the approved dwelling from leading to detrimental impacts on the amenities of neighbours in terms of loss of light, overbearing or loss of privacy impacts and are significantly in excess of the 20 metre minimum back to back relationship recommended in the Residential Amenity Design Guide (Appendix 16 of the Design and Sustainability SPD). As such it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. Highways and Parking It is considered that the proposed relocation of the dwelling, the associated parking, turning and landscaping would not have a detrimental impact on the level of parking at the site or upon the surrounding highway network. As such the Highway’s Officer has confirmed no objection to the proposal subject to a condition requiring compliance with the appropriate plans. Such a condition would be imposed in any case and would secure plans stipulated by the Highway Officer. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in highway terms and in accordance with Policies

CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. Biodiversity The Biodiversity Officer raised no objection to the application approved under reference 16/04381/FUL subject to in formatives in relation to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and breeding birds, given that the proposal involves the removal of vegetation. The Biodiversity Officer also advised that it is unlikely that the site has been colonised by reptiles since the demolition of the buildings on site, although considered it to be prudent to undertake a phased vegetation clearance. The letter of objection received asserts that the site has been cleared and that the advice set out within an informative added to 16/04381/FUL was not followed. The clearance of the site is borne out by the condition of the site at the Case Officer's site visit. With regard to the in formatives applied, it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that any works at the site are carried out in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This was an informative only as planning cannot replicate the controls of other legislation. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in relation to Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the NPPF. Other matters The Environmental Health team have not commented in respect of this application, however it is noted that the Applicant has submitted information in this regard with this application and that the same information was submitted in order to discharge Conditions 8 and 9 of 16/04381/FUL. The Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that the details submitted are sufficient to allow the discharge of Condition 8 of 16/04381/FUL and a letter in this regard was sent on the 22 June 2017. As such it is considered reasonable to impose a condition requiring adherence to the details within the Interpretive Report on Ground Contamination and requiring the verification of any measures if contamination is encountered. A letter of objection raised concern that publicity letters in respect of this application had not been received. After investigation in this regard neighbour letters with regard to this application were sent on the 1 June 2017. Concern was also raised with regard to the burning of waste on site. Nuisance caused by such activities is controlled by Environmental Health Legislation and is not a planning matter. Concern was expressed in a letter of objection that an adjoining field has been hard surfaced in connection with the proposal. It should be noted that permitted development rights granted in Schedule 2, Part 4, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 allow for such works, however this is not related to this variation of condition application. Conclusion It is considered that whilst this proposal would represent an enlargement of the previously approved dwelling, when considered against previous permissions, this development would be of acceptable size, bulk and design and would not have a detrimental impact on the character or visual amenities of this rural location and as such is considered to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Polices SS6, EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. Conditions imposed upon 16/04381/FUL The grant of a planning permission for a Section 73 application enables the Local Planning

Authority to impose planning conditions that are deemed appropriate and meet the relevant tests as cited within the NPPF (para 204). Given that the application provides a new planning permission, it is considered necessary and reasonable to continue to impose those planning conditions from 16/04381/FUL permission that remain relevant to the development for clarity and completeness, with amended phrasing where applicable. Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following

approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:

Drawing No. 161006-01: Site Location Plan at 1:1250 (A3); Drawing No. 161006-103 Rev A: Site plan and Block Plan at 1:200/1:500 (A1); Drawing No. 161006-104 Rev A: Design Scheme (Floor Plans) at 1:100 (A1); Drawing No. 161006-105 Rev B: Design Scheme (Elevations) at 1:100 (A1). Drawing No. 161006-250Rev A: Tree Protection Plan at 1:200 (A1).

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the

date of this planning permission. REASON: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

3 Development shall commence on site in accordance with the details of the types and

colours of external materials to be used, including colour of mortar, as approved under 17/01419/CONDN with regard to Condition 3 of 16/04381/FUL on the 26 June 2017. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

4 Development on site shall commence in accordance with the materials to be used for hard

and paved surfacing Approved under as approved under 17/01419/CONDN with regard to Condition 4 of 16/04381/FUL on the 26 June 2017. The approved surfacing shall be completed before the buildings that would utilise that surface are first occupied and thereafter maintained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

5 Development shall take place in accordance with the scheme of landscaping which shall

specifies species, planting sizes, spacing and numbers of trees/shrubs to be planted (including replacement trees where appropriate) approved in respect of as approved under 17/01419/CONDN with regard to Condition 5 of 16/04381/FUL on the 26 June 2017. The works approved shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of the building(s) or when the use hereby permitted is commenced. In addition, a maintenance programme detailing all operations to be carried out in order to allow successful establishment of planting, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

6 No work relating to the construction of the development hereby approved, including works

of demolition or preparation prior to operations, shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on

Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

7 No deliveries of construction materials or plant and machinery and no removal of any spoil

from the site shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

8 The development hereby approved shall be undertaken and thereafter maintained in

adherence with the Interpretive Report on Ground Contamination dated May 2017 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

9 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has

been submitted to the Local Planning Authority verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of Interpretive Report on Ground Contamination dated May 2017 that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions thereof has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority in advance of implementation). Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority such verification shall comprise;

as built drawings of the implemented scheme;

photographs of the remediation works in progress;

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

Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved Interpretive Report on Ground Contamination dated May 2017unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

10 Development shall take place, in accordance with the Construction Method Statement

approved in relation to as approved under 17/01419/CONDN with regard to Condition 10 of 16/04381/FUL on the 26 June 2017 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that the construction process is undertaken in a safe and convenient manner that limits impact on local roads and the amenities of nearby occupiers, the area generally and in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

11 No development shall take place on site until details of the method of construction of the

means of access, its layout and geometry and design for crossing the drainage ditch/water course; the driveway and its drainage to prevent water discharging to the highway; have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed details shall be fully implemented before the dwellings are occupied.

REASON: Details are required prior to commencement because insufficient information has been submitted with the application in this regard, to ensure a satisfactory means of access to the highway in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

12 The boundary of the site facing onto Union Lane comprising of a mixed hedge [or any

future replacement boundary feature] shall be maintained to provide clear spaces in front for visibility and ensuring the level of the land hatched blue on the site plan 161006-103[attached] shall be cleared and maintained so that the land and anything on it and any vegetation does not interrupt the space between 0.6m and 2.0m above the level of the carriageway. REASON: To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

13 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) the accesses identified for closing on the site plan 161006-103 shall be stopped up, abandoned and re-instated in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be provided immediately after completion of the new access and prior to the first occupation of the building. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

14 Any gates provided shall be set back a minimum distance of 6 m from the edge of the

carriageway of the adjoining highway and shall be thereafter maintained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and to prevent the obstruction of the highway by vehicles entering and exiting the site in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

15 The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until provision for the turning of

vehicles and the parking of 4 cars and long-stay storage for a minimum of 2 cycles plus minimum parking for 1 short-stay cycle has been made within the curtilage of the property. The areas so provided shall not be used for any purpose other than the turning and parking of vehicles and storage of bicycles, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Residential Parking Supplementary Planning Document.

16 Development shall be undertaken and thereafter maintained in adherence with the tree

protection measures set out on drawing 161006-250 Rev A unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority REASON: To ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

17 The living accommodation to be provided within the first floor above the garage and cart

shed hereby permitted and as shown on drawing no. 161006-104 Rev A shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling hereby approved and shall not be sub-let, sold off or used as a separate unit of residential accommodation. REASON: The site is in an area where new dwellings are not normally permitted in accordance with the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

18 This permission shall only be implemented in substitution for and not in addition to planning

permissions 14/01147/FUL, 15/04068/FUL or planning permission ref: 16/04381/FUL. REASON: To prevent an overdevelopment of the site and to ensure only one dwelling is constructed in accordance with Policy SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 in respect of replacement dwellings and to protect the visual amenities and character of the area, in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

19 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until a technical

report and a certification of compliance demonstrating that the development has achieved the water efficiency standard of 110 litres of water per person per day (or less) has been submitted (by an independent and suitably accredited body) to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Details are required prior to occupation because insufficient information was provided within the application and to improve the overall sustainability of the development, in accordance with Policy EM9 of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

Informative(s):- 1. 1.1 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be

complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met.

1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £97 per request or £28 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

2. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-

considering the imposition of conditions.

In this instance:

the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required.

In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

3. The applicant's attention is also drawn to the protection of breeding birds under the Wildlife

and Countryside Act 1981.This makes it an offence to kill or harm birds or damage or destroy their eggs. To avoid contravening these provisions it would be advisable to avoid carrying out

any work that might damage an active nest during the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive).

The applicant's attention is also drawn to the protection of reptile species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.This makes it an offence to kill or harm reptiles. To avoid contravening these provisions it would be advisable to carry out a phased vegetation clearance using pedestrian operated tools (e.g. brush cutters) cut vegetation to 20cm, followed by a cut at 10cm and then keep the vegetation short. It is noted that there are also piles of rubble, the piles should ideally be hand loaded into or moved, and if any reptiles are encountered advice should be sought from a suitably qualified ecologist.

4. With respect to the Means of Access Condition above Consent under the Town and Country

Planning Acts must not be taken as approval for any works carried out within or project under or project over any footway, including a Public Right of Way, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the publicly maintained highway nor approval for any works to an 'ordinary watercourse'. An 'ordinary watercourse' is any passage through which water flows, which is not part of a 'main river', including rivers, streams, ditches, drains, cuts, culverts, dykes, sluices and sewers (other than public sewers). The development will involve works within the public highway and or an 'ordinary watercourse'. It is an offence to commence those works without the permission of the Local Highway Authority, and or the Local Flood Authority, both Hampshire County Council. In the interests of highway and watercourse safety the development must not commence on-site until permission and formal agreement, as required, has been obtained from either the Local Highway Authority and or the Local Flood Authority authorising any necessary works, including street lighting and surface water drainage, within the publicly maintained highway and or watercourse. Public Utility apparatus may also be affected by the development. Contact the appropriate public utility service to ensure agreement on any necessary alterations. Advice about works within the public highway can be obtained from Hampshire County Council's Area Office, telephone 0300 555 1388. Advice about works requiring 'ordinary watercourse' consenting can be obtained from Hampshire County Council's Winchester Office, telephone 01962 846 746.

17/01140/ROC

Location Plan

17/01140/ROC

Block Plan

Site Plan

17/01140/ROC

Proposed Elevations

17/01140/ROC

Floor Plans

Cttee: 9 August 2017 Item No. 7

Application no: 17/01450/OUT

For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Woodlands Park Farm Ram Alley Ashford Hill RG19 8AY

Proposal Erection of 5 no. dwellings comprising 1 no. barn-style house, 3 no 'converted stable' dwellings, 1 no single storey 'small barn' dwelling and 4 bay cart shed. Demolition of existing equestrian buildings and removal of two mobile homes

Registered: 19 April 2017 Expiry Date: 10 August 2017

Type of Application: Outline Planning Application

Case Officer: Lucy Page 01256 845515

Applicant: Mrs Jenny Redhead Agent: Mr Ian Lasseter

Ward: Kingsclere Ward Member(s): Cllr Donald Sherlock Cllr Ken Rhatigan

Parish: ASHFORD HILL WITH HEADLEY CP

OS Grid Reference: 454470 161967

Recommendation: the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal

1. The proposal is for the erection of five new dwellings within the countryside, in an unsustainable and isolated location, for which there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify a departure from the Development Plan. The proposal is contrary to Policies SD1, SS1 and SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).

2. The introduction of new residential development beyond the existing sporadic development which fronts this lane, would have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area, would have an urbanising impact and fail to respect or improve the local landscape character and visual amenities. As such the proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies SD1, EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document - Appendix 14:Countryside Design Summary and The Ashford Hill with Headley Village Design Statement (2004).

General comments The application is brought to the Development Control Committee at the request of Cllr Rhatigan for the following reason: “It is obviously disappointing to hear that you are still minded to refuse this new application especially as you yourself admit the new submission has gone so far in providing a solution to regenerate this currently disused site. I confirm that I will be requesting that this application comes in front of the D C Committee for determination on the grounds that this site is not isolated as the crow flies as well as meeting SS6 in regard to previously developed land and fitting with an appropriate scale within the rural context. The new scheme also has no detrimental effect on the wider countryside being well screened and well set down in position in the lane. I hope you will be able to carry this request forward but if further confirmation is required please don't hesitate to let me know.”

Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Achieving Sustainable Development

Section 1 (Building a strong, competitive economy)

Section 4 (Promoting sustainable transport)

Section 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes)

Section 7 (Requiring good design)

Section 8 (Promoting healthy communities)

Section 10 (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change)

Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)

Annex A: Decision Taking Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029

Policy SD1 (Sustainable Development)

Policy SS1 (Housing Delivery)

Policy SS5 (Neighbourhood Plans)

Policy CN1 (Affordable Housing)

Policy CN3 (Housing Mix)

Policy CN6 (Infrastructure)

Policy CN9 (Transport)

Policy EM1 (Landscape)

Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation)

Policy EM5 (Green Infrastructure)

Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk)

Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development)

Policy EM12 (Pollution) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance

Design and Sustainability SPD - Appendix 5 - Construction Statements - Appendix 6 - Storage and Collection of Waste and Recycling - Appendix 7 - Places to Live - Appendix 14 - Countryside Design Summary - Appendix 16 - Residential Amenity Design Guidance

Residential Parking Standards SPD

Affordable Housing SPD

Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards SPD

Landscape Character Assessment SPG

Landscape and Biodiversity SPD

S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance

Adopted Interim Green Space Standards

Ashford Hill with Headley Village Design Statement (VDS) Other Relevant Documents

National Planning Practice Guidance

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)

Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006)

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (Revised 2015)

Description of Site The site is in a countryside location, outside of any recognised Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB). Although there are some dwellings and agricultural buildings in the locality, these are sporadically sited with the overall character of the area dominated by open fields and agricultural and land in equestrian use. The site presently contains various buildings associated with the equestrian use of the land including:

a red brick two storey farm house adjacent to the site access which has recently been sold off from the farm;

two agricultural style barns with an area of hard-standing to the North-West of the access. Barn 1 is a brick and tiled building slightly higher than average single storey height. Barn 2 is a combination of an enclosed shed with corrugated roof and a tall sided barn again with a corrugated roof;

a large, open fronted barn which is used for the storage of hay and equipment positioned to the rear of the existing farmhouse.

The land to the northeast of the site is overgrown and appears unmanaged. The boundary is well treed which demarcates the site from adjoining land. Parallel to this boundary and within the adjoining land sits a further open sided barn, approximately 4-5m high. Land to the north west of the application site is additionally in equestrian use and contains a manège and paddock areas. Proposal The proposal is for a courtyard development of five dwellings comprising of a barn style house, three dwellings designed to appear as converted stables, one single storey ‘small barn’ dwelling and a four bay cart shed. The application is in outline with all matters (layout, scale, appearance, landscape) reserved apart from access. An illustrative layout plan and elevational drawings have been submitted to demonstrate how the site could come forward if the outline element of the application is granted. Consultations Landscape: Objection

Adverse impact on visual amenity and landscape character. Highways: No objection subject to conditions. Biodiversity: No objection subject to conditions. Trees: No objection subject to conditions. HCC ROW: Objection

This development in a countryside location is likely to increase vehicular use of Bridleway 731, to the detriment of users of the rights of way.

Public Observations One letter received raising objections in relation to:

Traffic generation as all properties are served by single track bridleway. The lane is personally maintained and doubling the number of homes on the lane may have significant impact on it.

Currently receive water supply from the farm and have a reader but concerned that water has been lost previously during works to the farm and do not think water supply is sufficient during building works or post completion.

Relevant Planning History 16/04027/HSE Demolition of existing flat roofed rear extension

(one and two storey) and erection of two storey

rear extension and single storey oak framed

dining room

Approved 21.12.2016

16/02668/FUL Erection of 1 x 2 bed, and 3 x 4 bedroom

dwellings, three carports, associated parking

and amenity areas

Refused 13.01.2017

15/04128/GPDADW Notification of proposed change of use from

agricultural barn to Use Class C3 dwelling house

Refused 04.02.2016

15/01285/HSE Erection of 2.1 metre high brick, and 2.1 metre

high brick and flint walls

Approved 23.07.2015

BDB/47040 Erection of dwelling, to serve mixed -

agricultural/equestrian use

Approved 27.04.2000

BDB/42306 Change of use of land to mixed agricultural and

equestrian, construction of outdoor manege and

temporary siting of mobile home for staff

accommodation

Refused 27.08.1999

BDB/41974 Erection of Conservatory

Approved 07.10.1997

BDB/36726 Conversion of barn to stabling for domestic

horses

Approved 12.10.1994

Assessment A full application for the erection of 1 x 2 bed, and 3 x 4 bedroom dwellings, three carports, associated parking and amenity areas (16/02668/FUL) was refused at Committee in January 2017 for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is for the erection of four new dwellings within the countryside, in an unsustainable and isolated location, for which there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify a departure from the Development Plan. The proposal is contrary to Policies SD1, SS1 and SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).

2. The proposed new dwellings as a result of the scale and massing in conjunction with the rural location which introduces new residential development beyond the existing sporadic development which fronts this lane, would have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area, have an urbanising impact and fail to respect or improve the local landscape character and visual amenities. As such the proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies SD1, EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document - Appendix 14:Countryside Design Summary and The Ashford Hill with Headley

Village Design Statement (2004). Principle of development Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan for the area is the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. At a national level, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) constitutes guidance, which the LPA must have regard to. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making, but is a material consideration in any subsequent determination. The site is located outside of a Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) and is within the part of the borough which is designated as countryside as per Policy SS1 (Scale and distribution of new housing). The primary policy in terms of considering the principle of the proposed development is considered to be Policy SS6 (Housing in the Countryside). Policy SS6 states that development in the countryside will only be permitted if the site is on previously developed land; is part of a rural exception scheme; is for the re-use of an existing building; involves the replacement of an existing dwelling; is required to support an existing rural business; or is allocated by a Neighbourhood Plan. The site currently forms part of an equestrian business and is part of total land holding of approximately 8.5 hectares. Given the equestrian use of the site (as opposed to agriculture), the land to which the application site relates can be considered as previously developed land under Policy SS6 (a). This states that development proposals for new housing outside of Settlement Policy Boundaries will only be permitted where they are on 'previously developed land', and provided that i) they do not result in an isolated form of development ii) the site is not of high environmental value and iii) the proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site's context. It is therefore key to assess whether the proposal would result in an isolated form of development or not. It is considered that the term 'isolated' has two distinct dimensions: firstly whether the site is physically remote and secondly whether it has easy access to services and facilities. The adopted Local Plan provides a definition of isolated as: "in the context of new residential development in the countryside where there is a significant separation between the proposed dwelling and the nearest settlement. Additionally, a dwelling is considered to be isolated if it is not well served by public transport (e.g. within 500 m of a bus stop or train station) or well served by services and facilities (e.g. within 1km of an SPB, which generally contains facilities such as schools, post offices, doctors surgery, etc)." The Local Plan provides a definition of a settlement as: "a settlement typically consists of a village, comprised of more than a group of houses, or farmstead, including at least one service or facility, such as a village hall, public house or school." Ram Alley is an unmade private road (bridleway), linking onto Ashford Hill Road, approximately 400m from the application site boundary. Ashford Hill Road is a single carriageway rural road, with no pedestrian footways and no street lighting, apart from a section of footpath leading from the church down towards the village of Ashford Hill. The proposed dwellings would be located outside any defined settlement boundary, separated from other more concentrated residential development and physically remote from local services. The village of Ashford Hill is approximately 1.1 km away if travelling from the site along Ram Alley and Ashford Hill Road to the village, this offers a limited number of services including a Primary School and church, which would be insufficient to meet the daily needs of future occupiers. They would instead be required to travel further afield to access even basic services such as a village shop and post office which are found in Headley. The closest bus stop to the site is adjacent to the village church. It is considered that cycling and walking to such facilities would be unrealistic given the country roads, which are unlit and do not benefit from footpaths. As such, there is likely to be a reliance on the private motor vehicle as the site is not located in close proximity to essential services and facilities and is in an isolated location, contrary to Policy SS6(a) of the Local Plan. This is the conclusion also previously reached when application 16/02668/FUL was determined.

In relation to the other criteria set out within policy SS6 (a), the application site comprises of an equestrian yard with stabling accommodated in agricultural style barns. The buildings indicate their rural function however it is not considered that the site is of a high environmental value. With regards to the criteria of Policy SS6 (a), it is considered that the proposal would constitute an isolated form of development contrary to criteria (i) of this policy and therefore the principle of development in this instance is not considered to be acceptable. Policy SS5 of the ALP sets the framework for Neighbourhood Planning in the borough and reflects the council’s strong support for neighbourhood planning. The Policy stipulates that at least 750 homes will be delivered across the boroughs five largest settlements (Bramley, Kingsclere, Oakley, Overton and Whitchurch). An additional 150 units are expected to be delivered through Neighbourhood Planning across the remainder of the borough and it will be necessary to identify sites/opportunities to deliver at least 10 homes within and adjacent to each of the settlements with defined SPBs (including Ashford Hill). The agent suggests that the planning application could count towards the requirement for Ashford Hill, however as of 1 April 2016, 35 dwellings have been granted planning permission within and adjacent to the Ashford Hill SPB in the period 2011-2016. Ashford Hill’s ‘share’ of the Policy SS5 requirement has therefore already been met, and in any case it is noted that this site would not count towards that requirement as it would not be adjacent to the SPB. Policy SS5 therefore does not provide support to this application.

NPPF

The proposal does not comply with the policies of the development plan however the NPPF is a material consideration in the determination of any planning application. The NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. The three dimensions to achieving sustainable development are defined in the NPPF as: economic, social and environmental and it is necessary for the LPA to consider carefully to what degree the proposal would meet the sustainable development goals of the NPPF. The economic role of the NPPF requires proposals to contribute to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy. The social role requires planning to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities and states that it should create a high quality built environment. The environmental role states that the natural built and historic environment should be protected and enhanced and should mitigate and adapt to climate change. Whilst it is noted that the proposal is of a relatively small scale, the proposed development would encourage development and associated economic growth through the actual physical building works of five new dwellings. This would however be balanced against the loss of these existing buildings which are in a reasonable state of repair and, as the agent has confirmed, could continue to be used as part of an equine business contributing to the local rural economy. Future occupants of a residential development would also contribute to the local economy and contribute towards ensuring the continued viability of local facilities and services in the Borough. The proposal can therefore be recognised to comply with the economic role of the NPPF. In terms of the social role, the proposal would provide new dwellings which could have a 'positive' social aspect as it would increase the supply and mix of houses and in this regard the development would provide social benefits to the local community. With regard to the environmental role of the development, an important consideration is the location of the development and whether the scheme would result in an isolated form of development. An isolated development would conflict with Paragraph 55 of the NPPF, which sets out that new dwellings should not be allowed in isolated locations other than in certain circumstances (essential rural workers, optimal use or enabling development of heritage assets, re-use of redundant buildings which would improve their setting, or designs of an exceptional or innovative nature), which this proposal does not meet. This assessment has been undertaken above and it is considered that the application site and proposed development would result in an isolated form of development and would therefore also be contrary to guidance contained within the NPPF.

By reason of its isolated countryside location, and its limited accessibility to local shops and services, the proposal would therefore not be a suitable or sustainable site for housing. As such it would conflict with the aims of Policies SD1 and SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan and similar objectives in paragraphs 17 (core planning principles) and 55 of the Framework. Impact on the character of the area/ design Policy EM10 of the BDLP requires proposals to apply a high standard of design, to make efficient use of land and have regard to the local context in terms of design, siting and spacing. The requirements of these policies are also reflected within the Ashford Hill and Headley Village Design Statement (VDS) for both the pattern and context of development.

The application site forms part of the land comprising of Woodlands Park Farm and is set to the rear of The Stables Cottage. The farm is accessed by a rural, unmetalled track which is a public right of way, route number 731, over one kilometre from the settlement boundary of Ashford Hill. The track has mature hedgerow interspersed with trees that creates a strong sense of enclosure and a secluded aspect to the route. The immediate landscape relates well to the local landscape character, being very rural with a remote and tranquil feel. The site currently contains a mixture of small period barns built from red brick and more modern agricultural style buildings which have been used for equestrian purposes. The latter consists of both open fronted and enclosed buildings. Combined with other period dwellings that are characteristic along Ram Alley, the immediate landscape surrounds have a bucolic, agricultural character and settlements are typically single dwellings with associated barns and agricultural buildings. The site sits on the edge of the Ecchinswell Landscape Character Area (Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Assessment 2001). This is characterised by:

A gently undulating landform created by north-south running streams, forming a series of minor valleys and a complex landform

A diverse and complex pattern of small to medium scale mixed farmland, occasional well managed parkland, numerous relatively small irregular copses and woodland areas, and a generally intact hedgerow and tree structure

Generally well wooded, unspoilt rural character giving a distinctive sense of place

Numerous scattered remnants of ancient semi natural broadleaved woodland, of ecological and historic landscape value

Generally low intervisibility through the area, with views contained by frequent hedgerows and woodland blocks

Network of narrow roads linking scattered small villages, hamlets, farmsteads and individual dwellings.

The application site relates well to this overall character. As a farmstead, it is situated within an arrangement of generally small to medium agricultural fields along a narrow rural lane. A number of blocks of woodland are dotted within the landscape, most of them designated as SINCS. Hedges are a repeated feature of the area, running along field boundaries and road edges. The application submitted follows a previous proposal to demolish parts of the farmstead and develop the site for residential use (16/02668/FUL) which was considered unacceptable in landscape terms and subsequently refused. The current proposal indicatively (given the outline nature) revises the scheme, which is also for the demolition of a significant part of the farmstead and its replacement with residential dwellings. The layout submitted arranges the dwellings in a more rectilinear form, around a square ‘yard’ and the proposed dwellings, whilst indicative at this stage, are suggested to be of a more traditional agricultural design, mimicking barns and converted stables, along with a parking ‘cart shed’.

Access onto the site would be taken from Ram Alley to the southern boundary which is the same as the existing situation. The development indicatively comprises the removal of various agricultural buildings, the largest of which are currently aligned to extend north east from the access, with further smaller structures positioned along the access itself. The Landscape Officer has reviewed the development and considers that whilst the proposals offer some improvement over the previous scheme, that the principle issue remains. It is considered that the insertion of a cluster of residential development together with domestic paraphernalia in this location would be harmful to landscape character and visual amenity. The landscape surrounding Ram Alley is remote, quiet and scenic, heavily dominated by agriculture, with numerous farmsteads being positioned close by. Apart from these, the only residential dwellings outside the settlements of Headley and Ashford Hill are individual properties scattered along roads and lanes, facing the road. The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement which confirms that following the refusal of the previous scheme, the applicant has worked to resolve issues relating to the design of the development and has carried out some research on the historical layout of the farm. An aerial photograph from 1959 has helped to inform this current proposal to recreate a traditional farmyard around a central square. The photograph confirms that in 1959 this part of Ram Alley had more built form on the site with a variety of barns, stables and other buildings of two-storey and single-storey scale. The Design and Access Statement sets out the design rationale, “In an attempt to recreate a farmyard, it is proposed to erect a ‘large barn’ dwelling at the northern end of the courtyard and a small, single storey barn dwelling at the opposite end adjacent to the L-shaped stables block at Stable Cottage. The right hand side of the courtyard would be enclosed by three ‘stables’ dwellings designed to resemble a traditional stable range with ‘grooms’ accommodation in the roofspace and first floor light obtained via ‘hayloft’ windows. The end unit closest to Stable Cottage would be of a reduced scale in order to break up the mass of the block and step down to the smaller scale buildings to the south. The south-eastern side of the courtyard would be defined by a simple, open fronted cart shed for parking.” It is considered that the illustrative design provided in support of this application is a significant improvement on the previously refused scheme however given that the application has been submitted with all matters reserved apart from access, there is no ability to secure the design and layout at this stage.

Though the dwellings will be partially screened by existing buildings, particularly the existing stables, they will be at least partially visible from the public right of way. The introduction of residential development in this location would introduce a domestic and urbanising character to the existing landscape, as a result of parked vehicles, amenities such as bins and lighting, as well as domestic paraphernalia such as hard surfaced patios, garden furniture and ornaments, washing lines and garden toys. These impacts can be lessened through appropriate design and layout such as that indicated in the illustrative layout plan however given the secluded, rural and agricultural nature of the landscape, it is considered the development will have an adverse effect on landscape character and visual amenity. The Ashford Hill and Headley Village Design Statement (VDS) sets out in the planning guidelines that, “Ashford Hill has rich variety in its buildings and general setting and the openness of the true countryside up to its doorways. Building around the village would encroach on this and should not be encouraged”. This proposal would result in additional residential development outside of the settlement boundary, contrary to the guidelines set out in the VDS. The illustrative layout responds to the historic context of the site in terms of creating a courtyard and could be considered to meet the requirements of Policy EM10 which requires new development to respond to the local context of buildings in terms of siting, density and spacing. The proposal would however conflict with Policy EM1 which requires a demonstration that proposals will be sympathetic with the landscape character. This is because the introduction of residential development in this location would appear discordant within the landscape and harmful

to the character and appearance of this attractive rural area. This need to have regard to the distinctive and diverse characteristics of the countryside within the decision making process is reinforced within Appendix 14 of the Design and Sustainability SPD and the Ashford Hill with Headley Village Design Statement. Impact on neighbouring amenities There are several other residential properties fronting Ram Alley including White Cottage, Woodlands Cottage, The Stables Cottage and the Pink Cottage. The closest residential property to the site is Woodlands Park Farm House which sits adjacent to the site access and has recently been severed from the holding, and The Stables Cottage which sits to the south of the site and has a detached stable building adjacent to the southern boundary. The existing access onto the site would be used to serve this development. The equestrian use of the land already generates some vehicular activity to the side of Woodlands Park Farm House. It is not considered that the use of part of the land for residential purposes would have a significant impact in relation to the amount of traffic generated from the existing situation and the siting of the dwellings would not result in overlooking or appear overbearing to the occupants of this property. The proposal could be successfully accommodated with regards to the impact on their amenity. The southern part of the site is adjacent to the boundary with The Stables Cottage. Whilst only indicative, it is considered that residential development could be accommodated at this site without significantly impacting on the amenities of this neighbouring property. Amenities of future occupants The impact of the proposed development upon existing neighbouring amenities has been considered in the section above. However, it is also important to consider the proposal with regards to the amenity of future occupants of the site, particularly with regard to Appendix 16 of the Design and Sustainability SPD 'Residential Amenity Design Guidance'. The SPD details that residential gardens for a 4 or more bedroom property should have a minimum area of 60m2, with a minimum depth of 10m although the depth can be flexibility assessed depending on the overall garden area. The current submission does not detail specific boundaries and is illustrative only, however it is considered that there is sufficient space within the site to provide gardens which meet the requirements of the guidance. The effect on the highway The application site is approximately 400 m from the Ashford Hill Road accessed via a bridleway. The application makes use of an existing vehicular access which is situated to the side of the existing farm house. This existing access is 3.5m wide and it is proposed to widen this to 4.2m. The access is currently gated however it is indicated that these would be removed as part of the proposals. The site is situated within a rural location for the purposes of assessing NPPF Sustainable Transport Modes and the provision of residential motor vehicle and secure cycle parking provision plus refuse/recycling facilities. The agent has previously clarified that if a ‘diy’ livery yard operated from the site (where owners feed and turn out their own horses) then daily vehicle movements could be between 30 to 40+ vehicles per day. A ‘full’ livery yard or other equestrian use may have fewer vehicle movements. The Highways Officer has raised no objections to the proposed residential use of the land in relation to the impact on the highway network given its existing use. Traffic generation is estimated on number of dwellings. As per 16/02668/FUL, at an average of seven movements daily for each dwelling, the estimated traffic for residential use would not be an increase over the traffic estimate for the former stables use. The site area has scope to provide sufficient car parking and cycle storage and the Waste Client Service has confirmed the collection vehicle accesses Ram Alley.

Effect on the Public Right of Way The site is accessed from Ram Alley through which Ashford Hill with Headley Bridleway 731 runs. This bridleway forms a key route into the countryside to the south where it connects to a number of other Public Rights of Way. The HCC Countryside Access Officer considers that the development would intensify the use of this lane and seeks a financial contribution towards mitigation measures to enhance the local rights of way network. As set out in the previous section of the report it is not considered that the development would result in additional traffic above that of the existing use and therefore whilst the comments are noted, it would not be reasonable to require contributions towards mitigation measures. Construction traffic would need to make use of the public right of way for access. The Countryside Access Officer advises that this route should be kept open throughout the construction period, and an appropriate traffic management system be secured and implemented through condition, involving the erection of signs warning drivers of the presence of pedestrians and the need to give way, the implementation of a low-speed limit and the use of banksmen. Should the application be acceptable in all other respects then suitable conditions could be added. Biodiversity The eastern boundary of the site comprises mature trees and some of the areas around the existing stable buildings and barns are unimproved and overgrown. It is noted that there may be possible bat roosts in the poplar trees on the eastern boundary of the site and there is a known bat roost in a farm house to the southeast of the development. Light pollution is known to effect the foraging behaviour of various species of bats to a greater or lesser extent which are a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The application has been supported by an ecological report and the Biodiversity Officer has confirmed no objection to the proposal subject to a condition relating to external lighting in accordance with Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. Trees Existing trees within the site form part of its character and both national and local plan policy seek to ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees. The Arboricultural Officer has raised no objections to the proposed development subject to condition. It is therefore considered that the proposal could be accommodated on site without detriment to retained trees and had all other matters pursuant to the development proposal been considered to be acceptable, relevant conditions would have been imposed. Environmental Health The Council’s Environmental Health Officer raised no objection to the previous scheme, subject to conditions relating to the submission of a land contamination assessment and restrictions on construction and delivery hours. The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that the proposed residential use would be sensitive to the presence of contamination given the previous farming and equestrian use of the site. These comments remain relevant to the current application and it is considered that, had the development been deemed acceptable in other regards, conditions would have been secured to address the matters raised. Section 106 agreement - need and compliance with statutory tests The application has been scoped in line with the CIL Regulations 2015 and the following tests have been considered; (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. Through the Council's 'scoping' process, consideration has been given to whether five dwellings in this location would attract contributions to mitigate for the impact of additional residents. No suitable projects have been identified. With regards to Affordable Housing, in November 2014 the Government introduced national thresholds for seeking affordable housing and tariff-based contributions through a Written Ministerial Statement and changes to the Planning Practice Guidance. At that time the Council determined planning applications in accordance with this position. This position was challenged by Reading Borough Council and West Berkshire Council in July 2015 forcing a judicial review into the introduction of these national thresholds at which point the Government withdrew their guidance. However, following a government challenge to the judicial review outcome through the Court of Appeal, the position was upheld on 11 May 2016, resulting in the Government re-introducing the relevant sections of the NPPG on 19 May 2016. Accordingly and notwithstanding the position set out in Policy CN1 of the Local Plan (which introduced the requirement of financial Affordable Housing contributions for sites of less than 5 units), an affordable housing contribution cannot be secured for developments of the scale proposed in this application. Informative(s):- In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:- • offering a pre-application advice; • seeking further information following receipt of the application; • seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the application; • considering the imposition of conditions and/or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement. In this instance: • the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, • was provided with pre-application advice. In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

17/01450/OUT

Location Plan

17/01450/OUT

Proposed Site Layout and Indicative Elevations

Cttee: 9 August 2017 Item No. 8

Application no: 17/01473/OUT

For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Crookfur Cottage Newbury Road Kingsclere RG20 4SY

Proposal Erection of 2 no. dwellings with a maximum ridge height of 5.9m, following demolition of existing bungalow

Registered: 12 May 2017 Expiry Date: 11 August 2017

Type of Application: Outline Planning Application

Case Officer: Laura Peplow 01256 845320

Applicant: Mr Wayne Williams Agent: Mr Ian Lasseter

Ward: Kingsclere Ward Member(s): Cllr Donald Sherlock Cllr Ken Rhatigan

Parish: KINGSCLERE CP OS Grid Reference: 451434 160267

Recommendation: the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal 1 The proposed development would result in the net gain of one dwelling within the

countryside, in an unsustainable and isolated location, for which there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify a departure from the Development Plan. The proposal is contrary to Policies SD1, SS1 and SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).

2 The proposed development would place a pair of dwellings next to each other towards the south of the site, with limited space between each other, between their side elevations and the edges of the plot. Each proposed dwelling is larger than the existing bungalow, and therefore together it is considered that they would introduce an unacceptable amount of built form on to the site, in a manner which would appear cramped in this rural context. The main views of the site are from the two public rights of way which run past and through the site, indicated on the Proposed Site Plan. Views from these footpaths would be negatively impacted upon as a result of this proposal, where views would alter from that of a low key bungalow set within the rural landscape, to two significantly larger and bulkier dwellings sitting in a cramped manner. As such is it considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the rural character and visual amenities of the area and be contrary to Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, the National Planning Policy Framework and Appendix 14 -"Countryside Design Guidance" of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document.

General Comments The application is brought before the Development Control Committee at the request of Councillor Rhatigan: ‘.. I wish to have an opportunity to have my fellow Councillors weight up the merits or not of your decision to recommend refusal. I have taken on board your well expressed views but as one of the reasons for refusal will be the sites isolated location I feel I must dispute this as the site has access to a good bus service and employment opportunities within walking distance.

Therefore I request that this application is brought in front of the D C Committee at the earliest possible date. I know this will come as a disappointment to you but I feel under this improved scheme I have no other choice.’ Planning Policy The application site is located outside any Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) and therefore is within a countryside location. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Achieving Sustainable Development

Section 1 (Building a strong, competitive economy)

Section 4 (Promoting sustainable transport)

Section 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes)

Section 7 (Requiring good design)

Section 8 (Promoting healthy communities)

Section 10 (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change)

Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)

Annex A: Decision Taking Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029

Policy SD1 (Sustainable Development)

Policy SS1 (Housing Delivery)

Policy SS5 (Neighbourhood Plans)

Policy CN1 (Affordable Housing)

Policy CN3 (Housing Mix)

Policy CN6 (Infrastructure)

Policy CN9 (Transport)

Policy EM1 (Landscape)

Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation)

Policy EM5 (Green Infrastructure)

Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk)

Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development)

Policy EM12 (Pollution) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance

Design and Sustainability SPD - Appendix 5 - Construction Statements - Appendix 6 - Storage and Collection of Waste and Recycling - Appendix 7 - Places to Live - Appendix 14 - Countryside Design Summary - Appendix 16 - Residential Amenity Design Guidance

Residential Parking Standards SPD

Affordable Housing SPD

Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards SPD

Landscape Character Assessment SPG

Landscape and Biodiversity SPD

S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance

Other material documents Basingstoke Environment Strategy for Transport The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 Kingsclere Village Design Statement Emerging Kingsclere Neighbourhood Plan Description of Site The application site is located to the north of Kingsclere, on the western side of the A339, accessed via a track serving the property and adjoining neighbour, as well as an existing garden centre, 'Cottismore Nursery'. The site itself comprises a detached bungalow, bounded by fencing and vegetation, with areas to the front and rear laid to lawn. The topography of the land slopes downwards from the southern boundary to the northern boundary. The site is bounded to the north and west with open fields, to the east with a neighbouring property and to the south by a garden centre. Proposal The proposal is an outline planning application for the erection of 2 dwellings with a maximum height of 5.9 m following demolition of the existing bungalow. The application is to give consideration to matters of the principle of development, access and scale only. Consultations Kingsclere Parish Council:- ‘Kingsclere Parish Council objects to the application on the following grounds:- Policy SS6 in the adopted local plan states:- “Development proposals for new housing outside of Settlement Policy Boundaries will only be permitted where they are: a) On ‘previously developed land’, provided that: i) They do not result in an isolated form of development; and ii) The site is not of high environmental value; and iii) The proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site’s context;” and “e) Small scale residential proposals of a scale and type that meet a locally agreed need provided that: ix) It is well related to the existing settlement and would not result in an isolated form of development;” The plot is previously developed in as much as the proposal is to replace an existing bungalow, but the proposal seeks to squeeze in another property so does not satisfy this clause. It is an isolated development according to the definition in the Local Plan and therefore does not satisfy SS6 a) i and SS6 e) ix. The definition of ‘isolated’ in the Adopted Local Plan reads: “In the context of new residential development in the countryside where these is a significant separation between the proposed dwelling and the nearest settlement. Additionally, a dwelling is considered to be isolated if it is not well served by public transport (e.g. within 500m of a bus stop or train station) or well served by services and facilities (e.g within 1km of an SPB, which generally

contains facilities such as schools, post offices, doctors surgery, etc).” The council do not consider the two proposed homes meet local needs because of their location. True there is a bus service but they only run once an hour to Newbury, finish at approximately 7.00pm and don’t run on Sundays and Bank Holidays. To live in this location a car would definitely be required. The dwelling is over 1km from the SPB. The planning statement makes a reference to the footpath network but these are not gravel paths, rather they are over farmland. It is true, they are well used for recreational use and dog walkers but it is very doubtful they could be used as a means of accessing the village services, particularly during autumn and winter when the paths are extremely muddy and difficult to walk. In summary, Kingsclere Parish Council objects to the application because there is no reference in the planning statement to the High Court Judgement on ‘brownfield’ sites so we cannot confirm or otherwise that the points raised concerning building in gardens in correct. If it isn’t then the council would support replacing one bungalow but not the building of another. The properties do not meet local need and it is an isolated development according to the definition in the Local Plan, therefore not satisfying SS6 a) i and SS6 e) ix. Biodiversity: No Objection, subject to an informative Environmental Health: No Objection, subject to conditions HCC Countryside and Public Rights of Way: Acceptable, subject to in formatives Highways: Standing Advice Policy: The site is previously developed land. Consideration should be given to the principle of

development, and whether the site is isolated. The recent appeal decision considered that the site location was isolated, and this should carry significant weight as the definition of isolated and the circumstances of the site have not changed since this time.

Landscape: Objection, unacceptable in landscape terms Trees: No Objection, subject to informative Public Observations One letter of objection has been received and is summarised below:

Similar application refused and dismissed at appeal.

The definition of the site as brown field/previously developed land is not relevant. It was made clear by the Council and the Inspector at appeal that this was not the important issue but whether the application site was isolated or not.

Do not consider that the proposed development complies with Policy SS6a due to isolated location and the high quality of the surrounding countryside.

Consider the design of the proposed bungalows to be acceptable, however, believe that establishing the principle of development in this location could result in subsequent applications to alter the dwellings or propose larger dwellings

The net gain of one house is this location does not outweigh the sustainability principles of allowing development in this location. A potential precedent could be set and a small settlement created in the countryside, to its overall detriment.

Potential for increased hardstanding resulting in flooding.

Construction disruption associated with the development.

Relevant Planning History 15/03144/OUT Erection of two dwellings following the demolition

of the existing bungalow

Refused

and

appeal

dismissed

11.05.2016

3.11.2016

BDB/69787 Erection of a single storey rear extension Approved 30.01.2009

BDB/69089 Erection of a single storey side extension

following demolition of existing garage

Refused 26.08.2008

BDB/60880 Certificate of Lawfulness for the removal of

agricultural ties

Approved 23.06.2005

Assessment This application is a resubmission of a similar scheme which was submitted in 2015 for the erection of 2 x 2 storey dwellings on the same site. The application was determined under the previous local plan with the reason for refusal being ‘the net gain of one dwelling within the countryside, in an unsustainable and isolated location, for which there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify a departure from development plan policy’. Subsequently the decision was appealed and dismissed by the Planning Inspector on 03/11/2016 with reference made to the then newly adopted Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 (namely Policy SS6). The Inspector considered the main issue to be whether or not the proposal would result in an isolated form of development. The Inspector concluded that ‘the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be largely reliant on the use of the private car to access every day services. As such the proposals would not be well related to any existing settlement and would therefore result in an isolated form of development’. This is set out in further detail below. The appeal decision must be attributed significant weight when determining this application. There have been no significant material changes in policy of the circumstances at the site since the dismissed appeal. Principle of development Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan for the area is the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. At a national level, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) constitutes guidance, which the LPA must have regard to. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making, but is a material consideration in any subsequent determination. The site is located outside of an SPB within a part of the borough which is designated as countryside as per policy SS1 (Scale and distribution of new housing). The primary policy in terms of considering the principle of the proposed development is Policy SS6 (Housing in the Countryside). Policy SS6 states that development in the countryside will only be permitted if the site is on previously developed land; is part of a rural exception scheme; is for the re-use of an existing building; involves the replacement of an existing dwelling; is required to support an existing rural business; or is allocated by a Neighbourhood Plan. Policy SS6(a) relates to previously developed land and a recent court decision has confirmed that residential garden areas outside Settlement Policy Boundaries and within the countryside are previously developed land. Policy SS6 (a) states that development proposals for new housing outside of Settlement Policy Boundaries will only be permitted where they are on previously

developed land, provided that: i) They do not result in an isolated form of development; and ii) The site is not of high environmental value; and iii) The proposed use and scale of development is not appropriate to the site’s context. It is therefore key to assess whether the proposal would result in an isolated form of development or not. The adopted Local Plan provides a definition of isolated as: “in the context of new residential development in the countryside where there is a significant separation between the proposed dwelling and the nearest settlement. Additionally, a dwelling is considered to be isolated if it is not well served by public transport (e.g within 500m of a bus stop or train station) or well served by services and facilities (e.g. within 1km of an SPB, which generally contains facilities such as schools, post offices, doctors surgery, etc.).”The Local Plan defines a settlement as: “a settlement typically consists of a village, comprised of more than a group of houses, or farmstead, including at least one service or facility, such as a village hall, public house or school.” This particular site lies outside of any settlement boundary by 1.5km and is located within the countryside. Whilst there is a neighbouring dwelling adjoining the site to the east and the garden centre adjoining the site to the south, it is considered that this small cluster of built form does not form part of any larger collection of properties and therefore the proposed dwelling would be considered to be physically remote. In addition, the site does not have good accessibility to local amenities other than by the private car. When access to sustainable transport modes is considered, the site is regarded as 'not sustainable'. The closest location for local facilities and services would be Kingsclere, which is located approximately 1.5 km to the south of the site, along the A339. However, it is acknowledged that there are other provisions, including a pub and garage with a shop, located along this stretch of road before entering Kingsclere. Notwithstanding this provision, there are no footpaths or streetlights from the application site to the A339 or along the A339. Therefore, the ability to walk to these facilities, or even to cycle given the busy nature of the road, is unlikely. It is therefore considered that the proposal would result in an over reliance on the private car and would not comprise a sustainable form of development. Furthermore the comments of the Parish Council and neighbouring property in relation to the usability of public footpaths to walk to Kingsclere is noted and is not considered to be a practical alternative for pedestrians (as also supported by the Planning Inspector). The site is considered to lie in an isolated and unsustainable location (as defined by the Local Plan) which in excess of 1km from an SPB and though within 500m of a bus stop there is no suitable and safe route to access the bus stop for pedestrians. It is considered reasonable to recommend the application for a refusal on these grounds. This is consistent with the Inspectors findings who had concluded that:

- “there is no street lighting on the stretch of road between the appeal site and Kingsclere, and for the northern section of the route there is no pavement. Pedestrians would need to use grass verges alongside the road which vary in width and would not be conducive to walking, particularly in poor weather, after dark or for users of wheeled equipment such as pushchairs. Even on the southern section of the route, the pavement is only on the western side of the road, is narrow and runs directly alongside fast moving traffic”

- “Whilst it would be possible to use the existing FP75 public footpath as an alternative pedestrian route for part of the journey from the site south to Kingsclere… Having viewed the path, I am not satisfied that this cross-country route would provide a practical alternative for pedestrians at all times of the year”

- “There are two bus stops on the section of the A339 close to where the access track emerges which appear to be on the route of a regular service between Basingstoke and Newbury via the intervening settlements. I consider that the presence of a regular bus service within walking distance of the site would be a benefit to future occupiers of the proposed dwellings. I note, however, that access to the bus stops on the A339 would

require pedestrians to use the existing single width track which has no pavement and is also the only means of vehicular access to the garden centre. I am not convinced that this would provide a safe and suitable route for pedestrians”

- “The appellant submits that the presence of a bus stop within 500 m of the site means that the proposal would not fit with the definition of ‘isolated’ set out within the glossary of the adopted Local Plan. My reading of the glossary definition, however, is that isolation in this context is primarily described as ‘where there is a significant separation between the proposed dwelling and the nearest settlement’. Whilst it goes on to discuss proximity to public transport links, it also refers to proximity to services and facilities. It appears that the use of the definition requires a degree of judgement based on the particular circumstances of each case. In any event, the definition does not form a policy of the development plan and the proposal needs to be assessed on the Local Plan as a whole.”

As already stated above, in isolated locations, there are special circumstances where new isolated homes can be considered acceptable as an exception to the general policy of restraint (as set out within the Local Plan). The NPPF at paragraph 55 also sets out how special circumstances where development can be accepted in the countryside, however in this case it is considered that no such special circumstances exist. The proposed dwelling is not proposed for a rural worker, is not the reuse of a heritage asset or an existing building and the proposed design even as envisaged at this outline stage, is not of exceptional quality. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Paragraph 55 of the NPPF. As such, the proposed development is considered to be unacceptable in principle and this reason alone would warrant a refusal of the current application. Finally, the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to actively manage their housing land supply, for growth for 10 years and, where possible, for 15 years. The Borough is currently able to demonstrate that is has a sufficient 5 year housing land supply of 6.2 years (as at 1 April 2016). As such paragraph 49 of the NPPF, which states that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if a 5 year HLS cannot be demonstrated, is not engaged. Impact on the character of the area/ design The application site is situated in the countryside, in a relatively rural and verdant setting. The application site is located to the north of Kingsclere, on the western side of the A339, accessed via a track serving the property and adjoining neighbour, as well as an existing garden centre, 'Cottismore Nursery'. It should also be noted that the business park is located just off the A339 to the north east of the application site. However, whilst there is some existing built form within the locality, it is surrounded by agricultural fields to the north and west, which are large scale, expansive, and interspersed with woodland blocks. The character of the site is one of a rural nature, comprised of the remote location away from Kingsclere and any other settlements, and at the edge of the cluster of buildings it forms part of, adjacent to wide expansive areas of agricultural landscape. The existing bungalow on site is simple in form and low in height, with large areas of soft landscaped garden surrounding it and providing transition between the dwelling and the wider countryside. Matters of scale are for consideration at this outline stage, unlike the previous scheme under application 15/03144/OUT. Whilst the submitted plans are indicative in nature, it is considered that the proposal to demolish the existing bungalow and replace it with two properties with a maximum height of 5.9 m would have an adverse impact upon the character of the wider area. Each proposed dwelling is larger than the existing bungalow, and therefore it is considered that they would introduce an unacceptable cumulative amount of built form on to the site, in a manner which would appear cramped in this rural context. The indicative designs of the dwellings have been provided despite external appearance not being a matter for consideration. Notwithstanding this it is considered that the proposed new dwellings, by virtue of their scale, would have an adverse impact upon the character of the existing pattern of development in the area and the wider, rural and countryside location.

The Council's Landscape Officer has also objected to the proposals and considered that this proposal would have adverse impacts on the landscape character and visual amenity of this rural site as a result of issues typical of overdevelopment. The main views of the site are from the two public rights of way which run past and through the site, to the east and south. The Landscape Officer has considered that views from these footpaths would be negatively impacted upon as a result of this proposal, where views would alter from that of a low key bungalow set within the rural landscape, to two significantly larger and bulkier dwellings sitting in a cramped manner. It is unclear how these footpaths would be treated, in particular where they cross the individual site boundaries, and this would need to be clarified should the application be approved. It should be noted that the Draft Kingsclere Neighbourhood Plan K2 (mix of housing), supports a mix of dwelling types, citing that market homes should have a greater proportion of two and three bedroom units. The indicative drawings submitted show 2 x 2 bedroom bungalows, however the application is submitted in outline only and it is not possible to consider such detail as part of the application. Impact on neighbouring amenities The proposed new dwellings would be located to the west of one existing neighbouring property, 'Duke House' and would retain a distance of approximately 30m between the new dwellings, specifically plot 2 and the neighbour. The submitted plans are only indicative at this stage, but given this distance, it is considered likely that any development would be contained within the site and wouldn't have any significant or adverse impacts upon the amenities of the neighbour. In particular, it is considered that there would be no loss of outlook, although the view may change from the neighbouring property. There would be no significant loss of light to this neighbour. In addition, whilst the application is outline in nature, proposed elevations and floor plans of the proposed new dwellings have been submitted. It would appear that there would be no significant overlooking as a result of the proposed development, although this would be fully assessed at any reserved matters stage in the future. As such, no objections are raised in this regard. Highways and Parking No objection is raised in principle to the scheme in relation to highways and parking, subject to the submission of full details within any reserved matters application. The proposed development would utilise the existing access to the site. The application site is located in a 'rural' zone, as assessed within the Residential Parking Standards SPD, whereby a 2 or more bedroom dwelling would be expected to provide parking for 3-4 vehicles and secure cycle storage for 2 long and 1 short stay cycles. There would be a requirement for each dwelling to provide this necessary vehicle parking and cycle storage provision. This would be fully assessed at any reserved matters stage. As such, no objections are raised with regards to highways safety or parking. Environmental Health The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has assessed the current application and has raised no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to restrictions on construction and delivery hours. The EHO confirms that a site walkover by a member of the Environmental Health team and a review of the GIS system has not revealed any potential sources of contamination on or in close proximity to the application site, and considers that whilst the presence of contamination on a site can never be ruled out until a site investigation is undertaken, the likelihood of contamination being present on the application site is low. As such, conditions requiring contamination assessments are therefore not justified on this occasion. In the event that all other matters were considered to be acceptable, the suggested conditions would be considered reasonable to impose and therefore no objections are raised in this regard. Biodiversity The proposal is to demolish an existing bungalow and replace it with two new properties. The Biodiversity Officer has assessed the application and considered that there is minimal intervention

of the garden that might harm reptiles and amphibians and there are no species records that give cause for concern. In addition, the existing building dates from 1970, and is unlikely to fall within the criteria that would invoke a bat survey. However, the site is rural and adjacent to mature treelines that are likely to act as bat foraging and commuting routes, therefore a relevant informative has been recommended in the event that planning permission is granted. Trees The Council's Tree Officer has commented on the application and raised no objection, subject to an informative relating to the impact that construction may have on trees. Other matters The application site is located in an area close to public rights of way, Kingsclere Footpath no. 75 and Kingsclere Footpath no. 76. As such, the Countryside Access at Hampshire County Council has been consulted and have provided comments. Vehicular access to the new dwellings is proposed along Kingsclere Footpath no. 76 and there are no recorded public vehicular rights over this path. With regard to Footpath 76, the proposal does not make it clear what its relationship would be with the proposed new dwellings. It would be expected to see the footpath retained on its Definitive Line, and free of obstructions. This proposal is likely to increase vehicular use of Footpath 76, to the detriment of other users, however this increase is not likely to be substantial. Under s34 Road Traffic Act 1988 it is an offence to drive over a public footpath, bridleway or restricted byway without lawful authority. The applicant should therefore satisfy themselves firstly that they have this authority, either by owning the land over which the right of way runs, or alternatively having been granted permission by the landowner and secondly that this permission extends to any additional development. It is advised that should this application be granted permission, construction traffic will need to make use of the public right of way for access. This route should be kept open throughout the construction period, and an appropriate traffic management system be secured and implemented through condition. This could involve the erection of signs warning drivers of the presence of pedestrians and the need to give way, the implementation of a low-speed limit and the use of banksmen. Conclusion The proposed development is considered to be isolated, as confirmed by the recent appeal decision relating to this site. In addition, though the application has been submitted in outline, matters of scale are to be assessed within this application. The proposed development would have a negative impact on the landscape character of the site, with the increased built form of two larger, bulkier dwellings on site resulting in a cramped form of development in this rural context. Informative(s):- In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-

• considering the imposition of conditions. In this instance:

• the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit. In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

17/01473/OUT

Location Plan

17/01473/OUT

Proposed Site Plan

17/01473/OUT

Proposed Plot 1

17/01473/OUT

Proposed Plot 2

Cttee: 9 August 2017 Item No. 9

Application no: 17/02185/HSE

For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address 4 Ferguson Close Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 3JA

Proposal Erection of first floor rear extension

Registered: 22 June 2017 Expiry Date: 17 August 2017

Type of Application: Householder Permission

Case Officer: Sue Tarvit 01256 845241

Applicant: Mr R Hussey Agent: Mr Lawrence Nardi

Ward: Grove Ward Member(s): Cllr Stephen Day Cllr Ronald Hussey

Parish: OS Grid Reference: 463560 150713

Recommendation: It is RECOMMENDED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions listed at the end of the report.

Reasons for Approval 1 The proposed development would be of an appropriate design and relate to surrounding

development in a sympathetic manner and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029; and Appendix 13 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document.

2 The proposed development is appropriate in design terms and would neither dominate or

compete with the host building and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029; and Appendix 13 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document.

General comments This application is for consideration by the Development Control Committee because the applicant is a Borough Councillor. Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) Section 7 (Requiring good design) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy CN9 (Transport) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Extending Your Home and Replacement Dwellings (Appendix 13) of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2012 Residential Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2008

Description of Site Detached 4 bedroom property with integral single garage and parking for two vehicles on front driveway. Existing single storey pitch roof element to rear. Flat roof dormer to front elevation above garage area. Proposal Erection of first floor rear extension over part of existing single storey rear extension to enlarge existing bedroom and provide ensuite shower room. The extension would be 2.85m deep and 4.7m wide. The extension would have a fully hipped roof and would be set down 0.6m from the existing ridge line. Consultations None Public Observations One letter of objection:

Extension will be very intrusive and an eyesore

Extension will take over approximately half the width of the neighbours garden

Distance from neighbours conservatory wall to extension would only be 8.2m

View would be extensively restricted from house and garden

Application site and neighbouring properties were built staggered and extension would change this

Adverse impact upon house value Relevant Planning History None Assessment Impact on the character of the area/ design The proposed extension would be located to the rear of the property with only limited views possible from the surrounding area. There would therefore be no adverse impact on the character of the area. The proposed extension would be above an existing single storey element and would result in a first floor element set down from the main ridgeline and as such would appear subservient to the main dwelling. The proposed extension would have a hipped roof which while not in keeping with the existing gable design, would help reduce the bulk of the extension. Overall the proposed extension is considered to be in keeping with the dwelling and character of the area and would not appear overly dominant on the existing property, as such the proposal would comply with Policy EM10. Impact on neighbouring amenities The proposed rear extension would be set in 1.65m from the side northern boundary. At present the dwellings to the north (nos. 2 and 3 Ferguson Close) already have views into the side of the application dwelling. It is acknowledged that the proposed rear extension would increase the amount of solid wall that would be visible from the dwellings to the north, particularly no.2 Ferguson Close. However these properties have rear garden lengths of 10m which combined with the set back from the boundary is

considered to result in an acceptable, and not unusual building relationship. It is accepted that the view from the rear of the no. 2 Ferguson Close would change but there is no right to a view in planning. Whilst the outlook would change for the properties to the north this would not result in an unacceptable impact upon the neighbouring properties. The proposed first floor extension proposes one window to the rear, this is essentially the existing bedroom window and would not create any additional overlooking above that which currently exists. The property to the west is over 60m away and the closer proximity of this window to this property would not result in any overlooking due to this distance. There are currently no side windows proposed and in order to ensure no future overlooking a condition is recommended to restrict any new windows. Parking There would be no increase in the number of bedrooms and as such there would be no impact upon the existing parking requirements. Other matters The neighbour has raised objections on the basis of devaluation of their property but this is not a material planning consideration. Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following

approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:

Roof plan - 1:500 Drawing no. 2924.01

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the

date of this planning permission.

REASON: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

3 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development

hereby permitted shall match, in type, colour and texture those on the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no additional openings shall be inserted in the first floor side; elevations of the extension without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority on an application made for the purpose.

REASON: To protect the amenity and privacy of the occupiers of adjoining property in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

Informative(s):- 1.1 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be

complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated. 1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to

be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met.

1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of

up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £97 per request or £28 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

2 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-

considering the imposition of conditions.

In this instance:

the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required.

In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

Location Plan

Block Plan

Existing elevations

Proposed elevations

Floor Plans – Ground floor

Existing and Proposed

Floor Plans – First Floor

Existing Proposed