Cttee: 5 February Item No. 1 2020Case Officer: Jemma Cox 01256 845304 Applicant: Mrs Lizzie Banks...

Cttee: 5 February 2020

Item No. 1

Application no: 19/02068/FUL

For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Woodland Adjacent To Audleys Close Farleigh Road Cliddesden Hampshire

Proposal Change of use of land to forest school including the provision of associated parking

Registered: 30 July 2019 Expiry Date: 16 December 2019

Type of Application:

Full Planning Application

Case Officer: Jemma Cox 01256 845304

Applicant: Mrs Lizzie Banks Agent: Mr James Banks

Ward: Upton Grey And The Candovers

Ward Member(s): Cllr Mark Ruffell

Parish: CLIDDESDEN CP OS Grid Reference: 464139 150181

Recommendation: the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal 1 The proposed development would adversely harm the Audley’s Wood Site of

Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and would result in the deterioration of an irreplaceable habitat type due to the sites ancient woodland interest. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011 - 2029), and the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document 2018.

2 The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the woodland

trees on the site. Insufficient information has been submitted to adequately demonstrate otherwise and that the proposal would protect and safeguard trees. As such the proposed development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document 2018.

General Comments The application has been brought to Development Control Committee at the request of Cllr Ruffell for the following reasons: "I write in support of the application for a Forest School to be developed on woodland near Pensdell Farm and Audley Wood near Cliddesden. In my view, this proposal would have a very low adverse impact on the woodland. Indeed, the landowner could choose to walk over the site every day of the year and

http://planning.basingstoke.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=%5eND,KEYVAL.DCAPPL;

potentially disrupt the existing biodiversity to a far greater extent than this proposal envisages. Instead, this proposal, with its restriction to dedicated paths and its management and removal of invasive species can only enhance the biodiversity of the site. Furthermore, the site is close to the parish of Cliddesden whose residents have already piloted a scheme to promote biodiversity within the parish. Their awareness of the importance of biodiversity and their parish council's and residents' support for this application, in my view should be given weight, when considering this application. Most importantly, the school will enhance the awareness of biodiversity and the natural environment amongst children and adults in the Borough. This is entirely in keeping with the spirit of what we have been seeking to achieve with the Green Infrastructure Strategy and the plans to dedicate parts of the Borough as areas that champion biodiversity. Therefore, I urge you to balance the competing significant benefits and minimal harms and determine that the application should be approved. If you cannot recommend approval, then I would ask that this application is determined by the Development Control Committee, where members can hear the competing views from different experts and supporters of biodiversity." Planning Policy Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. The application site is located outside of any settlement policy boundary and is therefore located within a countryside location. The application site is located within Audley's Wood Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), which is designated for its ancient woodland interest. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019) Section 2 (Achieving Sustainable Development) Section 4 (Decision making) Section 6 (Building a strong, competitive economy) Section 8 (Promoting healthy and safe communities) Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport) Section 11 (Making effective use of land) Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) Section 15 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) Section 16 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Presumption on Favour of Sustainable Development) Policy CN9 (Transport)

Policy EM1 (Landscape) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy EM11 (The Historic Environment) Policy EM12 (Pollution) Policy EP4 (Rural Economy) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document (December 2018) Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018) Parking Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018) Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD (March 2018) Heritage Supplement Planning Document (March 2019) Other material planning documents The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) Forestry Commission and Natural England Guidance (standing advice) – Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees; Protecting them from development Description of Site The application site consists of an area of woodland, located to the north of Audley's Wood Hotel. The Settlement Policy Boundary for Basingstoke is located in close proximity, to the west of the application site beyond the M3. Proposal The application seeks planning permission for the change of use of the site to a forest school, including the provision of associated parking. The proposals do not include any operational development as the proposed parking area would be located on an existing area of hardstanding. The submitted Planning Statement states that the proposed forest school activities would comprise:

Walks around the woodland;

Presentations

Small group activities (adults and children) The proposal has been submitted by the Muddy Puddle Club, and their website explains that forest schools provide an opportunity for children to visit and learn in a woodland environment. Examples of the types of learning opportunities provided by a forest school (taken from Muddy Puddle Club website include:

Physical skills such as tree climbing, den building, running, balancing and fine motor skills such and whittling.

Social skills as a result of social interaction with others.

Intellectual skills as a result of working together. Amendments - In response to comments on the application, the following additional information was received: - Received 11th September 2019 - Letter from Agent detailing:

Acceptance of the Biodiversity Officer's comments on the application concluding that the development would be harmful.

Proposed hours of opening (previously excluded from the application) to be 10:00 - 17:30 hours Mon-Sun (inc bank holidays).

Clarification that the proposal would be for a maximum of 3no. 5 hour sessions per week, with a maximum of 12 sessions per calendar month.

Confirmation that the woodland is privately owned and that regular pheasant rearing activities, predator control and game shooting as well as family leisure pursuits and dog walking have occurred in the woodlands over the years.

Management Plan including:

Background information on the operations of 'Muddy Puddle Club' and 'Muddy Puddle Outdoor Learning'.

Environmental Impact Statement which outlines the possible impacts of the forest school operations and how they could be reduced and/or mitigated, including (but not limited to):

The collection and removal of wood from the woodland;

Burning wood;

Climbing of trees;

Digging;

Creating 'seats' out of tree trunks.

Rhododendron removal plan - Received 15th October 2019:

Photos of the existing condition of the site. - Received 12th November 2019 - Letter from Agent detailing:

The impact of the development on the economic, social and environmental objectives of the NPPF:

Economic; The landowner is not in a position to bring the proposed

Woodland Management Report into effect in the absence of any economic contribution from the site

The income from the operations of the forest school would help maintain a vital environmental resource

Social; Provides children with substantive exposure to nature and

wildlife.

Environmental; Invasive species (namely rhododendron) has eroded the

woodland floor. The proposed management plan would help alleviate this.

Footfall would be controlled to the existing hard rides.

Confirmation that the proposed hours of use of the site would not exceed 720 hours per year, with Permitted Development Rights permitting the use of the land for 672 hours per year.

Suggested conditions should planning permission be granted, including: discontinued use on or before 31 December 2025; submission of Forest Management Plan, restrictions on operations to not exceed 15 hours per week.

Preliminary Woodland Management Report, which included (but not limited to):

Confirmation that the woods are in poor silvicultural conditions and require considerable work to bring them to a satisfactory condition.

Gradual group felling of lesser quality trees and replanting.

Mowing of ride glades.

Veteran tree and deadwood management. Consultations Cliddesden Parish Council: "Cliddesden Parish Council appreciates the comments made by the Biodiversity Officer in protection of Ancient Woodland. It seems a cause for concern that an application for an educational facility appears unaware - at least according to the Planning Statement - that this is a site of Ancient Woodland, an irreplaceable habitat type and Site of Interest for Nature Conservation. However, the Parish Councillors are generally in favour of any means to help educate people in nature, conservation and rural land management. As such the Parish Council supports the comments made by Paul Beevers of Natural Basingstoke - 'There is a huge need to educate all ages and especially children about nature' - and also supports his request for conditions. Cliddesden Parish Council would not object to this application as it seems an alternative less sensitive site is not available. Should the case officer be minded to approve, the Parish Council requests that all possible measures be taken to comply with EM4 -'There will be no harm to locally designated sites including Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs).' 'There will be no loss or deterioration of a key habitat type, including irreplaceable habitats.' A Forest School would otherwise be counter productive." HCC Highways: No objection subject to conditions. Biodiversity: Objection. Trees: Objection. Historic Environment: No objection. Forestry Commission: Objection - refer to standing advice.

Natural England: "Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes". However, "Natural England advises that the proposals as presented have the potential to adversely affect woodland classified on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. Natural England refers you to our Standing Advice on ancient woodland". Public Observations Twenty two letters of support have been received which raise the following points:

The proposal would provide children with enrichment and learning in a natural environment.

Forest Schools, by nature seek to respect the environment and woodland ecological influence.

The management of forest schools run by the applicant in other locations respect the habitats and there is no doubt that would also be the case here.

Forest schools provide significant social benefits to children.

The application site is accessible.

The applicant has knowledge of how people can influence biodiversity and therefore would be an asset to the running of this site.

Forest schools help children grown with a better understanding and appreciation of the natural environment.

There is a shortfall in this kind of provision.

The existing woodland is in poor condition and requires intervention.

The Biodiversity Officer’s objections are not based on their own evidence and their conclusion is flawed. The woodland already has two non-native species so where is the officer’s evidence that ‘significant harm to biodiversity’ would occur.

Relevant Planning History None. Assessment Principle of Development

Local Plan Policy SD1 sets out that the council will take a positive approach to determining proposals that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development within the NPPF, working proactively with applicants to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. The policy also establishes that applications that are in accordance with the policies in the Local and where applicable, Neighbourhood Plan, will be approved without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Policy EP4 states that development in the countryside for economic use will be permitted where they:

a) Are on previously developed land; or b) Are for a change of use or conversion of a suitable permanent building; or c) Are for a replacement building that is not temporary in nature or for an extension to an existing building, provided that the proposal should not require substantial rebuilding, extension or alterations, and should not result in the requirement for another building to fulfil the function of the building being converted or replaced; or d) Enable the continuing sustainability or expansion of a business or enterprise, including development where it supports a farm diversification scheme and the main agricultural enterprise; or e) Are for a small-scale new business, provided it is not in an isolated location. All development proposals considered under Policy EP4 must be well designed and of a use and scale that is appropriate to the site and location when considering; f) Landscape, heritage and environmental impacts; g) The accessibility of the site h) The impacts on the local highway network including type of traffic generated, the appropriateness of rural roads and the impact on their character; and i)The need for residential accommodation on the site.

The submitted planning statement states that the proposed forest school would secure the future of the 'Muddy Puddle Club', which is reported to be reaching capacity. It is asserted by the applicant that although located within the countryside, the proposal would contribute to further diversification of the rural economy. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with part d) of Policy EP4. A detailed assessment of whether the proposal complies with the detailed criterion f)-i) is carried out later in the relevant sections of this report. Policy CN7 stipulates that development proposals will be permitted where they provide or improve essential facilities and services, and sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of communities. In additional to allowing, in principle, such proposals within the settlements, these facilities and services may, as an exception, be permitted adjacent to settlements where they will meet an identified local need. However, the proposal is for a forest school, which is not considered to be an essential facility or service, therefore Policy CN7 is not considered relevant to this application. Policy CN9 sets out that development should provide appropriate on-site parking and should not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. Policy EM1 states that development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned and must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected.

Policy EM4 establishes that proposals will only be permitted where significant harm to biodiversity can be avoided or adequately mitigated unless there is a demonstrated overriding public need. Policy EM10 states that proposals will be required to respect the local environment, contribute to the street scene, be visually attractive and provide adequate vehicular parking and cycle storage. Policy EM10 also requires developments to provide high levels of amenity for proposed occupants and neighbouring occupiers regarding privacy, amenity space and natural light. Policy EM12 establishes that development will only be permitted where it does not result in pollution which is detrimental to quality of life or poses unacceptable risk to health or the natural environment.

National Planning Policy The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policy for England and places sustainable development at the heart of the decision-taking process incorporating objectives for economic, social and environmental protection. These objectives seek to balance growth and local community needs against protection of the natural, built and historic environment. In having regard to the three objectives of sustainable development, the development site is located within close proximity to the Basingstoke Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB). In this regard, the application site is considered to be located in an accessible location. In addition, the proposals would, as a result of the expansion of an existing economic enterprise, benefit the local economy. Furthermore, forest schools do provide a foundation for educational benefits to society, through a better understanding of ecological wellbeing and practical survival skills. However, as discussed in detail within this report, there are significant concerns that the proposals would have adverse and detrimental environmental impacts which would demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. Impact on the character of the area/design The proposed development does not include any operation development, therefore there would be no physical or visual alterations to the character and appearance of the site. Whilst the proposed change of use of the site would result in a functional change, it is considered that the proposed use of the site would not result in any demonstrable impacts to the character of the wider area. The proposed development is therefore considered acceptable in terms of visual amenity and is in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 in this respect. Impact on designated heritage assets 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. This is reflected locally within Policy EM11 of the Local Plan. The site is close to and within the setting of Audleys Wood, a country house listed at Grade II, which is presently used as a hotel. It also lies close to the Grade I-listed Hackwood Park, an historic landscape which contains a listed mansion house and other important features. The proposal does not include any operational development: it is noted that the proposed parking is on an area of existing hardstanding and that no new paths are proposed. The Conservation Officer has confirmed that the proposed use would not cause harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, and it is considered that the setting of the listed building would be preserved. Whilst any new infrastructure (such as buildings, additional/replacement parking) or diversification could impact on the significance of the listed building, this would be the matter of a separate application for consideration. The proposed development is therefore not considered to result in harm to the setting of the listed building and its significance would therefore be preserved. As such, the proposed development complies with Policy EM11 of the Local Plan and the NPPF. Impact on neighbouring amenities The application site is located at a sufficient distance to neighbouring dwellings and business so as to not give rise to demonstrable harm on neighbouring amenity. Highway Impacts Access to the site is from Farleigh Road, along an existing track. This track serves Pensdall Farm and the other associated businesses along the track. On this basis, the Highways Officer considered that visibility is acceptable. In accordance with the Parking SPD, educational establishments should provide at least 1.5 spaces per 3 members of staff. In accordance with the submitted application form, the proposed forest school would operate with 2 full time members of staff. The proposed plans illustrate 10no. parking spaces are to be provided. Therefore, the proposal would have adequate parking provision. On this basis, it is considered that the proposal would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety. As such the proposal complies Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. Biodiversity Policy EM4 states:

"1. Development proposals will only be permitted if significant harm to biodiversity and/ or geodiversity resulting from a development can be avoided or, if that is not possible, adequately mitigated and where it can be clearly demonstrated that:

a) There will be no adverse impact on the conservation status of key species; and b) There will be no adverse impact on the integrity of designated and proposed European designated sites; and c) There will be no harm to nationally designated sites; and d) There will be no harm to locally designated sites including Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs); and e) There will be no loss or deterioration of a key habitat type, including irreplaceable habitats; and f) There will be no harm to the integrity of linkages between designated sites and key habitats.

The weight given to the protection of nature conservation interests will depend on the national or local significance and any designation or protection applying to the site, habitat or species concerned. 2. Where development proposals do not comply with the above they will only be permitted if it has been clearly demonstrated that there is an overriding public need for the proposal which outweighs the need to safeguard biodiversity and/ or geodiversity and there is no satisfactory alternative with less or no harmful impacts. In such cases, as a last resort, compensatory measures will be secured to ensure no net loss of biodiversity and, where possible, provide a net gain."

The application site is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and is also classified as ancient woodland. Some of the most important sites in the county are already protected by national or international designations such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). However, a large number of other sites in Hampshire are also important for wildlife. Many contain habitats or features that cannot be recreated. To help safeguard these sites for the future, they are identified and recorded as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), also known as Local Sites or Local Wildlife Sites. Together with designated sites such as SSSIs, SINCs form a vital component of the biodiversity of Hampshire. A site may qualify as a SINC due to the presence of an important habitat or notable listed species, many of which are Priority Habitats and Species under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006. A site may also qualify if it supports a rich assemblage of species. Natural England and the Forestry Commission's standing advice on 'Ancient Woodland' states the following:

"Ancient woodland takes hundreds of years to establish and is defined as an irreplaceable habitat. It’s important for its:

wildlife (which include rare and threatened species)

soils

recreational value

cultural, historical and landscape value It's any area that's been wooded continuously since at least 1600 AD. It includes:

ancient semi-natural woodland mainly made up of trees and shrubs native to the site, usually arising from natural regeneration

plantations on ancient woodland sites - replanted with conifer or broadleaved trees that retain ancient woodland features, such as undisturbed soil, ground flora and fungi."

Ancient Woodland is afforded protection in the NPPF (2019) at paragraph 175c) which states:

"c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists…"

The footnotes to the NPPF explain that 'wholly exception reasons include "for example, infrastructure projects (including nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the Transport and Works Act and hybrid bills), where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat". In consultation with the Biodiversity Officer, it is considered that the proposed operational activities associated with the change of use of the site to a forest school, would lead to the harm and deterioration of the SINC and ancient woodland as a result of increased footfall and the forest school activities. This increase in footfall would result in a compaction of the soil and would cause damage to the ground flora and shrub layer of the ancient woodland as well as cause other general wildlife disturbance. Upon reviewing the Muddy Puddle Club website, it is clear that a typical session at a forest school includes tree painting, making mud castles, climbing, building, making sculptures and big hunting. Campfire cooking is also noted on their website. The application has been accompanied by a Management Plan which includes a mitigation strategy in the way of new planting, in order to offset this harm. However, this, by its own admission, confirms that the proposals would deteriorate the ancient woodland (an irreplaceable habitat), which, in accordance with the NPPF, should be avoided unless there are 'wholly exceptional reasons'. As specified by footnote 58 of the NPPF, 'wholly exceptional reasons' include nationally significance infrastructure projects, where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of the habitat. The proposed development is not considered to a wholly exceptional reason and therefore the proposal would be contrary to the NPPF. The Planning Practice Guidance provides additional advice on how local planning authorities can assess the potential impact of development proposal on ancient woodland. Within paragraph 003 (reference ID: 8-003-20190721 revision date 21/01/2019), it is explained that "when assessing whether 'wholly exceptional

reasons' exist that may justify a loss or deterioration of ancient woodland, ancient trees or veteran trees, it will not be appropriate to take any compensation measures into account. These should be considered only once the existence of 'wholly exceptional circumstances' has been ascertained." Therefore, in the instance that the proposed development is not considered to be a 'wholly exceptional reason', compensatory measures to mitigate or off set the identified harm (deterioration of an irreplaceable habitat) need not be considered. It is not disputed that a Forest School is a facility or service which is valued by the community. However, little information or evidence has been presented to suggest that there are no alternative sites available to the applicant which are located in less ecologically sensitive locations. Therefore, in accordance with Policy EM4 it considered that it has not been adequately demonstrated that the harm to biodiversity can be avoided. Although some mitigation has been proposed, in the form of a Woodland Management Plan, Policy EM4 is clear in that only in cases where it has been clearly demonstrated that there is no satisfactory alternative with less or harmful impacts, should compensatory measures be secured. This is also stipulated within the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD (section 5.53). This approach is consistent with Natural England and the Forestry Commissions Standing Advice, which states: "you should not consider proposed compensation measures as part of your assessment of the merits of the development proposal." The standing advice also advocates a similar, avoid, mitigate, compensate (as a last resort) hierarchy when considering applications which rick deteriorating ancient woodland, an irreplaceable habitat. The submitted Woodland Management Plan also provides details on how the forest school would be managed, in order to minimise the deterioration of the irreplaceable habitat. For example, it is suggested that the existing hard ‘rides’ would facilitate the majority of the footfall, however it is anticipated that activities would take place beyond these areas. This particular aspect would also be difficult to monitor and enforce, in the event that planning permission was granted. It is also argued that the current condition of the ancient woodland is poor, as a result of poor woodland management over the years. It is asserted that the proposed Woodland Management Plan would improve its condition, and therefore ecological value. However, in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (para 003 reference ID: 8-033-20190721) and the standing advice produced by Natural England and the Forestry Commission, "the existing condition of ancient woodland is not something that ought to affect the LPA's considerations of proposals". It is further argued by the Applicant that the implementation of the proposed Woodland Management Plan, designed to improve the current condition of the woodland, as well as mitigate against the impacts resulting from the proposed forest school, is dependent on the site generating an economical contribution, such as through the operations of a forest school. It is not disputed that woodland management operations are expensive, however, as the existing condition of ancient woodlands should not be taken into account in the decision making process, it is considered that it would not be in the best interests of biodiversity to approve the application to enable better woodland management, where the development is

considered to deteriorate an irreplaceable habitat in its own right. Whilst it should be borne in mind that woodland condition can usually be improved with good management, which is the intention of the proposed Woodland Management Plan, it is not considered that this is something that ought to be secured as a result of historically poor woodland management, where the proposed development would cause harm to the ecological interest of the site itself. The submission also advocates that the proposals would enable the removal of rhododendron, which is currently suppressing parts of the forest floor. However, rhododendron is an invasive, non-native plant listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, where there is already a legal obligation on the landowner to not cause it to grow in the wild. Whilst this is covered by separate legislation, it is not considered that mitigation in the way of rhododendron removal, where there is already an obligation for it not to be allowed to grow in the wild, off-sets the identified harm to the ancient woodland, an irreplaceable habitat. Supporting information also argues that the harm to biodiversity, as a result of the use of the site as a forest school, would not be significantly over that permitted by the General Permitted Development Order. Under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO), there is a permissible, temporary use of land for any purpose (other than the holding of a market or motor car and motorcycle racing) for not more than 28 days in any calendar year (Class B of Part 4 of Schedule 2). On this basis, the Applicant has calculated that under permitted development, providing that the proposed use operated from the site for 24 hours a day for the full 28 days of the calendar year, the use of the site for a forest school use could amount to a total of 672 hours in a year. In line with the proposed operational hours of the site (15 hours per week) the proposed forest school would be in operation for no more than 720 hours per year. It is therefore argued by the Applicant that the proposed development would not adversely impact on biodiversity to an extent significantly over that permissible under permitted development. In consideration of this, it should be noted that this is not an application under section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to establish whether or not the use of the site for the described activities fall within permitted development or not. The application has been presented to the LPA for consideration, and the application does need to be considered on its own merits. Whilst a permitted development 'fallback position' can be considered to be material in the consideration of development proposals, it is considered that the suggested fallback position is unrealistic, in that the forest school would be unlikely to operate for 24 hours a day and this is therefore given limited weight. Nevertheless, as advised by the Biodiversity Officer, the proposed use of the site would result in the deterioration of an ancient woodland, an irreplaceable habitat, contrary to Policy EM4 of the Local Plan, the NPPF and the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD. The application is therefore recommended for refusal in this regard.

Trees Policy EM1 of the Local Plan requires that development proposals must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected, paying particular regard to b) the visual amenity and scenic quality and e) trees, ancient woodland and hedgerows. Principle T1 of the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees supplementary Planning Document states: "Where there are trees on or within falling distance of a site, a tree survey shall be carried out by an arboriculturist in accordance with the British Standard 5837." No such information has been submitted to support this application in this respect. In the absence of any arboricultural detailing, the Tree Officer has raised an objection to the proposed development. Whilst is it acknowledged that the proposal does not include any physical construction works, it is noted, as also advocated by the Biodiversity Officer, the use of the site would degrade and damage the woodland. In the absence of any information to prove to the contrary, it is therefore considered that the proposal would cause adverse impact on the woodland and no suitable mitigation is provided which might off set this harm. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy EM1 of the Local Plan, the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD and the NPPF. Community Infrastructure Levy Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable. From these forms, it would appear that the development would not CIL liable since there would be no increase in floorspace. Planning Balance and Conclusion The principle for allowing economic uses within countryside locations is allowed for within the development plan, as per Policy EP4 of the Local Plan. However, in this instance, the application does not accord with the detailed criteria therein as the proposal is not considered appropriate given the environmental impacts of the development (criterion f). This is set out in detail above. It is acknowledged that there is local support for the proposals and that the proposed development would bring about some degree of economic and social benefits. However, the proposals would adversely harm the Audley's Wood Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and would result in the deterioration of an irreplaceable habitat type due to the site ancient woodland interest. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011 - 2029), and the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document 2018. This harm would not be outweighed by the potential benefits of the proposals. The proposed development is therefore not considered to represent sustainable

development, in accordance with the NPPF and is therefore recommended for refusal. Informatives

1 In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and creative 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 and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement (in accordance with paragraphs 54-57).

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.

Location Plan

Proposed Block Plan 3

Proposed Block Plan


Item No. 2



Site Address 17 West Street Tadley Hampshire RG26 3ST

Proposal Change of use of existing garage to 1 bed dwelling

Registered: 17 October 2019 Expiry Date: 10 February 2019




Applicant: Mr J Long Agent: Mr K Seeley

Ward: Tadley South Ward Member(s): Cllr David Leeks Cllr Kerri Carruthers

Parish: TADLEY CP OS Grid Reference: 460636 161878

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 on land within the Settlement Policy Boundary and within a residential area. The proposal therefore accords with Policies SD1 and SS1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019).

2. The proposed development would be of an acceptable design and would not

adversely impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding development and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018).

3. 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 the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018).

4. The development would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety and

adequate parking would be provided to serve the proposed development and existing dwellings and as such the proposal complies with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Parking Supplementary Planning Document (2018).


5. The Local Planning Authority has been provided with the assurance that the additional population from the proposed 1 bedroom dwelling could be accommodated within West Berkshire Council’s existing off site emergency planning arrangements. Therefore the development complies with Policy SS7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

General Comments The application is brought to Development Control Committee in line with the scheme of delegation, in line with the Officers recommendation for approval and the number of objections received. Planning Policy Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 which locates the application site within the Settlement Policy Boundary for Tadley. The application site is located within the Detailed Emergency Planning Zone (DEPZ) of the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE). National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019) Section 2 (Achieving Sustainable Development) Section 4 (Decision making) Section 5 (Delivering a sufficient supply of homes) Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport) Section 11 (Making effective use of land) Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) Section 14 (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change) Section 15 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Presumption on Favour of Sustainable Development) Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing) Policy SS7 (Nuclear Installations - Aldermaston and Burghfield) Policy CN1 (Affordable Housing) 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 EM12 (Pollution)

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD (2018) Design and Sustainability SPD (2018): Section 7 - Cycle storage and vehicle parking Section 8 - High quality buildings Section 9 - Materials and detailing Section 10 - Residential amenity Appendix 3 - Storage and collection of waste and recycling Parking SPD (2018) Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD (2018) Other material planning documents The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) The Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001 Description of Site The application site is located on the south side of West Street, situated behind 17 West Street and The Annexe, 17 West Street. Vehicular access is also shared with a veterinary surgery which fronts onto West Street, which is within the applicants ownership and 17 ‘The Annexe’. The application site comprises a triple garage, which was approved under application reference BDB/68170. The side and rear boundaries of the site are enclosed by close boarded fencing. There is an Oak tree on the southern boundary, which is subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Proposal The application seeks planning permission for the conversion of the existing garage structure to a 1 bedroom dwelling. A new private amenity space would also be constructed to serve the dwelling, to the west of the exiting building. Access to the site would be via the existing access arrangements. Amended Plans – removal of the originally proposed extension to the garage. Consultations HCC Highways: No objection. Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions. Tadley Town Council: "Strongly object. Overdevelopment of the site. Concerned about the loss of a garage and an increase in parking on West Street." West Berkshire Emergency Planners: No objection.

HCC Emergency Planners: No objection. ONR: "ONR does not advise against this development." Joint Waste Client Team: No objection. Trees: Objection. Public Observations Six letters of objections were received raising the following concerns:

The proposed dwelling would increase traffic along West Street and would therefore have adverse implications for pedestrian safety, especially as West Street has no street lighting.

Visibility at the vehicular entrance is poor which would further implicate pedestrian safety.

The proposal has inadequate levels of parking provision and more cars parked along West Street would also be a safety issue.

The windows in the rear of the proposal would result in overlooking to neighbours.

The conversion of the garage would also result in the loss of existing parking provision, making parking issues worse.

The development would not be in keeping with the rest of West Street.

The development would increase noise and disturbance, impacting on neighbouring amenity.

The development would be overdevelopment of the site.

The previous reasons for refusal for this development still stand.

Concerns that the proposed office would result in commercial activity. Two letters of support were received:

The proposed dwelling will attract potential employees to the area.

The application adherers to the relevant planning policies and the building would be better served as a dwelling.

There would not be adverse impacts on the highway as there would be adequate parking for the proposed and existing dwellings.

There is a need for smaller homes as proposed within Tadley. Relevant Planning History BDB/28514 (no.17)

Single storey extension forming new entrance, conservatory and self-contained annexe for family use

Granted 10/04/90

BDB/68170 (application site)

Erection of a detached triple garage with ancillary living accommodation at first floor following demolition of existing garage.

Refused 14/04/08


Erection of a detached triple garage

Granted 02/07/08


Change of use of existing residential garage to one bedroom bungalow, associated parking and amenity space

Refused 13/02/12

BDB/75942 (property adj. no. 17)

Application for Certificate of Lawfulness for use of the annexe (tied to the main house (17 West Street) by condition 2 of application BDB/28514) as a separate unit of accommodation

Granted 19/04/12


Change of use of existing residential garage to one bedroom bungalow, associated parking and amenity space

Refused 01/08/13

14/01708/HSE (no.17)

Erection of single storey side extension

Granted 06/08/14

15/04366/RET (no.17 and application site)

Partial change of use of land to residential and erection of garden shed (retrospective)

Granted 05/02/16

17/03532/HSE (no.17)

Erection of part two storey and part single storey side extension, new front entrance and porch

Granted 11/12/17

The most recent planning application for a dwelling on this site was refused in 2013 under application reference BDB/77653 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by virtue of its siting and layout, including close proximity to boundaries and limited space about the building would be uncharacteristic of nearby properties and the character of the surrounding area. The development is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Statement (March 2012) and Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

2. The proposed bungalow would benefit from limited space about the building

and by virtue of its close proximity to the boundary treatments and its location in relation to the parking and turning for surrounding uses would fail to provide a level of amenity which future occupiers of the building could reasonably expect to enjoy. The development is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Statement (March 2012) and Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

3. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed development

would provide adequate motor vehicle parking and provision for vehicle manoeuvring, turning, loading and unloading of vehicles. The proposed development would therefore be likely to encourage the parking, manoeuvring

and turning of vehicles on the public highway, which would interrupt the free flow of traffic and thereby add to the hazards of road users at this location and potentially endanger, inconvenience, obstruct and cause undue interference with the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway. As such the proposed development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policies E1 and A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

It is noted that since the previous application was refused, the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 has been adopted. In addition, the Council has published a new Parking SPD (2018) and Design and Sustainability SPD (2018). Furthermore, the National Planning Policy Framework has also been revised since the determination of the previous application (updated in 2018 and again in 2019). Assessment Housing Land Supply The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to identify a five year supply of specific deliverable sites to meet housing needs. In addition, and in line with the Housing Delivery Test published in February 2019, a 20% buffer should be added to the borough's supply. At the current time the council is unable to demonstrate that it has 5 years' worth of deliverable sites. This means that policies relating to housing delivery in the borough's adopted Local Plan and made Neighbourhood Plans are currently considered to be out of date. Planning applications will therefore be considered in line with paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF which states that where relevant policies are considered out of date permission will be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. 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 Local Planning Authority (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.

Local Plan The development site is located within the Settlement Policy Boundary for Tadley as established by Policy SS1. This policy supports the principle of housing development which contributes towards social, economic and environmental wellbeing as well as

the requirement to provide 15,300 dwellings and associated infrastructure over the plan period.

NPPF The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policy for England and places sustainable development at the heart of the decision-taking process incorporating objectives for economic, social and environmental protection. These objectives seek to balance growth and local community needs against protection of the natural, built and historic environment. In having regard to the three objectives of sustainable development, the development site is located within an area of Tadley which benefits from established public transport and community facilities. It is acknowledged that the site would not provide any form of long term economic development, however there would be economic benefits generated through the construction period with spin offs from wage spending of construction workers and supplier sourcing and following this, consumer spending on goods and services by the occupants of the dwelling within the local economy. The social aspect of sustainable development would be met through the contribution made to the housing stock, albeit that one additional dwelling would only be a small contribution. With regard to the environmental objective of this development, the proposals could reasonably be expected to demonstrate a degree of inherent sustainability through compliance with Council supported energy efficiency and Building Regulations standards. There would also be an ability to impose conditions securing biodiversity enhancements to the site, as well as new/additional landscaping and whether these are reasonable will be considered in the assessment below understand the relevant section. As such, the principles of the development therefore generally accord with the guidance set out within the NPPF for sustainable development.

Principle of development summary The weight afforded to Local Plan Policy SS1 is reduced in light of the Council's inability to demonstrate 5 years' worth of deliverable sites triggered by paragraph 73 of the NPPF. Notwithstanding this however, the principle of development has been found to accord with these policies and with the guidance set out within the NPPF. A detailed assessment of the other pertinent matters, having regard to other relevant policies of the Local Plan is set out below. Public Safety and Emergency Planning - AWE Aldermaston Policy SS7 of the Local Plan requires that development in the land use planning consultation zones (DEPZ) surrounding AWE Aldermaston be managed in the interests of public safety. The policy stipulates the development will only permitted where the Off Site Nuclear Emergency Plan can accommodate the needs of the population in the event of an emergency. The production of the Off Site Plan is a

statutory requirement of the Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Public Information Regulations 2001 and sets out the contingency arrangements for a multi-agency response should a radiation emergency occur at AWE and pose a hazard to the public outside the site boundary. The NPPF additionally stipulates that decision-taking processes should promote public safety and minimise impacts upon human health, and in particular ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The site is located within the DEPZ area of AWE Aldermaston positioned approximately 1347m from the AWE site boundary and is located in Sector G. The location of the site has triggered consultation with the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) Directorate who have, in consultation with the emergency planners at West Berkshire Council, 'not advised against' the development. In this case, the emergency planners at West Berkshire Council and Hampshire County Council consider that due to the sites distance to the AWE boundary, along with the fact that the site is outside the 5mSv area, the site would be less likely to be subject to urgent evacuation in the event of an emergency. Overall, the Local Planning Authority has been provided with assurance that the additional population from the proposed 1 bedroom dwelling could be accommodated within West Berkshire Council's existing off site emergency planning arrangements. Therefore the development complies with Policy SS7 of the Local Plan. 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 more recent guidance contained within paragraph 63 of the NPPF, which sets out that the "provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential development that are not major development, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a low threshold of 5 units or fewer)". The NPPF provides a definition for major development within the glossary at Annex 2. This states that in regards to residential development, major development is "where 10 or more homes will be provided, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares or more." The application site measures 0.05ha so falls below the major threshold in this regard. The proposed development is also for 1 dwelling and consequently also falls below the 10 unit threshold in this regard. As the NPPF is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, this recent guidance is afforded significant weight and the requirements set out in Policy CN1 in this regard are therefore considered to be out of date. Consequently in this instance, as the proposals do not constitute 'major development', as per the NPPF definition, it is not necessary in accordance with the NPPF, for affordable housing provision to be sought in relation to this development.

Impact on the character of the area/design Policy EM1 states that development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned and must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected. Policy EM10 states that proposals will be required to respect the local environment, contribute to the street scene and be visually attractive. EM10 also seeks high quality development across the borough, based upon a robust design-led process and a clear understanding of the local identity and context of development to create successful, inviting places where people want to live, work and enjoy themselves. Externally, alterations to the existing building consist of the removal of the garage doors and insertion of windows and doors. The existing roof lights would be retained, albeit they did not form part of the original garage consent in 2008. The area to the front of the garage which is currently laid to hardstanding would be altered to create private amenity space and would be laid to grass. It is considered that the physical and visual appearance of the building would not give rise to demonstrable harm to the character of the wider area. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed dwelling’s design is of acceptable proportions when compared to the size of the plot. In this regard, it is concluded that the design of the resultant dwelling would be of a size and scale not disproportionate to the site or its surroundings. It is recognised that the proposal would not be in-keeping with the building line of properties along West Street which is predominantly linear with regards to the location of dwellings. The siting of the proposed dwelling to the rear of existing dwellings would therefore be out-of-keeping with the established pattern and character of the surrounding development given its back-land position. Furthermore, the proposal would be contrary to the grain of the existing development and would not integrate with the spacing and character of surrounding properties. It is therefore considered that the development would present some harm to the character and appearance of the area in this regard. However, it is acknowledged that the proposal consists of the conversion of an existing structure, and in terms of physical built form, would not result in any significant impact on the pattern of existing development. In addition to that, the development would be well screened from any public vantage points. As such, on balance, it is considered that the harm that would be generated to the character of the area would not be at a level that would result in significant or demonstrable harm to the public domain as to warrant refusal of the proposed development. Therefore, the development accords with the NPPF and Policy EM10 of the Local Plan. In acknowledging that there would be some harm to the character of the wider area, in terms of the plan form and layout of the development, this harm is weighed against the benefits of the proposal in the 'Conclusion and Planning Balance' section of this report.

Impact on neighbouring amenities Policy EM10 requires developments to provide high levels of amenity for proposed occupants and neighbouring occupiers regarding privacy, amenity space and natural light. This is supported by guidance set out within the Design and Sustainability SPD (Section 10) which establishes appropriate amounts of amenity space, privacy, natural light and outlook.

Amenities of existing properties

The proposal does not involve the extension of the existing garage. Therefore, the proposal would not result in any overbearing impacts or result in any overshadowing or loss of light to neighbouring dwellings. In terms of physical built form, the structure would remain as per the existing situation. The proposed development, would include the insertion of 2no. windows within the eastern elevation, in close proximity to the boundary shared with 15a West Street. However, given that these would be a ground floor level, the existing intervening boundary treatment (which is to be retained) would go some way towards mitigating against these. Furthermore, the proposed windows would serve bathroom areas. It is therefore considered reasonable that these windows are conditioned to be fitted and retained with obscure glazing, to prevent the perception of overlooking, in the interests of neighbouring amenity (see condition 12). Overall, and subject to suitable conditions, the proposal would not result in any detrimental or adverse impacts upon the neighbouring amenities and is considered acceptable in this respect.

Amenities for the proposed dwelling Section 10 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2018 sets out that:

- New housing development should provide a suitable outlook and level of natural light for both new and neighbouring dwellings

- Dwellings should have sufficient daylight to allow the comfortable use of habitable rooms including living rooms, dining rooms, bedrooms and kitchens

- Residents should also be able to enjoy an outlook of good quality from these rooms and spaces without adjacent buildings being overbearing.

The positioning of openings within the proposed dwelling would result in satisfactory amenity levels for the proposed future occupiers of the dwellings. This is due to the provision of habitable room windows for adequate natural light and outlook in line with Section 10. In terms of private amenity spaces, key design principle RA2 requires that 1 bedroom dwellings have a minimum garden size of 50 square metres. The proposed amenity space, as illustrated on the proposed site plan, would measure approximately 135 square metres. Furthermore, key design principle RA3 requires that each dwelling has a minimum garden depth of 10m. the proposed garden area

measures 10m in depth. Therefore, the overall size of the proposed private amenity space accords with the Design and Sustainability SPD. Although, in the most recent application (BDB/77653) the proposed plot size of the building was considered to be small in comparison to surrounding dwellings and limited amenity space or space around the dwelling was provided in comparison to the character of the surrounding plots, it is noted that since the refusal of the previous application, the Design and Sustainability SPD (2018) has been adopted. As outlined above, the overall size of the proposed amenity space, accords with the requirements set out within the SPD. However, it is noted that the proposed amenity space would be located within proximity to a parking and turning area, serving nearby properties and the nearby vets. Previously, this, along with the proximity of surrounding boundary treatments, was considered to result in a situation that would fail to provide a level of amenity which future occupiers of the building could reasonably expect to enjoy. However, the current application differs from the previous one in that previously, the only window serving the bedroom would have faced in close proximity to the side boundary fencing. However, due to internal alterations, the bedroom would now be served by a side window, patio doors (facing west - looking over the proposed amenity space) and a roof light. Overall, it is considered that the amended scheme would have openings within the proposed dwelling that would result in satisfactory amenity levels for the proposed future occupiers of the dwelling. Whilst the proposed layout of the site, along with the overall size of the amenity space would not be characteristic of the area, it is considered that as the level of amenity proposed would accord with the Design and Sustainability SPD, the proposal would result in satisfactory levels of amenity for future occupiers. The proposed development therefore complies with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Local Plan, the Design and Sustainability SPD and the NPPF. Highway Impacts Policy CN9 sets out that development should provide appropriate on-site parking and should not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety.

Parking and access The proposed 1 bedroom dwelling would generate a parking demand of 1 space as the site lies within an ‘outer urban’ location for the purposes of the Parking Supplementary Planning Document (2018). The proposed site plan illustrates sufficient areas for the parking of at least the required 1 vehicles which is therefore considered acceptable. In accordance with the residential parking standards, parking spaces should measure at least 3m wide (where confined by walls, fences or landscaping) and 5.2m in length. The proposed parking space, as illustrated on the proposed site plan, would accord with these dimensions, measuring 5.5m in length and 3.9m in width.

In order to prevent future overspill of parking onto the adjoining highways or adjacent public rights of way and footpaths, it is considered reasonable to secure the retention of the parking space by way of condition (see condition 4). In terms of manoeuvrability, it is considered reasonable that cars could be turned around within the vet’s car park (which is the existing situation) enabling cars to exit the site in a forward gear. Furthermore, as confirmed by the Highways Officer, it is considered that the potential traffic generation from the development proposal would not have a severe detrimental impact on the operation and safety of the local highway network. The exiting vehicular access from West Street, serving 17 West Street, 17 The Annexe and the vets is to be used. Although the Highways Officer considers that visibility on the traffic side is poor as a result of the siting of nearby buildings, due to the limited increase in traffic generation, the existing visibility is considered acceptable. Concerns have been raised that the proposed parking space would obstruct the vehicular access to No 17 'The Annexe' (situated immediately north of the site along the rear boundary of the 17 ‘The Annexe’). However, this land falls solely with the ownership of the applicant. It is noted that the occupiers of No 17 the Annexe may have a right of way over this access. However, the parking of vehicles within this area is the existing situation, as observed at the time of the officer site visit. Therefore, the proposal would not adversely obstruct the access to no 17 'The Annexe' over and above the existing situation to substantiate a reason for refusal in this regard. A plan was also submitted which illustrates that 17 West Street has 2no. spaces within the curtilage of the property, with a further 2no. spaces located to the rear of the parking area for the vets. Furthermore, it has been advised that the owners of 17 West Street also have the right to park in two spaces within the vets’ car park. Therefore, despite the proposal resulting in the loss of the existing garage, the existing dwelling (17 West Street) would be left with sufficient levels of parking provision, in accordance with the Parking SPD. The Highways Officer raised no objections to the proposal. Overall, the proposal is considered to result in adequate levels of parking provision for existing and proposed dwellings and would therefore not result in adverse impacts to highway safety, in accordance with Polices EM10 and CN9 of the Local Plan and the Parking SPD.

Cycle Storage In accordance with the Parking SPD, a dwelling of this size should provide for the long term storage of at least 1no. cycle. The proposals include the provision of a small cycle storage structure within the amenity space of the proposed dwelling, which is of a sufficient size to meet these storage requirements. It is therefore considered there would be adequate storage space, in accordance with the Parking SPD.

Waste Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council operates a kerbside waste collection service. This is operated via wheeled containers which must be left adjacent to the nearest adopted highway for collection on the specified waste collection. The proposed development will be required to leave wheeled containers on West Street for collection on the specified collection day and removed from the highway and returned back to the property as soon as possible following collection. In accordance with Appendix 3 of the Design and Sustainability SPD, the proposal should be provided with space for the storage of 1no. 240 litre waste bin, 1no. 240 litre recycling bin and 1no recycling container for glass. Adequate storage space has been marked out on the proposed site plan. However, in accordance with Appendix 3, residents should not have to wheel their bins or containers a distance greater than 15m to the edge of the property or collection point ready for collection. The proposed dwelling would be sited over 15m from West Street therefore, the development would not be in accordance with Appendix 3 of the Design and Sustainability SPD in this respect. However, it is considered that refusal on this basis would be difficult to substantiate. Overall, the proposed development is therefore considered acceptable in highways safety respects, in compliance with Polices CN9 and EM10 of the Local Plan. Biodiversity 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 and to the impact of the development upon sites designated for their ecological interest. These requirements are also reflected within the NPPF (paragraph 175) and Policy EM4 of the Local Plan. Policy EM4 establishes that proposals will only be permitted where significant harm to biodiversity can be avoided or adequately mitigated unless there is a demonstrated overriding public need. In this instance, it would appear that the existing structure has negligible potential for bats. Moreover given that the site is located in a built up area, it is considered that there is not likely to be any ecological constraints to the proposed development. The Biodiversity Officer has also confirmed no objections to the proposal. Trees Policy EM1 of the Local Plan requires that development proposals must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected, paying particular regard to b) the visual amenity and scenic quality and e) trees, ancient woodland and hedgerows.

The proposed development would be in close proximity to a maturing oak tree which is protected under a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The tree makes an important contribution in the landscape and, based on information available, appears to be in good health. Concerns were initially raised by the Tree Officer that the extension to the building would encroach into the tree's root protection area (RPA). However, amended plans have been received which have removed the extension to the existing building. Although works, such as the construction of the proposed patio and amenity areas would result in construction works within close proximity of the Tree, it is considered that suitable Tree Protection Measures would allow for construction to go ahead without causing undue harm to the long term health of the tree. It is considered that Tree Protection Plan could be secured by way of condition (see condition 10). The Tree Officer also raised concerns in relation to the level of canopy cover the proposed amenity space, which could result in increased pressures to fell the tree in the future. The Landscape Biodiversity and Trees SPD requires that no more than 1/3 of a residential garden should be beneath tree canopy. In this case, as measured from the proposed site plan, less than 1/3 of the proposed amenity space would be covered by the tree canopy therefore, the proposal complies with the SPD in this respect. Whilst the SPD also stipulates that there should be a 4m separation between the edge of the canopy and any windows, when viewed from above, which is not achieved by the proposals, it is considered that by virtue of the fact that the tree is protected in its own right, and therefore requires consent for its removal in any event, the lack of separation distance between the proposed dwelling and the tree would not substantiate a reason for refusal in this regard. Nevertheless, in acknowledging that the proposal does not meet the required separation distance, this harm is weighed against the benefits of the proposal in the 'Conclusion and Planning Balance' section of this report. Environmental Health 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. 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.

Contaminated Land The proposed use of this site has been identified as being particularly vulnerable if land contamination is present. No potential on-site sources of contamination have been identified using our GIS or from a site visit by an Environmental Health Officer. Conditions requiring contamination assessments to be submitted are therefore not required on this occasion. However, should any discoloured or odorous soils be

encountered during development works or should any hazardous materials or significant quantities of made ground be found, then all development works should be stopped, the Local Planning Authority contacted and a scheme to investigate the risks and/or the adoption of any required remedial measures should be submitted. It is considered that this can be secured by condition (see condition 6). Flood Risk and Drainage Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk), the NPPF, and National Planning Practice Guidance, require new development to be directed away from the areas that are at the highest risk of flooding, or alternatively demonstrated to be flood resilient and resistant, to include safe access and egress, without increasing residual flood risk elsewhere. The Environment Agency Flood Risk Maps position the site as falling within Flood Zone 1 giving the site a low risk of flooding (less than 1 in 1000 annual probability) and considers that the site to be at low risk of surface water flooding. Due to the location, and with the site area sitting under 1ha in size, there has not been a requirement to accompany the application with any flood risk assessment (FRA). Sustainable Water Use 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; however it is considered that this could be reasonably secured by condition (see condition 11). Community Infrastructure Levy Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable. From these forms, it would appear that the development would be CIL liable, but would attract a £nil charge in line with the Council's Charging Schedule. Planning Balance and Conclusion The principle of the erection of a new dwelling within the SPB of Tadley, is allowed for with the development plan, as per Policy SS1 of the Local Plan. Whilst it is considered that the principle of development complies with the policies contained within the development plan, as set out above, the council cannot currently demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of housing (with 20% buffer required due to the Housing Delivery Test results). Policy SS1 is therefore out of date as it relates to the supply of housing. The application must therefore be considered in accordance with paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF which states that where relevant policies are considered out of date permission will be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protected areas or assets of particular

importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. The application site lies within a sustainable location, being located within the settlement of Tadley. The development would result in limited economic benefits through both the construction phase and then by the occupiers of the new dwelling. The social benefits would come from the contribution to the housing stock, albeit only modestly. As discussed above, the proposed development would, by virtue of layout and siting be out of keeping with other surrounding residential development. The proposed development would also not accord with the 4m separation distance to a nearby protected tree. However, this harm is not considered to demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. The application is therefore recommended for approval. Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans:

892/PL-01 Location Plan 892/PL-05 Proposed Plans and Elevations 892/PL-06 - Proposed Site Plan

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 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 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 to those on the existing building. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

4 Prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby approved the proposed onsite

vehicular parking for at least 1 vehicle and turning area shall be provided in accordance with the approved Site Plan. Thereafter, these areas shall be permanently retained and used for vehicular parking. REASON: In order to provide a suitable and convenient on-site movement layout with adequate parking facilities in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 to 2029.

5 Within 3 months of the commencement of development, details of the

materials to be used for hard and paved surfacing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved surfacing

shall be completed before the dwellings are occupied and thereafter maintained. REASON: Further details are required because insufficient information has been submitted with the application in this regard, to improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

6 Should any discoloured or odorous soils be encountered during development

works or should any hazardous materials or significant quantities of made ground be found, then all development works should be stopped, the Local Planning Authority contacted and a scheme to investigate the risks and / or the adoption of any required remedial measures be submitted to, agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the recommencement of development works. Following the completion of development works and prior to the first occupation of the site, sufficient information must be submitted to demonstrate that any required remedial measures were satisfactorily implemented or confirmation provided that no unexpected contamination was encountered. REASON: It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure the safe development of the site and to carry out any appropriate land contamination investigation and remediation works. The condition is to ensure the 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 and in accordance with Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

7 No work relating to the construction of the development hereby approved,

including works of demolition or preparation prior to operations, or fitting out, 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. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance with Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

8 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. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

9 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 Class A; B; E; or F; of Part 1; of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be erected on the application site 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 visual amenity of the area and to safeguard the character of the local landscape and the longevity of protected trees, in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

10 No development or other operations shall commence on site, until a Tree

Protection Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Tree Protection Method Statement shall detail the location and specification for the protective fencing of all retained trees and boundary hedges; identify areas for the storage and handling of building materials, a detailed specification for the utility and service installation and access driveway construction where this is adjacent to retained trees. The approved tree protection shall be erected prior to any site activity commencing and shall be maintained until the area is to be landscaped. The development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved Tree Protection Method Statement. REASON: Details are required prior to commencement because insufficient information has been submitted with the application in this regard, to ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard protected/important landscape trees in the interests 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.

11 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. 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 Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029

12 The ground floor windows in the east (rear) elevation serving the en-suite and

bathroom in the development hereby approved shall: (a) be glazed with obscured glass, to at least the equivalent of Pilkington level 4 standard; (b) be permanently fixed closed below a height of 1.7m above finished floor level, and shall thereafter be retained in that form. REASON: To protect the privacy of the adjacent property and to prevent overlooking, in accordance with Policy 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 £116 or £34 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 paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and creative 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 and or the completion of a s.106 legal

agreement (in accordance with paragraphs 54-57).

In this instance:

- the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit;*


3. The applicant is advised that this permission is only pursuant to the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990 and is advised to contact the Planning and Development Manager with regard to the necessary consents applicable under the Building Regulations.

4. This decision notice, along with any observations that have been made on the application file, does not constitute a tree safety inspection. Neither does this decision indemnify the tree owner against any future damage caused by the tree(s). Where a site visit has been made, the tree has been assessed only as far as is necessary to determine the suitability of the proposed work. In the absence of any supporting technical evidence, submitted from an appropriate expert, which relates to the trees condition, the decision is based on the assumption that the tree is in good health and structural integrity. If you have concerns about the condition of the tree, you are advised to contact the Arboricultural Association at www.trees.org.uk for independent advice (a fee may be applicable).

Location Plan

Proposed Site Plan

Proposed Elevations

Proposed Ground Floor Plan


Item No. 3

Application no: 19/02800/HSE


Site Address 42 Turner Close Basingstoke RG21 3QU

Proposal Erection of part two storey, part single storey side extensions following demolition of existing garage



Householder Permission

Case Officer: Nicola Marchant 01256 845468

Applicant: Ms K Swinfield Agent: Mr Alan Wilson

Ward: Grove Ward Member(s): Cllr John McKay Cllr Ronald Hussey

Parish: OS Grid Reference: 465061 151696


Reasons for Approval 1. 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 (February 2019), Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and Section 11 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document.

2. The proposed development would provide adequate parking provision in

accordance with highway requirements, and as such would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, and the Parking Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018).

3. The proposed development would not result in any 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 and Section 11 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2018.

General Comments This application has been brought to the Development Control Committee meeting as the applicant is an employee of BDBC.


Planning Policy The site is located within the Basingstoke Town Settlement Policy Boundary. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019) Section 2 (Achieving sustainable development) Section 4 (Decision making) Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport) Section 12 (Achieving well designed places) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) CN9 (Transport) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018) Parking Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018) Other material documents The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) Description of Site A two storey semi-detached dwelling with attached flat roofed garage to side of property. The property has an open front garden and block paved driveway. Proposal The proposal is for the erection of a part two storey, part single storey side extension following the demolition of the existing garage. The proposed extensions would increase the property from a 3 to a 4 bed property. The two storey extension would be the same height as the existing property and would be 4.3m wide and 7.6m deep. The two storey element would project 1m beyond the existing front elevation. A juliette balcony is proposed to the rear bedroom in the two storey side extension. Amended plans received 13 January altered the design of the rear elevation of the two storey extension. Consultations None Public Observations None

Relevant Planning History None Assessment Impact on the character of the area/ design It is noted the proposed two storey side element of the proposal would be relatively large however, there are other properties located in close vicinity of the application site that have similar sized extensions to the side of their properties. As such, the development would not appear out of keeping or have a harmful visual impact on the character of the street scene or surrounding area. The proposed part two storey, part single storey side extension would not overly dominate the existing property and although the extension would continue the existing ridge/roof line of the existing property, it is considered that it would still form a proportionate addition to the side of the property. The proposed extension would be gable end on to the road and as such the extension would be seen as a clear extension to the host dwelling. The materials for the proposal would match those of the host dwelling and this is considered to be acceptable. Impact on neighbouring amenities The proposal would be located approximately 5.5m from the neighbouring property to the east of the application site (no. 43). Given the distance and given the extension would be screened by the existing dwelling, it is considered that it would not have an impact on the amenities of this neighbour. The development would be located approximately 20 metres from the neighbouring property to the north of the application site (no.44). Given the distance, it is considered that it would not have an overbearing impact. In addition given the distance and orientation of the property, it is considered that it would not result in a loss or privacy or overlooking. The extension at the closest point would be located approximately 4m from the neighbouring property to the west of the application site (no. 41) and from the furthest point would be 6m. Given the orientation of the properties and the set forward position of no. 41, it is considered that it would not have an overbearing effect. In addition, there are two windows proposed to the side/west elevation and the plans confirm these would be obscurely glazed. The neighbouring property has no first floor windows to the side elevation and as such, even if the windows were not obscurely glazed it is considered that it would not result in overlooking or a loss of privacy to this neighbour. The juilette balcony proposed to the rear of the extension would look towards the end of gardens and not the immediate private garden area. The provision of a

Juliette balcony would not increase the level of overlooking currently experienced by adjoining properties and as such is considered acceptable. Parking The proposal would be increasing the number of bedrooms at the property from 3 bedrooms to 4 bedrooms and as such would be required to provide 3 car parking spaces as stated in the Parking SPD. It is evident from the site plan submitted and from visiting the site that the property can achieve the required 3 car parking spaces to the front of the property. The single storey extension to the side of the dwelling is shown as a store, and would be suitable for the storage of cycles. Community Infrastructure Requirements Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable. From these forms, it would appear that the development would be exempt from any CIL payments given that the development would have a gross internal area of less than 100m². Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the


Drawing number 1819128/1 Drawing number 1819128/4 Rev. B Drawing number 1819128/5 Rev. B




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 to those on the approved plans.

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




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 £116 or £34 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.



seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the application; considering the imposition of conditions

In this instance:



Location Plan

Proposed Elevations

Proposed Floor Plans

Existing Elevations

Existing Floor Plans


Item No. 4



Site Address Knights Farm Knights Lane Ball Hill Newbury

Proposal Demolition of Knights Farmhouse, associated outbuildings and B8 storage buildings and erection of 3 no. detached dwellings together with access, parking and landscaping





Applicant: Mr A Burton Agent: Miss K Miles

Ward: East Woodhay Ward Member(s): Cllr Clive Sanders

Parish: EAST WOODHAY CP

OS Grid Reference: 442176 163407


Reasons for Approval

1. By virtue of the individual site characteristics, taking account of existing and nearby extant development, the proposed development would not have a significant or adverse impact on the landscape character of the scenic quality of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the proposal would successfully mitigate the limited visual impact. The proposal therefore complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018).

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 (2019), Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Parking Supplementary Planning Document (2018).


cause undue overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing or noise and disturbance impacts to neighbouring properties and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018).

4. 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 (2019), Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document (2018).

5. The development would not result in an adverse increase risk of flooding and

as such the proposal would comply with National Planning Policy Framework and Policy EM7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

General Comments The application is brought to Development Control Committee in line with the scheme of delegation, due to the Officers recommendation for approval and the number of objections received. Planning Policy Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 which locates the application site outside any Settlement Policy Boundary. As such, the proposal is considered to be located within a countryside location. The site is located within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, outside of any settlement policy boundary. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019) Section 2 (Achieving Sustainable Development) Section 4 (Decision Making) Section 5 (Delivering a sufficient supply of homes) Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport) Section 11 (Making effective use of land) Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) Section 14 (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change) Section 15 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Presumption on 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 CN9 (Transport) Policy EM1 (Landscape) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM6 (Water Quality) Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk)

Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Use) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy EM12 (Pollution) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document 2018 Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2018 Parking Supplementary Planning Document 2018 Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2018 Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD (March 2018) Other material planning documents North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) East Woodhay Village Design Statement 2005 Description of Site The application site is located to the west of Knights Lane and consists of an existing farmhouse, outbuildings and commercial storage buildings (falling within Use Class B8). Immediately north-east of the application site is a collection of 9no. buildings which benefit from a lawful Class B8 storage use (14/01953/LDEU). These buildings have permission for their demolition and the erection of 4no. dwellings (ref:17/02853/FUL) comprising 1 x five bed unit; 2 x four bed units; and 1 x three bed unit. The main farmhouse (located in the northwest part of the site), is a two storey dwelling of red brick construction, which has been extended previously. The rear garden has a range of sheds and greenhouse structures. Adjacent to the farmhouse is an 'L' shaped outbuilding, which was originally built as stables/hay barn/stock sheds. However, it is understood from the applicant that this has been in use for ancillary residential use along with storage for some time - although no lawful development certificate to this effect has ever been granted. The application site also encompasses a garage and barn structure, which the Applicant claim to be in B8 storage use. Whilst the Lawful Development Certificate granted in 2014 covers the hardstanding surrounding the buildings, the buildings themselves are excluded from the lawful development certificate. The site is located to the north of the village of Ball Hill, surrounded to the north and east by agricultural fields. To the south-west of the site is residential development which fronts onto Knights Lane.

Proposal The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing farmhouse, outbuildings and remaining B8 storage buildings and the erection of 3no. detached dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping. The proposed dwellings would comprise 1 x five bed unit; 1 x four bed unit; and 1 x 3 bed unit. There three bed unit would be connected to a 4 bay open car port, serving plots 2 and 3. Plot 1 (5 bed unit) would have an attached double garage. The development would result in the complete clearance of the site. The proposed dwellings would be, for the most part, sited on the same footprint as the existing structures on the site. The proposed dwellings, along with the car port structure, would be arranged in a courtyard layout, mirroring that of the existing built form at the site. The existing access onto Knights Lane would be utilised. Plot 1 Five bedroom detached property with a pitched roof and attached double garage. The dwelling would of a traditional farmhouse design, constructed from brick, dark stained timber and tile. The dwelling would feature a pitched porch canopy sited centrally on a two storey hipped gable front projection. The dwelling would also have a single storey orangery located to the rear of the dwelling. In total, the proposed dwelling would measure 19.6m wide, 13.1m deep and 9.7m in height (5m to the height of the eaves). Plot 2 Four bedroom detached property with a barn hipped roof. The supporting statement suggests that the overall appearance of the dwelling takes reference from traditional barn like structures. Externally, the dwelling would be finished in dark stained timber cladding with a tiled roof. The property also incorporates a two storey front projection and an eaves dormer to the front. To the rear, the dwelling features full height glazing to provide views over the countryside. Overall, the proposed dwelling would measure 11m wide, 11.2m deep and 8.8m in height (4.8m to the height of the eaves). Plot 3 Detached 3 bedroom dwelling with a barn hipped roof and pitched eaves dormers to the front and rear roof slopes. Externally, the dwelling would be constructed from brick with contrast brick strings and arches as well as a slate roof. Attached to this dwelling is a four bay car port structure (parking for plots 2 and 3) which extends along the north-eastern boundary of the site.

In total, the proposed dwelling would measure 10.5m wide, 6.3m deep and 7.4m in height (4.3m to the height of the eaves). Amendments Amended plans were received which included a first floor window within the side elevation of Plot 2 and made amendments to the proposed landscaping, following comments from the Landscape Officer. Consultations Biodiversity: No objection subjection to conditions. Joint Waste Client Team: No objection. HCC highways: No objection subject to conditions. Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions. Landscape: No objection subject to minor amendments and conditions. Trees: No objection subject to conditions. East Woodhay Parish Council: "The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council objects to the above application because:- 1.The application site sits in the North Wessex Downs AONB. Paragraph 172 of the NPPF states that such areas have the highest status of protection in relation to issue of conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty. The proposed application achieves neither aim, but merely tends to urbanises a rural setting. 2. The proposal is not of a scale and type that meets local housing need. Principle 3.1 of the Housing SPD comments that, "the evidence highlights a borough wide need for small family homes and homes suitable for older people wishing to downsize. Developments should therefore principally focus upon a mix of two and three bedroom dwellings (particularly houses), with only a limited requirement for homes with four bedrooms or more.......". Further, Appendix 3 of the Housing SPD at paragraph A3.3, makes it clear that the parish is well supplied with houses providing four or more bedrooms. It has the highest percentage of such properties of all parishes within the local authority area at 51.1%. Paragraph A3.6 predicts that future demand will be predominantly smaller households: couples, one person households and households with one child." Public Observations Four letters of objection which raise the following concerns:

Knights Lane is a single track road with no passing places.

The proposed dwellings would result in increased traffic movements, and therefore congestion on the surrounding roads.

Knights Lane is not suitable for construction traffic.

There is no need for the proposed housing.

The proposal should be amended to provide smaller housing units, which are needed in the parish.

Four and five bedroom dwellings are already well provided for in the parish.

The proposed layout is cramped.

In the event that planning permission is approved, conditions should be imposed to restrict permitted development rights to prevent increased levels of development in this sensitive location.

Discrepancy in the submitted plans and 3D visuals.

Ball Hill is a remote village and has very little in the way of local amenities.

Any new development would be heavily reliant on the motor car, making it unsustainable.

Relevant Planning History 14/01953/LDEU Certificate of lawful development for existing

Use of Buildings for Class B8 storage (air conditioning units, agricultural, mechanical and equestrian equipment, vehicles and building materials)

Granted 02/09/14

15/03590/FUL Demolition of existing B8 buildings and

erection of six dwellings. Creation of a new access, and alteration of an existing access, to Knights Lane. A land swap involving a change of use of agricultural land to residential and change of use of commercial land to agricultural. Associated landscaping

Granted 02/09/16

17/02853/FUL Demolition of existing B8 buildings and

erection of 4 no. live/work dwellings. Creation of a new access, and alteration of an existing access, to Knights Lane. A land swap involving a change of use of agricultural land to residential, commercial land to agricultural and commercial land to residential land. Associated landscaping.

Granted 03/11/17

Assessment Principle of Development Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must have regard to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that proposals 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 Local Planning Authority (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.

Housing Land Supply The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to identify a five year supply of specific deliverable sites to meet housing needs. In addition, and in line with the Housing Delivery Test published in February 2019, a 20% buffer should be added to the borough's supply. At the current time the council is unable to demonstrate that it has 5 years' worth of deliverable sites. This means that policies relating to housing delivery in the borough's adopted Local Plan and made Neighbourhood Plans are currently considered to be out of date and are afforded limited weight in the decision-taking process. Planning applications will therefore have to be considered in line with paragraph 11d) of the NPPF which states that where relevant policies are considered out of date permission will be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

Local Plan The site is located outside any Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) and is within part of the borough which is designated as countryside as per Policy SS1 (Scale and distribution of new housing) of the Local Plan. The Local Plan (paragraph 4.70) is explicit in its aims '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'. Policy SS1 sets out a spatial strategy for the Local Authority to meet its full housing need over the Plan period. The strategy is principally based upon the development of allocated Greenfield sites and the redevelopment of land in the towns and villages. Development in the countryside is generally restricted. The most relevant Local Plan policy for the proposal is Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside) which sets out the circumstances where it is appropriate to allow new housing development in the countryside. Policy SS6 states that development in the countryside will only be permitted if the site is a) on previously developed land; b) is part of a rural exception scheme; c) is for the re-use of an existing building; d) involves the replacement of an existing dwelling; e) is small scale to meet a locally agreed need; f) is required to support an existing rural business; g) or is allocated by a Neighbourhood Plan. The application seeks planning permission for the erection of 3no. dwellings. This would involve the demolition of an existing dwelling at the site (along with several other structures). The proposed development would therefore result in the net increase of 2no. dwellings at the site. Plot 1 would be largely sited on a similar footprint to the existing farmhouse. Therefore, for the purposes of planning policy, this could be considered a

replacement dwelling. Policy SS6 d) allows for replacement dwellings providing that they are appropriate to the size of the plot and that the development would not be significantly intrusive in the landscape. It is considered that the principle of the proposed plot 1 meets the criteria set out within the policies of the Local Plan and is therefore acceptable subject to other material planning considerations being considered. These will be set out within the below assessment. The submission asserts that Plot 2 and Plot 3 would be sited on Previously Developed Land, and therefore comply with Policy SS6a. The NPPF provides a definition of Previously Developed Land (PDL) within its glossary at annex 2, this states that PDL is:

"Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings (officer emphasis added); land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill, where provision for restoration has been made through development management procedures; land in built-up areas such as residential gardens (officer emphasis added), parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape."

It is acknowledged that some of Plot 3 (the proposed private amenity area) would be sited with the area previously granted a lawful development certificate for B8 Storage use. However, this lawful use does not appear to extend to the existing buildings themselves, where it appears that these fall outside of the red line plan on the 2014 application (14/01953/LDEU). The proposed dwelling itself would be sited on the same footprint as the existing garage and barn structure, which fall outside of the LDC application. These buildings are therefore considered to be in agricultural use as part of the wider farm. Whilst some of the proposed plot would fall on land constituting PDL, it would not be sited on PDL in its entirety. It is also claimed, within the supporting statement that as Plot 2 and the proposed car port structure would be sited on a similar footprint to the existing ancillary outbuildings, that they would also be sited on PDL. However, it is noted that these structures do appear to have initially comprised stables/hay barns and stock sheds, as part of the wider agricultural holding/farm. Whilst it is claimed by the applicant that these structures have been used for ancillary accommodation and storage for a number of years, no evidence of this has been submitted to support this. It should also be noted that it is not the purpose of this application to establish the lawful use of the buildings. In the absence of any lawful development certificate to establish the use of the buildings for these purposes, it is considered that the lawful use of these structures are for agricultural purposes as part of the wider farm. As buildings or structures on land used of agricultural purposes are excluded from the above definition of PDL, this site is not considered to constitute PDL in this regard. However, if the residential use of these structures was established through a lawful development certificate, consideration would then need to be given as to whether the

site meets the definition of PDL. The Dartford case provided clarity that whether gardens outside of a settlement policy boundary are regarded as being in a 'built up' area will be a matter of planning judgement, taking into account factors such as the number of dwellings, density and cohesion of the properties. Appendix 3 of the Local Plan defines a 'settlement' as: "a settlement typically constitutes a village, comprised of more than a group of houses or farmstead, including at least one service of facility, such as a village hall, public house or school". Although Ball Hill may not be subject to a SPB, when having regard to this definition, it is considered that Ball Hill constitutes a ‘settlement'. Given the physical and visual proximity of the site to other residential properties within the settlement of Ball Hill, the site is considered to be located within a ‘built up area’. Therefore, in the event that the residential use of the buildings was considered lawful, the site would still be excluded from the definition of PDL and the principle of the erection of additional dwellings on the site is therefore not supported in accordance with Policy SS6(a). With the proposal not comprising PDL, it is not necessary to then fully consider whether the proposal accords with criteria a) i) - iii) addressing the location in terms of its isolation, the value of the land or the use and scale of the development. In addressing the remaining criteria to Policy SS6, the most relevant criteria to the development proposed would appear to be criterion SS6(e). Policy SS6(e) states that 'small scale residential proposals of a scale and type that meet a locally agreed need provided that:

ix) It is will 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 starting point for a development under criterion e) of SS6 is to establish whether the development is small scale (i.e. four dwellings or fewer). The development proposed meets this requirement. It is then necessary to determine whether there is any locally agreed need for the proposed dwelling outside of the settlement policy boundary. This is where the proposal must meet a specific and clearly-identified unmet housing need in the local area in terms of number, size type and tenure. No supporting evidence has been provided, therefore it is not possible to fully appraise the development in accordance with the requirements of SS6e). Whilst the development would not accord with Policy SS6 of Local Plan, as mentioned above, the Local Planning Authority is unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply therefore Policy SS6 is considered ‘out of date’ as it relates to housing delivery. An assessment of the development in light of this, and the balance required by paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF will be given in the 'Planning Balance and Conclusion' section of this report.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 'Isolated' and other material considerations

In accepting the conflict with the Local Plan, the NPPF constitutes guidance which the Local Planning Authority (LPA) must have regard to. Under the NPPF there is a need to consider whether the development is sustainable and to consider the social, environmental and economic impacts of the development. In considering new housing in rural areas Paragraph 78 advises that:

"To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby."

Paragraph 79 goes on to say that Local Planning Authorities should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances. These instances include, essential rural workers dwellings, securing the optimal viable use of a heritage asset, re-use of redundant or disused building which would enhance its immediate setting, subdivision of an existing dwelling or would have a design that is of exceptional quality. In this instance, the proposal would not fall within these categories therefore it is necessary to consider whether the site is 'isolated' in light of the NPPF guidance in relation to the proposed dwellings. The NPPF does not provide a definition of what constitutes 'isolated' development. In considering whether or not the current application site is isolated in light of the paragraph 79, reference has been given to case law. Braintree DC v SSCLG [2018] Civ 610 ('the Braintree case') forms a material consideration in the assessment of this application given the sites location outside of a defined Settlement Policy Boundary. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision which concluded that that the word 'isolated' should be given its ordinary meaning as 'far away from other places, buildings and people; remote'. Lindblom LJ's held that in the context of paragraph 55 of the previous NPPF (2012), now paragraph 79 (2019), 'isolated' simply connotes a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement (officer emphasis added). Whether, in a particular case, a group of dwellings constitutes a settlement, or a 'village', for the purposes of the policy will again be a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision-maker. The Court rejected the argument that the word 'isolated' as set out within the NPPF could have a dual meaning, being physically isolated or functionally isolated (isolated from services and facilities). In having regard to the application site, whilst physically removed from the main settlement of Ball Hill (to the south) by a field, given its overall visual conection and proximity to a ribbon of residential development extending north of the village of Ball Hill, the site is considered to be situated within the physical extent of the village. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in an isolated form of development.

Sustainable Development Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The three dimensions to achieving sustainable development are defined in the NPPF as: economic, social and environmental. 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. - Economic The proposed development would encourage development and associated economic growth through the actual physical building works. The future occupants would also likely contribute to the local economy and to the continued viability of local services in surrounding villages. However, as this would apply to an increase of 3 dwellings only, any benefit to the local economy would be limited. As such, the economic role of the development is therefore considered to be limited. - Social Whilst 3 additional dwellings will not make a significant contribution to the Council's housing supply position, the development would nevertheless provide 3 new dwellings. The proposed development could provide future occupiers with the opportunity to develop social and community ties within the area and facilitate future community involvement. - Environmental With regard to the environmental role of this development, the development could reasonably be expected to demonstrate a degree of inherent sustainability through compliance with Council supported energy efficiency and Building Regulations standards. Whilst Ball Hill has only limited facilities, and despite the likelihood that travel by a private vehicle is likely to remain the preferred mode of transport, this in itself would not be in conflict with the NPPF whereby paragraph 103 notes that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and that this should be taken into account in decision making. - Summary In considering the specific economic, social and environmental considerations of this particular scheme, it is concluded that in taking the scheme as a whole, that the benefits of the scheme would be limited. However, Paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF states: where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which

are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

An assessment of the proposal with regards to Paragraph 11(d) is conducted within the relevant sections below. 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 more recent guidance contained within paragraph 63 of the NPPF, which sets out that the "provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential development that are not major development, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a low threshold of 5 units or fewer)". The NPPF provides a definition for major development within the glossary at Annex 2. This states that in regards to residential development, major development is "where 10 or more homes will be provided, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares or more." The application site measures 0.28ha so falls below the major threshold in this regard. The proposed development is also for 3 dwelling and consequently also falls below the 10 unit threshold in this regard. As the NPPF is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, this recent guidance is afforded significant weight and the requirements set out in Policy CN1 in this regard are therefore considered to be out of date. Consequently in this instance, as the proposals do not constitute 'major development', as per the NPPF definition, it is not necessary in accordance with NPPF, for affordable housing provision to be sought in relation to this development. Housing Mix Policy CN3 requires developments for market housing to provide a range of house type and size to address local requirements, with the mix to be appropriate to the site, location, density and character of the site and surrounding area. The policy also requires that the mix is supported by evidence to justify the proposed housing mix, with the supporting text stating this is to be based on an assessment of a range of housing evidence. Principle 3.1 of the Housing SPD also stipulates that evidence highlights borough wide need for small family homes and homes suitable of older people wishing to

downsize. Developments should therefore principally focus on a mix of two and three bedroom dwellings with only a limited requirement for homes with four bedrooms or more, which should normally comprise no more than 30% of the market homes in the development. In this instance, the proposed housing mix comprises:

1 x 3 bedroom dwelling

1 x 4 bedroom dwelling

1 x 5 bedroom dwelling As such, the proposed mix of 4 or more bedroom dwellings would be over the 30% as required by the Housing SPD. It is also noted that Guideline 036 of the East Woodhay Village Design Statement expresses that the Parish is short on smaller 1-3 bedroom semi-detached and terraced houses. In justifying the proposed mix, the applicant notes that the mix proposed is not too-dissimilar to that previously granted planning permission at the adjacent site. Within the officer report (17/02853/FUL), it was noted that the proposed housing mix was consistent with the wider area. Whilst the proposed housing mix does not accord with principle 3.1 of the Housing SPD, it is noted that the development would provide one smaller, 3 bedroom unit. In acknowledging that the proposal would not provide more smaller homes as required by the local plan and supplementary planning documents, this harm is weighed against the benefits of the proposal in the 'Conclusion and Planning Balance' section of this report. Impact on the character of the area/design Policy EM1 states that development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned and must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected. Policy EM10 states that proposals will be required to respect the local environment, contribute to the street scene, be visually attractive and provide adequate vehicular parking and cycle storage. Policy EM10 also requires developments to provide high levels of amenity for proposed occupants and neighbouring occupiers regarding privacy, amenity space and natural light. The site is located within the North Wessex Downs AONB, a national designation that seeks to protect the special landscape qualities of the area, and therefore is a significant consideration in the determination of this application. However, as confirmed by the Landscape Officer, it is considered that the proposals would not result in a significant or adverse impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area that could not be mitigated through conditions.

Within the wider area there are small groups of dwellings set within the agricultural landscape (as is evidenced to the north along Knights Lane and to the west at Gore End) it is considered that the proposals would generally be in keeping with this character. The proposed development, in terms of layout and appearance would also be comparable with previous permissions at the adjacent site for 4no. dwellings. Furthermore, the proposal generally keeps the proposed extent of built form within that of the extent of the existing built form. As such it is considered that the amount to development proposed would not result in an overdevelopment of the site. Furthermore, the proposed use of high quality materials and appropriate landscaping, would mitigate any adverse harm on the limited visual impact the new development would have on the surrounding landscape. Whilst the proposals would clearly alter the existing character of the site it is acknowledged that the general layout of the proposed dwellings would respect the existing farmstead courtyard of the existing site, which is positive. In addition, it is considered that the proposal would represent a notable visual enhancement due to the removal of the existing unattractive buildings and erection of high quality and visually compatible structures within the rural environment. Therefore the proposals would not have an adverse visual impact on the scenic beauty of this part of the AONB and its appreciation as a special landscape designation would be maintained. In terms of the residential use, size and design of the development proposed, the compact form and scale of the buildings is typical of a formal farmstead arrangement prevalent in rural environments. This formal and compact farmstead arrangement would also prevent unnecessary sprawling of development into the rural landscape. It is therefore considered that the proposed development, by way of the size, scale and design of the proposed dwellings would not be at odds or harmful to the intrinsic character of this part of the countryside. However, given the sensitivity of the site it is considered reasonable and necessary to remove permitted developments rights for the proposed development in an attempt to prevent an over urbanisation of the site, in order to protect the scenic quality of the AONB. Any limited visual harm arising from the residential development could be adequately mitigated through a landscaping scheme, including boundary treatments and hardstanding areas. It is noted that the Landscape Officer raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions securing these details (see conditions 4 and 5). Furthermore, amended plans were received which made amendments to the proposed boundary along Knights Lane, which now comprises of native hedging, in line with the Landscape Officers Comments. Whilst the proposed material palate is considered to be appropriate to the sites context, comprising of traditional materials which would be in keeping with the adjoining development, it is considered that further details in relation to the proposed materials are also considered necessary. This can be secured by condition (see condition 3). Subject to compliance with these conditions the proposals are not considered to be harmful to the landscape character or visual amenity of the area. The proposals would therefore comply with Policy EM1 of the Local Plan the NPPF in this respect.

Impact on neighbouring amenities (existing and proposed) The proposed development would be located at a sufficient distance to existing neighbouring dwellings and the proposed dwellings to the north and would therefore not give rise to any adverse levels of overshadowing or overbearing impacts to nearby neighbours. Whilst the development at the adjacent site has not yet commenced, it is noted that consideration is currently underway for details reserved by condition on this site. As such, it is evident that there is an intention to develop the adjoining site in the immediate future. Therefore, consideration will need to be given to the amenities of the future occupiers of the adjoining site. The flank elevations of proposed House 2 and 3 would be located at least 10m from the rear elevations of the adjoining plots. As such, it is considered that there would be sufficient distance and there would be no resulting overshadowing to the detriment of the future occupiers. Furthermore, the existing structures on the site (to be demolished) are considered to go some way toward mitigating against this resultant impact. Whilst it is noted that a side facing first floor window is proposed within the flank elevation of house 2, this would serve a bathroom. Therefore, it is considered reasonable that this is secured to be fitted with obscure glazing, by way of condition (see condition 21). In terms of the relationship of the proposed plots to one another, it is considered that the placement and layout of the development would not give rise to any detrimental impacts to future occupiers of the development by virtue of overlooking, loss of privacy or overshadowing. The proposed development would not significantly detract from the amenities of adjoining or future occupiers (the application site and the adjacent up and coming residential site) and is therefore considered acceptable in this regard. The proposal is acceptable in terms of neighbouring amenity in line with Policy EM10 of the Local Plan and the Design and Sustainability SPD. Amenities of the proposed dwellings Section 10 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2018 sets out that:

New housing development should provide a suitable outlook and level of natural light for both new and neighbouring dwellings

Dwellings should have sufficient daylight to allow the comfortable use of habitable rooms including living rooms, dining rooms, bedrooms and kitchens

Residents should also be able to enjoy an outlook of good quality from these rooms and spaces without adjacent buildings being overbearing.

The positioning of openings within the proposed dwellings would result in satisfactory amenity levels for the proposed future occupiers of the dwellings. This is due to the

provision of habitable room windows for adequate natural light and outlook in line with Section 10. In addition, the shape and size of private amenity spaces to serve the proposed dwellings is considered to be sufficient to meet recreational and domestic needs of future occupants in line with Section 10 and would be comparable to the adjacent development (yet to be implemented). Highway safety and parking

Parking and access In total, the proposed site layout illustrates 10 parking spaces are to be provided within the development. Out of this, 2 of the spaces would appear to be unallocated, equating to 20% of the overall parking provision. As such, in line with the Parking SPD, the proposed development would generate demand for a total of 11 parking spaces (4+ bedroom properties require 4 spaces and the 3 bedroom property requires 3 spaces). Therefore there is a shortfall of 1no. space, as per the submitted site layout plan. Plot 1 would have a double garage with space to park a further car outside the garage indicated. In total, therefore the site layout plan illustrates that the plot would be served by 3no. parking spaces. However, it is considered that a further parking space could be provided outside the proposed garage. On this basis, it is considered that the proposal would provide adequate parking provision. Plots 2 and 3 each have 2no. parking spaces provided within the proposed car port, with plot 2 also benefitting from a further space outside the car port. Both plot 2 and 3 therefore have a shortfall of 1no. space each. However the 2no. unallocated parking spaces would cover this shortfall. On this basis, the development is therefore acceptable in terms of parking provision. In order to prevent the future overspill of parking onto the adjoining highways, it is considered reasonable to secure the retention of the parking spaces by way of condition (see condition 9). The potential traffic generation from the development (three dwellings) is also considered acceptable whereby the proposal would not have a severe detrimental impact on the operation and safety of the local highway network, as confirmed by the Highways Officer. The existing farm yard also has a certain level of traffic generation which should be considered. It is proposed to utilise the existing access. However, the Highways Officer considers that as the proposed development would give rise to an increase in the number of dwellings at the property, visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m should be provided. It is considered that this could be secured by way of condition (see condition 8).

Cycle Storage In accordance with the Parking SPD, 2-3 bedroom dwellings should provide for the long term storage of at least 2no. cycles, with 4+ bedroom dwellings providing storage for 3no. cycles. Whilst not specifically illustrated on the proposed plans, it is considered that details of this provision can be secured by way of condition (see condition 19).

Waste Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council operates a kerbside waste collection service. This is operated via wheeled containers which must be left adjacent to the nearest adopted highway for collection on the specified waste collection. The proposed development will be required to leave wheeled containers on Knights Lane for collection on the specified collection day and removed from the highway and returned back to the property as soon as possible following collection. In accordance with Appendix 3 of the Design and Sustainability SPD, the proposal should be provided with space for the storage of 1no. 240 litre waste bin, 1no. 240 litre recycling bin and 1no recycling container for glass. Bins storage provision has been marked out on the submitted site plan and so has the proposed bin collection point. Both are considered acceptable in terms of their location. Overall, the proposed development is therefore considered acceptable in highways safety respects, in compliance with Polices CN9 and EM10 of the Local Plan. Biodiversity Policy EM4 establishes that proposals will only be permitted where significant harm to biodiversity can be avoided or adequately mitigated unless there is a demonstrated overriding public need. The policy also seeks to provide for biodiversity enhancements within the new development. The proposed development would involve the demolition of several structures in a rural location. The application was accompanied by an extended Phase I and Phase II Ecological Assessment which confirms that buildings marked for demolition are known to be used by roosting bats. The submitted ecological report considers that a European Protected Species (EPS) licence will be required in order for the works to proceed because the works are likely to disturb known bat roosts. An EPS licence can only be granted if the development proposal is able to meet three tests:

1. the consented operation must be for 'preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment'; (Regulation 53(2)(e))

2. there must be 'no satisfactory alternative' (Regulation 53(9)(a)); and 3. the action authorised 'will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the

population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in

their natural range' (Regulation 53(9)(b)). In consultation with the Biodiversity Officer, it is considered that the proposed mitigation within the submitted survey is sufficient to ensure that the development would not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned. Given that there would be no significant effects on bat conservation (provided that the propose mitigation is followed), then it is advised that there is no overriding public interest that should prevent the granting of planning permission in this regard. The DEFRA Biodiversity metric has been applied to the development which has shown the development will result in a small net loss in habitats as a result of the development. The ecological report suggests that the inclusion of other biodiversity enhancements such as bat and bird boxes will make up for this loss. The Biodiversity Officer concludes that this is acceptable. The submitted ecological assessment also recommends suitable habitat enhancement proposals for the site. The Biodiversity officer considers that details of these can be secured by condition (see condition 7). Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the ecological interest of the site. The proposed development is therefore considered to comply with Policy EM4 of the Local Plan and the NPPF in this regard. Trees Policy EM1 of the Local Plan requires that development proposals must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected, paying particular regard to b) the visual amenity and scenic quality and e) trees, ancient woodland and hedgerows. In total, 24 trees would be removed to facilitate the proposed development. However these are considered to be of limited value in the landscape and/or have a low life expectancy. Whilst the Tree Officer does not raise any objection to the loss of these trees, given the volume proposed for removal, it is considered that replanting is required in order to improve the visual amenity of the site. This can be secured by way of condition (see condition 12). The application has been accompanied by a detailed Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan (TPP). This illustrates that there would be one instance of root protection area encroachment for a retained tree, which is considered to be of amenity value (patio area serving Plot 3). However, in accordance with the submitted TPP, this area would involve no-dig construction techniques in order to preserve the longevity of the tree. Adherence to the TPP can be secured by way of condition (see condition 10). The submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment also indicated that that some Tree Works are required to be carried on some of the retained trees. Whilst no objection is raised by the Tree Officer, is it requested that details of these is secured by condition (see condition 13).

The Landscape Biodiversity and Trees SPD requires that no more than 1/3 of a residential garden should be beneath tree canopy. In this case, as measured from the proposed site plan, less than 1/3 of the proposed amenity space would be covered by the tree retained canopies therefore, the proposal complies with the SPD in this respect. In addition, the SPD also stipulates that there should be a 4m separation between the edge of the canopy and any windows, when viewed from above, which is also achieved by the proposals. As such, it is considered that the proposed development would not give rise to undue or premature pressure to fell retained trees. Overall, it is considered that subject to suitable conditions, the proposed development would not be detrimental to the visual amenity area of the afforded by trees. The proposal therefore complies with Policy EM1 of the Local Plan, the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD and the NPPF. Drainage and Flooding Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk), the NPPF, and National Planning Practice Guidance, require new development to be directed away from the areas that are at the highest risk of flooding, or alternatively demonstrated to be flood resilient and resistant, to include safe access and egress, without increasing residual flood risk elsewhere. The Environment Agency Flood Risk Maps position the site as falling within Flood Zone 1 giving the site a low risk of flooding (less than 1 in 1000 annual probability) and considers that the site to be at low risk of surface water flooding. Due to the location, and with the site area sitting under 1ha in size, there has not been a requirement to accompany the application with any flood risk assessment. The development would therefore accord with Policy EM6 and EM7 of the Local Plan and Section 14 of the NPPF. Impact on the Water Environment The site lies within the 'locally' defined Basingstoke Groundwater Protection Zone as defined on the Local Plan Policies Map. Policy EM6 sets out the Council's approach to considering water quality. It is not considered that the proposal would be a potentially contaminating development and therefore no further information has been requested. Environmental Health 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.

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.

Contaminated Land Following consultation with an Environmental Health Officer, it was advised that there are potential sources of contamination at the site. Given this and previous uses in close proximity to the site, which Environmental Health considers potentially contaminating, the ground on the site has the potential to be contaminated. Contamination assessments will therefore need to be undertaken to assess the risks from contamination to future site users. It is however considered that this information can be reasonably secured through condition (see conditions 16 and 17). Sustainable Water Use Policy EM9 of the Local Plan sets out that development for new homes will need to meet a water efficiency standard of 110 litres or less per person per day, unless clear demonstration is given that this would not be feasible. As such, a condition has been attached to the decision to secure this standard in accordance with Policy EM9 of the Local Plan (see condition 18). Community Infrastructure Levy Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable. From these forms, it would appear that the development would be CIL Liable but exemptions have been applied for. Infrastructure Contributions Policies CN1, CN6 and CN8 of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029 and the Planning Obligations SPD set out the Council's approach to the provision of infrastructure and community facilities needed as a result of development. Through the Council's 'scoping' process, consideration has been given to whether the proposed three dwellings in this location would attract contributions to mitigate for the impact of additional residents. As a result of this process, it is advised that no such contributions have been identified as being required in order to make the proposals acceptable in planning terms. As such no legal agreement is required in respect of this proposal and none has been secured. Planning Balance and Conclusion The principle of the erection of dwellings in the countryside is allowed for within the development plan. However, in this instance the application does not accord with the detailed criteria contained therein. This is because the site does not constitute

previously developed land (SS6a) and it has not been demonstrated that there is a locally agreed need for the development (SS6e). This is set out in detail above. Whilst the principle of development does not comply with the policies contained within the development plan, as set out above, the council cannot currently demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of housing (with 20% buffer required due to the Housing Delivery Test results). Policy SS6 is therefore ‘out of date’ as it relates to the supply of housing. The application must therefore be considered in accordance with paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF which states that where relevant policies are considered out of date permission will be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protected areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. In this case, the application site is located within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Paragraph 172 of the NPPF states that "Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty". In line with the above assessment, the proposed development is considered to be an appropriate scale and appearance and would conserve the appearance of the AONB. In this regard, the NPPF does not provide any clear reason for refusing the development proposal. The titled balance, required by paragraph 11(dii) is therefore engaged. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF identifies that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality or rural communities, and paragraph 79 advises that local planning authorities should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside. The previously developed land and locally agreed need tests set out within the Local Plan (SS6a and SS6e), which had formed how the Borough Council considered the application of spatial planning for the area, are not repeated (and as above are in any event, given the HLS position, out of date). Given the siting within an area considered to be built up within close proximity to the settlement of Ball Hill, it is considered that the proposal is not an isolated form of development, and would therefore accord with paragraph 78 and 79. It is also acknowledged that the proposal would make a modest contribution to the Councils 5 year housing land supply, although this is of limited weight in the overall balance. It is acknowledged that the proposed development does not provide an ideal mix of smaller houses (as required by principle 3.1 of the Housing SPD), however it is considered that the contribution to the housing stock at a time when the Borough cannot currently demonstrate a five years housing supply, outweighs this conflict with the Local Plan and the Housing SPD. There would also be a limited social and economic benefits resulting from the construction of the new property and its subsequent occupation. The benefits identified within the above assessment are considered to outweigh the conflict found with the currently out of date planning policy SS6. The development would meet the relevant sections of the NPPF whereby no demonstrable harm would

be presented by the development that would outweigh the benefits assessed above. The proposed development accords with the NPPF paragraph 11d) when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The application is therefore recommended for approval. Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the


P1-01 - Site Location Plan P1-02 Rev E - Site Layout Plan P2-01-H1 Rev B - Proposed House 1 P2-01-H2 Rev B - Proposed House 2 P2-01-H3 Reb A - Proposed House 3




3 No development past damp proof course shall take place until

details/specification of the types and colours of external materials to be used, together with samples (where appropriate), 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. 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 Notwithstanding the submitted planting schedule, within one month of the

commencement of development, a scheme of landscaping which shall specify species, planting sizes, spacing and numbers of plants to be planted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works approved shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of the building(s). 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. 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: Further details are required because insufficient information has been submitted with the application in this regard, to improve the appearance

of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

5 The development hereby approved shall not be occupied 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 before the dwellings are occupied and thereafter maintained. REASON: Further details are required because insufficient information has been submitted with the application in this regard, to improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

6 All bat, breeding bird and reptile protection, mitigation and enhancement

measures shall be carried out in accordance with Section 5 of the Extended Phase I and II Ecological Assessment submitted by Pro Vision dated July 2019, including the lighting specifications given. The development shall be carried out and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved report. REASON: To help protect and enhance the biodiversity of the area in the long-term, in accordance with Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

7 No development shall take place until details of the habitat enhancement

scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved. REASON: To help protect and enhance the biodiversity of the area in the long-term, in accordance with Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

8 Notwithstanding the approved drawings, the development hereby permitted

shall not be occupied or the approved use commence, whichever is the sooner, until unobstructed visibility sightlines of 2.4 metres by 43 metres, looking left and looking right at exit, at the junction of the vehicular site access with the public highway have been provided, and these sightlines shall be thereafter retained, maintained and permanently kept free of obstacles more than 0.6 metres above the level of the adjacent carriageway. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

9 Prior to occupation of the dwellings hereby approved the proposed onsite

vehicular parking and turning areas shall be provided in accordance with the approved site layout plan. Thereafter, these areas shall be permanently retained and used for vehicular parking. REASON: In order to provide a suitable and convenient on-site movement layout with adequate parking facilities in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 to 2029.

10 Protective measures, including fencing, ground protection, supervision,

working procedures and special engineering solutions shall be carried out in

accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (including Tree Survey, Tree Protection Plan and Preliminary Arboricultural Method Statement) report written by SJ Stephens Associates referenced 789 dated 4th October 2019. 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 (2019) and Policy EM1 of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.

11 No development including site clearance, demolition, ground preparation,

temporary access construction/widening, material storage or construction works shall commence on site until a plan showing the location of all existing and proposed utility services has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include gas, electricity, communications, water and drainage. No development or other operations shall take place other than in complete accordance with the utility services plan. 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 (2019) and Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.

12 No development including ground preparation, temporary access construction

or construction work shall commence on site until a Tree Planting Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include the position, species and size of all new trees proposed for the development and shall include a plan to show all services and other infrastructure within the influence zone of the tree as it matures. The plan shall also include specific tree planting details, including tree pits to demonstrate that the underground soil volume and watering can be achieved to support the tree to healthy maturity. Details of protection of young trees to reduce the likelihood of breakage/vandalism to acceptable levels shall be provided. No development shall take place other than in complete accordance with the Tree Planting Plan. REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to establish trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.

13 No development including ground preparation, temporary access construction

or construction work shall commence on site until a Tree Works Specification has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specification shall be prepared in accordance British Standard BS3998:2010 Tree Work-Recommendations. No development shall take place other than in complete accordance with the Tree Works Specification. 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 (2019) and Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.

14 No work relating to the construction of the development hereby approved, including works of demolition or preparation prior to operations, or fitting out, 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. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance with Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

15 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. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

16 With the exception of the demolition of existing buildings and removal of

existing hardstanding and any underground infrastructure 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, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

(b) 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,

(c) 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 Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.


until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of condition 16(c) that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of condition 16(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). 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 16c).

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 Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029


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. 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 Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

19 The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until details of cycle

storage (in accordance with the Parking SPD 2018) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details

shall be implemented before occupation or the use commences, whichever is the sooner, and shall be thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details. REASON: To ensure adequate cycle provision 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 Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

20 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 Class A; B; E; or F; of Part 1; of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be erected on the application site 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 visual amenity of the area and to safeguard the character of the local landscape, in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

21 The first floor window in the north (side) elevation serving the bathroom of H2

in the development hereby approved shall: (a) be glazed with obscured glass, to at least the equivalent of Pilkington level 4 standard; (b) be permanently fixed closed below a height of 1.7m above finished floor level, and shall thereafter be retained in that form. REASON: To protect the privacy of the adjacent property and to prevent overlooking, in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.




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 £116 or £34 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.



proactively offering a pre-application advice (in accordance with paragraphs 39 - 46); 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 accordance with paragraphs 54-57).

In this instance:

the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit; was provided with pre-application advice;


3. The applicant is advised that this permission is only pursuant to the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990 and is advised to contact the Planning and Development Manager with regard to the necessary consents applicable under the Building Regulations.

4. Consent under the Town and Country Planning Acts must not be taken as

approval for any works carried out on any footway, including a Public Right of Way, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the publicly maintained highway. The development could involve works within the public highway. It is an offence to commence those works without the permission of the Highway Authority, Hampshire County Council. In the interests of highway safety the development should not commence on-site until permission has been obtained from the Highway Authority authorising any necessary works within the publicly maintained highway. Public Utility apparatus may also be affected by the development. Contact the appropriate public utility service to ensure agreement on any necessary alterations. Advice on this matter can be obtained from Hampshire County Council’s Area Office, telephone 0300 555 1388, and HCC website.

Location Plan

Proposed Site Layout

House Type 1 Proposed Elevations

House Type 1 Proposed Floor Plans

House Type 1 Proposed Floor Plans (contd.)


Item No. 5



Site Address Land On The North Side Of White Hart Lane Charter Alley Hampshire

Proposal Change of use of the land to equestrian for the keeping and riding of horses for private use, together with the erection of associated stables and hay store




Case Officer: Nicola Marchant 01256 845468

Applicant: Quatro Partnership Agent: Mr Jonathan Jarman

Ward: Sherborne St. John Ward Member(s): Cllr Tristan Robinson

Parish: WOOTTON ST LAWRENCE CP



Reasons for Approval 1. The proposed development would be of an appropriate design and relates to

surrounding development in a sympathetic manner and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 2011-2029.


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.

3. The development would enable safe access and adequate parking provision

in accordance with highway requirements and as such would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019); Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

4. Sufficient information has been provided to satisfy the requirement for

adequate storage of waste on site in accordance with Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

General comments The application is brought before the Development Control Committee in line with the Scheme of Delegation due to the number of objections received and the Officers recommendation for approval.


Planning Policy The site is located outside of any Settlement Policy Boundary, therefore Countryside Policies apply. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019) Section 2 (Achieving sustainable development) Section 4 (Decision-making) Section 12 (Achieving Well Designed Places) Section 15 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 EM1 (Landscape) EM4 (Biodiversity) EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) EM12 (Pollution) CN9 (Transport) Wootton St Lawrence Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2029 Policy WSL 3 (Public Rights of Way) Policy WSL 4 (Light Pollution) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018) Parking Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018) Landscape, Biodiversity and Landscape Supplementary Planning Document (December 2018) Other material documents The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) Description of Site The application site is located to the north of White Hart Lane and located to the east of the property known as "Tarnaguila". The site area is 2 ha and is currently in agricultural use. It is enclosed by fencing with double gates to the entrance of the site and is defined by the existing trees and hedgerow. Proposal The proposal is for the change of use of an agricultural field to equestrian land for the keeping and riding of horses for private use, together with the erection of associated stables (2 in total) and a hay store. The two stable blocks proposed

would be 4m in height, providing four stables and a tack room in each. The stables would be constructed of timber walls and tiled or timber roof. The hay barn would be a single storey building and 7m in height. Three of the four side of the barn would be open. Amended site plan received 13/01/20 altering the position of the stables and barn further north within the site. The amended plans also reposition the entrance gates 7m back from the highway to accommodate trailers/vehicles off the road. Consultations Monk Sherborne Parish Council – “Please be advised that Monk Sherborne Parish Council OBJECT to the application submitted for 19/02849/FUL, Land at White Hart Lane, Charter Alley. Members believe the change of use of land from agricultural to equestrian use would not be supported by the amount of remaining grazing land at less than 5 acres and not considered to be sufficient. Concerns were also expressed in relation to the local infrastructure, specifically no pavements, no streetlights, no public transport and no shops. The roads, drainage and sewage systems are also under significant pressure locally.” Wotton St Lawrence Parish Council – “The Parish Council has carefully reviewed the above planning application for a change of use from agricultural to use of the land for the keeping and riding of horses for private use, together with the erection of associated stables and hay store. Please note we have doubts over the ownership of the land who are stated to be a company known as Quatro Partnership but no doubt the Council will satisfy itself on this point before determining the application. Furthermore, given the identity of the applicant is unclear, no residential properties are associated with the application site and the description of the proposed development as a "private" facility is not substantiated in the planning statement. The Parish Council believes, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that this application should be considered as potentially a commercial activity. After careful consideration, the Parish Council object to the proposed development on the following grounds: 1. The scale of the proposed development is not consistent with private equestrian use. The application does not demonstrate adequate knowledge of the local area or how equine facilities operate. The local hacking is very limited and there is no provision for an all weather riding area within the application, this limits the owner’s ability to ride or requires them to leave the yard. Riding horses in the fields as proposed does not take into account the damage this does to a field in regards to good field management. It also disregards the weather conditions which lead it to be unsafe to ride, fields can be too wet (slippy), hard (damaging horses legs) or when it is icy. The use and storage of training equipment, e.g. jumps, poles and markers is not addressed in the application. Supervision is of great importance to horse owners, stabling of this size is generally associated with a person living on site, or within the local community with good relationships with the surrounding neighbours. The scale of the proposed barn development shown on the drawings that accompanied the planning application is excessive to meet the needs of a private

equestrian use for 8 horses. Our concern is that the scale of built development is more appropriate to cater for the needs of a commercial equestrian establishment. In addition, the barn is open on 3 sides and this will not provide adequate cover for a hay store, there is also no roof ventilation. 2. The proposed development, especially the limited acreage does not adequately provide for the welfare of the 8 horses as outlined in guidance by the British Horse Society. The maximum number of horses the site would be able to accommodate is 3 (using BHS welfare guidelines 2 horses per hectare), this is with restricted turn out (daily use of the stables) and good field management. The application does not adequately demonstrate how the stables will meet BHS welfare guidelines in regards to "Adequate consideration needs to be given to the type of horse (height, length and build) as well as factors such as the individual's temperament and disposition, the duration of confinement, and other internal environmental factors (such as air flow, drainage/frequency of waste clearance)." The application does not demonstrate adequate air flow for the stable blocks and makes no consideration to drainage and waste clearance. With limited grazing available provisions for stable enrichment should be considered. Fencing: There is no mention to the type of fencing which will be required to make the site safe for horses. The application does not address the state of the current boundary and makes no attempt to create a safe secure boundary fence for the keeping of horses within the site. Basic Amenities: there is no provision for water or electrics within the application. Field Management: The application does not provide any details or provisions for the basic management of the land for grazing horses, specifically how the grazing will be partitioned. There is no mention of access to clean drinking water or field shelters, both a BHS welfare requirement. The application mentions there will be no structures other than the proposed barn and stable blocks, the addition of the required field shelters would additionally change the sites appearance. Field Maintenance requires access to agricultural machinery, the impact of this on local residents and the site itself has not been adequately evaluated. Waste storage and removal. There is no provision for either of these in the application. There will need to be adequate areas of the yard and or fields for the storage of horse manure before its removal. The storage areas chosen must not have a negative impact on the surrounding area, specifically by water run off. The number of horses will dictate the frequency of large vehicles required to remove the manure, but again this will increase the overall volume of large vehicles requiring access to the site. Provision for general waste removal has not been considered. Horse feed and bedding comes packaged, this is often bulky. Drainage and Yard: There is no mention to the provisions for drainage or the material used to create the yard area. For the stables to be of a minimum standard they would require internal drainage as well as guttering. 3. The adjoining highway network is inadequate to support the potential vehicle movements associated with the equestrian use. The access is located at the junction of White Hart Lane with Monk Sherborne Road and almost opposite the access to the Brick Kiln commercial site. The application does not include any evidence to support the claim that the development will generate "3 or 4 daily trips" or provide adequate information to

justify the claim that the existing access will provide safe access into the site without causing interference or danger to other road users. The number of vehicle movements will be inevitably higher given there is no on-site dwelling associated with this equestrian use. Another concern is that there are no bridleways in the vicinity of the site and this will lead to horses being exercised on local lanes with the associated risks to road users. This is a full planning application and this level information should be provided by the applicant so that the Council Officers and local residents are able to assess the validity of these claims.” Public Observations Fourteen letters of objection on the following grounds:

The application from Quatro a business, for change of use from agricultural to equestrian for personal use is a conflict between business and personal development.

We have never had sight of any horse paraphernalia for the owners of Field House in the ten years we've lived here.

The land would only be suitable for grazing horses for at least two years. After this time a moveable shelter would be more adequate.

There is no need for permanent structures.

The barn is totally out of proportion and a need to establish a footprint in order to change the use to brownfield as the next step.

The traffic toing and froing several times a day with horse boxes, deliveries, veterinary visits accessed from a single track lane causing noise, disruption and likely to cause hazard leading to accident or injury to local residents and walkers who use roads and footpaths.

Any building work would upset the habitat.

A large muck heap would bring smell pollution, bacteria risk and increased insect swarms. There is no mention of disposal.

The rural impact to Charter Alley would be significant.

Such a development would need significant lighting causing lighting pollution.

The stabling and buildings would be against BHS guidelines.

The initial plan by the developer was a retirement village.

I am not against change of use and I am all for housing to help people. But I do not support this sort of application when clearly the only motivation given the impracticality for equestrian is for some quick cash for housing.

The rural village location is not suitable for development of this scale and not in keeping with the Neighbourhood Plan.

The size and number of stables is excessive. Two letters of support received on the following grounds:

I would like to see the land used for stable. I am a local resident with 3 horses.

We have no objection for this to happen.

We live in the countryside and it will be good to see animals in the fields again.

It will be lovely to see life here and a development such as this would help.

Relevant Planning History BDB/22346

Creation of access Granted 17/06/87

Assessment Principle of development Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the land from an agricultural use to a use for the keeping and riding of horses including the installation of 2 no. stables and a hay barn. The principle of the change of use for equestrian development in the countryside is considered to be acceptable providing that the associated built form (stables and hay barn) does not detract from the landscape character of the area. The proposed development is for private equestrian use rather than commercial use, and as such is a small scale activity. The proposed use and structures are appropriate to this rural location and therefore the principle of development is acceptable. The private use of the field, stables and barn is controlled by condition 4. Impact on the character of the area/ design The application site is located to the north of White Hart Lane and located to the east of the property known as "Tarnaguila". The neighbouring land is predominantly open countryside, with some agricultural and residential buildings to the east and north of the site. The site is located on the edge of the settlement of Ramsdell, as such there are houses and buildings associated with the village spanning the length of White Hart Lane, beyond the southern boundary of the site. It is noted that concerns have been raised by local residents in relation to the development not being suitable for the rural village location, and possible impacts on the users of the adjacent footpath. The proposed stables and hay barn would be located to the northwest corner of the application site and although visible from White Hart Lane they would be read against the boundary treatments (trees and hedgerows) to the north and west just outside of the site. This would provide a visual anchoring of the buildings into the landscape and as such, the development would not have a harmful visual impact on the character of the area. It is also noted that to the west there are existing buildings including a large steel ‘barnlike’ building with a curved roof (much like the proposed barn) and a dwelling, so the proposed structures would also been seen against this backdrop. It is also considered that views of stables and horses within the rural landscape is not untypical, The plans clearly show that the existing access and footpath to the west of the site would be unaffected by the proposals, with the proposed access to the stables and barn being located on the other side of an existing post and wire fence, which is also served by an existing separate gated entrance. As such the proposals would not have a harmful impact on the users of the current adjacent footpath.

A number of objections have been raised suggesting the proposal would be for a commercial business due to the number of stables and size of hay barn proposed. However, the supporting information provided confirms that the equestrian use, stables and barn would be used by four local families for their own private enjoyment and would not be operated on a commercial basis. As such, it is considered reasonable to impose a condition ensuring this remains the case in the future (see condition 4). A number of concerns have been raised regarding the number of horses to be located at the site in relation to its size, and that the British Horse Society recommends that average pasture will maintain approximately two horses per hectare for permanent grazing and the proposal falls short of this requirement. The guidance also recognises that there are a number of variables that must also be considered. In this instance as stated in the supporting information, the horse grazing would also be supplemented by additional feed and as such would not be solely reliant on the field for grazing. This is not dissimilar to equestrian uses within the countryside. The supporting information has also confirmed that it is anticipated that the stables would not be used at full capacity, as the number of stables proposed is designed to provide flexibility for the four families. In terms of the welfare of the horses within the site the applicants would exercise them daily within the site and on local bridleways. It is also stated that the applicants also own other farm land in the area where there is an opportunity to ride. The application site also has a mains water supply for the horses and would be enclosed by a 1.2 metre high post and wire fence, which meets the BHS standards for enclosing horses safely within the site. Impact on neighbouring amenities The proposed built form would be located approximately 30 metres from the neighbouring properties located to the south of the application site. The residential property to the west of the site at "Tarnaguila”, which would be 40m from the nearest stable building. Given the distance, it is considered that the proposals would not have an overbearing impact on these neighbours. With regards to the treatment of horse manure within the site and the concerns raised in relation to this regarding smell, bacteria and insects to local residents. The applicant has confirmed this would be collected and used as soil fertiliser on the applicants nearby agricultural fields. The manure would be stored within the barn and cleared on a daily basis or as necessary from the site by tractor and trailer in order to avoid any issues such as those suggested. The barn would be over 68m to the nearest property at "Tarnaguila”. It is noted that there is a concern from local residents in relation to light pollution from lighting within the site, particularly at night in the winter. However, no details of lighting within the site has been provided and a condition has been imposed in this regard to ensure any lighting would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring residents (see condition 5).

In terms of noise pollution from the site, it is considered that any noise associated with the use of the site would not be above or beyond that of a rural area with farms and agricultural fields in the vicinity. Highways Regarding traffic impacts as a result of the proposals, it has been suggested by local residents that the proposal would result in excess of 30 visits per day causing adverse impacts on road users and potential for accidents. The applicant has confirmed that the proposal is for private recreational use and not for commercial use, therefore any increase in traffic and vehicles associated with the site would be fairly limited. It should be noted, that an area for parking and manoeuvring within the site would also be provided. The access gate to the entrance of the site would also be set back 7m from the road ensuring any vehicles would be located fully within the site and not cause a hazard to road users. Trees As previously mentioned there are trees and hedgerows located to the north and west just outside the application site screening the site. However, no works are proposed or necessary to these trees as they are outside the application site and given the nature of the application there would be no impact within any root protection areas of any trees. Biodiversity The development would not result in the loss or replacement of any of the hedgerows or foliage surrounding the application site and as such, it is considered that there would be no impact on any wildlife species or habitat that may be located in the area. Community Infrastructure Requirements Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable. From these forms, whilst the proposals would have a floor area greater than 100m², the proposals are not for residential use and therefore would not be CIL liable. Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the


Drawing number PL-200 Drawing number PL-100A Drawing number PL-201 Drawing number PL-202 Drawing number PL-203




3 No development shall commence on site until details of the types and colours

of materials to be used (including proposed stables, barn and scalpings for the access) including colour and finishes, together with samples, 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. REASON: Details are required prior to commencement because insufficient information has been submitted with the application in this regard, in relation to the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

4 The application site area and associated equestrian uses (barn and stables)

hereby permitted shall be only used for private recreational equestrian purposes and shall not be used for any other purpose including commercial riding, breeding, livery or training purposes. REASON: The land and buildings which are the subject of this application are not considered suitable for general recreational or commercial equestrian use due to the sensitivity of this location in the open countryside in accordance with the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

5 No security lighting or other external means of illumination of the site shall be

provided, installed or operated in the development, except in accordance with a detailed scheme which shall provide for lighting that is low level, hooded and directional, and has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area, and in the interest of biodiversity and neighbouring properties in the locality, in accordance with Policies EM1, EM4 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.



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 £116 or £34 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.



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:



Location Plan

Site Plan

Proposed stables (floor plans and elevations)

Proposed Hay Barn


Item No. 6



Site Address Meadow Brook Farm Woolton Hill Road Ball Hill RG20 0PB

Proposal Demolition of equestrian buildings and a rest room and Erection of a two bedroom detached dwelling

Registered: 3 December 2019 Expiry Date: 28 January 2020



Case Officer: Bethan Wallington 01256 845361

Applicant: Mr & Mrs John and Melanie Blyth

Agent: Miss Katherine Miles

Ward: East Woodhay Ward Member(s): Cllr Clive Sanders

Parish: EAST WOODHAY CP


Recommendation: the application be REFUSED for the following reasons.

Reasons for Refusal 1 The application would result in the erection of a single dwelling in an isolated

location within the countryside. The proposal is not considered to represent a sustainable form of development. The harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) (NPPF) and Policies SS1 and SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. There is no justification for departing from the NPPF or the Development Plan or any other material considerations such to establish the principle of development which would be of sufficient weight for the creation of an additional dwelling on this site.

2 The resultant dwelling would not provide any outdoor private amenity space

which is considered detrimental to the enjoyment of the occupants of the proposal. As such, the development would be contrary to Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029; and Section 10 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document.

General Comments A previous application (ref 19/01603/FUL) was considered by the Development Control Committee on 9 October 2019. The officer recommendation on that previous application was to refuse planning permission and the Committee voted to refuse. A decision notice was duly issued on 11 October 2019. However, the applicant’s agent contacted the Monitoring Officer after the decision was issued to raise concern that the decision making process undertaken at the October 2019 committee had not


been correct. Specifically it was pointed out that in debating the item, despite some Members talking in favour of the recommendation to refuse planning permission, a motion to refuse was not proposed by any member of the committee (which has been confirmed by the Monitoring Officer following a review of the webcast for the relevant meeting).The decision made by the committee to refuse the application was therefore not validly made. The applicant’s agent considered judicially reviewing the decision, but instead agreed to resubmit the same proposal under a new application (since had a judicial review challenge been made the council would have had consent to a quashing of the refusal decision). In this regard whilst the previous application is set out in the planning history section of the report as a matter of fact, Members are advised to consider this current application afresh based on the policies in the Development Plan and all other material considerations. The report below sets out the assessment of the application and responds to further information submitted in support of the current application since the October committee. Member comments A request has additionally been made by Councillor Sanders for this application to be brought to be brought to the Development Control Committee for the following reasons: "The original application was brought to Committee because I had significant concerns about the ability of the Council, because of its lack of a 5-year land supply, to resist an appeal if the decision was to refuse. I still hold that view and would rather avoid the time and public expense of defending an unnecessary appeal if at all possible. I have reviewed the latest submissions from the applicants and also the webcast of the previous meeting when this application was considered. When this application was considered by the Development Control Committee in October 2019 officers on two separate occasions drew attention to the previous appeal decision and confirmed that it should carry weight in considering determination. Cllr Westbrook then reiterated the point in his comments that he felt the committee should give great weight to that appeal decision. However, at no time did officers make it clear that each application should be considered on its own merit and that the previous appeal decision should only be taken into account in so far as it was still relevant to the current application. There are three particular aspects which render that appeal decision irrelevant to consideration of the current application. 1. The proposed scale, form and design has changed considerably from the earlier

proposal. It is now a scaled back simple replacement of what is already there with roof heights to be in line with the existing stable block and the removal of the large glazed areas. This has allowed the officers in their comments, as stated in the last report, to be largely supportive that the current proposal would "correspond with what currently exists" and "is acceptable in design terms and would not harm the character of the area". It would therefore now "be in accordance with Policies

SS6, EM1 and EM 10 of the Local Plan" and not as described by the Inspector when considering a totally different design.

2. Case law has moved on since the Inspector arrived at his conclusions three years

ago in 2016, in particular Braintree DC v SSCLG [2018] Civ 610 ('the Braintree case') which forms a material consideration in the assessment of this application given the site's location outside of a defined Settlement Policy Boundary. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision which concluded that that the word 'isolated' should be given its ordinary meaning as 'far away from other places, buildings and people; remote'. Lindblom LJ's held that in the context of paragraph 55 of the previous NPPF (2012), now paragraph 79 (2019), 'isolated' simply connotes a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement. Meadowbrook Farm is within a few hundred yards of some 20+ houses in Ball Hill, a garage and a pub, the nearest houses being less than 100yards away across the paddock and clearly in sight. There is no way that the site can be considered remote from a settlement. To put it in context permission has recently been granted for developments in the Ball Hill area, on previously developed land which this is, which are twice and three times the distance from Ball Hill centre, yet these were not considered isolated. We must have consistency. Similarly, it is misleading as was reported last time to compare the Crookfur Cottage (Ref: APP/H1705/W/17/3192317 - planning application 17/01473/OUT) (July 2018). That appeal decision which had regard to the Braintree Case noted that in relation to the appeal site, although there was some limited built form locally, the physical location of the site in open countryside, its remote siting was well away from any defined settlement or meaningful collection of houses. It is some 1.2 km from the settlement of Kingsclere, Meadow Brook is just 200 m from Ball Hill. Members who have been to both sites will recognise that there are such significant differences between them in terms of isolation to make any comparison void. This point was made in the application hearing and raised by Cllr Potter but ignored in favour of the appeal decision even though Braintree had rendered it superseded.

3. Though the application made in 2015 was heard at a time when the council had

no valid Council Plan in place, and various policies could be deemed to no longer apply because of a lack of land supply, the appeal was heard when the current Local Plan was in place. The Inspector makes the point in Para 17 of his decision that paragraphs 49 and 14 of the version of the NPPF current at that time were not engaged and based his decision accordingly. We are now back in a situation of a lack of a 5-year land supply. This means that policies relating to housing delivery in the borough's adopted Local Plan and made Neighbourhood Plans are currently considered to be out of date. Planning applications will therefore be considered in line with paragraph 11 of the NPPF which states that where relevant policies are considered out of date permission will be granted (my emphasis) unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or any adverse impacts of doing

so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. As has been demonstrated in points 1 and 2 above the element of harm found by the Inspector in design has been eliminated by the redesign of the building and the harm of isolation has been eliminated through the guidance of the Court of Appeal. There are therefore no clear reasons for refusing the development on these grounds and the presumption must be in favour of approval.

There remains the issue of lack of amenity space. This point is well argued in the applicant's latest submission and there is no point in my repeating those points. Suffice it to say that the site is a private equestrian facility not a commercial venture. There is nothing in our planning policies that says you must use amenity space for flowerbeds rather than horse beds. The proposal is for a small two-bedroom single story home with a courtyard outside it largely hidden from public view, it is not a large family house. However, the whole stable block site should be considered as amenity space and any children who came to stay would have the joy of the surrounding fields in which to run and play. In fact, it is arguable that there are acres of amenity space within the ownership of the property, though not necessarily within the immediate curtilage. We should not be hidebound by urban concepts in a rural environment. I note that the Parish Council has no objection to the proposal and that it is supported by several neighbours. There are no objections. I therefore conclude that the reasons for the refusal of the 2015 application and the appeal against that decision are no longer relevant and should not carry weight in determining this application on its own merits. I further conclude that there are no clear reasons for refusing this application, either to protect areas or assets of particular importance or that there are any adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. This application should therefore be approved in accordance with paragraph 11 of the NPPF and I hope that officers will now review their position and change their recommendation to one for approval so that we can avoid further unnecessary time and cost being expended. If not, I have no hesitation in requesting this matter be brought to Committee for determination." Planning Policy The application site is located outside any Settlement Policy Boundary but within the countryside and also falls within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NWD AONB). National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019) Section 2 (Achieving Sustainable Development) Section 4 (Decision-making) Section 5 (Delivering a sufficient supply of homes)

Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport) Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) Section 15 (Preserving and enhancing the natural environment) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Presumption on Favour of Sustainable Development) Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing) Policy SS6 (New housing in the countryside) Policy CN9 (Transport) Policy EM1 (Landscape) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM6 (Water Quality) Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Use) 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 Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018) Parking Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018) Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD (March 2018) Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document (2018) The Council's Guidance Note - New homes in the countryside to meet a locally agreed need (January 2019) The Council's Guidance Note - New homes in the countryside on previously developed land (January 2019) Other material documents The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2019-2024 Description of Site The development site comprises a 1.178ha parcel of land located to the south of Ball Hill and south of the existing dwellings known as Burley Moor Farm and Burley Glen, which are accessed off a single track from Woolton Hill. The site is laid out to provide a series of paddocks demarcated by post and rail fencing and contains a gravel parking area to the north of a number of existing single storey buildings. The buildings comprise a pole barn with stable block, a barn with a store attached and a stable building. The application site is bounded to the east by post and rail fencing with trees and hedging. Between the site and Woolton Hill is a landscape buffer containing a number of trees and grassland, with hedges running along Woolton Hill. A Public Right of Way (East Woodhay: 7a) extends along the access road from the public highway and dissects the north western corner of the application site.

Proposal The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of a hay store and tack room/store positioned to the west of the site as well as a rest room to provide space for the erection of a single storey two bedroom detached dwelling. The dwelling would have an ‘L’ shaped footprint measuring a maximum of 17.4 metres in length, 9.2 metres in width and 4 metres in height. The property is orientated to face east and would also extend into the stable yard that sits between the existing equestrian buildings on the site. The property would have no defined parking or private garden space. The proposal would also include the provision of a fuel storage tank and installation of a treatment plant. The application proposal is identical to that previously refused under planning application reference 19/01603/FUL. Consultations East Woodhay Parish Council: "The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no comments on or objections to the above application. However, please advise the Parish Clerk should the matter be referred to the Development Control Committee as the Parish Council may wish to appoint a councillor to attend." Cllr Sanders: As detailed above. Landscape: Objections on the previous scheme (which has been submitted exactly the same) to residential use of the land, the lack of garden and lack of a landscape scheme. Biodiversity: No objections subject to conditions. Environmental Health: No objections subject to conditions. HCC Highways: No objections subject to condition. HCC Countryside (Public Rights of Way): No objections subject to informatives. Public Observations Two letters of support were received commenting as follows (in summary):

The bungalow is in keeping with the other buildings on site and presents a similar appearance to the existing buildings.

The site has minimal visual impact with its low roof.

The site is generally well screened by trees and hedges.

Relevant Planning History 15/04038/FUL Erection of 2 bedroom dwelling following

demolition of pole barn, rest room, hay barn and store.

Refused 14/01/16 Appeal 02.09.2016 dismissed

19/01603/FUL Demolition of equestrian buildings and erection of a two bedroom detached dwelling.

Refused 11/10/19

Assessment Background This current application is an identical proposal to that considered under planning application reference 19/01603/FUL and refused permission on the 11th October 2019. For the reasons set out above, the application has been resubmitted for consideration and is accompanied by a supporting letter which provides commentary that seeks to address the previous reasons for refusal. This supporting information has been reviewed within the context of this report. Both most recent proposal under 19/01603/FUL and this current application consider the siting of a dwelling in a similar position to that dismissed at appeal in 2016. In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector considered that the location of the site was ‘separated from other more concentrated residential development and physically remote from local services’ thus concluding that ‘the proposal would result in an isolated form of development…’. Concern was additionally raised to the scale and massing of the proposed dwelling (which at that time was two storey) noting also that a residential property ‘would inevitably involve the introduction of domestic paraphernalia into an area where presently there is none’ and that this ‘would erode the rural character of the site, materially altering the visual aesthetic and the contribution it makes to the surrounding sensitive landscape’. In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector afforded ‘great weight’ to the location of the site within the North Wessex AONB with the development deemed to ‘negatively impact on the landscape’ with proposed screening considered to be ‘insufficient to fully mitigate the impact that the proposal would have on its surroundings particularly during the winter months….’. Principle of development Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must have regard to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that proposals 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 Local Planning Authority (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.

Local Plan The site is located outside any Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) and is within part of the borough which is designated as countryside as per Policy SS1 (Scale and distribution of new housing) of the Local Plan. The Local Plan (paragraph 4.70) is explicit in its aims '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'. Policy SS1 sets out a spatial strategy for the Local Authority to meet its full housing need over the Plan period. The strategy is principally based upon the development of allocated Greenfield sites and the redevelopment of land in the towns and villages. Development in the countryside is generally restricted. In the countryside, the most relevant Local Plan Policy for the proposal is Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside) which sets out the exceptional circumstances where it is appropriate to allow new housing development. 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 small scale to meet a locally agreed need; is required to support an existing rural business; or is allocated by a Neighbourhood Plan. In this instance, the application has been submitted on the basis that it would accord with SS6(a), in that the development would be located on 'previously developed land'.

Previously developed land The location of the proposed dwelling forms part of an equestrian site where there are three permanent structures located, all of which are used as part of the site's equestrian use. These buildings front onto a stable yard comprising hardstanding with the remainder of the site given over to enclosed paddocks. Given the presence of these permanent buildings, their equestrian use, and the siting of the proposed dwelling, it is considered the development would be located on 'previously developed land' when having regard to the most up to date definition of previously developed land (PDL) contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019). This states that PDL is:

"Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill, where provision for restoration has been made through development management procedures; land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape."

With the site accepted to be ‘previously development land’, it is necessary to then consider the proposal against the three criterion to SS6(a) - all which need to be met. In order for permission to be granted, the criteria require that (i) the site is not isolated, (ii) that the site is of a high environmental value and (iii) the proposed use and scale of development needs to be appropriate to the site’s context.

Isolated development Criterion (i) of Policy SS6(a) relates to isolated development. Neither the Local Plan nor the NPPF provide a definition of what constitutes 'isolated' development. Therefore in considering whether or not the current application site is ‘isolated’, reference has been given to case law and recent planning appeal decisions. Braintree DC v SSCLG [2018] Civ 610 ('the Braintree case') forms a material consideration in the assessment of isolation. The term ‘isolated’ was considered by the Court of Appeal who upheld a High Court decision which concluded that the word 'isolated' should be given its ordinary meaning as being 'far away from other places, buildings and people; remote'. Lindblom LJ held that, in the context of paragraph 55 of the previous NPPF (2012), (now paragraph 79 in the NPPF), 'isolated' simply connotes a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement. Whether, in a particular case, a group of dwellings constitutes a settlement, or a 'village', for the purposes of the policy will again be a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision-maker. The Court rejected the argument that the word 'isolated' as set out within the NPPF could have a dual meaning, being physically isolated or functionally isolated (isolated from services and facilities). In applying this guidance to this current case, the site was considered as ‘isolated’ by the previous Inspector, albeit the consideration of this term has since evolved with reference to the above case law. This case law was also considered when determining the previous application of 19/01603/FUL whereby the site is set well back from the Woolton Hill Road and is well screened with limited visibility from the road and other vantage points making the site feeling enclosed and by itself. The report to the Committee for 19/01603/FUL has been scrutinised by the Applicant within the context of this resubmission and questions the conclusion of the Council that the site at Meadow Brook House is within an ‘isolated’ position. Supporting information expresses opinions that the site is ‘not remote from other places, people and/or buildings’ suggesting that there are ‘numerous other buildings’ within the immediate vicinity of Meadow Brook Farm such that the property would form part of a ‘settlement’ and ‘community’. The Supporting Information also draws reference to a sample of six decisions for dwellings granted permission by the Council under Policy SS6 outside of Settlement Policy Boundaries, comparing the numbers of houses within the radius of these application sites and the distances to Settlement Policy Boundaries in order to argue that Meadow Brook Farm is not isolated. Whilst these cases are noted, the applications referred to comprise only a very small selected sample of the total number of applications considered by the Council under the Policy SS6 since adoption of the Local Plan. As such the sample is not considered to be sufficiently representative as to be afforded significant weight in the determination process.

Concern has additionally been raised by the Applicant that the report for application 19/01603/FUL relied upon an appeal decision for Crookfur Cottage (Ref: APP/H1705/W/17/3192317 - planning application 17/01473/OUT) when considering matters of isolation. In determining the appeal for two dwellings in a countryside location, the Inspector identified that the site was in a ‘remote siting well away from any defined settlement or meaningful collection of houses and also from the public thoroughfare…’ as well as having a ‘significant separation’ from any settlement. The site of Crookfur Cottage was concluded to be an isolated location. The Applicant disputes reference to this appeal because the Inspector does not specifically define the number of buildings required to constitute a ‘meaningful collection’ of houses. It is stated that the appeal site is not comparable to Meadow Brook Farm and suggests that consideration should only be given to ‘whether the proposed site is far away from other buildings and people’. The Supporting Information does however recognise ‘that each case is judged on its own merits and whether or not a site is isolated is a matter of planning judgement…’ and the assessment of the merits of this application remains that Meadow Brook Farm lies within an isolated location, contrary to the view of the Applicant. In reaching this conclusion, it is reiterated that the site is physically detached from the settlement of Ball Hill and Woolton Hill by intervening countryside. The pattern of development surrounding the application site is essentially sporadic derived from farmsteads set within the landscape. Whilst two houses, namely Burley Glen and Burley Moor Farm (to the north) can be glimpsed in the landscape, there remains a level of physical separation to Meadow Brook Farm, which also sits further away from Ball Hill as the nearest village. Furthermore, cumulatively Burley Glen and Burley Moor Farm would not form a group of houses that could be considered as a hamlet, village or settlement which could be afforded weight. The application site is concluded to fall within an isolated location, and is contrary to criterion i) of SS6(a). The site is not of any high environmental value meeting criterion (ii) of SS6(a) and the proposed use and scale of the development would be appropriate to the site's context if the site was not isolated therefore meeting SS6(a) (iii). Whilst the application has been considered against Policy SS6(a) as the most relevant criteria, consideration is also given to Policy SS6(e) which also considers houses outside of Settlement Policy Boundaries, stating that these will be only be permitted where they are:

‘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; 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 tests in Policy SS6(e) are in two parts. The first part (e) sets out the overall limits of the exception whilst the second part (criteria ix - xi) then sets out detailed criteria

for proposals that are within that exception. Therefore, a proposal that can satisfy the first part of criterion e) will fall within the exception as a matter of principle, but the specific details then need to be considered in terms of the criteria of the second part of the policy. A proposal which does not satisfy the exception will not be policy compliant even if it might otherwise comply with the detailed criteria ix - xi. In terms of the first part of SS6(e), the application is for one dwelling and therefore meets the test relating to scale (four dwellings or fewer) however proposals must also be of a scale and type that meets a locally agreed need. The Council has published a guidance note to assist in addressing locally agreed need. This advises that an applicant should demonstrate that their proposal meets a specific and clearly identified unmet need in the local area in terms of number, size, type, and tenure, and refers to the need being with the Parish, village, or settlement. The applicant has not provided information to support the application in respect of SS6(e) and there is no other evidence to conclude that there is a locally agreed need for the accommodation proposed. It is therefore not necessary to then consider the proposal against criteria SS6(e) ix) to xi) and it is concluded that the proposal fails against the requirements for considering new residential development outside of Settlement Policy Boundaries within Policy SS6 of the Local Plan. To summarise, whilst the site constitutes previously developed land, its isolated location would neither meet the objectives of the NPPF (2019) or the Local Plan policies, nor have any other material planning considerations been identified which would justify departing from the Development Plan. As such, the principle of the proposed development has not been established and the development of the new dwelling in this location would be contrary to National and Local Policy. As such, the development is recommended for refusal on this basis.

National Planning Policy and Housing Land Supply The NPPF is a material consideration in the decision-taking process. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policy for England and places sustainable development at the heart of the decision-taking process incorporating objectives for economic, social and environmental protection. These objectives seek to balance growth and local community needs against protection of the natural, built and historic environment. In providing for sustainable development, the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to identify a five year supply of specific deliverable sites to meet housing needs. For BDBC, and in line with the Housing Delivery Test published in February 2019, a 20% buffer should be added to the borough's supply. Against this requirement, at the current time, the council is unable to demonstrate that it has 5 years' worth of deliverable sites. This means that policies relating to housing delivery in the borough's adopted Local Plan, to include Policies SS1 and SS6, are currently considered to be out of date and are afforded limited weight in the decision-taking process. Planning applications for new housing therefore have to be considered in line with paragraph 11 of the NPPF which states that where relevant policies are considered out of date permission will be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas (such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development

proposed, or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework when taken as a whole. For rural housing, paragraphs 77-79 of the NPPF are the most relevant to the consideration of this proposal for a new dwelling. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the viability of rural communities. Furthermore, Paragraph 79 of the NPPF states that 'Planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the following circumstances apply:

a) there is a need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside;

b) the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets;

c) the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting;

d) the development would involve the subdivision of an existing residential dwelling; or

e) the design is of exceptional quality, in that it: - is truly outstanding or innovative, reflecting the highest standards in

architecture, and would help raise standards of design more generally in rural area; and

- would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be sensitive to defining characteristics of the local area'.

In addressing the proposed development, the first consideration is whether the site is in an isolated location which has been discussed above with it concluded that the site is within an isolated location. With the development also not providing for any of the above exceptions, it is considered that the proposed development would not form sustainable rural housing contrary to Section 5 of the NPPF. In addressing the proposal against the wider objectives of sustainable development of the NPPF and Policy SD1 of the Local Plan, it is notable that the development site is located within an area of the Borough where there are limited facilities and does not benefit from established public transport and community facilities in the immediate vicinity. The nearest bus stops are in Ball Hill (approximately 0.5km away from the application site) and Woolton Hill (approximately 1.3km away from the application site) and accessing these would be along narrow rural lanes which would not encourage their use. Whilst it is expected that there would be a need for future occupiers to undertake a number of journeys by means of private car given the site’s rural location; the site's lack of the accessibility and the limited opportunity the site offers for journeys to be made my means other than by private car, runs contrary to the Framework's presumption in favour of 'sustainable development'. It is acknowledged that the erection of a single dwelling would not provide any form of long term economic development to contribute towards the local economy, with any benefits generated through the construction period with spin offs from wage

spending of construction workers and supplier sourcing and following this, consumer spending on goods and services by the occupants of the dwelling within the local economy. Socially, a single dwelling would not make a notable contribution to the local housing stock. With regard to the environmental objective of this development, the proposal could reasonably be expected to demonstrate a degree of inherent sustainability through compliance with Council supported energy efficiency and Building Regulations standards. There would also be an ability to impose conditions securing biodiversity enhancements to the site, as well as new/additional landscaping and whether these are reasonable will be considered in the assessment below understand the relevant section. Impact on the character of the area/design Policy EM1 states that development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned and must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected. Policy EM10 states that proposals will be required to respect the local environment, contribute to the street scene and be visually attractive. Policy EM10 also seeks high quality development across the borough, based upon a robust design-led process and a clear understanding of the local identity and context of development to create successful, inviting places where people want to live, work and enjoy themselves. The application site remains that same as the previous application and comprises of a stable building, barn building and another storage building, all of which are low level and are structures typically associated with the rural environment within which the site sits. A number of trees are located along the eastern boundary of the site, and a belt of trees is located along the western boundary of the paddock. On the western side of that belt of trees is a Public Right of Way (East Woodhay: 7a) that runs from the south west from Woolton House Farm, along the western side of the track which then joins the private track to the north of the site which provides the access off Woolton Hill. The proposal continues to demolish the existing barn/stable building on the western side of the group of buildings. This barn/stable measures approximately 4.7m in height with a footprint of approximately 56sqm. The new dwelling would be the same as that previously refused and would have a footprint of 134.8sqm which is notably larger in footprint that was previously refused under reference 15/04038/FUL (and dismissed at appeal) and also the footprint of the existing building that this application intends to replace. It is also recognised that the building would be substantially longer at 18m than the existing building (10.3m) and slightly longer than that previously refused (16m). With this being said, the height of the structure has been reduced from 6m in height to now 4m in height and has also removed a two storey, flat roofed glazed structure to be attached to the west elevation proposed under the previously refused application. The Landscape Officer did not comment on this current application however did provide comments on the previous (identical) application. Given the recent nature of these comments and that this application proposes the exact same development, the

comments are considered to remain relevant. The Landscape Officer previously commented that the impact of this more visible and larger building on the site would be harmful to the landscape character as it would domesticate the area, increase its visibility from the Public Right of Ways and replace functional equestrian buildings. Further concerns were raised in regards to the absence of a domestic garden (discussed under residential amenity) and the lack of a hard and soft landscaping scheme. In regards to design, the existing buildings are of no architectural merit therefore there is no objection to their replacement. The proposed dwelling would have a similar appearance to the existing structures in the countryside and AONB location and would be appropriate and complimentary to the area. As noted above, the proposal is of a substantial footprint however the shape of the dwelling with the different roof forms would appear as a reflection of what is already present in this location. Whilst the proposal would be a notable addition in comparison to the existing built form to be removed, it would have a rural appearance and, with it being single storey, would correspond with what currently exists within the site. The proposed materials would comprise a black timber weatherboarding rising above a brick plinth and sitting under a green slate roof. These materials are considered appropriate to this rural location. It is noted that there is a Public Right of Way to the north-west however, given that the dwelling would be single storey that reflects what is currently on site and the use of materials which are typical in this location. It is considered there would be no harmful visual impacts to the users of the right of way to warrant refusal of the proposal on landscape grounds. The route of this right of way would not be affected by the proposals. The comments from the Landscape Officer are therefore not considered in this instance to be of sufficient weight to substantiate a refusal based on the impact on the landscape character and wider AONB landscape. As such, had the proposal been otherwise acceptable, the proposed replacement dwelling would have been considered acceptable in design terms and would not harm the character of the area and AONB landscape and as such would be in accordance with Policies SS6, EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan. Impact on residential amenity Policy EM10 (b) of the Local Plan gives consideration to providing a high quality of amenity for the occupants of new development as well as neighbouring properties with respect to issues such as overlooking and light. The Policy also requires the provision of quality amenity as well as amenity space in accordance with the Design and Sustainability SPD.

Neighbouring residential amenity The closest neighbours to the site are Burley Moor Farm and Burley Glen which sit approximately 66m to the northwest with Burley Moor set approximately 131m to the north east. The intervening distances to the nearest neighbours would ensure that

there would no adverse loss of privacy, overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing or any overbearing impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The development would therefore accord with Policy EM10 of the Local Plan in this regard.

Amenity for the proposed dwelling Under the historically refused application (reference 15/04038/FUL) it was noted that whilst no garden area was to be provided, no objection was raised on this basis as it is the applicant’s specific desire to not have a garden area. It was further noted that the residential part of the site could be strictly controlled by a condition to prevent further intrusion and use of the paddock area if the scheme was otherwise acceptable. The application most recently refused referred to guidance contained within the Design and Sustainability SPD (July 2018) which was adopted after the determination of the dismissed appeal in 2016. The Design and Sustainability SPD key design principle RA1 states that ‘New housing development is required to provide amenity space to meet the recreational and domestic needs of the occupants’ and that ‘amenity space is required to provide for passive recreational activities such as sitting out, for active recreational activity such as play space for children and gardening, and for other outdoor requirements such as drying clothes. Design principle RA2 provide the required minimum garden sizes according the property size and Design Principle RA3 states that ‘Each dwelling must have a minimum garden depth of 10 metres’. It is therefore necessary to have regard to the current position provided by the guidance. This requires a garden area of 50sqm for a property of the proposed size. Like the previously refused application, the proposal as submitted does not provide any outdoor private amenity space, which is uncommon for a property in this location. The refusal to the previous application has also been disputed by the Applicant within this resubmission stating that there is ‘no desire, nor need for a large domestic garden. Instead, the applicants do have a need for a small area of outdoor space where they can enjoy sitting outdoors or can dry washing’. Supporting information to the application states that an area to the east of the building is proposed to be used for this purpose which is screened from public view and would provide at least 50sqm of amenity space. The Applicant reiterates that a garden ‘does not form part of these proposals’. Notably the floor plans show no doors opening onto the paddocks to the west and south of the property but lounge and kitchen doors would open into the courtyard. However whilst there is no desire of the Applicant’s to have a garden, a planning permission runs with the land as opposed to a personal desire, therefore it is appropriate to have regard to the guidance within the Design and Sustainability SPD which seeks provision of outdoor amenity space. To achieve at least 50sqm of garden space would require the use of the full extent of the courtyard hardstanding between the existing dwelling and buildings to the east of the site that is in equine use given that these buildings would sit at distances of 2.4m to 4.5m from the east elevation of the proposed dwelling.

The development is considered to be contrary to Policy EM10 of the Local Plan and Section 10 of the Design and Sustainability SPD given the absence of a garden space which continues to form a reason for refusal on this basis. 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 to be provided for potential users through a compatible on site layout with appropriate parking and servicing provision. The need for on-site parking is additionally reflected within Policy EM10 with respect to ensuring that the amount, design, layout and location accords with parking standards as set out within the Parking Standards SPD. It is recognised that the addition of a dwelling on the site would be a traffic generating form of development. The site is accessed via a private track off the main road which is considered adequate for access and egress to the site. The increase in traffic movement for a single dwelling is not considered to be of a scale as to create an overriding material impact upon the free flow of traffic and highway safety and therefore accords with Policy CN9 of the Local Plan. The application site is located within a rural location for the purposes of the Parking SPD where a two bedroom dwelling must provide three vehicular spaces on site. Whilst no parking spaces are illustrated on the submitted plans, it is considered that there is adequate space for the turning and parking of a minimum of four cars in the existing parking area to the north of the stable yard. As such, the parking provision on site is considered acceptable in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Local Plan. Storage and Collection of Waste and Recycling The development would need to provide adequate provision for the storage of two wheeled containers and a glass collection box per dwelling in accordance with the Design and Sustainability SPD (Appendix 3). The provision of on-site storage could have been secured through a planning condition had the development been deemed acceptable in other regards. Collection for refuse and recycling would be at the kerbside to the north of the site and whilst this would be further than preferred distances as set out in the Design and Sustainability SPD (Appendix 3), this is currently the situation for the dwellings or Burley Glen and Burley Moor Farm and is therefore considered acceptable in this instance. Environmental Health 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.

The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has raised no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to restrictions on construction and delivery hours. Such conditions are not considered necessary given the isolated nature of the site distant from the nearest residential dwellings.

Contaminated Land The EHO confirms that a site walkover by a member of the Environmental Health Team and a review of the GIS system revealed that the historic agricultural use of the site are potentially contaminating. As such, conditions requiring contamination assessments are therefore justified on this occasion and would have been imposed had the development been otherwise acceptable to ensure accordance with Policy EM12 of the Local Plan.

Water Quality The site falls within a Source Protection Zone and as set out within Policy EM6 of the Local Plan, potentially contaminating development proposals will need to demonstrate that groundwater and surface water is adequately protected to prevent a deterioration of water quality and pollution of the water source. In this instance, the proposed residential use of the site would not be considered to be a 'contaminating form of development' and as such it is not considered necessary in this instance to require further details in relation to groundwater/surface water. The contamination conditions as noted above, would ensure that any existing contaminates are appropriately and safely removed from site, without harming the water source. The development would therefore be in compliance with Policies EM6 in this regard. Biodiversity The Local Planning Authority 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 and to the impact of the development upon sites designated for their ecological interest. These requirements are also reflected within the NPPF (para 174) and Policy EM4 of the Local Plan. The development lies within an area classified within the BDBC Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD as having ‘Ecological Network Opportunities’ and is less than 100m from Oakhurst Field SINC (an unimproved grassland). The application has been supported by an Ecological Appraisal whereby it was found, that the surrounding habitats are good for foraging bats. The Ecological Appraisal therefore set out mitigation recommendations and enhancements, such as limiting external lighting. The Biodiversity Officer raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions ensuring that the recommendations and procedures carried out on site are in line with the submitted Ecological Appraisal. Therefore had the development otherwise been considered acceptable, a condition would have been imposed. It is considered that the development accords with Policy EM4 of the Local Plan and Section 15 of the NPPF.

Sustainable Water Use 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 would have been imposed to secure this standard had the scheme been considered acceptable. Community Infrastructure Requirements Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable. From these forms, it would appear that the development would be CIL liable, but would attract a £nil charge in line with the Council's Charging Schedule. Planning Balance and Conclusion The principle of the erection of single dwellings in the countryside is allowed for within the development plan. However, in this instance the application does not accord with the detailed criteria contained therein. Whilst the site would constitute previously developed land (SS6(a)), the proposal would however result in an isolated form of development, falling to accord with criterion i) of SS6(a). In returning to Paragraph 11 of the NPPF it is considered that the adverse impacts of siting a single and unjustified residential property in an isolated countryside location would not be significantly or demonstrably outweighed when assessed against the policies of the NPPF when taken as a whole. Although no significant harm would occur to the NWD AONB or the character of the area, the development is sited within an area considered to be isolated and unsustainable. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would result in an isolated form of development, and would therefore be contrary to the NPPF. The addition of one dwelling would contribute to the Council's 5 year housing land supply, however given that it is for a single dwelling only, the weight afforded to this matter is limited. There would also be a limited social and economic benefit resulting from the construction of the new property and its subsequent occupation however these would not be of sufficient weight to overcome the harm identified. In conclusion, the benefits identified above would not outweigh the conflict found with the NPPF and currently out of date Local Plan Policy SS6. The development would not accord with the guidance contained within the relevant sections of the NPPF whereby demonstrable harm would be presented by the development that would outweigh the limited benefits assessed above. Mindful of the requirements of paragraph 11 of the NPPF, it is considered that the harm identified would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole and would not represent sustainable development as required by the NPPF and Policy SD1 of

the Local Plan. As such, the application is therefore recommended for refusal where it is also not considered that there are any other material considerations which would otherwise make this development acceptable. Informative(s):- 1. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework


considering the imposition of conditions (in accordance with paragraphs 54-57).

In this instance:

the application was updated after an initial site visit.


Location Plan

Proposed Block Plan

Proposed Elevations

North

South

West

East

Propsed Floor Plans

Ground Floor

Roof Plan

Proposed Section


Item No. 7

Application no: 19/03322/PIP


Site Address Land At OS Ref 461756 155633 Aldermaston Road Sherborne St John Hampshire

Proposal Application for Permission in Principal for residential development of up to 9 dwellings

Registered: 16 December 2019 Expiry Date: 20 January 2020


Permission in Principle


Applicant: Mr H A Hatt Agent: Mrs E Wilkie

Ward: Sherborne St. John Ward Member(s): Cllr Tristan Robinson

Parish: SHERBORNE ST JOHN CP


Recommendation: It is RECOMMENDED that Permission in Principle is GRANTED for a minimum of 1 dwelling and maximum of 9 dwellings on the site, and is subject to a list of expectations that should to be submitted at the Technical Design Consent stage. These are listed at the end of this report.

Reasons for Approval 1. The location, land use and amount of development is considered to be

acceptable and as the council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year Housing Land Supply the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) (NPPF).

General Comments The application is brought to Development Control Committee in line with the scheme of delegation, due to the Officers recommendation for approval and the number of objections received. Background On 1 June 2018 a new route for obtaining planning permission via an application became available for most small, housing-led developments: an application for Permission in Principle (PIP) followed by an application for Technical Details Consent (TDC). A PIP application cannot be a development that is major, household, habitats or Schedule 1 EIA development.


This PIP application establishes whether the site is suitable, in-principle, for residential led development i.e. minor development that is less than 10 dwellings. The scope of any PIP, and therefore consideration of it, is limited to location, land use and amount of development; conditions cannot be imposed. The requirements of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 apply in that the application is to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning Policy The site lies outside of any settlement policy boundary and is therefore considered to lie in a countryside location. The application site is located adjacent to Sherborne St John Conservation Area. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019) Section 2 - Achieving Sustainable Development Section 4 - Decision Making Section 5 - Delivering a Sufficient Supply of homes Section 9 - Promoting Sustainable Transport Section 11 - Making effective use of land Section 12 - Achieving well-designed places Section 14 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 15 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 16 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029 Policy SD1 - Presumption on 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 CN9 - Transport Policy EM1 - Landscape Policy EM2 - Strategic Gaps Policy EM4 - Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation Policy EM7 – Managing flood risk Policy EM9 - Sustainable Water Use Policy EM10 - Delivering High Quality Development Policy EM11 - The Historic Environment Policy EM12 - Pollution Sherborne St John Neighbourhood Plan (2011-2029) SSJ Policy 1 (Delivering a mix of housing sizes to meet local needs) SSJ Policy 2 (The rural character of the Parish)

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Parking Supplementary Planning Document 2018 Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2018 Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document 2018 Heritage Supplementary Planning Document 2018 Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2018: Section 1 - Introduction Section 6 - Arrangement of buildings and creation of spaces Section 7 - Cycle storage and vehicle parking Section 8 - High Quality Buildings Section 9 - Materials and detailing Section 10 - Residential Amenity Appendix 3 - Waste and Recycling Appendix 4 - Space Standards Planning Obligations for Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document Other material planning documents The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) Sherborne St John Village Design Statement Description of Site The site currently forms the north-eastern corner of a medium sized arable field. It is bounded on the eastern side by the rear boundaries of a string of development that follows the western side of Aldermaston Road. The northern site boundary is formed by a public right of way which is also used as access to some individual properties that face out towards the field and to the open countryside. The right of way joins the wider footpath network which extends beyond the site to the south and west. There are views across the fields to the site from these paths. The site also adjoins the western boundary of the Sherborne St John Conservation Area. Proposal This PIP application seeks permission for up to 9 residential units on the site. Within the submitted application form, the application is for a minimum of 1 dwelling and a maximum of 9 dwellings on the site. The application has been submitted to address the `in principle` erection of dwellings on the site. Consultations Historic Environment: No objection Biodiversity: No objection

Landscape: Objection HCC Highways: Objection HCC Archaeologist: No objection subject to condition Public Observations Twenty eight letters of objection raising the following concerns:

The proposal has not demonstrated safe vehicular access.

Out of the access options, vehicular movements are proposed along the track serving Sherborne Cottage, which is only 5m with no turning spaces. The track is also not suitable for construction traffic.

Poor visibility at proposed access points would make the development unsafe.

Increased traffic generation.

Sufficient parking provision has not been demonstrated.

The importation of material to facilitate construction would result in a risk to the environment and safety of nearby residents.

The applicant does not own the tracks in which access is proposed.

Adverse impact on local wildlife.

The proposal would result in increased levels of hardstanding, which would inevitably result in flooding over existing footpaths and tracks.

The site is not allocated for development by either the Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plan.

Further residential development is not required to meet housing needs, as identified by the Neighbourhood Plan.

Loss of agricultural land.

There is insufficient infrastructure in the area, with nearby schools already being oversubscribed.

Concerns that this development would lead to further development within the countryside.

The development would encroach into the strategic gap and should therefore be prevented.

Construction would cause disruption to neighbouring dwellings.

The development would be viewable from nearby listed buildings.

Adverse impact on the conservation area.

Sherborne St John is a medieval settlement and the proposals could adverse impact on historical significance.

Proposed dwellings here would overlook and overshadow existing dwellings.

Adverse visually intrusion into the landscape.

The NPPF is clear in that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making.

The village suffers from sewage network which are already at capacity. This development would exacerbate the problems.

Relevant Planning History None. Assessment Principle of development Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must have regard to Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that proposals 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 and the Sherborne St John Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029. At a national level, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) constitutes guidance which the Local Planning Authority (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.

Housing Land Supply The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to identify a five year supply of specific deliverable sites to meet housing needs. In addition, and in line with the Housing Delivery Test published in February 2019, a 20% buffer should be added to the borough's supply. At the current time the council is unable to demonstrate that it has 5 years' worth of deliverable sites. This means that policies relating to housing delivery in the borough's adopted Local Plan and made Neighbourhood Plans are currently considered to be out of date. Planning applications will therefore be considered in line with paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF which states that where relevant policies are considered out of date permission will be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

Local Plan The site is located outside of any Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) and is within part of the borough which is designated as countryside as per Policy SS1 (Scale and distribution of new housing) of the Local Plan. The Local Plan (paragraph 4.70) is explicit in its aims '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'. Policy SS1 sets out a spatial strategy for the Local Authority to meet its full housing need over the Plan period. The strategy is principally based upon the development of allocated Greenfield sites and the redevelopment of land in the towns and villages. Development in the countryside is generally restricted. The most relevant Local Plan

policy for the proposal is Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside) which sets out the exceptional circumstances where it is appropriate to allow new housing development in the countryside. Policy SS6 states that development in the countryside will only be permitted if the site is a) on previously developed land; b) is part of a rural exception scheme; c) is for the re-use of an existing building; d) involves the replacement of an existing dwelling; e) is small scale to meet a locally agreed need; f) is required to support an existing rural business; g) or is allocated by a Neighbourhood Plan. In this instance, none of SS6 exceptional criteria for allowing new dwellings in the countryside are met. The first criteria to this policy (SS6a) addresses sites which are deemed to be previously developed land. The NPPF provides a definition of PDL within its glossary at annex 2, this states that PDL is:

"Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings (Officer emphasis added); land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill, where provision for restoration has been made through development management procedures; land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape."

The definition of PDL, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), provides exceptions whereby such developed land is not deemed to be PDL, which includes ' land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings'. The application site comprises arable land which is in agricultural use, which is excluded from the definition of PDL. Furthermore, there are no existing permeant structures or buildings on the site. The site is therefore not PDL and does not meet the provision of Policy SS6(a). The only other SS6 Policy criteria to which this application could be considered against is part (e) and concerns 'local need'. Policy SS6(e) states that new housing outside Settlement Policy Boundaries will be only be permitted where they are:

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; 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 tests in Policy SS6(e) are in two parts. The first part (e) sets out the overall limits of the exception whilst the second part (criteria ix - xi) then sets out detailed criteria for proposals that are within that exception. Therefore, a proposal that can satisfy the first part of criterion e) will fall within the exception as a matter of principle, but the specific details then need to be considered in terms of the criteria of the second part of the policy. A proposal which does not satisfy the exception will not be policy compliant even if it might otherwise comply with the detailed criteria ix - xi. In terms of the first part (e), the application is for up to nine dwellings and therefore does not meet the test relating to scale (four dwellings or fewer). The proposed development does not therefore comply with the Policy SS6e) of the Local Plan. Whilst the development would not accord with Policy SS6 of Local Plan, as mentioned above, the Local Planning Authority is unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply therefore Policy SS6 is considered ‘out of date’ as it relates to housing delivery. An assessment of the development in light of this, and the balance required by paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF will be given in the 'Planning Balance and Conclusion' section of this report. The application site is located within the Basingstoke - Sherborne St John Strategic Gap, as identified by Local Plan Policy EM2 and as indicated on the Local Plan Policies Map. In parts of the Borough, towns and villages are located relatively close to one another and development will, in some instances, reduce the distance between settlements further. The strategic gaps have not been identified to protect the countryside or landscape (as per Policy EM1), but they have been identified in order to prevent the coalescence of settlements and maintain the separate identity of settlements. A clear gap between settlements helps maintain a sense of place for both residents of, and visitors to settlements on either sides of the gaps. When travelling through a strategic gap (by all modes of transport) a traveller should have a clear sense of having left the first settlement, having travelled through an undeveloped area and then entered a second settlement. Policy EM2 states that development in strategic gaps will only be permitted where:

a) It would not diminish the physical and/or visual separation; and b) It would not compromise the integrity of the gap either individually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed development; or c) It is proposed through a Neighbourhood Pan or Neighbourhood development Order, included Community Right to Build Orders.

The application site is set back from Aldermaston Road, therefore the proposed development would not visually reduce the gap between Sherborne St John and Basingstoke to anyone travelling through the gap. Moreover, the development of the site would not result in additional built form extending closer to Basingstoke than existing development along the western side of Aldermaston Road. Therefore, it is

considered that the proposed development would not physically erode the gap between settlements and therefore complies with Policy EM2 of the Local Plan.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) In accepting the conflict with the Local Plan, the NPPF constitutes guidance which the Local Planning Authority (LPA) must have regard to. Under the NPPF there is a need to consider whether the development is sustainable and to consider the social, environmental and economic impacts of the development. In considering new housing in rural areas Paragraph 78 advises that:

"To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.”

Paragraph 79 goes on to say that Local Planning Authorities should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances. These instances include, essential rural workers dwellings, securing the optimal viable use of a heritage asset, re-use of redundant or disused building which would enhance its immediate setting, subdivision of an existing dwelling or would have a design that is of exceptional quality. In this instance, the proposal would not fall within these categories therefore it is necessary to consider whether the site is 'isolated' in light of the NPPF guidance in relation to the proposed dwellings. The NPPF does not provide a definition of what constitutes 'isolated' development. In considering whether or not the current application site is isolated in light of the paragraph 79, reference has been given to case law. Braintree DC v SSCLG [2018] Civ 610 ('the Braintree case') forms a material consideration in the assessment of this application given the sites location outside of a defined Settlement Policy Boundary. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision which concluded that that the word 'isolated' should be given its ordinary meaning as 'far away from other places, buildings and people; remote'. Lindblom LJ's held that in the context of paragraph 55 of the previous NPPF (2012), now paragraph 79 (2019), 'isolated' simply connotes a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement (officer emphasis added). Whether, in a particular case, a group of dwellings constitutes a settlement, or a 'village', for the purposes of the policy will again be a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision-maker. The Court rejected the argument that the word 'isolated' as set out within the NPPF could have a dual meaning, being physically isolated or functionally isolated (isolated from services and facilities). In having regard to the application site, it is considered to be situated within very close proximity to the physical extent of the village, being positioned to the south of a defined ribbon of development within Sherborne St John, to the south of West End and to the west of Aldermaston Road, in proximity to existing residential properties. As such, in the physical sense, the site is not considered be isolated.

Sustainable Development Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The three dimensions to achieving sustainable development are defined in the NPPF as: economic, social and environmental. 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.

- Economic The proposed development would encourage development and associated economic growth through the actual physical building works. The future occupants would also likely contribute to the local economy and to the continued viability of local services in surrounding villages. The proposed development would result in up to 9no. dwellings. Therefore it is considered that benefits to the local economy would range from limited to moderate. As such, the economic role of the development is therefore not considered to be insignificant.

- Social Whilst nine additional dwellings will not make a significant contribution to the Council's housing supply position, the development would nevertheless provide up to 9 new dwellings. The proposed development could provide future occupiers with the opportunity to develop social and community ties within the area and facilitate future community involvement.

- Environmental With regard to the environmental role of this development, the development could reasonably be expected to demonstrate a degree of inherent sustainability through compliance with Council supported energy efficiency and Building Regulations standards. The site is located less than 100 metres from a bus stop, offering journeys to Tadley to the north or Basingstoke to the South. The Basingstoke hospital, bus station and rail station are accessible from these routes. The bus route provides a regular approximate hourly service. The site is also 140m from the SPB of Sherborne St John, where there are facilities including a primary school, pre-school nursery, church, village hall, nursing home and public house. The site is therefore not considered to be in an inaccessible location due to its close proximity to public transport and the Sherborne St John SPB. The future 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. Whilst it is acknowledged that Sherborne St John has limited services, and that travel by a private vehicle is likely to remain the preferred mode of transport, this in itself would not be in conflict with the NPPF whereby paragraph 103 notes that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and that this should be taken into account in decision making.

Summary In considering the specific economic, social and environmental considerations of this particular scheme, it is concluded that in taking the scheme as a whole, that the benefits of the scheme would not be insignificant. However, Paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF states: where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

An assessment of the proposal with regards to Paragraph 11(d) is conducted below within the relevant sections below. Amount of development This PIP concerns the provision of up to 9 residential units on the site, which measures approximately 0.45 hectares. The applicant is not required to provide any details relating to the design and layout at the PIP stage. Nevertheless, the submitted Planning Statement includes an indicative site layout for 9no. dwellings. It should be noted that the PIP decision notice must set out a minimum and maximum amount of development. As the application has been submitted as `up to 9 dwellings`, the minimum and maximum amount of development at the site would be 1 - 9 dwellings respectively. The application site is situated to the west of Aldermaston Road and it is acknowledged that nearby residential development is concentrated fronting onto Aldermaston Road/West End. However it should be noted that to the southeast boundary of the site, planning permission was granted on a smaller area of land for 4 dwellings (2no. 2 bed and 2no. 4 beds) under reference 17/03625/FUL. An application to amend this permission is also pending determination under reference 19/03015/FUL. It is considered that the density of the development at 20dph would be appropriate in comparison with surrounding densities. Whilst the configuration, positioning within the site and building heights are unknown, in accordance with the submitted indicative illustrations, it is likely that sufficient space exists to accommodate a development of 9no. dwellings which, provided a suitable design and layout is

proposed, can be successfully integrated within the landscape. Such matters would be for consideration in detail as part of the Technical Design Consent (TDC) stage. Paragraph 044 of the Government guidance on Permission in Principle states that "The requirements for a valid technical details consent application are the same as those for an application for full planning permission". Paragraph 046 of the Guidance goes on to state that "Local authorities should take a proportionate approach to any information they request in support of applications for technical details consent, which should be relevant, necessary and material to the application in question". As such, it is not necessary to include such items as means of access, siting, elevations and materials in the list of information which the LPA expects to see at the TDC stage as this is required in any event by regulation. However, a Design and Access Statement is required to be submitted at the TDC stage to show how the proposed development would respect the established pattern and character of the surrounding area, and integrate successfully with the surrounding built form; and ensure that an acceptable level of residential amenity would be available to the occupants of the proposed dwellings and existing neighbouring properties in terms of amenity space, privacy, outlook and levels of natural light. Policy SSJ Policy 1 of the Sherborne St John neighbourhood Plan (2011-20029) requires that development proposals should provide a mix of dwelling sizes, including smaller dwellings (with two or three bedrooms) to meet the needs of the Parish. No details are required to be submitted at PIP stage, in relation to the proposed housing mix or the size of the dwellings. However, in line with this requirement, along with the requirements of Policy CN3 of the Local Plan, full details of the proposed housing mix, along with justification for the housing mix, will need to be submitted at TDC stage. 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 more recent guidance contained within paragraph 63 of the NPPF, which sets out that the "provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential development that are not major development, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a low threshold of 5 units or fewer)". The NPPF provides a definition for major development within the glossary at Annex 2. This states that in regards to residential development, major development is "where 10 or more homes will be provided, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares or more." The application site measures 0.45ha so falls below the major threshold in this regard. The proposed development is for up to 9 dwellings and consequently also falls below the 10 unit threshold in this regard.

As the NPPF is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, this recent guidance is afforded significant weight and the requirements set out in Policy CN1 in this regard are therefore considered to be out of date. Consequently in this instance, as the proposals do not constitute 'major development', as per the NPPF definition, it is not necessary in accordance with NPPF, for affordable housing provision to be sought in relation to this development. Accessible and Adaptable Homes Policies CN1 and CN3 requires provision of 15% of both affordable and market homes on site to be 'accessible and adaptable' to enable people to stay in their homes as their needs change. The development mix and size of unit is not required to be known at this PIP stage but there would be a requirement for it at the TDC stage were any subsequent TDC application otherwise acceptable. Impact upon the character of the area and local landscape Policy EM1 states that development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned and must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected. The Landscape Officer has raised an objection to the principle of development at this site on the basis that the proposals would result in an adverse impact on landscape character and visual amenity. The application site is not subject to any designated area of landscape importance, for example an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site and the surrounding landscape to the south and west are located at the northern extent of the Basingstoke Down character area (ref: BDBC Landscape Assessment 2001) with a characteristic rolling landform of open downland and predominantly large scale pattern of agricultural fields with low, well-cut hedgerows and infrequent woodland blocks. This open chalkland slopes down to the north where the village of Sherborne St John rests within a hollow between the chalk to the south and the characteristically more heavily wooded sand and clay landscapes of the North Sherborne Character Area to the north, giving rise to the springs and ponds feeding the Wey Brook which along with the surrounding topography help to give the village its character and landscape setting. In terms of built form, the character of the immediate area is dominated by existing residential properties aligned in parallel to provide linear frontage development along Aldermaston Road. However, several properties to the south of West End (immediately north of the application site) contravene this prevailing pattern of development. It is additionally noted that building design and appearance varies within the local area. As stated above there is also consent for 4 dwellings to the rear of properties which front onto Aldermaston Road to the south east of the site.

The Village Design Statement (VDS) emphasises the importance of the site and the surrounding north sloping fields that form part of the strategic gap between Sherborne St John and Basingstoke to the south in terms of the contribution to both the character and landscape setting of the village. Furthermore, given the established character of the area, any future residential development of the site would inevitably have a consequence upon the landscape character. However, given the backdrop of residential development along Aldermaston Road and the consented site for 4 units, in which the proposed development would be viewed, the impact of the development would be localised to that of the area immediate to the site rather than having any significant visual intrusion upon the amenity of the wider landscape. Furthermore, it is noted that the proposed development would not impinge on any of the important views identified by Map 5 of the Sherborne St John Neighbourhood Plan (2011-2029). Locally, the application site is viewed in context of the backdrop of residential development along the western edge of Aldermaston Road (and that immediately north of the site). Therefore whilst the land currently provides open vistas, it is not considered to be open countryside in the wider sense. The residential development of the site would generate a new visual intrusion to the public domain but this is not considered to result in significant adverse demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area given the relationship to the established built environment. However, as this application can only consider the 'principle' of development at the site, no details have been submitted in relation to the overall layout and scale or appearance of any proposed built form. It is therefore not possible to assess the resulting impact on the character of the local landscape and this would need to be considered as part of any TDC application. Any impact on the local landscape, must be balanced against the benefits of the scheme as set out in the 'Planning Balance and Conclusion' section of this report. Impact upon designated heritage assets Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area when considering planning applications. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) also states that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) and that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of the heritage asset, great weight should be given to the conservation of the asset (paragraph 193) in the public interest. In this instance, the heritage assets for which impact upon significance requires consideration is the Sherborne St John Conservation Area, located adjacent to the application site. The proposal therefore has the potential to impact on the setting of the conservation area. Whilst the proposal would result in physical change, it is considered that the resultant development would preserve the significance, character and appearance and setting of the Conservation Area.

It is additionally noted that the application site is located within proximity to 2no. listed buildings (7 and 9 West End) and 9 locally listed buildings (which have also been recognised as ‘notable buildings’ which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. However, it is considered that the residentially led development of the site would not have an adverse or significant impact on the setting of these nearby listed buildings. The Conservation Officer has confirmed no objections to the principle of the development. The proposal would alter character of the existing field, however in so far as this PIP application is concerning the Location, Land Use and Amount of Development, the proposals are not considered to result in harm to the Conservation Area or to the setting of nearby listed buildings. Provided a suitable design, layout, elevations and landscape scheme is proposed, the proposed development is unlikely to result in harm but such matters would be considered at the TDC stage. A Heritage Statement and Statement of Significance would be required to be submitted at the TDC stage to demonstrate how the proposal would or would not impact upon the cultural and natural heritage values currently attached to the site and how they interrelate with the adjacent Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings. Archaeology The site is located around 40m to the west of the projected line of the former Silchester to Winchester Roman road. There is therefore some potential for as yet unrecorded archaeological remains of roadside activity dating from the Roman period at the application site. A recent archaeological investigation around 100m to the east of the site recorded a natural hollow containing Mesolithic, Neolithic and Early Bronze Age material along with a ditch dating from the Iron Age and a later prehistoric hearth. It is entirely possible that further, as yet unrecorded archaeological features dating from these periods may exist within the proposed development site. The historic map record indicates that the site has not been subject to development over the past 150 years, so if archaeological features do survive here, then they are likely to be relatively well-preserved. Therefore, in consultation with Hampshire County Council's Senior Archaeologist, whilst no overriding objection is raised to the principle of development, it is recommended that that the assessment, recording and reporting of any archaeological deposits affected by the construction of the new buildings be secured through the attachment of suitable conditions to any future acceptable TDC application. Residential amenity - Amenities to the proposed dwellings: Although out of scope for consideration under a PIP, Section 10 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2018 sets out that:

New housing development should provide a suitable outlook and level of

natural light for both new and neighbouring dwellings

Dwellings should have sufficient daylight to allow the comfortable use of habitable rooms including living rooms, dining rooms, bedrooms and kitchens

Residents should also be able to enjoy an outlook of good quality from these rooms and spaces without adjacent buildings being overbearing.

Therefore, at TDC stage, careful consideration would need to be given to the positioning of openings within the proposed dwellings, to ensure that the development would result in satisfactory amenity levels for the proposed future occupiers of the dwellings. In addition, the shape and size of private amenity space for to serve the dwellings should accord with Section 10 of the SPD. - Impact on neighbouring amenities: Policy EM10 requires developments to provide high levels of amenity for proposed occupants and neighbouring occupiers regarding privacy, amenity space and natural light. There is no requirement for a PIP application to be accompanied by a proposed site layout, therefore it is not possible to assess the impacts on neighbouring amenity in this respect. This would need to be considered as part of any TDC application. Whilst, as a result of construction, some disturbance may be caused to nearby residents, these concerns can usually be overcome through the imposition of conditions relating to construction and delivery hours. Such consideration would need to be undertaken at TDC stage. Biodiversity Policy EM4 establishes that proposals will only be permitted where significant harm to biodiversity can be avoided or adequately mitigated unless there is a demonstrated overriding public need. The policy also seeks to provide for biodiversity enhancements within the new development. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) transpose the Habitats Directive into national law. Regulation 9(1) imposes a duty in relation to 'functions which are relevant to nature conservation…so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the Directives' and previous appeal decisions demonstrate that 'planning applications' are such functions. Indeed, under the Regulations, there is a duty upon the competent authority, in the exercise of any of their functions to have regard to the requirements of the EC Habitats Directive in so far as they may be affected by the exercise of those functions. In some instances, where there are known or suspected presence of protected species on development proposal sites, further information, in the way of Ecological Surveys, can be requested in order to assess if the ‘principle’ of development can be supported. However, this level of information is not necessarily required on all sites. Where there are no known protected species within the vicinity or on a development site, it is considered that the principle of development can be supported (in

ecological respects). In these instances, additional information can be dealt with at the TDC stage. The application site is arable in nature. In consultation with the Biodiversity Officer, there is no indication of known presence of protected species on or in the vicinity of the site, therefore, in this instance the Biodiversity Officer considers that the ecological impact of the proposed development would be minimal. However, the site is boarded (to the east) by areas of hedgerow, which could have ecological potential. Therefore an assessment of the likely use of the site by protected species should be submitted with any future planning application for the site. As such, any future TDC would need to be supported by an Ecological Survey. Sustainable Water Use Policy EM9 (Sustainable water use) of the Local Plan requires all new homes to meet a water efficiency standard of 110 litres per person per day. Where the proposal is considered acceptable in principle there would be a requirement for this detail to be submitted at the TDC stage, and this is not an overriding constraint to the proposed development. Contamination Policy EM12 of the Local Plan states that development will be permitted provided that it does not result in pollution which is detrimental to the quality of life or poses unacceptable risks to health or the natural environment. If required, a land contamination report/remediation scheme could be secured as part of any future TDC. Parking/highways There must be adequate space within each of the proposed plots to allow for cycle and vehicle parking, vehicle manoeuvring and refuse storage and collection facilities. These will need to be specified within any future TDC application. The application has been accompanied by a Planning Statement, which outlines four possible options for vehicular access to the site. However, safe access would be a matter for any subsequent TDC and cannot be considered at PIP stage. Nevertheless, in light of the submitted information, the Highways Officer has objected to the proposal as inadequate information has been provided to enable the LPA to determine if a satisfactory and safe access can be provided to serve the proposed development. Any future TDC application would need to demonstrate that any proposed access points provides a suitable level of intervisibility, both for vehicles and pedestrian. It is additionally considered that the following (not limited to) would need to be provided at the TDC stage:-

A site plan which displays the proposed access points and demonstrates suitable levels of intervisibility can be provided from the site access, both for vehicles and pedestrians. The proposed site plan should also display any pedestrian routes within the site and display the proposed parking layout.

The number of parking spaces provided on site should be provided in accordance with the standards set out in the Parking SPD and the dimensions therein i.e. a minimum of 2.7m x 5.2m.

Electric Vehicle Charging Point (EVCP) provision is required on site in accordance with the Parking SPD which states that "as a minimum, all new homes should incorporate a suitable-electricity circuit to enable the convenient fitting of a charging point" and that "details of electric vehicle charge points must accompany full and reserved matters planning applications" (para 9.4) .

The details of cycle parking provision on site in accordance with the standards set out in the Parking SPD.

The details of the refuse collection strategy for the site. If a refuse vehicle is required to enter the site then the tracking should be provided which demonstrates that a local refuse vehicle can safely access and egress the site. If the refuse vehicle will not enter the site then refuse collection points must be provided which are located in accordance with the maximum carry distances specified within the Design and Sustainability SPD ie Appendix 3 for the Storage and the Collection of Waste and Recycling.

Flooding 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. The Environment Agency Flood Risk Maps position the site as falling within Flood Zone 1 giving the site a low risk of flooding (less than 1 in 1000 annual probability) and considers that the site to be at low risk of surface water flooding. Due to the location, and with the site area sitting under 1ha in size, there has not been a requirement to accompany the PIP application with any flood risk assessment. However, several representations have been received raising concerns in relation to flooding, whereby the site has reportedly been previously waterlogged. In accordance with paragraph 6.58 of the Local Plan, all greenfield site allocations will be required to manage surface water run-off as part of an overall surface water strategy. Moreover, a small part of the application site has been identified as falling within an Upstream Critical Drainage Area (UCDA) by the Local Plan Policies Map. It is therefore advised that any TDC application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and sustainable drainage techniques to control surface water runoff in the construction of the development. Other Matters Representations have been received on the application, raising the recent court decision in Peel Investments North Ltd v SSHCLG & Salford CC [2019] EWHC 2143. In this case, Mr Justice Dove concluded that “In my judgment it is critical to note that there is nothing in the relevant provisions of the Framework to suggest that the

expiration of a plan period requires that its policies should be treated as out-of-date. Indeed, to the contrary, the provisions of paragraph 213 specifically contemplate that older policies which are consistent with the Framework should be afforded continuing weight. Furthermore, I would entirely accept and adopt the formulation of the approach to the question of whether a policy is out-of-date given by Lindblom J in Bloor Homes. It will be a question of fact or in some cases fact and judgment. The expiration of the end date of the plan may be relevant to that exercise but it is not dispositive of it, nor did Lindblom J suggest that was the case.” However, the current Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 is not considered out of date as a result of the plan period being expired, but rather that the Council is unable to demonstrate 5 years worth of deliverable housing sites, in accordance with the NPPF. It is also important to distinguish that as a result of this, it is only polices which relate to the delivery of housing that are currently out of date. This case law is therefore not considered relevant to this application. Representations have been received which have informed of the Planning Practice Guidance in relation to Highways England. Paragraph 027 (Reference ID: 15-027-20190722 Revision date: 23 07 2019) states; “the effect of the Town and Country Planning (Development Affecting Trunk Roads) Direction 2018 is that if Highways England, having been consulted on a planning application under Schedule 4 of the Development Management Order 2015, makes a recommendation which the local planning authority does not intend to follow, the local planning authority must consult the Secretary of State and must determine the application in accordance with any Direction given within 21 days by the Secretary of State.” The representation therefore states that due to the objection from the Highways Officer, any approval would need to be referred to the Secretary of State. However, the comments received are from Hampshire County Council, as the Local Highway Authority and not Highways England. It should be noted that an application of this scale does not trigger a consultation with Highways England. Therefore, this guidance is not relevant. Moreover, as discussed above, issues in relation to highway access would need to be dealt with at TDC stage. Community Infrastructure Requirements Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have not been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated. However, it would appear that the development would be CIL liable. CIL will apply to the development consented through the PIP route if a TDC has been granted. Charges will become due from the date that a chargeable development is commenced. In this case as the principle of the development applied for is accepted an informative will be added to the decision notice advising the applicant of this. Planning balance/ Conclusion As is set out above, the application must be considered in accordance with paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF which states that where relevant policies are

considered out of date permission will be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protected areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. Section 3 of the NPPF requires that the planning system should be plan-led. In particular, paragraph 15 reads: "the planning system should be genuinely plan-led. Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area; a framework for addressing housing needs and other economic, social and environmental priorities; and a platform for local people to shape their surroundings." It is acknowledged that the proposed development does not accord with the Local Plan, however, on the basis that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply, this policy harm is given reduced weight. In addition, the Landscape Officer has objected to the application where it is considered that domestic built form would adversely impact on the local landscape character. However, no specific details of the built form are required at the 'Permission in Principle' stage, and this would need to be considered at TDC stage. Moreover, appropriate landscaping proposals can help assimilate a development into the landscape which would also need to be addressed at TDC stage. Nevertheless, as set out above, whilst the residentially led development of this site would impact on the surrounding landscape (as any development of a green field site would), this would be limited to the immediate area surrounding the site rather than having any adverse visual intrusion upon the amenity of the wider landscape. As such, the impact on the surrounding landscape is given limited weight. The development, whilst providing some limited long term economic development would result in economic benefits both through the construction phase and then by future resident expenditure within the local economy. The development would contribute towards the provision of new homes, which the government seeks to significantly boost. The social role of the development comprises of the provision of up to 9 dwellings at a time when the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing supply position. On this basis, it is considered that this PIP application warrants support as, in accordance with paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, the benefits of the scheme would not be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the harm. However, it is to be noted that a PIP is not a planning permission, it is a precursor to it. A planning permission only exists when the PIP and TDC have been granted. No planning conditions can be added to a PIP although conditions can be imposed at the TDC stage. Where permission in principle is granted by application, the default duration of that permission is 3 years. A TDC application has to be submitted and approved in that timeframe for a PIP to remain valid. In accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance, if the local planning authority considers it appropriate on planning grounds they may shorten or extend these periods, but should clearly give their justification

for doing so (Paragraph: 014 Reference ID: 58-014-20180615 Revision date: 15 06 2018 ). As the principle of development is only considered to be acceptable in light of the fact that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and considering the extent of the shortfall and the fact that this is expected to be a temporary and short-lived position, it is considered reasonable to reduce the duration of any PIP approval on this site to 1 year. The applicant is to be made aware of this by indicating it the decision notice and an informative is also recommended to this effect. Informative(s):- 1. This permission in principle (PIP) shall cease to have effect one year after the

date of this Decision Notice. The Technical Details Consent (TDC) relating to the proposed development must be submitted prior to the expiration of the PIP. REASON: As the principle of residential development on this site is only considered to be acceptable in light of the fact that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and considering the extent of the shortfall and the fact that this is expected to be a temporary and short-lived position, it is considered reasonable to reduce the duration of any PIP approval on this site to 1 year.



In this instance:

- The application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was

required.


3. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community

Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable. From these forms, it would appear that the development would not be exempt from any CIL payments. CIL will apply to the development consented through the permission in principle route if a TDC has been granted. Charges will become due from the date that a chargeable development is commenced.

4. The Local Planning Authority would recommend early pre-application

discussion on the Technical Details Consent (TDC). 5. The Technical Details Consent (TDC) Key Development considerations that are

required are as follows: - A Design and Access Statement which addresses how any proposed

development would:

i) Respect the established pattern and character of surrounding development; and ii) Ensure that an acceptable level of residential amenity would be available to the occupants of the dwellings in terms of amenity space, privacy, outlook and levels of natural light, in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029), Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2018 and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

- The provision of 15% of both affordable and market homes on site to be

'accessible and adaptable' to enable people to stay in their homes as their needs change, in accordance with Policies CN1 and CN3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029), Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2018 and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

- A Flood Risk Assessment in accordance with Policy EM7 of the

Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029), and guidance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

- A surface water drainage scheme in accordance with Policy EM7 of the

Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029), and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

- New homes are required to meet a water efficiency standard of 110 litres

per person per day, in accordance with Policy EM9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029), and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

- A site plan which displays the proposed access points and demonstrates

suitable levels of intervisibility can be provided from the site access, both for vehicles and pedestrians. The proposed site plan should also display any pedestrian routes within the site and display the proposed parking layout, in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029), and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

- The number of parking spaces provided on site should be provided in

accordance with the standards set out in the Parking Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The spaces should accord with the dimensions specified in the SPD, in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029), and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

- An electric vehicle charge point (EVCP) provision is required on site in

accordance with the standards set out in the Parking Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029), and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

- The applicant will be required to provide details of cycle parking which should be provided in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029), the Parking Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

- Details of the refuse collection strategy for the site should be provided. If a

refuse vehicle is required to enter the site then the tracking should be provided which demonstrates that a local refuse vehicle can safely access and egress the site. If the refuse vehicle will not enter the site then refuse collection points must be provided which are located in accordance with the maximum carry distances as outlined in the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) ie Appendix 3 for the Storage and the Collection of Waste and Recycling, and in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029), and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

- A Heritage Statement and Statement of Significance in relation to the

identified designated heritage assets in close proximity of the site, in accordance with Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan, guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and the Heritage Supplementary Planning Document (2019).

Location Plan

Cttee: 5 February Item No. 1 2020Case Officer: Jemma Cox 01256 845304 Applicant: Mrs Lizzie Banks...

Documents

Transcript of Cttee: 5 February Item No. 1 2020Case Officer: Jemma Cox 01256 845304 Applicant: Mrs Lizzie Banks...