21/09/2016 APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR DECISION BISHOPSTOKE, FAIR OAK & HORTON HEATH Wednesday 21 September 2016 Case Officer Tracy Payne

SITE: Land Adjacent to 'The Mazels', Knowle Lane, Horton

Heath, Eastleigh, SO50 7DZ Ref. O/15/77465 R7eceived: 29/10/2015 (30/09/2016) APPLICANT: Ms Diane Emery

PROPOSAL: Outline: Residential development for up to 12no.

dwellings with access from Knowle Lane with associated roads, landscaping and parking. (Access only, all matters reserved).

AMENDMENTS: 19/02/2016, 02/08/2016

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT OUTLINE PERMISSION

CONDITIONS AND REASONS: (1) The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance

with the following plans numbered: 991-MAZ-FP01, 991-MAZ-P01 Rev B, 991-MAZ-P02 Rev A, 991-MAZ-P03 Rev A, 991-MAZ-P04 Rev D, 991-MAZ-P05 Rev A,, 991-V1-05 Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

(2) The development hereby permitted shall begin either: a) No later than the

expiration of two years from the date of this permission; OR b) No later than the expiration of one year from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

(3) No development shall start until details of the:

a) layout of the site. b) scale of the buildings. c) external appearance of the buildings.

d) landscaping of the site [hereafter called "the reserved matters"] have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made within three years of the date of this permission. The development shall accord with the approved details. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

(4) On submission of first reserved matters detailed specification for the

provision of a footpath from Goodwood Court, Fair Oak to the site access shown idicatively on plan 991-MAZ-PO2 Rev A shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include:

(i) a general arrangements drawing showing the whole extent of the footpath, based on a topographical survey

(ii) Width, alignment, gradient, sight lines, lighting and type of construction proposed

(iii) details of crossing provision at Durley Road The footpath shall be provided and made perminently available for public use in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of any dwelling on the site. Reason: To ensure appropriate pedestrian access to the site.

(5) On submission of first reserved matters an off-site bat activity survey and

bat roosting survey shall be carried out along the eastern boundary and within any trees with roost potential and will inform the submitted lighting strategy for the site. All surveys must be completed, submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority before any works including vegetation clearance is undertaken on site. Reason: To ensure bat roosts and foraging corridors are protected from indirect impacts

(6) On submission of first reserved matters an Arboricultural Method

Statement and Tree Protection Plan shall be provided for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The report shall have been collated by an appropriately qualified arboricultural consultant (e.g. Arboricultural Association Registered Consultant) will need to include:-

• Tree Survey (to BS5837:2012) of such features including details of species, dimensions, age, condition, class, growth potential and legal status.

• Arboricultural Impact Assessment to assess the impact of proposed works, including below-ground utilities.

• Documentation detailing Root Protection Areas, Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement for works near trees. The approved Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan must be adhered to in full, and may only be modified subject to written agreement from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To retain and protect the existing trees which form an important part of the amenity of the locality.

(7) On submission of first reserved matters detailed of any required pumping

station or treatment plant shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any such puming station or treatment plant shall be located at least 15m from any habitable room. The development shall accord with the approved details. Reason: In the intrest of appropriate drainage and amenity.

(8) No dwelling constructed on the site shall be more than two storey in

height and shall be located at least 50m from any elevation of the adjacent listed building The Cockpit. Reason: In order to protect the character of the surrounding area.

(9) No development shall start until a site meeting [attended by the

Arboricultural Consultant and Site Manager] has taken place where a representative from the Local Planning Authority has inspected and approved the fencing and signed the card which accompanies this decision notice. Once approved no access by vehicles, storage or use of machinery, equipment or materials shall take place within the fenced area. The fencing shall be retained in its approved form for the duration of the work. Reason: To retain and protect the existing trees which form an important part of the amenity of the locality.

(10) No development shall start until the following details have been submitted

to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: a) details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the

external surfaces of the development. b) colour, detailed design and materials for any decorative and design

features including quoins, lintels, cills, gable detailing, porches, chimneys, window reveals, fascias, barge boards and soffits.

c) details and location of all rainwater goods and meter boxes. d) plans including cross sections to show proposed ground levels and their

relationship to existing levels both within the site and on immediately adjoining land.

e) width, alignment, gradient, sight lines and type of construction proposed for any roads footpaths and accesses.

f) the provision to be made for street lighting and/or external lighting. Lighting shall be designed and located to minimise light spillage and avoid impacting on flight corridors used by bats.

g) crime prevention measures h) the provision to be made for the parking of vehicles. The development shall accord with the approved details. Reason: To limit the impact the development has on the locality.

(11) No construction or demolition work shall start until a Method Statement

has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Demolition and construction work shall only take place in accordance with the approved method statement which shall include:

a) a programme and phasing of the construction work, including roads and landscaping; b) location of temporary site buildings, compounds, construction material and plant storage areas used during demolition and construction; c) the arrangements for the routing/ turning of lorries and details for construction traffic acces to the site; d) the arrangements for deliveries associated with all construction works, loading/ unloading of plant & materials and restoration of any damage to the highway [including vehicle crossovers and grass verges]. e) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; f) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt generated by demolition and construction; g) a scheme for controlling noise and vibration from demolition and construction activities (to include piling); h) provision for storage, collection, and disposal of rubbish from the development during construction period; i) measures to prevent mud and dust on the highway during demolition and construction; j) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; k) temporary lighting; Reason: To limit the impact the development has on the amenity of the locality

(12) No development shall start until a scheme of work detailing the extent

and type of piling (if any) proposed has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall accord with the approved details. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

(13) No development shall start until details for the sustainable disposal of

surface water and disposal of foul sewerage from the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then accord with the approved details. Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of foul and surface water drainage.

(14) Before any work commences on site a Construction Environment

Management Plan will be submitted to and agreed by Eastleigh Borough Council incorporating safeguards to preserve the water quality and flows leaving the site. Particular attention should be paid to safeguards to ensure pollutants found on site and silt disturbed remains within the confines of the site. Reason: To ensure no impact on the River Itchen SAC due to contamination and changes in flow.

(15) The development shall not begin until the developer has been submitted

to the Local Planning Authority for its approval a comprehensive construction management plan that has due regards to noise, and to the

details contained in the Best Practise Guidance - The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition, 2006 (London Authorities) and Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction, 2014 (Institute of Air Quality Management). The development shall accord with the approved details. Reason: To limit the impact the development has on the amenity of the locality.

(16) No development shall start until details for the on site provision of bin &

cycle storage facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwellings shall not be occupied until the bin & cycle storage has been constructed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained and kept available. Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of on site facilities.

(17) No development shall start until details of the necessary infrastructure,

including ducting and cabling, to facilitate the provision of communications technology have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The infrastructure must then be provided for use upon first occupation of the buildings hereby permitted and retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure connectivity and to reduce the proliferation of individual masts, aerials, satellite dishes and wiring, in the interest of visual amenity.

(18) Prior to commencement, details of how the approved dwellings will

achieve Code level 4 equivalent requirements for energy and water [or equivalent requirements that are set out in national legislation or policy], with reference to design stage SAP data and the BRE water calculator, as well as evidence that the relevant ESD requirements 2-8 inclusive of the Council’s adopted Environmentally Sustainable Development SPD are being met shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until written confirmation thatthese works have been completed, and the ‘as built’ stage SAP data and a confirmation of the water calculation, has been submitted for that dwelling. Reason: To ensure the development meets the requirements of the national technical standards for energy and water consumption and the Council’s adopted Environmentally Sustainable Development SPD in residential development.

(19) Where internal noise levels cannot meet BS 8233:2014 standards with

open windows, alternative ventilation will be required. A detailed ventilation scheme based on BS 8233:2014 must be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). All works, which form part of the scheme approved by the LPA, must be completed before any of the permitted dwellings are occupied (unless agreed by the LPA). The scheme must be fully implemented, unless varied with written permission of the LPA in advance of implementation. Reason: To protect the amenity of occupants.

(20) Before any work commences on site or vegetation is cleared, a reptile mitigation, monitoring and management strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall accord with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the protection of the grass snake population in the long term.

(21) No development shall start until a landscaping scheme has been

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall cover all hard & soft landscaping including new tree planting and enhanced boundary treatments and shall provide details of timings for all landscaping and any future maintenance. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and to the appropriate British Standard. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the locality and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents.

(22) For a period of no less than 5 years after planting, any trees or plants

which are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of the same species, size and number as originally approved in the landscaping scheme. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

(23) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the parking areas

including any garages for that dwelling have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. All parking areas and any garages shall thereafter be permanently retained and used only for the purpose of accommodating private motor vehicles incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as a residence. Reason: To make provision for off street parking for the purpose of highway safety.

(24) Any parking provision marked out on the approved plans as being

unallocated shall have been made available, surfaced and marked out. The parking areas shall then be permanently retained as unalloctaed parking. Reason: To make provision for off street parking for the purpose of highway safety.

(25) No construction, demolition or deliveries to the site shall take place

during the construction period except between the hours of 0800 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays or 0900 to 1300 on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.

(26) No burning of materials obtained by site clearance or any other source

shall take place during the demolition, construction and fitting out process. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

Note to Applicant: In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Eastleigh Borough Council takes a positive approach to the handling of development proposals so as to achieve, whenever possible, a positive outcome and to ensure all proposals are dealt with in a timely manner.

Report: This application has been referred to Committee because it is a major development which is contrary to the Development Plan. Description of application 1. The application is for outline planning permission with all matters

reserved except access. The proposed development comprises the construction of up to 12 dwellings with access from Knowle Lane with associated roads, parking, and landscaping.

2. The only matters for formal consideration at this point, therefore, are as follows:

Is residential development acceptable in principle in this location?

Is the proposed amount of development appropriate?

Are the proposed vehicular and pedestrian accesses from Knowle Lane acceptable?

3. All other matters, such as detailed layout, design and appearance,

landscaping and scale are not for full consideration at this stage.

4. The application plans comprise a red line site plan showing the site location and size (0.5ha), the point of access from Knowle Lane and an illustrative layout for 12 dwellings with an indicative mix comprising 3no. 2 beds, 3no. 3 bed and 6no. 4 bed houses within a mixture of terraced “cottages”, semi-detached pairs and detached houses ranging from 2-3 storeys in height. The plans show the proposed road layout, indicative parking some of which is within attached or detached garages, and some indicative tree planting/landscaping on the frontages.

5. The application is accompanied by the following reports and technical

assessments which have been updated as necessary throughout the course of the application:-

Design and Access Statement which includes

Affordable Housing Statement,

Drainage Statement,

Planning Statement,

Ecological Impact Assessment,

Transport & Highway Assessment,

Tree Survey and Constraints Report,

Visual Impact Assessment.

Noise Assessment

Odour Assessments A Greater Crested Newt survey has also been undertaken.

6. The proposal has been screened out under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011 due to its scale being significantly under the thresholds set out in Schedule 2. The Council concludes that an Environmental Statement is not required.

7. Screening was also undertaken to establish whether a Habitats

Regulations Assessment is required. It was concluded that, with the mitigation proposed and conditions to control impacts, no significant likely impacts on any European Designated sites would occur as a result of the development and therefore a full HRA is not required.

The site and its surroundings 8. The application site is located on the edge of Horton Heath and

approximately a kilometre to the centre of Fair Oak. The site lies to the north of the Junction of Knowle Lane and Durley Road, Fair Oak beyond the heavily treed garden belonging to Cockpit Farm, a listed building.

9. The 0.5 hectare site is current use is a grassland paddock attached to

and owned by The Mazels a quaint thatched house located to the north of the proposed site.

10. The paddock is largely unmaintained except for the occasional hay cut

and is separated from The Mazels to the north by a post and rail fence with sporadic trees along the fence line. The remainder of the site is bound by mature vegetation, a variety of semi-mature and mature trees, hedges, shrub and dense undergrowth which creates a seasonal visual barrier to the wider adjacent land.

11. The adjacent area is classified as countryside with the site notably separated from the existing urban edge to the south by two triangular areas of land set either side of Durley Road, one forming the garden of Cockpit Farm and both densely treed. To the west is a poultry farm with associated agricultural buildings and Knowle Park beyond. To the east is open countryside and agricultural land/buildings associated with Cockpit Farm and beyond West Horton Golf course.

Relevant planning history 12. There is no relevant planning history in relation to this site.

Representations received 13. 4 letters of objection received from adjoining residents and those living

locally with concerns relating to:

14. Overdevelopment of the site

Inaccuracy/Inadequacy of Transport Assessment

Pedestrian safety

Highway safety

Impact on The Cockpit House, Grade II Listed building

Overlooking/Loss of Privacy to The Cockpit Farm

Impact on trees

Impact on wildlife

Inadequate drainage

Consultation responses 15. Head of Planning Policy & Design – Objection. Contrary to policy 1.CO.

The site is not allocated for housing development and is separate from the nearest settlement edge at Horton Heath and has an important role in contributing to the contrast between the developed settlement of Horton Heath and the intrinsic undeveloped character of the surrounding countryside. The NPPF also adds weight to the consideration of the sustainability of a rural housing development location that may struggle to be served by sustainable transport modes and which reduce the need to travel. It is not clear as to whether the need for the development has been demonstrated, particularly with regards to local rural housing (NPPF para 54 & 55). It does not demonstrate the special circumstances outlined by the NPPF (para 55).

16. With regard to layout/design, the proposal provides inadequate information in regard to boundary treatments and relationships to neighbouring land and uses. Reference is made to the site being well screened however too much reliance is given to existing tree and hedging outside the site to screen the proposal and this is not acceptable. At certain times of year the site will become much more visible due to the deciduous nature of roadside hedgerow. A site like this should allow for new landscaping and native tree planting of an appropriate scale for the context. As illustrated most of the indicative tree locations are shown too close to dwellings in positions which would not be suitable for larger trees.

17. The proposal is located close to Grade II listed building The Cockpit, a mid to late C19 small country house currently in need of some maintenance. This garden contains a fine collection of trees including a monkey puzzle and a luxuriant hedge along the northern boundary itself. The shortest distance from the house to the boundary of the proposal site is some 50metres which given the amount and height of vegetation is sufficient buffer for a building of this nature but one would not wish to see it nearer.

18. Head of Transportation and Engineering – No objection subject to a

footway link being provided from Goodwood Court to the site and construction management plan provided.

19. A Traffic Regulation Order would be required along the frontage and bike/bin storage needs clarification.

20. It is unclear if the land is suitable for the proposed soakaways and thus it cannot be confirmed if adequate drainage arrangements have been proposed.

21. Head of Countryside and Trees (Biodiversity Officer) – Greater Crested Newt surveys show the adjacent pond at Cockpit Farm to be of a low score and as such no further survey work or mitigation is required. In order to protect reptiles and any bat roosts and/or bat foraging habitats conditions are recommended.

22. Fair Oak Bishopstoke Parish Council – Objection on grounds that the proposal is development, in a countryside location, out of character with adjacent listed building, increased traffic along a country lane, no pedestrian access, concern for protected trees. There is also evidence of deer movements on a regular basis across the land.

23. Head of Housing – No objection in principle subject to affordable

housing (1.no 2 bed dwelling and 1.no 3 bed dwelling of shared ownership tenure being secured.

24. Head of Countryside and Trees (Tree Officer) – No objection subject to

conditions being imposed to ensure an Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan are submitted, approved, and complied with and site meetings take place to inspect the protective fencing prior to any works commencing.

25. Southern Water – No objections but observed that a formal application

for the connection of the site to the foul sewer will be required

26. Head of Environmental Health – No objection subject to a condition requiring a ventilation scheme for any dwellings that cannot achieve required internal noise standards. No odour mitigation required.

27. Southampton Airport – No comments received.

28. HCC Children’s’ Services – No objection subject to contributions being

secured toward Primary and Secondary Education places for the 12 eligible dwellings.

29. Environment Agency – No comments received.

Policy context: designation applicable to site

Countryside (outside urban edge)

Within the setting of a Grade II Listed Building (The Cockpit) Development plan saved policies, emerging local plan policies and SPD’s National Planning Policy Framework 30. The following are key paragraphs of the National Planning Policy

Framework (‘the NPPF’) that are of relevance to this application:

Para. 6 – states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to sustainable development

Para. 11 - states that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Para. 12 – states that proposed development that accords with an up-to-date local plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

Para. 14 - sets out a general presumption in favour of sustainable development and states that (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) development proposals which accord with the development plan should be approved without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out-of-date planning permission (again, unless material considerations indicate otherwise) should be granted unless the adverse impacts of the development would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits; or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted

Para. 17 - sets out 12 core planning principles that include; o proactively drive and support sustainable economic

development to deliver the homes, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made to identify and then meet the housing and other development of an area and respond positively to wider opportunities needs

o housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development

o always seeking to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing occupiers of land

Para. 32 - advises that for traffic impact development should only be refused if cumulative impacts are severe. Sustainable modes of transport should be maximised.

Para. 34 - advises that developments that generate significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised

Para. 47 - requires local authorities to meet local needs for affordable and market housing, and identify a 5-year supply of housing.

Para. 49 - states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites

Para. 50 – to create mixed and balanced communities local planning authorities should set policies for meeting identified affordable housing need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution can be robustly justified.

Para. 56 – Requirement for good design.

Para. 58 – Policies and decisions should aim to ensure developments establish a strong sense of place; optimise the potential of the site; respond to local character and history; create safe and accessible environments; are visually attractive as result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping

Para. 60 – Policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes. It is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness

Para. 61 – Securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Planning decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural built and historic environment

Para. 69 – Decisions should aim to achieve places which promote meetings between members of the community, safe and accessible environments and developments containing clear and legible pedestrian routes, high quality public space which encourages the active and continual use of public areas.

Para. 70 – Decisions should plan for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities etc. and ensure an integrated approach to the location of housing and other uses.

Para.73 – Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Information gained from assessments should determine what open space, sports and recreational provision are needed.

Para.103 – Ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere.

Para. 109 – Seeks to minimise impacts on biodiversity and protect unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution and remediating contaminated land where appropriate.

Para.118 – Decisions should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. If significant harm cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. If development is likely to have an adverse effect on a SSSI, an exception should only be made where the benefits clearly outweigh the impacts. Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around development should be encouraged. Permission should be refused for proposals resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland unless the need for and benefits of development clearly outweigh the loss.

Para. 120 – Decisions should ensure that sites are suitable for their new use taking into account ground conditions, any pollution from former activities and any pollution to general amenity.

Para. 121 – Ensure sites are suitable for their new use in terms of ground conditions, land stability, etc.

Para. 123 – Avoid, mitigate and reduce noise which gives rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life.

Para. 128 – Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment, and where necessary a field evaluation.

Para. 129 – “Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.”

Para. 132 - When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.

Para. 134 – Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

Para. 152 - local planning authorities should seek opportunities to achieve each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, and net gains across all three. Significant adverse impacts on any of these dimensions should be avoided, and wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, measures to mitigate the impact should be considered. Where adequate mitigation measures are not possible, compensatory measures may be appropriate.

Para. 192 – The right information is crucial to good decision-taking, particularly where formal assessments are required (such as EIA/HRA/FRA).

Para. 196 - indicates that planning law requires that planning applications are dealt with in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is such a material consideration.

Para. 197 - in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Para. 203 - LPAs should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations.

Para. 204 – Obligations should only be sought where they are necessary, directly related, related fairly and reasonably in scale and kind to the development.

Para. 210 – Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Para. 211 - confirms that saved policies in existing plans are not ‘out of date’ simply because they pre-date the NPPF.

Para. 216 - Decision-takers can give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage of preparation, the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency to the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF.

Planning Practice Guidance 31. Where material, this guidance (which supplements the NPPF should be

afforded weight in the consideration of planning applications. 32. Determining a planning application – To the extent that development

plan policies are material, a decision must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. Where the plan is absent, silent or out of date, an application must be determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

33. Design – Good quality design is an integral part of sustainable

development. Achieving good design is about creating places, buildings or spaces that work well for everyone, look good, will last well and adapt for the needs of future generations. Good design responds in a practical and creative way to both the function an identity of a place. It puts land, water, drainage, energy, community, economic, infrastructure and other such resources to the best possible use over the long as well as the short term.

34. Flood Risk – a site specific flood risk assessment should be carried out to assess the flood risk to and from the development site and demonstrate how flood risk will be managed now and over the development’s life.

35. Natural Environment – Local Planning Authorities should take into

consideration various publications when taking biodiversity into account and should look for net gains. Sufficient information should be sought through ecological surveys etc.

36. Noise – noise needs to be considered when new development may create additional noise and when new developments would be sensitive to the prevailing acoustic environment. For noise sensitive developments mitigation measures may be acceptable but should not result in an unsatisfactory development.

37. Planning Obligations – these should mitigate the impact of unacceptable

development in order to make it acceptable. Obligations should be directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.

38. Water Supply, wastewater and water quality – adequate water and wastewater infrastructure is needed to support sustainable development. Conditions can be used to ensure adequate infrastructure.

Saved Policies of the Adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (EBLP 2001-2011) 39. The key policies of the adopted local plan are;

1CO - seeks to limit development in the countryside to a range of appropriate uses

18CO – seeks to limit development which has an adverse effect on the character of the landscape

25.NC – promotion of biodiversity

30.ES - protection of noise-sensitive development from unacceptably high levels of noise and/or vibration.

31.ES – Residential development and noise

32.ES – Pollution control (air, land and water)

33.ES – Air quality

34.ES – Energy and Climate Change

37.ES – Water Consumption

38.ES – Water consumption

45.ES – Sustainable Drainage requirements

59.BE - seeks to ensure the high quality design of new development, taking full and proper account of the context of the site including the character and appearance of the locality

72.H – Density – minimum 35 dwellings per hectare unless local circumstances and context indicate otherwise.

73.H – requires an appropriate mix of dwellings

74.H – Affordable housing.- on site requirement

75.H - Smaller Sites meeting thresholds

100.T – Requires development to be well served by sustainable forms of transport, to provide measures to minimize impact on the network, minimize travel demand, provide a choice of transport modes

101.T - development to provide contributions towards sustainable transport.

102.T – Requires new development to provide safe accesses that do not have adverse environmental implications and are to adoptable standard.

147.OS – Open space requirements for new development

165.TA – Percent for Art

175.LB – Protects buildings of local importance and their setting

186.IN – New community facilities

190.IN – Infrastructure provision

191.IN – Developer contributions Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2019 40. The Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 was submitted for

examination in July 2014. In December 2014, the Planning Inspector issued his preliminary conclusions on housing need, housing supply and economic growth and on 11 February 2015 his final report which recommended non-adoption as a result of the unsoundness identified to date. The findings of the Inspector in relation to the borough’s housing requirements have required a revision to the Plan’s strategy and policies for guiding future development. The other proposed allocations and ‘Development Management’ policies remain untested.

41. Overall, the weight that can be attributed to the policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 is extremely limited. Nevertheless it represents the most recent statement of the Council’s development strategy for the borough and as such will be used so far as possible to guide new development proposals. The most relevant policies are:

S1 – promoting sustainable development

S2 – support for residential and other development including the presumption in favour of new development within the main built-up areas as defined by the urban edge - the site is adjacent to, but outside the urban edge

S3 – seeks to focus as much new housing development as possible within the existing urban area

S5 – the council will seek to achieve the provision of publicly accessible open space including amenity spaces

S8 – Footpath, cycleway, bridleway links supported

S9 – there is a presumption against new development in the countryside (all areas outside the urban edge). Development which physically or visually diminishes a countryside gap, or has an urbanising effect detrimental to the openness of the gap, the character of the countryside or the separate identity of the adjoining settlements will not be permitted

S11 – Protect, conserve, and enhance nature conservation, natural habitats, and biodiversity.

S12 – Heritage assets including archaeology protected

DM1 – includes general criteria for development including that it should not have an unacceptable impact on the character and

appearance of urban areas and the countryside and that proposals should take full account of the context of the site (character, appearance, compatible with adjoining uses, scale, materials, density, design etc.)

DM2 – sets out detailed requirements for development to be environmentally sustainable

DM4 – flood

DM5 – Sustainable surface water and watercourse management

DM7 – protection from pollution including (i) air, (ii) water, (iii) noise, (iv) light and (v) contamination

DM9 – seeks to protect Sites of Nature Conservation Interest from development which may have a direct or indirect adverse effect. Where the benefits of development clearly outweigh the adverse effects on the conservation value of the site, measures can be taken to mitigate or, if this is not possible to compensate for the adverse effects. Also requires Solent Disturbance and Mitigation.

DM10 – Heritage Assets

DM15 – Protection of the best and most valuable agricultural land

DM23 – Transport – general development criteria

DM24 – Parking criteria given

DM28 – Affordable housing requirement given

DM29 – Minimum internal space standards specified

DM32 – New recreation and open space facilities with new development

DM33 – New and enhanced recreation and open space facilities requirements

DM35 - Community, leisure and cultural facilities

DM37 – Funding infrastructure through planning obligations

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Supplementary Planning Document: Quality Places (November 2011)

Supplementary Planning Document: Environmentally Sustainable Development (March 2009)

Supplementary Planning document : Biodiversity (December 2009)

Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Parking Standards (January 2009)

Supplementary Planning Document: Planning Obligations (July 2008, updated 2010)

Supplementary Planning Document: Affordable Housing (July 2009)

Supplementary Planning Document : Internal Space Standards (January 2012)

Policy commentary 42. The above policies and guidance combine to form the criteria on which

this application will be assessed.

Assessment of proposal: Development plan and / or legislative background 43. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section

38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 require a local planning authority determining an application to do so in accordance with the Development Plan unless materials considerations indicate otherwise.

44. The Development Plan in this case comprises the saved policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011.

45. Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states "In considering whether to grant Listed Building Consent for any works, the Local Planning Authority … shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses."

46. In terms of other material planning considerations, the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance constitute material considerations of significant weight.

The Principle of Development

The use of the land for housing and the Five Year Housing Supply 47. The NPPF is a material consideration of significant weight and

paragraph 14 sets out the overarching presumption in favour of sustainable development. At paragraph 49 it goes on to state that:

“Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites.”

48. Eastleigh Borough Council cannot currently demonstrate a supply of

deliverable housing sites within the 5 year period with the latest housing supply figures (July 2016) demonstrating a 4.71 year supply at present. As such “relevant policies for the supply of housing” are deemed out-of-date. Since Policy’s comments were written and following recent case law and appeal decisions it is accepted that Saved Policy 1.CO is a policy for the supply of housing under paragraph 49 of the NPPF and therefore it is out-of-date whilst the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing supply.

49. The absence of a 5 year housing supply weighs significantly in favour of the principle of granting planning permission for the development on this site.

50. The NPPF offers clear guidance for the assessment of planning applications in these circumstances. At the heart of decision taking should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development of which there are three dimensions, social, economic and environmental. For decision taking this means approving proposals that accord with the development plan without delay and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission for sustainable development unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF as a whole, or unless specific policies indicated that development should be restricted.

Sustainability 51. The NPPF (Paras. 7, 8, and 14) sets out the presumption on favour of

sustainable development, including residential. It advises on the three strands to sustainability these being economy, environment, and social and it is the combination of these which can make a site sustainable in planning terms. It also states that when determining applications those that accord with the development plan should be approved without delay (unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise.

52. Economic Sustainability: One of the core planning principles of the NPPF (paragraph 17) is to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver, amongst other things, the homes that the country needs. As with any new housing proposed development would bring people into the area which would be a continuing economic benefit that would support growth in the local economy. A New Homes Bonus would also be paid and the development would create construction jobs.

53. In addition the proposed development would result in financial contributions being secured to offset certain impacts of the development, as set out later in this report which would contribute towards improvements in the local and/or strategic transport network and contributions towards the provision of enhanced community infrastructure.

54. Providing these are secured they are considered to be benefits in the planning balance and overall it is considered that the development would be economically sustainable.

55. Social Sustainability: The proposals would provide up to 12 dwellings of which 20% (2 units) would be affordable housing. The dwellings would support social wellbeing through the provision of a mixed and balanced community, as set out later in this report and would accord with Saved Policy 74.H and the NPPF’s aspiration to “deliver a wide choice of high quality homes in inclusive and mixed communities to meet the needs of different people.”

56. In addition the proposed development would result in financial contributions being secured to offset certain impacts of the development, as set out later in this report which would contribute towards improvements in the local public open space and provision of enhanced community infrastructure.

57. Providing these affordable housing and contributions are secured they are considered to be benefits in the planning balance and overall it is considered that the development would be economically sustainable.

58. Environmental Sustainability: Clearly the geographical location of development is key as a poorly located site without good links to encourage non-car options for travel would require the need to travel long distances that would render the site unsuitable in transport terms.

59. Overall the site is considered sustainably located with the site being located on the western edge of Horton Heath is only 300m from the junction with Botley Road where within 50m local bus service can be accessed connecting to Bishops Waltham, Southampton and Eastleigh where there is onward rail travel available. The local cycle network can also be accessed. Within 300m to the south of the junction is a local shop, a small employment site, a shop, and dentist and if you travel north from the junction within 400m you reach a local primary and secondary school and public open space beyond which another 600m along Botley Road you reach Fair Oak village with a whole range of businesses and services such as public convenience stores, post office, and a church.

60. Accessibility to these facilities are however critically reliant on a pedestrian link from the site to the nearest pavement at Goodwood Court.

61. The applicant acknowledges the critical requirement for this footpath link, has discussed proposals with Hampshire Country Council and officers are satisfied that the pedestrian link can be reasonable achieved and is deliverable prior to occupation of any residential property on the site.

62. With the provision of the footpath link the site is considered to be sufficiently well located to facilities and provide good public transport/non-car options for travel to them.

63. Other environmental factors such as landscape and visual impact, form, layout and design of development, protection of nature/biodiversity interests, protection of heritage assets, and flood and drainage are considered in more detail below and are considered to comply with policy requirements and are not considered to result in significant harm providing appropriate mitigation is secured. As such the proposal is considered to be environmentally sustainable.

Impact on landscape and loss of countryside 64. The site is located within designated countryside and not allocated for

development in the existing or emerging local plan and therefore constitutes loss of countryside which is intended to be retained as such. The NPPF in paragraph 17 seeks to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside in these circumstances. Policy 1.CO of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review and Policy S9 of the submitted Local Plan only allow a limited range of agricultural, sport or recreational uses within the countryside. The proposed loss of countryside for residential development is therefore contrary to this guidance and Policy. The application site is also located within a landscape protection area where saved policy 18.CO which seeks to protect the character of the landscape. It is not, however, located within any designated Local or Strategic Gap and therefore the risk of the physical or visual coalescence of settlements as a result of development does not arise.

65. The application site is also located within the Council’s 2011 Landscape Character Area 8 which describes the character as follows:

This landscape character area exhibits a mosaic landscape set on a ridge and undulating valley side. It falls from a high point on Knowle Hill, now part of a public park, towards the borough boundary in the east and towards lower lying land at Horton Heath in the southwest. Field sizes vary considerably and the land has a mixture of arable pasture and amenity uses, adding to the patchwork effect. There are small copses and deciduous woodlands with an enclosed and intricate character.

Along the western and southern edges, the settlements of Fair Oak and Horton Heath are prominent creating a strongly defined boundary. There is quite a rapid transition through parkland fragments like The Cock Pit Farm to a truly rural landscape southeast of this area, on the edge of the borough and beyond.

66. The visual impact (landscape) assessment details that this relatively small site within this wider landscape context contains no distinctive features and is the mosaic of developed land, woodland, and field enclosures limit inter-visibility. It is agreed that the site is relatively flat and is relatively well screened from Knowle Lane and Durley Road by existing hedges and trees during the summer months and that long views from the east and also relative well screening by boundary planting and trees. However the boundaries contain trees and planting of a deciduous nature (as detailed within the tree survey discussed below) and therefore only provides screening for part of the year meaning that at certain times of the year the site is much more visible from public vantage points.

67. The tree survey assesses the quality of the trees within the site and classifies them into four distinct categories:

A Trees of high quality – that are able to make a substantial contribution for a minimum of 40 years. Particularly good examples of trees, or essential components of groups of Arboricultural features e.g. avenues. Visual importance or significant conservation, historical or other value. Veteran trees, especially if ancient.

B Trees of moderate quality - those in such a condition as to be able to make a significant contribution for a minimum of 20 years. Might be category A but have defects or lack special qualities; or growing in a high value group. Has conservation or cultural values.

C Trees of low quality - Unremarkable trees of limited merit, with a life expectancy of at least 10 years; or growing in a low value group. Also young trees with a stem diameter of below150mm.

U Trees unsuitable for retention - that cannot realistically be retained, in the context of the current land use, for longer than 10 years.

68. The tree survey details only 1.no Oak tree on the western boundary

that is already dead and is therefore unsuitable for retention. The report details 1.no Scots Pine close to the southern boundary that is in poor condition due to lack of light and a group 4.no sycamore on the western boundary which are of low quality and poor in form that could potentially be removed if development requires it.

69. The Tree Services Manager has raised no objection to the

classifications of trees details and from a landscape perspective the retention of all moderate and high quality trees is welcomed. The trees scheduled for removal are along the southern and western boundary where other trees are located and therefore their removal is unlikely to have any significant impact on the landscape setting or the wider visibility of the site. A condition is however recommended to secure an Arboricultural Report, method statement, and tree protection plan.

70. Details submitted with the application indicate that native hedgerow

and tree planting will be undertaken to enhance the boundary and plans indicate new tree planting will be provided within the site.

71. In order to ensure the proposal does not have a negative on the surrounding countryside or landscape setting it is imperative that any reserved matters application is accompanied by a detailed landscaping scheme to not only enhance the site but also to reinforce the boundaries. Conditions are also recommended to secure appropriate ongoing management and maintenance of the landscape scheme.

72. The Local Plan Policies and the NPPF requires good design. This

includes, scale, massing, density, height, landscape, layout, materials and access and how such development relates to its surroundings. Securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. It should also address connections between people

and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.

73. Whilst the application only considers the principle of development and access arrangements indicative details of the scale and form of dwelling have been provided and suggest that the proposed dwellings would be predominantly 2 storey in nature with a 2.5 storey unit in the heart of the development. It is considered that in this semi-rural location a 2.5 storey dwelling would appear to urban and dense and therefore a condition requiring all dwellings to be no more than 2 storeys in height is recommended.

74. The specific details of the scale and form of development are to be considered in a later application however with only up to 12 units proposed, with the height of properties restricted to 2 stories, and enhanced boundary screening provided it is considered that the proposal will not have a significant detrimental harm on the landscape character.

75. Overall it is considered that whilst the development of a green field will undoubtedly change the character of the site, it is considered that with the imposition of conditions to control the scale of development and to ensure the provision of additional and enhanced landscaping and boundary screening the proposal can mitigate any harm and is not of a scale such that the overall landscape character of the area would be unacceptably altered.

Illustrative layout and amount of development 76. As stated above, this outline application is now seeking approval of the

principle of development and means of access only – Members are therefore NOT considering the detailed matters of layout, appearance, landscaping and scale – these issues will all be considered at reserved matters stage, should the principle of development on this site be agreed.

77. However, the application is seeking permission for a maximum level of development on the site, this being 12 dwellings. It is therefore necessary to assess whether this general level of development can be accommodated on the site, bearing in mind the detailed consideration of layout will take place at a later date via the reserved matters process.

78. The application site measures approximately 0.5ha site and the illustrative layout shows 12.no residential accommodation. This represents a density of 24 dwellings per hectare (dph). This is considered low density, particularly given the NPPF objectives of making best use of land and in view of the saved and emerging local plan objective of achieving an average density of 35 dph however in this countryside location is considered acceptable.

79. Any future layout will need carefully consider the layout in terms of its impacts on boundary treatments and trees and the location of housing in relation to the existing residential properties, the adjacent listed building and poultry farm. The future layout will also need to carefully consider the requirement set out within out Quality Places SPD in terms of achieving the necessary distances between existing and new properties, to safeguard against loss of privacy, overlooking or undue overshadowing, and to ensure that necessary internal and external space standards are met. Further the design and layout will need to allow for an appropriate sustainable drainage strategy for the site which may restrict distances of dwellings to any proposed pumping station or treatment plant. The site is considered to be of an adequate size to allow consideration of these factors.

80. The illustrative layout shows opportunities for the creation of a high quality development, which could include street tree planting along the main access and for houses to be positioned to create activity, natural surveillance and design interest along the main through route. This approach is welcomed and will continue to be developed through the ongoing discussion leading to the reserved matters applications.

81. In terms of potential housing mix, the illustrative layout shows a combination of detached, semi-detached and terraced units. This variation in house type and form will provide visual interest within the site. The detailed elevational treatment and massing/scale will be considered at reserved matters stage, should outline permission be granted. However, at this stage, it is considered that the illustrative layout demonstrates the potential to create a high quality and attractive residential environment, in accordance with the Council’s ‘Quality Places’ SPD.

82. The application indicates land to the north and east that is within the applicants control and the layout of the roads and the position of houses suggest that there is potential for other land at The adjacent property The Mazels to come forward for development. Saved Policy 75.H requires development to optimise development potential and make most efficient use of land and not to depress the yield of land that might otherwise meet Policy thresholds such as for a higher level of affordable housing. The applicant has therefore agreed to include clauses with the proposed S106 agreement to allow a comprehensive approach south the other land become available. The future layout will need to reflect this.

Noise, odours, pollutants and business use impacts 83. The application site is located in close proximity to an existing poultry

business located to the west of the site. The application proposes new residential properties that may be adversely impacted by noise and odour generated by the poultry farm. The poultry farm has no hours of restriction on its use. Added to that the character of the area is fairly rural meaning background noise levels are relatively low, especially at

night, so any noise impacts from the poultry farm will be more perceivable to sensitive end users. The introduction of new sensitive receptors may lead to restrictions on legitimate existing uses or restrict legitimate growth of existing uses. NPPF states ‘existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land use since they were established.’

84. Saved Policy 30.ES of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) requires development to adequately mitigate against the effects of noise and 32.ES requires development to mitigate against air (odour) pollution. This is carried through to Policy DM7 of the submitted Local Plan (2011-2029). Furthermore saved policy 59.BE and DM1 require development safeguard residential amenity.

85. A noise and an odour report have been submitted in support of the application.

86. The noise assessment demonstrates that the site is impacted by noise from road traffic and plant noise from the poultry farm. Although plant noise is constant it is generally only audible during quieter periods. Internal noise standards can be achieved with standard double glazing although will be exceeded with open windows. Alternative means of ventilation will therefore be required and details of this are suggested to be secured by the imposition of a condition requiring a ventilation scheme. External noise levels will be considered acceptable.

87. The odour assessment submitted details that the odours noted on site were only at a low level and considered as the type of odour associated with a rural location. It was deemed that the odours identified were unlikely to give rise to complaints. Therefore no mitigation is required.

88. It is considered that site is capable of accommodating residential

dwelling without residents being unacceptable affected by noise and odour, and that the adjacent poultry farm is unlikely to be affected or unacceptably restricted by the proposals. As such the proposal complies with policy requirements.

Traffic impact 89. Saved Policies 100.T, 101.T, of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan

Review (2001-2011), Policies S6, S7, and DM23 of the submitted Local Plan (2011-2029) and paragraphs 32 and 34 of the NPPF require development to be well served by or provide sustainable forms of transport and submit sufficient information to consider how the quantum of development could be accommodated on the transport network.

90. The application includes information on likely transport movements and

impact on the local road network. The Transport note submitted with

the application indicates that a site with 12 residential properties is likely to generate 68 vehicular movements over a 12 hour period with destination including Eastleigh, Winchester, Hedge End and Bishops Waltham as well as some local trips to Fair Oak. In addition the site is expected to generate 28 pedestrian trips that will link into existing transports modes. These figures are not of a scale to indicate that the traffic impacts from the development would be severe (either in themselves or cumulatively with other permitted local developments).

91. Sustainable transport options are considered in the applicants' supporting information and are also referred to above in the consideration of whether the site is considered sustainable.

Detailed Matter – Access 92. Access is the only detailed matter for consideration. Saved Policies

59.BE, 100.T and 102.T of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) require minimal impact upon the transport network and safe access to be provided for development proposals. These requirements are carried forward into the submitted Local Plan (2011-2029) under policies S6, S7i, DM1 and DM23. The NPPF also considers rural housing and the potential issues associated with the promotion of sustainable transport in rural areas. It directs that decisions should ensure that developments in rural areas generating significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.

93. The single vehicular access is located off of Knowle Lane, 35m to the south of the driveway serving The Mazels. Engineers have raised no objection to this access providing the design of the access junction is secured by condition to ensure it complies with policy in terms of safety, function, and standard.

94. Pedestrian access to the wider area will be created through the provision of a new footpath which will link the site to the existing pavement at Goodwood Court. Onward the site is served by bus stops and cycle routes that serve the surround villages and towns.

95. It is considered that with the imposition of conditions to secured details of the access arrangement and the provision of a new pedestrian footpath link to Goodwood Court the site is considered to be appropriately accessible thereby complying with policy requirements.

Other Matters Affordable housing and housing mix 96. Affordable housing is required as part of this proposal under Policy

74.H, of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Policy DM28 of the submitted Local Plan (2011-2029), NPPF paragraph 50 and Supplementary Planning Document: Affordable Housing.

97. This application triggers a 20% affordable housing requirement and on the basis of the proposed 12 dwellings, this equates to 2.4 dwellings. The applicant has indicated within their Affordable Housing Statement that this requirement will be met through the provision of 2.no dwellings being provided on the site (1.no 2 bedroom house and 1.no 3 bedroom house) and has agreed to secure this provision through a S106 obligation. The remaining 0.4 of a dwelling in accordance with Policy will not be required.

98. The applicant has indicated as part of the application other land within

their ownership which immediately adjoins the site. Saved Policy 75.H requires consideration of the number of units proposed and making the most efficient use of land. The indicative layout suggests that access could easily be extended to the adjoining land and that any such development should be considered comprehensively with this site. The applicant has therefore agreed to terms within the S106 agreement that secure 35% affordable housing if the overall number of units on this site and the adjoining land exceed 14 units.

99. The provision of affordable housing is considered to comply with Policy

requirements.

Biodiversity (ancient woodland/protected species) 100. There are a number of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation

(SINCs), within 1km of the application site, as follows:

Scorey's Copse Meadow SINC (grassland with significant elements of relic unimproved grassland) & Scorey's Copse Rush Pasture (semi improved grassland & wetland habitat), around 600m to the south.

Knowlehill Copse, 500m to the north (ancient woodland).

Wyvern Technology College Meadow, 600m to the west (unimproved grassland).

Quobleigh Pond & Woods SINC (ancient woodland & semi-natural woodland of restricted distribution in the County) and Ponds & Meadow adjacent to Wyvern Technology College (supports a notable population of Great Crested Newt), around 800m to the north-west.

Durley Copse SINC around 600m to the east (significant element of ancient woodland surviving)

101. This application is accompanied by an ecological survey. This

concludes that the site has low nature conservation value. The findings of the survey were generally accepted by consultees however it was noted that there was potential for Greater Crested News in the pond at Cockpit Farm and therefore a separate detailed survey was undertaken. This found the pond to be of poor quality and thus did not support a population.

102. The Ecology report notes several trees in the area that have old

woodpecker holes that have potential for bat roosts but does not

investigate this potential further. A condition is therefore recommended to ensure appropriate activity and roosting surveys are undertaken and submitted with the future reserved matters application.

103. Although no reptiles were found on site at the time of the ecological assessment it is felt that the paddock, which is only cut annually, and the boundaries of the site have potential to contain reptile population. A condition is therefore also recommended to secure reptile mitigation, monitoring, and management.

104. It is considered that with the suggested conditions imposed the proposal complies with the requirements of 25.NC of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Policies S11 and DM9 of the submitted Local Plan (2011-2029), the objectives of the NPPF.

Drainage and flood risk 105. In accordance with Policy 45.ES, of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan

Review (2001-2011), Policies S1, DM4 and DM5 of the submitted Local Plan (2011-2029), the overarching core planning principles of the NPPF development is expected to adequately mitigate against flooding through the provision of appropriate foul and surface water drainage.

106. The application is supported by a very brief drainage statement which

details that surface water will drain to soak-aways on site and that the development will include permeable paving and water butts to reduce surface water run-off.

107. The application site lies within Flood Zone 1 which is considered to

have a low risk of flooding. Consultees have noted that the ground within the site is however very wet and does not appear to drain much into the soil which slopes down toward The Cockpit and Cockpit Farm and that it is unclear whether soakaways would be appropriate for this site. It is therefore imperative that in order for the development to comply with Policy that appropriate conditions are imposed to ensure an effective surface water drainage scheme is secured.

108. No specific details of foul drainage have been provided however the drainage statement submitted indicated that a pumping station may be required to control the flow into the main sewer and avoid surcharging and flooding and possible a treatment plant if this is not adequate.

109. Southern Water have raised no objection to the proposals but have requested that details of foul and surface water drainage be secured by condition and have indicated that if a pumping station is required that no habitable rooms should be located within 15m of the boundary of the pumping station site.

110. With the imposition of conditions requiring foul and surface water drainage details and a condition preventing habitable rooms within 15m

of a pumping station the proposal is considered to comply with Policy requirements.

Sustainability Construction 111. In accordance with Policies 34.ES, 37.ES, and 38.ES of the Eastleigh

Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Policies S1 and DM2 of the submitted Local Plan (2011-2029), the overarching core planning principles of the NPPF, and as set out within our Environmentally Sustainable Development SPD dwellings are required to meet Code of Sustainable Homes level 4 and this would have previously been secured by way of an appropriately worded conditions.

112. Following a Written Update to Parliament from the Secretary of State

for Communities and Local Government on 25th March 2015 and the coming into law of the Deregulation Act on 26th March 2015, the outcomes of the Housing Standards Review come into force which partly relate to sustainable design standards.

113. The outcome of the review will mean significant changes for the

implementation of the EBC Environmentally Sustainable Development Supplementary Planning Document (ESD SPD).

114. We are no longer able to grant planning permission requiring

compliance with specific standards in the Code for Sustainable Homes. We are however able to continue applying energy standards which exceed the Building Regulations (i.e. at Code 4 standard) until the ‘Zero Carbon Homes’ policy comes into force in late 2016.

115. We are however able to continue to require the equivalent of code level

4 for energy and water as well as evidence that the relevant ESD requirements 2-8 in respect of sustainable Energy/CO2, Water, Materials, Surface Water Runoff, Waste, Pollution, Health and Wellbeing. Management and Ecology are incorporated into the development as set out within the Council’s adopted Environmentally Sustainable Development SPD. To ensure the development complies with policy an appropriate condition is proposed.

Impact on the Setting of a Listed Building 116. In accordance with Policies 175.LB of the Eastleigh Borough Local

Plan Review (2001-2011), Policies S12 and DM10 of the submitted Local Plan (2011-2029) and paragraphs 128-134 of the NPPF development is expected to consider the impact on heritage assets including listed buildings and avoid harm to them or their setting.

117. To the south-east of the site is The Cockpit, a mid to late C19 small country house currently in need of some maintenance. This garden contains a fine collection of trees including a monkey puzzle and a luxuriant hedge along the northern boundary itself. The shortest distance from the house to the boundary of the proposal site is some 50metres which given the amount and height of vegetation is sufficient

buffer for a building of this nature to protect its setting. Subject to conditions, the proposal is not therefore considered to conflict with the guidance contained within the paragraph 128 of the NPPF and saved policies 168.LB and 174.LB protecting heritage assets.

Infrastructure and Planning Obligations 118. In accordance with Policies 101.T 147.OS, 165.TA, 186.IN, 190.IN and

191.IN of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Policies S5, S6, S7, S8, DM1, DM28, DM32, DM35 and DM37 of the emerging plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Obligations, Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing, paragraphs 70, 72, 73 and 204 of the NPPF and the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010, there is a requirement for developers’ contributions to ensure on and off-site provision for facilities and infrastructure made necessary by the development, or to mitigate against any increased need/pressure on existing facilities. This is in addition to the requisite on-site provision of affordable housing.

119. Existing local schools are at capacity, as are other local community and

open space facilities and contributions towards a full range of off-site infrastructure are necessary. The Section 106 legal agreement therefore should include contributions / Obligations towards the provision of the following infrastructure index linked as per the Planning Obligations SPD and HCC requirements:

Community Infrastructure contribution

Public Open Space & Play Provision Contribution (Base contribution only)

Sustainable Integrated Transport contribution

Public Art contribution

Primary and Secondary Education contribution

Traffic Regulation Order contribution

120. With the provision of the requisite contributions further infrastructure can be provided locally, including assistance in providing additional infant and secondary school places within the new 4-16 through school at Horton Heath, Enhancement to Fair Oak squash club facilities to make it available for public use, a new young play area at New Centaury Park, public art to enhance pedestrian routes to Knowle Park through the nature reserve, and works to increase capacity/reduce congestion on the transport network (including the Knowle Lane/Mortimers Lane/ Botley Road/Burnett’s Lane junctions).

121. The projects and measures identified for contribution expenditure will

comply with the 3 tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy 2010, in that the monies would go towards the projects which are directly related to the development, and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development. The contributions would be index-linked to ensure the contributions rise in line with the costs of providing the identified projects/measures.

Conclusion 122. As set out above, Saved Policy 1.CO is considered to be a policy for

the supply of housing. As the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply, Saved Policy 1.CO is out-of-date by virtue of paragraph 49 of the NPPF and as such the presumption in favour of sustainable development test within paragraph 14 of the NPPF is triggered.

123. From the above assessment, the development can demonstrate elements of being economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. The infill site is within walking distance of shops, schools and bus services, whilst slightly further afield are community and health facilities. It would provide private and affordable housing, and the construction process would deliver a number of employment opportunities and, once fully occupied, the development would establish an increase in the workforce resources within the area. There would also be New Homes Bonus benefits.

124. However, the impacts of the development must be acknowledged. The development would result in the loss of undeveloped countryside outside of the urban edge, albeit a small site.

125. Weighing against this is the Council’s recognition that it cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing.

126. Following a full assessment of the development, this is a finely balanced recommendation weighing the loss of countryside and direct impact of the development against the delivery of housing in a sustainable location. On balance there are sufficient material considerations to grant outline permission for this development contrary to policy 1.CO of the adopted local plan. The impacts are recognised but they would not outweigh the benefits this development delivers and the application. The scheme overall is acceptable and is recommended for approval of planning permission subject to the applicant entering into an s106 legal agreement to secure contributions towards infrastructure and mitigation of the development’s impact.