BHH – Bursledon, Hamble and Hound Local Area Committee Thursday 21 September 2017. Application Number:

O/17/80319

Case Officer: David Huckfield Received Date: Wednesday 12 April 2017 Site Address: Land at Satchell Lane, Hamble-Le-Rice, Southampton SO31

4HP Applicant: Mr S Bull and Mr R Janaway Proposal: Outline application: development of up to 70 dwellings with

associated access, public open space, landscaping and amenity areas (all matters reserved except for access)

Recommendation: REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

(1) The proposals represent an inappropriate and unjustified form of development which would have an unacceptably urbanising and visually intrusive impact upon the designated countryside, to the detriment of the chararacter, visual amenity, and the quality of the landscape, of the locality. The application is therefore contrary to Saved Policies 1.CO, 18.CO, 20.CO and 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(2) The site is considered to be in an unsustainable and poorly accessible

location such that the development will not be adequately served by sustainable modes of travel including public transport, cycling and walking. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of Saved Policy 100.T of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 and Paragraphs 17 and 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(3) The application fails to demonstrate that a satisfactory means of access can

be provided to serve the development without unacceptable interference with the safety and function of the highway network. The proposals are therefore contrary to the requirements of Saved Policy 102.T of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 and Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(4) Insufficient information has been provided to the Local Planning Authority, as

the competent authority, to enable it to determine that a suitable scheme for sustainable urban drainage for the proposed development would be provided which ensures that the hydrological and ecological interests of the Solent Complex are protected, as set out in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of Saved Policies 25.NC and 45.ES of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 and Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(5) The application fails to secure provision for developer contributions for the on and off-site provision of facilities and infrastructure (including affordable housing, air quality monitoring, primary and secondary education, the solent disturbance mitigation project, sustainable transport measures, a Traffic Regulation Order, improvements and enhancements to the local footpath network, community infrastructure, on-site public open space and play area provision, off-site public open space, public art) made necessary by the development or to mitigate against any increased need or pressure on existing facilities. As such the application is contrary to policies 74.H, 101.T, 147.OS, 165.TA, 191.IN of Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Eastleigh Borough Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document and Paragraphs 17, 203 and 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Note to Applicant: The application was refused following the assessment of the following plans: CSA/3212/105 Rev C, CSA/3212/106 Rev A, CSA/3212/108, 17-004-005 Revision D, 17-004-021, 17-004-022, 17-004-024, 9415-KC-XX-YTREE-TCP01, 9415-KC-XX-YTREE-TPP002 Rev 0. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Eastleigh Borough council take 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: 1. This application has been referred to Committee because it is a Major

development which is contrary to the Development Plan and is considered to be controversial.

Description of application 2. The application seeks outline planning permission for the construction of up to

70no. residential dwellings, together with associated access, public open space, landscaping and amenity areas.

3. As well as considering the principle of development on the site, the application also seeks detailed approval for the matter of access. All other matters of detail which include the appearance, scale, layout, and the exact landscaping provisions, would be considered at a separate reserved matters stage (the second part of a two-stage planning process) should outline permission be granted.

4. The access to serve the development is proposed from Satchell Lane in the

form of a standard priority junction along the north-eastern perimeter of the site. To the immediate east of this would be a pedestrian crossing point with a dropped kerb and tactile paving to onwards link the development with the existing pedestrian footway network to the south. In addition, the masterplan submitted in support of the application which indicates how the site might be

developed also includes pedestrian access points onto the existing public right of way which runs parallel with the site’s western boundary.

5. The Design and Access Statement indicates that the scheme would incorporate

a broad range of house types, sizes and tenures, with the development representing a density of up to 20 dwellings per hectare (32 dwellings per hectare net density). An area of open space incorporating a LEAP (Local Equipped Area for Play) is shown at the southern extent of the site, with further green infrastructure around the perimeter of the development.

6. The application is accompanied by the following reports, technical assessments

and drawings which have been updated as necessary throughout the course of the application:

Planning Application Form and Completed Certificate A Planning Statement Site Location Plan Development Concept Plan Illustrative Landscape Strategy Design and Access Statement Transport Statement Incorporating Proposed Access Plan (and

Supplementary Technical Notes) Flood Risk Assessment and Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Strategy

(and Supplementary Letter) Preliminary Services Appraisal Extended Phase I Habitat Survey Wintering Bird Survey Dormouse Survey Bat Activity Survey Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Agricultural Land Considerations Statement Noise and Air Quality Assessment Geo-Environmental Site Assessment Minerals Assessment Report Archaeological Desk Based Assessment Tree Information including Tree Impact Assessment, Tree Constraints

Plan and Tree Protection Plan 7. The Council issued a Screening Opinion at pre-application stage (28 March

2017) under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended) in regards to the matter of whether or not the development would constitute ‘EIA development’ for the purposes of these regulations.

8. The Council determined that the project did not exceed the screening thresholds for Schedule 2 development (urban development projects including more than 150 dwellings or with an overall site area exceeding 5 hectares) and, having taken into account the selection criteria in Schedule 3 of the 2011 Regulations, that the proposal would not have likely significant effects on the

environment. Accordingly, the Council consider that the proposed development is not ‘EIA development’ and an Environmental Statement is not therefore required.

9. For the avoidance of doubt, whilst the 2011 EIA Regulations have been revoked and replaced by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 in the intervening period (16 May 2017), the transitional arrangements set out in regulation 76 of the 2017 Regulations are deemed to apply. As the Screening Opinion was issued prior to their replacement, therefore, the 2011 Regulations continue to be applicable to the development proposal.

The site and its surroundings 10. The application site comprises a roughly triangular grass field which is

presently utilised for the grazing of horses. The site extends to an area of approximately 3.55 hectares and is bound by Satchell Lane to its northern perimeter, with the existing ribbon residential development along the western side of the Lane bordering the site to the south-east. The site’s western boundary runs parallel with a Public Footpath (Hamble-le-Rice Footpath 1) which links Satchell Lane with the centre of Hamble village around 900m to the south, beyond which lies the former Hamble Airfield.

11. The site is situated outside of the urban edge and within an area designated as countryside within the Council’s adopted Local Plan (the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011). The adjoining section of Satchell Lane is semi-rural in character with it being tree-lined and devoid of footways moving in a northerly direction. There are recreational uses to the north-east of the site in the form of Riverside Caravan Park as well as Mercury Marina, with the former DIO (Defence Infrastructure Organisation) Hamble Petroleum Storage Depot to the north.

12. In respect of its topography, the site as a whole falls fairly markedly to the east/south-east, with the high point of the land located towards the mid-to-upper extent of the western boundary (18m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD)), with this then sloping down to a low point of just under 11m AOD to the east where the site borders the residential dwelling at No. 161 Satchell Lane. There is a more gentle slope moving from north to south, with the southern-most point of the site being just over 14m AOD.

13. The land continues to drop moving eastwards beyond the site’s perimeter, with

the adjacent section of the Satchell Lane carriageway set at a lower level and there being a steep bank marking the intervening boundary. This bank contains a large number of mature trees which continue around the length of the northern perimeter of the development site. The western boundary with the adjacent Public Right of Way is marked by a mixture of trees, hedging and fencing, whilst to the east the adjoining boundaries of the neighbouring residential properties consist of a range of hedging and fencing.

Relevant planning history

14. The site has a relatively limited planning history, with there being two previous

applications recorded, both of which were for residential development proposals:

Z/18953/000 – Residential development – REFUSED 22/11/1978 Z/26999/000 – The erection of 2 detached houses – REFUSED

09/09/1983

Representations received 15. A total of 203 letters of objection and 1 letter of observation have been received

in relation to the application. 16. The objections raised are in relation to the following matters (summarised): The principle of development / need and housing supply

The development is not needed in this area. There are already housing estates being built on Hamble Lane and the area

cannot sustain any more development. The site is outside of the urban area and will encroach into open countryside

to the north of Hamble Village. The development is on designated agricultural land. Any development should be rural and not urban in this location. It is not contained in any policies map where there is a presumption in favour

of new development on a green site. The application is contrary to the emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan /

Cabinet recommendation which states that there should be no significant additional development in the Hamble peninsula because of transport constraints.

The development is not sustainable under NPPF guidelines and conflicts with Eastleigh Borough Council policies.

The Council has a five year housing supply as required by the Government and no further planning permissions for housing are necessary.

The Council not meeting housing supply targets does not justify otherwise inappropriate development.

Houses should be built elsewhere / housing shortfall is bettered addressed in a more appropriate setting.

The countryside should be protected for future generations. Impact on character of the area

Erosion of the community identity for Hamble and the green gap separating Hamble from other villages.

The village is becoming overpopulated and has lost its identity due to overdevelopment and has become / is becoming a small town.

The development will destroy Hamble’s character as a small village. The development is out of context and will destroy the countryside and a

valuable open green space on the edge of Hamble Village.

Visual intrusion and urbanisation of the countryside. Unacceptable and disproportionate built form in an area of countryside which

would undermine the physical and visual qualities on the green site and nearby local gap.

Requires significant tree loss which takes away from the visual amenity of that part of Satchell Lane, which is tree-lined throughout.

The density of the development is out of keeping with the village. Hamble is a distinctive and picturesque yachting centre. It is important to

preserve its scale and character to ensure it continues to be attractive to those who visit for sailing.

Detrimental impact on the Hamble River. Flooding and drainage

The water table is particularly high making flooding a real possibility. Drainage and sewerage is already a constant challenge in the area and the

provision for the additional housing was questioned. The development will cause local flooding from increased water run-off which

Satchell Lane already suffers from. Existing houses backing on to the site have suffered from the effects of poor

surface water drainage resulting in underpinning works; alterations to flow patterns could cause further damage.

Transport, access and accessibility

Increase in traffic/congestion on the highway network, including Hamble Lane which is already one of the country’s busiest ‘B’ roads.

Cumulative impacts of additional traffic with other developments. Impact of traffic congestion on the emergency services ability to access the

area. Additional pressure on the junction of Satchell Lane with Hamble Lane which

is already overloaded and dangerous, particularly at peak times. Insufficient capacity on the highway network. Hamble Lane should be improved and widened before any further

development is considered. The Transport Assessment does not include an assessment of the traffic

impacts on Hamble Lane, only on Satchell Lane. The traffic survey is misleading and was undertaken at the wrong time of year.

The Lane is significantly busier in summertime. No suitable mitigation proposed in relation to highway / traffic impacts. The site is not in a sustainable location outside of Hamble Village. The site is too far from amenities for pedestrians and is not within a safe

walking distance of schools. Residents will be reliant on cars to get anywhere as there is a lack of public

transport available. Highway safety concerns and the potential for accidents associated with the

position of the access on a blind bend and opposite the access to Mercury Marina, the Halyards and the Riverside Caravan Park.

Satchell Lane was never built to take this many cars and is in a poor state already.

The main access road is a narrow country lane already overburdened by traffic and in most places has no room for a pavement.

Satchell Lane is already dangerous for drivers/cyclists and pedestrians with no pavements or lighting in many parts.

Satchell Lane is already being used as a “rat run” to avoid congestion in Hamble Lane.

Despite the recent reduction in the speed limit to 30mph, cars still exceed the speed limit.

Opening up visibility as part of the access will encourage drivers travelling along Satchell Lane to travel at higher speeds.

Impacts of construction vehicles gaining access to the site. Effects on residents ability to commute to work outside of the village. Impact on the adjacent footpath / right of way which acts as a countryside

walk for villagers. Amenity (including air quality, noise, pollution and impact on local residents)

Increased noise and air pollution resulting from additional traffic. Excessive dust and smells from construction works. Increased levels of disturbance. Light pollution from the development in a dark rural landscape. The site is on elevated ground and the proposed housing would be

overbearing and visually intrusive to neighbouring properties. Overshadowing and loss of light and privacy for surrounding housing. Loss of outlook for nearby residents. Detrimental impact on residents’ enjoyment of their homes. The mass and scale of the housing would be visually overbearing and have

an enclosing impact on existing housing. The gravel extraction site on the airfield will cause dust and noise and affect

the new dwellings. Infrastructure and facilities

Additional pressure on local doctors which already have significant waiting times for appointments.

Local schools are already at capacity. Strain on dentists and other facilities which are already overloaded. Significant effects on already stretched policing resources in the area. Effects on gas, electricity and sewage resourcing. Infrastructure improvements should be put in place before any more housing

is considered. Biodiversity and other environmental impacts

Loss of habitat for local wildlife including birds, badgers, bats, deer, field mice and reptiles.

Impact on the horses in the field which will be displaced.

Loss of mature trees and hedgerows affecting the Lane’s character. There is a WW2 pillbox adjacent to the proposed site which is used by bats

and which should be left undisturbed for their conservation. Impacts on the SSSI, SPA, SAC and the local RAMSAR site.

Other

The development is being pursued solely for financial / profit reasons. Proximity of the development to the oil pipeline. Negative economic impacts including on the marine based economy. These developments make the area an undesirable place to visit for those

wishing to use existing marine services. The proposals will only increase the difficulty of existing economic enterprises

in ensuring that their staff can reach work. Impacts on local tourism. Impact on property prices for owners of neighbouring dwellings. Housing being built in the area is out of reach of local young families. Impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of the local population. Development will open floodgates to even larger detrimental developments

including on the airfield. The consultation did not go far enough and the consultation time is insufficient

for residents to review all of the information. Loss of valuable agricultural land with no overriding justification. Lack of contributions towards local infrastructure. Benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the negative impact of sterilising

mineral resources which could be extracted from the site. Property boundaries have been misrepresented and the proposals include

changes to roadways and kerbs that may be on utility company / council land rather than land they own.

17. 1 letter of observation was received in respect of the traffic problems in the

local area, with this making the following comments:

The has been a large increase in commercial and industrial development in Hamble in the last 10-12 years and a mismatch of supply and demand with increasing employees and a lack of growth in supply of housing which has introduced more commuting and created traffic problems.

An alternative to increasing volumes of traffic would be to limit more commercial and industrial development or allow more residential housing in Hamble. But these should not be in gaps and with pre-planned infrastructure and highway improvements.

Road movements data should be obtained so that the reality can be seen and problems addressed before they get any worse.

Consultation responses Head of Planning Policy & Design

18. Landscape – The open character of the existing landscape is noted in the Landscape Character Assessment for the Borough of Eastleigh. At the moment the site and the larger area of the adjacent airfield are visually integrated with only a sparse hedgerow between the two. This open space collectively forms a valuable ‘gap’ between the settlements along the Hamble peninsula. There is serious concern that this development weakens the effectiveness of this gap and is likely to add to the ‘whittling’ down effect taking place.

19. The landscape report in the supporting statements suggests that the new development is “well related to the existing settlements along the northern edge of Hamble”. It is felt that this is actually not really the case and visually there are few connections. Much is made of the fact that the existing hedgerows are to be reinforced so as to screen the development. These have the effect of separating the new estate from the village. The reality is more a straggling addition on the fringe of the village.

20. The open character of the existing landscape is particularly vulnerable to the visual intrusiveness of new developments. The very feeling of “an open landscape” is weakened by the addition of new developments into its fringes. It is felt therefore that the existing intrinsic landscape character of the area will be weakened by this development and for these reasons should not be allowed.

21. Design – The Design and Access Statement sets out design intentions, however the plans submitted do not demonstrate that many of these have been achieved. The view corridor is very little emphasised and little more defined by tree planting than other streets. Improvements are needed to define the key spaces from the rest of the road system to give them the prominence implied in the design statement. The drawings submitted also do not demonstrate that design ambitions stated have been achieved in regards to distinguishing between the spine-street and secondary streets.

22. The LEAP play area is sensibly located some distance form any houses and makes use of a tight corner. There is some doubt however that the facility could act as a focal space for the community. To do this the spaces would really need to be more central.

23. There is a need for a footpath along the north-east side along Satchell Lane which is narrow and which lacks any sort of route for pedestrians. A footpath around the outside of the development is proposed that is variously described as ‘a formal recreation route’. It seems unlikely that residents will actually walk round and round this footpath as recreation and neither does it seem very likely they will use it to move from one part of the site to another. A considerable percentage of the site is given to the area for this footpath. Whilst some of this area is also needed for SUDs and landscape buffer zones, a percentage of the land could be usefully used to add more space at the centre of the development.

24. Sustainability – No details have been provided on sustainability at this stage. The development should commit to the EBC energy efficiency and water consumption standards (equivalent to old Code 4 standards). At present only

‘local targets’ for energy are committed to in the Design and Access Statement and not water.

25. Biodiversity – Objection. Whilst the suggested drainage scheme would be acceptable as infiltration provides the best form of treatment, as HCC have concerns about deliverability, it is considered that there are not adequate details to undertake the HRA (Habitats Regulations Assessment) and an objection is raised in regard to impacts on the Solent due to deterioration in water quality.

26. The Phase I Survey submitted recommends additional surveys in relation to bats and dormice. It is recommended that no permission is granted until a ground assessment of tree potential for bats has been undertaken. Until the dormice survey is complete, it will not be known whether they are present and the nature of any mitigation required. As dormice are protected under European law, a holding objection is raised until the survey results and outline mitigation is provided.

27. Conditions will be required in respect of construction drainage measures and green infrastructure and a contribution is needed towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Strategy.

28. Head of Environmental Health – No objection subject to conditions restricting hours of working, and requiring the submission of a noise mitigation scheme and construction management plan, as well as an updated contaminated land assessment at reserved matters stage. As the development will result in additional traffic flow through the Hamble Lane Air Quality Management Area, a contribution is required to be made towards air quality monitoring.

29. Head of Housing Services – No objection subject to provision of 35% affordable housing on site (25 dwellings). Affordable dwellings will need to be built to Lifetime Homes Standards with a 65%/35% split between rented units and shared ownership, with clusters of no more than 10-15 units and if developed in phases, each phase should deliver 35% affordable.

30. Trees – No objection subject to a condition requiring that the development accords with the submitted Arboricultural Report and Tree Protection Plan. A finalised Arboricultural Method Statement will be required to be provided at Reserved Matters stage, along with a detailed planting plan to include replacements for the trees lost for the access.

31. Parks and Open Spaces – Public open space (POS) areas should be a minimum of 0.2 hectares of usable open space and of reasonable dimensions. The developer should also provide a management and maintenance plan for the POS areas. A children’s play area should be provided to the LEAP standard; the size of the play area should be no less than 400 square metres and the easement of the adjacent pipeline should be taken into account in its siting. The boundary of the nearest residential property should also be a minimum of 20m from the boundary fence of the play area. Developer contributions will be required for the design, procurement and installation of the

play area and marketing literature should make clear to prospective purchasers that the POS will be subject to an equipped children’s play area.

32. Hampshire County Council Archaeologist – No objection subject to a condition to be attached to any planning permission issued to secure an archaeological survey and recording to ensure that archaeological remains encountered will be recognised and recorded. The Second World War pillbox adjacent to the site is regarded as of local importance and its retention is welcome. It would be appropriate to ensure that the pill box is preserved within the stated management objectives of the green infrastructure / open space management plan.

33. Defence Infrastructure Organisation – There may be a redundant pipeline in the vicinity of the site. The pipeline has been declared redundant by the Ministry of Defence and the necessary legal charges have been removed in accordance with the Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958 and subsequent legislation. If the landowner wishes to remove the pipeline from the land they may do so at their own cost; however, it is highly recommended that specialist contractors are used.

34. Hampshire County Council Children’s Services – No objection subject to developer contributions towards primary and secondary education being made to allow for increased capacity within local schools required as a result of the development.

35. Hampshire County Council Highways Development – Objection on the grounds of inadequate sustainable options to travel to and from the site to key destinations in line with the guidance from the National Planning Policy Framework; and highway safety concerns in regard to the access layout.

36. The Transport Statement sets out the anticipated vehicle movements to and from the site in the AM and PM peak periods, with agreed trip rates from the national TRICS database. This suggests 37 trips during the AM peak period and 36 during the PM peak period. The junctions to the north of the development site will be impacted to the greatest extent by the development proposals. The impact cannot, however, be described as severe and as such a reason for a highway objection.

37. Developer contributions will be required in line with the HCC Transport Contributions Policy, as well as funding to implement a Traffic Regulation Order for parking restrictions at the development access junction. A condition should be imposed to require a construction traffic management plan be submitted prior to commencement.

38. Hampshire County Council Planning (Minerals and Waste) Minerals Resource

39. The proposed development lies within the minerals and waste consultation

area. The minerals assessment submitted with the application identifies a

narrow strip of sand and gravel along the western boundary, however states that the quality of the deposit is of no economic interest. The Mineral Planning Authority would still encourage full consideration of the opportunities for mineral extraction as part of the development. A condition is requested in this regard to require the submission of a statement outlining a method for both ensuring minerals can be viably recovered and put to beneficial use for the development, and to record the quantity of recovered minerals (re-used on or off site).

Minerals Infrastructure Safeguarding

40. The proposed development is adjacent to the Hamble Airfield site which is

safeguarded for minerals extraction. It is often the case that appropriate buffers and mitigation measures can make potential nearby development compatible. It is not evident from this planning application and its supporting documents how the nearby safeguarded site has been considered and whether there are likely to be any significant impacts from any potential mineral extraction.

41. Further information is therefore requested to see how the nearby safeguarded site is to be considered, how operator comments are taken into account and what impacts that had on the proposed development design, and how any potential significant impacts to and from the safeguarded site are to be avoided or mitigated. If the details of mitigation are to follow in a future application, HCC would expect to see a condition requiring such details.

42. Hampshire County Council Countryside Services – The proposal to connect the development to Hamble-le-Rice Footpath 1 is welcomed as this will provide a valuable off road sustainable transport link from the development to the Primary School and the village. The increased use of the path will have an adverse impact on the amenity value of the public right of way. It is noted that the proposals detail a new recreational path running north/south parallel to the right of way, it is advised that only one path is necessary and that the recreational path should lead straight onto the right of way, this would also free up valuable space for screening or habitat creation.

43. The proposal to link Hamble-le-Rice Footpath 1 to Hound Bridleway 9 is welcomed, this would create a valuable sustainable link to The Hamble School to the north. However, it is not clear if the proposals include the provision of the foot/cycleway, if this is not the case then the increased access onto and pedestrian/cycle use of Satchell Lane is likely to have an adverse impact on highway safety.

44. Developer contributions are requested towards improvements to Hamble-le-Rice Footpath 1; the creation of a new off-road link to Hound Bridleway 9; the creation of an off-road link to Royal Victoria Country Park; and, the provision of recreational infrastructure at Royal Victoria Country Park.

45. HCC Flood & Water Management – The applicant has not demonstrated that there is a suitable surface water drainage strategy for this site. There are concerns regarding the proposed design relating to the use of infiltration. The borehole records show ground water seepage and strikes across the site at

varying depths and this may prevent the drainage system functioning as designed. It is recommended that an alternative drainage design is developed that does not rely on infiltration. Groundwater was recorded between 0.5m – 1.8m across the site and this would fall within the depths of the proposed swales and infiltration basin. Groundwater monitoring should be undertaken. It should also be noted that flooding is recorded occurring in the vicinity of this site.

46. Southern Water – Southern Water cannot accommodate the needs of this application without the development providing additional local infrastructure. The proposed development would increase flows into the wastewater sewerage system and as a result increase the risk of flooding in and around the area, contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF. A condition is recommended to require the submission of a drainage strategy in respect of foul drainage should the application be approved.

47. A further condition is requested in respect of surface water drainage provision. Southern Water can provide a water supply to the site and will require a formal application for connection to be made by the applicant or developer. An informative is requested in this regard.

48. Natural England – The application is within 5.6km of the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and will lead to a net increase in residential accommodation. No objection is raised subject to the development making a contribution to the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership to mitigate against the adverse effects from recreational disturbance on the Solent SPA sites.

49. The Eastleigh Group of the Ramblers – There are no public rights of access within the application area. Footpath No 1 on the Definitive Map for the Parish of Hamble-le-Rice lies to the west of the application area and two pedestrian access points are shown connecting the footpath network within the development to it, otherwise it will not be affected.

50. Satchell Lane is an ancient highway and in the vicinity of the site has no footways and pedestrians are vulnerable with high levels of vehicular traffic around sharp bends. Within this development proposal there is a pedestrian route within the site along the Satchell Lane frontage which will be of use to those going back into Hamble-le-Rice from the northern end of Footpath No 1 or in the reverse which will be an improvement on the current position but there needs to be a link from this path to Satchell Lane to the south east of the proposed road access at the end of the road frontage.

51. Consideration of the detail of the landscaping is required to ensure that the problem of overgrowing vegetation onto Footpath No 1 is not exasperated by further planting too close to the path. Arrangements should be put in place to ensure that the areas of public open space and the footpaths shown within them are adopted by a public body and public access is secured in perpetuity and they do not become private open space for residents of the estate only.

52. NHS (West Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group) – No comments received.

53. Fisher German on Behalf of Esso Petroleum Co Ltd – No objection.

54. Southern Gas Networks – No comments received.

55. Hamble Parish Council – Objection on the following grounds: The development is counter to Eastleigh Borough Council’s saved

Countryside Policy which provides an important space between settlements protecting the individual nature of villages and communities around the borough. Ensuring the semi-rural aspects of the parish are protected and settlement coalescence is prevented is of paramount importance to the community of Hamble. Given that the application is counter to this policy the Council is fundamentally opposed to it in principle.

The following additional points were raised:

There is a need for housing in the Borough, The scheme offers a proportion of affordable housing which is much

needed in the Parish. The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing supply and there

is no local plan or neighbourhood plan to refer to. Council policy appears to be against significant development on Hamble

Peninsula, and against development in the open countryside. The development is not served by sustainable forms of transport and

residents are likely to be reliant on the use of private cars. The access point is a safety concern. Traffic counts took place over only a week in March which is felt to be

unrepresentative of the real traffic situation. Increasing traffic will have an unacceptable environmental impact on

Hamble Lane air quality. The Satchell Lane / Hamble Lane junction is already at capacity and the

cumulative effect of the numerous other developments will take traffic levels to a severe / potentially unsafe situation.

The development will diminish and undermine the physical and visual qualities of the surrounding countryside and nearby gap.

Any mitigation or new vegetation will only seek to replace what is destroyed by the development.

There is no proposed investment in local infrastructure and services. Impact on natural habitats and wildlife. The proposal would lead to the further urbanisation of Hamble Village.

Policy context: designation applicable to site

Outside of the Urban Edge Within Designated Countryside

Within the Solent Protection Area (Solent Mitigation and Disturbance Zone)

Adjacent to a Public Right of Way Within Minerals Safeguarding Area Adjacent to Safeguarded Site for Minerals Extraction

Legislative provisions, development plan saved policies, emerging local plan policies, SPD’s and National planning policy Legislative provisions: 56. 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 material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan 57. At the current time the Development Plan for the borough comprises the Saved

Policies within the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) and the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (October 2013).

The Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 58. The Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 was adopted in May

2006. In November 2008, the Council submitted a list of proposed Saved Policies to the Secretary of State with a request that they be saved until they could be replaced by a new Local Development Framework. The following policies were Saved and are considered to be of relevance to the development proposals:

1.CO (protection of the countryside), 18.CO (landscape character), 20.CO

(landscape improvements), 25.NC (biodiversity), 28.ES (waste collection and recycling), 30.ES (noise-sensitive development), 33.ES (local air quality management), 34.ES (energy and climate change), 35.ES (contaminated land), 45.ES (drainage), 59.BE (promoting good design), 72.H (housing densities), 73.H (creating mixed communities), 74.H (affordable housing), 100.T, 101.T and 102.T (transport and new development), 104.T (parking), 147.OS (public open space), 152.OS (rights of way and access to the countryside), 165.TA (public art contributions), 167.LB and 168.LB (archaeology), 190.IN (infrastructure and utilities), 191.IN (developer contributions).

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan 2013 59. The application site lies within a Minerals Safeguarding Area, to which Policy

15 ‘Safeguarding – mineral resources’ applies. This policy seeks to protect potentially economically viable mineral resource deposits from needless and unnecessary sterilisation.

60. In addition, the site lies adjacent to the Hamble Airfield site which is safeguarded for mineral extraction and to which Policy 16: ‘Safeguarding – mineral infrastructure’ applies. This policy seeks to protect current and potential mineral sites from pressures to be replaced by other forms of development, including through ‘encroachment’ where nearby land-uses impact their ability to continue operating.

Emerging Local Plan Policies 61. The Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 was submitted for examination in

July 2014. In the Inspector’s subsequent Report (11 February 2015), this Plan was found to have a number of shortcomings in relation to housing need, identified housing requirements and housing supply, sufficient that it was found to be unsound. The Council have ceased work on this Plan and are in the process of preparing a new plan to the period up to 2036 (see below). The Plan has, however, not been withdrawn and therefore continues to be a material consideration. As the Plan and the policies contained within it are not being progressed in their current form, however, extremely limited weight can be attributed to it in the determination of this application.

62. Within the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 the site

continues to fall outside of the urban edge and within designated countryside. The following policies within this Plan are of relevance to the application proposal: S1 (Sustainable development); S2 (New development), S3 (Location of new housing), S5 (Green Infrastructure), S9 (Countryside and countryside gaps), S11 (Nature conservation), S12 (Heritage assets), DM1 (General criteria for new development), DM2 (Environmentally sustainable development), DM4 (Flood Risk), DM5 (Sustainable surface water management and watercourse management), DM7 (Pollution), DM9 (Nature Conservation), DM23 (General development criteria – transport), DM24 (Parking), DM28 (Affordable housing), DM29 (Internal space standards for residential development), DM32 (Provision of recreation and open space facilities with new development), DM33 (New and enhanced recreation and open space facilities), DM35 (Community, leisure and cultural facilities), DM37 (Funding infrastructure).

63. A new emerging development plan (the draft Eastleigh Borough Local Plan

2011-2036) is at an early stage in its preparation. An Issues and Options Document was published for consultation in December 2015. A progress report on the Plan was subsequently considered by the Council’s Cabinet on 15 December 2016 which included a development distribution strategy and a list of development principles to guide onward work on the Local Plan. These principles included that “there should be no significant additional development in the Hamble peninsula because of transport constraints, minerals safeguarding and the vulnerability of the open and undeveloped countryside gaps between settlements in this area and Southampton, the outer borders of which are clearly visible from many parts of the peninsula.”

64. The timetable for the new Local Plan was set out in a Cabinet Report of 6 April

2017, with these being reiterated by a further such report of 20 July 2017. The Pre-Submission publication stage (Regulation 19) is programmed for Autumn

2017 and submission to the Secretary of State for Spring 2018. The adoption of the Local Plan is anticipated in early 2019. Given the status of the Plan, it is considered that very limited weight can be attributed to it.

Supplementary Planning Guidance 65. The following supplementary planning documents are of relevance to the

application:

Quality Places (November 2011) Environmentally Sustainable Development (March 2009) Biodiversity (December 2009) Residential Parking Standards (January 2009) Planning Obligations (July 2008, updated 2010) Affordable Housing (July 2009)

Other relevant documents

Background Paper: Internal Space Standards (2012) Background Paper: The Landscape Character Assessment for Eastleigh

Borough 2011 (2011) Public Art Strategy (2015) Hampshire Integrated Character Assessment – Hampshire County

Council (2011) National Planning Policy Framework: 66. At a national level, The National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘NPPF’ or the

‘Framework’) is a material consideration of significant weight in the determination of planning applications.

Planning Practice Guidance 67. Where material, this guidance should be afforded weight in the consideration of

planning applications. Whilst not an exhaustive list, the following sections are deemed to be of relevance to this application: air quality; design; determining a planning application; flood risk; contamination; minerals; natural environment; noise; open space, public rights of way and local green space; planning obligations; travel plans, transport assessments and statements; water supply, wastewater and water quality.

Assessment of proposal: The Principle of Development 68. The application site lies outside of the urban edge and within an area

designated as countryside. As such, Saved Policy 1.CO of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 is of relevance. This policy contains a presumption against new development within the countryside that does not comprise an appropriate extension to an existing building or use,

unless it is for specified agricultural, recreational or public utility purposes. The objective of this policy is to not only protect the countryside for its own sake but also to prevent the visual and physical sprawl of towns and villages, whilst at the same time supporting the provision of development that is genuinely appropriate for such a location.

69. This policy is considered to be consistent with the provisions of the NPPF, in particular Paragraph 17 which sets out that planning should “take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognizing the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it”.

70. The application seeks approval for the development of the site for residential purposes in the form of up to 70no. dwellings. Large-scale developments of this nature are not supported by Saved Policy 1.CO and as such the proposals are contrary to the Development Plan. Planning permission should therefore be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The material considerations and the impacts of the development are considered in the below assessment of the proposals.

The NPPF, sustainable development and five-year housing supply 71. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is, as noted above, a

significant material consideration in the decision making process. The NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development (Para. 6). Sustainable development is defined as containing three dimensions: economic, social and environmental (Para. 7) which should not be taken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent (Para. 8). The proposals are considered under each of these headings below.

72. Paragraph 14 sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development, with Paragraph 197 requiring that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply this presumption. In doing so, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing local plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (Para. 215).

73. For decision taking, the aforementioned presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out in paragraph 14, means: Approving development 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 unless: - any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

74. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to identify a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, whilst paragraph 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.”

75. The Council’s latest published 5-year housing supply position statement (May 2017) sets out a supply of 5.22 years. This supply has been considered in a recent planning appeal pertaining to a major residential development on a countryside site at Land South of Mallards Road, Bursledon (APP/W1715/W/16/3156702). The Planning Inspector, in reaching his conclusion, was satisfied that the Council was able to demonstrate the required five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

Economic sustainability 76. One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is to proactively drive and

support sustainable economic development to deliver amongst other things, the homes and thriving local places that the country needs (Para. 17). The Framework also reiterates the Government’s commitment to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity.

77. The proposals would provide for some economic benefits. These include

employment opportunities that would be created during the construction phase of the development, which would in turn result in a level of increased spending within the local economy, for example on materials, goods and other services. In addition, the future occupiers of the proposed residential properties would be likely to support local services and facilities, and a New Homes Bonus would also be paid in respect of the additional dwellings.

78. These elements are benefits of the development which are considered to be

material considerations in the assessment of the application. It should be noted, however, that these benefits are not unique to this scheme and could be accrued from a development of this size in a different location.

Agricultural Land Considerations 79. Paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires local

planning authorities to take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land. BMV agricultural land is defined within the NPPF as being that which falls within grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC). Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality.

80. The application is supported by an Agricultural Land Statement which considers the potential effects of the proposed development on agriculture. This sets out that the site is of Grade 2 quality, with indications that some areas may be of Subgrade 3a due to drought limitations. The site therefore comprises BMV

agricultural land.

81. The Statement puts forward that, on the basis of the relatively limited size of the site (just under 3.6 hectares), the proposals are not considered to constitute significant development of agricultural land in planning terms and for the purposes of Paragraph 112 of the NPPF. It is also contended that the site is not owned in conjunction with neighbouring land and does not form part of a wider farm unit, that there is limited tenure for the existing grazing activities carried out, that there are no significant effects on agricultural businesses as a result of the proposals, and that the site is located close to a larger area of high quality land (Grade 1) in an area of predominantly BMV agricultural land.

82. Whilst it is not deemed that the size of a site alone is necessarily a definitive indicator of ‘significance’ in its own right or indeed that its current use serves to determine ALC grading, taking account of all of the highlighted factors and considerations in this regard, it is deemed that the loss of BMV land in this case would be both modest and localised and it is, therefore, not deemed that this in itself would constitute a reason for the refusal of planning permission.

Social Sustainability 83. The social role of sustainability includes providing the supply of housing

required to meet the needs of present and future generations in line with 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’ (paragraph 50). Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires that local authorities maintain a five-year supply of deliverable housing to meet their housing targets. As set out above, the Council is currently able to meet this requirement and demonstrate the required five-year supply.

84. Nonetheless, the proposals would provide for up to an additional 70no.

residential units which would be a mix of dwelling types in accordance with the requirements of Saved Policy 73.H of the adopted Local Plan, and which could incorporate 35% affordable housing (25 no. units). These dwellings, it could be argued, would support social wellbeing through the provision of a mixed and balanced community. The delivery of both market and affordable housing would therefore be a social benefit of the scheme and this is a material consideration in the determination of the application. However, in the context of the Council currently being able to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing within the Borough and the site not being an allocated site for housing, it is considered that this attracts only limited weight.

85. As with the economic benefits which are set out above, the social benefits

could also be achieved from a development of this size in a different location.

Environmental Sustainability 86. The size and location of the application site is such that there are a number of

environmental sustainability considerations and impacts that need to be taken into account. These include:

The layout, design and impact of the development on the countryside

and surrounding area. Residential amenity Nature conservation interests and sustainable drainage Trees Noise Air Quality Contaminated land Archaeology Foul drainage Minerals Transport matters, highway safety and accessibility Sustainability measures

These are discussed in detail below.

Layout, design and impact of the development on the countryside and surrounding area: 87. Saved Policy 1.CO of the adopted Local Plan seeks to protect the countryside

from inappropriate development, in recognition of its importance for many reasons including agricultural production, landscape value, providing a setting for towns and villages, recreational provision, nature conservation interest and for its own sake as a diminishing resource. Saved Policy 59.BE requires that development takes full and proper account of the context of the site including the character and appearance of the locality and that it is appropriate in a number of regards including its massing, scale, layout, design, siting and density. Saved Policy 18.CO sets out that development which fails to respect, or has an adverse impact on the intrinsic character of the landscape will be refused, whilst Saved Policy 20.CO seeks to secure improvements in the appearance and quality of the landscape within certain areas of the Borough, including the application site, as identified on the proposal map. The site lies within Landscape Character Area 13: Hound Plain (as identified within the Council’s ‘Landscape Character Assessment for the Borough of Eastleigh’) although it is not covered by any statutory landscape protection designations.

88. These local plan policies are considered to be consistent with the NPPF. In particular: paragraph 17 which sets out the core planning principles that should underpin decision taking, including that planning should “take account of the different role and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting Green Belts around them, recognizing the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it”; Section 7 Requiring good design, which states that “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions” (Paragraph 64); and, Paragraph 109 which requires the planning system to “contribute to and enhance the local natural and local

environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes”.

89. The application proposes the development of the application site to provide up to 70no. residential dwellings at a density of approximately 20 dwellings per hectare (32 dwellings per hectare net density). Whilst the detailed layout, appearance and scale of the development, along with the exact landscaping arrangements, would be considered at a subsequent reserved matters stage, the application is supported by an indicative masterplan and Design and Access Statement which set out principles which would inform these detailed matters and demonstrates one way in which the site may be developed.

90. The site would be accessed from Satchell Lane to its north-eastern boundary with the submitted masterplan showing this access point leading to a primary spine street, off which will be a number of secondary streets and lanes and private drives, with the internal street network being generally orientated around perimeter blocks of development. Residential properties are stated to be no more than two-stories in height, with the development being set off the site boundaries to allow for the provision of landscaping and planting, SUDs, and a perimeter footpath or ‘recreational route’ with links to the existing public right of way which runs adjacent to the site’s western boundary. A core area of open space is shown at the southern extent of the site, with this incorporating a LEAP (Local Equipped Area of Play).

91. Whilst the development density itself is not deemed to be unduly excessive when considered in isolation and the improvements to the layout that have been highlighted as being necessary by the Council’s Design Officer could be addressed as part of a subsequent detailed reserved matters stage, there are significant concerns in regards to the impact that the development of the site would have upon the character of the countryside within which it falls, as set out below.

92. The application site comprises a roughly triangular parcel of open agricultural land which is currently utilised for the grazing of horses. It is not-previously developed land and is a green-field site situated within an area of designated countryside. The site falls within the Hound Plain Landscape Character Area within the Council’s Landscape Assessment for the Borough of Eastleigh as noted above, with this appraisal setting out that the dominant characteristic of the area is the landscape’s openness. This being an intrinsic character which the Council’s Landscape Officer has highlighted is particularly vulnerable to the visual intrusiveness of new development to its fringes.

93. The proposals would see the development of the site for residential purposes in

the form of up to 70no. dwellings. Such development would have a considerable impact upon the prevailing character of the site, with it changing from open land to one where built form and associated infrastructure are dominant, as well as being eminently apparent from its surroundings. The effect of this would be the significant and irreversible urbanisation of both the site itself as well as that of the surrounding area, to the detriment of the intrinsic character of the landscape and that of the countryside locality.

94. The Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) submitted in support of the application puts forward that the “new homes will be well related to the existing built development in Hamble, being bound by the existing properties on Satchell Lane to the south and east” (paragraph 5.4) and that the “development of the site will thus not extend the built edge of Hamble any further west or north than its current western and northern extents within the east of the village” (Paragraph 5.6). It goes on to state that, as such, the proposed development “is therefore compatible with the existing settlement pattern” (Paragraph 5.21). As noted in the comments of the Council’s Landscape Officer, however, it is not considered that this would in fact be the case and indeed, as he as alluded, the reality would be more of a straggling addition on the fringe of the village.

95. The application site adjoins a section of Satchell Lane to its northern / north-eastern side which is very much semi-rural in character, with the Lane being narrow, bound by trees and green verges and being devoid of footways and street-lighting, a characteristic which continues northwards along the significant proportion of the road towards its junction with Hamble Lane. The site to this extent contributes notably to the transition from the built-up area of the settlement of Hamble to the more rural character of this section of countryside, with this being considered to occur when moving beyond the existing housing on the eastern side of the lane (The Halyards). This is similarly the case when travelling northwards along the public right of way (Hamble-Le-Rice Footpath No. 1) where, when moving alongside the site, there is a clear sense of leaving the built-up area and having entered an area of countryside, with open fields bounding the footpath to each side in the form of the Hamble Airfield to the west and the application site itself to the east.

96. Conversely, when travelling in the opposing direction along Satchell Lane towards Hamble, the sense of entering the more built-up area of the village and having left the countryside does not truly occur until the aforementioned housing becomes apparent. In this regard, whilst it is acknowledged, as is referenced in the submitted LVIA (paragraph 5.11), that the entrance to Mercury Marina and part of the Riverside Caravan Park are evident to differing degrees before this point, these are notably different in character, scale and form to the urban residential development proposed on the application site and are not necessarily uses that you would not expect to see within an area of countryside. In addition and significantly, neither are visible at the point at which the scheme proposed would become markedly so, something that would occur from much further northwards along Satchell Lane, which includes from within the area of land which is designated as local gap which borders the site to the north. Whilst the tree line along the northern boundary of the application site would filter views to a degree, the urban nature of the development would still be significantly and eminently apparent. The same would be true from both the Airfield Land and notably the public right of way to the west. In this regard, therefore, it is considered that the proposals would significantly extend and undermine the built up edge of Hamble, and would represent a visually intrusive encroachment into this area of countryside, to the detriment of its prevailing character.

97. Whilst the application proposes additional landscaping and planting to the site’s perimeters, it is not considered that this would mitigate the aforementioned impacts or indeed constitute the landscape improvements for which the eastern and northern parts of the site are designated under Saved Policy 20.CO of the adopted Local Plan. Indeed, this policy seeks to secure improvements and enhancements to the appearance and quality of the landscape and sets out that proposals which in themselves would be detrimental to the quality of the landscape in designated areas will not be permitted. Given the harm that would result from the development to the intrinsic and prevailing character of the landscape and that of the locality, it is not considered that the measures proposed would therefore meet the criteria of this policy.

98. For the reasons given, the application is considered to be contrary to Saved Policies 1.CO, 18.CO, 20.CO and 59.BE of the adopted Local Plan, as well as the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, with the proposals being deemed to represent an inappropriate and unjustified form of development which would have an unacceptably urbanising and visually intrusive impact upon the designated countryside, to the detriment of the character, visual amenity, and the quality of the landscape, of the locality.

Residential amenity 99. Saved Policy 59.BE (vii.) of the adopted Local Plan requires that development

avoids unduly interfering, disturbing or conflicting with adjoining or nearby uses, with Paragraph 17 of the NPPF setting out that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. In this respect, therefore, there are two primary considerations, these being the ensuring of an acceptable level of amenity for the future occupiers of the development, and the impact of the proposals upon the amenity of the occupiers of existing neighbouring properties.

100. The application is in outline form with access as the only detailed matter for

consideration. The detailed layout, scale and appearance of the proposed development (along with the landscaping of the site) would be considered as part of a subsequent reserved matters application(s), the assessment of which would include such measures as the ensuring of suitable separation distances between properties, and the provision of appropriate internal floor areas, private amenity space, and levels of light and outlook for dwellings. Taking account of the number of units proposed and the site constraints, it is considered that there is suitable potential for the relevant standards in each case to be met and, as such, for an appropriate level of amenity to be provided for the future occupiers of the development.

101. In respect of the relationship of the proposals with existing neighbouring

properties, objections have been raised from adjoining residents to the east of the site in regards to overbearing impact, loss of light and outlook, as well as overlooking and loss of privacy. Specific reference has also been made to the sloping nature of the land with much of the development site being situated on higher ground than the adjoining residential dwellings. The Council’s adopted Quality Places Supplementary Planning Document (November 2011) provides

further detailed guidance on these matters and sets out specific amenity standards which residential development should meet.

102. These standards include minimum separation distances between first floor

habitable windows in order to ensure an acceptable level of privacy is achieved for residents. This minimum distance is 22m for two-storey development such as that proposed, however the guidance acknowledges that overlooking can be a particular problem on sloping sites and distances should be adjusted accordingly, notwithstanding which reasonable privacy is deemed to be achieved by remoteness beyond a distance of about 35m (page 32).

103. Whilst the submitted masterplan is indicative only at this stage, it serves to

demonstrate that such requirements would be capable of being met with the level of development proposed (up to 70no. dwellings). The closest dwelling shown to a neighbouring residential boundary (161 Satchell Lane) is at a distance of 24m, with the two dwellings themselves being approximately 38m apart at their closest point. Additional boundary landscaping is also proposed which could further assist in providing intervening screening. The separation distances, two-storey nature of the development and the relative orientation of the site to the neighbouring residential properties, will also mitigate against an undue loss of light.

104. Whilst it is acknowledged that what is currently a particularly pleasant view of

the field forming the application site from the adjoining dwellings on Satchell Lane would be lost, this would not in planning terms be deemed to constitute an unacceptable loss of outlook or amenity for the occupiers of these properties. The matters of the ensuring of appropriate separation distances and the accordance to the Council’s required standards could be secured as part of the consideration of a detailed layout at reserved matters stage and, similarly, the issues raised concerning amenity impacts resulting from the construction phase are considered to be capable of appropriate mitigation and control secured through the use of planning conditions.

105. For the reasons given, therefore, the proposals are not deemed to be in conflict with the requirements of Saved Policy 59.BE (vii.) of the adopted Local Plan in respect of the matter of the residential amenity for either existing or future occupiers.

Nature conservation interests and surface water drainage

Internationally designated interests: 106. The site is within 5.6km of the Solent and Southampton Water Special

Protection Area (SPA) and will lead to an increase in residential accommodation. It is considered that the adverse effects from recreational disturbance on the Solent SPA could be suitably mitigated by financial contributions secured in accordance with the details agreed by the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership and the Borough Council’s own policy. These contributions have, however, not been secured along with the other planning

obligations required in connection with the development as set out further on in this report. As such, this matter will form an additional reason for refusal.

107. In addition, the development has the potential to impact upon the Solent and

Southampton SPA, Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar site, and Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC) without appropriate mitigation to ensure good surface water quality and appropriate flow rates from the development. The protected site lies 300m to the east of the application site and it is therefore important to ensure the provision of appropriate operational and construction drainage which includes the requisite levels of filtration and subsequent management and maintenance arrangements to guarantee water quality in perpetuity. Whilst it is considered that the matter of the construction drainage measures could be covered by a condition requiring the submission of a Construction Environment Management Plan for approval by the LPA prior to the commencement of development, it is necessary to have sufficient information in regard to operational drainage at this stage to ensure that it can be both accommodated on site and is suitable in nature.

108. The submitted drainage strategy and accompanying Flood Risk Assessment

(FRA) put forward a surface water drainage scheme which incorporates infiltration as part of the treatment train. Whilst the FRA states that the site is capable of infiltration, Hampshire County Council’s Flood and Water Management Team (HCC FWM) have raised concerns in this regard, owing to the borehole records showing groundwater seepage and strikes across the site at varying depths which may prevent the drainage system functioning as designed. Groundwater was recorded at between 0.5m and 1.8m across the site which would fall within the depths of the proposed swales as well as the infiltration basin. As such, HCC FWM has recommended an alternative drainage design is developed at this stage that does not rely on infiltration.

109. In light of the effectiveness and deliverability of the swales and infiltration basin,

which formed part of the treatment train, being questioned by HCC and the system otherwise being substantively mechanised and not therefore meeting the ecological requirements for naturalised filtration, the Council’s Biodiversity Officer has raised an objection to the application on the grounds that the proposals fail to demonstrate that the development will not have an adverse impact on the Solent Complex due to deterioration in water quality. As such, insufficient information is available for the Council, as responsible authority, to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment for the application at this stage.

110. Taking account of the above factors and in the absence of the required

information to demonstrate otherwise, it would not be possible to ensure that the scheme could be drained in a satisfactory manner with regards to surface water. The proposals are therefore in conflict with the requirements of Saved Policies 25.NC and 45.ES of the adopted Local Plan and Paragraph 118 of the NPPF.

Protected species

111. Saved Policy 25.NC of the adopted Local Plan states that development which will adversely affect a habitat or feature of importance for wild fauna and flora will not be permitted, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that: (i) the benefits of the development outweigh the adverse impacts (ii) the adverse impacts are unavoidable, and (iii) appropriate measures are taken which would mitigate or compensate for any adverse impact. This policy is considered to be consistent with the provisions of Paragraphs 109 and 118 of the NPPF which require that, when determining planning applications, local planning authorities aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. In addition to these policy provisions, certain species including Dormice are protected within the E.C. Habitats Directive and under Schedule 2 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).

112. The application is supported by a Wintering Bird Survey, as well as a Phase I

Habitat Survey which assesses the ecological value of the site, seeks to identify signs of protected species and potential features that may support them and makes recommendations for further survey work as appropriate. The Wintering Bird Survey indicates that the site is currently not being used by any qualifying species for which the Solent & Southampton Water SPA has been designated. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has reviewed this information and concurs with its conclusion that the site is unlikely to therefore be supporting habitat for overwintering birds.

113. The Phase I Habitat Survey, however, makes recommendations for the

undertaking of further survey work including a full dormouse survey, additional bat tree potential and climbing surveys, and bat activity surveys. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has advised that, whilst bat activity and climbing surveys could be undertaken at reserved matters stage, at least a ground based assessment of the potential of the trees should be carried out as part of the outline application in order to highlight which trees may be at risk. In addition, as Dormice are protected under European Law, the three tests of soundness as set out within Regulation 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation 2010 (as amended) must be fulfilled before permission could be granted. These tests include ensuring that 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) (the third test). As such, a dormouse survey is required to be undertaken at this stage and until this survey is available, the Council are unable to know whether dormice are present and the nature of any mitigation required and would, therefore, not be able to ascertain whether or not a licence would be granted in accordance with the Regulations.

114. The required additional bat and dormouse survey work was stated as being

underway within the submitted Phase I Habitat Survey but would not be available until September due to the length of the surveying period required. These surveys were submitted to the Council immediately prior to the publication of this report and they are currently being reviewed by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer. Members will, therefore, be updated further on this matter at the committee meeting.

Trees 115. Saved Policy 59.BE (i.) of the adopted Local Plan requires that development

is appropriate both in itself as well as in relation to natural features and trees worthy of retention. The application is supported by a Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment which considers such details as the species, height and condition of the trees present on and adjacent to the site, the impact of the proposed development upon them, and sets out recommendations which include tree protection measures to reduce the potential for any harm to retained trees during the development.

116. The site is not subject to any Tree Preservation Orders, nor does it lie within a designated Conservation Area. Notwithstanding this, it contains significant trees and hedges which border the site, including along its boundary with Satchell Lane and the adjacent Public Right of Way to the west. These trees collectively provide screening and habitat and contribute positively to both the amenity and character of the area, as well as that of the overall landscape.

117. In order to facilitate the development and specifically to enable the proposed access arrangements from Satchell Lane, three trees (English Oaks – Tree Nos. 18, 19 and 20 as shown on the submitted survey plan) and two groups (Ash and Elm – Tree Nos. 17 and 25) would be removed. The Council’s Tree Officer has considered the aforementioned arboricultural report and concurs with the survey provided. The trees to be removed, whilst contributing positively to the landscape, are generally damaged, stunted or are considered to have no future potential. The long term impact from an arboricultural perspective, with suitable replacement planting, is therefore deemed to be relatively low. Subject to a condition requiring a finalised Arboricultural Method Statement at reserved matters stage, no arboricultural objection is raised by the Council’s Tree Officer.

118. There is therefore considered to be no conflict with Saved Policy 59.BE (i.) in respect of the impact of the development upon trees worthy of retention.

Noise 119. Saved Policy 30.ES of the adopted Local Plan states that proposals for noise-

sensitive development, including residential uses, which would result in the occupiers of such development being exposed to unacceptably high levels of noise will not be permitted. This policy is consistent with that of Paragraphs 17 and 109 of the NPPF which respectively require that planning should always seek a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers of land and buildings, and that the planning system should prevent new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, amongst other things, unacceptable levels of noise pollution.

120. The application site is impacted by traffic noise, predominantly from Satchell Lane which it situated to its northern and eastern sides. The application is supported by a Noise Assessment, which shows that the site is low risk in

terms of the aforementioned impact and the Council’s Head of Environmental Health, having reviewed the submitted details, is therefore satisfied that the site could in principle be developed for residential use. This is, however, subject to any subsequent layout being informed by an acoustic design process to ensure that traffic noise conditions on the site are fully taken account of and, as such, habitable rooms achieve satisfactory internal noise levels with partially open windows. These matters could be appropriately covered by planning condition.

121. For the reasons given above, there is considered to be no conflict with Saved Policy 30.ES of the adopted Local Plan or Paragraphs 17 and 109 of the NPPF in respect of noise impacts.

Air Quality 122. Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that the

planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, amongst other things, unacceptable levels of air pollution. Paragraph 124 goes on to state that planning policies should take account of the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites. Saved Policy 33.ES of the adopted Local Plan requires that where development appears likely to have a significant impact upon air quality in the locality, a suitable air quality assessment should be carried out.

123. Whilst the site itself does not lie within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), a proportion of the traffic generated by the development will utilise Hamble Lane and as such pass through a designated AQMA. The Council’s Head of Environmental Health has considered the air quality impacts of the development and has raised no objection on these grounds subject to a contribution being made towards air quality monitoring within the Hamble Lane AQMA. This has not been secured as part of the application, along with the other planning obligations required in connection with the development. As such, this will form a reason for refusal of planning permission.

Contaminated land 124. Saved Policy 35.ES of the adopted Local Plan requires that it be demonstrated

that land that is known or suspected to be contaminated will be remediated to a suitable standard for the proposed end use. This requirement is considered to be consistent with those of Paragraphs 109 and 121 of the NPPF which stipulate that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural environment through remediating and mitigating contaminated land and that decisions should ensure that sites are suitable for their new use(s), taking account of ground conditions and former activities.

125. The application is supported by a Geo-environmental site assessment report. Whilst this report concludes that there is no significant contamination present on site, the Council’s Head of Environmental Health has highlighted that the sampling undertaken has been done so at a relatively low sampling density and

no information has been provided on the need for imported soils or possible changes to site levels. Whilst no objection is raised on these grounds, it is considered that an updated assessment, which includes a site contamination discovery strategy and agreed specifications for imported sub and top soils to be utilised on site, would be required to be provided once the final site design and layout are known. It is considered that this matter could be suitably covered by an appropriate pre-commencement condition.

Archaeology 126. The application is supported by an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment

which considers the archaeological potential of the site in light of the development proposals. This information has been reviewed by Hampshire County Council’s Archaeologist who concurs with the conclusion of the report that the site does have some archaeological potential relating to the prehistoric and Roman periods.

127. The County Archaeologist is, however, satisfied, that these archaeological issues are unlikely to present an overriding constraint and has also welcomed the findings of the assessment that the Second World War pillbox which lies adjacent to the site will not be directly impacted by the development. It is considered, therefore, that the archaeological matters arising from the proposals could be addressed by way of suitably worded conditions. These being to secure an archaeological survey and recording in order to ensure that archaeological remains encountered will be both recognised and recorded, as well as that the aforementioned pillbox and its setting is preserved within an open space management plan.

128. There is therefore considered to be no conflict with Saved Policies 167.LB and 168.LB of the adopted Local Plan, as well as the relevant paragraphs of Part 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Foul drainage 129. Saved Policy 45.ES of the adopted Local Plan requires that development

provides for adequate drainage.

130. With regards to the matter of foul drainage/sewerage, Southern Water has been consulted on the application. They have confirmed that, following initial investigations, they cannot currently accommodate the needs of the development without additional local infrastructure being provided. This being due to any increase in flows into the existing system having the resulting effect of increasing the risk of flooding in and around the area.

131. There are, however, mechanisms and separate legislative provisions (Section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991) for the requesting of appropriate foul drainage infrastructure which are available to the developer such as to provide the required capacity to accommodate the development. These fall outside of the planning process and it would be for the developer to enter into the relevant agreement with Southern Water, as the sewerage undertaker, in order to

secure this. As such, it is not considered that this absence of existing infrastructure / capacity in respect of foul drainage could form a justifiable reason for the refusal of planning permission in this case.

Minerals 132. The site lies within a minerals and waste consultation area to which Policy 15 of

the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan 2013 (HMWP) applies. This policy seeks to protect potentially economically viable mineral resource deposits from needless and unnecessary sterilisation and encourage the recovery, where possible, of potential mineral resources prior to development.

133. The application is supported by a Minerals Assessment which identifies a narrow strip of sand and gravel along the western boundary. The quality of this deposit is stated as being of no economic interest to the mineral industry. The Assessment, however, suggests that mineral deposits, if suitable, could be re-used on site during construction, which has the potential to reduce the need to import construction aggregates. This information has been reviewed by Hampshire County Council as the Minerals and Waste Authority (HCC MWA). They have raised no objection on these grounds subject to a condition requiring the submission of a statement in regards to mineral recovery and the recording and reporting of this to the Minerals Authority.

134. The site also lies adjacent to Hamble Airfield which is a safeguarded site for mineral extraction (sharp sand and gravel). Policy 16 of the HMWP seeks to protect current and potential minerals sites which includes from ‘encroachment’ where nearby land-uses impact their ability to continue operating. HCC MWA have advised that it is often the case that appropriate buffers and mitigation, which can include measures such as landscape design, tree planting, barriers, building design and orientation etc., can make potential nearby development compatible. Such mitigation measures would need to be undertaken by the non-minerals development, in this case the residential development the subject of this application, and ensure that the safeguarded site could continue its intended use.

135. HCC MWA consider that it is not evident from the application and its supporting documents how the nearby safeguarded site has been considered and whether there are any likely impacts between the two sites. As such, they have identified that further information should be provided in this regard and if such details are to follow in a subsequent application, a condition should be imposed to this effect. Taking account of these comments and following further discussion with the MWA, it is not considered that the proximity of the site to the adjacent safeguarded Hamble Airfield in itself would prohibit development on the application site. A suitable condition could be imposed on any outline consent and the appropriate required mitigation incorporated into the details considered at reserved matters stage (layout, design, appearance and landscaping).

Transport matters and highway safety

136. The NPPF sets out that development should be located and designed where practical to, amongst other things, give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, have access to high quality transport facilities, and to create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflict between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians (paragraph 35). It also requires that planning decisions take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people and that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe (paragraph 32). These requirements are considered to be consistent with those of Saved Policies 100.T, 101.T and 102.T of the adopted Local Plan. In addition, Saved Policy 104.T requires the provision of an appropriate level of on-site car parking in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards.

137. The application is supported by a Transport Assessment which considers the

impact that the development would have upon the local highway network as well as the accessibility of the site by sustainable modes of travel. This Assessment is supplemented by two further technical notes submitted during the application process in response to the comments of the Highway Authority on the development proposals.

Traffic impacts

138. In terms of the traffic impact of the proposals, the aforementioned assessment

demonstrates that the development of 70no. dwellings would generate 37 vehicle trips (arrivals and departures) during the AM peak period (0800-0900) and 36 during the PM peak period (1700-1800) based upon average trip rates derived from the national TRICS database. These figures have been further broken down to provide an estimation of the direction of travel of these trips, with the significant proportion of the departures in the AM period travelling north along Satchell Lane (to its junction with Hamble Lane) and the greater proportion of arrivals in the PM peak period arriving from the corresponding direction.

139. This information has been considered by Hampshire County Council as the

highway authority. Whilst acknowledging that the proposals will impact upon the junctions to the north including that with Hamble Lane, no objection has been raised in regards to the traffic impacts of the development on the local highway network, with the levels of additional movements not being deemed to be severe for the purposes of Paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

Site access

140. In terms of the vehicular access to the site, this is proposed in the form of a

standard priority junction with Satchell Lane along the north-eastern boundary of the site. This access leads to an internal road which will serve the development. The internal width of the access is shown on the submitted drawings to be 5.8m, with the section of Satchell Lane upon which it will exit ranging from 4.8m to 5.0m. Earth and regrading works are proposed along the Satchell Lane frontage to seek to achieve visibility splays. A dropped kerb with tactile paving is also shown to the immediate south of the access point to allow

pedestrians to cross Satchell Lane and join the existing southbound pedestrian footway network on the opposing side of the road.

141. Hampshire County Council, as the highway authority, has raised an objection to the proposed vehicular access arrangements and layout, as well as the pedestrian crossing point, on the grounds of highway safety concerns. These concerns relate to the movement of large vehicles through the access junction, the ensuring of adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the site, as well as the achieving of appropriate visibility for pedestrians, and particularly children and wheelchair users, at the proposed crossing point.

142. In regards to the first issue, the concerns are principally in respect of the narrow nature of the section of Satchell Lane to which the access point will adjoin. This, as is demonstrated on the tracking drawings submitted, results in refuse vehicles needing to utilise non-designated lanes when accessing and egressing the site. Whilst the transport technical note submitted highlights the infrequency of such movements and the relevant ‘Manual for Streets Guidance’ in this regard, nonetheless the highway authority consider that such occurrences have the potential to result in the obstruction of the public highway in situations where refuse vehicles are trying to access the site at the same time as other vehicles are leaving. Such situations could potentially require refuse vehicles to stop on the carriageway, causing an obstruction that approaching drivers will not necessarily be anticipating, or be forced to perform turning movements in order to gain access to the site, which would not be appropriate in this location. The highway authority has also highlighted the potential for this to be replicated to some extent by personal vehicles owned by residents of the development; it is also likely to be an issue with any delivery vehicles serving properties within the site.

143. In regards to the matter of visibility, safety concerns have again been raised in respect of vehicles exiting the site as well as that associated with the pedestrian crossing point. In terms of the former, whilst visibility splays have been increased on the submitted drawings during the application process for the recorded speeds of 31mph to the east and 32mph to the west as requested by the Highway Authority, drivers exiting the site will still require a head turn in excess of 90 degrees which may be a physical issue for some drivers and has the potential to significantly reduce their visibility, particularly if turning left out of the site with the vehicle angled to complete such a manoeuvre. It has also been highlighted that, whilst the verges will be regraded, there is no information in regards to the material that they will be finished in and if landscaping is proposed and not subsequently maintained, visibility could be onwards reduced for both vehicles as well as pedestrians trying to utilise the crossing point proposed.

144. Whilst the latter issue (verge materials) on its own is something that it is deemed could be covered by condition, the factors highlighted above combine to result in an access point which it is considered would interfere with the safety and function of the highway network, contrary to the requirements of Saved Policy 102.T of the adopted Local Plan and Paragraph 32 of the NPPF which,

amongst other things, requires that safe and suitable access to a site should be achieved for all people. Site accessibility by sustainable modes of travel

145. As noted above, the site would be accessed from Satchell Lane with the

proposed access layout, notwithstanding the safety concerns raised, including the provision of a pedestrian crossing point to link the site to the existing pedestrian network to the opposing side of the road. This network incorporates off-road footways along the length of Satchell Lane moving in a southerly direction, with this connecting the site with Hamble Village Centre which lies an approximate 13 minute walk away. The site is also situated adjacent to a Public Right of Way (Hamble-Le-Rice Footpath Number 1) which runs parallel to its western side. Whilst this may be less attractive for pedestrian use at certain times of the day due to a lack of lighting, nonetheless it provides a further south-bound link to Hamble Square. Hamble Square contains certain facilities including, retail, cafes, public houses and limited employment offerings, as well as a bus-stop, albeit the application site itself does not lie on a bus route.

146. Hamble Square does not alone, however, provide for sufficient facilities to serve the development, with the nearest train station and primary and secondary schools both being situated along Hamble Lane to the west of the application site and the nearest health centre sited at the northern end of Satchell Lane. The submitted transport assessment and associated information set out that the secondary school is located 1.4km to the north of the site (a 17 minute walk or 5 minute cycle) , the health centre 1.5km away (a 19 minute walk or 5 minute cycle), and the train station approximately 2km away (a 23 minute walk / 6 minute cycle). Whilst these distances in themselves are not entirely unreasonable, in each case they necessitate pedestrians and cyclists travelling in a northerly direction along Satchell Lane.

147. The relevant section of this road is rural in nature, being narrow, winding and having limited visibility in places. For the majority of its length it is devoid of dedicated footways, cycle ways and lighting. It is not considered therefore to provide a safe and suitable route for pedestrian access to these facilities, especially during hours of darkness or occurrences of poor weather. Similarly, these conditions are likely to deter some cyclists and in both instances this would particularly be the case for children seeking to access the local school.

148. The alternative pedestrian route would be to travel southwards from the site,

which is estimated to include a 3.2km journey to the railway station (39 minute walk) and 3.8km (46 minute walk) to the secondary school, with the distance to the local health centre being similar to the latter. These distances are considered to be unrealistic such as to encourage sustainable travel and the use of the private car is likely to therefore predominate as the primary mode of travel for residents of the development. In addition, whilst the route to the south is the comparative quickest to the local primary school and does incorporate footway provision, the school still lies approximately 2.5km or a 30 minute walk away (or 8 minute cycle ride) from the site and it is therefore questionable that such a distance would likely encourage the use of sustainable modes of travel.

149. Whilst the adopted Local Plan sets out a desire to provide improved cycle and

pedestrian links along Satchell Lane (Saved Policy 152.OS) and a contribution could be sought from the development towards this, this would not serve to deliver the entire project nor would the route of this as shown on the proposals map provide a continuous link to the existing network at the western end of Satchell Lane. The proposals do not include any alternative footway provision along the length of this route to the north and the applicant has alluded to this not being viable due to third party ownership (Paragraph 3.2 of Highways Technical Note – May 2017). Such an undertaking, to provide an appropriately lit footway/cycleway, it could be argued, would also in itself have an urbanising effect on Satchell Lane in what is an area of designated countryside.

150. The applicant has put forward alternative suggestions of funding cycling

proficiency courses for students at the secondary school and the provision of a community bus service which could be targeted at commuters accessing the train station and pupils attending local schools at peak times, with local community groups utilising this during the day or at weekends. The former is, however, not considered to improve the appropriateness of the route for cyclists nor improve pedestrian accessibility and the suggested bus service is not supported by any evidence of its practicality or viability. Whilst the applicant has suggested this could be funded for up to 3 years as part of the development, justifiable concerns have been raised by the highway authority as to its longevity and its ability to improve the connectivity and sustainability of the site in perpetuity.

151. For the reasons given, therefore, it is concluded that the site is not well served by public transport or walking and the scope for the use of cycles is limited by safety considerations, each of which would be unlikely to be significantly mitigated through the use of planning obligations. The proposals are therefore contrary to Saved Policy 100.T of the adopted Local Plan and Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Sustainable construction measures 152. The NPPF (paragraphs 95-99) and Saved Policies 34.ES and 37.ES of the

adopted local plan, require development to be sustainable in terms of climate change use and resource and energy use. In March 2015, a Ministerial Statement announced that the Code for Sustainable Homes would cease to be applied to new development, although the requirement to achieve the Code’s levels for energy efficiency and water consumption remains. If permission were to be granted any future reserved matters application would have to meet the energy and water standards.

Planning obligation / considerations 153. In accordance with the guidance contained within the NPPF, Saved Policies

74.H, 101.T, 147.OS, 165.TA and 191.IN of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Policies DM32 and DM37 of the Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, the Council’s ‘Planning Obligations’

SPD, and the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations, there is a requirement for planning obligations to ensure on and off-site provision for facilities and infrastructure made necessary by the development, and to mitigate against any increased need/pressure on existing facilities. This is in addition to the requisite on-site provision of affordable housing.

154. Contributions / Obligations towards the provision of the following infrastructure

have been identified as being required in respect of the development proposed.

a. Provision of 35% affordable housing on site b. Financial contributions towards:

i. Air quality monitoring ii. Primary and secondary education iii. The Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project iv. Sustainable transport measures and improvements v. Improvements / enhancements to Public Right of Way and local footpath

network vi. A Traffic Regulation Order vii. Community infrastructure viii. On-site public open space and play area provision ix. Off-site public open space provision x. Public art

155. The projects and measures identified for contribution expenditure would 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. The obligations sought are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and to meet the needs generated by the new residents and the potential impact on existing services and facilities.

156. These contributions and planning obligations have not been secured as part of the proposals and as the application is recommended for refusal, the matter of the necessary legal agreement (S106) has not been further pursued at this stage. This matter will therefore form an additional reason for the refusal of planning permission.

Conclusion 157. 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 material considerations indicate otherwise.

158. As set out above, the proposals are considered to represent an inappropriate and unjustified form of development within an unsustainable and poorly accessible location, which would have an unacceptably urbanising and visually intrusive impact upon the designated countryside within which the site falls, to the detriment of the character, visual amenity and landscape in the locality. In addition, the proposals fail to demonstrate that a satisfactory means of access would be provided to the development that would not interfere with the safety or function of the highway network, or to provide sufficient information to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the development would not have an adverse impact on the Solent Complex due to a deterioration in water quality. Further, no provision has been made for the planning obligations identified as being required in respect of the development.

159. The proposals, for these reasons, do not accord with the requirements of Saved Policies 1.CO, 18.CO, 20.CO, 25.NC, 45.ES, 59.BE, 74.H, 100.T, 101.T, 102.T, 147.OS, 165.TA and 191.IN of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011. They are, therefore, contrary to the development plan and are also in conflict with the relevant corresponding sections of the National Planning Policy Framework.

160. Whilst it is acknowledged that there would arise some benefits from the development in both social and economic terms, these do not represent sufficient material considerations as to outweigh the identified harm or to justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. It is also of note that such benefits could be achieved from a similar development in a more appropriate location within the Borough.

161. It is, therefore, recommended that outline planning permission be refused.