BURSLEDON, HAMBLE-LE-RICE & HOUND Thursday 26 June 2014 Case Officer Andy Grandfield SITE: Berry Farm, Hamble Lane, Bursledon, Southampton, SO31

8JD Ref. O/14/73948 Received: 22/01/2014 (08/05/2014) APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Outline planning application with all matters reserved

(apart from access) for up to 125 dwellings and a 70 unit extra care facility with associated access with new right turn lane, two pedestrian refuge islands and new roundabout at junction of Portsmouth Road and Hamble Lane, parking, landscaping and open space following demolition of existing buildings.

AMENDMENTS: None

RECOMMENDATION: Subject to consideration of the additional consultation from HCC Minerals and Waste Team REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

CONDITIONS AND REASONS: (1) The proposal represents an inappropriate and unjustified residential

scheme beyond the defined built up areas which will cause an urbanising impact on the designated countryside diminish the undeveloped area between Bursledon, Hamble and Netley and the separate identities of the settlements as such the proposal is contrary to saved policies 1.CO of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review, emerging policy S9 of the Revised Pre-submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan and the NPPF paras. 10, 14, 17, 109 152 and 156.

(2) The Transportation Assessment as submitted does not adequately or

accurately assess the likely impact of the development of the local highway network and therefore in the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposal involves development that cannot be reconciled with the National Planning Policy Framework in that the significant movements

generated could not be accommodated adequately on the existing transport network. This would result in a severe impact on the road safety and operation of the local transport network contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF and saved policies 59.BE, 100.T, 101.T and 102.T of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2001-2011) and policy DM23 of the Revised Pre-Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2011-2029) January 2014

(3) Inadequate information has been provided to enable an assessment of

whether sufficient mitigation can be provided to prevent any adverse air quality impacts within the Hamble Lane Air Quality Management Area. As such the proposal is inconsistent with the Air Quality Management Area Action Plan, and contrary to paragraph 124 of the NPPF, saved policy 33.ES of the adopted Local Plan 2001-2011, and emerging Policy DM7 and para 5.39 of the Draft Pre-submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029

(4) The application fails to secure the required affordable housing, and as

such it is contrary to saved policy 74.H of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan, Policy DM28 of the Revised Pre-Submission of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 and to paragraph 50 of the NPPF.

(5) The application fails to secure provision for developer contributions for on

and off-site provision for facilities and infrastructure (including public open space, community infrastructure and public art) made necessary by the development or to mitigate against any increased need or pressure on existing facilities. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policies 147.OS and 191.IN of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan, policy DM32 of the Revised Pre-Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 and paragraphs 70 and 73 of the NPPF.

(6) The application fails to secure mitigation against recreational pressure

impact from the development on the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area. As such the proposals are contrary to the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, the Revised Pre-Submission Policy S12 and DM9 and paragraph 118 of the NPPF.

Note to Applicant: For the sake of clarity the following plans and documents numbered were considered: 18-1822-000 Rev A, BSH 18777 10C, 36BZ001, 18-1822-010, 18-1822-001 Rev F, 121 Rev A, 122 Rev A, 104, 103 Rev A, 102 Rev B, 1013-PD07, 1013-PD06, 1013-PD01, 101 Rev A, 080/5300, 041.0003.105 Rev P1, 041.0003.103 Rev P3, 041.0003.100 Rev P3.

Following the resolution at the Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound Local Area Committee on April 24 2014 to refuse this development, but before the decision could be issued, the council received the appeal decision letter for proposed housing at Land West of Hamble Lane dated 29 April 2014 (our ref: O/12/71828. Appeal reference: APP/W1715/A/13/2207851). In allowing the appeal for up to 150 houses on land designated as countryside and strategic gap, the inspector concluded that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) had not sufficiently demonstrated in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 47 and 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that the LPA had a 5 year supply of housing land. In such instances, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is applied (para 14 of the NPPF) and development should be permitted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) have challenged the appeal decision however whilst waiting for the challenge to be heard, this appeal decision is a significant material consideration for it offers commentary from the Planning Inspectorate on the Council’s housing land supply position. Given that the decision on Berry Farm had not been issued the LPA must reassess the sustainable development benefits of the proposal in the light of the appeal decision. This report predominantly remains unaltered from that presented to members in April. For sake of clarity, where substantive changes have been made this will be highlighted. Introduction 1. This is an outline planning application which seeks an approval “in

principle” for residential development of up to 125 dwellings and a 70 bed care facility with associated access with new right turn lane, two pedestrian refuge islands and new roundabout at junction of Portsmouth Road and Hamble Lane, parking, landscaping and open space following demolition of existing buildings. The only matters for formal consideration at this stage are as follows:- Whether the proposed land use is acceptable in principle in this

location; Whether the proposed amount of development is appropriate; Whether the proposed vehicular accesses are acceptable.

2. All other matters of detail, such as the detailed layout, appearance, design and landscaping etc. are not for detailed consideration at this stage.

3. The application has been submitted without the benefit of pre-application discussions. Formal community consultation was undertaken by the applicant via three exhibitions held during October and November 2013.

4. The application plans comprise the red line application plan showing the site boundary of the 6.10 ha site, an illustrative planning layout and landscape master plan. Also provided is a building height parameter plan, illustrative layout for the extra care facility, design and access statement, visuals and a site survey. The red line plan includes two areas, firstly the fields which make up the application site and secondly the junction of Portsmouth Road and Hamble Lane at which a new roundabout is proposed.

5. The plans and supporting Transport Assessment show details of the proposed vehicular access to the site from Hamble Lane. The access utilises and widens the existing access off Hamble Lane, through the provision of a right hand turning lane when travelling south.

6. The illustrative layout plan and supporting information seek to demonstrate that the site has the capacity to accommodate a development of up to 125 dwellings and the care home. This plan also shows a possible internal road layout within the site; footways and cycleways within the site and links to the adjoining networks; key landscape features including trees for retention, public open space, ecology zone, proposed attenuation ponds and equipped play area.

7. Although illustrative only the main housing design principles set out in the Design and Access Statement include:-

Design based on perimeter block principles with houses located to

face onto the residential streets, Hamble Lane or open space. Design reflecting a traditional approach of predominantly two storey

dwellings but an element of three storey dwellings in key locations. Shared surface approach to many of the residential roads. Mixed domestic scale housing, including affordable housing Retention and enhancement of landscaping to boundaries Green infrastructure provision around the boundaries.

8. The application is also accompanied by the following reports and technical assessments:-

Design and Access Statement Planning Statement Transport Assessment Travel Plan Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment Arboriculture Impact Assessment & Method Statement Archaeological Desk Based Assessment Economic Benefits Assessment BREEAM New Construction Excellent Pre-assessment Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-Assessment Building For Life assessment sheet Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Desk Study & Preliminary Ground Appraisal letter Light Spillage Assessment Noise Assessment Revised Air Quality Assessment Foul Drainage and Utilities Statement Flood Risk Assessment Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Suite of ecological reports

- Great Crested Newt Survey - Dormouse Survey report - Bat Roost Assessment - Bat Activity and Emergence Survey - Badger report - Reptile report

Statement of Community Involvement 9. Under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact

Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011 the Council has screened the development, confirming that and environmental statement is not required.

10. A Habitats Regulations Assessment has also been carried out concluding that, with the mitigation proposed and conditions, no significant likely impacts would occur as a result of the development

Update

11. The Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound Local Area Committee resolved to refuse the application on 24 April on grounds of development was not required to meet the council’s 5 year housing land supply, unacceptable impact on the countryside, unacceptable impact on highway safety, potential sterilization of valuable mineral resources and lack of a signed section 106 legal agreement securing 35% affordable housing, financial contributions to offset the impact of the development on local infrastructure and secure mitigation against recreational pressure impact from the development on the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area.

12. On 9 June the applicant submitted a letter to HCC Minerals and Waste identifying a preferred approach to mineral extraction from this site. In summary it concludes it could be feasible to extract material from beneath the proposed internal roads and from the standard foundation trenches for the houses. HCC no longer object to the development and the original reason for refusal has been withdrawn.

13. The applicant has submitted a Breeam Communities Consultation Plan and officers have provided comment.

14. The applicant has provided HCC Highways with further highway information and comments are awaited from HCC on this.

15. The application site and surroundings

16. The application site is designated as being within countryside in the

adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2001-2011). In the Revised Pre-Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2011 – 2029) the site is designated as countryside, a countryside gap and within a HCC Mineral Safeguarding Site. The site abuts an area of designated public open space (Cunningham Gardens POS) and the Priors Hill Brick Works Site of Importance to Nature Conservation (SINC).

17. The majority of the site is in agricultural use with a dwelling, barns and yard to the closer to Hamble Lane, whilst a caravan storage area is centrally located within the site. A paint spraying business operates out of the former agricultural buildings. The boundaries are defined by a mix of native hedging and conifer hedging (southern, part east and northern boundaries). From its northeast corner the site very gradually drops by 1.5m to the southwest corner. The site measures 200m (north – south) and an average of 240m (east – west).

18. The site is located on fields south of Cunningham Gardens and 400m south of the Portsmouth Road/Hamble Lane junction.

19. To the east of the site are detached dwellings fronting Hamble Lane, and slightly further east is the Pilands Wood Estate which accommodates housing, a church and a small parade of shops. To the north is formal public open space whilst passing along the western boundary is a public right of way. To the south the undeveloped agricultural/horticultural land continues to Hound Way approximately 850m away.

Planning History

Z/24468/000 - Erection of agricultural dwelling. Grant outline 13/06/1980

Z/24468/001 - erection of agricultural shed. Permitted 28/05/1980 Z/24468/002 - erection of detached agricultural dwelling 22/10/1980 Z/24468/004 - TEMPORARY USE OF LAND FOR CARAVAN

STORAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ACCESS TO HAMBLE LANE. Refused 14/02/1994

Z/24468/005 - CHANGE OF USE FOR CARAVAN STORAGE. Temporary permission 17/02/1995

Z/24468/006 - EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PERIOD OF 3 YEARS

FROM FEBRUARY 1998 FOR CONTINUED STORAGE OF CARAVANS. Permitted 30/07/1997

Z/24468/007 - RENEWAL OF TEMPORARY PERMISSION FOR STORAGE OF CARAVANS UNTIL FEBRUARY 2004. 19/10/2000

Z/24468/008 - CHANGE OF USE OF AGRICULTURAL BUILDING TO STORAGE (USE CLASS B8) WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AREA. Permitted 21/06/2001

Z/24468/009 - RENEWAL OF TEMPORARY PERMISSION FOR THE STORAGE OF CARAVANS UNTIL FEBRUARY 2009. Temp approval 14/08/2003

F/09/64648 - Renewal of permission Z/24468/009 for the storage of caravans for 5 years. Temp permission 06/05/2009

F/11/70034 - Retrospective: Change of use of part of building from storage (use class B8) to vehicle paint workshop (use class B2). Permitted 10/02/2012

F/14/74092 - Renewal of planning permission Z/24468/009 for the storage of caravans for 10 years. Permitted April 2014

Consultation Responses 20. A number of the responses are summarised.

21. Updated 22. Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy – Updated comments –

objection. The Council has published its Housing Implementation Strategy which sets out the borough’s five year housing land supply position as at the 31st March 2014. Since its publication, an appeal has been allowed for outline planning permission for residential development because the inspector wasn’t confident that the Council could demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. A review of the borough’s housing land supply position has been undertaken in the light of the appeal to determine whether it is still able to demonstrate a five year supply. The current supply is estimated to be 3,821 dwellings. The annual housing requirement arising from the Local Plan is 564 dwellings per annum so by 2014 1,692 dwellings should have been built (leaving 8,448 to the end of the plan period). However, only 1,069 have been built since 2011 which means there is a current deficit of 623 dwellings to be met on top of the annual requirement. Using the ‘Liverpool’ method of calculation and assuming a 5%

buffer gives an annual requirement of 637 dwellings per annum, equivalent to 3,185 dwellings over 5 years. The current supply of 3,821 dwellings provides a 6.0 year supply on this basis.

If the Liverpool method and a 20% buffer is used in order to, “provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land” (NPPF para. 47) the borough’s housing requirement would become 728

dwellings per annum, or 3,640 over 5 years. The available supply would meet this requirement for 5.2 years.

If the Sedgefield method of calculation is used and a buffer of 5% is assumed, 724 dwellings per annum would be required, equivalent to 3,620 dwellings. The available supply would be 5.3 years.

If the Sedgefield method of calculation is used and a buffer of 20% is assumed, 827 dwellings per annum would be required, equivalent to 4,135 dwellings over 5 years and the available supply would be 4.6 years.

These figures are also supplied in table form below

Five year position

Against three out of the four methods of calculating its housing requirement, the Council can demonstrate a 5-year land supply. The only method which it falls short against is predicated on the Council being a persistent under-deliverer of housing and thus needing to add a 20%, rather than 5% buffer, to its requirement. Given the Council’s record in delivering housing against the Structure Plan requirements (since 1996), and more recently the now revoked South East Plan, such a buffer is not considered to be required. As such, it is considered that the Council can demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. Conclusions

2 Calculation: 3821 dwellings (5 year supply) divided by annual requirement of plan/strategy

Plan/Strategy Requirement 1 April 2014 to 31st March 2019 (dwellings)2

Supply position (years)

Emerging EBLP Liverpool Method & 5% buffer

3,185 (637 per annum)

6.0

Emerging EBLP Liverpool Method & 20% buffer

3,640 (728 per annum)

5.2

Emerging EBLP Sedgefield Method & 5% buffer

3,620 (724 per annum)

5.3

Emerging EBLP Sedgefield Method & 20% buffer

4,135 (827 per annum)

4.6

A review of the Council’s housing land supply has confirmed that at least five years’ of supply can be demonstrated. As such, the conclusion as set out in our previous response remains: Granting planning permission on this site for residential development is contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. Whilst the benefits of this scheme are acknowledged, they are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts. A policy objection is therefore raised to this proposal.

23. Initial consultation response was to Berry Farm was to object as set out below. Policy

24. This application is clearly contrary to the countryside policies of the

adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (the ‘Development Plan’) and therefore should be refused unless there are material planning considerations to indicate otherwise. The NPPF is a material planning consideration of significant weight, making it clear that, where policies are out-of-date planning applications should be permitted unless the adverse impacts of permitting this proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the NPPF.

25. The Borough Council recognises that it does not have up-to-date housing policies contained within the Development Plan. However, it is at an advanced stage of preparing a new Local Plan to guide development through to 2029, and has also prepared a Housing Implementation Strategy which demonstrates that there is a five-year supply of housing land in the borough. The application site is not allocated for development in the emerging Plan, indeed the overall strategy is to avoid developing in the Hamble Peninsula on the basis of traffic congestion on Hamble Lane and to ensure that gaps between settlements are maintained. Granting planning permission on this site would significantly prejudice the spatial strategy of the emerging Local Plan and limit the opportunity for future Local Plans to revisit the suitability of development in the Hamble Peninsula – e.g. through a new road-link from Hamble Lane around the western edge of Bursledon, through Berry Farm.

26. It is acknowledged that the scheme will bring with it economic benefits, albeit either on a temporary basis or replicable on many other sites within the borough, including those sites enabled through the emerging Local Plan. It would also deliver new housing, including 70 extra-care housing units (considered likely to be Use Class C3). However, again, these are equally capable of being provided on other sites within the borough. Granting planning permission on this site for residential development is contrary to the policies of the Development Plan. Whilst the benefits of this scheme are acknowledged, they are significantly

and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts. A policy objection is therefore raised to this proposal. Sustainability

27. The submitted BREEAM pre-assessment documentation fails to demonstrate compliance with ESD 6 requirement for 15% reduction in CO2 emissions and ESD 8 requirement for tree planting. The non-residential element also needs to satisfy ESD 2 or ESD 7 (grey water/rainwater or green roofs). More information on the Breeam Community Consultation Plan is required to fulfil the mandatory requirements.

Character and layout 28. The site is not within a gap in the adopted local plan but is proposed to

be in the countryside gap in the emerging local plan. As undeveloped land between settlement edges the main 'gap' characteristic is that the land should be substantially free of urbanising development and perceptibly contribute to the experience of leaving one settlement before entering another. Views of this site from the Hamble Lane entrance do reveal an area of hard standing, a house, sheds and vehicles which erode this impression to some extent, although a more open, undeveloped character is still quite evident from the footpath on the western edge of the site. New planting would soften this but the existing roofs in Cunningham Gardens are quite visible from a considerable distance to the south. Although outline, as shown the proposals appear disconnected from the existing development and some effort should be made to integrate the open space with the existing land at Cunningham Gardens if the scheme goes ahead in line with the context analysis advised in the Quality Places SPD. The proposed new urban edge treatment would also require further work -as shown the land by the hedgerow appears narrow and ambiguous with no clear purpose.

29. Head of Transportation and Engineering - The quantum of development exceeds the EBC/HCC Agency agreement, therefore HCC are the primary consultee. However, the following comments have been raised; impact on exiting existing properties on Hamble Lane due to the proposed ghost island/turning lane. The location of the tentative pumping station needs to ensure sufficient access for tankers and the drainage layout is not sufficiently detailed to demonstrate how water quality is addressed.

30. Head of Housing and Environmental Health – Noise

31. No objection on noise grounds. Given the fact that monitoring did not include the busiest day for traffic and that predicted levels are lower

than measured, there is the potential for noise levels on site to exceed those used for the purposes of the noise assessment, this could affect the conclusions about noise impacts and the recommendations for remedial measures made. On this basis we should consider the conclusions of the report as indicative that noise sensitive development can be carried out on the site. Given the significance of noise impacts upon the site and its sensitivity to any changes, reserved matters and or full applications will require further noise assessment and the submission of detailed site specific recommendations showing how noise levels that meet with the requirements of the Local Plan are to be achieved. The phasing of the development will need to take in to account any acoustic mitigation measures required, whilst the future noise assessment will need to take account of the noise from plant associated with the care home. Land Contamination

32. A Phase I assessment of contamination is included. This concludes

that risk to the proposed uses is low but that additional site investigation work will be required. On this basis I would recommend that the application is conditioned for land contamination with assessments to be completed before the commencement of development. Air Quality

33. The assessment of air quality impacts that supported that application

indicated a small impact within the Hamble Lane Air Quality Management Area, AQMA, which required mitigation to ensure improvement of air quality within the AQMA. We would expect therefore that this application should also contribute to the improvement of air quality within the Hamble Lane, AQMA. Further, to ensure air quality is not demonstrably harmed, off-site highway works will be required to mitigate for the increased in traffic movements and congestion including the delivery of a the roundabout at the junction of Hamble Lane and Portsmouth Road. Failure to secure the mitigation measures would lead to an objection on grounds of air quality.

34. Tree officer – No objection subject to the works being undertaken in accordance with the submitted reports. Condition recommended.

35. Biodiversity Officer – No objection. Initial concerns regarding lack of information on the population of slow worms present within the development site has now been addressed. A contribution towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project is necessary if the applicant wishes to avoid a likely significant effect on the Solent European site. The illustrative layout provides a buffer to the SINC but full habitat enhancement/creation details will be required with a subsequent reserved matters application. The bat activity reports indicate a former pipistrelle roost in one of the existing buildings but through further

survey work and mitigation to prevent a net loss of roost, this is not a reason to object to the principle of granting outline consent. The submission of a suitably designed lighting scheme will be required in response to the bats foraging within the site. A Construction Environmental Management Plan would be required if this scheme were to be approved.

36. Parks & Opens Space Manager – No objection. Would wish to see links created to the Cunningham Gardens open space to the north. On site POS should be to a minimum of 0.2ha of usable space and the play area will be to a LEAP standard. Development should be set back from the play area to avoid future disturbance of residents.

37. Head of Housing Services – This is a departure from the Local Plan and comments are offered on a without prejudice basis. In accordance with the adopted Affordable Housing SPD a 35% provision of affordable housing is required, which based on a maximum of 195 units equates to 68 affordable homes. We acknowledge the applicant is proposing 101 affordable homes, made up of all 70 extra care units and 25% of the residential units (31 units) thus achieving 51% affordable provision. This is acceptable in principle as is the proposed split of 1 and 2 bed extra care units (56no. two bed). The affordable homes will need to be split between rented housing (70%) and houses available for low cost homeownership (30%). Affordable units to be pepper-potted in clusters of no more than 10-15 units and all to Lifetime Homes Standards.

38. Head of Direct Services – No objection to the principle. The development would need to accord with adopted standards.

39. HCC Highways – Object. The Transport Assessment estimates that there will be 83 trips generated in the AM peak (26 arrivals and 57 departures), 73 trips generated between 16:00 and 17:00 (43 arrivals and 30 departures), and 91 trips generated between 17:00 and 18:00 (54 arrivals and 37 departures). This assessed level of traffic generation is considered acceptable. It is also important to note that committed development has not been considered in the assessment. Whilst the planning applications at west of Hamble Lane and land at Hamble Railway Stations are not committed development, they are the subject of recent planning applications and the trips associated with these developments should be included in the modelling assessment works by way of sensitivity test.

40. Hamble Lane / Cunningham Gardens / Chamberlayne Road Signal Junction – Further information was provided before the committee in April satisfying the initial comments of HCC.

41. B3025 Portsmouth Road / B3397 Hamble Lane Junction - Overall the analysis indicates that the inclusion of development traffic on this proposed junction exacerbates the predicted over-capacity situation

which is forecast without the development in place. The development would lead to a situation in which additional queues are generated in both the AM and PM peaks. Notwithstanding this, the queues and levels of congestion are significantly less than the current situation with the inclusion of the proposed roundabout, and on this basis the proposed roundabout is considered acceptable in modelling terms. In design terms, this junction arrangement appears acceptable in principle, however in order for this to be confirmed it will be necessary for a preliminary design check to be submitted to the Highway Authority for consideration.

42. A3025 Lowford Roundabout and Tesco Roundabout - The Highway Authority have undertaken a model check and do not agree with all of the geometries used within the modelling and neither are the queue lengths agreed. The geometric differences are unlikely to affect the operation of the roundabout by a significant amount but it is essential that the base model is validated by observed queue lengths which the Highway Authority has noted from site visits and recent survey data by others is greater than the applicant suggests. Further work is necessary to fully assess the impact of the development at this location.

43. The proposed access arrangement achieves visibility splays of 2.4 x 43m which is in accordance with Manual for Streets criteria for a 30mph speed limit. Further speed survey information has been provided and the design of the access amended slightly such that there is no objection to the access.

44. Overall, whilst there is some provision for non-car travel in the area, i.e. cycle paths and bus services, there are few amenities available within close proximity to the site and residents may be predominantly reliant on motor vehicles to reach facilities in the area. Safe crossing points must be provided as part of the site access, and the footpath to the north of the site, linking in with the Cunningham Gardens signalised junction should be secured alongside any planning permission granted. Overall multi model access is limited and the travel plan should consider how this can be improved.

45. There were 18 accidents in the vicinity of the site on Hamble Lane during the past 3 years, 13 slight and 4 serious and 1 fatal. However, no commentary for the causal factors associated with these accidents has been given. The results of this analysis indicate that there is a cluster of accidents around the Hamble Lane/Portsmouth Road junction however no analysis of the cause of these accidents have been provided within the Transport Assessment.

46. HCC Access Officer (Rights of Way) – No comments received.

47. Update - HCC Economy, Transport & Environment (Minerals) – Updated comments on the additional information provided 9 June. No

objection. The proposed development at Berry Farm could potentially sterilise a significant amount of gravel which is located in the MCA in south Hampshire. These resources could be used for local markets and reduce environmental impacts from the transportation of gravel from other areas. If the proposed development could be suitably conditioned to require mineral extraction as part of the planning permission, the County Council will then be in a position to lift its objection to the proposed development.

48. HCC Archaeologist – No objection subject to conditions.

49. HCC Children’s Service Department – No objection. The development sits within the catchment area of Netley Abbey pair of schools and Hamble Community Sports College. The Netley Abbey schools are full and will remain so for the foreseeable future. However the development sits closer to the Bursledon pair of schools at which there is surplus places. There is also capacity at the community college. Overall, there would be sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated numbers associated with this development and no contributions are sought to expand existing school places.

50. Highways Agency – No objection.

51. Crime Prevention Advisor – No objection in principle with a number of designing out crime principles included within the illustrative layout. Two concerns are raised based on this illustrative layout that of the inclusion of some vulnerable car courts and the footpath link to the south of the care home.

52. The Ramblers Association – Footpath No.13 Hound runs along the western boundary and it appears the scheme would not adversely impact on it provided the ecology area does not include species of plants that could encroach on to the path. Improvements to links to existing paths should be secured to facilitate better pedestrian access.

53. Right to Ride – The proposed travel plan currently is inadequate but could be enhanced to create a pioneering travel environment.

54. Natural England – The site is close to a European designated site (Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) which is also listed as Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar site and Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC). This is also noted at national level as Lincegrove and Hackett’s Marsh SSSI. The proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for these sites either alone or in combination subject to conditions requiring implementation of the recommendations and mitigations contained within the ecological reports and financial contribution towards mitigation measures as recommended by the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project.

55. Environment Agency – no objection.

56. Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust – No objection. We endorse the views of Natural England in regards to the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project. Some form of provision should be secured to avoid a negative impact on the interest features of the adjoining Priors Hill in respect to reptiles and bats and the need for further survey work before full planning permission is issued. Clarification on part of the scoring system for the dormouse survey could be secured.

57. Southern Water – No objection. Existing infrastructure would need to be protected during the construction process. There is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal as such additional off-site sewers or improvements will be required. The applicant will need to ensure the long term maintenance of the Sustainable Urban Drainage System is secured. Conditions are recommended. A water supply to the site can be provided.

58. Primary Care Trust/NHS – No comments received.

59. Blackthorn Surgery – Inadequate capacity to accommodate further patients without financial contributions secured to improve facilities.

60. Hamble-le-Rice PC – Object on grounds of development outside of the urban edge, physically and visually diminish a strategic gap, adverse impact on the intrinsic character of the landscape, not contained in any emerging policies as a greenfield allocation for new housing and impact on air quality.

61. Bursledon PC – Object on grounds of 1.CO (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv), 2.CO, 3.CO, 4.CO, 18.CO, 33ES, 60BE, 190IN, 191IN and S2, S3, S8 Appendix 1 115 (Strategic Gap) and DM7 also Hamble Lane is within an Air Quality Management Area and development will not be permitted if it is likely to cause loss of amenity or other unacceptable environmental impacts through air pollution.

62. Hound PC - Object on conditions 1CO (i)(ii)(iii) & (iv), 2C0, 3CO, 33ES, 60BE, 190IN, 191IN & Appendix 1 I15(Strategic Gap)

63. Bursledon Rights of Way and Amenities Preservation Group – No comments received.

64. Eastleigh & Southern Parish Older Persons Forum – Support the provision of a 70 bed care home as such facilities are in short supply. The scheme would deliver much needed affordable housing. An increase in residents could lead to improvements to the public transport system. Impact on air quality within the AQMA supports the re-opening of Botley Road and directing of traffic away from junction 8 of the M27.

65. Esso Pipeline – The development would impact on the main that crossed the site. In order for the development to proceed safely further discussions will be needed with the agent for Esso.

66. Government Pipeline and Storage System (GPSS) – Apparatus may be affected and further discussions will be needed with the agent for the GPSS.

67. National Grid – No assets would be affected by the development.

Third Party Comments

68. Residents within the locality were notified of the proposal on 29 January and the comments received are summarised below.

69. Objections 70. 32 letters of objection on the following grounds;

a. inadequate capacity on the highway network (Hamble Lane and its junction),

b. inadequate space to accommodate the proposed roundabout at Portsmouth Road/Hamble Lane junction

c. roundabout will delay traffic using Hamble Lane in favour of traffic using Portsmouth Road

d. impact of right hand turn lane on existing access drives on Hamble Lane,

e. Transport Assessment should provide accident statistics for 5 years not three,

f. South Hants Sub-regional Transport Model has not been used for assessment of the traffic impact,

g. reliance on traffic surveys from other developments, h. no assessment of cumulative impact with other developments

proposed, i. safety of pedestrians and cyclist j. Inadequate car parking for retirement flats. k. impact on the air quality management area on Hamble Lane, l. increased traffic noise, m. loss of countryside side, n. loss of strategic gap/settlement identity, o. Light pollution p. Drainage information could be flawed in the light of the recent

heavy rains experienced q. inadequate capacity at schools and doctors surgeries, r. detrimental impact on BP Oil tankers using Hamble Lane, s. visually detrimental due to height of development, t. impact on woodland setting of right of way, u. impact on trees and ecology, v. loss of agricultural land,

w. least sustainable of the three housing sites promoted on Hamble Lane,

x. impact on house values, y. the extent of housing proposed is not needed z. Over development

 

Support

71. No letters of support have been received to date.

Assessment of proposal: Development Plan and/or legislative background Policy Context:

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 (“saved policies”)

72. This site is countryside within the current adopted Local Plan 2001-

2011. The most relevant saved policies are as follows:-

1.CO – countryside protection 18.CO – landscape character 20.CO – landscape improvements 25.NC- Promotion of biodiversity unless benefits of development

outweigh the adverse impacts and that the impacts are unavoidable and that mitigation measures are proposed.

30.ES – Requires refusal of noise sensitive development where exposed to unacceptable levels of noise

31.ES – Requires appropriate design, layout and sound insulation where permission is granted in above circumstances.

33.ES – Suitable air quality assessment required if new development appears likely to have a significant impact on air quality.

35.ES – Requires sufficient information to demonstrate that contaminated land can be appropriately remediated for the use proposed and that the risk of pollution to controlled waters is minimised

45.ES – Requires sustainable drainage systems 59.BE requires high standards of good design in new developments,

including taking full and proper account of the context of the site. 73.H – Sites of 15 or more dwellings to be of appropriate mix. 74.H – Affordable housing. 92.T – Local Transport Plan proposals include (iii) Windhover

roundabout full signalisation; Hamble Lane/Portsmouth Road corridor/junction improvements; (v) Eastleigh Cycle Route Network

100.T – Requires development to be well served by sustainable forms of transport, to provide measures to minimize impact on the

network, minimize travel demand, provide a choice of transport mode and submit a transport assessment for large proposals.

101.T - Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 targets – if exceeded requires the need for the development to be justified; for the development to provide contributions towards sustainable transport.

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

146.OS – Requires proposal which would have a detrimental impact on the green network to be refused and contributions from adjoining development proposals to be sought to enhance the environment.

147.OS – Requires on site provision of public open space. 165.TA – Percent for art 168.LB – Archaeological evaluation 190. IN – requires development only to be permitted where

adequate services and infrastructure are available or can be provided.

191. IN – requires appropriate proposals to be permitted provided that arrangements have been made to either provide or contribute towards essential infrastructure.

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan 2013 73. Policy 15 - Hampshire’s sand and gravel (sharp sand and gravel and

soft sand), silica sand and brick-making clay resources are safeguarded against needless sterilization by non-minerals development, unless ‘prior extraction’ takes place.

74. Safeguarded mineral resources are defined by a Mineral Safeguarding Area illustrated on the Policies Map and the application site lies within a safeguarded area. Development without the prior extraction of mineral resources in the Mineral Safeguarding Area may be permitted if:

a. It can be demonstrated that the sterilization of mineral resources will

not occur; or b. It would be inappropriate to extract mineral resources at that

location, with regards to the other policies in the Plan; or c. The development would not pose a serious hindrance to mineral

development in the vicinity; or d. The merits of the development outweigh the safeguarding of the

mineral. 75. The soft sand / potential silica sand resources at Whitehill & Bordon

(Inset Map 5), further illustrated on the Policies Map are included within the MSA and are specifically identified for safeguarding under this policy.

Revised Pre-submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2011-2029) – a material consideration of limited weight due to the fact that it has yet to undergo examination and is not yet adopted. Strategic policies

S1 – sustainable development S2 – promotion of new development S3 – housing locations (does not include this site) S5 – green infrastructure S6 – community facilities S7 - transport infrastructure S8 – footpath, cycleway, bridleway links S9 - countryside and countryside gaps S11 – nature conservation S12 – heritage assets

Development Management Policies

DM1 – criteria for new development DM2 – environmentally sustainable development DM3 – low carbon energy DM5 – sustainable surface water management DM7 – pollution DM8 – Public utilities and communications DM9 - biodiversity protection DM15 – Protection of best and most valuable agricultural land DM23 – Transport – general development criteria DM24 – Parking DM25 – residential development in urban areas including

accommodation specifically designed for older people. DM28 – affordable housing DM29 – minimum internal space standards DM32 – provision of recreation and open space facilities with new

development DM33 – new and enhanced recreation and open space facilities,

allotments and community farms DM37 – funding infrastructure

Site specific Policies

BU1 to BU3 – allocated greenfield housing sites within Bursledon. BU6 – allocated open space within Bursledon HA3 – Hamble Airfield minerals extraction HO1 – allocated greenfield housing site within Netley.

Supplementary Planning Documents (Material Planning Considerations)

Environmentally Sustainable Development (March 2009) Quality Places (November 2011) Residential Parking Standards (January 2009)

Affordable Housing (July 2009) Housing Mix (February 2003) Planning Obligations (July 2008, updated 2010)

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Material Planning Consideration)

The NPPF, published in March 2012, replaced the majority of

previous national policy documents (Planning Policy Guidance and Planning Policy Statements) and constitutes a significant material consideration which must be taken into account. The NPPF sets a presumption in favour of sustainable development, a so-called “golden thread” running through the NPPF policies. For decisions on planning applications this means approving development proposals which accord with the Development Plan without delay; or where the development plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out-of-date granting planning permission unless the adverse impacts of the development would outweigh the benefits, or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. The transitional period provided by the NPPF has now come to an end which means that local plan policies that do not accord with the NPPF are now deemed to be “out-of-date”. The NPPF requires that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. In other words, the closer the policies in the plan accord to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given.

Relevant paragraphs in the NPPF include the following:- o Para. 6 – purpose of planning system is to deliver sustainable

development o Para. 7 – three dimensions of sustainability to be sought jointly –

economic (supporting economy and ensuring land availability), social (providing housing, creating high quality environment with accessible local services); environmental (contributing to, protecting and enhancing natural, built and historic environment).

o Para. 10 – plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account, so they respond to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas.

o Para. 14 – presumption in favour of sustainable development. o Para. 17 – sets out 12 core planning principles, including

principle that planning should be plan-led, enhance places in which people live, to proactively drive sustainable economic development, support low carbon technologies, promote mixed use, manage patterns of growth, deliver sufficient community and take account of different roles and character of different areas and recognised the intrinsic character and beauty of the landscape.

o Para. 30 – encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.

o Para. 32 – all large development to be accompanied by a transport assessment – development only refused if cumulative impacts are severe.

o Para. 34 – development that creates significant movement should be located where the need to travel will be minimised and use of sustainable modes of transport can be maximised.

o Para. 36. All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan.

o Para. 47 – local plans to boost supply of housing to meet full objectively assessed needs of market and affordable housing; to identify key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy, identify and update specific deliverable sites to provide five years supply of housing.

o Para. 49 – housing applications to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.

o Para. 52 – supply of new homes sometimes best delivered through planning for larger scale development. LPA’s should consider such opportunities and whether they provide the best way of achieving sustainable development.

o Para. 56 – requirement for good design. o Para. 58 – policies and decisions should aim to ensure

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

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

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

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

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

o Para. 72 – local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting the Government’s requirement to ensure a sufficient choice of

school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities.

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

o Para. 103 – ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere. o Para. 109 – seeks to minimise impacts on biodiversity and

protect unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution and remediating contaminated land where appropriate.

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

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

o Para. 121 – ensure site is suitable for its new use in terms of ground conditions, land stability etc.

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

o Para. 124 – planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account AQMAs and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in AQMAs is consistent with the local air quality action plan.

o Para. 126 – positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment.

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

o Para 137 – Local Planning Authorities should look for opportunities for new development within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably

o Para. 143 – In preparing local plans, an LPA should identify and include policies for mineral extraction and set out clear policies to encourage prior extraction.

o Para. 144 – In determining applications, the LPA should give great weight to the benefit of mineral extraction.

o Para. 152 – LPAs should seek opportunities to achieve each of the dimensions of sustainable development and net gains across all three.

o Para. 156 – A LPA should set out their strategic priorities within their local plan including the need for homes, jobs and conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape.

o Para. 182 – Test of soundness of emerging local plans o Para. 192 – The right information is crucial to good decision-

taking, particularly where formal assessments are required (such as EIA/HRA/FRA).

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

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

o Para. 215 – Weight to existing relevant local plan policies according to the degree of consistency with the Framework.

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

National Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014)

Transport – supports the provision of Transport Assessments where

a Local Planning Authority makes a judgement as to whether a proposal would generate significant amounts of movement.

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

Contamination – With outline applications, Local Planning Authorities need to be satisfied that they understand the contaminated condition of the site and that the development proposed is appropriate as a means of remediation and it has sufficient information to be confident that it will be able to grant

permission in full at a later stage bearing in mind the need for the necessary remediation to be viable and practicable.

Biodiversity – Local Planning Authorities should take into consideration various publications when taking biodiversity into account and should look for net gains. Sufficient information should be sought through ecological surveys etc.

Water quality – advice given re the EU Water Framework Directive and the requirement to, amongst other things, prevent deterioration of aquatic ecosystems and protect, enhance and restore water bodies to ‘good’ status.

Noise – potential noise impact needs to be addressed and

opportunities taken to achieve improvements to the acoustic environment to ensure no unacceptably adverse impact.

Assessment of Proposal 76. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

states : “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. The development plan in this case comprises the saved policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011, and the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (adopted October 2013). The Revised Pre-submission Eastleigh Local Plan 2011-2029 has completed its fourth round of public consultation and is to be submitted to the Inspectorate shortly. Although not considered at inquiry to date, the plan and its policies can be afforded some weight by virtue of its consistency with the NPPF and the extensive consultation that it has gone through.

77. In terms of “other planning considerations”, the National Planning Policy Framework constitutes a very significant material consideration.

The Principle of Development – the use of the land for housing and the Five Year Housing Supply

Updated

78. The NPPF sets a presumption in favour of sustainable development, a so called “golden thread” running through the NPPF policies. For decisions on planning applications this means approving development proposals which accord with the Local Plan without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise or where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date granting planning permission unless the adverse impacts doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken

as a whole or specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted (para 14).

79. The saved policies of the adopted Local plan and the proposed policies for housing within the emerging Local Plan do not support development on this site in terms of countryside and gap protection. Whilst working towards adoption of the emerging Local Plan, the Council has produced an interim document – the “Housing Implementation Strategy” to support this position which sets out the Council’s approach to managing the delivery of new housing in the borough over the next 5 years. The intention is to proactively ensure that sufficient housing is delivered to meet the Borough’s identified needs over the next five years without compromising sustainable development objectives. The strategy supports housing upon sites allocated within the emerging plan and resists sites that are unallocated and do not form part of a long term planned strategy for development.

80. Central government guidance makes clear that Councils are required to have a 5 year supply of housing land, that is, land that can be demonstrated to deliver housing numbers in accordance with an objective assessment of need. If this can be demonstrated, the adopted plan policies, in as far as they relate to housing supply, can be considered current and development can be resisted on housing supply grounds in addition to countryside grounds. If a five year housing land supply cannot be demonstrated, adopted Local Plan policies (related to housing supply) are considered out-of-date and they can only be used to justify a refusal of planning permission in terms of countryside protection (eg. The character of open countryside as seen from public views and the benefits of maintaining a separate identity to Old Netley and Bursledon). In terms of housing supply, with an out of date plan and no demonstrable five year housing land supply, the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged. This presumption favours sustainable development unless the adverse impacts of development outweigh the benefits of granting planning permission.

81. Appeal precedent has indicated that the defence of decisions to refuse planning permission on greenfield sites not included in emerging plans is more likely to be successful where a 5 year housing land supply can be demonstrated unequivocally.

82. Following the recent appeal decision on Land West of Hamble Lane where a Central Government planning inspector concluded that a development proposed within the countryside and strategic gap (0.9km north of the application site) should go ahead on the basis that he was ‘unconvinced’ that Eastleigh currently has a 5 year housing land supply, the Council has undertaken a review of its calculations in order to provide increased clarity and improve robustness. Now included within the supply figure (the number of houses in the pipeline) is the number of units derived from outstanding C2 permissions (institutional

accommodation). Also to be included is an allowance for windfall sites which will have a positive impact on the calculation. Removed from the calculation are a number of sites considered less convincing in terms of their ability to deliver housing within the required five year period. However the calculation method for establishing the 5 year housing land supply position is not an exact science and different local planning authorities display different local circumstances that are material to the position. In addition the supply position changes regularly, for example, when legal agreements pertaining to permission are eventually signed or when pre-applications become planning applications. The Hamble Lane appeal decision also questioned why an allowance for windfall sites was not included in the Council’s 5 year housing land supply calculations and this too can make a difference to the supply position. The Council has submitted a legal challenge to the Inspectors decision.

83. Members must also be aware that, should a 5 year housing land supply be able to be unequivocally demonstrated and development resisted on the basis of the relevant saved policies of the adopted Local Plan that is not the end of the matter in terms of the principle of development. The NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development in the absence of an adopted local plan is a material consideration of weight that can, in certain circumstances, outweigh adopted policies seeking to resist development outside settlement boundaries even if a 5 year housing land supply can be demonstrated. In accordance with the NPPF aim to boost the supply of housing, some planning appeal Inspectors have considered material the fact that a site is very sustainable and that it can be delivered quickly and that this is a material consideration of such weight that it indicates making a decision other than in accordance with the adopted Development Plan. Although not contained within either the adopted or the emerging plan, this does not mean that a site is not sustainable. It simply means that the site has not been chosen at this time because the council considers that there are better sites that can meet the housing requirement within its plan period and that it lies within a countryside and local gap. However Members are advised to consider the sustainability credentials of this proposal and the benefits of the provision of 125 dwellings and a 70 bed extra care home in the light of the Borough’s overall housing requirement and the NPPF aim to ‘significantly boost the supply of housing’.

84. Whilst the provision of 125 new houses including affordable housing and the care home is a significant benefit, it is necessary to weigh any adverse impacts against this and other benefits to understand whether they are sufficient to tip the scales against the granting of planning permission in accordance with the approach set out in paragraph 17 of the NPPF.

Sustainable Development

85. The NPPF advises on the three strands to sustainability: economy/environment/social and it is the combination of these which can make a site sustainable in planning terms. These are considered along with an assessment of their planning impacts and benefits.

Environmental Sustainability 86. Environmental sustainability includes the consideration of site specific

planning issues and the impacts of the development on its surroundings and local infrastructure.

Site capacity 87. This is an outline application and detailed matters such as external

appearance and layout are reserved for approval as part of a subsequent reserved matters application. Notwithstanding this, it is necessary as part of this application to assess in general terms whether the quantity of development can be adequately accommodated on the site.

88. From the submitted plans, the site is 6.1ha with all but the gas easement and a 15m buffer strip to the SINC on the western boundary being net residential developable area. If the maximum number of units suggested in the supporting information are constructed (i.e. 125 units plus a 70 bed extra care home), this would amount to an average density of 32 dwellings/ha which is within the normal range for residential development.

89. The indicative layout submitted shows in broad terms how this number of dwellings could be accommodated and demonstrates that the site has capacity for up to 125 units of varying size and type ranging from 2 to 4 bedroomed dwellings. The extra care home is expected to comprise of 56no. two bed units and 14no. one bed units. The mix is not fixed but the Design and Access Statement suggests predominantly 2 and 3 bed units would be provided on this site in response to the housing needs figures. Any future development would need to ensure the residential aspect met the Council’s standards on amenity space, internal floor space and car parking. The detailed layout and housing mix is not, however, a matter for consideration with this outline application.

90. Hamble Lane is a significant source of noise and vehicle emissions, such that the developable area maybe slightly different to that illustrated on the indicative site plan once a further noise assessment is undertaken but not to the extent that the site’s capacity is brought in to question.

The landscape and countryside

91. Saved policy 1.CO of the adopted Local Plan seeks to protect the countryside from inappropriate development and resists development outside the urban edge unless it is for development necessary for agriculture, horticulture, forestry, development for outdoor recreational use, public utility developments and extensions to existing education or health facilities. The proposals for housing on a site designated as countryside clearly do not fall within the scope of these “accepted” forms of development. Policy 18.CO is also of relevance and its objective to protect the identified landscape character of an area.

92. The NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development can outweigh countryside protection policy where there is no current 5 year supply of housing. Although not strictly a housing supply policy, Policy 1.CO and the urban edge were planned on the basis of the Borough’s housing needs up to 2011 and it could be argued they are out of date. However, the emerging local plan reinforces the need to refrain from developing within the Hamble peninsula not only mirroring the settlement boundary in this area but also strengthening the countryside designation of the application site to a countryside gap, in an effort to protect the identity of the existing settlements. The NPPF recognises the placing of value on the local circumstances (para 10), the need to take account of the different roles and character the countryside takes (para 17) and for LPAs to adopted strategic priorities including the protection of landscapes (para 156). The principle of saved policy 1.CO and the approach for emerging policy S9 are wholly consistent with the sustainable development objectives of the NPPF (para 215).

93. The site is relatively flat form comprising of farmland, caravan storage and ancillary buildings (including the farmhouse) but has few landscape features of note. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) note the hedgerows along the north and east boundaries provide a sense of enclosure, with the site as a whole having a weighted landscape sensitivity defined as Medium. The LVIA notes the visual impacts of the development varies from major (viewed from part of Hamble Lane and footpath to the west), to moderate (from Cunningham Gardens, parts of Hamble Lane/footpath to the west) to minor (Hound Road). With landscaping and improvements to the green infrastructure the change in character from semi-rural farmland on the edge of settlement to urban is considered by the applicant to be appropriate when assessed against the value of the site and its relationship with surrounding areas.

94. The site is identified as lying within Area 13 “Hound Plain” as defined within the Landscape Character Assessment Area (LCAA). Area 11 comprises of the undeveloped land west of Hamble Lane to the fringes of Netley and Southampton, extending up to Bursledon Road. The dominant characteristic is the landscape openness, interrupted by intermittent hedges and post and wire fences. The land is both arable and pasture, with patches of ‘horticulture’ particularly around Hound. The LCAA identifies the character of the area as a whole is vulnerable

to development. Development within this area would reduce the distinctiveness of the character area and undermine its contribution of the open character of the countryside to the visual separation between the settlements of Bursledon, Hamble and Netley Abbey.

95. The site’s value in terms of its open countryside character and the views it affords to those passing the site or living nearby, is high despite parts of the site being bound by high evergreen hedging. It contributes to the rural character and clear separation of Netley, Bursledon and Southampton, and is proposed to be included within a countryside gap in the emerging Local Plan. When travelling north along Hamble Lane, distance views are achieved of this undeveloped site with limited interruption from landscaping, structures or topography. The urban edge clearly can be seen with the Cunningham Gardens properties roofline being clearly visible, whilst to the east the urban edge is readily identifiable delineated by development to the east of Hamble Lane. Whilst the development of the application site is not of such scale that it would join Bursledon/Old Netley to the eastern edge of Southampton, the development would physically erode part of this open nature of this area and bring development closer to Hound Road.

96. The presence of the development to the east and north does not undermine the space and rural feeling derived from the undeveloped countryside to the west of Hamble Lane. The rights of way passing along the western boundary provide views across the open farmland with a clear sense of being within a rural location, with views across fields to the settlement of Bursledon. The LVIA notes the high visual impact the development would have from this position.

97. The Building Heights Parameter Plan indicate development within 20m of Hamble Lane and for some two and half storey development to be located within the site, including the substantial massing of the extra care home of up to 11m in height (LVIA). Even with the retention and enhancement of landscaping along the boundaries, this would appear at add odds with the character of land to the south of Cunningham Gardens and wider character area. Despite the open space proposed, including the landscape buffer planting, the proposed development would both physically and visually erode a valuable area of countryside and adversely harm the setting of the villages of Old Netley and Bursledon. The vulnerability of this area to change is highlighted by the number of significant and large housing schemes currently being promoted to west of Hamble Lane.

98. The site is proposed to be included within a countryside gap (policy S9) within the emerging Revised Pre-Submission Local Plan, further reinforcing the council’s aspiration to protect the undeveloped nature of this site and avoid the coalescence of the urban settlements (para 156 NPPF).

99. The scheme is contrary to saved policies 1.CO and 18.CO and emerging policies S9 of the revised pre-submission local plan.

Minerals

100. Advice on minerals is contained with the adopted Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan 2013 (in which the site is within a designated Minerals Safeguarding Area) and the NPPF. The prior extraction of minerals, where practicable and commercially feasible, is sought in advance of non-mineral development. HCC currently have identified the site could be of a size such that there could be mineral deposits of a commercial value and therefore it is recommended that the LPA determine the viability of prior extraction. A Mineral Assessment has been submitted following HCC’s initial objection.

101. Policy 15 within the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan 2013 states mineral resources should be safeguarded against needless sterilisation by non-minerals development, unless ‘prior extraction’ takes place. Development without the prior extraction of mineral resources may be permitted if: a. it can be demonstrated that the sterilisation of mineral resources will not occur; or b. it would be inappropriate to extract mineral resources at that location, with regards to the other policies in the Plan; or c. the development would not pose a serious hindrance to mineral development in the vicinity; or d. the merits of the development outweigh the safeguarding of the mineral. This accords with paragraphs 143 and 144 of the NPPF. Update

102. Since members considered the scheme the applicant has advised it could be feasible to extract material from beneath the proposed internal roads and from the standard foundation trenches for the houses. The extracted material would be taken by a suitable operator for off-site processing. This would allow for a proportion of the sand and gravel resources to be extracted in advance and utilised as aggregate instead of being disposed of to landfill. Full scale extraction is not considered feasible as it would delay the delivery of housing and run contrary to the drainage strategy and its principle of sustainable urban drainage. On the basis of the additional information and subject to a suitably worded condition, HCC Minerals and Waste Team have confirmed they no longer object to the scheme. The reason for refusal related to minerals has now been removed.

103. The Head of Housing and Environmental Health has raised concerns about the impact of extraction on residential amenity and vehicular movements and has requested further information. Member will be updated verbally on this at committee.

Protecting the most valuable agricultural land

104. The site consists of Grade 3 and the land appears to be predominantly used for crops at present. Policy 4.CO of the adopted Local Plan was not saved, however emerging policy DM13 of the deposit Local Plan resist the permanent loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a. The NPPF advises in paragraph 112 that "local authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land [and that] where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality".

105. As grade 3, the site meets the requirement advocated within the NPPF that where significant agricultural land is to be lost, less valuable land should be considered. In this instance, the Council are of the opinion that the development would not result in the unacceptable loss of agricultural land and is not contrary to paragraph 112 of the NPPF.

Heritage Asset and Listed Building considerations

106. There are no known archaeological sites within the development area, but the site does have some potential to contain previously unidentified archaeological remains. The lack of archaeological evidence from the site and immediate vicinity should be viewed as much a reflection of the lack of archaeological investigation as a genuine indication of absence of archaeology. The desk based assessment submitted with the planning application does not adequately address the potential for Pleistocene archaeology and the site has potential for limited archaeological considerations. While this potential does not present an overriding concern it should be addressed through a programme of archaeological work secured through suitable conditions attached to any planning consent that might be granted. Overall the heritage assets within the site are adequately protected ensuring compliance with the guidance contained within the paragraph 128 of the NPPF and saved policy 168.LB.

Access proposals, traffic impact and sustainable modes of transport 107. The site is located outside of the urban edge with a single vehicular

access point of a bell mouth design from Hamble Lane. A significant level of the local objection to the proposals relates to traffic generation from the development and the inability of the existing road network to accommodate this traffic without resulting in further congestion and queuing. The delays experienced currently are anticipated to increase resulting in impacts on businesses, schools, medical facilities and the emergency services.

108. As of 10 June 2014, no additional information pertaining to highway matters has been received by the LPA since members considered this scheme. However, it is understood that further information has been provided to HCC Highways on which a comment is awaited. The

original Transport Assessment (TA) and addendum provided prior to committee estimates that there will be 83 trips generated in the AM peak (26 arrivals and 57 departures), 73 trips generated between 16:00 and 17:00 (43 arrivals and 30 departures), and 91 trips generated between 17:00 and 18:00 (54 arrivals and 37 departures). The majority of the traffic leaving the site (92%) would turn left up Hamble Lane, with 50% of that traffic heading to the M27. This assessed level of traffic generation and direction of travel is considered acceptable to HCC.

109. Having considered the TA addendum HCC raised concerns that the TA does not consider the cumulative traffic impact of the other two hostile housing sites (Land West of Hamble Lane and Land at Hamble Station) and that the sensitivity test provided was insufficient.

110. The data/modelling within the application Transport Assessment recognises that there are junctions on the route of Hamble Lane which operate at or near capacity and in to mitigate the impact of the development, the applicant proposes to construct a roundabout at the Portsmouth Road/Hamble Lane junction as a pre-requisite to this scheme coming forward. HCC have agreed in principle with this design solution however have requested a preliminary design check submission for the improvements to this junction. The improvements to the junction (and the wider Hamble Lane corridor) are sought via saved policy 92.T of the adopted local plan.

111. With regards to other junctions along Hamble Lane north of the site, HCC are satisfied that the modelling information provided within the TA and it is for the Lowford and Tesco roundabout junctions and the B3397 Hamble Lane / Cunningham Gardens / Chamberlayne Road junction in terms of intergreens proposed between the pedestrian and vehicle stages is reasonable. However, a capacity assessment has not been undertaken for Windhover roundabout which HCC believe to be necessary to enable consideration of any potential mitigation which may be deemed necessary. Without this information HCC are not able to confirm the scheme would not have an unacceptable impact on the highway network.

112. The application includes proposals for improvements to the existing access to Berry Farm, with widening of Hamble Lane to accommodate a right turn lane for vehicles entering the development from the north. As the distribution shows, the majority of vehicles are expected to turn left out of the development, and right turn into the site. Following the Highway Authority’s initial concerns, speed survey data was provided prior to the last committee meeting which reveals recorded speeds of 31.3mph Northbound and 32.1mph southbound. The access drawing were amended to reflect additional visibility requirements in light of recorded speeds and this is demonstrated on drawing 041.0003.100 P4, which is considered acceptable in principle.

113. In terms of sustainable transport, Government policy enshrined in the new NPPF seeks to ensure that developments are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised and that new developments are designed to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements. In particular paragraph 32 requires decisions to take account of “the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site”.

114. The site is considered to be in a reasonably sustainable location in terms of the proximity to local facilities and transport infrastructure. The scheme would offer improvements to pedestrian access along Hamble Lane through the provision of a footpath/cycleway along the eastern edge of the site with two non-signalised crossing points to facilitate access across Hamble Lane where shops, church and schools are located within Lowford and Bursledon. There are continuous footpath connections to essential day-to-day facilities. The illustrative layout plan indicates links to the wider footpath network, the principles of which are supported.

115. A Travel Plan has been submitted and setting out various measures to reduce the dependency of travelling alone in cars, again in accordance with the principles of sustainable development.

116. The site is located on a bus route with bus stops on the northern and southern carriageway of Hamble Lane within 100 -200m of the site access. The frequency of service is reasonable (at minimum an hourly) with two services (no4/4A/x4 First in Hampshire and no15 Brijan) providing access from Hamble village to Southampton, Tesco and Hedge End retail Park.

117. The potential for an increase in traffic movements and queuing along Hamble Lane to impact on air quality has also been raised by objectors and an Air Quality Assessment was submitted with the application. The Head of Environmental Health has not objected subject to off-site highway works being secured. To date, the Council are not satisfied the adequate mitigation works on the highway have been proposed or secured.

118. On the basis of the information provided to date the Council has not been satisfied that the significant movements generated by the development could be accommodated adequately on the existing transport network without a severe impact on the road safety and operation of the local transport network. The scheme as submitted is contrary to saved policies 100.T and 101.T of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2001-2011), emerging policy DM23 of the Revised Pre-Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2011-2014) and the NPPF (para 32).

Noise and contamination issues

119. The adopted local plan seeks to avoid unacceptable impact from noise or vibration on noise-sensitive developments including residential development. In situations where the merits of the development outweigh the desirability of locating it away from a location disturbed by noise or vibration, the applicant must demonstrate the design, layout and insulation can meet appropriate standards. Para 123 of the NPPF advises planning decisions should “avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development”.

120. A noise survey has been provided taking in to account noise generated from traffic on Hamble Lane. The report concludes that development can be delivered without causing harm to the amenity of future residents through the use of varying standards of acoustic glazing and ventilation. The Head of Housing and Environmental Health notes the limitations of the noise assessment and its conclusion, but appreciates this is an outline application which does not fix the layout. In the light of this no objection is raised to the principle of development on the site subject to a further noise assessment once the layout has been fixed.

121. The submitted desk based assessment of contamination concludes that risks to the proposed use are low and can be controlled through conditions. The Head of Housing and Environmental Health has advised the principle of development and can be addressed via a suitably worded land contamination condition Update

122. The impact of noise and vibration during the construction period is not considered to be unacceptable in principle; the final details can be address via a construction impact management plan. The Head of Housing and Environmental Health has requested further information in connection with the potential for partial extraction of minerals from the site as part of the construction process. Air Quality

123. The NPPF states (para 124) that policies should sustain compliance

with and contribute towards national objectives for pollutants, taking into account Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites. The application site outside of the Hamble Lane Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) but will impact on it with the majority of traffic generated by this development going north and in to the AQMA. Development plan saved policies 32.ES and 33.ES and emerging local plan policy DM7 require any impacts upon air quality to be assessed in this regard. There are also a number of European Directives that apply to air quality which the Air Quality Standards Regulations (2010) seeks to transpose and simplify.

124. The application is supported by an air quality assessment that advises the proposed highway improvements and the Travel Plan will ensure traffic movements associated with the development would have an impact of negligible significance on air quality. Both the construction and operation phases were considered as well as various forms of air quality pollutants, in particular, NO2 and particulates were considered from increased level of traffic and construction.

125. Whilst the Head of Housing and Environmental Health does not disagree with this approach, ensuring the air quality of the area is not further reduced is dependent on delivering sufficient highway mitigation measures such that queuing traffic is not increased. Whilst HCC highways officers are raising an objection to the scheme the required mitigation cannot be secured, thus an objection on air quality grounds must be raised.

Trees and Ecology

126. The application is supported by a phase 1 and protected species report plus surveys and reports on bats, great crest newts, reptiles, dormice and badgers. Following the submission of further information related to the significant population of slow worms on site, the borough’s biodiversity officer has raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

127. The hedge along Hamble Lane would be partially removed to facilitate the improved access points and sight lines. The hedge has value as ecological habitat and its aesthetic qualities, but is not of sufficient value to require its retention or to prevent development on this site. However, new hedge planting should be secured as part of a landscape strategy as well improved planting along the western boundary. The formation of a 15m ecological buffer to the SINC accords with Natural England standing advice and will offer an improvement to the biodiversity value of the site. On balance, and subject to appropriate mitigation (through new planting and enhancement of parts of the remaining hedge) this impact is considered acceptable

128. The site is not subject to a tree preservation order nor does it have a significant number of trees of any arboricultural quality within it. Two category B trees are proposed to be lost near to the entrance of the site, whilst there is a number of low quality and ornamental trees are to be felled closer to the existing dwelling on site. The borough tree officer has advised the loss of these trees can be addressed through a detailed landscaping scheme that offers a net gain in trees within the site. On balance the development is in accordance with Policy 47.ES of the EBLP Review.

129. A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) has been completed by the Council assessing the impact of the development on the Solent and

Southampton Water Special Protection Area/RAMSAR/Site of Special Scientific Interest. The HRA conclude that subject to securing funds to assist with the implementation of the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Projects (SDMP), that there would be no significant effect as a result of recreational disturbance pressure on the SPA/RAMSAR/SSSI. Natural England is of the same opinion. The applicant has agreed to the principle of securing contributions to the SDMP as part of the planning obligation but has not submitted a draft s106 to date. As such, the lack of mitigation to offset the increased recreational pressure has not been secured and forms a reason for refusal for it is contrary to emerging policy S12 and DM9 and provisions of the NPPF.

130. In accordance with the requirements of saved policy 25.NC and the NPPF (para 118) the biodiversity value of the application site can be improved via a Landscape & Biodiversity Management Strategy whilst during the construction process an Environmental Construction Management Plan could be secured to minimise impact of works on the site. With planning conditions recommended to secure the proposed ecological mitigation measures, in respect to biodiversity enhancements the development is considered to accord with policies 25.NC and 26.NC of the adopted Local Plan and DM9 of the emerging Local Plan.

Drainage and flood risk

131. The application site lies within Flood Zone 1 which is considered to have a low risk of flooding and the submitted Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the development would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere, subject to the implementation and management of a comprehensive Sustainable Urban Drainage System. This includes a permanent attenuation pond in the public open space to the north west and a number of swales or French drains. Full details of such a strategy would be secured by condition and would be encompassed within any reserved matters application. The Environment Agency has raised no objection.

132. In terms of foul drainage, Southern Water has indicated that there is insufficient capacity in the foul sewer network in this area and therefore unless new or improved sewerage infrastructure is provided, the system would not be able to cope with the additional sewerage generated by this development, which could lead to increased flooding from foul sewers in the area. A Foul Drainage and Utilities Statement identifies an option of discharging foul drainage by gravity to the public sewer beneath Mallards Road which requires approximately 240m length of new off-site foul drainage or alternatively a new pumping station within the site with similar provision of new pipework. Further upgrades would be required to the existing downstream public foul sewer network comprising of a total length of 362m between Mallards Road and the Hungerford Bottom Bursledon Pumping Station. As an outline proposal, this level of details is acceptable and accords with

saved policy 45.ES and emerging policy DM5. A full drainage strategy would be secured if the principle of development was to be approved

Residential Amenity impacts 133. The supporting information submitted with this outline application

demonstrates that the layout and design of dwellings at reserved matters stage would ensure that the privacy and outlook of both existing and future residents would be respected and the relevant criteria of the Quality Places SPD and Local Plan policies are met. These matters would be assessed in full at this stage of the principle if development was to be approved.

134. The Crime Reduction Officer has raised no objection in principle but has made comments on the detailed layout. These matters are not for consideration at this stage but would be reviewed at the reserved matters stage.

Sustainability measures

135. The application is accompanied by a sustainability statement which includes a pro-forma stating how the development could meet the requirements of the adopted Environmentally Sustainable Development SPD, including residential development meeting the required Code for Sustainable Homes threshold and BREEAM level Excellent for the care homes. The Council’s Sustainability Officer has raised no objection to the principle of the development but has highlighted pre-assessment pro-formas do not address all the requirements of the SPD and emerging local plan policy. Update

136. Since members considered this scheme the applicant has submitted a

BREEAM Communities Community Plan for comment. The Borough’s sustainability officer has advised is that more information is required to fulfil the mandatory requirements for this BREEAM Communities. With the original submission the applicant referenced the scheme would meet the requirements of emerging policy DM2 in that BREEAM Communities 'excellent' would also be achieved but they have not submitted an pre-assessment on how this would be achieved. However, emerging policy DM2 can be given limited weight at this stage so on balance the principles of development are therefore considered to comply with the aims of Saved Policy 34.ES of the adopted Local Plan and the adopted SPD on Environmentally Sustainable Development.

Economic Sustainability 137. In regards to the economic role of development, the NPPF requires

“sufficient land of the right type to be available in the right places to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy “.

138. The construction industry is key to economic sustainability and the proposed development of 125 dwellings and extra care home would deliver local employment, whilst the new population would support local businesses. The proposals would also align with the Council’s strategic priority of increasing prosperity to the Borough. A New Homes Bonus would also be received for the delivery of new homes. These are all benefits to the economic dimension of sustainable development.

139. These are all considered benefits in the planning balance and overall the proposals are considered to be economically sustainable.

Social Sustainability

140. In accordance with saved policy 190.IN of the local plan development is only to be permitted where adequate services and infrastructure are available or suitable arrangements can be made for their provision. Where facilities exist but will need to be enhanced to meet the needs of the development, contributions are sought towards provision and improvement of infrastructure. A development should also offer a mix of house types and tenures to ensure a balanced and thriving community. To date the applicant has not submitted a draft s106 and so the policy requirements have not been met.

Housing mix, deliverability, affordable housing and infrastructure 141. The application is in outline and the supporting information confirms

that a range of house types, sizes and tenures would be provided, including 35% affordable housing in accordance with Saved Policy 74.H of the adopted Local Plan and Policy DM28 of the Revised Pre-submission Local Plan. In fact, the applicant proposes 51% of the site to be affordable, with the entire care home being deemed as affordable housing. The Council’s adopted Affordable Housing SPD is also a material consideration, as the NPPF which aspires to “deliver a wide choice of high quality homes in inclusive and mixed communities to meet the needs of different people”.

142. The Head of Housing Services supports the principle of delivering affordable housing application, highlighting the requirement for the extra care facility, as a C3 usage, to also contribute to the affordable housing provision in accordance with the adopted SPD. The applicant agrees to the SPDs requirements in this respect. On this basis, the affordable housing required has been agreed with 25% of the residential being affordable and all 70 units within the care home, equating to 101 units in total. Each phase of development would be

required to provide the necessary 35% and pepper-potted across the site. If secured through a planning obligation, the delivery of affordable housing is a benefit of the proposed scheme.

143. The emerging local plan has highlighted the need to deliver more housing for the elderly within the peninsula of Hamble, and this scheme would respond to an identified need.

144. The Design and Access Statement suggests that the majority of the residential units would be two and three bed but no figures have been provided on a notional mix of dwelling types. For the 70 bed extra care home a notional mix of 14no. one bed and 56no. two bed units has been referenced. To date no information has been provided on the phasing of the development nor on the commencement of work if approved. However it is reasonable to assume that work would commence reasonably soon after a reserved matters application was approved. The proposal to deliver the dwellings would be a benefit to the social sustainability in the delivery of housing.

Education

145. In terms of education, the capacity of local schools has been considered in assessing the proposed development and infrastructure requirements, and it is noted that the potential impact on schools has been a particular concern raised by local residents.

146. Hampshire County Council, as the Local Education Authority, has stated that Netley Schools are full and will be for the foreseeable future, but that Bursledon Schools are capable of taking pupils from this development. With regards to secondary places, HCC has stated that although Hamble Sports Community College is reasonably full, it takes a substantial number of students from the east of Southampton and that over time, pupils from the proposed development would displace students from Southampton. As such, no contributions towards education provision are required.

Health Provision

147. A number of letters of objections have been received to the development on grounds of inadequate primary care facilities within the immediate area. Numerous objectors have highlighted a long wait for non-urgent appointments, an opinion supported by the Blackthorn Health Centre who state their service is already stretched with 12,500 patients with 6.25 GP FTE making them 250 patients/GP oversubscribed. New residents could also attend the Bursledon Surgery which has relocated to the Lowford Centre. No comments have been received from the Bursledon Surgery.

148. The NHS, who has been consulted directly on this, has not commented to date. In the light of delivery of a significant number of new houses

and an extra care home, it would be reasonable to secure a contribution towards improved health care as part of the planning obligation, however the NHS would need to identify improvements that are reasonable and deliverable.

Community facilities

149. The applicants are also required to make provision for increased capacity at community buildings, playing fields, areas of off-site public open space etc. within the local area, to meet the increased demand for these facilities arising from the proposed development. The final level of these contributions will be determined by the final housing numbers and mix and secured via the S106 agreement. This will be determined at reserved matters stage and consideration will need to be given to relevant projects at that time, to ensure that any request for such contributions can be justified in accordance with the CIL regulations.

150. The proposal includes reasonable areas of open space meeting the on-site requirements for a development of this size. It also proposes an equipped play area in accordance with the policy, in a good location with good natural surveillance and close to the centre of the site. Contributions could be secured through the s106 agreement to provide and maintain the open space, play areas and community facilities in accordance with relevant adopted policies and the adopted SPD on Planning Obligations.

Planning Obligations/development benefits

151. In accordance with the guidance contained within the NPPF, Saved Policies 74.H, 101.T, 147.OS and 191.IN of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Policies DM32 and DM37 of the Revised Draft 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 developers’ contributions to ensure on and off-site provision for facilities and infrastructure made necessary by the development, or to mitigate against any increased need/pressure on existing facilities. This is in addition to the requisite on-site provision of affordable housing.

152. The applicant has not yet agreed to the following developer contributions and obligations which the LPA are seeking:

Off-site public open space contributions On-site public open space/play provision and maintenance On-site footway link improvements 35% on-site affordable housing (minimum) Public art provision Health facilities contributions

Travel plan provision and monitoring Transport infrastructure contributions Community Infrastructure Unallocated parking spaces not to be sold to individual

householders Street tree maintenance Sustainable drainage Phasing of the development Section 106 monitoring.

153. The projects and measures identified above are considered to comply with the 3 tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy 2010, in that the monies will 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.

Conclusion 154. The NPPF seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and, in

accordance with the NPPF, the adopted Local Plan in respect of settlement boundaries must be considered out of date. From the above assessment, the development can demonstrate elements of being economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. The site abuts the urban edge and within walking distance of shops, community facilities and bus stops. It would provide private and affordable housing, specific accommodation for the elderly, improvements to the footpath and cycleway along part of Hamble Lane and facilitate the provision of a roundabout at the Portsmouth Road/Hamble Lane junction. The construction process would deliver a number of employment opportunities whilst once fully occupied the development would establish an increase in the workforce resources within the Hamble peninsular.

155. However, the impact of the development must be weighed against these benefits. The development would result in the loss of undeveloped land outside of the urban edge, be detrimental to the identity of the existing settlements, have a severe impact on the road safety and operation of the local transport network and could impact on air quality within a designated AQMA. Furthermore, the applicant has not submitted a draft s106 to secure a 35% provision of affordable housing or contributions to offset the impact of the development on local infrastructure or sensitive nature conservation areas.

156. The LPA have had regard to the recent appeal decision on land to the west of Hamble Lane (O/12/71828) and the inspector presumption in favour sustainable development after being unconvinced of the LPA’s housing supply position. The Council believe the Inspector erred in not giving any weight to schemes that have a resolution to permit or those at pre-application stage and have therefore challenged the inspector’s decision. Nonetheless, since the appeal decision further work has been undertaken to assess the current housing position and policy officers have presented a case to demonstrate the Council can provided sufficient housing over the next 5 years.

157. This engages the presumption in favour of sustainable development,

unless the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the NPPF policies, in particular paragraph 14. Whilst this site would undeniably contribute towards the Borough’s housing need, this would not be in accordance with the Council’s planned strategy for development. Members will need to consider carefully the weight to be attributed to the provision of housing versus the erosion of the countryside and proposed countryside gap, as well as the technical issues related to highway matters and air quality. This consideration should take place in the light of the history and background of the exclusion of the site from the adopted Local Plan and non-selection for inclusion by the Council for the emerging Local plan.

158. Having reassessed the scheme in the light of the appeal decision, the impacts of the development are still considered significant, unjustified and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme therefore the application is recommended for refusal.

© Crown copyright and database rights (2014) Ordnance Survey (LA100019622)

Scale:

Map Ref:

Date:

1:5000

10/06/2014

SU4709

Title: