Development Consultation Forum

Land South of Ranelagh Road

29th March 2012

Programme

• 18.00 - Introduction – Councillor Guest• 18.05 - Explanation of process, outline of policy

and planning history – Steve Weaver• 18.15 - Presentation by Developers• 18.35 - Invited speakers• 18.45 - Written consultee responses – David

Eaves• 18.55 - Developer response to issues

raised• 19.05 - Councillor opportunity to ask questions• 19.35 - Summary of key points – Steve Weaver• 19.45 - Chairman closes Forum meeting

The purpose of the Forum is…• To allow developer to explain development proposals

directly to councillors, public & key stakeholders at an early stage

• To allow Councillors to ask questions

• Informs officer pre application discussions with developer

• Identify any issues that may be considered in any formal application.

• Enable the developer to shape an application to address community issues

The Forum is not meant to…• Negotiate the proposal in public

• Commit councillors or local planning authority to a view

• Allow objectors to frustrate the process

• Address or necessarily identify all the issues that will need to be considered in a future planning application

• Take the place of normal planning application process or role of the Development Management Committee

• Developer will have a list of main points to consider

• Stakeholders and public will be aware of proposals and can raise their concerns

• Councillors will be better informed on significant planning issues

• Officers will be better informed as to community expectations during their pre application negotiations with developers

The outcome of the Forum will be…

Ranelagh Road Location Plan

Ranelagh Road Aerial View

Planning History• The site is currently open fields partly used for grazing

horses, with mainly disused farm buildings, stables and a former allotment site

• There are two previous planning applications of particular relevance in the vicinity of the site:

• 06/67936/002 Land North of Ranelagh Road

22 houses and garages - Allowed on Appeal January 2008 and now constructed

• 02/64177/000 Portsmouth Water at Ranelagh Road Change of use of open land to west of Meyrick Road to public open space. Permitted February 2003

Policy Background

• National Planning Policy Framework

• Havant Borough Core Strategy

• Saved Policies from Local Plan (HBDWLP)

• Contributions Policy (SPD)

• Supplementary Planning Guidance

• South East Plan

Policy Background

Principle of Development• The development site is within the urban area

as defined in current policy. The site is currently allocated in the Councils Proposals Map as three different allocations as follows:Area fronting Ranelagh Road – Residential (Baseline Housing Site)Area to south-east – Employment Land Area to south-west – Safeguarding for Infrastructure Providers (Portsmouth Water)

Current Site Allocations Plan

Policy Background

• Most of the site is however identified as a potential housing site in the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)

• This includes land to the north of Ranelagh Road already developed as well as additional land to the south west of the land considered in this Forum.

• SHLAA suggests potential for c.160 dwellings on combined site.

Policy Background

Principle of housing development• As the site is within the existing urban area, it must be

determined on the current planning policy framework, which include the NPPF, saved policies in the HDWLP and Core Strategy. There will be a need to justify the loss of employment land and land safeguarded for utility services.

• The applicant will also need to satisfy Core Strategy policy DM6 Coordination of Development and demonstrate that the proposal will not undermine the future development potential of adjacent sites.

Policy Background

Planning Policy Framework – future • In addition, the site will be considered as a

potential housing site in the forthcoming Allocations Plan. The purpose of the Allocations Plan is to consider and allocate the best sites for development. The undeveloped sites in the saved HDWLP will be reconsidered as part of this process.

• Any application submitted in advance of the Allocations Plan being adopted in December 2013, would need to be advertised as a departure to the saved policies of the HDWLP.

Key Planning Issues

Highways and Access

• Assessment of additional traffic generation and highway impacts

• Suitability of existing road network• Access from Ranelagh Road.• Accessibility to public transport• On site road layout • Parking issues• Pedestrian and cycle provision

Built form and Design

• The impact of the development would need to be assessed in its context and in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Trees and Wildlife

• Trees on site are subject to TPO’s

• Impact on important hedges

• Possible impact on protected species

Environment

• Impact on the existing water environment

• Surface water drainage

• Foul drainage issues

Key Planning Issues

Residential Mix• Can the number and size of dwellings be suitably provided?• Is the mix of house types and sizes acceptable?• Affordable housing provision and location.

Noise/Pollution Issues• Impact of noise/pollution from adjacent industrial buildings – layout implications• Design/landscaping implications

Key Planning Issues

Open Space• Location and uses of land – Link to Meyrick Road open

space• Allotment relocation (already taken place)• Impact on adjacent green spaces and footpath links

Historic Environment• Archaeological issues• Adjacent Brockhampton Conservation Area

Key Planning Issues

Key Planning Issues

Developer Contributions

Possible contributions required towards:• HCC Highway Contributions• Affordable Housing• Open Space Provision• Education• Various S106 Legal Requirements

Presentation by Developers

Invited Speakers

• Stewart Johnson – Brockhampton Residents’ Association

• Kate Turner –Havant and Bedhampton Community Network

Invited Speakers

Invited SpeakersBrockhampton Residents’ Association:

• Potential for 152 cars with phase I

• Phase II would result in additional cars onto Ranelagh Road which is an unadopted road.

• Access onto Brockhampton Road

• Parking on Ranelagh Road could become an issue

Invited Speakers Brockhampton Residents’ Association:

• Access onto West Street is already congested and is a single lane road

• 2 potential bottlenecks to access the proposed site which are already of concern before the proposal is built.

• Area to the north west of the site is not included but could potentially be a phase 3?

• What is proposed for the open space allocation?• How would the open space be made available?

Invited Speakers Brockhampton Residents’ Association:

Invited SpeakersKate Turner – Havant and Bedhampton Community Network

• The area as a whole has already had a number of affordable housing developments built. The % of affordable housing in the area as a whole is much higher than anywhere else in the Borough (apart from the north of Havant).

• Concerns re junction between Ranelagh Rd and Brockhampton Rd and between Meyrick Rd and West St.

• Portsmouth Water use the roads

Invited Speakers Havant and Bedhampton Community

Network• Planning applications are considered in

isolation, however would like all the phases to be considered together with recently developed sites in the area e.g. the developments in Palk Road.

• Will the developer take into consideration the presence of bats in the area and will there be mitigation measures incorporated?

Consultee Responses

HBC Development Engineer (Highways)

• The evaluation of any planning application will be carried out by Havant’s Development Engineer acting on behalf of the Highway Authority.

• The Highway Authority will require the Developer to submit Transport Assessment and a Travel Plan with any planning application.

Consultee Response (Development Engineer Continued)

• The Transport Assessment will need to quantify the amount and modes of all journeys that the development will generate and investigate the impact of increased traffic flow on the surrounding road network of Ranelagh Road, Meyrick Road, Knox Road, Brockhampton Road, West Street and Harts Farm Way with particular emphasis on the following junctions:– Brockhampton Road/ Marples Way Roundabout– Brockhampton Road/ Harts Farm Way Junction– Solent Road/Park Road South Traffic Lights– West Street/Park Road North Junction and the

alternative route of Union Road to Park Way/Park Road North Traffic Lights

– West Street/Bedhampton Junction at the Railway Level Crossing.

Consultee Response (Development Engineer Continued)

• The Highway Authority will require any off- site traffic impacts identified in the Transport assessment to be mitigated by highway works or contributions.

• The Transport Assessment will need to justify the amount of parking provided

• The Travel Plan will need to include initiatives and targets to encourage modal shift away from the private motor vehicle to other means of travel.

• The planning application will need to demonstrate that the proposed layout will provide satisfactory servicing arrangements for emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles, fire appliances and refuse vehicles.

• The layout will need to take into account any access that may be required to service adjacent land.

Consultation Response (Development Engineer Continued)

• Any application will need to demonstrate the phasing and the sequence of the construction and provide a Construction Plan indicating:- delivery routes;- the timing of delivery of construction materials - operatives parking and;- provision to prevent mud being deposited on surrounding roads.

• A Hampshire County Council Transport Contribution will be required for this development. The contribution will be linked to the impact of this development and used on transport schemes within the surrounding area.

Consultee Responses

HBC Urban Design • Assets and constraints - To aid understanding

of the design approach the applicant needs to clearly show what are assets are being retained and lost e.g. trees and hedges and the site constraints, such as flooding and pipelines.

• Concept Plan – Need for a concept plan to explain design approach.

Consultee Responses (Urban Design)• Layout –a number of key concerns exist relating to the

following areas:• North and south western areas – the current

arrangement needs further analysis in order to improve the layout.

• Impact on neighbours – more generous back-to-back distances and a landscape buffer in the north eastern and eastern boundaries should be introduced.

• Access to wider development area and volume of traffic – the applicant needs to demonstrate that the access to the potential extension to the south is in the right location to cater for the potential volumes of traffic.

• Open space – the applicant needs to explain how they will satisfy the council’s open space requirements.

Consultee ResponsesHBC Landscape Officer• A clearer plan is required to show the existing and

retained trees and hedgerows within the site. • Avenue tree planting to the centre of the site is desirable

to retain and enhance the local landscape character and help the settlement. Tree planting and hedgerow planting elsewhere within the site would help to create and continue the sense of enclosure currently enjoyed by the surrounding existing residential properties.

• Frontages with small brick walls would be a good boundary detail and would be encouraged in line with recent new developments to retain the character of Bedhampton.

• The intended (potential) access road to the land to the south west would appear to be in an unsuitable position and its location should be reconsidered.

Consultee Responses (Landscape)

• The street layout appears to respond to the local grain with a simple grid/block layout enabling good sized plots and gardens which accords with the local urban and landscape character features. This may help encourage garden tree planting which is a feature of the local landscape.

• A strong vegetated boundary to the west would be preferable rather than development to retain the green open  nature of the surrounding fields.

• The inclusion of 2 parking spaces for dwellings is desirable to alleviate potential on street parking and retention of small front gardens to retain character within the settlement. It would be preferable to maintain a format of private dwellings having on plot parking and only apartments having shared courts.

• The basic materials appear to be correct as red brick is a local feature. This should be used for dwellings and walls.

• A better plan to show a higher level of detail would be helpful to assess access and pedestrian routes through the site.

Consultee ResponsesHBC Housing• This development proposal is for 79 units; 64 houses

and 15 flats ranging in size from 1 bedroom flats to 3 bedroom houses . The developer has noted 30% affordable housing which equates to 24 units and I would expect at least this level of provision.

• Affordable units  of all sizes are in great demand within the Borough as there are currently over 5500 households in Havant Borough alone registered on the  Hampshire Home Choice register which represents a 24% increase since 1st April 2011. This development will provide much needed new affordable housing in a desirable area close to amenities i.e. transport, education, leisure and retail opportunities.

• 92% of the overall site consists of homes with two bedrooms or more,  with 69% of those being 3 bed homes.

Consultee Responses (Housing)

• In line with the Havant Borough Council  Housing SPD, I would expect the overall housing mix to include a greater percentage of 2 bedroom and some 4 bedroom homes.

• Disappointed that of the 24 affordable units a very high proportion (62.5%) are flats, 6 no. one beds and 9 no. two beds. Would hope to see more houses and less flats included within the affordable provision.

• At this stage there are no details of unit sizes but I would expect homes to be built to at least Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, or whichever code is required at the time of construction.

• Would hope that the developer in partnership with a Registered Provider will be able to provide a small number of units that will be suitable for residents with mobility issues.

Consultee Responses

Southern Water

The applicant will need to request capacity checks to locate appropriate points of connection to the public sewerage system. Surface water sewer capacity is limited, it would be best if a sustainable means of surface water disposal  avoiding a discharge to sewer were adopted. The applicant will need to investigate this further.

Consultee Responses

Environment Agency (EA)Flood Risk• The majority of the site falls within Flood Zone 1 (low

probability), the western edge of the development site falls within flood zone 3 (high probability).

• Due to this classification and the size of the area a full Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) will be need to be submitted with any application.

• Vulnerability to flooding from all sources and the potential to increase flood risk elsewhere should be fully investigated in the FRA. The assessment will need to detail how surface water runoff generated by the development site will be managed.

Consultee Responses (EA)

• Development should take a sequential approach to the siting of buildings with residential buildings located in areas of lowest flood risk.

• Hermitage Stream ‘main river’ culvert runs through the western section of the site. Any works within eight metres of the culvert need the consent of the EA. Access to the culvert will be needed and the EA normally require a minimum clear space of 4m either side of culvert.

Consultee Responses (EA)

Protection of Groundwater• Land north and south of Ranelagh Road is located on a

Principal Aquifer and within Source Protection Zone 1 for Bedhampton and Havant Springs Water Abstraction.

• Any development within this area that presents a risk to the quality of groundwater and will have to be carefully assessed prior to any formal planning application and further details of the development are required. Construction proposals will have to be assessed and the developer will have to provide a very detailed pollution prevention method statement.

• Due to the sensitivity of the development, we would wish surface water and foul water to drain to main sewers.

• The EA would work with Portsmouth Water in assessing any developments.

Consultee Responses (EA)

Water Quality• The Hermitage Stream to the west of the site is currently

not achieving good ecological potential, as is required. It is therefore recommended that opportunities to enhance water quality and restore the Stream are undertaken where possible as part of the development of the site.

• The development falls within the sewerage catchment of Budds Farm Treatment Works. These works are required to operate to one of the tightest limits for nitrogen removal in the Country, in order to protect the integrity of Habitats Directive designations in the Solent and the Harbours.

Consultee Responses (EA)

• The Integrated Water Management Strategy indicates that there is capacity for Budds Farm to accommodate the allocated developments within its catchment; however this conclusion was only reached based on the inclusion of water efficiency measures. Water efficiency is therefore key to the sustainability of developments within this catchment.

• The development should seek to take forward the principles of sustainable development.

Developer Response

Developer Response• Access road on the south west is proposed to take

future development into consideration.• Comprehensive development of the area will be

addressed in the application.• The sewer lines in the adjacent site could limit the net

developable area and have an impact on the density.• The traffic generation figures and trip rates are being

discussed with HCC and HBC. It must be accommodated or mitigated against. There is still analysis to be done and mitigation measures to be investigated.

Developer Response

Main Points of Discussion

Q Will the affordable housing be ‘pepper potted’ and tenure blind?

A Social housing to the north of the site is affordable housing. The proposed scheme is for private housing with an element of affordable housing (a minimum of 30% is required by policy). Fewer affordable houses is more financially desirable. The location and tenure of the affordable housing will be discussed with HBC.

Shared ownership is becoming increasingly popular as a way of helping people onto the property ladder.

Main Points of DiscussionQ Will local labour be used for the construction

of the houses?

A Details cannot be confirmed at this stage. Certainly residents of Havant will be employed by sub-contractors.

Q Will the Transport Assessment include the future phases of development?

A The future phases have not been included to date and are not part of Orchard Homes plans.

Main Points of Discussion

Q Is Ranelagh Road going to be brought up to adoptable standard prior to construction?

A The roads within the site will be made up to adoptable standards. Liaison with HCC suggests that there are no immediate aspirations to adopt Ranelagh Road, however Ranelagh Road has been built to an adoptable standard.

Main Points of DiscussionQ Is there the possibility that the proposed flats

could have at least 1 allocated parking space?

A The number of allocated parking for the flats is 1.3 per flat. The parking for the flats could potentially be allocated but this might mean that the parking standards would rise.

Q Should the road leading to the land to the south west include a turning point?

A The turning area is incorporated in the adjacent parking area.

Main Points of DiscussionQ What are the proposals for the Meyrick Road

amenity area?A The s106 required this space to be public

open space. Childrens’ play equipment might be incorporated. It will be discussed with HBC’s play officer.

Q Could special provision be made to incorporate apprenticeships where possible?

A Orchard Homes seek to include local apprenticeships where possible. This may be covered by a s106 agreement.

Main Points of Discussion

Q The employment site to the south of the site is an industrial site. Is the Council aware that this site could relocate if the proposal is granted Planning Permission?

A This issue will be taken into consideration.Q Has the impact on the local schools been taken

into consideration?A This impact is usually accounted for by providing

a contribution towards education e.g. by extending existing schools.

What Happens Next?

• Summary notes circulated to attendees

• Officers will discuss outcomes with developer

• Developer will continue to develop proposals and consider issues raised by Forum

• Decision as to form of application and timing of submission rests with developer.