Item No.: 02The information, recommendations and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.

PROPOSAL Four detached dwellingsLOCATION: Woodfield, Windsor Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5EFREFERENCE 54970/005 PARISH: MedsteadAPPLICANT: Driftstone Developments LtdCONSULTATION EXPIRY :

14 August 2015

APPLICATION EXPIRY : 21 August 2015COUNCILLOR(S): Cllr D Jackson, Cllr I ThomasSUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as it is a departure from the Development Plan.

Site and Development

The site is land to the rear of Woodfield which was a bungalow occupying a road frontage position with Windsor Road. That bungalow has recently been demolished and construction commenced on three bungalows in its place, with this application is to the rear of those three dwellings. The land comprises grassland bordered by trees to the north and south and two protected trees (a beech and an oak) within the site. The site lies outside of the Settlement Policy Boundary but adjoins it to the east and west where development comprises a mixture of styles and includes higher density housing to the east.

The application follows grant of outline permission for six dwellings on a larger parcel of land, three of which have subsequently gained full planning permission and are under construction. This full application seeks permission for four, two storey houses on the eastern part of the site where previously three were proposed in the outline permission. The site would be accessed from Windsor Road with a shared driveway that serves the three dwellings currently under construction on the western part of the site. The proposal includes ecological buffer strips along the northern and southern boundaries as previously proposed in the outline permission.

Relevant Planning History

54970/001 - Outline - six dwellings and associated works after demolition of existing dwelling. Permission - 13/02/2014

54970/002 - Three detached dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings. Permission - 13/02/2014

54970/003 - Outline - four dwellings (partial alternative to outline permission 54970/001) - Refused - 10/03/2015 for the following reason:

The protected trees form an important part of the character of the area and form an integral part of the wooded setting of the site. The layout and proximity of plots 5 and 6 to protected trees would fail to conserve the setting of the trees and would result in unacceptable post development pressure from occupants of the dwellings to prune or fell the trees. The proposal would likely result in pruning works for which there is no arboricultural justification. In the absence of any overriding benefits, the proposal is contrary to policy C6 of the East Hampshire Local Plan: Second Review.

Development Plan Policies and Proposals

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014)

CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP2 - Spatial StrategyCP10 - Spatial strategy for housingCP13 - Affordable housing on residential development sitesCP16 - Protection and provision of social infrastructureCP18 - Provision of open space, sport and recreation and built facilitiesCP19 - Development in the countrysideCP20 - LandscapeCP21 - BiodiversityCP24 - Sustainable constructionCP25 - Flood RiskCP27 - PollutionCP29 - DesignCP31 - TransportCP32 – Infrastructure

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006)

C6 - Tree PreservationH14 - Other Housing Outside Settlement Policy Boundaries

Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan

The emerging Neighbourhood Plan is afforded some weight as the pre-submission version has been through its second round of public consultation (ending on the 9 October), following which it will undergo its independent examination. Policies 1 (a spatial plan) and 11 (design) are particularly relevant in the consideration of this application.

Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF was published in March 2012 and came into force with immediate effect. At the heart of it is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states that the development plan is the starting point for the consideration of planning applications, and that they must be determined in accordance with it, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Village Design Statement - Medstead - A Vision for the Future - non statutory planning guidance that has been the subject of public consultation and therefore is a material planning consideration.

Medstead Parish Plan 2008

Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments

Arboricultural Officer - Updated commentsThe additional details deal with my previous comments. I am now content that work can proceed providing a condition can be applied that requires all work to be carried out in accordance with the supplied AMS, Tree Protection Plan, and addendum BJH 05.

Drainage Officer - The site is located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding), and I am not aware of any historic flooding issues affecting the site. The proposals will result in a large increase in surface water run-off, which must be controlled on site and not increase flood risk elsewhere. A drainage layout plan has been submitted, but this appears to be based on a desktop study. The Medstead area is well known for heavy clay soils and poor infiltration.

Foul drainage is shown connecting to a sewage treatment plant discharging to an adjacent drainage field.

A geotechnical site investigation and site percolation tests confirm that satisfactory drainage systems can be provided. A maintenance management plan will be required for all private drainage features. No objection.

County Ecologist - The application is accompanied by an Ecology Supporting Statement (HDA, December 2014) which provides an update to the previous ecological survey works carried out at the site in support of the previously-consented proposal as well as this amended application. I have previously provided advice in relation to this site, and although this application entails a modification of the site layout I consider that the ecological information provided is sufficient and that no further ecological survey works are necessary at this stage. As per the previous application, I would recommend that there needs to be a site-specific plan showing all proposed ecological features – for example, there are no details of the proposed bat mitigation loft, but which can be secured by condition.

County Highways - The site is accessed from Windsor Road which is an unclassified road which is subject to a 30mph speed limit. Windsor Road has a narrow carriageway with no kerbs or footways. Having regard to the nature of the road generally, vehicle speeds are likely to be below 30mph. The junction of Windsor Road with Red Hill has sufficient capacity and provides visibility to the required standard. The new access will remain private and unadopted.

The position, width and geometry of the access, including visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m were agreed by the Highway Authority as part of the considerations of the outline planning application for four dwellings (54970/001). The submitted scheme demonstrates adequate parking provision. Previously the response on the outline had raised concerns about the capability of a refuse vehicle and a fire appliance being able to turn at the end of the driveway. The scheme now includes a bin store close to the turning head between plots 1 and 2/3. This location would enable the refuse vehicle to turn on site. The arrangements for fire appliance shown, in the tracking provided, that turning can be achieved although this could be compromised by parked vehicles. However, I am satisfied that emergency access would not be delayed by the turning arrangements if there is parking occurring.

No objection subject to conditions.

Medstead Parish Council - Objects to this application on the following grounds.

The current application has only very minor insignificant changes to the application that was refused in March 2015. Permission for the construction of 3 dwellings has already been granted.

This application for four dwellings lies outside the Settlement Policy Boundary on a green field site.

It is noted that the additional dwelling creates a realignment of the properties which now encroach into the public open space. What was to be publicly accessible has now been subsumed within the proposed private gardens. The trees and ancient woodland which are subject to TPO's are considered to be in danger. Buffer zones to the neighbouring properties are to be reduced by approximately 1m, thus impacting on their privacy and the right to quiet enjoyment of their own homes. There appears to be no method of control over the future of these buffer zones, individual house owners could remove the hedge, dig up the wild grass or even apply for extensions under permitted development.

There still appears to be proposed properties overlooking existing neighbours.

There appears to be parking provision for only one visitor. On road parking will restrict access to others including service and emergency vehicles. One dedicated parking space is actually in the hammer head with the swept path drawing showing the vehicle having to use this space to execute its reversing manoeuvre. The swept path for the lower section of the site shows the vehicle having to run over curbs to move about the site.

Attention is drawn to the conditions attached to the Notice of Outline Permission 54970/001 dated 13 February 2014 and the legally binding agreement between the parties and delivered under seal dated 31 January 2014.

Comments made on applications 54970/001 and 64970/002 are also applicable in this case.

Should the Planning Authority be minded to approve this application, additional contributions towards public open space and environmental improvements in Medstead that are considered appropriate such as the Green Infrastructure Route and Wild Flowers Meadows as detailed within the Neighbourhood Plan, along with other appropriate S106 payments.

Please REFUSE this application.

Representations

20 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:

a) The proposed houses are closer to boundaries and place the woodland/protected trees at greater risk;

b) This type of housing is not needed in the area;c) The proposal results in the loss of the public open space provided by the original

application;d) The proposal will harm bats that roost in the trees;e) The works to the trees would have a negative impact on their amenity value;f) The site is outside the settlement policy boundary and therefore development is

unacceptable;g) Parking provision is inadequate;h) Surrounding properties will suffer from additional noise, light and pressure on utilities;

andi) The location of sewerage treatment works and bins is not suitable.

Determining Issues

1. Principle of development2. Drainage and flood risk3. Highway implications4. Implications on arboriculture and ecology5. Design and impact on the character and appearance of the area6. Developer contributions7. Sustainable construction8. Impact on neighbouring amenity

Planning Considerations

1. Principle of development

Policy CP2 of the Joint Core Strategy directs development to the most sustainable locations and policy CP10 requires that housing should be accommodated within existing settlement policy boundaries in the first instance. Policy CP19 is a policy of restraint for development in the countryside (defined as all areas outside defined settlement policy boundaries) in order to protect the countryside for its own sake. The proposal for four dwellings would be contrary in principle to these policies. However, the National Planning Policy Framework is a significant material consideration and promotes a presumption in favour of sustainable development and underpinned by a drive to significantly boost the supply of housing. Therefore, consideration must be given to the level of harm arising from the development.

Although the Council is able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing, it is not a barrier to the grant of further housing where it can be shown to amount to sustainable development. Therefore, whilst it would appear that the proposed development should not be accepted in principle, being outside the defined settlement policy boundary, there needs to be a more detailed assessment of the level of harm arising from the development.

The principle of development has been established by the grant of outline permission for three dwellings on this part of the site.

2. Drainage and flood risk

The site lies within Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding) but development of the site would result in a significant increase in surface water run-off, which would need to be attenuated on site and not increase flood risk elsewhere. Ground conditions are clay overlying chalk at depth, which may create difficulties with conventional soakaway systems. In terms of surface water, a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) is proposed with permeable surfaces to roads and driveways and roof water being dispersed to the soakaways under the road. There would be a ring soakaway under the road at the entrance to the site, which drains water at depth to the chalk layer. The proposal would not result in increased surface water run-off from the site and, as such, accords with policy CP25 and policy 13 of the emerging Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan.

The site is not in a 'sewered' area and an on-site treatment plant is proposed for foul waste. Details of this have been provided and which show foul waste pipes connecting to a drainage field in the garden of plot 6 and outside of root protection areas of trees. This would be positioned below the clay to allow effective infiltration rates in the deeper chalk strata of treated water. The applicant has obtained an Environment Agency permit for the plant and the Drainage Consultant is content that the scheme is acceptable, having had regard to the on-site percolation tests and geotechnical site investigations undertaken.

3. Highway implications

The point of access with Windsor Road remains as that approved under the original outline application. The Highways Officer has raised no objection to the proposal, referring to the adequate level of parking provision within the site, appropriate turning for vehicles and the capacity of the junction of Windsor Road with Red Hill. The road would not be adopted and if a refuse vehicle does not enter the site, a bin collection point would be provided at the corner with Windsor Road. It is noted that the Highways Officer's response to the application on the adjacent land was that the access road enabled a refuse vehicle to reverse into the site, off Windsor Road, which it is not currently able to do, citing this as a benefit to that scheme as currently the vehicle has to reverse on Red Hill. It would be possible for a refuse vehicle to reverse into the first section of the access road and bins for the units at this eastern/rear part of the site could be collected from a position clear of Windsor Road, negating the need for a large bin collection point by Windsor Road.

4. Implications on arboriculture and ecology

There are two trees (an oak and a beech) within the site subject to a Tree Preservation Order and the boundary trees to the north and south (outside of the site area) are ancient woodland. The previous application at this site was refused in March 2015 and included a proposal to undertake some pruning to the trees, thus demonstrating that tree works, not considered necessary in arboricultural terms, were required to accommodate the development.

This application has sought to address the refusal reason through the reposition of the two dwellings adjacent to the protected trees. The application is supported with an Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan, which satisfy Officers in respect of the distance of development from the trees and that the root protection area would be protected. There is scope for the trees to continue to grow, but having regard to the internal layout of rooms and the orientation of the properties, it is considered that the proposal now makes sufficient concessions in terms of the potential risk of post development pressure for works to the trees. The Arboricultural Officer raises no objection subject to a condition requiring works to be carried out in accordance with the supplied Arboricultural Method Statement, Tree Protection Plan and addendum. The proposal would not conflict with saved Local Plan policy C6.

In terms of ecology, the buffer zones to the northern and southern boundaries are as previously agreed; however, whereas the area incorporating public open space and the protected trees formed an intrinsic part of the natural green space around which the dwellings were proposed, the current proposal incorporates this area as garden space to 'plot 3.' This is not considered to be a concern having regard to the conclusions set out in the submitted Ecological Appraisal (Hankinson Duckett Associates, December 2014). It concluded that the site has limited ecological value but has the potential to provide habitat for protected species including birds, bats and reptiles. The provision of the buffer zones provides opportunities for woodland edge planting which provides the necessary mitigation/enhancement measures. There is some diluting of this with the loss of the public open space area to garden curtilage, but the retention of the main buffer strips is considered to provide sufficient mitigation. In addition to a condition ensuring works are undertaken in accordance with the submitted ecological report, a management and maintenance plan for the buffer strips is required to safeguard their on going ecological value. This was previously agreed through a legal agreement in association with the initial outline permission. The County Ecologist is satisfied with the proposals as set out in the submitted reports, subject to the maintenance and management plan and condition. The proposal is accords with policy CP21.

5. Design and impact on the character and appearance of the area

The area is characterised by a mixture of detached and semi-detached houses mostly dating from the mid-late twentieth century. Some are single storey but most are two storey. A relatively recent development to the east is higher in density and land to the south has permission for 51 dwellings. The site would, therefore, become entirely enclosed by housing and, whilst the site currently retains a semi-rural character by virtue of the trees to the north and south, the site is seen in the context of residential development. That development also includes some backland development in close proximity to the site.

The application was supported with a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Hankinson Duckett Associates, June 2015), which concluded the development would be visually well contained by existing development and trees, with very limited and localised views from the public realm. Officers concur with this assessment and add that any views of the development would be seen in the context of surrounding residential properties. The scheme proposes the retention of established trees within the site and buffer zones to boundary vegetation ensuring that the development would retain these important features.

In terms of design, the dwellings would comprise four detached, two-storey houses faced in brick and flint with feature brick quoins and window arches under tiled roofs and includes cornice details and some articulated fascia boards which are elements that reflect the local area. The proposal is, therefore, considered to accord with policies CP29.

6. Developer contributions

The proposal would result in four dwellings that would impact upon local infrastructure. In line with policies CP13, CP16, CP18, CP32 and the East Hampshire Guide to Developer Contributions, financial contributions are sought from the applicant to mitigate these impacts and contribute towards community facilities and public open space. There is also a requirement for the scheme to make provision towards affordable housing. As a small scale development of four dwellings, unrelated to existing affordable housing, it is considered unrealistic for a Registered Provider to get involved in managing any on-site affordable dwellings and that consequently a financial contribution towards the off-site provision of affordable housing was sought. The applicant has argued that the level of provision sought (£174,240) renders the scheme unviable and a report provided on their behalf (Savills) was submitted and assessed by the District Valuer Service.

The District Valuer Service responded by advising that a figure of £60,000 would be viable based on the applicant needing a 20% profit to secure a loan from a bank (this is a little higher than the £58,000 sought on the original outline application for the site). Officers have subsequently reached agreement of £80,000 towards affordable housing and the recommendation is therefore that the applicant enters into a legal agreement to secure the agreed financial contributions plus a 5% contribution towards monitoring and administration (unless the contributions are all paid up-front). The applicant has agreed to the other contributions towards community facilities of £6,720 and public open space of £6,684.

7. Sustainable construction

The Planning, Energy and Design Statement sets out a number of ways in which the development would seek to meet the objectives of policy CP24, which requires proposals to accord with certain standards of construction. Although the policy has been superseded by the abolition of the Code for Sustainable Homes, there would nevertheless be a requirement for the development to achieve comparable levels of sustainable construction. Whilst acknowledging the measures being proposed, such as high thermal mass heavyweight construction, condensing boilers, low energy fittings and locally sourced materials, a condition is proposed to ensure the provision of full details to ensure the development meets the obligations of the condition.

8. Impact on neighbouring amenity

The dwellings would be screened to the north and south by trees and neighbouring development to the east and west is also largely screened by trees so the development is not considered to impact on neighbouring development. The proposal would give rise to some additional traffic movements but this would not be of a level that would cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of residents in Windsor Road. The proposal, is therefore, considered to accord with policy CP27 and CP29, but a condition in respect of construction methods is considered justifiable given the potential disturbance on the residential vicinity of Windsor Road and Red Bush Close.

Response to Parish/Town Council Comments

The Parish Council raise a number of concerns in respect of impact on neighbouring properties, highways and the lack of future control over the buffer zones. These matters have been carefully considered in this report and it is highlighted that the on-going management of the buffer zones is subject to the required legal agreement. The Parish Council also refer to the loss of the area of public open space that formed part of the original outline permission. Having regard to the Committee Report for the original outline application in December 2013, the provision of open space does not appear to have been a factor that weighed necessarily in favour of the application, but rather mitigated the amount of financial contributions sought towards public open space. It is not considered critical as an amenity space for the scale of development proposed (or even when taken together with the now approved development of three dwellings) or necessary in landscape or ecological grounds given the buffer strips are to be retained. There are not, therefore, grounds to oppose the application on the lack of on-site public open space.

Conclusion

Acknowledging that the site lies outside of a settlement policy boundary and that the Council is able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing, in accordance with the NPPF, consideration needs to be given to whether the development amounts to sustainable development and whether it would result in harm. Even without the permission for 51 dwellings to the south at Boyneswood Lane, the site adjoins and is seen in context with surrounding development and there would be no landscape or visual harm. But the development of land to the south would completely enclose the site and it is likely that any future changes to the settlement policy boundaries would incorporate the site. The principle of development on this part of the site has been established by the previous outline permission. Careful consideration has been given to the key issue of the potential impacts on protected trees and it is now found to be acceptable. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development would provide a suitable site for four additional dwellings, having regard to the principles of sustainable development set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the requirement to significantly boost the supply of housing.

Amongst the conditions set out below, it is highlighted that a condition withdrawing permitted development rights for extensions, outbuildings and boundaries is proposed in order to safeguard the buffer zones and the trees on the site.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

a) the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to draw up a legal obligation to secure the following:

i) Developer contributions towards off-site public open space (£6,684), community facilities (£6,720) and affordable housing (£80,000) in accordance with policies CP10, CP18 and CP32 of the JCS and the East Hampshire Guide to Developer Contributions, to include a 5% monitoring fee (unless contributions are made in a single, up-front payment)ii) A management and maintenance plan for the buffer zones, then

b) provided that all parties enter into the legal agreement to secure (i) and (ii) above by 11 December 2015, then PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:

However, in the event all parties do not enter into a legal agreement to secure the above by 11 December 2015, then the application will be refused under the adopted scheme of delegation.

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this planning permission.Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

2 Prior to the commencement of any development on-site, a detailed scheme of ecological mitigation and enhancement measures (to include site plan showing all ecological mitigation features) shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall be in accordance with the outline mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures detailed within the ‘Ecological Appraisal Rev. A’ report (Hankinson Duckett Associates, September 2013 and December 2014), ‘Bat Survey’ report (HDA, September 2013) and Ecology Supporting Statement (HDA, December 2014). Any such measures shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and secured in perpetuity, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To provide ecological protection and enhancement in accordance with NPPF, NERC Act 2006 and Policy CP21 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy. Details are required in advance of any site works to ensure any necessary mitigation

3 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement (Bernie Harverson, June 2015) and Tree Protection Plan (Bernie Harverson, June 2015) and addendum August 2015.Reason - In order to safeguard the root zones and health of trees.

4 Before works to construct buildings commences, samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason - To ensure that the materials used in the construction of the approved development are suitable.

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, E and F of Part 1 and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order, 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no extensions to the dwellings, or outbuildings or hard surfaces shall be made except with the prior written consent of the Planning Authority.

Reason - It is considered that further extension/alteration of this dwelling could result in an adverse effect upon ecological mitigation area, trees and the character of the area.

6 Before each dwelling is first occupied, provision for parking shall have been made within the curtilage in accordance with the approved plans and shall be retained solely for parking purposes thereafter.Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the approved development.

7 Prior to the first occupation of the development, a detailed management and maintenance plan for all drainage features shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be retained thereafter in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan unless otherwise agreed previously with the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure the appropriate maintenance and managements of non-mains drainage systems.

8 Prior to the first occupation of the development, plans and particulars showing details of the provisions of a bin collection point within the site shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the use of the development is commenced and shall be retained thereafter.Reason - To ensure appropriate provision is made for refuse collection within the site.

9 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars:

1669 L01c Location Plan1669-20d Tree Protection Plan (Tree Retention/Removals shown)1669-20e Site Layout1669-21 Proposed Plans Plot 41669-22 Proposed Plans Plot 41669-23 Proposed Elevations Plot 41669-24 Proposed Elevations Plot 41669-25a Proposed Plans Plot 51669-26a Proposed Plans Plot 51669-27a Proposed Elevations Plot 51669-28a Proposed Elevations Plot 51669-29 Proposed Plans Plot 61669-30 Proposed Plans Plot 61669-31 Proposed Elevations Plot 61669-32 Proposed Elevations Plot 61669-33a Proposed Plans Plot 71669-34 Proposed Plans Plot 71669-35 Proposed Elevations Plot 71669-36a Proposed Elevations Plot 7

1669 37 Car Barn - Plots 5 & 71669-38 Site Section Plots 4 - 7 (Detailed)1669-39 Site Section Plots 4 - 7 (Detailed)1669-40 Site Section Plots 4 - 7 (Detailed)1669-41 Site Section Plots 4 - 7 (Detailed)1669-T03d Technical Layout Plots 4 - 7 Application

Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development

Informative Notes to Applicant:

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by:

offering a pre-application advice service,

updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,

by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter.

In this instance the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit.

CASE OFFICER: Jon Holmes 01730 234243———————————————————————————————————————

SECTION 1 Item 02 Woodfield, Windsor Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5EF

Site layout

Proposed front elevation – Plot 4

SECTION 1 Item 02 Woodfield, Windsor Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5EF

Proposed front elevation – Plot 5