23/07/2015 APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR DECISION BURSLEDON, HAMBLE-LE-RICE & HOUND Thursday 23 July 2015 Case Officer Liz Harrison

SITE: Land north of Bridge Road and west of Blundell Lane,

Bursledon, Southampton, Ref. R/15/75967 Received: 05/02/2015 (27/07/2015) APPLICANT: Bovis Homes Limited

PROPOSAL: Reserved Matters for appearance, landscape, layout

and scale pursuant to outline permission O/13/73701 for the construction of 90 dwellings with associated parking infrastructure, landscaping and open space.

AMENDMENTS: 6 Mar 2015, 22 May 2015, 12 June 2015, 22 June 2015,

9 July 2015

RECOMMENDATION: Subject to consideration of outstanding consultees responses, satisfactory receipt of amended plans and any necessary condition additions or amendments, delegate to Head of Development Management (in consultation with Chair, Vice-Chair and Ward Members) to: APPROVE THE RESERVED MATTERS

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

with the following plans numbered: BURS 000, BURS 001Rev A, BURS 002 Rev A, BURS 003-1 Rev A, BURS 003-2 Rev A, BURS 003-3 Ev A, BURS 004 Rev A, BURS 005 Rev A, BURS 006 Rev A, BURS 007, BURS 010 Rev A, BURS 011-1 Rev A, BURS 012-1, BURS 012/2, BURS 013-1 Rev A, BURS 014-1 Rev A, BURS 014/2 , BURS 015-1 Rev A, BURS 015/2, BURS 016-1 Rev A, BURS 016/2, BURS 017-1 Rev A, BURS 017/2, BURS 018-1 Rev A, BURS 018-2 Rev A, BURS 019/1,

BURS 050-1 Rev A, BURS 050-2 Rev A, BURS 050-3 Rev A, BURS 050-4 Rev A, BURS 050-5 Rev A, BURS 051-1 Rev A, BURS 051-2 Rev A, BURS 051-3 Rev A Rev A, BURS 052-1 Rev A, BURS 051--2 Rev A, BURS 051-3 Rev A, BURS 052-1 Rev A, BURS 052-2 Rev A, BURS 052-3 Rev A, BURS 053-1 Rev A, BURS 090-1, BURS 090-2 Rev A, BURS 090-3, BURS 090-4, BURS 090-5, BURS 090-6, BURS 091-1, BURS 091-2, BURS 091-3, BURS 095 Rev A, BURS 900 Rev A Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

(2) The development hereby permitted shall comply with the conditions

imposed on the grant of the outline planning permission reference O/13/73701 which was permitted on 31 July 2014. Reason: To secure properly planned development.

(3) Not withstanding the approved plans/details, no development shall start

until details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance in the interest of the amenities of the area.

(4) The garages hereby approved shall only be used for the purpose of

parking private motor vehicles in connection with the residential use of the property and shall not, at any time, be used for living accommodation, business, commercial or industrial purposes. Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of on site parking for the purpose of highway safety

(5) The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the

area[s] shown on the approved plan for the parking of vehicles [including those areas marked out on the plan as being unallocated] shall have been made available, surfaced and marked out. The parking area[s] shall then be permanently retained and reserved for that purpose at all times. Reason: To make provision for off street parking for the purpose of highway safety.

______________________________________________________________ Report:

1. This application has been referred to Committee because it is a major

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

The site and its surroundings 2. The 7.6ha site is located outside of the existing built-up area of

Bursledon. It is located to the north east of Bridge Road and Bridge Close, to the north west of Blundell Lane and to the south west of the M27. The north western boundary of the site adjoins the rear

boundaries of properties on Dodwell Lane and the River Hamble runs to the east alongside Blundell Lane.

3. The site consists of 3 fields used for grazing, with a number of

hedgerows and trees on the boundaries of the site and along the internal field boundaries. In addition there are some small woodland blocks within the site. The site falls from north-west to south-east. Two Esso pipelines run through the site, requiring easements within which development cannot occur.

Description of application 4. The reserved matters application is for 90 dwelling units and has been

submitted pursuant to the outline planning permission O/13/73701. The access from Bridge Road was approved as part of the outline application and this application seeks approval for the following remaining reserved matters:

Appearance

Landscaping

Layout

Scale 5. The application is for 90 dwelling units, made up of 59 open market

dwelling units and 31 affordable dwelling units, with the mix as follows:

3 x 1-bed flats (all affordable)

9 x 2-bed flats (all affordable)

8 x 2-bed houses (2 open market, 6 affordable)

20 x 3-bed houses (8 open market, 12 affordable)

27 x 4-bed houses (26 open market, 1 affordable)

20 x 5-bed houses (all open market)

3 x 6-bed houses (all open market) 6. The proposed houses are 2 storey, terraced, semi-detached or

detached properties with the block of flats being 3 storey in height. The style of architecture is generally traditional, with properties generally fronting the road.

7. Car parking is provided in a mix of garages, private driveways and

parking courts. Secure cycle parking will be provided within garages, sheds in rear gardens and in a dedicated cycle store for the flats.

8. Areas of public open space are proposed along the boundary with

Blundell Lane and on the eastern boundary in the central section of the site. In addition the Land North of Bridge Road Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) is located at the north-western end of the site and is to remain undeveloped.

9. The proposals for the site also include two acoustic noise barriers – a 1.8m acoustic fence on the rear garden boundaries of plots 7-16 to

mitigate against noise from the A27 and a 3.5m acoustic barrier along part of the north eastern boundary to mitigate against noise from the motorway.

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

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

Design & Access Statement

Supporting Planning & Affordable Housing Statement

Statement of Community Involvement

Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

Affordable Housing Statement

Arboricultural Impact Assessment

Arboricultural Method Statement

Noise Assessment Report

Ecological Management Strategy

Archaeological Magnetometer Survey Report

Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation for Palaeoenvironmental Sampling

Framework Travel Plan

Drainage strategy 11. The proposal was screened at the outline application stage under the

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011, with the conclusion being that an Environmental Statement was not required. It is not considered that there has been a change in circumstances that warrants revisiting this decision.

12. The S106 legal agreement associated with the outline permission

secured the following:

Provision of 31 affordable dwellings and affordable housing contribution for off-site provision

Provision of on-site public open space, plus contributions for provision of play area, off-site public open space provision and maintenance of on-site open space & play area

Public Art (on and off-site)

Community Infrastructure contributions

Contribution towards Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project

Travel Plan

Financial contribution towards a Traffic Regulation Order

Ecological Protection & Mitigation Plan, Ecological Management & Monitoring Plan

Sustainable Integrated Transport contribution plus provision of new vehicular access to Bridge Road, new non-signalised pedestrian crossing to Bridge Road, new section of 1.5m cycle way on southern side of Bridge Road, re-siting of existing bus

stops, repositioning of 30mph zone on Bridge Road, new sections of footpath on Bridge Road

Prevention of transfer of unallocated parking spaces

Use of sustainable urban drainage system Relevant planning history 13. The relevant planning history is as follows:

O/13/73701 – Outline: Construction of up to 90 dwelling units, new vehicular access from Bridge Road, drainage works, landscaping and public open space (access only to be considered) – granted 31.7.14

Representations received

14. 16 letters of objection (from 12 addresses) were received from adjoining residents and those living locally with concerns relating to:

General points related to development of site

Contrary to NPPF, Old Bursledon Conservation Area SPD and Bursledon Parish Plan.

Site should remain as countryside & strategic gap now draft local plan not approved.

Loss of grazing land, should build on poorer quality land such as car boot sale site.

Will cut off this part of Bursledon.

Unsustainable & unacceptable development.

No need for development, other schemes taken long time to sell.

Ignores previous objections.

Inappropriate access off Bridge Road and significant adverse impact on traffic network and highway safety, including from construction traffic.

Increase in noise, air pollution, dust, carbon emissions, light pollution, smell and congestion, plus adverse impact on sewerage, electricity supply and health.

Inadequate air quality and noise reports.

Site is prone to flooding and boggy, will impact on existing flows of water across site.

No provision for school places.

Truly affordable housing required, but better located to public transport and large facilities.

Decision that there was no requirement for an EIA should be reconsidered, ignoring draft local plan allocation.

Impact on SINC, on-site ecology, loss of wildlife corridor and on-site vegetation.

Detailed points related to proposed layout and house types

Overdevelopment of site.

House styles and some materials out of keeping with surrounding area and adjoining conservation area.

Houses are too close to each other and flats are visually intrusive

Loss of privacy for Bridge Close.

Inadequate parking on site.

Unsuitable site for affordable housing due to distance from facilities. Affordable and family housing will change balance in existing community and may force older residents out.

Should not have public access to SINC, it should be improved and public consulted on its maintenance.

Could turn top meadow above SINC into wildflower meadow with public access, but not free access, with dogs on leads.

Should have fenced off dog exercise area and dogs kept on leads and out of SINC.

Impact on trees, including ancient oak trees and ancient woodland, and vegetation.

Should not build so close to motorway bridge and motorway.

Acoustic barriers will be an eyesore in Conservation Area.

Sound proofing should be provided prior to any building work, but should not disturb the trees and hedgerows.

Lack of recreation amenities for residents therefore will spill onto shoreline (SSSI) and towards woods, impacting on ecology.

Landscaping approach needs more thought, particularly on the site boundaries. Need landscape management details.

Plan inaccurate re: position of trees on boundary with existing residents. Plans difficult to read and documents contain inaccuracies. SINC not marked on plan.

Insufficient public consultation by developers.

Would spare space be used for future development.

Has consideration been given to proximity to Hamble River, which on high tides has a significant flood plain.

One letter, whilst objecting, commented that they were pleased to see plenty of green space.

Consultation responses 15. Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy

Urban Design - No information on:

Internal space standards

Units 2, 6, 23, 29, 33, 46, 52, 62, 67 face two streets in a way that is unacceptable visually and functionally. .

Need appropriate pedestrian/cycle links from housing to POS.

Need appropriate front garden boundaries.

No information on provision of non-compactable topsoil and use of proprietary systems such as “Silvacell” abutting hard surfaces.

Natural surveillance of northern car park OK.

Acceptable shared amenity space for flats but would expect them to have balconies to provide some element of private amenity and improved overlooking of open space.

Car park for flats needs to be broken up with contrasting surfaces and trees between car spaces @ 1 per 6 spaces.

Roads and car parks generally must not consist of mostly black top, white paint to distinguish spaces or allocate with numbers must not be used. Contrasting block pavers or metal studs can be used.

Sustainability

Only Code 4 standards for energy and water and not full code assessment and certification needed. All other ESDs still apply and need information on:

ESD2 (rainwater harvesting/greywater recycling for flats),

ESD4 (Sustainable drainage)

ESD6 (15% reduction in emissions via low/zero carbon energy). Applicant wishes to use Code 4 requirement (which separately requires a 25% reduction in emissions) as a way of avoiding the renewable energy requirement. The Ene7 (Low & Carbon Technologies) issue in the Code requires a 15% reduction in CO2 emissions based on a “standard case” but also accounting for non-regulated energy uses such as appliances.

ESD7 (green roofs or ESD2 for flats) – n/a if flats have rainwater or greywater recycling.

ESD8 (street trees, trees in parking courts and back gardens) – need more street trees and trees in parking courts.

In summary need to see pre-assessment estimate for Code 4 and showing commitment to achieve requirements set out in ESD 2/7, 4, 6.

Landscape Design

Unit 4 with TPO trees including 173-175 in garden will have garden with excessive shade and likely ‘pressure to prune’

Provision of trees in rear gardens acceptable.

Tree pit details need improving.

Unclear what street trees as opposed to trees in private gardens are being provided. The latter cannot be counted as street trees as they will always be at risk of neglect, damage or removal by the occupiers. Street trees need to be adopted by highway authority or by management company where in unadopted streets.

Majority of trees appear to be no nearer than approx. 6m from houses which can be tolerated.

No information yet on foundation depths vis a vis NHBC standards.

Need to see tree planting specification including drawing of planting arrangements underground.

16. Head of Transportation & Engineering – Original submission - Holding objection – insufficient on-site parking, inadequate width of some spaces, revised parking layout required, no parking shown for plot 45, but 2 sets for plot 46. Bin collection points required where turning heads are lacking. Need tracking details. Need to secure vehicle link to land to north as there is potential for it to be developed. Lack of footway/service margins along the roads, lack of path in open space parallel to Blundell Lane. Need surface water and foul water drainage routes information. Amended/additional information – Holding objection – insufficient on-site parking, inadequate width of some spaces. Detailed comments about the location of road gullies, service margins, services, watercourse box culverts and balancing outfall pond. Link to far POS area not shown, thought link should be provided. Access to Blundell Lane POS should come off turning head, not private drive and details needed of where would maintenance vehicles access the area.

17. Head of Environmental Health – Original submission - Do not

object to the principle of development, however impacts of noise and air pollution upon the site from road traffic on the M27 are significant and additional noise impacts arise from the A27. Need to demonstrate clearly how layout and design of site has been utilised to ensure satisfactory air pollution and noise levels are met. Key factors are separation distances between dwellings and sources of noise and air pollution, heights of buildings and their orientation, internal layout, mitigation in the form of barriers and acoustic glazing along with commensurate provision of adequate ventilation. From information provided cannot see how designers are ensuring proposed layout will ensure satisfactory internal and external standards will be met for noise and air pollution. Not able to support scheme until applicant can demonstrate that satisfactory standards (internal and external noise and air pollution levels) are met. Amended/additional information – no response at time of writing.

18. Trees – Original submission - Amendments need so that no

development occurs within root protection area of veteran oak tree at access to site (T80). Replacement oak for the tree that failed is required, ideally along the frontage of Providence Hill. Root protection area (RPA) of group of trees T71-T76 is infringed. Ideally this significant a group of trees should not be situated in residential gardens. Increased separation required. Some concern re: shading and relationship between trees T118 (oak) and T199 (oak). Garage block appears to be in root protection area of T119. Unacceptable encroachment into root protection area of T37. Amended/additional information – need updated Arboricultural Report & Tree Protection Plan. Concern re: encroachment within the RPA of the veteran oak T80. Need further details re: replacement oak on other side of access road. Is an improvement that the majority of trees are now situated in open space rather than private gardens. Updated report will allow assessment of RPAs, shading concerns and future growth potential for

T71-T76, T118, T119 and T37. Details of any hard surfacing in RPAs needs to be submitted. Further additional information – no response at time of writing.

19. Biodiversity Officer – Original submission – Unless agreed at

outline stage, has some concerns about relationship between the SINC and the proposed development and road layout, the proposed swale within the SINC. Welcome wildflower habitat within southern part of site, but should not be proposed within the SINC. The grassland within the SINC needs to be managed and there may be a case for scrub removal but generally the SINC needs to be allowed to mature in its own time and be put under management. Amended/additional information – no response at time of writing.

20. Housing - Proposed mix and tenure of affordable housing accords with

S106 associated with outline permission. While do not normally accept clusters of more than 15 units, will accept the proposed cluster of 16 units. All affordable housing must be built to Lifetime Homes Standards and HCA Design & Quality Standards. Houses are marked as Lifetime Homes compliant, but not the flats – this should be clarified. Requirement for 1 wheelchair unit – 1-bed, ground floor unit, ideally with own entrance door. Detailed comments from Occupational Therapist re: wheelchair unit.

21. Direct Services – No comments to make at this stage. 22. Parks & Open Spaces Manager – Original Submission - Need

details of specific areas of public open space to be transferred to the Council. Amended Plans - no response at time of writing.

23. Hampshire County Council Ordinary Water Courses – no response at time of writing.

24. Environment Agency – Original submission - No objection to

reserved matters application, but all conditions on the outline permission will still need to addressed. Amended/additional information – no response at time of writing

25. Natural England - Statutory nature conservation sites – No objection

Application is in close proximity to the Lincegrove & Hackett’s Marshes SSSI. This SSSI is part of the Solent & Southampton Water SPA and is a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention (Ramsar site). Application is within 5.6km of Solent & Southampton Water SPA and will lead to net increase in residential accommodation. Provided applicant is complying with Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership policy, satisfied that applicant has mitigated against potential adverse effects of the development on the integrity of the European site, and has no objection to this aspect of the application.

Satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the Lincegrove & Hackett's Marshes SSSI has been notified. Therefore advise that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application.

Other matters - Have not assessed impact on protected species or local sites, such as Local Wildlife Site, Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Site (RIGS), or Local Nature Reserve (LNR), but these should be considered.

26. Southern Water – Original submission - No objection – comments in

previous response to outline application remain unchanged and valid for the above application (previously requested note re: needing formal agreement to provide sewerage infrastructure & connect to water supply and condition re: foul and surface water sewerage disposal). Amended/additional information – No objection to the proposed foul drainage layout, but there is insufficient capacity within the existing foul sewerage system to accommodate the proposed development flows.

27. Highways Agency - No objection 28. Esso - Esso do have apparatus situated near the proposed works. No

objections to proposals subject to adherence to “Special Requirements for Safe Working” booklet and covenants contained in Deed of Grant.

29. Bursledon Parish Council – No objection Policy context: designation applicable to site 30. Site is within the countryside and strategic gap in the adopted local

plan and a draft housing allocation in the submitted local plan. The site is adjacent to the Old Bursledon Conservation Area.

Development plan saved policies, emerging local plan policies and SPD’s relevant to Reserved Matters application National Planning Policy Framework 31. The NPPF states that applications for planning permission must be

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

32. Three dimensions of sustainability given in paragraph 7 are to be

sought jointly: economic (supporting economy and ensuring land availability); social (providing housing, creating high quality environment with accessible local services); and environmental (contributing to, protecting and enhancing natural, built and historic environment) whilst paragraph 10 advises that plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account, so they respond to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas.

33. Para 17 sets out 12 core planning principles that include;

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

34. Para. 56 – Requirement for good design.

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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.

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

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

41. 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.

42. Para. 118 – Decisions should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. If significant harm cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around development should be encouraged.

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

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

45. Para 129 – Identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset).

46. Para 137 – look of opportunities for new development within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal the significance.

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

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

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

50. 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 51. Where material, this guidance should be afforded weight in the

consideration of planning applications. 52. Determining a planning application – To the extent that development

plan policies are material, a decision must be taken in accordance with

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

53. 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.

54. Natural Environment – Local Planning Authorities should take into

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

55. Water Supply, wastewater and water quality – adequate water and

wastewater infrastructure is needed to support sustainable development. Conditions can be used to ensure adequate infrastructure.

Saved Policies of the Adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (EBLP 2001-2011) 56. The key policies of the adopted local plan are;

23.NC – protection of SINCs.

25.NC – promotion of biodiversity

28.ES – Waste collection and storage

30.ES – Noise-sensitive development

34.ES – requirement to reduce greenhouse gases

37.ES – renewable energy and efficient use of resources

45.ES – Sustainable Drainage requirements

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

63.BE – general design criteria for car parking associated with new development

104.T – requires proposals to provide adequate off-highway parking

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan 2013 57. The application site is not within a Minerals Safeguarding Area. Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029

58. Government planning guidance indicates that emerging development

plans can be accorded increased weight as they progress towards adoption. The emerging local plan has now been submitted for examination greater weight can be accorded to relevant policies. The most relevant policies are;

S1 – Sustainable development

S5 – Green Infrastructure

S8 – Footpath, cycleway, bridleway links supported

S11/DM9 – Nature Conservation

DM1 – General criteria for new development

DM2 – Environmentally sustainable development

DM5 – Sustainable surface water management

DM7 - Pollution

DM9 – Nature Conservation

DM10 – Heritage assets

DM24 – Parking criteria given

DM29 – Minimum internal space standards specified

BU2 – Allocates site for housing Supplementary Planning Guidance

Supplementary Planning Document: Quality Places (November 2011)

Supplementary Planning Document: Environmentally Sustainable Development (March 2009)

Supplementary Planning document : Biodiversity (December 2009)

Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Parking Standards (January 2009)

Supplementary Planning Document: Affordable Housing (July 2009)

Supplementary Planning Document : Internal Space Standards (January 2012)

Policy commentary

59. The above policies and guidance combine to form the criteria on which

this application will be assessed.

Assessment of proposal: Development plan and / or legislative background

60. 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 Principle of Development 61. The site is located within the countryside and strategic gap in the

adopted local plan but is allocated for residential development under draft policy BU2 of the submitted local plan. Outline planning permission for up to 90 dwellings and a new vehicular access off Bridge Road was granted in July 2014. The principle of residential development on this site, accessed off Bridge Road has therefore been established and cannot be reconsidered as part of this application. As such the proposed development is acceptable in principle. Issues of highways impact, ecology, archaeology, drainage, contaminated land, noise and vibration, dust, protection of trees, and the level of affordable housing and public open space were considered at the outline stage and covered by submission of documents as part of the outline application, conditions attached to the outline permission, or obligations contained within the associated S106 legal agreement.

Sustainable Development 62. The outline application considered matters of sustainability and

concluded that the provision of affordable housing on site was a benefit contributing towards social sustainability. In addition to the provision of the dwellings themselves, the construction jobs and the New Homes Bonus that would arise from the development were also considered to be benefits that would ensure the development was economically sustainable. Taking into account matters concerning the level of development and public open space, landscape impact, impact on transport network, noise, air quality and contamination, ecology and trees, drainage and flood risk, and archaeology it was concluded that the development was environmentally sustainable. As such the proposed development is considered to be sustainable in principle. The detailed matters arising from the proposed layout are covered below in the sections relating to the reserved matters that are to be considered – appearance, layout, scale and landscaping.

Appearance 63. All the houses are 2-storey in height, with the block of flats being 3

storey in height. The architectural style is generally traditional in appearance, with the use of mainly brick elevations. Some cladding or tile hanging is used to add interest to the elevations. It will be important that good quality materials are used and while the application includes some suggested materials, not all of these are considered to be appropriate. However this can be covered by condition.

64. The window designs have been simplified since the original

submission and are now shown as simple casement windows, rather

than multi-pane windows with glazing bars. This is considered to be an improvement as multi-pane windows can be difficult to produce successfully in UPVC.

65. In general the design of the dwellings is considered to be

acceptable, but there are a few instances where further amendments are required to improve the external appearance of the dwellings and add interest to the roof scape, particularly in relation to corner plots to ensure they provide an attractive front to both roads, and the need for the use of chimneys on more plots. It is considered that these can be easily resolved with the submission of amended/additional plans prior to committee and Members will be updated accordingly.

66. It is considered therefore that subject to the receipt of

amended/additional plans it should be possible to ensure that both the individual dwellings and their relative siting would give rise to an acceptable form of development with respect to appearance.

Layout

67. The proposed layout shows a main access road running from Bridge Road into the site. Two small roads lead off this road to the south-east. The main road then heads in a northern direction before forming a circular road around a central island of housing. The road continues north to reach the top end of the site. Generally the dwellings face onto a road or private drive and the majority of plots have on-plot parking in the form of drives or garages. For those that don’t have a drive or garage parking is provided within a parking court.

68. An area of public open space is provided at the south-eastern end of

the site, adjacent to Blundell Lane. A path is proposed to run through this adjacent to Blundell Lane and also linking into the development. A further area of public open space is proposed in the centre of the site, on the eastern boundary. At the northern end of the site is the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, which will be managed for its ecological importance. In addition a landscaped area is proposed adjacent to Bridge Road, to accommodate the existing mature oak and the proposed sustainable drainage measures. It is considered that sufficient open space has been provided on site, but the comments are awaited from the Parks and Open Spaces Manager on the land to be transferred to the Council.

69. Transportation & Engineering have commented that the latest plans still do not make adequate provision for parking. Amended plans have been requested and it is anticipated that these will be submitted prior to committee.

70. As mentioned above there are some mature trees covered by TPOs on the site and it is important that there is sufficient separation between them and any proposed dwellings and hard surfaced areas to avoid harm to the trees or any future pressure to fell the trees. Some amendments have been made to better protect the existing trees, but Trees have requested further information be submitted. This information has been submitted and comments from Trees are awaited. Members will be updated at committee.

71. The proposed layout is generally acceptable in terms of the relationship between the proposed dwellings, with the exception of 3 instances where some adjustments are needed to ensure appropriate separation distances are achieved and a few instances where the size of the garden needs to be increased. It is anticipated that amended plans will be submitted prior to committee. The applicant has confirmed that all properties meet the internal space standards required by draft policy DM29.

72. The Old Bursledon Conservation Area is located to the east of the site. The layout shows an open, undeveloped buffer against this boundary measuring between 6m and 16.5m in width, which reflects the route of one of the Esso pipelines running through the site. The nearest properties then back onto this easement such that no property is closer than 17m and no single storage garage closer than 10m, to the boundary with the Conservation Area. It is considered that this provides sufficient separation to the Conservation Area such that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, subject to the use of appropriate materials.

73. Environmental Health has commented that it needs to be demonstrated that the proposed layout will ensure satisfactory internal and external standards will be met for noise and air pollution. As stated above additional information has been submitted and comments from Environmental Health are awaited. Members will be updated at committee.

Scale 74. The proposal consists of a mix of detached, semi-detached and

terraced houses, plus one block of flats. No terrace is more than 3 units long. The dwellings are all 2 storey in height and the proposed flats are 3 storey in height.

75. Comments have been made that the 3 storey block of flats is out of

keeping with the surrounding area. It is accepted that 3 storey development is not typical of the area; however it is proposed at the furthest end of the site, in the north eastern end of the site over 100m from the nearest existing dwelling. The land does rise in this direction, but subject to the submission of further sectional

information demonstrating a satisfactory relationship between the flats and the nearest dwellings it is considered that a 3 storey block of flats could be satisfactorily accommodated on this part of the site.

Landscaping 76. Some amendments have been made to the soft landscaping

scheme, but further improvements are required to ensure that the scheme provides an appropriate setting to the development, particularly with regards to street trees and trees within parking areas. Comments on the latest scheme are still awaited from Ecology and Landscape, and Members will be updated at committee. In addition information on the proposed hard surfacing materials is required.

77. It is considered that there is an appropriate level of tree planting

proposed in rear gardens. 78. The proposed boundary treatments are not considered to be

acceptable as currently shown. There are a number of instances where the rear garden boundaries should be in the form of a brick wall, given their public presence. In addition the enclosure of front gardens needs to be improved.

79. It is anticipated that amended plans will be submitted prior to committee and Members will be updated.

Affordable Housing 80. In line with the requirements of the outline planning permission the

application provides for 31 affordable units, with the following mix and tenure:

3 x 1-bed flats (all social rented)

9 x 2-bed flats (all social rented)

6 x 2-bed houses (3 x social rented, 3 x shared ownership)

12 x 3-bed houses (6 social rented, 6 x shared ownership)

1 x 4-bed house (social rented) 81. Housing was consulted on the application and has confirmed that the

proposed mix and tenure of affordable housing is acceptable. While they do not normally accept a cluster of more than 15 units, they have confirmed that the proposed cluster of 16 dwellings is acceptable in this instance. It has been confirmed that all flats are to be built to Lifetime Homes Standards, but some further questions have been raised in relation to the specific design of the wheelchair unit following comments from the Occupational Therapist.

Residential Amenity

82. The proposed layout shows that no new dwelling would be closer than 40m to an existing dwelling on Bridge Road or Bridge Close. It is considered that this level of separation will ensure that the proposed development does not have a significantly detrimental impact on the residential amenities of existing residents in terms of overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impact.

83. As indicated above there are 3 instances where the separation

distances between properties needs to be increased to ensure an appropriate relationship between dwellings is provided. Subject to these improvements being made and certain windows being obscure glazed, with any opening part being top hung only, it is considered that the proposed layout would be acceptable in terms of overlooking, overshadowing and overbearing impact.

84. As mentioned above Environmental Health has commented that it needs to be demonstrated that the proposed layout will ensure satisfactory internal and external standards will be met for noise and air pollution. The issues raised by Environmental Health will need to be satisfactorily resolved in order to ensure that the residential amenities of the future occupiers will be acceptable.

Drainage and Flood Risk 85. Transportation & Engineering raised some detailed comments on

the proposed drainage strategy for the site. The applicant has provided a response and this is being considered. Members will be updated at committee.

86. Southern Water have confirmed they have no objection to the

proposed development and the proposed drainage strategy, although they have confirmed that there is insufficient capacity within the existing foul sewerage system to accommodate the proposed development flows. Developers will need a formal agreement, outside of the planning process, to provide sewerage infrastructure and a connection to the water supply.

87. The Environment Agency raised no objection to the original submission subject to compliance with the conditions on the outline permission. Their comments on the proposed drainage strategy are awaited and Members will be updated at committee.

Other material considerations 88. Also of relevance is the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 -

2029, July 2014. While not yet adopted it does carry weight by virtue of being intended as the current local plan’s replacement. As mentioned above this plan includes the site as a draft allocation, however as outline planning permission is already granted the only issues to be considered with this application are matters of appearance, layout,

scale and landscaping. With regards to these matters, the new policies essentially echo those of the current plan and are not considered to affect the recommendation put forward.

Conclusion 89. Subject to some amendments to the proposed scheme, as outlined

above and the satisfactory completion of consultations, this reserved matters scheme is considered to conform to the parameters identified at the outline permission stage and would be an acceptable form of development meeting the necessary standards. Reserved matters consent is therefore recommended.