PART 1

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE

REPORT OF THE SERVICE MANAGER PLANNING DEVELOPMENT

Applications to be determined by the Council as the Local Planning Authority

PS.451/2015 15 April 2015

SECTION 1 – SCHEDULE OF APPLICATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Item No.:01

The 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 Outline planning application with all matters reserved (except for access to the highway network and associated off-site highway improvements) for the demolition of existing buildings and the development of a maximum of 700 dwellings, approximately 1.7 Ha of employment land, a Local Centre (including local retail, a primary school and community facilities), a Care Village (including staff accommodation), playing pitches, a cricket pavilion (including associated access and parking), allotments (including associated building and car parking), acoustic bunds and ecological buffers together with internal access network (including footpaths and cycleways), drainage works, associated landscaping and open space (including play areas)

LOCATION: Development Land East of Horndean, Rowlands Castle Road, Horndean, Waterlooville

REFERENCE : 55562/001 PARISH:Horndean

APPLICANT: Highwood Land (Horndean) Ltd. & Cala Homes (South Home Counties) Ltd.

CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 09 April 2015

APPLICATION EXPIRY : 11 February 2015

COUNCILLORS: Cllr D K Denston and Cllr M Harvey

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: OUTLINE PERMISSION

This application is included on the agenda as it is a departure from the adopted Local Plan. Site and Development Application Site The application site consists of three parcels of land located between the A3 (M) and the South Downs National Park. The total area of the application site is 62.45ha. The northern parcel is immediately to the north and east of Rowlands Castle Road. It is open arable land and shares a boundary with the settlement of Horndean to the south-west. There are two belts of trees running parallel to each other on the eastern side of the site. The central parcel is between Rowlands Castle Road and the B2149 and is open arable land, with a belt of trees running east to west at the southern end of the parcel. It shares a boundary with the settlement of Horndean on its western side. The southern parcel is between the A3 (M) and B2149. The northern boundary abuts the settlement of Horndean. There is an area of woodland between the application site and the A3 (M) with 2 other areas of woodland within the site. The land consists predominantly of open arable land. The South Downs National Park is located to the east of the application site. Development The development consists of the following:

• Residential development for a maximum of 700 dwellings. The illustrative Masterplan submitted with the application shows 698 dwellings split as follows:

• 188 dwellings on land north-east of Havant Road, and

• 505 dwellings on land south-west of Havant Road.

• Care village on land north of Rowlands Castle Road to include a 60-bed care home and 120 independent living units.

• Employment land totalling 1.7ha located on the northern edge of land south-east of Havant Road.

• Land for a mixed use local centre totalling 2.8ha. This would include:

• New 1 form entry primary school

• Retail and cafe facilities

• Community building with residential accommodation above

• Open space totalling approximately 21ha to include:

• Formal playing fields (cricket and football pitches)

• Allotments

• Informal open spaces such as parkland, woodland and grassland areas

• Network of green infrastructure including footpaths and cycleways

• Highways works consisting of:

• New roundabout and priority junction on Havant Road

• Minor access junction on Pyle Lane

• Upgrade roundabout at Havant Road/Dell Piece East by provision of a fourth arm and capacity improvements

• New signalised crossing on Havant Road

• Footways on Havant Road

• Dedicated left turn from Dell Piece East onto southbound slip road of A3(M)

• Signalisation of north-bound off-slip from A3(M)

• New signalised crossing at Dell Piece East

The application has been accompanied by the following documents and plans:

Planning Application Boundary Access and Movement Plan Land use plan Residential Density Plan Building Heights Plan Open space plan Care village inset plan Topographical Survey Illustrative Masterplan Design and Access Statement Planning Statement Transport Assessment Framework Travel Plan Energy and Sustainability Statement Archaeological Mitigation Strategy Utilities Assessment Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Statement of Community Engagement Sustainability Statement

Minerals Stage 1 Assessment Environmental Statement (including non-technical summary) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Air Quality Assessment Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Statement Geotechnical and contaminated land risk assessment Lighting assessment Tree survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Woodland Botanical Letter Report Grassland Botanical Letter Report Great Crested Newt Survey Reptile Survey Breeding Bird Survey Bat Survey Hazel Dormouse Survey Badger Survey Terrestrial Invertebrate Survey Minerals Stage 2 Assessment Analysis of Bechstein’s Bat radio tracking data Geotechnical and contaminated land technical note Agricultural Land Classification and Soil Resources Highways Technical Note

Some of these documents have been amended slightly since submission to clarify matters raised by officers and consultees. Constraints The site is outside of, but directly adjacent to, the settlement policy boundary for Horndean, as identified in the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (Local Plan). The site is not subject to any national landscape designations and is located outside of the South Downs National Park. The park boundary does, however, lie directly adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. This is a Category V Protected Landscape by World Conservation Union. Hazelton Common lies to the west of the A3(M), this is a designated local nature reserve and SINC. The site comprises agricultural land which has been categorised as mainly falling within DEFRA Grade 3b (moderate quality) but with a substantial area of Grade 4 (poor quality) also present. Blendworth and Horndean Conservation Areas lie outside of, but to the north of, the application site some distance away. In addition there are the following listed buildings close to the site:

• Pyle Farm (Grade II)

• Hook Cottage (Grade II)

There is also a historic hedgerow on the north-west of the site, together with some archaeological interest in and around the site. The site also includes part of the parkland associated with Blendworth Lodge and Cadlington House and the Registered Parks and Gardens of Stanstead Park and Leigh Park are located to the south and east of the application site, but again are some distance away. The application site also has significant ecological interest in that there is a significant population of Bechstein’s Bats, dormice within the hedgerows and woodland in the area to the south-west of Havant Road, a small population of reptiles on the land to the south-west and north-east of Havant Road and notable breeding birds and invertebrate species across the site. Bechstein bats are a Habitats Directive Annex II species. Dormice are a European protected Species. A central portion of the site is Flood Risk Zone 2/3. A SGN gas pipeline also runs north – south through the site. The Proposal The application seeks outline permission for a residential development of up to 700 dwellings, together with employment uses, community facilities, open space, landscaping and highway works. Access and the associated off-site highway improvements are the only matters for detailed consideration at this stage, with appearance, layout, scale and landscaping to be fixed through the submission of reserved matters applications. An Illustrative Masterplan and other supporting information were submitted in support of the application, which shows provision for up to 698 dwellings. The density would range from 7 – 10 dwellings per hectare along part of Rowlands Castle Road, with up to 25-35 dwellings per hectare at various points as feature buildings. This level would be within the mixed use areas predominantly. In terms of building heights, the majority of the development would be 2 storey. The exceptions would be some 2.5 storey heights within the centre of the northern part of the site, as well as along Rowlands Castle Road. The parameters plan also shows a small element of 3 storey development where the local centre is proposed. The employment site would have heights of no more than 12m. Access would be predominantly from Havant Road and would comprise the details set out above. The care village would be located to the north of the site, as would a proposed cricket pitch. The employment and community facilities would be adjacent to Dell Piece East together with further playing fields. The main areas of open space would be along the boundary with the A3(M), the centre and south-western area of the southern block. An area along the centre of the site, north of Havant Road, would be retained as landscaping.

Allotments would be provided in the southern part of the site alongside the A3(M). LEAPs would be provided at various parts of the development in a number and manner to be agreed at the reserved matters stage. The scheme proposes 40% affordable housing to a maximum of 279 units. The mix has not been indicated, but would expect it to be 70% affordable rent and 30% intermediate tenure. Relevant Planning History There are no relevant previous planning applications pertaining to the application site. A Screening Opinion (Ref. 55562) was undertaken in May 2014 under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, at which time the Council’s opinion was that the proposed development did constitute EIA development within the meaning of the 2011 Regulations. Development Plan Policies and Proposals East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014) CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP2 - Spatial Strategy CP10 - Spatial strategy for housing CP11 - Housing tenure, type and mix CP13 - Affordable housing on residential development sites CP16 - Protection and provision of social infrastructure CP18 - Provision of open space, sport and recreation and built facilities CP19 - Development in the countryside CP20 - Landscape CP21 - Biodiversity CP24 - Sustainable construction CP25 - Flood Risk CP26 - Water resources/ water quality CP27 - Pollution CP28 - Green Infrastructure CP29 - Design CP31 - Transport CP32 - Infrastructure

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006)

T3 - Pedestrians and Cyclists T4 - Protection of Public Footpaths H14 - Other Housing Outside Settlement Policy Boundaries HE17 - Archaeological & Ancient Monuments P7 - Contaminated Land C6 - Tree Preservation

Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The NPPF sets out three roles (economic, social and environmental) that should be performed by the planning system. The Framework states that pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to):

• making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages,

• moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature,

• replacing poor design with better design,

• improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure and,

• widening the choice of high quality homes The following sections of the NPPF are considered to be particularly relevant to the consideration of this application:

• Section 1; Delivering sustainable development.

• Section 4; Promoting sustainable transport.

• Section 6; Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes.

• Section 7; Requiring good design.

• Section 10; Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change.

• Section 11; Conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

• Section 12; Conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Other material considerations: Proposed Submission East Hampshire District Local Plan: Housing and Employment Allocations – approved by Council for pre-submission consultation. This is scheduled to commence on 10 April 2015 and close on 22 May 2015. It is aimed to adopt this document in December 2015/January2016. The following policy is relevant: HN1 – Land East of Horndean. This details that this site is proposed to be allocated for:

• About 700 dwellings

• Extra care provision for the elderly

• Land for about 2ha industrial (B2) and business (B1)

• A new 2FE primary school. Given the progress of the draft allocations plan it is considered moderate weight can be afforded to it at present. Village Design Statement - Horndean Parish Village Design Statement - non statutory planning guidance that has been the subject of public consultation and therefore is a material planning consideration.

Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments A full transcript of these comments can be seen as Appendix 1. HCC Archaeology - Recommends that an archaeological condition (or conditions) be attached to any planning permission which might be issued. This should secure the preliminary archaeological survey (evaluation), as well as any subsequent archaeological mitigation and reporting. Would also recommend that the results of the initial archaeological evaluation should be available and submitted at the least by the time of any reserve matters application so that the planning authority can be satisfied that any necessary accommodation within the design has been informed by the evaluation results. Conservation Officer – Objection. Where the impact on the setting of a listed building has been assessed in accordance with paragraphs 128 to 132 of the Framework, and has been found to fall within the category of 'less than substantial harm' (i.e. paragraph 134), then it is still important that when considering the balance exercise, and therefore the public benefits of any such proposal, that from the outset this is consciously weighed in favour of the need to preserve the setting of the listed building. Paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation. It also goes on to state that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 133 provides guidance in relation to development proposals that cause 'substantial harm'. While, paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy states that where a development will lead to 'less than substantial harm' to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The site is set some distance from the Horndean and Blendworth Conservation Areas and listed buildings with the nearest being Pyle Farm. In terms of these designated heritage assets it is not considered that this proposal will have an adverse impact. This site cannot be easily viewed from any of these sites and as such will not impact on their setting. The land North-east of Havant Road is set immediately adjacent to Pyle Farm which is an historic farmstead that contains a number of Grade II listed buildings including the Farmhouse, gardens and granary and a barn. The Farm currently enjoys a pleasant rural setting with views stretching across fieldscapes. The land South-West of Havant Road is set immediately adjacent to Hook Cottage which is a Grade II listed 18th century country house. The property is of architectural merit and sits within attractive garden ground that leads to the south and west. The small subdivided paddocks in particular form the setting of these buildings and contribute towards a strong rural landscape character. That setting is somewhat rare in terms of the survival of historic field boundaries and small field sizes, in contrast to the wide open fields one tends to see in this area. The setting of the house is a key part of its historic significance, due to a common use and intrinsic co-existence, both in visual and functional terms.

The development proposed would be clearly visible from the listed buildings and there would be areas within, and outside, the site where the listed buildings and the proposed development would be seen in juxtaposition. On that basis, it is clear that the proposal would have an impact on the settings of the listed buildings concerned. The setting of both Pyle Farm and Hook Cottage contributes to their significance by placing it in a rural context similar to that in which it was constructed and operated. Changing the hinterland of the listed buildings from agricultural fields and hedgerows, to a housing estate, would reduce the ability of the observer to appreciate the origins of the complex, and its relationship with the land. This would have a harmful impact on the setting of the listed buildings. On the basis of the information submitted, the application in its current form would impact negatively on the strong visual and spatial relationship between Pyle Farm/Hook Cottage and the surrounding landscape. Introducing a development, particularly one of this scale in such landscape and in such proximity to Grade II listed buildings is fundamentally at odds with its rural environment. For these reasons, the proposal in its current form will be harmful to the significance of these designated and locally prominent Grade II listed buildings through the impact on their setting. That harm is assessed as “less than substantial” having regard to paragraph 134 of the NPPF.

Economic Development and Tourism Officer - Economic Development objects to the

employment land proposals in their current form and notes that:

1. The proposed allocation for employment is below the required amount of business use class employment land of 2ha for Horndean (Local Plan Policy CP3). Therefore, the proposal is contrary to the Draft East Hampshire District Local Plan: Housing and Employment Allocations which allocates the Land East of Horndean for about 2ha of employment land for industrial (B2) and business (B1) Use Class and requires provision of an Enterprise Centre.

2. The applicant states that allocation is for approximately 1.7ha. The use of an approximate figure impacts on ability to plan effectively and represents a degree of uncertainty as to the exact amount of land to be delivered. specified.

Proposed employment uses

3. The applicant does not provide adequate information on the proposed employment.

4. Employment is a general term and could mean retail, care facilities and other uses with some form of employment/ jobs (some of which are already provided for elsewhere) and thus immediately placing the site at risk of loss to non-business uses.

5. Economic Development seeks to provide a balanced economy by providing for different types of jobs though the planning system. Therefore, in order to ensure that the site is delivered for business use class, the applicant must specify that 1.7ha is allocated for business (Class B1) and general industry (Class B2) and anticipated amount of business use floorspace. The information must be included in the planning permission and S106 Agreement.

6. Loss of existing employment use (Local Plan Policy CP4) – Some business floorspace will be lost as a result of the development proposal From an Economic Development perspective, the loss must be deducted from the overall supply of 1.7ha to determine the net gain on the site. It is not clear if the 1.7ha is gross or a net gain.

7. The applicant states that 1.7ha of employment will be delivered in the final phase in 2020.

8. This delivery plan is unrealistic and does not meet the immediate employment needs of Horndean to offset the population growth resulting from increase in dwellings. The proposal represents a mixed use development and therefore, delivery of business jobs must be in parallel with delivery of the housing.

9. The proposal suggests a shared access between the Employment Zone and residential dwellings. Economic Development strongly objects to a shared access on the following grounds:

• Shared access with residential would restrict the types of business and industrial uses on the site. The site is suitably located (in a highly accessible location) near the A3(M) and hence a suitable location for various industrial uses.

• Shared access would impact on vibrancy, market attractiveness and smooth operation of the business site/ premises.

• In addition, if the development proves to be incompatible with future use/ occupation of the business premises, it will impinge on viability of the business premises and immediately place them at risk of change of use to residential.

10. Economic Development seeks that the applicant considers an alternative access to Residential Area 9 for example a secondary access road to link the site with Residential Area 11. This would overcome the need for shared access, separate the Employment Zone from residential and better link the residential development with the rest of the housing.

Economic Development recommends that planning permission is not granted until the matters

raised above have been fully addressed. In addition, Economic Development seeks that

• Business use class employment land comes forward in the first phase of the wider mixed use development and is phased into the housing development using triggers to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

• The business use employment site is provided and marketed as a serviced site (with infrastructure in place) prior to commencement of the development and reserved matters e.g. design and layout, phased into delivery of the wider mixed use scheme.

• In order to achieve early delivery of business floorspace, the applicant could consider submitting 0.7ha of the business use employment land to the Council for development as an Enterprise Centre through the East Hampshire Invest for Growth Initiative. Such economic contribution will provide long term benefits for the residents of Horndean by ensuring that business floorspace is delivered in the first phase of the wider mixed use development.

Also by re-investing the receipts in the local economy e.g. through apprenticeships and enterprise support; the development proposal would generate a sustainable fund for the area to contribute to future jobs provision and enterprise.

In order achieve sustainable economic growth; East Hampshire has to tackle key issues and challenges such as jobs creation, skills, training and employment, alongside provision of housing. We do recognise the need to provide housing; however, housing growth needs to be supported by jobs growth and employment in order to create a sustainable local economy.

Therefore, given the scale of the development and the likely economic impact on the area, e.g. growth in population and jobs demand, Economic Development seeks that:

• The applicant enters are a S.106 Local Employment and Training Agreement/ Unilateral Undertaking to mitigate for skills shortages, increase apprenticeship opportunities, reduce unemployment and provide career opportunities for residents.

Mitigation measures include:

• An agreement to assist in the placement of apprentices and unemployed from the local area into jobs during the construction phase of the development.

• Negotiate obligations including; direct labour agreements, training, work experience/ placements and apprenticeships to be implemented during the construction phase of the project and also following completion date (if required).

• In certain circumstances where the developer is unable to deliver local job opportunities through the Local Employment and Training Agreement, the developer can negotiate a financial contribution to enable the Council to generate alternative employment opportunities. The funds will be retained specifically for employment, skills, training and enterprise support through the Get East Hants Working Initiative.

Sport England - The site is not considered to form part of, or constitute a playing field as defined in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (Statutory Instrument 2010 No.2184), therefore Sport England has considered this a non-statutory consultation. When assessing applications for major housing Sport England expect to see sports provision being provided in line with the needs identified by the Council in a Sports facility Strategy and Playing Pitch Strategy. The application includes the provision of a cricket pitch to the north of the development served by a pavilion. It also proposes the provision of one senior and one junior football pitch to the south west of the development. The junior would be located within the school site and is expected to be made available to the community for use outside school hours. Sport England would not wish to object to this development but would recommend Conditions be imposed to ensure the new sports provision is fit for purpose. Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service – No objection subject to compliance with Fire and Building Regulations. Crime Prevention Design Advisor – No objection subject to satisfactory layout at the reserved matters stage.

EHDC Housing Officer – No objections. The applicant proposes up to 279 affordable housing units, which meets the 40% target of Policy CP.13. Based on current housing need figures an indicative mix is detailed below. This may be used as a guide for the affordable housing proposals and may need some minor adjustment prior to submission of a Reserved Matters application. 1 bed - 25% 2 bed - 50% 3 bed - 20% 4 bed - 5% It is recommended that no more than 40% of the affordable element are flats. The scale of this development is such that opportunities should be taken to provide fully accessible wheelchair adapted accommodation, as part of the affordable element. It is recommended that up to 5% of the affordable dwellings are designed to be capable of meeting this requirement, should the need exist at the time. The tenure should be split as 70% affordable rent to 30% intermediate. South Downs National Park Authority - This is a housing and employment allocation in the draft East Hampshire District Council Local Plan, policy HN1.1 'Land East of Horndean'. This is currently out to consultation for a mixed form of development, including 660 dwellings, 2 hectares for business uses and a new primary school. The Joint Core Strategy states that beyond existing commitments, new sites will need to be identified for a minimum of 700 dwellings at Horndean (of which 40 have already been provided under this policy). The South Downs National Park Boundary runs along the eastern boundary, along Pyle Lane northwards crossing the junction with Rowlands Castle Road towards Blendworth. It continues along the lane, until the public right of way which crosses the agricultural field to the north-west. The site is outside of a settlement policy boundary and within countryside. It is not within the National Park, but is adjacent to it and development upon this site would have a potential to affect the setting of the National Park, the purposes of which are (i) to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area, and (ii) to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks by the public. The purposes are a consideration when assessing development which may affect the setting not just development within the boundaries of the National Park. It is not considered that the proposed masterplan gives due consideration to the 'conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the SDNP' for the following reasons; 1 The impacts on Horndean road as a rural routeway would be significantly altered with two proposed roundabouts, involving hedgerow loss and urbanising elements of signage, white lining and lighting, views of suburban housing and human activity. 2 The connectivity to the public rights of way network which leads to and from the SDNP is not well considered.

3 The layout of the masterplan is very gappy and does not seem to have a coherent block structure or have a layout which relates to the existing town. There are large areas of open space proposed between the development zones and the existing settlement which give the proposals an isolated and 'newtown' character. This is particularly detrimental to the setting of the National Park due to the uncharacteristic quality of the proposals. 4 It is noted that the applicant considers that the existing SDNP boundary along Horndean Road and Pyle Lane would be improved by building houses alongside the roads. The justification being that this would 'improve the settlement edge'. However it is considered that this is not an accurate or robust assessment of the National Park boundary which sits within a rural landscape at the edge of a tract of land within transition from rural to urban character. 5 Proposed Masterplan. Open spaces of 'peri-urban landscape' are largely within the development which has pushed the development line of housing to the outer edges of the site. This has several impacts on the National Park boundary in particular; Suburban housing would abut the existing rural boundary of the SDNP causing significant detrimental changes in character, Users of the proposed open space would not benefit from enjoyment of the surrounding open countryside; There is no transition landscape between proposed housing and the SDNP which would act to buffer the impacts of suburban housing on this sensitive location; The existing rural character of the lanes and roads adjacent to the proposed development have not been given due consideration and would be detrimentally affected as a result. The principle of arranging the houses around the edge of the site would lead to a disproportionate extent of development and perception of impact in the landscape. A seamless link to the surrounding countryside is required. Pyle Farm is an historic farmstead and Grade II Listed, situated within the South Downs National Park. It is also noted that Hook Cottage is listed, but sits outside the protected landscape. The proposed development is set some distance away from Blendworth Conservation Area, and provided that boundary treatments are appropriate, with the retention of key mature field trees or groups of trees and hedgerows to soften any glimpse views, it is not considered an adverse impact will arise. The presence of rare bat species, such as Bechstein's and Barbastrelles are known to be in this area. In addition, Barn Owls, Skylark and Meadow Pippet are noted to have a presence adjoining the site. There is an opportunity to link existing ecological networks by planting native hedgerows and field trees on the adjacent land within the protected landscape, including on site mitigation too. The application has the potential to raise concerns regarding the impacts of external lighting to the surrounding area. The NPPF paragraph 125 encourages good design and that decisions should limit the impact on light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation. As the site is situated adjacent to the National Park, it falls within the environmental zone E1 which the lighting environment is classified as 'intrinsically dark'. It appears that the proposal has taken the recommendations set by the Institute of Lighting Professional (ILP) guidance into account, however, this needs to follow through when at the detailed design stage. It will be essential to minimise light pollution close to sensitive habitats, particularly woodlands where nocturnal species are present. Direct illumination of bat roosts must be avoided.

Conclusion: The South Downs have identified a number of issues that they feel have not been adequately addressed through the submission documents. Given the proposal is situated adjacent to a protected landscape, due regard to the National Park purposes is required. It is considered that there is not adequate mitigation or appropriate enhancements secured on site or potentially on neighbouring land. The proposed development will significantly alter the perception of the narrow rural lanes and the approach to the boundary of the protected landscape. It is considered important to retain this character. The access road through the 'woodland dell' is likely to be heavily engineered due to topography and impact negatively to the existing public right of way (Monarch's Way) and tranquillity. A pedestrian path connecting the two areas of development would be beneficial but not for vehicular traffic. However, we would not want to encourage traffic up the rural lanes within the National Park, so access would need to be reconsidered. It is felt that the development has missed opportunities to promote access to the National Park, and other important sites such as the Hazelton Common Nature Reserve (LNR). Given the long term aspirations at Havant Thicket, linkages to this area and beyond would be advantageous. In summary, landscape impacts both in terms of character and setting of the National Park, have not been successfully addressed with a concern that the transition as currently proposed is not appropriate. There is an insufficient buffer or transition adjacent heritage assets at Pyle Farm and inappropriate layout (very institutionalised character) adjacent Hook Cottage. In addition, ecological enhancements have been missed given the context, and connectivity or linkages to public rights of way, open space and other key destinations not achieved. Therefore, given the above, the SDNP raises an objection to the outline application in its current form. Natural England - Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. The Standing Advice includes a habitat decision tree which provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a 'reasonable likelihood' of protected species being present. It also provides detailed advice on the protected species most often affected by development, including flow charts for individual species to enable an assessment to be made of a protected species survey and mitigation strategy. The Standing Advice should be applied to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation. Environmental Health - Pollution - The noise assessment and the air quality assessment submitted with the application have been reviewed and are considered satisfactory. Noise mitigation will be required to protect proposed dwellings from traffic noise and details of this will be required with the detailed application(s). Detailed information on noise control for plant and machinery, and any entertainment noise sources, associated with commercial and community buildings will also be required. Details will also be required of any floodlighting for sports facilities The reports indicate that there will be adverse impacts during the Construction Phase and it is therefore requested that a relevant condition is imposed on any approval. EHDC Drainage - The majority of the site is in Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding), however, there is a strip of land in Parcel B which is indicated as being within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability of flooding). In addition the site is located within a groundwater protection

zone. A Flood Risk Assessment and Environmental Statement dated October 2014 have been submitted to support the application. These are generally satisfactory and state that development will only take place in Flood Zone 1. The drainage strategy will cater for the 1:100 year + 30% climate change event with run-off attenuated on site to greenfield rates. Surface water drainage will comprise permeable paving, conveyance swales and attenuation basins with final discharge to the existing watercourse. The various drainage features will provide a suitable treatment train and will be tanked to prevent infiltration of run-off polluting the vulnerable groundwater. In addition it is proposed to de-culvert the ephemeral stream to an open watercourse. This will provide additional flood storage and help to reduce downstream flooding. No objection subject to satisfactory drainage systems for both foul and surface water, to be constructed in accordance with both the submitted FRA and Environmental Statement dated October 2014. Also the drainage systems must comply with any additional requirements set by EA, in order to prevent contamination to the underlying aquifer. Detailed maintenance management plans will be required for all drainage features remaining private. Concerns have been raised by Portsmouth Water, EA and the EHO regarding the potential risk to groundwater from contaminated land and the proposed development. A technical note has been produced seeking to address these issues and it is generally agreed that detailed ground investigation is required. Further ground investigation will inform the drainage design and site layout and the FRA and Environmental Statement will require updating accordingly. No objections in principle subject to satisfactory drainage systems for both foul and surface water. The design and construction is to be agreed with Portsmouth Water, EA and the EHO in order to prevent potential risk to groundwater. The applicant must submit an updated FRA and Environmental Statement which must be approved by the LPA prior to commencement on site. Environment Agency - (Southern Region) The Environment Agency has no objection in principle to the proposed development as submitted subject to conditions. Highways England (formerly the Highways Agency) – Originally issued a Holding Direction which prevents a decision being made until they have had chance to fully consider the proposal. The Holding Direction has now been lifted and there is no objection subject to a condition requiring the provision of a suitable pedestrian and cycle route between the east and west sides of the A3 (M).

Hampshire County Strategic Highways – County Highways responded by letter dated 2 March 2015.

It concludes that the proposed development will have a traffic impact which is likely to result in increased queuing and traffic reassignment although with the above physical and financial mitigation this is not forecast to be severe within the context of NPPF.

The main issue which is not fully resolved is the detail of a suitable pedestrian and cycle route across the A3(M). The applicant has submitted further information in response to comments made by the highway authority in November 2014. This has included further consideration of pedestrian provision across the A3(M) Junction 2. The revised submission is helpful and indicates that a solution is a realistic prospect but there is further work to be done to finalise a suitable scheme and they are content that this matter can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition.

With the applicant being prepared to fund local improvements to help mitigate the impact of development in accordance with paragraph 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations it is unlikely that a highway reason for refusal proving an NPPF 'severe' impact can be sustained with respect to this planning application.

Recommendation

The provision of the additional information has satisfactorily addressed the issues previously raised and they raise no objection to this proposal from a highways and transportation perspective, subject to the following conditions, and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following package of mitigation:

• A transport contribution to be used towards highway improvement measures, improvements to sustainable modes of transport, and other measures that provide direct benefit to the site.

• Implementation of offsite highway works as shown in principle on drawings

A081737_023 Rev F, A081737_024 Rev E, with the exception of A3(M)

Junction 2 proposals as these will be secured separately by condition.• Financial

contribution to deliver the proposed signalised crossing points at Dell Piece East

and 82149.

• To achieve the necessary speed reduction on Rowlands Castle Road to

accommodate the required access visibility.

• Submission and implementation of a full Travel Plan, payment of the Travel

Plan approval and monitoring fees, and provision of a surety mechanism to

ensure implementation of the Travel Plan.

The Sustainable Transport Contribution would be required for the following potential schemes:

• Support of bus services within the area;

• Improvements to pedestrian and cycle infrastructure within the vicinity along Rowlands

Caste Road, Dell Piece East, Dell Piece West, Havant Road, B2149 and Portsmouth

Road;

• Cycle route from London Road to Green Lane across Meadow Croft;

• Cycle parking at Green Lane local shops;

• Traffic Calming on New Road, Clanfield;

• Traffic calming and junction improvements at South Lane, Charlton Lane and London

Road, Clanfield;

• Traffic Calming on Green Road, Clanfield;

• Bus shelter improvements in Clanfield;

• Cycle route between Snells Corner and Horndean War Memorial;

• Traffic Calming on Victoria Avenue, London Road (Havant Road to A3(M)), White

Dirt Lane, Merchistoun Estate, Lovedean Lane, Downwood Way, DownHouse Road,

Catherington Lane and Hazleton Way, Horndean;

• Upgrade of existing Pelican crossing to a Toucan at Barton Cross, Horndean

• Cycle route on Catherington Lane, Horndean;

• Cycle route on Merchistoun Road, Horndean;

• Cycle route through Clanfield and Horndean providing links to settlements of

Petersfield, Clanfield, Horndean and Havant;

• Cycle route Horndean village square to Denmead via Portsmouth Road, Five Heads

Road, Catherington Lane, Crouch Lane, Coldhill Lane, Lovedean Lane, Day Lane,

Broadway Lane and Anmore Lane;

• Horndean C E Infant & Junior School access improvements;

• Horndean Technology College access improvement; and

• Wider schemes in the vicinity of the proposed site deemed appropriate to assist in

mitigating the transport impact of the proposed development.

Portsmouth Water – They have raised concerns about possible contamination of the protected ground water source and the impact of the development on the Bechstein Bats which may impact on plans for their strategic reservoir. Discussions have taken place and conditions are being drawn up to address the issues of concern. Environmental Health - Contaminated Land - It is considered that insufficient information was provided with the desktop study, in light of very high, high and moderate risks being identified, to enable an informed decision to be made concerning the appropriateness of this development in this location. Further, in light of raised concerns regarding contaminated land, it is considered that the suitability of the development is something which cannot be addressed through 'Reserved Matters'. As such, until intrusive site investigation information, targeting areas of concern, is provided to support the conclusions of the desktop study, it is recommended to the LAP that planning permission is refused. Additional information has been submitted regarding contaminated land issues on the above proposed development. The information comprised of a consultants letter (Ref. 61033021/MB/WF), dated 18th December 2014. It is considered that further investigations are required to properly characterise the risks from contamination for this site before a decision can be made concerning whether remediation is capable of mitigating against identified risks and ultimately the suitability of the site for a sensitive end use. Site investigations are to be in accordance with best practice as outlined in BS10175:2011.

Soil sampling should be detailed enough to characterise potential contamination at both surface and at depth where risks have been identified to receptors. Gas monitoring to be in accordance with best practice as outlined in CIRIA C665 and BS8576:2013. It is therefore recommend that outline permission is refused at this stage. Further discussions have taken place and conditions drafted to seek to address the issues raised. Health and Safety Executive – Consider that the assessment indicates that the risk of harm to people is such that there are sufficient reasons on safety grounds to advise against the granting of planning permission. If the care home and assisted living units were located outside the safety zone then the HSE would not advise against granting planning permission. Council for the Protection of Rural England (Hampshire) - supports this application. CPRE strongly supports community participation in planning. The applications site has a high degree of support within the community of Horndean, as expressed in the Local Interim Planning Statement (LIPS). This is an important factor in our support for the development on this site. 700 dwellings will provide for the housing needs of Horndean for the period of the current Local Plan Part 1 (LPP1), and will bring new facilities of which the community is in urgent need. The site borders on the South Downs National Park (SDNP) to the north and east which makes it sensitive in the wider landscape. Reflecting national park purposes, LPP1 Policy CP20 provides that new development will be required to conserve and enhance the natural beauty and tranquillity of the SDNP and its setting. This is tough test which can only be passed if the impact of the site on views from the SDNP is relatively benign in the first place, and can be further reduced by excellent design of the scheme. The area for some distance to the north and east is relatively flat and the site does not appear to be much overlooked from the SDNP, except a view only of the northern part of the site from the footpath which heads from Woodhouse Lane up Netherley Down. Visual impact will be mitigated by the design of the scheme, with retained woodland, hedgerows and mature trees, and lower density housing facing outwards on the borders with the national park. So in longer distance views the development would merge with what can be seen of Horndean as a whole. Thus, we agree with the LVIA that the impact on the natural beauty and tranquillity of the SDNP would be relatively minor; and in comparison to other possible sites around Horndean, less harmful. However, Pyle Lane is of rural character, which needs to be conserved, and the setting of the listed buildings along Pyle Lane must be protected. So, we would prefer to see deeper landscape planting along this lane, and also along Havant Road and Rowlands Castle Road. CPRE Hampshire considers the benefits of this development would outweigh the adverse impacts and accordingly the application should be granted, provided lighting is minimised and to latest standards, and subject to appropriate planning conditions to ensure natural features are retained and supplemented as proposed. HCC - County Ecologist - This is a substantial application which will entail significant land-use change at the application site. The scale of the proposals means that there is significant scope for ecological impact and I am pleased that a detailed programme of ecological survey and assessment has been undertaken. The scope and scale of the ecological surveys carried out to date is sound and I do not consider that there are any overriding gaps in the current understanding of the site, albeit that further survey will always provide more robust results

and there will be a requirement for future surveys to further inform mitigation measures. We have a good evidence base at the current time and this would seem to be sufficient to enable a reasoned assessment of likely impact. The surveys have identified some opportunities in terms of future management as well as the presence of a potentially-significant non-native invasive plant issue (variegated yellow archangel occurs, with Spanish bluebell also present). The main issue facing woodland habitat on site is the direct loss of c.0.1Ha of confirmed ancient woodland in 2b. This loss is regrettable but it would appear that there is scope for remediating actions and, on balance, the loss of a few trees is a limited impact at the site scale. The issue of buffering is well-detailed, with substantial buffers provided in most areas and the use of fencing to restrict informal public access to others. For those woodlands with existing public access, the formalisation of paths is proposed and this should, provided that monitoring is used to inform ongoing management, result in an acceptable level of use in the future. This is of particular relevance for woodland 3c which has been shown to have significant bat interest it is imperative that monitoring is used to ensure that the proposed management and public access does not interfere with the extremely high value this 'woodland' has to rare bat species. Hedgerow loss and disturbance is a key issue, with much of the existing network to be impacted. I appreciate that in the longer-term there will be a net increase in this habitat type. I would seriously investigate the use of hedgerow translocation as a viable option it would enable local genetic stock to remain on site (with obvious benefits) and perhaps provide a more timely solution to the immediate loss of habitat. There would appear to be plenty of room for making this a sensible option. I would also strongly recommend the use of a native-dominated general landscaping scheme. Great Crested Newt (GCN): The required number of GCN presence/absence surveys have been completed within a suitable timeframe. A total of 31 waterbodies were initially assessed and this number was pared down to leave a smaller number which were then subject to detailed investigation. I welcome the thoroughness of this approach and consider this to be a good example of how a GCN survey should be carried out over a large site. No evidence of GCN was noted and I therefore concur with the conclusion that GCN are not a constraint at this site. Reptiles: A site-wide reptile survey has been carried out and small populations of all four common reptile species have been found. Area 1 in the north-east of the site was found to contain no reptiles, whilst Area 2 supports slow-worm and common lizard and Area 3 supports slow-worm, grass snake and adder. The number of animals recorded was small, and subsequently the populations of each species are assessed as being 'good' for slow-worm and 'low' for common lizard, grass snake and adder. Given the relatively low number of animals recorded (although actual numbers are likely to be greater) I consider that the outline mitigation strategy proposed is acceptable. Birds: A total of four breeding bird survey visits were carried out during spring/early summer 2014. Investigations of all buildings was carried out to check for barn owl occupancy. The bird assemblage for the site is typical of much of the Hampshire countryside.

The overall list includes a number of species of conservation concern, including foraging barn owl (Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act), six red-listed breeding species and seven amber-listed breeding species. Of these, it is perhaps skylark (red-listed and also a Species of Principal Importance under the 2006 NERC Act) which is most at risk of direct impact, with up to five territories due to be lost and this species requires rather large, open areas of semi-improved grassland for nesting. There will undoubtedly be impacts arising from disturbance and from proximity to the built environment. This is a huge proposal which will result in substantial noise and visual disturbance for a number of years and it is inevitable that due to the scale alone the impacts on various bird species will be significant at the local level. The quantity and quality of habitat loss on site is calculated for each of the main habitat types (hedgerows, grassland, woodland and buildings) and an outline mitigation strategy for each of these described. There is no avoiding the fact that substantial areas of valuable bird nesting and foraging habitat is to be impacted, either directly or indirectly, and so therefore mitigation will only be effective if there is a coherent, combined approach to habitat management, protection, creation and enhancement which will entail the integrated use of green and blue infrastructure and the management of access and an holistic approach to these issues is absolutely essential. There is also much potential for creating new habitat linkages to off-site areas e.g. an obvious potential linkage between the eastern site boundary and Stein Wood/The Holt. Hazel dormouse: Standard surveys of the site have recorded the presence of dormice (both adults and juveniles, thus confirming breeding) within hedgerow and woodland habitats in Area 3, but not in Areas 1 and 2. I have no issues with the scope or standard of the surveys. The presence of dormice at the site is unsurprising due to the presence of large woodland tracts connected by mature hedgerows and this is optimal dormouse habitat. This development will affect dormice, which receive strict legal protection under UK law by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and under EU law by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (commonly referred to as the Habitats Regulations). Where developments affect European Protected Species (EPS), permission can be granted unless the development is likely to result in a breach of the EU Directive underpinning the Habitats Regulations and is unlikely to be granted an EPS licence from Natural England to allow the development to proceed under a derogation from the law. An EPS licence can only be granted if the development proposal is able to meet three tests: the consented operation must be for 'preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment'; (Regulation 53(2)(e)) there must be 'no satisfactory alternative' (Regulation 53(9)(a)); and the action authorised 'will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range' (Regulation 53(9)(b)). Due to the scale of the proposals there is no escaping the fact that there will be substantial impacts to confirmed and potential dormouse habitat over a lengthy timeframe. These proposals have the potential to result in population-level impacts to this species. Mitigation measures must therefore seek to compensate for the substantial loss of habitat and potential loss of landscape connectivity. The outline proposals include the planting of c.3.7km of new hedgerow, the planting up of existing gaps and the installation of dormouse nest boxes.

These measures are all acceptable and will, in time, hopefully result in an enhanced site for the species. Overall, I am content with the proposed outline mitigation measures and would therefore request that further detail is provided at the reserved matters stage. On the basis of the information submitted, I consider that the third derogation test is met. Badgers: Two active badger setts have been identified within the application site. These setts are situated within areas of the site that are to be retained and are sufficiently distant from any proposed development activities that impacts are not considered likely. Based on the submitted information I am content to agree with this assessment and would therefore request that further detail is provided at the reserved matters stage. The continuing potential for badgers to be at risk is noted and therefore standard best practice mitigation measures will be adhered to. Given the potential for badgers to colonise previously-unoccupied areas it is essential that regular updating assessments be made. Terrestrial invertebrates: A range of survey techniques have been used by an expert entomologist to provide a sound assessment of the invertebrate interest of the application site. I have no concerns in respect to the scope or methods used. Besides supporting a good range of common and widespread invertebrate species, the site has been shown to support a number of scarcer/rare species, including three Red Data Book (RDB) species. The proposed mitigation will result in the retention and enhancement of areas of grassland, wetland, hedgerow and woodland and recommendations are given for the sympathetic management of said habitats to promote variation. I would expect the detailed mitigation proposals at reserved matters stage to include measures for invertebrate species. Bats: This is the most significant issue at this application site and one which requires the utmost caution. The site has now been subject to much detailed bat survey work after it was highlighted that the site and wider landscape harbour nationally-important numbers of the rare Bechstein's bat. Whilst the presence of this species alone is cause for significant concerns, the surveys carried out to date have identified that the site supports a total of at least 13 bat species, 75% of the total British species. By any measure this site is important for bats, although it is likely that any similar site in southern England may yield similar totals. I have assumed that the rare but widespread barbastelle bat is also highly likely to occur as this species was recorded on an adjacent site immediately to the south. The comments below refer primarily to Bechstein's bat and it is important to note that this species, whilst the primary receptor on site, is only one of a number of species present. That said, the proposed mitigation measures for that species are likely to be generally applicable to all bat species and so it can be assumed that what is acceptable for Bechstein's is likely to be so for all other species. There has been detailed ongoing consultation with the applicant's ecological team over the issue of Bechstein's bats, and the applicant has been able to arrange data sharing with Portsmouth Water (PW) who hold substantial data on the species resulting from intensive survey work carried out in 2008-2009. This consultation has been most useful in defining the scope of survey effort and I am pleased that the applicant's team has also procured the services of a recognised authority on the species to assist in understanding use of the site by Bechstein's bats.

Impacts and Mitigation: In terms of impacts to Bechstein's bats, the recorded roost sites (both from this study and the PW study) are to be retained. These sites will also be included within a habitat buffer zone stretching the length of the western and southern site boundaries, conforming to the observed route of flying bats. In essence, this is a sound basis for any mitigation strategy. Other potentially significant impacts are associated with lighting and recreational access. The proposed mitigation strategy is based upon the retention of the roost sites and the provision of an unlit, mixed grassland/hedgerow buffer strip of 25m width linking Dell Piece and Stein Wood. The impacts of increased recreational pressure are explored and general mitigation recommendations are made. For the most sensitive areas such as Dell Piece (although this is off-site) and Area 3c there will need to be well-designed access. These two areas are of critical importance for Bechstein's bat. Full details of all access measures will be expected at reserved matters stage. Site lighting (both construction and operation) is a potential source of impact. It will be imperative that an intelligent, receptor-led lighting strategy is produced, demonstrating the innovative use of lighting technology to ensure that bats (and other organisms) are not adversely impacted. Full details will be expected at reserved matters stage. It is proposed to install a large number of artificial bat roosting boxes throughout the application site as well as within Stein Wood. Overall, I consider that the bat assessment submitted is (with a few points of clarification outstanding) acceptable. I do not see how the proposed mitigation would be amended barring the discovery of any very unusual results from future works. The basic details are sound and based upon a good evidence base and, together with the PW data, represent the best scientific knowledge we have at this time. Overall Impacts: The key impacts in the absence of mitigating actions are clearly stated and, after those actions have been applied, a residual assessment is provided. In all cases the residual impact is considered to be not significant on the basis of the information provided, and taking into account the necessary commitment to further refine mitigation through further survey and monitoring, I am in agreement. In terms of cumulative impact, a total of 12 other proposed sites have been included in the analysis. I agree that these sites are the most relevant to the application. Summary: In summary, the submitted ecological information is of a very good scope and standard and in my opinion there are no issues that cannot be overcome with a little clarification. There are a small number of issues for which I consider that some clarification would be useful now, in order that the baseline mitigation framework can be set for discussions going forward. Once clarification has been sought on these issues, I would be happy to recommend that a fully-detailed site-wide ecological mitigation and management plan be secured by condition. This should include full details (including timetables and responsibilities) of all proposed mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures as well as ongoing monitoring. Additional information was received on 5th March and I am content that the additional analysis is robust and provides further justification for the proposed mitigation strategy.

Landscape Officer - The original concern with this application was that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) downplayed the significance of the visual impact on the SDNP and the woodland along Broad Walk. The additional viewpoints and commentary submitted in March are helpful in this regard although the impacts are not incorporated into the original LVIA. However, the statement for additional viewpoint 3 does refer to proposed planting within the adjacent park and along the route of the reinstated path. This will be essential to mitigate the earthworks required for the construction of the road through Broad Walk and the loss of trees indicated on the Proposed Access Road Option 5 plan. The proximity of the proposed development to the SDNP along the north eastern boundary was another concern. I note that the masterplan has been amended to move the residential roads and houses on the north eastern boundary back from the boundary hedge to leave space for additional tree planting to screen the new development from the SDNP. A comprehensive landscape plan will be required at full application stage to include boundary tree planting and planting to mitigate tree loss along Broad Walk. Principle Policy Officer - Whilst the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006) proposals map shows the application site as being located within the countryside outside of any settlement policy boundary and the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (JCS) CP19 “Development in the Countryside” protects the countryside for its own sake; the application site has been identified in the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Housing and Employment Allocations as a site for housing and employment. Proposals for this scale of development are justified in terms of sustainability because Horndean is listed in the JCS as a “Large Service Centre” and is therefore categorised as a “Level 2” settlement. The JCS text in paragraph 4.21 advises on the strategy for development, in the part of the District within the South Hampshire Sub-region (influenced by the strategy developed by the PUSH local authorities). The text states that the main focus will be on Horndean, the large local service centre. JCS Policy CP10 identifies that the minimum increase of 10,060 dwellings will be provided for through a variety of means including (in point 4) the allocation of sites at the most sustainable settlements to provide a minimum of 700 dwellings at Alton, Horndean and Petersfield. JCS Policy CP10 advises that sites will be identified through the Local Plan: Allocations, SDNP Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plans and settlement policy boundaries adjusted accordingly. JCS Policy CP3 “New Employment Provision” seeks “to provide land for employment use in the main settlements in the District up to 2028 as follows” with point (d) stating “About 2ha of land in Horndean for industrial (B2) and business use (B1)”. Such allocations for housing and employment are being made through the preparation of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Housing and Employment Allocations, a draft of which was published for consultation in December 2014.

The Proposed Submission version of the Site Allocations Plan was approved by Council on 26 March 2015 and will be published for consultation on 10 April 2015. Residential Development In line with the JCS the Site Allocations Plan seeks to allocate the land subject to this outline planning application for about 700 dwellings and other uses and the policies map will be updated to incorporate this site within the Settlement Policy Boundary. The proposal is for a maximum of 700 dwellings. Whilst the district presently has a five year housing land supply, in order to maintain this supply planning permission for additional housing will need to be granted. Therefore in the light of the housing land supply situation and the draft allocation, Planning Policy would support the principle of residential development on part of this site. Affordable housing will need to be provided in line with JCS Policy CP13. Employment Land The text supporting Policy CP3 in paragraph 5.17 advises that, “the allocation of 2ha of additional land in Horndean will help towards meeting the overall demand for employment land in the district and will also meet the requirement for additional land for the PUSH area as identified in the South Hampshire Strategy”. The proposed submission Site Allocations Plan reflects adopted JCS policies CP2 and CP3 and seeks to allocate Land East of Horndean for about 2ha industrial (B2) and business use (B1). The site specific criteria in the Site Allocations Plan lists the requirement for the:

• Provision of about 2ha of land for industrial (B2) and business uses (B1) and provision of an Enterprise Centre, close to Junction 2 of the A3(M) with immediate access off the B2149

• Provision of a local Employment and Training Agreement prior to the implementation of development

The proposal is for approximately 1.7ha of employment land, however the application is outline with all matters reserved except for access to the highway network and associated off-site highway improvements. The Design and Access (D&A) Statement which accompanies the planning application advises that the vision of the application is to deliver 1.7ha of Horndean’s 2ha requirement for employment land as per the adopted JCS. Paragraph 5.2 of the D&A Statement advises 1.74 hectares of employment land will be provided and that this will be located close to Junction 2 of the A3(M) with access off the B2149. Paragraph 6.9 of the D&A Statement advises that the masterplan submitted with the application shows the location of a 1.7ha employment area close to Junction 2 of the A3(M). Access will be from a new arm on the existing roundabout along Havant Road (B2149). Whilst the proposal, at approximately 1.7ha of employment land, falls short of the 2ha B2 and B1 employment land requirement for Horndean set out in the JCS and the Proposed Submissions Site Allocation both the documents set a requirement for about 2ha and not a minimum of 2ha and is therefore acceptable.

JCS policy CP12 covers housing and extra care provision for the elderly. The policy states that EHDC will, through the allocation of sufficient sites and/or the granting of planning permission, provide for housing and extra care accommodation, including Continuing Care Retirement Communities and Retirement Villages, to meet the needs of the ageing population within the District, provided that the proposed sites and development are in locations to suit the needs of the elderly. Whilst the application site is currently located in the countryside and outside of any settlement policy boundary, policy CP12 seeks to allocate sites for such uses. Horndean is classified as a level 2 settlement with a range of services and therefore is a location where the needs of the elderly can be met. The Site Allocations Plan seeks to allocate part of the site for extra care provision for the elderly. Planning Policy would therefore support the principle of the development of part of this site for housing and extra care provision for the elderly. The NPPF defines Economic Development as development, including those within the B Use Classes, public and community uses and main town centre uses (but excluding housing development). The provision of approximately 1.7ha of employment land together with the proposal for a local centre and care village will make a positive contribution in terms of employment generation. Infrastructure JCS policy CP16 advises that the provision or improvement of facilities and services, required as a result of new development will be secured through developer contributions either through S106 or the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) mechanisms. Table CP16 provides examples of facilities and services including community facilities, public services, and leisure and cultural uses and includes Education Establishments. JCS Policy CP18 requires the provision of open space, sport and recreation and built facilities. All new residential developments will provide, as a minimum standard, the equivalent of 3.45 ha of public open space per 1,000 population to serve the needs generated by the new development. The provision of public open space that is designed to a high standard and is ‘fit for purpose’ is required. In this case the provision should be made on-site. Details of site specific requirements are also listed within the Proposed Submission Site Allocations Plan. Rowlands Castle Parish Council - The Parish Council considered this Application at its Meeting on 1 December 2014, and agreed to OBJECT on the following grounds: Transport: RCPC has grave concerns about the transport implications of the development, were it to proceed. The site's proximity to the A3(M) is undoubtedly in its favour, however the Application's supporting documentation largely ignores the implications for other roads in the area eg the B2149 and Rowlands Castle Road. Such roads are more minor and often pass through residential areas. Traffic heading from the development towards Havant, Emsworth, Chichester, parts of the SDNP and Rowlands Castle itself will all use these roads, yet the Application's Transport Assessment gives little or no consideration to the impact upon them.

The Assessment should show the input data and assumptions for the TRICS simulations. It gives an unrealistically low estimate of the increased number of vehicles likely to use the B2149 southbound, suggesting only 2 more vehicles would use it in the peak hours by 2016, were the development permitted, and only 10 more by 2024. If other developments in Rowlands Castle proceed, the mini-roundabout system at the end of Redhill Road, which will also handle a large proportion of southbound traffic from this Application's proposals, will already be at or close to full capacity (RFC 0.87) and will not be able to cope with yet more. This statement is evidenced by the documentation produced by another developer for a site closer to the system. Despite this, the Assessment does not analyse the junction capacity of the mini-roundabout system, nor does it recognise other committed or potential development in Rowlands Castle and other local areas to the south. (A two-form entry school, as now required in EHDC's draft Allocations Plan, would add to the peak hour traffic problems.) The Application highlights the proximity of Rowlands Castle station as an advantage to the development. Access to that station from the site could take vehicles along Rowlands Castle Road and other narrow, winding and poorly-lit country roads. However, the Assessment shows zero traffic using this road in all stages of development. Parking at the station is severely limited, and the village itself already experiences parking congestion without additional station traffic adding to it. There is no guarantee the bus service to the development will be improved in the foreseeable future, yet at present the closest bus stop to the development is 1.5 miles away, with users of another route having to negotiate the nearby junction with the A3(M) to get to the bus stop on the other side. For the reasons listed above, the Application is contrary to EHDC Policy CP31, particularly sub-sections a, b, c, e, g, i and k. The Application's failure to take a broader, more realistic view of the impact its proposals will have on transport in the area could lead to major traffic problems in the future. Environment: The Application's own Landscape Assessment and Planning Statements concede there will be significant adverse effects and loss of amenity during the proposed 5-year construction phase. The resulting development will significantly 'urbanise' the area. EHDC's own Landscape and Capacity Study recognised the 'very pleasing open parkland' of part of the site, and commented the boundary of any development on that part should not extend beyond the access way to the existing racetrack off the B2149. These proposals will extend considerably further south of that boundary towards Rowlands Castle. There is no proven need for a countryside location for such development, it does not protect land at the urban edge of a green corridor and it does not prevent the coalescence of settlements. Rowlands Castle's Local Landscape Character Assessment asked for a strengthening of the informal 'gap' between Horndean and Rowlands Castle, whereas these proposals would undermine it. For the reasons listed above, the Application is contrary to EHDC Policies CP19 and 20. The Application's long-term adverse consequences, the loss of rural land and a less attractive visual aspect, will be serious.

Sewerage and drainage: The charts in the supporting documentation do not match the planned housing figures, and any calculations are therefore likely to be inaccurate. This calls into question the capacity of the system to cope with the increase in dwellings. The supplied Appendix B of the Flood Risk Assessment, is illegible in both paper and pdf copies. The figure of 31.7 l/s (Fig 6 of FRA), or 31.6 l/s (3.7.3 of FRA) proposed to be discharged into the public sewer in Havant Road, does not match the figure required by Sewers For Adoption. The zones being supported by this outflow total to 693 dwellings. The level 2 Capacity Check may need to be re-submitted with the correct (higher) figure. The Parish Council remains concerned at EHDC's decision to allocate all the proposed new dwellings to Horndean's new housing targets, as detailed in the Joint Core Strategy, despite 30% of the overall developable area of the site and 30% of the proposed housing numbers, being within the boundary of Rowlands Castle Parish (more than 40% at Hazelton Farm alone). In April 2014, EHDC asked Rowlands Castle residents to express their preference as to where new housing might go. The part of the site within Rowlands Castle Parish was included and indeed preferred by residents, but they were not informed at the time that any housing on the site would not count towards Rowlands Castle's new housing targets. Had they been told, it is doubtful many would have continued in their preference for the site. RCPC believes the consultation was flawed in a number of respects, and should not be used for any part of the decision-making process. Horndean Parish Council – No objection Representations 72 letters of representation have been received of which 44 are broadly supportive of the proposals, 26 broadly object and 2 are considered to be neutral in their response. The comments are as follows:

a) Sensible approach to providing the housing that Horndean needs b) The community facilities provided would make the development self sufficient c) The current road network and infrastructure is not able to cater for development on this

scale d) Many of the roads around the site are single track, unlit roads e) No guarantee that proposed community facilities will be brought forward f) There are no public transport links to the new development so people of Horndean

unlikely to use them g) How will elements like the allotments and playing pitches be operated h) Proposal will be dependent on the motor car i) Adverse impact on wildlife j) Impact on nearby listed buildings k) Impact on the South Downs National Park l) Main concern is development of land North of Rowlands Castle Road m) Adverse impact on character of area n) The dwellings in Rowlands Castle Parish should count towards their quota o) Would close the gap between Horndean and Blendworth p) Lighting will threaten wildlife and habitats

q) Site is hidden and will not have an adverse impact on character of the area r) Ideal location for employment given its close proximity to A3(M) s) Will prevent unplanned sporadic development around Horndean t) Development has been subject of community participation u) Loss of ecologically important hedgerows v) Will not reduce any gaps w) Will support local wildlife and maintain the rural environment x) Care village excellent but more bungalows needed y) Development has support of community z) Possible water contamination aa) Little support for development of land North of Rowlands Castle Road bb) Application recently refused at Blendworth Lane for reasons relating to the loss of the

gap and impact on listed buildings Determining Issues 1. Development plan and material considerations 2. Principle of development 3. Deliverability 4. Balance and mix of housing types 5. Design and layout of the proposed development and its impact upon visual amenity and

landscape character 6. Access, movement and highway safety 7. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers 8. Drainage and flood risk 9. Impacts upon bio-diversity 10. Impacts on trees 11. Impact upon heritage and archaeology 12. Ground contamination 13. Air pollution 14. Infrastructure and developer contributions 15. Other material considerations and relevant planning issues raised by objectors Planning Considerations 1. Development plan and material considerations. As required by section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for East Hampshire District comprises the 'saved' policies of the 2006 East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review and the policies set out in the adopted East Hampshire Local Plan Joint Core Strategy (May 2014). The Draft Site Allocations Document is also a material planning consideration which is gathering weight as it proceeds through the plan-making process.

The application site is located outside the Settlement Policy Boundaries (SPB) with policies in the JCS supporting appropriate residential development within settlement boundaries, and only supporting exceptions schemes in countryside locations. Therefore, this application was advertised as a departure from the local plan. Due regard must be given to Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which advocates the 'genuinely plan-led’ system as one of the core planning principles for the planning system. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF advises that a presumption in favour of sustainable development is seen as the golden thread running through both plan-making and decision making, which means; “approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay, and; where the development plan is, absent, silent, or out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would add significantly to and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole, or, specific policies in the framework indicate development should be restricted.” Five Year Housing Land Supply Whilst the starting point in the consideration of planning applications is the development plan, adoption of the JCS has revised the District's housing requirements. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. The Council’s latest housing land supply figures show that the District has a 5.09 year supply

of land for housing (including a 5% buffer). The latest assessment was dated 31st January 2015. Since that assessment, this Committee has resolved to grant a further 1060 dwellings. This means that the development can be considered in the context of the Development Plan and the housing supply policies in the JCS can be given full weight. Housing land supply considerations There is now, as detailed above, a 5 year housing supply within the district. The requirement for maintaining a 5 year supply (plus 5% buffer) is a rolling target which is imposed on Councils through Government policy. The spatial strategy set out by the JCS, which was reflected in the IHPS, is to distribute new housing throughout the key settlements within the district outside of the SDNP. The amount of housing is based on the identified settlement hierarchy as follows:

• Alton – 700 new homes

• Horndean - 700 new homes

• Clanfield – 200 new homes

• Liphook – 175 new homes

• Four Marks/South Medstead - 175 new homes

• Rowlands Castle - 150 new homes

• Other villages outside the South Downs National Park – 150 new homes This strategy focuses the majority of new housing development to the market towns of Alton, Horndean and Clanfield, which are classified as market town, large local service centre and small local service centre respectively. If granted planning permission this proposal of up to 700 dwellings would help to satisfy the total housing requirement of the settlement. This fact should be given significant weight in the decision making process especially given the need to maintain the 5 year housing land supply. There are also significant benefits of securing affordable housing provision to meet identified local needs. In this respect the Housing Officer is supportive in principle and points to present levels of need. This scheme proposes 40% affordable housing, which is policy compliant, and this fact should be given significant weight. The Draft Site Allocations Document (SAD) also needs to be given weight, though at present that is only moderate, but it will increase as it progresses through the plan-making process. The Draft SAD proposes to allocate this site, together with land at Lovedean Lane, to provide the allocation for Horndean. The allocation is for 700 dwellings, at least 2ha of employment, extra care village and a new 2fe school. Following discussions between the County Council and the applicant, it has been confirmed that only a 1fe primary school is required at present due to falling role numbers. On that basis the scheme is considered to be acceptable in that respect. The proposed allocations include provisions to ensure that the development is acceptable. For the reasons set out in this report, it is considered that the proposal meets the criteria set out in the Draft SAD. The main area of potential conflict relates to the fact that the proposal proposes 1.7ha of employment within the development, which is reflected by the Economic Development Officer’s comments. It should be noted that not only is there a direct allocation of employment land within the scheme, there are also employment opportunities throughout the local centre and the proposed care village. It is considered, therefore, that the scheme provides a number of employment opportunities which seek to meet the draft policy within the Draft SAD. Whilst the figure is expressed as “approximate” this will be clarifies at the reserved matters stage. It is also considered important to maintain flexibility in terms of the final land uses to ensure the development can respond to changing market conditions. The applicant has taken an approach which is less prescriptive at this Outline stage in order that the marketing which will be undertaken prior to Reserved Matters stage will inform the type of employment uses to be delivered on the application site. It is considered sensible to define employment land uses as close to the point of delivery as possible when they can respond to market demand quickly. This is accepted as being a sensible and suitably flexible approach.

Delivery of the employment land needs to be suitably early within the development and this can be achieved by condition.

The delivery of an employment and training package will be secured through the S106 Agreement.

Overall the scheme would make an important contribution to housing supply requirements and continuing to boost significantly the provision of housing within the district and also within Horndean, where there is still a significant residual requirement for housing. 2. Principle of development Locational suitability The western boundary of the application site is located directly adjacent to the settlement policy boundary (SPB) for Horndean as well as part of the A3(M). It should be noted that the western parts of the application site are generally proposed as open space. This will allow for joint use between residents of the existing and new settlements and is considered to be desirable. The site has been seen to be achievable in terms of its inclusion in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). In terms of the location of the site relative to services and facilities offered by Horndean, the site is situated between 1.34km – 2.15km from the nearest and furthest parts of the site for access by either foot or cycle to the town centre. Bus stops are currently 18 – 26 minutes’ walk away from The Precinct and 14-31 minutes’ walk away at Hazelton Way. There are regular buses services to Portsmouth and Alton. No buses are proposed to be provided as there is considered to be insufficient demand. There is, however, the ability for future bus provision through the site, if it is considered necessary, by provision of bus stops and a bus gate into Rowlands Castle Road. The County Council are satisfied with this position. Rowlands Castle rail station is 3km to the east and provides an hourly service to Portsmouth and London Waterloo. It is noted that the application proposes routes through the development and areas which would link into the existing network and is considered to improve accessibility to the surrounding countryside. The Design and Access statement proposes the re-opening of the bridle-bridge across the A3(M,) which will connect pedestrians with Hazelton Common and Cowplain. The network also connects with Rowlands Castle Road and Horndean, together with providing a safe route to the new primary school. Two existing cycle routes run close to the application site. The Morrisons supermarket is considered to be close by, as is Keydell Nurseries. Horndean Heath Centre is between 1.35 – 2.14km, depending on which part of the application site it is measured from. In accessibility terms, the site is in a sustainable location, which weighs in support of the scheme.

Policy CP24 of the JCS 2014 requires residential development to meet the relevant Code for Sustainable Home threshold level and for non-residential development to meet the relevant BREEAM standard. The policy specifies that for residential development the relevant threshold is Code for Sustainable Home Level 4 and for multi-residential and non-residential developments with a floorspace over 500m2 the threshold is BREEAM “excellent”. The development seeks to achieve these levels and a condition is proposed to ensure the development is policy compliant in this respect. 3. Deliverability The NPPF, in a footnote to paragraph 47, clarifies that: “To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans.” The application has been supported by a Utilities Assessment which gives consideration to the supply of water, electricity, gas and telecommunications to the site, in consultation with the utility providers. This concludes that the development could be supplied with normal network service supplies without prohibitive reinforcements to networks. As such there would not appear to be significant off-site infrastructure works arising from the development which might delay its implementation of the development. Therefore, there are no evident barriers to the development coming forward. 4. Balance and mix of housing types The submitted Planning Statement advises that the development would comprise up to 700 dwellings, of which the applicant has confirmed that 40% would be affordable housing. The preferred mix of housing is detailed above in the consultation response of the Housing Officer. The Council’s Housing Officer’s has confirmed that the proposed 40% affordable housing is acceptable and has demonstrated the need for affordable housing to be delivered on site as part of this development. That will help achieve the requirement in the NPPF to provided mixed and inclusive communities. The affordable housing provision would need to be secured through a legal agreement, with triggers for the transfer of the affordable housing land / units to an acceptable Registered Provider. The tenure type would also need to be secured as 70% affordable rent and 30% intermediate tenure, in accordance with the adopted supplementary guidance on affordable housing.

For these reasons the proposal satisfies the aims of policies CP11 and CP13 of the JCS. 5. Design and layout of the proposed development and impact upon visual amenity and

landscape character The amount of housing proposed falls within the threshold for allocated housing within Horndean as set out in the JCS and reiterated in the Draft Site Allocations Document. It is considered to be appropriate to the size and role of Horndean as set out within the JCS. Policy CP29 of the JCS stipulates that new development will be required, to seek exemplary standards of design, ensure that layout and design contribute to local distinctiveness and sense of place, to be sympathetic to its setting, makes a positive contribution to the overall appearance of the area, be accessible to all and minimises the opportunity for crime. The site also shares a boundary with the South Downs National Park and, therefore, has to comply with the purposes of the National Park which are to:

(i) to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area, and (ii) to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks by the public. The Park Authority has expressed concerns about the illustrative Masterplan consideration of the “conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the SDNP. The Park Authority comments are detailed above. Many of the points have been addressed by improvements to the level of landscaping and avoiding the need to create any additional openings and associated hedgerow removal along Pyles Lane. It is considered that the points and concerns raised by the Park Authority are generally those that would be addressed through the reserved matters applications as part of the ongoing design process. The Park also raises issues in relation to ecology and heritage issues and these are addressed below. In terms of connectivity, there are a number of initiatives proposed to improve that connectivity into the National Park and to Hazelton Common. These can also be addressed in more detail through the reserved matters applications. In respect of layout, scale and design, these are matters that will be properly addressed through the submission of reserved matters. The Design and Access Statement has detailed a number of character areas which seek to establish parameters for development within those areas. Again, these are broadly illustrative and the final character and design will be established through the reserved matters applications. The concerns of the Park are noted but they do not constitute an ”in principle” objection to the proposal. They are matters of detail, many of which have been addressed or can be addressed through the reserved matters process. The range of densities proposed are considered to be acceptable in terms of the landscape setting, providing a range of various styles and densities across the site and are considered to be an efficient use of land.

It is noted that the Parameter Plan shows that the majority of the dwellings would be predominantly two storey housing. The variations will occur either on the main frontages of the development away from the National Park or within the site. This would be established through the reserved matters applications. It is, however, considered that this is an appropriate approach in this location. Under Policy CP18 of the JCS, all new residential developments are required to provide as a minimum standard the equivalent of 3.45 ha of public open space per 1000 population, split as follows; 2.0ha Informal Open Space, 0.25ha of Children’s Play Space, 1.0ha of Formal Playing Pitches and 0.2ha allotments. On the basis of 2.35persons per household and 698 households the proposal requires the following provisions:

• Parks and Recreation Grounds – 1.64ha

• Natural Green Space – 1.64ha

• Informal green Space – 1.64ha

• Equipped Children and young people’s space – 0.41 ha

• Allotments – 0.33ha. Total – 5.66ha. The total provision is:

• Parks and Recreation Grounds – 3.60ha

• Natural Green Space – 14.40ha

• Informal green Space – 2.60ha

• Equipped Children and young people’s space – 0.41 ha

• Allotments – 0.44ha. Total – 21.45ha. From the above, it can be seen that the proposal makes sufficient provision for open space in line with policy. Visual impact on the character and appearance of the area Landscape impact is a key consideration in the assessment of this proposal and to assist in the evaluation of this impact the application is supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). The LVIA concludes that the development would be acceptable in landscape and visual terms. It indicates that in the short term, i.e. the construction stage and period immediately after, the impact of the development would be a negligible to substantial adverse impact. Following the establishment of planting and the green infrastructure this would reduce to negligible to slight moderate adverse impact. All development, especially one of this scale, will have an impact of the landscape and the developer has worked with officers to minimise this to an acceptable level. Particular attention has been paid to the eastern edge of the development, which is the more open aspect and shares the boundary with the National Park.

The masterplan has been amended to move the residential roads and houses on the north eastern boundary back from the boundary hedge to leave space for additional tree planting to screen the development from the SDNP. Housing densities here would be low and there would be significant landscaping, as well as connections through to the National Park by means of footpath provision. When considering the long term impacts of the development, the LVIA concludes that the impact would be slight to moderate beneficial. It is considered that the purposes of the National Park have been protected by the proposal. A landscape condition will be required for details of hard and soft landscape at reserved maters, including substantial tree planting along the new roads as indicated on the masterplan. The legal agreement would ensure that the structural planting required would be delivered very early on in the development, before commencement of much of the built form. On this basis, it is considered that, whilst there will be some impact in relation to the development of a Greenfield site, any impacts can be properly mitigated and that it is not possible to sustain an objection on landscape character grounds. 6. Access, movement and highway safety The application falls to be considered by both Highways England (Highways Agency), as the responsible body for the A3 (M), and the County Council as the Local Highway Agency. The Highways Agency has considered the application and the alterations to the junctions to accommodate the application and is satisfied that any changes can be safely made. They raise no objection subject to a condition requiring pedestrian and cycle routes linking the east and west sides of the A3 (M). This should be by the southern crossing. The County Council as the Local Highway Authority has considered the scheme and concluded that subject to conditions and provisions within a S106 Agreement relating to highway works and financial contributions as detailed above that the scheme is now considered to be acceptable. Both Highways England and the County Council have commented on the signalisation of Junction 2 of the A3 (M). The scheme proposes a revised junction arrangement, which incorporates pedestrian and cycle crossing provision, in addition to full traffic signal. Whilst the final format of this junction proposal cannot be agreed at this stage the principle of fully signalising the junction is accepted, although there is a need for some further development work to ensure the scheme fully provides for both vehicular traffic and other road users. The County Council has expressed its agreement that this further work can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition. 7. Impact on the amenity for neighbouring properties. Given that siting, design etc are matters to be dealt with through reserved matters applications it is considered that it is not possible to make a fully informed assessment at this stage.

However given the relationship of nearby residential properties to the site it is considered highly likely that a scheme can be designed which will not raise any amenity issues. 8. Drainage and flood risk Flood Risk The layout shows that the built form of development would be located on land that would be entirely within Flood Zone 1, which is at the lowest risk of flooding. A small part of the site, approximately 50m wide, does lie within Flood Zone 2/3 with a medium risk of flooding. Surface and Foul Water Drainage The Council’s Drainage Consultant considers the various drainage features proposed to be acceptable. He notes risks to groundwater from contaminated land and the proposed development has been raised by Portsmouth Water and, therefore, there will need to be discussion with that body. He has no objections in principle subject to satisfactory drainage systems for both foul and surface water, which can be controlled by condition. The Environment Agency has no objection subject to conditions. Water Supply The Government’s “Planning Practice Guidance” advises that; “Planning for the necessary water supply would normally be addressed through the Local Plan. Water supply is therefore unlikely to be a consideration for most planning applications. Exceptions might include:

• large developments not identified in Local Plans that are likely to require a large amount of water; and/or

• where a Local Plan requires enhanced water efficiency in new developments as part of a strategy to manage water demand locally and help deliver new development.

In this case, while the development is large in scale, the amount of housing should be accommodated for within scale of housing allocated for Horndean within the Joint Core Strategy, which is supported by an evidence base and a Sustainability Appraisal. Consequently Officers do not consider there are robust grounds that stand against the scheme based on this issue. Notwithstanding that, Portsmouth Water has raised an holding objection based on concerns over the contamination of groundwater. The site is in a groundwater protection zone having regard to the Bedhampton and Havant Springs which serves Portsmouth and the surrounding areas. Discussions have taken place between the applicant, Environment Agency, Portsmouth Water and the Environmental Health officer and it is considered that conditions would be able to resolve these issues. A late response setting out a range of detailed conditions, as agreed by these agencies, has been received and these need to be fully considered, in consultation with the applicants The final conditions will be set out in full in the up-date sheet at the Committee.

Portsmouth Water is also concerned about the impact on Bechstein Bats and the possible disturbance of these to a site earmarked for a strategic reservoir. Again discussions have taken place to resolve these concerns. 9. Impacts upon bio-diversity The site has significant bio-diversity assets as set out in the response from the County Ecologist. It is necessary to ensure that those interests, including European Protected Species, are properly mitigated having regard to policies within the Development Plan and within the NPPF. The survey information has been accepted by the County Ecologist who has made positive suggestions to the applicant which has been agreed and will be incorporated into a final Ecological Mitigation Strategy. These will result in net benefits to the site in terms of enhancing the habitats for those species and improving access to parts of the site for the general public. It is, therefore, considered that the scheme is acceptable in terms of its impact on bio-diversity and complies with the policies set out within the JCS and the NPPF. 10. Impact on trees. The application has been supported by a Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment. The scheme proposes to retain 75% of all trees. Whilst 13 trees were proposed to be removed on safety grounds, 7 of these are to be retained due to their bat roosting potential. Whilst this loss is unfortunate it will be adequately mitigated by additional planting and landscaping. There will be some tree loss as a result the internal access road from Havant Road into the middle section of the development but this would be subject to details at the reserved matters stage. It is accepted that there would be some tree loss in this location but that it should be kept to a minimum. The loss would not have any significant impact on the character of he development or the purposes of the National Park 11. Impact upon heritage and archaeology Policy CP30 (Historic Environment) of the JCS requires development proposals to conserve and, where possible, enhance the District’s historic assets and their setting. The County Archaeologist raises no objection to the development and recommends that the assessment, recording and reporting of any archaeological deposits present should be secured through the attachment of a suitable condition to any planning consent that might be granted. Given the interest in the site the results of the initial evaluation should be available and submitted at least by the time of the reserved matters application to enable it to be part of the design process.

The proposal is adjacent to two listed buildings, Pyle Farm, a Grade II historic farmstead, and

Hook Cottage, a Grade II 18th century house. There is concern that less than substantial harm will occur to the setting of both these heritage assets. There is a statutory requirement to give considerable weight and importance to the desirability of preserving and enhancing heritage assets. Paragraphs 132 – 135 of the NPPF translate this statutory requirement into policy guidance. Where there is substantial harm to a designated heritage asset permission should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. (Para133 – NPPF). If there is less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset then this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. (Para 134 – NPPF) These, together with the statutory test, are high tests and the decision maker needs to be aware of the balancing exercise and weight that needs to be given to the desirability of preserving and enhancing heritage asset. The concern in this instance is one of less than substantial harm. It is necessary, therefore, for the decision maker to balance the public benefits of the scheme against the harm to the designated heritage asset. This also has to be considered in light of the statutory requirement to give considerable weight and importance to the desirability of preserving and enhancing such assets. The benefits of the scheme include the need to provide housing within Horndean and also the provision of affordable housing and accommodation for the elderly. There is the consideration that this is a sustainable development which provides net benefits to bio-diversity and improves pedestrian and cycle links to the National Park, Horndean and Hazelton Common. The scheme also provides employment to increase its sustainability credentials as well as that of Horndean generally. It is considered, therefore, that the public benefits of the scheme, as set out above, outweigh the harm to the heritage assets and therefore the test set out in paragraph 134 of the NPPF as well as the statutory test has been satisfied. For these reasons it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the aims of Policy CP30 of the JCS and Government advice contained within the NPPF. 12. Ground contamination As detailed above there were initial concerns about the potential for the development to contaminate groundwater given that the site lies within a groundwater protection zone. Discussions have taken place with the applicant and subject to confirmation by consultees it is considered that the matter can be satisfactorily addressed through the imposition of conditions.

13. Air Pollution The application is supported by an Air Quality Assessment. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the submitted assessment and has commented that he agrees with the conclusions of the report. Should permission be granted, the construction phase has the potential to adversely impact existing residential amenity, therefore, the Environmental Health Officer recommends that a condition relating to the agreement of a Construction Environmental Management Plan is appended to any permission granted. As such the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the aims of Policy CP27 of the JCS in this regard. 14. Infrastructure and developer contributions To meet the provisions of JCS and saved Local Plan policies, following assessment of the valuation report submitted, the proposal would secure the provision of 40% affordable housing and make contributions via s106 obligation, including:

• employment and training package

• travel plan

• integrated transport measures

• community project worker Other contributions will be based on the requirements set out in the council’s supplementary document (Guide to Developers Contributions 2012). In this respect the scheme would attract needs for contributions towards a community project worker resource to help facilitate social integration between housing types/tenures within the scheme. A S106 covering any planning permission would also secure the following: - Provision, maintenance and management in perpetuity of landscape planting and ecology

buffers - On-site provision of public open space and children’s play space and management and

maintenance in perpetuity - Matters of general management and maintenance in perpetuity of other common areas

including of the access and estate roads, surface water drainage systems - Tenure split for affordable housing, stipulating 30% intermediate (shared ownership) and

70% affordable rent. - Occupancy criteria stipulating a cascade for occupancy of affordable rent units within the

settlement, then adjoining parishes and then wider to the District. - Early provision of the employment land for development, the new school and local centre - A transport contribution to be used towards highway improvement measures,

improvements to sustainable modes of transport, and other measures that provide direct benefit to the site.

- Implementation of offsite highway works as shown in principle on drawings A081737_023 Rev F, A081737_024 Rev E, with the exception of A3(M) Junction 2 proposals, these will be secured separately by condition.

- Financial contribution to deliver the proposed signalised crossing points at Dell Piece East and 82149.

- To achieve the necessary speed reduction on Rowlands Castle Road to accommodate

the required access visibility.

- Submission and implementation of a full Travel Plan, payment of the Travel Plan

approval and monitoring fees, and provision of a surety mechanism to ensure

implementation of the Travel Plan.

15. Other material considerations and relevant planning issues raised by objectors It will be noted that the Health and Safety Executive raised concerns about the location of inappropriate residential accommodation within the safety zone. The scheme has been amended to address that issue, which has now been satisfactorily resolved. In terms of the representations made it is considered that these have been addressed above. Conclusion This development is a significant extension to the settlement of Horndean. The settlement has a requirement to provide a minimum of 700 dwellings with the plan period set out in the Joint Core Strategy. This is set out in the Draft Site Allocations document which seeks to allocate the site for 700 dwellings, 2ha of employment, elderly care village and a 2fe school. The development meets most of these requirements, subject to the comments above, and will provide benefits in terms of the economic, social and environmental strands of sustainable development. These benefits are detailed below. There will, inevitably for a development of this scale and significance, be a number of adverse impacts. Chief amongst these will be the visual impact of the development, particularly in respect to its impact on the South Downs National Park and the designated heritage assets detailed above. There is also the direct loss of trees as a result of the development. These should be given significant weight, but have to be weighed against the public benefits that the scheme will bring. The main benefit is the provision of housing, a major requirement of both national and local policy. Whilst the District is able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, there is still a residual requirement to provide housing within Horndean and this should be given significant weight. It should also be noted that even though there is, at present, a five year housing land supply, it is still necessary to grant applications that comply with the development plan in order to maintain that supply. The provision of a policy compliant level of affordable housing, elderly accommodation and net benefits to bio-diversity together with improved public access to recreation land are all considered to be significant public benefits. There will also be a net increase in planting throughout the site which will effectively mitigate the visual impacts of the development as well as the trees lost through the impact of the development.

These benefits are considered together, to weigh heavily in favour of the scheme and outweigh the harm identified in the report. It is, therefore, considered that the application is considered to be policy compliant and constitute sustainable development. RECOMMENDATION That: A. the solicitor to the Council be authorised to draw up a Section 106 legal agreement and;

B. provided that by 10th July 2015 all relevant parties enter into the Section 106 agreement with the Council to secure: i. employment and training package, and early delivery of employment allocated land on site; ii. integrated transport measures including a transport contribution to be used towards highway improvement measures, improvements to sustainable modes of transport, and other measures that provide direct benefit to the site. These will include:

• Support of bus services within the area;

• Improvements to pedestrian and cycle infrastructure within the vicinity along Rowlands Caste Road, Dell Piece East, Dell Piece West, Havant Road, B2149 and Portsmouth Road;

• Cycle route from London Road to Green Lane across Meadow Croft;

• Cycle parking at Green Lane local shops;

• Traffic Calming on New Road, Clanfield;

• Traffic calming and junction improvements at South Lane, Charlton Lane and London Road, Clanfield;

• Traffic Calming on Green Road, Clanfield;

• Bus shelter improvements in Clanfield;

• Cycle route between Snells Corner and Horndean War Memorial;

• Traffic Calming on Victoria Avenue, London Road (Havant Road to A3(M)), White Dirt Lane, Merchistoun Estate, Lovedean Lane, Downwood Way, DownHouse Road, Catherington Lane and Hazleton Way, Horndean;

• Upgrade of existing Pelican crossing to a Toucan at Barton Cross, Horndean

• Cycle route on Catherington Lane, Horndean;

• Cycle route on Merchistoun Road, Horndean;

• Cycle route through Clanfield and Horndean providing links to settlements of Petersfield, Clanfield, Horndean and Havant;

• Cycle route Horndean village square to Denmead via Portsmouth Road, Five Heads Road, Catherington Lane, Crouch Lane, Coldhill Lane, Lovedean Lane, Day Lane, Broadway Lane and Anmore Lane;

• Horndean C E Infant & Junior School access improvements;

• Horndean Technology College access improvement; and

• Wider schemes in the vicinity of the proposed site deemed appropriate to assist in mitigating the transport impact of the proposed development.

• Implementation of off-site highway works as shown in principle on drawings

A081737_023 Rev F, A081737_024 Rev E.

• Financial contribution to deliver the proposed signalised crossing points at Dell

Piece East and 82149.

• To achieve the necessary speed reduction on Rowlands Castle Road to

accommodate the required access visibility.

• Submission and implementation of a full Travel Plan, payment of the Travel

Plan approval and monitoring fees, and provision of a surety mechanism to

ensure implementation of the Travel Plan;

iv. Early provision of a 2ha site for a school on-site together with a contribution towards the provision of a primary school; v. Provision of structural planting early in the development and future maintenance and management; vi. Provisions, management and maintenance of sports facilities, public open space and allotments; vii. Provision, management and maintenance of surface water drainage system (including SUDs) and foul drainage system; viii. Provision, management and maintenance in perpetuity of landscape planting and ecology buffers; ix. Matters of general management and maintenance in perpetuity of other common areas including of the access and estate roads; x. Provision of affordable housing and tenure split for affordable housing, stipulating 30% intermediate (shared ownership) and 70% affordable rent; xi. Occupancy criteria stipulating a cascade for occupancy of affordable rent units within the settlement, then adjoining parishes and then wider to the District; xii. Details of drainage and utility service corridors; xiii. A review of the provision of the Affordable Housing Supply, mix and allocation prior to the commencement of each phase of the development; xiv. The limitation of the occupancy of the care home and assisted living accommodation to persons over the age of 55 and their dependents; and xv. Community project worker (or contribution if not provided on-site) then the Executive Head Planning and Development be authorised to:

a) Make minor changes to conditions, as necessary, with agreement of Chairman and Ward Councillors, and

b) grant OUTLINE PERMISSION subject to the following conditions. However, in the event that a satisfactory S106 agreement to secure points i. to xv. above is

not completed by 10th July 2015, then permission will be refused under the Councils adopted scheme of delegation. 1 Applications for the approval of the matters referred to herein shall be

made within a period of three years from the date of this permission.

The development to which the permission relates shall be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:- (i) three years from the date of this permission; or (ii) two years from the final approval of the said reserved matters, or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Reason - To comply with the provisions of Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.

2 No development shall start on site until plans and particulars showing details relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall comprise the 'reserved matters' and shall be submitted within the time constraints referred to in Condition 1 above before any development is commenced. Reason - To comply with Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

3 No development, or if a phasing plan has first been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority no development of the individual phase, shall start until plans and particulars showing the detailed proposals for all the following aspects of the development or the individual phase as appropriate have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall comprise the 'reserved matters' and shall be submitted within the time constraints referred to in Condition 1 and comprise:- a) Access: meaning the accessibility to and within the site, for vehicles,

cycles and pedestrians in terms of the positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network;

b) Appearance: meaning the aspects of any building or place within the development which determine the visual impression the building or place makes, including the external built form of the development, its architecture, materials, decoration, lighting, colour and texture;

c) Landscaping: meaning the treatment of land (other than buildings) for the purpose of enhancing or protecting the amenities of the site and the area in which it is situated and includes screening by fences, walls or other means, the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs or grass, the formation of banks, terraces or other earthworks, the laying out or provision of gardens, courts or squares, water features, sculpture, or public art, and the provision of other amenity features and includes strategic landscaping;

d) Layout: meaning the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces within the development are provided, situated and orientated in relation to each other and to buildings and spaces outside the development;

e) Scale: meaning the height, width and length of each building proposed

within the development in relation to its surroundings; f) A site survey showing the position, type and spread of all existing

trees on the site and a schedule detailing the size and a schedule detailing the size and physical condition of each tree and, where appropriate, the steps to be taken to bring the tree(s) to be retained to a satisfactory condition and also details of any proposals for the felling, lopping, topping or up-rooting of any tree;

g) Arrangements to be made for the future maintenance of landscaped and other open areas;

h) The provision to be made for the parking, turning, loading and unloading of vehicles;

i) Details of a scheme for foul and surface water drainage to include the layout of foul sewers and water drains;

j) The provision of street lighting, street furniture, lighting (including security lighting), bollards etc;

k) The provision to be made for the storage and removal of refuse from each part of the development;

l) The phasing of the development; m) The nature and phasing of the employment provision.

Each of the above matters shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before either any part of the development is occupied, or in accordance with an agreed phasing plan, whichever is the later, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To comply with Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

4 No development shall start on site until a construction method statement for each phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, which shall include: a) A programme of and phasing of demolition (if any) and construction

work; b) The provision of long term facilities for contractor parking; c) The arrangements for deliveries associated with all construction

works, including the hours when such deliveries are to take place; d) Methods and phasing of construction works including hours of

construction; e) Access and egress for plant and machinery; f) Protection of pedestrian routes including public rights of way during

construction; g) Location of temporary site buildings, compounds, construction

material, and plant storage areas; h) Controls over dust, noise, and vibration during the construction period; i) Provision for storage, collection, and disposal of rubbish from the

development during construction period; and j) Re-use of on-site material and spoil arising from any site clearance or

demolition work.

k) the pollution prevention measures which will be in place to ensure that there is no contamination of the groundwater aquifer and other water courses during the construction phase

- the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development - responding to and the reporting of incidents which may result in pollution

Demolition and construction work shall only take place in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the

effect of the works on the amenity of the locality.

5 No development shall start within each phase of development until plans of that phase showing details of the existing and proposed ground levels, proposed finished floor levels, levels of any paths, drives, garages and parking areas and the proposed completed height of the development and any retaining walls have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall clearly identify the relationship of the proposed ground levels and proposed completed height with adjacent buildings and any protected trees. The development thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that a satisfactory relationship results between the new development and adjacent buildings, protected trees and public areas.

6 Before any part of each phase of the development is first occupied a verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority confirming that the built residential development hereby permitted complies with Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. Before any part of the development is first occupied a verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority confirming that all multi-residential and non-residential development with a floor space of over 500 sq m must achieve BREEAM ‘excellent’ The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to meet the requirement. Reason - To ensure that the development incorporates necessary

mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change.

7 No development shall start on site until a report has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority addressing the ecological impact of the development on the natural environment and the presence of any protected species within the curtilage of the development.

This should include full details (including timetables and responsibilities) of all proposed mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures as well as ongoing monitoring. The report shall be prepared by a competent person for the purpose of assessing the impact of the development and shall include a full assessment of species and population affected by the development and proposed methods to mitigate against this impact. Reason - To ensure that the natural environment and any protected species which occupy the site are protected.

8 All trees, shrubs and other natural features not scheduled for removal shall be fully safeguarded during the course of the site works and building operations in accordance with the details contained within the Tree and Arboricultural Development Statement CBA10241v2 dated October 2014. Reason - To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period.

9 Details of any external lighting, including hours of use, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before development commences. The equipment shall be installed, operated and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason - In the interests of the amenity of the area and protected species

10 No development shall commence until details of the design and layout of cricket pavilion, cricket pitch and two football pitches have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The pitches and pavilion shall not be constructed other than in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure the development is fit for purpose and sustainable and to accord with Joint Core Strategy Policy CP18.

11 The Developer shall provide a suitable pedestrian and cycle route between the east side of the A3(M) and the west side of the A3(M) at Junction 2, details of which are to be agreed with Highways England, that will not involve crossing the northbound on-slip or the southbound off-slip, and will not utilise the northern bridge. Reason -

• To ensure that the A3(M) Trunk Road continues to be an effective part of the national system of routes for through traffic in accordance with section 10 of the Highways Act 1980 and to satisfy the reasonable requirements of road safety.

• On the grounds of safety for pedestrians and cyclists at a high speed connection

• To maintain operational effectiveness without delaying motorised

traffic unnecessarily

12 Prior to any phase of development commencing details of the means of access, including the layout, construction and visibility splays, for that phase shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in writing. The agreed details shall be fully implemented before any dwelling on the relevant phase is occupied and the visibility splays shall be maintained free of obstacles thereafter. Reason - To ensure a satisfactory means of access to the highway and in the interests of highway safety.

13 Prior to the commencement of development details of the provision to be made to safely accommodate vehicle movements into and out of existing vehicular access points north of Dell Piece East shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in writing before the development commences. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

14 No part of the development shall commence until a signalisation scheme to A3(M) Junction 2 which accommodates pedestrian and cycle movements across the junction from Dell Piece East to Dell Piece West via the southern over bridge and also fully accommodates expected vehicular traffic and (for the avoidance of doubt) could include carriageway widening of Dell Piece East, Dell Piece West and the circulatory carriageway of the junction shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in writing and the approved scheme will be fully implemented before the first occupation of the development. Reason - In the interests of highway safety, to reduce the reliance on the private car and to reduce the impact on the highway network.

15 Prior to the development hereby approved commencing a design for the pedestrian/cycle route to link all parcels with Rowlands Caste Road, to promote access to Rowlands Castle Rail Station, to be delivered through the internal layout of the development masterplan, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in writing before commencement. The agreed details shall be fully implemented before occupation or residential units. Reason - In the interests of highway safety and to reduce the reliance on the private car.

16 Prior to the development of the parcels of land accessed from Pyle Lane a design for the pedestrian route to those parcels shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in writing before occupation.

The agreed details shall be fully implemented before the development of the land parcel is commenced. Reason - In the interests of highway safety and to reduce the reliance on the private car.

17 No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written brief, specification and timetable for a scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that an historic record is made of the site given it is potentially of archaeological significance

18 No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological assessment in accordance with a written scheme of investigation that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter a programme of archaeological mitigation of impact shall be implemented in accordance with a further written scheme that been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of the archaeological fieldwork a report shall be produced in accordance with the further written scheme including where appropriate post-excavation assessment, specialist analysis and reports, publication and public engagement and submitted to the Local Planning Authority in advance of any submission of reserved matters and used to inform the development of the reserved matters applications. Reason - To contribute to our knowledge and understanding of our past by ensuring that opportunities are taken to capture evidence from the historic environment and to make this publicly available.

19 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars: Application form Illustrative Masterplan Parameter plans including:

• Planning Application Boundary Ref.A01113_100

• Access & Movement Plan Ref A01113_101

• Landuse Plan Ref A01113_102

• Residential Density Plan Ref. A01113_103

• Building Heights Plan Ref. A01113_104

• Open Space Plan Ref A01113_105 Topographical Survey Ref. 34HN001 Design and Access Statement

Planning Statement Affordable Housing Statement (Within Planning Statement) Draft S106 Head of Terms (Within Planning Statement) Air Quality Assessment Ref. 61033021-ENV-RO2 Tree Survey & Arboricultural Impact Assessment Ref. CBA10241v2 Cultural Heritage Desk-based Assessment Ref. 61033021-ENV-RO5 Archaeological Mitigation Strategy Ecological reports comprising;

• Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

• Woodland Botanical Letter

• Grassland Botanical Letter

• Great Crested Newt survey

• Reptile survey

• Breeding Bird Survey

• Hazel Doormouse Survey

• Badger Survey

• Terrestrial Invertebrate Survey Energy & Sustainability Statement Flood Risk Assessment & Surface water Drainage Strategy Ref. 61033021-ENV-RO3 Utilities Assessment Geo-Technical & Contaminated Land Assessment Ref. 61033021-ENV-RO4 Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Ref. 61033021-ENV-RO3 Transport Assessment and Green Travel Plan Bat Survey Lighting Assessment Ref. 61033021-LR-01 Minerals Assessment Statement of Community Involvement Environmental Statement 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 agent was provided with pre-application advice and updated of any issues after the initial site visit.

2 Please note that there is a Section 106 Agreement that applies to this permission.

3 The applicant is advised that the design and layout of the pavilion and sports pitches should comply with the relevant industry Technical Design Guidance, including guidance published by Sport England, National Governing Bodies for Sport. Particular attention is drawn to: FA pitch size guidance http://www.thefa.com/my-football/football-volunteers/runningaclub/yourfacilities/technicalstandards and Sport England's guide to pavilions http://www.sportengland.org/media/30956/Pavilions-and-clubhouses.pdf.

CASE OFFICER: Julia Mansi 01730 234236 ———————————————————————————————————————

SECTION 1 Item 01 Development Land East of Horndean, Rowlands Castle Road, Horndean.

Illustrative Masterplan