BHH – Bursledon, Hamble –le-Rice and Hound Local Area Committee Thursday 25 January 2018.

Application Number:

O/17/81166

Case Officer: Andy GrandfieldReceived Date: Friday 28 July 2017Site Address: Land off Providence Hill, Bursledon, Southampton, SO31

8AUApplicant: Foreman HomesProposal: Outline Application: Residential development of up to 130

dwellings, associated open space, landscaping, amenity areas and infrastructure means of access from Providence Hill. (All matters reserved except for access).(amended description)

Recommendation: GRANT OUTLINE PERMISSION

Subject to; (i) Receipt and consideration of the views of the Borough ecologist and Historic England on the principle of development, (ii) the receipt and consideration of updated noise assessment, and; (iii) securing a planning obligation for delivery of affordable housing and improvements to local infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the development.

CONDITIONS AND REASONS

The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the following plans numbered: 16.115.01B, 16.15.06B, 16.115.04A, 16.115.07A. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

The development hereby permitted shall begin either: a) No later than the expiration of two years from the date of this permission; OR b) No later than the expiration of one year from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

.No development shall start until details of the: a) layout of the site, b) scale of the buildings, c) external appearance of the buildings, d) means of access, e) landscaping of the site [hereafter called "the reserved matters"] have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made within one year of the date of this permission. The development shall accord with the approved details. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The site layout to be submitted as part of the reserved matters application shall be in general accordance with the illustrative master plan shown on drawing 16.115.SK01A . Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance in the interest of the amenities of the area, the setting of the Conservation Area and

the setting of the Listed Building.

No development shall start until details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance in the interest of the amenities of the area.

6 No construction or demolition work shall start until a Construction Method and Environmental Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Demolition and construction work shall only take place in accordance with the approved method statement which shall include:a) a programme and phasing of the demolition and construction work, including roads, landscaping and open space;b) location of temporary site buildings, compounds, construction material and plant storage areas used during demolition and construction;c) safeguards to be used within the construction process to ensure surface water contains no pollutants on leaving the site;d) safeguards to waterways adjacent to the site to protect them from pollution impacts;e) the arrangements for the routing / turning of lorries and details for construction traffic access to the site;f) the arrangements for deliveries associated with all construction works, loading / unloading of plant & materials and restoration of any damage to the highway [including vehicle crossovers and grass verges];g) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;h) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt generated by demolition and construction;i) a scheme for controlling noise and vibration from demolition and construction activities [to include piling];j) provision for storage, collection, and disposal of rubbish from the development during construction period;k) measures to prevent mud and dust on the highway during demolition and construction;l) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate;m) temporary lighting; l) temporary construction drainage system containing three forms of temporary filtration andn) protection of pedestrian routes during construction.m) safeguards for fuel and chemical storage and use, to ensure no pollution of the surface water leaving the siteThis comprehensive management plan shall have due regard to the details contained in the Best Practise Guidance - The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition, 2006 (London Authorities) and Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction, 2014 (Institute of Air Quality Management).  Reason: To limit the impact the development has on the amenity of the locality and nearby listed building, and to ensure no adverse impact on the Solent

Complex from pollution within the construction process

No development shall start until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied until the approved details have been fully implemented [unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority] and shall include:a) Details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development.b) The alignment, height and materials of all walls, fences and other means of enclosure.c) Details of the retaining structures and the method of construction.c) The details and layout of foul sewers and surface water drains, including measures for management and maintenance.d) Plans including cross sections to show proposed ground levels and their relationship to existing levels both within the site and on immediately adjoining land.e) Width, alignment, gradient, sight lines, lighting and type of construction proposed for any roads, footpaths and accesses. These shall be designed in accordance with the Manual for Streets and any lighting shall be sited to minimise spillage and avoid impacting on flight corridors used by bats.f) Details for ongoing management and maintenance of any roads, footpaths and accesses including any future plans for adoption.g) Details of the lighting strategy to ensure no light disturbance to the retained tree roost and to ensure dark corridors corresponding to the existing bat foraging corridors around the site boundaries.h) A landscaping scheme to cover all surfacing, trees and planting.i) Details and location of bin and bike storage.Reason: To limit the impact the development has on the locality.

No development shall start until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:a) plans including cross sections to show proposed ground levels and their relationship to existing levels both within the site and on immediately adjoining land; andb) width, alignment, gradient, sight lines and type of construction proposed for any roads footpaths and accesses.The development shall not be occupied until the approved details have been fully implemented, unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To limit the impact the development has on the locality and to ensure the roads are built to an adoptable standard.

No development shall start until details for the disposal of foul sewerage from the development hereby permitted, and a timetable for its implementation, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of foul water drainage.

Notwithstanding the information submitted to date no development shall start until details of a naturalised sustainable drainage system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall

include the SuDS layout; 3 filtration processes within the treatment train to ensure no pollutants leave the site; a timetable for its implementation and a management / maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development [including the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the effective operation of the sustainable drainage system and to maintain operational water quality throughout its lifetime]. The system shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure satisfactory drainage for the development and to ensure no impact on the Solent Complex, from pollution within the operational phase.

No development shall start until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall cover all hard and soft landscaping [including trees and boundary treatments] and provide at least a 15m buffer of naturalised habitat adjacent to the Windmill Field Wood SINC; appropriate buffering to ensure protection of headwater springs a; and details of timings for all landscaping and any future maintenance. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and to the appropriate British Standard. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the locality, to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and to protect and enhance the designated habitats within the SINC and the Solent complex.

No development shall start until a landscape and open space management plan, detailing private and public areas, with a maintenance schedule has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape and open space shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

All hard & soft landscaping, tree planting and boundary treatments shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and to the appropriate British Standard. For a period of no less than 5 years after planting, any trees or plants which are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of the same species, size and number as originally approved in the landscaping scheme. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the locality and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents.

Notwithstanding the information submitted to date, no development related works shall take place on site until a revised Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan (B.S.5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction) that informs the final layout is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Method Statement shall be adhered to in full in accordance with the approved plans and may only be modified subject to written agreement from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To retain and protect the existing trees which form an important part of the amenity of the locality.

No development related works shall commence until a site meeting has taken place with the site manager, the retained consulting arboriculturalist and a

representative from the Local Planning Authority for each phase of the development. Work cannot commence until the Local Planning Authority officer has inspected and approved the proposed tree protection. Once approved no access by vehicles or placement of goods, chemicals, fuels, soil or other materials shall take place within fenced area. The fencing shall be retained in its approved form for the duration of the work. All other aspects of the Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement will be addressed at this meeting. This tree condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development subject to satisfactory written evidence ofmonthly monitoring and compliance by the pre-appointed tree specialist during construction. Reason: To retain and

A detailed bat mitigation strategy shall be submitted with the first reserved matters application to provide: - a climbing, endoscope and / or emergence survey of the trees suitable for bat roosts (as agreed with the Local Planning Authority in advance); - a plan showing the locations of bat boxes for mitigation and enhancement together with timing of their provision and a monitoring regime; - the extent and location of at least one dark corridor adjacent to the SINC to provide prime bat foraging habitat; and - a lighting plan that protects the foraging corridors used by bat species and along riparian corridors. The development shall accord with these approved details. Reason: To ensure bat roosts and foraging and commuting corridors are protected.

No development shall commence until a reptile translocation, mitigation management and monitoring plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented. Reason: To ensure the slow worm population is fully protected and enhanced.

Prior to the commencement of the residential development hereby permitted a detailed assessment of road traffic noise, and a detailed noise mitigation scheme to address such noise (with measures to provide satisfactory internal and external noise standards to include site layout and building orientation, building construction, glazing, mechanical ventilation, acoustic screening and phasing of development and occupation) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The internal and external noise standards to be achieved shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of the noise mitigation scheme. The noise mitigation measures, as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be fully installed and verified as performing as required prior to the first occupation of each dwelling unit, and shall thereafter be retained. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

No work shall commence on site until the following has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:a) A Report of Preliminary Investigation comprising a Desk Study, Conceptual Site Model, and Preliminary Risk Assessment documenting previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance and as set out in Contaminated Land Report Nos. 11, CLR11, and BS 10175:2011+A1:2013 Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of

Practice, and, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority;b) A Report of a Site Investigation documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the Preliminary Investigation and in accordance with BS 10175:2011+A1:2013, and BS 8576:2013 and unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority;c) A detailed site specific scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid the risk from contaminants and/or gases when the site is developed and proposals for future maintenance and monitoring. Such a scheme shall include nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works. Reason: To minimise the risk from land contamination for public safety.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/ brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of condition 19(c) that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of condition 19(c) has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written permission of the Local Planning Authority in advance of implementation).

Unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority such verification shall comply with the guidance contained in CLR11 and EA Guidance for the Safe Development of Housing on Land Affected by Contamination - R&D Publication 66: 2008. Typically such a report would comprise:a) A description of the site and its background, and summary of relevant site information;b) A description of the remediation objectives and remedial works carried out;c) Verification data, including - data (sample locations / analytical results), as built drawings of the implemented scheme, photographs of the remediation works in progress, etc.; andd) Certificates demonstrating that imported and / or material left in situ is free from contamination, and gas / vapour membranes have been installed correctly.Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under condition 19(c). Reason: To minimise the risk from land contamination for public safety.

Before development commences a programme of archaeological evaluation for the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. It shall detail: (i) Submission of a Written Scheme of Investigation detailing an overarching programme of archaeological assessment. The agreed Written Scheme shall be implemented on a phase-by-phase basis prior to the commencement of the relevant phase. (ii) The implementation of the programme of archaeological mitigation of impact in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation on a phase by phase basis (iii) On completion of archaeological fieldwork within each phase a report will be produced in accordance with an approved programme including where appropriate post-excavation assessment, specialist analysis and reports, publication and public engagement. The development must accord with these approved details. Reason: To assess and mitigate the impact of the development on any

archaeological deposits and to contribute to our knowledge and understanding of our past.

Prior to the construction of any building above slab level within each individual phase of the development (or, in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), for each house type design stage SAP data and a design stage water calculator confirming energy efficiency and the predicted internal mains water consumption to achieve the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:1) In respect of energy efficiency, a standard of a 19% improvement of dwelling emission rate over the target emission rate as set in the 2013 Building Regulations being equivalent to and not exceeding the requirement as set by Code Level 4 (as defined by ENE1) in the, now revoked, Code for Sustainable Homes.2) In respect of water consumption, a maximum predicted internal mains water consumption of 105 litres/person/day, i.e. the equivalent requirement as set by Code Level 4 (as defined by WAT1) in the, now revoked, Code for Sustainable Homes.The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To support a comprehensive approach to high quality design across the site; in line with the guidance set out in the Government’s Ministerial Statement of 25 March 2015 which states that Local Planning Authorities should, from the date of its publication, take into account the government’s intentions in the statement

23 Prior to the first occupation of any residential dwelling within each individual phase of development for each house type an as built stage SAP data, and an as built stage water calculator confirming energy efficiency and the predicted internal mains water consumption; which shall meet the requirements set out in condition 24 above; shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To support a comprehensive approach to high quality design across the site; in line with the guidance set out in the Government’s Ministerial Statement of 25 March 2015 which states that Local Planning Authorities should, from the date of its publication, take into account the government’s intentions in the statement “and not set conditions with requirements above a Code level 4 equivalent”.

No construction or demolition related activities or deliveries to the site shall take place during the construction period except between the hours of 0800 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays or 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.

Prior to occupation details of any external lighting, including street lighting, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall follow the advice and guidance of the Institute of Lighting Professional (ILP)'s publication "Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light". Reason: To protect the amenities from light pollution.

No burning of materials obtained by site clearance or any other source shall take place during the demolition, construction and fitting out process. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

Before Construction commences on site a Habitat Creation Management and Monitoring Strategy will be submitted to and agreed by Eastleigh Borough Council. The strategy should include details of the green infrastructure to be delivered on site and how habitats are to be created and/or enhanced for biodiversity. This section should include a planting schedule short, medium and long term management of the green infrastructure for biodiversity. A monitoring schedule for the first 10 years shall be submitted on an annual basis. The development shall accord with this approved strategy. Reason: To ensure the SINC and the fauna it contains are protected and enhanced as part of the development

Prior to commencement of development and access strategy shall be submitted to, and approved by the, local planning authority detailing the pedestrian and cycle link provision within the site, including levels, widths, surfacing, construction details of the paths and links to adjoining footpath and cycleway network. The development must accord with these approved details. Reason: In the interest of permeability and connectivity.

29 No development shall start until a scheme of work detailing the extent and type of piling proposed has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall accord with the approved details.Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning [General Permitted Development] Order 1995 [or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification], no development permitted by Classes A-E of Part 1 and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the order shall be carried out within the identified ‘protected view’ as shown on drawing no. 16-024-02 Rev L without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To protect the visual setting of the Bursledon Windmill. Note to Applicant: A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development.  To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the  appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2SW (Tel 0330 303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk.

This application has been referred to Committee because it is contrary to the adopted development plan and controversial.

Introduction

1. This is an outline planning application which seeks an approval “in principle” for residential development of up to 130 dwellings. The access would be via the permitted access on to Providence Hill through the residential site approved in 2016 (allocated as BU1). The plans also indicate the open space arrangement and a footpath link to the approved development at Orchards Lodge. The only matters for formal consideration at this stage are as follows:-

Whether the proposed land use is acceptable in principle in this location; Whether the proposed amount of development is appropriate; Whether the detailed proposals for the vehicular accesses are acceptable.

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

3. The application was originally submitted for up to 200 dwellings but land to the rear of Orchard Lodge and land to the south east of the site have been omitted from the application site, thus reducing the developable area and proposal to “up to 130” units.

4. The application follows the granting of permission for 62 dwellings on land to the south and east allocated within the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2011-2029) February 2014. Access to the current scheme would share the same access as the approved development. An application in 2016 for 200 units (ref: O/16/78514) on the current site was withdrawn by the applicant to address the technical issues raised, including undertaking air quality and a noise assessment to define the developable area.

5. The application plans comprise the red line location plan showing the site boundary which has reduced from 6.7ha to circa 4.8 ha, with circa 3.3 being for residential use with ancillary landscaping, illustrative site layout and landscape master plans, site sections and a constraints plan. The scheme includes a footpath link through the Orchard Lodge site to connect to Windmill Lane.

6. The amended illustrative layout plan and supporting information seek to demonstrate that the site has the capacity to accommodate a development of up to 130 dwellings of varying sizes and styles. This plan also shows a possible internal road layout within the site; footways and drainage features within the site links to Dodwell Lane and Windmill Lane; key landscape features including trees for retention, public open space and 2no. equipped play area. It proposes a small amount of development on land previous secured as Pubic Open Space (POS) as secured under planning applications O/14/74322 Land at Providence Hill.

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

Design based on perimeter block principles with houses located to face onto the residential streets. Some properties appear to face the M27 and potentially back on to open space or woodland.

Design reflecting the level changes across the site but predominantly two storey with some 2.5/3 storey apartments.

Combination of adoptable highway, shared surface and private drives. Mixed domestic scale housing, including affordable housing Retention and enhancement of landscaping to boundaries Block of residential properties along the northern boundary to the M27 to

mitigate traffic noise. The existing landscaping features become an integral part of the

development retained through the centre and edges of the site Areas of open space in the centre and eastern end of the site, with two

equipped play areas. Links for cycles and pedestrians to Orchard Lodge and Dodwell Lane with

main vehicle link to Providence Hill Ecologically sensitive sustainable drainage features Green corridors passing through and along the boundaries of the

development.

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

Design and Access Statement Planning Statement Transport Assessment and automated traffic survey Framework Travel Plan Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal Sustainability Statement Arboricultural Impact Assessment and tree survey Biodiversity Checklist Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Revised Reptile Strategy Breading Birds Survey Bat Survey Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Desk Based Archaeological Assessment Heritage Statement Noise Assessment Air Quality Assessment Phase II Ground Investigation Report Photomontages and 3D visuals Affordable Housing Statement Public Art Strategy Statement of Community Involvement Draft Heads of Terms

Plans submitted

Topographical Location plan Street scenes / cross sections Green corridors Developable area (4.9ha) Opportunities and constraints plan Illustrative site plan

9. Under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2017 the Council has screened the development, as the site area is on the threshold of requiring a screening, and confirm that this is not an EIA development and an Environmental Statement is not required.

10. Screening was also undertaken to establish whether a Habitat Regulations Assessment is required. It was concluded that, with the mitigation proposed and conditions to control impacts, no significant likely impacts on any European Designated sites would occur as a result of the development and a full HRA is not required..

The site and its surroundings

11. The application site is situated to the northeast of Bursledon Village, adjoining the A27 Providence Hill and is close to the urban area of Bursledon. The site and surrounding land is currently designated as countryside and within a local gap within the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 (adopted Local Plan). The site abuts development sites at Orchard Lodge and Providence Hill, whilst being visible from residential properties on Providence Hill, Dodwell Lane and further afield. The northern boundary is defined by fencing and the M27. Adjoining the southern boundary of the site is Windmill Fields Wood Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and to the west is the Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area with the Grade II* Listed windmill.

12. Providence Hill is a 40mph “A” road with footpaths on either side, the southern side of which is to be upgraded to a cycle/footpath. The site is 450m from Lowford village centre, 550m from Tesco superstore, on a bus route and 1.25km from Bursledon railway station.

13. The site has a varied and undulating topography with the site dropping by approximately 33m from the north western most point to the south eastern boundary. Off-site to the south is a watercourse passing through the valley in to which surface water run-off would pass, eventually leading to the River Hamble.

14. The site comprises of predominantly paddocks used for the grazing of horses with an area in the centre of the site used by a dog training school. The boundary to the M27 is well screened by existing trees (off-site) of varying

species and quality. Areas of scrub, trees and hedging can be found on all other boundaries and passing through the site on a north/south axis.

Relevant planning history

15. The relevant history of this site and those adjoining is;

O/16/78514 – Outline proposals for 200 units on land to known as Misery. Withdrawn December 2016

O/14/74322 – Outline permission for 62 dwellings with access from Providence Hill. Approved October 2014

R/16/77966 – Reserved Matters approval for 62 dwellings pursuant to outline permission. Approved September 2016

C/14/74932 - Outline application: Residential development of up to 29 houses at Orchards Lodge Approved December 2015

C/16/77959 - Reserved matters application: Residential development of 29no. dwelling at Orchards Lodge. Approved November 2016

F/16/79496 – Construction of 3no. dwellings with access from Windmill Lane within the grounds of Orchard Lodge. Approved February 2017.

F/17/80282 – Construction of 1no. dwellings within the grounds of Orchard Lodge. Permitted September 2017.

Representations received to the planning application

16. 32 letters of objection on the following grounds;

Highway impacts - increased traffic on congested network, unsuitability of the access for 262 units, a single access point to an estate, impact on local businesses

Pedestrian links – no safe access towards Hedge End or the Country Park Over development – emerging Local Plan proposes 50 units on this site,

encroachment in to conservation area, 7 developments in very close proximity to each other,

Local Gap / Countryside Gap – scheme falls within both the adopted and emerging “gap” designations.

Prematurity – Development being considered in advance of the Local Plan being considered at a Public Inquiry. Recent Council paper against development on Hamble Peninsular.

Visually intrusive – loss of openness, will be viewed from A27/M27, from developments to the north and the conservation area

Noise – impact on residents from the M27 Open space and Green Infrastructure – Loss of POS secured as part of

adjoining developments, net loss overall, no green infrastructure provided, Impact on SINC – construction impact, long term management issues, all of

SINC not within developers ownership, Impact on protected species – lack of translocation space for slow worms,

loss of habitat north of Orchard Lodge, Ecology – loss of hedgerows connecting wildlife corridors, reduction in birds Archaeology – need to preserve and protect features on site.

Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area – loss of wildflower meadow, destroy views to and from the Conservation Area,

Inadequate infrastructure – health facilities, schools, Drainage – aggravate flooding problems at the railway bridge/Church Lane

area New housing to be for local need not driven by profit. Scheme is not

affordable housing for younger families. Accident and Health & Safety risks

17. 1 letter of support on grounds of;

Dwellings are not visible from the main road This is better location than Hamble Lane

Consultation responses

18. Since undertaken initial consultation on the proposed development, the plans have been amended reducing the site area and subsequent number of dwellings from 200 to 130 dwellings. Where necessary, consultees have been reconsulted on the revised plans.

19. Local Plan Team (Strategy) – no comments received on the principle of development but reference made to the site’s assessment under the SLAA and draft allocation in the 2011 – 2029 Local Plan.

20. Landscape & Design Specialist Observations to date include the development would benefit from hierarchy from roads throughout the site, a variety of density would assist, connectivity seems reasonable but to be judged by site, parking is all within curtilage and no visitor parking noted. Limited street trees.

21. Previous comments on withdrawn scheme (similar developable area an scale of development) – Detailed site analysis needed given the relationship to the Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area, the complex topography of the site, constraints relating to tree cover and hydrology and noise from the M27 and full explanation of design. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is a little disconnected from the site design assessment and wireframe models of the scale / bulk of buildings would be beneficial.

22. Heritage Officer – Comments on previously withdrawn scheme (similar developable area an scale of development as originally submitted) - This proposal is a further erosion of the Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area with both houses and gardens within the area reducing the open rough grassland taking the windmill at Grade ll* status of national importance even further out of context. If the setting is to be impact, significant contribution to its maintenance fund should be exacted in recompense. The remainder of the development being further away, down the hill and not interrupting views of either the windmill or its associated buildings does not cause any great problems.

23. HCC Highways – No objection (Comments based on original plans for 200 units)

24. The access is of adequate capacity to accommodate the estimated trips that would be added as a consequence of this site. An additional access will be located on Windmill Lane and has also been approved through an additional application (C/14/74932). The two locations with a high quantum of incidents (Windhover Roundabout and junction with Portsmouth) both have improvements proposed and contributions are sought towards these schemes. The trip rates confirm that the development is estimated to generate 118 trips during the morning peak period (08.00-0.900) and 115 trips during the evening peak period. This is considered to be an acceptable assumption to the Highway Authority. A 60-40% trip assignment split heading South/ North out of the access has been agreed with the County Council. The site access and Windmill Lane junction with Providence Hill will operate within capacity, whilst the A27 Providence Hill / Portsmouth Road junction will operate over capacity and improvements are necessary in the form of signalised junction, to which a contribution is sought. Both the A27 Providence Hill / Dodwell Lane junction and A27 Bridge Road / Swanwick Lane junctions would also be over capacity and the contributions are sought towards an improvement scheme. Windhover roundabout is to be improved as part of the Highway England proposal which is due to be completed by 2020. The capacity of this junction will be increased such that this development can be accommodated.

25. Public transport provision and proximity to Lowford centre is noted but pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of Portsmouth Road / Providence Hill would require improvements. The development would need to contribute to improving strategic cycle routes on Portsmouth Road and Bursledon Road. The Travel Plan is of a good standard but will require some additional information before being secured by HCC.

26. To mitigate the development a full Travel Plan and Construction Management Plan are required and construction of the access as set out on drawing 15.2545-1007. A total financial contribution is considered necessary to off-set the development related impact is secured in order for any future improvement to be implemented in line with the County Council’s A27 corridor study work towards the following;

A27 Providence Hill / Portsmouth Road junction Providence Hill / Dodwell Lane junction A27 Bridge Road / Swanwick Lane junction Improved crossing provision facilities on A27 Portsmouth Road / Bursledon Road cycle routes

27. Comments on the revised plans are awaited.

28. Environmental Health Specialist– Holding objection

29. Noise – (Based on original plans ) The site should be considered high risk with the predominant source in this case being the M27. The ‘developable area’ is somewhat closer to the motorway than the positions of residential units shown in the indicative plan. It is not apparent that proper consideration has been given to noise constraints to define the developable area. There is an apparent lack of evidence to support the appropriateness of elements proposed including the acoustic barrier (6m bund/fence), the development layout, internal arrangement of the dwellings and suitability of height of some domestic garden fences. Currently it is likely the majority of gardens will exceed the acceptable noise levels set out in the Saved adopted policy and very few habitable rooms would likely achieve desirable internal noise levels in habitable rooms with partially open windows. Further information is therefore sought.

30. Air quality – No objection. The application is accompanied by a report assessing conditions currently on the site by monitoring nitrogen dioxide.  It is found that nitrogen dioxide is unlikely to exceed national air quality objectives on this site and as such there is no principled reason for objection on these grounds.  The report concludes that the impact of traffic generation from the operational phase of the development would overall likely have a negligible impact on air quality for existing receptors.  Provided that the underlying traffic data upon which this prediction relies is accepted by the LPAs traffic expert, no objection is raised. 

31. Contaminated Land – Subject to the applicant providing clarification about the lack of groundwater sampling and borehole response zones, the recommendation is that the development be conditioned to require an agreed scheme to address; a contamination discovery strategy; imported soil chemical standards; and soil management on site.

32. Housing Enabling Specialist – No objection. The development should make provision for 35% affordable housing units broadly reflective of the overall housing mix and be split between rented units (65%) and intermediate housing (35%) pepper-potted through the development in clusters of 10 – 15 units. All affordable units are to be built to Lifetime Homes Standards with 3% of the affordable units being built to Wheelchair Accessible Standards (These shall be 1 and 2 bed ground floor accommodation).The affordable housing units must be developed in accordance with HCA required standards in addition to any specific requirements of the Affordable Housing Provider.

33. Borough Tree Team - No objection. The tree loss is concentrated in the southeast corner of the site, although individual tree loss and hedge removal occurs sporadically throughout the site. The loss of trees, although not desirable, is not felt to be significant within the wider context, subject to mitigation planting and maintenance as part of the proposed development. A detailed arboricultural method statement and Tree Protection Plan to be secured via conditions.

34. Borough Ecologist - comments are awaited on this revised scheme. On the previously withdrawn 2016 scheme the following comments were;

35. A SUDs system to include three forms of naturalised filtration is sought and it is encouraging swales and ponds are proposed. It is important the wetland nature of the Windmill Woods SINC, including headwaters of the unnamed stream, around the woodland and its hydrology is conserved. To ensure biodiversity is able to migrate into the surrounding woodland and hedgerow network a corridor should be designed into the development and the hedgerow running through the site be conserved and buffered to provide a corridor. Until corridors from and to the SINC are designed into the scheme an objection is raised to the layout as it could have a deleterious impact on the biodiversity value of Windmill Fields Wood SINC. A 15m woodland buffer is required to the woodland edge and planting adjacent to the motorway retained.

36. The relocation of slow worms and grass snakes to the rear of the Orchard Lodge is acceptable with further buffering of hedgerows on site being provided. A clear strategy to meet the open space requirements of the three housing sites without using the reptile translocation area is needed, without which an objection would be raised. The Phase 1 Habitat Survey recommended that a bat activity survey should be undertaken. Bat roost surveys should also be completed on any trees to be lost or impacted by lighting within the development. At present none of these surveys have been submitted and the application does not provide adequate information to ensure that bats will not be harmed within the build or that the three tests of soundness can be fulfilled and a licence granted. Whilst reference to Great Crested Newts surveys and Breeding Bird Surveys have been made, these have not be submitted and as such a holding objection is raised.

37. To ensure on site mitigation can be provided to alleviate impacts on the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site, a mitigation strategy has been formulated with delivery led by the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership (SRMP). Contributions to fund the strategy are required for all new housing within 5.6km of the designated sites, within which this site falls. Further conditions are recommended.

38. Parks & Open Space Manager – no objection in principle and welcome the provision of two Local Equipped Areas of Play (LEAP). Detailed considerations to include ease of access from paths for people/emergency services, gradient of banks to SUDs features, publicity of LEAP on sales literature, management and maintenance plans/commuted sums for the Public Open Space and SUDs features. Support provision of clear network of paths linking the various areas of POS.

39. Head of Direct Services – No objection subject to compliance with adopted SPD and swept path analysis to ensure refuse vehicles needing to reverse no more than 10m.

40. HCC Archaeologist – No objection. Conditions recommended in respect of a programme of archaeological assessment, recording and reporting of any archaeological deposits found on site.

41. HCC Children’s Services – No objection. This development sits in the catchment area for the Bursledon Infant and Junior Schools and Hamble Secondary School. The Bursledon will require expanding and Hamble Secondary School remodelled to accommodate increased number of children. Contributions are sought in accordance with the County Council’s ‘Planning for School Places Guidance Document’ which sets out the methodology for assessing the impact of development on education infrastructure.

42. HCC Flood and Water Team (Lead Local Flood Authority) – No objection. General principles for surface water drainage proposals are acceptable subject to conditions.

43. Highway England – No objection but are aware Highways England propose to commence construction of a highway improvement scheme in the vicinity of the development prior to 2020 therefore we would wish to remain engaged with the site promoter if permission were to be granted.

44. Historic England – comment awaited

45. Natural England – No objection subject to appropriate mitigation without which the scheme would have an adverse effect on the integrity of Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and damage or destroy the interest features for which Lincegrove and Hackett's Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Mitigation would be through a suitable Construction Environmental Mitigation Plan (CEMP) and securing contributions towards the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership (SRMP) which protects the designated features of the Solent & Southampton Water SPA. Standing advice referenced for consideration on matters related to protected species, local sites, ancient woodland environmental enhancements and access & recreation.

46. Environment Agency – No objection to proposal as submitted. This development is sited on the Wittering Formation which is designated a Secondary A aquifer. This is underlain by the London Clay Formation (an unproductive aquifer). It does not lie within a source protection zone. The northern part of the site is underlain by the Providence Hill historic landfill. Due to prioritising resources, the EA are unable to provide detailed site-specific advice relating to land contamination issues at this site and as an alternative highlight their published “Guiding Principles for Land Contamination” for managing risk to water environment and to liaise with the Borough’s Environmental Health team.

47. Southern Water – No objection. The position of the public sewer should be identified prior to work commencing with adequate protection measures included to protect it during the construction process. Initial investigations demonstrated there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the development. Additional off-site sewers or improvements to existing sewers will be required. The applicant will

need to ensure arrangements exists for the long term maintenance of any SUDS facilities. Conditions are recommended accordingly.

48. West Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group – No objection subject to contributions being secured. Our estimate of the level of additional demand that will be placed on NHS primary care does not warrant the commissioning of an additional GP surgery. The increased demand will be accommodated by the existing GP surgeries. The CCG considers that the application should be required to make an appropriate financial contribution to the capital investment that the NHS will make in this regard.

49. Southern & Scottish Electric – Note that there are SSE assets on the land.

50. Eastleigh & Southern Parishes Older Persons Forum – No comments received

51. Bursledon Rights of Way and Amenities Preservation Group – Clarity sought on improving links through this site to the wider area, the impact / loss of POS secured on adjoining developments, impact on the SINC and stream,

52. Winchester and Eastleigh Design Review Panel – Although an outline application, the illustrative plan appears to demonstrate 200 units could be accommodated on the site. However, the scheme fails to make best use of the site’s attributes to create an interesting and individual scheme and appears to be a much engineered solution which fights against the site and is not sufficiently design led. The illustrative plan should be used for “capacity” purposes only and any detailed design work to be developed around the sites features and constraints. The density appeared too uniform, greater consideration needed on how this scheme joins the neighbouring developments and a centre or heart to all the developments in this immediate area needs to be provided.

53. Bursledon Parish Council - objected on grounds of Highway safety (access arrangements, single point of access, increased and cumulative impact of traffic, pedestrian links and safety). Concerns raised on loss of wildlife areas secured on other development proposals, no information on house type and tenure, lack of green space and links to green space, over development on this site and wider area, impact on health facilities and schools, increase noise from M27 due to loss of trees and detrimental to Windmill Conservation Area. Noted that part of the site (layout / roads) is protected by the emerging local plan.

54. Hamble-le-Rice Parish Council – objected on grounds of traffic impact on Hamble Lane and Windhover Roundabout and air quality, However, if the development is approved contributions should be secured to reduce congestion along Hamble Lane.

Policy context: designation applicable to site

Bursledon – Hedge End Local Gap

Outside Built-Up Area Boundary Adjacent Established Residential Area Adjacent a Site Of Nature Conservation Interest Adjacent Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area Adjacent Grade II* and Grade II Listed Buildings (Bursledon Windmill and

The Granary) Agricultural Land Value Grade 4

Assessment of proposal: Development plan and / or legislative background

Policy Context:

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

55. This site is designated countryside and Bursledon to Hedge End Local Gap within the current adopted Local Plan 2001-2011. The most relevant saved policies are as follows:-

1.CO – countryside protection 3.CO – local gap 18.CO – landscape character 20.CO – landscape improvements 25.NC- Promotion of biodiversity unless benefits of development outweigh

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

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

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

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

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

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

including taking full and proper account of the context of the site. 73.H – Sites of 15 or more dwellings to be of appropriate mix. 74.H – Affordable housing. 92.T – Local Transport Plan proposals include (i) A27 Bursledon to

Romsey bus priority/pedestrian/cycle access scheme 100.T – Requires development to be well served by sustainable forms of

transport, to provide measures to minimize impact on the network, minimize travel demand, provide a choice of transport mode and submit a transport assessment for large proposals.

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

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

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

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

services and infrastructure are available or can be provided. 191. IN – requires appropriate proposals to be permitted provided that

arrangements have been made to either provide or contribute towards essential infrastructure.

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan 2013

56. Although part of the Development Plan, the HMWP is not relevant to this site as the site is not designated as within a mineral safeguarding zone.

Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2011-2029) –

50. Strategic policies that are relevant to this scheme are:

S1 – sustainable development S2 – promotion of new development S3 – housing locations S5 – green infrastructure S6 – community facilities S7 - transport infrastructure S8 – footpath, cycleway, bridleway links S9 - countryside and countryside gaps S11 – nature conservation S12 – heritage assets

51. Development Management policies that are relevant to this scheme are

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

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

development

DM33 – new and enhanced recreation and open space facilities, allotments and community farms

DM37 – funding infrastructure

52. Site specific policies

BU1 – allocation of land to the south east for development BU2 and BU3 – allocated greenfield housing sites within Bursledon. BU6 – allocated open space within Bursledon

Supplementary Planning Documents (Material Planning Considerations)

Quality Places (November 2011) Environmentally Sustainable Development (March 2009) Biodiversity (December 2009) Residential Parking Standards (January 2009) Planning Obligations (July 2008, updated 2010) Affordable Housing (July 2009) Housing Mix (February 2003) Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area Appraisal Character Area Appraisals – Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound

(January 2008) Supplementary Planning Document: Bursledon Windmill Conservation

Area Appraisal and Management Proposals

Other Relevant Documents

Public Art Strategy Biodiversity Action Plan for Eastleigh Borough 2012-22

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

53. The NPPF, published in March 2012, replaced the majority of previous national policy documents (Planning Policy Guidance and Planning Policy Statements) and constitutes a significant material consideration which must be taken into account. The NPPF sets a presumption in favour of sustainable development, a so-called “golden thread” running through the NPPF policies. For decisions on planning applications this means approving development proposals which accord with the Development Plan without delay; or where the development plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out-of-date granting planning permission unless the adverse impacts of the development would outweigh the benefits, or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. The transitional period provided by the NPPF has now come to an end which means that local plan policies that do not accord with the NPPF are now deemed to be “out-of-date”. The NPPF requires that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. In other words, the

closer the policies in the plan accord to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given.

54. Relevant paragraphs in the NPPF include the following; (Para. 6 and 7 sustainable development), Para. 10 (local circumstances to inform different opportunities for achieving sustainable development), Para. 14 (presumption in favour of sustainable development), Para. 17(12 core planning principles), Para. 30 (reduce congestion / greenhouse gases), Para. 32 (only refuse if cumulative highway impacts severe), Para. 34 (minimised car movements and encourage and use of sustainable transport), Para. 36 (Travel Plan), Para. 47 (boost supply of housing, provide five years supply of housing), Para. 49 (housing applications to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development when there is not a 5 year housing land supply), Para. 52 (supply of new homes sometimes best delivered through planning for larger scale development),

55. Para. 56 (good design), Para. 58 (strong sense of place, visually atractive and respond to local character and history); Para. 60 not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes). Para. 61 high quality and inclusive design), Para 69 (high quality environments, public places and legible pedestrian routes), Para. 70 (integrated approach to the location of housing and other uses. Para. 72 (school places), Para.73 (sports and open space needs). Para. 103 (Flooding), Para. 109 (minimise biodiversity impacts and avoidable unacceptable levels of pollution). Para. 118 (conserve and enhance biodiversity. Benefits of development clearly outweigh the loss). Para. 120 &121 (ground conditions and pollution ), Para. 123 ( avoid, mitigate and reduce noise), Para. 124 (AQMAs and the cumulative impacts on air quality),

56. Para. 126 (positive strategy for the historic environment), Para. 128 (appropriate heritage desk-based assessment), Para. 152 ( seek to achieve each of the dimensions of sustainable development and net gains across all three), Para. 156 (LPA set out their strategic priorities within their local plan), Para. 182 (Test of soundness of emerging local plans), Para 203 (use of conditions or planning obligations), Para 204 (only be sought where meet the tests),Para. 215 (Weight to existing relevant local plan policies according to the degree of consistency with the Framework), Para 216 (weight to relevant policies in emerging plans)

National Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014)

52. The PPG sets out guidance to assist with the implementation of the policy requirements set out within the NPPF. It provides more detailed advice on a rage of topic areas including;

Transport – supports the provision of Transport Assessments where a Local Planning Authority makes a judgement as to whether a proposal would generate significant amounts of movement.

Design – Good quality design is an integral part of sustainable development. Achieving good design is about creating places, buildings or

spaces that work well for everyone, look good, will last well and adapt for the needs of future generations. Good design responds in a practical and creative way to both the function an identity of a place. It puts land, water, drainage, energy, community, economic, infrastructure and other such resources to the best possible use over the long as well as the short term.

Contamination – With outline applications, Local Planning Authorities need to be satisfied that they understand the contaminated condition of the site and that the development proposed is appropriate as a means of remediation and it has sufficient information to be confident that it will be able to grant permission in full at a later stage bearing in mind the need for the necessary remediation to be viable and practicable.

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

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

Noise – potential noise impact needs to be addressed and opportunities taken to achieve improvements to the acoustic environment to ensure no unacceptably adverse impact.

Assessment of Proposal

57. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 require a local planning authority determining an application to do so in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan in this case comprises the saved policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011, and the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (adopted October 2013), although the MWP is not relevant to this site.

58. In terms of emerging policy, the Submitted Eastleigh Local Plan 2011-2029 (comprising: the Revised Pre-submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, published February 2014; and the Schedule of Proposed Minor Changes) was submitted to the Secretary of State in July 2014 and, following examination hearings in November 2014, the Inspector issued his final report on 11 February 2015. The final report recommended non-adoption on the basis of the plan being unsound, largely due to its inadequate provision for new housing. It can therefore be considered to have extremely limited weight in the determination of this application.

59. The Council is well advanced in the drafting of a new emerging Local Plan for the Period 2016 – 2036. The timetable for the new Local Plan was set out in a

Cabinet Report of 11 December 2017. The Pre-Submission publication stage (Regulation 19) is programmed for spring 2018 and submission to the Secretary of State for Summer 2018. The adoption of the Local Plan is anticipated in Spring 2019. Given the status of the Plan, it is considered that very limited weight can be attributed to it.

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

The Principle of Development

57. The site lies outside of the defined urban edge and is designated as countryside and local gap in the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011). Saved Policy 1.CO of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) seeks to protect the countryside from inappropriate development and resists development outside the urban edge unless it is for agriculture, horticulture, forestry, development for outdoor recreational use, public utility developments and/or extensions to existing education or health facilities. The proposed redevelopment of the site for residential purposes does not fall within the range of uses deemed appropriate for countryside locations. It has been established in recent appeals that policy 1.CO is not a housing supply policy but equally that the rigid application of policy 1.CO may not allow for the future housing development that is required. Whilst only limited weight can be given to the emerging Local Plan ( 2016 – 2036), it is apparent that some development needs to be permitted beyond the existing urban edge, but this does not mean that all sites near to the urban edge would be suitable for residential development.

58. Saved Policy 3.CO seeks to protect areas designated as local gap, stating that development which would result in a physical or visual diminishment of the strategic gap will be refused. The redevelopment of the site as proposed will have a clear impact on the physical and visual qualities of the existing local gap, albeit that the visual impacts are limited primarily to close views of the site and in its context of framed by residential development and the M27 on three sides.

59. To support the work on the emerging Local Plan, the Council has undertaken a Settlement Gap Policy Review (updated Nov 2017) to assess the value of allocated gaps, which in turn could be used to inform decisions on a revised urban edge. Applying the sub-regional advice from the Partnership of Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) that no more land than is included than necessary to prevent the coalescence of settlements is included in a Gap, the Landscape and Visual Appraisal of Existing Gaps in Eastleigh and the Assessment Matrices were used to identify areas that do not contribute to the physical or visual separation of existing settlements. In this review, the land south of the M27 and north of Providence Hill has been recommended for removal from the Gap. The emerging Local Plan (2016 – 2036), has not undergone consultation, however the evaluation of the Gap function is based

on the guidance, settlement identity and an assessment of the impact physical developments and infrastructure and not on the needs for planning for new housing developments. Therefore weight can be applied to this assessment and the conclusion that development on this site would not undermine the identity of existing settlements.

60. With areas of the urban edge requiring extending to meet housing needs and a full assessment of the Gaps, the Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLA) has examined in excess of 200 sites for residential development and identified this site within the emerging Local Plan (2016 – 2036) as suited for residential development (BU3). Whilst limited weight can be given to this allocation, it is recognised that in considering the principle of development on this site significant work has been undertaken to date in evaluating its suitability.

61. Eastleigh’s Five Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement dated December 2017 sets out the Council’s approach to managing the delivery of new housing in the borough over the next 5 years. The intention is to ensure that sufficient housing is delivered to meet the Borough’s identified needs over the next five years without compromising sustainable development objectives. This document states the Council has 5.3 years of housing supply land excluding this site. Planning inspectors in recent appeal decisions have supported the Council’s position on the supply of housing and so weight can be given to the evidence with the Statement. The Inspectors have also recognised, however, that to ensure the continued delivery of a 5 year supply of housing development on appropriate countryside sites will need to be granted

62. In conclusion, whilst this site is accepted as being contrary to the adopted Development Plan policies, the direction of travel of submitted and emerging planning policies are to be acknowledged which propose to allocate this site for housing purposes. At 130 dwellings, the site would make a meaningful contribution toward strengthening the Council’s 5 year housing supply and the applicant has confirmed is deliverable in its entirety within this 5 year period.

63. Subject to determining the site is considered sustainable in all other respects, as set out within the NPPF (para 14), unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of doing so, the principle of development can be accepted despite the conflict with adopted plan policies

.

Sustainable Development

61. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 14 of the NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development, indicating that it has an economic, a social and an environmental role. These roles should not be undertaken in isolation as they are mutually dependent and, therefore, the application is assessed against all

three headings. It also states that when determining applications, those that accord with the development plan should be approved without delay (unless material considerations indicate otherwise). Where the development plan is absent, silent or the relevant policies are out-of-date, permission should (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole; or where specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted..

Environmental Sustainability

62. Environmental sustainability includes the consideration of site specific planning issues and the impacts of the development on its surroundings and local infrastructure.

The landscape and countryside

53. The assessment of the principle of development in the countryside (1.CO) and the Local Gap (3.CO) are set out above. However, whilst the principle of development beyond the urban edge and within an allocated Gap can be supported, the actual impact of the proposed scheme on its environs must be assessed.

54. The site is within Area 11 “M27 corridor” as defined within the Landscape Character Assessment Area (LCAA). Area 11 is a long linear area encompassing land either side of the M27, which in itself is a dominating characteristic. The varying landscape, woodland, topography and paddocks all contribute to the overall wider character

55. The application is supported by a Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which considers the relationship of the proposed development to the existing landscape character and context of the site in terms of views of it. The LVIA notes the existing boundary planting restricts views in to the site to varying degrees, especially from the west (the Listed Windmill) with the southern boundary (Providence Hill) offering the highest potential for views from the residential properties and the public highway through trees and beyond the two sites permitted and currently under construction. The highest part of the site (Northwest – rear of Orchards Lodge) would have been most visible during and post construction but this has now been removed from the scheme, resulting in development being set 6 – 8m lower than originally proposed.

56. Officers are of the opinion that the change from countryside to residential would be a clear, irreversible impact that would be incapable of full mitigation, particularly when viewed close-up. The construction impact will see some topographical changes with small areas of landscaping removed to facilitate links between the parcels of land; however once developed and additional landscaping provided, the scheme would be viewed prominently through

trees, or against a woodland backdrop such that the site would have limited impact on the wider LCA.

57. Turning to impact on visual receptors (dwellings and user of roads and footpaths), local residents and those travelling along Providence Hill and Dodwell Lane would experience a low to moderate impact during construction and once developed with established landscaping, compared to the outlook on to the valley and undeveloped paddocks, again a low to moderate impact. More distance views from the north (Dodwell Lane) and south (Long Lane) would be more restricted and partial in nature and seen more in a wider landscaped setting with other dwellings within the vista.

57. While it is noted that the Design Officer has highlighted some limitations with the LVIA, the general conclusions are not disagreed with. The omission of development on land to the rear of Orchard Lodge significantly reduces the visual impact of the development and with the dwellings being 2 – 3 storey in height, their visual impact on the wider area is not considered to be unreasonable. The submission demonstrates an acceptable relationship to existing neighbouring properties and the retention of significant amounts of landscaping including a tree belt on the edges and centre of the site ensure views into the site are not dominated by the development. The proposed development would extend the defined settlement boundary of Bursledon, but given the characteristics of the surrounding land and the proximity of the existing development it is considered that it would appear more as an infill development rather than a large extension into the open countryside

58. Overall, whilst it is accepted that the development of the site will fundamentally change the character and appearance of the site, resulting in the loss of an area of countryside and gap, it is considered that there is sufficient room within the site for the final layout to respond to the constraints and natural assets of the site. Whilst any new development will be visible from the neighbouring properties which surround the site, there will be limited impact in terms of longer range public views. As such, the principle of residential development on this site is considered acceptable in terms of landscape impact and is in accordance with saved policies 18.CO and 59.BE of the adopted Local Plan and policies DM1 of the Submitted local plan.

Site capacity

63. This is an outline application and detailed matters such as external appearance and layout are reserved for approval as part of a subsequent reserved matters application. Notwithstanding this, it is necessary as part of this application to assess in general terms whether the quantity of development can be adequately accommodated on the site. The developable area is constrained by the topography, watercourse and woodland such that approximately 3.3ha is suited to residential development. Based on the amended illustrative site layout provided for 130 dwellings, the would achieve a density of approximately 39 dwelling per hectare (dph), which is considered appropriate in this location and an efficient use of the land.

64. The indicative plans include a15m buffer to the SINC woodland and can accommodate buffers to the existing green corridors passing through the site to ensure the existing vegetation and ecologically corridors and sensitive habitats are protected and retained. A network of paths along the site boundaries can be provided in reasonable settings and the Sustainable Drainage features (SUDs) are afforded sufficient space to be provided without reliant solely on engineered and mechanical solutions. Public Open Space (POS) would comprise of a formal area with LEAP in the centre of the site and less formal areas long woodland edges and the northern boundary. The indicative layout may not fully achieve the 0.9ha needed for a development of 130 units, but this can be considered further at the reserved matters stage when the layout is defined. However, due to the significant over provision of POS either side of the site neither the quality of the development nor the amenity of the residents would be detrimentally effected.

65. Any future Reserved Matters scheme would need to be influenced by the relationship to existing neighbouring properties, changing ground levels, and noise/air quality issues in relation to the nearby M27 and A27 to ensure compliance with planning policy and supplementary planning guidance.

66. The SLAA work identified the site as suited to 50 dwellings on site with a total area of 5.4 ha but a developable area of 1.7ha developed at a density of 30 dph. This was a high level assessment and not informed by the suite of surveys and assessments produced by the applicant in support of the development proposal. This additional work has identified a larger developable area and proposes a density that aligns with minimum densities sought by policy DM25 in the Submitted Local Plan (2011 – 2029) to make efficient use of this site if suited to residential development.

67. Overall, the scheme responds to the constraints and can provide an attractive development with comfort provided that the site could accommodate the number of dwellings proposed.

Minerals

68. Advice on minerals is contained with the adopted Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan 2013 (in which the site is within a designated Minerals Safeguarding Area) and the NPPF. The prior extraction of minerals, where practicable and commercially feasible, is sought in advance of non-mineral development. This site does not fall within a Mineral Safeguarding Area therefore a Mineral Assessment is not required.

Protecting the most valuable agricultural land

69. The site consists of Grade 4 agricultural land and is used for the grazing of horses. Policy 4.CO of the adopted Local Plan was not saved; however emerging policy DM13 of the deposit Local Plan resist the permanent loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a. The NPPF

advises in paragraph 112 that "local authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land [and that] where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality".

70. As grade 4 agricultural land, the site meets the requirement advocated within the NPPF that where significant agricultural land is to be lost, less valuable land should be considered. In this instance, the Council are of the opinion that the development would not result in the unacceptable loss of agricultural land and is not contrary to paragraph 112 of the NPPF.

Heritage Asset and Listed Building considerations

71. There are no known archaeological sites within the development area, but the site does have some potential to contain previously unidentified archaeological remains. The lack of archaeological evidence from the site and immediate vicinity should be viewed as much a reflection of the lack of archaeological investigation as a genuine indication of absence of archaeology. HCC Archaeologist has raised no objection to the scheme but has requested a programme of archaeological work secured through suitable conditions attached to any planning consent that might be granted.

72. The amended plans have removed the development from within the Bursledon Windmill Conservation Area, which it now abuts. Within the conservation area is Bursledon Windmill a Grade II* Listed Building and the Grade II Listed Granary building. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF states that planning should conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance and paragraphs 126 – 141 set out how the impact on the significant of the heritage asset needs to be considered. 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. As a Grade II* structure Bursledon Windmill must be afforded significant protection, including its setting, and development that may undermine this should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.

73. The amended plans have removed development from within the conservation area and would be separated by a belt of trees and hedging avoiding an unacceptable visual or physical impact. The development proposal is set significantly lower than the Windmill and screened completely by the dense woodland of Windmill Field Woods to the west. Existing short and long distance views of the windmill are not undermined such that it is the conclusion of officers that the proposal does not undermine the setting of either the listed buildings or the conservation area. The concerns raised the Borough Heritage officer are noted but these were made on the larger developable area that eroded the fields that formed part of the conservation area. The views of Historic England are awaited.

74. Subject to the views of Historic England, officers advise the heritage assets are adequately protected ensuring compliance with the guidance contained within the NPPF, saved policy 168.LB and emerging policy DM10.

Access proposals, traffic impact and sustainable modes of transport

75. The site is located outside of the urban edge and has no direct access to Providence Hill other than via the approved access that passes through the adjoining Providence Hill scheme (BU1). A number of local objections to the proposals relates to traffic generation from the development and the inability of the existing road network to accommodate this traffic without resulting in further congestion and queuing.

76. The Transport Assessment (TA) based on 200 dwellings assesses the impact of the scheme with the trip rates, trip distributions and junction capacity assessments being acceptable to HCC. The larger 200 dwellings scheme is estimated to generate 118 trips during the morning peak period (08.00-0.900) and 115 trips during the evening peak period. A 60-40% trip assignment split heading South/ North out of the access has been agreed with the County Council. When added to the recently approved developments in the locality this would result in a peak increase in traffic on Providence Hill by 9.2 % (AM) and 11.7% (PM) which cumulatively is considered to have a minimal impact on the local road network. The TA identifies a number of junctions that are close to / at capacity and schemes for improvements to the junctions of the A27 with Portsmouth Road, Dodwell Lane and Swanick Lane have been agreed with HCC to which contributions can be secured through a planning obligation.

77. The access is the only detailed aspect of this scheme for consideration and mirrors that approved under planning permission O/14/74322. The arrangements proposed include the creation of a bellmouth junction with Providence Hill, with a right turn lane ghost island. The provision of the right turn lane is to ensure the free flow of traffic along Providence Hill. In order to accommodate the turning lane the road will be altered slightly and a pedestrian refuse added to facilitate the crossing of the road. The access would deliver the required visibility splays of 2.4m x 120m and be constructed to adoptable standards. The siting of the access was been influenced by the location of the mature trees, the presence of a drain along within the verge and the difference in levels between the highway and the application site. The amended plans no longer propose development to gain access from Windmill Lane.

78. The site is considered to be in a sustainable location in terms of the proximity to local facilities and transport infrastructure. The scheme would offer improvements to pedestrians/cyclists crossing Providence Hill to access Lowford village where shops, medical facilities and other services are located. The site also continues the footpath link from Dodwell Lane through to Windmill Lane improving the site’s permeability.

79. A Travel Plan framework has been submitted and setting out various measures to reduce single occupancy car trips, again in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. A condition is recommended to secure this, together with a contribution to be secured to its monitoring.

80. The site is located on a bus route with bus stops on the northern and southern carriageway of Providence Lane within 100 - 200m of the site access. The frequency of service is reasonable (at two buses an hour) with two services (no4/4A First in Hampshire and no15 Brijan) providing access to Gosport, Southampton and Hedge End, whilst the railway station is 1.25km to the south. Overall the site has realistic alternatives to the use of the car.

81. In terms of the principle of the development of the site for the level proposed, the level of traffic impact is not considered to result in any severe adverse impact to the operation of the existing highway network, and not at a level which would justify a refusal of planning permission, as referred to in para 32 of the NPPF. Overall, in light of the above, the proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of the proposed means of access and highway safety issues, as well as providing improved pedestrian and cycle links in the local area. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with the guidance contained in saved policies 59.BE, 100.T, 102.T and 191.IN of the adopted local plan and emerging policies DM1, DM23, DM24 and S7.

Noise, vibration and contamination issues

82. Saved Policy 30.ES of the adopted Local Plan states that proposals for noise-sensitive development, including residential uses, which would result in the occupiers of such development being exposed to unacceptably high levels of noise will not be permitted. This policy is consistent with that of Paragraphs 17 and 109 of the NPPF which respectively require that planning should always seek a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers of land and buildings, and that the planning system should prevent new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, amongst other things, unacceptable levels of noise pollution

83. A noise survey has been provided taking in to account noise generated from traffic on the M27 and Providence Hill. The report concludes that development can be delivered without causing harm to the amenity of future residents with the provision of a 3m high bund surmounted with a 3m high fence along the boundary with the M27. The structure whilst tall would be screened by the existing dense tree screen along the motorway boundary and through appropriate planting can ensure the visual impact is mitigated when viewed from the development.

84. The report recommends glazing specifications for the frontages facing the noise sources, the inclusion of alternative ventilation equipment and consideration given to the internal layout of dwellings to have the most noise sensitive rooms facing away from the M27. The Head of Environmental Health has highlighted the high noise levels at the facades fronting the

motorway and seeks clarification on forecast levels to the rear gardens of properties, some of which would exceed a policy maximum 55db level. Further information has been sought including revising the layout to close gaps between buildings, statement on internal layouts and evidence that 2.7m high boundary fences will not be required in the northwest part of the sites.

85. The impact of noise and vibration during the construction period is not considered to be unacceptable in principle; the final details can be address via a construction impact management plan condition.

86. The submitted desk based assessment of contamination concludes that risks to the proposed use are low and can be controlled through conditions. The Head of Housing and Environmental Health supports this conclusion subject to confirmation the lack of groundwater sampling and borehole response zones.

Air Quality

87. The NPPF states new development should no contribute to or be out at risk from unacceptable levels of air pollution (para 109) It continues in para 124 that policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards national objectives for pollutants, taking into account Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites. Development plan saved policies 32.ES and 33.ES and emerging local plan policy DM7 require any impacts upon air quality to be assessed in this regard.

88. The application has been submitted with an air quality assessment which notes the site is located adjacent to the M27, which is considered to be a significant source of road traffic emissions. It is also less than 1km from the Hamble Lane Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). As a result of six month monitoring period, it is considered that the entire development site is suitable for the proposed end-use without the inclusion of on-site mitigation measures. Furthermore, based on the predicted traffic movements associated with this development there would be a negligible impact on receptors including the AQMA. The Environmental Health Specialists concurs with these conclusions.

89. The principle of residential development on this site is acceptable subject to the detailed conditions referred to above, and is considered to be in accordance with Saved Policies 30.ES, 31.ES and 33.ES of the adopted local plan, policy DM7 of the emerging Local Plan and the NPPF.

Trees and Ecology

90. The application is supported by an extended phase 1 habitat survey and surveys for reptiles, breeding birds and bat surveys. These later surveys were not provided previously (2016 scheme) and their absence resulted in an objection being raised by the Borough ecologist. The phase 1 survey notes the site is predominantly semi-improved grassland with some broad leave woodland and scrub. The woodland to the south is a SINC designated for ancient woodland qualities and a buffer of 15m is required respectively to

protect it from the development. This buffer has been provided but not a habitat management plan or an ecological principles statement. Whilst the Borough ecologist raised concerns on the original scheme officers are confident the principle of development can be approved with the submission of these details secured via a condition. The detailed drainage strategy, also to be secured via condition, will also ensure the hydrology regime serving the woodland is not undermined.

91. With regards to protected species, slow worms have been found on site and agreement had previously reached to translocate them to the open space to the rear of Orchard Lodge. A dormice survey was not undertaken, but the habitat could be suited to this species and the views of the borough ecologist are awaited. A bat survey has identified the presence of 5 species of bat, principally using the southern and western boundary landscaping for foraging. The level of detail provided is sufficient for the outline application subject to retention of boundary landscaping and the provision of further information at the reserved matters stage to ensure roosts are not affected and mitigation measures (20 bat boxes) are included. The breeding birds survey identified no red list birds on site, but one amber list and 14 green list and a recommended package of mitigation would need to be secured via condition if this scheme were to be approved. No badge setts were identified in site.

92. Natural England has stated that there is the potential for an adverse impact to the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area, due to increased recreational pressures and disturbance. Appropriate mitigation measures are therefore required which in this instance can take the form of developers’ contributions towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project.

93. The site subject to a blanket tree preservation order to enable the LPA to control the extent of any tree removal on site. To facilitate the access, an oak and a maritime pine (cat B) would need to be removed, which permission has already been granted for. A further group of lower quality trees would be removed to facilitate the development or for good arboricultural reasons. The arboricultural impact appraisal concludes the trees removed to facilitate the access are not prominent within the skyline, thus their loss would not undermine the woodland characteristic of the site.

94. The provision of any access from Providence Hill will necessitate the felling of trees but as proposed, the access location avoids the highest quality trees and offers a woodland backdrop to the western side of the road minimising views in to the site. The borough tree officer has advised the loss of these trees is acceptable subject to a detailed landscaping scheme that offers a net gain in trees within the site. On balance the development is in accordance with Policy 47.ES of the adopted local plan.

95. Critical is securing the opinion of the Borough ecologist and this will be secured prior to committee and Members updated verbally.

Drainage and flood risk

96. The application site lies within Flood Zone 1 which is considered to have a low risk of flooding and the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (FRA) demonstrates that the development would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere, subject to the implementation and management of a Sustainable Urban Drainage system (SUDs). The site is not suited to infiltration of surface water, therefore an indicative drainage strategy has been provided which proposes up to 5 forms of treatment, including 3 natural filtration solutions (catch pits, storage tanks, two linked swales and attenuation pond) before entering the watercourse.

97. HCC Flood and Water Management have raised no objection subject to conditions, but the views of the Borough Ecologist are awaited. Subject to these views, this indicative scheme provides sufficient detail that a full drainage strategy can be designed to serve this scale of development, controlling flow rates and water quality.

104. Southern Water confirmed that they can provide a water supply to the site but that there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul water sewerage disposal to service the proposed development. The proposed development would increase flows into the wastewater sewerage system and as a result increase the risk of flooding in and around the existing area. Additional infrastructure would be required to provide the additional capacity; however, this can be secured through a process outside of the planning process, usually at the developer’s expense. Southern Water raised no objection to the application subject to conditions and notes regarding foul water drainage details.

105. Based on the information provided the development of this site accords with saved policies 25.NC, 41.ES, 42.ES, 45.ES and submitted policy and DM5.

Residential Amenity impacts

98. The application is in outline form with access as the only detailed matter for consideration. The detailed layout, scale and appearance of the proposed development (along with the landscaping of the site) would be considered as part of a subsequent reserved matters application(s), the assessment of which would include such measures as the ensuring of suitable separation distances between properties, and the provision of appropriate internal floor areas, private amenity space, and levels of light and outlook for dwellings. Taking account of the number of units proposed and the site constraints, it is considered that there is suitable potential for the relevant standards in each case to be met and, as such, for an appropriate level of amenity to be provided for the future occupiers of the development. The standards set out within adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance will be applied to subsequent reserved matters applications to ensure the detailed design of the development is suited to its surroundings and topography.

99. While the construction of the proposed development would result in an increase in noise and disturbance in the area, this would not be a permanent impact and subject to securing a Construction Management Plan via a

condition it is not considered that there would be a significantly detrimental impact that would warrant refusing the application.

100. For the reasons given, the proposals are not deemed to be in conflict with the requirements of Saved Policy 59.BE (vii.) of the adopted Local Plan in respect of the matter of the residential amenity for either existing or future occupiers.

Sustainability Measures

106. The NPPF (paragraphs 95-99), Saved Policies 34.ES and 37.ES of the local plan, Policies S1, DM2 and DM3 of the submitted local plan require development to be sustainable in terms of resource use, climate change and energy use. In March 2015 a Ministerial Statement announced that the Code for Sustainable Homes would cease to be applied to new development, although the requirement to still achieve the Code’s levels for energy efficiency and water consumption remains. If permission were to be granted any future reserved matters application would have to meet the energy and water standards.

Economic Sustainability

107. One of the core planning principles of the NPPF (paragraph 17) is proactively to drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver, amongst other things, the homes that the country needs.

108. As with any new housing the proposed development would bring people into the area which would be a continuing economic benefit that would support growth in the local economy. A New Homes Bonus would also be paid and the development would create construction jobs. In addition, the proposed development would result in financial contributions being secured to offset certain impacts of the development, such as transport contributions towards improvements in the local network and contributions towards the provision of enhanced community infrastructure.

109. Provided they are appropriately secured and outweigh the adverse impacts of the scheme, these elements are all considered to be benefits in the planning balance and overall it is considered that the development would be economically sustainable. However, it should be noted that these benefits could also be accrued from a development of this size in a different location.

Social Sustainability

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

102. The application is in outline and the supporting information confirms that a range of house types, sizes and tenures would be provided, including 35% affordable housing (shared ownership and affordable rented) in accordance with Saved Policy 74.H of the adopted Local Plan and Policy DM28 of the emerging Local Plan. The Council’s adopted Affordable Housing SPD is also a material consideration, as the NPPF which aspires to “deliver a wide choice of high quality homes in inclusive and mixed communities to meet the needs of different people”. The Head of Housing Services supports the proposal

103. The proposal also includes the provision of public open space and 2no. Locally Equipped Play Areas (LEAPs) which could be used by local residents and is considered to be a benefit in the overall planning balance. Contributions would also be secured to improve off-site community infrastructure in accordance with relevant adopted policies and the adopted SPD on Planning Obligations. As with the economic benefits, the provision of additional housing and open space could also be accrued from a development of this size in a different location.

Education and Health

104. The capacity of local schools has been considered in assessing the proposed development and infrastructure requirements. Hampshire County Council, as the Local Education Authority, has advised the development site is served by Bursledon Infant and Bursledon Junior School. Both schools are currently full and have no places available to cater for the additional children that will be yielded from this development. Hamble Secondary School is also at capacity. Consequently additional school places to cater for primary age and secondary age children will need to be provided and contributions secured via planning obligation.

105. The Clinical Commissioning Group has assessed the impact of the development on existing health facilities and seeks a financial contribution towards improvements to the existing local facilities, which would be secured through the S106.

Deliverability

107. The application would provide for up to 130 dwellings and it is considered that a site of this size would be delivered within the five year period and thus would contribute to the housing land supply. The developer anticipates subject to this scheme being approved that the Reserved Matters application will be submitted early summer, determined late summer commencement of development in /November 2018. At this stage the first house is programmed to be ready for occupation by Spring April 2019 and development concluded by summer 2021. In order to encourage its early delivery the standard time-frame for submission of reserved matters approval could be reduced by 1 year.

Planning Obligations/development benefits

108. In accordance with the guidance contained within the NPPF, Saved Policies 74.H, 101.T, 147.OS and 191.IN of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Policies DM32 and DM37 of the Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, the Council’s ‘Planning Obligations’ SPD and the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations, there is a requirement for developers’ contributions to ensure on and off-site provision for facilities and infrastructure made necessary by the development, or to mitigate against any increased need / pressure on existing facilities. This is in addition to the requisite on-site provision of affordable housing.

110. If permission is to be granted then contributions / obligations towards the provision of the following infrastructure and requirements would need to be secured via a Section 106 obligation, index linked as per the Planning Obligations SPD and HCC requirements.

a) Provision of 35% affordable housing on site;b) Provision of on-site public open space and 2 no. LEAPs, plus future

management and maintenance responsibilities, including commuted sums for maintenance if adopted by the Council;

c) Provision of on-site pedestrian link from Dodwell Lane through to Orchard Lodge;

d) Provision of the access works;e) Restriction preventing unallocated parking spaces being sold off to

individual householders;f) Street tree maintenance;g) Financial contributions towards:

i. Primary and Secondary Educationii. Off-site sports and recreation provision or improvementiii. Community infrastructureiv. Off-site highway junction improvements and strategic cycle network;v. Health Provisionvi. Public artvii. Solent Recreation Mitigation Project

111. The applicant has agreed in principle to enter in to a Planning Obligation.

112. The projects and measures identified for contribution expenditure will comply with the 3 tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy 2010, in that the monies would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, would go towards projects that are directly related to the development, and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. The contributions would be index-linked to ensure the contributions rise in line with the costs of providing the identified projects/measures. The obligations sought are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and to meet the needs generated by the new residents and the potential impact on existing services and facilities.

Conclusion

113. Section 38(6) of the Act states a scheme contrary to the development plan should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is a strong material consideration including its desire for LPAs to boost housing delivery and where policies are out of date, such as housing policies, support development unless the adverse impacts outweigh the benefits of the development. Saved Policy 1.CO is not considered to be a policy for the supply of housing, however some revisions to the urban edge are necessary to meet the forecast housing needs for the emerging plan period up to 2036.

114. The Council have a 5.3 year Housing Land Supply based on the Five Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement (December 2017).

115. The development of this site would be contrary to saved policies 1.CO (development in countryside) and 3.CO (Local Gap) of the adopted Development Plan (2001 – 2011).In support of the preparation of the emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016 – 2036), the Gap Review recommends exclusion of this site from a Gap and this carries some weight as a landscape assessment based on the function of this land as a means of protecting the identity of settlements. Of less weight, is the recommendation following the SLAA that this site be included within a revised urban edge and be allocated for residential development.

116. It is accepted that the proposed development would give rise to certain benefits, notably in terms of housing provision, including affordable housing. There would also be social benefits through an increase in public open space provision, landscaping and financial support to the delivery of infrastructure in the locality. In addition there would be the economic benefits due to construction, an increase in local population, payment of New Homes Bonus and financial contributions secured via a S106 planning obligation. However, it should be noted that these benefits are not site-specific or over and above what could be achieved on another site.

117. In assessing any harm the development would cause, it is considered that whilst the development would be within the countryside and Local Gap it would not affect the function of the Local Gap in protecting the individual identity of Hedge End or Bursledon. Similarly while it would alter the wider setting of the heritage assets it is not considered that the impact on their significance would be significant. Subject to the view of the Borough’s ecologist, the ecological impact on protected species and their habitat, water quality and flow can all be avoided or mitigated via conditions. As such it is considered that, on balance, the development would be environmentally sustainable.

118. It is considered therefore that the benefits of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm caused by it and therefore the proposed development is considered to be sustainable and in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF.

119. Subject to consideration of the (i) views of the Borough ecologist and Historic England on the principle of development, (ii) the receipt and consideration of updated noise assessment, and; (iii) securing a planning obligation, the proposal is recommended for outline permission to be granted.

109. 07 May 2023

111. 07 May 2023