BISHOPSTOKE, FAIR OAK & HORTON HEATHWednesday 29March 2017

Case Officer Gary Osmond

SITE: / Land adjacent The Mazels Knowle Lane Horton Heath Eastleigh SO50 7DZ

Ref. O/17/79795Received: 03/01/2017(03/01/2017)#NUM#

APPLICANT: / Ms D Emery
PROPOSAL: / Outline: Residential development for up to 4no. dwellings with access from Knowle Lane (access only, all other matters reserved)
AMENDMENTS:

RECOMMENDATION:

REFUSE

21 March 2017

Email:

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(1) The proposal and its associated works represents an unsustainable, inappropriate, and unjustified form of development beyond the built up area which will cause an urbanising impact on the designated countryside. As such the proposal is contrary to saved Policies 1.CO, 59.BE, 100.T, and 102.T of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review, (2001-2011) and emerging policies S9, DM1, and DM23 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2011-2029) and relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Note to Applicant: The application was refused following the assessment of the following plans: 991-MAZ 2-P01 & 991-MAZ 2 -P03.

In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Eastleigh Borough Council takes a positive approach to the handling of development proposals so as to achieve, whenever possible, a positive outcome and to ensure all proposals are dealt with in a timely manner.

REFUSAL

Report:

This application has been referred to Committee due to the planning history of the site.

Description of Application

  1. The application is for outline planning permission with all matters reserved except access. The proposed development comprises the construction of up to four dwellings with access from Knowle Lane with associated roads, parking, and landscaping.
  1. The only matters for formal consideration at this point, therefore, are as follows:
  • Is residential development acceptable in principle in this location?
  • Is the proposed amount of development appropriate?
  • Are the proposed vehicular and pedestrian accesses from Knowle Lane acceptable?
  1. All other matters, such as detailed layout, design and appearance, landscaping and scale are not for full consideration at this stage.
  1. The application plans comprise a red line site plan showing the site location and size (0.5ha), the point of access from Knowle Lane and an illustrative layout for four dwellings, indicatively shown as 4No. four bedroom two storey detached properties.

Site Characteristics & Character of the Locality

  1. The application site is located north-east of Horton Heath and is approximately a kilometre away from the centre of Fair Oak where the nearest shops and main community facilities are located. It lies along the eastern side of Knowle Lane and just north of the junction with Durley Road. The site is currently used as a grassland paddock attached to and owned by ‘The Mazels’, a two storey detached dwelling set centrally within a generous plot. The paddock is well screened to the east and south by mature trees, and reasonably well screened behind a hedge along Knowle Lane, although it is a predominantly deciduous hedge. Views are visible across the garden of The Mazels when at the vehicular entrance to the property. The northern boundary with the Mazels is marked by a metre high post and rail fence.
  1. The site is outside the urban edge and is classified as countryside with the site notably separated from the existing urban edge to the south by two triangular areas of land set either side of Durley Road, one forming the garden of Cockpit Farm and both densely treed. To the west is a poultry farm with associated agricultural buildings and Knowle Park beyond, which is within designated local gap. To the east is open countryside and agricultural land/buildings associated with Cockpit Farm and beyond West Horton Golf course.

Relevant Planning History

  1. There is only one previous application relating to this site – planning reference O/15/77465 – which was determined at the Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath Local Area Committee on 21st September 2016. This was again an outline application which proposed the construction of up to twelve dwellings with access from Knowle Lane, and again only access to be considered. Despite the officer recommendation to approve, the application was refused for the following reasons:

1)The proposal represents an unsustainable, inappropriate, and unjustified form of development beyond the built up area which will cause an urbanising impact on the designated countryside. As such the proposal is contrary to saved Policies 1.CO, 59.BE, 100.T, and 102.T of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review, (2001-2011) and emerging policies S9, DM1, and DM23 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2011-2029) and relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2)The proposal fails to secure contributions towards the provision of essential off-site open space and play provision, community infrastructure, sustainable transport, public art, Education, Traffic Regulation Order, the need for which will increase as a direct result of the development proposed. The proposals are therefore contrary to Saved Policies 100.T, 147.OS, 165.TA, 190.IN & 191.IN of Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review [2001-2011], emerging policies S5, S6, DM1, DM23, DM32, DM35, and DM37 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan [2011-2029], and Planning Obligations: Supplementary Planning Guidance [adopted July 2008] and relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3)The proposal fails to secure the provision of affordable housing, for which there is a high demand in the locality. As such the proposal is contrary to Saved Policies 74.H and 75.H of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review [2001-2011], emerging policy DM28 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan [2011-2029], Eastleigh Borough Councils Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document and relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Representations Received

  1. A total of three representations have been received highlighting the following concerns and objections:
  • Overdevelopment in a rural location
  • Would set a precedent for further development in similar locations
  • Highway and pedestrian safety – even with a new footway
  • Impact on wildlife
  • Loss of privacy to neighbouring properties
  • No gain for the local community

Consultation Responses

  1. Head of Planning Policy – Members will be updated on the evening of the committee.
  1. Head of Transportation & Engineering – No objection - subject to the footway link being provided from the site to Goodwood Close (as indicated on plans) prior to first occupation and will be subject to a S278 agreement with Hampshire County Council.
  1. In terms of the site itself, the access junction visibility splays are to required standards, and 4 dwellings will not have a significant impact on the local highway network - an impact that would have been required for a highway objection in line with the NPPF.
  1. In terms of accessibility, provided the footway is implemented (as requested above), sustainable links will be provided to facilities inclusive of bus stops, shops and local schools – again in line with the NPPF.
  1. Head of Environmental Health – The submitted noise assessment demonstrates that the proposed dwellings will not be adversely affected by traffic noise or noise from the neighbouring poultry farm when windows are closed. However, levels will be exceeded with windows open and suitable mechanical ventilation is likely to be required.
  1. With regards to odour, the main source is the adjoining poultry farm but the submitted assessment demonstrates that this would only be occasionally and as such no mitigation is necessary.
  1. Conditions regarding amenity protection during construction recommended.
  1. Trees Services Manager – There are no significant trees within the site (inside the paddock), and design allows for good room around the units. There are trees around the perimeter, especially a very significant oak on the highway verge.
  1. The outline application seeks to punch through the hedge for access. This hedge is not arboriculturally significant although desirable for retention and the opening would not be detrimental to the significant oak.
  1. A tree survey has been supplied but this is only a survey. We will require full arboricultural information with any reserved matters application.
  1. Biodiversity Officer – No objection provided conditions are included requiring a Construction Environmental Management Plan is submitted and approved, drainage includes a SuDS strategy with three forms of natural filtration to protect water quality, and that a reptile mitigation, monitoring and management strategy and bat activity surveys be submitted and agreed prior to any works commencing.
  1. Fair Oak Parish Council – Objection – outside of the urban edge in a countryside location. Close proximity to a listed building.
  1. Environment Agency – No comments received.
  1. Southern Water Services – A formal application for connection to the public sewer will be required.
  1. Southampton Airport – No objection but advises that should cranes be required for construction that best practice guidance be followed.

Policy Context: Designation Applicable to Site

  • Outside Built-up Area Boundary
  • Adjacent to designated Local Gap
  • Adjacent to curtilage of Grade II listed building

Development Plan Saved Policies and Emerging Local Plan Policies

  • Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 saved Policies: 1.CO, 18.CO, 25.NC, 28.ES, 30.ES, 31.ES, 32.ES, 34.ES, 45.ES, 59.BE, 100.T, 102.T, 104.T & 175.LB
  • Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, July 2014 Policies: S1, S2, S3, S9, S11, S12, DM1, DM2, DM5, DM7, DM9, DM10, DM23, DM24 & DM29
  1. The Submitted Local Plan comprises: the Revised Pre-submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, published February 2014; and the Schedule of Proposed Minor Changes, submitted to the Secretary of State in July 2014.

Supplementary Planning Documents

  • Supplementary Planning Document: Quality Places (November 2011)
  • Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Parking Standards (January 2009)
  • Supplementary Planning Document: Environmentally Sustainable Development (March 2009)

National Planning Policy Framework

  1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supports and encourages sustainable development which is considered to have three roles, economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 8 of the NPPF states that “These roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Economic growth can secure higher social and environmental standards, and well-designed buildings and places can improve the lives of people and communities. Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.”
  1. It goes on to state that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Para 14 sets out a general presumption in favour of sustainable development and states that development proposals which accord with the development plan should be approved without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out-of-date planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of the development would outweigh the benefits; or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted (paragraph 14). Local plan policies that do not accord with the NPPF are now deemed to be “out-of-date”. The NPPF requires that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. In other words the closer the policies in the plan accord to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given.
  1. Paragraph 49 states that, “Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”

National Planning Practice Guidance

  1. Where material, this guidance should be afforded weight in the consideration of planning applications.

Policy Commentary

  1. The above policies and guidance combine to form the criteria against which this application will be assessed with particular regard to the principle of that proposed, including the relevant policies of the adopted Local Plan and how they relate to the Borough’s present housing supply situation, the previous planning application for twelve units, the proposed access to the site, as well as other matters of impact upon the character and appearance of the area, noise, odours and residential amenity, traffic impact, impact upon the neighbouring listed building, trees and biodiversity, drainage, environmentally sustainable construction, infrastructure and planning obligations.

Comment on Consultation Responses and Representations Received

  1. All comments are noted and responded to where appropriate below.
  1. With regards to setting a precedent for similar rural sites if approved, while an acknowledged concern, this cannot be used as a reason to refuse an application as each application must be judged on its own merits.

Assessment of Proposal: Development Plan and / or Legislative Background

  1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:-
  1. "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise."
  1. In this case policy issues for consideration include:

Principle:

  1. The site is located outside the urban edge within designated countryside and adjacent to the Fair Oak and Horton Heath Local Gap where saved Policy 1.CO of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2001-2011) is of relevance to the proposal. Policy 1.CO seeks to protect the countryside from unnecessary development in recognition of the importance of the countryside to agriculture, the landscape, the setting of settlements, for recreation and for nature conservation, as well as to protect the countryside for its own sake and prevent undue harm to its intrinsic character. This policy sets out a clear presumption against new residential development within the countryside and as such the principle of development is contrary to the adopted development plan.

Five Year Housing Supply

  1. However, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration of significant weight as noted above. Paragraph 14 of which sets out an overarching presumption in favour of sustainable development, and where paragraph 49 states:

“Housing applications should be considered in the context of this presumption, with relevant policies for the supply of housing not being considered to be up to date if a local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”

  1. It is accepted that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing supply of deliverable housing sites, with the latest housing supply figures (Cabinet, December 2016) demonstrating 4.5 years supply at present.
  1. In the light of this and in accordance with paragraph 49 of the NPPF, relevant policies for the supply of housing are deemed to be out of date. Following recent case law and appeal decisions, the Council accepts that Saved Policy 1.CO does affect the supply of housing for the purposes of paragraph 49. It is therefore out of date by virtue of a lack of five-year housing land supply. This does not however mean that it can be discounted. Instead it can as a matter of planning judgement still be attributed significant, and indeed determinative, weight by a decision maker in accordance with it consistence with the NPPF.
  1. As saved Policy 1.CO is accepted to be out of date at this current time and in the context of the nature of the particular development proposed, it is necessary to consider whether the proposal is sustainable development and if so to apply the NPPF’s overall presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out within paragraph 14. The matters of relevance to this are discussed in more detail below.
  1. In this regard, Policy S9 (countryside and countryside gaps) of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 is considered to be of relevance. Whilst acknowledging that extremely limited weight can be attributed to the submitted plan in light of its status, as it has not been formerly withdrawn by the Council, it remains a material consideration that is of relevance to this application. Within this plan, the site continues to be outside of the urban edge, within defined countryside and countryside gap. The development would also therefore be contrary to this plan.

Other Adopted Local Plan Policies

  1. Saved Policy 59.BE requires development to take full and proper account of the context of the site including the character and appearance of the locality and be appropriate in mass, scale, materials, layout, design and siting. It also requires a high standard of landscape design, have a satisfactory means of access and layout for vehicles, cyclist and pedestrians, make provision for refuse and cycle storage and avoid unduly impacting on neighbouring uses through overlooking, loss of light, loss of outlook, noise and fumes.
  1. The design element of this policy is supplemented by Policy 18.CO, which states that developments within the countryside that fails to respect, or has an adverse impact on, the intrinsic character of the landscape will be refused.
  1. Policies 30.ES and 31.ES relate to the impact of existing development upon proposed noise sensitive development – principally residential development – and state that if it cannot be demonstrated that the proposed development will not be unacceptably impacted or cannot be suitably mitigated, then permission will be refused.
  1. Other saved policies of note are: 25.NC – protection of nature conservation assets; 34.ES – energy and climate change; 45.ES – drainage; 100.T – transport and new development; 102.T – provision of highway access; and 175.LB – locally important buildings.

Previous Planning Application

  1. As has been highlighted above, the Local Area Committee considered a previous outline application on this site for up to twelve dwellings. This too only requested that access be considered as a detailed matter, with the remaining matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved. Indicative proposals were submitted with the application which showed a potential mix of two, three and four bedroom dwellings in terrace, semi-detached and detached form. However, there was concern that the poor pedestrian access to the site did not make it sufficiently sustainable to be considered suitable for residential development. That being the case, the applicant offered to construct a footway along the eastern side of KnowleLane from the application site down to Goodwood Court where an existing footway ends. This was agreed in principle with Hampshire County Council as the Local Highway Authority, although the final details are yet to be determined. With the provision of this footway, which would have been a requirement of any development, officers were of the view that the site could be made to be sufficiently sustainable to be considered suitable for development.
  1. However, it was acknowledged that the provision of a formal paved footway along the lane would noticeably alter its present character and introduce an urbanizing feature in an otherwise very rural country lane. It was also acknowledged that while developing the site would not have any significant visual impact upon the wider character of the area when viewed from longer distances, it would be clearly visible and present when viewed from Knowle Lane despite the presence of the boundary hedge. It was commented at the time by the Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy that the proposal relied heavily on the presence of mature trees and the hedge along the lane for screening and did not sufficiently take into account the deciduous nature of the trees and hedge or that many were outside the applicant’s control.
  1. Notwithstanding these concerns, the case officer took the view that the acknowledged harm caused and urbanizing effect of the development on this countryside location was outweighed by the overall gains that the development would bring in terms of much needed housing, including affordable housing, as well as other planning obligations towards community infrastructure, public open space and play provision, sustainable integrated transport measures, public art, primary and secondary education and a traffic regulation order. However, she did state that it was “a finely balanced recommendation”.
  1. However, despite the finely balance positive recommendation from the case officer, the committee members voted to refuse the scheme for the reasons set out above. It is accepted that the original officer recommendation is a material consideration which carries a degree of weight. But ultimately, the formal decision of the Local Planning Authority, through the local area committee, was to refuse the application and in planning terms it is this formal decision rather than the officer recommendation which carries more weight in planning terms.

Detailed Matters: