DOCUMENT REF: AWR95/EHDC
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review
Public Local Inquiry
Written Representations
SUBJECT: Chapter 5 Housing
Policy H1 Omission Site – Land at Blackberry Lane, Four Marks
OBJECTONS:9121, 9131, 14641 Rydon Homes
14636,14647, 14938, (3866, 1921)
14939
East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review
Public Local Inquiry
Written Representations: East Hampshire District Council
OMISSION SITE – LAND AT BLACKBERRY LANE, FOUR MARKS
1.0SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTOR
- Sustainability: the omission site is a more sustainable site than the proposed reserve housing allocation at Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead, and should be allocated for residential development in place of the Medstead site.
2.0SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
2.1The omission site,which is an irregular shape, is approximately 10.3 hectares and comprises open grassland south of properties fronting Blackberry Lane and west of those fronting Telegraph Lane and north of Alton Lane, Four Marks. For the most part, well established hedgerows define the site’s boundaries. The land falls away from Alton Lane but rises again towards Blackberry Lane. It is highly visible from Alton Lane and from a public footpath that crosses the site in a north/south direction along its western boundary.
2.2First Deposit Plan: the objector (1921) made representations seeking the allocation of the omission site for housing in place of the Lymington Bottom Road allocation. It was considered that the omission site is well located in scale and location to Four Marks and development would integrate well with the settlement pattern. It would provide a mix of housing conveniently located to local facilities and would provide a more balanced distribution of recreational provision. The development would be more sustainable than other sites proposed by the Council including Lymington Bottom Road.
2.3The Head of Planning Policy reported the objection to the Council’s Development Policy Panel held on 12 - 14 September 2001 (CD12/17, HOM21). The officer considered that the development of the omission site would be an unacceptable incursion of the built-up area of Four Marks into the countryside where it would be obvious in the landscape and detrimental to the rural character of the area and the setting of the village. The amount of development would be out of scale in terms of its housing needs. Whilst the site is reasonably contained its development would undoubtedly open up the prospect of additional housing to the west between Blackberry Lane and Alton Lane.
2.4The allocation of the Lymington Bottom Road site is considered to be consistent with the sequential search for locating new development as set out in PPG3. It represents an extension to the built-up area of Four Marks which has a good range of local facilities and services all within easy reach of the proposed housing allocation.
2.5The Panel accepted the officer’s recommendation that no change be made to the Plan in respect of the omission site.
2.6Second Deposit Plan: the objector (3866) continued to object to the allocation of the Lymington Bottom Road site, this time as a reserve housing site. It was considered that the site is not sustainable being remote from facilities, services and public transport. There are technical difficulties with the delivery of housing.
2.7The Head of Planning Policy reported the objection to the Council’s Development Policy Panel at its meeting held on 11 September 2002 (CD12/22, Pages 232 and 233). It was considered critical that pedestrian/cycle access is improved from the site to the village centre via Station Approach (north) and under the railway at Lymington Bottom Road. This would make the reserve housing site more sustainable.
2.8The Panel accepted the officer’s recommendation of no change.
3RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED IN ADDITIONAL WRITTEN REPRESENTATION
AOmission site
3.1Environmental impact: the objectorconsiders that the proposed development would have no detrimental impact on the environment or landscape; the site is well contained, physically and visually. The proposed development would make a positive contribution to the surrounding landscape character.
3.2.1The Council disagrees with this analysis of the site. Whilst it is contained it is also visually prominent from Alton Lane and from the wider area and is seen very much as part of the countryside. In particular,it contributes significantly towards the pleasant rural character of the area that forms the setting of this part of Four Marks.
3.3This opinion is consistent with that of the Inspector who reportedin 1993 on objections to the East Hampshire District Local Plan.He considered residential development on the site (see Appendix 1) and concluded that:
“2.4.69 Whatever needs there might be for allocating further housing land in the Plan, in respect of an extended Plan period, it is unlikely that land of the housing potential of site A would be required. It would, in addition, push development in a direction contrary to the main form of the village, spreading building into what is now part of the countryside surrounding Four Marks where it would be obvious in this elevated landscape……At present little development extends beyond the frontage of houses and it would open up the prospect of the development of other areas of the backland, land that is often quite open in longer views of Four Marks. The buildings of Bernard Avenue emphasise the potential intrusion of building in depth on this side of the road. It is not my view that the Plan should be changed to open this land to development.”
He recommended that in respect of the omission site, no change be made to the Plan.
3.4It is also difficult to see how housing development on the site will make a “positive contribution to the surrounding landscape character” as envisaged by the objector (para 7.7). The surrounding landscape is dominated by open fields and paddocks bordered by hedgerows. RPS Watson envisaged planting being used to improve the landscape rather than a residential estate. Especially if it would inevitably lead to further housing spreading westwards between Alton Lane and Blackberry Lane.
3.5Sustainability: the Council acknowledges that the omission site is within easy reach of many of the facilities of Four Marks, but with the notable exception of the Primary School. This is located some 1,650 metres from the centre of the omission site along a country lane without footpaths or lighting. This is considered to be beyond the reasonable walking distance of young children and these journeys would be made by car.
3.6It is considered that any sustainability advantages the site may have do not override the significant landscape objections the Council has to the proposed development of the omission site.
3.7Recreational space: the objector does not make it clear whether the proposed recreational space will contribute towards the existing deficiency in public open space in the village (see Open Space in East Hampshire CD18/2) or whether it will provide only that required by the proposed housing. The Plan allocates land for recreational purposes as an extension to the existing recreation ground off Brislands Lane to help meet the shortfall in open space provision. Whilst it is acknowledged this will be located to the west of the settlement, it is considered that it is readily accessible to most residents, including those from the proposed baseline and reserve housing sites in Four Marks.
3.8Again, whilst there may be advantages in locating open space towards the east of the village, these benefits are such that they do not override the Council’s objections to the proposed development on landscape grounds.
BLymington Bottom Road site
3.9Accessibility: the objector considers that the site should be deleted as it fails the sequential test due to its location. The site is cut off from the centre of the village by the railway line and the A31. Access to the site under the railway bridge is dangerous.
3.10The Council has followed a sequential search as required by PPG3 when identifying sites for development. It is satisfied that the reserve housing site is an appropriate extension to the built-up area of Four Marks, although for administrative purposes it lies within Medstead Parish. The facilities and services of Four Marks are easily accessed in particular employment areas, commercial premises and a doctors’ surgery.
3.11Neither the railway line nor the A31 are considered to be significant barriers to pedestrian or cycle access to local facilities. Recent works at the Lymington Bottom Road railway bridge have provided a pedestrian footpath and changed vehicular priority to make the route towards the A31 safer and more attractive for pedestrians and cyclists. In particular, residents from the proposed housing may reach the bus stops on the A31 by way of surfaced footpaths. It may be that these works will be sufficient to satisfy the Plan’s requirement for improved access under the railway (SD5.238).
3.12The Highway Authority plans to improve the Lymington Bottom Road/A31 junction by narrowing the carriageways and widening the central reservation. This is not dependent upon developers’ contributions but if not already implemented the works may be advanced as part of the baseline housing development South of Winchester Road. This will improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists crossing the A31. A traffic light controlled crossing of the A31 already exists at the village centre.
3.13The Plan requires pedestrian and cycle access to Station Approach through the proposed employment area that adjoins the reserve housing site (SD6.052). This will improve access to the centre of Four Marks from the housing allocation including employment areas and the pub. Improvements for pedestrians and cyclists are also required to Medstead village centre, including the school and recreational facilities, from the proposed housing (HAR13, SD5.23 & PIC037.5).
3.14The Council is therefore satisfied that the reserve housing allocation at Lymington Bottom Road is accessible to the facilities and services of Four Marks and that deliverability will not be an issue in improving pedestrian/cycle access to the centre of the settlement. It is considered that the omission site at Blackberry Lane has no accessibility advantages over the reserve housing site that would override the Council’s significant objections to its development on landscape grounds.
3.15Precedent: the objector considers that the development of the Lymington Bottom Road site would create a precedent for further Local Plan promotions in the future. The reserve housing site is well contained by significant hedgerows and tree belts, with the exception of the north/north-east corner where planting can be carried out. It is a self-contained site and if the need for its development is established, the Council does not believe it would act as a precedent for further housing north of the railway line.
3.16Visual intrusion: the objector considers that development on the Lymington Bottom Road site would be visually intrusive due to the raised ground. Whilst the site is higher than the nearby properties fronting Lymington Bottom Road it is set well back and the existing properties themselves will hide housing from public view along that road. The existing and proposed employment development along Station Approach (north) will also generally hide the residential development from public view.
4CONCLUSIONS
4.1The Council is satisfied that the Lymington Bottom Road reserve site is a sustainable location for residential development. It would be an extension to the existing built-up area of Four Marks and within easy reach of local facilities and services. The Plan’s required improvements to the pedestrian/cycle links to the village centre will enhance the accessibility of these facilities further. The site is well contained within the existing landscape and generally the housing would not be visible from public viewpoints.
4.2Whilst the omission site is well located to the facilities of Four Marks, the proposed development would be a southerly extension of the built-up area of the settlement and would be detrimental to the rural character of the area and the setting of the village. It is considered that housing on the land would lead to further additional housing spreading westwards between Alton Lame and Blackberry Lane.
5RECOMMENDATION
5.1The Inspector is recommended not to change the Plan and to reject the proposal to include land south of Blackberry Lane, Four Marks, as a replacement to the Lymington Bottom Road reserve housing allocation.
1