BHH – Bursledon, Hamble and Hound Local Area Committee Thursday 21 September 2017.

Application Number: / O/17/80319
Case Officer: / David Huckfield
Received Date: / Wednesday 12 April 2017
Site Address: / Land at Satchell Lane, Hamble-Le-Rice, Southampton SO31 4HP
Applicant: / Mr S Bull and Mr R Janaway
Proposal: / Outline application: development of up to 70 dwellings with associated access, public open space, landscaping and amenity areas (all matters reserved except for access)
Recommendation: / REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

(1)The proposals represent an inappropriate and unjustified form of development which would have an unacceptably urbanising and visually intrusive impact upon the designated countryside, to the detriment of the chararacter, visual amenity, and the quality of the landscape, of the locality. The application is therefore contrary to Saved Policies 1.CO, 18.CO, 20.CO and 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(2)The site is considered to be in an unsustainable and poorly accessible location such that the development will not be adequately served by sustainable modes of travel including public transport, cycling and walking.The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of Saved Policy 100.T of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 and Paragraphs 17 and 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(3)The application fails to demonstrate that a satisfactory means of access can be provided to serve the development without unacceptable interference with the safety and function of the highway network. The proposals are therefore contrary to the requirements of Saved Policy 102.T of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 and Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(4)Insufficient information has been provided to the Local Planning Authority, as the competent authority, to enable it to determine that a suitable scheme for sustainable urban drainage for the proposed development would be provided which ensures that the hydrological and ecological interests of the Solent Complex are protected, as set out in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of Saved Policies 25.NC and 45.ES of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 and Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(5)The application fails to secure provision for developer contributions for the on and off-site provision of facilities and infrastructure (including affordable housing, air quality monitoring, primary and secondary education, the solent disturbance mitigation project, sustainable transport measures, a Traffic Regulation Order, improvements and enhancements to the local footpath network, community infrastructure, on-site public open space and play area provision, off-site public open space, public art) made necessary by the development or to mitigate against any increased need or pressure on existing facilities. As such the application is contrary to policies 74.H, 101.T, 147.OS, 165.TA, 191.IN of Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Eastleigh Borough Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document and Paragraphs 17, 203 and 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Note to Applicant: The application was refused following the assessment of the following plans:CSA/3212/105 Rev C, CSA/3212/106 Rev A, CSA/3212/108, 17-004-005 Revision D, 17-004-021, 17-004-022, 17-004-024, 9415-KC-XX-YTREE-TCP01, 9415-KC-XX-YTREE-TPP002 Rev 0. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Eastleigh Borough council take 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.

12 September 2017

Email:

Report:

  1. This application has been referred to Committee because it is a Major development which is contrary to the Development Plan and is considered to be controversial.

Description of application

  1. The application seeks outline planning permission for the construction of up to 70no. residential dwellings, together with associated access, public open space, landscaping and amenity areas.
  2. As well as considering the principle of development on the site, the application also seeks detailed approval for the matter of access. All other matters of detail which include the appearance, scale, layout, and the exact landscaping provisions, would be considered at a separate reserved matters stage (the second part of a two-stage planning process) should outline permission be granted.
  1. The access to serve the development is proposed from Satchell Lane in the form of a standard priority junction along the north-eastern perimeter of the site. To the immediate east of this would be a pedestrian crossing point with a dropped kerb and tactile paving to onwards link the development with the existing pedestrian footway network to the south. In addition, the masterplan submitted in support of the application which indicates how the site might be developed also includes pedestrian access points onto the existing public right of way which runs parallel with the site’s western boundary.
  1. The Design and Access Statement indicates that the scheme would incorporate a broad range of house types, sizes and tenures, with the development representing a density of up to 20 dwellings per hectare (32 dwellings per hectare net density). An area of open space incorporating a LEAP (Local Equipped Area for Play) is shown at the southern extent of the site, with further green infrastructure around the perimeter of the development.
  1. The application is accompanied by the following reports, technical assessments and drawings which have been updated as necessary throughout the course of the application:
  • Planning Application Form and Completed Certificate A
  • Planning Statement
  • Site Location Plan
  • Development Concept Plan
  • Illustrative Landscape Strategy
  • Design and Access Statement
  • Transport Statement Incorporating Proposed Access Plan (and Supplementary Technical Notes)
  • Flood Risk Assessment and Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Strategy (and Supplementary Letter)
  • Preliminary Services Appraisal
  • Extended Phase I Habitat Survey
  • Wintering Bird Survey
  • Dormouse Survey
  • Bat Activity Survey
  • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
  • Agricultural Land Considerations Statement
  • Noise and Air Quality Assessment
  • Geo-Environmental Site Assessment
  • Minerals Assessment Report
  • Archaeological Desk Based Assessment
  • Tree Information including Tree Impact Assessment, Tree Constraints Plan and Tree Protection Plan
  1. The Council issued a Screening Opinion at pre-application stage (28 March 2017) under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended) in regards to the matter of whether or not the development would constitute ‘EIA development’ for the purposes of these regulations.
  2. The Council determined that the project did not exceed the screening thresholds for Schedule 2 development (urban development projects including more than 150 dwellings or with an overall site area exceeding 5 hectares) and, having taken into account the selection criteria in Schedule 3 of the 2011 Regulations, that the proposal would not have likely significant effects on the environment. Accordingly, the Council consider that the proposed development is not ‘EIA development’ and an Environmental Statement is not therefore required.
  3. For the avoidance of doubt, whilst the 2011 EIA Regulations have been revoked and replaced by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 in the intervening period (16 May 2017), the transitional arrangements set out in regulation 76 of the 2017 Regulations are deemed to apply. As the Screening Opinion was issued prior to their replacement, therefore, the 2011 Regulations continue to be applicable to the development proposal.

The site and its surroundings

  1. The application site comprises a roughly triangular grass field which is presently utilised for the grazing of horses. The site extends to an area of approximately 3.55 hectares and is bound by Satchell Lane to its northern perimeter, with the existing ribbon residential development along the western side of the Lane bordering the site to the south-east. The site’s western boundary runs parallel with a Public Footpath (Hamble-le-Rice Footpath 1) which links Satchell Lane with the centre of Hamble village around 900m to the south, beyond which lies the former Hamble Airfield.
  2. The site is situated outside of the urban edge and within an area designated as countryside within the Council’s adopted Local Plan (the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011). The adjoining section of Satchell Lane is semi-rural in character with it being tree-lined and devoid of footways moving in a northerly direction. There are recreational uses to the north-east of the site in the form of Riverside Caravan Park as well as Mercury Marina, with the former DIO (Defence Infrastructure Organisation) Hamble Petroleum Storage Depot to the north.
  1. In respect of its topography, the site as a whole falls fairly markedly to the east/south-east, with the high point of the land located towards the mid-to-upper extent of the western boundary (18m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD)), with this then sloping down to a low point of just under 11m AOD to the east where the site borders the residential dwelling at No. 161 Satchell Lane. There is a more gentle slope moving from north to south, with the southern-most point of the site being just over 14m AOD.
  1. The land continues to drop moving eastwards beyond the site’s perimeter, with the adjacent section of the Satchell Lane carriageway set at a lower level and there being a steep bank marking the intervening boundary. This bank contains a large number of mature trees which continue around the length of the northern perimeter of the development site. The western boundary with the adjacent Public Right of Way is marked by a mixture of trees, hedging and fencing, whilst to the east the adjoining boundaries of the neighbouring residential properties consist of a range of hedging and fencing.

Relevant planning history

  1. The site has a relatively limited planning history, with there being two previous applications recorded, both of which were for residential development proposals:
  • Z/18953/000 – Residential development – REFUSED 22/11/1978
  • Z/26999/000 – The erection of 2 detached houses – REFUSED 09/09/1983

Representations received

  1. A total of 203 letters of objection and 1 letter of observation have been received in relation to the application.
  1. The objections raised are in relation to the following matters (summarised):

The principle of development / need and housing supply

  • The development is not needed in this area.
  • There are already housing estates being built on Hamble Lane and the area cannot sustain any more development.
  • The site is outside of the urban area and will encroach into open countryside to the north of Hamble Village.
  • The development is on designated agricultural land.
  • Any development should be rural and not urban in this location.
  • It is not contained in any policies map where there is a presumption in favour of new development on a green site.
  • The application is contrary to the emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan / Cabinet recommendation which states that there should be no significant additional development in the Hamble peninsula because of transport constraints.
  • The development is not sustainable under NPPF guidelines and conflicts with Eastleigh Borough Council policies.
  • The Council has a five year housing supply as required by the Government and no further planning permissions for housing are necessary.
  • The Council not meeting housing supply targets does not justify otherwise inappropriate development.
  • Houses should be built elsewhere / housing shortfall is bettered addressed in a more appropriate setting.
  • The countryside should be protected for future generations.

Impact on character of the area

  • Erosion of the community identity for Hamble and the green gap separating Hamble from other villages.
  • The village is becoming overpopulated and has lost its identity due to overdevelopment and has become / is becoming a small town.
  • The development will destroy Hamble’s character as a small village.
  • The development is out of context and will destroy the countryside and a valuable open green space on the edge of Hamble Village.
  • Visual intrusion and urbanisation of the countryside.
  • Unacceptable and disproportionate built form in an area of countryside which would undermine the physical and visual qualities on the green site and nearby local gap.
  • Requires significant tree loss which takes away from the visual amenity of that part of Satchell Lane, which is tree-lined throughout.
  • The density of the development is out of keeping with the village.
  • Hamble is a distinctive and picturesque yachting centre. It is important to preserve its scale and character to ensure it continues to be attractive to those who visit for sailing.
  • Detrimental impact on the Hamble River.

Flooding and drainage

  • The water table is particularly high making flooding a real possibility.
  • Drainage and sewerage is already a constant challenge in the area and the provision for the additional housing was questioned.
  • The development will cause local flooding from increased water run-off which Satchell Lane already suffers from.
  • Existing houses backing on to the site have suffered from the effects of poor surface water drainage resulting in underpinning works; alterations to flow patterns could cause further damage.

Transport, access and accessibility

  • Increase in traffic/congestion on the highway network, including Hamble Lane which is already one of the country’s busiest ‘B’ roads.
  • Cumulative impacts of additional traffic with other developments.
  • Impact of traffic congestion on the emergency services ability to access the area.
  • Additional pressure on the junction of Satchell Lane with Hamble Lane which is already overloaded and dangerous, particularly at peak times.
  • Insufficient capacity on the highway network.
  • Hamble Lane should be improved and widened before any further development is considered.
  • The Transport Assessment does not include an assessment of the traffic impacts on Hamble Lane, only on Satchell Lane.
  • The traffic survey is misleading and was undertaken at the wrong time of year. The Lane is significantly busier in summertime.
  • No suitable mitigation proposed in relation to highway / traffic impacts.
  • The site is not in a sustainable location outside of Hamble Village.
  • The site is too far from amenities for pedestrians and is not within a safe walking distance of schools.
  • Residents will be reliant on cars to get anywhere as there is a lack of public transport available.
  • Highway safety concerns and the potential for accidents associated with the position of the access on a blind bend and opposite the access to Mercury Marina, the Halyards and the Riverside Caravan Park.
  • Satchell Lane was never built to take this many cars and is in a poor state already.
  • The main access road is a narrow country lane already overburdened by traffic and in most places has no room for a pavement.
  • Satchell Lane is already dangerous for drivers/cyclists and pedestrians with no pavements or lighting in many parts.
  • Satchell Lane is already being used as a “rat run” to avoid congestion in Hamble Lane.
  • Despite the recent reduction in the speed limit to 30mph, cars still exceed the speed limit.
  • Opening up visibility as part of the access will encourage drivers travelling along Satchell Lane to travel at higher speeds.
  • Impacts of construction vehicles gaining access to the site.
  • Effects on residents ability to commute to work outside of the village.
  • Impact on the adjacent footpath / right of way which acts as a countryside walk for villagers.

Amenity (including air quality, noise, pollution and impact on local residents)

  • Increased noise and air pollution resulting from additional traffic.
  • Excessive dust and smells from construction works.
  • Increased levels of disturbance.
  • Light pollution from the development in a dark rural landscape.
  • The site is on elevated ground and the proposed housing would be overbearing and visually intrusive to neighbouring properties.
  • Overshadowing and loss of light and privacy for surrounding housing.
  • Loss of outlook for nearby residents.
  • Detrimental impact on residents’ enjoyment of their homes.
  • The mass and scale of the housing would be visually overbearing and have an enclosing impact on existing housing.
  • The gravel extraction site on the airfield will cause dust and noise and affect the new dwellings.

Infrastructure and facilities

  • Additional pressure on local doctors which already have significant waiting times for appointments.
  • Local schools are already at capacity.
  • Strain on dentists and other facilities which are already overloaded.
  • Significant effects on already stretched policing resources in the area.
  • Effects on gas, electricity and sewage resourcing.
  • Infrastructure improvements should be put in place before any more housing is considered.

Biodiversity and other environmental impacts

  • Loss of habitat for local wildlife including birds, badgers, bats, deer, field mice and reptiles.
  • Impact on the horses in the field which will be displaced.
  • Loss of mature trees and hedgerows affecting the Lane’s character.
  • There is a WW2 pillbox adjacent to the proposed site which is used by bats and which should be left undisturbed for their conservation.
  • Impacts on the SSSI, SPA, SAC and the local RAMSAR site.

Other

  • The development is being pursued solely for financial / profit reasons.
  • Proximity of the development to the oil pipeline.
  • Negative economic impacts including on the marine based economy.
  • These developments make the area an undesirable place to visit for those wishing to use existing marine services.
  • The proposals will only increase the difficulty of existing economic enterprises in ensuring that their staff can reach work.
  • Impacts on local tourism.
  • Impact on property prices for owners of neighbouring dwellings.
  • Housing being built in the area is out of reach of local young families.
  • Impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of the local population.
  • Development will open floodgates to even larger detrimental developments including on the airfield.
  • The consultation did not go far enough and the consultation time is insufficient for residents to review all of the information.
  • Loss of valuable agricultural land with no overriding justification.
  • Lack of contributions towards local infrastructure.
  • Benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the negative impact of sterilising mineral resources which could be extracted from the site.
  • Property boundaries have been misrepresented and the proposals include changes to roadways and kerbs that may be on utility company / council land rather than land they own.
  1. 1 letter of observation was received in respect of the traffic problems in the local area, with this making the following comments:
  • The has been a large increase in commercial and industrial development in Hamble in the last 10-12 years and a mismatch of supply and demand with increasing employees and a lack of growth in supply of housing which has introduced more commuting and created traffic problems.
  • An alternative to increasing volumes of traffic would be to limit more commercial and industrial development or allow more residential housing in Hamble. But these should not be in gaps and with pre-planned infrastructure and highway improvements.
  • Road movements data should be obtained so that the reality can be seen and problems addressed before they get any worse.

Consultation responses