11

Report to Planning Committee

Date 21 January 2016

By Director of Planning

Local Authority East Hampshire District Council

Application Nos SDNP/14/02026/FUL & SDNP/14/05926/FUL

Applicant Mr J Cullen

Applications Erection of 5 semi-detached log cabins (10 units) and siting of

shepherd huts as part of farm diversification and associated

parking area, with new vehicular access onto Blacknest Road

(SDNP/14/02026/FUL)

Address

Replacement barn to be used as café, farm shop and cycle hire

and new access (SDNP/14/05926/FUL )Broad View Farm, Blacknest Road, Blacknest, Alton, GU34 4PX

Recommendation:

1) That planning permission SDNP/14/02026/FUL (Log Cabins) be refused for the

reasons set out in Paragraph 10.1of this report.

2) That planning permission SDNP/14/05926/FUL (Farm Shop) be refused for the

reasons set out in Paragraph 10.2 of this report.

Executive Summary

The consideration of the two applications have been incorporated into one report to avoid

confusion and provide greater clarity of the comprehensive proposals for the site (and how the two

separate components can be considered in isolation and cumulatively).

The history of these applications has been complex and resulted in significant correspondence

between the case officer and the applicants with significant local interest in the proposals. The

application for the lodge was submitted originally and has undergone amendments since the original

submission. The application for the farm shop followed at a later date.

After extensive discussions, the applicant amended plans for both applications to achieve a

compatibility between the 2 schemes (mainly in relation to parking provision and position of the

café/farm shop building). Subsequently, at the end of 2015 the applicant submitted a further

amendment which provided an additional parking area of 11 spaces within the site. The current plans

for both applications allows provision for parking that does not overlap or contradict either

application. (The acceptability or otherwise of the provision or layout in each case is considered in

more detail in the main body of the report.).

The proposals now before members for consideration are set out in the descriptions above but for

ease of reference SDNP14/02026/FUL is for 10 holiday units (in 5 cabins), shepherd huts, parking,

access and landscaping. SDNP14/05926/FUL is for a café/farm shop (in a new agricultural building

replacing a building which formerly was located at the site). The application for the café/farm shop

also includes parking alongside the parking for the proposed lodges.

The principle of rural economic development is generally supported within the East Hampshire Joint

Core Strategy (Policy CP6) for farm diversification schemes, and this includes tourism

Agenda Item

Agenda Item 7

Report PC1/16

12

accommodation and farm shops. The policy is underpinned by the need for such development not

to harm the character of the surroundings and the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. In

particular, within the park such development should contribute to conserving and enhancing its

natural beauty, promote opportunities for the understanding and the enjoyment of its qualities,

improving the viability of rural businesses, and/or providing local services for local people.

In this particular case the consideration for the proposals requires firstly an understanding of the

existing rural enterprise within the site and how this development would contribute to that

enterprise. Secondly consideration would then need to be given as to whether the introduction of

the proposed elements would adversely affect the landscape character of the area and the purposes

of the National Park.

It is considered, that the proposals would, on balance, not conserve the natural landscape beauty of

the surrounding area by virtue of the extensive parking required even though it is appreciated that

the proposals would create opportunities for enjoyment and understanding of the National Park.

Concern is also raised, based on the nature of the existing agricultural enterprise, whether the

proposals could reasonably be considered as a form of agricultural diversification and therefore

whether they comply with policy.

The application is placed before the Committee due to the significant number of representations

received on both applications.

1. Site Description

1.1 The planning application site forms a small part of Broadview Farm, a 50 hectare sheep farm

in Binsted near Alton at the north eastern edge of the SDNP. It is located to the west of

Blacknest Road approximately 1.8 km north east of Binsted. It lies in the bottom of a valley

with a steep slope on the western side which is adjacent to the western boundary of South

Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment the character area K3: Alice Holt Mixed

Farmland and Woodland.

1.2 The site is 3.5 hectares and with a stream running from North West to south east through

the middle and a small pond just outside the application site. There are a number of mature

oak trees on the site but some trees around the pond including 2 willows have been storm

damaged.

1.3 The application site contains Broadview Farm Dismantled Railway Site of Importance for

Nature Conservation (SINC), a locally-designated site containing a rich flora situated to the

north of the proposed development but also immediately adjacent to the existing access

track

1.4 The applicant’s residential property, Broadview Farm, is to the north of the main part of the

site. An access track leads from the side of the dwelling to a group of agricultural buildings

to the south east.

1.5 Blacknest Business Park is located to the east with a line of poplars on the southern

boundary. There is pasture and woodland to south, north and west. There is a public right

of way immediately to the north of the site and a path to the east which runs through the

business park.

1.6 To the west is agricultural farmland associated with Broadview Farm which is grazed by

sheep rising westwards to a wooded hanger. The close range surrounding landscape is

pastoral in character with areas of woodland, thick hedgerows, tree belts and field trees.

1.7 Access to the site is a via a single track from Blacknest Road which runs past the business

park to the south east and Broad View Farmhouse to the north west.

1.8 On the north east side of the road opposite Broad View Farmhouse is a row of dwellings

and on the south east side of Blacknest Road to the south west of Broad View Farmhouse is

a detached property (Broadview Cottage).

2. Relevant Planning History

2.1 SDNP/12/01951/APNW – Agricultural Prior Notification application for re-levelling part of

13

site to allow grazing for pregnant sheep – Further details not required – 4 October 2012.

2.2 The full applications for consideration are the only relevant applications in relation to the

site. However it is worth noting that the application proposals before members for

consideration are different from that for which the applicant submitted originally. The

application(s) have both undergone a number of changes to arrive at the schemes presented

for consideration now.

2.3 SDNP/14/02026/FUL

April 2014 – Application submitted: Description: Creation of fishing lake, land re-

profiling and erection of 7 semi-detached log cabins (total 14 units) to support outdoor

tourism as part of farm diversification with new vehicular access onto Blacknest Road to

serve farm and cabins.

Amendments to scheme made and application re-advertised: Amended Description:

Erection of 5 semi-detached log cabins (10 Units), and siting of Shepherd Huts and

campsite to support seasonal outdoor tourism (1 April to 31 October) as part of farm

diversification and associated parking area, with new vehicular access onto Blacknest

Road. (Main changes to original submission included loss of fishing lake, reduction from

14 units to 10 units, introduction of shepherd huts and also camping facility)

Current Scheme Description: Erection of 5 semi-detached log cabins (10 units) and

siting of shepherd huts as part of farm diversification and associated parking area, with

new vehicular access onto Blacknest Road. (Main changes to the scheme included the

loss of the camping area).

Additional amendment to scheme made in early December 2015: Description remains

but amendment comprises additional parking area with 11 spaces on eastern boundary

adjacent to industrial Estate.

2.4 SDNP/14/05926/FUL

November 2014 – Application submitted; Description: Replacement barn to be used as

café, farm shop and cycle hire, conversion of existing stable building to shower block

and new access and parking area. (It is important to note that the original plans were

not compatible with the lodges application in that the parking areas overlapped).

Currently amended Plans submitted: Description: Replacement barn to be used as a

café, farm shop and cycle hire and new access. (Main changes included a larger footprint

for the café building to provide screening to the parking area, loss of the shower facility

building (due to the removal of the camping facility from the lodge application and

amendment of the parking area to provide compatibility with the plans for the lodge

application).

Additional amendment to scheme made in early December 2015: Description remains

but amendment comprises additional parking area with 11 spaces on eastern boundary

adjacent to industrial Estate.

2.5 The current plans are considered to provide greater compatibility between the two

applications in relation to clarity of parking provision for the two elements (irrespective of

the acceptability or otherwise of the parking provision and its impact on the surrounding

locality)

3. Proposal

3.1 SDNP/14/02026/FUL (Lodges) - The applicant seeks permission on the first application

for the siting of 5 buildings comprising 10 holiday units with additional shepherd huts and

parking and access. The access would be provided at the eastern edge of the site adjacent to

the industrial estate and would lead to a parking area for visitors staying in the lodges.

3.2 Each cabin building (5 in total) would provide two units of accommodation amounting to 10

lodges. These would be located at the foot of the valley adjacent to a line of trees on the

boundary with the industrial estate to the north. The shepherd’s huts would be located to

the south east of the cabins.

14

3.3 The applicant considers that the introduction of the tourist accommodation alongside the

working farm would allow visitors to experience the changing seasons of the National Park

as well as getting a broad experience of the working calendar of the sheep farm.

3.4 The accommodation would be used from 1 April to 31 October and also over the

Christmas and New Year period. Were members minded to approve the application, it is

considered that the periods of use could be adequately dealt with by condition.

3.5 The proposals do not include any outdoor lighting neither does the applicant intend to

introduce any external lighting in order to protect the surrounding dark skies.

3.6 SDNP/15/05926/FUL The applicant seeks permission for a café/ farm shop which would

also provide cycle hire exclusively for visitors staying in the holiday accommodation. The

new building would be located close to existing farm buildings to the south of the residential

property (Broadview Farm). Parking for this proposal would be provided in a parking area

(which would also form part of the area for visitor parking for the lodge accommodation).

3.7 The proposals have been put forward by the applicant in order to seek to provide a point of

stop providing café facilities for walker s and cyclists. The new building is intended to also

sell local produce.

4. Consultations

4.1 Archaeology – No objection subject to conditions (both applications)

4.2 Bentley Parish Council – Object to both applications

Additional traffic and parking congestion this holiday village would create which would

impact on the village.

Insufficient parking facilities on the proposed site to cope with the number cars per unit.

This could potentially cause an overspill of parking onto the roadside outside the

property boundary, which would be a danger to cyclists and pedestrians

4.3 Binsted Parish Council – Object to both applications

Lodges: Environmental impact on of cabin size and appearance in an area of outstanding

natural beauty as defined by the South Downs National Park

Farm shop: The application cannot be shown to not increase the danger to highway

user

4.4 Drainage – No objection subject to conditions (both applications)

4.5 Ecology – No objection (both applications)

Earlier concerns about ecological information with application.

Concerns overcome by additional information submitted by the applicant.

4.6 Environment Agency – No objection

Earlier objection based on adequacy of Flood Risk Assessment

Objection withdrawn on receipt of additional information/assessment

4.7 Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) – No objection subject to

conditions (both applications)

4.8 Environmental Health (Pollution) – No objection subject to conditions

Lodges Application: There is potential for noise from holiday makers on site but I do

not consider this to be significant and is unlikely to significantly impact on residential

properties.

Concern has been expressed about smoke emissions. There is a possibility of smoke

from wood burning stoves, fire pits or barbecues associated with the holiday units. The

holiday units are proposed to be used between April and October, when wood burning

stoves are less likely to be used for significant periods. Air quality objective values are

unlikely to be breached and significant adverse impacts on residential properties are not

anticipated.

If permission is granted a site license under the Caravan Sites and Control of

15

Development Act 1960 would be required from Environmental Health.

Farm Shop Application: Can see no specific reference to wood burning stoves. If

these are proposed they would be subject to Building Regulations.

Potential for impacts from noise, and also emissions to air, depending upon the type of

catering. Recommend conditions on any approval

4.9 Highways – No objection subject to conditions (Consultation on both

applications)

The Technical Note submitted by the Applicants Highway consultants considered a

number of matters which were raised by the Highway Authority in earlier responses to

the application.

Within the Technical Note car parking levels were discussed and the Highway

Authority took the view that the levels of parking for the café and farm shop should

accord with the maximum adopted standards requiring 27 spaces based upon this site

being in a rural location the majority of trips would thus be by private car and also in

relation to previous experience with such facilities which confirm that these types of

uses can be very popular destinations. On that basis, the Highway Authority stated a

requirement for 39 spaces (given the requirement for 12 spaces in connection with the

holiday accommodation) whilst only 26 had been provided for within the plans at the

time. The Highway Authority were concerned that any overflow parking would occur

on the access road in an uncontrolled manner which could lead to obstructed access

for emergency and service vehicles. A revised plan has been submitted which shows a

further 11 spaces to be constructed of grass-crete away from the main parking area.

This location is considered to be acceptable subject to a footway link between the

proposed parking area and the facility area to ensure pedestrian safety. This could be

constructed of materials acceptable in a rural location. Other than the bell mouth at the

access the remainder of the infrastructure would not be adopted by the Highway

Authority.

The Technical Note included a drawing based upon the extended topographical site

survey showing the required visibility splays of 2.4m x 120 metres. This indicated that

the full splays were available and located within land owned by the applicant or within

the existing highway verge/limits. Hedges/planting adjacent to the highway verge

particularly within visibility splays are required to be trimmed back by the land owner

or maintained by the Highway Authority. To ensure that adequate visibility splays is

achievable at the location of the proposed access a further joint site visit was

undertaken on 22 December 2015. This included setting out of the required visibility

splays and it was concluded that with the removal of the existing boundary hedge to the

right on the exit (required to establish the proposed access) that the required visibility

is achievable.

Visibility to the left on the exit is also acceptable with the brow of the hill being located

just beyond the extent of the splay and therefore approaching vehicles are within vision

for the length of the splay. With the straight alignment of Blacknest Road over the

length of the required splays forward visibility of vehicles turning in or out of the access

is also appropriate to the speed limit.

There is no doubt that this development will generate additional trips on the local

highway network and there is a requirement to mitigate the impact of those additional

movements to ensure the operation and safety of that network are not compromised.

Whilst the SDNPA Authority do not currently operate CIL, the County Council as

Local Highway Authority consistently apply an established Transport Contributions

Policy which seeks contributions towards identified schemes which may benefit the site.

The contribution is based on the number of daily trips to be generated by the

development. In this instance as the calculation has been adjusted to have regard of the

seasonal basis of the proposal.

Accordingly a sum of £18,879 has been identified and this contribution would be taken

towards the implementation of the Blacknest and Bentley Corridor Traffic Management

Strategy with an overall estimated cost of £220,000. It is anticipated that the

16

contribution sum would fall due for payment before the use of the development is

commenced.

4.10 Landscape (Consultation on both applications)

Farm shop building: Given the sites visibility from two footpaths the sympathetic

integration of the proposed development is crucial. Proposal to site the car parking

behind the proposed barn is a good approach and will assist in screening the car park in

views from the west and south.

The increased size of the barn would result in a further extension southwards of the

group of farm buildings thus increasing the massing of built form. Provided that an

adequate and appropriate landscape scheme is proposed the impact could be adequately

mitigated.

An alternative option to further increasing the barn by a strong landscape buffer along

the edge of the parking area could be incorporated to provide the required screening.

Lodges: The lodges are located away from the main complex within an open field

which forms part of the wider rolling pastoral landscape. The field is separated from the

existing farm complex and industrial area by a strong edge comprising the route of a

dismantled railway line with an adjacent line of tree planting and a strong belt of mature

trees and shrub planting adjacent to the industrial estate.

The proposed siting of the lodges within the open field feels disjointed and intrudes into

the pastoral landscape. A preferred location for the lodges would be to the north east

of the dismantled railway.

Shepherd Huts: The area of the site identified is relatively enclosed by surrounding

vegetation and thus is likely to have a lower visual impact on users of the adjacent Public

Rights of Way (PROWs).

Similar concerns that this area does not have a strong relationship with the farm

complex and would question the practicality of accessing this area, given its distance

from the farm complex.

Additional Parking Area: The proposals to locate extra parking spaces along the

entrance road as part of an amended plan are poorly related to the overall proposals

for the site. The proposal to extend the proposed parking over two specific areas

would be detrimental to local rural character. Parking alongside the driveway itself

would create large areas of surfacing in the site entrance which would also be

detrimental to rural character. It is recommended that the proposals are revised to

accommodate all of the parking requirement within a single area if possible and certainly

away from the main entrance drive.

4.11 Waste & Recycling – Comments (both applications)

This is a commercial operation and will not be serviced by a domestic waste collection

service. Owners will need to set up commercial waste collection service and access for

this should be considered as part of the planning service.

5. Representations

5.1 1 Letter of objection with 31 signatories.

Purpose 1 of National Park

No evidence to show how this proposal conserves or enhances the natural beauty,

wildlife or cultural heritage of the area.

The location of this development is regarded as being of high landscape value.

Both residents and consultees have agreed the development will have an enormous

impact on the visual quality of the landscape.

Proposed new buildings are not sensitively integrated into the landscape. The café/farm

shop is over large and a dominant feature in the landscape. Cabins are arranged with no

attempt to screen them or integrate them into the landscape.

No buildings are of a local vernacular. The applicant stated that the design was modelled

17

on now removed agricultural buildings, which were army barracks.

The layout of buildings appears urban and at odds with the rural landscape.

Removal of the old barns before submitting the application has removed the

opportunity to assess the importance to wildlife species or to judge the acceptability of

the new building as a replacement.

The original ecological surveys did not investigate fully the area around the barns and

were inadequate in identifying potential damage to wildlife.

New barn cannot be described as a replacement as its scale and prominence is far

greater than the buildings it is supposed to be replacing.

Landscape Officer confirms the development will be visible from the footpath and

higher ground of the hangers.

There are still no details of the design or layout of the shepherd huts.

The huts would have no provision for storage of cycles and associated holiday

paraphernalia which could have an impact on the landscape.

Lack of information on toilet facilities, washing facilities and waste disposal for the

shepherd huts.

Hedge is described as being less than 10 years old but is over 20 years old and provides

an acceptable transit route for dormouse dispersal within the landscape. It is clear from

the guidance from Natural England and Defra that a survey should have taken place.

Despite repeated requests by the County Ecologist for the issue of New Zealand pygmy

weed to be taken seriously no measures have been put in place to prevent its transfer

to the wider environment.

Trees will provide little meaningful screening for a considerable amount of time.

Applicant has not shown how the proposal meets CP6. Opportunities to visit and stay

do not outweigh the negatives impacts.

Policy 13 of SDNP farming policies is difficult to reconcile with this scheme. Scale and

type of development is inappropriate. Sustainability of such a small holding to continue

in agricultural production must be in question.

No other agriculture based activity appears to have been considered as an alternative.

In attempting to solve one problem, the applicant has presented another with the visual

impact of the additional parking.

The applicants claim that there are no public footpaths and the new access is only

exposed to motorists is ludicrous. The road is used by walkers, cyclist’s and horse

riders.

Additional parking will be highly visible from Blacknest Road.

The Landscape officer confirms that the barn could be adequately mitigated by a

landscape scheme but no scheme has been proposed.

Purpose 2 of the National Park

No evidence to show that the proposal would fulfil this purpose.

Every potential amenity is adequately provided elsewhere.

In contrast to other local farm experiences, there are no farm based activities listed

within the supporting documentation, all of the activities are located away from the

farm.

If there were a proven need for accommodation, there is no evidence to show why this

could not be provided elsewhere in a less sensitive location.

How would visitors be able to experience the general workings of the farm when there

is no activity taking place for 5 months of the year?

Concern that increased use of rights of way in poor ground conditions will render them

impassable.

18

Question practicality of having no walkways to enable guests to access their cabins.

Additional traffic will impact on enjoyment of area by cyclists and walkers.

Noise by large number of visitors will impact on the quiet enjoyment of the footpath

(55).

Duty of the National Park

Despite claims that the development will be beneficial to local businesses, since the

inclusion of the café/shop application there have been no supporting comments from

businesses.

No engagement with the community on the proposals since the first application was

made.

Concern that the influx of large number of visitors will swamp the identity of the small

community.

Applicant has not stated the opening hours of the café/shop.

No noise assessment has been provided as part of this application.

Concern about the impact on air quality. No confirmation of the fuel that will heat the

buildings.

No coherent lighting assessment submitted.

No form of renewable energy included in the proposals.

Owners of the units on the industrial estate concerned that their activities may be

curtailed. At least two businesses will leave the area should the application be granted.

Applicant remains unclear as to how many jobs would be created by the development.

Concern as to proximity of the new development to existing residential properties.

Transport, traffic and parking

No quantitative evidence or examples of similar developments where the train has been

used to access the site at a level where sustainability can be acceptably claimed.

Not sure what incentives will be provided to induce sustainable behaviour by visitors.

Arriving by train will not only be limiting but more expensive and time consuming.

Applicant has significantly underestimated the amount of traffic the developments will

generate.

Locations chosen as comparisons are not comparable.

Conflict between the management plan and the traffic note in relation to the use of the

café/shop.

Concerns about increase in visitor numbers to Alice Holt from this development.

Parking

Concern that the site will become an overflow car park for Alice Holt.

Underestimation of the parking provision that the development will require. 12

allocated spaces for accommodation is insufficient.

No delineation of where the various activities will take place in the farm shop building.

Realisation and acceptance of the need for additional spaces is an acceptance of the

unsustainable location in transport terms.

No provision for parking of minibus to ferry visitors or parking provision for service

vehicles.

No footway provided from the new parking to the facilities listed. Danger to public and

guests.

Concern that the adjacent field will become an overflow car park/

19

Visibility Splays

Despite splays being accepted by the Highways Officer contend that the applicant

cannot show that the visibility splays can be achieved. Visibility is obscured by a hedge

belonging to a third party.

No kerb marking on the current plan. On the recent plan to avoid the hedge, the splays

appear to have been pulled forward into the roadway.

Using either the original or the amended plans the splays could be blocked by the

hedge.

General Comments

Flood Risk Assessment still makes reference to a lake so how can the FRA be

acceptable if the modelling is not correct.

The solution of dealing with surface water is questioned by the Drainage Officer.

The Drainage officer states foul drainage should be discharged into a public foul sewer.

Applicant remains unsure as to how it will be dealt with.

No toilet facilities for the café/shop.

Application does not include a noise assessment or lighting assessment.

Little detail on farm diversification.

No community engagement.

5.2 A significant number of representations have been received during the many

iterations of the application since the initial submission. The number of

representations as each stage is set out below. A summary of the issues raised in

these representations is also set out below:

70 Objections to Initial Lodges Scheme:

51 Letters of support to Initial Lodges Scheme:

31 Objections to Amended Lodges Scheme (with lake removed)

0 Letters of support to Amended Lodges Scheme (with lake removed)

30 Objections to Amended Lodges Scheme (with camping removed and compatible

parking)

7 Letters of support to Amended Lodges Scheme (with camping removed and

compatible parking)

18 objections to Current Plans for Lodges Application

2 Letter of Support for Current Plans for Lodges Application

44 Objections to Initial Café/Farm Shop Application

0 Letters of support to Initial Café/Farm Shop application

26 Objections to amended Café/Farm Shop Application (with compatible parking)

5 Letters of support to amended Café/Farm Shop Application (with compatible parking)

15 Objections to current plans for Café/Farm Shop

0 Letters of support current plans for Café/Farm Shop

Highways/Access Parking

Blacknest Road is a busy road. Significant number of vehicles exceed the 40mph speed

limit. More traffic will be generated by the development (also taking into account

recently approved development at Bordon). Road is generally used as a rat-run.

Inadequate parking provision, leading to on-road parking.

There are no footpaths along the road and so the location is not suitable for walking.

Splays for the access go onto land not owned by the applicant.

No provision for staff parking

No spaces allocated for deliveries or service vehicles.

20

Blacknest Road is a busy rat-run

Increase in potential vehicles to Alice Holt would be unsustainable.

Inadequate visibility splays. Amended plans showing splays do not relate to physical

measurements on the ground. Applicant is proposing splays over which he has no

control.

Transport assessment and travel plan should have been required.

Applicants suggestion of using site as base to visit Reading or Southampton by train

show lack of knowledge of feasibility/practicalities of being able to do this on public

transport from the application site.

Partnership Management Plan states that future tourism and recreation facilities should

build on existing gateways, hubs and sustainable transport which this site fails to do due

to lack of connectivity. Heavily reliant on vehicles.

Access Road does not allow cars to pass with ease.

Not clear how applicant has derived formula for parking spaces provided. Spaces do not

differentiate between proposed uses in new building.

Parking spaces of less than 1 per lodge or shepherds hut is insufficient.

Given the need for increased additional parking, this suggests there will be an increase

in traffic movements on a dangerous road.

No suitable footpath around the car park to enable users to walk to the shop or holiday

lets. Potential safety hazard.

Additional spaces are still insufficient and could result in overflow parking on Blacknest

Road.

Applicant has sought to increase parking as opposed to reducing the proposals.

Highways contribution should be based on vehicle movements all year round as the

farm shop is not a seasonal operation.

Agricultural Diversification/Viability/Justification

As far as aware applicant does not farm land and rents out field to a sheep farmer.

Question how this scheme will strengthen sustainability of park communities and

enterprises.

Farm is merely a title to qualify the renting out of small pasture and therefore hardly a

working farm. Proposals become far greater than original use so as to be a change of

use.

What will applicant be selling and where will he be sourcing produce? Nothing

produced on the farm will be sold there.

Lack of clarity over the use of current farm buildings given the applicants desire to

continue farming. There are only four buildings on the applicants land, one would

assume for agricultural purposes. Given the proposed uses, it is questioned what

facilities will remain for agriculture.

Requirement for so many parking spaces and removal of existing farm buildings shows

move away from agriculture.

No need for additional café in the area.

No need for cycle hire given similar service available at Alice Holt.

Would not be providing employment opportunities.

Replacement barn would indicate reduction in farming activity.

No evidence that the scheme would be viable.

If scheme is not viable short step to residential properties.

No demonstrated need for such an amenity. Already plenty of holiday accommodation

in the area and also farm shops/coffee shops.

21

Compatibility with neighbouring uses.

Could possibly hinder industrial activity next door. Incompatible relationship.

Whilst a need for visitor accommodation is recognised, high quality is a priority and

location of this site would preclude this (alongside an industrial unit).

Previously application refused for Nursery on Industrial estate due to inadequate

parking, danger to road users and inappropriate development alongside industrial units.

Inappropriate development considering residential nature of Blacknest Road.

Proposed parking would be highly visible from the property Broadview Cottage. Light

pollution would occur.

Additional use of access and track would impact on owners of Broadview Cottage.

Light & Noise Pollution

Light and noise pollution caused by increased activity.

Holiday visitors make more noise than residents

Impact on Dark Skies

Light pollution will affect wildlife

Ecology

Survey for newts should be undertaken

Proposals will upset ecological balance.

Landscape & Design

Landscape would be affected by proposed development.

Increased use of the footpath would affect its condition.

Conflict between park purposes.

Agriculture created the landscape. Without the agriculture what will the landscape

become?

The proposal would introduce a significant development and activity altering the

established character and pattern of agricultural field interspersed with woodland.

Whilst it is accepted that the proposals would be viewed from the higher levels against

the roofs of the adjacent industrial estate, this does not mitigate the visual impact of the

proposal.

The access would create a further scar on the landscape.

Re-profiling of the dismantled railway would destroy the existing habitat.

Assume that Shepherd huts will be static now that shower building has been removed

from proposals.

The lodges are out of keeping and ugly spoiling the natural valley.

Proposals are contrary to Para 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Poorly conceived design with little done to screen lodges from the footpath.

Shepherd huts are out of character.

The café/farm shop does not appear to have provision for toilet facilities.

2 developments in close proximity refused and withdrawn due to similar issues.

No community support.

Environmental Impact of the cabins by virtue of site and appearance in an AONB.

Formation of lengthy tarmac access road, hardstanding and ‘service’ area would harm

the intrinsic beauty of the area.

Loss of hedgerow to provide visibility splays would cause harm to the landscape

character of the area.

In seeking to solve the parking provision the applicant has created a problem in

22

adversely impacting further on the landscape, adding an urban feel to Blacknest Road.

Proposed parking areas (including new 11 additional spaces) would be seen from the

main road and the SDNP to the west resulting in erosion of the landscape. There is no

screening shown to hide the car park or blend it into the countryside. The new car park

sits on higher land than the public highway. Low hedges and open drives mean the carp

park will be visible despite limited attempt at screening.

New parking area is adjacent to Industrial estate and will contribute to slow

urbanisation of this rural area.

Amendment will render another area of an already small holding useless for grazing.

Area is a beautiful landscape and grasscrete areas and large buildings will spoil this.

Field next to the track could become an overflow car park.

Any form of new landscaping would detract from the natural beauty of the local area.

Even if the new parking area is to be screened this will take time to be effective and

unless non-native species are used it will not be effective throughout the year.

Sandford Principle should apply if there is a conflict between the purposes of the park.

No mention of signage which would have an impact on the street scene.

Discrepancies/Comments on application form and plans.

Confusing having 2 applications for what is clearly one project.

No mention of servicing for the development and how this will be achieved

Opening times for the café/shop not indicated

Inaccuracies in application form (work has started, there will be a new access, waste will

be produced, there is no asbestos present, the site is prone to flooding, there will be

commercial waste, there will be a gain in residential units seeing as lodges will be used

365 days a year, there will be employees, no hours of opening detailed, ventilation

details required, development will be seen from a public footpath).

Environmental Impact Assessment should have been required.

Not a sustainable location – only accessible by car.

No reference to energy sustainability.

No commitment to recycle waste.

Proposals fail to show proposed levels.

Further ecological survey should have been required.

No air quality or ventilation assessment has been submitted.

Previously applicant wanted visitors to start or end their visit at the site hence the need

for café etc., but is now saying these facilities are purely for those using the lodges.

Unclear whether farm shop/café will be seasonal as well as the holiday lets.

Whole process falls short of what planning should be.

Without necessary comprehensive information, it is difficult to put forward a full and

considered opinion.

Still not clear whether the applicant wants to proceed with either one or both of the

applications.

5.3 Letters of support for the following reasons

Lots of effort made in minimising any negative impact.

Sympathetic to surroundings and will only enhance the area.

Whilst there is a moderate amount of traffic along Blacknest Road, there are traffic

calming measures in place. Do not see there being an increase in traffic.

The Lodges would not be visible from the road and only limited from other properties.

Visitors will be able to enjoy life in the countryside.

23

The farm shop would serve locals and would mean they would not have to travel by car

to other more distant retail shops.

Wider benefits to the area increasing business in pubs, takeaways, Alice Holt, horse

riding, fishing lake, golf course.

Not much in the way of affordable visitor accommodation in the local area. Will bring

tourists to the area, having a positive impact on local business

Will provide holiday jobs for local people.

6. Planning Policy Context

6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material

considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plans in this area comprises

the Saved Policies of the East Hampshire District Local Plan (Second Review) 2006 and the

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014). The relevant policies to this

proposal are set out below.

National Park Purposes

6.2 The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:

To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas;

To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special

qualities of their areas.

6.3 If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is

also a duty to foster the economic and social well-being of the local community in pursuit of

these purposes.

National Planning Policy Framework and Circular 2010

6.4 Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the

Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular

and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF

states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic

beauty in the national parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are

important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks.

6.5 The development plan policies listed below have been assessed for their compliance with the

NPPF and are considered to be complaint with the NPPF.

6.6 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December

2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year

Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material

consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP

Local Plan. Relevant policies are 1, 3, 13, 14, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 & 55.

6.7 Policy 1 seeks to conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the

landscape and its setting, in ways that allow it to continue to evolve and become more

resilient to the impacts of climate change and other pressures.

6.8 Policy 3 seeks to protect and enhance tranquility and dark night skies.

6.9 Policy 13 seeks to support the financial viability of farm businesses through appropriate

infrastructure and diversification developments.

6.10 Policy 14 seeks to develop the market for and production of sustainable food, drink and

other products.

6.11 Policy 29 seeks to enhance the health and wellbeing of residents and visitors by encouraging,

supporting and developing the use of the Park as a place for healthy outdoor activity and

relaxation.

6.12 Policy 35 seeks to promote and enhance integrated travel provision from rail stations

located at gateways and within the Park for pedestrians, cyclists and bus travel.

24

6.13 Policies 37 and 39 seek to encourage cycling and manage vehicle parking.

6.14 Policy 40 seeks to manage the highway network and its infrastructure to integrate it more

effectively into the landscape and reduce the impact of traffic on communities and visitors.

6.15 Policy 41 seeks to maintain visitor enjoyment and influence visitor behavior in order to

reduce impacts on the special qualities of the Park (and increase spend in and around the

Park).

6.16 Policy 42 Seeks to develop a consistent and coordinated approach to promoting and

marketing of the Park as a sustainable visitor destination.

6.17 Policy 43 seeks to support the development and maintenance of appropriate recreation and

tourism facilities and visitor hubs, in and around the Park, including a mix of quality

accommodation which responds to market demands and supports a sustainable visitor

economy.

6.18 Policy 55 seeks to promote opportunities for diversified economic activity in the Park, in

particular where it enhances the special qualities.

6.19 Policy 49 seeks to maintain and improve access to a range of essential community services

and facilities for communities in the National Park.

7. Planning Policy

7.1 The following saved policies of the East Hants District Local Plan Second Review 2006 are

relevant to this proposal:

C6 – Tree Preservation

C13 – Rural Diversification

HE19 – Ancient Tracks and Lane, Environmental Improvements

T2 – Public Transport Provision and improvement

T3 – Pedestrians and Cyclists

T4 - Pedestrians and Cyclists

E2 – Renewable Energy

IB3 - Industrial or business development in the countryside

S6 – The control of shops on farms

TM1 – Tourism Development

TM3 – Visitor Accommodation outside settlement Policy boundaries

R1 – Outdoor space and recreation

7.2 The relevant policies of the East Hampshire District Joint Core Strategy (2014) are:

CP1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development

CP2 – Spatial Strategy

CP6 – Rural Economy and Enterprise

CP9 – Tourism

CP19 – Development in the Countryside

CP20 – Landscape

CP21 – Biodiversity

CP22 – Internationally designated sites

CP25 – Flood risk

CP27 – Pollution

CP29 – Design

CP31 – Transport

7.3 The South Downs National Park Preferred Options Local Plan was approved by Members at

Committee on 16 July 2015 to go out for public consultation in September. The

25

consultation period has now ended and responses received will be considered by the

Authority. The next stage in the plan preparation will then be the proposed submission.

Until this time, the Preferred Options Local Plan is a material consideration in the

assessment of this planning application in accordance with paragraph 216 of the National

Planning Policy Framework, which confirm that weight can be given to policies in emerging

plans following publication. Based on the early stage of preparation the policies within the

Preferred Options Local Plan are currently afforded limited weight. The following policies

are considered to be of relevance to this application: SD1, SD2, SD4WW, SD5, SD6, SD8,

SD9, SD12, SD17, SD18, SD19, SD20, SD22, SD27, SD31, SD37, SD41, SD42, SD44, SD47,

SD51, SD54 & SD59

8. Planning Assessment

Introduction

8.1 The consideration of the applications primarily focusses on the principle of the schemes and

whether they accord with the adopted policies in relation to tourism and farm diversification

and whether the scheme meets the purposes and duty of the National Park.

8.2 The key issues in this case are therefore:-

The principle of development

The impact of the proposals on the landscape and on the character of the adjacent

Conservation Area

Impact of the proposals on Highways.

Impact of the proposals on Ecology within the site

Impact on flood risk

Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and uses.

Principle of Development

8.3 Lodges: The principle of visitor accommodation outside settlement boundaries is

mentioned in Saved Policy TM3 of the Local Plan Second Review 2006 where it confirms,

amongst other things, that it will only be permitted where it involves primarily the

conversion of rural buildings, particularly those on working farms however Saved Policy C13

does allow for an enterprise as part of farm diversification in the countryside. This is subject

to the criteria that where a new building is required it should be sited within an existing

group of buildings. In addition, the proposal should not harm the character of the local

landscape or other local amenity and the traffic generated should not be of a type or volume

that would cause harm to users of the highway or the character of rural roads. The

landscape and highway issues are considered later in the report but the issue of location of

new buildings requires further consideration.

8.4 The proposal is for holiday cabins and as part of the consideration one must have regard to

whether the location in amongst the small group of agricultural buildings would be practical

or compatible with the agricultural enterprise which is undertaken at the site. In addition,

consideration must be given to the amenity impacts of locating the lodges closer to

residential properties nearby. Whilst the location in landscape terms is another matter, it is

considered that there are good reasons for compatibility for separating the new lodge

buildings a little further away from all the existing buildings. Firstly it is considered that the

location of the lodges would be better located so as to be somewhat further away from the

residential property to the west (Broadview Cottage) for amenity reasons. Also, in terms of

the amenity for those in the holiday accommodation, it is preferable to have a degree of

separation from the café/farm shop (if approved) and the agricultural buildings.

8.5 It is clear that sustainable rural tourism is supported generally in both national guidance and

also in the Defra Circular “English National Parks and the Broads – UK Government Vision

Circular 2010 where it confirms:

“The pursuit of sustainable tourism is therefore a critical objective for the Authorities as a key

contributor to the local economy and as a prerequisite for the successful promotion of the wider

26

enjoyment of the parks without compromising their special qualities.”

8.6 The South Downs National Park Visitor Accommodation Review (December 2014) also

confirms that there is a potential for visitor accommodation development across all parts of

the Park with frequent shortages of all types of accommodation at weekends and during the

week in the peak summer months. Clearly accommodation which is either serviced or has

access on site to food, drink etc. is preferable in that it involves the local economy being

supported, as opposed to visitors arriving at accommodation with produce that has been

sourced outside the park.

8.7 Saved Policy C13 specifically states that permission for an enterprise which forms part of a

farm diversification scheme will be permitted subject to then criteria referenced above. It is

therefore also important to consider whether this is a farm diversification proposal. The

explanatory text is helpful in confirming the following:

“The object of diversification is to allow the primary agricultural unit to be retained whilst being

supplemented by another form of income.”

“The District Council considers that all proposals for diversification should be looked at on a

comprehensive basis and that assets of farms are not stripped on a piecemeal basis, without regard

to the needs and the viability of the holding.”

“Development proposals will usually need to be accompanied by an explanation of the implications

for the farm unit, including a supporting statement showing the relationship between the proposed

diversification and the current and future maintenance of the remainder of the land on the holding.”

8.8 The applicant has provided some information during the process of the application to explain

the nature of the current agricultural activity which takes place on the land. Essentially the

applicant owns the land and rents the land to a tenant farmer on an annual basis who grazes

sheep on the land. The income in relation to agriculture is solely from the rent that the

tenant farmer pays and a similar grant by the government. It is clear purely on the basis of

the limited income derived from agriculture that this does not allow the applicant to manage

the maintenance of the estate (There is no detail as to whether the applicant receives any

income from businesses unrelated to the farm). It is clear therefore that there is an

agricultural enterprise which is undertaken on the land. Since taking ownership of the site

Mr Cullen has made changes and improvements to the site by way of improving the grass

quality with the laying of new topsoil, improving underused and poor quality areas so they

can be grazed, improvement to watercourses, the erection of new fencing around the farm,

clearance of dilapidated barns and repair of those remaining and also some woodland

management. In addition, during the lambing season Mr Cullen has taken an active

involvement in assisting the tenant farmer with a variety of jobs in connection with the

tenant’s enterprise (although there is no financially binding agreement between the applicant

and the tenant farmer in relation to this assistance).

8.9 The difficulty with the scheme according with the adopted policies is that there appears to

be no clear strategy as to the relationship between the proposals as submitted and the

current and future maintenance of the remainder of the land on the holding. This is arguably

difficult given that the tenancy arrangement appears to be solely on an annual basis and this

would make it somewhat problematical for the applicant to produce a meaningful and

tangible whole farm plan which enables a programme to secure the ongoing enterprise and

the management of the land.

8.10 Policy CP6 of the Core Strategy (2014) allows for farm diversification schemes and

enterprises that help maintain the viability of farm businesses engaged in sustainable land

management, including tourism facilities, visitor attractions and visitor accommodation.

8.11 This policy re-enforces the need for such schemes to be able to show that the result will be

that the development assists in maintaining the current enterprise and sustainable land

management. As outlined above, it is considered that this, on balance, has not been

demonstrated and the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy in this respect.

8.12 Farm Shop: The proposal is, in much the same way predicated on a justification due to

agricultural diversification. The current information ultimately leads to a conclusion that it

27

has not been demonstrated that the proposal accords with the saved policies contained

within the Local Plan Second Review or the Policies within the Joint Core Strategy.

Impact on the landscape character of the area/Design of Buildings.

8.13 Lodges: A number of matters require close consideration in landscape terms as far as the

proposals for the lodges and shepherd huts are considered. The lodges would be located at

the bottom of the site in the valley in close alignment with the tree lined boundary with the

industrial estate. In the main part the lodges would be seen against backdrop of the tree line

and their impact would be softened in this respect with only the northernmost lodge not

having the backdrop of trees and it is arguable that this building would relate visually more

to the group of agricultural buildings (and potentially the café/farm shop if this were to be

approved) to the north east. Notwithstanding the concerns of the Landscape Officer in

relation to the location of the lodges, on balance it is considered that the lodges would be

acceptably located as to not have an adverse impact on the surrounding landscape.

8.14 The design of the lodges is considered to be simple and uniform and would relate more

closely to the agricultural buildings and the proposed café farm shop. Whilst it is arguable

that a variety of cabin designs could have been introduced to provide more interest, the low

key design is considered a more appropriate design response in this rural location.

8.15 The location for the shepherd huts in the southern corner of the site, with the backdrop of

boundary trees and existing trees located close to this area is considered to be acceptable

and would sit comfortably alongside the lodge buildings in this valley location. Whilst

concerns are raised about the lack of information about the design or style of these huts it is

considered that this could be adequately dealt with by way of condition.

8.16 Concerns have been raised about the lack of pedestrian paths or vehicular drop-off points to

the lodges. The absence of such paths has been specifically planned to prevent a more

urbanised and formalised layout that would detract from the rural landscaped character of

the area.

8.17 Parking: The matter of parking provision is considered elsewhere in the report and there is

obviously some inter-related issues as far as this is concerned with the concurrent

application. The introduction of a significant parking area within the site without the benefit

of farm buildings or sensitive landscape screening could have significant adverse impact on

the surrounding area. The introduction of the farm shop building (if approved) would go

some way to addressing this issue and that impact would be significantly reduced from views

from the footpath to the south west. In the event that the concurrent application for the

café/farm shop were refused, the car park would be clearly visible in the landscape and a

sensitive landscaping scheme would be required to provide a screen from the parking area

and thus prevent views of what would be an urban and uncharacteristic element within this

rural agricultural location. The land drops from north east to south west between the

agricultural buildings and the Industrial Estate, which means that the impact of the main car

park area would be limited in views from Blacknest Road.

8.18 The recent submission of amended plans in order to provide an acceptable amount of

parking for the proposed schemes has resulted in the introduction of a disconnected small

parking area to the south east of the lake and access in the corner of the site adjacent to the

Industrial Estate.

8.19 This parking area would not relate the main group of agricultural buildings and would be in a

higher location within the site where it would be visible from Blacknest Road and certainly

from the new proposed access. Whilst it would be seen against the back drop of the

Industrial Estate, the application site provides a very clear break from the more urban

character of the industrial estate to the predominant rural landscape character of the

surrounding area. Notwithstanding that the applicant could introduce an element of

landscaping to somewhat screen the parking area, this in itself would appear somewhat

conspicuous and more formal in this rural landscape. The applicant has continued to seek a

solution to this issue and has recently suggested a larger parking area closer to the barns

with the relocation of the Café Farm shop further to the south west. Officers have declined

to consider such amendments at this stage, given that this could potentially result in a

28

greater impact on the landscape.

8.20 Café/Farm Shop: The proposed café/farm shop building would be located within a group

of other existing agricultural buildings and would relate closely to this group. It is not

considered, in isolation, that this building would have an unacceptable impact on the

landscape character of the area. In addition, it is considered that the main parking area

would be acceptable in landscaping terms, given its location around a group of agricultural

buildings which would screen the parking area effectively. In addition the land drops from

north east to south west, which means that the parking area would not be so easily visible

from Blacknest Road (as mentioned above).

8.21 The proposed building would be of an agricultural character and has been designed to sit

comfortably alongside the existing agricultural buildings on the site. This is considered to be

an acceptable design approach in this rural location.

8.22 Unfortunately the introduction of the additional parking area is considered unacceptable for

the reasons set out in Paragraph 8.16 above.

Impact of the proposals on Highways

8.23 The proposals have been subject to much scrutiny by the Highways Authority given the

potential for an increase in vehicular activity.

8.24 The Highways Authority have revisited the site and carried out a thorough review of the

proposed access to the site and have confirmed that the proposed access is acceptable and

meets the requirements in terms of necessary visibility splays.

8.25 In addition, the amount of parking provided by the applicant across both schemes is

considered to be acceptable to the Highways Authority, subject to conditions (although the

acceptability or otherwise in landscape terms is obviously outside the remit of the Highways

Authority)

8.26 The Highways Authority also consider that the scheme for the lodges would require a

financial contribution of £18,879 towards highway works in the vicinity (The Implementation

of the Blacknest and Bentley Corridor Traffic Management Strategy). The applicant has

confirmed that they are willing to enter into such an agreement should members be minded

to approve. In the absence of such an agreement having been secured as of yet, the

application is recommended for refusal in this respect.

Impact of the proposals on the ecology within the site.

8.27 The applicant has submitted an ecological appraisal as part of the application which has been

subject to scrutiny by the County Ecologist.

8.28 Concerns were originally raised in relation to the loss of hedgerow in order to provide the

new access to the site and how this might affect dormice that may or not be present.

However after further consideration and in light of the most recent ecological reports, given

the limited section of hedgerow being removed for access, without the need for additional

visibility splay removal, the Ecologist took the view that the risk was very low indeed. The

hedgerow is, according to the latest ecological report, structurally unsuitable and is severed

by gaps in various locations. On balance the Ecologist considers that the likelihood is

extremely low and that, given the fragmented and well-managed nature of the existing

habitat, there is insufficient justification to request a full Phase 2 dormouse survey.

Impact on flood risk

8.29 Lodges: The applicant has submitted amended Flood Risk Assessments throughout the

progress of the application. The most recently submitted FRA was considered to be

acceptable by the Environment Agency and it is not therefore considered that a refusal could

be sustained in relation to flood risk.

Impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties and uses.

8.30 The nearest residential property (Broadview Cottage) is located to the north of the existing

group of farm buildings and to the south west of the applicants dwelling, Broadview Farm.

The dwelling is relatively close to the farm buildings and inevitably there might be some

29

impact on the current amenity enjoyed by the residents of this property. However this also

needs to be considered in the light of the potential agricultural activity that could or has

taken place over the years and whether the proposed schemes would result in such activity

or noise which would be so great as to have an unacceptable impact on this property. It is

considered that the farm building would effectively screen the parking area and main

activities in relation to the shop as to prevent a significant impact on this property. Likewise,

it is considered that the lodges would be sufficiently set away as to not to have a significant

impact on this property.

8.31 A group of residential properties lie on the opposite side of the road to Broad View Farm.

Whilst the proposals would result in an increase in vehicular activity into the application site,

it is not considered that this would be to such an extent that this would impact on the

amenity currently enjoyed by these properties. It is considered that the use for a café/farm

shop and lodges would be set sufficiently away from these properties as to not have an

impact in relation to noise.

8.32 Concern has been raised that the proposed introduction of tourist accommodation would

be incompatible with the existing industrial estate to the south east of the site. The nature of

some uses within the industrial estate would invariably result in some noise, which some

have argued would not be a suitable location for visitor accommodation. Whilst there may

be occasions when visitors would experience some noise from the adjoining estate, it is not

considered that this would be so unacceptable as to refuse on this basis. The majority of the

industrial use is limited to normal working hours and one would expect the users of the

accommodation to expect relative tranquillity outside of these times. On this basis it is

considered that the tourist accommodation could co-exist comfortably alongside the

adjoining industrial estate.

9. Conclusion

9.1 It is acknowledged that there is a very clear need for holiday accommodation within the

National Park as evidenced by the findings of the South Downs National Park Visitor

Accommodation Review. The opportunity for provision of such accommodation is given

within the Policies within the Joint Core Strategy, the Saved Policies of the East Hampshire

District Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. However this need (and the

general support for farm shops) is predicated on being as a form of agricultural

diversification. Whilst there is clearly an element of agricultural activity being carried out on

the farm, the proposals do not provide enough confidence as to how the scheme can help

secure and maintain the viability of the agricultural enterprise on the land and also the future

maintenance and management of the holding. On balance, it has not been demonstrated in

the absence of a whole farm plan and the means of securing the ongoing viability and

maintenance/management of the land, that the proposals can be considered as part of a farm

diversification scheme and therefore fail to comply with the Policies within either the Core

Strategy or the Saved Policies of the East Hampshire District Local Plan.

9.2 The proposals would not conserve or enhance the landscape of the National Park by virtue

of the introduction of a parking area unrelated and disconnected from the main parking area

which would result in an alien and urban feature in a rural location, contrary to the purposes

of the park and established policies. In the absence of an approval for the farm shop, the

proposed main car park would also have an unacceptable impact on the rural landscape

character of the area.

9.3 In the absence of a financial contribution towards highway improvements in the locality the

proposed lodges would be contrary to Policies within the East Hampshire District Local Plan

Joint Core Strategy 2014.

9.4 For these reasons the applications are recommended for refusal.

10. Reason for Recommendation

10.1 Application SDNP/14/02026/FUL is recommended for refusal for the following

reasons:

30

1. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal, on the basis of the submitted

information, would help maintain the viability of a farm business engaged in sustainable

land management. The proposal could not be considered as a form of agricultural

diversification, in the absence of a whole farm plan clearly setting out the relationship

between the existing enterprise and the proposals and how the current and future

maintenance of the land could be secured. The proposals are therefore considered to

be contrary therefore to Saved Policy C13 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan

Second Review (2006) and Policies CP6, CP9 and CP19 of the East Hampshire District

Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposal by virtue of the required parking provision would introduce a significant

parking area resulting in a more formal and urban character in this sensitive rural

location at odds with the existing rural landscape character of the site and surrounding

area. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to Saved Policies C13,

TM1, TM3 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan Second Review (2006) and

Policies CP6, CP9 and CP19 and CP20 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint

Core Strategy (2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. No provision has been made to secure financial contributions towards Transport

infrastructure within the locality. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policy

CP31 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy 2014, EHDC Guide

to developers' contributions and other planning requirements 2011, HCC Transport

contributions policy 2007 and the NPPF.

10.2 Application SDNP/14/05926/FUL is recommended for refusal for the following

reasons:

1. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal, on the basis of the submitted

information, would help maintain the viability of a farm business engaged in

sustainable land management. The proposal could not be considered as a form of

agricultural diversification, in the absence of a whole farm plan clearly setting out the

relationship between the existing enterprise and the proposals and how the current

and future maintenance of the land could be secured. The proposals are therefore

considered to be contrary therefore to Saved Policy C13 of the East Hampshire

District Local Plan Second Review (2006) and Policies CP6, CP9 and CP19 of the

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014) and the National

Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposal by virtue of the required parking provision would introduce a

significant parking area resulting in a more formal and urban character in this

sensitive rural location at odds with the existing rural landscape character of the site

and surrounding area. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to

Saved Policy C13 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan Second Review (2006)

and Policies CP6, CP9 and CP19 and CP20 of the East Hampshire District Local

Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

11. Crime and Disorder Implications

11.1 It is considered that the proposal does not raise any crime and disorder issues or

implications.

12. Human Rights Implications

12.1 This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any

interference with an individual’s human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims

sought to be realised.

13. Equality Act 2010

13.1 Due regard has been taken of the South Downs National Park Authority’s equality duty as

contained within the Equality Act 2010.

14. Proactive Working

14.1 In reaching this decision the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a

31

positive and proactive way, in line with the NPPF. This has included the provision of pre-

application advice, numerous on site meetings, the opportunity to provide additional

information to ensure the best chance of success despite concerns consistently expressed by

SDNPA Officers and some consultees.

Tim Slaney

Director of Planning

South Downs National Park Authority

Contact Officer: Rob Ainslie

Tel: 01730 819 273

email: rob.ainslie@southdowns.gov.uk

Appendices: 1. Site Location Map

SDNPA Consultees: Director of Planning & Legal Services.

Background Documents:

http://planningpublicaccess.southdowns.gov.uk/online-

applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=N46Q1GTUG1900

http://planningpublicaccess.southdowns.gov.uk/online-

applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NF84JYTUKPP00

National Planning Policy Framework

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2

National Planning Practise Guidance

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/

Defra: English National Parks and the Broads – UK Government Vision and Circular 2010.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-national-parks-and-the-broads-uk-government-

vision-and-circular-2010

SDNP Partnership Management Plan

http://www.southdowns.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/SDNP-Partnership-Management-Plan-

2014-19.pdf

East Hampshire District Local Plan (Second Review) (2006)

http://localplan.easthants.gov.uk/contents_written.htm

East Hampshire District Local Plan Joint Core Strategy (2014)

http://www.easthants.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/DP01EastHampshireDistrictLocalPlanJoint

CoreStrategy.pdf

Guide to Developers Contributions – East Hampshire District Council – May 2014 (Amended

September 2014)

http://www.easthants.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/GuideDevelopersContributions.pdf

Hampshire County Council: Transport Contributions Policy (2007)

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/transport_contributions_policy.pdf

Visitor Accommodation Review – South Downs National Park 2015

https://www.southdowns.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Visitor-Accommodation-Review-

Report.pdf

Visitor Accommodation Review – Technical Appendices

http://www.southdowns.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Visitor-Accommodation-Review-

Technical-Appendices.pdf

32

Agenda Item 7 Report PC1/16 Appendix 1 Site Location Map

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office

Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Downs National Park Authority,

Licence No. 100050083 (2012) (Not to scale).