Major Application Cttee: 09 January 2019 Item No. 1 ... · For Details and Plans Click Here Site Address Bishopswood Golf Course Bishopswood Lane Baughurst RG26 4AT Proposal Erection

Major Application Cttee: 09 January 2019 Item No. 1

Application no: 18/01892/FUL

For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Bishopswood Golf Course Bishopswood Lane Baughurst RG26 4AT

Proposal Erection of extension to existing clubhouse to incorporate a 21 bedroom hotel. Erection of 18 dwellings (7 x 3 bed house, 2 x 3 bed bungalow, 3 x 4 bed house and 6 x 5 bed house) and associated parking, landscaping.

Registered: 4 July 2018 Expiry Date: 21 November 2018

Type of Application:

Full Planning Application

Case Officer: Rebecca Murray 01256 845578

Applicant: Bishopswood Golf Course LLP

Agent: Mr Nicholas Cobbold

Ward: Tadley Central Ward Member(s): Cllr David Leeks Cllr Kerri Carruthers

Parish: TADLEY CP OS Grid Reference: 458820 161477

Recommendation: the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal 1 The benefit of the asserted improvements to the long term viability of the golf

course through the provision of the hotel, which would be financed through the construction of 18 private dwellings, and the benefits associated with the provision of the hotel itself, does not outweigh the substantial harm caused by the proposed 18 dwellings with regards to the countryside location, associated impact on the character and appearance of the area, the Strategic Gap, Tadley Church Road Conservation Area, lack of housing mix and affordable housing, lack of on-site open space, unacceptable layout in relation to the impact upon trees, biodiversity, amenity of future occupiers, and the adverse impact upon the AWE Emergency Plan. As such the proposals are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) paragraph(s) 84, 95, and 180 and Policies SD1 and SS1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

2 Although the proposed financial viability report supports the need for the

proposed residential development to generate the income to construct the proposed hotel, in the absence of a suitable legal agreement to secure the provision of the hotel and link it to the golf course in perpetuity to ensure the long term viability of the golf course, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy SD1 and SS1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

3 The site is located outside of a recognised settlement policy boundary and as

such is within designated countryside where new housing is restricted. The proposed residential element of the proposal, due to this countryside location and lack of an exceptional justification to offset the harm caused by the development, is therefore contrary to Policy SS1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

http://planning.basingstoke.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=%5eND,KEYVAL.DCAPPL;

4 The proposal does not seek to provide on-site affordable housing or off-site contributions towards affordable housing and notwithstanding the submitted viability information the proposals would not contribute towards creating mixed and balanced communities and as such are therefore contrary to Policy CN1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

5 In respect of the residential dwellings, the proposals do not provide any on-site

open space or off-site contributions to offset the shortfall, and as such would result in the inadequate provision of multi-functional green space to meet the needs of the additional residents without adversely impacting on the quality of life of existing residents. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy EM5 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

6 It is considered that the proposed housing mix of the proposed residential

dwellings does not accord with the projected housing need in the borough as the mix of 4-bedroom and 5-bedroom units is too high with 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units being absent from the proposal. In the absence of any accepted justification for this proposed mix the proposal is contrary to Policy CN3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

7 The application site is situated within the Detailed Emergency Planning Zone

(DEPZ) surrounding the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE). The proposed development would, as a result of the associated increase in population, the proximity to the centre of the DEPZ and location within a densely populated sector of the DEPZ (Sector J), have a detrimental impact on the Aldermaston off-site emergency planning arrangement. As such the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of and guidance contained within Paragraphs 95 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and Policy SS7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

8 The proposed residential development would harm the future integrity of the

Strategic Gap resulting in encroachment onto undeveloped land designated for the purpose of preventing the coalescence of built up areas. In this respect, it is considered that the proposal in respect of the residential dwellings, would be contrary to Policy EM2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

9 The application proposes insufficient enhancement and mitigation measures to

compensate for the loss of the woodland area (including protected trees) and net loss in biodiversity that would be lost as a result of the proposed residential dwellings, and as such would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), Policies EM1 and EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD (2018).

10 The proposed residential dwellings result in a poor relationship in respect of

sunlight and daylight access due to the presence of trees that exist on the site. No information has been submitted to demonstrate that the external and internal useable amenity spaces would provide satisfactory light in respect of access to natural daylight and sunlight for future occupiers of the proposed 18 dwellings. In this respect the application is contrary to Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Design and Sustainability SPD (2018) in respect of amenity for future occupiers and future pressure to prune and fell retained trees at the site.

11 On the basis of insufficient information being submitted with the application in

order to fully consider the visual impacts and landscape character impacts of

the development on the Tadley Church Road Conservation Area and the wider landscape character, it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Tadley Church Road Conservation Area Appraisal (2004).

General comments The application has been brought to the Development Control Committee at the request of Councillor Richards. Planning Policy The application site is located outside of a Settlement Policy Boundary within designated countryside and the Tadley-Baughurst Strategic Gap. The area is also covered by the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Emergency Planning Zone. For planning policy purposes relevant countryside policies apply. National Planning Policy/Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018); Section 2 (Achieving sustainable development) Section 4 (Decision-making) Section 5 (Delivering a sufficient supply of homes) Section 8 (Promoting healthy and safe communities) Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport) Section 11 (Making effective use of land) Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) Section 14 (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change) Section 15 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) Section 16 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) National Planning Practice Guidance Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing) Policy SS2 (Regeneration) Policy SS7 (Nuclear Installations – Aldermaston and Burghfield) Policy CN1 (Affordable Housing) Policy CN3 (Housing Mix for Market Housing) Policy CN6 (Infrastructure) Policy CN7 (Essential Facilities and Services) Policy CN8 (Community, Leisure and Cultural Facilities) Policy CN9 (Transport) Policy EM1 (Landscape) Policy EM2 (Strategic Gap) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM5 (Green Infrastructure) Policy EM6 (Water Quality) Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk) Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Use) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development)

Policy EM11 (The Historic Environment) Policy EM12 (Pollution) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Design and Sustainability SPD (2018) Parking Standards (2018) Housing SPD (2018) Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD (2018) Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD (March 2018) Other material documents Tadley Church Road Conservation Area Appraisal (2004) The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (Revised 2015) The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 Green Infrastructure Strategy 2013-2029 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2015) Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 Description of Site The application site is located within the grounds of the Bishopswood Golf Course and occupies two areas totalling 1.6 hectares, including a red edged area (for hotel extension) to the southern boundary off New Road and a red edged area (for residential dwellings) of land to the western boundary adjacent to the existing clubhouse of the Bishopswood Golf Course. Area for hotel extension The land towards the western boundary at the northern end of the site closest to the main clubhouses contains a wedding / event area and a number of low importance trees. This part of the site faces onto the existing parking area for the golf club and is surrounded to the north by the 1st tee, putting green and the 9th Fairway. No residential properties surround this aspect of the application site. Access to the site is from the adjacent Bishopswood Lane to the west through the entrance and car park. Area for residential dwellings In respect of the land to the south eastern boundary, this land is broadly overgrown and untouched scrub land with mature hedging and trees. To the east and south this part of the site is bound by residential developments facing their rear elevations and garden amenity areas. To the west of this land is Bishopswood Lane, which is a 60mph (national speed limit) road with no footpath. The speed restriction of this adjacent highway reduces to 40mph approximately 450m to the north of the site as the road enters the settlement of Tadley. A small footpath access exists into the site along this lane towards the south of the application site, which is a public right of way cutting across to the Bishopswood stream and towards New Road, however, the main access to all aspects of the golf course remains from the main clubhouse entrance. Proposal The application is in two parts, namely a hotel extension to provide 21 bedrooms and residential development (18 dwellings) on two separate areas of the existing golf course site. The hotel extension would be located on the eastern side of the existing clubhouse.

The hotel extension would be approximately 30m in length wide and would be the same height, general width design as the existing clubhouse. The hotel extension would utilise the existing clubhouse entrance and would be directly linked at ground floor to the existing building. The residential element of the proposals would consist of 7no. 3-bedroom houses, 2no. 3-bedroom bungalows, 3no. 4-bedroom houses and 6no. 5-bedroom houses with associated parking and landscaping. No affordable housing is proposed. The housing will be in two distinct parts with 3-bedroom dwellings (plots 12-18) at the entrance of New Road and the remaining dwellings (plots 1-11) towards The Warren. The hotel will be accessed from the existing clubhouse access on Bishopswood Lane and the residential dwellings will be accessed via a new access created to the north of New Road. In original submission included the following in support of the proposals:

Site location plan, floor plans and elevations (hotel and residential);

Site survey;

Tree protection plan;

Tree removal plan;

Plan of existing foul sewers;

Flood risk assessment (including drainage strategy and foul sewage and utilities assessment);

Highways statement (hotel and residential);

Arboricultural impact assessment (including tree survey);

Planning statement (including design and access statement, affordable housing statement, sequential test for hotel development, economic statement, open space assessment and planning obligations); and

Preliminary ecological survey. Amendments Initially the application was submitted without a financial appraisal setting out the business plan for the golf course or justifying the need for the 18 residential dwellings to fund the implementation of the hotel aspect of the proposal. The officer requested additional information, which was submitted in the form of a Financial Viability Report, all matters of which were received on 01.10.2018. The document was subsequently sent to a consultant for independent review. Following discussions between the applicant and the officer in respect of internal consultee responses, amended plans were submitted (dated 31.08.2018) which revised the proposed housing arrangement of plots 1-18, demonstrated vehicle swept path analysis and forward visibility splays and a drainage strategy. Consultations Tadley Town Council: “Welcome the extension to the clubhouse but dislike that the two developments are linked. Object - the application does not adhere to the policies set out Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council’s Local Plan. If this application were to be approved, it would set a precedent. Object to the proposed types of houses, Tadley residents need 1 and 2 bed homes not executive homes. The Planning Statement point 3.2 states the development 'benefits all sectors of the housing market", this is incorrect as the local need is for 1 and 2

bed homes. The site should also be 40% affordable homes. Object to the position of the access on to New Road, this is on a slight bend with a 60 mph speed limit in place. Also concerned about lack of visibility when exiting the proposed site. Object to the removal of such a large amount of trees, especially adjacent to a conservation area. Concerned that the southern boundary of the site adjoins Bishopswood Stream and the potential for flooding and also for any adverse effects to properties lying downstream to the east of the proposed development (note there have been flooding issues in the past in both Elmhurst and Brookside Walk). Concerned that if this development goes ahead it could mean that the rest of the golf course is developed in the future. Concerned that there are no pavements for pedestrians to access the proposed site. Concerned about the access in Bishopswood Lane to the proposed clubhouse extension, the lane is extremely narrow and any increase in traffic would have a detrimental impact.” Cllr Richards: “Further to our telephone conversation earlier today, I confirm that the above planning application has given rise to a great deal of controversy in the community and I, therefore, request that the application is brought to the Development Control Committee. I would also like to request a site visit prior to the DC committee meeting concerned. I will forward the appropriate site visit request form in due course.” Cllr Leeks: No comments received. Cllr Carruthers: No comments received. Highways Officer: Initial comments – Objection in respect of the residential aspect of the development. In respect of the hotel, as the size of the golf course/number of golfers restricted per hole and the catering capacity of the kitchen/seating of the function room, will remain the same, the existing quantum of parking is considered to be appropriate for the development. Final comments – No objection, subject to conditions. Biodiversity Officer: Objection to the residential aspect of the development. Policy Officer: Objection in respect of the residential aspect of the development. Tree Officer: Objection to the residential aspect of the development. Environmental Health Officer: No objection, subject to conditions. Conservation Officer: Objection to the residential aspect of the development. Parks and Open Spaces Officer: No objection, subject to a contribution for MFGS. Urban Design: Objection to the residential aspect of the development. Landscape Officer: Objection to the residential aspect of the development. Housing Officer: Initial comments – Expect a demonstration that on site affordable housing will not be viable and that Policy CN1 cannot be met. It is also required that a comprehensive range of affordable housing options have been tested and considered. Final comments – none received. HCC Emergency Planning Officer: Final comments - Advise against due to the impact on the AWE Off-Site Plan.

Office for Nuclear Regulation – Final comments - Advise against the development unless the emergency planners at West Berkshire Council provide confirmation that, in their opinion, that the development can be accommodated within their existing off-site emergency planning arrangements. HCC Lead Local Flood Authority: No objection. West Berkshire Council – No comment. Fire and Rescue: No objection, subject to building control approval. Natural England: No objection, subject to mitigation. Environment Agency: No comments received. Historic Environment: No objection. Southern Gas Networks: No objection. Thames Water: No objection. Public Observations Thirty letters of objection to the application on the following grounds (in summary):

Safety – removal of trees will result in potential for golf balls landing in residential area;

Wildlife – removal of trees will impact upon the wildlife and the application will have an effect on other wildlife including deer, roads, frogs, bats

Named after the beautiful woodland it is located within;

Home to nesting birds (Red Kites, Owls, Green Woodpeckers, Greater Spotted Woodpeckers, Jays);

Access to proposed housing is to be gained from New Road, already locally known as accident Black Spot;

We bought a home in The Warren for retirement due to the outlook as it looks out onto woodland and our enjoyment comes from the beautiful seasonal changes coupled with the many visits from all types of wildlife;

New Road is too dangerous and this proposal would add to the danger and increase the chance of accidents;

18 houses and a 21 bedroom hotel would greatly increase the flow of traffic in the area;

A number of car accidents have taken place, ending in some fatalities – it would be worrying for children walking or cycling to school, young children in pushchairs or elderly residents walking along these roads (especially in winter months);

Evidence of slow worms in this area and worried they would be disturbed;

Hedgehogs and bats are already greatly reduced in Tadley / Baughurst over the last 10 years;

This is an area of undisturbed ground that is scarce;

Concerned about once this proposal has been given permission, it will set a precedent;

Part of the wood on the golf course will be lost and no proposals to replace them;

Developments for roads are awaiting planning permission;

The wood next to the golf course has had a permission for housing refused;

Once this proposal starts, it could ruin this part of Tadley – something we do not want;

Local services are already at capacity;

The housing design is out of character in this rural setting and not the housing Tadley needs;

Impact on the local Conservation Area. Sixty-four letters in support to the application on the following grounds (in summary):

Nowhere else to stay in Tadley so this will be an improvement for places for people to stay when visiting;

Larger club will bring new roles / employment for people in the area;

The club will receive more income and be able to stay for years;

More meetings and events to the club;

Houses are a great idea and they will sell quickly in Tadley due to how close it is to the AWE and the M4 which means houses will not be left empty;

The application would secure the future of this valuable local amenity and give the area a much needed facility in the form of hotel accommodation;

The housing development part of the plan uses land that is not used or accessed by the public and offers opportunities for local residents families to purchase properties in Tadley (especially the 3 bedroom properties);

This application has been brought in order to enhance and secure the future of the Golf Course and the continued availability of the Golf Course is an asset to the area.

Relevant Planning History 15/03090/FUL Part two and part three storey 120 bedroom

care home (Class C2) with visitors lounges/ Dining rooms, day centre and ancillary facilities, parking and access provisions

Approved 08.05.18

14/01906/FUL Erection of a two storey extension to create 12 overnight accommodation rooms and landscape alterations

Approved 10.09.14

BDB/72004 Construction of a new pitched roof and

single storey front extension to green keepers store and construction of a new machinery store enclosed by a 2 metre high fence. Removal of existing vehicle shelter and storage outbuildings

Approved 13.04.10

BDB/71363 Erection of a two storey front and side

extension and internal alterations to the clubhouse. Refurbishment of existing car park and construction of new service access. Erection of a detached hut and construction of overflow car park

Approved 20.11.09

BDB/71222 Application for Certificate of Lawfulness for

the serving of meals in the Clubhouse after 9.00 pm or to any persons not participating on the golf course or practice area

Approved 23.10.09

BDB/29135 Erection of single storey extension and first floor addition to provide additional accommodation including staff flat bedsit and dining facilities.

Approved 10.12.90

BDB/19584 Erection of driving booth.

Approved 09.04.86

Assessment The golf course has been the subject of a number of planning applications prior to this application relating to the alteration and improvement of the clubhouse and the golf course facilities, including a previous permission for an extension to the existing clubhouse to provide 12 bedrooms for overnight accommodation which has expired. Previous permissions also include a care home facility for the purpose of providing additional revenue for use by the golf club to secure its future. It is, however, noted that the previous permission for a care home facility was not linked to the golf course. The application has been submitted on the basis that the applicant asserts the use of the golf course as a leisure facility at such value to the community that is justifies “enabling development” for 18 dwellings as a departure from Local Plan policy. The asserted benefits of the development, therefore, need to be assessed and then weighed against the impacts of the development being outside the Settlement Policy Boundary, in a Strategic Gap, as well as against the impact of the residential dwellings proposed upon the character and appearance of the area, residential amenity, traffic generation and highway impacts, and the natural environment. Environmental Impact Assessment The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 set out that Environmental Impact Assessment’s (EIA's) are needed for certain developments whereby the proposal is to have a likely significant effect on the environment. The application has been “screened” in accordance with the criteria set out within the Regulations having regard to matters such as the site area, the number of units, and its location. In having regard to the development proposed and in accordance with Regulation 4 of the EIA Regulations, the Local Planning Authority is of the opinion that the development would be unlikely to have significant environmental effects. This is by virtue of the size, scale and characteristics of the development, its location outside of any defined sensitive area, the use of natural resources and the production of waste, pollution and nuisances. Accordingly, it has been concluded that the development would not constitute EIA development and an Environmental Statement was not required to accompany the application in accordance with the 2017 Regulations. Principle of development Planning law requires applications for planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise (section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). The development plan of relevance to this application is the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, which places the site outside of a Settlement Policy Boundary, within designated countryside and the Tadley-Baughurst Strategic Gap. At a national level, the NPPF is a material consideration in any determination.

It is also a material consideration that the site has an expired planning permission for the erection of a 12 bedroom extension to the existing clubhouse to provide overnight accommodation, however, it must be noted that this decision can no longer be implemented as the time period for substantial implementation expired in 2017.

National Policy The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policy for England and places an emphases upon delivering sustainable development incorporating objectives for economic, social and environmental protection. These principles seek to balance growth and local needs of the community against protection of the natural, built and historic environment. This intends for development to be provided in accessible locations, to make efficient use of land and be located in proximity to the community which it serves. In having regard to the three objectives of sustainable development, the development site is located outside of the Settlement Policy Boundary for Tadley which benefits from established public transport and community facilities with Tadley identified as containing a district centre for focusing shopping and other town centre uses. It is also acknowledged that the development would result in economic benefits generated through the construction period with spin offs from wage spending of construction workers and supplier sourcing and following this, consumer spending on goods and services by the occupants of the dwellings benefitting the local economy and creation of jobs as a result of the hotel extension of the existing clubhouse. The social aspect of sustainable development would be contributed to through the provision of housing stock. The properties would also accord with current requirements for energy efficiency and waste management thus improving the environmental credentials of the site. In addition, the hotel development would improve the social facilities on offer in Tadley and for members and visitors of the golf club which is considered to be a local leisure facility. The development therefore accords with the guidance set out within the NPPF in respect of economic and social benefits of sustainable development. With respect to the environmental objectives of the NPPF, these are set out in additional detail within the relevant sections of this report. In summary, it is considered that the development would result in substantial harm to trees and biodiversity at the site and would result in visual and character impacts to the Tadley Church Road Conservation Area, which is contrary to the objectives of environmental protection as set out in the NPPF paragraphs 8(c), 79(e), 127(c), 170(a), (b) and 175(a).

Local Policy - Hotel development

Bishopswood Golf Course is considered to be a local leisure facility in Tadley and supports other local settlements in respect of recreation. Of relevance to the proposal in this respect is Policy CN8 of the Local Pan which supports development proposals that retain, maintain, and improve the quality and capacity of existing leisure facilities. Additionally, paragraph 28 of the NPPF states that sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings should be supported. Paragraph 28 also highlights the importance of supporting sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the

character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres. When considering the local hotel facilities in the area, there are three small ‘bed and breakfast’ facilities in Tadley. The Planning Statement submitted with the application notes that many of the golf course bookings have enquired regarding overnight accommodation and the applicant therefore believes that such accommodation would be utilised if this became available at the golf course. Although no evidence has been submitted to substantiate this statement, supporting letters have noted that the hotel facility would be a welcomed addition to both Tadley and the golf course as a local leisure facility Golf clubs are recognised within the Local Plan as a rural tourism business. In this respect Policy EP5 of the Local Plan is of relevance. This policy states that proposals for tourism development in the countryside (including guest accommodation and visitor facilities) will be permitted where the extension or new buildings forms part of an existing facility and is of a scale appropriate to its location, and when considering the impacts on the local highway network. In respect of these criterion, the proposed development forms part of an established existing leisure and recreation facility. Subject to the material considerations in respect of its scale and impact on the local highway network (which are considered later in this report), the principle of the proposed hotel is therefore considered to accord with Policies CN8 and EP5 of the Local Plan. The application submission documents also make reference to the proposal being considered in relation to Policy EP3 (Town, District and Local Centres) of the Local Plan. However, as the hotel aspect of the proposal is considered to accord with Policy EP5 in principle and is an extension to an existing facility this policy is not considered relevant. As stated, the site has previously been granted planning permission (ref: 14/01906/FUL) for a similar, albeit smaller, proposal in the same location forming an extension to the existing clubhouse facilities at the golf course. The previous consent was for the erection of an extension to the existing clubhouse to incorporate a 12 bedroom hotel, however, this was never built-out, with the reason being that it was unable to be implemented due to financial constraints (as submitted by the applicant within the supporting documentation of the application). The application was granted prior to the adoption of the current Development Plan when the LPA did not have an up-to-date Local Plan and has since expired. The applicant’s agent also states that a larger hotel element is necessary to ensure the long term future of the golf course. Within the Officer Report accompanying the previous consent, the golf course was described as an existing leisure / recreational facility and the proposed development was not considered to result in a change of use to the overall premises, or result in a new land use taking place within the countryside, being considered as ancillary to the overall use of the site as a golf course. As the current proposal is of a similar nature, the same conclusion can be reached for this aspect of the proposed development. Of additional interest is the Council’s Hotel Futures Update (2013), which forms part of the evidence base of the Local Plan. This documents states that the forecasts have identified that in rural areas there could be potential opportunities for new development, subject to the availability of suitable sites and properties, including golf hotels. The document also notes that whilst most proposals for new build hotel accommodation in rural areas will likely be on a small-scale, some larger-scale proposal may come forward for the provision of accommodation where this accompanies or supports a rural tourism business.

- Residential development

The LPA is currently able to demonstrate that it has a five year Housing Land Supply (HLS) of 5.6 years. As such, paragraph 11 (d) of the NPPF, which states that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if a five year HLS cannot be demonstrated, is not engaged. As such, the residential aspect of the proposal should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development in accordance with paragraph 11 (as a whole) of the NPPF. Part of the proposal seeks the erection of 18 residential dwellings as a departure from the Local Plan, to financially enable the development of the proposed hotel extension. The site for the proposed dwellings, as is with the rest of the golf course site, is located outside of a defined Settlement Policy Boundary. The site is therefore considered, in policy terms, to be located within designated countryside as per Policy SS1 of the Local Plan. The Local Plan is explicit in its aims to direct development to within the identified Settlement Policy Boundaries and specific site allocations as set out within the Development Plan. Within the countryside, it is the intention of the Local Plan to maintain the existing open nature of the borough’s countryside, prevent the coalescence of settlements (through Strategic Gaps) and resist the encroachment of development into rural areas. As such, the countryside is subject to more restrictive policies to maintain this position. Given the site’s location outside of the Tadley Settlement Policy Boundary, the policy of relevance in the determination of the residential dwelling aspect of this development is Policy SS6 of the Local Plan. Policy SS6 sets out the exceptional circumstances where it would be appropriate to allow new housing development in the countryside, and states that development in the countryside will only be permitted if the development is: (a) On previously developed land; (b) For a rural exception site for affordable housing; (c) For the re-use of a redundant or disused permanent building; (d) For a replacement dwelling that is not temporary in nature, or an extension to an existing dwelling provided that; (e) Small scale (four dwellings of fewer) residential proposals of a scale and type that meet a locally agreed need; (f) For a new dwelling linked to an existing and viable agricultural, forestry, horse breeding and training, livery or equivalent rural business; or (g) Allocated for development in a Neighbourhood Plan which has been ‘made’ by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. In this respect, the proposed housing and its location do not meet any of the criteria to be considered as an exception to Policy SS6 of the Local Plan when considering the proposal against the local Development Plan in accordance with planning law. - Financial justification for the housing provision In respect of whether the proposal as a whole can be considered to be an exception to allow a departure from the Local Plan and supporting policy, the applicant has provided a financial overview of the development stating that in order to fund the hotel aspect of the development, which is necessary in order to maintain the long-term viability of the golf course and the continuation of its leisure and tourism function within Tadley and the borough, it is necessary for 18 dwellings to be constructed and the finances from their sale would be used to construct the hotel. The agent has confirmed the residential element of the proposal is not enabling development securing the future of the golf course, and states

that “there is not going to be a notable surplus from the housing, and thereafter, progress with course improvements is linked to the success of the hotel”. The key aspect of this proposal for consideration is therefore the balance in weight to attribute to the need for the golf course to secure its future and the potential loss of such a facility for the local area of Tadley and the wider borough, against the significant conflict of the proposed residential dwellings with the Local Plan. To make this judgement it is necessary to consider whether the preservation of the golf course as a rural leisure facility outweighs any harm to the local area, in respect of highway safety, the natural environment, local facilities and residential and future occupier amenity, in order for the development to be a justified departure from the Local Plan. Also of relevance is whether the number of residential units proposed would generate the necessary financial capital to fund the construction of the hotel. It is acknowledged that Appendix 4 of the Local Plan notes that borough wide accessibility to a golf course or driving range should be within a 20 minute drive. In the Planning Statement accompanying the application the applicant states that the majority of Tadley is outside of this catchment for Basingstoke Golf Club, Dummer Golf Club and Test Valley Golf Club. The applicant considers that as Basingstoke Golf Centre is a pitch and putt course, it is not comparable. The courses closest to the proposed site are Sandford Springs, Weybrook Park and Sherfield Oaks. The applicant notes that as Sandford Springs is nearly twice the price to play 9 holes midweek and as 9 holes are not available on either of the other two courses, the applicant considers that as an affordable golf facility, there is no competition in the area, making the long-term viability of the golf club essential as an accessible, public facility. Notwithstanding this matter, it is necessary to consider the potential effectiveness of the proposed hotel as a means of supporting the golf course business in the long term. Although not submitted initially, financial information and a business plan were submitted at the request of officers in order for the application to be determined. This information has also been considered by an independent specialist consultant in order for the merits of the application to be considered. The report found that the applicant’s financial appraisal was not appropriately evidenced with the summary of values and costs not having any supporting information or explanations. It was also noted that the appraisal was based on the assumption (and subsequently confirmed by the agent) that the applicant would develop the residential element themselves, as such no developer profit was included. The independent review confirmed that “even in the best case scenario, there appears to be little or no surplus after the hotel extension is completed, to invest into the other course and club improvement schemes”. The applicant’s agent has confirmed this. The financial appraisal includes provision for CiL, however, no provision for any other section 106 contributions or off-site contributions to affordable housing. These matters will be dealt with later in this report. In respect of affordable housing, it is also acknowledged that providing affordable housing would have a negative effect upon the financial viability of the proposal. The review confirmed that assuming the applicant developed the housing element and no developer profit was applied to the appraisal, then the residential element would generate sufficient money to fund the construction of the hotel. In respect of the hotel development, the costs have been assessed and show an overall project cost which is not significantly different to the applicant’s appraisal, but more than market value which results in an overall loss of the project.

The independent review concluded that the financial appraisal is not appropriately evidenced and the summary of values do not have any supporting justification. In a normal viability appraisal, it is necessary for the applicant to act as developer in order for the profits to be met from the residential dwellings. If this is not the case, then there is the expectation that the proceeds would take a significant drop of approximately 20%. In addition, if the land was sold following permission, it is not considered that a developer would pay a price though would cover the costs of constructing the hotel extension based upon the submitted sale values and as such, the scheme would be unviable. However, the applicant maintains that the purpose of the financial information submitted is simply to show that the applicant would be able to cover the cost of the hotel being developed through the residential development. On this basis alone, the Council’s independent review has agreed this point. Notwithstanding the ‘in principle’ objection to the residential element of the proposals and those other concerns raised later in this report, it is therefore accepted that the money generated from the residential development would fund the construction of the hotel. The applicant maintains that it will be the presence of the new hotel facility which would increase business, and, dependent on the hotel’s success, this will ensure the long term future and improvements for the golf course. It would therefore be important to ensure that the development of the residential dwellings and the hotel are tied to ensure the money generated by the residential development is used to deliver the hotel extension. If members found the proposals to be acceptable in all other respects, the applicant should be required to sign a legal agreement (see the two sections on contributions later in this report). It has, however, been stated by the applicant that the hotel will not be tied to the future investment of the golf course / wider business plan and that such an approach would be unreasonable. On the basis that the residential development would fund the construction of the hotel as suggested by the viability appraisal, it is appropriate to consider whether on balance the public benefit of retaining the golf course would outweigh the harm caused by the residential element of the proposal. In order to make this on balance assessment it is necessary to consider further the harm or otherwise caused by the proposals. - Public Safety Policy SS7 of the Local Plan requires that development in the land use planning consultation zones (DEPZ) surrounding AWE Aldermaston be managed in the interests of public safety. The policy stipulates the development will only [officer emphasis] be permitted where the Off Site Nuclear Emergency Plan can accommodate the needs of the population in the event of an emergency. The production of the Off Site Plan is a statutory requirement of the Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Public Information Regulations 2001 and sets out the contingency arrangements for a multi-agency response should a radiation emergency occur at AWE and pose a hazard to the public outside the site boundary. The NPPF additionally stipulates that decision-taking processes should promote public safety and minimise impacts upon human health, and in particular ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The site is located within the DEPZ area of AWE Aldermaston positioned approximately 600m in respect of the hotel and between 1200m and 1400m in respect of the residential dwellings from the AWE site boundary and is within Sector J, the second most densely populated sector (which is adjacent to two other densely populated sectors. This location determines that the site is more likely to be subject to urgent evacuation in the event of an emergency as well as having an increased requirement for short, medium and potentially

long term accommodation, which could also include meeting the needs of vulnerable people. The location of the site has triggered consultation with the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) Directorate who have ‘advised against’ the development and have also maintained this position upon the receipt of further information provided by the applicant to justify a position which outweighs the harm arising. The concerns about the development are additionally shared by West Berkshire Council (Emergency Planning) who objected to the application having regard to the impact upon the Off-Site Plan and the responding agencies in the event of a nuclear emergency. The principle concern is that for the increase in the number of dwelling units there is a corresponding increase in pressure upon the Off-Site Plan and the resources available to implement this plan in the event of an emergency. This refers to the increase in numbers of population likely to require immediate evacuation, the provision of rest centre locations and the staffing of such locations, together with an increase in the longer term accommodation issues for persons evacuated if clear up is required. The matter facing the operation of the Off-Site Plan therefore extends beyond simply evacuation and therefore impacts particularly upon residential dwellings which do not have alternative locations to evacuate to. Given the close proximity of the site for 18 residential dwellings to AWE the Council has been advised that there is a greater risk in the event of a radiation emergency of the need for urgent evacuation. The nature of the proposed use would bring a substantial uplift in residents in an already densely populated area of Tadley which would need to be supported in shelter conditions, or if having to be evacuated, would add a significant increase in people to support in an already busy area. This position is consistent with advice provided to the Examination in Public to the currently adopted Local Plan where the EiP Inspector acknowledged the concerns of West Berkshire Council in allocating further housing in Tadley stating that:

“WBC consider that due to the size of the community already in situ (plus approved development) the area is ‘full’ with an already significant impact on the responders to any incident but particularly a radiation emergency. In particular, the impact on HCC and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council in relation to longer term recovery by way of rehousing those affected, etc. would be prohibitive.

It is acknowledged that an application for a 120 bedroom care home (15/03090/FUL) on Bishopswood Golf Course was recently granted permission (May 2018). The ONR did not consider the proposed development to present a significant external hazard to the safety of the nuclear site and did not advise against the development. This is because a care home can have an emergency evacuation plan which can be readily enforced, as a managed site However in this instance, as residential uses are not bound by the same regulations and emergency evacuation plans, the response from ONR and the Hampshire Joint Emergency Planners advises that it is not possible to guarantee the safe evacuation and long term health of occupants in the event of a radiation emergency for the 18 residential dwellings proposed. The material considerations cited by the applicant are not considered sufficient in weight to outweigh the harm to public safety in this instance having regard to the multi-agency responses to the application and appeal decisions in the vicinity. On the advice of the ONR, West Berkshire Council and Hampshire County Council, due to the impact upon the Off-Site Plan in relation to emergency evacuation, sheltering and resettlement in the event of an incident, the application is recommended for refusal as contrary to Policy SS7 of the Local Plan and the NPPF which seeks to protect public safety.

Affordable housing Affordable housing provision is a corporate priority for the Council as set out in the Council Plan 2016 - 2020 to ensure that those households in need are able to access housing in the borough. Policy CN1 of the Local Plan therefore requires the provision of 40% affordable housing as part of new residential development with a tenure split of 70% rented and 30% intermediate products, or where applicable, secure a financial contribution of equivalent value. Policy CN1 states that ‘in seeking affordable housing provision, the council will have regard to the current viability of developments…’. As such, where is it demonstrated that the overall percentage requirements of the policy (both quantum and tenure) are not viable – in accordance with the prescribed RICS valuation process – then reductions and/or adjustments to the policy requirement will be made. It should be noted that if the standard policy compliant mix of tenures and conventional delivery models cannot be met, then the Council will expect the applicant to show that a comprehensive range of solutions have been tested and considered. In considering the proposed development of 18 residential dwellings, a 40% provision would equate to seven units. The applicant’s agent has stated that no affordable housing is proposed and acknowledges that in this respect the proposals are not policy compliant. Should the Council wish to pursue the 40% affordable housing, the agent has stated that the number of units proposed would have to increase by 7 to meet this requirement. The applicant is also not providing any form of off-site provision or financial contributions of equivalent value to offset the lack of affordable housing on site. Policy CN1 does allow for a viability case to be put forward and as such, following requests from officers, the application has been accompanied by Financial Viability Assessment. This sets out that the development would offer a minimum return at a level just enough to incentivise the pursuit of planning permission and the release of the land for development. However the applicant has stated that the inclusion of providing affordable housing on the site would reduce the return to the landowner to a point that the scheme becomes financially unviable. The independent review of this financial assessment confirms that the provision of affordable housing would have a ‘significant negative effect on the viability’ of the scheme as the revenue from the residential development would not meet the cost of the hotel extension. The Housing Officer has objected to the proposals due to the lack of affordable housing and that the proposals are not policy compliant. In this respect, this aspect of the proposed development does not accord with Policy CN1 of the Local Plan and remains an additional conflict with the Development Plan for Basingstoke. No contribution to off-site affordable housing provision has been forthcoming with the applicant stating it would make the scheme unviable, a view endorsed by the independent review of the viability assessment. It is therefore considered that in respect of affordable housing and Policy CN1, the application is contrary to the requirements of Policy CN1 of the Local Plan. Housing Mix Policy CN3 requires developments to provide a range of units to address local requirements, with the mix to be appropriate to the size, location, density and character of the site and surrounding area. The policy also requires that the mix is to be supported by evidence to justify the proposed housing mix, with the supporting text stating this is to be based on an assessment of “a range of sources of housing evidence”.

Paragraph A3.10 of the Housing SPD states that projecting forward current occupancy patterns by age group results in a requirement for approximately the following mix of housing: 3% 1 bed homes; 17% 2 bed homes; 49% 3 bed homes; and 32% 4 bed+ homes. This reflects the findings of the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment, which forms part of the evidence base for the Local Plan. This information forms a basis for considering the appropriate housing mix for this proposal when considered in light of the locally specific housing market characteristics. The relatively high proportion of larger homes reflects the tendency of the growing 65+ age group to occupy homes of this size. The development proposes the delivery of 18 dwellings consisting of 7no. 3-bedroom houses, 2no. 3-bedroom bungalows, 3no. 4-bedroom houses and 6no. 5-bedroom houses with associated parking and landscaping. No evidence has been provided to justify the mix however no objection has been raised to the provision of smaller units. It is considered that this housing mix does not accord with the projected housing need in the borough as the mix of 4-bedroom and 5-bedroom units is too high with 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units being absent from the proposal. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in conflict with Policy CN3 of the Local Plan. In addition to housing mix, Policies CN1 and CN3 require provision of 15% of the provided homes (both market and affordable) to comprise ‘accessible and adaptable homes’ to enable people to stay in their homes as their needs change. In the absence of any such units (of either description) being illustrated within the application submission, such provision would have been secured via planning condition. Impact on the character of the area/ design. The NPPF (Section 12) states that creating high quality buildings and places is fundamental to achieving good planning and development and that decisions should add to the overall quality of the area in the long term and should be visually attractive, sympathetic to the local character and establish a strong sense of place. Paragraph 127 (f) of the NPPF states that developments should “create spaces that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.” Local Plan Policy EM10 advocates a high quality and robust design-led approach to new development. In particular, the policy requires that development must ‘positively contribute to the appearance and use of streets’ (criteria 1b), ‘respond to the local context’ (criteria 1c), contribute ‘to a sense of place’ (criteria 2a) and have ‘due regard to’ the density, scale, layout and appearance of the surrounding area (criteria 2c). The site is located within part of a well-established golf course outside the Settlement Policy Boundary of Tadley, within the Strategic Gap. The settlement of Tadley surrounds the northern and eastern edges of the golf course, while the western and southern boundaries are surrounded by agricultural fields, with the settlement of Baughurst lying beyond to the west. A public right of way cuts across the site in the south western corner of the golf course, which slopes from the north west down to Bishopswood Stream to the south east. Bishopswood Lane runs along the western edge of the golf course and New Road along the southern edge. The character of the area is of a verdant and countryside nature, distinct from the urban and built up area which lies beyond within the clearly defined boundaries of Tadley and Baughurst. The mature vegetative nature of the golf course and woodland to the south of the site supports a strong link to the vegetation pattern in the countryside to the south and west of the site. Bishopswood Lane itself, has a rural country lane character, being narrow

and bound by vegetation along its sides and with no defined public footpath. - Hotel

With regards to the hotel element of the proposals the previous scheme for an extension to provide 12 bedrooms for overnight accommodation was intended to extend across the footprint of the existing wedding garden to the east of the clubhouse. The current proposals now seek an altered design in part to accommodate an increase in accommodation from 12 to 21. The extension of the clubhouse will sit slightly further north, with a link connecting to the clubhouse. The external materials proposed for the hotel are not set out within the submitted plans as stated within the planning application form. If all other matters had been considered acceptable, this matter would have been dealt with by way of condition. The current application, the subject of this report, was not submitted with a landscape character and visual impact assessment, which given the nature of the development would have been the most appropriate form of assessment in this regard. Notwithstanding this omission, in respect of the hotel aspect of the development, despite the hotels proposed scale, it is not considered that this extension would be of detrimental harm in both appearance or visually to the golf club or surrounding area. Both the siting and elevations are similar to the extension for a hotel permitted under reference 14/01906/FUL. This new proposal of 21 bedrooms is larger than the extension for 12 rooms previously permitted, comprising a wider building with a larger massing. However, this newly proposed extension would have a scale and massing which, when combined with the existing clubhouse, would still be in keeping with its location as the key building at the heart of a golf course. In addition, by being set back from the southern frontage of the clubhouse, the hotel extension plays a suitably subordinate role to the clubhouse when viewed from the main entrance to the building from the south. The 2-storey form of the extension comprising a series of hipped and half hipped rooves and dormer windows complement the appearance of the existing clubhouse. The extension is therefore considered to be in keeping with the existing clubhouse and would not have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area. - Residential

With regards to the 18 residential dwellings proposed to the south of the golf course, the impact to the character of the area is considered to be more substantial due to the presence of category B woodland. Not only would the proposed residential dwellings be an incongruous form of development due to its siting failing to respect the established pattern and character of development, the proposed dwellings would also partially destroy trees subject to a TPO. Surrounding the proposed dwellings is residential development to the east at The Warren, Droxford Crescent to the south and along New Road. To the south of New Road is agricultural fields and the vegetation pattern surrounding this aspect of the site is mature including trees and hedgerows in and round the golf course and a number of tree belts and small copses and boundary hedgerows more widely. Whilst the development, in respect of the hotel development, would not result in a notable change to the street scene and would be sympathetic in appearance to the existing clubhouse and facilities at the golf course in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Local Plan, the 18 dwellings are considered to harm the context of the site in respect of the open and undeveloped nature of the Strategic Gap, the golf course and the agricultural fields to

the west and south which define the character of this part of Tadley. Notwithstanding this conclusion, it is considered that if the site had been carefully considered in respect of its shape in order to prevent compromise to the integrity of the gap or diminish the physical separation between the urban built form of development of Tadley and Baughurst and with more carefully considered design, orientation and layout of the proposed dwelling, it may have been possible to recommend approval with a condition to secure the materials and details before commencement of development at the site above ground floor slab level. As with the hotel aspect of the proposal, the external materials proposed for the hotel are not set out within the submitted plans as stated within the planning application form. If all other matters had been considered acceptable, this matter would have been dealt with by way of condition. It is therefore not considered that the proposal is of such a design that would substantiate a reason for refusal in this instance, given the size of the plots and their amenity space and outlook, access. Notwithstanding this it is acknowledged that a landscape and visual impact assessment would have been beneficial for consideration when assessing the views and vistas to and from the Tadley Church Road Conservation Area (which is discussed later in this report). In addition, the retained trees at the site will result in overshadowing and obstruction to access to natural light for future occupants of the proposed residential dwellings, which has the potential to put further pressure on retained trees (this is set out later in this report). As submitted, it is considered that the proposal in respect of the residential units remains in conflict with Policy EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan by resulting in a significant and adverse effect upon the sense of place and local distinctiveness, being a noticeable extension of development into the countryside and lacking in consideration of local landscape features (the woodland and vegetation) resulting in the loss of tree cover. The proposed development would also be contrary to the Tadley Design Statement in respect of the impact of 18 residential dwellings as a result of the design and layout and its impact upon the character of the area. Impact on neighbouring amenities Policy EM10 considers the effect of development upon residential amenity (both to existing and new residents) addressing aspects such as privacy and private open space, light, noise and disturbance. This is supported by guidance set out within the Design and Sustainability SPD (Section 10) which establishes appropriate amounts of amenity space, privacy, natural light and outlook. - Amenities of future residents The development would provide 18 dwellings arranged within the southern part of the application site. Each dwelling has the provision of parking spaces and external amenity space. In respect of daylight and sunlight, the southern part of the site is currently bounded by thick vegetation which screens the golf course from the existing dwellings to the east of the golf course in The Warren and Droxford Crescent. A number of trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the positioning of 18 dwellings. However, the exact number and location of these trees remains unclear in the submitted information. Notwithstanding this matter (which is expanded upon within the natural environment section later in this report) it is considered that the retained tree canopies would impact on the amount of daylight and sunlight attributed to the new dwellings, which would result in an unacceptable level of amenity for future occupants. This shading effect could also result in pressure to fell the trees in the future.

Amendments to the scheme did reposition a number of dwellings, however, overall the scheme still remains unsatisfactory in respect of access to natural daylight and sunlight internally and externally to the dwellings and within the useable amenity spaces for occupiers. A daylight and sunlight assessment was not submitted with the application to overcome this design concern and on this basis it is considered that the impacts from the trees on the proposed dwellings would be a material weight of significance to be considered a reason for refusal for this application in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Local Plan for the purposes of considering the proposed residential dwellings. - Amenities of existing residents The site is currently bounded by thick vegetation which screens the golf course from the existing dwellings to the east of the golf course in The Warren and Droxford Crescent. Representations to the application raised concerns with regards to the impact of the siting and scale of the development, as well as the proposed loss of trees in relation to matters of outlook, privacy and safety of the properties surrounding the southern and eastern boundaries of the application site. Objections also raised concerns with regards to the loss of the views currently enjoyed by residents, however it should be noted that the right to a view is not a material planning consideration. In addition, representations raised concerns regarding the repositioning of hole 7, as a result of the location of the proposed 18 dwellings, and the fear that this would result in stray golf balls in their rear gardens impacting upon their amenity and enjoyment of their garden and also their safety. As there are no rules and regulations setting out the required distance between residential properties and golf courses, this is not considered to be a material planning matter to assess within the application. It must also be considered alongside the fact that the proposed residential units within the golf course site would be sited much closer to hole 7 then the existing residential units. As this relationship is considered to be acceptable then the separation distance to existing units would be equally be as acceptable. In addressing outlook, the new dwellings would be in closest proximity to the boundary with numbers 1 – 7 The Warren, with the most notable change being the loss of woodland and thick vegetation along this boundary. This would result in new impacts upon these existing dwellings with the proposed dwellings gardens reaching up to the existing garden boundaries along The Warren, interrupting the outlook in an easterly direction. This outlook onto woodland / vegetation would be replaced by two storey dwellings and their associated amenity space, including boundary treatment and landscaping and any domestic paraphernalia. The back to back distance between the closest property (plot 7) of the proposed dwellings and The Wheel House in the Warren measures 38m. The back to back distance which is considered acceptable within the Design and Sustainability SPD (2018) is 20m. As such the relationship between the existing residential dwellings and the proposed dwellings, given the sufficient garden lengths and amenity space provided for each dwelling along this boundary, it is not considered that any reason for refusal on the grounds of harm to outlook or overbearing could be justified and in this respect is in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Local Plan and the Design and Sustainability SPD (2018). In respect of boundary treatments and landscaping, this has yet to be agreed, however it is considered that if all other matters had been considered acceptable, this could have been dealt with by way of condition. Given the orientation and scale of the proposed dwellings, it is not considered that their position and existence would result in loss of natural daylight or sunlight on the existing dwellings abutting their rear gardens. With no new demonstrable harm arising upon the amenity of existing dwellings, the proposal is considered to accord with Policy EM10 of the Local Plan.

- Noise and disturbances

Policy EM12 gives consideration to development which is sensitive to pollution (including noise) from existing land uses and activities which would adversely harm living conditions and be detrimental to quality of life. The NPPF (paragraph 180) also seeks to ensure that the planning system should avoid the generation of “unacceptable levels” of noise pollution where this would give rise to “significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life” or harm to areas that are relatively undisturbed by noise. In respect of the hotel use, noise associated with this aspect of the proposal is considered unlikely to have a significant impact on the amenity of both existing and future residents. The location of the site is not divorced from a level of background noise generated by the levels of traffic already using Bishopswood Lane, the activity of members and visitors using the golf course and facilities, as well as the surrounding residential estate whereby the properties would experience noise generated by the local vehicular movement and domestic activities. It is therefore considered that there would be no objection to the proposals in this regard. To address the potential impacts of noise from the adjacent land uses, during construction if all other matters had been considered acceptable this matters could have been dealt with by condition restricting the demolition and construction working hours and deliveries of materials, plant and machinery. With conditions in place, it’s not considered that residents would be subject to a level of noise of adverse harm to human health as to justify refusal of planning permission and the proposal accords with Policy EM12 of the Local Plan. Highways and Parking Policy CN9 (Transport) requires that highway movements are not of an inappropriate type or level as to compromise highway safety with safe and convenient access to be provided for potential users through a compatible on site layout with appropriate parking and servicing provision. The need for on-site parking is additionally reflected within Policy EM10 with respect to ensuring that the amount, design, layout and location accords with parking standards as set out within the Parking Standards SPD. - Traffic generation In respect of the clubhouse and hotel site, there is an existing parking area with space for 104 cars opposite the clubhouse or within the driving range overflow car park. There are no restrictions on the number of hours members and visitors may park at the golf course at present, however, this is generally for the duration of 9 holes of play and refreshments. The proposed hotel extension would result in visitors potentially staying longer, however, the Highways Officer acknowledges that the existing facility capacity will remain the same and therefore the quantum of parking is considered to be appropriate for the development on this basis the proposed hotel bedrooms will cater primarily for people attending weddings or functions at the Golf Club. Currently as there is no accommodation it results in people leaving their cars on site and making taxi trips home or to alternative nearby accommodation, only to return the following day to collect their vehicle. The Transport Statement states that the proposed accommodation would allow people to stay on site, removing the taxi element and therefore provide a neutral to positive impact on the level of vehicle trips attached to the site. The proposal, in this respect, is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Local Plan.

The residential use proposed would result in additional traffic to the site which is an area of concern raised by local residents. When considering the submitted information and scale of the development, it is considered that a residential use would not generate any greater or adverse level of traffic that would harm the local and wider highway network at this site, however, it is noted that although the area is served by public transport, the site is not within easy walking distance of facilities and the lack of a footpath is notable (discussed further below). The development would also generate a level of traffic associated within the construction of the proposed building, with likely peaks in the mornings and evenings and with larger vehicles also required to visit the site. Had the development been deemed acceptable in all other regards, a planning condition would have been imposed to seek a Construction Traffic Management Plan to address the traffic generated both on and off site for this temporary construction period to ensure that highway safety is maintained. Given there would be no material impact upon the highway network, which is capable of accommodating traffic movements to and from the site as a result of the both aspects of the development, the proposed development is therefore considered to accord with Policy CN9 of the Local Plan. - Access The application site is accessed via Bishopswood Lane. The access to the golf course clubhouse is established and, if all other matters had been considered acceptable, would be used to access the proposed hotel facilities at the site. There is no infrastructure dedicated to use by pedestrians or cyclists along Bishopswood Lane or New Road, or indeed within the vicinity of the site. Footways locally are positioned within the settlement of Tadley and connecting local residential roads. The nearest bus stop to the golf course is located on Hartshill Road, which is a 14 minute walk from the proposed residential development (or 0.8 miles) and an 8 minute walk (or 0.4 miles) from the golf clubhouse and the associated hotel extension. In respect of the proposed additional dwellings, this area of the application site will require the creation of a new access onto Bishopswood Lane, as the current access to this part of the site is via a footpath used by golfers and buggies to move between holes. The proposed access would have a bellmouth of 15m radius and would be sufficiently wide enough to accommodate two way simultaneous movements. The access would also include a footpath on the eastern side to facilitate pedestrian movement within the development. The new access would provide suitable visibility splays in both directions onto New Road (90.2m looking right and 92.9m visibility looking left). Given the recorded speeds and status of New Road these visibility splays are considered acceptable. Given the mature vegetation at the proposed entrance, it is considered that if all other matters had been considered acceptable a condition would have been imposed on the permission to ensure that vegetation was kept out of the visibility splays in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Local Plan. It is noted, however, that a traffic calming ramp has been positioned in such a way that it would partially block access to plot 1. Although this is not considered acceptable this matter could be dealt with by way of condition if all other matters had been considered acceptable. The nearest bus stop to the residential dwellings is on Guttridge Lane, approximately 6 minute walk (0.3 miles) to the east from the residential dwellings proposed. In a different setting this distance would be considered acceptable, however, given the lack of

infrastructure along Bishopswood Lane to support safe pedestrian movement and the current speed limit of this road and New Road (where the speed only reduced to 30mph at the junction with Guttridge Lane), it is not considered reasonable or likely that this mode of transport will be used by any future occupiers of the 18 proposed dwellings. In this respect, the site is not considered likely to be accessed by visitors, members or residents by foot or bicycle and is not considered to promote transport choice in this respect or seek to reduce reliance on private vehicle, contrary to the information submitted within the Transport Statement. Notwithstanding this matter, it is not considered that, given the site is accessible within 0.3miles of public transport and as the proposal successfully demonstrates safe integration into the existing highway network that this matter warrants a reason for refusal and no objections were raised in this regard by the Highways Officer. It is therefore considered that subject to condition, this application is in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Local Plan. - Parking It is noted that the Transport Statement submitted with the application sets out that the information submitted with the previous application (ref: 14/01906/FUL for the 12 bedroom overnight accommodation scheme) and is still considered relevant. It must, however, be noted that although the Development Plan has been updated since this permission including adoption of the Local Plan 2011-2029 and revised supplementary guidance (including updates in July 2018). The Parking SPD (updated July 2018) is therefore of relevance to the determination of this application, particularly in respect of the 18 proposed dwellings. The parking provision on site has been amended during the course of the application to ensure that parking spaces where possible are of the correct dimension, in accordance with the new parking standards adopted in July 2018. The only deficiency in size occurs within the existing parking layout for the clubhouse which will be used to accommodate visitors and members when using the clubhouse proposed hotel facilities. As this is an existing parking and cycle facility it is considered acceptable in this instance and as such no amendments were sought. The existing vehicular parking provides for 104 car parking spaces on site and this parking provision is considered acceptable in relation to the hotel extension. In respect of the residential dwellings proposed, the initial information submitted with the application was based upon the superseded Parking SPD standards. Revised drawings and details were subsequently submitted and these are considered to be in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Local Plan and the Parking SPD (2018) in respect of car parking provision for the site in a rural location. In respect of cycle parking storage and facilities for each residential dwelling, no specific details have been submitted with the application to satisfy the officer the provision accords with the standards as set out in the Parking SPD and therefore if all other matters had been considered acceptable, this matter would have been dealt with by way of condition. The provision of the parking on site together with the manoeuvrability for vehicles of all sizes likely to service the hotel extension and proposed dwellings are considered acceptable by the Highways Officer and if the proposals had been considered acceptable in all other respects this would have been secured by planning condition. The development is therefore considered to accord with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Local Plan and the Parking SPD (2018) in this regard.

Storage and Collection of Waste and Recycling

The development would be expected to provide storage for waste and recycling in accordance with standards set out within the Design and Sustainability SPD (Appendix 3). The application is not supported by a detailed waste and recycling storage and collection plan. Notwithstanding this, if all other matters had been considered acceptable it is considered that this matter could have been resolved through the imposition of a pre-occupation condition. With regards to the accessibility of the site to waste and recycling vehicles, this detail has been submitted in the form of swept path analysis and is considered to be acceptable in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Local Plan. Historic Environment There is no objection to the proposed extension to the clubhouse to create a hotel, which is distant from any heritage asset and would have no adverse impact in this regard. The proposed dwellings would be located adjacent to the Tadley Church Road Conservation Area. Policy EM11 of the Local Plan requires the proposals to conserve or enhance the quality of the borough’s heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. At present this area, leading into the conservation area is characterised by the mature trees to the side of the road, creating a very verdant, shadowed entrance into the conservation area. The trees also assist with screening the golf course from view, together with the existing 20th century residential development further to the east. The conservation area appraisal emphasises the importance of trees lining roadsides and this has the purpose of restricting long views. The trees within and surrounding the conservation area are therefore recognised as key features in the landscape contributing towards the Tadley Church Road landscape character. The proposal seeks the removal of a significant number of trees (also addressed later in this report within the natural environment section) in order to create a new access and associated visibility splays and 18 dwellings. Whilst the submitted Tree Removal Plan and Tree Protection Plan are useful they do not fully evidence the quantity of vegetation to be removed, and as such do not demonstrate the visual impact in respect of opening up the site and the increase visibility which would result from the proposal. On the basis of insufficient information being submitted with the application in order to fully consider the visual impacts and landscape character impacts of the development on the Tadley Church Road Conservation Area, it is resolved that the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy EM11 of the Local Plan and Section 16 of the NPPF. Natural Environment Policy EM1 of the Local Plan seeks to provide protection to the landscape character of the Borough having regard to visual amenity and scenic quality but also giving consideration to natural features such as trees and hedgerows. - Strategic Gap The site is located within the Tadley-Baughurst Strategic Gap, as defined by Policy EM2 of the Local Plan. This policy has the purpose of preventing the coalescence of built up areas (in this instance Tadley and Baughurst) to maintain their separate identity and their

generally open and undeveloped nature. Development would be permitted in Strategic Gaps where this would not diminish the physical and or visual separation of the built up areas, would not compromise the integrity of the gap or where the development is proposed through a Neighbourhood Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order, including Community Right to Build Orders. It is considered that the development would harm the future integrity of the Strategic Gap by resulting in encroachment onto undeveloped land designated for the purpose of preventing the coalescence of built up areas. In this respect, it is considered that the proposal in respect of the residential dwellings, would therefore be in conflict with Policy EM2 of the Local Plan. - Internationally and nationally designated sites The application site is within close proximity to the Pamber Forest and Silchester Common Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the Ron Ward’s Meadow with Tadley Pastures SSSI. The application has been considered by the Biodiversity Officer and Natural England and it is considered that the proposed development will not damage or destroy these features. In this respect, the application is considered to accord with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan and Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD (2018). - Trees and biodiversity The application is supported by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal which states that the development will result in the loss of 1.5 hectares of woodland towards the south eastern boundary of the application site where the residential dwelling are proposed to be located. Much of this woodland qualifies as lowland mixed deciduous woodland which is a priority habitat listed under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Section 5.4.18 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 lists various measures for enhancement including a woodland management plan for retained area of woodland. Given the scale of the proposed development and loss of woodland, the mitigation listed in section 5.4.18 is not considered to constitute sufficient mitigation nor compensation for the area of priority habitat to be lost to the proposed development. Natural England recommend a comprehensive compensation package to be agreed in order to meet the biodiversity enhancement requirements set out within the NPPF (paragraphs 8(c), 170 and 175). In addition, section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006t provides a duty to public authorities to conserve and enhance biodiversity. The recommendation is therefore that if all other matters had been considered acceptable, direct habitat creation or a financial contribution would be required to be secured via a section 106 agreement, to support projects that facilitate the management or creation of new, or existing areas of lowland mixed deciduous woodland within the Borough. The proposed housing would require the removal of and impact on a number of trees. The proposed dwellings would be located adjacent to and partially overlap a group of Tree Preservation Order (TPO) trees at land to north of Droxford Crescent. Whilst the submitted Tree Removal Plan and Tree Protection Plan are useful they do not fully evidence the quantity of vegetation to be removed. The Tree Officer requested a Tree Constraints Plan and Tree Impact Plan to record the trees proposed to be removed (to also be reflected within a schedule) and to compare the proposed site layout with the loss of trees to assist officers in understanding how the constraints posed by the trees impact the proposed development and vice versa. This information was not submitted during the application and as such, on the basis of insufficient information to demonstrate a balance

between the proposed harm to the trees and the proposed residential dwellings, it is considered that the application is in conflict with Policy EM1 of the Local Plan. In respect of daylight and sunlight, the southern part of the site is currently bounded by thick vegetation which screens the golf course from the existing dwellings to the east of the golf course in the Warren and Droxford Crescent. A number of trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed dwellings. However, the exact number and location of these trees remains unclear in the submitted information. Notwithstanding this matter (which is expanded upon within the residential amenity section in this report) it is considered that the trees canopies would impact on the amount of daylight and sunlight attributed to these new dwellings, which would result in an unacceptable level of amenity for future occupants and the resulting pressure to trim back the remaining trees, owing to the further impacts of the development on the natural environment contrary to Local Plan Policy EM1 and EM4 and contrary to the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD (2018). - Protected species The Council has a duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 to have full regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity, which extends to being mindful of the legislation that considers protected species and their habitats and to the impact of the development upon sites designated for their ecological interest. These requirements are also reflected within the NPPF and Policy EM4 of the Local Plan with an emphasis placed upon conservation and enhancement. The application was accompanied by a preliminary ecological assessment which concluded that a woodland management plan would be adopted for the remaining woodland. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that this along with the other enhancement measures proposed are insufficient to mitigate or compensate for the loss of the woodland area and net loss in biodiversity. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is not in accordance with Policy EM4 of the Local Plan in achieving a net gain for biodiversity or with the NPPF paragraph 175. It is considered that where the removal of woodland cannot be avoided, it would be expected that much greater compensation measures should be proposed, proportionate to the loss of woodland habitat. This should include direct habitat creation of deciduous woodland elsewhere within the site or by funding of alternative woodland elsewhere in the borough, in order for the proposal to be considered acceptable and in accordance with Policy EM4 of the Local Plan and the NPPF (2018). Parks and open spaces Policy EM5 of the Local Plan sets out that developments will only be permitted where they do not prejudice the delivery of the Council’s Green Infrastructure Strategy, fragment the existing green infrastructure network by severing important corridors / links or results in undue pressure on the network which cannot be fully mitigated. There is no requirement for multi-functional green space (MFGS) or equipped play for the hotel as this does not result in permanent additional residents within the area. In respect of the proposed dwellings, there is an MFGS at Southdown Road which is 560m from the site, Farringdon Way which is 500m from the site and Selbourne Close which is 250m away. However there is currently a quantity deficiency of MFGS in Tadley Central Ward below the absolute minimum of 20sqm per person, the adopted Green Space Standard. Additional provision is therefore required to meet the needs of the additional residents proposed as part of this application, in order to avoid adversely impacting on the quality of life of existing residents, in accordance with Policy EM5 of the Local Plan.

There is an identified enhancement project for the play area at Southdown Road, which is within the adopted distance threshold for a LEAP which would enhance the play area at Southdown Road. There is therefore a requirement for an off-site open space contribution which would normally be secured through a section 106 agreement. It is acknowledged that any section 106 contributions to MFGS would affect the viability of the proposed development and the amount of money available to build the hotel. The applicant considers that the long term retention of the golf course outweighs this harm as a result of the development. Whilst this viability issued is acknowledged, it is important for new residential schemes to compensate for the impact of the development upon existing facilities. As such, it is considered that the proposal does not mitigate the impact the development will have on existing facilities and is therefore contrary to Policy EM5 of the Local Plan. Land contamination Local Plan Policy EM12 seeks to protect health and the natural environment from polluting effects as a result of existing, historic or nearby land uses and activities. On the grounds that housing development is sensitive to the impacts of soil contamination, a land contamination report would be required to be submitted in order for Environmental Health to consider the risk to human health or the natural environment. It is considered that if all other matters had been considered acceptable that this could have otherwise been secured by planning condition. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policy EM12 of the Local Plan. Sustainable Water Use Policy EM9 of the Local Plan sets out a requirement to ensure that water resources within new development are used sustainably through the imposition of a water efficiency standard of 110 litres or less per person per day. The proposal has not been accompanied by any information demonstrating that such levels of water consumption will be achieved within the development. Therefore, had the development been considered acceptable, a planning condition would have been imposed to secure this standard was complied with. Flood Risk and Drainage Policy EM7 of the Local Plan requires that a sequential approach is applied to account for all sources of flooding thus directing new development away from areas at highest risk or alternatively demonstrating that development is flood resilient and resistant. This requires taking advice from the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authorities to ensure that risks of flooding are adequately managed. The Environment Agency Flood Risk Maps position the site as lying wholly within Flood Zone 1 giving the site a low risk of flooding (less than 1 in 1000 annual probability). The site has therefore not been the subject of objection on fluvial flood risk grounds and is deemed, on a sequential basis, to be an appropriate location for the development with no impact upon conveyance of fluvial flood flows or floodplain storage capacity off site. The site is also at a low risk of ground water and pluvial flooding and is located outside of any locally designated critical drainage area. The site has therefore not been the subject of objection on fluvial flood risk grounds and is deemed, on a sequential basis, to be an appropriate location for redevelopment.

The existing use of the site is provided with surface and foul water drainage however with the site to be redeveloped, the building would be provided with a new drainage regime. The application was not supported by a drainage strategy and as such, no review has been undertaken by the Lead Local Flood Authority in this regard. If all other matters had been considered acceptable it is considered that this matter could have been dealt with by way of condition requiring submission and agreement with the LPA of a drainage strategy prior to the commencement of development. The provision of a water supply would again be the statutory responsibility of South East Water through agreement also secured under Water Industries Act 1991, which is a matter for the applicant to discuss with their water provider if all other matters had been considered acceptable. Community Infrastructure Requirements Policies CN1, CN6 and CN8 of the Local Plan and the accompanying Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD (March 2018) seek to ensure that new development does not result in an adverse effect on existing infrastructure, and makes appropriate provision to mitigate documented impacts. The application has been scoped and the mitigation sought (as set out within the Open Spaces and Affordable Housing sections of this report is deemed to accord with the tests as set out within the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2015, namely that a planning obligation must be (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. In the absence of securing these contributions, the application is considered to be refusable on the grounds of failing to meet the requirements for affordable housing and offsite infrastructure and is contrary to Policies CN1, CN6 and CN8 of the Local Plan and the Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD (March 2018). Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable. From these forms, it would appear that the development would be liable for CIL payments as the development is for the creation of new residential dwellings and floorspace. The site is situated within charging Zone 3 (Basingstoke and Tadley) where the residential part of the proposed development (unless exempt) will be subject to charging rates of £140 per m2. The proposed hotel is considered as non-residential development and will therefore be charged at £0 per m2. As part of the submitted financial appraisal contributions towards CIL have been included. Other section 106 requirements If members consider that the current proposals outweigh the harm caused by the development as outlined in this report and offers significant public benefit through support for the golf course, officers believe it is important to ensure that the money generated by the residential development is used to fund the construction of the hotel extension. The applicant’s financial assessment, which has been independently reviewed, confirms that the money generated by the residential development is sufficient to fund the construction and fitting out of the hotel element. A section 106 agreement could secure this, but it is important to consider what triggers would be required within the agreement to ensure the hotel is delivered. The applicant has suggested various triggers which would tie different stages of the residential development to different stages in the construction and fitting out of the hotel. Whilst these triggers are generally considered to be acceptable for the earlier stages of the

development, officers are concerned that the final trigger lacks enforceability. The suggested trigger states the hotel would be complete and functioning within 6 months of practical completion of the residential development. This would essentially mean the dwellings would be completed and potentially occupied. If the final stage of the hotel development was stalled or did not happen there would be no incentive for the developer to complete the scheme, bearing in mind all the dwellings would then be complete. This would leave the council will little to enforce against. Officers have raised this concern with the applicant’s agent and suggested a different trigger which would provide the council with more enforceability and greater certainty, however, unfortunately the applicant is unwilling to accept this and wishes to revert to their original suggestion, which is not considered to provide enough enforceability Officers have also suggested that any monies left over following the construction of the hotel should be tied to ensuring the delivery of the long term business plan for the golf course. In response, the applicant has stated that not only would there be little or no money left over following the construction of the hotel but that to tie this to the business plan and golf course improvements would be beyond the remit of this application. Officers accept that following the independent review of the viability assessment, it would be marginal whether there would be any money left to reinvest in the long term business plan. The applicant also states that it will be the presence of the hotel and the additional trade that this will generate, which would lead to the business becoming more profitable and therefore allowing the long term business plan and golf course improvements to be met. If members are minded to accept the proposals, officers would also advise that the hotel and golf course should be tied. It is noted that the design of the hotel extension does not lend itself to result in the hotel and golf club being separated. Notwithstanding this, officers believe the two elements should be tied and such an approach has been taken at Sandford Springs Golf Club and hotel. It is therefore considered appropriate to tie the hotel use as being ancillary to and in association with the main golf course (which would be similar to Sandford Springs). However, it must be acknowledged that this does not ensure that investment into the golf course continues into the future, which is a weakness to the applicant’s approach with this proposal. In essence the most which could be secured would be the building of the hotel and retention with the golf course. The decision would be absent regarding how future monies from the hotel would be spent on the future of the golf course, leaving this entirely within the applicant’s control. Other matters The application has been subject to a number of objections raised through the representations which are not material planning considerations, such as loss of property value and loss of a view. Whilst these concerns are noted, weight cannot be afforded to the issues raised in the decision-taking process as these are either private or outside of the control of the planning process. Conclusion The proposal seeks the construction of 18 dwellings to fund the construction of the hotel extension to Bishopswood Golf Course. The proposal sets out that this extension is essential to the continued growth and future of the golf course as an important local leisure facility in accordance with Policy CN8 of the Local Plan. Although it is acknowledged that the proposal provides an improvement to an existing local facility which will benefit the users of the golf course, Tadley and the wider Borough, the proposal is contrary to Policy SS1 in respect of being located within rural countryside outside of a defined settlement boundary and is therefore principally unacceptable.

In order to balance whether the public benefits of the proposal which are set out by the applicant, justify a departure from the local plan policy, it is necessary to consider the impacts as a result of the development on the environment, having considered the social and economic benefits in relation to the continued growth and stability of the golf course. It is considered that in addition to the inappropriate housing mix and lack of affordable housing and multi-functional green space contributions (to offset the pressure placed on local facilities and for those in need of affordable housing in the borough), the proposal will result in unacceptable levels of harm to the landscape character, trees and biodiversity and have a detrimental impact on the Aldermaston off-site emergency plan. This is in the form of substantial loss of woodland, including protected trees and a net loss in biodiversity. The loss of trees would impact upon the landscape character and visual amenity of the area and setting of the Tadley Church Road Conservation Area and the development would result in the encroachment and coalescence of the built area within the Strategic Gap. As no justification has been provided to offset the harm caused by the residential development, on planning balance, it is therefore considered that the harm of the residential development outweighs the public benefits of the proposed hotel and therefore the officer recommendation for the proposal is for refusal for the reasons stated at the beginning of this report and set out within this assessment. If, however, members consider that the current proposals outweigh the harm caused by the development as outlined in this report and offers significant public benefit through the retention of the golf course, officers believe it will be necessary and important that the recommended conditions and section 106 agreement are carefully considered to ensure that the proposal fully considers the opportunities to mitigate the harmful impacts to the environment as set out in this report and secures the housing development to funding the hotel extension for the golf course. Informative(s):- 1. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and creative manner:-

- proactively offering a pre-application advice (in accordance with paragraphs 39 -

46) - seeking further information following receipt of the application; - seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the

application; - considering the imposition of conditions (in accordance with paragraphs 54-55) In this instance:

- the applicant was provided with pre-application advice; - the applicant was updated of any issues.

In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

Location plan

Site Plan (Hotel)

Site Plan (Residential)

Elevations (Hotel)

Elevations (Residential)

Minors and Others

Cttee: 9 January 2019 Item No. 2

Application no: 17/03708/FUL For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Land North Of Bramley Road Bramley Road Little London Hampshire

Proposal Erection of 3 bedroom dwelling, parking and associated amenity area. Change of use of land from the keeping of horses to residential

Registered: 27 November 2017 Expiry Date: 22 January 2018



Case Officer: Russell Stock 01256 845244

Applicant: Mr Philip Snook Agent: Lasseter Downie Planning

Ward: Pamber And Silchester

Ward Member(s): Cllr Marilyn Tucker Cllr Roger Gardiner

Parish: PAMBER CP OS Grid Reference: 462037 158823

Recommendation: the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out within the 8th August 2018 committee report attached at Appendix A.

General Comments This application was considered by the Development Control Committee at its meeting on the 8th August 2018 at the request of Cllr Gardiner. At that meeting Members resolved to defer the application to allow the applicant to submit further information demonstrating that the site constitutes ‘previously developed land’. This report seeks to provide an assessment of the information received in regards to ‘previously developed land’ since the August meeting. There has been no material change in planning policy since the assessment of the application which was before Members in August. A committee update sheet was provided post completion of the original committee report, this is set out within Appendix B. Further Public Comments Four further letters of representation received. No further material planning considerations have been raised. Comments regarding ‘previously developed land’ are summarised in the below section. Assessment Policy SS6a) - Previously Developed Land - Information received from applicant

Statutory Declaration from Mr Perry. This states that Mr Perry is familiar with the land in question having visited Berry Court Business Park 5 days a week since 2005. Mr Perry personally helped remove the stables and concrete base. Two plans were submitted along with Mr Perry’s declaration and highlight three areas and one

http://planning.basingstoke.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OYUSTUCRLKA00

means of access.

Emails from the applicant’s agent, dated the 28th August, 5th September, 6th November, 14th November and the 20th November 2018.

An appeal decision (APP/Y0435/W/17/3178790) submitted by the applicants agent on the 20th November 2018 relating to an application for 21 dwellings which was refused by Milton Keynes Council. This appeal was allowed on the 29th November 2017.

- Information received from third parties summarised below (in relation to previously developed land)

Representation received on the 10.08.18 stating that having lived in the village for 35 years, the third party nor her husband, can ever remember there being any structure of any kind on this area of land. An old run down stable was on the North West corner close to Gypsy Lane.

Representation received on the 22.08.18 stating “I have been contacted by a number of residents who have lived in Little London for many years and all confirm that it has never been previously developed.” Aerial photographs were submitted of the site. These are dated, 4th September 2017, 2012, 2010, 2008, 2005, 1999 and 1947.

Representation received 27th August 2018. States that they have known Berry Court Farm since 1962. Having regularly passed the field, the only construction was a temporary shelter in the north-west corner of the field. This is shown on Google street view being in a dilapidated state in August 2011. There was not a stable within the field, as has been suggested by the planning agent. There has been no planning history/permission for the site being used for equestrian purposes.

Representation dated 1st December 2018. Reiterating that the ‘stable and concreate base’ never existed on the application site.

Conclusion To reiterative, the most up to date definition of previously developed land is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) as:

“Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures; land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape.”

In this instance the applicant has not provided any information which would alter the assessment of the application as set out within the report put before Members in August this year, and which is attached at Appendix A. The application site does not contain any permanent structure or any associated fixed surface infrastructure, neither is it within the curtilage of any permanent structure. If any permanent structure existed previously on site, which it has not been demonstrated, the remains have been removed or have blended into the landscape. The application site is not considered to fall within the definition of ‘previously developed land’ as set out above. The submitted Appeal Decision (APP/Y0435/W/17/3178790) is not directly comparable to

the proposed development in this instance. The appeal scheme was for outline permission for 14 dwellings on equestrian land comprising of stables, hay store, ménage and paddock land. The Inspector considered that the paddock land would fall within the ‘curtilage of the developed land’, i.e. the ménage and buildings on site and therefore fell within the definition of ‘previously developed land’. The extent of existing development on the appeal site, by virtue of the built form of the stable, hay store and ménage is significantly greater than the nil built form found on the application site for 17/03708/FUL. This appeal therefore does not alter the assessment of the application as set out at Appendix A. The applicant has not demonstrated that the site constitutes ‘previously developed land’ and therefore the assessment of the proposals remain as per the previous committee report, which is attached at Appendix A.

Appendix A – 8th August 2018 Committee Report

Cttee: 8 August 2018

Item No. 2



Site Address Land North Of Bramley Road Bramley Road Little London Hampshire

Proposal Erection of 3 bedroom dwelling, parking and associated amenity area. Change of use of land from the keeping of horses to residential





Applicant: Mr Philip Snook Agent: Ian Lasseter

Ward: Pamber And Silchester

Ward Member(s): Cllr Marilyn Tucker Cllr Roger Gardiner

Parish: PAMBER CP OS Grid Reference: 462037 158823

Recommendation: the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1 The application has failed to demonstrate that it meets the criteria to be considered as

an exception to the general policy of restraint of housing in the countryside. There is no justification within Development Plan Policy, or any other material consideration that establishes the principle of development, or is considered to be of sufficient weight for bringing development forward on this site. The proposal is not considered to represent a sustainable development and is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and Policies SS1 and SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 – 2029.

2 The proposed development would, through the introduction of domestic built form and

residential paraphernalia within open and undeveloped countryside, be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and Polices EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

General comments The application is being presented to the Development Control Committee at the request of Cllr Gardiner who has stated “in view of the similarities with the application (approved) in Ramsdell Road, I would request that the site be viewed and referred to DC. I would consider the land to be previously developed and therefore similar to 17/01511 in Ramsdell Road Pamber End. The field on which the application sits already contains a Business Park and Solar Farm”. The application is part of a field that has been subdivided and two separate planning applications submitted. The application for the other half of the field is also on the agenda for consideration (application 17/02666/FUL – Item 1), and seeks retrospective permission for a change of use to the storage of touring caravans and motorhomes, fencing, hardstanding and CCTV/Lighting.

http://planning.basingstoke.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OYUSTUCRLKA00

Planning Policy The site lies outside any Settlement Policy Boundary and is therefore in policy terms considered to fall within a countryside location. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2018) Section 1 (Introduction) Section 2 (Achieving sustainable development) Section 4 (Decision-making) Section 5 (Delivering a sufficient supply of homes) Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport) Section 11 (Making effective use of land) Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) Section 15 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing) Policy CN3 (Housing Mix for Market Housing) Policy CN6 (Infrastructure) Policy CN7 (Essential Facilities and Services) Policy CN8 (Community, Leisure and Cultural Facilities) Policy CN9 (Transport) Policy EM1 (Landscape) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM5 (Green Infrastructure) Policy EM6 (Water Quality) Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk) Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Use) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy EM12 (Pollution) Policy EP4 (Rural Economy) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Design and Sustainability SPD Appendix 5 (Construction Statements) Appendix 6 (Storage and Collection of Waste and Recycling) Appendix 7 (Places to Live) Appendix 14 (Countryside Design Summary) Appendix 16 (Residential Amenity Design Guidance) Residential Parking Standards SPD Landscape Character Assessment SPG Landscape and Biodiversity SPD Other material documents The Council’s Guidance Note in relation to Policy SS6(e) New Housing in the Countryside The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended 2015) Planning Practice Guidance (2015) Planning Obligations for Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2018)

Description of Site The application site is located on the northern side of Bramley Road, and is currently surrounded by approx. 2m high engineered bunds. Mounds of spoil and grass were viewed within the bunds at the time of the visit. The site is relatively flat and is bounded by the bunding, hedgerow, fencing, and sporadic mature trees, to the east is a small copse. The site is accessed via a track leading from the access road to the Berry Court Business Park which in itself joins Bramley Road to the southeast of the site. To the north of the site is a solar farm, to the west, the land is being used unlawfully for the storage of caravans and which is subject to a current retrospective planning application 17/02666/FUL. Proposal The proposal is for the erection of a detached single storey dwelling. The proposed dwelling is rectangular in shape and would measure 11.3m (excluding porch) in length, 26.5m in width and 7.2m in height. The proposed materials include handmade bricks for the plinth, timber boarded walls with timber casement windows/large patio/bi-fold doors/windows and a fully hipped roof of plain clay tile. The proposals also include the formation of a driveway and parking area which will utilise the recently created access along the northern boundary of the site. A small cycle shed and bin store are also proposed. Consultations Cllr R Gardiner: - Comments as above. Parish Council: - No objection. Landscape Officer: - Objection raised. Biodiversity Officer: - No objection subject to conditions. Tree Officer: - Objection raised. Environmental Health Officer: - No objection subject to conditions. Natural England: - No Comment. Public Observations Nineteen letters of representation objecting to the proposals have been received and are as summarised below.

Insufficient infrastructure within Little London to accommodate additional dwellings.

The site is in an isolated location with no accessible facilities close by. There are no footpaths serving the site.

There are other suitable dwellings, which would meet the needs of the applicant available locally.

By allowing the application, a president may be set in allowing further development within the countryside to the detriment of others enjoyment of it.

The development would fail to accord with Policy SS6 of the Local Plan as the land is not previously developed land. The development is located outside of any Settlement Policy Boundary and has been used for the grazing of horses. The land is agricultural.

The proposals are contrary to Policy EM1 of the Local Plan as it would have an adverse impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area. The proposals would contribute towards the coalescing of development.

Previous and other current applications, if approved would urbanise the area, thus harming its rural landscape qualities.

The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a locally agreed need.

The bunds which are existing are not appropriate for the site and are out of character.

The occupants of the dwelling would be adversely impacted upon by the neighbouring caravan storage area.

Forty eight letter of representation supporting the proposals have been received and are summarised below.

The proposals will support the applicant and provide a needed purpose built property which addresses their medical needs.

The appearance of the dwelling is in keeping with the village and would not harm the character of the area. The barn style would look nice in the village.

The single storey dwelling would well suit the applicant in regards to their deteriorating health problems and would be ideally positioned close to their place of work and family. The site is not an isolated location with a number of other small residential development being approved in the local area within the last two years.

The site has good accessibility onto the Bramley Road and other local services.

Similar applications have been approved locally, therefore setting a president in support of this current application.

The site is well screened and is secure which is beneficial for the applicant.

The site has been used for a significant period of time for the keeping and stabling of horses. The site has proved over many years to be unable to provide an income from agriculture. The development would therefore not result in any loss in agricultural land. The development would be on a brownfield site and therefore would accord with Local Plan Policy SS6a

There would be no impact on any of the neighbouring properties as a result of this proposal.

Granting permission for this development would not set a precedent. Every application should be determined on its own merits.

Relevant Planning History None Assessment Principle of development Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan for the area is the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. At a national level, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was introduced in 2012 and the NPPF constitutes guidance, which the Local Planning Authority (LPA) must have regard to. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making, but is a material consideration in any subsequent determination.

Local Plan The site is located outside of any Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) and is within part of the borough which is designated as countryside as per Policy SS1 (Scale and distribution of new housing) of the Local Plan. The Local Plan (paragraph 4.70) is explicit in its aims ‘to direct development to within the identified Settlement Policy Boundaries and specific site allocations. Within the countryside it is the intention to maintain the existing open nature of the borough's countryside, prevent the coalescence of settlements and resist the encroachment of development into rural areas. The countryside is therefore subject to a more restrictive policy'. Policy SS1 sets out a spatial strategy for the Local Authority to meet its full housing need over the Plan period. The strategy is principally based upon the development of allocated Greenfield sites and the redevelopment of land in the towns and villages. Development in the countryside is generally restricted. The most relevant Local Plan policy for the proposal is Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside) which sets out the exceptional circumstances where it is appropriate to allow new housing development in the countryside. Policy SS6 states that development in the countryside will only be permitted if the site is on previously developed land; is part of a rural exception scheme; is for the re-use of an existing building; involves the replacement of an existing dwelling; is small scale to meet a locally agreed need; is required to support an existing rural business; or is allocated by a Neighbourhood Plan. In this instance, none of SS6 exceptional criteria for allowing new dwellings in the countryside are met. The first criteria to this policy (SS6a) addresses sites which are deemed to be previously developed land. The applicant has stated that the development is a ‘brownfield site’, where Policy SS6a is relevant. Development falling within the definition of ‘brownfield’, otherwise known as ‘previously developed land’, should be considered against Policy SS6a. Policy SS6(a) states that new housing outside Settlement Policy Boundaries will only be permitted where they are on ‘previously developed land’, provided that:

i) they do not result in an isolated form of development; and ii) the site is not of high environmental value; and iii) the proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site’s context.

The applicants reasoning for their claim that the site should be considered ‘previously developed land’ is that its use is for the keeping of horses. At the time of the site visit the land was not occupied by horses and neither were there any buildings/structures within the site. From Council records the lawful use of the land appears to fall within agriculture. Structures/land in an agricultural use are excluded from the definition of previously developed land as set out below. The most up to date definition of previously developed land is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) as:

“Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures; land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the

permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape.” A small field shelter appears to have once been located to the northwest outside of the application site, the curtilage of such a small structure would not extend to the whole of the field. The site is now devoid of any permanent structure and the ‘structure’ that is referred to within the applicants supporting statement would have fallen considerably outside of the development site. Therefore, even if there has been a material change of use of land to equestrian as claimed by the applicant, the whole field (this application and the retrospective caravan storage application site adjoining) would not have met the criteria of PDL. Therefore in light of the above, the site is not considered to constitute PDL and the application consequently does not comply with the provisions of SS6a of the Local Plan. The only other SS6 Policy criteria to which this application could be considered against is part (e) and concerns ‘local need’. Policy SS6(e) states that new housing outside Settlement Policy Boundaries will be only be permitted where they are: e) Small scale residential proposals of a scale and type that meet a locally agreed need provided that:

ix) it is well related to the existing settlement and would not result in an isolated form of development; and x) the development will respect the qualities of the local landscape and be sympathetic to its character and visual quality; and xi) the development will respect and relate to the character, form and appearance of surrounding development, and respect the amenities of the residents of neighbouring properties.

The tests in Policy SS6(e) are in two parts. The first part (e) sets out the overall limits of the exception whilst the second part (criteria ix – xi) then sets out detailed criteria for proposals that are within that exception. Therefore, a proposal that can satisfy the first part of criterion e) will fall within the exception as a matter of principle, but the specific details then need to be considered in terms of the criteria of the second part of the policy. A proposal which does not satisfy the exception will not be policy compliant even if it might otherwise comply with the detailed criteria ix – xi. In terms of the first part (e), the application is for one dwelling and therefore meets the test relating to scale (four dwellings or fewer) however proposals must also be of a scale and type that meets a locally agreed need. The Council has published a guidance note to assist in addressing locally agreed need. This advises that an applicant should demonstrate that their proposal meets a specific and clearly identified unmet need in the local area in terms of number, size, type, and tenure, and refers to the need being with the Parish, village, or settlement. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to support the application in respect of SS6(e) and there is no evidence to conclude that there is a locally agreed need for the accommodation proposed. As such it is the LPA’s view that the applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate that the proposal would meet a locally agreed need in accordance with Policy SS6(e) of the Local Plan.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), ‘Isolated’ and other material considerations In accepting the conflict with the Local Plan, the NPPF constitutes guidance which the Local Planning Authority (LPA) must have regard to. Under the NPPF there is a need to consider whether the development is sustainable and to consider the social, environmental and economic impacts of the development. In considering new housing in rural areas Paragraph 78 advises that:

“To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.

Paragraph 79 goes on to say that Local Planning Authorities should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances. These instances include, essential rural workers dwellings, securing the optimal viable use of a heritage asset, re-use of redundant or disused building which would enhance its immediate setting, subdivision of an existing dwelling or would have a design that is of exceptional quality. In this instance, the proposals would not fall within any of these categories. The NPPF does not provide a definition of what constitutes ‘isolated’ development. As planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, the Local Plan’s definition should be the starting point for what defines ‘isolated’ development. The Local Plan defines ‘isolated’ “in the context of new residential development in the countryside where there is a significant separation between the proposed dwelling and the nearest settlement. Additionally, a dwelling is considered to be isolated if it is not well served by public transport (e.g. within 500 m of a bus stop or train station) or well served by services and facilities (e.g. within 1km of an SPB, which generally contains facilities such as schools, post offices, doctors surgery, etc).” The Local Plan also provides a definition of a ‘settlement’, stating that they ‘typically consist of a village, comprised of more than a group of houses, or farmstead, including at least one service or facility, such as a village hall, public house or school’. In terms of whether the site is 'physically remote,' it is separated from other nearby dwellings, occupying a positon north of Bramley Road, and would appear visually isolated from surrounding residential properties. Although there are other dwellings within 100m of the site, these are sparse and occupy well screened locations to the south of Bramley Road. Other dwellings line the east of Silchester Road heading north to Little London, these have regular plot forms and are predominantly detached properties. These are visually and physically separated from the site by a woodland copse which contains a good number of mature trees. The site occupies a previously undeveloped gap separating Pamber End to the west and Little London to the northeast. The site is located 2.4km from the nearest defined Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) of ‘Bramley West’, the larger SPB of Bramley is 2.7km from the site. Tadley, a larger settlement with a greater provision of facilities and services is 3.7km from the site. These distances all fall within the Local Plan glossary definition of ‘isolated’ which would expect a dwelling to be within 1km of an SPB, given that they generally contain facilities such as school, post offices, doctors surgery, etc. The settlement of Little London is located approximately 720 m to the north of the site and contains a village hall, public house and

place of worship. A bus stop is located just north of Bramley Road’s junction with Silchester Road and runs a regular service (hourly between 09:47-17:47 travelling south and 09:22-18:27 traveling north) both into Tadley and Basingstoke. This service is well within the 500m as set out within the glossary term for ‘isolated’ being within 250m of the site. Although there are no footpaths directly from the site to this bus stop, the highway grass verge would provide a somewhat safer passage than walking along the road, however would not likely be suitable for wheelchair use and may be difficult to safely negate at night. The proposed dwelling would be a substantial distance from any range of shops, services and facilities found within the nearest settlement. Given this substantial distance and furthermore given that the roads leading from the site to the settlement of Bramley have no footpaths, no lighting and are subject to the national speed limit, any future occupiers would likely be discouraged by making this journey regularly on foot or by bicycle. The Local Planning Authority therefore considers that the future occupiers of the proposal would be reliant on a private vehicle to gain access to these local shops, facilities and services. Although the proposed dwelling would be located within close proximity to means of public transport, access to these may not be suitable for the applicant in this case. The dwelling would also be well separated from any SPB, and as such, would result in a dwelling which is not well served by services and facilities. It would occupy a previously undeveloped parcel of land within the open countryside and result in a dwelling that would be ‘isolated’ from any meaningful collection of other buildings/ residential properties. The Braintree DC v SSCLG [2018] Civ 610 (‘the Braintree case’) is a material consideration in the assessment of this application given the sites location outside of a defined Settlement Policy Boundary. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision which concluded that that the word isolated should be given its ordinary meaning as ‘far away from other places, buildings and people; remote’. Lindblom LJ’s held that in the context of paragraph 55 of the previous NPPF (2012), now paragraph 79 (2018), ‘isolated’ simply connotes a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement. Whether, in a particular case, a group of dwellings constitutes a settlement, or a 'village', for the purposes of the policy will again be a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision-maker. The Court rejected the argument that the word ‘isolated’ could have a dual meaning, being physically isolated or functionally isolated (isolated from services and facilities). In applying this guidance to this current case, the proposed dwellings as set out above, are considered to be physically and functionally isolated in accordance with the definitions of the Local Plan, and although the Local Plan is the starting point for the assessment of proposals, consideration must be given to case law. In terms of whether the development would result in physically isolated dwelling, it would be sited well away from any defined settlement or meaningful collection of housing. Although within close proximity to Bramley Road it would not accord with any local pattern of development, and would occupy an area of previously open countryside (prior to the subdivision of the field and erection of bunds). Therefore, in this instance, and in light of the ‘Braintree Case’, the proposed development would result in physically ‘isolated’ dwelling as set out within paragraph 79 of the NPPF.

Sustainable Development Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The three dimensions to achieving sustainable development are defined in the NPPF as: economic, social and environmental.

The economic role of the NPPF requires proposals to contribute to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy. The social role requires planning to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities and states that it should create a high quality built environment. The environmental role states that the natural built and historic environment should be protected and enhanced and should mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Economic The proposed development would encourage development and associated economic growth through the actual physical building works. The future occupants would also undoubtedly contribute to the local economy and to the continued viability of local services in surrounding villages. However, as this would apply to an increase in a single dwelling only, any benefit to the local economy would be negligible. The application submission also refers to the need for the applicant to be close to their business and place of work, however given that this ‘business’ is not lawful and is recommended for refusal alongside this application, the economic role of the development is therefore considered to be limited.

Social The social aspect of sustainable development would be met through the contribution made to the housing stock. Notwithstanding the contributions that this dwelling would bring, the Council is currently able (as at April 2017) to demonstrate that it has a 5 year Housing Land Supply (HLS) of 5.6 years. The development would make no significant contribution to the Council's housing land supply position, which is being adequately met through development within Settlement Policy Boundaries and on allocated sites. Therefore, although there would be a limited benefit as a result of the social role that this development would bring in terms of the provision of a single dwelling, this can only be afforded very limited weight in light of the Councils ability to demonstrate a robust 5 year HLS.

Environmental With regard to the environmental role of this development, the development could reasonably be expected to demonstrate a degree of inherent sustainability through compliance with Council supported energy efficiency and Building Regulations standards. However, the whole development itself would not respond to climate change through its failure to integrate well with any existing settlement and the lack of opportunity it allows for occupants to utilise community facilities by any means other than private car. This would outweigh any other perceived environmental benefits. An assessment of harm on the wider character of the area will be undertaken later in this report, however this development is not considered to support the overarching sustainability aims of either the Local Plan or NPPF. Summary As the site is not considered to have good accessibility to local services, facilities or amenities and would result in an over reliance on the private car, the proposal would have poor accessibility and comprise an unsustainable form of development in this regard. In taking into account the development plan as a whole, the application would conflict with the Council's core housing strategy as set out in Policy SS1 and would not represent any of the special circumstances outlined in Policy SS6 to allow new residential development within the countryside. It is considered that the development would be physically isolated,

with consideration given to the Braintree Case and paragraph 79 of the NPPF and would therefore not justify a departure from the development plan. Although the Council are sympathetic to the personal needs of the applicant, there are no provisions set out within the Local Plan, NPPF or any other material planning considerations which would afford significant weight to these needs. As such, there is no justification in disregarding the development plan. In considering the specific economic, social and environmental considerations of this particular scheme, it is concluded that in taking the scheme as a whole, there would be insufficient benefit of allowing an additional dwelling in this countryside location in order to outweigh the principle conflict with the key housing polices of the Local Plan and the guidance contained within the NPPF. The development therefore remains unacceptable in principle. Impact on the character of the area/ design Policy EM1 states that development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned and must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected. Policy EM10 states that proposals will be required to respect the local environment, contribute to the streetscene and be visually attractive. EM10 also seeks high quality development across the borough, based upon a robust design-led process and a clear understanding of the local identity and context of development to create successful, inviting places where people want to live, work and enjoy themselves. The area has a strong rural character, typified by the land uses including fields, woodland, farmsteads and the small areas of settlement. With respect to the existing visual amenity, the site can be seen from the adjacent stretch of road along the southern boundary, where it forms the foreground to views through the site to countryside and solar farm beyond. In addition to this, glimpsed views are also possible from the west along the nearby Public Right of Way (bunds currently would largely screen this view). This application seeks to locate a dwelling within the existing engineered bunding which surrounds the site. The introduction of a dwelling in the otherwise open landscape (notwithstanding the bunding) would result in an area of farming/paddock character being domesticated – by the change to residential use comprising a large area of built form, hardstanding and a more formal garden area. This would be to the detriment of the rural and open character of the site. This harm has been considered in light of the bunding surrounding the site not being retained. Should the bunding remain/planning permission be granted for it, the dwelling would be entirely enclosed, inward looking and have no visible frontage or connection with Bramley Road, this would be undesirable and fail to respect the character of the surrounding area, forming a very abrupt frontage with the road and public realm. The bunding would not fully screen the development from Bramley Road and the harm in relation to the domestication of the site would remain. Indeed, their rectilinear industrial layout contrasts with the existing field pattern and draws attention to the site, thus would make the proposed dwelling even more visually prominent and consequently would exacerbate the identified harm. The submitted site plan indicates that a new and reinforced hedgerow of indigenous species would be planted between the bund and roads. There is limited space for this due

to the bunds and it is not considered that this would mitigate against the identified harm that dwelling would have within the landscape. The siting of these hedgerows are also not included within the application site as outlined in red as per the submitted Location Plan. However given that this land would fall within the ownership of the applicant, in accordance with section 72 (1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, conditions securing this planting could have been imposed should all other matters have been considered acceptable. The submitted design and access statement indicates that the design of the proposed dwelling has been inspired by the sites rural setting. Externally the form of the building has taken prompts from traditional Hampshire barns. Although the barnlike appearance is clearly evident within the proposals and would reflect the past use of the land, the incorporation of large areas of ‘modern’ glazed element, namely within the kitchen and living room would undermine, to a certain extent this design aspiration. ‘Barn conversions’ typically utilise existing openings to achieve brighter internals without the loss of historic fabric or harming its agricultural character. This proposal for an entirely new dwelling which attempts to replicate this technique by adding glazing to the buildings ‘cart entrances’. However, within the northern half hipped cart entrance, the glazing is not sufficiently broken up and appears as one large opening. This detracts from the authenticity of the design and adds to the detrimental use of large areas of uninterrupted glazing within the scheme. The proposed materials ‘in principle’ appear to be appropriate for a design of this nature, should all other matters have been found to be acceptable a condition requiring these materials to be submitted to the LPA prior to commencement of the development would have been added. No details of the proposed cycle/bin storage shed have been submitted, if all other matters had been considered acceptable, a condition would have been imposed to provide details of this outbuilding, in order to ensure that there was no detrimental visual impact on the surrounding area. Trees Policy EM1 of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 2011- 2029 requires that development proposals must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected, paying particular regard to b) the visual amenity and scenic quality and e) trees, ancient woodland and hedgerows. The site comprises a field with perimeter hedgerows that include a number of large mature oak trees, a number of which line the boundary with the Bramley Road. These tress are considered to be important to local amenity and have a positive contribution to the wider landscape. The bunding surrounding the site will likely have a medium/long term negative impact on threes root system by causing oxygen asphyxiation over the rooting area. The implications being the reduction in the tree’s longevity and normal vigour leading to the potential premature demise of otherwise healthy specimens. Whilst the damage is not direct or immediately evident it is highly likely that the trees will suffer and gradually lose vigour with signs of crown dieback over the coming few years. The Council’s Tree Officer has strongly recommended that the bunds are removed in order to preserve these locally important trees. The proposed development has excluded the bunding from within the application site, and the lawful status of the bunds are considered within application 17/02666/FUL which is being considered alongside this application. Given that the proposed development (dwelling and change of use of land) would not directly harm or impact upon these trees, a reason for refusal on this matter is not considered appropriate in this instance. The

concerns raised above by the Tree Officer will need to be addressed separately as part of any enforcement action, should this take place. Biodiversity Policy EM4 establishes that proposals will only be permitted where significant harm to biodiversity can be avoided or adequately mitigated unless there is a demonstrated overriding public need. The site contains a number of mature trees and areas of hedgerow and is located within close proximity to other areas of woodland, other designated sites can be found within 1km of the site. Notwithstanding that the bunding is having a detrimental impact on the mature boundary trees, an Ecological report has been submitted which concluded that the site was of an overall low ecological value and no evidence of protected species where recorded. A series of mitigation measures are suggested in order to ensure that the development would have a minimal impact on local wildlife. The existing ditches bordering the site and the existing boundary vegetation are to be retained. If all other matters had been found to be acceptable, details in regards to the protection of these areas would have been conditioned. Similarly details in regards to any new lighting would have been required in order to ensure that these minimise light spillage and pollution which could have detrimental impacts upon local wildlife. Impact on neighbouring amenities Policy EM10 requires developments to provide high levels of amenity for proposed occupants and neighbouring occupiers regarding privacy, amenity space and natural light. The proposed development would be sited within close proximity to the neighbouring ‘unlawful’ caravan storage. This relationship is undesirable and would inevitably result in some degree of disturbance to future occupiers of the dwelling. The application has not been submitted with any noise assessment. The bunding (should it remain) would inevitably deflect/absorb some of the noise generated on the site. This unlawful use is however subject to a current retrospective application (17/02666/FUL) and which is recommended for refusal alongside this application (17/03708/FUL). Notwithstanding this, the nature of the storage use and the likely infrequent noise generating activities on the site would not warrant a reason for refusal in terms of quality of amenities for future occupiers in this instance. The development would be located at a sufficient distance from neighbouring properties as to avoid any negative impacts. This includes overlooking, overbearing and overshadowing. Therefore the application would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenities. Highways, Parking and Refuse Policy CN9 sets out that development integrate into existing movement networks, provide safe, suitable and convenient access for all users; provide appropriate parking and servicing provision; and should not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. Policy EM10 requires developments to provide appropriate parking provision (including bicycle storage), in terms of amount, design, layout and location, in accordance with the adopted parking standards. The proposed site would be accessed via the existing road leading to Berry Court Business Park which itself joins Bramley Road to the east of the site. Given that this is an existing entrance serving vehicles that currently use the business park, it is not considered that the addition of one dwelling would materially increase its use and as such no issues

are raised in this regard. The proposed site plan shows the provision of 3 parking spaces within the site, this accords with the relevant standard for dwellings of this size in rural locations. The submitted site plan shows area for refuse storage and collection points, these are considered acceptable in principle, further details of this provision could have been conditioned should all other matters have been found acceptable. Environmental Health The submitted Phase 1 Environmental Assessment, dated March 2016, has been reviewed and it is noted that the preliminary risk assessment in this report assesses the risks to future site users as low and recommends that a limited soil sampling exercise is undertaken. However, given the large amounts of materials which has been imported onto the site, including the creation of bunds, and the unknown origin of this material it is possible that it may contain contaminates. In light of this, and the fact that the proposed use is sensitive to the presence of contamination, more extensive site investigation works are required. Should all other matters have been found acceptable, this information would have been conditioned. A condition would also have been imposed requiring a glint and glare assessment to be submitted prior to commencement, given the sites proximity to the existing solar farm to the north and the potential adverse impacts this may have on the new dwelling. Affordable Housing Local Plan Policy CN1 requires the provision of 40% affordable housing as part of new residential development with a tenure split of 70% rented and 30% intermediate products. Whilst the requirements of the Local Plan are acknowledged, the Council is additionally mindful of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) which was updated in May 2016 to confirm that contributions for affordable housing and other ‘tariff style’ financial contributions should not be sought from small-scale residential developments of 10 units or less (5 units within designated (e.g. AONB) rural areas) and which have a maximum combined gross (internal) floor space of no more than 1,000m2. The use of the term ‘and’ (as opposed to ‘or’) within the PPG threshold implies that both unit number and floorspace tests have to be met in order to justify seeking an affordable housing contribution. In this instance, the 10 unit trigger is not met and as such it is not necessary in accordance with Policy CN1 or the ministerial guidance for affordable housing provision to be sought in relation to this development. Community Infrastructure Requirements The Council's Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD (2018), and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended 2015) are relevant with regard to planning obligations in the context of a development. The CIL regulations in particular now make it unlawful if the obligation sought does not meet the following three tests:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms (b) directly related to the development, and; (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

In respect of this particular application, it has been identified through the Council's 'scoping' process, that contributions are not required. The development would fall below the PPG 10 unit threshold in requiring ‘tariff style’ contributions as set out with the affordable housing section of this report.

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable, should the application be approved. Sustainable Water Use Policy EM9 of the Local Plan sets out that development for new homes will need to meet a water efficiency standard of 110 litres or less per person per day, unless clear demonstration is given that this would not be feasible. It is considered appropriate that should all other matters have been found acceptable, this requirement could have been secured by way of condition. Other matters It was noted during the site visit that the land immediately adjacent to the ‘application site’ had recently been landscaped, creating significant lengths of bunding, along with planting. As set out above, this bunding falls outside the redline of the site and are not included within the remit of this application. The lawful and future status of this bunding is set out within the report of application 17/02666/FUL. Conclusion The principle of development would conflict with the key housing policies within the Local Plan, including SS1 and SS6. Taking into account the guidance contained within the NPPF and case law, there are no other considerations which would outweigh the conflict found with the development plan when this is read as a whole. Harm has been identified in relation to the proposed dwellings siting and design. The proposed encroachment into open countryside, and subsequent domestication would significantly harm the rural character of the area. The proposals are therefore considered to be unacceptable. Informative(s):- 1. In accordance with paragraphs 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and creative manner:-

seeking further information following receipt of the application; considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of an s.106 legal agreement (in accordance with paragraphs 54-57).

In this instance:

the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit,


Appendix B – 8th August 2018 Committee Update Report

Item No

Ref No Address Ward Councillor Recommendation

2 17/03708/FUL Land North Of Bramley Road, Bramley Road, Little London Pamber And Silchester

Cllr Marilyn Tucker Cllr Roger Gardiner

Refuse

Agenda Page: 171 Officer Presenting: Patricia Logie Parish/Town Council: Mr P Kingston Objectors: Mr D O'Donnell, Mr R Lissman In Support: Mr I Lasseter, Mrs J Snook Ward Councillor: Councillor Gardiner Update From 01/08/2018 the following Supplementary Planning Documents will be used to determine planning applications: Parking Supplementary Planning Document Housing Supplementary Planning Document Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document As a result the following SPD's of relevance to this application have been withdrawn: Affordable Housing SPD (2007) Design and Sustainability SPD, including updates and appendices (2012) Housing Mix and Lifetime Mobility Standards SPD (2007) Residential car parking standards (2008 with updates in December 2012) The application has therefore been reassessed in light of these new SPD's. There is no change in terms of the assessment in relation to the principle of development, however the Design and Sustainability and Parking SPD's do have an implication in terms of design, layout, materials and the size of parking spaces, this is dealt with in more detail below. The proposed site plan shows parking for the residents of the proposed dwelling. Since the adoption of the Parking SPD, these spaces would no longer accord with the space standards. The proposed external spaces shown measure 2.8m x 5m however this would now fall below the required 2.7m x 5.2. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that should the application be approved, space within the site exists which could accommodate increased parking space sizes. Details of this could be secured via condition if the application were to be approved and as such it is not considered that these matters would warrant an additional reason for refusal. Design guidance within the new Design and Sustainability SPD is relevant to this element of the scheme. The relevant sections of this guidance include Sections 8 and 9. The guidance contained within this document would not alter the recommended reason for

refusals in this instance. Three additional letters of representation have been received and are summarized below: Support (1 letter)

- The new NPPF within paragraph 61 sets out that planning policies should reflect the varied needs of the community, including those with disabilities.

- Paragraph 79 supports the creation of new dwellings for those who have an essential need for rural workers, including those taking majority control of a farm business.

- The council is under providing on it housing delivery and windfall sites are a good way to make up this short fall.

- The design would significantly enhance its immediate setting. Objection (2 letters)

- Photographs of the site provided prior to the change of use and creation of bunding. - The bunds are having an adverse effect on the boundary trees and hedges. - The bunds have potential to contain harmful materials. - The development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area

and would block strategic views across the countryside. - The development would erode the green space in the countryside.

Viewing Panel Members viewed the site and were met by the agent and the owner. The chair of the Parish Council was also in attendance. Members observed the entrance of the site and the location of the proposed house and parking was pointed out to them along with the constraints of the site and the relationship with the adjoining site.

Location plan

Site Plan

Elevations




Site Address Land Rear Of 17 Sainfoin Lane Oakley Hampshire

Proposal Erection of a detached two bedroom dwelling with associated works

Registered: 16 May 2018 Expiry Date: 15 September 2018



Case Officer: Bethan Wallington 01256 845361

Applicant: Mr J Santonocito & Ms H Greenslade

Agent: Mr Martin Runcie

Ward: Oakley And North Waltham

Ward Member(s): Cllr Diane Taylor Cllr Rob Golding Cllr Stuart Frost

Parish: OAKLEY CP OS Grid Reference: 457885 149615

Recommendation: the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions listed at the end of this report.

Reasons for Approval 1. The proposed development would be of an appropriate design and would relate in a

sympathetic manner to the street scene and character of the area and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018), Policies EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018) and the Oakley and Deane Village Design Statement.

2. The proposed development would not result in an undue loss of privacy or cause undue overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing or noise and disturbance impacts to the occupiers of neighbouring properties and as such complies with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

3. The development would provide a safe and suitable access and would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety and adequate parking would be secured to serve the proposed development and as such the proposal therefore complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Parking Supplementary Planning Document (2018).

4 Adequate drainage (foul and surface water) would be provided for the development

and can be adequately controlled through other legislation and planning conditions so as to ensure that there would be no risk to property or the environment. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy EM7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

General Comments The application is brought to the Development Control Committee due to the number of objections received and the Officers recommendation for Approval.


Planning Policy The site lies within the Settlement Policy Boundary of Oakley. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) Section 2 (Achieving Sustainable Development) Section 4 (Decision-making) Section 5 (Delivering a sufficient supply of homes) Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport) Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Presumption on Favour of Sustainable Development) Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing) Policy CN1 (Affordable Housing) Policy CN6 (Infrastructure) Policy CN7 (Essential Facilities and Services) Policy CN9 (Transport) Policy EM1 (Landscape) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, geodiversity and nature conservation) Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Use) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy EM12 (Pollution) Oakley and Deane Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029 Policy 1 (New Housing Development Volume) Policy 2 (Mix of Dwellings) Policy 13 (Village and Energy Efficient Design) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2018:

Section 7 - Cycle storage and vehicle parking

Section 8 - High quality buildings

Section 9 - Materials and detailing

Section 10 - Residential amenity Appendix 3 - Storage and collection of waste and recycling Appendix 4 - Space standards Parking Supplementary Planning Document (2018) Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD (March 2018) Other material planning documents The Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2015 Oakley and Deane Village Design Statement Description of Site The application site comprises of land to the rear of 17 Sainfoin Lane which is disused and

overgrown and does not currently form the garden area of No. 17. This land is surrounded by housing to the north, south and west with the Bakers Yard to the east comprising of commercial units. The site lies to the rear of 17 Sainfoin Lane and is accessed adjacent to the host site via a narrow strip of land bounded either side by significant hedges, and closed on the road edge by a mature hedge. Proposal The proposed 2 bed dwelling would be single storey and irregular in shape with two differing roof forms. The main body of the dwelling would measure 15.6m in depth and 6m in width comprising of a gable ended roof form, measuring 3.1m in height to the eaves and 5.8m in height to the ridge above ground level. The second element would measure approximately 10.6m in depth and would also be 6m, however a flat roof would sit above measuring 3.1m in height above ground level. The development also includes works to lower the ground level of the site. Consultations Oakley and Deane Parish Council: Initial Comments: 'The Planning Committee of the Oakley and Deane Parish Council has met and the above application was discussed. The members OBJECT to the application: Access: access would be off bridleway 734. No recent planning application has been granted where access to a property is gained by using the bridleway (for example, the application BDB/70862 had a condition that access would be via Pardown and NOT Sainfoin Lane). Although the Access and Design statement refers to a potential development at Sainfoin Lane as agreed in the Neighbourhood Plan, no such application has been made yet and therefore no decision on how access could be gained has been agreed. Overdevelopment: although the application is for a smaller dwelling than previously requested, it would still be intrusive and have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties, and the appearance of the dwelling would being out of keeping with other properties in the area. It would also set a precedent in that any property with a large garden (which many of the homes in the area do) would be able to erect a new dwelling. Parking/vehicle access: although currently the plans show three parking spaces for the property, at no 17, realistically it is a considerable distance to the proposed dwelling and there must be a condition that no amendments could be made to make further parking available, or that the current pedestrian access be changed into a vehicular access. Hedging: should the Borough approve the application, mature trees and hedges must be planted to screen neighbouring properties and compensate for the loss of privacy caused by the new dwelling. The Parish Council request that a site visit be made so that the full impact of the application can be understood, and also, we have returned a Permission to Speak request should the application be referred to Development Control.' Final Comments: ‘the Planning Committee of Oakley and Deane Parish Council continues to object to the amended plans for the same reasons as before’.

Highways Officer: No objection. Biodiversity Officer: No objections subject to condition to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the recommendations in the Biodiversity Assessment. Environmental Health Officer: No objections subject to contaminated land and noise conditions. Waste Team: No objections however noted wheeled containers will need to be collected on Sainfoin Lane and returned as soon as possible. Countryside Service: No objections subject to conditions regarding a construction method statement and approved access details. Southern Water: Do not support the proposal for a septic tank or private treatment plant in presence of public foul sewerage network. Environment Agency: Refer to standing advice. Public Observations Nine letters of objections:

Increased traffic, the vehicular access and impact on the bridleway

Uncertainty of benefit the proposal has on the local community

Sets precedent in the area

Overdevelopment of the site

Impact on neighbours

Impact on view and peaceful enjoyment Two letters of support:

The good use of the plot and the site is not overdeveloped

Welcomes the removal of the new access since the withdrawn scheme

The reduce scheme does not impact the neighbours now Relevant Planning History 17/02336/FUL Erection of a detached three bedroom

dwelling with associated works Withdrawn 14.09.17

Assessment Planning History The proposed development is a revised scheme to that previously withdrawn under application reference 17/02336/FUL. This had key issues in regards to the new access onto the bridleway and impact on neighbouring properties due to the two storey nature of the proposed dwelling. This revised scheme amends the previously withdrawn application through the following amendments:

The proposed new access from bridleway has been removed and the new dwelling intends to share the existing vehicle entrance and parking area with the existing

dwelling. This also removes the driveway which raised concerns on the previous application in relation to noise produced by car movements for the neighbour to the south.

The building has been redesigned to single storey with the ridge height lowered by 1.3 m and the footprint has been reduced by a total of 75m2 gross internal area.

The garden area has been increased. Principle of Development Policy SD1 sets out that the council will take a positive approach to determining proposals that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development within the NPPF, working proactively with applicants to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. The Policy also establishes that applications that are in accordance with the policies in the Local Plan will be approved without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Policy SS1 establishes that provision for 15,300 dwellings will be achieved within the plan period by permitting development and redevelopment within the defined Settlement Policy Boundaries which contribute to social, economic and environmental well-being. Policy CN1 states that the council will require 40% affordable housing on all market housing sites. On-site provision will be expected for 5 or more net residential units. In exceptional circumstances off-site provision or financial contributions of equivalent value will be accepted. Policy CN6 outlines that development will be required to contribute towards the provision of additional services, facilities and infrastructure at a rate, scale and pace to meet the needs and requirements that are expected to arise from that development. Policy CN7 establishes that proposals will be supported where they retain, improve or re-use essential facilities and services. Policy CN9 sets out that development should provide appropriate on-site parking and should not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. Policy EM1 states that development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned and must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected. Policy EM4 establishes that proposals will only be permitted where significant harm to biodiversity can be avoided or adequately mitigated unless there is a demonstrated overriding public need. Policy EM9 sets out that development for new homes will need to meet a water efficiency standard of 110 litres or less per person per day, unless clear demonstration is given that this would not be feasible. It is considered appropriate that this requirement be dealt with by way of condition. Policy EM10 states that proposals will be required to respect the local environment, contribute to the streetscene, be visually attractive and provide adequate vehicular parking and cycle storage. Policy EM10 also requires developments to provide high levels of amenity for proposed occupants and neighbouring occupiers regarding privacy, amenity space and natural light.

Policy EM12 establishes that development will only be permitted where it does not result in pollution which is detrimental to quality of life or poses unacceptable risk to health or the natural environment. Policy 1 of the Oakley and Deane Neighbourhood Plan seeks to provide more relatively affordable homes such as 1-2 bedroom starter homes and 2-3 bedroom bungalows, preferably semi-detached or detached, as there are predominantly detached houses in the area. The proposal, whilst detached, would accord with the Neighbourhood Plan by reducing the housing imbalance of 40% of homes that contain four or more bedrooms by creating a two bedroom dwelling as well as providing a smaller more affordable single storey dwelling to the area. Policy 13 of the Neighbourhood Plan states that new development should maintain the rural feel and use guidance within the Oakley and Deane Village Design Statement to assess appropriate design. It is considered that the principle of the proposed development meets the criteria set out within the above policies of the Local Plan and Oakley and Deane Neighbourhood Plan and is therefore acceptable, subject to other material planning considerations being considered. These will be set out within the below assessment. Sustainable Development The NPPF establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development which sits at the heart of the framework, with this principle stated to have three dimensions: economic, social and environmental. Every effort should be made to objectively identify and then meet the housing and development needs of an area and respond positively to the wider opportunities for growth. In addressing the proposed development itself under the three dimensions of sustainability, it is acknowledged that the scheme would not provide any direct form of long term economic development. However there would be economic benefits generated through the construction period with spin offs from wage spending of construction workers and supplier sourcing and following this, consumer spending on goods and services within the dwellings and within the local economy. Furthermore the future occupants would also contribute to the local economy and ensure the continued viability of the community and services of Oakley. The social aspect of sustainable development would be met through the limited contribution made to the housing stock. Environmentally, the scheme would have no adverse impact on the environment, as detailed in the assessment below. Impact on the character of the area/design The immediate area is characterised by post war housing at the northern end of Sainfoin Lane and is typically semi urban in character, changing beyond the doctors surgery to an unadopted lane with detached housing set within large plots. The lane provides a Public Right of Way (PROW), linking the village to a network of PROWs, including the long distance Wayfarers Walk to the south and west. The housing is mixed however predominantly there are single storey and chalet style bungalows. The general character of Sainfoin Lane comprises of detached buildings set within generous plots whereby the buildings are set back from the lane with parking forecourts to the front of the properties. The properties have space about them, giving a somewhat spacious appearance when taking into account their set back nature. The plots include mature hedging and close boarded fencing to define their boundaries. There is no strong

design or use of materials with varying roof forms and materials used throughout Sainfoin Lane. The proposal is for the construction of one single storey dwelling on land beyond the rear garden area of 17 Sainfoin Lane, which is currently disused and overgrown. The plot shape is unorthodox and would not mirror any other plots in the area, however, the proposed footprint is consistent with the size of neighbouring properties which have larger houses sited on them. The site would utilise the existing access and would include widening the path in land within the applicants’ ownership. The dwelling would share the parking area with 17 Sainfoin with little alteration to what currently exists. The dwelling would be positioned centrally at the rear of the plot and has been designed to make best use of the awkward shaped plot. In the area, whilst most buildings are sited along roadways, there are anomalies such as Northcote Paddock (accessed via Pardown) and the presence of an ancillary structure within the rear garden of 25 Sainfoin Lane. It is further noted that the position of the dwelling relates well and corresponds with the linear bungalows located in Petersfield to the north. To the east is the commercial area of Bakers. The site is surrounded by built development on all sides. Concerns were raised in regards to overdevelopment of the plot however the plot is sizable and the proposed dwelling is relatively minor in footprint. The proposal leaves adequate amenity space for the occupants whilst not being too dissimilar to an ancillary structure that could be built within the occupants’ garden under Permitted Development. Due to the position of the site and the modest size and design of the proposed dwelling, it is considered that the proposal would not be wholly visible from the public domain and would appear as ancillary in the garden of a dwelling. As such, the development would have minimal visual impact as the proposed dwelling would be largely screened by the dwellings and boundary treatments of the properties on the aforementioned road and Public Right of Way. In terms of the dwelling itself, it is proposed to be single storey and has been designed on a split level to accommodate the slight incline in ground levels to the north. The main body of the house comprises of a traditional gable ended roof form whilst the lower section would consist of a flat roof. It is considered that the scale, design and orientation of the proposed dwelling would not appear out of keeping within the context of the immediate surroundings and is of acceptable design. It has been stated that a range of materials would be used to distinguish the two elements that make up resultant dwelling. The gabled element would be slate with cladded walls and the flat roof element would be rendered with a sedum roof, softening its appearance from the neighbouring properties. No exact details have been provided with regards to the materials and as such, in the interests of the amenity of the area, a condition requiring the submission of a materials schedule to be approved prior to the commencement of development on site, is considered to be both reasonable and necessary. Overall, it is considered that the proposed development has little impact on the character of the area and PROW, being in keeping with the surrounding development, and is acceptable with regards to design. As such, the development accords with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan, the Design and Sustainability SPD (2018) and the Oakley and Deane Village Design Statement. Impact on neighbouring amenities The proposed dwelling is considered to be appropriate in its size, siting and design and subsequent relationship with the existing dwelling 17 Sainfoin Lane.

The proposed two bedroom dwelling is single storey and includes a drop in ground levels to lessen the views of the dwelling and impact to the neighbouring properties as such it would not result in any overlooking or loss of privacy to the neighbouring properties given the openings would be completely screened by the boundary treatments. Furthermore, due to the lowered ground levels, the dwelling would not be overbearing to the occupants of the neighbouring properties given a small section of the roof above the boundary treatments would be visible. As such, it is considered that the proposal would not lead to any detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers of any other neighbouring dwelling.

Noise A number of concerns were raised in regards to noise and dust. Conditions restricting the hours of operations and deliveries to the site are considered reasonable in view of the sites close proximity to neighbouring residential dwellings in the interests of the amenities of neighbours. It is also acknowledged that the development would result in a new residential unit closer to neighbouring properties however this would not cause an unacceptable level of noise given the existing gardens surrounding the site could also cause noise due to normal activities within a residential garden. In terms of dust, the development is not considered to generate unacceptable levels of dust or any hazardous materials. In relation to the garage located north-east of the site, a Noise Impact Assessment was requested due to the potential noise impact from the adjacent commercial garage. The report has concluded, following a 24hr monitoring period, that internal noise criteria will be met with windows open, however, within amenity space, although measured noise levels are relatively low, when assessed against relevant requirements they are non-compliant with the required noise criterion. The Environmental Health Officer, however, has raised no objections to the Noise Impact Assessment. Notwithstanding this matter, given the above, it is recommended that the boundary fence between the proposed dwelling and the garage be of an acoustic variety 2.2m in height; details of which are considered reasonable to request as part of a pre-occupation condition. It is therefore considered that in this regard, the application is considered to be in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Local Plan. Highway Impacts The proposed development as a residential property is a traffic generating use with the creation of an additional dwelling intensifying the number of vehicular movements along the local highway network from the construction phase onwards. A number of representations raised objections to the increased highway traffic, however, the scheme has been considered and the scale of the development is not considered to create an overriding material impact upon the free flow of traffic and highway safety and therefore in this respect accords with Policy CN9 of the Local Plan. The property would be provided with shared parking with 17 Sainfoin Lane utilising the existing access. The site is situated within the 'outer urban' area and in accordance with the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2018), a two bedroom property should provide two on-site spaces. The proposal shows space for six vehicles in the shared parking area. Whist these would be measured at 2.4m by 4.8m, it is evident form the plans that there is ample spaces to house six vehicles measuring the appropriate dimensions of 2.7m by 5.2m as per the recently adopted Parking Standards SPD (2018).

Details of the bin and cycle storage area have been provided and as such it is considered that the proposed development would provide adequate parking, cycle storage and refuse storage and collection provision in accordance with the adopted standards and therefore no objection is raised in this regard. The main access to this site is along Oakley Bridleway No 734. There are no recorded public vehicular rights over this path. As the Highways Officer stated in their response, it is an offence under S34 Road Traffic Act 1988 to drive over a public footpath, bridleway or restricted byway without lawful authority. It is evident that many vehicles are using this bridleway daily to access properties along Sainfoin Lane. However, it should be noted that land ownership is not a planning matter and it would be for the applicant/developer and future occupiers/purchasers of the proposed dwelling to satisfy themselves that they have the necessary access rights along the track and the footpath which will be included as an informative. It should also be noted that a recent permission referenced 16/00742/FUL for the erection of 4 no. dwellings at Highview Business Park, The Barracks, Newnham has received permission form Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council with a similar situation of passing over a PROW. The Highways Officer and ROW Officer do not object to the use of the PROW. The Countryside Service at Hampshire County Council raised no objections to the proposal subject to details of the construction method of the alterations to the access are submitted prior to commencements therefore no objections are raised in regards to utilising the existing access onto Sainfoin Lane. The applicant will be reminded within an informative that permission would be required to drive over the bridleway and that any works to the bridleway have received consent from Hampshire County Council prior to construction. In regards to the objections raised to the impact an additional residential unit would have on the users of the bridleway, when looking at the stated historic applications that were refused (namely BDB/72234 and BDB/70617) these were significantly further down the bridleway way than the application site whereby the right of way decreases in width. These proposals also proposed gated accesses. As such, the location of the existing access for this new dwelling is within 24m of the adopted highway and no obstruction is proposed in regards to a gated entrance. Therefore, in comparison, this is considered a reasonable distance to not cause harm to the users of the bridleway. It is considered that there is no objection to the site access and egress as proposed, subject to a visibility splay being provided at each side of the access before occupation. As such, the application is considered to accord with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Local Plan in this regard and is acceptable. Contamination Whilst the Environmental Health Officer has not objected to this proposal, a condition is recommended with regards to the survey and, if necessary, mitigation of contaminated land. Given the vulnerability of a residential use to the impacts of land contamination such conditions are considered both reasonable and necessary. Subject to the details requested by this condition, it is considered that the application is in accordance with Policy EM12 of the Local Plan. Biodiversity The application has been accompanied by an Ecology Survey which has identified the site has potential for accommodating commuting and foraging bats, nesting birds, amphibians, reptiles, dormice and hedgehogs. The survey includes mitigation measures to be taken for

each of the species and the Biodiversity Officer has raised no objections subject to a condition on the approval to ensure these are carried out in accordance with the survey. The development therefore accords with Policy EM4 of the Local Plan. Impact on the Water Environment The site lies within the 'locally' defined Basingstoke Upstream Critical Drainage Area (UCDA) as defined on the Local Plan Policies Map. The site is also within Flood Zone 1 (having a low probability of fluvial flooding). Policy EM7 'Managing flood risk' of the Local Plan sets out the Council's approach to considering flood risk. The application is for a new bungalow. It is not considered that the scale of the dwelling or the overall demand placed upon the drainage system would trigger the need for a FRA and given its small scale is unlikely to overload the capacity of the existing drainage system. The site also lies within the 'locally' defined Groundwater Protection Zones 2 and 3 as defined on the Local Plan Policies Map. Policy EM6 sets out the Council's approach to considering water quality. It is not considered that the proposal would be a potentially contaminating development and therefore no further information has been requested. Energy Efficiency Policy EM9 of the Local Plan sets out a requirement to ensure that water resources within new development are used sustainably through the imposition of a water efficiency standard of 110 litres or less per person per day. The proposal has not been accompanied by any information demonstrating that such levels of water consumption will be achieved within the development; therefore a planning condition is to be imposed to secure this standard. Drainage Foul drainage is proposed to be dealt with by discharge into a septic tank for the dwelling. The national planning guidance sets out that proposals for septic tanks should only be considered if it can be clearly demonstrated by the applicant that discharging into a public sewer to be treated at a public sewage treatment works or package sewage treatment plant is not feasible (taking into account costs and or practicability). This is supported by the NPPF in paragraphs 109 and 120 regarding preserving the natural environment and preventing unacceptable risks from pollution on health, the natural environment and general amenity. No demonstrable justification has been submitted as part of the planning application and as such, it is considered reasonable and necessary for the applicant to provide such information detailing that a septic tank is the only feasible solution to wastewater drainage at the site by way of pre-commencement condition. Subject to detailed investigations and information submitted on the appropriateness of the septic tank. In this respect, the application is considered to be in accordance with national guidance and with Policy EM6 of the Local Plan. Community Infrastructure Contributions and Affordable Housing Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable. From these forms, it would appear that the development would be liable for CIL but would be exempt given that this proposal is for a

single dwelling. Other Matters One comment requested clarification as to what was stopping the new dwelling widening the access path and making this into a driveway. Permitted Development allows for up to 5 m2 of hardstanding between the front elevation and highway of a dwellinghouse (within the dwellings curtilage). As such any hardstanding to make a driveway is likely to exceed this and a planning application would be required. A number of objections raised concerns regarding setting a precedent however each application is determined on its own merits and is assessed as submitted. Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans:

Location Plan – P01 rev C Proposed Site Plan – P02 rev E Proposed Plans – P10 rev F Proposed Elevations – P11 rev F

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years

from the date of this planning permission. REASON: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

3 No development shall commence above slab level until details of the types and

colours of external materials to be used, including colour of mortar, together with samples, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved. REASON: Details are required prior to commencement because insufficient information has been submitted with the application in this regard, in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

4 No development shall take place on site until details of the method of construction

of the means of access have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved access details shall be constructed and fully implemented before the commencement of building and other operations on the site or the use hereby approved is commenced and shall be thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details. REASON: Insufficient information has been submitted with the application in this regard, to ensure that a satisfactory means of access to the highway is constructed before the approved buildings in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

5 The developer shall ensure that there is provision for the parking and turning on site

of operatives' and construction vehicles, together with storage on site of construction materials. The provision shall be retained and used for the intended purpose for the duration of the construction period and that area shall not be used

for any other purposes other than the parking and turning of vehicles and storage of construction materials respectively. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

6 The development shall not be occupied until vehicle parking spaces have been

constructed and surfaced in accordance with the approved details and that area shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than parking, loading and unloading of vehicles. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

7 Protective measures, including fencing, ground protection, supervision, working

procedures and special engineering solutions shall be carried out in accordance with the:

CBA Trees, tree survey, ref: CBA10786

CBA Trees arboricultural development statement, ref: CBA10786 V1. June 2017

Any deviation from the works prescribed or methods agreed in the report will require prior written approval from the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and policy EM1 of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.

8 Development shall be undertaken in line with Chapter 5 Recommendations and

Precautionary Mitigation Measures of the Biodiversity Assessment by Lowans Ecology and Associates dated 5/7/2017. REASON: In order to avoid impacts on nesting birds, bats and other protected species and to provide enhancements for biodiversity through the introduction of native planting within the landscaping scheme of the development in accordance with Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Location Plan 2011-2029

9 No works pursuant to this permission shall commence until there has been

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:-

(a) a desk top study carried out by a competent person documenting all the previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report Nos. 2 and 3 and BS10175:2011, and a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as being appropriate by the desk study in accordance with BS10175:2011- Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice;

and

(b) a detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed. The scheme must include a timetable of works and site management procedures and the nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land

under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and if necessary proposals for future maintenance and monitoring.

If during any works contamination is encountered which has not been previously identified it should be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. The additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme, agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11'. REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

10 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until

there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of condition 9(b) that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of condition 9(b) has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority in advance of implementation). Such verification shall comprise;

as built drawings of the implemented scheme;

photographs of the remediation works in progress;

Certificates demonstrating that imported and/or material left in situ is free of contamination.

Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under condition 9(b), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

11 No work relating to the construction of the development hereby approved, including

works of demolition or preparation prior to operations, or internal painting or fitting out, shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

12 No deliveries of construction materials or plant and machinery and no removal of

any spoil from the site, shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the

Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

13 Within 3 months of the date of commencement a Construction Statement detailing

how the new home shall meet a water efficiency standard of 110 litres or less per person per day has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority through a demonstration that this requirement for sustainable water use cannot be achieved on technical or viability grounds. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. REASON: In the absence of such details being provided within the planning submission, details are required to ensure that the development delivers a level of sustainable water use in accordance with Policy EM9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

14 No dwelling shall be occupied until there has been submitted to and approved in

writing by the Local Planning Authority details of the position, design and specification of the proposed acoustic barrier designed to protect the dwelling from noise from the adjacent commercial garage. The approved acoustic barrier shall be erected before the dwellings hereby approved are first occupied and shall be retained thereafter. REASON: To ensure that acceptable noise levels within the dwellings and amenity areas are not exceeded in the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

15 Notwithstanding the submitted details no development shall commence on site until

details of the works for the disposal of sewage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the approved sewage details have been fully implemented in accordance with the approved plans.

REASON: In the absence of a justification for the need for a septic tank being provided within the planning submission and a septic tank being the last acceptable waste disposal solution within the waste hierarchy, it is necessary for further information to be submitted which ensures the proposal is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage. The information is requested prior to works commencing at the site in order to ensure the drainage infrastructure required for the development is fully considered and accommodated within the site in accordance with policy EM7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

16 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no vehicular access other than that shown on the approved plans shall be formed to the site. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

Informative(s):- 1. 1.1 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any),

must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met.

1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £116 or £34 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

2. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)


seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the application

considering the imposition of conditions

In this instance:

the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit


3. Consent under the Town and Country Planning Acts must not be taken as approval

for any works carried out on any footway, including a Public Right of Way, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the publicly maintained highway. The applicant will be required to enter into a Highway Agreement with Hampshire County Council as Highway Authority or agree the provision of a contribution towards any necessary improvement of the existing highway to provide access to the development. Advice on this matter can be obtained from Hampshire County Council's Area Office, telephone 0300 555 1388, and HCC website.

4. The applicant/developer should enter into a formal agreement with Thames Water to

provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service this development. Please contact Thames Water on Tel 0203 577 9998; at [email protected] or at Development Planning, Thames Water, Maple Lodge STW, Denham Way, Rickmansworth, WD3 93Q.

5. If this development will result in new postal addresses or changes in addresses,

please contact the council's Street Naming and Numbering team on 01256 845539 or email [email protected] to commence the process. Details can be found on the council's website.

6. The applicant is advised that any access gates and piers over 1m in height above

ground level would require planning permission in their own right in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 Part 2 (Minor Operations), Class A - gates, fences, walls etc.

7. The applicant is reminded that the granting of this permission does not override any

legal covenant or restriction that may exist on the land or access. The applicant will need to satisfy themselves that the development hereby approved can lawfully and legally be built.

8. Please note that granting this planning permission does not absolve any legal or civic

obligation that may exist on the land or access. The applicant will therefore need to satisfy themselves that vehicular rights exist over the adjacent bridleway to enable the vehicles to gain access to the site.

Location plan

Site Plan

Elevation




Site Address The Acorns Bishopswood Lane Baughurst Tadley

Proposal Erection of 1 no. 3 bed dwelling and creation of new access

Registered: 9 August 2018 Expiry Date: 11 January 2019



Case Officer: Rebecca Murray 01256 845578

Applicant: (care of Local Authority Solutions Ltd)

Agent: Mr Mark Doodes MRTPI

Ward: Baughurst And Tadley North

Ward Member(s): Cllr Michael Bound Cllr Robert Tate

Parish: BAUGHURST CP OS Grid Reference: 458142 161990


General comments The application has been brought to Development Control Committee due to the number of objections received and the Officer’s recommendation for approval. Planning Policy The application site is located within the Baughurst, Pamber Heath and Tadley Settlement Policy Boundary. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018) Section 2 (Achieving sustainable development) Section 5 (Delivering a sufficient supply of homes) Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport) Section 11 (Making effective use of land) Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) Section 15 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing) Policy SS7 (Nuclear Installations – Aldermaston and Burghfield) Policy CN9 (Transport) Policy EM1 (Landscape) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM6 (Water Quality) Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk) Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Use) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development)


Policy EM12 (Pollution) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD (March 2018) Parking SPD (2018) Design and Sustainability SPD (2018) Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SPD (2018) Tadley Village Design Statement 2004 Other material documents The Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2015 AWE Aldermaston Site Emergency Plan Alteration of the Approved Site Emergency Plan (March 2016) Description of Site The site forms part of the residential curtilage located to the rear of The Acorns. The site is accessed from Bishopswood Lane via an access track which is a Public Right of Way (PROW) and serves as vehicular access for the existing residential properties. The site is overgrown with vegetation and has some residential outbuildings. To the east of the site is mature hedging and to the west are a series of protected trees. Proposal The proposed development seeks the erection of a three bedroom dwelling and the creation of a new access. The proposed dwelling would measure 8.6m in height to the ridge, 13m in length and 9.5m in width. The proposed materials are dark chestnut stain timber boarded elevations, slate tiled roof and timber windows. Three parking spaces are proposed to the front of the dwelling, with an associated access and turning area. Private garden amenity space would be provided to the rear. Amendments – amended plans to ensure parking, amenity and design layout met current guidance. Consultations Baughurst Parish Council: ‘Concern over continued use of public right of way and safety of walkers'. Comments on amended plans: ‘Thank you for advising the amended plans relating to the above property. Having discussed it at my Council's meeting last night, they still have no objection to the application, but remain concerned about public safety regarding the access through the lane, which is also a public right of way. We would hope that this continues to be addressed as a potential issue.’ Cllr M Bound: Initial comment: “In light of your recommendation for refusal of this

application, I would like it to be heard and decided upon by DC. I also attach a request for a viewing because I think the panel would benefit from seeing the application site. The application is for one modest dwelling that is only recommended for refusal because of the negative input from the ONR and the West Berks emergency planning team. This is standard speak from these consultees for applications that come forward in my ward that are in proximity to the AWE. The two most recent applications, Pine Cottage and 2 Shyshack Lane that received the same response from the consultees and were recommended for refusal by officers saw the Committee decide otherwise and there hasn’t been any comeback. Pine Cottage was relatively close to the perimeter wire, 2 Shyshack was further away and this application must be at least double the distance away compared to 2 Shyshack. Bearing this in mind, I feel that there is enough to debate around the decision to refuse based on the comments of the consultees to warrant a committee decision.” Biodiversity Officer: No objection suggested informative. Environmental Health Officer: No objection subject to conditions. Highways Officer: No objection subject to conditions. Landscape Officer: No objection. Trees Officer: No objection subject to conditions. Hart District Council – Joint Waste Client Team: No objection. ONR: Advised against this application unless the emergency planners at West Berkshire Council provide written confirmation that, in their opinion, the proposed development can be accommodated within their existing off-site emergency planning arrangements. Joint Emergency Planning: Initial comment: Objection summarised as follows: following detailed assessment the increase in residential units in a sector with a high level of residential units would adversely impact on the AWE off-Site Emergency Plan, particularly the recovery phase. Final comment: “Whilst we are concerned about the general increase in dwelling in the area ‘the creep’/cliff edge effect on this occasion since it is outside the 5mSv area and is one dwelling we have no adverse comments to make.” Hampshire Rights of Way Countryside and Access: Objection. Public Observations Twelve letters of objection have been received and are summarised as follows:

Proposed development and materials are out of keeping; Development will be overbearing to The Whitehouse; Access is a well-used footpath; Severe overlooking impacts and loss of privacy; Fails to respect local context; Impacts to TPO trees; Current water run off situation will be affected.

Relevant Planning History 17/04159/ROC Removal of condition 10 of 15/02123/FUL

to remove ownership establishment of right of way before commencement of works

Refused 06.02.18

17/04163/CONDN Discharge of conditions 3, 4, 5 and 11 of

15/02123/FUL Approved 16.03.18

15/02123/FUL

Erection of 1 no. three bed dwelling with a solar outbuilding and creation of new access

Approved

18.09.15

BDB/52167 Erection of a two bedroom detached chalet bungalow

Refused 07.02.02

Assessment Planning History A number of planning applications are of relevance to these proposals. In 2002, the erection of a two bedroom detached chalet bungalow was refused on the grounds of visual intrusion, sporadic development in the countryside, undesirable expansion outside of the Settlement Policy Boundary and precedent. It is acknowledged that following the adoption of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2006-2011 the site was considered to fall within a Settlement Policy Boundary. In 2015 proposals for a 3 bed dwelling and solar outbuilding were considered policy compliant in respect of design, amenity and parking. Since this approval, various conditions attached to the permission have been successfully discharged. Condition 10 (a pre-development condition) required details of the private rights for motorised and non-motorised access from Bishopswood Lane to the boundary of the site to be established. This condition remained outstanding and the application to remove this condition was refused on the basis that the proposed development was deemed to be unsatisfactory without Condition 10, as the red line of the application site did not include the land required for access to the site from the public highway. It was also considered that the proposal did not satisfactorily demonstrate that future residents of the proposed dwelling would be able to gain satisfactorily access from the public highway to the site. As such, the development was unable to be implemented and 15/02123/FUL has since expired. The current application is a similar proposal to the expired 2015 with minor amendments to the layout of the site (including rearrangement of the access to the northern end of the eastern boundary), removal of the solar outbuilding and rearrangement of the parking, access and orientation of the dwelling. The dwelling also measures approximately 0.4m longer in length and 1m wider. The new scheme must be considered under the current material planning considerations, including the adoption of the Local Plan 2011-2029. As permission 15/02123/FUL was granted for a similar proposal this is of material weight in favour of this current application, however as the application has expired the material weight attributed is reduced.

Principle of development Policy SD1 sets out that the council will take a positive approach to determining proposals that reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development within the NPPF, working proactively with applicants to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. The Policy also establishes that applications that are in accordance with the policies in the Local Plan, will be approved without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Policy SS1 sets out a spatial strategy for the Local Authority to meet its full housing need over the Plan period. The strategy is principally based upon the development of allocated Greenfield sites and the redevelopment of land in the towns and villages. Development in the countryside is generally restricted. The site is located within the Settlement Policy Boundary of Baughurst, Pamber Heath and Tadley, where the principle of this type of development is generally accepted, subject to consideration of material considerations (as set out in the following sections of this report). Within the NPPF, private residential gardens in built up areas are excluded from the definition of previously developed land. Paragraph 70 states that ‘[Local] Plans should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area'. The NPPF recognises the role that gardens can play in informing the character of a local area, however, the NPPF suggests that such a policy should be focused not on avoiding such development in principle, but where it would have an adverse impact on the local area. In this instance the site is located within the settlement policy boundary wherein the principle of development is considered acceptable subject the other policies of the local plan in respect of layout, access and impact on the local character. The Local Plan does not have a specific policy in relation of the redevelopment of garden land when located within settlement policy boundaries. As such, in planning policy terms, there is no in principle objection to the proposed development, subject to other material planning considerations dealt with further below. Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) Policy SS7 of the Local Plan requires development in the land use planning consultation zones surrounding AWE Aldermaston to be managed in the interests of public safety. The policy stipulates development will only [officer emphasis] be permitted where the Off Site Nuclear Emergency Plan can accommodate the needs of the population in the event of an emergency. The production of the Off Site Plan is a statutory requirement of the Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Public Information Regulations 2001 and sets out the contingency arrangements for a multi-agency response should a radiation emergency occur at AWE and pose a hazard to the public outside the site boundary. The NPPF additionally stipulates that decision-taking processes should promote public safety and minimise impacts upon human health, and in particular ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The site is located within the DEPZ area of AWE Aldermaston positioned approximately 973m from the AWE site boundary (just outside the 5mSv area) and is within Sector K which is a high density population sector. The site is also in very in close proximity to Sector J with the boundary running to the west, which is the second most densely populated sector. This location determines that the site is more likely to be subject to urgent evacuation in the event of an emergency as well as having an increased

requirement for short, medium and potentially long term accommodation, which could also include meeting the needs of vulnerable people. Initially, the ONR and Joint Emergency Planners at West Berkshire objected to the application for one dwelling due to the concerns that the permission would allow development that could not be satisfactorily accommodated within the existing off-site emergency plan. It is, however, acknowledge that previous planning permission was granted for essentially the same development in 2015 (under application ref: 15/02123/FUL) and the ONR and West Berkshire did not object to the proposal at this time. In the absence of a clear justification from either ONR or West Berkshire for the change in view for one additional dwelling in this location, further advice was sought to clarify the objection. Final comments were received from the Joint Emergency Planners on 17th December 2018 and it was concluded that whilst they remain concerned about the general increase in dwellings in this sector, since the site is located outside of the 5mSv area and the application is for one dwelling, where there have been no significant changes in policy approach, and the site circumstance has not materially changed they have no adverse comments to make. In this instance, it is therefore considered that in light of the updated response from West Berks Joint Emergency Planners and when considering the material weight of the previous permission, regardless of the fact this permission is now extant and unable to be implemented, the proposed development can be accommodated within the existing off-site emergency plan for AWE Aldermaston, and the development is in accordance with Policy SS7 of the Local Plan. Impact on the character of the area/ design The proposed dwelling will be located within the existing rear garden of The Acorns. The dwelling will sit relatively centrally between no.11 The Hawthorns to the south-west and The White House to the north-east and will face north. The access lane leading to The Acorns and The Whitehouse is a PROW (footpath 49), which has been laid to gravel to allow vehicular access for the dwellings. The footpath leads from Bishopswood Lane to Baughurst Road through a wooded area. The access lane has a semi-rural character from Bishopswood Lane when viewing the existing properties and proposed site in context. The southern sections of the route are designated as Wooded Footpath West of Land at Bishopswood Lane Site of Nature Conservation Interest. The character of the surrounding area is primarily two storey detached dwellings positioned within curtilages which are typically 10-15m in depth whereas the existing dwelling at The Acorns currently sits within a curtilage of a depth of approximately 60m. The local properties are constructed primarily of brick with tiles roofs and a number have a detached garage or integral double garage. The proposed dwelling will be constructed of materials which are not typical for the immediate and wider area of the site. However, the proposed dark chestnut stain timber boards, slate tiles made from recycled rubber and timber openings are considered to be of a rural appearance and will not generate any visual harm to the character and appearance of the area. When viewed from Bishopswood Lane, the property will be read in connection with an existing timber-clad outbuilding to the south of the curtilage of The White House. The materials proposed match those previously approved within application 17/04163/CONDN for the discharge of conditions relating to the previous approval 15/02123/FUL.

The dwellinghouse is a modern traditional pitched roof design with a typical roof form, standard solid to void ratios and canopies over the entrance doors which are not uncommon in the Tadley area. It is noted that Landscape initially objected to the application in respect of trees, however, in light of the consultation response from Trees setting out that the development is acceptable subject to condition, the proposal is considered the be acceptable in respect of its impact on the character of the area and in respect of design. It is also of material weight that a previous permission was granted of a similar scale and design and of the same materials. As the area and character has not significantly materially changed since this approval, this would not warrant a different conclusion in respect of the appropriateness of the siting of the development, its scale, form or massing in this location. Furthermore, it is considered that the inclusion of a condition requiring a hard and soft landscaping scheme would provide further enhancements which would balance any harm to the character of the area or views from the PROW in accordance with Policy EM1 of the Local Plan. Impact on neighbouring amenities The proposed dwellinghouse will have a garden located to the south with a parking area located to the north of the dwelling. The garden area to the south will measure approximately 287sqm and will have the most direct sunlight due to its south-facing orientation. Although the proposal will result in a reduction of private amenity space to the rear of The Acorns, the resultant size of the rear garden will remain an acceptable standard of amenity measuring approximately 221sqm. This is considered to be adequate to serve the existing dwelling and will not be out of keeping with the typical size of curtilages within the local area. It is also acknowledged that the minimum garden sizes for properties in this type of location and of 3 or more bedrooms is 60sqm. Following amendments to the proposed plans, the proposed dwelling will face the existing properties to the west and east from a side elevation perspective and will face The Acorns rear elevation. The southern (rear) elevation of The Acorns distance to the north (front) elevation of the proposed dwelling measures approximately 28m which is considered a sufficient separation distance in respect of privacy, overlooking and overshadowing impacts. In terms of impacts upon the residential amenities of occupiers of nearby properties, the proposal will not generate any significant loss of light or overshadowing to any of the closest neighbouring properties. The proposal will not result in any adverse or significant overlooking or loss of privacy to any neighbours to the north or east given the separation distances and whilst objections have been raised regarding the relationship to neighbours to the west, in The Hawthorns (which is 21m to the south west), it is considered that due to the size of the ground floor window proposed on the western elevation that there will not be any significant impacts. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling will not have a direct back to back relationship with any of the properties within The Hawthorns, which is considered an improvement in respect of overlooking and privacy to any neighbouring properties to the west. Notwithstanding this improvement (from application 15/02123/FUL), it should be noted that the relationship with The Hawthorns within the previous permission was not raised as a concern or considered to be unacceptable in this instance. It is acknowledged that the proposed dwelling would bring about a new situation, however, no side elevation windows facing east or west and proposed at first floor level. In addition,

insertion of windows in this location are controlled by the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended) and as such, it is not considered necessary or reasonable to impose any conditions to obscurely glaze or fix shut any future windows on the side elevations of the proposed dwelling, in the interests of ensuring the current levels of amenity for neighbouring occupiers. The proposed dwelling will result in a new situation generating noise associated with the occupation of a dwellinghouse, however, the noise levels have been considered by the Environmental Health Officer and are not considered to be significant and would not amount to any harm to the reasonable enjoyment of the existing residential properties. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with Local Plan Policy EM10 and the Design and Sustainability SPD Section 10 regarding residential amenity for both existing and proposed dwellings. Noise and contaminated land An AA Environmental Ltd Phase 1 Environmental Risk Assessment (dated December 2017) was submitted with the application. The Phase 1 assessment had previously been submitted to discharge relevant planning conditions attached to the previous planning permission (ref: 15/02123/FUL) for a dwelling at this site. This assessment was considered to be sufficient and acceptable in December 2017 and the Environmental Health Officer concluded that the results of the assessment were still relevant and acceptable in this instance due to the nature of the site, age of the assessment and similarity in the proposed development. The Environmental Health Officer has, however, recommended conditions be included in respect of restricting the hours of deliveries and construction in order to control the noise generation and maintain the amenities of adjacent neighbours. Highways, access and parking

- Access The proposed development is located to the rear of The Acorns dwelling. It is proposed that a new access is created to the northern end of the eastern boundary of the site. At present, residential dwellings and commercial uses adjacent to the site are accessed via a PROW (Baughurst Footpath 49). The footpath leads from Bishopswood Lane to Baughurst Road through a wooded area. A number of objections raised concerns regarding increased traffic movements along the footpath and the safety as a result of this increase in traffic. The footpath is considered to be very narrow and not sufficiently wide for a vehicle and footpath users to pass and repass safely. It is considered by the Countryside and Access Officer at Hampshire County Council that the development proposal could increase vehicular use of the footpath to the detriment of the users of the public footpath and that increased vehicle use during both construction and occupation could cause nuisance and an unacceptable level of risk to legitimate users of the footpath and be likely to have significant adverse impact on the amenity and recreational value of the path. Notwithstanding this matter, it is noted that The White House runs a commercial business from their site opposite the application site and both The Acorns and The White House have used the PROW to access their properties for some time. It is therefore considered

that the additional residential traffic on the PROW due to the additional single dwelling will not be significant such to warrant a reason for refusal of this planning permission and can be dealt with by way of condition to control deliveries during construction. Therefore, notwithstanding the objections received and the comments from Hampshire County Council Countryside and Access, in light of the support received from the Highways Officer, the proposal has been considered and the scale of the development is not considered to create an overriding material impact upon the flow of traffic or upon highway safety. It is also a material consideration that the council have previously accepted the use of this access in highway safety terms in approving application 15/02123/FUL. The physical circumstances along the PROW have not materially altered since the past permission that could justify a different conclusion now. As such it is considered that the proposal accords with Policy CN9 of the Local Plan. Paragraph 98 of the NPPF states that public rights of way and access should be protected and enhanced with opportunities sought to provide better facilities for users, including by adding links to existing networks. It is noted, that to access the site, the applicant is required to establish a right of access across the PROW, for motorised and non-motorised users, as without obtaining this permission, the applicant would be driving over the footpath without lawful authority, which is an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988. However, it is acknowledged that land ownership is not a planning matter and it would be for the applicant / developer and future occupiers / purchasers of the proposed dwelling to satisfy themselves that they have the necessary access rights across the PROW and it is their responsibility to obtain this permission from Hampshire County Council as Highway Authority. As such, regardless of the outcome of this application, an informative has been attached to this permission to draw the applicant’s attention to their responsibility to be satisfied that they have the correct authority / access to the site over this PROW. Therefore, any works (including trenches, services and drainage (as shown on the Tree Protection Plan drawing no. 05138/2018) proposed on the PROW to Bishopswood Lane will require a S.278 highways agreement from Hampshire County Council, however, this is not a matter to be dealt with by planning condition and remains the responsibility of the applicant / land owner. In respect of construction and in light of the Highways Officer comments, it is necessary for the applicant to provide further clarification as to the type of construction vehicles which will be used during construction and to demonstrate that construction vehicles can safely access and egress the site in a forward gear and there is sufficient turning space within the site to allow vehicles to turn and to exit the site and the PROW in forward gear. This in order to avoid construction vehicles reversing out of the site onto the PROW and onto Bishopswood Lane which is considered unacceptable and contrary to Policy CN9 of the Local Plan in respect of highways safety. In respect of access to the site, it is considered that the site is accessible from a main highways and, subject to the necessary conditions regarding construction vehicles and deliveries, the application is considered to be in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Local Plan.

- Parking The proposed dwelling will have 3 bedrooms and will be located within a rural settlement for the purposes of the Parking SPD (2018) residential parking standards. As such, the proposal is required to provide 2 parking spaces and 2 long stay and 1 short stay cycle spaces. It has been clearly demonstrated on the submitted plans that the proposed dwelling will include 3 parking spaces. Although no information has been submitted with the application to determine whether 2 long stay and 1 short stay cycle spaces will be provided, this information has been requested by way of condition.

- Refuse and recycling The proposed development must also demonstrate satisfactory provision for the storage and collection of refuse and recycling, in line with Appendix 3 of the Design and Sustainability SPD (2018). As with cycle storage, no information has been submitted with the application demonstrating the location of such storage, and this information has been requested by way of condition. In respect of highways, access, parking and refuse and recycling, it is considered that, subject to conditions and informatives, the application is in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Local Plan and the Parking SPD. Trees Policy EM1 of the Local Plan requires that development proposals respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected, paying particular regard to b) the visual amenity and scenic quality and e) trees, ancient woodland and hedgerows. A tree survey was prepared and submitted with the application for consideration and to support the development proposal. This identified that there are a number of trees along the western boundary of the site which are protected by Tree Preservation Order (TPO) BDB/364 made by the Council in 1999 to protect trees considered to be of visual amenity during development of the surrounding land. Originally there were four trees, however, one tree (T6) was reduced to standing habitat following structural failure in 2015. Oak tree (T5) has been found to be in poor condition and a recommendation for further investigatory work and substantive remedial pruning has been made within the tree survey to address the risk of stem failure. It is considered that given the status of this tree, this work is required regardless of whether or not the proposed development is approved. If all other matters had been considered acceptable this would have been detailed and controlled by way of condition. Following amendments to the plans, both the building and parking area encroach into the root protection areas of Oak tree (T4). A modest canopy lift will be required as a result of the proposal for tree T4, however, it is considered within the trees ability to cope with such pruning without impacting upon its health or value in respect of amenity. In order to minimise the harm to the tree the arboriculturist has specified the use of a piled foundation with raised bean above existing ground level, along with a no-dig style drive. If all other matters had been considered acceptable, full details including section drawings would have been required and would have been controlled by way of condition. A joint statement by the project arboriculturist and an appropriate engineer would also have been required to confirm that the finalised foundation specification was fit for purpose in respect of supporting the proposed dwelling and in respect of protecting the trees at the site. The Tree Officer also recommended the site and trees be supervised during construction to ensure the protection of sensitive trees. This information has been requested as part of a planning condition. In this respect, no objections are raised to the proposal and it is therefore considered that the application is in accordance with Policy EM1 of the Local Plan.

Biodiversity The Biodiversity Officer was consulted and raised no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of an informative to ensure the applicant is aware of breeding birds, and clearance of on-site vegetation to ensure that it is maintained so as to not encourage re-inhabitation of reptiles at the site during construction, both of which are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. An informative has been attached at the end of this report in respect of this matter. No other objections were raised in this regard and it is therefore considered that the application is in accordance with Policy EM4 of the Local Plan. Community Infrastructure Requirements The application was scoped and no site specific requirements for tariff style contributions (i.e. pooled) were identified given the existing provision in the area and as such contributions are not considered necessary and have not been sought, or secured by way of a legal agreement. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable. From these forms, it would appear that the development would be exempt from any CIL payments given that the development is sought on the basis of self-build exemption for a new build house. Other matters In respect of the Certificates submitted with the application. It is acknowledged that Certificate C was served on the same date the application was submitted. Although it is good practice to serve the notice for 21 days ahead of submitting an application, the necessary timeframes for serving the notice have been complied with and no rightful owners have been forthcoming regarding the proposal and right of access. In this respect, the application is deemed to be in compliance with statutory requirements. Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans: Location Plan Drawing No. 01 REV A (received 9 August 2018) Site Plan Drawing No. 1 REV A (received 15 October 2018) Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations Drawing No. MFP-201-02 (received 15 October 2018) Topographical Survey Drawing No. TGL0929 (received 9 August 2018) Tree Protection Plan Drawing No. PLAN 05138/2018 (received 15 October 2018)




3 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the

development hereby permitted shall be those as approved under condition 3 of application ref: 17/04163/CONDN.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

4 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no additional openings shall be inserted at first floor or roof level on the western or eastern elevations of the building without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority or an application made for that purpose. REASON: To protect the amenity and privacy of the occupiers of adjoining property in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

5 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or the use commence,

whichever is the sooner, until 3 vehicle parking spaces have been constructed and surfaced in accordance with the approved details and that area shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than parking, loading and unloading of vehicles. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

6 The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied or the use commence,

whichever is the sooner, until details of the secure cycle parking facilities for 2 long and 1 short stay places, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such drawings to show the position, design, materials and finishes thereof. The approved secure cycle storage shall be constructed and fully implemented before occupation or the approved use commences, whichever is the sooner, and the areas of land so provided shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details and shall not be used for any purposes, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To improve provision for cyclists and discourage the use of the private car wherever possible and in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

7 Notwithstanding the submitted drawings, within three months of the commencement

of development, full details (including levels) of the refuse and recycling storage and collection facilities and the associated access routes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be constructed and fully implemented prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby approved and shall thereafter be retained for that specific purpose. REASON: In the absence of details being submitted to accompany the planning application, details are required in accordance with Appendix 3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018) and to improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies EM1, EM10, EM11 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

8 Prior to commencement of the development, the applicant shall confirm the type of

construction vehicles which will be used on site and submit swept paths which demonstrate sufficient space for construction vehicles to turn in order to demonstrate that they can access and egress the site in a forward gear. The applicant is required to submit a plan identifying locations on site for parking of construction vehicles and the storage of construction materials. This information shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the areas identified shall be used for the intended purpose only for the duration of the construction period.

REASON: Details are required prior to commencement because insufficient information has been submitted with the application in this regard, to ensure highway safety and in accordance with Policy EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.


any spoil from the site shall take place between 0730-0900 or between 1700-1800 Monday to Friday or before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays, nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

10 No development shall take place on site until details of the method of construction

of the means of access and details of any proposed gates have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved access details shall be constructed and fully implemented before the commencement of building and other operations on the site or the use hereby approved is commenced and shall be thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details. REASON: Details are required prior to commencement because insufficient information has been submitted with the application in this regard, to ensure that a satisfactory means of access to the highway is constructed before the approved buildings in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

11 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or the use commence,

whichever is the sooner, until full details of both hard and soft landscape proposals, details of implementation, and a landscape maintenance schedule shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include, means of enclosure, soft landscaping details, car parking layouts, circulation areas and hard surfacing materials. The soft landscape details shall include planting plan, specification (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment), schedules of plants, (including replacement trees where appropriate), noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, as well as any works to enhance wildlife habitats where appropriate. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and a timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of species, size and number as originally approved. REASON: Details are required because insufficient detail has been submitted with the application and in order to ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs and in accordance with Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.


procedures and special engineering solutions shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural report and method statement ref: Arboricultural Report SCD 05138/2018 prepared by Duckworths Arboriculture (dated September 2018). REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and policy EM1 of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.

13 No development including site clearance, demolition, ground preparation, temporary

access construction/widening, material storage or construction works shall commence on site until a plan showing the location of all existing and proposed utility services has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include gas, electricity, communications, water and drainage. No development or other operations shall take place other than in complete accordance with the Utility Plan. REASON: Details are required prior to commencement because insufficient information has been submitted with the application in this regard, to ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and policy EM1 of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.

14 No development including ground preparation, temporary access construction or

construction work shall commence on site until a Tree Works Specification has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specification shall be prepared in accordance British Standard BS3998:2010 Tree Work- Recommendations. No development shall take place other than in complete accordance with the Tree Works Specification. REASON: Details are required prior to commencement because insufficient information has been submitted with the application in this regard, to ensure that reasonable measures are taken to establish trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and policy EM1 of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.



1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific

matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met.

1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a

period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £116 or £34 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

2. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and creative manner:-

seeking further information following receipt of the application;

seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the application;

considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement (in accordance with paragraphs 54-57).

In this instance:

the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit.


3. Consent under the Town and Country Planning Acts must not be taken as approval

for any works carried out on any footway, including a Public Right of Way, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the publicly maintained highway. The applicant will be required to enter into a Highway Agreement with Hampshire County Council as Highway Authority or agree the provision of a contribution towards any necessary improvement of the existing highway to provide access to the development. Advice on this matter can be obtained from Hampshire County Council's Area Office, telephone 0300 555 1388, and HCC website.

4. Site clearance of vegetation should ideally be undertaken outside of bird breeding

season (March to August) inclusive. If clearance is undertaken during this time period then the area should be searched by a suitably qualified ecologist for signs of nesting birds. If evidence of nesting is found then works should cease within that area until nesting has finished and fledglings have left the nest.

In relation to clearance of the onsite vegetation I would recommend sequential cutting to 100mm of the present vegetation followed by a week later cutting to 50mm as the vegetation now looks quite rank and may have possibilities for reptiles such as slow worms. Once the vegetation is at 50mm it needs to be kept in such a fashion up to development in order to prevent reptiles re-inhabiting the site. Clearance of on site wood piles and rubble etc should be undertaken carefully and any reptiles located should be removed to a safe area by a suitably qualified ecologist.

Location plan

Proposed Site Layout Plan

Elevations


Application no: 18/02477/HSE


Site Address 39 Blenheim Road Old Basing RG24 7HP

Proposal Retrospective amendments to planning permission 17/03075/HSE including change of materials to roof tiles, installation of 1 no. additional roof light to side (south) elevation and removal of window to ground floor side (south) elevation. Erection of timber structure to side (south) elevation of property. Erection of greenhouse and cycle store to side (north) elevation of property and installation of new door to side (north) elevation. Erection of single storey rear extension including timber decking. Construction of timber pergola and swing to front garden.

Registered: 24 August 2018 Expiry Date: 11 January 2019


Householder Permission

Case Officer: Nicola Marchant 01256 845468

Applicant: Mrs Maria Tharshini Marinus

Agent: Mr Andrew Alfred

Ward: Basing Ward Member(s): Cllr Onnalee Cubitt Cllr Sven Godesen Cllr Paul Gaskell

Parish: OLD BASING AND LYCHPIT CP

OS Grid Reference: 467126 152110


Reasons for Approval 1. The proposed development would be of an appropriate design and relates to the

surrounding development in a sympathetic manner and as such complies with the National Planning policy Framework (2018), Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018), Policy 7 of the Old Basing and Lychpit Village Neighbourhood Plan 2015 – 2029and the Old Basing and Lychpit Village Design Statement 2005.

2. The proposal would neither dominate nor compete with the host building and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018), Policy 7 of the Old Basing and Lychpit Village Neighbourhood Plan 2015 – 2029 and the Old Basing and Lychpit Village Design Statement 2005.

3. The proposed development would provide adequate parking provision in accordance with highway requirements, and as such would accord with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2018).


Comments The application is brought to the Development Control Committee in line with the Council's Scheme of Delegation due to the number of letters of objection which have been received and the Officer's recommendation for approval. Planning Policy The site is located within the Old Basing Settlement Policy Boundary. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018) Section 2 (Achieving sustainable development) Section 4 (Decision-making) Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy CN9 (Transport) Old Basing & Lychpit Neighbourhood Plan 2015-2029 Policy 3 Settlement Policy Boundary Policy 7 Appearance of Development Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018) Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2018) Old Basing and Lychpit Village Design Statement 2005 Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD (March 2018) Description of Site The application site is a triangular shaped plot located at the end of a residential cul-de-sac. The street scene is characterised predominantly by detached properties, many of which have been extended in the past. The host dwelling is a chalet style bungalow with accommodation in the roof space served by roof lights. The property has a painted render and stone clad appearance with a concrete tiled roof. To the front of the host dwelling there is an arched canopy creating a small sheltered area and the windows have iron shutters. There is a separate vehicular and pedestrian access serving the property with the vehicular access being to the south of the western boundary with the pedestrian access further north of the western boundary. The property is surrounded along the front boundaries by a rendered wall approximately 2m in height, dropping to less than a metre to the northern part of the western boundary by the pedestrian gate. This wall continues along the northern boundary to enclose the garden. There is an existing detached single pitched roof garage to the south of the host dwelling and the property has been extended to the rear by way of a sun room. To the rear of the property there is a 1.8m high wooden panel fence.

Proposal Retrospective amendments to planning permission 17/03075/HSE (Erection of single storey rear extension and extension of existing roof forming additional living accommodation with the construction of rear dormer and rooflights in side elevations) including;

1. Amendments to the single storey rear extension approved under 17/03075/HSE which comprises the extension being 0.5m wider, 0.5m deeper and 0.2m higher (resulting in a total extension 9.5m by 5m by 3m in height) and the two sets of bifolding doors to be replaced with one continuous bifolding door. The extension also includes an area of decking to the rear of the property, which was not included in the original permission.

2. Change of materials to roof tiles 3. Installation of 1 no. additional roof light to side (south) elevation to serve ensuite. 4. Removal of window to ground floor side (south) elevation 5. Erection of timber porch like structure to side (south) elevation of property

measuring 2.7min width and 0.8m in depth with an overall height of 2.6m 6. Erection of greenhouse and cycle store to side (north) elevation of property. The

green house measures 1.5m in width and 4.8m in depth with an overall height of 2.4m. The cycle store measures 0.6m in width and 2 m in depth with an overall height of 2.3m.

7. Installation of new door to side (north) elevation to dining room and greenhouse 8. Construction of timber pergola and swing to front garden. The timber pergola

measures 2.1m and 2.5m high. The swing measures 1.7m and 2.6m high. Consultations Initial plans submitted - Old Basing Parish Council - Old Basing and Lychpit Parish Council would like to object for the following reasons. 1) Out of keeping-the black roof stands out beside other red bricked rooves. It is

against both the adopted Neighbourhood Plan and the Village Design Statement. The Neighbourhood plan states that ' new development should have sympathetic regard to the scale, siting, roof lines, fenestration and colour palette of neighbouring properties'

2) This should have been be a retrospective application as work has already

commenced. Permission should have been sought before work commenced. 3) The 'greenhouse' and doorway looks straight into the kitchen and through to the

bathroom of the neighbouring property, greatly effecting their privacy. The resident, who has special mobility issues, needs to use a hoist between rooms and his dignity will be compromised with this development.

4) Some of the garden structures are over 6foot high-do they require planning?

The concrete base being put down is bringing up the level of the garden effecting the privacy of properties backing on to the development.

5) Lack of parking for the size of the property. In addition to these objections neighbours have informed us that the quality of the building work has not been up to the standard it should have been. The Deputy Clerk to request

that the Borough Council representative dealing with building regulations to investigate further. Comments on Amended plans- The above planning application and in particular the retrospective application was discussed at length at the full Parish Council meeting yesterday evening. All Councillors expressed grave concerns regarding this application on the following grounds: A significant increase in the level of the garden which is now mainly concrete with the bottom half laid with Astroturf with the consequent possibility of water run-off and flooding to neighbouring properties. Despite assurance by the owners of the property that the level has not been increased, residents have photographic evidence that this is not the case. As a result of the garden level being raised the height of the fencing erected around the property is well above the 2 metre specified height. The ongoing delays by the developer in submitting a retrospective planning application despite a number of requests by the Planning Officer. This has highlighted the lack of policy or control by the Borough Council over the length of time allowed for such applications. The Parish Council is of the view that if a developer ignores such requests and does not meet a specified deadline, the application should be automatically refused. In addition to the above Councillors wished to reinforce the Planning Committee's original objections and those of local residents, namely the black roof tiles being out of keeping with adjacent properties and against the adopted Neighbourhood Plan and Village Design Statement. The "greenhouse" and doorway looking directly into the neighbouring property resulting in a complete lack of privacy and the lack of parking for the size of the property. Councillors have asked me to seek assurance that should this application be approved, the Borough Council will accept responsibility for the consequences of potential flooding to neighbouring properties and will compensate those affected accordingly. Councillors also formally request that the Borough Council urgently reviews its policy on retrospective planning applications to agree a time deadline that such applications must meet to avoid the sort of delaying tactics employed in this instance and to specify that any existing planning application or approval will be overturned and the application dismissed. This request highlights the continued frustration of Councillors that the Borough Council's Planning Officers routinely request retrospective planning applications in situations where the original planning application has not been adhered to or planning regulations deliberately flouted thereby enabling unsuitable building projects to proceed. Public Observations Eight letters of objection received -

Instead of two roof lights that were on the original plans they have fitted three windows.

The colour of the roof tiles that have been fitted clearly are not as per the original plans and not in keeping with the area.

The height of the rear garden has been elevated to the point the owners will be looking down into gardens of neighbours.

The green house and cycle storage will increase the square footage and over develop the site.

Excessive amount of concrete and concrete structure.

Vans are parked along the road and building materials.

Have building regulations been adhered to as some of the materials do not seem appropriate.

There appears to be a window or door on the side extension not shown on the original plans.

Front and rear garden appears as hard standing meaning rain water will not drain

Doorway and green house will look straight into my kitchen and the doorway will have direct line of sight into my bathroom.

Removal of trees and health and safety on site.

The scale, bulk and overbearing relationship is unsatisfactory.

External lighting shining into properties. Relevant Planning History 17/03075/HSE Erection of single storey rear extension

and extension of existing roof forming additional living accommodation with the construction of rear dormer and roof lights in side elevations

Approved 09.02.18

BDB/74008 Erection of a single storey rear extension

following demolition of existing sunroom and various internal alterations. Erection of a single storey front extension to garage

Approved 04.05.11

BDB/72992 Erection of a single storey front extension

to garage. Raising of the roof and construction of roof extension to create additional living accommodation in roof space. Erection of a single storey rear extension to form new sun room.

Refused 29.09.10

BDB/71184 Single storey front and rear extensions to

existing garage. Raising of the roof and construction of roof extension to create additional living accommodation in roof space. Construction of covered veranda to rear following demolition of existing sun room

Refused 14.10.09

BDB/17873 First floor extension to form bedroom Approved 27.02.85 BDB/16591 Single storey rear extension and loft

conversion Approved 20.06.84

Assessment Planning History This property has been subject to various proposals to provide accommodation at first floor level. Planning application BDB/72992 was considered to result in development of a disproportionate scale to the host dwelling and therefore failed to respect its character and appearance. As such the application was refused.

A further planning application was submitted at the site and approved under BDB/74008 for single storey proposals. However the planning permission was not implemented and has lapsed. The most recent application at the property approved by the Development Control Committee on 7 February 2018 under 17/03075/HSE was for the erection of a single storey rear extension and extension of existing roof forming additional living accommodation with the construction of a rear dormer and roof lights in side elevations. The current application seeks to amend this permission in the manner set out above. Principle of development The site is located within the Old Basing Settlement Policy Boundary where there is a general presumption in favour of development subject to design and amenity in accordance with the Local Plan and The Old Basing Neighbourhood Plan. Impact on the character of the area/ design - Single Storey Extension Planning permission was approved under 17/03075/HSE for the erection of a single storey extension to the rear of the property. This current planning application seeks amendments to the single storey rear extension which comprises the extension to be 0.5m wider, 0.5m deeper and 0.2m higher (resulting in a total extension 9.5m, by 5m, by 3m in height) and the two sets of bifolding doors replaced with one continuous bifolding door. The extension also includes an area of decking to the rear of the property. Given the extension and decking would be located to the rear of the property, it is considered that it would not have an impact on the character of the streetscene or the wider surrounding area. Although the extension would be the entire width of the existing property given the depth and overall height of the extension, it is considered that it would not have an adverse impact on the character of the property itself. It should also be noted that a detached property could undertake a single storey rear extension up to 4m from the original rear wall of the property and up to 4m in height under permitted development (which does not require planning permission) or up to 8m from the original rear wall and 4 m in height under the prior notification of works scheme. - Roof tiles Concerns have been raised by local residents and the Parish in relation to the roof tiles of the development and the existing bungalow being changed from brown tiles as previously approved under 17/03705/HSE to black tiles, and as such, not being in keeping with the neighbouring properties. The area surrounding the application site is of a mixed character in terms of large two storey dwellings, bungalows and chalet bungalows and whilst there are a number of properties within close proximity of the application that have brown roof tiles there are also properties within the wider area that have black slate roof tiles (including nos. 18 and 20 Blenheim Road). As such, it is considered that the proposed roof tiles would not have an adverse or harmful visual impact on the character of the streetscene or the surrounding area. The proposal therefore complies with Policy EM10 of the Local Plan and Policy 7 of the Old Basing and Lychpit Neighbourhood Plan and Old Basing and Lychpit Village Design Statement.

- Additional Roof Light The existing bungalow benefited from one roof light to the side/south elevation and 1 no. additional roof light was approved as part of the planning permission under 17/03075/HSE to the side/south elevation of the property. As part of this current proposal a further roof light is proposed to the side/south elevation of the property (making a total of 3 no .roof lights) and concerns have been raised in this regard. The roof light would be visible from Blenheim Road however, given the size, design and siting of the roof light to the side roof slope and the fact it would not be visually intrusive, it is considered that it would not have a harmful visual impact upon the character of the streetscene or wider surrounding area. By virtue of the size, lack of volume, design and lack of protrusion of the roof light to the side/south property, it is considered that it would not dominate or compete with the character of the host dwelling. The roof light would appear as a proportionate addition to the side roof slope of the property. - Window Removal Given the minor nature of the window to be removed from the ground floor side/south elevation, it is considered that it would not have an impact on the character of the streetscene or surrounding area. - Timber Structure It is proposed to replace the existing rendered opening/structure to the side/south elevation of the property with a timber structure of a similar size. Given the height of the existing wall located to the front boundary of the property the structure would only be partially visible from the public realm. Whilst it is noted the materials are timber as opposed to the previous render in keeping with the existing property, given that the new fencing to the rear garden and other elements of the development are timber, which is not unusual in a residential environment, it is considered that it would not have a significant impact in terms of a harmful visual appearance on the character of the streetscene, the wider area or the property itself to warrant refusal. - Pergola/Swing The proposed pergola located to the front garden of the property would be partially screened by the existing high level wall to the front boundary, and as such it is considered that it would not have a harmful visual impact on the character of the streetscene or the wider surrounding area. Although the section of wall to the front boundary screening the proposed timber swing structure would be slightly lower, given its set back position from the boundary (approx. 5m) and openness of the structure, it is considered that it would not have an adverse impact on the streetscene or surrounding area. The proposed pergola and swing given the size of the area/garden to the front of the property and given the distance of the structures from the dwelling would not appear cramped within the plot and would not dominate or compete with the character of the host dwelling itself. - Greenhouse and Cycle Store The green house structure and the cycle store proposed to the north elevation of the property would be partially visible from Blenheim Road however, given their overall height and depth, it is considered that they would not have a significant impact on the character of the streetscene or surrounding area in terms of visual harm. It is noted concerns have

been raised with regards to the structures being considered to be overdevelopment. However, given the size of the plot and the overall size and height of the proposals, it is considered that they would form proportionate additions to the north elevation of the property.

New Door The insertion of a new door is not considered to result in any significant material change to the appearance of the building from the original approval. Impact on neighbouring amenities - Single Storey Extension The single storey rear extension would be located approximately 5m from the neighbouring property to the north of the application site (Blenheim Road). Given the distance and overall height of the extension, it is considered that it would not have a significant impact on this neighbour in terms of an overbearing effect or result in a loss of privacy or overlooking. It should also be noted that no concerns have been raised in this regard. Given the distance of the rear extension to the nearest neighbouring property to the south of the application site (approximately 20m), it is considered that it would not have a significant impact on the amenities of this neighbour. As such the extension also complies with Section 11 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document. - Greenhouse Structure and New Door in Dwelling A concern has been raised by the adjoining neighbouring property (37 Blenheim Road) with regards to the greenhouse structure and the new door way to the side of the existing property in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy. This concern has been noted however, given the height of the proposed greenhouse structure the proposed doorway, which is at ground floor level in any event, would be screened and the glazing to the greenhouse would be located to the front elevation and the roof. As such, it is considered that the doorway and the greenhouse would not result in overlooking or a loss of privacy to the neighbouring property to the north (37 Blenheim Road). - Cycle Store It is noted the proposed cycle store would be located in close proximity to the neighbouring property to the north (37 Blenheim Road). However, given the size, height and nature of the proposal (cycle storage), it is considered that this would not have an overbearing effect or result in a loss of privacy or overlooking for neighbouring dwellings. - Pergola/Swing The timber swing would be located approximately 16 m from the adjacent neighbouring property to the north (37 Blenheim Road) and the pergola would be located approximately 32m from this neighbour. Given the distances and open and lightweight nature of the structures it is considered that it would not have a significant impact on this neighbour and no objections have been raised in this regard. Given the distance of the swing and pergola to the neighbouring properties to the west (approximately 26m) and the front boundary treatment (high level wall), it is considered that this aspect of the proposal would not have an impact on neighbouring amenity.

Parking The proposal would be increasing the number of bedrooms at the property from a three bedroom property to a five bedroom property and as such would be required to provide three car parking spaces as advised in the Parking Standards SPD due to its location in an outer urban zone. It is noted concerns have been raised by the Parish Council in relation to inadequate parking, however, there is more than adequate space within the site to accommodate three car parking spaces. The proposal therefore accords with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Local Plan as well as the Parking SPD (2018). Community Infrastructure Requirements Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable. From these forms, it would appear that the development would be exempt from any CIL payments given that the development would have a gross internal area of less than 100m². Other matters - Determination Period Concerns have been raised by the Parish Council in relation to the delays by the developer in submitting a retrospective planning application and the Council not refusing the application as a result of the delays/inaccurate drawings. When a planning officer undertakes a site visit for a retrospective planning application it is important to ensure the drawings submitted reflect what has been built on site so that the description of works is correct and it is clear what the applicant is applying for planning permission for. In this instance, following a site visit it was evident that the submitted drawings were incorrect and it has taken time to allow the applicant time to rectify the matter and for consultees and neighbours to be reconsulted in relation to the amended plans. A retrospective planning application cannot be refused simply due to inaccurate drawings, and an assessment of the merits of the application, and harms, or otherwise, of the scheme must be fully considered. - Plan Detail A concern has been raised by a neighbouring property opposite the site (16 Blenheim Road) that the plans on the Basingstoke and Deane Website do not show the door to the north elevation. The door would be hidden behind the wall of the side structure/greenhouse and as such would not be visible on the proposed elevational drawings, however, the door is clearly shown on the floor plan and has been fully considered when determining this application (as set out in preceding sections). - Lighting Objections have been received in relation to the external lighting installed at the property due to the brightness of the lights shining onto neighbouring properties. This would not be considered to be a planning matter and would be a matter to raise with our Environmental Health Team.

- Garden Level/Astro Turf A number of objections have been received by local residents and the Parish Council in relation to the amount of concrete that has been laid and the height of the rear garden being increased due to the laying of astro turf and new fencing erected to the side boundaries of the rear garden. This does not form part of the planning application, and does not fall for assessment as part of this application. The stated concern is that this would cause unnecessary overlooking and loss of privacy to the neighbours. Although concrete/hard-core has been laid to the rear garden to level the garden and to form a base for the astro turf it has not had a significant impact on the levels of the site, and as such it is not considered to be development and therefore does not require planning permission. Concerns have also been raised by local residents and the Parish Council in relation to the concrete base/hard-core and astro turf to the rear garden of the property causing possible flooding issues as rain water will not be able to drain away. Whilst this is not a matter for consideration as part of this application there are a number of gully’s/drains sited within the astro turf to the rear garden and a large soakaway has also been installed, which has been inspected by the Council Building Control Officer who has confirmed the soakaway is more than sufficient for the purposes of surface water drainage at this site. Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans: Drawing number PL01 Drawing number S 006R5 Drawing number S 002R5 Drawing number S 005R5 Drawing number S 004R5 Plan - Timber Structure Plans - Pergola Plan - Swing REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Informative(s):- 1. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)




considering the imposition of conditions

In this instance:

the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit;


Location plan

Block Plan

Pergola

Timber Structure

Swing

Elevations

Floor Plans

Ground Floor

First Floor


Application no: 18/02991/ROC


Site Address Land At Langdale Woods Lane Cliddesden Hampshire

Proposal Variation of condition 1 of permission 18/01162/FUL to amend the plan numbers (location plan and site plan) to allow redefining of the boundaries for plots 3 and 4

Registered: 10 October 2018 Expiry Date: 11 January 2019


Removal/Variation of Condition (Sec 73)


Applicant: Bellmore Homes Ltd Agent: Tony Thorpe

Ward: Upton Grey And The Candovers

Ward Member(s): Cllr Mark Ruffell

Parish: CLIDDESDEN CP OS Grid Reference: 462900 149207


Reasons for Approval 1. The proposed development would be of an appropriate design and relate to

surrounding development in a sympathetic manner. The proposed development is appropriate in design terms and would preserve the Character of the Cliddesden Conservation Area, as such the development complies with Policies EM1, EM10 and EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

2. The proposed layout would continue to provide adequate amenity space for future occupiers of the dwellings in accordance with Design principle RA2 as set out within the Design and Sustainability SPD, Policy EM10 2b) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

General comments This application has been brought before the Development Control Committee due to the number of objections received and the Officers’ recommendation for approval, in line with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation. Planning Policy The site lies within the Cliddesden Settlement Policy Boundary and adjacent the Cliddesden Conservation Area. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018) Section 2 (Achieving sustainable development) Section 4 (Decision-making) Section 5 (Delivering a sufficient supply of homes) Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport)

http://planning.basingstoke.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=PGEBDYCRLMW00

Section 11 (Making effective use of land) Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) Section 14 (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change) Section 15 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) Section 16 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Presumption on Favour of Sustainable Development) Policy SS1 (Scale and Distribution of New Housing) Policy CN1 (Affordable Housing) Policy CN3 (Housing Mix for Market Housing) Policy CN8 (Community, Leisure and Cultural Facilities) Policy CN9 (Transport) Policy EM1 (Landscape) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Use) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy EM11 (The Historic Environment) Policy EM12 (Pollution) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Design and Sustainability SPD (2018) Housing SPD (2018) Landscape and Biodiversity SPD (2008) Parking Standards SPD (2018) Planning Obligations for Infrastructure (2018) Other material documents The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended 2015) Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Description of Site The site previously contained a 1950’s detached bungalow of brick and tile construction with a hipped roof and dormer windows. The site benefits from previous planning permission for the demolition of the bungalow and the erection of 4 dwellings. Application 18/01162/FUL was approved on the 19.06.2018 and has been subsequently implemented, at the time of site visit, all four properties have had their foundations laid and the construction of the rear two plots was roughly at first floor level. The site has been cleared and levelled and earthworks at the front of the site had been undertaken as part of access widening. Dwellings surround the site to the east, west and south, to the north lies paddock land with agricultural buildings beyond. The Cliddesden Conservation Area lies immediately to the east of the site. The character of this part of Woods Lane is formed by a mixture of detached chalet bungalows fronting the road in a linear layout. Generally, dwellings are set back from the road in deep plots, with a degree of space between each building and landscaped front gardens softened by tree and shrub vegetation.

Proposal This application proposes to vary condition 1 attached to planning permission 18/01162/FUL (Erection of 1 no. 3 bed, 1 no. 4 bed and 2 no. 5 bed dwellings, with 4 no. carports and new access (amended scheme to 17/03218/FUL)) and which is set out in full below:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: - Location and Site Plan - Drawing No. 5453.1B - Plot 1 Plans - Drawing No. 5453.3A - Plot 2 Plans - Drawing No. 5453.4A - Plot 3 Plans - Drawing No. 5453.6A - Plot 4 Plans - Drawing No. 5453.5A - Section Plan - Drawing No. 5453.2 - Construction Method Statement. REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

This application proposes to amend this condition by substituting the approved plan numbers. The proposed plans would result in an area of ‘retained land’ by virtue of reduced garden sizes for plots 3 and 4. Consultations Parish Council: “This application seeks to remove the garden area assigned to Plots 3 and 4, and so would remove the amenity value of this green space for the families who move in. Green space and planting is important in linking this development of four houses to its surroundings and the wider landscape. It provides some means for the site to be in keeping with its rural Edge of Village location. Therefore, should this area be separated, it should be conditional that it be used only for green space – ideally native tree planting – and so respect the character of the area, continue to provide some amenity value for incoming residents, enhance the natural environment, and achieve a meaningful gain in biodiversity.” Public Observations Five letters of objection received as summarised below:

Loss of green space.

Result in a more urban appearance, at odds with the sites village edge/rural setting.

Not in-keeping with the Village Design Statement.

Concerns in regards to how land would be used should this application be allowed.

Access concerns.

Loss of amenity space for plots 3 and 4 to the detriment of future inhabitants.

Acoustic fencing is not appropriate.

Concern about future road/access through land to field to the north of site, and any development of it.

Concerns regarding future use of ‘retained land’ for additional dwelling.

Impact on wildlife.

Concerns regarding access for emergency vehicles. Relevant Planning History 14/00829/FUL Erection of 2 no. three bedroom detached

dwellings with single garages and provision for access, parking, turning and landscape

Withdrawn 01.08.14

15/00939/HSE Alterations to existing bungalow including

raising of roof to create living space, improvement to site access and demolition of 2no. existing single garages and erection of replacement double garage.

Approved 13.05.15

15/03545/OUT Outline application for erection of 2 no.

detached dwellings with garages to include access and layout

Approved 24.03.16

16/04529/RES Reserved matters application for the scale

and appearance for the erection of 2 no. detached dwellings with garages (pursuant to Outline planning permission 15/03545/OUT)

Approved 08.02.17

17/03218/FUL Erection of 1 no. 3 bed, 1 no. 4 bed and 2

no. 5 bed dwellings, with 2 carports and new access

Approved 09.02.18

18/01162/FUL

Erection of 1 no. 3 bed, 1 no. 4 bed and 2 no. 5 bed dwellings, with 4 no. carports and new access (amended scheme to 17/03218/FUL)

Approved

19.06.18

18/03172/FUL Erection of a detached dwelling and new access (between plots 3 and 4 approved under 18/01162/FUL)

Linked Application -Pending Determination

Assessment Principle of development This application is made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary a condition imposed upon a decision already granted planning permission by the Local Planning Authority. Section 73 of the Act instructs the Local Planning Authority to consider the variation to, or relief of conditions that are applied for, stating that "if they [the LPA] decide that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions differing from those subject to which the previous permission was granted….they shall grant permission accordingly" (s.73(1)(a)). As such, the Local Planning Authority can grant permission unconditionally or subject to different conditions, or alternatively refuse the application if it is deemed that the original condition(s) should remain in place. The variation to the planning permission would not revoke the development, however, the grant of a planning permission under Section 73 essentially provides a new planning permission. It is therefore necessary to reconsider the overall development proposal

against the development plan. Since 18/01162/FUL was granted, the revised 2018 version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been published. Basingstoke and Deane Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), Design and Sustainability SPD, Housing SPD and Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD have also been adopted. As such, this application will be assessed having regard to such documents. The principle of new dwellings on the site has been established following the grant of planning permission under application 18/01162/FUL (for 4 dwellings following demolition of the existing bungalow) on the 19th June 2018. This permission has subsequently been implemented. This current application seeks permission to vary condition 1 (plans) which was placed on that application, in order to provide an alternative site layout. This relates predominantly to plots 3 and 4 which would see there garden sizes reduced. These changes are all considered below. Of relevance is a separate planning application for the erection of a new dwelling and access to be positioned between plots 3 and 4 which is currently under consideration by the Local Planning Authority and pending determination. Impact on the character of the area/ design The proposed changes to the approved layout would see the side garden areas for Plots 3 and 4 reduced by approximately 200m2 each. This would significantly reduce the space around dwellings and would result in uncharacteristically small plots, resulting in the development having a more urban appearance than the scheme approved. However, this harm could be mitigated via an appropriate landscape scheme on the ‘retained land’, and as such doesn’t warrant refusal on this basis. In any case, it is acknowledged that the boundary changes could be carried out without planning permission. Although there is an intention to add an additional dwelling on this ‘retained land’ as is proposed under application 18/03172/FUL, each application must be determined on its own merits. In this instance, it is considered that the reduced plots sizes would not have an adverse impact upon the character of the area, including the Cliddesden Conservation Area subject to securing appropriate landscaping of the ‘retained land’, via condition. The proposal, subject to conditions, accords with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan. Impact on amenities Policy EM10 2b) requires development to provide a high quality of amenity for occupants of the developments and neighbouring properties. Design principle RA2 as set out within the Design and Sustainability SPD requires minimum garden sizes of three bedroomed or more properties to measure 60 m2, whilst RA3 states that each dwelling must have a minimum garden depth of 10 m. In this instance, plot 3 would provide 170 m2 of private amenity space whilst plot 4 would provide 200 m2. Each plot would continue to provide approximately a 10m garden depth, as previously approved. Given that these dwelling are likely to be family homes, it is appropriate that they provide adequate amenities for children to play. Safe and convenient access to and from the site to available public amenity space has not been demonstrated. Woods Lane is narrow, unpaved and unlit nature of Woods Lane, it is therefore appropriate that such amenity space be provided on site, ideally within each plot.

As both plot 3 and 4 would provide amenity areas significantly in excess of the standards as set out within the Design and Sustainability SPD, and a condition could secure appropriate landscaping details for the ‘retained land’, it is not considered that the reduced garden sizes would warrant a reason for refusal. The development therefore accords with Policy EM10 in this regard. The proposed changes to the layout would not have any impact upon neighbouring properties. The impact of the proposal upon neighbouring properties was considered under application 18/01162/FUL. Highways and Parking The parking spaces shown on the proposed site plan do not accord with dimensions as set out within the recently adopted Parking SPD. This requires unconfined spaces to measure 2.7 x 5.2m. Application 18/01162/FUL was considered and approved under the previous Parking Standards document which required spaces of 2.4 x 4.8m. Given that 18/01162/FUL has been implemented, it is not considered that the reduced parking space sizes in this instance would warrant a reason for refusal. Each plot provides a large area for parking and manoeuvring and it is not considered that the reduced sizes in this instance would result in indiscriminate on street parking, which would be detrimental to the free flow and safety of the highway network. Community Infrastructure Requirements Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable. From these forms, it would appear that the development would be exempt from any CIL payments given that there has been no increase in floor area since the approval of application 18/01162/FUL. Other matters The grant of a planning permission under Section 73 enables the Local Planning Authority to impose planning conditions that are deemed appropriate and meet the relevant tests as cited within the NPPF (para 56). Given that the application provides a new planning permission, it is considered necessary and reasonable to continue to impose those planning conditions attached to planning permission 18/01162/FUL that remain relevant to the development for clarity and completeness, with amended phrasing where applicable. Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans and where not superseded, those submitted and approved under application 18/01162/FUL:

18/28/05(2) Rev A - Site Plan Plot 1 Plans - Drawing No. 5453.3A (submitted and approved under 18/01162/FUL) Plot 2 Plans - Drawing No. 5453.4A (submitted and approved under 18/01162/FUL) Plot 3 Plans - Drawing No. 5453.6A (submitted and approved under 18/01162/FUL) Plot 4 Plans - Drawing No. 5453.5A (submitted and approved under 18/01162/FUL) Section Plan - Drawing No. 5453.2 (submitted and approved under 18/01162/FUL) Construction Method Statement (submitted and approved under 18/01162/FUL) REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match, in type, colour and texture those as approved on the 12.10.18 under condition 3 of 18/01162/FUL, submitted under Discharge of Condition Application 18/01831/CONDN and as listed below:

Red Brown Facing Bricks - Ibstock Olde Village Brown Plain Clay Tiles - Sandtoft Humber Flanders Triple Glazed Timber Windows by 'Munster Joinery' - Colour 1015 Timber Doors - Colour 1015 Timber Cladding - Treated Sawn Featheredge Light Colour Car Post Posts - Green Oak Sawn Timber Garage Doors - Timber SWR - Woodrite Balmoral Chalfont - Colour 1015 Flat Roofs - Single Ply Spec G410-ELF

The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity of the area, adjacent to the Conservation Area and to ensure a high quality of design in accordance and in accordance with Policies EM1, EM10 and EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

3 Within one month of the date of permission, full details of both hard and soft

landscape proposals shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include, means of enclosure, car parking layouts, pedestrian access and circulation areas and hard surfacing materials. Soft landscape details shall include planting plan to include the position, species and size of all new trees proposed for the development and shall include an assessment of all underground and overhead services. The planting plan shall also include specific tree planting details demonstrating that the underground soil volume can be achieved to support the tree to healthy maturity as well as any protection deemed necessary to reduce the likelihood of breakage/vandalism to acceptable levels. Details of young tree maintenance including watering, weeding, stake removal, formative pruning and failed tree replacement shall also be required as part of the planting plan. The works approved shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of the building(s). In addition, a maintenance programme detailing all operations to be carried out in order to allow successful establishment of planting, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the relevant start of the external works or prior to occupation of any of the dwellings, whichever is sooner. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Details are required in order to ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscaping and to establish trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself and to preserve the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

4 The developer shall ensure that provision is retained for the parking and turning on

site of operatives and construction vehicles, together with storage on site of construction materials. The provision shall be retained and used for the intended purpose for the duration of the construction period and that area shall not be used for any other purposes other than the parking and turning of vehicles and storage of

construction materials respectively. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) fences or other means of enclosure at road junctions shall be set back to the sight lines shown on the approved plan before the development hereby permitted commences on site and these visibility splays shall thereafter be permanently kept free of obstacles. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

6 The means of enclosure along the dashed visibility sightline displayed on the

approved plan 5453.1B, submitted under application 18/01162/FUL, at the boundary with the highway shall be maintained to a height not exceeding 600mm from ground level for a distance of 6 metres from the centre of the access in both directions. REASON: To ensure adequate visibility is provided on exit of the site and retained in perpetuity in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

7 The Tree and Hedge Protection Plan (5453.7 Rev C) approved under discharge of

conditions application 18/01831/CONDN on the 12.10.18 in regards to condition 9 of application 18/01162/FUL shall be erected within one week of the date of this permission, if not already in place, and shall be maintained as such until the area is to be landscaped. REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself in accordance with Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029 and advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

8 Prior to occupation of any of the approved dwellings, a Habitat Enhancement Plan

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved. REASON: To help protect and enhance the biodiversity of the area in the long-term, in accordance with Policy EM4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.


(General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no building, structure or other alteration permitted by Classes A, B, C and E of Part 1 and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be erected on the application site without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose. REASON: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site in the interests of the amenity of the area and to safeguard important trees and hedges in accordance with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

10 No work relating to the construction of the development hereby approved, including

works of demolition or preparation prior to operations, or internal painting or fitting out, shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised

public holidays. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.


any spoil from the site shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.

12 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until a

certification of compliance demonstrating that the development has achieved the water efficiency standard of 110 litres of water per person per day (or less) has been submitted (by an independent and suitably accredited body) to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. REASON: Details are required to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted water efficiency information and to improve the overall sustainability of the development, in accordance with Policy EM9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

13 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until

there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority certificates demonstrating that a) sufficient sampling of imported material has taken place and b) the imported material is free from unacceptable levels of contamination. REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

14 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures

set out within Clover Acoustics Report (3890-R1) submitted and approved under discharge of conditions application 18/01831/CONDN on the 12.10.18. REASON: To ensure that acceptable noise levels within the dwellings and the curtilages of the dwellings are not exceeded in the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

15 No dwelling shall be occupied until all the works which form part of the scheme for

protecting the proposed dwellings from road traffic noise as approved by the Local Planning Authority under condition 17 above have been completed. All works which form part of the approved scheme shall be completed prior to first occupation. The approved scheme shall be thereafter maintained. REASON: To ensure that acceptable noise levels within the dwellings and the curtilages of the dwellings are not exceeded in the interests of residential amenity and in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

16 No dwelling shall be occupied until a post completion noise survey has been

undertaken by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant, and a report submitted to

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The post completion testing shall assess performance of the noise mitigation measures against the noise levels as set in condition 17. A method statement shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the survey being undertaken. REASON: In the interests of residential amenity, and to ensure acceptable noise levels are not exceeded within the dwellings and in accordance with Policies EM10 and EM12 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

17 The windows at first floor level on the east and west elevations of plots 1,2,3 and 4

shall be glazed with obscured glass, to at least to the equivalent of Pilkington level 4 standard, precise details of which, together with details of any means of opening, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before installation and shall be permanently maintained in that condition. REASON: To protect the privacy of the adjacent properties (existing and proposed) and to prevent overlooking, in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.


(General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no additional openings shall be inserted at first floor level in the east or west elevations of the buildings hereby approved. REASON: To protect the amenity and privacy of the occupiers of adjoining property in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

Informative(s):- 1.1 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must

be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific

matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met.

1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a

period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £116 or £34 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.



proactively offering a pre-application advice (in accordance with paragraphs 39 - 46); seeking further information following receipt of the application; seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the application; considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement (in accordance with paragraphs 54-57).

In this instance:

the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit;


3. If this development will result in new postal addresses or changes in addresses,

please contact the Council's Street Naming and Numbering team on 01256 845539 or email [email protected] to commence the process. Details can also be found on the Council's website.

4. Where it is predicted that the internal noise levels specified above will not be met with

windows open despite mitigation strategies, an alternative method of mechanical ventilation must be specified to supply outside air to habitable rooms with windows closed, and relieve the need to open windows. Background and passive ventilators, and system 3 extraction systems are not considered adequate for this purpose. Methods may include a system 4 MVHR with cool air by-pass, or standalone mechanical units supplying outside air to each affected habitable room.

Location Plan

Proposed Site plan




Site Address 1 Loddon Mall Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7HY

Proposal Change of use from Class A1 use to sui generis for use as a sun bed tanning salon and installation of new display window to west elevation

Registered: 24 October 2018 Expiry Date: 19 December 2018



Case Officer: Meredith Baker 01256 845444

Applicant: Consol Agent: Lee Mountford

Ward: Eastrop Ward Member(s): Cllr Gavin James Cllr Stuart Parker

Parish: OS Grid Reference: 463680 152412


Reasons for Approval 1. The proposed change of use would enhance the vitality of the Town Centre location

by reinstating the commercial activity of the currently vacant unit. The proposal would therefore comply with the general aims of Policy EP3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

2. The proposed display window is of an appropriate design that relates to surrounding development in a sympathetic manner. The development is appropriate in design terms and would neither dominate or compete with the host building or adversely impact the character of the area or street scene. As such the proposal complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018).

3. The proposal would not result in any harm to the amenities of adjoining land uses in the vicinity more than could reasonably be expected from the site's current use. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

4. The proposed development would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety

and adequate parking would be provided within the wider Town Centre car parks to serve the proposed development. As such the proposal would comply with Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

General comments The application is brought to Development Control Committee in line with the scheme of delegation. The proposal is contrary to Policy EP3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and given the officer's recommendation to approve the proposal represents a departure from the Local Plan, the application must be determined by the Development Control Committee.

http://planning.basingstoke.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=PGN4KBCRLSY00

Planning Policy The application site is located within the Basingstoke Town Settlement Policy Boundary and Basingstoke District Centre. It is also located within the locally designated Primary Shopping Area and Primary Shopping Frontage. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018) Section 2 (Achieving sustainable development) Section 4 (Decision-making) Section 7 (Ensuring the vitality of town centres) Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Sustainable Development) Policy CN9 (Transport) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy EM12 (Pollution) Policy EP1 (Economic Growth and Investment) Policy EP3 (Town, District and Local Centres) Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD (March 2018) Parking Supplementary Planning Document 2018 Basingstoke and Deane Marketing Guidance Note (March 2017) Description of Site The application site comprises a lower and upper basement and ground floor unit at 1 Loddon Mall and is located on the edge of The Malls Shopping Centre. The unit is currently vacant. Proposal This application seeks approval for the change of use from Class A1 to a Sui Generis use (in this instance a sun bed tanning salon). A new display window is also proposed, measuring 4.4 m by 4.1 m is installed on the western elevation of the building. Amendments During the course of the application the proposal description was amended from ‘Change of use from A3 (Food and Drink establishment) to Sui Generis’ to ‘Change of use from A1 to Sui Generis’. This was as a result of the supporting information being submitted stating that the change of use approved under 15/00854/FUL was not implemented, therefore the lawful use is still considered to be Class A1. Consultations Policy: “The development site is located within Basingstoke Town Centre and within the Primary Shopping Frontage, whereby planning policy encourages A1 uses and seeks to retain A-class uses. The proposal would result in the loss of retail use to sui generis use so would be contrary to Local Plan Policy EP3.

However, information has been submitted to demonstrate that the unit has been vacant since 2012, and that there is no demand for an A-class re-use. Overall, it is considered that the proposal will introduce a commercial use into a long-term vacant unit which will increase footfall to this part of the Mall, and increase the vitality and viability of the frontage.” Environmental Health: No objection. Highways: Standing Advice. Public Observations None received. Relevant Planning History 15/00854/FUL Change of use from Class A1 warehouse to

Class A3 use restaurant. Erection of a single storey side extension, to include siting of external flue outlet and seating area.

Approved 03.12.15

Assessment Principle of development The application site is located within the Basingstoke District Centre as well as being situated within the locally designated Primary Shopping Area and Primary Shopping Frontage. - Loss of Retail in the Primary Shopping Frontage Policy EP3 sets out that Basingstoke Town Centre is the principal centre in the borough and that any development that would harm the vitality and viability of the town centre will not be permitted. It is recognised that the primary shopping frontage has been designated to protect the retail uses within the main Town Centre area of Basingstoke. The proposal seeks a change of use from A1 to sui generis (tanning salon) use within the Primary Shopping Frontage which is protected under Policy EP3 (Town, District and Local Centres) of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan, whereby it specifically states that the loss of retail uses (A1-A5) in the Primary Shopping Frontage will not be permitted. The Policy also states that; 'Proposals for shops (A1 Use Class) are encouraged within defined Primary and Secondary Shopping Frontages. Other retail uses (A2-A5) will be permitted where: a) Individually or cumulatively they do not undermine the vitality, viability or character of the frontage; and b) They do not give rise to unacceptable environmental or public safety impacts'. Therefore it is considered appropriate to evaluate this proposal for a sui generis use against the aims of the policy listed above. With regard to part (a) of the policy above, it is necessary to review the mix of uses in the surrounding units and consider the impact of the change of use of the premises to sui generis.

The surrounding properties are retail in nature and whilst a tanning salon is sui generis in terms of planning use class, it is considered that this use would retain the commercial nature of the unit with a similar active frontage to the existing A1 uses within the immediate locality, whereby there would be a similar footfall of customers. As such it is considered that the proposed use would not undermine the vitality, viability or character of the frontage in accordance with the intentions of the Local Plan to reinforce the town centre as a destination of choice for local residents and visitors. As stated within the submitted documents the unit has been vacant and has been marketed since 2012. In 2015 a change of use was granted for A3 use, however the tenant pulled out before it was established, therefore the A1 use is still the lawful use of the unit. Whilst additional information was submitted with regards to the marketing of the unit, no details were provided as to the level of marketing undertaken, nor the details required under the Basingstoke and Deane Marketing Guidance Note (March 2017). As such, the submitted documents is not compliant with the marketing guidance note, although the report clarifies the length of time that the unit has been vacant and this is noted. Notwithstanding the above, whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal is contrary to Policy EP3 and the Marketing Guidance Note, in this instance, it is considered that the reintroduction of commercial activity within a vacant unit is of significant benefit and will contribute to ensuring the vitality of the town centre which accords with one of the main aims of Policy EP3 of the Local Plan. This is especially noting the location of the site at the edge of the town centre which is not situated on the main ‘spine road’ linking the train station to Festival Place, as well as noting the amount of time the unit has been vacant. In addition, the proposed use although not specifically a retail use would be in keeping with the character of the primary shopping frontage given it would be a tanning salon rather than other sui generis uses such as betting office, nightclubs or pay day loan shops. As such the change of use for this unit would not have a detrimental impact upon its vitality, and instead is considered to enhance it. With regard to part (b) it is considered that the change of use and display window situated in an existing commercial unit within Basingstoke Town Centre would not give rise to unacceptable environmental or public safety impacts. As such, whilst the proposal is contrary to Policy EP3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, the benefits of the scheme outweigh the Local Plan Policy considerations and the change of use is considered to be acceptable. It is also considered that the proposal would accord with paragraph 85 of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) whereby it states that planning policies should: a) define a network and hierarchy of town centres and promote their long-term

vitality and viability – by allowing them to grow and diversify in a way that can respond to rapid changes in the retail and leisure industries, allows a suitable mix of uses (including housing) and reflects their distinctive characters;

Impact on the character of the area/ design The application involves the installation of a new display window on the western elevation of the host building. Whilst it is notable that there are currently no windows on the western elevation of the building by virtue of size, design and siting, the addition of the window is not considered to give rise to any demonstrable harm towards the character of the area or street scene, as to warrant refusal of planning permission. It is also considered that given its sizing the display window would not dominate or compete with the character of the host

building. The development is therefore acceptable in its design in accordance with Policy EM10 and EM11 of the Local Plan. Impact on neighbouring amenities Policy EM10 considers the effect of development upon neighbouring residential amenities, addressing aspects such as privacy and private open space, light, noise and disturbance. This has been considered and given that the immediate units are commercial in nature, the change of use would not result in any significant adverse impacts upon any neighbouring amenities. The Environmental Health Officer has also raised no objection in this respect. The proposed display window has also been considered and given its siting away from any units whereby it would front an area of landscaping, this element would not result in any adverse impacts in terms of loss of privacy or overlooking to any neighbouring units. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Local Plan in respect of neighbouring amenity. Parking The application site is located within a town centre location with existing car parks and public transport services. Whilst the application site does not comprise any vehicular parking, the change of use is not considered to generate any significant additional vehicular trip generation than the previous uses and therefore would not increase the parking requirements within the area. It is considered that the use of the new unit, in terms of parking provision, could be accommodated within existing facilities. As such, no objections are raised from a parking or highway safety perspective and the proposals are considered to be acceptable in accordance with Policy CN9 of the Local Plan and the Parking SPD (2018). Community Infrastructure Requirements Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable. From these forms, it would appear that the development would not CIL liable since there would be no increase in floor space. Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the


Site Location Plan - Drawing Number: 001 Revision A Proposed Plans - Drawing Number: 003



from the date of this planning permission. REASON: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.


development hereby permitted shall match, in type, colour and texture to those on the existing building. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.







Seeking further information following receipt of the application;

Considering the imposition of conditions (in accordance with paragraphs 54-57)

In this instance:

The applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit,


3. The applicant is reminded that this approval does not give any indication of any consent necessary under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations which may or may not be required nor any indication that such consent will be forthcoming.

Location plan

Proposed Elevations


Application no: 18/03184/HSE


Site Address 6 Churchlands Bramley RG26 5DU

Proposal Erection of a part first floor and part one and a half storey side extension

Registered: 31 October 2018 Expiry Date: 26 December 2018



Case Officer: Bethan Wallington 01256 845361

Applicant: Mr B Field Agent: Mr Andrew Klemz

Ward: Bramley And Sherfield

Ward Member(s): Cllr Venetia Rowland Cllr Nicholas Robinson

Parish: BRAMLEY CP OS Grid Reference: 464782 159037


Reasons for Approval 1. By virtue of the plot size and design and siting of the proposed development onto

and above the existing garage, the proposal would successfully integrate within the street scene and is acceptable in design terms. The proposal therefore complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) and Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

2. The proposed development would provide adequate parking provision in accordance with highway requirements, and as such would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), Policies CN9 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Parking Supplementary Planning Document.

3. The proposal would not result in any detrimental or harmful impacts to the amenities

of adjoining neighbours. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

4. The proposal would preserve the character of the Bramley Conservation Area and

as such the proposal would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) and Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

5. The proposal would not result in adverse harm to the nearby protected trees. The

proposal would therefore accord with Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

General comments The application was called in by Cllr Venetia Rowland for the following reasons:

“The Parish Council noted the recent tree applications, particularly for removal of cypresses/western cedars.


The raise in the ridge/roof line will be very overbearing on the neighbouring property and will overshadow their garden directly by the house.

The size, bulk and proximity of the northern elevation of the proposed extension give excessive shading and overlooking to the neighbours property. The dormer windows will overlook the privacy of the neighbour’s garden. Thus, the Council objects to elements of the design of this proposal.

The scots pine that is being left to develop should be strongly considered for a TPO. T/00349/18/TCA – the reason given in this application for removal of the cypresses was their proximity to the existing structure and to allow the scots pine to develop. Such a large extension in close proximity to this tree contradicts the tree application. The Parish Council previously objected to both of the recent tree applications.

The Bramley Parish Council Planning Committee noted that the scots pine roots are to be protected during the construction phase; however the proximity of the tree to the proposed extension gives Parish Council members’ great concern as to the longevity of the tree. The Committee would not wish to see this tree held responsible for future land heave of future footings.

It was noted that other trees on site (of which there are several) have been omitted from any elevation diagrams. The Parish Council request that the TPO status of other trees at property is checked.

The Parish Council questioned what the ‘storage area’ will be used for – members were concerned as it is open either end and items stored there will be clearly visible from both the front and the rear of the property. It is not clear from the design statement, as it refers to this area as both a ‘car port’ and a ‘storage area’.”

Planning Policy The site is located in the Bramley Settlement Policy Boundary and Bramley Conservation Area. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018) Section 2 (Achieving sustainable development) Section 4 (Decision-making) Section 9 (Promoting sustainable transport) Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) Section 14 (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change) Section 15 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) Section 16 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy CN9 (Transport) Policy EM1 (Landscape) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy EM11 (The Historic Environment) Bramley Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2029 Policy D1 (Protecting, complementing and enhancing the historic character and rural setting of Bramley) Policy D2 (Design of new development)

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD (March 2018) Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2018 Parking Supplementary Planning Document 2018 Other material planning documents The Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2015 Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 Bramley Conservation Area Character Appraisal Bramley Design Statement Description of Site The application site comprises of a two storey detached property located within a residential cul-de-sac. The site features an attached double garage to the western side of the property with an area of hardstanding forming additional off-street vehicular parking for a minimum of four cars. Proposal The proposal is to extend to the side of the existing garage to provide a carport/storage area and increase the overall height to provide accommodation above the garage and proposed carport, including a bedroom, dressing area and en-suite. The extension would extend 4.2m in width, 5.7m in depth and 7.1m in height. Three dormers are proposed to the front elevation and three intersecting first windows to the rear due to the heightened eaves at the rear of the development. Consultations Cllr Rowland: see call-in comments above. Bramley Parish Council: “Bramley Parish Council has now met to consider the above application, and object to it for the following reasons:

The Council noted the recent tree applications, particularly for removal of cypresses/western cedars.

The raise in the ridge/roof line will be very overbearing on the neighbouring property and will overshadow their garden directly by the house.

The size, bulk and proximity of the northern elevation of the proposed extension give excessive shading and overlooking to the neighbours property. The dormer windows will overlook the privacy of the neighbour’s garden. Thus, the Council objects to elements of the design of this proposal.

The scots pine that is being left to develop should be strongly considered for a TPO. T/00349/18/TCA – the reason given in this application for removal of the cypresses was their proximity to the existing structure and to allow the scots pine to develop. Such a large extension in close proximity to this tree contradicts the tree application. The Parish Council previously objected to both of the recent tree applications.

The Committee noted that the scots pine roots are to be protected during the construction phase; however the proximity of the tree to the proposed extension gives Council members’ great concern as to the longevity of the tree. The

Committee would not wish to see this tree held responsible for future land heave of future footings.

It was noted that other trees on site (of which there are several) have been omitted from any elevation diagrams. The Council request that the TPO status of other trees at property is checked.

The Council questioned what the ‘storage area’ will be used for – members were concerned as it is open either end and items stored there will be clearly visible from both the front and the rear of the property. It is not clear from the design statement, as it refers to this area as both a ‘car port’ and a ‘storage area’.”

Tree Officer: No objections subject to condition. Biodiversity Officer: No objections subject to informative. Conservation Officer: No objections subject to conditions. Public Observations One neighbour objection:

Proposed development will overshadow, overlook and encroach upon a number of our outdoor amenity spaces and decrease access to natural light within our garden and paved seating area

Scale of proposed development is not sympathetic to the neighbouring buildings and would have a negative impact on local character

Churchlands is situated in a conservation area and benefits from being surrounded by mature trees. This application (& those preceding it) will have a significant detrimental impact on the landscape of the area. Also the proposed development will impair future growth of the remaining Scots Pine, of which established trees are being removed to 'protect'.

Relevant Planning History None. Assessment Principle of development Policy CN9 sets out that development should provide appropriate on-site parking and should not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. Policy EM1 states that development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned and must respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected. Policy EM4 establishes that proposals will only be permitted where significant harm to biodiversity can be avoided or adequately mitigated unless there is a demonstrated overriding public need. Policy EM7 establishes that development will only be acceptable within area of flood risk from any source of flooding if it is clearly demonstrated that it is appropriate at that location.

Policy EM10 states that proposals will be required to respect the local environment, contribute to the streetscene, be visually attractive and provide adequate vehicular parking and cycle storage. Policy EM10 also requires developments to provide high levels of amenity for proposed occupants and neighbouring occupiers regarding privacy, amenity space and natural light. Policy EM11 establishes that proposals must conserve or enhance the quality of the borough's heritage assets, which includes Conservation Areas. EM11 states that proposals will be permitted where they demonstrate an understanding of the character and setting of Conservation Areas and respect historic interest and local character and ensure the use of appropriate materials, design and detailing. Bramley Neighbourhood Plan Policies D1 and D2 state that new development should enhance local distinctiveness, to achieve sustainable development, and to ensure that new buildings are integrated with their setting both functionally and aesthetically. It is considered that the principle of the proposed development meets the criteria set out within the above policies of the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan and is therefore acceptable subject to other material planning considerations being considered, as considered further below. Impact on the character of the area/ design The immediate area comprises of a residential road with six large modern detached dwellings arranged in a cul-de-sac style. The dwellings are sizeable and set within substantial plots generally set back some distance from the highway, with garages to the side (either attached or detached). The proposed two storey extension would be set back from the front elevation and set down from the ridge height therefore forming a subservient relationship with the host dwelling. The carport extension is modest in width when compared to the existing garage. The roof above the carport would be a continuation of that proposed above the existing garage, which as stated above is considered acceptable in terms of its height and relationship to the host dwelling. It is however acknowledged that the cumulative effect of the development would exacerbate the width of the existing garage with the dormers also being notable additions. Whilst the concerns from the Parish Council and neighbour are noted, looking at the street scene, size of the dwellings in this area and that dormers exist in the area of varying size, it is considered the development would not have a detrimental harm to warrant refusal in terms of either design or impact on character of the area and is of an acceptable scale, bulk and massing. The materials for the development would match that on the host dwelling which is considered appropriate. As such, the development is considered acceptable in regards to design and character of the area and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Local Plan and the Bramley on Loddon Neighbourhood Plan. Impact on designated heritage asset The application site is situated within the Bramley Conservation Area. Local Authorities are required by Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas when considering development proposals that affect the

setting or views into it. This is reflected locally within Policy EM11 which has regard to the importance of natural features and spaces that contribute to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Concerns were raised by a neighbour in regards to impact on the Conservation Area. The site has mature vegetation on three sides, and it is largely obscured from The Street. The proposed extension would be located on the north-western side of the dwelling. The development of six houses which makes up Churchlands does not make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area, but the harm caused by these modern houses is mitigated by the mature trees surrounding them. On this basis, the Conservation Officer considered that the proposed development would not cause further harm to the character and appearance of this part of the Bramley Conservation Area and recommended that a condition is attached to ensure that the extension is constructed using materials and finishes to match the existing building in all respects. As such, it is considered that within this location, the proposals would be of a size and design in keeping with the residential nature of the property and would preserve the character and appearance of the wider conservation area in accordance with the requirements of Sections 72 of the Town and Country (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policy EM11 of the Local Plan and the NPPF. Impact on neighbouring amenities By virtue of distance, design and siting, the development would not cause any adverse harm to the amenities of the neighbours to the north, east and south of the site. Objections were received in regards to the impact in regards to overshadowing, overlooking, encroachment upon a number of amenity spaces and decrease access to natural light of these areas at No. 5 Churchlands, located to the west of the site. In regards to overshadowing, it would be expected that overshadowing to the occupants at No. 5 would occur to the western part of their rear garden (behind their garage) in the morning hours. The impact to this neighbouring plot has been considered and it is appreciated there would be impact in regards to overshadowing and loss of light to an area they use currently as a patio. However, given the overall length of the gardens and the impact across only part of the day, with this reduced in summer months, the impact is not considered to be of such overriding harm sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal. It should also be noted there are existing trees which would present overshadowing in the same areas the proposal would. No window openings are proposed on the western elevation of the development. Therefore no windows would directly face No. 5s amenity areas. The windows to the north elevation may obtain oblique views of the garden area of No. 5, however, this would not warrant refusal of the proposal. The same considerations are given to the south windows on the front elevation. The Design and Sustainability SPD sets out distances for back to back windows and accepts that side by side relationship result in less overlooking. As such, it is considered the development would not cause any undue loss of privacy or overlooking. It is acknowledged that the development would be visible from the living area of No. 5 and the amenity areas of this neighbour that abut the western boundary of the application site. Whilst the extension would be more visually prominent than the existing garage, it is not considered that the impact would be of overriding demonstrable harm in terms of being overbearing to the occupants of No. 5 due to its relatively modest increase in height and

that No. 5 has an extensive garden with other areas to provide adequate amenity space. The extension is separated from the main house of No. 5 by a gap between the boundaries and the neighbouring garage by approximately 12m. Given the overall size of the neighbouring garden at No. 5 and that the development retains some space between the boundaries and the neighbour’s main house, the impact is not sufficient to warrant refusal of permission on the grounds of overbearing. Overall, it is considered that the proposal would not result in any detrimental or adverse impacts upon the neighbouring amenities is sufficient to warrant refusal and is considered acceptable in this respect. Highway Impacts The extension would provide an additional bedroom to the property and result in five bedrooms, located within an outer urban area, therefore three parking spaces should be provided on site as per the Parking SPD. The proposal would include a triple garage which is underproviding on depth and width however there is adequate space for the turning and parking for at least four other vehicles on the drive. As such, the development would accord with Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Local Plan. Impact on Trees A tree survey has been prepared in accordance with British Standard 5837: 2012 to support the development proposal. This has identified the crown and root constraints associated with the existing trees and has been used to inform the layout and design of the proposed development. Concerns were raised from the Parish Council and neighbours in regards to trees. The proposed extension will require the removal of two western red cedars and a yew tree. These trees are not subject to the TPO relating to this site, although they are within the conservation area. The landowner has already notified the council about the removal of these trees, as required under section 211 of the Town and Country Planning Act and there are no objections from the Tree Officer in this regard. A number of trees exist on the site and as such it is not considered the loss of these trees would have a harmful impact on the amenity of the area. There is a Corsican pine to the south and some other trees to the front and rear, some of which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order; however information submitted to support this application demonstrates that these trees can be successfully retained. A number of recommendations have been made in the tree report, including a suspended slab and temporary fencing around trees to ensure they are not damaged during or after development work. The Tree Officer has raised no objections subject to a condition ensuring the works are in line with the recommendations set out in the Tree Survey. The Tree Officer support these and this condition is considered reasonable and as such the development would be in accordance with Policy EM1 of the Local Plan. Biodiversity It is recognised that the structure of the property looks in good conditions, which was evident from a site visit. The Biodiversity Officer noted that due to the good condition of the roof, no loose fitting tiles or holes in the soffits appeared present, as such it is not considered worthy of a bat survey at present. The Biodiversity Officer did request an informative that if bats are found then works should cease immediately which is considered appropriate in this instance.

Impact on Water Environment The site lies within the 'locally' defined Basingstoke Upstream Critical Drainage Area (UCDA) as defined on the Local Plan Policies Map. The site is also within Flood Zone 1 (in having a low probability of fluvial flooding). Policy EM7 of the Local Plan sets out the Council's approach to considering flood risk. The application is an extension above and to the side of the garage which would result in the increase in built form and an additional bedroom. It is not considered that the scale of the extension or the overall demand placed upon the drainage system would trigger the need for a FRA and given its small scale is unlikely to overload the capacity of the existing drainage system. Community Infrastructure Requirements Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable. From these forms, it would appear that the development would be exempt from any CIL payments given that the development would have a gross internal area of less than 100m2. Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the


Proposed Ground Floor Plan - 1816 . 06 B Proposed First Floor Plan - 1816 . 07 B Proposed Roof Plan - 1816 . 08 B Proposed Elevations - 1816 . 09 B Proposed Elevations - 1816 . 10 B Site Layout - 1816 . 11 B Tree Shadow Plan - 1816 . 12 B Views South and North - 1816 . 14 B





development hereby permitted shall match, in type, colour and texture to those on the existing building. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. In order to preserve the character and appearance of this part of the Bramley Conservation Area in accordance with Policy EM11 of Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and Policies D1 and D2 of the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan.


procedures and special engineering solutions shall be carried out in accordance with the arboricultural report referenced J1126.04.

REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029.







proactively offering a pre-application advice (in accordance with paragraphs 39 - 46)

considering the imposition of conditions (in accordance with paragraphs 54-57)

In this instance:

was provided with pre-application advice;

the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required.


3. Should any bats be located during the removal of the roof of the existing single storey

extension then works should cease immediately and advice be sought from a suitably qualified bat licensed ecologist.

Location plan

Site Plan

Elevations


Application no: 18/03279/HSE For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address 42 Queens Road Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7RH

Proposal Replacement of existing bay window and frames with uPVC frames and replacement of front door with wooden four panel wooden front door




Case Officer: Marie Twomey 01256 845235

Applicant: Mr Mark Lambert Agent:

Ward: Brookvale And Kings Furlong

Ward Member(s): Cllr Jack Cousens Cllr Michael Westbrook

Parish: OS Grid Reference: 462998 152145


Reasons for Approval

1. Having due regard to the requirements of Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, it is considered that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal complies with relevant adopted policies and guidance, notably the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018); Policies EM10 and EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029; the Design and Sustainability SPD (July 2018); and Brookvale West Conservation Area Appraisal.

General Comments The application is brought to the Development Control Committee in accordance with the scheme of delegation because the applicant is a member of staff. Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018) Section 2 (Achieving sustainable development) Section 4 (Decision-making) Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) Section 16 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Sustainable Development) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy EM11 (The Historic Environment)

http://planning.basingstoke.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=PHVAA0CR0JV00

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPDs and SPGs) and interim planning guidance Design and Sustainability SPD Brookvale West Conservation Area Appraisal Other material documents Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 states that with respect to any buildings or other land within a conservation area, in the exercise of relevant functions under the planning Acts, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. Description of Site 42 Queens Road is located within Brookvale West Conservation Area and is therefore subject to an Article 4 (2) Direction which removes certain permitted development rights. The property is part of a terrace of similarly designed houses constructed during 1897-1912, and is identified as a notable building of group value within Brookvale West Conservation Area. The building is a two storey mid-terrace dwellinghouse, constructed of red brick with polychromatic brick arches, under a pitched slate roof. The front of the property is set back from the road by a small boundary wall and hedge, and small front garden, with a front path. There are 2 no. windows to the first floor on the front (west) elevation which are double glazed uPVC top hung casement units. There are 3 no. windows on the ground floor which form a bay. These windows are double glazed silver aluminium windows with top hung lights, within timber sub-frames, which are in poor condition. The existing front door is set within a recessed porch with a white-painted timber frame, and plain glazed light above. The door is made of timber with a painted dark blue finish, and is of a modern design with an integral fanlight. It is understood that the front door and ground floor windows that are the subject of this application were in situ prior to the designation of the conservation area and implementation of the Article 4 (2) Direction in 1999, therefore were permitted development at the time. Proposal It is proposed to replace 3 no. aluminium windows on the ground floor, including their timber sub-frames. The existing windows, frame and sill would be replaced with a uPVC unit incorporating slimline double glazed sliding sash windows with imitation horns, imitation glazing bars, and an imitation woodgrain finish. The proposed thickness of the double glazed units would be 18mm (4mm-10mm-4mm). It is also proposed to replace the existing front door with a four panelled timber door with a black painted finish, and two frosted glazed panels in the upper half. The existing timber doorframe is to be retained, with the existing glass panel above replaced with obscure double glazed glass.

Consultations and Observations None received. Public Observations Basingstoke Heritage Society

The proposed windows appear to be sympathetic;

The existing frames are aluminium therefore it is probably not practical to fit new timber frames;

The Society are supportive of the proposed improvements, provided it is clear from the application documents that the finished product would closely resemble similar approved window renovations in the street.

Planning History 13/01956/HSE Installation of replacement windows Approved 20.02.14 Assessment Principle of development The acceptability of the current proposals will depend upon their impact upon the character and appearance of the conservation area. Impact on Conservation Area The existing aluminium windows are not of particular historic or architectural merit and do not make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area, as they are of inappropriate material and design. In addition, the existing timber sub-frames of the windows have been demonstrated to be in poor condition. The replacement of the existing windows and sub-frames is therefore acceptable in principle. Timber sliding sash windows would be the most traditional choice of replacement windows for this building type and area. However, in this instance, the proposed uPVC windows are considered to be an improvement on the windows they are proposed to replace. Although constructed of a non-traditional material, in comparison to the existing windows, the proposed units better match the details of traditional windows in the conservation area because of their method of opening, configuration, imitation glazing bars and horns, colour, and imitation woodgrain finish. The existing windows are double glazed, therefore it is considered that the use of slimline double glazing in this instance would be acceptable. The existing front door is of appropriate material, but is of modern design. In comparison, the proposed four panelled timber replacement is considered to be of appropriate material, design, and finish. The proposed front door is considered to have a more positive impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area than the existing. The replacement of the clear glass pane above with obscure glazing is considered an acceptable alteration. On balance, it is considered that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Impact on neighbouring amenities The proposal has no known adverse impacts on neighbouring amenities. Conclusion The comments of Basingstoke Heritage Society are acknowledged, and it is considered that the drawings and documents submitted with the application are sufficient to assess the proposed windows. In considering all the above, the proposals would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018), Local Plan Policies EM10 and EM11, Design and Sustainability SPD, Brookvale West Conservation Area Appraisal, and relevant guidance. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to attaching conditions and informatives. Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans and documents:

Location Plan, ref.#00365456-A213C7 (1:1250 @ A4)

Details of ‘Bygone Symphony’ windows, supplied by Box Clever Sash Windows

Image of ‘Oak Salisbury External Door’, supplied by www.magnettrade.co.uk

Details of the proposed windows and door, in the ‘Heritage Statement for 42 Queens Road, Basingstoke, RG21 7RH’, submitted by the applicant.

Received 8th November 2018



from the date of this planning permission. REASON: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented permissions.


must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated. 1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met. 1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the

http://www.magnettrade.co.uk/

applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £116 or £34 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.



proactively offering a pre-application advice (in accordance with paragraphs 39 - 46);



considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement (in accordance with paragraphs 54-57).

In this instance:

the applicant was provided with pre-application advice;

the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required.


Location plan

Proposed Elevations




Site Address The Upper Barn, Middle Barn And South Barn Minchens Court Minchens Lane Bramley

Proposal External alterations to create new door openings from existing window openings, new entrance canopies and new roof lights. Erection of enclosed and secure bin and cycle stores, along with additional cycle and car parking spaces for visitors




Case Officer: Meredith Baker 01256 845444

Applicant: Minchens Barn Development Ltd

Agent: David Kemp

Ward: Bramley And Sherfield

Ward Member(s): Cllr Venetia Rowland Cllr Nicholas Robinson

Parish: BRAMLEY CP OS Grid Reference: 465074 159536


Reasons for Approval 1. The proposed development would be of an appropriate design and would relate

in a sympathetic manner to the host building and character of the area and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018) and Policies D1 and D2 of the Bramley Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2029.

2. The proposed development would not result in an undue loss of privacy or cause undue overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing or noise and disturbance impacts to the occupiers of neighbouring buildings and as such complies with Policies EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.

3. The development would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety nor

result in any significant parking provision concerns and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), Policies EM10 and CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Parking Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018).

General comments The application has been brought before the Development Control Committee at the request of Councillor V Rowland for the following reasons:

“This property has already in place under application 18/01517/GPDOFF for proposed change of use of Class B1(a) office to Class C3 (dwelling house)

http://planning.basingstoke.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=PI25QMCRMZ700

consisting of 14 no. flats - this application did not provide adequate windows or doors for the units and it was advised at the time that any such changes would need to be done under planning permission, not permitted development rights.

This increase of various methods of access and light changes the character of the building, which use to be a barn and was granted permission for commercial premises to relate to the other buildings which were granaries and crook barns

There is no clear demonstrate of these offices having restrooms or kitchen facilities for communal use or separate use which seems detriment to the prospect of these being individual offices.

I would welcome the DC Members views of whether these units which are proposed to be offices actually provide suitable B1 office accommodation. Given that they demonstrate all the requirements of small residential units

Highlighted in my comments to Officers on the original application 18/01517/GPDOFF there is no apparent means of access to the 2nd floor?

This application potentially is a 3 story block of flats which will significantly increase light pollution in open countryside.

There are some access issues for the front of the building showing parking spaces 20 and 19 as well as the bicycle and bin storage area as there are covenants in place with other owners of properties within Minchens Court which only allow commercial traffic use, not residential.

Last but not least Bramley has a Neighbourhood Plan in place which is requires buildings to be only 2.5 storeys - this proposal whether offices or dwellings does not comply therefore this application is contrary to the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan which states no 3 storey buildings, only 2.5. It is also contrary to the rural nature requirement of any development. However, the Parish Council would support it staying as business use as the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan actively supports small-scale employment within Bramley (NP BSA5 Aims and Objectives).”

Planning Policy The application site lies within the Bramley Settlement Policy Boundary. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018) Section 2 (Achieving sustainable development) Section 4 (Decision-making) Section 12 (Achieving well-designed places) Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 Policy SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) Policy EM7 (Managing Flood Risk) Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) Policy EM11 (The Historic Environment) Policy EM12 (Pollution) Policy CN9 (Transport) Bramley Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2029 Policy D1: Protecting, Complementing and Enhancing the Historic Character and Rural Setting of Bramley Policy D2: Design of New Development Policy RE1: Reducing Flood Risk

Policy RE3: Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018) Parking Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018) Planning Obligations for Infrastructure SPD (March 2018) Description of Site The application site comprises a detached building of B1 (a) office use. The barn forms part of a complex of other converted barns/barn style properties of similar style and construction. The host building is of brick construction with timber framed gables containing large glazed windows with a large roof form of clay tile construction. Small areas of grass, trees and shrubs surround the immediate setting of the barn. Proposal The proposal is for external alterations to the host building as follows:

- Installation of 2 conservation roof lights and a new fixed light and entrance door to the eastern (front) elevation

- Installation of 7 conservation roof lights, two first floor windows, three new doors to replace existing ground floor windows, infill of two existing ground floor doors with brickwork and a window and the partial infill of an existing ground floor window with brickwork on the western (rear) elevation

- Installation of 3 conservation roof lights, replacement of one window to be obscured glazed, removal of two window and the replacement with doors, a provision of a new door and the existing door would be infilled with brickwork and a window on the northern elevation

- Installation of 3 conservation roof lights, four canopy style porches, three windows would be replaced with doors and one existing door would be infilled with brickwork and a window on the southern elevation

- Installation of 2 conservation roof lights and a change of window to obscured glazed on the southern courtyard elevation; and

- Installation of 2 conservation roof lights, replacement of a door with a window and a change of a window to obscure glazed on the northern courtyard elevation.

It is also proposed that a bin and cycle store is constructed towards the south eastern corner of the application site measuring 6.9m in width and 6.5m in depth with a maximum height of 2.85m. The materials to be used for this store would be a red brick dwarf wall and treated timber studwork with horizontal shiplap timber boarding to match the existing host building. A new short term stay uncovered cycle parking of Sheffield Hoops will also be constructed, as well as additional hardstanding at the site to provide an additional path towards the edge of the western and southern boundary and three additional vehicular parking spaces. Amendments During the course of the application, amended plans were submitted changing the internal layout of the floor plans and removal of the 2nd floor plan. This was submitted to clarify that the works submitted are in relation to the existing B1 (a) office use.

Consultations Councillor V Rowland: "I will be calling this application in to Development and Control Committee and will submit the relevant paperwork." Further comments from Cllr Rowland are set out above within the ‘General Comments’ section of this report. Bramley Parish Council: " I can confirm that Bramley Parish Council have met to consider the above application, and object to it on the following points:

The Council noted that the increase in the number of doors windows substantially changes the character of the building - making it less rural than the original intention.

The application refers to additional windows and doors as being suitable for continuation of use as a business unit. The Council refutes this statement on the basis that more windows and doors would clearly offer a greater security risk to any operating business. It was also noted that the internal plans show 14 individual 'offices', none of which appear to have facilities such as rest room access and kitchen access without going outside.

The application states that these modifications will allow continuation of use as B1 office units, but has shown the windows and doors necessary for residential occupation. Therefore the Council has a mixed and unclear application presented to them, which is neither one thing nor another.

Concerns were expressed that that the units do not meet industrial unit design standards.

Proposed 2nd floor plans show no doors or means of access.

Light pollution over fields - Bramley is a non street-lit area and this will add to light pollution. This proposal generates a three storey block of flats which would illuminate the open countryside surrounding the building.

The application is contrary to the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan which states no 3 storey buildings, only 2.5. It is also contrary to the rural nature requirement of any development.

Permission has already been given to convert the building into residential units. This application appears to convert the building into a greater number of offices, which is contrary to that permission. However, the Parish Council would support it staying as business use as the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan actively supports small-scale employment within Bramley (NP BSA5 Aims and Objectives)."

Biodiversity: No objection. Highways: Standing Advice. Public Observations None received. Relevant Planning History 18/01517/GPDOFF Notification of proposed change of use

of Class B1(a) office to Class C3 (dwellinghouse) consisting of 14 no. flats

Approved 12.10.18

Assessment There has been a recent prior approval application granted in October 2018 for the change of use of the host building from Class B1 (a) office to Class C3 (dwellinghouse), consisting of 14 no. flats. The confirmation of permitted development rights for this conversion was made on the basis that there would be no external changes to the structure or appearance of the building as part of that process. Such changes would require planning permission. Whilst this decision is noted, this application relates solely to the existing office use and is not in relation to the proposed change of use previously approved under permitted development rights. The applicant has confirmed this consent has not been implemented, and this has been confirmed following the case officer’s site visit. The application is for alterations to the building, the key consideration for which is the impact on the character and appearance of the area (which would be the case regardless of the use). Principle of development The principle of alterations to existing buildings within the built up area is acceptable, subject to the impact of the alterations being acceptable, as assessed below. Impact on the character of the area/ design Policy EM10 states that proposals will be required to respect the local environment, contribute to the street scene, be visually attractive and provide adequate vehicular parking and cycle storage. Policy EM10 also requires developments to provide high levels of amenity for proposed occupants and neighbouring occupiers regarding privacy, amenity space and natural light. Policy CN9 sets out that development should provide appropriate on-site parking and should not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. Policy D1 of the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan states development in and around Bramley Village must protect, complement or enhance the Character Area (s) identified in the Bramley Village Character Assessment within or adjacent to which it is located. Policy D2 of the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan states that new development must deliver good quality design. The requirements include that development should respond to the existing traditional built form of enclosure and definition of streets and spaces, be well integrated with its surroundings, have good access to public transport or otherwise help reduce car dependency, contribute to the provision of a safe environment and provide convenient, well-screened storage space for bins and recycling, and for bicycles. The immediate area comprises of commercial buildings of similar construction situated at the edge of the settlement of Bramley. The proposed works, would be visible from the public highway of Minchens Lane to the east and the public right of way bridleway (Bramley: 7) which is approximately 91m away. By virtue of size, design and siting the development is not considered to result in any additional adverse impacts upon the character of the area or street scene. The main principal elevation would appear uncluttered with only few amendments and low lying conservation roof lights that would not give rise to any demonstrable harm. The canopy style porches have been considered and given that they would match the

existing entrance canopies on the host building, this element would not give rise to any adverse impacts upon the character of the host building or wider area. The proposed first floor openings on the western elevation has also been considered and given the design and sizing, the windows would appear as a minor alteration to the building which is deemed acceptable. With regard to the ground floor alterations, it is notable that there would be nine new doors and five new windows. Whilst this is considered a large number of openings, it is considered that given the proposed materials, and uniformed spacing which would not appear cluttered in its nature, the openings would not be significantly detrimental to the character of the host building as to warrant the refusal of the application. It is also notable that these additional openings would be well screened form any public vantage points and only glimpsed views may be afforded from Minchens Lane to the south east (approximately 70m in distance) over the existing boundary treatment and from the access to the complex from the east (60m in distance). Consideration has also been given towards the proposed roof lights. As above the principal elevation is considered acceptable given the low siting. It is notable however, that there is a large number of roof lights proposed (19). Whilst this is noted, given the commercial nature of the building the provision of roof lights would not be significantly detrimental to the character of the host building. With regard to the character of the area, whilst it is noted the dwellings to the east do not have any existing openings, Stock's Barn to the south east does have roof lights that are visible from the public realm. As such given the host buildings siting which is set back from the public highway of Minchens Lane and conservation roof light design, this element of the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact that would warrant the refusal of the application. No details about the colour of the external frame of the roof lights have been submitted with the application therefore, it has been considered reasonable to impose a condition that the external frame of the roof lights shall match in colouring to the existing roof. Whilst it is noted that the external appearance of the building could be painted under permitted development rights – Part 2, Class C of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, in this instance the application is being assessed under the current situation. As such it is considered reasonable to impose a condition in relation to the external frame colour to ensure that the development would be in keeping with the host building and would not be adversely prominent on existing roof. It is notable that the Councillor and Parish Council have referenced that the resultant building would be a three storey building which would be contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal would not be altering the height of the building and the roof lights would serve the existing first floor level, as demonstrated on the submitted plans, and therefore would not involve the creation of additional accommodation in the roof area. The rear elevation of the building would be visible from the bridleway to the north, which is also an 'Important rural landscape view' (6) under Policy D1 of the Bramley Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011-2029. Although this is noted, given that only long distance views would be afforded, whereby the building is over 170m from this viewpoint which would be partially screened by the existing vegetation and boundary treatment, as well as the fact the proposal is for alterations to an existing commercial building, this landscape view would be protected and would not be adversely impacted on. It is also noted that whilst the additional openings would be visible at night it is not considered likely, due to the unlit and unmetalled character of the footpath that this view would be experienced at night, and in any event, it would be seen in context of the light from the building.

The bin and cycle store is considered, by virtue of size, design and siting not to give rise to any detrimental impacts upon the character of the host building or wider area. The single storey nature and footprint of the store would result in a subservient relationship with the host building. Whilst the store would be of a flat roof design which does not match the host building, given the proposed materials which would match the timber boarding of the host building and siting which would not be prominent from the public highway of Minchens Lane, this element is considered not to result in demonstrable harm as to justify refusal of planning permission. The additional short stay parking provision, additional parking and path is also considered not to give rise to any adverse impacts. As such, it is considered that there would be no significant adverse visual impact on either the wider landscape or the host building. The proposed development would therefore comply with Policies EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029 and Polices D1 and D2 of the Bramley Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2029. Impact on designated heritage assets Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan states that all development must conserve or enhance the quality of the borough's heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, which includes both designated and non-designated heritage assets. The neighbouring building 'The Granary' to the east (approximately 10m away from the proposed bin and cycle store) and 'Stock's Barn' to the south east(approximately 24m away from the proposed bin and cycle store) are locally designated notable buildings, therefore consideration must be given towards this non-designated heritage asset. In this instance by virtue of size, design and siting of the proposed development with a minimum intervening distance of 10m over an existing highway, it is considered that the proposal gives rise to less than substantial harm to the setting of the character and appearance of the non-designated heritage assets. As such the proposal is considered to accord with Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. Impact on neighbouring amenities By virtue of size, design and siting the proposed development is not considered to give rise to any significantly adverse impacts to any neighbouring buildings. It is notable that the proposed bin store would be located towards The Granary. Whilst this is noted, it is considered that the bin store given its single storey nature and siting over 10m from this building would not result in any detrimental impacts upon the amenities of this building. As such, the proposal is considered acceptable and accords with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 -2029. Parking The host building is a Class B1 (a) Office use located in a ‘Outer Urban and Rural’ area as defined in the Parking Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018), whereby a vehicular parking space is expected for every 30m2 of floor area. The host building is approximately 794 m2 of floor area, therefore it is expected that 26 parking spaces are provided on site. Within the submitted application form it has been stated that the existing number of vehicular parking spaces is 18 and would be amended to 21 as a result of the additional spaces proposed. It is notable however, that whilst not formally designated vehicular parking spaces, to the south east of the application site there are currently tarmac areas that would provide an additional four vehicular parking spaces at the site, therefore it is considered that there are 22 existing spaces (including the tarmac area) within the

application site. Therefore as a result of the proposals it is considered that the vehicular parking spaces would be reduced from 22 to 21 which is below the number of spaces expected under the Parking Supplementary Planning Document, although it is notable that the floor space of the host building and office space would not change. Whilst it is below the 26 parking spaces that would now be required under the current parking standards, it would be unreasonable to apply current parking standards to an existing floor area and commercial use, particularly when there is no increase in floor area as a result of these proposals. The guidance provided should be ‘viewed as the expected standards, however, each development will be considered on an individual basis taking into account local circumstances and evidence’. In this instance, given that the proposal would result in an additional 42 cycle parking spaces and noting that the site is accessible to public transport services, including a bus stop on The Street and Bramley Train Station which is approximately 6 minutes’ walk away, the site is considered to be a sustainable location. As such, the loss of one vehicular parking space at the site, whereby the office floor space is not being increased, is not considered to result in any significantly adverse parking implications nor any demonstrable safety concerns, and therefore accords with Policy CN9 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 -2029 and the Parking SPD (2018). Biodiversity As a result of the alterations to the roof form, the Biodiversity Officer was consulted. It was concluded that given the roof structure, wooden wall boarding and soffits appears to be fairly new and in good repair with no signs of gaps in the boarding or broken tiles on the roof, the building is rated as of negligible potential for roosting bats at the present time. An informative will be imposed however, stating that if bats are located during development then works should cease immediately and a suitably bat licenced ecologist contacted for advice. Community Infrastructure Requirements Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the 25th June 2018. The required forms have been submitted for CIL contributions to be calculated if applicable. From these forms, it would appear that the development would be exempt from any CIL payments given that the development is commercial in nature and would have a gross internal area of less than 100m2. Drainage The site lies within the 'locally' defined Basingstoke Upstream Critical Drainage Area (UCDA) as defined on the Local Plan Policies Map. The site is also within Flood Zone 1 (in having a low probability of fluvial flooding). Policy EM7 'Managing flood risk' of the Local Plan sets out the Council's approach to considering flood risk. This requires applications to be supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) for sites within locally defined critical drainage areas and upstream critical drainage areas. Footnote 26 of this policy states that "these CDAs are not CDAs 'as notified to the LPA by the Environment Agency' as defined in the NPPF". Whilst the nature/level of detail contained within any FRA will depend upon the scale and type of the proposal, the accompanying text to Policy EM7 acknowledges that developments located in Flood Zone 1 would not normally require an FRA. However,

exceptions are recommended for those locations where a new development is likely to overload the capacity of the existing drainage system. In this respect, the proposal seeks permission for alterations to the existing building, a bin store and cycle parking as well as additional hardstanding. It is considered that neither the scale of the development nor the overall demand placed upon the drainage system from this address would trigger the need for a FRA. It is also the council's view that the due to scale and type of proposal it is unlikely to overload the capacity of the existing drainage system. It is important to highlight that such development would be subject to separate Building Control legislation. Therefore, although the site lies within the locally defined CDA and UCDA, due to the scale and type of development no FRA is formally requested. Other matters As assessed above, the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to the character of the area, impact on neighbouring amenities and highway/parking. The Parish Council made a number of comments with reference to the recently approved prior approval application, which as outlined above is noted, but cannot be considered in this instance. A number of other comments however have been raised that will be assessed below.

- "The Council refutes this statement on the basis that more windows and doors would clearly offer a greater security risk to any operating business. It was also noted that the internal plans show 14 individual 'offices', none of which appear to have facilities such as rest room access and kitchen access without going outside."

Amended plans have been submitted removing the individual offices and showing the existing layout. In any event, the internal layout is not a matter that falls for consideration. With regard to the notion of security, it is not considered that the additional openings on the building would result in any significantly adverse security risk towards the building as to warrant the refusal of the application.

- "Light pollution over fields - Bramley is a non-street-lit area and this will add to light pollution. This proposal generates a three storey block of flats which would illuminate the open countryside surrounding the building. "

It is deemed that the alterations to the building would not give rise to significantly adverse light pollution whereby the impact of the additional openings on the character of the area is considered above. Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be retained in accordance with the


Site Location (Block Plan) - Drawing No. 0001 – received 12th November 2018 Proposed Elevations 01 - Drawing No. 0332 – received 12th November 2018 Proposed Elevations 02 - Drawing No. 0333 – received 12th November 2018 Proposed Roof Plan - Drawing No. 0323 – received 12th November 2018 Proposed Bin & Bike Store Plans & Elevations - Drawing No. 0335 Proposed Site Plan - Drawing No. 0202 - received 23rd November 2018 Proposed First Floor Plan - Drawing No.0321 Rev A- received 23rd November 2018 Proposed Ground Floor Plan - Drawing No. 0320 Rev A - received 23rd November 2018



from the date of this planning permission. REASON: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

3 The materials to be used in the construction of the bin and cycle store of the

development hereby permitted shall match, in type, colour and texture those on the approved plans. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and Policies D1 and D2 of the Bramley Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2029.

4 The materials to be used in the installation of the ground and first floor openings

and canopies of the development hereby permitted shall match, in type, colour and texture to those on the existing building. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and Policies D1 and D2 of the Bramley Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2029.

5 The external frame colour of the new conservation rooflights shall match the

colouring of the existing roof of the building. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 and Policies D1 and D2 of the Bramley Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011 - 2029.




1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £116 per request or £34 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

2. In accordance with paragraphs 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and creative manner:-

- considering the imposition of conditions

In this instance:

- the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required.


3. If at any time during the proposed works bats, or signs of bats, are found then all

works must stop and advice should be sought from Natural England before any further work on the buildings proceeds. All bats and their roost sites are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 from disturbance and harm.

Location Plan

Proposed Site Plan

Proposed Elevations

Proposed East Elevation

Proposed North Elevation

Proposed West Elevation