Agenda item

Outline planning application for the demolition of existing outbuildings and the erection of up to 143 dwellings (including 50% affordable housing), public open space, recreation mitigation land, landscaping, sustainable drainage systems (Suds) and two vehicular access points from Snails Lane and Salisbury Road (Environmental Impact Application Development and effects a Public Right of Way). All matters reserved except for means of access. (AMENDED PLANS RESUBMISSION)

RECOMMENDED:

Service Manager to Grant Subject to Conditions

Details:

Outline planning application for the demolition of existing outbuildings and the erection of up to 143 dwellings (including 50% affordable housing), public open space, recreation mitigation land, landscaping, sustainable drainage systems (Suds) and two vehicular access points from Snails Lane and Salisbury Road (Environmental Impact Application Development and effects a Public Right of Way). All matters reserved except for means of access. (AMENDED PLANS RESUBMISSION) 

Public Participants:

Helen Ball, Gladman Developments (Applicant)

Jim Spark, representing the views of Blashford Meadows Environmental Protection Group and David Orme, Chairman of Christchurch Bicycle Group (Objector)

Cllr Roly Errington, Ellingham, Harbridge & Ibsley Parish Council

Additional Representations:

Statements were read out on behalf of Cllrs Emma Lane, Forest North West Ward and Michael Thierry, Ringwood North Ward.

The case officer reported that an additional seven objections had been received since the report had been published, which included impact on the public highway, ecology and the environment.  There were also concerns in relation to the lack of infrastructure and a question regarding the surfacing on Snails Lane.  This had been included in the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

Cllr Ring disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 18/11606 as a member of the Planning Committee of Ringwood Town Council which had commented on the application. He concluded that as he had not expressed a view or voted on the application there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

The Committee in the debate raised a number of concerns on the outline application which included:

·       The principle of the development of Parcel A, located outside of the allocated site.  Members felt the proposal would result in loss of the countryside, vegetation and be harmful to the character of the area;

·       Overdevelopment of Parcel B of the Strategic site.  Members felt that the level of proposed development, being up to 143 homes in Parcel B would not result in a sustainable form of development in terms of density, form and scale.  It was also felt that it would be out of character to the rural character of the area.  Members acknowledged that the proposed number of houses on the strategic site far exceeded that proposed in the Local Plan;

·       Flooding – Members noted that surface water was currently an issue on the site and felt that the applicant had not demonstrated that the site can be developed in a way to address potential flooding, both within the site and that it could result in further flooding outside of the site, impacting on the wider community.

The Chief Planning Officer advised that should the Committee be minded to refuse the application, two additional reasons for refusal be included in relation to the failure to secure the Section 106 agreement, to deliver for example; affordable housing, air quality, monitoring contributions, etc and that the applicant had not demonstrated nitrate neutrality.

Decision:

Refuse

Conditions / Reasons:

1.          The proposed development comprising the residential area within ‘Parcel A’ is considered to be a significant departure from the adopted Development Plan involving new housing development outside the established limits of the settlement boundary and within an area of countryside contrary to the Council’s strategy for locating new housing development.  As such, the proposed residential development would result in the inappropriate and unjustified urbanisation and encroachment into this countryside area and would result in the loss of trees, vegetation and an open gap which would be out of context with and harmful to this sensitive area.  Consequently, the proposed development is contrary to New Forest Local Plan 2016-2036 policies ENV3, ENV4, STR1, STR3 and STR4, Strategic site 15 and saved Local Plan Part 2 policy DM20, as well as government advice on sustainable development principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework paras 7-11.

2.          Whilst the application submitted is an outline application with all matters except for access reserved, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed quantum of development of up to 143 dwellings, can be accommodated on the site in a way that would not result in a density, form and scale of development that would be inappropriate and harmful to the landscape character of this rural edge site.  The proposal is considered to be contrary to New Forest Local Plan 2016-2036 Policies ENV3, ENV 4 and the objectives set out for SS15 Snails Lane as well as with advice set out in Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.          There are significant areas of existing surface and standing water, within the area of the application site identified on the submitted plans as ‘Parcel B’ together with local areas that are susceptible to flooding.  It is considered that the proposal provides insufficient information and evidence to fully demonstrate that the proposed development could be developed in a way that will be safe for the lifetime of the development, appropriately flood resistant and resilient from surface water and other flood risk on the site and will not give rise or exacerbate flooding the proposal is considered to be contrary to New Forest Local Plan 2016-2036 policies STR1 and CCC1 and the advice set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance on flood risk and development.

4.          It has not been demonstrated how the proposed development can be delivered without having an adverse impact through greater phosphates being discharged into the River Avon, thereby having an adverse impact on the integrity of the River Avon Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the Avon Valley Special Protection Area and the River Avon Ramsar site.  An Appropriate Assessment has been carried out, with it not being possible to rule out likely significant effects on the integrity of the SAC, SPA and Ramsar site.  No mitigation for or control mechanism to ensure likely significant effects would not occur has been or can be secured, as such it would not be possible for the Council, as Competent Authority, to conclude that adverse effects on the integrity of protected habitats would not occur.  As such, the proposal does not accord with Regulation 75/77 of the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017.  The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017 and Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan 2016-2036 Part One:  Planning Strategy for the New Forest District (outside of the National Park).

5.          Lack of securement for Air Quality

In the absence of a completed Section 106 legal agreement to secure a contribution towards air quality monitoring, the proposed development would fail to provide any contribution towards monitoring the impacts of the development on international nature conservation sites.  The proposal would therefore be in conflict with Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan Review 2016-2036 Part One:  Planning Strategy.

Lack of securement for recreational mitigation

In accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (‘the Habitat Regulations’) an Appropriate Assessment has been carried out as to whether granting permission would adversely affect the integrity of the New Forest and Solent Coast European sites, in view of that site’s conservation objectives.  The Assessment concludes that the proposed development would, in combination with other developments, have an adverse effect due to the recreational impacts on European sites, but that the adverse impacts would be avoided if the planning permission were to be accompanied either by a Unilateral Undertaking or if a Section 106 Agreement were to be entered into prior to any decision being made, the effect of which would be that sufficient mitigation of that impact in accordance with the Council’s Mitigation Strategy or mitigation to at lease an equivalent effect could be achieved.  In the absence of either a Unilateral Undertaking or Agreement, the precautionary principle must be engaged, and the proposal must be considered to result in an adverse impact on protected areas and species, contrary to Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan Review 2016-2036 Part One:  Planning Strategy.

Lack of securement for affordable housing

In the absence of a completed Section 106 agreement to secure any affordable housing, the proposed development would fail to provide affordable housing to address the substantial need for affordable housing in the District.  The proposal would therefore conflict with an objective of the New Forest Local Plan 2016-2036 policies HOU2 and IMPL1.