—————————————————————————————————————— Site Address: Development Site North of, Goldring Close, Hayling Island Proposal: Reserved matters application for 131No. open market and affordable

dwellings including 10No. one bed dwellings, 25No. two bed dwellings, 52No. three bed dwellings, 40No. four bed dwellings and 4No. five bed dwellings with associated residential curtilages, parking and turning areas, public open space and surface water attenuation features; and discharge of conditions 5, 6, 10, 15 and 21 of Planning Permission APP/14/00966 approved by appeal APP/X1735/A/13/2192777.

Application No: APP/14/00488 Expiry Date: 15/09/2014 Applicant: Bellway Homes Ltd Team: Team 1 Agent: Mr Higgins

Pro Vision Planning and Design

Case Officer: Heather Lealan

Ward: Hayling East Reason for Committee Consideration: At Cllr Turner’s Request

Density: 30 dph EHPBE Recommendation: GRANT APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS

—————————————————————————————————————— 1 Site Description 1.1 The application site lies adjacent to the settlement of Mengham and towards the eastern

side of Haying Island. The boundary of the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) runs along the eastern boundary of the site. There is a public footpath, which also cuts across the middle and part of the west boundary of the site. Following adoption of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Allocations) the site now lies within the defined urban area.

1.2 The site consists of two fields which form a site of approximately 4.3 hectares in size,

each field being just over 2 hectares 1.3 The site is enclosed by existing built form on three sides. The built form to the west

includes residential development in the form of single storey bungalows and school premises and to the south, residential development in the form of low rise flatted development and detached two storey development. To the north of the site are predominantly detached single storey dwellings. To the east of the site is an open area of countryside which is part of the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty beyond is Chichester Harbour, a designated Special Protected Area, (SPA), and Site of Special Scientific Interest, (SSSI). This area has been designated for its natural scenic qualities and includes much of the coastal environment on the east side of the Island where there is a number of important habitats for sea birds which include European Protected Species. The site is separated from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty by an existing hedgerow with trees which runs along the entire eastern perimeter.

1.4 The land itself is relatively open in character and was previously used as pony paddocks.

There are some trees and vegetation within the site but most of the vegetation is located along the boundaries of the site. The site is relatively flat although it slopes gently to the east and south east.

1.5 The site includes trees and groups of trees protected by Tree Preservation Order 1917. The protected trees are positioned to the western and eastern boundaries and running centrally within the site alongside an existing ditch that runs between the two fields. There are also trees included in the TPO to the northern boundary of the site.

1.6 The field that comprises the northern section of the site has a vehicular access from

Beech Grove which is not laid to hardstanding but provides access into the field for vehicles associated with the horse paddocks. There are no vehicular access points to the southern most field. However, the fields are connected to the wider area and to each other by a network of footpaths which include designated routes along the boundary between the two fields, along the boundary to the school playing fields and on the eastern side of the site running adjacent to the site boundary and the AONB to the east.

2 Planning History 2.1 APP/12/00966 This application sought outline consent for 131 No. affordable and open market housing

and was refused by the LPA, the reasons for refusal are summarised below;

1. The proposal represents the undesirable addition of dwellings in an area of countryside for which, having regard to the available housing land supply, there is no overriding justification.

2. The proposed development would, by reason of its scale and density, significantly

change the character of the area by infilling an undeveloped gap between Gable Head and Mengham, which would erode the rural setting of this part of the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and as such fail to preserve or enhance the special qualities of the AONB.

3. Having regard to the reports submitted with the application, the Local Planning

Authority is not satisfied that the development can be carried out without having a likely significant effect on the Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA/Ramsar site and impacts on the associated Chichester Harbour SSSI.

4. The siting of the vehicular access to the proposed development would result in the

loss of trees important in the local landscape and subject to a Tree Preservation Order, for which no overriding justification has been presented.

5. On the basis of the information submitted it has not been demonstrated that the

access is of an achievable layout which is safe and suitable for all people.

6. Binding arrangements are not in place to secure the a number of aspects of the

development, as a result of which it is not considered that the development could be undertaken in a satisfactory manner

2.2 This application was subsequently granted planning permission on appeal by the

Planning Inspector following a Public Inquiry, reference APP/X1735/A/13/2192777. The planning consent determined a new vehicular access from Beech Grove/Hawthorn Grove including demolition of 1 Hawthorne Grove; new pedestrian and cycle access from St Margarets Road including demolition of 23 St Margarets Road. The appeal Inspector did not define or condition the housing mix.

2.3 Access was the only matter to be considered at outline stage and layout, scale,

appearance and landscaping were reserved. However indicative plans detailing a potential layout, scale and landscaping were submitted to demonstrate that 131 dwellings could be accommodated within the site. The indicative plans and the application

description proposed the following housing mix; 10No. 1 bed flats, 4No. 2 bed flats, 48 No. 2 bed houses, 49 No. 3 bed houses, 20 No. 4 bed houses.

2.4 The general density of residential areas adjoining the site ranges from 18-20 dwellings

per hectare. A density of approximately 30 dwellings per hectare was proposed at outline stage with a mix of types including 2–4 bed houses and 1-2 bed flats. The total number of units proposed was 131 (117 houses and 14 flats), with open space, access roads, footpaths, cycle ways and landscaping.

2.5 30% of the dwellings proposed were to be affordable units which would include properties

to rent and shared ownership properties. The location and mix of affordable units was not determined by this outline scheme. The majority of the dwellings proposed were as two storey houses and a number of apartments. Apartments were proposed to be in the form of small flats over garages or archways to proposed parking courts and one small detached apartment block.

2.6 APP/14/00613 Also submitted and now under consideration is an associated application subject of a

separate report on this agenda, APP/14/00613, which seeks to demolish the existing dwelling within 1 Hawthorne Grove and construct part of the access road to serve the development subject of this report.

3 Proposal 3.1 The application the subject of this report is a reserved matters application that seeks to

address the matters reserved at outline stage being layout, scale, appearance and landscaping. The principle of the development of the site for 131 dwellings has been firmly established with the granting of outline planning permission allowed at appeal APP/X1735/A/13/2192777. The whole site as shown within the submitted red line is now included in the Council's adopted Allocations Plan as site UE16. Therefore the site is now part of the Council's five year land supply for new housing. The application subject of this report accords with the outline permission in that the application proposes a development of 131 dwellings and therefore the general density of the site remains the same at 30 (approx) dwellings per hectare. The housing mix has changed from that illustrated at outline stage but it is not considered to be fundamentally different and to be within the scope of the outline permission. The applicants are also seeking to formally discharge 5 of the pre-commencement conditions of the outline application at this time. These being conditions 5 (finished levels), 6 (means of enclosure), 10 (Construction Management Plan and Construction Method Statement), 15 (storage and disposal of refuse during construction) and 21 (Biodiversity Mitigation, Enhancement Management Plan).

3.2 In terms of housing mix this reserved matters application proposes 10No. one bed

dwellings, 25No. two bed dwellings, 52No. three bed dwellings, 40No. four bed dwellings and 4No. five bed dwellings with associated residential curtilages, parking and turning areas, public open space and surface water attenuation features. The access arrangements stay as per the outline permission but with the priority changed at the Beech Grove Junction. The internal road layout and landscaping is similar in form to that illustrated at outline stage

3.3 A comparison schedule has been provided setting out the mix of the 131No dwelling

types and sizes of that permitted at outline stage and that proposed at reserved matters:

Affordable homes

Approved Proposed Houses 1 Bedroom 0 10 2 bedroom 15 16 3 bedroom 12 13 4 bedroom 2 0 Flats 1 bedroom 10 0

Open Market Homes

Approved Proposed Houses 2 Bedroom 33 9 3 bedroom 37 39 4 bedroom 18 40 5 bedroom 0 4 Flats 1 bedroom 4 0

4 Policy Considerations National Policies

The National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012 Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 CS1 (Health and Wellbeing) CS11 (Protecting and Enhancing the Special Environment and Heritage of

Havant Borough) CS12 (Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)) CS13 (Green Infrastructure) CS14 (Efficient Use of Resources) CS15 (Flood and Coastal Erosion) CS16 (High Quality Design) CS17 (Concentration and Distribution of Development within the Urban Areas) CS19 (Effective Provision of Infrastructure) CS20 (Transport and Access Strategy) CS21 (Developer Requirements) CS3 (Skills and Employability) CS7 (Community Support and Inclusion) CS8 (Community Safety) CS9 (Housing) DM10 (Pollution) DM11 (Planning for More Sustainable Travel) DM12 (Mitigating the Impacts of Travel) DM13 (Car and Cycle Parking on Residential Development) DM8 (Conservation, Protection and Enhancement of Existing Natural Features) DM9 (Development in the Coastal Zone)

Local Plan (Allocations) 2014 AL1 - Presumption in Favour of Development HY1 - Hayling Island Housing Allocations DM23 - Sites for Brent Geese and Waders DM24 - Recreational Disturbance to Special Protected Areas (SPA) from Residential Development Supplementary Planning Documents Borough Design Guide SPD (Adopted Dec 2011) Housing SPD (Adopted July 2011) Residential Parking and Cycle Provision SPD (Adopted March 2010)

Listed Building Grade: Not applicable. Conservation Area: Not applicable. 5 Statutory and Non Statutory Consultations A number of the consultees below refer to a representation response received from the

MFRG, this is the Mengham Fields Residents Group and this group have submitted a representation which was sent to the relevant consultees to consider further following their initial consultation responses.

Engineering/Drainage The overall outflow determined by the Flood Risk Assessment, (FRA), from the site has not changed and so I have no further comments at this stage Officer Comment - The drainage engineer will be consulted further when the applicant submits detailed drainage information at discharge of condition stage Education Confirmed that the education needs are calculated on overall unit numbers and not bedrooms and as such there is no change in educational requirement for this scheme compared to the scheme submitted at outline stage. Housing The Affordable Housing layout plan (attached at Appendix A to the Affordable Housing Statement), includes a mix of house types and tenures which would accord with previous discussions had with the developer. In fact this new layout, from an Affordable Housing perspective, is improved slightly from layout plan 1543 Sk 08 dated March 14 as it reduces (by one unit) the cluster of Affordable Rent homes to the West of the site. The objections raised by MFRG seem to centre around the increase in the number of larger units proposed within the Reserved Matters (RM) application and its effects on the infrastructure in the area, and the AONB. As this does not affect the agreed affordable provision, which meets the needs of the borough, there are no comments on this. County Ecologist Overall, and as identified during previous ecological surveys and the subsequent appeal, the site is of limited ecological value. The appeal inspector did not consider the issue of disturbance to overwintering birds to be so significant as to result in a likely significant effect to the nearby Special Protection Area (SPA). He did however

advise that mitigation, in the form of adequate boundary buffering, was required. This application is subtly different from that permitted on appeal, the key difference being the addition of a small number of new dwellings at the south-eastern corner (nos. 127-131). I do not consider these additions to be an overriding issue in terms of potential impacts to Brent Geese. However, it was established at appeal that the likely impacts to any geese using the off-site field could be mitigated via a strengthened boundary and the provision of a new footpath. The treatment of this boundary therefore remains the key aspect of mitigation for avoiding/minimising brent goose issues. Revised comments following submission of amended plans

My previous response dated 8th July 2014 requested that further detail be provided on the potential impacts of e.g. wheel washing facilities, materials storage, vehicular movements etc. I am pleased to see that the revised construction plan (001 Rev B July 2014) shows that such activities are now situated well away from the eastern boundary and that hoarding will be installed to screen (visually and acoustically) the construction from the adjacent field. These measures should mitigate any potential visual and noise disturbance. Further to the recent submission of a revised

Construction Management Statement (Bellway Homes, v.4 dated 29th July 2014) I now consider that there is sufficient information to enable accordance with planning condition 20 (noise level restrictions) which also pertains to condition 21 (protection of ecological features). I am now happy to concur with the comments made recently by the Senior Landscape Officer that the limited removal of bramble will, over time, allow the quicker establishment of the planted native hedging. These measures, alongside the proposed hoarding, will assist in avoiding the potential impacts to the adjacent SPA supporting habitat. On the basis of the recently-submitted landscaping information I am content to agree that the revised plans do accord with Condition 21. Landscape Team The temporary sales parking area overlaps the hedge to be retained, therefore the parking area should be moved southwards or one of the five parking spaces should be removed. The LAP is too close to the frontage of plot 36 - only 4 metres from the front door and separated by a 2 metre wide shrub bed of low ground cover. I recommend increasing the width of the shrub bed to 5 metres and including taller growing shrubs to give some separation between the LAP and the private frontage. Changes recommended to a more appropriate shrub mix. The native hedge that is proposed to be planted along the eastern boundary should be extended eastwards adjacent to the proposed hoggin footpath in order to compensate for the gaps in the stretch of existing hedgerow that runs from west to east on this boundary. This hedge should also have a note for bramble removal and supplementary hedge planting to fill in the gaps. Revised comments following submission of amended plans The revised plans as submitted are now considered to be acceptable Hampshire Highways - Transport Assessment It is noted that the proposed housing mix has been amended from the outline application. The overall housing number is still the same as the original proposal at 131 dwellings. The transport assessment and impact on the highway was assessed using TRICS data which determines the number of trips generated by a residential development based on dwelling numbers. Within this assessment a range of different

housing compositions are considered. Therefore the change in dwelling types would not alter the outcome of this assessment and we remain satisfied that the transport assessment accurately reflects the impact of vehicle traffic from the development on the Highway Network. Revised comments following submission of amended plans The additional information pertaining to the CMS/CMP submitted by the applicant addresses previous concerns and I am satisfied that condition 10 can now be fully discharged on Highway grounds Development Engineer Amended plans have been submitted to address Development Engineer's initial concerns. No objection. Chichester Harbour Conservancy Whereas the indicative plan considered by the Inspector at Appeal indicated a green buffer in the south east corner of the site, Members were concerned to see housing proposed in that location, whose limited spatial separation and closer proximity to the AONB was considered to be too intrusive in the wider landscape. This could be mitigated by adjusting the layout to lessen the amount of housing in that location or at least having hipped roof forms. It was noted that the intended housing mix had been altered and notwithstanding there still only being 131 houses being proposed, increased potential for recreational disturbance in the adjoining AONB would be likely to result. If adjustments are made to the layout or profile of the dwellings, which Havant Borough Council are ultimately inclined to support, Members wanted to be sure that the hedge line to the eastern boundary would be widened and retained, if this were to be conveyed into individual residential curtilages. To that end, the Conservancy would wish the council to place a hedgerow order on this hedge line. There was broad discussion about preference for the use of darker materials including window frameworks and no weatherboarding for housing to be located close to the eastern boundary. Officer Comment - Revised plans have been submitted increasing the reinforcement planting to the eastern boundary hedge and revised plans submitted which hip the roof forms of the dwellings within the south eastern corner of the site Natural England The application site is in close proximity to the Chichester Harbour Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This SSSI is part of the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area (SPA)/Ramsar and the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Satisfactory amended plans have been submitted with regard to the hedge reinforcement, interim screening provision and a revised CMS/CMP including noise monitoring proposals.

A mitigation contribution is required as agreed by the Solent Recreation Management Partnership (formerly SDMP) should be secured as this development is within 5.6km of the Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA. NE response to MFRG comments The matters raised which are pertinent to our remit were also addressed in our recent response to the consultation, particularly with regard to screening and noise. Officer Comment - A Solent Disturbance Mitigation Payment cannot be required because the outline permission was granted prior to the Council adopting the requirement. Furthermore, the Appeal Inspector placed no other mitigation

requirements on the permission other than condition 21 and he concluded that he did not consider it likely that the development would have a significant effect on the adjacent protected sites. Open Space Society No comments Rights of Way Officer No comments Southern Water The comments in our original response dated 18/10/12 remain unchanged and valid. Officer Comment - A drainage and sewerage condition was attached to the outline permission and is not sought to be discharged as part of the considerations of the application the subject of this report. Building Control Bin storage provisions required. Foul public sewer runs through the site along the eastern side. Officer Comment - No flats are proposed and all dwellings have private spaces within which there is adequate space of bin storage. The applicants are aware of the foul sewer to the eastern side of the site and they consider that this has been accommodated within the layout. Environment Agency Having assessed the application with regard to the development type and location of the proposal, we can confirm that we have no bespoke comments to make. Officer Comment - The EA will be consulted when the applicant submit a discharge of condition application regarding drainage. Arboriculturalist The supporting arboricultural evidence is comprehensive and outlined in the following points: Moderate tree removal is required to facilitate development as well as a requirement for some tree pruning to allow works. The trees proposed for removal are all of low value/grading and most could have been removed for sound arboricultural reasons regardless of any redevelopment proposals. Two important TPO Oaks have been previously felled under application to allow access into the site. These trees must be mitigated for in the form of at least two semi mature Oaks planted as part of the Landscape Master Plan (LMP) From a review of the LMP it can be seen that high levels of shrub and tree planting will be added to enhance the site and these more than adequately mitigate the loss of any current trees. Provided that the methodology prescribed in the Arboricultural Method Statement, (AMS) & Tree Protection Plan, (TPP) report is strictly adhered to and a regular site monitoring exercise undertaken I would expect the retained trees to survive the development and to continue to grow on in the future. Officer Comment - Reserved matters application to be conditioned as such with revised tree plan. Revised LMP submitted and includes the mitigation oaks

6 Community Involvement 6.1 This application was publicised in accordance with the Council's Code of Practice for

Publicity of Planning Applications approved at minute 207/6/92 (as amended), as a result of which the following publicity was undertaken:

Number of neighbour notification letters sent: 64 Number of site notices: Two Statutory advertisement: 20/06/2014 Number of representations received: 60 prior to the submission of amended plans. 6.2 The amended plans that have been received relate to landscaping, CMP/CMS, block and

site plans, revised house types for H25 and H15, Vehicular Tracking Plan, Landscape plans and scheme, Arboricultural Impact Assessment, and Tree Protection Plan. The neighbours were re-notified on the 28 July 2014 and given 14 days with which to provide comments. At this time of writing this report the extended publicity period, (until the 11 August 2014), has not expired and so an update will be provided to members prior to the DMC in the form of an addendum to this report.

6.3 In view of the nature and complexity of some of the neighbour responses, a detailed

summary of all the points raised by the representations received can be found at appendix G. This is not normal practice, however in this particular case officers received a very detailed representation covering a wide range of issues. Members are reminded that all representations received can be viewed in full on line. The key themes raised in the representation letters relate to the following matters;

6.4 Compliance with Appeal Planning Consent

• Concerns raised regarding the change to the housing mix at reserved matters from the indicative plan at outline stage, the increased number of bedrooms/potential residents will cause further detrimental impact on; traffic generation, ecology (both within and outside of the site), insufficient local amenities, the amenities of the surrounding residents.

• There are less smaller open market homes and retirement homes thus revised scheme does not meet requirements of CS9.

• Compliance with the appeal conditions has not been established and they must be met. Full details concerning all pre-commencement condition requirements should have been submitted at reserved matters stage.

• New layout proposes considerably less open green space. Has use of Legion Field been secured?

Impact on Ecology, Natural Features and Adjacent Protected Sites

• The submitted details are not sufficient to establish that there will not be a detrimental impact during construction on ecology, habitat and wildlife both within and outside of the site, (including the AONB, SPA and SSSI), and that the new layout proposes dwellings closer to the eastern boundary which is adjacent to a protected site.

• Detrimental visual impact on the AONB due to design and scale of dwellings and ridge heights being too high towards eastern boundary

• Concerns with regard to the suitability of the Construction Method Statement/Construction Management Plan that this may lead to detrimental impact on adjacent protected sites and ecology within the site during construction.

• Detrimental impact of the layout on existing trees and hedging and wildlife living in them within and outside of site

• Ditch clearance has not been undertaken sensitively

• Temporary screening must be installed until re-enforcement planting to eastern boundary hedge becomes established

• Show home parking towards eastern boundary would have detrimental impact on Brent Geese

• The eastern boundary hedge should not be trimmed back as described in the submission

• Various permitted development rights should be removed to avoid impact on protected sites

Drainage and Flooding Issues

• Concerns with regard to the new layout on drainage and flooding and the lack of information submitted with this application to this regard

Access and Traffic

• Suitability of accesses, internal road layout and impact of increased traffic - in principle and for the revised layout/housing mix

• Cycle and footpath provision is not adequately addressed/ acceptable in terms of highway safety within the submitted plans

• Not all of the plots have adequate cycle and car provision and general inadequate parking provision within the site will cause highway safety issues within surrounding roads.

• Condition required to prohibit parking and storage at end of Beech Grove

• Adequate provision must be provided to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in forward gear

• Various permitted development rights should be removed to avoid impact on parking within and outside of the site

• No information as to how S106 monies will be spent to mitigate impact on highways

• Hoggin should not be used to surface footpaths Impact on the Occupiers of Adjacent Residential Dwellings

• Detrimental impact during the construction period on local residents

• Detrimental impact on local residents in terms of overbearing and overlooking

• Various permitted development rights should be removed to avoid impact on occupiers of existing dwellings

General Design and Layout Issues

• There are alleyways shown to the rear of some dwellings that will cause security issues

• There is a play area which is isolated by a central ditch which will cause highway safety issues

Other Issues

• There are alleyways shown to the rear of some dwellings that will cause security issues

• Archaeology report has not been published

• Community Involvement Statement submitted contains inconsistencies

• Have the developers met the requirement to provide employment plans?

• There are covenants on land which prevent development within certain distances of site boundaries and the exact boundary lines need to be established

• The Halyards is not a suitable name for the development

• The development will impact the sale of homes adjacent to the site

• Development will exacerbate existing unemployment with the Island

• Council planners have not visited the site recently At the time of writing this report a further two objections have been received by the same

resident, (part of the MFRG), with regard to the submitted amended plans and all new points raised are summarised below. However the publicity date for comment on amended plans does not expire until the 11 August 2014 and so Members will be advised through an addendum to this report prior to the DMC of any further letters of representation.

Impact on Ecology, Natural Features and Adjacent Protected Sites

• The submitted plans do not overcome residents concerns with regard to the impact of the revised layout on the AONB, SPA and SSSI

• Appeal conditions required that the developers were to infill strengthen & introduce deciduous growth within the existing hedgerows not destroy the existing habitats.

• Concerns about the loss of vegetation screening to north and south site boundaries. Trees that have been removed from site are shown to be retained on landscape plan

• Construction Management Plan dated 28 July 2014 and which is part of application APP/14/00488 now states that piling is required in certain parts of the site, concerns regarding trees.

• The eastern boundary hedge should not be trimmed back and T12 should not be lost

• Landscape Officer report has a differing opinion to Hampshire Ecology on the retention of bramble.

• Ensure a condition regarding duty of care for the trees which have branches which overhang the highway along Beech Grove and Tournerbury Lane.

Drainage and Flooding Issues

• The concerns regarding drainage and flooding have not been addressed within the amended plans

• Reduction in swales from the outline consent Access and Traffic

• The parking area for the show homes is not shown

• Cycle and footpath provision is still not adequately addressed within the submitted plans

• Not all of the plots have adequate cycle and car provision and there are still alleyways to the rear of some dwellings

• The latest changed documentation shows a red road way which is wholly inappropriate for a countryside location.

• Vehicle Tracking- the plan submitted assumes that refuse lorry will be parked in the gutter which in reality will not be the case and therefore the site is likely to be grid locked on refuse collection days.

• No footpaths in the south eastern corner of the site and no delivery and turning points beyond 131 & 60

7 Planning Considerations

7.1 Having regard to the relevant policies of the development plan and all other material considerations it is considered that the main issues arising from this application are:

(i) Principle of Development (ii) Density, Scale, Massing, Design, Layout and Form of Development (iii) Affordable Housing (iv) Residential Amenity (iv) Highway and Transportation Matters

(v) Trees and Landscaping (vi) Ecology and Impact on AONB and Protected Sites (vii) Drainage and Flooding (ix) Section 106 Obligations (x) Information Submitted to Discharge Outline Planning Conditions (xi) Other Issues

(i) Principle of development 7.2 The principle of the development of the site for 131 dwellings has been firmly established

with the granting of outline planning permission allowed at appeal, (ref APP/12/00966 Inspectorate ref: APP/X1735/A/13/2192777). The whole site as shown within the submitted redline is now included in the Council's adopted Allocations Plan as site UE16. The Allocations Plan was recently adopted by the Council after it was examined by an independent Inspector. The main aim of the Allocations Plan is to allocate land to help deliver from 2013-2026 the Borough development requirements for housing and employment. A key focus of the NPPF is that planning authorities should boost significantly the supply of housing in order to meet the objectively assessed housing needs of their area. The NPPF requires each planning authority to demonstrate that they have deliverable plans for five (plus) years’ supply of new housing. Site UE16 is formally identified as a housing site and has planning consent for 131 dwellings.

7.3 The current application seeks approval for the matters of detail reserved at outline stage,

these being landscaping, scale, layout and appearance. Information has also been submitted in order to gain approval to formally discharge 5 of the pre-commencement conditions attached to the planning consent. All these matters are considered below with regard to relevant development control criteria and planning policy. Whilst a number of the representation comments, as detailed in appendix G of this report, continue to raise concerns regarding the principle of the development and some of the wider impacts that would flow from the development; such matters of principle are not relevant to the consideration of this reserved matters application.

(ii) Density, scale, massing, design, layout and form of development

7.4 The density of the proposed reserved matters scheme remains the same as permitted at

outline stage, and is approx. 30 dwellings per hectare. The mix of housing has been amended and there is an increase of 55 No. bedrooms representing an 8.6% increase within the site through the provision of a greater number of 4 and 5 bedroom open market homes and the reduction in 2 bedroomed open market homes. It is not considered that this change represents a fundamental change to that permitted at outline stage and the proposed layout is recognisable as a similar scheme to the indicative plans submitted and approved at outline. The appeal Inspector did not prescribe the precise housing mix, thus he has allowed the reserved matters application to respond to the current market requirements in line with the requirement of Core Strategy policy CS9. This policy requires the LPA to consider schemes in terms of the housing needs across the Borough. Linked to this policy is a DTZ Annual Marketing Monitoring Report, 2008, prepared for PUSH, (Partnership for Urban South Hampshire), which identifies the need for larger family homes , LPA's should also consider whether there may be opportunities to re-plan sites to improve viability and whether this could also present the opportunity to secure more family sized accommodation. In considering the need within the Borough in line with the requirements of policy CS9, the following information is useful. It is taken from the LPA’s Annual Monitoring Reports from 2008 until 2013 and shows the proportion of new homes by size.

Number of new homes by size

Size of Property

Year 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4+ bed

2007/08 131 (31%) 190 (46%) 70 (17%) 25 (6%)

2008/09 103 (38%) 123 (46%) 30 (11%) 14 (5%)

2009/10 31 (16%) 85 (43%) 49 (25%) 31 (16%)

2010/11 66 (24%) 125 (46%) 54 (20%) 28 (10%)

2011/12 34 (18.5%) 80 (43.5%) 60 (33%) 10 (5%)

2012/13 79 (31%) 93 (36%) 42 (17%) 41 (16%)

This information has been presented annually in the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report (published in December each year).

7.5 The figures represent the gross number of new homes completed in the relevant year. The percentage figures provided indicate the percentage of properties in that size group against the overall gross completions for the respective year. Whilst the data for 2013/14 has yet to be analysed in detail, it still provides a useful tool to demonstrate that, in all years, two bed properties have represented the greatest proportion of new home completions. In five of the six years 4+ bedroom properties have represented the lowest proportion of new home completions.

7.6 In terms of the policy context, Policy CS16 of the Local Plan (Core Strategy) requires that

new development inter alia responds to and respects local context by integrating with existing landscape features. It requires development to use characteristics of the locality to help inform the design of the new development (including heights, massing, aesthetics), to produce a positive relationship between buildings and spaces through designing out crime, appropriate layout and form, and to be inclusive and not give rise to any detrimental impacts on surrounding properties. The Policy also requires that appropriate landscaping is required.

7.7 As detailed within section 3 of this report, the proposal is for an increase in the number of

large family homes with and a reduction in smaller houses and the replacement of all flats with one bedroomed houses. This form of mix is not out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area. In accordance with the indicative outline plans, the proposed layout ensures variety and interest through the site. House widths vary and the dwellings are formed in short terraces, pairs and individually through the site. They are arranged in perimeter blocks that separate public and private amenity space. All the buildings have been designed to a domestic scale and there remains a range of dwelling sizes.

7.8 The proposed development is laid out so that there is visual interest amongst the pattern

of buildings. The layout provides good street enclosure, and the provision of buildings is such that the layout is legible, coherent and interesting. Vehicle parking has been provided and ensures that vehicles will not be stored in visually intrusive positions that would be harmful to visual amenity. It is not considered that the new layout results in a significantly denser development. The amount of open green space has not fundamentally changed from the layout approved by the appeal Inspector.

7.9 In terms of pure aesthetics, the appearance of the buildings would be traditional, and the

development would relate well to the established built environment. All of the buildings feature interesting and high quality designed elevations, and it is considered that the development raises no visual design issues, (see section (vii) regarding visual impact on AONB). The development provides and retains landscape features such as trees and hedgerows, and it is considered that this development will accord with the requirements

of Policy CS16 of the Local Plan (Core Strategy), and provide a high quality environment. It is however recommended that permitted development rights be conditioned limiting some of the units to protect the character and amenities of the development. A material palette has been submitted with the application and any subsequent consent should condition the requirement of a plan to be submitted indicating on which plots the different palettes will be used.

(iii) Affordable Housing

7.10 The original grant of outline planning permission at planning appeal was subject to a

Section 106 legal agreement that, (amongst other matters), stipulated that 30% of the dwellings shall be affordable housing. This equated to 39 of the 131 units being designated as affordable.

7.11 This application does not propose to change the overall number of houses on site and the

affordable housing provision will remain the same. The affordable units are spread around the development site and comprise of a wide range of unit types and sizes. This accords with the principles of creating balanced and mixed communities and provides a cohesive and balanced form of development. On this basis it is considered that the development would enable appropriate levels and types of affordable housing, and complies with the relevant policies in this respect.

(iv) Residential Amenity

7.12 It is considered that given the separation distances and existing landscaping shown to be

retained that the proposed development meets the requirements of policy CS16 and the Borough Design Guide. As such there would be no significant loss of amenity to the owners of the properties in the surrounding adjacent roads to the north, west and south of the development site. The proposed finished levels are comparable with those at the site boundaries and so it is not considered that issues of overbearing or overlooking will be created. Concerns have been raised that the development consists of two storey homes whilst there are many bungalows that surround the site, However it is not considered that this would warrant a refusal of the scheme because the layout meets the guidelines of the Borough Design Guide and separation distances are sufficient to prevent an overbearing/overlooking impact to the amenities of the occupiers of existing dwellings adjacent to the site.

7.13 The submitted Construction Method Statement should be conditioned as part of any

planning consent to ensure that the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings would not be impacted to an undue extent through the construction period of the development.

(v Highway and Transportation matters

7.14 The overall issue of access was considered at the outline planning application stage and

HCC Highway Engineers were consulted with regard to the priority change at the Beech Grove/Hawthorne Grove junction, the new layout and an increase in proposed bedroom numbers. They were satisfied that the overall housing number is still the same as the original proposal at 131 dwellings and clarified that the transport assessment submitted at outline stage and impact on the highway was assessed using TRICS data which determines the number of trips generated by a residential development based on dwelling numbers. As such, this allows for an assessment covering a range of different housing compositions. The Highways Engineers also considered that the change in priority was acceptable in terms of highway safety. Therefore HCC Highways have concluded that the change in dwelling types and road priority does not alter the outcome of the outline assessment and as such the revisions are considered to be acceptable in terms of impact on the Highway Network and within the remit of the outline consent. The access must be constructed in accordance with highway standards and this will be controlled under a

S278 agreement. 7.15 In terms of the general internal layout, the Council’s Development Engineers raised no

objections upon the submission of revised plans which overcame their initial concerns. The overall layout is legible, sufficient vehicle parking is provided to meet adopted parking standards and no technical or safety issues are considered to arise. Residents have raised specific concerns regarding the accessibility of the central play area, however it is considered that it is accessible and acceptably located. The dense vegetation running east to west across the site should also discourage residents from cutting across a private car parking area and over the central ditch into the southern part of the site.

7.16 The applicant has produced a cycle path plan which shows a route through the site to St

Margarets Road. HBC's Development Engineers have reviewed the plan and are generally satisfied with the contents. Additionally, the access path to the south-eastern corner of the site has been increased in width to that of a shared footpath/ cycle access to allow for a future link to the cycle network south of the site; should the pinch point on My Lords Lane be resolved in the future.

7.17 It should be noted that both main vehicular and cycle access into the site was approved

by the appeal Inspector at outline stage and therefore the applicant has accorded with the nature of the outline permission with this reserved matters submission.

(vi) Trees and Landscaping

7.18 The Council’s Arborist has been consulted on the application and the revised plans and

he finds the submitted information to be acceptable. A planning condition is recommended to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan

7.19 A Landscaping Scheme has been submitted with the application. This indicates new tree

planting and areas of soft landscaping, the scheme subject of this report retains more of the central vegetation running east/west across the site than the indicative plan submitted at outline stage showed for retention. The Council’s Landscape Officer has been consulted and has approved the revised plans. Adherence to the Landscape Master Plan should be conditioned as part of any subsequent planning consent.

(vii) Ecology and impact on AONB and protected sites

7.20 HCC's Ecologist considers the layout acceptable following consideration of the revised

submitted plans and supporting information. It is not considered that the layout now proposed will have a significantly greater impact on the AONB and protected sites to the east of the development than the approved scheme. It is considered that two storey dwellings are appropriate within the context of the site and the visual amenities of the AONB and it is not considered that the roof lines being visible over the top of the boundary hedge would be detrimental to the AONB or protected coast line.

7.21 It must be noted that the appeal Inspector will have taken into account all relevant

national and local policy when reaching the appeal decision for the outline application. The reserved matters application subject of this report is not different in terms of dwelling numbers proposed and Natural England and HCC's Ecologist do not consider that the difference now proposed in terms of layout and housing mix are significant in ecological terms: essentially they have concluded that the potential impacts remain the same. HCC’s Ecologist's main concern is that sufficient buffer vegetation is provided which will negate the vast majority of ecological issues. The appeal Inspector was quite clear in that the ecological implications were manageable provided that sufficient buffering was provided. Following the submission of revised plans by the applicant that reinforce the

eastern boundary hedge and propose a 2.4m acoustic fence to be installed throughout the construction period whilst the additional landscaping is becoming established, the Ecologist has removed all objections to the scheme in terms of impact on the AONB and protected sites to the east.

7.22 Both Natural England and HCC's Ecologist considered that the Construction

Management Plan (CMP) and Construction Management Statement (CMS) as initially submitted were not sufficient to demonstrate that there would not be a detrimental impact on the AONB and protected sites. Officer concerns were also raised with regard to the lack of information regarding the mitigation of any potential impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the surrounding residential properties. Following a number of amendments a final CMS and CMP have been submitted which are considered acceptable both in terms of ecological and residential impact mitigation.

7.23 Chichester Harbour Conservancy have raised concerns with regard to the housing

proposed to be located adjacent to the south eastern section of the eastern boundary of the site in terms of a detrimental impact to the visual amenities of the AONB and protected coastline. CHC considered that this could be mitigated by adjusting the layout to lessen the amount of housing in that location or at least incorporating hipped roof forms to these dwellings. The applicants have submitted amended plans which hips the roofs to these dwellings and, as such, it is not considered that a reason for refusal of the reserved matters application could be substantiated upon this ground. CHC also raised concerns that the intended housing mix had been altered and, notwithstanding there still only being 131 houses proposed, increased potential for recreational disturbance in the adjoining AONB would be likely to result. However neither Natural England or HCC's Ecologist support this opinion and so again, it is not considered that this would be a valid reason to refuse planning permission for the scheme. CHC also required the hedge line to the eastern boundary to be widened and retained, amended plans have since been submitted which further reinforce the eastern boundary hedge and Natural England and HCC's Ecologist are satisfied that these amendments mitigate the impact of the revised layout. The Conservancy also wish the council to place a hedgerow order on this hedge line. However it is considered that this hedge line can be protected through a planning condition. CHC also raise the preference for the use of darker materials including window frames and no light coloured weatherboarding for housing to be located close to the eastern boundary. It is agreed that this is appropriate and that it can be controlled through recommended planning conditions.

7.24 It is considered that permitted development rights for boundary fences, extensions,

changes to roofs and structures within gardens should be removed from the plots within the south eastern corner of the development in order to mitigate any negative impact on the visual amenities of the AONB and ecology. Also that permitted development rights for changes to roofs should be removed from all the remaining plots facing the eastern boundary along its entirety in order to protect the visual amenity of the AONB.

(viii) Drainage and Flooding

7.25 The Sustainable Urban Drainage System is subject to conditions set out in the outline

planning permission and the Section 106 Agreement and the applicants are not seeking to discharge this condition at this time.

7.26 The Environment Agency and HBC Drainage Engineer have been consulted with regard

to the submitted layout and neither have raised concerns with regard to flooding. The current application supports the approach identified within the previous outline proposal for the site and the outflows from the site still accord at this reserved matters stage with the outline Flood Risk Assessment. The full discharge of the planning condition relating to the outline planning permission is a separate matter and does not prejudice the determination of this application.

(ix) Section 106 Obligations 7.27 The outline planning permission for the construction of 131 residential dwellings was

subject to a Section 106 Agreement. Financial contributions were calculated on the number of units proposed and on the mitigation measures required to support the development. A deed of variation to the original Section 106 Agreement is currently being drafted so that the housing mix now proposed is reflected within the legal agreement. Residents have raised various concerns with regard to the spending of the agreed S106 transport contribution but this is outside of the remit of this reserved matters application. The appeal Inspector did not require the use of the adjacent Legion Field to be part of a S106 measure to mitigate any impact of the development. The agreed S106 also includes clauses relating to Employment Plans and the requirement for a Management Company and so these details have been addressed at the outline stage.

(x) Information submitted to discharge outline planning conditions

7.28 The following five conditions are sought to be discharged through information submitted

with this reserved matters application; 7.29 Condition 5 Construction of the buildings hereby permitted shall not commence on each phase until

plans and particulars specifying the finished levels (above ordnance datum) of both the ground floors of the proposed buildings and the surrounding ground levels in relation to existing ground levels for that phase have first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

7.30 It is considered that the amended submitted site plans meet the requirements of this

condition and that it can be fully discharged so long as these plans are included in the list of documents conditioned to be adhered to, if Members are minded to approve consent for this reserved matters application.

7.31 Condition 6

Construction of the buildings hereby permitted shall not commence on each phase until plans and particulars specifying the alignment, type, height and, where appropriate, construction materials and design of all proposed screen walls, fences, hedges and other means of enclosure for that phase have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. The screening provision shall be retained at all times thereafter.

7.32 It is considered that the submitted fencing plan meets the requirements of this condition

and that it can be fully discharged so long as this plan is included in the list of documents conditioned to be adhered to.

7.33 Condition 10

No development hereby permitted shall commence until a Construction Management Plan and Construction Method Statement have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan and Construction Method Statement.

7.34 It is considered that the final submitted CMS/CMP meets the requirements of this

condition and that it can be fully discharged so long as the CMS/CMP are included in the list of documents conditioned to be adhered to.

7.35 Condition 15

Construction of the buildings hereby permitted shall not commence on each phase until a specification of the provision to be made for the storage and disposal of refuse for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be brought into use until the implementation of such provision for refuse has been completed in full accordance with such an approved specification.

7.36 It is considered that the submitted site plans and bin storage plans show that there is access to the rear of each dwelling for bin storage provision and that this meets the requirements of this condition and that it can be fully discharged so long as the plans are included in the list of documents conditioned to be adhered to.

7.37 Condition 21

The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a detailed Biodiversity Mitigation, Enhancement and Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall detail the measures to be implemented to avoid, mitigate and compensate for impacts to biodiversity as a result of the development hereby permitted, with particular reference to bats, reptiles and foraging and nesting birds, as well as boundary planting along the eastern edge of the site. Development shall be carried out in accordance with all the biodiversity compensation and enhancement measures being permanently retained.

7.38 It is considered that the submitted Biodiversity Mitigation, Enhancement Management

Plan, along with the revised CMS/CMP meets the requirements of this condition and that it can be discharged with regard to the commencement of the development so long as the Biodiversity Mitigation, Enhancement Management Plan and final CMS/CMP are included in the list of documents conditioned to be adhered.

(xi) Other Issues

7.39 Residents adjacent to the site have raised concerns about a restrictive covenant that may

be attached to the development site. However this is not a planning matter and Bellway have been advised to this regard.

7.40 Other concerns regarding the name of the development and impact on the sale of the

existing surrounding dwellings are also not valid material planning considerations. Furthermore, this is a reserved matters application and the principle of development for the 131 dwellings has been firmly established under outline planning consent.

7.41 Residents have raised concerns that not all conditions of the outline application have

been addressed within the information submitted with regard to the reserved matters application subject of this report. However, this submission accords with planning law and it is usual planning practice that not at planning conditions are discharged at the same time. It is considered by the case officer that sufficient information has been submitted to allow for the full and proper consideration of the reserved matters scheme subject of this report.

7.42 Further concerns have been raised with regard to proposed alleyways to the side and

rear of some dwellings in regard to the requirements of Designing out Crime. However, it is considered that these alleyways are for the private use for a very small number of dwellings and that the design is acceptable.

7.43 The applicant is also required to make the findings of the Archaeology report publically

available in accordance with a scheme that must be approved in writing by the LPA. The applicants have been made aware of this requirement but this outstanding matter does not impact the considerations of this application subject of this report .

7.44 There are also residents who consider that the Community Involvement Statement

contains inconstancies. This is noted, however, it is not considered that the CIS has influenced the considerations of this reserved matters application; which have been made following assessment of all the consultee responses and resident representations received.

7.45 Customer parking for the show homes period will be provided within the driveways of the

properties. 8 Conclusion 8.1 Overall the scheme provides a balanced mix of well designed housing and landscaping. It

offers a high quality living environment for future residents that is sympathetic to its surroundings and safeguards the amenity of adjoining residents. The development accords with Local and National Planning Policy. The recommendation is permission subject to conditions and a deed of variation to the Section 106 Agreement.

9 RECOMMENDATION:

That the Executive Head of Planning and Built Environment be authorised to GRANT APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS for application APP/14/00488 subject to - A) The variation of the S106 agreement attached to planning permission

APP/12/00966 as described at paragraph 7.27 above, and B) The conditions imposed on the outline Planning Permission

APP/12/00966 except conditions 5, 6, 10, 15 and 21 which are hereby discharged, and

C) The following conditions;

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 2 years from the date of the approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans: Site Location P 01 received 12/05/2014 Block Plan P 02 rev H received 28/07/2014 Site Plan 1 of 5 P 03-1 rev D received 22/07/2014 Site Plan 2 of 5 P 03-2 rev C received 22/07/2014 Site Plan 3 of 5 P 03-3 rev C received 22/07/2014 Site Plan 4 of 5 P 03-4 rev D received 28/07/2014 Site Plan 5 of 5 P 03-5 rev D received 22/07/2014 Fencing Plan P 04 rev B received 12/05/2014 Housing Mix Plan P 05 rev B received 12/05/2014 Existing Site Section AA P 06 received 12/05/2014 Proposed Site Section AA A1 P 07 received 12/05/2014 Existing Site Section BB P 08 received 12/05/2014 Proposed Site Section BB P 09 received 12/05/2014

Existing Site Section CC P 10 received 12/05/2014 Proposed Site Section CC P 11 received 12/05/2014 Street Elevations P 12 received 12/05/2014 Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement received 21/07/2014 Tree Protection Plan received 21/07/2014 Landscape Proposals 1 of 5 ID591- 01 E received 31/07/2014 Landscape Proposals 2 of 5 ID591- 02 D received 31/07/2014 Landscape Proposals 3 of 5 ID591- 03 D received 31/07/2014 Landscape Proposals 4 of 5 ID591- 04 D received 31/07/2014 Landscape Proposals 5 of 5 ID591- 05 E received 31/07/2014 Plant Schedule and Soft Landscaping Specification ID591-06 E received 28/07/2014 Construction Management Statement V5 received 31/06/2014 Construction Management Plan 001 rev B received 23/07/2014 Footpath and Cycle Plan Flood Risk Assessment and Outline Drainage Strategy received 12/05/2014 Planning Statement received 12/05/2014 Design and Access Statement received 12/05/2014 Biodiversity Mitigation, Enhancement and Management Plan received 12/05/2014 Affordable Housing Statement received 12/05/2014 Refuse Vehicle Tracking 4159-115 received 21/07/2014 Dwelling Details TYPE H 02 PLANS P-H02-01 rev A received 10/06/2014 and ELEVATIONS P-H02-02 received 12/05/2014 TYPE H 06 PLANS P-H06-01 rev A received 10/06/2014 and ELEVATIONS P-H06-02 received 12/05/2014 TYPE H 07 PLANS P-H07-01 rev A received 10/06/2014 and ELEVATIONS P-H07-02 received 12/05/2014 TYPE H 08 PLANS P-H08-01 rev A received 10/06/2014 and ELEVATIONS P-H08-02 received 12/05/2014 TYPE H 09 PLANS P-H09-01 rev A received 10/06/2014 and ELEVATIONS P-H09-02 received 12/05/2014 TYPE H 10 PLANS P-H10-01 rev A received 10/06/2014 and ELEVATIONS P-H10-02 received 12/05/2014 TYPE H 11 PLANS P-H11-01 rev A received 10/06/2014 and ELEVATIONS P-H11-02 received 12/05/2014 TYPE H 12 PLANS P-H12-01 rev A received 10/06/2014 and ELEVATIONS P-H12-02 received 12/05/2014 TYPE H 13 PLANS P-H13-01 rev A received 10/06/2014 and ELEVATIONS P-H13-02 received 12/05/2014 TYPE H 14 PLANS P-H14-01 rev A received 10/06/2014 and ELEVATIONS P-H14-02 received 12/05/2014 TYPE H 15 PLANS P-H15-01 rev A received 10/06/2014 and ELEVATIONS P-H15-02 received 12/05/2014 TYPE H 15 PLANS VARIANT P- H15-03 and ELEVATIONS VARIANT P-H15-04 received 22/07/2014 TYPE H 25 PLANS P-H25-01 rev A received 10/06/2014 and ELEVATIONS P-H25-02 received 12/05/2014 TYPE H 25 PLANS VARIANT P-H25-03 and ELEVATIONS VARIANT P-H25-04 received 22/07/2014 TYPE S 01 PLANS P-S01-01 rev A received 10/06/2014 and ELEVATIONS P-S01-02 received 12/05/2014 TYPE S 02 PLANS P-S02-01 rev A received 10/06/2014 and ELEVATIONS P-S02-02 received 12/05/2014 TYPE S 05 block A FLOOR PLANS P-S05-01 rev A, ROOF PLAN P-S05-02

rev A, ELEVATIONS SHEET 1 P-S05-03 rev A and ELEVATIONS SHEET 2 P-S05-04 rev A received 10/06/2014 PLOTS 38-41 GROUND FLOOR PLANS P-B38-01, FIRST FLOOR PLANS P-B38-02, ROOF PLANS P-B38-03 ELEVATIONS SHEET 1 P-B38-04 and ELEVATIONS SHEET 2 B38-05 received 10/07/2014 PLOTS 64-66 GROUND FLOOR PLANS P-B64-01, FIRST FLOOR PLANS P-B64-02, ROOF PLANS P-B64-03 ELEVATIONS SHEET 1 P-B64-04 and ELEVATIONS SHEET 2 B64-05 received 10/07/2014 PLOTS 86-88 GROUND FLOOR PLANS P-B86-01, FIRST FLOOR PLANS P-B86-02, ROOF PLANS P-B86-03 ELEVATIONS SHEET 1 P-B86-04 and ELEVATIONS SHEET 2 B86-05 received 10/07/2014 Garage P-GAR-01 received 12/05/2014 Refuse + Cycles P-REF-01 received 12/05/2014 Garden Store P-SHE-01 received 12/05/2014 S+S sub station P-SUB-01 received 12/05/2014 Materials Palette A & B P-PAL-AB received 12/05/2014 Materials Palette C & D P-PAL-CD received 12/05/2014 Materials Palette E & F P-PAL-EF received 12/05/2014 Materials Palette G & H P-PAL-GH received 12/05/2014 Reason: - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development.

3 No development shall commence until the proposed 2.4 metre high acoustic

fencing to the eastern site boundary shall be installed as shown on Construction Management Plan 001 rev B and shall remain in place until construction works are completed or unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority Reason: To ensure that measures are provided in the interests of bio-diversity and protected species having due regard to policies CS11, CS16 and DM8 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

4 No development shall commence until a plan is submitted indicating which

plots will be built with which material palette. No light weatherboarding shall be used at first floor level on dwellings adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and having due regard to policies CS11 and CS16 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town and Country Planning General

Permitted Development Order, no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes A and E of the 2008 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of plots 14, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 57, 64, 65, 66, 86, 87, 88,106, 107, 127, 129, 128, 130 and 131 without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and the root protection zones of the trees to be retained within the site and having due regard to policies CS11, CS16 and DM8 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

6 Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town and Country Planning General

Permitted Development Order, no alteration to the roofs of plots 1, 2, 3, 23, 24, 25, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 131, 130, 129, 128 and 127 hereby approved,

including the addition of windows permitted by Part 1, Classes B and C of the 2008 Order as amended, shall be undertaken without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and having due regard to policies CS11 and CS16 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town and Country Planning General

Permitted Development Order no walls, fences or other means of enclosure of any kind permitted by Part 2, Class A of the 2008 Order as amended shall be erected to the rear boundaries of plots 131,130,129,128 and 127 without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the protection of the eastern boundary hedge and having due regard to policies CS11, DM8 and CS16 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

8 The proposed works shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural

Impact Assessment and Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan prepared by Barrell Tree Consultancy dated 21 July 2014. Reason: To ensure the trees are not adversely affected by the construction of the development and having due regard to policy DM8 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012.

Appendices: A - Location Plan B - Proposed Site Layout C - Proposed Site Section A-A D- Example house - Type H25 (hipped variant) 5 Bed House Elevations and Floor Plans E - Example house Type H02 2 Bed House Elevations and Floor Plans F - Appeal Decision 17 July 2013 (Ref: APP/X1735/A/13/2192777). G - Detailed Objection Summary

Other documents relating to this application:

http://tinyurl.com/kq6aftx