CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 12 February 2015 APPLICATION EXPIRY : 27 January 2015 Cllr M C Johnson MBE, Cllr I Thomas SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Transcription

1

2 Item No.:02 The information, recommendations, and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting. PROPOSAL LOCATION: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of four detached dwellings with garages, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works Barn End, Wield Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5LY REFERENCE : 25979/004 PARISH: Medstead APPLICANT: Crayfern Homes Ltd CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 12 February 2015 APPLICATION EXPIRY : 27 January 2015 COUNCILLORS: Cllr M C Johnson MBE, Cllr I Thomas SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION The application is reported to the Planning Committee at the request of the local Ward Councillor due to concerns regarding the acceptability of the access. Site and Development Barn End is a detached property to the rear of properties Wield Road on the northern edge of Medstead, and falls within the settlement policy boundary. It is accessed from Wield Road from where limited, glimpsed views of the house can be gained by virtue of the road front hedge and trees. To the north-west, there is open agricultural land, part of which has recently gained permission for four dwellings, whilst permission has also been gained for residential development at Cedar Stables to the north-east. Residential development in the area is generally characterised by detached dwellings in spacious plots, with boundary screening and tree cover as a defining feature of the area. The proposal is for the demolition of the dwelling and the erection of four detached dwellings with access as existing onto Wield Road. The dwellings are all proposed as two storey, with four bedrooms and detached garages. Relevant Planning History 25979/003 - Change of use of part of field to form new vehicular access Refused 25/08/2006, Appeal Dismissed

3 Development Plan Policies and Proposals East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (2014) CP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development CP2 - Spatial Strategy CP10 - Spatial strategy for housing CP11 - Housing tenure, type and mix CP20 - Landscape CP21 - Biodiversity CP24 - Sustainable construction CP25 - Flood Risk CP27 - Pollution CP29 - Design CP31 - Transport East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (2006) H3 - Residential Development within Settlement Policy Boundaries Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The NPPF was published in March 2012 and came into force with immediate effect. At the heart of it is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states that the development plan is the starting point for consideration of planning applications, and planning applications must be determined in accordance with it, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Village Design Statement - Medstead - A Vision for the Future - non statutory planning guidance that has been the subject of public consultation and therefore is a material planning consideration. Medstead Parish Plan 2008 Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments County Archaeologist - The site lies outside the historic core of the medieval settlement, indeed the field patterns suggest this was a field in the medieval period. There are no archaeological sites recorded at this location, nor any recorded in its immediate vicinity. On that basis I would not raise any archaeological issues. County Ecologist - In summary I consider that the ecological information submitted is sufficient and that no further survey works are necessary. Ecological mitigation measures could be secured through condition. EHDC Arboricultural Officer - No objection providing a condition can be applied that requires all work to be carried out in strict accordance with the submitted Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement.

4 EHDC Landscape Officer - No objection subject to conditions. EHDC Housing Officer - No objection. Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions. EHDC Environmental Health, Contaminated Land - No objection subject to conditions. EHDC Drainage Consultant - INITIAL COMMENTS The site is within Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding) and I am not aware of any historic flooding problems affecting the site. The drainage strategy proposes various infiltration techniques but this is based on a desktop study rather than a geotechnical site investigation. The Medstead area is well known for heavy clay soils and poor drainage. The proposed development will increase run-off and not increase flood risk elsewhere. Medstead is an unsewered area and the applicant is proposing a private treatment plant, with treated effluent to ground. This will require approval from the Environment Agency. UPDATED COMMENTS The percolation tests results show that the ground conditions should be satisfactory for surface water to discharge to the ground. No objection subject to conditions and a maintenance management plan for the foul system. County Highways Officer - Vehicular access to the site connects at the northern boundary to Wield Road. This section of Wield Road is subject to a speed limit of 20mph and therefore in the interests of highway safety, visibility splays consisting of that part within the applicant s control of 2.4m by 25m shall be applicable. Drawing ITB9121-GA-001 Rev H (Barn End Site Access) has been submitted and 2.4m by 25m visibility splays have been shown. The drawing shows the eastern visibility splay to be partially obstructed by the boundary hedge and so this will need to be cut back. I note the Site Access drawing shows both visibility splays have been taken to a 0.5m offset from the edge of the carriageway. Given the poor edge of carriageway conditions in this location, it is unlikely that vehicles will be travelling closer than 0.5m to the carriageway edge and so taking the visibility splays to an offset is acceptable. No objection subject to conditions. Medstead Parish Council - INITIAL COMMENTS Objects for the following reasons: This is back garden development which is contrary to the Medstead Village Design Statement, The Medstead Parish Plan and the East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy. The drawings also show a gate across the access which is out of keeping with the area. The access onto Wield Road is on an apex of a bend with restricted visibility. Although Wield Road is subject to a 20mph speed limit, a recent traffic survey (December 2014) undertaken by Hampshire County Council Highways Department has revealed that 75% of drivers travel at speeds greater than this limit. It is noted that the lines of sight are obscured by the hedges of adjoining properties meaning that the applicant has not got control over these. If approved, a condition should be imposed regarding construction method.

5 UPDATED COMMENTS The Parish Council continues to object to the proposal on the following grounds: The applicant has submitted a report and two further sets of drawings which try to support their argument that the access to and from the site is safe. None of the three sets of drawings are consistent or appear to comply with the criticisms made by the Highway Authority in that neighbouring hedgerows are not positioned correctly on the plans. As has been noted by the land owner and HCC Highways Traffic Survey (December 2014) the majority of drivers pay little or no regard to for the 20mph speed limit. The land owner has complained to the Parish Council regarding the speed of traffic on Wield Road and has stated that he has been fortunate not to have been involved recently in an accident on at least two occasions. Regardless of lines on the drawing, sightlines through hedges and shrubbery not within the applicants control, impact on safe egress. The Planning Authority must judge the road safety aspects of this application on the reality of the actual situation and not a theoretical model. The Sun Park case study is sighted as a supporting precedent but the photographs clearly show widely differing circumstances namely: pavements either side of the road, wide mandatory centre lines delineating carriageways and street lighting. The Parish Council do not consider this case and its appeal decision to be relevant to this application. The latest revised drawing for access is showing a 3.00m wide entrance, totally insufficient for two cars to pass. The latest site plan shows a gateway further into the site. Gated communities are not in keeping with the local street scene and contrary to the Village Design Statement. It has been noted that the rainwater soakaway is positioned off-site and on land not marked as under the control of the applicant. The Parish Council requests that the application is REFUSED. Representations The 18 letters of objection raise the following concerns with the proposal: a) The entrance to Barn End is dangerous being on the inside of a bend; b) the proposal is backland development, contrary to the Medstead Design Statement; c) speeds of traffic are in reality in excess of the 20mph speed limit; d) pedestrians could affect the safety of the junction as there is no pavement; e) in conjunction with adjacent sites, the proposal will result in over development of this part of the village; f) infrastructure in the village is stretched eg poor water pressure, poor public transport and capacity at the school and, g) the proposal would have an urbanising effect and visually intrude on the village skyline

6 Determining Issues 1. Principle of development 2. Access and highway safety 3. Impact on amenity of adjoining properties 4. Drainage and flood risk 5. Impact on character and appearance of the area 6. Arboricultural implications 7. Developer contributions 8. Sustainable construction Planning Considerations 1. Principle of development The site lies within the settlement policy boundary and therefore policies CP2 and CP10 are applicable. These set out the spatial strategy for the district and establishes that areas within settlement policy boundaries are regarded as suitable for new development in order to meet the housing requirement over the plan period. CP2 states that new development will make the best use of previously developed land and buildings within existing built-up areas. It also identifies Medstead as a 'Level 4' 'other settlement' within the settlement hierarchy. In addressing the spatial approach to housing delivery, policy CP10 states that, 'housing should be accommodated through development and redevelopment opportunities within existing settlement policy boundaries in the first instance.' Therefore the principle of development must be regarded to accord with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CP1, which establishes the presumption in favour of sustainable development. These also set out that proposals should be approved unless material considerations indicate otherwise, taking into account whether the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits; or whether specific policies indicate that development should be restricted. Key issues to consider in assessing this application are the implications on highway safety and the impact on the character and appearance of the area. 2. Access and highway safety The majority of concerns raised relate to the access arrangements with Wield Road. The access would utilise the existing entrance and the point of contention is the suitability of this to serve an additional three dwellings, given the alignment of the road in the proximity of the access. The entrance is on the inside of a bend, approximately 50 metres within the 20mph speed limit zone, that has now been confirmed as permanent after a trial period. The access is slightly offset to the junction with Common Hill, opposite. Wield Road is flat and there are no footpaths or street lighting. The road has central road markings but tapers to single vehicle width just to the south of the access towards the village. A hedge along the front of the property tapers back from the highway edge. The initially submitted visibility splay drawing showed lines of sight of 2.4m by 43m which are applicable standards for locations within a 30mph speed limit area. These clearly showed that lines of sight could not be achieved due to neighbouring hedges.

7 In response to the Highway Officers request for lines of sight to be shown to the 20mph speed limit (2.4m by 25m) a further drawing has been submitted that shows the lines of sight can be achieved in both directions. As a consequence, the Highways Officer removed their initial objection and confirmed that the access is acceptable. Adequate off street parking is provided within the development. Concerns persist however that the entrance is poorly situated to accommodate additional use. An application (25979/003) to reposition the entrance to the north due to safety concerns was made in This was refused due to concerns regarding the impact on the landscape and was subsequently dismissed at appeal. The Inspector noted the concerns raised by the applicant regarding the safety of the existing access but commented that the situation is not so severe or uniquely unacceptable to allow permission for the alternative access proposed. The Inspector also commented that there are a number of access points which 'fall below modern standards' in the vicinity. This point raises some ambiguity in assessing this application; whilst acknowledging the current arrangement is not overtly dangerous, it is regarded as falling below modern standards. Clearly this application would result in an intensification of the use of the access with some increased risk to all road users. That said, the standards applicable in 2006 are different to that in place today, given the speed limit is now 20mph, and the recommendation reflects the fact that the Highways Authority consider the proposal to be within accepted standards, even with the additional use. There are no records of accidents in the area and whilst the applicant had argued in the appeal that there were a number of near collisions, this was due to the encroaching hedgerow at the neighbouring property and adds that since 2009 when the hedgerow was cut back, there has been no problem exiting the site. The reduced speed limit has further improved the situation. The Parish Council state that traffic survey information from December 2014 shows that vehicles are travelling in excess of 20mph, however the current landowner states that his experience is that average speeds are lower since the introduction of the new limit. To conclude, it is considered that the situation has improved since the appeal decision was made in 2007 and whilst these improvements to highway safety may be tempered and counter balanced by the fact the proposal would result in an increase in use of the access, the proposal accords with applicable standards and, therefore, Officers recommend that no objection be raised. 3. Impact on amenity of adjoining properties The site is bordered by Towngate Farmhouse to the south-west and by Lamedos and Domec to the south-east. The layout proposes houses adjacent to each of these shared boundaries. Plot one, would sit adjacent to Towngate Farmhouse, 8m from the shared boundary. It is proposed to retain a hedge that is within the applicants control and there is a mature tree within the garden of Towngate Farmhouse, that would provide substantial screening between the two dwellings. Two first floor windows are proposed to the facing elevation to serve a bedroom and en-suite, both of which are proposed to be conditioned to be obscure glazed. Plot 4 is proposed to situated alongside the shared boundaries with Lamedos and Domec. It proposes a first floor bathroom window to the side elevation, which again is to be subject to a condition to ensure it is obscure glazed.

8 There is a first floor bedroom to the front elevation that would have an oblique angle view towards the rear of adjacent properties, but existing trees and hedging (to be retained) would mitigate the degree of impact and as a secondary room, it is not considered that this is an overiding concern, particularly as the relationship is not too dissimilar to the existing situation. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with policy CP Drainage and flood risk The site is within flood zone 1 (low probability of flooding) but the development would result in increased surface water run off, which may increase flood risk elsewhere, particularly as the area is known to have clay soils, which would prohibit conventional soakaways. The applicant provided a drainage strategy and a technical assessment based on site ground conditions and the Drainage Consultant has confirmed that the results would allow for the drainage strategy to work. The proposal is, therefore, considered to accord with policy CP Impact on character and appearance of the area The site is located on the north-western edge of the village but by virtue of existing development/hedgerows/trees it is visually discreet. Housing in the locality is typified by medium to large sized detached houses and generally screened by roadside vegetation. Representations received refer to concerns that the proposal would result in an urbanising effect on the village, particularly when taken in combination with other recent permissions in the area. The proposal would clearly result in a more highly developed built form, and whilst the visual impact of development would be limited by virtue of the surrounding development and trees/hedges, consideration must be given to the implications on the plan form of the settlement. As stated in the Village Design Statement, Medstead is characterised by linear development. There is development in depth to the north-west could be reinforced if planning permission at Cedar Stables are implemented. The site is close the village centre where development is somewhat nucleated, and whilst the site is on the fringe of the settlement policy boundary, it is considered that the juxtaposition of the site and its relationship to surrounding development would not undermine the general pattern of ribbon development that characterises the area. An Inspector dismissed an application for six dwellings at Bon Vista on the southern side of the settlement policy boundary in 2008 where a cul-de-sac arrangement of dwellings was proposed perpendicular to the linear pattern along Roe Downs Road. There are some comparisons that can be drawn in that this site is likewise on the edge of the settlement policy boundary and the proposal would result in cumulative numerical increase in housing in a particular part of the village. There are also differences though in that the proposal at Bon Vista would have resulted in a development clearly contrary to an area strongly defined by linear development and the Inspector considered that it could have set a pattern for similar development that would damage the rural character of the area. The harm identified in that instance is not considered to apply to the site at Barn End where the alignment of roads, the pattern of development closer to the village centre, committed permissions adjacent or close to the site and the established screening of the site, suggests that the proposal would not be harmful to the character of the area, regardless of its position on the edge of the settlement.

9 The proposal would result in three additional four bedroomed houses. Although both the Village Design Statement and policy CP11 require proposals to provide a range of dwelling sizes, having regard to the scale of development and the character of dwellings in the area, this adds limited weight against the application. 6. Arboricultural and ecological implications A number of trees are situated in the front part of the site, between neighbouring properties. The proposal would retain these so as to maintain the important contribution they make to the street scene, and their retention would continue to screen buildings from the road. Similarly trees along the north-eastern boundary are to be retained and the Arboricultural Officer is satisfied that the development would not harm these trees, subject to a condition ensuring works are carried out in accordance with the recommendations contained in the applicants Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement. The application is supported with a Phase 1 Habitat Survey, which the County Ecologist has assessed and concurred with the conclusions that the site has limited ecological value. A condition is proposed requiring the submission of mitigation and enhancement measures to ensure compliance with policy CP Developer contributions As an application for less than 11 dwellings, no contributions towards affordable housing or other infrastructure is sought in accordance with the Guide to Developer Contributions 2014 and addendum statement dated December Sustainable construction In accordance with policy CP24, proposals for new residential development are required to meet Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and provide at least 10% of its energy requirements from renewable sources. The proposal does not propose any specific measures at this stage, but the applicant has indicated that they would be willing to comply with these requirements as part of a condition of planning consent. Response to Parish/Town Council Comments The Parish Council's two main concerns - back garden development and highway safety - are acknowledged and as articulated above, careful consideration has been given to these issues in coming to the recommendation. The Parish Council requested a condition, in the event the application is approved, in respect of construction methodology. This is considered appropriate having regard to the access and the particular requirement to avoid contractor parking on the highway and this is included in the list of conditions below. Conclusion Whilst the proposal would result in a higher density and built form in this village fringe location, there would be very little visual impact and the proposal is not found to be demonstrably at odds with the character of the area.

10 Whilst concerns regarding the increased use of the access are acknowledged, the access accords with the applicable standards and in the absence of an objection from the Highway Authority, the application is recommended for approval. RECOMMENDATION PERMISSION subject to the following conditions: 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this planning permission. Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act Before development commences on site details of all external facing and roofing materials shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason -To ensure that the materials used in the construction of the development harmonise with its surroundings. 3 Prior to commencement, a written scheme of ecological mitigation, compensation and enhancement shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority. Any such ecological mitigation measures shall thereafter be implemented in strict accordance with the agreed details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To protect biodiversity in accordance with the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, NERC Act 2006, NPPF and Policy CP21 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy. 4 Before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency s Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11. 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 P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

11 5 All development shall be stopped immediately in the event that contamination not previously identified is found to be present on the development site and details of the contamination shall be reported immediately in writing to the Planning Authority. Development shall not re-start on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority:- (a) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. (b) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of contamination found on site and (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) (c) a detailed remediation scheme designed to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment. The scheme should include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan outlining details of the data to be collected in order to demonstrate the completion of the remediation works and any arrangements for the continued monitoring of identified pollutant linkages; and before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The above site works, details and certification submitted shall be in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency s Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11. 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 P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review. 6 No development shall start on site until a construction method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, which shall include:

12 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) A programme of and phasing of demolition (if any) and construction work; The provision of facilities for contractor parking; The arrangements for deliveries associated with all construction works; Methods and phasing of construction works; Access and egress for plant and machinery; Location of temporary site buildings, compounds, construction material, and plant storage areas; Controls over dust, noise, and vibration during the construction period; Provision for storage, collection, and disposal of rubbish from the development during construction period; and Re-use of on site material and spoil arising from any site clearance or demolition work. Demolition and construction work shall only take place in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the effect of the works on highway safety and the amenity of the locality. 7 No development shall start on site until details of a scheme for foul and surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details should include provision for all surface water drainage from parking areas and areas of hardstanding. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for drainage. Note: The applicant is requested to contact the Council's Drainage Consultant as soon as possible regarding the above condition. 8 All dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed to meet Code Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes Standards, or higher, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and before any dwelling is first occupied a verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Authority, confirming the dwelling permitted incorporates measures that provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirement from on-site renewable sources, or, provided that first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority before development starts on site, an alternative means of achieving an equivalent energy saving. The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to provide the required energy savings. The energy saving works set out in the above report shall thereafter be maintained so that the required energy saving is sustained at the certified level for the lifetime of the development. Reason - To ensure that the development incorporates necessary mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change.

13 9 No development shall start on site until the access, including the footway and/or verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of 2.4 metres by 25 metres provided in accordance with the approved plans. The lines of sight splays shown on the approved plans shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 1metre in height above the adjacent carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so thereafter. Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety. 10 Before use of the development is commenced provision for parking shall have been made within the site in accordance with the approved plans and shall be retained solely for parking purposes thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the approved development. 11 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the submitted Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement (Barrell Tree Consultancy, July 2014). Reason - In order to protect trees that contribute positively to the character and amenity of the area. 12 A detailed landscape scheme must be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any works on site are commenced and/or no later than the substantial completion of the first building shell. This scheme shall include the following details:- a. location, condition and species of all existing trees with a stem diameter of 100mm or greater; b. position and species of hedgerows and other vegetation to be retained; c. planting plans should include schedules of trees and plants, their species, planting sizes, numbers and densities; d. areas to be turfed or grass seeded; e. implementation timetable; f. details of all hard and soft boundary treatment. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details. Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to enable proper consideration to be given to the impact of the proposed development on existing trees. 13 Notwithstanding any indication shown on the approved plans, the first floor windows in the south-west elevation of Plot 1 and the south-east elevation of Plot 4 shall be glazed with obscure glass and shall be permanently retained thereafter. Reason - To protect the privacy of the occupants of the adjoining residential properties. 14 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars:

14 2.09 Location Plan 2.10 Rev C Site Plan 2.11 Setting Out Plan 2.20 Floor Plans - Plot Floor Plans - Plot Floor Plans - Plot Floor Plans - Plot Elevations - Plot Elevations - Plot Elevations - Plot Elevations - Plot Rev A Garages - Plots 1 & Rev A Garages - Plots 3 & 4 ITB9121-GA-001 Rev H Barn End Site Access 2.30 Cycle store ITB9121-GA-004 Rev A Swept Path Analysis Tree Protection Plan P Revision F Engineering Details Drainage Strategy Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development Informative Notes to Applicant: 1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by: offering a pre-application advice service, updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and, by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter. In this instance the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit. 2 The foul drainage scheme proposed is to use a package treatment plant to a deep borehole soakaway. The foul discharge associated with this development will require an Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010, from the Environment Agency, unless an exemption applies. The applicant is advised to contact the Environment Agency on for further advice and to discuss the issues likely to be raised. CASE OFFICER: Jon Holmes

15 SECTION 1 Item 2 Barn End, Wield Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5LY Proposed site plan

16 SECTION 1 Item 2 Barn End, Wield Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5LY Proposed front elevation to Plot 2 Proposed rear elevation to plot 2