Test Valley Borough Council Southern Area Planning Committee 10 December 2013

Transcription

1 Item 7 APPLICATION NO. 12/01809/RESS APPLICATION TYPE RESERVED MATTERS - SOUTH REGISTERED APPLICANT Mr T Jobling, Trustees Of The Barker Mill Estates SITE Land At, Redbridge Lane, Nursling, NURSLING AND ROWNHAMS PROPOSAL Details of main road and drainage infrastructure relating to outline planning permission 09/01706/OUTS AMENDMENTS Amended Plans received 1 November Additional Details received 22 November CASE OFFICER Mr Mark Wyatt Background paper (Local Government Act 1972 Section 100D) 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This application is presented to the Southern Area Planning Committee (SAPC) in accordance with the Officer Code of Conduct. 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2.1 The Redbridge Lane (Fen Meadow) site is an 11 hectare parcel of land currently subdivided into fields used for the grazing of horses. The site has historically been the subject of mineral extraction and has been backfilled with inert material such that the agricultural quality of the site is not regarded as high. The site levels fall from the north down to the south western corner. A public footpath dissects the site running east to west in the northern third of the site linking the Home Covert woodland and Redbridge Lane. 2.2 The site is, for the purposes of planning policy, within the countryside. The site is not allocated for development within the current development plan. The site is also designated as a local gap between Nursling and the city of Southampton. However the site does benefit from an outline planning permission for up to 350 dwellings (see part 4.3 below). 2.3 Within the site and partway along the western boundary is an area of Fen Meadow. This is an important wetland habitat. To the west of the site is the Home Covert woodland which is owned by the Trustees of the Barker Mill Estate (the Applicant). This woodland is designated as ancient woodland and also at County level as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Beyond the Home Covert woodland is the new housing estate off of Nursling Street and the Adanac Park site which currently has the new Ordnance Survey Headquarters as the only occupant of the Park. Off site to the north west is a small parcel of land linking the site with Knowles Close/Jo Bigwood Close.

2 2.4 Due north of the site is Toogoods Way. The properties on the southern side of Toogoods Way back onto the application site which is bound by a countryside hedge. The properties in Toogoods Way are predominantly bungalows although many have been altered and roof spaces converted to chalet style houses. There are a number of houses in Toogoods Way with rear facing dormer windows overlooking the application site. 2.5 Redbridge Lane bounds the eastern site boundary. The Redbridge Lane frontage primarily consists of a hedgerow, a double hedgerow in places, and creates a soft edge to the site and a rural character to the lane. Towards the south eastern site boundary, just south of the proposed access, the hedge stops and the site is open allowing views into the site through a post and wire fence. At this point Redbridge Lane drops down and is at a lower level than the site itself. 2.6 The southern boundary is defined by a post and wire fence. Outside the site but directly parallel to the southern boundary is a public footpath running east to west from Redbridge Lane into Home Covert. Beyond this footpath is the cluster of dwellings known as Hillyfields. The properties in Hillyfields are twostorey with red facing brick and pitched roofs. The nearest properties in Hillyfields appear to be orientated side on to the application site. As referred to earlier in paragraph 2.1 the south western corner is the lowest part of the site with the level dropping from the east down to the west. 2.7 Redbridge Lane forms the Test Valley/Southampton City Boundary. On the opposite side of Redbridge Lane, within Southampton City Council s administrative boundary is the Lordshill Sports Centre, the recently constructed and now occupied Oasis Academy and the Cedar School. When stood centrally in the site looking south east the high rise skyline of Southampton is visible. Looking west the site has the backdrop of the mature, ancient woodland of Home Covert. 3.0 PROPOSAL 3.1 This application is the first of three submitted reserved matter applications following the outline planning permission. This submission seeks approval for the principal highway route through the site and the drainage infrastructure. The detailed housing layout is accommodated for in the two further reserved matter submissions (see 4.5 and 4.6 below). 4.0 HISTORY /00114/SCRS - Screening opinion under the EIA Regulations 1999 for proposed development of approximately 350 residential dwellings; provision of access from Redbridge Lane; internal roads, footpaths and cycle links; open space and areas of structural landscaping; and ecological buffers and wildlife corridors Response Issued 06/07/ /01706/OUTS - Outline application for residential development of up to 350 dwellings with open space, landscaping, vehicular and pedestrian access refused 14/04/2010.

3 4.3 Following this refusal the Applicant lodged an appeal. The appeal was heard by Public Inquiry and on 3 November 2010 the appeal was allowed by the Inspector subject to the planning obligations secured through the s106 agreements and the conditions as set out in his decision letter /00530/VARS - Variation of condition 35 of 09/01706/OUTS (residential development of up to 350 dwellings) to increase the maximum ridge height in metres of buildings refused 16/08/ /00537/RESS - Erection of 133 dwellings, associated car parking and open space - phase one of 09/01706/OUTS (Outline application for residential development of up to 350 dwellings with open space, landscaping, vehicular and pedestrian access) pending consideration /02058/RESS - Erection of 159 dwellings, associated car parking and incidental open space - Phase two of 09/01706/OUTS (Outline application for residential development of up to 350 dwellings with open space, landscaping, vehicular and pedestrian access) pending consideration. 5.0 CONSULTATIONS Planning Policy & Transport Service: 5.1 Landscape Considerations (on amended plans): Comment: o Whilst the details are broadly acceptable in respect of the roads and corridors, there is still some detail missing. o Tree pit details should be submitted and plans keyed for each position and soil volumes for those in paved areas. o Many trees are close to structures so root barrier details are needed too. o Several elements refer to architects specification eg finger posts and large oak posts. Other details such as knee rail fencing are marked as see detail but not on the boundary plan. o A management plan is needed for all areas to show where maintenance responsibility lies between individual plots and the management company together with management operations. 5.2 Highway Considerations (on amended plans): No objection subject to condition. 5.3 Ecology Considerations: Comment: o Concern with the scale of sewer diversion work - laying new ones and removing old ones - through the retained and important fen meadow and ditch/stream, and adjacent retained/managed grassland. o This could be quite significant in terms of impacts to the retained fen vegetation and stream. This will require heavy machinery on an inherently damp grassland area. o Alongside the need to protect the habitat as far as possible during construction, and develop a working method that does this, there are possibly associated protected species issues.

4 5.4 o I am not sure if this area was surveyed for reptiles as it is outside the main residential footprint but I do know that this is going to be where the reptiles from the main site are going to. So, we need to be sure that the reptile mitigation synchronises with the drainage construction - e.g. maybe have a dedicated and fenced-off soft-release site to receive the reptiles and contain them until the nearby works are complete and they can be released. Hampshire County Council: Rights of Way Considerations: o No response. 5.5 Environment Agency: o No objection to the granting of the Reserved Matters o The SUDS solution is welcomed but the detail is inadequate to discharge condition 29 of the outline permission. 5.6 Southern Water: o No Objection: o The diversion of the sewers is approved and foul sewer is confirmed as having capacity. I can see no reason to object to the foul sewerage strategy. o The developer needs to go through the adoption procedures but I can see no reason to object. 5.7 Scottish and Southern Electric: o No response. 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired Parish Council: o Objection: o Concern over the number and type of trees many of which will be the responsibility of the management company. o Trees in parking areas will need bare trunks upto 2m and to be in this state from first occupation necessary to provide clear view of the parking areas to reduce vandalism. o For trees in gardens and adjacent to gardens the reverse applies to prevent overshadowing and overcrowding small rear gardens. o There are a variety of road surface materials. What is their durability and what are the costs of repairs. Who will fund these repairs? o The PC notes that the Landscaping Programme, due to be the responsibility of this management company, is submitted for a client named The Barker Mill Hillyfields Trust/Bloor Homes. o This is the first time this name has been observed. o If it is a special company set up for this development what is its financial status and backing? o What guarantee is there that it may not fade away or become insolvent in future years, leaving the residents with unadopted and unadoptable infrastructures?

5 o It appears that the foul sewage pipes from Rownhams to the north are to be abandoned in some places. These pipes are to be shut-off and diverted into new sewers. o In addition the plans show Private Foul Sewers. o The PC s concerns relate to whether this mixed, old and new piping, will be to adoptable standards and whether Southern Water will be accepting responsibility for this whole package. o It is the PC s understanding that planning application 12/01809/RESS is not acceptable to Southern Water. o The plans indicate storm sewers that join swales, ponds and SUDS. These seem to lead off site into the stream along Home Covert which passes behind some Hillyfield houses, into Yew Tree Lane and on through the Adanac development. o This stream regularly blocks with its current load. o As the development fields are naturally wet, with additional development the run-off is likely to cause more flooding to existing housing. o Hampshire County Council would have no responsibility over these aspects of the development either during or after the build phase. o The maintenance would fall to the riparian landowner in the first instance the developer then the owner of the property on completion. o Life rings are continually thrown into the water on other water features in the parish and need TVBC to retrieve them making the area look unkempt. o If SUDS dictate this system then sufficient fencing and planting should be used around the wet areas to deter youths from gaining access to the water or the areas should be amalgamated to one large area to contain any possible anti-social behaviour. Or are there other solutions? o Such large areas of standing water may give rise to an increase in mosquitos and other insects giving rise to bites and discomfort to residents. o It is understood that there will be a maintenance management company, levying annual charges on all houses. How will affordable housing be charged and will this charge be covered by Benefit payments? o The PC gathers that this company is required because certain normal facilities (roads, drains and street lighting) will be below adoptable standards. Are there any other unadoptable items? o This system appears to indicate an inferior standard of development for which the residents will have to pay an additional charge on top of their Council Tax and Parish precept. o Is there a life period of this company and how will it finance major works such as road resurfacing or flooding in the long term? 7.0 POLICY 7.1 Government Guidance: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 7.2 Test Valley Borough Local Plan (2006)(TVBLP): SET03 (Development in the Countryside); SET05 (Local Gaps); ENV01 (Biodiversity & Geological Conservation); ENV04 (Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation); ENV05 (Protected Species); ENV09 (Water Resources);

6 ENV10 (Groundwater Source Protection Zones); ENV11 (Archaeology & Cultural Heritage); HAZ01 (Unstable Land); HAZ02 (Flooding); HAZ03 (Pollution); HAZ04 (Land Contamination); ESN03 (Housing Types, Density & Mix); ESN04 (Affordable Housing in Settlements); ESN22 (Public Recreational Open Space Provision); ESN30 (Infrastructure Provision With New Development); TRA01 (Travel Generating Development); TRA02 (Parking Standards); TRA03 (Public Transport Infrastructure); TRA04 (Financial Contributions to Transport Infrastructure); TRA05 (Safe Access); TRA06 (Safe Layouts); TRA07 (Access For Disabled People); TRA08 (Public Rights Of Way); TRA09 (Impact on Highway Network); DES01 (Landscape Character); DES02 (Settlement Character); DES03 (Transport Corridors); DES04 (Route Networks); DES05 (Layout & Siting); DES06 (Scale, Height & Massing); DES07 (Appearance, Details & Materials); DES08 (Trees & Hedgerows); DES09 (Wildlife and Amenity Features); DES10 (New Landscaping); AME01 (Privacy & Private Open Space); AME02 (Daylight & Sunlight); AME03 (Artificial Light Intrusion); AME04 (Noise & Vibration). 7.3 Draft Revised Local Plan (2013): Public consultation on the draft Revised Local Plan has taken place between the 8 March and 26 April At present the document, and its content, represents a direction of travel for the Council but it should be afforded limited weight at this stage. It is not considered that the draft Plan would have any significant bearing on the determination of this application. 8.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 8.1 The main planning considerations are: The principle for development Highway layout & Highway safety Landscaping Ecology Foul sewer capacity Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) Other matters. 8.2 The principle for development The site is situated in the countryside where TVBLP policy SET03 (Development in the Countryside) resists new development unless it there is an overriding need to be in the countryside or it is of a type appropriate as an exception to this general rule of restraint. The policy lists a number of policies involving development that would be acceptable as an exception to this policy. A housing proposal does not fall within the remit of any of these exception policies listed within TVBLP policy SET03 (Development in the Countryside) and is therefore contrary to the adopted Development Plan. 8.3 However, whilst residential development (and its associated road and infrastructure) here is technically contrary to the saved policies of the Development Plan the site benefits from an extant planning permission, in outline, for up to 350 dwellings (see 4.3 above). As such the principle for development has been accepted by presence of this planning permission.

7 8.4 Highway layout and Highway Safety The location of the road and its junctions with Redbridge Lane have essentially been fixed by condition 03 of the allowed appeal. The proposed layout of the spine road is substantially in accordance with the Parameter Plan as required by the outline permission although there are small changes to the alignment of the road now it is drawn in detail. 8.5 The amended plans reduce the frequency of material change along the road length. This issue was raised by the Parish Council and Highway Officer in response to the originally submitted plans. The amendments have provided further detail on the specification, especially the skid resistance properties of some of the surface materials. Further clarification is being sought on this specification with regard to some of the materials and this is addressed by the suggested condition. The repair and replacement costs of these materials rests with the developer and in turn its management company given that the roads are not being offered to the County Council for adoption. 8.6 The application is supported by a Stage 1 Safety Audit and the Designers Response to the Stage 1 Safety Audit. There is now no objection to this proposal from the Highway Officer. 8.7 Landscaping The additional drawings received on 1 November 2013 provide a fully detailed specification for the proposed landscaping along the spine road and the other areas of infrastructure. The detail has been considered by the Landscape Officer who raises no objection to the detail but has sought some additional detail on the management of the landscape and some of the hard landscape details. These details have since been submitted by the applicant and are being assessed by the Landscape Officer. 8.8 The concerns of the Parish Council are noted, however the trees in rear gardens and parking courts are not part of this application site and this comment is therefore afforded no weight. The title of a document that lists a client named as The Barker Mill Hillyfields Trust/Bloor Homes does not formally suggest that this is a management company and nor does it warrant the landscape details be refused. 8.9 In the event that the landscape management company fails (a concern of the Parish Council) then there is a mechanism in the s106 agreement, as part of the outline planning permission, that the Council can draw from a bonded commuted sum payment to remedy the failure of the owner to manage or maintain the land Ecology During the consideration of the outline application by both the Local Planning Authority and by the Inspectorate, Officers secured a solid mitigation strategy for the site works plus an ongoing management scheme for the adjacent woodland (Home Covert) and the retained on-site habitat (fen meadow and associated ditch/stream). The key highlighted issues during construction phase were the retention/protection of the fen meadow habitat, plus mitigation for impacts to dormice, together with method for reptile translocation.

8 8.11 However, the current reserved matters application includes various activities that are likely to have an ecological impact, and these do not appear to have been part of the main mitigation scheme The Ecologist advising the Council has commented that the scale of the sewer diversion work - laying new ones and removing old ones - through the retained and important fen meadow and ditch/stream, and adjacent retained/managed grassland is potentially quite disruptive. This could be quite significant in terms of impacts to the retained fen vegetation and stream. This work will require heavy machinery on an inherently damp grassland area There is also a need to be sure that the reptile mitigation synchronises with the drainage construction. This could be achieved by having a dedicated and fenced-off soft-release site to receive the reptiles and contain them until the nearby works are complete and they can be released Clarification is being sought from the Ecologist on the possibility of an option to have a plan/scheme for the removal of and laying of the services to include timing of works, define a more precise corridor for the works and then any reptile mitigation area by planning condition. Whilst this advice is sought, a condition has been included as part of the recommendation Foul Sewer Capacity The advice from Southern Water originally was that there was concern at the foul drainage solution because there is in adequate capacity in the existing network to accommodate the development. However Southern Water has since clarified that the diversion of the sewers is now approved and the foul sewer has actually been confirmed as having capacity to serve the development Additionally, this reserved matter submission is supported by the Applicant s Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy. Part 3 of this Strategy (page 7) sets out the Foul Water Management Strategy and Paragraph 3.6 indicates that Southern Water has confirmed the public network has sufficient capacity to accommodate these foul flows from the proposed development The applicant has also shared with the Local Planning Authority a Southern Water paper titled Study into the options for foul drainage provision at Barker Mill Developments, Southampton dated 26 July This document suggests that Southern Water has advised the developer that a discharge figure of 16.0 l/s for discharge into the foul system for the Redbridge Lane housing site as being acceptable. The Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy sets out that the predicted peak rate will be 15.3l/s which is clearly below the figure set out the Southern Water options paper It is also noted that condition 30 of the outline permission sets out that No development shall take place on the site until details of the sustainable disposal of foul water and the measures to divert waste water from this development and protect the public water mains has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented before any part of the development is first occupied.

9 8.19 The drainage solution in this Reserved Matter application details the routes and finished appearance of the site and where the infrastructure is to be located. The application form sets out the matters for consideration as Access, Appearance, Layout and Scale. The additional plans also provide for the detailed Landscaping to be considered. The Reserved Matters therefore will inform the appearance and location of the infrastructure and the actual drainage capacity requirements will be determined, in any event, by the requirements of planning condition 30 on the outline planning permission Sustainable Urban Drainage System The SUDS intend to deal with the surface water run-off from the development. There is insufficient capacity in the Southern Water network to accommodate the surface water run off so the application proposes a SUDS solution. Again with reference to the Applicant s Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy. It is set out that following a review of the site geology and subsequent infiltration testing, it was determined that the soil conditions have suitable permeability across the site to utilise infiltration to manage storm water runoff (para 2.2.3) On a greenfield site such as this the Environment Agency require that post development discharge into a receiving watercourse at peak periods must not exceed that of the site in its pre-developed state. This is known as a greenfield runoff rate The applicants submission sets out that the use of permeable paving and soakaways will link and cascade to a number of balancing ponds and the resultant discharge into Yew Tree Stream will be no greater than the existing greenfield runoff rate. The submission therefore addresses the Parish Council concern that flooding will increase to adjoining homes. The scheme clearly sets out a strategy whereby the run off rate will be no greater than the existing situation The balancing ponds that are spread across the development purposefully to maximise the topography and manage the flow of water efficiently to achieve the greenfield run off rates. As such the suggestion of the Parish Council that there be one location for the SUDS is not possible with the development proposed. Additionally, with the public sewer at capacity in terms of surface water intake, there are no other drainage solutions as suggested by the Parish Council The Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy advises that the ponds are shallow in depth at 0.5 to 1.25m deep and are designed to attenuate flows up to the 100 year return period storm including a 30% increase in rainfall intensity to allow for the predicted impact of climate change up to 2115, in accordance with the NPPF (para 2.3.2) The Parish Council, whilst accepting the need for SUDS seek some means of boundary to the wet areas to deter anti-social behaviour. The landscaping scheme sets out the landscaping proposed but this is not necessarily aggressive planting on the edges nor are fences proposed around the swales.

10 With the benefit of the reserved matter submissions being submitted (see 4.5 and 4.6 above) these scheme propose dwellings looking out over the ponds and swales to provide natural surveillance of these areas Additionally there are other SUDS in place on developments in the Borough whereby they integrate with the development and work efficiently without neglect by the public. Some are in fact very open and have no means of enclosure to them adjacent to footpath/cycle routes for example. The liability of the SUDS and maintenance responsibilities of the site will rest with the landowner who is retaining control of the site rather than offer these features to the Local Planning Authority (or the County Council in the future). Any antisocial behaviour issue will therefore need to be dealt with by the landowner or policing system. The potential risk of anti-social behaviour is not grounds enough to justify the refusal of the scheme and in any event, as described above, it is likely that the layout of the proposed dwellings will provide surveillance to these areas With regard to some of the ponds being permanently wet and others only seasonally wet, the submission advises that the seasonally wet ponds will react to the levels of run-off from the development. The permanently wet ponds are designed this way to offer a level of ecological and amenity value to the development (para 2.3.3) In a similar fashion to the foul drainage issue considered above, the Reserved Matters essentially seek to address the layout and appearance of the SUDS. The technical capacity of the system, notwithstanding the submitted Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy will be fully approved as a result of condition 29 on the outline planning permission Condition 29 requires: The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro-geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented before the development is completed and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include: (a) information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; (b) a timetable for its implementation; and (c) a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable urban drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

11 8.30 In terms of dealing with surface water run-off and the risk of flooding off site, the Environment Agency has advised that the SUDS solution is welcomed. However the Agency has also expressed that the detail provided thus far does not provide adequate information for the approval of details pursuant to that condition. The actual surface water drainage capacity requirements will be determined by the requirements of planning condition 29 on the outline planning permission. 9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The application for reserved matter approval for the principal highway and drainage infrastructure is acceptable. Some further detail is to be secured by condition and through the submission of details to address conditions on the outline planning permission. The proposal is considered to provide for a safe highway route through the site and the drainage solution, both surface water and foul water, are considered to have been addressed. As such the proposal is recommended for approval RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL subject to conditions and notes: 1. No development shall take place until the detailed specification (to include finish and skid resistance properties) of the proposed road surfacing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policies TRA05, TRA09, TRA No development shall take place until a detailed scheme for the removal of and laying of the new infrastructure services in the Fen Meadow area of the site. Such a scheme shall include the timing of works, define a more precise corridor for the works and any reptile mitigation area and details of the handling of reptiles. Reason: To avoid impacts to, and provide continuity of the existing and enhanced Fen Meadow habitat, in accordance with Policies ENV01 and 05 of the Test Valley Borough Council Local Plan. Notes to applicant: 1. Please ensure that all development/works complies with the approved plans. Any changes must be advised and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before they are carried out. This may require the submission of a new planning application. Failure to do so may result in enforcement action/prosecution. 2. In reaching this decision Test Valley Borough Council (TVBC) has had regard to paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. TVBC work with applicants and their agents in a positive and proactive manner offering a pre-application advice service and updating applicants/agents of issues that may arise in dealing with the application and where possible suggesting solutions.