Outline application with all matters reserved (except means of access) for the  construction of up to 148 residential dwellings (Use Class C3) with new vehicular access to Hamble Lane, alterations to Kings Avenue and Coronation Parade, new car parking for existing sports facilities, employment use and residential properties, landscaping, improvements to existing bowls and football facilities on site and other associated works. Demolition of non-original extensions to Sydney Lodge (Grade II* Listed Building) and redundant factory buildings. O/18/84191

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Housing and Development (Agenda Item 7) concerning an outline planning application with all matters reserved (except for means of access) for the construction of up to 148 residential dwellings (Use Class C3) with new vehicular access to Hamble Lane, alterations to Kings Avenue and Coronation Parade, new car parking for existing sports facilities, employment use and residential properties, landscaping, improvements to existing bowls and football facilities on site and other associated works. Demolition of non-original extensions to Sydney Lodge (Grade II* Listed Building) and redundant factory buildings (O/18/84191).

The Head of Housing and Development gave the following updates:

• HCC Highways confirm no objection in principle subject to minor detail design changes as part of the S278 process.
• 6 letters of objection following notification of the committee date raising issues set out in the agenda
• Corrections
  • Para 43 – artificial pitch not artificial footpath
  • Para 116 – Hamble Lane not Providence Lane
  • Para 121 – not common and but former airfield site
• Condition 1 to be updated to reference highway plans “17055-00-146_P05”
• Additional condition - The development here by approved shall not be occupied or brought in to use until the access is constructed broadly in accordance with dwg 17055-00-146_P05. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

The Committee debated the item and whilst noting that a lot of work had been carried out since July the following areas of concern were raised:  this represented overdevelopment, the Council already had a five year housing supply, schools were already at capacity with children having to travel off the peninsula to attend school, additional traffic on Hamble Lane which was already over capacity, impact on waiting times at the Doctors surgery which was already struggling to cope with demand and the money for sport not being spent in the village.

The Committee noted the recommendation to Permit.  A motion to refuse the granting of the permission was proposed and seconded by Councillors.

RESOLVED -

That the Committee noted offices recommendation to Grant Outline Approval but to refuse the scheme for the following reasons:

1. The proposals represent an inappropriate and unjustified form of development beyond the urban edge which would result in the loss of countryside and have an unacceptably urbanising impact to the detriment of the character, visual amenity, and the quality of the landscape of the locality. The application is therefore contrary to Saved Policies 1.CO, 18.CO, and 59.BE(i) of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), emerging policies S1(ix), S7, DM1 i(a) of the submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016 – 2036) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.  The application fails to demonstrate that an appropriate means of access can be provided to serve the development without unacceptable impact and interference on the footpath and cycleway infrastructure, to the detriment of the ease of use and safety of pedestrians and cyclists. The proposals are therefore contrary to the requirements of Saved Policies 59.BE (v), 92.T and 102.T of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011, emerging policies DM13 of the submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016 – 2036) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework

3.  The proposal involves development that cannot be reconciled with the National Planning Policy Framework in that the significant movements generated by the proposed residential development, when considered cumulatively with the potential for a growth in traffic associated with the retained commercial activities on site, could not be accommodated adequately on Hamble Lane and its junctions with adjoining roads. This would result in a severe impact on the road safety and operation of the local transport network contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and saved policies 100.T, 101.T and 102.T of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan and emerging Policy DM13 of the submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016 – 2036).

4.  Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrated that the loss of the cricket wicket and its outfield, which also provides for two grass football pitches and training area, can be adequately mitigated within the Parish of Hamble-le-Rice. The proposal is therefore contrary to Saved Policy 145.OS of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011, emerging policies DM34 of the submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016 – 2036) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, the adopted Sports Facility Needs Assessment and Playing Pitch Strategy Update 2017 and Exception Policy E4 of Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy - ‘A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England’.

5.  The application fails to provide for the required mitigation to offset the impacts of the development on the European protected site (SPA, SAC and pSPA) from nitrogen loading generated by the population increase resulting from the development. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of Saved Policies 25.NC and 45.ES of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011, Policies DM10 and DM11 of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016-2036, Paragraphs 170, 175 and 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and the provisions of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

6.  The application fails to secure provision for developer contributions for on and off-site provision of facilities and infrastructure (including affordable housing, air quality monitoring, education, the Solent Disturbance Mitigation project, sustainable transport measures, improvements to Hamble Lane Corridor, improvements and enhancements to the local footpath network, community infrastructure, on-site public open space and play area provision, off-site public open space, enhanced and replacement sports pitch and facilities, public art) made necessary by the development or to mitigate against any increased need or pressure on existing facilities. As such the application is contrary to policies 101.T, 147.OS, 165.TA, 191.IN of Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Eastleigh Borough Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document and Paragraphs 17, 203 and 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Note to Applicant: The application was refused following the assessment of

the following plans: FD16 1431 50 (existing site), FD16-1431-56 (Illustrative Master Plan May 19), FD16-1431-58 (Phasing May 19) FD16-1431-60 (Developable Area May 19), FD16-1431-61 (Land Use May 19), FD16-1431-62 (Open Space May 19), FD16-1431-63 (Height May 19), FD16-1431-64 (Means of Access May 19), 17055-00-146_P05 (General Arrangements)

[NOTES: (Councillor Cross declared a non-pecuniary interest in the item and after addressing the Committee as a member of the public; left the room and did not take part in the debate or vote on the application; (B) a number of local residents, including a representative of Hamble Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the scheme citing concerns of over development, lack of school places, a disregard for sustainable transport and an increase in traffic on Hamble Lane; (C) a representative from GE Aviation spoke in support of the scheme citing the removal of the objection by Sports England, the sale of the business to Aeronova bringing long term security, the securing of contributions for Hamble and the proposed access allowing fewer movements via Cliffe Avenue; and (D) an objection had been received from the new Member of Parliament for Eastleigh, Paul Holmes, on Highway grounds.]