appeal reference: app/h1705/a/13/2200861 local planning

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78

PLANNING PROOF OF EVIDENCE

MR CHRISTOPHER MARTIN REES MRTPI

ON BEHALF OF WATES DEVELOPMENTS LTD

LAND AT KENNEL FARM, BASINGSTOKE

Appeal Reference: APP/H1705/A/13/2200861

Local Planning Authority Reference: BDB/77382

Savills Planning 2 Charlotte Place Southampton SO14 0TB October 2013

of 45 Proof of Mr Christopher Rees

Contents

PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................... 3

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 4

2. SITE PROMOTION HISTORY ........................................................................................... 7

3. PLANNING APPLICATION PROCESS ...................................................................... 10

4. THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSALS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 12

5. HOUSING LAND SUPPLY .............................................................................................. 15

6. PUTATIVE REASON FOR REFUSAL NO 1 ............................................................. 21



9. RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS ........................................ 36

10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 41


Preface Christopher Rees will say:

• I am Christopher Martin Rees, Director of Savills UK based in Southampton. I am a Chartered

Town Planner with 10 years post qualification experience and a Member of Savills Strategic Land

Group. I hold a degree in City & Regional Planning and a Diploma in Town Planning.

• I have a wide range of town planning experience, including site promotion, the preparation and

submission of technical supporting evidence to support Local Development Frameworks, project

management, submission of major planning applications, negotiation of planning matters, housing

land supply and appearance at Examinations in Public and Inquiry.

• Savills was founded in 1855 and became a limited company in 1987, with a full listing on the

London Stock Exchange in 1988, becoming Savills plc. Savills is a constituent company of the

FTSE 500 on the London Stock Exchange and is a leading international firm of property services

consultants. Based in the West End of London, the firm has 107 offices and employs over 3,500

people throughout the UK.

• I am fully familiar with the Appeal site and its surroundings, and advised the Appellant in relation to

the promotion of land over a number of years through the Basingstoke & Deane Local Plan

process and subsequent Development Control process.

• The evidence which I have prepared and provided for this appeal in this Proof of Evidence is true

and has been prepared and is given in accordance with the guidance of my professional institution

and I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions.


1. Introduction

The Proposal

1.1 The Proposal submitted is outlined within the Appellant’s Statement of Case (CD/1.3) of 23

September 2013 and as agreed between the parties in the Statement of Common Ground

dated 7 October 2013 (CD/1.5).

Savills 1.2 Savills has represented the Appellant regarding planning matters on this site (Kennel Farm)

since 2009, having promoted the land through each stage of the Strategic Housing Land

Availability Assessment, Core Strategy process, Local Plan process and advised on the

formation and submission of the Outline Planning Application in December 2012.

Scope of Evidence 1.3 This proof provides evidence on behalf of the Appellant, Wates Developments Ltd, in relation

to planning matters including the site promotion history, National and Local Planning Policy

and other material considerations including housing land supply.

1.4 The proof will primarily address putative Reason for Refusal Number 1, in respect of

perceived prematurity, Number 5 in respect of the scale of the development proposed and

matters concerning the Section 106 Legal Agreement, which is covered within Reason for

Refusal Number 6.

1.5 Cross referencing will be made to the Proofs of Evidence submitted by Mr Bevis in respect of

Highways and Access (Reason for Refusal Number 2), Ms Shelton with regard to Landscape

and Visual Impact (Reason for Refusal Number 3) and that submitted by Ms Spray in respect

of Biodiversity on behalf of the Appellant (Reason for Refusal Number 4).

Matters Outstanding and Common Ground

1.6 A Statement of Common Ground has been agreed between the Appellant and the LPA

(CD/1.5).


1.7 Where matters are still outstanding between the Appellant and the LPA these are addressed

in the various Proofs of Evidence submitted on behalf of the Appellant. The Appellant will

continue to seek a resolution to outstanding matters where possible via the Legal Agreement,

condition or otherwise.

1.8 As set out within the Statement of Common Ground submitted to the Inquiry, there are a

number of principal areas of common ground between the Local Planning Authority and the

Appellant, including:

• The Appeal Site’s consistent identification within the Strategic Housing Land Availability

Assessment as a Category 1 site since May 2010, and its identification with both the Pre-

Submission Core Strategy (January 2012 now quashed) and the Pre-Submission Local

Plan (August 2013) as a suitable and deliverable site for residential development required

to come forward early in the Plan Period.

• That the County Council Highways Department and Highways Agency confirm that the

Appeal proposal is acceptable in transport terms.

• That the Council has no objection to the Appeal proposal with regard to matters relating to

highways safety; the design of the site access junction; highways capacity and traffic

impact; and the principle of residential development in this location.

• That as of April 2012 and April 2013, there exists a ‘serious and significant’ shortfall of

housing land supply within the Borough, when judged against the emerging Locally

Derived Requirement to be tested at Examination and the former Regional Strategy

requirement. As such, the Council cannot satisfy the requirement of the NPPF to maintain

a rolling supply of 5 years’ worth of deliverable housing sites.

1.9 My evidence follows the following order:

• Section 2.0: Site Promotion History

• Section 3.0: Planning Application process

• Section 4.0: The Conformity of the Proposals to the Development Plan

• Section 5.0: Housing Land Supply

• Section 6.0: Putative Reason for Refusal No 1



• Section 9.0: Response to the Third Party Representations

• Section 10.0: Summary and Conclusions

1.10 I demonstrate that the Proposal is supported by both the National Planning Policy Framework


and emerging Local Plan, and that the significant benefits of allowing the Appeal far outweigh

any adverse impacts in doing so.


2. Site Promotion History

2.1 The land subject to this Appeal has been promoted initially through the Basingstoke & Deane

Core Strategy process, and more recently through the Basingstoke & Deane Local Plan

process. The Appeal Site has since September 2011 (Committee Report CD/9.8), been

identified by the Local Planning Authority as a future housing allocation required to meet the

housing need and demand of the Borough.

2.2 Following an initial Core Strategy Issues & Options Consultation in March 2008, the Council

prepared and published its draft Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) for

consultation in September 2008. Listed as Site Reference BAS114, land at Kennel Farm was

grouped with additional land (not forming part of this Appeal), and identified as a ‘Category 1

Site’. This assessment process and categorisation of the site concluded that the site should

be considered further as a possible future housing allocation through the LDF process.

2.3 A further period of consultation on the SHLAA took place in May-June 2010, with Version 4

published for public consultation as part of the scrutiny process by Members. Again, the land

subject to this Appeal was judged by the Local Planning Authority to be a Category 1 site, and

moreover, to have a capacity of approximately 350 dwellings.

2.4 Following the completion of the site assessment work to inform the Core Strategy, the

findings were presented to the Planning and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee

in September 2011. The Committee Paper included a list of those sites to be identified within

the Pre-Submission Core Strategy and provided an opportunity for scrutiny of those sites, the

process undertaken to select them and for both Councillors and members of the public to

raise any particular issues. Site reference BAS114 was included as a proposed Reserve

Allocation for approximately 350 dwellings.

2.5 Having considered the emerging spatial strategy and site selection fully, in January 2012 the

Borough Council published its Pre-Submission Core Strategy for consultation, inclusive of

land subject to this Appeal as a Reserve Allocation for approximately 350 dwellings as set out

within Policy SS3.1.

2.6 From an initial consultation in September 2008 through to January 2012, the land subject to

this Appeal had therefore been fully assessed by the LPA and been subject to full public and

stakeholder scrutiny. During this period of assessment, the Borough Council had concluded


that there were no technical reasons why the land could not come forward, and when judged

against the alternatives in respect of landscape, biodiversity and accessibility, the site was

deemed suitable and appropriate to deliver approximately 350 dwellings.

2.7 Following the challenge by the Manydown Company and subsequent judgement of the High

Court to quash the Pre-Submission Core Strategy publication in April 2012, there was a

period of delay during which time the Appellant entered into Pre-Application discussions with

the Borough Council and extensive Community Consultation regarding the merits of a

Planning Application and the scope and form of that Application.

2.8 It is a fact that there is insufficient land within the defined settlement boundaries of the towns

and villages to meet the emerging housing requirement for the Plan Period, and as such, the

Borough Council has been required to assess the suitability of available Greenfield sites in

order to identify sufficient land to meet its housing needs.

2.9 In January 2013, Members of the Planning & Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee

were presented with the site selection process for new Greenfield Allocations required to

meet an annual requirement of between 730 dpa and 770 dpa, which had increased from the

previous 594 dpa deemed appropriate within the Pre-Submission Core Strategy.

2.10 The Committee Paper (CD/9.10), identified that the Appeal site should no longer be held in

Reserve, but elevated to a baseline allocation and for it to deliver housing completions within

the first 5 years of the Plan Period. At the same time, the Council reduced the capacity of the

site from 350 dwellings it had previously concluded as being sound since May 2010, down to

250 dwellings. For the reasons set out within Section 7 of this proof, it is shown that the

judgement upon which this reduction in capacity was based was flawed; a point accepted in

writing by the Local Planning Authority in correspondence dated 1 May 2013 (CD/10.9).

2.11 More recently and in advance of the Local Plan Pre-Submission draft being published for

consultation on 23 August 2013, the merits and suitability of the Appeal site had been further

scrutinised as part of a series of meetings of the Planning & Infrastructure Overview and

Scrutiny Committee held on 26 June, 2, 3, 4, 15 and 16 July 2013, at Cabinet on 22 July 2013

and at Full Council on 25 July 2013.

2.12 Following this extensive committee process and assessment of the future Greenfield

allocations when assessed against all alternatives, the Borough Council continues to identify

the Appeal Site as being suitable, deliverable and required to provide housing completions

within the Borough within the first 5 years of the Plan Period. Despite this strong


endorsement from the Borough Council, its Committee System and a recommendation to

Approve the Outline Planning Application from the Borough Council Officers, the

Development Control Committee resolved to refuse the Application on 19 June 2013.

2.13 With regard to the relationship of the Appeal Site and the wider context, in conjunction with

the proposed allocation at the Basingstoke Golf Club, the south west area of the Town has

been identified by the LPA within the emerging Local Plan for large scale growth to support

and deliver the housing requirements during the short and medium term.

2.14 Immediately to the north of the Appeal site, the Old Down Park provides in land use planning

terms a functional relationship of the urban settlement with the existing residential

development at Kempshott to the north, acting as formal and adopted Open Space.

2.15 With the Appeal Site located on the southern boundary of the adopted Open Space, the

relationship between the Appeal Site and the urban settlement mirrors that which already

exists to the east of the A30, where Beggarwood Park lies between Hatch Warren to the north

and the residential area of Beggarwood to the south. The Appeal site is not therefore

divorced from the urban settlement by open countryside, but as per the east of the A30,

provides for a residential extension to the Town in an area earmarked for growth and on the

southern fringe of formal and adopted Open Space.


3. Planning Application Process

3.1 On 17 April 2012, Savills prepared and submitted a Pre-Application submission to the

Borough Council seeking comments on an Outline Planning Application for 325 dwellings,

supported by an illustrative masterplan, Landscape Briefing Note and LVIA Methodology,

extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Vision Strategy document.

3.2 While it was highlighted that only access would be sought for approval, with all other matters

reserved for a later date, the Appellant provided information concerning housing mix and an

illustrative layout to inform the Council’s consideration of the pre-application submission.

3.3 As per the responses received from the various internal departments within the Borough

Council, it was acknowledged that the inability to demonstrate a 5 year land supply would be

a material factor, in addition to the applicant demonstrating new connections from the site to

the surrounding area and addressing other matters such as foul water capacity.

3.4 This Pre-Application process was informed by a comprehensive public consultation exercise

held on 17 and 19 May 2012, where the local community and local interest groups were

invited to attend an Exhibition held at the Hatch Warren Community Centre. This public

consultation process was supplemented by a meeting with the Old Down and Beggarwood

Wildlife Group held on 4 July 2012, with Local Members and Officers of the Borough Council

in attendance.

3.5 This extensive pre-application process allowed the Community to engage with the Appellant

and its advisors in considering the proposal and ultimately informed the Planning Application

made in December 2012. Of note, the landscape buffer widths shown at the Exhibition and

as part of the Pre-Application submission were set at a minimum of 15 metres from the tree

belts to the north and west of the built form. As a direct result of the consultation exercise and

taking on board the comments received, the widths of these landscape buffers were extended

to a minimum of 20m and more in places.

3.6 In respect of the connectivity of the Appeal Site, there was a judgement to be made between

the promotion of new pedestrian connections, against what was considered by the Old Down

and Beggarwood Wildlife Group the potential impact on the SINCs to the north and west.

This issue alone was discussed at length prior to submission of the Planning Application and

it was agreed with Officers that via the use of new planting, the pedestrian connections would


be directed to the north west corner of the Appeal Site and to the north east along the A30 via

a new footpath. At the same time, a new east/ west pedestrian connection could be facilitated

through the northern buffer providing an alternative for pedestrians to walk from the A30 to the

Roman Road while avoiding the SINC.

3.7 The effectiveness of this pre-application process and consultation by the Appellant is no more

evident than in the recommendation to approve the Planning Application by the LPA in June

2013.


4. The Conformity of the Proposals to the Development Plan

4.1 It is acknowledged that the Appeal Site lies outside of the settlement boundary for

Basingstoke as per the adopted Local Plan (2006), and therefore is subject to Countryside

Policies.

4.2 In determining this Appeal, regard will be had to Section 38(6) of the Planning and

Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that proposals be determined in accordance

with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In respect of

those material considerations pertinent to this Appeal and the weight to be afforded to those

material considerations, it is considered on balance, these outweigh any conflict with the

existing Local Plan and restraint on development within the Countryside.

4.3 As set out within Para 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (CD/4.1), the golden

thread running through the national framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable

development, further supported by the objective to boost significantly the supply of housing

(Para 47).

4.4 Paragraph 14 continues, that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies

are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing

so would significantly demonstrably outweigh the benefits. It is shown within this Proof of

Evidence and that submitted in respect of Highways, Landscape and Ecology on behalf of the

Appellant, that benefits would not be significantly, or demonstrably outweighed by any

impacts.

4.5 As set out within Section 5 of this Proof of Evidence and Section 5 of the Statement of

Common Ground (CD/1.5), it is agreed the Borough Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year

land supply with the shortfall both ‘serious’ and ‘significant’ and thus, as per Para 49 of the

NPPF the relevant policies within the 2006 Local Plan cannot be considered up-to-date.

Combined with the absence of an up to date Local Plan, significant weight should be afforded

to the NPPF as a material consideration on the determination of this Appeal.

4.6 A further material consideration is the Ministerial Statement ‘Planning for Growth’, issued by

the Rt Hon Greg Clark MP on 23 March 2011. Within that statement, the Minister sets out the


Government’s clear expectation is that ‘the answer to development and growth should

wherever possible be ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable

development principles set out in national planning policy’ (CD/4.2).

4.7 The promotion of sustainable economic growth and delivering a significant boost of housing

has most recently been material in the determination of the Land North of Marnel Park

Appeal, where both the Secretary of State and the Inspector gave weight to these material

considerations in allowing the Appeal. In doing so, the Secretary of State agreed with the

Inspector that in the context of a failing land supply evident within Basingstoke and Deane

Borough, there is no justification for an argument based upon prematurity (Para 16, SoS

Decision CD/11.1).

4.8 In the context of the emerging Local Plan, the LPA has undertaken a significant period of

consultation on those Greenfield sites it deems the most sustainable and appropriate to come

forward to meet the future housing requirements of the Borough. In this context, the Appeal

Site has been identified within the Pre-Submission Local Plan, with its identification supported

by the outputs of this public consultation and findings of the Sustainability Appraisal, as being

one of those Greenfield sites required to come forward to meet the short term housing

requirement.

4.9 One of the principal background documents prepared by the LPA to support its emerging

Local Plan was the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (Version 7), published in

January 2013. Appendix 4 of the SHLAA provides individual assessments of sites with

potential for housing outside of the settlement boundaries and the associated maps show the

extent of the sites considered. This process identified Category 1 Sites, which were

considered worthy of further consideration for inclusion as strategic allocations in the Local

Plan, and Category 2 Site, which were not considered suitable.

4.10 Kennel Farm was identified as a Category 1 site (ref BAS 114) along with 17 other potential

sites for inclusion within the Local Plan. Having identified 17 potential urban extensions to the

Town, the LPA narrowed these to 9 Greenfield Sites identified within the Pre-Submission

Local Plan, including:

• Land Kennel Farm

• Land at Manydown

• Land at Swing Swang Lane

• Land at Razors Farm

• North of Popley Fields


• Redlands

• Cufaude Farm

• East of Basingstoke

• Basingstoke Golf Club

4.11 Having assessed all of the alternatives, both within and on the fringe of the settlement

boundary, land at Kennel Farm has been deemed required to meet the future housing needs

of the Borough, and moreover, has been deemed more appropriate and sustainable than 8

other potential sites that were not carried forward into the Pre-Submission Local Plan.

4.12 With the emerging Local Plan still to be submitted and tested at Examination in Public, the

Appellant’s case does not rely on the Appeal Site’s identification and allocation within the Pre-

Submission Local Plan (Policy SS3.2) carrying significant weight in the determination of the

Appeal. That said, it is very much the case that in order to meet the Council’s short term

housing requirement there is a consensus between the Appellant and the LPA that Greenfield

sites are required to come forward, and further consensus that having assessed all

alternatives, the Appeal site represents one of the most appropriate, sustainable and

deliverable sites to meet that requirement in the context of the emerging Local Plan.


5. Housing Land Supply

5.1 This section of my Proof of Evidence sets out the position as of April 2013 in respect of the

housing land supply within Basingstoke and Deane Borough. The section provides an

assessment against the Liverpool Methodology, with a comparison provided against the

Sedgefield Methodology for completeness, while utilising the Council’s emerging locally

derived housing requirement of 748 dwellings per annum from 2011 to 2029. Further

commentary is set out within the supplementary Statement of Common Ground submitted to

the Inquiry.

5.2 The starting point for the assessment of land supply in the context of this Appeal is that within

the Borough there is acknowledged to be a ‘serious and significant’ shortfall of housing as

concluded by both the Inspector and the Secretary of State in allowing the Appeal at land

north of Marnel Park (Paragraph 14 CD/11.1). This serious and significant shortfall remains

despite that Appeal being allowed; a point acknowledged by the LPA within Para 5.2 of the

Statement of Common Ground (CD/1.5).

5.3 Since that Inquiry was held, the LPA has obtained its completion figures for the period 2012/

2013, which totalled some 303 dwellings, down from 693 dwellings achieved in 2011/ 2012.

In respect of the delivery of housing therefore, the position is worsening with the delivery of

both open market and affordable housing significantly below that required.

5.4 The analysis of the land supply position starts with a summary of the Council’s position as

provided to the Appellant on 11 October 2013, with each element then critiqued. Table 1

provides a summary of the Council’s most recent assessment of land supply.

Table 1: LPA Assessment of Housing Land Supply (April 2013 Base)

Total Requirement (2011 to 2029) 13,464 Completions 2011 - 2013 996 Residual requirement 2013 - 2029 12,468 [13,464 - 996] Residual Annual Requirement 2013 - 2029 779 [13,464 ÷ 16] 5 Year requirement (2013/14 - 2017/18) 3,895 [779 x 5] 5 Year Requirement plus 5% buffer 4,090 [3,895 + 195] Revised Annual Requirement (2013 - 2018) 818 [4,090 ÷ 5] Supply 3,128 Years Supply 3.8 Years [3,128 ÷ 818]


5.5 The LPA has utilised the Liverpool Method, by averaging the -496 shortfall that has occurred

in the two years since April 2011 over the remaining 16 years of the Plan Period, which

combined with the 5% buffer and the projected supply of 3,128 dwellings would yield 3.8 years supply. This therefore can be concluded to represent the best case scenario for the

LPA, which is some -767 dwellings short of being able to demonstrate a five year housing

land supply.

5.6 By way of comparison, when the Sedgefield Methodology is used against the same

projected completions and applying a 5% buffer, the housing land supply position advocated

by the LPA falls to 3.5 years supply, when the -496 shortfall that has occurred since April

2011 is made up for in the five year period to 2018. This is set out within Table 2.

Table 2: LPA Assessment of Housing Land Supply (April 2013 Base) Sedgefield Method Total Requirement (2011 to 2029) 13,464 Completions 2011 - 2013 996 Requirement 2013 – 2018 3,740 [748 x 5] Plus Shortfall (2011 – 2013) 4,236 [3,740 + 496] Residual 5 year Requirement Plus 5% 4,448 [4,236 + 212] Revised Annual Requirement 2013 – 2018 890 [4,448 ÷ 5] Supply 3,128 Years Supply 3.5 Years [3,128 ÷ 890]

Annual Housing Requirement

5.7 One of the primary influences on the land supply position is the annual requirement. The

Council has put forward to be tested at Examination an annual requirement of 748 dwellings

per annum over the period 2011 to 2029. We know from the shortfall that has occurred since

April 2011 that the residual annual requirement for the next five years to 2018 has already

risen from 748 dpa to between 818 dpa and 890 dpa, depending on when the shortfall is

made up.

5.8 This proposed annual requirement of 748 dpa is also some 200 dwellings per annum less

than that tested and deemed sound during the Examination in Public of the South East Plan.

Any increase in this annual requirement deemed necessary and appropriate during the

Examination of the Local Plan in 2014 will be backdated to April 2011, and thus worsen the

residual position and reducing the years supply further regardless of which methodology us

used.


Land Supply 5.9 To inform the Inquiry, the LPA has released the housing trajectory of sites it considers will

deliver housing completions in the period to 2018 and which total 3,128 dwellings (CD/10.11).

This supply is made up of a number of sources, which is set out within Table 3.

Table 3: Sources of Supply

Large Sites with Planning Permission 1,749 * (56%) Adopted Local Plan Allocations 662 (21%) SHLAA Opportunity Sites 431 (14%) Small Sites with Planning Permission 186 (6%) Small Site Windfall Allowance 100 (3%) Total 3,128

* The 280 dwellings projected to come forward from the land North of Marnel Park has been

moved from SHLAA Opportunity Sites category to Large Sites with Planning Permission

following the Secretary of State’s decision.

5.10 It is evident that of the 3,128 units the LPA considers deliverable within the five year period,

only 62% actually benefit from a Planning Permission. Furthermore, of the projected supply

some 21% is located on sites that have benefited from an allocation for the last seven years

since the Local Plan was adopted in July 2006, and yet have failed to come forward and

deliver completions. The assertion that some 662 dwellings will be completed in the next five

years from a source that has not delivered completions in the last seven years is

questionable.

5.11 By way of example, the Aldermaston Road Triangle Site, which is owned by the Borough

Council and also benefited from a Development Brief has previously been refused planning

permission in July 2008. Since then, no Planning Application has been submitted nor is one

likely in the immediate future. Despite this, the Council relies on 150 dwellings coming

forward in the 5 year Period. This simply highlights the fragility and lack of robustness of the

assumed supply of 3,128 dwellings.

5.12 In respect of the windfall allowance, it is considered sound practice to limit this to the last two

years of the five year period to avoid the potential for double counting with those sites that

benefit from having Planning Permission.

5.13 For a source of supply to count towards the five year housing land supply and be considered

‘deliverable’, footnote 11 of the NPPF states that ‘....sites should be available now, offer a

suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that


housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the

site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until

permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented

within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type

of units or sites have long term phasing plans.

5.14 By limiting the Housing Land Supply to those sites that benefit from Planning Permission, and

thus can have more certainty of being deliverable (1,935 dwellings), this would equate to 2.4

years supply against the Liverpool Method and 2.2 years Supply against the Sedgefield

Method.

5.15 While the Council concedes that even if all of the sources of supply come forward as

projected there is still a ‘serious and significant shortfall’, with less than half of that assumed

deliverable supply benefiting from a Planning Permission, the reality is likely be significantly

worse.

Future Completion Rate

5.16 As a result of the shortfall in housing completions that has occurred since 2011, the residual

requirement based on the yet to be tested 748 dpa has already risen to 818 dpa against the

Liverpool Method and 890 against the Sedgefield Method. It is evident from the Council’s

projected completion rate of 3,128 dwellings to 2018 set out within Table 4, that at no point

during the next five years does the Council expect to achieve the required rate in any single

year, to either maintain the status quo, or actually make up for the shortfall. Year on year

therefore, this serious and significant shortfall will worsen.

Table 4: Projected Annual Completions

2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 525 595 568 729 711

5.17 The NPPF is clear in its direction where there is a failure to demonstrate a five year housing

land supply, and it is not disputed between both parties that as per Paragraph 48, the relevant

policies for the supply of housing within the adopted Local Plan cannot be considered up-to-

date given the failure to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.

5.18 The Appellant contends therefore that significant weight should apply to Paragraph 14 of the

NPPF and weigh in favour of allowing this Appeal in making up in part, the significant shortfall

that has occurred and will continue to occur within the Borough in the short term. The


foundations of the National Planning Framework are built upon supporting an increase in

house building and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, particularly in

cases where it has been identified that a shortfall in housing exists. The alternative, and to

wait for the Local Plan to be adopted and then making up the housing provision later in the

plan period, would be the antithesis of the approach advocated in the Framework as

concluded by the Inspector and Secretary of State in determining the recent Land north of

Marnel Park Appeal (CD/11.1 Para 9.5.6).

5.19 With the residual annual housing requirement already rising fast and as projected by the LPA,

to continue to rise year on year due to under provision, it is a mathematical certainty that

Greenfield Sites are required to make up for the shortfall and deliver open market and

affordable housing during the Plan Period. Indeed, of the total housing requirement deemed

necessary during the Plan Period (13,464), more than half is projected by the LPA as being

required to be delivered on Greenfield sites (7,010), which highlights the reliance the LPA has

placed on Greenfield releases coming forward in a timely manner.

5.20 In respect of the immediate 5 year position, due to the shortfall that has already occurred and

will continue to occur, compared against the future supply, it is impossible to begin to make

up for this shortfall and meet the requirements of Para 47 the NPPF without the release of

Greenfield sites. In the context of which are the most appropriate, the Appeal proposal

represents a site that has not only been the subject of extensive assessment by the LPA and

the Appellant, but has also been the subject of full public consultation; the conclusion of which

is when assessed against the alternatives, it is one of the nine sites deemed most suitable

around the Town.

5.21 In the context where the LPA places a high reliance on Greenfield Sites to meet not only the

total housing requirement, but also the 5 year requirement, to not release what is deemed to

be one of the most suitable sites will inevitably result in additional pressure to release

alternative sites that have been deemed not as appropriate via the Council’s site selection

process.

5.22 As per Paragraph 14 of the NPPF, it is not considered that approving the Appeal would cause

adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when

assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.


5.23 The following provides a summary of the position in respect of housing land supply:

• Maximum level of supply at April 2013 equates to 3.8 years supply (Liverpool) or 3.5 years

(Sedgefield).

• That sites with Planning Permission only account for 2.4 years supply (Liverpool) and 2.2

years supply (Sedgefield).

• It is not disputed between either party that even this maximum level of supply represents a

serious and significant shortfall.

• That the 748 dpa requirement is some 200 dwellings less than that deemed sound

previously, and is yet to be tested at Examination.

• That there is a high probability the 662 dwellings identified to come forward on historic

Local Plan allocations will not materialise.

• That in light of the historic completion rate, a 5% buffer is appropriate, but that this position

will change given the shortfall that has occurred in the last two years and is projected to

occur.

• The serious and significant shortfall is to worsen year on year based on the April 2013

forward projection of housing completions.

• That there is a high reliance on Greenfield releases, both to meet the total housing

requirement of the Plan Period, but also, in the short term to begin to make up for the

shortfall and meet the 5 year requirement.


6. Putative Reason for Refusal No 1

Reason for Refusal No 1

The scale of the proposed development is considered so significant in this particular location

that it would prejudice the development of the spatial vision for the borough with particular

regard to decisions in relation to transport infrastructure. Accordingly the development is

considered to be premature and would prejudice decisions about the size, scale, sustainability

and phasing of new housing development within the borough and furthermore, undermine

wider policy objectives. As such, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the National

Planning Policy Framework 2012 and The Planning System: General Principles document.

6.1 As set out within the Planning Committee Report of 19 June 2013 (CD/3.1), in recommending

Approval of the Planning Application, the Borough Council Officers recognised that a case for

refusal on the grounds of prematurity could not be sustained (Page 20-22 Committee Report),

not least due to the serious and significant shortfall in housing supply that exists and the

weight to be attached to Para 14 of the NPPF. Moreover, the Officers did not consider that in

approving the Application it would cause adverse impacts that would significantly and

demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

6.2 The issue of prematurity was discussed at length at the land north of Marnel Park Appeal in

May 2013, where in overturning the Officer’s recommendation to approve the Application, the

Borough Council had imposed a reason for refusal based on prematurity. As per this Site

subject to this Appeal, the Inspector recognised that land north of Marnel Park had been

carried forward in every subsequent assessment of sites that will inform the emerging Local

Plan (CD/11.1 IR9.5.5) and again, mirroring the status of this Appeal site, it is one of 6

currently put forward for allocation in the first 5 year period of the emerging Local Plan

(CD/11.1 IR9.5.6).

6.3 In light of the continued delay in preparing the Local Plan and the resultant housing shortage,

the Inspector continued that there can be no certainty that the emerging Local Plan would be

adopted by August 2014. Waiting for the Local Plan to be adopted and then making up the

housing provision later in the plan period would be the antithesis of the approach advocated

in the Framework (IR9.5.6). In the context of these points, which support the thrust of the

Government’s objectives covered in Section 4 of this Proof of Evidence, the Inspector

concluded that an argument based on prematurity was not justified; a view shared and

supported by the Secretary of State in drawing his conclusions.


6.4 The implications of the decision into the Marnel Park Appeal has in part been addressed by

the LPA in its Statement of Case (CD/1.4), which states that: In the light of the decision dated

11 September 2013 of the Secretary of State in the Marnel Park Appeal

(APP/H1705/A/12/2188125 & APP/H1705/A/12/2188137), which post-dates the Councils

decision in this case, the Council accepts that the prejudice caused to the spatial vision for

Basingstoke as set out in the emerging Local Plan should no longer be viewed as a sufficient

Reason for Refusal in isolation (Para 6.13).

6.5 Despite the clear and unequivocal direction from the Inspector and the Secretary of State in

dismissing the case of the LPA in respect of prematurity, the LPA has refrained from

withdrawing Reason for Refusal No.1 in respect of this Appeal.

6.6 As set out in Paragraph 6.13, while no longer considered a sufficient reason in isolation, the

LPA’s case is that allowing the Appeal would prejudice the plan led system by pre-empting

decisions about the scale of development and the transport infrastructure required to support

it.

6.7 Firstly, while significant weight is not afforded by the Appellant to the site’s identification within

the emerging Local Plan, it is a factual position that in respect of the scale of development,

the location of development and the transport infrastructure required to serve that

development, the LPA itself considers that the Appeal site very much forms part of its

emerging spatial strategy and does not represent a proposal that could prejudice it. This

indeed has remained a consistent position for a number of years.

6.8 Secondly, and addressed by the Inspector in the case of land North of Marnel Park (CDXX

Para 9.5.6), there is a serious and significant shortfall of housing supply within the Borough

and in light of the continued delay in the LPA preparing its emerging Local Plan, the Inspector

noted that, ‘waiting for the Local Plan to be adopted and then making up the housing

provision later in the plan period would be the antithesis of the approach advocated in the

Framework [our emphasis]. We fully support this view, and moreover, point to the continued

delay of the LPA in preparing its emerging Local Plan as one of, if not the primary reason for

the ‘serious and significant’ housing shortfall that currently exists.

6.9 In respect of the scale of the Appeal proposal in the context of the overall housing

requirement needing to be delivered within the Borough from 2011 to 2029, the 310 dwellings

would represent some 2.3% of the total 13,464 dwellings. Not only therefore does the Appeal

proposal form part of the emerging spatial strategy, its scale would also not represent a

development that could prejudice the emerging spatial strategy for the Borough.


6.10 The similarity between the land north of Marnel Park and Kennel Farm is significant. Both

sites have consistently been assessed and concluded by the Borough Council as being

suitable for future development when assessed against the alternatives and subject to

extensive public consultation. Furthermore, as per the Pre-Submission Local Plan (August

2013 CD/8.5), the Borough Council has concluded that both sites are required to come

forward in the first 5 years of the Plan Period.

6.11 In considering the Planning Application in June 2013 and in advising its Members, the

Borough Council Officers were correct therefore to argue that in respect of the weight to be

attached to Para 49 and Para 14 of the NPPF as a material consideration, there was no

justification for refusal of the Application on the grounds of prematurity, and that the

Committee acted erroneously in doing so.

6.12 Most recently and in response to the Appellant’s letter of 17th October 2013 (CD/10.26), that

highlighted concern that this Reason for Refusal was still being pursued, the LPA has

expanded upon what it considers to be the basis for its argument of prematurity.

6.13 Within the response, the LPA make the case that ‘Unlike the position at Marnel Park the

appeal proposals are in direct conflict with the policy proposals for the site in the Pre-

Submission Local Plan. The circumstances are therefore different to those being considered

in that case (Para 1.3, CD/10.27). The LPA concludes that the argument for prematurity can

‘carry some weight but not over-riding weight’ (Para 1.2 CD/10.27) in making a distinction

between the Appeal Site, and Marnel Park, where the SoS and Inspector were unequivocal in

dismissing the argument.

6.14 This distinction drawn by the LPA between the two Appeal sites is the opposite to the

distinction made by the LPA Officers within the June Planning Committee Report (CD/3.1) at

Page 21 of that Report. At that time, and in advising Members that it would be difficult to

sustain an argument for prematurity against the Kennel Farm Planning Application, the

Officers stated that this ‘differs from the applications for Marnel Park (BDB/75761 and

BDB/75762) which were reported to Development Control Committee in July and September

2012, subsequently refused by the council and which are currently awaiting decisions on

appeal by the Secretary of State’ (CDXX).

6.15 Following the decision of the SoS in the case of land north of Marnel Park, the LPA has now

switched its position, and considers that it is the Appeal Site where an argument against

prematurity can be made, and that the position differs from that at Marnel Park.


6.16 Within its letter of 23rd October 2013, the LPA directs the Appellant to an Appeal Decision at

Stephenson Way, Coalville, Leicestershire, (APP/G2435/A/11/2158154), as justifying and

providing consistency to its approach. In this example, the Council was to identify a single

Strategic Land Site at Coalville within its emerging Core Strategy, which the Council argued

would certainly not be the Appeal site in that case, which was to be identified as an ‘Area of

Separation’.

6.17 In contrast, the position at Basingstoke is that the Appeal proposal is one of nine Strategic

Greenfield Sites identified to come forward at the Town having been tested against all of the

alternatives. Furthermore, with a capacity of 2.3% of the total housing required to be delivered

during the Plan Period, it is argued that the Appeal proposal is not be so substantial or where

the cumulative effect would be so significant that granting permission would prejudice the

Plan by predetermining decisions about scale, location or phasing. Indeed, as set out within

Para 9.5.5 of Marnel Park Decision, which had a greater capacity than the Appeal Site, the

LPA itself accepted in that case that the scale of housing to be delivered would be unlikely to

be prejudiced’.

6.18 While the LPA consider the Coalville Decision demonstrates consistency of its approach, the

appellant contends the more recent decision at Basingstoke Town itself represents a more

accurate reflection of government Policy and the direction of the Secretary of State,

6.19 Turning to the wording of the Reason for Refusal, particular emphasis has been placed on the

development prejudicing future decisions in relation to transport infrastructure. This issue

was pre-empted by the Officers in presenting to Members of the Planning Committee and

addressed at Pages 21-22 of the 19 June 2013 Committee Paper, where the Officers

explicitly advised Members that prematurity could not be sustained as a reason for refusing

the Application.

6.20 With the previous Pre-Submission Core Strategy quashed, the LPA had re-assessed the

availability of land at Manydown, to the west of Basingstoke. In doing so, the LPA concluded

that in addition to the Appeal site and other Greenfield allocations, land within the northern

area of Manydown should come forward within the Plan Period to 2029.

6.21 Given the significant separation between the northern area of Manydown identified within the

Pre-Submission Local Plan and the Appeal Site, there is no functional relationship between

the two. In respect of any future extension of the Manydown development to the south in the

next Plan Period post 2029, there is no sound basis for refusing the Appeal proposal on the

grounds that it may or may not provide a future access from the A30 to a development that


may or may not come forward.

6.22 The position taken by the Planning Committee is even more illogical when the Appeal site has

not been identified as a potential access point from the A30 within the latest Transport

Assessment prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (CD/9.18), where at Figure 2.3 an illustration of

Network Changes in the Future highlights the potential route of any future western bypass,

which lies to the west of the Appeal site and connects to the existing road network to the

south at Junction 7 of the M3.

6.23 Notwithstanding the fact the road is neither required during the Plan Period nor identified as

being potentially required to facilitate that road, as noted within the 19 June Committee

Report, the Borough Council places weight on the retention and long term management of the

woodland belts and SINCs, with Officers concluding that ‘it is unlikely that a road would be

brought through from the western edge of Kennel Farm to access the A30’ (Page 22, CD/3.1).

6.24 To seek the long term protection and management of these woodland belts as part of the

planning application process, only to then refuse the application on the basis that the

development may prejudice the loss of these woodland belts for significant new road building

is considered nonsensical.

6.25 To summarise the Appellant’s position in respect of Reason for Refusal No 1, Members of the

Planning Committee were explicitly advised by Officers verbally and in writing via the

Committee Report that refusing the Application on the grounds of prematurity could not be

sustained, particularly in light of the serious and significant shortage of housing supply and

the weight to be attached to Para 49 and Para 14 of the NPPF.

6.26 This position has been endorsed recently by both the Inspector and the Secretary of State in

considering the Appeal for land north of Marnel Park, Basingstoke. Despite this unequivocal

direction from the Secretary of State, the LPA continue to give ‘some weight but not over-

riding weight’ (Para 1.2 CD/10.27), acknowledge that it no longer considers the Reason for

Refusal can be substantiated in isolation and yet, does not withdraw the Reason for Refusal.

6.27 As supported by the Secretary of State and the Inspector in the recent Marnel Park Decision

in categorically dismissing any argument concerning prematurity, the Appellant contends that

there is no scenario where the Reason for Refusal can be substantiated.



RfR No 5

The proposed number of dwellings is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site.

The density of development proposed is inappropriate for the edge of the settlement given the

specific constraints of this site with regards to its location on an important entrance to the

Basingstoke Town settlement and relationship to key biodiversity habitats. As such the

proposal is considered contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and

Saved Policies E1, E6 and E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

7.1 In this section of my evidence, I set out the history of the LPA originally identifying the Appeal

site for approximately 350 dwellings, the events that lead to the recommendation that 310

dwellings was too dense, and finally draw a comparison with a recent approval on a

Greenfield site on the edge of Basingstoke.

7.2 In determining appropriate densities, BDBC applies ‘saved policy’ Policy E1 of its adopted

Local Plan (July 2006), which states that proposals for new development will be permitted

provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of land, respect the

amenities of neighbouring occupiers and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation of

compromise highway safety.

7.3 Further, Policy E1 states that all development proposals should respond to the local context

of buildings in terms of density, but no indicative density thresholds are given and there is no

definition for calculating density within the glossary of terms.

7.4 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (June 2011) sets out a definition of and methodology

for the calculation of net dwelling density (refer to Annex B) as follows:

‘Net dwelling density is calculated by including only those site areas which will be developed

for housing and directly associated uses, including access roads within the site, private

garden space, car parking areas, incidental open space and landscaping and children’s play

areas, where these are provided.’

7.5 This definition of net dwelling density was not carried over into the NPPF, nor however has it

been superseded by an alternative definition. That said, the LPA has indicated its intention to

adopt the PPS3 Method by including the same definition within the Glossary of its Pre-


Submission Local Plan (CD/8.5).

7.6 For the purpose of this Appeal and in the absence of any other recognised approach to

calculating density, the former PPS3 definition has been used to calculate the net density of

the Appeal Site.

7.7 As set out within this Proof of Evidence, the Borough Council had since May 2010 considered

that the Appeal could accommodate ‘approximately 350 dwellings’. This capacity had been

assessed by the Council and included within its SHLAA and ultimately the Pre-Submission

draft of the Core Strategy published in January 2012 (CD/8.4).

7.8 In May 2012, the Borough Council’s Urban Design team responded to the Pre-Application

submission, where comments were provided concerning the perimeter block approach, height

of development and footpath connections, the details of which were taken into account in

revising the illustrative layout. At that time, the indicative layout proposed 325 dwellings and

importantly, at no time during this period of consultation was it stated that the capacity or

density was too great. On the contrary, the Pre-Application submission proposed 25 fewer

dwellings than that identified within the Pre-Submission Core Strategy Policy of

‘approximately 350 dwellings’.

7.9 The first concern raised by the LPA regarding the density of the Appeal proposal arose in

January 2013, when following submission of the Planning Application the Urban Design

Consultation response stated that ‘The proposal is far too densely developed and urbanised

in its character for its location. This position was contrary to that taken by the Policy team in

its consultation response which stated that the Density was appropriate for the area.

7.10 Following the submission of the amended Plans in March 2013, the Urban Design team

provided further commentary on its objection to the density calculation. In doing so, it stated

that:

‘The agent is suggesting that a capacity of 310 dw [sic] is acceptable as it equates to 31.6

dph over an area of 9.8 ha comprising 7.2 ha of built form plus 2.6 ha accessible open space.

However, that assumes that all the 2.6 ha of accessible open space is equivalent to the old

PPS3 definition of childrens play space and incidental space. However, I consider it likely

that the 2.6ha includes types of open space which would not normally come within the net

density figure such as Accessible Natural Green Space; in addition the 2.6 ha is likely to

include an area of incidental open space and landscaping which is far in excess of what is

considered typical for the purposes of calculating a net housing density ......If the capacity of


310 dwellings is applied to the 7.2 ha of built form area then this equates to a ‘housing alone’

figure of around 43 dph. An alternative way of looking at this is to apply the 310 dwelling

figure to a net site area which has an open space component which is less than 2.6 ha and is

more comparable to more typical sites: this could equate to a normal PPS net housing density

figure of 35-40 dph (Urban Design Response 25 March 2013).

7.11 In forming this judgement, the Officer moved away from the recognised methodology for

calculating net residential density and excluded areas of on site accessible open space from

the net developable area, and instead sought to calculate density on a ‘housing alone’ area,

artificially reducing the net developable area, raising the density and thus recommending a

reduction in overall housing capacity to 250 dwellings.

7.12 This approach taken by the Urban Design Officer in calculating the net developable area of

the land at Kennel Farm has directly influenced the amendment made to the Policy Allocation

within the emerging Local Plan.

7.13 It should be noted however, that no other proposed allocation carried forward from the former

Pre-Submission Core Strategy to the Pre-Submission Local Plan has been reduced in a

similar manner, and therefore the approach taken is not only flawed and unjustified, it is also

inconsistent. If the Officer was correct in his approach and it was consistently applied, then

the capacity of each and every other Local Plan Allocation should have been assessed on the

basis of a ‘housing alone’ figure.

7.14 Given the Accessible Natural Green Space cited by the Urban Design Officer is

supplementary and incidental to the housing and for the enjoyment of those people residing

within the development, it was and still is considered to form part of the definition of the net

developable area.

7.15 The issue of density and layout in respect of an outline application was recently considered in

the Appeal Decision for land at Pitt Manor, Winchester APP/L1765/A/11/21468 (2012). Within

that decision, the Inspector references the definition listed within PPS3 (Annex B), which

stipulates that the Net Dwelling density is calculated ‘by including only those site areas which

will be developed for housing and directly associated uses, including access roads within the

site, private garden space, car parking areas, incidental open space and landscaping and

children’s play areas, where these are provided’.


7.16 Having considered the Urban Design Officer’s response, Savills responded to the Borough

Council on 12 April 2013, setting out concerns over how the Urban Design Officer had

calculated the net density, and ultimately recommended that the capacity should be reduced

to 250 dwellings. In the response received on 1 May 2013 (CD/10.9) the Borough Council

acknowledged that the correct methodology for calculating net density was that proposed by

Savills. Specifically, the correspondence received from the Case Officer, Ms P Logie, stated

‘I have discussed the principle of how to calculate density with the Planning and Development

Manager, Mike Townsend. The council will calculate density based on the site area,

excluding the Non- accessible buffer area. From the dimensions on your most recent plan

(Illustrative Layout/ Parameter Plan 122 P103 Rev B) this equates to 31.6 dwellings per

hectare (CD/10.9).

7.17 As of 1 May 2013 therefore, the Council had changed its position and concurred with the

Appellant in respect of the correct methodology for calculating density and thus it was

concluded by Officers that the application as proposed of ‘up to 310 dwellings’ was

appropriate. There is no longer a disagreement therefore between the Appellant and the LPA

Officers over how the net density should be calculated in light of the correspondence received

on 1 May 2013.

7.18 Taking this agreed methodology, which has not been disputed within the LPA’s Statement of

Case, with the 2.4ha of non accessible open space deducted from the total site area of

12.2ha, this leaves a net developable area of 9.8ha. When compared to a density of 30

dwellings per hectare, previously the national minimum required, this would yield circa 300

dwellings with the maximum of 310 dwellings proposed representing 32 dpa (rounded up).

7.19 As set out within Paragraph 6.8 of the LPA’s Statement of Case (CD/1.4), it is stated that

‘having regard to the constraints of the site (including the site’s proximity to designated areas

of biodiversity value; the topography of the site and the surrounding area; and prominence

from public vantage points); and in consideration of the requirements of the Development

Plan and other material documents, a development of the scale proposed would result in

overdevelopment of the site and an incongruous urban form’.

7.20 Having undertaken all of the necessary landscape, ecology and visual impact assessments

required to inform the Plan Production process, the Council itself had concluded that the

Appeal site could accommodate ‘approximately 350 dwellings’, in submitting the former Pre-

Submission Core Strategy to the Secretary of State. While no weight can be attributed to that

document due to the decision of the High Court to quash the emerging DPD, the evidence

prepared by the Council that underpinned that Core Strategy remains true.


7.21 It is illogical to suggest that the site constraints has changed to the extent that the site’s

capacity of this particular Local Plan Allocation should be reduced by nearly 29%, whereas

the capacity of all other Greenfield Allocations carried over from the Pre-Submission Core

Strategy to the Pre-Submission Local Plan have remained a constant. On the contrary, the

only influence over the reduction in assumed capacity has emanated from the Urban Design

Officer’s unsound approach to calculating density, which has now been shown to be incorrect

by the LPA itself.

7.22 In drawing a comparison between the Appeal proposal and land North of Marnel Park, the

other most recently masterplanned and approved Greenfield site at Basingstoke, it is noted

that the 200 dwelling detailed application applies an average density of 33.4dph, with the

larger 450 dwelling outline application citing a density of 32.8 dpa, which is also consistent

with the capacity of the Local Plan Allocation.

7.23 In considering the detailed planning application, the LPA stated within the Committee Report

that; This density would secure an efficient use of land, and given the character of the

surrounding area and proximity to the countryside, it is considered that the proposed density

would be acceptable in urban design terms. The more dense part of the development would

be located close to the existing settlement. (Page 60, 200 unit Detailed Application Committee

Report). Furthermore, this density and capacity of the wider 450 dwelling scheme is

consistent with the Council’s approach to calculating the capacity of the proposed Local Plan

Allocation that particular site.

7.24 Despite the recommendation to Approve the Planning Application submitted on land North of

Marnel Park, the Planning Application was refused by Members of the Planning Committee

and recently allowed on Appeal by the Secretary of State. In refusing the Planning

Application however, the LPA did not cite capacity or density as being a Reason for Refusal,

and thus in the case this Greenfield urban extension to Basingstoke Town, a density of 33.4

dpa was not considered to be overdevelopment, and represents a higher density than the

maximum proposed at the Appeal Site of 31.6 dpa.

7.25 To summarise the Appellant’s evidence in respect of Reason for Refusal No. 5, there has

been no change to the physical characteristics of the Appeal site to warrant a reduction in

assumed capacity by nearly 29%. On the contrary, this reduction has emanated from a single

Officer’s approach to calculating net density, that was not applied to any other Greenfield

allocation carried over from the Pre-Submission Core Strategy to the Pre-Submission Local

Plan, and which has subsequently been acknowledged to be incorrect by the LPA itself.


7.26 Regardless of how the error concerning density and capacity has occurred, at a maximum of

31.6 dpa, the Appeal proposal would reflect an appropriate density that makes efficient use of

the Greenfield site and provide for the required housing mix required by the LPA.

Furthermore, with regard to its edge of urban location, the density would in fact be marginally

lower than that approved by the Secretary of State in the case of land North of Marnel Park,

which represents the most recent Greenfield extension to be approved on the edge of

Basingstoke.



RfR No.6

In the absence of any suitable legal agreement, or justification for the absence of a legal

agreement, the proposed development does not make adequate provision for community and

infrastructure contributions in relation to Affordable Housing; Woodland Management Plan;

Landscape Management Plan; Travel Plan; Broadband Plan; On site non accessible open

space; On site accessible open space; Transport (BEST); Education; Community

Infrastructure; Parks; Playing Fields; Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play; Allotments;

Biodiversity issues; Percentage for Art to adequately off-set the impact of the development.

The proposed development is therefore contrary to the Community Infrastructure Levy

Regulations 2010, Saved Policies C1, C2, C7, C9 and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane

Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the guidance contained within the Planning Obligations

and Community Infrastructure Interim Guidance Document and the Adopted Green Space

Standards (April 2013).

8.1 Matters concerning the Legal Agreement had progressed up to the point of the

recommendation to approve the Application at the Development Control Committee of 19

June 2013 between the Appellant and the LPA. The reason for refusal exists due to the

absence of a completed Legal Agreement at that time, however, the content, scope and form

of the obligations contained within are largely agreed between both parties and set out within

the Legal Agreement submitted to the Inquiry.

Primary Education

8.2 Matters concerning primary education provision have been discussed with the County

Education provider, which has concluded that off site financial contributions are required to

mitigate the impact of the increase in primary aged pupils. It has been confirmed that no

contribution is required for Secondary Education.

8.3 The calculation of Primary Pupil Numbers is taken from ‘Developers’ Contributions towards

Children’s Services Facilities’ (Hampshire County Council, December 2011). The formula

requires the discounting of any one bedroom properties and then, calculates the pupil

numbers by 0.30 pupils per dwelling. While the Appeal proposal is in outline form, an

indicative accommodation schedule was submitted with the original planning application in

December 2012, which identified some 25 one bedroom properties, and formed the bases


upon which the calculation has been formed, with the precise contribution to be concluded at

the reserved matters stage once the final number of dwellings and mix is known.

8.4 Based on the indicative accommodation schedule submitted, there would be a maximum of

285 dwellings of 2 or more bedrooms, which multiplied by 0.30, would equate to 86 pupils of

Primary School Age. By way of example only, if there were no one bedroom properties, the

Pupil numbers would equate to 93 if all 310 dwellings were approved at the reserve matters

stage.

8.5 The nearest schools to the Appeal Site are the Kempshott Infant School and Kempshott

Junior School, both of which are at or nearing capacity and thus a contribution is being

sought. As advised by the Education Authority, the Kempshott Schools accommodate pupils

from the wider area, not just from within their own catchment area and it has been concluded

by the Education Authority that by expanding Park View Schools, this will displace pupils

attending the Kempshott Schools from outside of their catchment area, thus creating space

for pupils from the Kennel Farm development at time of admission to the Infant and Junior

Schools.

8.6 In recognition of the fact that the precise quantum of housing and dwelling mix will be agreed

at the reserved matters stage, the Legal Agreement references the formula upon which the

final financial contribution will be calculated.

Community Facilities

8.7 There are two community centres close to the site, Old Down Hall, which is located on the

northern fringe of the formal open space at Old Down, and Hatch Warren Community Centre,

which is located to the east of the A30. The Community Development team has requested

that an offsite contribution be sought for the enhancement of current facilities/ contribution

towards new facility, which is considered fair and reasonable and a contribution of £465,000 is

provided for within the Legal Agreement.

Affordable Housing

8.8 Provision has been made within the Legal Agreement for 40% of the dwellings to be built as

part of the development comprising Rented Affordable Units and Shared Ownership Units.

The precise number, location and tenure are to be agreed at the reserved matters stage.

Open Space

8.9 Open Space is to be provided in combination of on-site provision and off-site financial

contributions, as set out within the Legal Agreement. The on-site open space will include


2.8ha of accessible open space, inclusive of Local Areas of Play, with an additional 400sqm

of Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP). In addition, the following off-site financial

contributions have been provided for within the Legal Agreement:

• £331,600 as a contribution towards the cost of providing, running and maintaining open

space in the locality of the Site, specifically, that located at Old Down to the north and

Beggarwood Park to the east of the A30.

• £155,844.75 as a contribution towards the cost of providing, running and maintaining playing fields in the locality of the Site at Brighton Hill and Hatch Warren

Travel Plan

8.10 A Travel Plan in accordance with the agreed Framework Travel Plan will be delivered in

support of the Appeal Scheme. The Travel Plan contains a number of measures to reduce

the number of peak hour car trips generated by the site and to encourage travel by occupants

of the development by means other than the private car. Full details are set out within the

Travel Plan that accompanies the Appeal proposal (CD/2.35).

Highways

8.11 Based on the indicative development mix for a 310 dwelling scheme, a transport contribution

of £991,737 has been agreed with Hampshire County Council. The contribution is to be paid

in five equal instalments: prior to first occupation and then prior to the occupation of the 51st,

102nd, 153rd and 205th dwellings as set out within the Legal Agreement submitted to the

Inquiry. Full details concerning the local improvements have been set out within the Proof of

Evidence submitted by Mr Bevis.

Woodland Management Plan

8.12 Matters concerning the Outline Woodland Management Plan have been set out in full in the

Proof of Evidence submitted by Ms Spray. The provision of this Management Plan has been

secured within the Legal Agreement and through discussions between the LPA and the

Appellant.

Landscape Management Plan

8.13 As set out within the Legal Agreement, there is an obligation on the Appellant that prior to the

commencement of development, to have the details of the Landscape Management Plan

approved in writing by the LPA.


Art

8.14 Provision has been made within the Legal Agreement for incorporating a Public Art scheme

into the built environment. Details of the Art and its location shall be agreed with the LPA

prior to commencement, and cost no less than £10,000 and not exceeding a limit of £30,000.

8.15 Through the submission of the completed Legal Agreement to the Inquiry, it is expected that

the LPA will withdraw the Reason for Refusal.


9. Response to Third Party Representations

9.1 Where matters raised concern, Landscape, Ecology and Highways, these have been

addressed in full in the respective Proofs of Evidence submitted on behalf of the Appellant,

and are not repeated in full within this Proof.

Pellipar Investments Ltd

9.2 The submission is made on behalf of the Skinners Company, in respect of its landholding to

the south of the Appeal Site at Hounsome Fields. The primary objection concerns the failure

of Hounsome Fields to be identified by the LPA as a suitable and deliverable site within the

emerging Local Plan, and that, the Appeal site should come forward but only in conjunction

with additional land to the south.

9.3 As set out within the Landscape Proof of Evidence submitted by Catherine Shelton

Associates (Para 7.5), there is a clear distinction between the Appeal site and the land at

Hounsome Fields, set out within the landscape capacity studies prepared by the LPA and

also within the consideration of the land within the SHLAA under reference BAS133.

Between the two sites there exists an east/west ridge line, which as per the landscape

capacity studies prepared by the LPA, concludes that the Appeal site has a medium capacity

and the land controlled by the Skinners Company, a ‘low capacity’.

9.4 The land at Hounsome Fields has been the subject of the same level of due diligence and

assessment as all of the future growth options surrounding Basingstoke, and it has been

concluded that it is not required to meet the housing requirement within the Plan Period within

the Pre-Submission Local Plan.

9.5 It is true that the south western area of Basingstoke has been identified as one area of growth

within the Local Plan, of which the Appeal Site forms part of, in conjunction with the

residential allocation of land at Basingstoke Golf Club. It is suggested within the

representation submitted to the Appeal (Para 4.9, 4.11 and 4.12), that the Appeal proposal

has not considered this wider growth within the highway improvements proposed and the

Transport Assessment prepared. At Core Document CD/1.6, the Inspector has the Agreed

Statement on Highways Matters prepared between the Appellant’s Highway advisor (i-

Transport) and Hampshire County Council. Within this Statement, the County Council

confirms that ‘the scope and structure of the Transport Assessment (TA), was the subject of


detailed pre-application discussions with officers of the local highway authority. These

discussions commenced in February 2012 and continued up to the point that the local

highway authority was fully satisfied on highway and transport matters as confirmed in their

consultation response to the planning application dated 30th April 2013.....’ (CD/1.6, Para 1.3,

Agreed Statement on Highways Matters).

9.6 The assertion made therefore that the TA submitted in support of the Appeal proposals is

deficient, is unfounded and contrary to the view of the local highway authority.

9.7 In respect of the illustrative layout, no evidence is submitted by the objector to the Inquiry to

support the claims that ‘up to 310 dwellings’ could not be delivered on the Appeal site.

Furthermore, no evidence is provided how the illustrative layout incorporates a ‘barrier’

between the Appeal Site and Hounsome Fields.

9.8 As per the emerging Local Plan, there is no requirement of the Appellant within the illustrative

layout to make provision of a vehicular and pedestrian access to Hounsome Fields to the

south, which has not been identified by the LPA as a suitable site for future residential

development. The request therefore that the Inspector imposes a condition requiring such a

provision is considered unfounded.

9.9 With regard to the points raised concerning prematurity, these have already been addressed

within this Proof of Evidence in respect of Reason for Refusal No. 1 and are not repeated.

South West Action Group & Dummer Parish Council

9.10 Similarly to the Action Group SOLVE, which has campaigned against the expansion of

Basingstoke to the north east, the South West Action Group is lobbying the LPA to stop

development occurring to the south west. The objection in respect of prematurity has already

been addressed within this Proof of Evidence and is not repeated.

9.11 In respect of the accessibility of services and facilities, which replicates the objection from

Dummer Parish Council, this has been addressed within Section 4.3 of the Proof of Evidence

submitted on behalf of the Appellant by i-Transport, and sets out the improvements proposed

to pedestrian and cycle connections to the east of the A30, as required by the emerging Local

Plan Policy SS3.2.

9.12 Matters concerning Education have been the subject of discussions with the Local Education

Authority at Hampshire County Council. Contrary to the objection raised by Dummer Parish


Council, the Education Authority has not objected to the Appeal proposal with the required

contribution towards future Primary Education provision set out within Legal Agreement

submitted to the Inquiry. No contribution is required towards Secondary Education.

9.13 As per the correspondence received from the Parish Council, it is true that improvements to

the foul sewerage network will be required as part of the implementation of the Appeal

proposals, and this is dealt with via Condition 28, following consultation with Thames Water.

Interested Party – Cllr T Reid

9.14 The objector is a Member of the Planning Committee at the Borough Council and was present

at the overturn of the recommendation to Approve the Planning Application on 19 June 2013.

Matters concerning Reason for Refusal No 1 and the potential for this site to form an access

road to a possible future development to the west have already been addressed, and are not

repeated here. The concerns raised over highway safety and road infrastructure are

unsubstantiated and conflict with the view of the local highway authority.

9.15 With regard to the crossing of the A30 to access services and facilities, improvements to

facilitate this form part of the Borough Council’s emerging Allocation for the Appeal Site, and

have therefore been taken into account and addressed in the Proof of Evidence submitted by

i-Transport.

9.16 Notwithstanding the concern raised by the objector that the woodland belts may be required

to facilitate new road infrastructure in the future, it is suggested that the Appeal proposal

would conflict with Paragraphs 117 and 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF). The assessment of the Appeal proposal on the SINCs has been fully assessed as

set out within the Proof of Evidence submitted by WSP on behalf of the Appellant. Combined

with the Woodland Management Plan proposed, the proposal will not conflict with

Paragraph’s 117 and 118 of the NPPF; a view shared by the Borough Council’s ecologist and

Natural England.

Old Down and Beggarwood Wildlife Group (ODBWG)

9.17 The thrust of the objection from the ODBWG is that any development, not just the Appeal

proposal, should facilitate a 50 metre ‘buffer’ to ancient woodland. As set out within the

Evidence submitted by Ms Shelton and Ms Spray, neither of the two woodland strips are

identified as ancient woodland within the Hampshire Inventory of Ancient Woodlands

(Provisional), nor on the national inventory of ancient woodlands shown on the Multi-Agency


Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) database. They are however

designated as a Site Important for Nature Conservation.

9.18 Having reviewed the representation submitted to the Appeal, it is evident that the objection is

largely directed to the actions of the LPA and Natural England for not supporting the Group’s

objective that a 50 metre buffer should be applied when recommending approval and no

objection to the proposals.

9.19 While the woodland strips are not considered to be ancient woodland, for the purposes of the

Application there were considered as such. National guidance on the function and

appropriate width of “buffer zones” is contained within Natural England’s Standing Advice for

Ancient Woodland (Version 3, May 2012, CD/5.2). The advice states at Paragraph 7.5.1:

“Development close to, though not directly involving destruction of an ancient woodland can

nevertheless be damaging to the site (see Appendix 4). Whilst development should be kept

as far as possible from ancient woodland, a minimum buffer of at least 15 metres (see

Appendix 3) in width should be maintained between the ancient woodland and development

boundary.”

9.20 In order to prevent indirect consequences as discussed within the Natural England Guidance,

the buffers as shown have a mean distance of 22.6m from the west and 26.4m on the

northern boundary, and at no point fall below 20m. The buffers proposed are therefore

considerably greater than the minimum 15m recommended in the Natural England Standing

Advice, despite the fact the woodlands are not ancient woodland. Furthermore, they comply

fully with the 20m buffer width recommended by the LPA in its Landscape and Biodiversity

SPD, June 2008, which recommends a buffer 5m greater than the minimum recommended by

Natural England.

9.21 The Appellant therefore has responded to the Standing Advice of Natural England and the

local planning policy requirements of the Borough Council. While the objector disputes the

adequacy of these requirements set by Natural England and the LPA, it cannot be disputed

that the Appeal proposal has not complied with them and resulted in no objection.

9.22 Having met with the ODBWG on 4 July 2012 to discuss its concerns, it was evident that via a

new east/west link or ‘ride’ designed into the northern buffer, this may alleviate concern over

existing walkers accessing the Roman Road from the A30 via the woodland. Combined with

a Woodland Management Plan and new planting preventing desire lines being created, it is

considered that not only would the proposal not conflict with the requirements of Natural

England and the LPA, it would also bring with it long term benefits.


9.23 The disagreement between the ODBWG and the LPA was further discussed as part of the

consideration given to the Green Infrastructure Strategy Paper on 30 July 2013. Within that

Paper (CD9.22), the LPA stated that:

The requirement for a minimum 50 metre woodland protection buffer on development sites

where ancient semi-natural woodland is present would potentially have two principal

implications for the council.

• Firstly, the wider buffers required within housing allocation sites would result in their capacity

being reduced, which may result in additional sites needing to be identified.

• Secondly, the minimum buffer distances shown in the Natural England Guidance and also

the Landscape and Biodiversity SPD, are ones which have been arrived at following detailed

assessment of what is likely to be required and justifiable in terms of buffers. Additionally,

both carry some material weight in consideration of planning applications as they are policy

constraints. Therefore, if the council refuses planning applications based on the lack of a 50

metre buffer it is currently likely to lose any subsequent planning appeal. In instances where

there were no sound reasons for insisting on a 50m buffer, developers would use the two

policy documents as evidence that applying a 50m buffer is unjustifiable. Furthermore,

officers are unaware of any instances where a requirement of a 50m woodland protection

buffer has been successfully defended at a planning appeal. (Para 3.17, Report to Cabinet,

30th July 2013).

9.24 For the reasons set out within this Proof of Evidence, and that provided by Ms Shelton and

Ms Spray, it is not considered that the Appeal proposal conflicts with best practice or

recognised guidance, resulting in no objection from Natural England and the LPA Ecologist.


10. Summary and Conclusions

(A separate Summary is not submitted)

10.1 This Appeal has been made against a backdrop of a serious and significant shortfall in

housing land supply within Basingstoke and Deane Borough, primarily as a result of the

continued delay of the LPA to bring forward and have found sound a Local Plan.

10.2 The Plan production process commenced back in 2008, and since that time the LPA has

deliberated its future housing requirement in addition to those sites required to meet the future

housing need. What has remained a constant throughout this process however, is the fact

that having assessed all alternatives both within and on the fringe of the settlement boundary,

the LPA has deemed the Appeal site suitable, sustainable and required for release to meet in

part this future housing need.

10.3 The evidence of Ms Shelton, Mr Bevis and Ms Spray, has addressed in full matters

concerning Landscape, Transport and Ecology respectively. In summary, the pertinent issue

in relation to landscape and visual matters is whether development of the appeal site for up to

310 dwellings would result in significant and demonstrable harm to the landscape character

and visual amenities of the area. Ms Shelton describes the process to form a robust and

comprehensive landscape strategy with generous buffers and boundary features, which

provide an appropriate and attractive framework to the new built forms. Throughout this

process, the Appellant has liaised with the LPA and agreed matters of principle and

methodology in advance of submission.

10.4 The capacity of the site to accommodate housing development is considered in BDBC's

landscape capacity studies, with the most recent of these (the 2010 study – CD/9.7)

concluding that the site (BAS 114) has a medium capacity, i.e. it is capable of accommodating

some development. Furthermore, through the LPA’s proposed allocation of the appeal site

and other sites here to meet its housing requirements, means that there will be an inevitable

alteration to identity, and the landscape character on this edge of the Town will be changed

10.5 It is the contention of the LPA, that development in this location will be visually prominent and

affect the setting of this part of Basingstoke. It is the case that the development of any

greenfield site to meet the serious and significant housing supply shortfall will inevitably mean

that the built up area of the town will be extended into countryside. The extent to which this

change will be perceived from the surrounding area is fairly limited in the case of the appeal


site as this land is bounded by robust landscape features (mature tree belts and hedgerows)

and separated from the countryside to the south by a ridgeline.

10.6 Ms Shelton has demonstrated through the detailed visual impact assessment, that the

adverse impacts of the appeal proposal would be limited to a number of local receptors, with

the only significant impact being on views from sections of the Roman Road to the west in the

short term. Furthermore, the Zone of Theoretical Visibility of the site is limited due to the site

being enclosed by its boundary features. Therefore, the area over which the landscape

effects of the scheme would be perceived is also limited, resulting in no significant, or

demonstrable harm to the wider landscape.

10.7 In respect of the evidence provided by Mr Bevis, it is not disputed that The Transport

Assessment and subsequent transport work is considered by the local highway authority to be

“reliable and robust for the purpose of assessing the transport and highways issues related to

the Appeal Scheme” (Agreed Statement on Transport Matters para. 7.7 CD/1.6).

10.8 Within the Local Plan Pre-Submission draft, the suitability and deliverability of the appeal

scheme has been assessed and it has been concluded by the LPA that there is a need for

mitigation at the Kempshott and Brighton Hill Roundabouts, which the Appeal scheme

complies with through a mitigation scheme and the Kempshott Roundabout and a circa

£1million transport contribution towards local highway schemes, including improvements to

the Brighton Hill Roundabout.

10.9 The proposal also specifically provides for improving the pedestrian/ cycling crossing facilities

across Winchester Road to enable access to services to the east as part of the wider access

strategy and the provision of a new bus stop, which will be served by the Jazz 1 service with a

12 minute frequency.

10.10 In respect of this access strategy, it has been agreed between the Local Highways Authority

and the Appellant that ‘There is a good existing network of pedestrian and cycle routes to the

north and east of the site and these, coupled with the Appeal Scheme’s access strategy, will

readily accommodate pedestrian and cycle journeys between the site; local facilities and

services; and the wider area.” (Agreed Statement on Transport Matters para 2.1 CD/1.6).

10.11 The collaborative approach taken by the Appellant and his advisor has resulted in no

objection from the Highway Authority, nor the Highways Agency in respect of the proposed

access strategy and vehicular access arrangements. The ability of the Appeal site to deliver

a scheme in a sustainable location and take up the opportunities for sustainable transport,


while also providing safe and suitable access is also reflected in its consistent identification by

the LPA as a site required in the short term to meet the pressing housing need. It has been

demonstrated therefore that in highways and transportation terms, there would not be

significant and demonstrable harm in allowing the appeal.

10.12 Matters concerning Ecology and the buffers to the adjoining SINCs have been addressed in

detail in the evidence of Ms Spray. The Planning Application was supported by a full

ecological impact assessment (EcIA) completed in line with good practice methods (IEEM,

2006), which sets out anticipated ecological effects resulting from the development proposals.

It has been shown that throughout the preparation of the Planning Application, the Appellant

engaged fully with the LPA over its requirements for these buffer areas, and provides a

comprehensive scheme that complies fully with not only the LPA’s own Landscape and

Biodiversity (2008) SPD (CD/8.6), but also the standing advice of Natural England. The

efforts on behalf of the Appellant are evident in the no objection from the LPA Officers at the

point of determining the Application, nor Natural England in its role as statutory consultee.

10.13 In respect of the future Management Plan, advice was sought from the LPA during its

preparation, with the BDBC Biodiversity Officer commented that ‘in general everything

contained within the draft plan seems sensible and appropriate in terms of improving the

biodiversity of the woodland site’ and that she was ‘pleased to see the plan will cover a

minimum of 10 years’ (15th November 2012).

10.14 As set out within the evidence of Ms Spray in respect of Reason for Refusal No 4, it has been

shown that the function of the buffer zone, alongside proposed future management of the

Woodland SINCs will enable the retention, protection and enhancement of the woodland

habitat present.

10.15 In the context of Paragraph 14 of the NPPF and the undisputed need to release Greenfield

sites to make up for the serious and significant shortfall in housing, it has been demonstrated

in respect of Landscape, Highways and Ecology, that not only is the Appeal site appropriate

and suitable when assessed against all alternatives, but the proposal itself has been formed

in a collaborative manner and one that would not result in any adverse impacts that would

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

10.16 In respect of Reason for Refusal No 1 and the issue of prematurity, it is evident from the

LPA’s Statement of Case that the LPA itself no longer considers that the Reason for Refusal

can be substantiated in isolation at the Inquiry as a reason for refusing the Planning

Application. In light of this statement, it is of concern that the Reason for Refusal has not


been withdrawn and the issue of prematurity is still being relied upon as a material

consideration of weight. This is wholly contrary to the conclusion of the Inspector and the

Secretary of State in the Marnel Park Appeal (CD11/1), that reliance upon prematurity in the

absence of a 5 year land supply was the very ‘antithesis’ of government policy.

10.17 It has been shown through the Statement of Common Ground (CD/1.5) and within Section 5

of this Proof of Evidence, that not only is there a shortage of land supply within the Borough,

but that shortfall is both serious and significant. Even if all of the supply the LPA considers

‘deliverable’ actually does come forward, then against the yet to be tested housing

requirement of 748 dpa, the supply would only equate to between 3.5 and 3.8 years. Given

the fragility of the LPA’s projected supply, which is inclusive of historic allocations that have

not come to fruition, coupled with the suppressed housing requirement it is seeking to have

found sound, the reality is likely to be somewhat worse and causing further delay in the

provision of open market and affordable housing to meet the demand and need for housing

within the Borough.

10.18 The NPPF and direction from the Secretary of State is clear in such a situation and that

applications should be approved unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly

and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. We know from the recommendation to approve the

Planning Application, that no statutory consultee objected to the proposal, with Natural

England and the County Highways and Education Authority all offering no objection.

Furthermore, when the benefits of allowing the Application was given due consideration by

the Local Planning Authority Officers, again, the judgement was made that approving the

Application would not cause adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits and that the need for housing was pressing. At no point has it been

shown or proven that benefits of allowing the Appeal would be outweighed by adverse

impacts, let alone any that are significant or demonstrable.

10.19 The Appeal site will deliver up to 310 dwellings, of which 40% will be of affordable tenure in a

sustainable location and indeed in a location of growth as proposed by the LPA within its

emerging Local Plan, within the wider South West Basingstoke area. As set out in within the

Proof of Evidence by Mr Bevis, the site benefits from good connections to local services,

facilities and public transport connections, the details of which have been discussed and

agreed with the County Highways Department over a significant period of time. Furthermore,

when compared to other proposed residential extensions identified as Category 1 Sites, the

LPA has concluded that delivery of the Appeal Site is more appropriate than eight others that

had been discounted, and given its location at the prime service centre of Basingstoke, the

site is inherently more sustainable than those extensions proposed at the remote villages.


10.20 While little weight is afforded by the Appellant to the site’s identification within the Pre-

Submission Local Plan, weight can be attributed to the LPA’s own due diligence and site

assessment process that has since May 2010 concluded the Appeal Site as a Category 1

Site, and more recently, deemed required to come forward early in the Plan Period to meet

the housing need.

10.21 In respect of the capacity of the Appeal Site, the deviation from the previously agreed

capacity can be traced to a single Officer’s unfounded method of calculating density, and

specifically, the removal of land from the net developable area. No other proposed strategic

allocation and its capacity has been assessed in this manner, and therefore the approach is

also inconsistent and does not reflect the commonly accepted approach as set out within the

former PPG3 (Annex B). Indeed, the approach advocated by the former guidance, supported

by the Inspector as part of the Appeal at Pitt Manor in Winchester in 2012, and advocated by

Savills, has more recently been accepted in writing by the LPA on 1 May 2013 (CD10.9) as

being the correct Approach.

10.22 With the provision of the required on site accessible open space, non-accessible open space

and buffer space provided in accordance with the Council’s own requirements, at a density of

31.6 dpa, the Appeal site will deliver up to 310 dwellings, with the precise capacity to be

agreed at the reserve matters stage. Through this detailed design process, the LPA will

retain control over assessing the merits of the layout, siting, scale and appearance of the

development. There is no local policy, national policy or guidance which would support the

view neither of the Officer who made the judgement, nor indeed as set out in the

correspondence of 1 May 2013, do the LPA Officers now consider that the density should be

calculated in any other way other than that concluded within the former PPS3 Annex B.

10.23 With regard to the weight to be applied to Paragraph 14 of NPPF and the undisputed need to

release Greenfield Sites to make up for the serious and significant shortfall of housing that

exists, it has been demonstrated that in all aspects of the appeal proposal that not only is it

appropriate when considered against the alternatives, it would also not result in any adverse

impacts that would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

10.24 For the reasons given within my proof of evidence, I respectfully ask that the Appeal is

allowed.

appeal reference: app/h1705/a/13/2200861 local planning

Documents