Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

Planning Statement

Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

Prepared For

Kaduna Limited, IOM

GB/KW/8077

August 2016

A Planning Statement for the resubmission of the scheme for the conversion of agricultural buildings to 10 no. residential dwellings, including demolition, partial demolition and re-build, and small scale extensions. Creation of shared access, parking areas including car barns. Installation of a biomass boiler and associated landscaping.

Planning Statement 1 Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

2 INTRODUCTION 3

THE APPLICATION SITE 3

SITE HISTORY 4

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6

PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSIONS 7

3 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 9

PLANNING POLICY 9

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 9

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 10

HOUSING MIX 11

AFFORDABLE HOUSING 12

DESIGN AND HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 15

AMENITY 17

LANDSCAPE AND TREES 18

BIODIVERSITY 18

DRAINAGE 20

SUSTAINABLE WATER USE 20

HIGHWAYS 20

PLANNING OBLIGATIONS 22

4 CONCLUSIONS 24


1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Planning permission was refused in February 2016 for the Conversion of agricultural buildings to 10 no. residential dwellings, including demolition, partial demolition and re-build, and small scale extensions. Creation of shared access, parking areas including car barns. Installation of a biomass boiler and associated landscaping at Home Farm, Laverstoke Park, Laverstoke, Whitchurch, Hampshire (15/02441/FUL). The development was refused because it was considered that the viability report did not conclude that an affordable housing contribution would make the development unviable.

1.2 Since the refusal of the planning application the scheme has been revisited and we have considered whether affordable housing could be provided on the site or as an off-site contribution. Regrettably the figures demonstrate that there would be a significant loss of money if affordable housing or a contribution was made.

1.3 We then revisited the figures for the scheme with no affordable housing. The figures have been brought up-to-date to reflect the current economic situation. The new viability report demonstrates that the previous 13% profit would be reduced to around 7% profit due to reduced sales revenue post Referendum. This is significantly below the 15-20% profit that a private developer would expect to achieve from a development.

1.4 The Estate would like to bring forward the scheme and would accept a lower profit on costs as the benefits of the scheme are important to them.

1.5 The public benefits of the scheme are summarised below:

- Preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and countryside setting through preserving the model dairy courtyard layout and openness of the site.

- Architectural features within the barns would be retained thereby preserving the appearance of the existing buildings.

- Visual enhancement would occur through new planting.

- Provision of a drainage scheme that would improve surface water drainage in the local area.

- Provision of new housing with a range of unit sizes; 3 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed and 6 x 4 bed. The broad mix of housing would appeal to a wide market with for example the two bedroom dwellings being suitable for first time buyers or those looking to downsize. The development would make a positive contribution to meeting the housing need of the area.

- Provision of a further passing place or alternative, if considered necessary to improve upon those already installed several years ago.

1.6 Accordingly we hope that it will be agreed that this is a scheme which the Local Planning Authority will be able to approve as it is in line with its adopted development plan policies and the NPPF and it would lead to an enhancement of the local environment.


2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 This planning statement is prepared in support of a full planning application by Kaduna Limited (IOM) for the following development:

Conversion of agricultural buildings to 10 no. residential dwellings, including demolition, partial demolition and re-build, and small scale extensions. Creation of shared access, parking areas including car barns. Installation of a biomass boiler and associated landscaping at Home Farm, Laverstoke Park, Laverstoke, Whitchurch, Hampshire.

2.2 Planning application 15/02441/FUL refused on 12th February 2016. There was only one reason for refusal, which reads as follows:

The application does not represent a sustainable form of development as it fails to provide on or off site Affordable Housing. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated through a viability appraisal that the proposed development could not reasonably deliver on site Affordable Housing or make an off-site financial contribution towards Affordable Housing. The figures contained within the submitted viability report are not disputed, however it is considered that the report does not conclude that Affordable Housing contributions would make the development unviable. Subsequently the proposal is contrary to Saved Policy C2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraph 50, which seeks to create mixed and balanced communities through the provision of on or off-site Affordable Housing.

2.3 The proposed scheme is a re-submission of 15/02441/FUL and is therefore a “free-go”. As set out within notice of refusal, viability of the scheme was the sole reason for refusal which reflected Members only concern when they considered the application at Committee. This specifically related to whether affordable housing could be provided on-site or an off-site contribution be made available. This planning statement addresses the sole reason for refusal; a clear explanation is provided setting out why affordable housing (or a contribution) cannot be provided as it would render the scheme unviable. We set out the benefits of the scheme which should also be taken into consideration.

2.4 An appeal in the form of a Public Inquiry has recently been submitted against the refusal of 15/02441/FUL. It is the intention that a Public Inquiry will enable the viability report figures and their interpretation to be fully tested.

THE APPLICATION SITE

2.5 The application site is located within Laverstoke Park Estate, approximately 700m to the north of the villages of Laverstoke and Freefolk. The site comprises a complex of traditional 19th Century buildings (15 in total plus two modern farm buildings which are excluded from the application site). The buildings are mainly flint and brick panels with slate roofs and timber framed structures. The buildings are a mixture of single and two storeys.

2.6 The barn complex is accessed off Watch Lane which connects to the B3400, London Road, to the south west of the site. The B3400 is the main road running through the villages of


Laverstoke and Freefolk. London Road connects the villages with Basingstoke and Whitchurch.

2.7 The complex is located to the south of three cottages (44-46 Watch Lane) and to the north of 42 Watch Lane. Approximately 480m to the north east is Overton Rugby ground and 150m to the east is the Home Farm Gardener’s Cottage which is adjacent to a large walled garden. To the south-east is Laverstoke House (Grade II*) which is set within landscaped parkland and lakes. To the west of the site, on the opposite side of the lane, are open fields.

2.8 The site is within the countryside. All of the site is identified as being within the Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area boundary. The site as a whole is located outside of, but adjoining, the Laverstoke Area of Special Landscape Quality and the Laverstoke Park Registered Garden. The Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area Appraisal (2003) identifies that the buildings are ‘prominent in views across the open countryside from the south-west’. The buildings are not listed.

Figure 1 – Aerial image showing the application site location in relation to the B3400. Inset from the Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area Appraisal identifying the

Conservation Area, Laverstoke Area of Special Landscape Quality and Laverstoke Park Registered Garden boundaries. Source: Google Maps and Basingstoke and Deane

Borough Council website.

SITE HISTORY

2.9 The planning history for the site can be summarised as:

15/02441/FUL – Conversion of agricultural buildings to 10 no. residential dwellings, including demolition, partial demolition and re-build, and small scale extensions. Creation of shared access, parking areas including car barns. Installation of a biomass boiler and associated landscaping – Refused 12 February 2016 for one reason. The application does not represent a sustainable form of development as it fails to provide on or off site Affordable Housing. It has not been satisfactorily


demonstrated through a viability appraisal that the proposed development could not reasonably deliver on site Affordable Housing or make an off-site financial contribution towards Affordable Housing. The figures contained within the submitted viability report are not disputed, however it is considered that the report does not conclude that Affordable Housing contributions would make the development unviable. Subsequently the proposal is contrary to Saved Policy C2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraph 50, which seeks to create mixed and balanced communities through the provision of on or off-site Affordable Housing;

BDB/50360 – Refurbishment of existing buildings to be converted for domestic use, stables, farm shop and associated working farm offices – Granted 2001;

BDB/50347 – Demolition of part of existing barn group as shown on application plan and in association with refurbishment planning application – Granted 2001;

BDB/49155 – Variation of condition 6 of BDB47554 to enable a temporary site access for construction traffic – Granted 2000;

BDB/47554 – Refurbishment of existing buildings to be converted for domestic use, stables, farm shop and associated working farm offices – Granted 2000.

2.10 Historical mapping has been studied which shows that until recently there were many more buildings to the north of the main cluster of buildings associated with this planning application. The buildings referred to are north of the note ‘Tank’ on the OS map of 1975 below. On site there remains evidence of the presence of these buildings. No evidence of the ‘tanks’ remains on site; this was confirmed by site investigations undertaken prior to the submission of the earlier planning applications.


THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.11 Planning permission is sought for:

Conservation of agricultural buildings to 10 no. residential dwellings, including demolition, partial demolition and re-build, and small scale extensions. Creation of shared access, parking areas including car barns. Installation of a biomass boiler and associated landscaping at Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Farm, Laverstoke, Whitchurch, Hampshire, RG28 7NT

Figure 3 – Building labels

2.12 The majority of the existing buildings would be retained and used. There are some small scale contemporary extensions proposed to accommodate entrance lobbies and additional living space.

2.13 The materials would consist of repaired brick and flint panels, vertical oak boarding, horizontal larch boarding, oak framing, aluminium faced wooden windows, timber doors, slate roofing and conservation roof lights.

2.14 A comprehensive landscaping scheme for the ten individual gardens and communal areas is proposed. Walls of a traditional design alongside new hedgerow and tree planting would be introduced. Two cheery trees would require removal; one adjacent to building A2 and the other adjacent to B3. To the east of building H an area of young and early mature trees including Ash, Sycamore and Norway Maple will be removed and replaced with fencing and hedgerow planting.

2.15 The existing barns would be utilised for the following:

Barn A – located on the eastern side of the site – single storey brick and flint with sheet roofing; converted into 2 no. 2 bed dwellings (Barns A1 and A2) with gardens located to the east of the building.


Barn B – located in the middle of the site, north of barns A, D and G – two storey brick and flint with slate roof with substantial roof damage – converted to 3 no. 4 bed dwellings (Barns B1, B2 and B3) with gardens located to the north on existing areas of open land. Connected to Barn D at first floor.

Barn C – located on the western side of the site immediately adjacent to Watch Lane – mainly two storey with single storey at the northern end – converted to 2 no. dwellings, one 3 bed (Barn C1) and one 4 bed (Barn C2) dwelling with garden areas to the east of the building (Barn E included within curtilage of both).

Barn D – located centrally within the site, south of Barn B and attached to Barn B at first floor at northern end – northern part two storey with single storey to south, brick and flint, modern timber boarding, slate and sheet roofing – converted to 2 no. 4 bed dwellings (Barns D1 and D2) with garden areas to west of building adjacent to garden areas for Barns C1 and C2.

Barn E – located between Barn C and Barn D – single storey mono-pitched, brick and flint part demolished and becomes part of Barns C1 and C2 through provision of modern extension.

Barn F – attached to southern end of Barn D – single storey, brick and flint with slate roof incorporated into Barn D1.

Barn G – located between Barns A and D – single storey – poor state of repair with roof missing in part – building demolished to accommodate parking for proposed dwellings.

Barn H – located to the east of Building A – single storey, brick and flint with timber cladding – to be converted to garaging for Barn A1 and proposed biomass boiler. The biomass boiler act as a mini district heating system which would mean that the development would be heated by a zero carbon heating system.

Barn K – located to northern boundary of site – single storey, overgrown with part of the roof missing – to be converted into 1no. 2 bed unit.

Buildings I and J are not part of the planning application.

PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSIONS

2.16 Prior to the submission of planning application 15/02441/FUL pre-application on-site discussions were had between Andrew Macallan (Architect) and Carol Fry (Local Planning Authority (LPA) (Conservation Officer)). Through the detailed discussions it was agreed that it was appropriate to partially demolish building B whilst ensuring the retention of the northern wall of the building.

2.17 In addition Bell Cornwell LLP met with Mike Townsend ((LPA) Planning Manager) on several occasions.


2.18 One meeting has taken place with the LPA following the refusal of planning application 15/02441/FUL to discuss the concerns of the Members expressed at Committee.


3 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

PLANNING POLICY

3.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan

3.2 When planning application 15/02441/FUL was determined the Development Plan comprised of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the relevant saved policies.

3.3 Since the planning application was refused a new plan has been adopted so for the purposes of this application the Development Plan comprises of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 (Adopted 26 May 2016).

3.4 The Council have adopted Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) such as the Farm Diversification and Traditional Farmsteads SPD, Affordable Housing SPD and the Residential Parking Standards SPD. These are material planning considerations.

National Planning Policy Framework

3.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF) is also a material planning consideration in the determination of planning applications. It places a presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of planning decisions, for which there are three dimensions: economic, social and environmental.

3.6 For decision taking the presumption in favour of sustainable development means that Councils are obliged to approve development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay.

3.7 The NPPF provides clear guidance on the consideration of viability of schemes to ensure that there is incentive for developers to deliver developments. This is supported by further guidance within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

3.8 The principle of converting and redeveloping some of the buildings within the cluster into residential use has been established through the granting of planning permissions BDB/50360 and BDB/47554. These permissions were not implemented as they were not considered viable. The proposed farm shop for example has been successfully located elsewhere within the Laverstoke Estate utilising an existing building. The proposed development would form part of a farm diversification scheme as there is no agricultural need for the buildings.


3.9 As the site lies outside of a Settlement Policy Boundary it should be considered against Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside) of the Local Plan. Criteria (c) of the Policy states:

Development proposals for new housing outside of Settlement Policy Boundaries will only be permitted where they are:

(c) For the re-use of a redundant or disused permanent building provided that the proposal:

(iv) Does not require substantial rebuilding, extension or alteration; and

(v) Does not result in the requirement for another building to fulfil the function of the building being converted; and

(vi) Leads to an enhancement to the immediate setting

3.10 The proposal would re-use existing buildings which have no use at present and so criteria (v) of Policy SS6 is met. Whilst it is recognised that some of the buildings require partial rebuilding, the majority of the buildings can be converted in their current location without significant work being undertaken. Small scale extensions are proposed to provide additional living space. Overall the scheme maximises the existing complex of barns. The existing footprint of the barns has defined the size and design of the new dwellings.

3.11 It was recognised in the Committee Report for 15/02441/FUL that the buildings which make up the model farm complex have a distinctive character that contributes to the landscape character / historic character of the area. As the buildings are within the Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area the buildings retention is important to the preservation of the character of the area. Through the retention of the majority of the farm complex the historic model farm layout would be protected. The buildings, if not brought into use, would fall into a greater state of disrepair which would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the area. This concern was previously raised by the Conservation Officer. When the previous planning application was considered by Members at Committee a number of them recognised that the proposed development would be an enhancement to the immediate setting of the farm complex and the Conservation Area. Criteria (iv) and (vi) of Policy SS6 are met.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

3.12 The NPPF requires decision-making to be positive, to foster the delivery of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The Committee Report previously recognised the benefits of the scheme – these are summarised below:

Economic – The implementation of the scheme would have a positive impact on economic sustainability. The conversion phase would create a number of jobs and once occupied the residents would be potential employees for businesses in the Borough, and these residents would be consumers in the local economy.


Social – The Council are now of the opinion that a five year housing land supply can be demonstrated. None the less an additional ten houses within the District would go towards meeting the continuing housing need.

Environmental – The proposal would represent the reuse of historic assets which are a feature of the landscape and their conversion would ensure they are retained. The buildings are currently in a poor state of repair and unless an alternative use for these rural buildings is found, they will deteriorate further. The proposals also includes the provision of a biomass boiler to provide a carbon zero heating system for the properties, this is an environmental benefit.

3.13 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out 12 core planning principles. Those of most relevance are listed below:

Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs;

Always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings;

Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources;

Conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations.

HOUSING MIX

3.14 As the proposal is reusing existing buildings to some extent the form and layout of the existing historic buildings dictates the size of the dwellings created and their mix. Policy CN3 (Housing Mix for Market Housing) requires a range of house types and sizes to be provided to meet the local requirements. Furthermore the mix is required to be appropriate to the size, location and characteristics of the site and to be appropriate to the established character and density of the neighbourhood.

3.15 The proposal would provide 3 no. 2 bed dwellings, 1 no. 3 bed dwelling and 6 no. 4 bed dwellings. It is set out within the Rural Housing Study (2010) that there is a demand for three and four bedroom properties within the south west. Seven of the ten properties would meet this demand. In addition smaller properties are also recognised as being important within the Rural Housing Study and the scheme would provide three of these to meet this need. These two bedroom properties would be single storey and so would appeal to a wide range of people/couples providing either a first home or a retirement home.


3.16 Reason for approval (10) of the Committee Report for 15/02441/FUL stated that: The proposed development would provide for a mix of housing.

3.17 The aims of policy CN3 of the Local Plan are met.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

3.18 Policy CN1 (Affordable Housing) of the Local Plan requires 40% affordable housing on all market housing sites where there are five or more net residential units. In exceptional circumstances an off-site financial contribution is noted as being acceptable. The Policy goes on to state that in seeking affordable housing provision the council will have regard to the current viability of developments including land values and other development costs. The Policy notes that where the policy requirements cannot be met an open book viability assessment would be required and an independent review would be undertaken of the viability study. The policy is clear in stating that where the viability case is accepted and the proposal contributes towards creating a mixed and balanced community the proposal would be considered acceptable.

Previous Planning Application 15/02441/FUL

3.19 For planning application 15/02441/FUL it was agreed with the Council’s Housing Officer that the site was not appropriate for on-site affordable housing. In this instance the Council agreed that an off-site contribution would be acceptable.

3.20 No off-site affordable housing contribution was made available because a viability appraisal was undertaken which concluded that the scheme would only achieve a 13% profit and would therefore not be viable if a contribution was made. These facts were stated within the covering letter that accompanied the appraisal.

3.21 The appraisal was reviewed by an independent assessor. Figures contained within the viability report were interrogated by the Local Planning Authority. As set out within the Officer Report, ‘the high build costs were queried with the council’s consultant’. The Local Planning Authority were informed that the costs were because ‘the barns are mainly brick and flint, the costs of mending/rebuilding the walls would be higher. There is also the issue that the barns which have to be underpinned due to the lack of foundations; there are just some elements which add to the build costs’.

3.22 Members at Committee potentially misunderstood the “profit” being achieved and were therefore led to believe that there was some scope for reducing the profit and providing an affordable housing “gesture”. Consequently the Members resolved to refuse the planning application for one reason:

The application does not represent a sustainable form of development as it fails to provide on or off site Affordable Housing. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated through a viability appraisal that the proposed development could not reasonably deliver on site Affordable Housing or make an off-site financial contribution towards Affordable Housing. The figures contained within the submitted viability report are not disputed, however it is considered that the report does not conclude that Affordable Housing contributions would make the development unviable. Subsequently the proposal is contrary to Saved Policy C2


of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraph 50, which seeks to create mixed and balanced communities through the provision of on or off-site Affordable Housing.

Current Planning Application

Options Considered

3.23 We have re-visited the proposed scheme to consider whether any gesture could be made towards an affordable housing off-site contribution or whether four affordable housing units could be provided on site. We have therefore asked Citicentric to produce a viability report that looks to provide four units on site as affordable housing (see accompanying viability report and summary Table 1 below – Scheme 1) [Option 1].

3.24 In the light of the Court of Appeal Order dated 13 May 2016 which resulted in the 28 November Ministerial Statement and the National Planning Practice Guidance regarding affordable housing being reinstated (for schemes of ten residential units or less or 1000sqm or less there should be no requirement for an affordable housing contribution to be made) we have reviewed the scheme to establish whether the development could come in below the thresholds as we are aware that the Council are implementing the Governments guidance [Option 2].

3.25 Finally, as a period of time has passed since the previous viability report was produced the figures contained within it are now out of date. We have therefore had the figures updated by Citicentric to reflect the current situation and estimated build date (see accompanying viability report and summary Table 1 below – Scheme 2) [Option 3]. [The application].

Assessment of Options

3.26 Table 1 below shows the costs, revenue and profit that the two different schemes would achieve alongside the figures that were previously considered (application 15/02441/FUL). All of the schemes exclude a land value as the applicant (landowner) would be developing the site. The agreed S106 contributions are factored into the calculations. When considering the two schemes and the profit identified it is necessary to bear in mind that a normal commercial developer would look to achieve between a 15 and 20% profit to incentivise them to bring forward a scheme.


Option 1 Option 3 Comparison

Scheme 1 – On-site Affordable Housing at 40%

Scheme 2 – No Affordable Housing

[The application]

Refused planning application 15/02441/FUL

MONEY OUT

3.27

Build Costs -£4,495,339 -£4,495,359 -£4,475,733

Other outgoings -£56,000 -£56,000 -£30,800

S106 -£78,605 -£78,605 -£78,605

MONEY IN £4,944,100 £5,409,600 £5,688,900

PROFIT

3.28

3.29 -£94,229 £371,053 £670,856

-1.83% 7.21% 13.07%

Table 1 – Comparison table to show a scheme with affordable housing, a scheme with no affordable housing and a comparison to the previous planning application.

3.30 Option 1 – In line with Policy CN1 of the Local Plan we looked at providing 40% affordable housing (four of the ten houses) on site with a tenure split of 70% rented and 30% intermediate products. A viability report for this scheme has been produced, a summary of the findings are set out in Table 1 above. Table 1 identifies that there would be a loss of £94,229.00 (-1.83%) if affordable housing was on site. It is evident from this that the scheme would make a significant loss if affordable housing was provided on site. A figure similar to £94,229.00 would also be lost if there was the requirement to provide an off-site housing contribution if calculated in the way generally undertaken by the Council.

3.31 Option 2 – If we revised the scheme to reduce the floor area below 1000sqm it would require the exclusion of buildings B and K. These buildings would either be demolished or left in situ. If left in situ the buildings would become increasingly derelict. This would have a negative impact on the overall scheme as it would not preserve in its entirety the existing model farm complex. It would also not achieve the same aims with regard to enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area. Furthermore, it is very likely that it would be hard to sell the converted buildings due to potential buyers being concerned about the condition of the buildings and the uncertainty of the future of the buildings.

3.32 Option 3 – Table 1 sets out the headline figures from the re-run viability report with no affordable housing. This identifies that the profit would only be £371,053 (7.21%). The percentage profit has reduced from the previous 13% for planning application 15/02441/FUL due to the change in the economic climate since the Referendum.


Conclusion

3.33 Following a review of the three options Option 1 would result in a significant loss of money, it would be unviable and so the Estate would not bring this project forward. Option 2 would have a negative impact on the appearance and character of the conservation area and surrounding landscape, it would not preserve or enhance in line with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990.

3.34 Option 3 remains the best when taking into consideration bringing forward the identified public benefits of the scheme:

- Preservation and enhancement of the Conservation Area;

- Visual improvement through landscape enhancement;

- Provision of a surface water drainage scheme to improve drainage in the local area;

- Provision of a range of new houses to meet the housing need for the area.

3.35 It would however, only produce a profit of around 7.21% which is significantly below the 15-20% profit that developers look to achieve when bringing forward development. To a private developer there would be no incentive for them to develop this site.

3.36 The Estate recognises the benefits of bringing the redundant agricultural buildings back into use to provide housing to meet housing need. There is no liability for the Estate if the buildings were left to become more derelict as they are not listed, however it would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. So whilst the project would not provide them with as much of a return as a private developer would look to achieve, as they own the land and recognise the benefits of the scheme, it is a development that the Estate would carry out without private developer involvement.

3.37 The Estate also recognises the relative importance of the local area receiving nearly £80,000 in S106 contributions. In normal circumstances this figure would also be considered for reduction to make a scheme profitable and so the only area where a gesture towards off-site affordable could be made, is within the figure of £80,000 for S106 contributions.

3.38 The Estate has assumed that this would not be a desirable outcome locally and therefore maintains the S106 contributions but cannot make any further financial gesture.

DESIGN AND HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

3.39 The Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA) notes the statutory duty of the Local Planning Authority as being to ensure that those elements that form its particular character or appearance should be preserved or enhanced (Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The majority of the site lies within the Conservation Area, it is only building K that sits just to the north of the boundary line.


3.40 Policy EM11 (The Historic Environment) of the Local Plan requires all development to conserve or enhance the quality of the borough’s heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) of the Local Plan requires all new development proposals to be of a high quality design.

3.41 The CAA makes reference to the cluster of buildings that are subject of this application, it states: To the east of the walled garden is a range of 19th Century flint and brick agricultural structures known as Home Farm. Of similar date and style, the barns, stables and cart sheds form a cohesive group that is prominent in views across the open countryside from the south-west.

3.42 The proposal recognises the distinctive character of the model farm complex of buildings and the contribution that they make to the landscape character and historic character of the area. The scheme aims to retain the bulk of the historic buildings in their current positions. Where, due to the condition of the buildings partial demolition is required, it is proposed that they would be replaced with a building that reflects the scale, form and design of the part of the building that is lost.

3.43 There is only one building which would be lost in its entirety (G2), this would not have a significant detrimental impact on the appearance of the barns as it is within the centre of the site. The overall appearance of the complex would be conserved.

3.44 The number of new openings proposed in the fabric of the buildings has been kept to a minimum with the traditional architectural features being retained to ensure that the development is sympathetic to the current design and appearance of the buildings. Extensions are proposed to a number of the buildings to accommodate necessary living accommodation. These extensions are to be subtle in scale and form and would be of a high quality design. The materials to be used would reflect the materials within the surrounding buildings i.e. red brick, flint and wooden cladding. Where roof lights are to be introduced they would sit flush with the roof line thereby minimising any change to the roof line. The redevelopment of the site would create a visually attractive scheme.

3.45 The existing mature trees surrounding the development would be retained; only two cherry trees and a small area of young and early-mature trees are to be removed. The current track that runs to the south of building K would be removed and given over to private gardens. Whilst the current amenity grass would be separated into private garden areas the overall openness of the area would be retained and further enhanced through the introduction of native hedgerow and tree planting that is reflective of the immediate setting. The LPA and Conservation Officer considered this acceptable in visual terms and with regards to the character of the conservation area. It was recommended that the precise boundary details should be secured by condition. The applicant would be happy to accept this.

3.46 Car parking on site would either be in curtilage covered parking or in identified car parking spaces located centrally within the site. The parking area would appear as a courtyard area which the LPA previously considered was appropriate to the character of the buildings and conservation area.


3.47 Overall it should be considered that the proposed scheme would retain the cohesive group of buildings it would thereby protect the historic form and would positively respond to the local character of the area. It would make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and it would not thereby compromise the existing quality of the Conservation Area. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is satisfied. Through re-building the dilapidated buildings and bringing all of the buildings back into use the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be enhanced. Furthermore, the setting of the adjacent Laverstoke Area of Special Landscape Quality and Laverstoke Park Registered Garden would be enhanced.

3.48 Reason for approval (1) of the Committee Report for 15/02441/FUL stated that: The proposal would result in the redevelopment and retention of existing rural buildings which are a non-designated heritage asset located within the Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area with an alternative residential use appropriate to the character of the buildings. Reason for approval (2) concluded that: The proposed development would preserve and enhance the character of the Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area. Reason for approval (3) concluded that: The proposal would preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the non-designated heritage assets. Reason for approval (5) concludes that: The proposed development would of an appropriate design relates to surrounding development in a sympathetic manner.

3.49 The aims of Policy EM11 and EM10 of the Local Plan are met.

AMENITY

3.50 Policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) of the Local Plan seeks to secure a sense of place from new developments. Furthermore, it recognises the need to provide a high quality amenity for occupants of developments and neighbouring properties, having regard to issues such as overlooking, access to natural light, outlook and amenity space.

3.51 In the main, the farm complex is well contained and would not thereby compromise the amenity of nearby residents. The closest property is 44 Watch Lane which is adjacent to building K. As the building is existing there would be no change to light levels on the adjacent site; there would be no overshadowing issues as a result of the buildings conversion.

3.52 Building K is a single storey building which would not have any openings along the northern boundary. The proposed dwelling would not cause overlooking or a loss of privacy.

3.53 Reason for approval (6) of the Committee Report 15/02441/FUL stated that: The proposed development would not result in an undue loss of privacy or cause undue overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing or noise and disturbance impacts to neighbouring properties.

3.54 The aims of Policy EM10 of the Local Plan are met.


LANDSCAPE AND TREES

3.55 The development site does not lie within an area of landscape which is of national importance however the site is adjacent to the northern boundary of the Laverstoke Area of Special Landscape Quality. The site is also within the Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area. The CAA Map identifies an important view as being across the arable fields from the south west looking towards the western elevation of building C. This is roughly where public footpath No.1 terminates (the nearest PRoW).

3.56 Policy EM1 (Landscape) of the Local Plan seeks to secure developments that are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area.

3.57 The purpose of the proposed development is to bring back into use the redundant agricultural buildings that are falling into disrepair. There is no significant change proposed to the western elevation of building C. A small number of additional window openings would be created to provide natural light into the building but the number of openings would be less than that approved by planning permission BDB/50360. The ivy/vegetation that is growing along the western elevation of building C would be removed to reveal the attractive flint and brickwork finish of the building.

3.58 To the north of building C a new building is proposed; a three bay car barn for property B3. The building is proposed in a location that reflects the location of a previous building (Figure 2). The car barn is to be screened by new native hedgerow and tree planting that would establish to reflect the surrounding field boundary treatment.

3.59 The trees around the site would, in the main be retained and protected. It was noted in the Committee Report that the tree stock on and adjacent to the site is limited and of an average quality. Additional tree planting would therefore be welcomed. The scheme includes extensive hedgerow planting which would incorporate new trees.

3.60 The Committee Report previously concluded that in the wide landscape the development would still read much as it does now. It was therefore concluded that the development would not have a negative impact on the landscape character of the area, despite its sensitive location. It was acknowledged that there would be a need to limit permitted development rights, the applicant would accept an appropriately worded condition.

3.61 Reason for approval (8) of the Committee Report 15/02441/FUL stated that: The proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the landscape character and scenic quality of the area due to the reuse of existing farm buildings.

3.62 The aims of Policy EM1 of the Local Plan are met.

BIODIVERSITY

3.63 Policy EM4 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Nature Conservation) of the Local Plan states that proposals will only be permitted if significant harm to biodiversity can be avoided or appropriately mitigated.


3.64 An ecological appraisal including a Phase 1 Bat scoping survey and Badger survey were undertaken by Hankinson Duckett Associates to assess the likely nature conservation importance of the habitats within the site and to assess the likely presence of protected species and habitats. The conclusions reached reveal that the habitats present are of low interest but that there may be bat potential within some of the buildings. No evidence of Badgers was recorded and the site is considered unlikely to support an important assemblage of breeding birds, breeding Barn Owl or reptiles.

3.65 Following the advice of the report, the recommended bat survey was carried out in the subsequent months. As a result of these surveys it has been identified that bat roosts are present (Common Pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle and Myotis sp.). Evidence suggests that the roosts are small low-status non-breeding roosts used by male and non-breeding female bats. Due to the extent of the refurbishment works proposed it will not be possible to retain the roosts. A European Protected Species (EPS) licence will therefore be obtained from Natural England prior to the commencement of any works affecting known and potential roosts within the buildings. As recommended within section 5.5 of the bat survey report replacement opportunities during the construction phase of the development would be provided in the form of eight bat boxes installed on retained buildings or on trees within the surrounding the site. To ensure the long-term replacement and enhancement of bat roosts on site the recommendations in paragraph 5.5.5-5.5.8 of the bat survey report would be incorporated into the refurbished buildings for example the installation of four Schwegeler 1FR Bat Tubes or ‘Habitat’ type boxes would be incorporated into south- to west- facing elevations. Furthermore a minimum of eight other opportunities such as bat brick or bat access tiles would be incorporated within the design.

3.66 An updated walkover study has been undertaken (July 2016) by Hankinson Duckett Associates. This is included within the application and concludes that the walkover survey indicates that no substantial changes in the character and extent of habitats at the site have occurred since the previous surveys were undertaken. The conclusions and recommendations provided in the Ecological Appraisal and Bat Survey Report remain relevant and appropriate to inform the determination of the planning application.

3.67 The surrounding woodland planting that provides current biodiversity benefit would not be compromised by the proposed development. The vegetation would be protected throughout the development in accordance with BS5837:2012 – Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction.

3.68 As set out in the indicative landscaping plan extensive hedgerow planting is proposed which would incorporate new trees. The planting would compromise of a native species mix typical to the local area. Thereby providing new opportunities for the movement of wildlife within and across the site. This is in line with the ecological enhancement recommendations made within section 7.4 of the Ecological Appraisal.

3.69 Reason for approval (7) of the Committee Report 15/02441/FUL stated that: The proposal would conserve the biodiversity value and nature conservation interests of the site.

3.70 The aims of Policy EM4 of the Local Plan would be met.


DRAINAGE

3.71 It is recognised that local residents were concerned that development of this site would exacerbate drainage issues in the local area.

3.72 Due to the age of the buildings there are no public surface water sewers in the vicinity of the site. Most of the existing buildings roofs are not formally drained and simply run-off onto the existing surfaces.

3.73 A surface water strategy has been produced to ensure the existing situation is not worsened, but improved. It is proposed to construct the new hard standing areas using porous materials. Rainwater down pipes would be installed and would be connected to infiltration devices. The proposed drainage system would be designed to cater for a 1 in 100 year critical storm event including a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity, for the effects of climate change. The nature of the development would ensure that overflow land flows during an exceedance event would remain unchanged.

3.74 To accommodate foul drainage conventional foul drains would be laid. The drainage would be directed to a new treatment plant that would be located downhill of the site in a small area of the field to the south west of the houses. The outfall from the treatment plant would go to a soakaway designed in accordance with the appropriate standards.

3.75 The current foul and surface water drainage situation would therefore be dramatically improved through the changes proposed as part of this scheme.

3.76 Reason for approval (9) of the Committee Report 15/02441/FUL stated that: The proposed development would not increase the risk of flooding at the site or on adjacent land.

SUSTAINABLE WATER USE

3.77 In accordance with Policy EM9 (Sustainable Water Use) of the Local Plan the new homes would meet the required water efficiency standard of 110 litres or less per person per day.

HIGHWAYS

3.78 Access to the site is from London Road (B3400) and Watch Lane. The lane is single track with passing places.

3.79 Based on the TRICS database it is appropriate to anticipate that on a typical day during peak hours there would be six trips per hour generated by the development with people leaving for and returning from work, school drop off and collection etc. Outside of peak hours the number of trips would be less than six per hour.

3.80 When comparing the level of traffic that would be generated against the level that would have been generated by the previously approved development (BDB/53060) there would be significantly fewer vehicle movements as there would not be traffic associated with the farm shop and offices.

3.81 The biomass boiler would only result in one trip to the site per week.


3.82 The Overton Rugby ground is also accessed off Watch Lane. The Rugby club train at the site on Tuesday and Thursday evenings with matches occurring on Saturdays and Sundays. The typical season for the Rugby Club is September through to May so for three months of the year the ground is not utilised. Peak Trips would occur outside of the training times for the Rugby Club and so the existing situation would not be exacerbated.

3.83 Passing places were constructed following the grant of planning permission (ref: BDB/53060) in 2001 for domestic use, stables, farm shop and offices. The Rugby Club was based off Watch Lane when this previous planning application was considered and approved.

3.84 Policy CN9 (Transport) of the Local Plan states that developments will be permitted that provide safe, suitable and convenient access for all potential users, do not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety etc.

3.85 It is recognised that the suitability of Watch Lane is a concern of local residents and the Parish Council, however the Highway Authority did not raise objection to the proposed development nor was highways a reason for refusal. The Highway Authority considered that the number of trips likely to arise from the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding highway and movement network. At the Development Control Committee the Highway Authority provided substantial explanations to Members to justify their conclusions. The Highway Authority stated that they would not be able to sustain a reason for refusal should the decision be appealed.

3.86 No improvements to the highway were requested by the Highway Authority. Members questioned whether additional passing places could be provided along Watch Lane. We can confirm that there is no land within the applicants control on the first stretch of Watch Lane leading up from the B3400. If an additional passing place or improvement to the corner would be advantageous and alleviate some residents’ concerns we could provide an additional passing place or alternative improvement in the location circled below in Figure 4.

Figure 4 – Location of passing place or other improvement that could be created should this be considered advantageous.

3.87 A new private access is proposed from the highway to serve two dwellings. The location of the access is proposed where a passing place is currently located. The introduction of this access would not compromise the passing place.


3.88 The Residential Parking SPD sets out the general residential car and cycle parking standards. Each property would have its own car barn/garage with associated private parking area or allocated space to meet the number of spaces required by the SPD. There would be appropriate space within these private covered areas to provide space for the required number of cycle spaces per dwelling.

3.89 Footpath No.1 terminates near to the proposed development. This footpath provides a suitable connection to London Road (B3400) and a wide range of other rights of way thereby facilitating recreational walking. London Road benefits from a pavement and within approximately 100m of the footpath No.1 meeting London Road a bus stop can be accessed.

3.90 Reason for approval (4) of the Committee Report 15/02441/FUL stated that: The development would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety and adequate parking would be provided to serve the proposed development.

3.91 The Aims of Policy CN9 of the Local Plan are met.

PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

3.92 As of 6 April 2015, the CIL regulations restrict the pooling of planning obligations for infrastructure. This means that a maximum of five separate planning obligations (entered into on or after 6 April 2010) can be used to fund any particular piece of infrastructure. To date the CIL charging schedule has not been introduced by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.

3.93 At present the Basingstoke and Deane Section 106 – Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Planning Document (updated 2014) is a guide for considering necessary planning obligations. Any planning obligation that may need to be sought should be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development.

3.94 When planning application 15/02441/FUL was considered it was determined that off-site contributions towards listed below were necessary to make the development sustainable and address the impact upon existing facilities that this development would otherwise cause.

Community facilities

Education

Playing Fields

Equipped Play Provision

3.95 The total contribution being requested was: £78,605.

3.96 As before it will be necessary to ensure that any contributions requested meet the CIL Regulations tests and also that five or more contributions have not been sought for any identified project since 6 April 2010.


3.97 In principle the applicant is willing to enter into a S106 agreement to deliver the items set out in paragraph 2.84 above.


4 CONCLUSIONS

4.1 The proposed development seeks planning permission for the conversion of agricultural buildings to 10 no. residential dwellings, including demolition, partial demolition and re-build, and small scale extensions. Creation of shared access, parking areas including car barns. Installation of a biomass boiler and associated landscaping at Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Farm, Laverstoke.

4.2 The development was previously considered by Members of the Development Control Committee (ref: 15/02441/FUL) and was refused due to a lack of on-site or off-site affordable housing following consideration of a viability assessment. Officers had made a positive recommendation to Members with 11 reasons for approval. A viability assessment was submitted to the Council and independently assessed with the surveyor recommending to Officers that the conclusions drawn were acceptable i.e. the provision of affordable housing would render the scheme unviable.

4.3 The scheme has been revisited with particular attention being given to viability. A potential affordable housing gesture has been considered and a viability report produced but this identified that there would be a loss of £94,229 meaning that there would be no incentive for the scheme to be progressed.

4.4 The viability report figures have been updated and it reveals that due to the current economic market following the Referendum there would be a reduced profit to around 7.2%. This is significantly below the 15-20% profit that a private developer would look to achieve on a scheme. The Estate would not bring a private developer on board rather they would manage the development themselves and would consequently be able to accept a lesser profit.

4.5 We have also looked at how local residents and the Parish Council’s highways concerns could be addressed and we have identified a parcel of land that could be an additional passing place or appropriate alternative if considered necessary.

4.6 There are a number of public benefits provided by the scheme:

- Preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and countryside setting through preserving the model dairy courtyard layout and openness of the site.

- Architectural features within the barns would be retained thereby preserving the appearance of the existing buildings.

- Visual enhancement would occur through new planting.

- Provision of a drainage scheme that would improve surface water drainage in the local area.

- Provision of new housing with a range of unit sizes which would appeal to a wide market and would contribute to meeting the housing need of the area.


- Provision of a further passing place or alternative, if considered necessary to improve upon those already installed several years ago.

- Enhancement of various local facilities through S106 contributions.

4.7 Accordingly we consider that the Local Planning Authority is able to approve the scheme in line its adopted development plan policies and the NPPF.

Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke

Documents

Transcript of Home Farm, Laverstoke Park Estate, Laverstoke