Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath Local Area Committee 12thJuly 2017.

Application Number: / F/17/79823
Case Officer: / Gary Osmond
Received Date: / Friday 6thJanuary 2017
Site Address: / Land adjacent, Bradshaw Close, Fair Oak, Eastleigh SO50 7BS
Applicant: / Fair Oak Property Ltd
Proposal: / Construction of 4no. 3 bed dwellings with provision of parking, amenity space & access from Bradshaw Close
Recommendation: / REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

CONDITIONS AND REASONS

1 / The proposed development, by virtue of the substantial loss of prominent and significant trees, would have an adverse and unacceptable impact upon the street scene and character of Bradshaw Close and the immediate surrounding area, to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to saved Policies 18.CO & 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2002-2011), Policy DM1 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, July 2014, and Supplementary Planning Document 'Quality Places'.
2 / Insufficient arboricultural information has been provided giving details of those trees to be removed or to justify their removal. Neither has sufficient information been provided to demonstrate that those trees to be retained can be adequately protected from the impact of the development, both during and after construction, or that the structural stability of those retained trees would not be adversely affected, leading to future pressure for their removal. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to saved Policies 18.CO & 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2002-2011), Policy DM1 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, July 2014, and Supplementary Planning Document 'Quality Places'.
3 / Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that future occupiers of the proposed development will not be adversely affected by risks posed from the adjoining landfill site in terms of ground contamination and gas migration. As such the application is considered to be contrary to saved Policies 35.ES & 88.H of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2002-2011) and Policies DM7 & FO3 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, July 2014.
4 / Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in unacceptable harm to biodiversity and habitat in the locality and beyond. As such the application is considered to be contrary to saved Policy 25.NC of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2002-2011) and Policy DM9 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, July 2014.
Note to Applicant: The application was refused following the assessment of the following plans: 849/PM/00, 849/PM/01/B, 849/PM/02/A, 849/PM/03/A & 849/PM/04/A. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Eastleigh Borough Council takes a positive approach to the handling of development proposals so as to achieve, whenever possible, a positive outcome and to ensure all proposals are dealt with in a timely manner.

Report:

This application has been referred to Committee by Councillors Couldrey, Rushton and Scott, and was due to be heard at the 29th March committee meeting but was deferred until 12th July pending the receipt of additional information in relation to a number of significant issues. Some additional information has been received and referenced where relevant in the report below.

Description of Application

  1. The application seeks approval for the construction of 4No. three bedroom semi-detached dwellings with associated parking, visitor parking, access, amenity space, and bin and cycle storage provision, on land adjoining Bradshaw Close.

Site Area & Residential Development Density (Net)

  1. The application site is approximately 0.23 hectares, which equates to a residential density of 17 dwellings per hectare.

Topography, Trees & Boundary Treatment

  1. The application site lies within a wooded bowl of land with a stream running east to west through its middle. This stream forms the low points within the site, with land along the northern and southern boundaries being around two metres higher and continuing to rise beyond the site boundaries. The land also slopes down in a westerly direction by around 2.5 metres from the eastern boundary with No.17a Bradshaw Close and continues to fall along the route of the stream which continues west through the neighbouring woodland.
  1. The northern boundary of the site adjacent to No.22 Bradshaw Close is marked by a three metre high conifer hedge along the property’s driveway, falling to a 1.5 - 1.8 metre high fence for the remainder of the boundary. Boundary treatments to Scotland Close properties further to the west, although not directly adjoining the site, are low timber arrangements to give views into the woodland. The eastern boundary with No.17a is for the most part a 1.5 metre timber fence, although the rear of the property and those of its neighbours to the east are generally open onto the woodland. The remaining southern and western boundaries are not formally marked with the woodland continuing onto adjoining land.
  1. The site is now covered by a Woodland Tree Preservation Order (TPO) applied in March this year which superseded an Area TPO dating from 1975. As such all trees on the application site and adjoining woodland to the south-east are protected.

Site Characteristics & Character of Locality

  1. The site lies at the bottom of Bradshaw Close, a looped cul-de-sac of 1960s semi-detached houses and detached bungalows, with further residential development close by at Scotland Close, although the site lies outside the urban edge within designated countryside.
  1. The site is roughly square in shape, measuring just under 50 x 50 metres. The stream runs almost exactly halfway through the site from east to west splitting it in two and is a significant site constraint, together with the substantial number of trees across the site. These trees are of a substantial size and provide an attractive and prominent natural feature within the street scene and form part of the wooded backdrop to the close.
  1. The land immediately to the south is an undeveloped former landfill site, with a small industrial estate known as Deer Park Farm further to the south.

Relevant Planning History

  1. There is no record of any previous planning history relating to the application site.

Representations Received

  1. A total of four formal representations have been received highlighting the following issues and concerns:
  • Loss of trees and impact on those retained – unclear as to the number and which trees are to be removed
  • Proposed design does not fit in with character of close
  • Loss of privacy and outlook for neighbouring properties - balconies
  • Concerns for impact on wildlife, particularly badgers and bats
  • No details provided as to how the development would actually be built given the difficult site constraints
  • Disturbance during construction
  • Would delivery vehicles and bin lorries be able to access the site?
  • No details of intended drainage or how utilities would be provided
  • How will invasive species within the woodland be removed?
  • Who would be responsible for communal areas?

Consultation Responses

  1. Head of Environmental Health – Objection.

Original Comments

  1. “The application is for a sensitive end use located adjacent to a known gassing former landfill site, known locally as Scotland Copse, other former landfill sites are located adjacent to Scotland Copse, and it is understood that gases present within the landfills are able to pass from one site to another. The measured levels of landfill bulk gases, methane (explosive) and carbon dioxide (asphyxiant) on the adjacent land are high, trace gases some of which are toxic are also present. Sampling of perched or ground water on the landfill site have confirmed contamination to be present.
  1. “Concerns regarding the potential for these landfills to impact residential dwellings and their occupiers in the area was investigated in a study carried out on behalf of EBC (EBC study), to which reference is made in the applicants Design and Access statement. The applicant states that the EBC study concluded that the risks from elevated levels of contamination are not apparent on the application site. The applicant goes on to say that the EBC study report states that the landfill risk are ‘minimal’ (on the application site) and that theoretical risks can be mitigated by condition.
  1. “With reference to the EBC study in the vicinity of the application site and the conclusions drawn and to the information and comment provided in the applicant with respect to land contamination risks, we should like to make the following comments:

-“One EBC study monitoring well, identified as C1, was located on the application site, this was in the north east of the application site and located there to give an indication of potential landfill gas levels impacting properties to the north, it is in the context of these dwellings being located on the London Clay outcrop (which is thicker to the north and relatively impermeable to gas), and existing dwellingshaving relatively shallow foundations (compared to more modern housing), and the gas levels detected that the risk is described as minimal for those properties. No comment is made or should be inferred in respect of landfill risks arising on the application site itself, other than in its current use as open land.

-The geology across the site, travelling from north to south and approaching the landfill edge shows the clay outcrop to finish before reaching the boundary. No investigations have been carried out to show the levels of landfill gas closer to, or near the landfill, where we anticipate higher levels of gas to be present (also see below about extent of the landfill).

-Historical aerial photography from the mid-1980s shows activity on the Scotland Copse site encroaching onto the application site. Further, information provided in the 1990s in connection with a planning appeal indicated phase 4 of Scotland Copse landfill to include approximately half of the application site. The applicant needs to demonstrate whether landfill or infilling has occurred on the development site, and if so what risks this poses.

-The nearest well from the EBC study to the development site is C6 on Scotland Copse, this is some 40m away and was demonstrated to have Methane at 67% by volume, Carbon Dioxide at 28% by volume and gas flows of 6.7 litres/hour. The EBC study also determined that the landfill gases were migrating to the north east through the landfill, this would take gas toward the development site. These levels represent significant levels of landfill gas and commensurately a high level risk for sensitive end use development.

-Trace gases are also present on Scotland Copse and no assessment of these has been included with the application. The EBC study author commented that further assessment would be needed to consider the risks from these compounds should development come forward. Information from other locations shows the migration of these trace gases from the other landfills to be occurring.

-No site specific investigation or assessment of risks in line with current accepted UK practice has been provided to support the application.

  1. “Planning practice guidance issued under the NPPF in respect of land contamination advises:

-Early engagement so the applicant can “clarify what assessment is needed to support the application and issues that need to be considered in the design of a development”. This service has not had any contact with the applicant prior to receiving the planning application.

-As in this case, where contamination is an issue, it states, “…developers should provide proportionate but sufficient site investigation information (a risk assessment) to determine the existence or otherwise of contamination, its nature and extent, the risks it may pose and to whom/what (the ‘receptors’) so that these risks can be assessed and satisfactorily reduced to an acceptable level”. No recognized risk assessment accompanies the application.

-With regard to the content of the risk assessment and supporting information it states, “The risk assessment should also identify the potential sources, pathways and receptors (‘pollutant linkages’) and evaluate the risks. This information will enable the local planning authority to determine whether further more detailed investigation is required, or whether any proposed remediation is satisfactory.” As stated above pollutant linkages have not been identified, nor risks adequately assessed, consequently we are unable to determine if the proposed remediation is satisfactory.

-When considering the adequacy of information submitted, “Unless this initial assessment clearly demonstrates that the risk from contamination can be satisfactorily reduced to an acceptable level, further site investigations and risk assessment will be needed before the application can be determined.” With regard to the information provided to support the application it is insufficient to demonstrate that risks are adequately understood or that they can be reduced to an acceptable level.

  1. “Due to the hazards posed to development by landfills, comprehensive up to date UK guidance is available on the investigation and risk assessment of landfill gases and vapours, and on the design and validation of mitigation measures for development. The applicant does not however include a desk study, or ground investigation, or assessment of risks impacting on the site. No conceptual site model is presented identifying relevant pollutant linkages, nor an assessment of the significance of these pollutant linkages. Generic ground gas mitigation measures are discussed. As a result important considerations regarding the risks from landfill gases are omitted.
  1. “For the above reasons we do not support this application and recommend that it be refused.
  1. “Given the uncertainties regarding the extent and degree of contamination impacts on this site we would not support the granting of permission subject to conditions, this is because the potentially high costs of the requirements to mitigate landfill risks adequately. Over and above the cost of physical mitigation measures on site, protection of the development will require ongoing provision for maintenance and management of mitigation measures for the lifetime of the risks posed by the landfill, and the removal of permitted development rights to ensure the performance of protection measures are not compromised inadvertently.”

Comments on additional information

  1. “The applicant has provided extracts of a report on land known as Scotland copse, (which is adjacent to and overlaps with the development site here) carried out by Card Geotechnics Ltd, CGL, and based on data collected by CGL who were commissioned by EBC to carry out wider investigations as part of our Fair Oak Study.
  1. “The conclusions of that report comment that residential development ‘…may potentially be considered in the western, central and northern parts of the site…’ (the proposal site is to the north of Scotland Copse) however the author caveats this comment later in the same paragraph by stating that ‘Further assessment will be required to more precisely establish the extent of the developable areas in relation to proposed development, once plans are known’. Clearly the author of that report is advising that additional site investigation would be necessary to determine where residential could be suitable on site. This is consistent with the comments made previously by ourselves that insufficient site information had been provided to us to allow adequate consideration of the schemes proposals from a land contamination risk perspective. Previously we highlighted that aerial photography appear to show part of the land proposed for development to be part of the quarrying / infilling operation, which was not considered as a part of the CGL report referred to here.
  1. “On this basis my view remains that to adequately consider the application that additional site investigation is required, and as such we cannot support the application at this time.”
  1. Head of Transportation & Engineering – No objection.
  1. “Parking accords to standards, inclusive of the additional visitor parking requirements, and a bin collection point is included that looks to be sufficient for purpose.
  1. “A vehicle crossover will however be required to gain access to the site, and this should be covered by a condition specifying that it is installed prior to construction, and to HCC standards.
  1. “Finally, parking for contractors and storage of equipment should be catered for on-site.”
  1. Tree Services Manager – The additional information submitted has not addressed original concerns and as such an objection remains on the grounds of: loss of trees; loss of visual amenity; future structural issues for retained trees; future pressure to remove retained trees; loss of biodiversity, habitat and ecosystems; as well as insufficient/lack of arboricultural information to justify the removal of over 100 (approximately 90%) trees from the site.
  1. Biodiversity Officer – The additional submitted information has been reviewed but strong concerns remain that the development would have a harmful impact upon the headwaters for the Lower Itchen in terms of water quality and flows. No information with regards to filtration of surface water or how systems can be accommodated on site has been provided.
  1. Insufficient survey information has been submitted in relation to protected species including bats and reptiles. The removal of such a large area of woodland is likely to have a “severe and lasting impact upon the ecological value of the adjacent Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and the species which use the woodland complex.”
  1. The proximity and potential impact of the neighbouring contaminated site is also of concern, as are the possible mitigation measures proposed such as capping of the site which would impact upon the root systems of trees and the site’s hydrology.
  1. As such the original objection to the proposed scheme remains.
  1. Environment Agency – Whilst an objection was raised to the originally submitted scheme on the grounds of the development being within five metres of a main river watercourse, amended plans have now been submitted which provide this required five metre easement either side of the central stream.
  1. Fair Oak Parish Council – Objection. The site is outside the urban edge and of a design which is not in keeping with neighbouring properties. Also concerns with regards to land contamination given the proximity to the neighbouring landfill site.

Policy Context: Designation Applicable to Site