| Speaker | Transcription | Para |
| Officer | Thank you. Yeah, just to note on the supplementary matters, there is a correction in that the report says that Four Marks Parish Council did not respond. They did, and their comments are in full on the front page. As already discussed, there is some changes to the conditions. We’ve removed condition 15 following further conversations with the environmental health officer, because this development does not meet the required thresholds to require an air quality condition. And we have with the environmental health officer just tweaked condition 22 and 23’s wording. Other than that, it all remains the same. So if we go through the slides, the first slide is the location plan. So just to orient you, this is Beechlands Road here, and this is Stoney Lane, a footpath here. | 7 |
| Officer | And this is Boyneswood Lane here, which is also another footpath. We couldn’t see the point. Sorry, so this is, yeah, that’s Beechlands Road there, that’s 5 Ash Road there, a footpath that goes through. And this is another footpath known as Boyneswood Lane here. So this plan here shows the boundaries for South Medstead. And as you can see, the site sits in here outside of the settlement boundary. So this application is in outline. So the only thing we’re agreeing under this application is access, but a number of parameter plans have been submitted to give us an idea of how development will work on this site. So the area in sort of is the developable area. And it’s all developable area, both orange and green, but the green obviously shows a potential road network. This plan here shows story heights. So again, the yellow is showing that the majority of dwellings will be at a two-story height, but there is proposed an area of single-story dwellings along the frontage of Beechlands Road. | 8 |
| Officer | So access is proposed to be agreed at outline. So this is the existing access on Beechlands Road. And effectively, the proposed access will be opposite that, going into the site. And I’ll explain it a bit further when I get onto the photos. But as you can see, there will be some loss of the front boundary hedge to accommodate visibility displays in both directions. And this is an indicative layout showing that 62 houses can be on site. This isn’t necessarily the finished layout, because it’s indicative, but it’s just to give you an idea that it is possible, and you can get an idea of the gaps between dwellings. As you can see, there is an area of open space as well. When we were out on our community site visit, there was a question about drainage and how drainage was going to work on site. | 9 |
| Officer | So this plan here shows the drainage, and I’ll just talk you briefly through it. Effectively, it’s going to rely on infiltration, and that will be achieved by trenches along what will be eventually the roads. And they will infiltrate into the chalk substrate, which is on the site. So there will be trench soakaways all along here. And there will also be baffles that go along to basically hold water, so that water doesn’t, under gravity, end at the lowest part of the site, so allow water to be held and to infiltrate through. So effectively, it will just be a process of infiltration for the drainage. | 10 |
| Officer | This plan here just shows the definitive footpath map, and in the report, we talk about taking contributions, and we’re taking contributions boat nine here for the first 300 metres to do resurfacing work. And this here as well, the 277 metres of Boyneswood lane there will also have a contribution towards it, or will be replenished. It could be either way, to be fair. So if we go on to the photos, so this is Beechlands Road, looking north. So this is the site here behind the hedge, effectively, and of course, you can see the existing bungalows on Beechlands Road there. And going further down, this is roughly where the access will be, where the existing gate is. | 11 |
| Officer | The next photos are taken from within the site. So this one here is effectively this arrow here. We’re looking towards the house that effectively sits on the site, known as Penny Lee. So this will look out across the site, and obviously, dwellings will be all within this area. Behind that is Boyneswood Lane footpath. Standing in roughly the same position, but now looking in the opposite direction. | 12 |
| Officer | So effectively, this arrow here, this is the boundary of the site here. There is another field in here, which is not part of the application site. That property you can see there is known as Cork House, and it sits on Stoney Lane. So it is outside of the site, but the site sits on two sides of it. And then just turning around to look back at the access. So like I said, you can just see there the existing access going up into Beechlands Road, and the new access will be opposite that. You can just see that obviously we’re on slightly rising land. So this is now coming onto the site. Looking back, that tree will not survive the development. It is to be removed. And again, this is Boyneswood Lane here. The house that we saw earlier is just off the photo here. | 13 |
| Officer | And these hedges are to be retained as part of the development. And this is more or less the same position, looking in the opposite direction. So you can see this land starts to drop away. | 14 |
| Officer | Those properties there are in 5 Ash Road. That property there is in Stoney Lane. And this is looking across the site to Cork House. So you can see the extent of their garden jutting into the site there. And the cursor is going down Stoney Lane. And again, if you can take note of the levels on the land there dropping down. We’re at the lowest part of the site now. And as you can see, we’re looking back up the hill towards Cork House, which has quite an expansive window looking down the site. And again, this hedge is to be retained. | 15 |
| Officer | So these two photos, one’s taking a winter, one’s taken in summer. So this was June last year. So this is the same area. It’s just to give you an idea of those trees and the maturity of them. So effectively, this will be part of the site, but there is no proposal to have any buildings in here. There will be a pumping station in this corner. But as you can see there, your point of reference there effectively. And again, that row of trees looks like that again in the summer really. So again, it’s not quite from exactly the same position, but you get the idea. | 16 |
| Officer | And then the last photo shows Stoney Lane. And so this is the site in here. And this is Stoney Lane passing through here, basically. I’ve got nothing further to add. Thank you. Members, we have unusually five speakers on this application. | 17 |
| Chair | An objector, two parish councils because it’s near in one and near to the other. So we have both Medstead and Four Marks Parish Council. We have the ward member speaking and then we have an agent or applicant’s agent. So the first speaker is Mr. Frank Maloney. Mr. Maloney, if you’ll take the deputation table and you have three minutes. After two and a half minutes, I’ll say 30 seconds and then time. | 18 |
| Objector 1 | Good evening. My name is Frank Maloney. I speak on behalf of Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan. This application is in the wrong place for our village. Contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan Policy 1, it creates an isolated island for wheelchair users, contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act and MPPF 115B requiring access for all. On these grounds, it objects. Legislation says that planning system is plan led. Our Neighbourhood Plan is a statutory part of the planning system with policies previously preventing speculative development. Your planning policy team is assisting us with our current review, which will shortly result in a master plan for sustainable allocated housing and involvement of our villages. However, we already have permissions for 256 houses, with a further 272 in the system and 79 expected to go to appeal. With no five-year land supply, we could expect to have 607 at year end and no master plans. Using the council figures, this will leave the plan to allocate only 561 dwellings until 2043. This is not a definition of a plan-led system, and I ask you to vote to defer this evening’s decision until you have an indicative master plan, particularly as with the new housing requirements, a five-year land supply will never be achieved before you become a unitary authority. The Neighbourhood Plan does not need a five-year land supply. It stands alone. Please let the steering group meet the housing need and let our villages decide where the future housing should be, not the developers. Infrastructure must be in place before occupation. Sill payments are too late. | 19 |
| Objector 1 (cont.) | None of the applications in the system offer significant infrastructure improvements for our residents. The steering group asked the developer what improvements is being offered to residents, land, facilities, so far nothing, but it is taking its profit. In the drawing identified by the officer, the site offers footways abutting the development, which you would expect, a seven-by-two-metre footway link to Boyneswood Road, footway repairs and pooling along Boyneswood Road. The cycling improvement on Boat 9 is in Chorton Parish, but cyclists can only get as far as Bicklen Lane before they need to divert onto the A31, as the remainder of the route is a footpath. With regard to the A31 improvements, the 11th of March Highways Parish Council liaison meeting reported the northside proposals not being progressed. The highways also suggested changing walking behaviour. You will recollect Councillor Lewis’s comment at your November meeting. Rural dwellers, you have to use cars. The yellow box junction at the bridge on Edmonton Bottom Road, prior to the meeting, only works if extended to the bridge in practical. We need 110 houses for those with local connections. Permission for 62 is already granted, with 72 in the pipeline. This is overcapacity and will bring people with no connection to the area, decreasing the sustainability of the site, as it is probable they would commute to their existing jobs. Please will you defer your decision? I also note in the highways… Thank you. | 20 |
| Chair | Thank you. I now have Councillor Phil Quinion from Medstead Parish Council. And again, three minutes and a 30-second notice. Timing starts when you start. | 21 |
| Objector 2 | Good evening, councillors. I wish I brought my gin and tonic, but I haven’t. My name is Phil Quinion, and I’m chair of planning on Medstead Parish Council. To begin, this speculative development is in Medstead, but although on the 21st of June 2024, our neighbourhood four marks parish council submitted opposing comments and concerns, with subsequently many more being added, including our own. Medstead Parish Council recognises and appreciates the council’s constraints in what are difficult decisions to be made over this particular and future applications, and further accepts the challenges over the numbers of new houses now required to be built nationally. However, we, together with highways, transport planning and others, have submitted legitimate and lengthy concerns over this application, including the ownership, I believe, of Boynsford Lake. However, it would seem that these serious concerns raised, as listed in the officer’s report, under consultations and objections, have not yet been addressed. | 22 |
| Objector 2 (cont.) | And the noted lack of adherence to MPF accessibility and HEC Transport Plan 4 is a major issue which will affect the safety of all our current and future residents. In 2017, there were about 250 dwellings in this part of Medstead. Since then, there have been 487 dwellings, either already built or with planning permission. This is an increase in housing of nearly 140% in just eight years. The majority of these dwellings have been built in urban-style estates on green fields, with minimal improvement in infrastructure, facilities and employment. A further 82 houses or 62 houses would increase this overdevelopment to 150% of the original. Furthermore, the affordable housing need has well been met from the 60 affordable houses already approved. As a result, this huge house building, which has already impacted the rural culture of the village, has also brought about many, many additional vehicles of all sizes now crammed onto tiny village roads. And thus, any further speculation of the house building will ultimately lead to the total devastation of this East Hampshire location. | 23 |
| Objector 2 (cont.) | However, upon Council’s careful consideration, it could quite rightly refuse this application on legitimate grounds. But either way, if not that, then granting permission will further overburden and impact the rural and dark skies characteristics of Medstead. There is now a real risk that an urban environment will evolve. This, however, is a difficult decision for yourselves, with far-reaching irreparable circumstances. But in closing, we would strongly advocate meeting with officers to seek and progress resolutions to our rightful concerns and objections. Otherwise, Medstead could soon become an isolated, non-script dormitory compound with unsustainable… | 24 |
| Chair | Can you finish now, please? Thank you very much for the presentation. | 25 |
| Chair | The next speaker is the Ward Councillor. Sorry, I beg your pardon. The next speaker is the Former Parish Councillor, Councillor Paul McAllister. | 26 |
| Objector 3 | I am Paul McAllister and represent Former Parish Council. Since the tilted balance is engaged, this development should be permitted unless demonstrable harm can be shown. This development proposes a significant number of market price four-bed houses which have no local need. The affordable housing, although welcome, will be in excess of the local need. New developments should minimise car journeys. Reference 20 Minute Neighbourhood, TCPA document, March 2021. The TCPA identifies bus stops should be less than 400 metres and other services less than 800 metres. This is an upper limit to achieve car journey reduction. This development does not meet the 20 Minute Neighbourhood requirements and only has a permissive path to the Four Marks shops from Stoney Lane, making disabled access to the Four Marks shops only available via a much longer route of Boyneswood Road, not Boyneswood Lane, Boyneswood Road. | 27 |
| Objector 3 (cont.) | Moving to benefits, house construction labour, but this would be external to the village and materials will be purchased outside the area, so no local benefit. Still payments and affordable housing. On the harm side, the junctions of Boyneswood Road and Limington Bottom are already over capacity, made worse with recent permissions. Increased pressure on local services, doctors, dentists, etc. Affordable housing in this area will be in excess of local need, adding to commuter car journeys. It will be 100% car driven. The development is not an allocated site and it’s not ever likely to be one due to its poor accessibility. Biodiversity net gain is proposed to be met from offside credits. This is totally unacceptable. | 28 |
| Objector 3 (cont.) | Still payments will arrive too late to mitigate harm and there are no 106 proposals included. They address the major areas of harm. In conclusion, this development is not sustainable and harm significantly outweighs the benefit. If the committee is minded to grant permission, then I would ask that they only do so with additional S106 contributions aimed at providing infrastructure improvements that will make a real difference to the harm generated by the site and not just tinkering with paths and unrelated cycleways. Thank you. | 29 |
| Chair | Now we do have the ward councillor, Councillor Roland Richardson. | 30 |
| Ward Councillor | Thank you, Chairman. I’m Roland Richardson. I’m ward councillor for Foremont and Medstead and the first thing I have to say is that I have no new information that can add to the sum knowledge of those councillors present. What I can do is really go through some of the points that have already been made by both parish councils and the neighbourhood planning authority. And it really does come down to planning. I mean, there’s that thing of fail to plan, plan to fail. | 31 |
| Ward Councillor (cont.) | We seem to think that allowing speculative building will get us to a point where we end up with a plan which has all the houses in the right place by some sort of serendipity. This is unlikely to happen. It’s also unlikely to happen that allows for future transport capabilities. Who knows how we’re going to be transporting ourselves in 10 years time. But if we built all the houses and we’ve blocked all the access, then we won’t be able to accommodate those new modes of transport. We also rely a lot on the the consultees, both for flooding and for traffic. And both of these have been approved this application. But what if they’re wrong? Who pays the penalty if they’re wrong? The answer is it’s the residents, not those consultees. So I do worry about our current planning procedure and the lack of the plan that we have. | 32 |
| Ward Councillor (cont.) | On the other hand, we all know the issues. You know, there are 150,000 children in temporary accommodation. We do need the housing. And this particular application has many benefits to it and is a well laid out application. But without the lack of a plan or with the lack of a plan, I really can’t see how it’s going to be a benefit to the area as a whole. Medstead Parish Council and Former Parish Council have well articulated objections. | 33 |
| Ward Councillor (cont.) | And I think we should be listening to them, particularly the need to work with them on the emerging national neighbourhood plan. I recognise that many of these issues are beyond the scope of this meeting, but I thank you for your forbearance and for listening to me. Thank you. | 34 |
| Chair | You’ll be able to rejoin the committee after we have voted on this item, but you must remain in the public gallery for the time being, please. Lastly, I have the agent, Nick Billington. Mr. Billington, if you take the stand, please. | 35 |
| Agent | Thank you, Chair. Throughout consideration of this outline application, Bargate Homes have worked hard with your officers to agree a framework for the future residential development of the site for 62 new homes. This has included making amendments to the parameter plans to introduce additional public open space adjacent to Stoney Lane, Rydal Way, and decrease the number of units proposed from 70 to 62 to allow for a less dense form of development. | 36 |
| Agent (cont.) | Importantly, the site is well located relative to the good level of facilities within Fourmarks, within 15 minutes walk of the village centre. To help further facilitate walking and cycling, Bargate are also committed to providing improvements for Boyneswood Lane, Rydal Way, and Boyneswood Road, Footway, as well as combined contributions of over 300,000 pounds towards wider pedestrian infrastructure improvements in the area to make journeys by foot and cycle safer and easier. This will all be supported by a travel plan that will encourage walking and cycling. | 37 |
| Agent (cont.) | With these measures supported by detailed traffic modelling, we are pleased that Hampshire Highways have raised no objections to the proposals. In terms of ecology, the proposals have been premised on attaining the majority of important boundary planting around the site, with loss only occurring where required access is. Overall, the outline calculations show a net gain in hedgerow units exceeding 10%, and important hedgerows are provided an appropriate buffer for at least five metres. | 38 |
| Agent (cont.) | The council ecology officer is also in agreement with the completed species surveys for the site and the associated proposed mitigation. Where it’s not possible to achieve a net gain in biodiversity on site, Bargate are required and committed to achieve a 10% net gain overall using a combination of on-site habitat retention and off-site habitat enhancement. Off-site enhancement is an entirely legitimate way of providing biodiversity net gain, and means the new enhanced habitat can be effectively managed and maintained into perpetuity by a provider registered with Natural England. | 39 |
| Agent (cont.) | Bargate are pleased to be able to provide 62 new homes, including 40% as affordable homes, to help meet the desperate need for housing in the district. I’m sure you will all know someone who is struggling to buy or rent their own home. House prices remain out of reach of most, with the average resident of the district needing to earn over 11 times their earnings to own a home. The latest figures for the numbers of residents on the district’s housing waiting list is over 1,700, the highest of that figure since 2014. The average wait time for an affordable home based on the Hampshire Home Choice portal is 67 weeks in Medstead and Fort Marks. Supporting this proposal enables the delivery of acutely needed new homes, including affordable homes, in a highly sustainable location to help meet the district’s pressing housing need. | 40 |
| Agent (cont.) | Proposals are high quality and sustainably located and your officers have confirmed they support the proposals before you. We respectfully ask that you support your officer’s recommendation to approve the application. Thank you. | 41 |
| Chair | Thank you Mr Billington, that is the first application. My turn to the case officer, Mrs Owen, you have a lot of points there, do you have any comments to make on the deputations received? | 42 |
| Officer | Yeah, thank you. Yeah, obviously heard the comments of the two parish councils, the ward councillor and they are noted and accepted and as the ward councillor points out, some of this is beyond the remit of this committee to deal with. But I think what I would remind you is that we have an application in front of us, where we have resolved the issues and we need to deal with the application that is in front of us. It is not entirely clear why there is a request for deferment, because the issues, as I said, we have dealt with, we have no objections from consultees. So it’s not that we don’t understand what they’re saying, it’s just that at this point in time, I think we are where we are and we need to make a decision on this application. And that’s probably about all I can say on that really. | 43 |
| Chair | Members, who would like to add a comment or ask a question on this application? Councillor Sillimore and then followed by Councillor Glass. | 44 |
| Cllr Sillimore | Thank you, Chairman. Interested to see there’s a return to ditching in this application. Can you tell me who will be maintaining the ditching? Because ditches are notoriously ill-maintained, existing and I’m sure to come. | 45 |
| Officer | When you say ditching, do you mean with regards to landscaping or drainage? | 46 |
| Cllr Sillimore | Drainage. | 47 |
| Officer | It’s covered off in the 106, it will be a management company. | 48 |
| Cllr Sillimore | If you just clarified in your presentation, you said trenches and then ditches. Now a ditch to me is an open vessel. A trench is presumably covered up after you put a land drain in. Will they be open ditches or are they just drainage ditches which will then have an earth covering? | 49 |
| Officer | No, so the blue shows trenching. Trenching will be underground, approximately five metres beneath the ground level. And then there will be areas of sub-base, which is quite hard to see on here, but it’s these sort of areas around it here. So these will be underground. Well, the trenching will be underground, sorry. | 50 |
| Cllr Sillimore | So it won’t get clogged up? | 51 |
| Officer | There is a condition to control that. | 52 |
| Cllr Glass | Yes, thank you, Chairman. Mrs. Owen, I note obviously that this application is up to 62 properties, but from what the agent has been saying, it’s clear that they have reduced the number and therefore they’re looking to build 62 properties. However, I do note that our ecologist is saying that regarding hedgerows, it is considered that there will be insufficient room to adequately manage the retained newly planted hedgerows in a space less than five metres. Concerned whether future layout will be able to protect and enhance the hedgerows. | 53 |
| Cllr Glass (cont.) | And then in addition, our biocultural officer has said that the indicative plans do not demonstrate space for unobstructed growth and introduction of good sized trees. I know, I appreciate that tonight we’re only here for the outline, and therefore usually we only consider matters of access actually for that. But could you comment on whether or not you believe that the proposed 62 houses is perhaps still squeezing too many onto these two fields, bearing in mind what I think are very valid comments about the lack of space for the good sized trees and the lack of space to maintain hedges, etc. Because the last thing we want is to have a constricted site if we give permission for this. We want to be able to enhance the ecology that we’ve got already and not destroy it. Thank you. | 54 |
| Officer | Obviously, this is picked up in the report. And yes, there is a little bit of a difference of opinion between the developers’ ecologists and our ecologists about the hedgerows. We have done quite a bit of work on this. And obviously, the layout is not set at the moment. So we do have some control over that. We have obviously concluded that we are satisfied that those hedges can be maintained, as can the trees that are off site that overhang the site, they will all be able to be retained and maintained. | 55 |
| Officer (cont.) | And we can still are confident that we can get an acceptable layout on that site. | 56 |
| Cllr Glass | If I could just come back and say that with the agent in the room, I would personally like to see if this gets permission, fewer houses on these two fields, because I think that that would enhance the whole area rather than a rather cramped appearance. Thank you. | 57 |
| Cllr Smart | Two matters for information for me, I think one is it appears one of the parish councillors made a very clear wish to delay this until they have their neighbourhood plan in place, which to me seems quite reasonable. But I assume it’s in the world we’re living in with a presumption in favour of sustainable development and a lack of land available for development. There’s not a mechanism by which we can do that. Am I correct in thinking that? | 58 |
| Officer | Yeah, you have to deal with what is in front of you here now. Yes, we know that there’s a neighbourhood plan process ongoing, but it’s not necessarily close to a resolution. And so at the present time, we have an application in front of us for 62 houses that does need a decision. | 59 |
| Cllr Smart | Thank you. | 60 |
| Cllr Smart | And the second question is, I appreciate a lot of this is under reserved matters. And as Councillor Glass said, really only looking at access, because in the presumption in favour of sustainable development, it’d be quite nice to have a really clear idea of how this meets the sustainable development requirements. And until we get to see the reserved matters, like the housing they’re putting in, the rep, the agent for the developers said quite clearly that he wants to increase the housing, lots of housing, then housing needs to be sanctioned, which is one to two bedroom houses, it’s not four bedroom executive homes. And our local plan makes that quite clear, we want one to two bedroom houses, and we need affordable housing and social housing. | 61 |
| Cllr Smart (cont.) | Now, presumably, we can’t discuss that now, because this is not here, but we will get the chance to discuss this, I assume, as we consider the reserved matters later on. | 62 |
| Officer | The housing type and mix and tenure of affordable housing would be discussed at reserved matters. So at the moment, there’s no indication of what size these dwellings will be, we would assume there would be a mix of dwelling types that will come to the committee again. | 63 |
| Cllr Smart | Yeah. | 64 |
| Chair | Councillor Woodard. | 65 |
| Cllr Woodard | Thank you, Jim. And yeah, I was on the site visit, and actually, it was quite useful, because I think that I could visualise the photographs, which normally I can’t, because it’s a very odd site. And what I can’t work out is the, you had a one of the slides, which had the, the boat improvement and another lane improvement, because to me, whether this site is sustainable, really is key is can people walk and access the centre, and looking at the lanes and know what they are now, I can’t see how that’s possible. | 66 |
| Cllr Woodard (cont.) | So to me, a key item is how could those those two, the boat and the the other footpath be improved to make it accessible, because if people can’t walk with pushchairs, people can’t walk with sticks or whatever, if it’s only the young and fit that can walk on those, that is not a sustainable route centre. So to me, that is really important to understand how they will be improved. | 67 |
| Officer | Okay, so the boat is up here. So what Hampshire County Council Countryside Services have requested and the developers agreed to is that the first 300 metres of that will be upgraded. So because it’s an important, it’s an important route through. And so they’ve agreed that that will be improved. So that will be the surfacing will be improved. | 68 |
| Officer (cont.) | Some of it’s a bit potholed at the moment, it retains water in places. So they’re looking to improve that to make it more accessible all year round. | 69 |
| Cllr Woodard | Does it go to the village centre? | 70 |
| Officer | Well, then it’s not really relevant. | 71 |
| Cllr Woodard | Well, that’s one. That’s why I was questioning that. I’m not trying to be critical, but that was why I was questioning it. | 72 |
| Cllr Woodard | And what about the other one, then? | 73 |
| Officer | This one here, Boyneswood Lane. So that would be the full length of that would have it, it would be resurfaced through the process of this application. It’s surfaced enough for pushchairs, etc. So it’s, it’s going to be accessible for most people. | 74 |
| Cllr Woodard | Is that is that the case? | 75 |
| Officer | Yes, it would be looking to improve that surface. So obviously, at the moment, it’s not obviously, but it’s a bit dipped in places, it’s got a few potholes. | 76 |
| Officer (cont.) | So it’d be looking to increase that. There is obviously dwellings that are served off that access as well. | 77 |
| Cllr Woodard | So yeah, there’s one near me that we discussed previously, the bridal path in you try and walk down there and you’re risking a tripping over and spraining your ankle all the time. So if it’s that sort of level now, and it’s not improved much, then it’s still not really accessible. You couldn’t push, you know, you can have a pushchair down there — that was what I’m really trying to understand. Thank you. | 78 |
| Officer | Yeah, what I would say is, is that the surfacing of that would be up to the Hampshire County Council Countryside Service, because they’re ultimately responsible for it. So we would have to take our lead from them as to how they do it. But they normally put on a new — it won’t be tarmac necessarily — but it will be obviously a new, probably rolled sort of hogging surface potentially. | 79 |
| Cllr Ashcroft | Taking that lane, if it is improved, is it more likely to be used by motor vehicles to and from the site, rather than going all on tarmac roads? | 80 |
| Officer | Yeah, I think it would, that’s more for access. So I don’t, I don’t think it would increase vehicle access to the site from there now. | 81 |
| Chair | That’s right, Rob. Thank you, Chairman. | 82 |
| Cllr Ashcroft | If I can follow on from that. The problem is that once you’ve got access, vehicle access, so far, all along it goes even further. My point, so the question is, how far is this development from the school? You’ve got Medstead Primary School, you’ve noted, how far away is it? But the other ones down in Four Marks, how far away are those schools from this development? Because I don’t believe children are going to walk from this development to those schools. | 83 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | No question they’re going to be going in vehicles. Is there sufficient car parking in those areas where they’re going to be taken? Because having been past the Four Marks school at quarter to nine, during term times, it’s pretty busy. And with busy traffic near school, it’s really risky. | 84 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | So I’m slightly concerned, and I’d like to know the distances. Also, I’m curious about 106, section 106, which was mentioned by one of the questioners earlier, contributions. And I see they’re going towards, quite rightly, footpaths and bridleways, and certainly the bridleway you’ve mentioned earlier is being resurfaced. | 85 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | Well, that’s really good if you’re walking your dog. You can go out there and you can walk your dog. Not really benefit to this development. I would question as to what development benefit is from this development, other than getting some Hampshire County Council highway stuff done. | 86 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | But I’m concerned also regarding parking at Four Marks, because who’s going to walk with shopping 15 minutes and 15 minutes back in pouring rain in November? They’re going to take a car and they’re going to park. And I’m concerned about the car parking in Four Marks, because I don’t believe those shops have got sufficient car parking area. | 87 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | Now, whether that’s relevant to this application, I believe it is as far as sustainability. Because if you can’t go somewhere, OK, you can have it delivered by a supermarket direct to your door. But surely we should be looking at some of those things. Could I have some clarification on those items? Thank you. | 88 |
| Officer | Yeah, I don’t know the exact distances, but Four Marks Primary School is to the south of the site. The 1.2 miles I’ve just heard, but it’s beyond a reasonable walking distance. | 89 |
| Officer (cont.) | It’s across the railway line and the A31, right at the southern end of the village. Medstead Primary School is to the north of the site. And again, that’s probably a couple of kilometres. And again, unlikely to be walkable. There’s no footpath, pavement or street lighting along that route. Four Marks Village Centre is just about 850, 900 metres to the south of the site. | 90 |
| Officer (cont.) | So it gives you an idea of the distances and acknowledge the points you’re making about those distances and the likelihood of increased car use to access those. I think the point the Highway Authority are making is that these measures are designed to mitigate and to try to reduce overall reliance on car. It’s not going to change everything and everybody’s habits, but these measures are there to mitigate those. | 91 |
| Cllr Ashcroft | Only that I don’t believe my questions. Thank you. | 92 |
| Chair | Is there any specific point? | 93 |
| Cllr Ashcroft | Basically, your sustainability shortage should be such that there should be sufficient parking for places that people are going to go from here to something on a regular basis, like the school, which is daily, during term term, or probably to the shops, even if it’s once a week. | 94 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | So I’m questioning that and I’d like some clarification on where sustainability is, if you have to, if it relies upon the car for access. Thank you. | 95 |
| Chair | Councillor Smart. | 96 |
| Cllr Smart | Yeah, I mean, if we do, if you think about the cars, actually, I mean, I noticed there’s three sort of three thoroughfares around this, really. One is Stoney Lane, which is very aptly named, and then there’s a Boyneswood Road, which really is, as I understand it, is a track, and then there is Beechlands Road, which is meant to be the main point of entry and exit to this in your car. | 97 |
| Cllr Smart (cont.) | And it’s very narrow, we parked on there last week, and it’s a very narrow road, and it’s likely to get snared and congested. I’m not convinced that it’s the best access route to this, particularly taking Councillor Ashcroft’s view, which I share, which is, and we discussed it with colleagues as we went round on Friday. Most people who live here will be driving, they’ll be driving in and they’ll be driving out, and it’s a very narrow access point. So that’s a real concern for me. | 98 |
| Chair | Members, if you look at page 37, first paragraph there, I’ll read it in full, it’s only six lines. The application site lies outside the settlement policy boundary of Medstead, and the development is not for affordable housing to meet the needs of the local people as a rural exception site. | 99 |
| Chair (cont.) | Now, it does have an element of affordable housing, 24 street, 25 affordable housing proposed on this outline application. It goes on, as such the proposed development is contrary to policies CP10, 14 and 19 of the local plan joint core strategy. In such instances where a development proposal is found to be contrary to one or more policies for development plan, proposal may only be considered acceptable where material considerations include, sorry, indicate departure, the development plan being justified. | 100 |
| Chair (cont.) | But the last paragraph on the same page is back to the problem that we have in East Hampshire, that we only have a 2.7 year housing land supply. And it finishes off the final paragraph, the referring to previous applications and appeal decisions. But this is noted that with a 2.7 housing land supply, EHDC are having to apply a tilted balance to the assessment of planning applications. | 101 |
| Chair (cont.) | And then you go on to page 51, the last paragraph, and this is where we as a committee are having again and again to look at the weight that we have to give to both what conditions, what planning policies there are, but with the dead hand of the five year housing land and supply and the tilted balance. | 102 |
| Chair (cont.) | And that paragraph on page 51, but as detailed above, the harm is considered to fall far short of the quote, significant and demonstrable bar unquote, necessary to warrant a refusal. And I’m afraid this is getting a bit of a mantra, because we are faced again and again, with applications that are not within a settlement policy boundary. | 103 |
| Chair (cont.) | But we haven’t got the housing land supply. And there has to be, even though it doesn’t fulfil all the conditions, or sorry, or policies, we do not, unless there is something very unusual about a particular application or specific circumstances, basically, we have to give it permission. | 104 |
| Chair (cont.) | I don’t like saying that — I like plan policy led — but unfortunately, the government is trying to get houses built in ever increasing numbers in East Hampshire and the rest of the country. And that is the point we’re in, we’re between a rock and a hard place. | 105 |
| Chair | Anybody else wish to speak? Councillor Lewis. | 106 |
| Cllr Lewis | Thank you, Chairman. We’re always faced with, you know, this presumption in favour of sustainable development. | 107 |
| Cllr Lewis (cont.) | And I think, you know, the question we’re all grappling with this evening is, is this really sustainable? Certainly, if you go back through the documents that are on the portal, go back to Hampshire County Council’s original transport assessment back in August. You know, they said the majority of the facilities in the village are well beyond the 800 metre maximum walking distance. | 108 |
| Cllr Lewis (cont.) | If you look at some of the proposed access routes, the one down Stoney Lane to Four Marks and Medstead railway station, and then over to the main part of Four Marks village, from my recollection, that is over a footbridge. | 109 |
| Cllr Lewis (cont.) | So certainly wouldn’t work for somebody with a pushchair, for example. So, you know, I have very, very significant concerns about the transport assessment here. And I’m also quite bemused as to how they go from the position in August to the most recent transport assessment, which says they’re now quite happy with this, despite the fact that none of the distances to the facilities have changed in the slightest. | 110 |
| Cllr Lewis (cont.) | I’d also be interested in, say, an answer to the comment on presumption in favour of unsustainable development. | 121 |
| Officer (Mr Upton) | Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, interesting comment from Councillor Lewis, and thank you for that question about unsustainable development. It’s a difficult situation, because I understand Councillor Woodard’s point about sustainability, Councillor Ashcroft’s as well, and really the committee in total. | 122 |
| Officer (Mr Upton) (cont.) | But putting this into context, as Councillor Lewis has mentioned, we had the Gladman Appeal last year, which was allowed, as we all know, and that was 1.8 metres to the shops and services uphill, which that inspector considered to be appropriate and a reasonable walking distance to get to those shops and services. | 123 |
| Officer (Mr Upton) (cont.) | We also had, perhaps more of relevance, an appeal decision in February this year for Telegraph Lane in Four Marks, which was for 10 dwellings, allowed on appeal, where the inspector there, in allowing it, noted that the walk to shops and services would be 20 minutes in one direction, i.e. a 40-minute round trip walking on unlit pavements, allowed the appeal. | 124 |
| Officer (Mr Upton) (cont.) | This application before you is really no different from that. It’s no worse than that, if a bit closer to shops and services than Telegraph Lane is. | 125 |
| Officer (Mr Upton) (cont.) | But the important point to make, I think, is that the inspector, in allowing those two appeals, did mention that the site does adjoin existing, established and new housing in the area. And therefore, the occupants of the new dwellings would have a similar level of accessibility to shops, services and schools. | 126 |
| Officer (Mr Upton) (cont.) | Similarly, the reliance on car usage will be comparable with those adjoining the site. So I think those reasons are particularly pertinent to this application here. Thank you, Chairman. | 127 |
| Chair | Do you wish to speak? | 128 |
| Cllr Woodard | Yeah, thank you for that clarification, Mr. Upton. Yeah, I should say, when I was talking about the village before, I was talking about — I know this is in Medstead Parish — I was talking about going to Four Marks Village, not actually all the way up to Medstead. | 129 |
| Cllr Woodard (cont.) | So yeah, it’s really difficult, this one, because without the Tilted Balance, I don’t think any of us would have any doubt that we’d be saying no. | 130 |
| Cllr Woodard (cont.) | And I think when I came on to the council in 2019, we were just about to go to Reg 18 consultation on the local plan there. Six years later, we’re no nearer, or don’t seem to be any nearer moving forward. And now we’ve got even more houses. | 131 |
| Cllr Woodard (cont.) | And the fact that the plan, our current plan is so out of date, is a really big hindrance to us because a lot of these sites, and some of the sites that have been proposed now, possibly would have been put in a new plan if we’d have got to that stage. | 132 |
| Cllr Woodard (cont.) | But I do have, and I’ve said this before, I still have so much sympathy for Four Marks and Medstead, because they’re facing what Horndean faced. | 133 |
| Cllr Woodard (cont.) | Years ago, we never did anything about it, and you have a small village centre which doesn’t satisfy the needs of the population. When you get these developments like this, you’re not really looking at, do we need a new community building, where is it going to be, and infrastructure isn’t just electricity, gas and doctors and dentists, it is the community side of it, the social side as well. | 134 |
| Cllr Woodard (cont.) | And when you have planning by application, speculative application at that, you are not actually getting that cohesive picture — what the community wants and where they want to live — and that I can really… what the Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan Group, Mr Maloney said, really resonated with me because they’re not having that opportunity to really structure something that will be worthwhile and support the community there to expand and to live well there for the future. | 135 |
| Cllr Woodard (cont.) | But we’re stuck in this position and it’s a frustration of everybody, the officers as well as all the committee members here, that because of the tilted balance, our hands in a lot of ways are just tied and there’s not a lot we can do, and that is a real frustration. | 136 |
| Cllr Woodard (cont.) | So with me, this tilted balance is really unbalanced because I still at this stage don’t know whether I’ll support it or not, because from what Mr Upton said, I’m thinking yes, and then — but from what I saw, my views are that it is not a sustainable site, so I really still don’t. | 137 |
| Chair | Normally at this stage I’ll ask members if they wish to debate this item as opposed to ask additional questions. Does anyone wish to debate the item? I see a hand from Councillor Ashcroft and then I’ll follow with Councillor Glass. | 138 |
| Cllr Ashcroft | Thank you Chairman, we are in this position of tilted balance which is very frustrating and it’s been boiling for two years, three years, really annoying, and hopefully for the two years it’ll be completely cleared, so that would be good and it won’t be my problem. | 139 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | Where we are at the moment is we have an application for a development of 60-odd houses. Fine. In a normal situation we’d turn around and say that was really good. | 140 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | Unfortunately in this one, for me, I have a problem, because this development site is the other side of the A31 road, so anybody who wants to go to the shops other than Lymington Bottom, which they can go to, which is not on the road, but it’s the side of the A31, they’ve got to cross that A31, which is a very, very busy road with every type of vehicle going down it. | 141 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | So if they’re coming away from this and they’re going to walk, a pushchair, they’ve got to go all the way down, along, across a railway bridge, which is narrow and been acknowledged as not really suitable because it’s a single track road. | 142 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | There was talk of a footbridge over there years ago, but that’s gone, and then along again, and then they’ve got to cross over the A31. I can’t see many mums pushing their kids to do that. | 143 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | They’re going to get in the car and drive there, because it’s safer for the children, it’s quicker for them, and everybody’s better, but when they get there, there’s nowhere to park, or with less problems for parking, so it becomes a vicious circle. | 144 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | Surely sustainable is where you can either walk to somewhere, which in the previous planning application has been a pass-through appeal, they were within walking distance, but also on the same side of the road, so they didn’t have to cross that major road. | 145 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | So we’ve got a situation where the only way it’s sustainable is by having a vehicle to drive there, or you can have electric bikes, fine, or alternatively have things delivered, but you’re going to be commuting, and it’s really, to me, that is not sustainable. | 146 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | If it was close, it would be sensible. It’s too far away. If this is a sustainable development in this location — which if there were better facilities on that side of the A31, I wouldn’t disagree — if Lymington Bottom created more of a village hub, but that’s not in this application, then there’s more of an answer to, well it could be sustainable, but it’s too far away from everywhere. | 147 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | Talk of upgrading a BOAT to the top of that Boyneswood Road, going eastwards — that’s basically a BOAT, Byway Open to All Traffic — and that’s a recreation route. That’s where people take their cars to park to go for a walk in the woods. | 148 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | So I do with — that’s not, that’s sustainable if you’re my age and you’re wanting to walk your dogs, but it’s not necessarily for a five-year-old, or mum with a five-year-old, to take them to school. | 149 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | So I have real trouble with this. I understand our position, but I’d like the inspectorate to tell me why this one, where they have to walk a fair distance to get to the shops, or even further to get to the schools, is sustainable. | 150 |
| Cllr Ashcroft (cont.) | Now there may be a reason, and I know the tilted balance comes in, in which case, to be perfectly blunt, why are we sitting here? | 151 |
| Chair | Thank you Geoff. I think there’s one small correction, and that the Co-op surely is on this side of the A31, as opposed to the shopping centre. | 152 |
| Cllr Ashcroft | I agree, and that’s about 30 metres. | 153 |
| Chair | Councillor Glass. | 154 |
| Cllr Glass | Yes, thank you Chairman. Of course, Beechlands Road was built, I’m not sure when it was built, but that too was supposedly perhaps unsustainable. I don’t know. | 155 |
| Cllr Glass (cont.) | It’s a similar distance. It was presumably virgin land, as this is, when it was built. We’re talking about a very narrow margin between the properties on that side of the road, and the proposed properties on this side. | 156 |
| Cllr Glass (cont.) | And with the tilted balance in the state that we are in at the moment, I really feel that however much my heart may say, you know, these fields perhaps should not be developed. I actually think that if this was to go to appeal, we would probably lose that appeal. | 157 |
| Cllr Glass (cont.) | Because I think that this would be deemed to be acceptable, whether sustainable or not. And I don’t often say that, but I really do think on this occasion, that the tilted balance has to come into play. | 158 |
| Cllr Glass (cont.) | Can I ask Mrs. Owen or any of our other planning officers, would they wish to make any comments on this? Because I think all the questions that the councillors are going to ask have been asked. | 159 |
| Chair | So I would like to go to the vote, but I missed out… | 160 |
| Officer (Mrs Owen) | Yeah, just follow up really, because all these points are completely valid and understandable. And we feel the same as officers as well as Councillor Woodard said. | 161 |
| Officer (Mrs Owen) (cont.) | I think the last thing I would remind members of is the 2016 appeal decision, which was allowed for that Boyneswood Lane development just to the east of this site here. | 162 |
| Officer (Mrs Owen) (cont.) | If perhaps Mrs Owen could highlight that on the screen there. Just go — no, to the left, left. That’s it, that one there. | 163 |
| Officer (Mrs Owen) (cont.) | That was allowed at appeal in 2016, a similar distance away from the shops and services and the same side of the A31 as this one here. So just bear that in mind, please. Thank you. | 164 |
| Chair | Thank you, Mr. Upton. Members? Ah, Councillor Hogan. | 165 |
| Cllr Hogan | I’d like to emphasise what Councillor Glass said earlier on about the ecologist’s comments. And it’s not just the hedgerows, but there’s a significant regionally important population of bats. | 166 |
| Cllr Hogan (cont.) | And the ecologist mentions, yeah, the other thing you need there is sufficiently — it needs to be sufficiently dark to maintain the population. | 167 |
| Cllr Hogan (cont.) | So I have to agree with Councillor Glass that, you know, we cannot have a dense, you know, population of houses in this area. | 168 |
| Cllr Hogan (cont.) | So if this was, you know, when it comes along later, if we were to support this outline, then, you know, I would hope also to see that there’ll be less houses on this development. Thank you. | 169 |
| Chair | Yes, Councillor Lewis. | 170 |
| Cllr Lewis | Just a clarification from Mr. Upton. You mentioned the development that’s shown where the cursor is right now — that was approved in 2016. Presumably, I think we had a five-year land supply at that point? | 171 |
| Officer (Mr Upton) | No, we didn’t have a land supply then. We were using the interim housing position statement back in the day, which was a similar position to where we are now, in policy terms. | 172 |
| Officer (Mr Upton) (cont.) | So we didn’t have that robust position from which to defend these applications, sadly. | 173 |
| Chair | Any other member wishing to speak? | 174 |
| Chair | Mrs. Owen, do you have any final thoughts or statement? | 175 |
| Officer (Mrs Owen) | No, I’ll just pick up on what Councillor Hogan just said about lighting. There is conditioning on lighting — condition 24. So we have got control over that. Thank you. | 176 |
| Chair | Members, the recommendation is that the application is permitted, subject to the conditions set out on pages 52 to 62 of the agenda. | 177 |
| Chair (cont.) | And that’s amended, as you will see from the yellow sheets. Condition 4 has been amended. Condition 15 has been removed. And conditions 22 and 23 have been varied. | 178 |
| Chair (cont.) | And I don’t propose to read all the wording on that. So the recommendation, as you will see from your agenda, is for permission. | 179 |
| Chair | Do I have a proposer for permission? | 180 |
| Cllr Glass | Councillor Glass. Thank you. | 181 |
| Chair | Do I have a seconder? | 182 |
| Chair (cont.) | In that case, I will, from the chair, I will second it. | 183 |
| Chair (cont.) | I will now move to the vote. And those in favour of the recommendation with the adjusted conditions, please show. | 184 |
| Chair | Yes. | 185 |
| Chair | Those against the recommendation and those abstaining? | 186 |
| Chair | Could I have the result, please, Ms. Freborne? | 187 |
| Officer (Ms. Freborne) | Thank you, Chairman. That was carried: seven votes for, zero against and one abstention. | 188 |
| Chair | Thank you, members. The application has been permitted. | 189 |
| Chair (cont.) | And thank you all the public speakers. I know how much this application means, but you can see from our deliberations what a difficult position we’re in as a committee. If you wish to leave now, I’ll suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow people to leave. | 190 |
