Planning Notes
The notes below relate to a past planning application (withdrawn):
Outline: Residential development of 600 dwellings, park and ride car
park for 850 spaces, health centre, care home, public open space and
cycle/pedestrian links, with vehicular accesses from Hamble Lane,
Bursledon Road and Green Lane. Land West of Hamble Lane, Bursledon,
Southampton, SO31 8GN.
NB. This application was withdrawn by the developers.
Planning policy notes below are retained for information.
Some Planning Policies In Relation To Hamble Lane Development
The
following are potential planning policy grounds for objection to the
proposed development, taken from “Eastleigh Borough Local Plan
Review (2001-2011), Second Deposit May 2003”, which is the most up
to date set of planning rules specific to Eastleigh Borough. It may
stimulate debate and support objections. If a Policy supports your
objection, it is wise to quote the Policy Number and specify the
source (Local Plan Review 2nd Deposit).
Countryside.
POLICY 1.CO: “Planning permission will not be granted for
development outside the urban edge unless” it is for agricultural,
forestry or horticultural purposes, for outdoor recreational use and
requires no buildings that would harm the character of the locality
or for a public utility service.”
The whole of the proposed development site is in the countryside.
Strategic Gap
Paragraph 1.4 states “Within the countryside there are areas of land
between major settlements which perform the specific function of
protecting the individual identity of those settlements and of
preventing their coalescence”. The County Structure Plan (POLICIES
G1 and G2) identify 2 strategic gaps in Eastleigh Borough, one of
which is the gap between Southampton and Hedge End/Bursledon/Netley.
The Local Plan in Appendix I (page 348) states the strategic gap is
currently “comparatively narrow”.
POLICY 2.CO: “Planning permission will not be granted for
development which would physically or visually diminish a Strategic
Gap..”
The development would significantly reduce the strategic gap between
Bursledon and Southampton, effectively halving the gap at what is
already its narrowest point.
Loss of Agricultural Land.
POLICY 4.CO: “Development proposals which would cause the permanent
loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land will not be
permitted (Grades 1,2 and 3a in the MAFF Agricultural Land
Classification system….”
The loss of part of this land, most notably the sweetcorn field
opposite Tesco is covered by this policy (being grade 3 agricultural
land). Some of the other land may be said to be contaminated and
degraded (e.g. the car boot sale field itself)
Landscape Character.
POLICY 18.CO: “Development which fails to respect, or has an
adverse impact on the intrinsic character of the landscape, will be
refused”.
POLICY 60.BE: “Development proposals which are in accordance with
the other policies in this plan will be permitted provided they meet
all of the following criteria: i) take full and proper account of
the context of the site including the character and appearance of
the locality or neighbourhood and are appropriate in mass, scale,
materials, layout, density, design and siting, both in themselves
and in relation to adjoining buildings, spaces and views…
iv)…Development adjacent to or within the urban edge must not have
an adverse impact on the setting of the settlement in the
surrounding countryside”.
Landscape Assessments identify the main characteristic of this area
as flat, open land. Hence building on it would destroy that very
character. Hampshire County Council's book “The Hampshire
Landscape: A Strategy for the Future” classifies the area as “Open
Coastal Plain”, characterised by a sense of openness and exposure,
with large flat fields.
Effect on Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.
POLICY 24.NC: Development which is likely to have a direct or
indirect adverse affect on a Site of Importance for Nature
Conservation (SINC) will not be permitted, unless it can be
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Borough Council that the
benefits of the development clearly outweigh the need to safeguard
the nature conservation value of the site.”
The development would be adjacent to a SINC (the woodland and heath
that lies immediately to the north of Bursledon Road). Roundabouts
are notorious for taking up land and a new roundabout proposed in
these plans must surely destroy a small section of the SINC? The
initial plans show a new roundabout within the existing highway
limits - but is this credible? Increased traffic volumes and
possible surface drainage from the development may also have adverse
effects?
Biodiversity - Effect on neighbouring “Priority Area”
POLICY 26.NC: Development which would have a detrimental impact on
the biodiversity of the Borough will not be permitted unless it can
be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that i) the
benefits of the development outweigh the adverse impact; ii) the
detrimental impact is unavoidable; and iii) appropriate measures are
taken which would mitigate or compensate for the impact.
The Biodiversity Action Plan “Wild About Eastleigh” (2002)
identifies the adjacent land area north of Bursledon Road as “The
Netley & Bursledon Common Priority Area”. Again it must be open to
question whether the proposed new roundabout could remain within the
existing highway boundary?
Traffic.
POLICY 60.BE: “Development proposals which are in accordance with
the other policies in this plan will be permitted provided they meet
all of the following criteria: … v) have a satisfactory means of
access and layout for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians… vii) ……and
do not generate levels of traffic which would be detrimental to the
environment or convenience of users of the existing transport
network or would threaten the safety of users of the existing
transport network or would compromise the achievement of the Borough
Road Traffic Reduction Act targets ….xii) avoid placing undue burden
on existing services or other infrastructure”.
POLICY 110.T: “Planning permission will only be granted for
appropriate residential development where the Borough Council is
satisfied that the traffic impacts of the development do not
compromise the achievement of the headline RTRA target for the
Borough” (i.e. A 75% reduction in forecast traffic growth by 2020).
POLICY 112.T: Development which results in additional traffic on
the local road network greater than the levels of growth permitted
by the RTRA targets for the Borough of Eastleigh will i) only be
permitted in exceptional circumstances….
POLICY 113.T: Development requiring new or improved access will be
permitted provided it does not: i) interfere with the safety,
function and standard of service of the road network; or ii) have
adverse environmental implications and is to the adopted standard of
the highway authority.”
The proposals would significantly increase traffic volumes because
600 new households would exist in an area that is currently
uninhabited and where vehicular traffic only goes on Sunday mornings
(to the car boot sale / market). The Car boot sale and park and
ride schemes cause gridlock on the days when they are in operation.
The roundabout outside of Tesco Garage is very busy and would
require enlargement if a further access to it were to be made.
Additional traffic would cause further disturbance in terms of
noise and air pollution to neighbours, particularly in Green Lane
and the top of Bursledon Green. Although a rat-run through the new
development would be a convoluted route, it is still likely to occur
to bypass congestion at Windhover Roundabout. Indeed, the
supporting statements state that express buses are likely to use it
to by-pass Windhover. The emptying of a section of the development
onto Green Lane at Old Netley would seriously affect that local
road. Would it be possible to prevent the park and ride from
becoming an overflow car park to the new development? Would the
park and ride operate solely for cricket and football functions, or
would it mean a daily increase in traffic exiting the M27 junction 8
and using Windhover and local road networks? The capacity of the
existing road network is insufficient to take the cumulative effect
of this development and all of the approved new development on the
Hamble Peninsula. The depiction on the plans of Hamble Lane and
even Jurd Way as “trunk roads” is wishful thinking on the part of
the developers!
Effect on Neighbours' Quality of Life “Residential Amenity”
POLICY 60.BE: “Development proposals which are in accordance with
the other policies in this plan will be permitted provided they meet
all of the following criteria: ix) are an appropriate use for the
locality and avoid unduly interfering, disturbing or conflicting
with adjoining or nearby uses, especially in terms of noise, fumes,
dust, overlooking, loss of daylight, loss of outlook, vibration, or
from floodlighting or security lighting.”
Neighbours in close proximity to the site, the roundabouts etc. may
have specific grounds for objection.
The
above is an initial overview (broadly in order of appearance in the
Local Plan, not necessarily in order of importance), leaving much
room for additional points and perspectives. Other sources, such as
the County Structure Plan and Government Planning Policy Guidance
will probably be required at a later stage. The Policies are quoted
for ease of reference and possible inclusion as planning arguments
in objections. The italics are my personal casual notes and
opinions.
Jeff Martin, former Bursledon Parish Councillor
Jeff Martin, former Bursledon Parish Councillor