12

13

PART 1

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT OF THE SERVICE MANAGER PLANNING DEVELOPMENT

Applications to be determined by the Council as the Local Planning Authority

PS.395/2013 25 April 2013

SECTION 1 – SCHEDULE OF APPLICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Item No.: 01

The information, recommendations and advice contained in this report are correct as at the date of preparation, which is more than one week in advance of the Committee meeting. Because of the time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comments. Any changes or necessary updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.

PROPOSAL 40 dwellings and 1 apartment with associated parking, garaging and access roads; conversion of Burnham Place into 15 dwellings and 2 apartments; single storey extensions to Manor House North and Manor House South; conversion of Manor House Annexe to single dwelling; conversion, alteration and extension of Manor House Barn to form single dwelling, change of use; alteration and extension to Gaston House to form Country Club Hotel with apartments above including part demolition classroom block and demolition of single storey outbuildings and replacement with single storey pitched roof bedroom wing; conversion alteration and extension to Jephson House to form 3 dwellings and village shop following demolition of flat roofed extensions.

LOCATION: Treloar College, Ryebridge Lane, Upper Froyle, Alton, GU34 4LA

REFERENCE : 20107/061 PARISH: Froyle

APPLICANT: Upper Froyle Property Investments Ltd

CONSULTATION EXPIRY : 02 March 2013

APPLICATION EXPIRY : 09 April 2013

COUNCILLOR(S): Cllr G P Watts

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

14

This application is included on the agenda at the discretion of the Service Manager (Planning Development). Site and Development The site comprises the former Treloar School Campus in Upper Froyle to the east of Ryebridge Lane within the Settlement Policy Boundary for Upper Froyle. It lies largely within the Froyle Conservation Area and comprises substantial buildings of varying ages and quality. The site includes the following listed buildings; Gasston House (Grade 2*), The Manor House (Grade 2*), Jephson House (Grade 2), Manor House Barn (Grade 2), Former Oast houses (Grade 2) and Burnham and Pike Cottages (Grade 2), all of which are retained and refurbished as part of the application. In addition, it is proposed to retain Burnham House, an attractive unlisted building, which is considered to be of local importance. The remaining buildings which are proposed to be demolished, comprise a range of classrooms, ancillary school uses and accommodation most of which, by reason of their inappropriate design or massing, fail to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area. The redevelopment of the site is covered by Development Guidelines adopted by the Council in 2012 following extensive consultation with the Parish Council and Local Community. The guidelines recognise the potential for the development of the site and state; “The main Treloar School site lies in the village of Upper Froyle in the parish of Froyle. The site, for approximately the last 60 years, has formed a key part of Treloar School with a range of institutional buildings constructed during this period. With the rationalisation of the school facilities on the Holybourne site, the Upper Froyle premises have now become surplus to requirements. As a result of this relocation there is now a unique opportunity to consider the future use of the site, improve the setting of the existing listed buildings, redress inappropriate and insensitive past development and to positively integrate any new development within the village settlement.” The applicant has undertaken extensive pre-application discussions with Council Officers and the Community and, as a result, has followed very closely the recommendations and conclusions in formulating their proposals which comprise a mixed-use development including a hotel, village shop and residential uses together with extensive areas of public open space. In summary the proposals comprise; • Conversion and extension of Gasston House (Froyle Place) to a Hotel/Country Club

including replacement of flat roofed workshops with pitched roof bedroom wing; The Country Club will be located on the ground floor with the remaining accommodation split into self contained flats.

• Conversion and extension of Jephson House to 3 dwellings and village shop; • Conversion and extension of Burnham House to 15 x 2 bedroomed dwellings and 2 x 2

bedroomed apartments; • Conversion and extension of Manor House Barn and Manor House Annexe to 2 dwellings;

15

• Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 41 new dwellings ranging from 2 – 5 bedroomed properties (including 4 affordable dwellings);

• Overall the mix proposes 12 x one bedroomed units, 27 x two bedroomed units, 26 x three bedroomed dwellings and 21 x dwellings with four or more bedrooms;

• Creation of 2 ‘Village Greens’, Public Open Space and Wildlife Pond and associated landscaping and car parking.

The existing built footprint of the site is approximately 17,000 sq m, whilst the proposals would result in a built footprint of approximately 12,600 sqm, which represents a reduction of built footprint across the site of approximately 4,400 sqm or 25%. In support of the application the following documents have been submitted; - Design and Access Statement; - Planning Policy Statement - Heritage Statement; - Transport Statement - Ecology Report - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment - Arboricultural Impact Assessment - Acoustic Report - Flood Risk Assessment - Drainage and Utilities assessment - Housing Needs Survey - Energy and Sustainability Statement - Viability Report - Statement of Community Engagement In addition, a draft Section 106 Agreement is being prepared by the applicant which provides for financial contributions of £850,000 towards educational facilities, off-site affordable housing, public open space, highways and community related projects. The applicant has also submitted a viability appraisal prepared by Savilles. In addition, the applicant has agreed to create two permissive paths which link to existing rights of way and which also provide a safe and convenient pedestrian access to the Hen and Chicken Public House. The following amendments have been received following the validation of the application on 8 January 2013. i). Froyle Parish Housing Needs Survey received on 1 February 2013. ii). Refuse Management Plan received on 6 March 2013. iii). Acoustic Report received on 12 March 2013. iv). Amendments received on 23 March 2013 incorporating the following:

16

1. Introduction of an additional footpath link between the proposed village green and Froyle Place to facilitate greater permeability;

2. A reduction in height of a number of dwellings to reduce the overall impact of the scheme particularly when viewed from the south and east;

3. Introduction of single storey car ports and boundary walling to the rear of Plots 22 – 25 to screen car parking and also to enclose bin storage;

4. A re-design of Plots 34 – 37 within the walled garden to provide a better relationship with the boundary wall and streetscene and a more traditional design approach has also been incorporated;

5. A re-design of Plots 40 & 41 to follow a more traditional design approach consistent with the local vernacular;

6. A re-design of the proposed external treatment of the western elevation of the kitchen/dining hall to the proposed hotel to improve the relationship with the adjoining footpath;

7. The introduction of additional landscaping to Plot 4, the front of Gasston House and the existing car park to Ryebridge Lane to help soften the impact of car parking;

8. A modest change to the kerbline on the corner of Burnham House to facilitate refuse vehicles tracking;

9. A re-design of the two conservatories proposed to the Manor House; 10. An internal re-design of the Jephson House conversion to retain the existing roof trusses; 11. Other revised details which are described more fully within the Design and Access

Addendum included in support of the amendments. The scheme was further amended on 12 April to address issues raised by the County Highway Authority. Relevant Planning History The site has an extensive planning history from when the school was formed in the 1950s. The school has now relocated to its other site in Holybourne and consequently the Upper Froyle site has been vacant for approximately 2 years. The application is accompanied by separate applications for listed building consent and conservation area consent (20107/062 and 20107/063 respectively). Development Plan Policies and Proposals East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review GS1 - Sustainable Development GS2 - Location of Development GS4 - Making the Most of Existing Infrastructure, Services and Facilities C4 - Nature Conservation C6 - Tree Preservation HE1 - Design HE4 - New Development in a Conservation area

17

HE5 - Alterations to a Building in a Conservation area HE6 - Change of Use of a building in a conservation area HE7 - Demolition in a conservation area HE8 - Development affecting the setting of a conservation area HE10 - Extension or Alteration of a Listed Building HE11 - Change of Use of a Listed Building HE12 - Development affecting the setting of a Listed Building HE14 - Under Utilisation of Historic Buildings P5 - Light Pollution P6 - Privacy and Daylight H3 - Residential Development within Settlement Policy Boundaries H4 - Creating a Mix of Housing Types, Sizes, and Tenures H5 - Higher Densities of Residential Development H11 - Affordable Housing within Settlement Policy Boundaries S5 - Local and Village Shops TM1 - Tourism Development TM2 - Visitor Accommodation within Settlement Policy Boundaries R3 - Public Open Space Requirements T9 - Highway Issues - Access T10 - Highway Issues - Road Layout T12 - Parking Standards T14 - Servicing Planning Policy Constraints and Guidance II* Listed Building The works relate to a listed building and the Council is required to have a special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest. Froyle (Upper) Conservation Area Conservation areas are designated areas of special architectural interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. It is the quality and interest of the area rather than individual buildings which is important. The consequence of conservation area designation is not to preserve conservation areas unchanged but requires that new development is designed in a sensitive manner which has regard to the special character of the area. The Council’s policy on allowing development within conservation areas is set out in Policy HE4 of the East Hampshire Local Plan: Second Review, where development will be permitted only where it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. Treloar School Development Guidelines Adopted April 2012 Emerging Froyle Parish Plan

18

Consultations and Town/Parish Council comments Planning Policy - No policy objection would be raised to the proposals having taken account of the objectives of the NPPF, policies contained in the Local Plan: Second Review and the adopted Development Guidelines for the site. Principal Landscape Officer - No objection subject to minor alterations which can be addressed through a condition. County Archaeologist - No objection subject to conditions Arboricultural Officer - If consent is to be granted then it is important that all work is carried out in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan. Environmental Health Pollution Control - No objection subject to conditions and informatives. Conservation Officer - No objection subject to conditions. County Highway Authority - No objection subject to conditions. Refuse Team - No objection following the submission of further tracking details. Our contractor will be able to enter and collect from within the estate. Drainage Consultant - No objection subject to conditions. Environment Agency - No objection subject to condition. Contamination Officer - No objection subject to conditions and informative. County Ecologist - Objection, further survey work required for bats and great crested newts (see comments in the main body of the report). Natural England - No objection subject to conditions to secure relevant licencing and ecological mitigations. Housing Officer - On-site affordable houses and off-site contribution in lieu of on-site provision required. County Education Authority - No objection subject to securing a contribution towards primary and secondary school provision within the locality.

19

English Heritage - In broad terms, the approach to this very large application seems acceptable. It was never going to be desirable to retain the institutional character of the site which had a few recent buildings of merit. The reasonable decision to retain the best generates a roughly quadrangular plan for the whole development. Inevitably, this is different in character to the village as now is, and such irregularity as can be introduced to this plan is welcome. There are one or two areas where I share the concerns of the Parish Council who have copied me their very careful and detailed observations. It is, for instance, difficult to see that servicing of the hotel and dining room could be carried out in a way that would make residential use of the adjacent units (13-19; 22-26) comfortable and I wonder if these many units here are feasible. However, I do not agree that leaving out unit 13 specifically to allow further parking would be a solution, as it would be a little too far to walk to the hotel. The parking in front of Froyle Place looks tight and the green corridor from the road to the north front would need to be carefully reinforced to prevent the parking from dominating the view. The current provision of greenery is minimal. Parking is a fact of life where hotel use is concerned and successful conversions make adequate provision, but to squeeze the space north of Froyle Place and to provide valet parking elsewhere suggests that not quite enough space altogether may have been apportioned in the development to the hotel and its needs. The wedge-shaped new courtyard between the northern approach and Jephson House is an obvious place to look for an adjustment, and if that created a consequential need to find more hotel accommodation, the Jephson House range itself would be the place to look. Jephson House, in fact once a service building, was the subject of discussion on site to see if it could be converted without alteration to what remains of its significance. A conversion for any purpose here should aim to preserve the roof-beams in situ, as would be standard in a barn conversion. This might be simpler if the units (e.g. hotel rooms) were smaller. The works proposed to Froyle Place seemed sensible and sensitive, especially if the obtrusive fire precautions can be reduced. It should convert very well to hotel use, which is why the servicing and environs need such care. The Manor House works also appeared acceptable, but if there is to be a conservatory on the north side it should be of light construction and not compete with the handsome original character of the house. Finally, although it is not strictly part of EH's remit, providing convincing circulation in a new quarter is clearly important to its integration. By some means, therefore, the plans should be adjusted to allow a footpath right across the site from the overflow car park on Hen & Chicken Hill. I understand the plans have been changed already to give an internal path from the proposed 'green' to the hotel but this would still leave numerous users with a walk along public lanes which could easily be avoided. If these points could be met, or are in your judgement outweighed by the merits, the scheme could be approved.

20

Bentley Parish Council - Bentley Parish Council is concerned that the new residences and Country Club will create additional traffic through the village of Bentley; with journeys being made to and from Bentley Primary School, Bentley Railway Station and on the roads in the village generally. Whilst the Transport Statement prepared by Upton McGougan Limited and accompanying the application, highlights the likely trip generation associated with the proposed development, consideration needs to be given to the peak time traffic and parking issues some of these trips will create. It should be recognised that any development of this size will have an impact on the surrounding rural communities and solutions to the potential traffic and parking issues should be identified early, and actively addressed. It is noted that Hampshire County Council Highways Department has not yet commented on the development, and Bentley Parish Council would like them to be fully consulted and their views considered on the likely additional traffic on the roads in Bentley. Froyle Parish Council (FPC) does not object to the applications 20107/061/062/063 in principle. However, given the scale and complexity of the application there are a number of serious concerns which the EHDC Planning Department should take into consideration in making their recommendation and the EHDC committee in making their determination. FPC’s main concerns are as follows: 1 Overall impact of the development on the existing community (increase in population,

noise, lighting, views and traffic); 2 Overall impact of the development on heritage assets within the conservation area

(Church, Froyle Place and various historic walls); 3 Overall impact on local infrastructure (roads, transport, education and village hall); 4 The density of the development; 5 The operation of the hotel; 6 Parking within the development; 7 Plot 13 and servicing Froyle Place; 8 Plots 14-19 and parking design; 9 Plots 31-32 and size and use of the ‘Village Green’; 10 Plot 35 and impact of dwelling on historic wall; 11 Plots 40-41 and intrusion on view and permeability (pedestrian link to overflow car park). 12 Plots 8-13 INTRODUCTION The proposed development represents the biggest change to the village of Froyle in its very long history. It will inevitably have a dramatic impact, doubling the size of Upper Froyle and will irrevocably change the social and physical character of Froyle as a whole. FPC appreciates the interest and long term commitment of the Nicolas James Group (NJG) to the site, the huge amount of work that they have put into their application and the exemplary manner in which they have engaged with the community.

21

FPC recognises NJG’s commitment to high standards of design and construction, to preserving the site’s heritage assets, enhancing the site’s ecology and to providing facilities for the community. FPC also recognises that this is a business venture and must be viable to be successful. A balance therefore needs to be struck between the profitability of the scheme and the (negative) impact on the existing community. Community concerns FPC is aware that residents’ view of the development varies widely. While most residents would agree that something must be done with the site there is a body of opinion that considers the development too dense, that the impact on the conservation area is too great, that the infrastructure is inadequate to sustain the development, and that the sheer number of incomers will overwhelm the existing community. For other residents the main concern is that the impact of the development will be to split Froyle into two villages whereas in the past the parish has always considered itself to be a single community based round the Church in Upper Froyle and the Village Hall in Lower Froyle. Other residents welcome the opportunities the development will provide: a small shop, the option to make use of the dining hall, the provision of new wildlife habitats, the restoration of the listed buildings, the energy and vitality that new residents will bring to the community and the facilities and employment opportunities that will be provided by the hotel. In forming their opinion FPC has considered the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Local Plan (LP), the Adopted Development Guidelines (ADG) and the results of the Parish Plan Survey (PPS) conducted in June 2012. FPC regrets that a 3D model has not been provided to help them envisage the development and reveal views into and from within the completed project. So while the planning documents are helpful to a degree, FPC believes that a determination of the application will be made by attempting to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal: the benefits and the disbenefits, while accepting that it is impossible to know the long term impact of the development on the place and the people. FPC believes that 106 Agreements should provide benefits for the whole community and be designed to reinforce the existing links between Upper and Lower Froyle. Road safety would be high on most residents’ wish list.

22

FPC’s approach is, therefore, to try to ensure that as far as possible the design of the new development ensures that future residents of Upper Froyle will live happily and harmoniously, and that everything that can be done is done to assist the integration of the existing community with the new one while preserving or enhancing the key heritage assets of the conservation area. Traffic and Transport FPC notes the transport consultants’ report and their conclusion that there will be no significant increase in traffic as a result of the development. FPC has no means of challenging this but believes that there may be a very different pattern of vehicle movement. FPC suggests that the development provides an opportunity for Highways to review a number of safety issues at the Hen & Chicken junction on the A31 and Hen & Chicken Hill. FPC welcomes the inclusion of a permissive footpath in the development which will allow pedestrians to avoid walking on Hen & Chicken Hill. FPC trusts that this footpath would be provided in perpetuity. FPC believes that access to the development via Gid Lane should be actively excluded from any permission. The Development Guidelines make it clear that the principle and preferred access to the site should be via Hen & Chicken Hill to prevent unnecessary vehicle movements through the village. FPC notes that the application includes three access points to 57 parking spaces that will be accessed from Ryebridge Lane to the north of the site. While acknowledging the importance of parking for the hotel, in the view of FPC this conflicts with the guidelines. (See note on parking.) The Parish Plan Survey revealed a number of widespread concerns including the safety of the Hen & Chicken junction, pedestrian safety, the size and speed of vehicles traveling through the village. FPC understand that there will be a Highways 106 Agreement Contribution and suggests that this used specifically towards addressing these issues. FPC believes that a number of those coming to live in the new development will wish to make use of the Alton – Waterloo railway service. Pressure on parking at Bentley station is noted in the EHDC Draft Core Strategy (CP 29), Development Guidance and in the Parish Plan survey results. The car park is full before 8am. In common with neighbouring parishes FPC believes it is unacceptable and unsustainable for a transport system to exist which cannot be used. Parking Much of the success of the new development seen from the point of view of new residents will depend on there being sufficient parking which is easy to access. To put it another way inadequate parking is known to be a major cause of neighbour conflict.

23

The traffic and transport report tells us that parking exceeds the HCC 2002 policy requirements. Again FPC has to accept that this may be the case but believes that this policy is now out of date given the predicted increase in car ownership. The concern is that with little public transport everyone who comes to live in the new development is likely to own or have access to a car and possibly more than one. There is a growing trend for young people to stay at home much longer than in the past. It is not impossible to imagine families with three adult children owning at least five cars. Their visitors will almost always arrive by car. Increasingly they will shop online with a consequent increase in courier vehicle movements. In the view of FPC, to underestimate parking requirements would be to prejudice the success of the development. We hope EHDC will examine this aspect of the application rigorously in the light of recent evidence. In particular FPC is concerned that the parking for the hotel/club should be adequate. Plans for valet parking using the car park on Hen & Chicken Hill are noted. Serious consideration should be given to creating additional parking and service area at the rear of the hotel. (See comments on plot 13.) Education FPC notes that there is already pressure on places at the surrounding primary schools. The development is likely to produce a significant increase in the number of children and some indication how they will be absorbed into the school system would be welcome. FPC understands that the necessary facilities could be constructed at Bentley School if funding is available. Social Housing FPC would support the idea that social/affordable housing should be provided on a shared equity basis. PART 2 DESIGN Conservation Area Many elements of the new development do not appear to comply with those policies of the Local Plan (e.g. HE4, HE12 etc) which seek to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of a conservation area. Upper Froyle is characterised by linear development with substantial gaps between buildings, where there is little back-land development and where the mass of the existing buildings and their density is on a very different scale to those proposed. There is a wide range of buildings from barns and small cottages through to substantial dwellings. The effect is organic, of gradual accretion over the centuries. The same is true of individual properties, which have been modified and added to over time. The only jarring note is sounded by the group of executive style houses built 10 years ago in the old wood yard located partly outside the conservation area. These are relatively well screened by an old barn but provide an example of a less than sympathetic development made worse by later extension impacting negatively on the conservation area. To preserve the conservation area, ‘suburban style’ design should be avoided. This principle is embodied in the Development Guidelines.

24

Froyle Place FPC welcomes the renovation of Froyle Place and looks forward to its return to productive use. It will bring visitors to enjoy our beautiful village and provide a meeting place and facilities for our growing community along with employment opportunities. FPC sees the area between the Grade 2* listed Froyle Place and the Grade 1 listed Church as the most sensitive in the development. FPC is pleased that the NJG intends to service the hotel from the rear. However, the Council notes that there are 32 parking places located in front of and to the side of Froyle Place which intrude into the view of the Church from the south west and of the House from the parkland and surrounding countryside, detracting from both. This seems too many. Parking spaces 16-25 and 31-32 ought to be reconsidered. FPC notes the replacement of the garages with single storey hotel rooms, and the removal of a number of mature trees. This area could possibly provide well-screened parking for the hotel and would help to protect the setting of the Church. FPC notes the importance of the south and east aspects in the setting of Froyle Place. The current building (Haywood) is aligned with the southern wing of Froyle Place and is of a long low form that does little to interrupt this aspect. The proposals are taller, sited further east and crowd the views from the south and east. This is exacerbated by the domestic form that presents windows and back gardens to this aspect. Plot 13 is located very close to the end of the dining hall. If Plot 13 were foregone it would provide more room for servicing the hotel. Additional parking spaces on the plot would relieve the pressure to have so many parking spaces next to the Church. It would provide parking for events in the dining hall. It would create a break between Froyle Place and the row of new buildings on the east of the site. It would open up views into the development towards the clock tower from the gardens of Froyle Place and the parkland beyond and it would improve the gardens themselves by removing the blocking wall of plot 13. Plots 40-41 FPC objects to the buildings on plots 40-41 next to Froyle Manor House for the following reasons: The houses will largely conceal the historic malm stone wall (as acknowledged in p.16-18 of the Heritage Statement, and in HE12 – development affecting the setting of listed buildings) which forms a natural boundary between the conservation area and the new buildings to the south. The style and orientation of the building together with the large trees on the far side of the wall will make the living areas relatively dark. The building intrudes into the long established public view of the Manor House and the Oast Houses beyond from Hen & Chicken Hill. This corner of old Froyle should be retained if at all possible. The characteristic of the conservation is for buildings to be positioned randomly with spaces in between.

25

The ADG argue that the new development should be as permeable as possible so the new integrates with the existing. FPC believes that if plots 40-41 are developed this will block the possibility of a footpath linking the overflow car park from the main site. As the plan stands, a visitor having parked their car would need to walk along the road on the outside of a right-angled bend, crossing both the access to West End Farm and the Froyle House complex in order to enter the development. Conversely a guest of the hotel whose car has been valet parked and who wishes to return to their car would almost certainly prefer to do this along footpaths through the site rather than along the road. Walled Garden (Plots 34-37) FPC welcomes the ‘barnyard’ approach to this area but feels that the idea has not been fully followed through resulting in a jumble of styles. The Council shares the Conservation Officer’s concern that the house on Plot 35 is located too close to an important historic wall located at key point in the conservation area. Because of the height of the building, it will appear to rear up well above the wall reducing the impact of this heritage asset. The house should be moved further from the wall and its scale reduced to be more in-keeping with its walled garden/‘barnyard’ location. Buildings to the South (Plots 1-7) This is a particular sensitive site as these buildings are on the perimeter of the conservation area and can be viewed from Hen & Chicken Hill as one approaches Upper Froyle from the A31. These are large executive detached houses and do not relate particularly well to other buildings in the conservation area. The computer-generated images show them to be more dominant than the existing buildings. Although the layout of the plots is staggered the effect remains an unbroken row of large modern houses. FPC believe that they would have a less detrimental effect on the countryside setting and the conservation area if no. 7 were set further back on its plot, and it should be possible to adjust the layout of the properties to make the grouping more irregular and to retain the view of the Burnham House clock tower in order to create a focal point and a visual link between the new and the existing buildings. Buildings to the East (Plots 8-13) These conflict with HE1, HE4, and the Adopted Development Guidelines. Again this is a sensitive site on high ground with distant views across parkland to the countryside beyond. The effect of the development on this aspect was identified in the Development Guidelines as an issue for special consideration.

26

The proposed houses are generally taller than the building they replace and extend considerably further south and east. Their form and shape do not replicate the massing of the more traditional Froyle farmhouses, which tend to be more modest, with steeper pitched roofs. The arrangement of these ‘executive’ dwellings along the access road appears very suburban and not in-keeping with the conservation area, which is unfortunate given their prominence on the skyline. FPC believes that omitting plot 13 may have some distinct advantages as indicated above. There may be virtue in arranging the remaining houses in groups of two and three with a gap in between to ensure the streetscene is less suburban. The Village Green FPC welcomes the idea of a public green space opening off Ryebridge Lane providing an important link between the existing village and the new development. At the back of the green, access is needed for 10 parking spaces which makes the space less child friendly. The house on plot 32 is built very close to the historic brick perimeter wall. This wall viewed from inside the development is a significant heritage asset. In the winter sun it positively glows with warmth and reminds the viewer of its original purpose to provide shelter for a walled garden. At the moment there is no direct route from the Green to the shop. FPC would like the developer to be asked to look at how to achieve this. Shop The proposed shop has strong support from the Parish Plan Survey. FPC acknowledges the support from NJG for this project. However, FPC has some concerns as to its size, access through a relatively narrow opening with poor sightlines and parking, particularly parking on the road. In the event that the shop does not prove viable, FPC believes the allocated building should be retained for community use. Care needs to be taken that the shop does not have a negative impact on Bentley Stores and Post Office, the loss of which would have a significant impact on many existing residents. PART 3 Open Space and Ecology FPC supports the comments on Biodiversity prepared by members of the community [see appendix PARISH PLAN COMMENTS – NJG Application Biodiversity 180213].

27

FPC welcomes the inclusion of open space on the southern part of the development together with all the measures to create habitats for wild life. The Council believes that the mitigation measures proposed in the application should be conditioned so as to be enforceable in perpetuity. Lighting FPC understands that NJG are not to have estate roads adopted and therefore avoid street lighting on the development that would greatly increase the impact of the development on the Conservation and Countryside. FPC welcomes the dark skies commitment although it has reservations about the number of Velux type windows. Some limitation on the use of security lights and garden lighting should be conditioned. Boundary treatments FPC is unclear how the boundaries between some individual properties will be treated. More information is required as the treatment of boundaries contributes to the character of the development and establishes links with the conservation area. It is important that these treatments are specified in advance. FPC would welcome use of walls and pet-proof hedges and limitations on residents’ ability to change these in the future, for example to create additional parking spaces. Surface materials FPC would welcome more information in order to assess the quality of the materials to be used in public areas. The plans show areas of brown/beige paving, but ‘tarmac’ is mentioned in the D&A Statement. This needs to be clarified and FPC would suggest a palette of materials agreed at this stage, for each element of the public realm. Operation of hotel FPC appreciates the importance of the hotel to the overall project but remain unclear as to exactly what kind of venue it will turn out to be. So it is difficult to assess its impact. Conditions should, therefore, limit hours of opening and noise levels etc so that the peace of neighbouring properties including the Church is not disturbed unduly. This continues to be a live issue in Lower Froyle in respect of the Anchor Inn where its success as a venue is causing increasing nuisance to residents. PART 4 Demolition and construction and thereafter FPC believes that disruption should be kept to an absolute minimum particularly if development takes place over a number of years. The safety of residents should be of primary concern.

28

Access No site traffic to come through the village. Access should only be via the A31 and Hen & Chicken Hill. Heavy goods vehicles should not cross over but exit and enter the A31 on the north side and if necessary use the roundabouts at Alton and Farnham. A road condition survey of Hen & Chicken Hill should be conducted before work begins. Footpath access from Upper Froyle to the bottom of Hen & Chicken Hill should be established before work begins as conditions on Hen & Chicken Hill are likely to deteriorate. Method statement This should be approved before work begins, detailing temporary works and weather proofing, access, noise and dust control, storage of demolition materials, site security etc. Safeguarding the future Recent experience has made the parish council acutely aware of the way the law of unintended consequence operates in planning matters. The PC notes the apparent ease with which an exemption from policy can become a precedent. We would, therefore, hope that were permission to be granted conditions would be applied to ensure that all undertakings made by the developer could be relied on in perpetuity and that these undertakings would be transferred to any future owner of the site. Similarly conditions should preclude further development on the site or any extension or alteration of individual properties to include for example the conversion of loft spaces and garages, and the installation of pv panels. This might be achieved by the removal of permitted development rights (HE8) in such a way that they cannot be restored on appeal. CONCLUSION To say the least, FPC have found this application interesting but very challenging. The comments above represent our best efforts to respond to the huge amounts of information with which we have been provided. We do not have access to experts or consultants and can only rely on our knowledge of our community, our experience and our native wit. We hope our observations will be helpful to both the planners and the applicant and that they will make a contribution to ensuring that we get the best possible scheme both for the applicant and our residents: both those who live in Froyle now and those who come to the village in the future. FPC comments upon the amendments to the scheme FPC welcomes the changes made but would like a condition applied to the parking area on Hen & Chicken Hill that it should be for the use of the hotel only, and to say that FPC are disappointed at the lack of changes to plots 8 – 13 as they are too suburban.

29

Representations 43 Letters received raising the following comments: a) traffic implications are unacceptable/ highway safety compromised; b) consideration to improvements to Hen & Chicken Junction/A31 required; c) management and control of the movement of construction traffic to avoid the village, Gid

Lane and Yarnhams Lane; d) object to the size, contemporary design, density and number of houses proposed; e) scale of development conflicts with the character of the Conservation Area as

development will easily double the population of Upper Froyle; f) whilst development is needed, the number of units is excessive and will not preserve or

enhance the Conservation Area; g) Froyle is a linear village with an airy uncramped assemblage of large and small

dwellings, each set within generous plots; h) too many new houses compared to the old character houses within the Conservation

Area; i) Village Green is inadequate – more open space required; j) some fine buildings will be lost/setting of Froyle Place will be made worse; k) houses being built close to the settlement boundary; l) roof heights and size of executive houses are excessive, and may impact upon the

skyline when viewed from the south and the eastern footpath. m) inadequate car parking at Bentley Station to cater for the development; n) inadequate car parking for the shop, hotel/noise from overspill car park; o) concerns over education and local amenities and need to provide for this within the

development; p) plots 14 – 20, 22 - 26, 28, 29, 31 and 32 too intensively developed and should be

removed; q) the size of development will inevitably have a significant impact upon Froyle. How will

the volume of new residents be integrated into the existing population of Upper Froyle; r) possible fragmentation of Froyle becoming two villages, Upper and Lower Froyle have

by and large always considered themselves to be a single community; s) avoidance of light pollution is important; t) construction management plan required to restrict movements affecting the village; u) hours of construction works and noise should be restricted; v) contributions towards community benefits, including improvements to Froyle village hall,

should be secured as part of the s 106 agreement; w) loss of Newton Davis Hall use by the community for the village pantomime; x) the dining hall attached to the Country Club could be made available for village

functions, such as the pantomime, although a balance must be struck to avoid adverse impact upon the village hall;

y) proposed shop will increase competition for the existing shop in Bentley, would not wish to see the loss of the local post office;

30

14 letters of support making the following comments: i) considerable effort has been invested in considering the both the architectural needs of

the site and the views of the residents of Froyle, nothing to fear from the proposed development;

ii) use of Froyle Place as a hotel and country club seems reasonable which will bring extra jobs to the community which is welcomed;

iii) development retained within the SPB, welcome the lack of creep into parkland setting and provision of village green;

iv) welcome the low density and mix of development proposed; v) look forward to the demolition of some of the newer buildings which detract from the

setting o the listed buildings; vi) whilst the comments of the County Ecologist are noted, there is a difficult balance to be

struck with the all too obvious deterioration of the site and increasing criminality to which it is subjected. I support the approach to approve the development subject to securing a licence from Natural England for bats and Great Crested Newts;

vii) the proposal for a small community shop is welcomed. Whilst the road access is not ideal, it has been established for a number of years without accidents. The fears concerning the large volume of traffic from Ryebridge Lane are exaggerated given the small size of the proposed shop;

viii) a curfew for events and noise levels at the Country Club should be introduced; ix) whilst the village will increase in size, the sympathetic siting of new housing and the

reuse of the listed buildings will have significantly less impact than a scheme with a higher density of mass housing;

x) materials should reflect the character of the rest of the village; xi) whilst the parking problems at Bentley station will be exacerbated by any development,

there is an opportunity to secure contributions to trial a peak time shuttle bus to and from the station; and

xii) deliveries to Country Club and hotel should be restricted to the access route from Hen and Chicken Hill.

Determining Issues 1. Principle of development 2. Impact on Conservation Area and Listed Buildings/Heritage Assets 3. Highway implications 4. Landscape implications 5. Ecological implications 6. Drainage implications 7. Pollution implications 8. Developer contributions & viability 9. Archaeological implications 10. Response to Parish Council comments

31

Planning Considerations 1. Principle of development The site falls within the Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) of Upper Froyle where the principle of development is acceptable subject to compliance with policies contained within the Local Plan. The majority of the site also lies within the Conservation Area for Froyle where there is a requirement to ensure that proposals preserve or enhance the quality of the area. The site is also subject to adopted Development Guidance, which was provided following extensive consultation with, and input from, the local community. This recognises the development potential of the site and advises; “Due to the sensitive historic nature of the site any form of re-use and/or new development will need to ensure that a historically sensitive design led approach is taken.“ (Paragraph 2.2) and “The challenge now is to design a development that should be able to stand on its own merits whilst fitting in with the rest of the village. It needs to take account of the established building grain, embrace significant features to best effect while introducing greater permeability so it knits into and becomes part of the established village settlement.” (Paragraph 2.5) It is the quality and interest of the area rather than individual buildings which is important. The consequence of conservation area designation is not to preserve conservation areas unchanged but requires that new development is designed in a sensitive manner which has regard to the special character of the area. The Council’s policy on allowing development within conservation areas is set out in Policy HE4 of the East Hampshire Local Plan: Second Review, where development will be permitted only where it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is supportive of sustainable development and encourages Councils to approve development proposals wherever possible that comply with the development plan. Paragraph 19 states; “The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.” Paragraph 187 further advises; “Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.”

32

Furthermore, the site is subject to adopted Development Guidelines which consider the various options for redevelopment including a mixed use development as proposed. The application proposes a hotel, shop and residential development, which create a balance of uses providing opportunities for local employment (approximately 15 – 20 jobs) whilst promoting tourism and business within East Hampshire. In addition, the range of house types will ensure a balanced and sustainable community which is further enhanced by the inclusion of a village shop, extensive open space and permeability through the site. The principle of development of the site in the manner proposed is considered to comply with the Local Plan, the adopted Development Guidelines and the NPPF. The Local Plan seeks to maximise the use of brownfield sites like this and consequently Policy H5 seeks to secure 30 dwellings per hectare. The application proposes a low density of 12 dwellings per hectare, which reflects the sensitivity of the site and its location within the Conservation Area. Consequently, it is considered that the applicant has struck a sensible balance in order to respect the character and appearance of the village and the setting of the listed buildings and conservation area. Given the many challenges of the site and the desire to achieve a high standard of design, the applicants have responded positively to suggestions and as a result the proposals comprise a well-considered scheme which has balanced the numerous comments and constraints against the need to ensure a viable and deliverable scheme particularly having regard to the need to refurbish Gasston House and create a high quality hotel. The impact of this development on the village, currently with 64 dwellings, will be significant. The Guidelines did not, therefore, seek to define a prescriptive level of residential density for the site. Rather it was emphasised that there was a need for a tailor made design approach to be taken to the site. The applicant has sought to achieve this with the result being the low overall density development now proposed. It is considered that in these sensitive site circumstances this approach is to be welcomed. The inclusion of the hotel and shop seeks to assist in meeting some employment needs, as well as supporting tourism in the area and providing a more balanced development. The inclusion of the shop in particular is a response to local community engagement. Throughout the process of the consideration of the Development Guidelines, and subsequently this planning application, the role of the local community has been key. The developer has helped this dialogue through discussions and exhibitions that have been held locally and by responding to feedback. There will inevitably be an increase in population and an impact on the social fabric of the village whatever development comes forward. However, this should be weighed against the high quality design and overall low density of residential development on the site, combined with the introduction of the country hotel (and the use for the pantomime etc) and shop, which provide opportunities for both incoming new people and existing local people to come together. These elements would help to integrate the development and new community into the existing social fabric and, therefore, reduce the impact of the development.

33

The complexity of this scheme combined with the sensitivity of the site and the need to provide a high quality form of development will inevitably have an impact on the overall viability of the proposals. In considering developer contributions, it is therefore necessary to be realistic in terms of the overall financial contributions that the site may be able to deliver. In these particular circumstances therefore, where there is also a need to achieve sensitive heritage conversion and in light of the viability appraisal, the applicant has offered a total of £850,000 of contributions which will be spread across a number of requirements, including off-site affordable housing, education, open space and community projects. The make up of the contributions is covered later in this report and is regarded as being acceptable. On this basis no policy objection would be raised to the proposals having taken account of the objectives of the NPPF, policies contained in the Local Plan: Second Review and the adopted Development Guidelines for the site. 2. Impact on Conservation Area and Listed Buildings/Heritage Assets The design approach adopted together with the reduction of built form over the site by 25% results in a form and layout of development which preserves, and in places, enhances the Conservation Area and its setting. Similarly, the impact on listed buildings and their setting is enhanced through the removal of a number of unsightly and dominant buildings. The design and layout has been informed by a comprehensive appraisal of the history of the village and the local design traditions found in Froyle and locally. The traditional design approach together with the use of sensitive materials ensures that the dwellings will sit comfortably within the site. English Heritage broadly supports the design approach and treatment of listed buildings and is satisfied to delegate the decision to the Council. They raised a couple of areas for improvement, the landscaping to the front of Froyle Place will be enhanced and secured by condition. The car parking area to plots 14 - 15 and 22 - 25 have been improved through the introduction of covered parking. The application is supported by a Heritage Statement and has been subject to significant pre-application discussions and on-going evaluation and amendment as a consequence of comments received from the Council’s Conservation Officer and the community. Following some reworking and refinement to aspects of the proposals as detailed in his initial comments, the Conservation Officer supports the overall scheme. He considers the spirit of the guidelines has been embraced and commends the imagination used in the layout and organisation of the residential development. He is particularly supportive of the works to Froyle Place, the provision of a village shop and the creation of the village green in a location which enhances the conservation area and helps knit together the new development and the established village community. The latter is a particularly challenging task with the site configuration and constraints that apply.

34

The scheme emanates from Development Guidelines produced in conjunction with the local community and pre-application discussions. The response to both has been positive. It is a challenging site. Upper Froyle is a small village community and any development on this site will have a marked impact, not least due to the increase in population resulting. This can be positively managed to bring benefits to the village that do not currently exist, and to redress past mistakes in the form of inappropriate development and alterations affecting the heritage assets and their setting. It is essential to integrate the development so that it forms part of the wider village community, while conserving historic features such as the high boundary walls. A number of factors contribute to the setting of the listed buildings and broader conservation area which combined form the Heritage Assets. Setting is influenced by both how the development fits into and is seen in the wider landscape, and also the more localised direct impact arising from the juxtaposition of buildings primarily from within the site. Based on knowledge of the site and information supplied, in particular the photo montages, the Conservation Officer is satisfied, from a heritage perspective, that the impact on longer distant views from outside the site would not be significantly greater than the present school buildings. More contained views from within and just outside the site are also considered to be acceptable and do not impair the setting of the historic buildings. In particular, careful assessment and analysis of the development of plots 8 -13, in the vicinity of Froyle Place, and units 40 and 41 adjacent to The Manor House. The Conservation Officer has also undertaken a comparison of the present scale and location of the modern school buildings, and the dwellings that are to replace them, both from the site and also looking out from Froyle Place itself. Likewise, the relationship of any new building in the position of plots 40/41 and its impact on the setting of The Manor House. In both cases, he considers that the impact on the setting of the Heritage Assets to be minimal and, therefore, appropriate and acceptable. The scheme has much to commend it, with the removal of the poorly designed and wholly inappropriate Newton Davies Complex and the replacement of the equally ugly prominent area of car park with the new Village Green. These changes would enhance the setting of the Heritage Assets. The landscape treatment for the area of garden to the south of Froyle Place could do much to enhance the listed building and further clarification upon the landscape treatment can be secured as part of the landscape condition attached to this application. Overall therefore, while any development of this site will have an impact on the village of Upper Froyle, it is considered the net result to be neutral, with positive elements resulting from the enhancement of the current main school entrance and allied benefits. The number of units is a great improvement on some of pre-application schemes put forward prior to sale. It will result in a considerable increase in the number of houses within the village, but unless the site were developed for an alternative use, this is almost inevitable.

35

Considering all relevant factors the proposed scheme strikes an acceptable balance, particularly given the steps taken to locate the main vehicular access outside the village, to the south of the development site beyond the public open space, which should minimise the through traffic through the village. Of particular merit, is the creation/maintenance of areas of public open space and managed areas of open land, reasonably linked into a network of paths. While the close ties and support of the community to the historic development of the school is acknowledged, its development had historically been separate to, rather than forming an integrated part of the village. Overall the Conservation Officer is supportive of the proposed layout with a mix of different routes creating interest and permeability throughout the site. The new buildings framing the public open space (village green) are considered to be acceptable and help to frame the space and provide natural surveillance. The principle of new development (plots 40/41) and garaging in the vicinity of the Manor House are considered to be acceptable. The Conservation Officer is also supportive of the additional Country Club accommodation, and entrance gates. Overall the style and form of the proposed new housing is generally acceptable and is considered to successfully integrate with the locality. Of the retained buildings, works to Froyle Place Cottages (not listed) are largely confined to cosmetic improvements (windows) and replacement of the end building. The general principle of the works are supported, however, further improvements are required to window detailing which can be secured through condition. Burnham House (not listed) would be converted into 15 cottages and two apartments. Works include the part replacement (northern section) and facelift to provide terraced housing. Although not architecturally significant, the building is a notable feature of the site. In its re-worked form, the building makes a valuable contribution to the local streetscape and is a point of visual reference. The application has been amended in response to comments received from key consultees, including both English Heritage and Froyle Parish Council. The Conservation Officer has confirmed continued support for the overall development. In terms of the direct impact on the Heritage Assets, the amendments have largely addressed any concern previously raised. There remain a few outstanding items. The request to remove the unsightly fire enclosure from within Froyle Place has not been fully addressed and requires additional consideration. It is considered that a condition to address future treatment is appropriate.

36

Similarly on the works to Manor Farm Barn, the retention and relocation of the present lathe and plaster ceiling needs clarity. Further amendments have been received and the views of the Conservation Officer will be reported on the supplementary matters sheet. To a lesser extent, while the design and reduced size of the conservatory additions is an improvement, there are matters of detail that will need resolution, the gutter detail appears potentially awkward. Likewise the revised fenestration which replaces the porch on Jephson is a lost opportunity for something bolder. In terms of the broader setting, taken in the round the proposals are considered to be acceptable. With regard to the new build element of the development, the concerns of the community regarding the configuration of units 14-27 are noted, specifically the concentration of car parking. The collection of buildings (plots 14 -30) remains the most urban element of the overall development. Whereas elsewhere the associated parking is broken up or largely screened from view, this is less successfully resolved on this part of the site. However, the provision of a section of covered parking is an improvement on the original proposals and a further additional garaged element has been proposed for plots 14 and 15.

It should be noted that Plots 14 - 29 are within the centre of the development and include a range of smaller units as required by the Development Guidelines. These units provide frontage to the Village Green and open space and replace large scale, visually intrusive buildings such as the Newton Davis Complex and former Dining Hall. The design of these dwellings is highly traditional and will have far less impact than the existing buildings such that they will enhance the Conservation Area and provide a range of units throughout the site including the provision of 2 bedroomed affordable units. Whilst this particular area does have a prominent parking layout, the introduction of landscaping will act to break up the parking. Officers do not share the view that this area should be removed from the scheme, as the design does contribute variety within the development as a whole. The resulting density of the scheme is only 12 dwellings per hectare, which is not excessive and recognises the sensitivity of the site.

The reworking of plots 35 & 36, by reorientating unit 35 has successfully reduced the visual impact when viewed from the street, the amendments allow more of the wall to be viewed (and enjoyed from within the site) and make its future maintenance easier. Whilst the buildings will be visible from the street, this is not in itself harmful. Officers consider this revision should provide a satisfactory resolution. There have been limited alteration to unit 4, additional landscaping has been provided, however the planting outside the plot boundaries (over which there is more lasting control) needs to be meaningful and will be heavily dependant on the quality and future management. This can be enhanced as part of the landscape proposals.

37

Both English Heritage and Froyle Parish Council made comments concerning linkage across the site. The requirement within the guidelines is to create a pleasant and permeable environment to aid integration within the existing village centre. Officers are of the view that on a number of levels the current proposals achieve this. There are a variety of routes through the site, supplemented by permissive paths which provide safer pedestrian access avoiding Hen & Chicken Lane. It would be advantageous to create a pedestrian route which would link the overflow parking area via the new development to the Hotel/Country Club, however there are constraints as to where such a route could be located, due to historic walls and established property boundaries. A balance has been struck between the provision of such a route and the potential cost of sacrificing plots 40/41 for which the Conservation Officer considers to have sound justification. It would be possible to create a footpath link by utilising part of the amenity/garden area to Manor House Annexe. However, the route would not be very legible to the user. For these reasons, there is no overriding justification for such a route. The concerns of both the Parish Council and English Heritage regarding the servicing of the Hotel facility are noted. Vehicle deliveries and the impact on the amenities of the occupants of units 13 -19 and 22-26 have also been assessed by Environmental Health and subject to conditions, the impact upon the amenities of future occupants of properties surrounding the Hotel can be adequately controlled. In terms of the setting of Froyle Place, officers consider that service deliveries to the principal entrance to the front or to the rear (location of plot 13) should be avoided. The introduction of the Hotel/Country Club use has much to commend it and on balance the proposed servicing is considered an acceptable compromise which does not adversely affect the setting of the Heritage assets.

3. Highway implications

The application is supported by a Transport Statement which has been reviewed by the County Highway Authority. Their assessment has also considered the amendments to the application submitted in March 2013. The highway authority have confirmed that they raise no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions. The site is located in the village of Upper Froyle and is bounded to the north by Ryebridge Lane and to the west by Hen and Chicken Hill, which leads to the A31. Upper Froyle is a rural village with many local services located in Alton. The closest junior school is Bentley C of E Primary located in the neighbouring village of Bentley and the closest secondary schools are Eggars School and Amery School, both located in Alton. The site is in a rural location that is not well suited for sustainable travel however the site has a previous use and it is understood that the principle of redevelopment is supported. Treloar School vacated the site in early 2012. The Transport Assessment contains survey data from the school in 2009. This data indicates the school generated 128 two way trips in the AM peak (08:00-09:00) and 67 two way trips in the PM peak (17:00-18:00). The data summarises that over 12 hours the school generated a total of 524 two way movements. The school operated 38 weeks per year and employed 250 full time members of staff.

38

Vehicular Access The site is served from a number of access points on Hen and Chicken Hill and Ryebridge Lane. It is proposed that these access points would be retained, with the main vehicular access to the site being provided via the existing southern most access point on Hen and Chicken Hill. The access arrangements are considered acceptable. Access by Sustainable Modes The site has a number of existing access points and a number of these are to be retained for cycle/pedestrian access. The surrounding area of Upper Froyle is rural in nature and the lanes in the vicinity of the site are lightly trafficked. The proposals also include a new permissive path linking the site to the bottom of Hen and Chicken Hill. Given the location of the site the access arrangements on foot and by cycle are acceptable for the likely demands by these modes. Public Transport Provision There is an existing bus stop at the Hen and Chicken Hill junction on the A31 which is located 550m from the site heading north and a south bound bus stop is located on the main carriageway of the A31. These stops serve an hourly bus service between Alton and Guildford, also stopping at Farnham and Bentley. An additional twice daily service runs Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays between Upper Froyle and Alton. Given the rural location of this site the level of passenger transport provision is reasonable. The closest rail stations to the site are located in Bentley (3.7km from the site) and Alton (4.4km from the site), which serve London Waterloo. A number of comments raised parking issues at Bentley station, where the car park is routinely full before 8 am during the working week. It is acknowledged that the development will exacerbate the existing problem, however, the applicant should not be expected to resolve existing problems. Part of the problem encountered at Bentley station can be attributed to limited scope to extend the car parking. Without exploring the situation in detail, any extension to the car park would also be subject to the usual planning considerations and controls. There is an opportunity to secure a contribution to trial a peak time shuttle bus to and from the station, it should however be noted that the contribution will not secure a funding in perpetuity or directly fund the purchase of a new mini bus. Accident History Accident data has been obtained from Hampshire Constabulary for a five year period, up until August 2012. This informs that a total of 13 accidents, inclusive of 2 fatalities have been recorded on the A31 in the vicinity of the Hen and Chicken Junction. No accidents have been recorded on Ryebridge Lane or Gid Lane. The County Council is aware of the accident record but analysis of it does not identify any specific accident trends. This section of the A31 continues to be monitored by the County Council

39

Internal Layout All access points are existing but do not appear to have been improved in any way. The internal roads of the site are intended to be built to adoptable standard, however, the applicant has indicated that the roads would remain private and not, therefore, offered for adoption by the County Highway Authority. The long term maintenance of the estate roads, together with footpaths shall be secured as part of the legal agreement attached any permission. The existing track is to be utilised from its junction with the public highway into the site and extended to serve the majority of the development. Although drainage plans are provided for the new build there are no details as to how the surface water falling on the existing roadway will be disposed of. The applicant is advised that it is unacceptable to discharge this water onto the public highway or into any highway drain, however measures to control surface water flow can be secured by condition. The road layout within the development shows some traffic calming measures to control traffic speed however the section of road from plot 11 southwards has little to restrict speed and needs further attention. The visibility at most internal road junctions appears to be satisfactory for the speed of traffic. Amended plans have been submitted to address the highway authority's comment that some of the parking provision was poorly located. Any further highway comments will be reported on the supplementary update sheet, although it should be noted that the highway authority have indicated that the parking issues can be controlled through condition. The highway authority have also suggested a condition to clarify the provision of secure cycle provision and visitor cycle provision within the site. It is considered that the parking provision strikes the right balance for the mix of dwellings on site. In terms of the parking for the hotel, officers consider the provision of a valet service to the over spill parking as a sensible approach to parking provision for the hotel. Froyle Place is a grade two star listed building and an over provision of parking surrounding the hotel to the front and rear will detract detrimentally from its setting. In terms of the parking for the shop, there are two visitor spaces located opposite the shop and six visitor spaces in total surrounding the public open space. Whilst future occupants of the site will walk to the shop, people visiting the shop from Lower Froyle are likely to drive. Whilst concerns regarding on street parking in Ryebridge Lane are noted, officers share the alternative view expressed by members of the community that given the small size of the shop proposed, the fears over the large volume of traffic generated are exaggerated. The amended parking provision provides residential parking to the maximum standard, which also considered visitor parking for individual plots. Whilst the Parish concerns regarding on street parking are noted, the scenario of a family owning five vehicles is not reflective of a normal family car ownership and therefore the concern is considered to be overstated.

40

Impact of proposed development Interrogation of the TRICS database has been undertaken to forecast the likely trip generation of the proposed development. This data reveals that the residential element of the proposed development is likely to generate 36 two way trips in the AM peak and 42 movements in the PM peak. It is anticipated that the Country Club element will not generate significant trip generation, TRICS analysis forecasts just 3 trips during the AM peak and 5 trips during the PM for this element of the proposals. The data set out confirms that the proposed development will generate less trips both during the network peak periods and daily, than the previous use of the development when occupied as a school. This is summarised below; Previous Use (based on school survey data 2009)

Proposed Use (based on TRICS data contained within Transport Statement)

AM PM 12-Hour AM PM 12-Hour

128

67

524

39

47

393

In this instance it is agreed that the development will not have a highway or transport impact compared to the previous use and that a financial contribution in accordance with the County Council’s Transport Contributions Policy is no necessary or reasonable in this case. Traffic count data for the A31/Hen and Chicken junction has been obtained from December 2012 and this has been used to inform the assessment of the junction, which confirms that inclusive of development related traffic a maximum of 61 outbound movements are likely to occur through the junction in the AM peak, confirming the junction will continue to operate within capacity. Whilst the concerns of the community and the Parish Council are noted, the Highway Authority considers that there is an overall reduction in the traffic generated by the proposal. In the absence of an objection from the Highway Authority there is no justification to support a refusal on highway grounds. Notwithstanding the highway comment, conditions are attached to control the traffic generated by construction traffic to ensure that vehicles are restricted to using the main southern access point from the Hen and Chicken Hill via A31. A condition survey of the local road and future maintenance of the estate roads for the development are similarly secured through condition.

41

4. Landscape implications The proposals represent a positive approach to the redevelopment of a particularly important site located within an attractive conservation area set within very fine rural setting. The principle of the approach has been discussed in detail and is acceptable, although there are a number of small points which need to be addressed. In particular detailed proposals for the treatment of the garden to the rear of Froyle Place are needed. The Landscape Framework in principle is acceptable but detailed planting plans will need to be prepared together with an appropriate Maintenance Plan. The car parking area to the front of Froyle Place will necessitate the removal of a number of evergreen trees; these have some local presence but in landscape terms are not worthy of being retained, however, the Yew hedge along the road is important and is indicated to be retained. This needs to be properly maintained and possibly extended along the access to the main house so as to create a screen to parked cars. The overflow car park to the west of the village is currently formed in tarmac in a poor condition. This should be reformed, ideally with a reinforced grass surface, but proposals for its reconstruction are required. On the southern side of the new development, the two units (7 and 8) which form the pinch point into the site and stand either side of the access road, do look austere and fail to create an appropriate impact for the setting and so could be improved, however this in itself is not reason to refuse the application. The Landscape Officer highlighted an existing tree, believed to be a Betual jacquemontii, which stands on the northern side of the site opposite "Colthouse", which is a particularly fine specimen. The applicant has confirmed that this tree will be retained within the new Village Green layout. All other issues raised by the Landscape Officer can be controlled through the landscape condition. The Council's Arboricultural Officer has also considered the application and had expressed reservations concerning the removal of trees within the Conservation Area. Of particular reference is the loss of the conifers at the front of Froyle Place along with other trees to the west of the church as they frame views of the building when viewed from the main road through the village. The landscape officer's view that these trees are not worthy of retention are however noted. As these trees are to be lost they should be replaced with other suitable specimens in the car park area, the details of which can be secured and controlled though the attached landscape condition. It is also important that all work is carried out in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan, again this requirement is controlled through condition.

42

Concerns have been expressed regarding the impact of Plots 8 – 13 on the wider landscape. The Parish Council maintain that plots 8 - 13 appear too suburban, particularly as they are positioned on the eastern edge of the development. It should be noted that these plots replace Hayward House, a substantial single building which occupies a dominant position along the eastern boundary of the site. This building will be replaced by 8 detached dwellings, which introduce sizeable gaps between the properties and enable better views into the site from the public footpath, located approximately 250 metres to the east. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment considers the impact of this part of the site and concludes that the proposals will result in a beneficial change of view owing to the introduction of spaces between the buildings and the breaking up of a dominant ridgeline, a view supported by Officers. It is, therefore, concluded that the proposals represent a positive approach to the redevelopment of a particularly important site. To a lesser extent, a similar concern has been raised by the community concerning plots 1 - 7 at the southern end of site. Their integration and prominence have been reduced by setting the dwellings on 5 and 6 further back within their plots. This introduces a stagger in the building line and helps to reduce their prominence from wider views into the site, particularly as you travel up Hen and Chicken Hill. Concerns have been raised that the siting of plots 1 - 7 bring built development closer to the edge of the settlement policy boundary. This is true, however, the scale of development and the introduction of a staggered building line successfully minimises their visual prominence. Officers are of the view that the landscape setting is not, therefore, compromised by the siting and design of these units. With regard to the design of the properties, the applicant has paid particular attention to traditional designs found in Froyle and the locality. All new dwellings, including Plots 8 – 13, reinforce local distinctiveness through the use of high quality materials, a variety of bespoke designs, which have narrow plan forms with pitched roofs and a high degree of articulation. As such, the proposals accord with the design approach advocated within the Development Guidelines and the resulting impact is considered to be acceptable and an improvement in the context of the site and existing buildings. Public Open Space provision Public open space provision is a key factor to the success of all residential developments. There are three key public open spaces, namely Froyle Place Green, The Village Green and Southern Meadows. Also the grounds around Froyle Park form an important part of the overall landscape scheme, although the applicant has confirmed that they will remain private. Froyle Place Green is a small incidental open space located in the courtyard of Jephson Cottages, Froyle Cottages and the village shop (in the northern end of the site to the west of Froyle Place).The green will comprise existing feature trees within an area of amenity grass with additional benches proposed. The Village Green is the central formal space to the proposed development located immediately adjacent to Reybridge Lane and will, in part, replace the existing car park area at

43

the northern edge to the site and will also include a Local Area of Play (LAP). The Southern Meadows is the largest open space provision located at the southern end of the site and will comprise a mix of wildflower meadow, open grassland and parkland trees. A network of footpaths are proposed through the open space, the main route is offset from the alignment of the main access road and also connects with the permissive path which continues southwards beyond the application site towards the Hen and Chickens junction. The second footpath cuts though the centre of the open space dividing the grassland from the wildflower meadow area. Semi-private and communal gardens There are a number of semi private and communal gardens provided throughout the proposed development principally associated with the retention and conversion of existing buildings within the site. These gardens include Froyle Park, Burnham Place and Manor House. The Froyle Park gardens are semi-private grounds to be used by the residents of Froyle Place and guests of the Country Club. The gardens, which are subject to the submission of details attached to the landscape condition, will reflect the historic character of the house. The conversion of Burnham Place into residential units incorporates the existing courtyard in the centre of the building, which will be divided up into a series of small private gardens bound by low hedges which connect to the central communal garden in the centre. Manor House will have a small semi-private communal garden to the front of the property adjacent to the car parking area. These low key gardens will serve the residents of Manor House, Manor House Annex and Manor Barn. It is considered that the development successfully integrates an appropriate proportion of amenity space within the site to the benefit of the wider visual amenity. Whilst there will always be requests to increase the proportion of greenery within development sites, this needs to be weighed against the private amenity requirements of individual properties. On the whole it is considered that the development successfully achieves such a balance. The long term provision of the public open space areas together with securing public access to the land and their long term management, will need to be secured in the legal agreement.

44

5. Ecological implications The development has potential to affect bats and great crested newts within the site. Both species receive protection under UK law via the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and under EU law by the Habitats Directive, which is transposed into UK law by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (commonly referred to as the Habitats Regulations). Where developments affect European protected species (EPS), permission can be granted unless the development is likely to result in a breach of the EU Directive underpinning the Habitats Regulations and is unlikely to be granted a European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licence from Natural England to allow the development to proceed under a derogation from the law. Licences will not normally be granted in the absence of planning permission.

The application is accompanied by an 'Ecological Appraisal, Protected Species Survey and Mitigation Strategy' (EPR, December 2012). The County Ecologist has reviewed the ecological report and considers it is comprehensive and of excellent scope and quality and an accurate reflection of the current ecological value of the site based on the information gathered to date.

The ecologist has highlighted limitations within the report relating to Bats and Great Crested Newts which can only be resolved by undertaking further survey works at the most appropriate time of year.

The bat surveys were undertaken towards the end of the recognised survey period (late September 2012) and, therefore, did not cover the peak bat activity season. The assessment for great crested newts (GCN) was also hindered by timing constraints.

The Ecologist considers that additional Phase 1 and Phase 2 survey works are necessary in order for a robust assessment to be made of the site's importance to roosting bats and will form the basis of any future European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licence application to Natural England.

A Great Crested Newt survey comprises a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment of four waterbodies situated within the school site, in addition to desk-based assessments of several ponds/records from the surrounding area. The on-site ponds are assessed as being of 'poor' or 'below average' quality for GCN.

There are a number of confirmed GCN sightings within the immediate vicinity of the site and it is apparent that the immediate area (within which the site sits) supports a metapopulation of GCN. There is clear potential for GCN to occur within any area of terrestrial habitat within the local area.

The report states that the ponds within the site are unlikely to support GCN although paragraph 6.30 states that each of the four on-site ponds should be subject to full GCN presence/absence survey at the appropriate time of year (March-June). Given the proximity of known GCN records the Ecologist recommends that a full Phase 2 GCN surveys as appropriate. Should GCN be present within the site then, as stated within the report, an EPSM licence will be necessary prior to any works commencing.

45

Whilst the County Ecologist’s concerns are noted, Natural England have also considered the proposal and agree with the applicants proposed approach, which combines mitigation and securing licences prior to commencement of development. When determining planning applications where a European protected species may be affected, the Council has a statutory duty to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive. Article 16 of the Directive makes provision for derogation from Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15 in certain circumstances and states; “Provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, Member States may derogate from the provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15 (a) and (b): (c) in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment;” It is, therefore, necessary to consider the following questions before deciding on the application; 1. Is the development of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment? (Regulation 53(2)(e)) The site is currently vacant and inevitably continued deterioration of the site and buildings will occur until a beneficial and viable use can be found for the site. The site is largely within the Froyle Conservation Area and includes two 2* Listed buildings and a number of Grade 2 listed buildings which require significant investment to ensure their future. The demolition of a number of modern and unattractive buildings will result in the enhancement of the Conservation Area. Furthermore, the proposals will secure the repair and reinstatement of the listed buildings within the site and result in a more appropriate and sympathetic form of development which will enhance the area and result in the positive regeneration of a vacant brownfield site. Natural England’s own guidance advises; “An example might be that the development of new housing (including an element of affordable properties) for an area has been identified as a need by the Local Planning Authority, the specific site having been selected through a consultation exercise or inquiry and evidenced in a published report.” It is therefore considered that this test is met.

46

2. Whether there is a satisfactory alternative? (Regulation 53(9)(a)) In this case, the site is plainly in need of regeneration and the enhancement of the area will only be achieved by the removal of the substantial and unsympathetic buildings and their replacement with more appropriately designed and scaled properties. The ‘do nothing’ option will not result in the potential economic, social and environmental benefits arising from the regeneration of the site whilst in contrast, the removal of the unsightly and disused buildings together with the reinstatement of the listed buildings and the re-use of the site in a viable and beneficial manner is the most satisfactory option. There are no other suitable sites within the village which can provide new housing and employment opportunities to provide for the needs of the village and the District generally. It is therefore considered that this test is met. 3. That the proposals will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range (Regulation 53(9) (b). Natural England’s guidance on this test confirms that “there should be no net loss in the local population status of the species concerned, taking into account factors such as population size, viability and connectivity. Hence, when it is unavoidable that an activity will affect an EPS population, the mitigation should aim to maintain a population of equivalent status on or near the original site.” The submitted Ecological Report provides a detailed mitigation strategy including carrying out additional surveys in the optimal season. Provided the recommendations of the Ecological Report are undertaken, no European Protected Species will be negatively impacted upon as a result of this development. The report fully details the presence and potential presence of European Protected Species and outlines the approach to be taken to ensure that prior to any demolition works commencing, full and detailed surveys will be carried out to inform detailed avoidance, mitigation and compensatory measures, all of which will be comprehensively detailed within a working method statement and any applicable European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) application. The development will not, therefore, result in a breach of the EU Directive subject to a condition that prevents demolition from taking place until a European Protected Species Licence is obtained from Natural England. Notwithstanding the Ecologist's view that all survey work shall be undertaken prior to the determination of the application, in light of the above consideration of the tests, it is considered that the use of conditions to secure appropriate surveys and EPSL prior to the commencement of development is an appropriate solution. It is also considered appropriate to condition the mitigation works detailed within sections 6 - 10 of the supporting Ecological survey.

47

Botanical Interest The report identifies some areas of considerable botanical interest, including one Red Data Book (RDB) Endangered plant species (fine-leaved sandwort) and one County Scarce species (rue-leaved saxifrage). These two species were recorded in association with the historic walls, containing the lime-rich clunch mortar, in the north of the site predominantly. Clearly, as is recognised, the presence of a RDB Endangered plant species is of high ecological value and the Ecologist strongly supports the recommendations within the report that the historic walls are not impacted upon in any way by the proposed works. Should this situation change then a detailed plan to mitigate any potential deleterious impacts to this high-value feature would be required. Additional Protected and Invasive Species Surveys have identified the presence/potential presence of a number of additional protected and invasive species within the site and which are likely to be impacted upon/interfered with by the proposed works. This includes nesting birds (including house martin and swift, both Amber-listed species of conservation concern), badger, hedgehog, reptiles and common toad, as well as two invasive plant species, Crassula helmsii and Japanese knotweed. The potential impacts to these species have been discussed and, where appropriate, mitigation and compensation measures have been suggested. In general, the measures detailed within Section 10 of the EPR report can be secured by a suitably-worded condition once the required survey data has been collected and interpreted. 6. Drainage implications The site is located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding) and the Council's Drainage Consultant has confirmed that he is not aware of any historic flooding problems affecting the site. An FRA dated December 2012 has been submitted, which includes a drainage strategy for both foul and surface water. The existing foul drainage is assumed to connect to the public foul sewer, although this has not been inspected in detail. The foul drainage strategy proposes new on-site pipework, where necessary, and re-use of the existing off-site foul drainage. Any existing drainage to be retained should be inspected using CCTV survey. Any drainage to be abandoned, should be dug out or filled as appropriate. There are no public surface water sewers in this location and it is assumed that the existing development drains to soakaways. The report indicates a reduction in impermeable area post re-development and the proposed drainage strategy is for on-site storage, catering for the 1:100 year + 30% rainfall event. This should ensure that run-off is controlled on site and there will be no increase in flood risk to third party land. The strategy is based on an earlier site investigation and site percolation tests.

48

The Drainage Consultant has raised no objections in principle, subject to satisfactory drainage systems for both foul and surface water, which can be covered by conditions. In addition access and parking areas should be constructed using permeable paving and run-off must be prevented from discharging onto the public highway, such measures can also be secured through condition. The Environment Agency has also assessed the proposal and have raised no objection. 7. Pollution Implications The application proposes the conversion of Froyle Place to a Country Club Hotel. The Country Club will be located on the ground floor with the remaining accommodation split into self-contained flats. The self-contained flats can be used in a multitude of ways, they can be sold, leased or rented as self-contained accommodation, on short or long term arrangements and/or managed by the hotel or simply used as hotel rooms. This allows for a more flexible use of the accommodation. The dining halls would be reduced in size to retain the kitchens that are located within the former 1950s dining hall, along with the 1950s link to the historic house and the existing dining hall. The retained dining hall will provide a large fully serviced function room with associated bar and storage areas, which could be used for activities such as private functions and weddings. The proximity of the Country Club Hotel to proposed houses has the potential to create a number of amenity issues for the future occupants, particularly relating to the future use of the dining hall as a function room for events. The application is supported by an acoustic report which has been assessed by the Council's Pollution Control team. The report deals with the potential issues from the noise generated from the venue / hall and how they could impact upon the new neighbours surrounding the Country Club Hotel. The activities taken into consideration by the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) are:

• Noise from events held at the country club • Noise from plant and equipment • External lighting levels across the development • Control over the opening hours of the shop

The acoustics report has outlined some detail regarding the construction, necessary to satisfy the requirement to control the noise. However, more detail will be required before the construction phase commences. The acoustics report has detailed the expected noise levels that must be achieved externally at the nearest residential dwellings, and subject to verification, the EHO has raised no objection subject to a number of conditions to minimise the impacts resulting from the development.

49

In terms of lighting, no high level street lighting is proposed for the development, which is reflective of the character of Upper Froyle. The public consultation prior undertaken indicated that street lighting was seen as undesirable, a view which is supported by both the applicant and officers. Some low-level directional bollard lighting will be provided and will be designed to meet the requirements of dark skies. A condition is attached requiring details of any proposed lighting for the development. 8. Developer Contributions & Viability Paragraph 173 of the NPPF provides advice upon viability and deliverability. Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. The paragraph advises that the scale of development should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable. Given the complexity of the scheme, the need to restore/refurbish listed buildings within the site to bring them into beneficial use and also having regard to the Community’s desire for a village shop and the proposed hotel, which will generate local employment opportunities, the applicant has commissioned a report by Savilles to assess the viability of the scheme and the level of contributions that can be delivered. In this particular case, the economics of the scheme do not allow the full provision of contributions to be met. The viability report concludes that the development is only marginally viable and, therefore, in order to secure the development of the site and the resulting benefits, a pragmatic approach is required. The District Valuer has independently reviewed the viability report and has concluded that the offer of 4 on site affordable units and a contribution totalling £850,000 is justified. The applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing, education, sports pitch provision and community projects totalling £850,000. The quantum of these contributions can be summarised as follows and shall be secured by the completion of a legal agreement.

50

£20,000 - Public Open Space Contribution £350,000 - Education Contribution £400,000 - Off-site affordable housing contribution £80,000 - Community Infrastructure comprising: £10,000 for the restoration and repair of vestments in St Mary's Church, Upper Froyle; £20,000 towards the construction of ponds to promote biodiversity within Froyle Park estate; together with contributions towards community transport (either hire, hire purchase or purchase of mini bus and associated running cost for community minibus service) for Lower and Upper Froyle and a scheme for solar panels for Froyle Village Hall. In addition, there will be an appropriate contribution to cover the administration and monitoring of the S106 obligations. Bearing in mind the District Valuer has independently confirmed the genuine viability issues relating to the proposed contribution of £850,000, it is considered that the contribution break down indicated above is an appropriate distribution for the development. The applicant had undertaken a housing needs survey which has been considered by the Councils Housing team. The survey had indicated a requirement for four on-site affordable units. The housing team has indicated that a higher proportion should be provided on-site. Whilst the on-site provision of affordable units is preferred, the viability of the scheme is material. Further clarification on the level and make up of on-site provision and off-site contribution will be reported in the supplementary matters sheet. 9. Archaeological implications The site is of considerable historical interest as highlighted in the Desk Based Assessment included with the application. The oldest parts of the buildings are understood to be Tudor in date with its most recent history relating to its important role in pioneering the treatment and education of people with disabilities in the 20th century. Although the Desk Based Assessment gives a thorough assessment of the significance of the build heritage of the development site it fails to address the potential for below ground archaeological heritage. In terms of the archaeology of the site, it is located within the historic core of the settlement of Upper Froyle partly within an area of High Archaeological Potential and partly within an Area of Archaeological Potential as identified in 'Historic Rural Settlement in Hampshire' (1999. Bournemouth University and HCC) and as such there is the potential for archaeological deposits relating to the origins and development of the settlement to be present within the site. In the northern part of the site there is potential for remains of the medieval manor house near to the church. In addition, within the school site itself in the 1920s Roman pottery and bones were recovered during construction works. It is possible that these indicate a larger site of Roman occupation which would be disturbed by groundworks associated with the proposed development. The County Archaeologist has raised no objection to the proposal, but has recommended that should planning permission be granted subject conditions covering potential archaeological

51

implications. 10. Response to Parish Council and local resident concerns The Parish Council has no objection in principle to the application but raise a number of detailed concerns. The applicant has considered these comments and has revised the application as a direct result. The revisions include an additional footpath link through the site, a re-design of Plots 34 – 37, a lowering in height of properties along the north-eastern boundary, retention of Yew hedge by Froyle Place, introduction of additional landscaping and screening of rear communal car park to Plots 22 – 27. Whilst the concerns of the Parish Council have been given serious consideration, it is the Officers view that the proposals represent an acceptable development of the site which complies with the Local Plan and adopted Development Guidelines. It is fair to say that the applicant has fully engaged with the community and has responded to comments received wherever possible. The application has generated significant interest from the local community who have expressed reservations regarding the potential impact of development upon the existing community facilities such as the Froyle village hall. The demolition of the Newton Davis hall has already impacted upon the village pantomime which had historically been hosted there. In recognition of community integration the applicants have confirmed a commitment and determination to operate at the heart of the community. The applicant has provided written confirmation of specific commitments, which, subject to avoiding conflict with commercial business commitments can be accommodated. These include an offer to host the annual village pantomime, race night, harvest supper and quiz night. It should be noted that similar activities and arrangements are undertaken at the applicant's nearby hotel at Northbrook. There is of course a balance to be struck to ensure that community activities at the Country Club do not have a negative impact upon the Froyle Village Hall. The applicant's offer is noted and welcomed, however, it would be inappropriate to control such commitments through the planning process, as such measures would go beyond the tests of relevance detailed in the conditions circular. However, such agreements could be secured directly between the applicant and Parish Council. The applicant has also confirmed that the hotel is committed to assist with the running of the shop along with village volunteers in order to ensure that it will remain a viable local facility. The aforementioned commitments coupled with the community's use of the Country Club, which incidentally will not be a private members club, will provide residents across the whole of Froyle reason to visit the newly developed area. This in turn will go some way to integrate the old and new Froyle positively and assist in-keeping both Upper and Lower Froyle as a single community. The population increase and its impact upon the social fabric of is a concern of some members of the community. Whilst the population increase is significant, it is widely recognised that redevelopment of the site is both necessary and inevitable. Whilst alternative (non-residential) uses for the site were explored, no other definitive proposal or interest from developers materialised. It is recognised that residential redevelopment of the site is the most viable option, however, this scheme does positively introduce a mix of uses. If the whole site

52

had been developed purely as residential, the prospect of integrating the new development with the remainder of Froyle would have diminished. It is difficult to definitely gauge the impact the proposal will have upon the community as a whole, and although the concerns of fragmentation between Upper and Lower Froyle are acknowledged, the use of Froyle Place as a Country Club and Hotel, the introduction of a shop, public open space and good footpath links through the site, will help to integrate the development. The long-term presence of the applicant through their involvement and management of the hotel and country club will ensure a commitment to the village and desire to ensure that the scheme will be successfully integrated into the community. Whilst there are calls to reduce the number of units on site, there is clearly a viability issue to consider. The development will be built to a high quality specification to the overall benefit of visual amenity. The overall development density is significantly lower than densities expected of modern developments, and is reflective of the constraints of the listed buildings and the conservation area designation. Officers are of the view that the development provides a welcome mix of uses and strikes the right balance between the conversion / reuse of existing buildings and the introduction of new build housing. The applicant has indicated that the development will be developed in three phases. Starting with the redevelopment of Froyle Place to create the Country Club and Hotel. The second phase of development would be the conversion of buildings such as Burnham House, Jephson House and Manor House. The final phase would be the new build residential development. There are a number of conditions attached to the application and are worded to require submission of details relevant to each phase prior the commencement of that particular phase of development. The conditions include a construction and traffic management plan which will restrict the development traffic to using the southern main access to the site. Comments have requested conditions to control the hours of construction and demolition works, together with the control of noise from radios on site. These issues are more robustly controlled through environmental health legislation and therefore there is no justification for conditions to control such works through the planning implementation process. Conclusion The scheme respects the listed buildings and other heritage assets within and adjoining the site and secures a beneficial future for Froyle Place (Gasston House). The mixed-use nature of the proposal provides potential for local employment opportunities, supports local business and tourism and assists with making the village more sustainable. The residential development includes the retention and conversion of Burnham House which, although unlisted, is an attractive ‘landmark’ building and will help the new-build residential elements integrate successfully with the remainder of the site. The density of the scheme is 12 dwellings per hectare, which is low as a result of the retention of Burnham Place, the inclusion of a range of dwelling sizes and the introduction of open spaces. The proposal is considered to represent a sensitive redevelopment of this large brownfield site which would contribute successfully to the character, appearance and setting of the Conservation Area, Listed buildings and wider landscape.

53

The dwellings are well-designed and take their cue from the local village vernacular in respect of design approach and use of materials and layout. The architects panel has also reviewed the scheme and considers it to be acceptable given the constraints of the site. Given the complexity of the scheme, the need to restore/refurbish listed buildings within the site to bring them into beneficial use and also having regard to the community’s desire for a village shop and the proposed hotel which will generate local employment opportunities. In this particular case, the economics of the scheme do not allow the full provision of contributions to be met. The viability report concludes that the development is only marginally viable and therefore, in order to secure the development of the site and the resulting benefits, a pragmatic approach is required. The applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing, education, sports pitch provision and community projects totalling £850,000. Overall the proposal is considered to comply with policies contained within the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review and the NPPF. RECOMMENDATION That: A) the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to draw up a Section 106 Agreement with all

relevant parties; and B) subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure the following: a) on-site affordable housing provision; b) the payment of financial contributions towards public open space provision, education

provision, off-site affordable housing, community infrastructure as detailed in section 8 of the above report, together with administration and monitoring contribution;

c) the provision and long-term maintenance of the on-site public open space including the Local Area of Play, with full public access;

d) the provision of two permissive footpaths, to an agreed specification, and public access to the paths;

e) the long-term maintenance of all non-adopted estate roads, footpaths and lighting; f) the long term maintenance of on-site foul and surface water drainage systems; and g) the provision of the community shop; by 19 June 2013 then, the Services Manager Planning Development to be authorised to grant PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out below.

54

However, in the event that a satisfactory legal obligation to secure a) - g) listed above, ie not received by 19 June 2013, then planning permission will be refused under the adopted scheme of delegation. 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration

of three years from the date of this planning permission. Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

2 Notwithstanding any indication of materials that may have been given in the application or in the absence of such information, prior to the development of each phase commencing on site, namely the hotel phase, the residential conversion phase and the new build residential phase as shown on Drawing No. 1213004/ 101A full details of all proposed facing and roofing materials, all new windows and doors and rainwater goods for that phase of development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. That phase of development shall thereafter be constructed using the approved materials for that phase unless agreed otherwise by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure that the materials used in the construction of the approved development harmonise with the surroundings.

3 Prior to the development of each phase commencing on site, namely the hotel phase, the residential conversion phase and the new build residential phase as shown on Drawing No. 1213004/ 101A a fully detailed landscape and planting scheme for the site, including detailed proposals for the treatment of the garden to the rear of Froyle Place and the enhancement of the over spill parking area to the west of the development site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with the recommendations of the appropriate British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice. These works shall be carried out in the first planting season after practical completion or first occupation of the development, whichever is earlier, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to enable proper consideration to be given to the impact of the proposed development on existing trees.

55

4 Prior to development of each phase commencing on site, namely the hotel phase, the residential conversion phase and the new build residential phase as shown on Drawing No 1213004/101A, full details of all hard landscaping, including fencing walls, bollards, kerbing, external lighting and surfacing materials for that phase, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the first use or occupation of that phase. Any hard landscaping features listed above, which, within a period of 5 years after installation, are removed or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to enable proper consideration to be given to the impact of the proposed development on locality.

5 Prior to the first residential occupation of the development, a landscape/open space management plan, including a maintenance schedule indicating proposals for the phasing of availability of each open space area within the site, the long-term management of landscape areas, other than small, privately owned, domestic gardens, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The landscape/open space shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that due regard is paid to the continuing enhancement and maintenance of amenity afforded by landscape features of communal, public, nature conservation, or historical significance.

6 All works hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement prepared by Barrell Tree Care dated 11 April 2013 and Tree Protection Plan (drawing number 12381-BT2) amended version received by the Planning Authority on 12 April 2013. Reason - To ensure that the trees on and around the site are adequately protected from damage to their health and /or amenity value.

7 No development shall start on site until a construction method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, which shall include: (a) A programme of and phasing of demolition (if any) and construction

work, including the use of the southern access for all construction and demolition traffic;

56

(b) The arrangements for restricting the route for all development traffic associated with both the construction and demolition works to ensure all traffic arrives from the south A31 and does not travel through the village or uses local roads such as Gid Lane and Yarnhams Lane;

(c) The provision of long term facilities for contractor parking and visitors;

(d) The arrangements for deliveries associated with all construction works, including demolition;

(e) Access and egress for plant and machinery; (f) The provision of wheel washing and road sweeping; (g) Location of temporary site buildings, compounds, construction

material, and plant storage areas; (h) Controls over dust, noise, and vibration during the construction

period; (i) Provision for storage, collection, and disposal of waste from the

development during both the demolition and construction works; and

(j) Re-use of on site material and spoil arising from any site clearance or demolition work.

Demolition and construction work shall only take place in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the effect of the works on the amenity of the locality.

8 Before the first occupation of each phase of the development as shown on Drawing 1213004/101A the provision for parking shall have been made within the site in accordance with the approved plans and shall be retained solely for parking purposes thereafter. The parking spaces shown shall only be used for parking purposes and not for the storage of boats, caravans, and trailers. Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the approved development.

9 Prior to the development of each phase commencing on site, namely the hotel phase, the residential conversion phase and the new build residential phase as shown on Drawing No. 1213004/ 101A the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority :- (a) a desk top study report, documenting all the previous and existing

land uses both on and adjacent to the site and including a conceptual site model and preliminary risk assessment. The report should be completed by a competent person and produced in accordance with national guidance, as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report No.11 and BS10175:2001;

57

and unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority:- (b) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments

designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site;

(c) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of contamination found on site;

and unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority:- (d) a detailed remediation scheme designed to bring the site to a

condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment. The scheme should include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan outlining details of the data to be collected in order to demonstrate the completion of the remediation works and any arrangements for the continued monitoring of identified pollutant linkages. Site works and details submitted shall be in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person. The above reports and site works should be undertaken in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.

Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

10 Prior to the development of each phase commencing on site, namely the hotel phase, the residential conversion phase and the new build residential phase as shown on Drawing No. 1213004/ 101A (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

58

The verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

11 All development shall be stopped immediately in the event that contamination not previously identified is found to be present on the development site and details of the contamination shall be reported immediately in writing to the Planning Authority. Development shall not re-start on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority:- (a) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. (b) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of contamination found on site and (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) (c) a detailed remediation scheme designed to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment. The scheme should include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan outlining details of the data to be collected in order to demonstrate the completion of the remediation works and any arrangements for the continued monitoring of identified pollutant linkages; and before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

59

The above site works, details and certification submitted shall be in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

12 Prior to the development of each phase commencing on site, namely the hotel phase, the residential conversion phase and the new build residential phase as shown on Drawing No. 1213004/ 101A That no development take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification that has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The archaeological work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason - To assess the extent, nature and date of any archaeological deposits that might be present and the impact of the development upon these heritage assets.

13 Prior to the development of each phase commencing on site, namely the hotel phase, the residential conversion phase and the new build residential phase as shown on Drawing No. 1213004/ 101A That no development or demolition take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of building recording in accordance with a written specification that has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The building recording shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and a copy of the published results placed at the Hampshire Record Office. Reason - To assess the extent, nature and date of any archaeological deposits that might be present and the impact of the development upon these heritage assets.

14 No new build development or demolition shall commence on any phase of development for the site until a European Protected Species Licence for bats and Great Crested Newts has been obtained from Natural England, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure the favourable conservation status of protected species.

60

15 Prior to the first occupation of each phase commencing on site, namely the hotel phase, the residential conversion phase and the new build residential phase as shown on Drawing No. 1213004/ 101A The proposed mitigation measures as detailed in sections 6 - 10 of the Ecological Appraisal report (prepared by EPR, December 2012) shall be implemented in full for that phase, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the measures shall be permanently maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure the favourable conservation status of protected species.

16 The proposed Wildlife Pond to the eastern corner of the site shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the 10th new build residential dwelling on the new build residential phase of development as shown on Plan 1213004/101A on the site and permanently retained and maintained in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before work on the pond commences. Reason - To ensure the favourable conservation status of protected species.

17 Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development falling within Classes A, B, C, D and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall be carried out without the prior consent of the Planning Authority, through submission of a formal planning application Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the effect of any future proposals on the character and amenity of the locality.

18 Before any part of the new build residential phase of the development is first occupied a verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing, to the Planning Authority, confirming that the built development hereby permitted incorporates measures that provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirement from on-site renewable sources, for the new build residential phase of the development as shown on Plan 1213004/101A, is provided and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to provide the required energy savings. The energy saving works set out in the above report shall thereafter be maintained so that the required energy saving is sustained at the certified level for the lifetime of the development.

61

(Note:- The carbon savings which result from these measures are required to be above and beyond any savings provided by measures incorporated into the development to comply with Part L Building Regulations). Reason - To ensure that the development incorporates necessary mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change.

19 Prior to development of each phase commencing on site, namely the hotel phase, the residential conversion phase and the new build residential phase as shown on Drawing No 1213004/101A, details of a scheme for foul and surface water drainage, including details of a scheme to prevent surface water from the site discharging on to the adjacent highway, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details should include provision for all surface water drainage from parking areas and areas of hardstanding. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for drainage. Note: The applicant is requested to contact the Council's Drainage Consultant as soon as possible regarding the above condition.

20 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), the Village Shop being the building shown on Plan 1213004/101A hereby approved shall only be used for purposes within Class A1 of the Town & Country Planning Uses Classes Order 1987 and not for any other purpose unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the effect of any future proposals on the character and amenity of the locality.

21 During live or recorded music only external doors with lobbies are to be used for entry or exit in to the function room. These doors shall be installed with self closing devices and maintained thereafter. Reason - To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

22 Detailed specification of the construction of the sound insulation for the function room (including internal lobbies) shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before commencement of building works. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and these shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason - To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

62

23 The noise level attributable to amplified music associated with any event within the function room shall not exceed 32dB LAeq, 5mins at the boundary of any nearby residential property. Furthermore, the following noise levels attributable to amplified music, associated with any event within the function room, at individual low frequency third octave bands, shall not be exceeded at the boundary of any nearby residential property:

31dB L10,5mins at 40Hz, 32dB L10,5mins at 50Hz, 30dB L10,5mins at 63Hz, 28dB L10,5minsat 80Hz, 26dB L10,5mins at100Hz, 25dB L10,5mins at125Hz, 26 dB L10,5mins at160Hz

Noise readings are to be measured at the boundary of any nearby residential property, when assessed in accordance with BS4142: 1990. Reason - To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

24 The cumulative noise attributable to fixed mechanical plant items associated with the hotel/function room operating shall not exceed the noise levels stated below :

• 07:00 - 2300 hrs shall not exceed a level of 35dB LAr • 23:00 - 00:00 hrs shall not exceed a level of 32dB LAr • 07:00 - 00:00 hrs shall not exceed a level of 25dB LAr

Noise readings are to be measured at the boundary of any nearby residential property, when assessed in accordance with BS4142: 1990. Reason - To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

25 Delivery activities associated with the hotel/ function room shall be limited to 07:00hrs -18:00hrs Monday - Sunday only. Reason - To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

26 All amplified music shall be controlled by a ‘tamper proof’ noise limiter, limiting the noise. The noise limiter must be approved in writing by the local planning authority before use. The noise limiting device shall be serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations, and a record must be kept of this work and made available for inspection by the planning authority. The PA system and noise limiter shall be approved in writing by the local planning authority before first use. The noise limiting device shall be serviced and maintained, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations, and a record shall be kept of this work and made available for inspection by the local planning authority.

63

Reason - To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

27 Before first occupation of Froyle Place a noise management plan must be

submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority, which specifies the provisions made for the control of noise emanating from the site. The approved noise management plan shall be followed thereafter. Reason - To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

28 Following the implementation of the sound insulation scheme for the function room of the country club, required by Condition 22. Prior to first use, the applicant shall carry out a noise assessment to demonstrate that the noise levels meet the noise criteria stated above. The scope of the assessment shall be agreed in advance with the planning authority and the results of the assessment shall be submitted for written approval. No use shall be permitted until it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning authority that the noise criteria has been achieved. Reason - To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

29 Prior to first use, the applicant shall carry out a noise assessment on the fixed mechanical plant associated with the hotel/ function room, to demonstrate that the noise levels meet the noise criteria stated above. The scope of the assessment shall be agreed in advance with the planning authority and the results of the assessment submitted for written approval. No use shall be permitted until it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning authority that the noise criteria has been achieved. Reason - To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

30 No external system of public address, loudspeaker system or amplified sound shall be operated on the country club grounds without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. Reason - To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

31 A log book shall be provided on site that records all resets of the noise limiter. Reason - To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

32 No marquee or tent shall be erected on the country club grounds without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. No fireworks or pyrotechnics shall be used on the country club grounds without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. No helicopters or hot air balloons shall be allowed at the grounds of the country club at any time. Reason - To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

64

33 The use of the premises for weddings, conferences and other similar activities shall be restricted between the following hours : 08:00 – 00:00 midnight Monday - Saturday 08:00 - 23:30 Sunday or recognised Bank Holidays Reason - To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.

34 Prior to the first occupation of Plot 13 details of an acoustic fence to be erected along the north-western boundary shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. One approved the fence shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation and permanently retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To protect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring property at Plot 13.

35 Notwithstanding any indication shown on the approved plans, all en-suite and bathroom windows within the development hereby permitted shall at all times be glazed with obscure glass. Reason - To protect the privacy of the occupants of the adjoining residential properties.

36 No development shall start on site until plans of the site showing details of the existing and proposed ground levels, proposed external leaf DPC level, proposed finished floor levels, levels of any paths, drives, garages and parking areas and the proposed completed height of the development and any retaining walls have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The details shall clearly identify the relationship of the proposed ground levels and proposed completed height with adjacent buildings. The details shall include the nomination of a competent person for the purpose of surveying and certifying that the "as built" external leaf DPC level is in accordance with the approved details. This certification shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Authority on completion of the foundations and before any ground floor development commenced. The development thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that a satisfactory relationship results between the new development and adjacent buildings and public areas

65

37 Development shall not commence on site until such time as a Pre-development Condition Survey of the local highway network, the extent of which is to be agreed with the Local Highway Authority, shall be undertaken and submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Upon cessation of the construction of the development, any remedial works to the local highway network made necessary as a result of the site traffic as reasonably required by the Local Planning Authority shall be undertaken to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In the interest of Highway Safety.

38 Prior to development of each phase commencing on site, namely the hotel phase, the residential conversion phase and the new build residential phase as shown on Drawing No. 1213004/101A, full details of all external lighting for that phase shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme submitted must comply with the Institute of Lighting Engineers, Guidance Notes, for the reduction of obtrusive light, E1 criteria. The approved scheme shall be installed, prior to the first occupation of the particular phase, and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties. Any additional lighting for any phase will require further approval from the Local Planning Authority.

39 The proposed hard surfaces shall either be made of porous materials or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surface/s to a permeable or porous surface within the site. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for surface water drainage and avoid discharge of water onto the highway.

40 Prior to the first occupation of Froyle Place, details of measures to replace, amend or remove the fire enclosure within Froyle Place shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall be implemented within as approved and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure the treatment is appropriate to the fabric of the Building and the works retain the character of the Listed Building.

41 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars: Application Form Covering Letter Planning, Design and Access Statement Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement

66

Ecological Appraisal, Protected Species Survey and Mitigation Strategy Affordable Housing Statement Listed Building List Entries x 5 Heritage Statement Statement of Community Engagement Draft Heads of Terms - Sections 106 Agreement Transport Statement Flood Risk Assessment Drawings Issue Lists Landscape Masterplan 094 - Street Scene Drawing Plots 1-8 and Plots 8-13 095A - Public Footpaths and Permissive Path Plan Indicated on Proposed Site Plan 096 - Potential Bat Mitigation and Enhancements 097 - Existing Site Survey 098 - Site Location Plan 1213004/01S - Proposed Site Plan 1213004/101A - Proposed 3 Phases Site Plan 321.0005-S25 - Elevations 1 & 2 Burnham House 321.0005-S26 - Elevations 3 & 4 Burnham House 321.0005-S27 - Elevations 5 & 6 Burnham House 321.0005-S28 - Elevations 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 Burnham House 321.0005-S29 - Elevations 12 & 13 Burnham House 321.0005-S30 - Elevations 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19 Burnham House 321.0005-S36 - Ground Floor Plan Survey Burnham House 321.0005-S38 - Basement Floor Plan Survey Burnham House 321.0005-S41 - First Floor Plan Survey Burnham House BN-01 - Proposed Ground Floor Plan Burnham House BN-02 - Proposed First Floor Plan Burnahm House BN-03 - Proposed Elevations Burnham House BN-04 - Proposed Internal Courtyard Elevations Burnham House CS-1 - Units CS-1 to CS-3 Window/Door Scheule CS-02A - Units CS-1 to CS-3 Typical Flush Casement Details JH-10 - Existing Ground Floor Plan - Survey - South West End JH-11 - Existing Ground Floor Plan - Survey - North West End & Section AA JH-12 - Existing Survey Jephson House Elevations JH-12 - Existing Front & Rear Elevations Jephson House North West End JH-14 - Proposed Survey Front & Rear Elevations Jephson House North West End JH-15 - Existing Survey Sections JH-16 - Proposed Ground Floor Plan Plot JH-3 JH-17A - Proposed First Floor Plan Plot JH-3 JH-18A - Proposed Ground Floor Plan Plots JH-1 & JH-2 JH-19A - Proposed First Floor Plans Plots JH-1 & JH-2 JH-20A - Proposed Front & Rear Elevations Plots JH-1 & JH-2

67

JH-21 - Proposed Front & Rear Elevations Plot JH-3 JH-22A - Existing & Proposed Section A-A Plots JH-1 & JH-2 JH-23B - Proposed Roof Plan JH-1, JH-2, JH-3 & Shop & Section JH-1 JH-24 - Proposed Sections B-B, C-C Plot JH-3 and Shop JH-25A - Proposed Sections Plot JH-2 JH-26A - Typical Flush Casement Detail Units JH1 to JH3 G-08A - Existing Survey Ground Floor G-09A - Existing Survey First Floor G-11 - Existing Survey Basement Level G-12 - Existing Survey Ground Floor G-13 - Existing Survey Ground Floor Link Zone G-14B - Part Ground Floor Plan - Flat 1 & 2 G15B - Part Ground & First Floor Plan - Unit 3 Cottage G-16C - First Floor Plan - Flats 4 G-17C - First Floor Plan - Flats 5 & 6 G-18C - First Floor Plan - Flats 7 & 8 G-19F - First Floor Plan - Flat 9 G-20B - Second Floor Plan - Flats 10 & 11 G-21C - Second Floor Plan - Flats 12 & 13 G-22B - Second Floor Plan - Flat 14 G-23B - Ground Floor Plan Main House G-24A - Ground Floor Plan Halls G-25 - Existing Survey North West & South East Elevation G-26 - Existing Survey East, South West & North West Elevations G-27 - Existing Survey North East, South West, North East & North West Elevations G-28 - Existing Survey Elevations 1 & 2 G-29 - Existing Survey Elevations 2A & 3 G-30 - Existing Survey Elevations 4, 5, 6 & 7 G-31C - Proposed Elevations G-32A - Proposed Part Elevations North West & South West Part 1 of 2 G-33B - Proposed Part Elevations North West 7 South West Part 2 of 2 G-34B - Proposed Part Elevations SE & NE (Part 1 of 2) Window & Door Schedule G-35A - Proposed Part Elevations SE & NE (Part 2 of 2) G-36 - Proposed Court Yard & East Gable Wall Elevations G-37 - Existing Roof Plan Froyle Place (Gaston House) G-38 - Floor Plan Proposed Outbuildings G-39 - Proposed Outbuildings Elevations G-40 - Fire Escape Staircase Detail G-41 - Entrance Gates G-44 - Proposed Basement G-45 - Proposed Typical Cross Section Froyle Place G-47 - Proposed Roof Plan Froyle Place (Gaston House) G-51 - First Floor Plan Kitchen Plan room and sections survey G-52 - First Floor Plan Kitchen Plant room proposals

68

G-53 - Proposed part elevations north west, south east and south west MH-10 - Existing Basement Floor Plan Survey MH-11 - Existing Ground Floor Plan Survey MH-12 - Existing First Floor Plan Survey MH-13 - Existing Second Floor Plan Survey MH-14 - Roof Plan & North West Elevation Surveys MH-15 - South West Elevation 1, 7 & North East Elevation 8 Existing Survey MH-16 - South East Elevation 2, 4 & North East Elevation 5 Existing Survey MH-17 - North East Elevations 3,10 & South West Elevation 7 Existing Survey MH-18 - South East Elevations 9 & North West Elevation 11 Existing Survey MH-19A - Proposed Ground Floor Plan Manor House Annex MH-20A - Proposed First Floor Plan Manor House Annex MH-21A - Proposed Second Floor Plan Manor House Annex MH-22A - Proposed Roof Plan & North West Elevation 6 MH-23 - Proposed South West Elevation 1, 7 & North East Elevation 8 MH-24 - Proposed South East Elevations 2, 4 & North East Elevation 5 MH-25A - Proposed North East Elevations 3, 10 & South West Elevation 7 MH-26A - Proposed North West Elevation 11 & South East Elevation Conservatory MH-27A - Existing & Proposed Section AA Manor House Annex MH-28 - Existing & Proposed Sections BB & CC Manor House Annex MH-29A - Plots MH-1 & MH-2 New Conservatory Details MH-30 - Plots MH-1, MH-2, MH-3 Garages & Car Ports MH-31A - Typical Flush Casement Detail to Unit MH-3 MHB-05 - Survey Ground & First Floor Manor House Barn MHB-06 - Survey North, South, West & East Elevations Manor House Barn MHB-07A - Proposed Ground & First Floors Plans Manor House Barn MHB-08B - Elevations Manor Barn MHB-09A - Proposed South & West Elevations Manor House Barn MHB-10B - Proposed Sections Through 'Bat Loft' Manor House Barn MHB-11A - Proposed Sections AA & CC Manor House Barn MHB-12A - Typical Flush Casement Detail Manor House Barn OH-02 - Existing Ground Floor Plan Oast House OH-03 - Existing First & Second Floor Plans Oast House OH-04 - Existing Elevations Sheet 1 Oast House OH-05 - Existing Elevations Sheet 2 Oast House OH-06 - Existing Sections Oast House OH-07 - Proposed Ground Floor Plan (In Context) Oast House OH-08A - Proposed Ground Floor Plan Oast House OH-09A - Proposed First 7 Second Floor Plans Oast House

69

OH-10A - Proposed Elevations Sheet 1 Oast House OH-11A - Proposed Elevations Sheet 2 Oast House OH-12 - Proposed Section J-J Oast House OH-15A - Details of Typical Flush Casement Windows Oast House P1E - General Arrangements Plot 1 P2F - General Arrangements Plot 2 P3D - General Arrangements Plot 3 P4F - General Arrangements Plot 4 P5C - General Arrangements Plot 5 P6C - General Arrangements Plot 6 P7C - General Arrangements Plot 7 P8C - General Arrangements Plot 8 P9B - General Arrangements Plot 9 P10A - General Arrangements Plot 10 P11B - General Arrangements Plot 11 P12B - General Arrangements Plot 12 P13A - General Arrangements Plot 13 P14-19B - General Arrangements Plots 14-19 P20-21 - General Arrangements Plots 20-21 P22-26A - General Arrangements Plots 22-26 P27 - General Arrangements Plot 27 P28 - General Arrangements Plot 28 P29+30 - General Arrangements Plots 29 & 30 P31-32 - General Arrangements Plots 31 & 32 P33E - General Arrangements Plot 33 P34 - General Arrangements Plot 34 P35C - General Arrangements Plot 35 P36B - General Arrangements Plot 36 P37B - General Arrangements Plot 37 P38 - General Arrangements Plot 38 P39 - General Arrangements Plot 39 P40-41C -General Arrangements Plots 40 & 41 CP14-15 - Car port associated with plots 14 and 15 CP22-24 - Car port associated with plots 22-24 Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development

Informative Notes to Applicant: 1 The Council has granted permission because:

The scheme respects the listed buildings and other heritage assets within and adjoining the site and secures a beneficial future for Froyle Place (Gasston House). The mixed-use nature of the proposal provides potential for local employment opportunities, supports local business and tourism and assists with making the village more sustainable.

70

The residential development includes the retention and conversion of Burnham House which, although unlisted, is an attractive ‘landmark’ building and will help the new-build residential elements integrate successfully with the remainder of the site. The density of the scheme is 12 dwellings per hectare, which is low as a result of the retention of Burnham Place, the inclusion of a range of dwelling sizes and the introduction of open spaces. The proposal is considered to represent a sensitive redevelopment of this large brownfield site which would contribute successfully to the character, appearance and setting of the Conservation Area, Listed buildings and wider landscape. The dwellings are well-designed and take their cue from the local village vernacular in respect of design approach and use of materials and layout. The architects panel has also reviewed the scheme and considers it to be acceptable given the constraints of the site. Given the complexity of the scheme, the need to restore/refurbish listed buildings within the site to bring them into beneficial use and also having regard to the community’s desire for a village shop and the proposed hotel which will generate local employment opportunities. In this particular case, the economics of the scheme do not allow the full provision of contributions to be met. The viability report concludes that the development is only marginally viable and therefore, in order to secure the development of the site and the resulting benefits, a pragmatic approach is required. The applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing, education, sports pitch provision and community projects totalling £850,000. Overall the proposal is considered to comply with policies contained within the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review and the NPPF. It is, therefore, considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions and taking into account all other material planning considerations, including the provisions of the development plan, the proposal would be acceptable. This also includes a consideration of whether the decision to grant permission is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.

71

In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. EHDC work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;

• offering a pre-application advice service, • updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the

processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,

• by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter.

In this instance pre-application advice was provided, and the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit.

2 The applicant is advised that there is a fee for the discharge of conditions relating to this application. A single fee will apply to each batch of conditions submitted for discharge at the same time. The information to discharge a condition will not be accepted by the Council without the appropriate fee. The schedule of fees can be found on the Council's website.

3 Please note that there is a Section 106 Agreement that applies to this permission.

4 The applicant's attention is drawn to the possibility that some events may require a licence from the Environmental Health department and that they should be contacted for advice. The noise management plan should include:

1. Information provided to hirers about the restrictions to the site.

2. Control of guests and vehicles at the end and beginning of events. This shall include locations of car parking and routes for guests, taxi’s and private hire vehicles on site.

3. Clarification of person(s) with the ability to reset the noise limiter.

4. Confirmation of supervision of events.

5. Control of patron noise.

6. Control of noise from smoking areas.

72

5 Environmental Health recommends developers follow the risk management framework provided in "CLR 11 Model procedures for the Management of Land Contamination and BS10175:2011 Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites" Code of Practice when dealing with land affected by contamination. A leaflet entitled "Development on Potentially Contaminated Land" is available as a download on the following East Hampshire District Council website http://www.easthants.gov.uk/ehdc/formsfordownload.nsf/a102035b400206d780256c2a0034783b/7685aaac1f5cda6e8025753e005b5314?OpenDocument At the rear of this document is a template for a Completion Statement. This should be completed by the applicant at the end of the development, regardless of whether contamination was investigated/discovered on site. Approval of this statement will enable discharge of the IC07 condition.

CASE OFFICER: Adrian Ellis 01730 234222 ———————————————————————————————————————

73

SECTION 1 Item 01 Treloar College, Ryebridge Lane, Upper Froyle, Alton, GU34 4LA

Proposed site plan