Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report


Decision Maker:			Regulatory Committee
Date of Decision:			29 July 2009
Decision Title:			Applicant: Hampshire County Council Proposed South East Hampshire Rapid Bus Transit Phase 1 Fareham to Gosport from Redlands Lane Fareham south via disused railway corridor to Military Road, Gosport (Application No. P/09/0278/CC; K17678) (County Council Ref: FAH004; GPH002)
Decision Reference:			861
Report From:			Head of Planning and Development
Contact name:		Peter Chadwick
Tel:	01962 846728			Email:	[email protected]

1. Executive Summary

1.1. The planning application is for Phase 1 of the proposed South East Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit Scheme and is to provide a dedicated 4.7 kilometre busway between Redlands Lane and Military Road. Emergency services vehicles, maintenance and service vehicles and cyclists would also use the route.

1.2. The busway would be connected to the existing highway at various points to allow connection to local areas and to existing and proposed bus services. Bus stops with waiting facilities would be provided at appropriate points along the route. All new junctions with the existing highway would be traffic signal controlled with bus priority.

1.3. A number of major works would be required at the junctions, including demolition of the Palmerston Drive bridge to allow construction of an at grade crossing, new bridge construction at Newgate Lane, demolition of Wych Lane bridge to allow construction of an at grade junction, retaining walls at Gregson Avenue and at a number of locations supporting bus stops or embankments.

1.4. The main issues raised by the proposal are concern at the procedure as this is a County Council scheme, the need for the scheme, Environmental Impact Assessment, the amenity impact for residents adjoining the route both during construction and when in use, visual impact, nature conservation impact and highway impact.

1.5. The proposal is in accordance with South East Plan policy as it is a new scheme to provide additional public transport capacity. It is also in accordance with the policies of Fareham Borough Local Plan and Gosport Borough Local Plan in that the route is safeguarded for South Hampshire Rapid Transit, there would be appropriate mitigation measures to protect the amenity of residents adjacent to the route both during construction and once completed and in use, the visual impact would be acceptable as appropriate landscaping is proposed, there would be no adverse impact for designated sites of nature conservation importance and suitable mitigation measures are proposed for badgers and protected species, and the proposals are acceptable in terms of highway safety and design. The recommendations are that the proposal is not an EIA development, it does not require Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations and that planning permission be granted subject to conditions in Appendix B.

2. Site and planning history

2.1. The site, as shown on the attached plan, is within the disused railway corridor between Fareham and Gosport. This application involves the section between Redlands Lane, Fareham, and Military Road, Gosport, a distance of 4.7 kilometres. This runs through the built-up urban environment. The disused railway corridor is prominent in the landscape, because of the trackside trees and shrubs and also as it has become overgrown through disuse. There are also designated nature conservation sites nearby, including Oakdene Woods Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), Fareham Grassland SINC and the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area and RAMSAR site.

2.2. The proposed South East Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit scheme has been developed following the abandonment of the South Hampshire Rapid Transit Phase 1 (SHRT1), which proposed a light rail link between Fareham and Gosport. The SHRT1 proposal was developed in the mid-1990s, and had provisional funding approval from the Government and Transport and Works Act Order powers in 2001. However, the funding was withdrawn by the Secretary of State and the scheme formally abandoned by the County Council in 2006. However, the disused railway corridor was safeguarded for future transport use as there remains the need to address the poor accessibility and associated congestion problems on the Gosport Peninsula as set out in the Development Plan Policies referred herein.

2.3. If the South East Hampshire BRT Scheme is completed in its entirety it will provide a rapid bus service as an alternative form of transport to the private car in South East Hampshire. In addition, it will connect key towns and existing key destinations and transport interchanges in the area with proposed new development sites, including North Fareham Strategic Development Area and Tipner, and the recently completed A3 Zip Bus priority corridor.

2.4. There has been a public engagement programme associated with the development of these proposals. The first event was held at Bridgemary Community Sports College between 16 and 18 October 2008. A second event was held at the same venue between 15 and 25 January 2009. In addition, unstaffed exhibitions were arranged at Fareham Borough Council offices between 19 and 21 January 2009 and at the Gosport Discovery Centre between 22 and 24 January 2009. Questionnaires were distributed at consultation events, and letters and leaflets sent out to encourage participation. More than 450 attended the first event and over 360 attended the second event.

3. Proposals

3.1. The proposals are for Phase 1 of the proposed South East Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit Scheme and is to provide a dedicated busway between Redlands Lane and Military Road. A service level agreement with the operator would restrict use to buses which meet high quality requirements. Emergency services vehicles, maintenance and service vehicles and cyclists would also use the route. The planning application is for a 4.7 kilometre section of the railway corridor, and the busway would be an average 6.2 metres wide to allow two buses to pass each other. The scheme would also provide crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists and allow cyclists to use the whole length of the route. The existing cycleway/footpath from Military Road would be realigned to run alongside the busway and would be extended to Forest Way.

3.2. The busway would be connected to the existing highway at various points to allow connection to local areas and to existing and proposed bus services. Bus stops with waiting facilities would be provided at appropriate points along the route. All new junctions with the existing highway would be traffic signal controlled with priority, via automatic detection, to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) buses. These junctions would be at Redlands Lane, Palmerston Drive, Wych Lane, Tichborne Way and Military Road.

3.3. There would be lighting at junctions, bus stops and for the adjoining footpath/cycleway, but not all along the busway, to minimise light pollution. All bus stops would be internally lit for the safety of users, and there would also be lighting along the footpath/cycle routes linking bus stops with adjoining roads. All bus stops would provide level boarding and alighting and ramped access from the adjacent existing highway. They would provide weatherproof waiting facilities, secure cycle facilities, connections to existing footpaths to nearby communities and Close Circuit Television (CCTV).

3.4. Significant engineering works are necessary as the alignment of the railway corridor varies along its route, at some points being on an embankment and at other points in a cutting. The top of the embankment is about eight to nine metres wide, sufficient for a twin busway, safety barriers and acoustic barriers. The base of the cutting is about 13 metres wide. A number of major works would be required at the junctions, including demolition of the Palmerston Drive bridge to allow construction of an at grade crossing, new bridge construction at Newgate Lane, demolition of Wych Lane bridge to allow construction of an at grade junction, retaining walls at Gregson Avenue and at a number of locations supporting bus stops or embankments.

3.5. The main works for the construction would be carried out in two phases, Phase 1A from Redlands Lane to Tichborne Way and Phase 1B between Tichborne Way and Military Road. The main construction period would be from August/September 2009 to March 2011, the hours of working would be 0630 to 1830 Monday to Friday, 0800 to 1700 Saturday and no work on Sunday. However, there is likely to be overnight working for the junction works on the existing roads, in particular the construction of the new bridge at Newgate Lane, to minimise the duration of road closures and traffic disturbance, but this will have to be fully justified beforehand and be widely publicised with local residents.

3.6. A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application, which concludes that the only significant risk relates to surface water run-off as a result of increased impermeable area and climate change. The proposed mitigation is to control the run-off at source through on-site attenuation, sized to store a 1 in 100 year storm event. The attenuation would be through filter drains and storage cells. The system would discharge to sewer or watercourses at the natural low points along the route, and discharge would be restricted to a greenfield rate.

3.7. Detailed ecological surveys have been undertaken across the site over the last 18 months. This identified a large population of badgers along the railway corridor (three main setts, two subsidiary setts and one outlier sett in the vicinity), a medium population of reptiles (common lizard and slow worms) present on the site and five amphibian species have been recorded, although these are restricted to ditches and seasonal standing water. A number of bat species roost and forage along the corridor and a number of bird species have also been recorded. Accordingly, a strategy to mitigate the impacts on these species has been developed. The main principles of the strategy are implementation of a badger sett exclusion and creation regime, translocation of reptiles, and enhancement of the habitat of the retained embankment to provide continued habitat for displaced species. Bat surveys have also been carried out to enable appropriate measures to be implemented. Any impacts on the designated sites (Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area and RAMSAR, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation) would be negligible, and the evidence is that there is zero probability or risk that the plan or project either individually or in combination with other plans or projects would have significant effects on those sites. The proposals include landscape and ecological enhancement at Cams Alder, and provision of a reptile and amphibian translocation site at Alver Valley.

3.8. The visual impact of the proposal during construction would be locally intrusive albeit temporary. Once operational the development's visual impact would still be apparent for those who live close to the site, but the impact would be mitigated by additional planting and landscaping. Boundaries are recognised as critical for the security, safety and privacy of adjoining residents and occupiers. The proposals seek to maintain and strengthen the boundaries by retaining mature trees and hedgerows where possible, additional planting including deterrent planting, fencing and other boundary treatment.

3.9. As the site was a former railway line there is the possibility of contamination from ash, coal and clinker. However the nature of the compounds and concentrations are not considered to represent a significant risk to the environment.

3.10.Noise surveys show that existing noise levels along the route are between 43 and 50 decibels (dB), rising to 55 to 62 dB when close to the roads. Although the threshold of 68 dB, which is the level which should be exceeded in order to justify secondary glazing (under the Noise Insulation regulations 1975) is not exceeded anywhere along the route, the assessment has concluded that, once operational, there would be the need for noise barriers at certain identified locations alongside the busway. Even with acoustic fencing, some houses would still be affected by an increase in excess of three dB. This would affect about 37 of the 2,415 houses alongside the route. During construction noise is inevitable, but major adverse impacts are only likely at three locations; in one case this can be fully addressed by temporary acoustic fencing. Elsewhere, the main measures to mitigate the noise impacts would be by restricting hours of working; use of `best practical means' practices (eg maintenance of silencers on plant and machinery); use of temporary screening around plant; and liaison with local residents and environmental health officers. During construction there is a risk of adverse impact on air quality by dust being generated. With management and mitigation this risk can be reduced to a temporary impact.

Environmental Assessment

3.11.The applicant comments that the proposal has been screened under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, and it was concluded the proposal is not an EIA development as it is not likely to cause significant effects on the environment. The screening opinion was requested before the application was submitted and was accompanied by a comprehensive Screening Report which concluded that there would not be significant environmental effects, but also identified the specific area where detailed environmental information was required to accompany the planning application. These specific areas were nature conservation and biodiversity, landscape and visual impact, contaminated land, noise and air quality. The proposals subject to this planning application are not significantly different to the proposals put forward in the Screening Report and the application is accompanied by an environmental report covering the areas identified.

4. Development plan

4.1. The Development plan policies for consideration of this application are the South East Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England (May 2009), the saved policies of Fareham Borough Local Plan Review (June 2000) and the saved policies of Gosport Borough Local Plan Review (May 2006).

South East Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England (May 2009)

Policy SH7 (South Hampshire sub-regional transport strategy)

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review (June 2000)

Policy DG1 (environmental impact), DG3 (impact on the surrounding area) DG4 (site characteristics), DG5 (design), C14 (Statutory National and Local Nature Conservation Designations), C16 (Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation) C17 (Sites of Nature Conservation Value) C18 (protected species), T2 (public transport), T3 (safeguarding the line of the proposed South Hampshire Rapid Transit system)

Gosport Borough Local Plan Review (May 2006)

Policies R/DP1 (general standards of development within urban area), R/T5 (safeguarding for the implementation of the South Hampshire Rapid Transit: Fareham -Gosport - Portsmouth), R/T6 (improvements to public transport), R/T9 (cycleways and footpaths), R/OS11 (Protection of Areas of National Nature Conservation Importance), R/OS12 (Locally Designated Areas of Nature Conservation Importance), R/OS13 (protection of habitats supporting protected species).

5. Consultations

5.1. The Local Member, Councillor Edgar fully supports the application, commenting this is a former public transport route that should be brought back into use for the benefit of the community at large.

5.2. Fareham Borough Council support the proposal. The Borough Council ask that the following matters are taken into account:

(i) there is a need to ensure that services when reviewed by operators, will be routed to make optimum use of the busway whilst maintaining a service to existing users;

(ii) priority must be given to continuing the busway along the disused railway line to Fareham Station at the earliest possible opportunity as part of the strategy to develop the future public transport interchange and link to the SDA. In the interim period traffic management measures need to be delivered to give priority to buses using Redlands Lane and A27. Permanent bus priority measures are also required where practicable to link the railway station to the town centre;

(iii) a commitment is required from transport For South Hampshire to extend the busway into Gosport beyond Military Road;

(iv) BRT and the associated changes to the wider highway network should not be pursued as a single solution to the detriment of other infrastructure improvements;

(v) provision must be made at junctions and along the route of the busway to ensure the convenient and safe passage of cyclists and access provided at every reasonable opportunity to maximise utility;

(vi) measures need to be identified to indicate and enforce restrictions on pedestrian access;

(vii) steps need to be taken to ensure that adequate security and screening is provided for all adjoining properties;

(viii) night time working potentially detrimental to the amenity of residents must be kept to a minimum;

(ix) the promoters should commit to implementing appropriate traffic regulation measures adjacent to BRT stops should it become evident that parking generated by the scheme is causing local parking problems;

(x) the County Council is requested to consider and implement effective regulatory measures to prevent access to, and use of, the busway by all unauthorised vehicles;

(xi) the County Council is requested to have consideration in the planning and coordination of the BRT road works to the other road works in the area with a view to minimising disruption to the highway network.

5.3. Gosport Borough Council supports the planning application. The Borough Council support the concept of using the old railway line for buses and cycles, and support the proposal of cyclists being able to use the bus way. Additional comments are as follows:

(i) there is a need to ensure that services, when reviewed by operators, will be routed to make optimum use of the busway whilst maintaining a service to existing users. Consideration needs to be given to providing further stops to reduce walking distances;

(ii) priority must be given to continuing the busway along the disused railway line to Fareham Station at the earliest possible opportunity and in the interim period traffic management measures are delivered to give priority to buses using Redlands lane and A27. Permanent bus priority measures are also required where practicable to link the railway station to the town centre;

(iii) priority measures to allow buses to bypass traffic queues on A32 and access Tichborne Way should be provided;

(iv) commitment is required from Transport For South Hampshire to extend the busway into Gosport beyond Military Road;

(v) reassurance is required that the visionary scheme comprising a whole busway and a wider premium bus network can be delivered;

(vi) BRT and the wider network should not be pursued to the exclusion of other infrastructure improvements;

(vii) provision must be made at junctions to ensure the convenient and safe passage of cyclists and access provided at every reasonable opportunity to maximise utility;

(viii) measures need to be identified to indicate and enforce restrictions on pedestrian access;

(ix) steps need to be taken to ensure that adequate security and screening is provided for all adjoining properties;

(x) temporary works should be phased to minimise disruption and should not coincide with works at Quay Street;

(xi) night time working potentially detrimental to the amenity of residents must be kept to a minimum.

5.4. Highway Authority comment that a Transport Assessment (TA) has been submitted with the application, the scope of which was agreed prior to the application being submitted. The TA goes into great detail about the overall benefits of the scheme but as the principle of the scheme has been accepted by the Department of Transport the response is focussed specifically on the impact that the scheme is likely to have on the existing highway network. The new signalised junctions along the busway are shown to operate well within practical capacity with no specific issues being identified. The assessment of the junctions along the busway and on the existing highway network with future growth included is the worst case scenario and therefore, as this is shown to be acceptable, evaluation of the `without growth' scenarios is not considered necessary. Given that the modelling demonstrates that there will be no adverse impact on the highway as a result of the introduction of the busway, either on the existing transport corridor or at the new signalised junctions, proposed to link the busway to the existing highway no highways objections are raised to the proposal.

5.5. Environment Agency raise no objection in principle. Suggest conditions requiring remediation strategy if contamination not previously identified is found to be present, requiring the proposed ecological mitigation and enhancement is carried out, and details of the surface water drainage scheme to be agreed.

5.6. Natural England initially raised objection on the grounds that the application contains insufficient survey information to demonstrate whether or not the development would have an adverse effect on bats and great crested newts which are legally protected species. Further survey work was undertaken in response to this objection and provided to Natural England. Following receipt of this information Natural England are now satisfied that the necessary information has been provided and have withdrawn their objection. They recommend that if the Council is minded to grant permission for this scheme conditions be attached requiring implementation of the mitigation and compensation measures set out in the reports.

5.7. Hampshire Constabulary comments that they have been consulted by the developers regarding security implications. Request the implementation of measures set out in the Planning Statement including:

(i) Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) provided at all entry and exit points along the route plus at Gregson Avenue and Rowner road. CCTV images to be monitored 24 hours a day at Fareham and Gosport Control Room;

(ii) shelter based mini CCTV systems to be installed in the bus shelters for passenger safety and coverage extended to cycle parking areas adjacent to bus stops. CCTV images recorded 24 hours a day; and

(iii) removing defensive planting will increase the vulnerability of some of the adjacent dwellings, where possible it should be left in place, when removed it should be replaced. Where an appropriate barrier is required at the boundary the minimum standard is 1.8 metre close boarded fencing, although 2.2 metres would be more secure.

5.8. Defence Estates Safeguarding have no objections.

5.9. Southern Water comment that there should be a condition requiring details of the surface water disposal to submitted to and agreed by the Local planning Authority.

5.10. Scottish and Southern Electricity have been informed, and have provided information on all their High Voltage and Low Voltage lines, both overhead and underground, in the vicinity of the route.

5.11. Portsmouth Cycle Forum supports the overall principle of Phase 1 of the BRT Scheme. However has concerns on a number of issues:

(i) lack of clarity in the detailed design as to how busway links to existing road network for pedestrians and cyclists;

(ii) status of the existing on demand cyclists crossing from the cycleway to Station Road which allows convenient access to the onward eastern section of the cycle route leading to Gosport Ferry and southern Gosport.

5.12. Fareham Society supported the original LRT Scheme, and supports a sustainable public transport system for South Hampshire. However considers BRT scheme a poor second best to the LRT. Concern at piecemeal approach and concern about how long to complete all phases. Sympathy with concerns of residents concerning risk of intruders using busway. Redlands Lane not suitable `terminus' for busway as will use residential road. Also concern at additional car parking in residential streets.

5.13. Former County Councillor Wright raises objection to the proposed hours of working, specifically proposed night time working commenting night working as the normal rule cannot be accepted.

6. Representations

6.1. BRT Action Group raises objection. Their objection includes the following grounds:

(i) insufficient justification for the proposal. There is a more than adequate public transport system within the area, as shown in the `Bus, Train and Ferry Guide' published by Hampshire County Council. The BRT is more likely to contribute to the traffic chaos within Gosport and Fareham, particularly at the intersection of roads and at both ends where they join the exiting system;

(ii) the Action Group do not accept sections of the Community Infrastructure Full Business Case Submissions (which was the County Councils submission for funding) concerning the economy objective supporting evidence, public accounts, transport economic efficiency, monetised costs and benefits and suggest there should be a full economic impact assessment. There should be clarification of the breakdown of the cost of the project and the scheme.

(iii) no evidence of overall delivery of the whole BRT scheme within controlled timescale to meet an ill conceived transport strategy.

(iv) no evidence of commitment to relieve congestion at either end of Phase 1 and at junctions;

(v) no evidence of commitment to deliver remainder of the Phases, which will leave another congestion problem with no real solution.;

(vi) No evidence in the traffic analysis that a number of transport linkages have been evaluated. It has been stated that the introduction of the BRT will alleviate traffic on the A32 and whilst this maybe of minimal effect, it is significant, that the traffic analysis provided in the planning application omitted planning flow figures for the A32, Eastern and Western ways and the A27 west to Fareham Train Station, A32, Wych lane Junction - Wych Lane proposed BRT junction. There is not sufficient evidence to show that the BRT will be of real positive benefit;

(vii) There is no evidence that alternative routes to release traffic pressure have been tested against the BRT proposal. For example road widening in part along the A32 to speed up buses, Stubbington Bypass, Newgate Lane upgrade and major improvements to Quay lane roundabout.

(viii) significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, habitats and wildlife, noise, vibration, air quality, security of properties, transport issues, potential issues for impacts on internationally designated sites. The application fails to adequately take into account the aspects of noise and air quality and additional light pollution will disturb the quiet enjoyment of residents. The impacts of the scheme on internationally designated sites SSSIs and SINCs have not been properly taken into account and there is a lack of adequacy of the ecological evidence;

(ix) the proposal is a major infrastructure project falling within the Environmental Impact Regulations 1999 which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment and therefore there should have been a full Environmental Impact Assessment;

(x) unnecessary and excessive clearance of the site has already been carried out before any planning consent granted;

(xi) there will be adverse impact for local residents and businesses along the route from the construction, roads closures and diversions, and disturbance once operational;

(xii) safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists conflicting with buses, and object to the existing cycle and pedestrian route from Holbrook to Military Road being absorbed into the scheme and lost;

(xiii) issue of unauthorised users, and consequential issues of safety and security;

(xiv) the application should be called in by the Secretary of State and be subject to a Public Inquiry before decision. The Action Group have made a formal request to Government Office for the South East for the application to be called in.

(xv) there have been inadequate consultations with non-statutory consultees on the proposals, there has only been presentations of what the County Council propose to do. The public has not in reality been properly consulted.

6.2. A total of 291 letters of representation have been received and all but one are objecting to the scheme. The majority of the letters (177) are in a standard format which state their objections are:

(i) irreparable tree and shrub damage, violation and destruction of wildlife habitat along old railway line route;

(ii) no full Environmental Impact Assessment has been made to Hampshire County Council on a major project such as this;

(iii) clearance commencing before studies and approval completed. No other developer would be allowed to undertake clearance work before Environmental Impact Assessment, baseline studies and planning consent were granted;

(iv) exposure to vandalism and security issues;

(v) additional noise and vibration to rear of properties;

(vi) almost 24 hours per day construction working, affecting quiet enjoyment of our property;

(vii) no effective acoustic barrier to be erected to the rear of my property;

(viii) householders privacy jeopardised;

(ix) light pollution where there currently isn't any;

(x) no evidence of overall delivery of a whole BRT scheme, within a controlled timescale, to meet an ill conceived transport strategy;

(xi) no evidence of a firm commitment to relieve traffic congestion at either end of the proposed Phase 1;

(xii) the immense disruption caused by the proposed diversion at Wych lane, Newgate Lane, Palmerston Way and Redlands Lane. During construction all traffic routed past a school. In a narrow road, this is an accident waiting to happen;

(xiii) considerable tax/ratepayers money wasted on LRT, now being wasted on BRT;

(xiv) funding cannot be justified in times of fiscal prudence, financial restraint and recession, particularly where there is no clear benefit or evidence that BRT is delivering a solution which is more effective than alternatives;

(xv) roads nearby proposed bus stop locations potentially being used as car parks;

(xvi) BRT does not address the real problems of the A32;

(xvii) the proposal is an underhand way of getting another public road to and from Gosport which is only going to end up at an existing bottleneck;

(xviii) there is no proven evidence that alternative routes to relieve traffic pressure have been tested against the BRT proposal. Such as A32 widening on land that is available or already purchased by Hampshire County Council, providing dedicated bus lanes. Major improvements to Quay Street Roundabout, Stubbington Bypass and/or Newgate Lane upgrade;

(xix) potential collision damage from raised bank areas. No collision barriers adjacent to my house to prevent crashes into my property are proposed;

(xx) CCTV will not prevent increased non-authorised users and security issues such as rapists, joy riders/boy racers, drug addicts, alcoholics, criminals, burglars etc;

(xxi) number plate recognition scrapped;

(xxii) BRT will not be sustainable or profitable for Bus Operators. There is no proposal as to where new buses will be garaged and no bus operator has been secured;

(xxiii) concerns that cyclists will be injured because they and the proposed buses are to share the same lanes. In places there is barely room for vehicles to pass;

(xxiv) closure of Newgate Lane and other roads affecting local businesses, resulting in loss of customers, liquidation/closure and unemployment.;

(xxv) devaluation of my property;

(xxvi) residents of Geoffrey Crescent, Fareham, have added to the standard letter a requirement for a 2.2 metre acoustic screen and a crash barrier on the boundary and triple glazing to windows and door at the rear of their property.

6.3. Eighteen letters of objection have been on the grounds of 24 hour working during construction.

6.4. A number of letters have raised objection to specific elements of the scheme rather than the scheme as a whole. This are moving proposed Hoeford Bus Stop from behind houses on Gosport Road, relocation of the proposed Tichborne Way junction away from houses at Downside, and moving Turner Avenue Bus Stop.

6.5. The remainder of the letters of objection raise some of the same issues as in the standard format letter.

7. Site visit

7.1. Ten Members of the Committee, Councillors Mrs Bailey, Bryant, Cooper, Hockley, McIntosh, Neal, Pearce, Price, Simpson and Wall, with Councillor McIntosh in the Chair, undertook a visit on 13 July to the site.

7.2. The Head of Planning and Development introduced the application and outlined the key features of the proposals.

7.3. Members toured the site by coach viewing the entrance to the BRT Phase 1 at Military Road, stopping at Tichborne Way to view the rail route and the location of the proposed junction, passing over the bridges at Brewers Lane and Gregson Avenue, stopping at Wych lane to view the route and informed of the proposed works at Wych Lane bridge, crossing the rail corridor at Newgate Lane, stopping at Palmerston Drive and informed of the proposed works and removal of the existing bridge, then passing the exit of the BRT Phase 1 at Redlands Lane, then travelling along Redlands lane into Fareham. By following this route members were able to view the relationship between the proposed bus way and the neighbouring houses and land uses.

7.4. The Members were informed that the application was to be considered by the Regulatory Committee on 29 July.

8. Commentary

8.1. The principle of using the former railway corridor for rapid transit public transport is in accordance with policy, and both the Fareham Borough Local Plan and the Gosport Borough Local Plan safeguard the disused railway corridor for such use. Whilst it is recognised that the proposed scheme does not have all the benefits of the previously proposed SHRT scheme, it would be a substantial improvement in public transport and accessibility between Fareham and Gosport. The main issues raised by the proposal are concern at the procedure, the need for the scheme, Environmental Impact Assessment, the amenity impact for residents adjoining the route both during construction and when in use, visual impact, nature conservation impact and highway impact.

Procedure

8.2. Serious procedural concerns have been raised by the BRT Action Group on the basis that the County Council will be determining its own application, and consequently a request has been made that the County Council should support the request that the application be `called in' to the Secretary of State for his determination. As this is an application by an interested planning authority for development of the land by the interested planning authority Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 requires that the application be determined by the County Council as planning authority. It is not unusual for the County Council to determine such applications, the application has been processed, advertised and been subject to consultation in the normal way. The proper procedures and protocols are in place which make it clear that the Regulatory Committee is independent in its powers and duties to determine applications submitted by the County Council, and is not restricted by any decisions taken by the Cabinet or Executive Member. Therefore the fact that the County Council actively sought, and was given, significant financial funding for the project from Central Government is not a material consideration for the Regulatory Committee when determining the planning application. However as there has been a formal request to the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) for the application to be `called in', if the Committee resolve to grant planning permission no consent will be issued until confirmation has been received from GOSE that the application is not being `called in'.

8.3. Objections have also been raised on the grounds that works have been carried out prior to any consent and that this would not be considered acceptable for any other developer. However the only works carried out have been vegetation clearance which does not require any planning permission and setting up contractors compounds for this work which also does not require permission. Such clearance work is not unusual and does not pre-empt any decision on the planning application.

8.4. The application has been subject to the required publicity. This has been through site notices at various locations along the route, a press notice and neighbour notification to all addresses adjoining the site. The application was submitted on 31 March 2009 and period allowed for comments was extended to take into account the Easter holiday period. Subsequently the BRT Action Group asked for a further period of time to submit further information, which was agreed. The representations received are summarised earlier in the report.

Need

8.5. There is a clear need to improve communications and public transport links between Fareham and Gosport and this proposal offers an excellent opportunity to make substantive improvements in existing service levels by allowing buses to avoid the most congested parts of the A32. A faster and more accessible bus priority system can be delivered along the disused railway corridor than could be achieved by on street bus priority measures, at lower cost and with less impact on the amenity of local residents and traffic flow. Substantive improvements to the A32 itself to provide equivalent bus priority are not a viable alternative. The proposed busway can also be used to varying degrees by existing and new bus services and can therefore benefit communities beyond the immediate former rail corridor, and has the flexibility to be enlarged incrementally. Objection has been raised that the bus operators would not use this route. However it is clear in the Transport Assessment (TA) that the bus operators were consulted and provided information on potential routes which formed a part of the assessment. There is no indication that the bus operators do not support this proposal.

8.6. Objection has also been raised that the proposed scheme is not value for money, the economic viability has not been demonstrated and the proposal should not receive the funding from Government during a period of financial restraint. However this is not a relevant issue in the consideration of the planning application.

Environmental Impact Assessment

8.7. As the proposal is for a bus way, and the area of the works exceed 1 hectare it is an Infrastructure project within Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999, the EIA Regulations. Therefore it has to be `screened' in accordance with the EIA Regulations to assess whether an Environmental Statement is required. The proposal is Phase 1 of the South East Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit scheme, therefore for the screening it is necessary to establish whether this should be for the proposal as submitted, or whether it should properly be regarded as an integral part of an inevitably more substantial development. Phase 1 has been designed to operate independently, but with a general aspiration to be extended subject to affordability. Indeed at the present stage no decision has been made about the various design options for extending the scheme or whether it is possible, so there is no proposal to be evaluated for EIA screening. It is considered that in this case the screening should be of the proposal as submitted only.

8.8. The selection criteria for screening are set out in Schedule 3 of the EIA Regulations and advice given in Circular 02/99. The selection criteria are the characteristics of the development, the location of the development and characteristics of the potential impact of the proposal and the advice in the Circular is that in general EIA will be needed for Schedule 2 developments which are major developments which are of more than local significance, developments which are proposed for particularly environmentally sensitive or vulnerable locations and developments with unusually complex and potentially hazardous environmental effects. For roads the advice in the Circular is that the likelihood of significant effects will generally depend on the estimated emissions, traffic, noise and vibration and degree of visual intrusion and impact on the surrounding ecology. EIA is more likely to be required for new development of over 2 kilometre in length.

8.9. The proposal is 4.7 kilometre in length, but this is wholly within the corridor of the former railway and the vehicular use will be restricted to buses and emergency vehicles only therefore the emissions, traffic, noise and vibration will be very significantly less than for a road open to all traffic. The proposals include keeping significant boundary vegetation and so the visual impact would be restricted. The former rail line is not in a sensitive area, as defined in the regulations, although there are houses close to the site as it passes through an urban area. There are important nature conservation sites in the vicinity, but the impacts on them of this proposal are negligible. There is nature conservation interest within the site, in particular badgers, bats and reptiles, which has been recognised and measures proposed. Taking into account the criteria in Schedule 3 of the EIA regulations a screening opinion was adopted by the Director of Environment that the proposed development was not likely to have significant effects on the environment. However in this case the Committee will also have to take a view on the EIA screening as part of the determination of this application. Therefore the first recommendation is for the Committee to adopt a screening opinion under the EIA Regulations.

8.10. However, the screening did identify issues where there was the need for detailed information to support the planning application. The Environmental Report submitted with the application deals in significant detail with these issues which are nature conservation and biodiversity, landscape and visual impact, contaminated land, noise and air quality and includes substantial mitigation of any impacts.

Amenity for local residents

8.11. As the route travels through an urban area with the rear gardens and facades of housing close to the disused railway line there is understandable concern about the amenity impact of the scheme on those living next to the site, which is reflected in many of the representations received. These amenity concerns are in terms of noise, air quality, visual impact and privacy/security. These impacts have been recognised in the proposed scheme. A comprehensive noise assessment has been carried out which has identified need for mitigation in the form of acoustic barriers at specific locations and these are included in the application details. The air quality has been assessed and a mitigation strategy is included, this relates to the construction phase as any negative impacts once the busway is in use would be negligible. The visual impact and privacy/security issues are closely related, the scheme proposes to retain boundary trees and vegetation where possible and substantial landscaping is also proposed. The comments of Hampshire Constabulary concerning the value of defensive planting are recognised and can be incorporated into the landscaping details. The proposed acoustic fencing would also provide additional screening and privacy for houses closest to the busway. In addition CCTV cameras are proposed at the junctions and at the bus stops which will provide additional security and deterrence against unauthorised traffic and anti social behaviour. Therefore it is considered that appropriate mitigation has been provided and any impacts would be negligible or within accepted standards.

8.12. A particular concern for local residents is the potential use of the route at night after the buses have stopped by unauthorised traffic. This is understandable, and the route is potentially attractive for misuse by joy riders/boy racers. The proposals do not include physical barriers to prevent access, but do include prevention measures in the form of CCTV and the opportunity for use of the route by police and emergency vehicles which will also act as a deterrent.

8.13. Specific concerns have been raised by local residents at elements of the scheme. One area of concern was the location of the proposed Hoeford bus stop. The proposals have been amended to move this bus stop and so address this concern.

8.14. Specific concerns have been raised about the proposed hours of working for the construction of the scheme, being concerned that operations will be on a 24 hour basis. There is understandable concern as the route passes through residential areas. However there was a misunderstanding about what is proposed. There will be normal working hours Monday to Saturday (no working on Sunday) which do not involve night time working, but it is anticipated that extended hours would be beneficial for doing the works most likely to be disruptive to traffic. Therefore the proposals include the flexibility for overnight working when road closures are necessary in order to minimise traffic disruption. It is only in these exceptional circumstances that extended hours of working are proposed. The misunderstanding is that night time working would be the norm, this is not the case.

Visual impact

8.15. As stated above, it is intended to retain as much of the boundary trees and vegetation as possible and substantial additional landscaping is proposed. Therefore the majority of the busway will not be visually intrusive. The most substantial visual impact would be at the Wych Lane and the Newgate Lane/Palmerston Road Junctions, where there will be major earthmoving and engineering bringing the busway down to create `at grade' junctions. However these junctions have been well designed and landscaped, and would be visually acceptable.

8.16. Concern has been raised at the lighting creating light pollution, however the route is through built up areas and proposed lighting would be restricted to the junctions and the bus stops. Therefore it is not considered the lighting would be visually intrusive.

Nature conservation impact

8.17. The site is not within any designated sites of importance for nature conservation. However the site is within 30 metres, at its closest, to the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) and Portsmouth Harbour RAMSAR site. Therefore the requirements of the Habitats Regulations need to be considered.

8.18. The County Council is the competent authority in this case for the purposes of the Habitat Regulations. Government Circular 06/05 `Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System' provides the necessary advice. Paragraph 5 of the Circular states that the Government has chosen to apply these procedures to both European sites and RAMSAR sites, this is relevant in this case as Portsmouth Harbour is a RAMSAR site as well as a European site of nature conservation importance. Paragraphs 13 to 16 of the Circular require consideration of `likely significant effect'. Where a proposed development is not directly connected with or necessary for site management, which is the case with this proposal, the County Council as competent authority must determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a RAMSAR site taking a precautionary approach. An Appropriate Assessment is required where there is a probability or a risk that the plan or project will have significant effects on a site. This is in line with the ruling of the European Court of Justice in case C-127/02 (the Waddenzee Judgement) which said "any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site is to be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that it will have a significant effect on that site either individually or in combination with other plans or projects". In combination effects include outstanding consents not fully implemented and other ongoing authorisations, not just confined to matters that require planning permission. An Appropriate Assessment Screening Matrix has been submitted with the application which concluded that the construction and operational Phases of the development are unlikely to pose a significant threat to the qualifying features and the site integrity of the Portsmouth Harbour SPA/RAMSAR. The County Councils ecologist agrees with this conclusion and It is noted that Natural England in their comments also raise no concerns about any impact to these sites. Therefore it is considered that appropriate assessment is not required in this case. However the Committee need to consider this issue and to endorse this conclusion, therefore it is included in the recommendation.

8.19. The railway corridor has become overgrown through disuse, and the trackside trees and vegetation extended through lack of management, consequently the site has developed nature conservation interest. This has been recognised and ecological surveys have been carried out over the last 18 months, the results of the surveys and mitigation measures have been included in the Environmental Report submitted with the application. The Environmental Report recognises that there are a number of badger setts and large number of badgers along the route, some of which would need to be moved. The mitigation proposals include providing new setts and relocating the badgers, the design and methodology being agreed with Natural England. This construction of new setts has already been undertaken as the works involved do not require planning consent. Any works affecting existing setts will need to have the necessary legal consents before any work affecting them or the badgers is carried out. The surveys also identified the presence of a diversity of bat species, which are protected, using the trees alongside the track for foraging. An Updated Bat Survey Method Statement and Mitigation Strategy has been submitted with measures to ensure there is no significant adverse impact to them from these proposals. The Great Crested Newt Survey Method Statement and Mitigation Strategy Surveys have shown that the are no great crested newts in the wetlands adjoining the busway, although there are other newt species which are not protected. Mitigation measures have been identified in the Environmental Report to protect these amphibians and also reptiles (common lizard and slow worms) through providing barriers or by translocation. The details of proposed translocation site at Alver Valley have been provided in the Alver Valley Reptile Receptor Site Method Statement and are satisfactory.

8.20. Objections have been received on the basis that clearance of vegetation has taken place without any consideration of the wildlife. This is not correct, the clearance of scrub and vegetation was necessary to be able to asses the physical extent and status of the railway corridor. This work was done after necessary nature conservation evaluation, and all clearance was carried out outside the bird nesting season to avoid any harm.

8.21. Although concerns have been raised about the nature conservation impact, comprehensive survey work over a prolonged period has been carried out along the route, mitigation has been carried out (with regard to providing alternative badger setts) and substantial mitigation is proposed both in terms of translocation and providing additional habitat at Cams Alders.

Highways impact

8.22. Concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of the proposed scheme in improving public transport. The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment (TA) which assesses the highway impacts. This states that the A32 is the main transport route and has to cater for all modes of transport within a very limited highway boundary. Consequently there is no real opportunity for providing any meaningful bus priority or high quality cycle route facilities. Therefore the proposed creation of the busway along the disused rail corridor provides an opportunity for such improvement both for buses and cyclists. The TA has been reviewed by the Highway Authority with regard to the impact on the existing road network. Their conclusion is that the proposed busway, including the junctions with the existing highway, is acceptable in terms of highway design and safety, and the scheme would not adversely impact on the nearby highway network.

8.23. An issue raised by Fareham Borough Council, Gosport Borough Council and objectors concerns the cumulative impact of the BRT highways works at Newgate Lane, Palmerston Way and Wych Lane taking place at the same time as the major works proposed for the Quay Lane Roundabout. The Area Highway Engineer will be involved in the practical implementation of these schemes and is fully aware of the need for coordination to minimise traffic disruption.

Conclusion

8.24. In conclusion it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the South East Plan as proposal is a new scheme to provide additional public transport capacity. It is also in accordance with the policies of Fareham Borough Local Plan and Gosport Borough Local Plan in that the route is safeguarded for South Hampshire Rapid Transit, there would be appropriate mitigation measures to protect the amenity of residents adjacent to the route both during construction and once completed and in use, the visual impact would be acceptable as appropriate landscaping is proposed, there would be no adverse impact for designated sites of nature conservation importance and suitable mitigation measures are proposed for badgers and protected species, and the proposals are acceptable in terms of highway safety and design.

9. Recommendations

9.1. That a screening opinion be adopted under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 that the proposed development is not an EIA development.

9.2. That the Council as competent authority determine that the proposed plan or project is not likely to have a significant effect on the Portsmouth Harbour SPA and RAMSAR site either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, and that as a result no appropriate assessment is required under The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994.

9.3. That planning permission in respect of the South east Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit phase 1 Fareham to Gosport from Redlands Lane Fareham south via disused railway corridor to Military Road Gosport (Application No: P/09/0278/CC; K17678) be granted, subject to the conditions in Appendix B for the following reason.

9.4. The proposed development accords with the Development Plan. It is in accordance with Policy SH7 of the South East Plan as it is a new scheme to provide additional public transport capacity. It is also in accordance with the saved policies of the Fareham Borough Local Plan and the Gosport Borough Local Plan in that the route is safeguarded for South Hampshire Rapid Transit (Policy T3 and R/T5), provides a new public transport facility (Policy T2 and R/T6), there would be appropriate mitigation measures to protect the amenity of residents adjacent to the route both during construction and once completed and in use (Policy DG1 and R/DP1), the visual impact would be acceptable as appropriate landscaping is proposed (Policy DG3, DG4, DG5), there would be no adverse impact for designated sites of nature conservation importance and suitable mitigation measures are proposed for badgers and protected species (Policy C14, C16 C17, C18 and R/OS11, R/OS12 R/OS13), and the proposals are acceptable in terms of highway safety and design (Policy DG5 and R/DP1).

Links to the Corporate Strategy


Hampshire safer and more secure for all:	No
Corporate Business plan link number (if appropriate):
Maximising well-being:	Yes
Corporate Business plan link number (if appropriate):
Enhancing our quality of place:	Yes
Corporate Business plan link number (if appropriate):


Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background documents

The following documents discuss facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report. (NB: the list excludes published works and any documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.)

Document	Location
None

CONDITIONS

Timescale

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91(as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Plans and Particulars

2. The development subject of this permission shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and particulars unless otherwise stated by the conditions comprising this permission or unless otherwise agreed by the Mineral Planning Authority in writing:

(i) Planning Application;

(ii) Planning Statement;

(iii) Detailed Environmental Assessment Report;

(iv) Flood Risk Assessment;

(v) Outline Waste Management Plan;

(vi) Appropriate Assessment Screening Matrix;

(vii) Arboricultural Report;

(viii) Transport Assessment;

(ix) Great Crested Newt Survey Method Statement and Mitigation Strategy;

(x) Updated Bat Survey Method Statement and Mitigation Strategy;

(xi) The plans as listed on the planning certificate.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to monitor and control the development in accordance with the approved plans, to minimise adverse impacts to the local environment and nearby residents.

Hours of Working

3. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority no heavy goods vehicles shall enter or leave the site and no plant or machinery shall be operated except between the following hours: 0700-1830 Monday to Friday and 0800-1700 Saturday. There shall be no working on Sundays or recognised public holidays. Agreement for working outside these hours will only be given if significant environmental and amenity benefits can be demonstrated and written approval is given in advance.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Materials

4. The materials to be used shall be as specified on the approved plans and details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

Archaeology

5. No development shall take place within the area indicated (this would be the area of archaeological interest) until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of archaeology.

Landscape

6. Within 12 months of development commencing a detailed scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall specify the types, size and species of all trees and shrubs to be planted; details of all trees to be retained; and details of fencing/enclosure of the site, phasing and timescales for carrying out the works, and provision for future maintenance. Any trees or shrubs which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

Contamination

7. If, during development contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

Reason: Given the historical use of the proposed route as railway land there is potential for unexpected contamination to be identified which may pose a risk for controlled waters.

Noise, Dust and Odour

8. Prior to development commencing an Environmental Management Scheme for the control of noise, dust and odour at the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The Scheme shall be implemented as approved for the duration of the site's operation.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Protection of Water Environment

9. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The bund capacity shall give 110% of the total volume for single and hydraulically linked tanks. If there is multiple tankage, the bund capacity shall be 110% of the largest tank or 25% of the total capacity of all tanks, whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses and overflow pipes shall be located within the bund. There shall be no outlet connecting the bund to any drain, sewer or watercourse or discharging onto the ground. Associated pipework shall be located above ground where possible and protected from accidental damage.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

10. Construction of the bus way shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro-geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented before the development is completed and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include:

(i) information about the design storm period and intensity,

(ii) the method employed to delay and control surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;

(iii) a timetable for its implementation; and

(iv) a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable urban drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

Reason: In order to protect the water environment.

Highways

11. The details of the measures to be taken to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site being deposited on the public highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The measures shall be implemented for the duration of the development and no lorry shall leave the site unless its wheels and chassis have been cleaned sufficiently to prevent mud being carried onto the highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Nature Conservation

12. No tree or shrub clearance should be carried out in the bird nesting season (March to August).

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.

13. The mitigation measures involving the construction of new setts and translocation of badgers, together with the precautionary measures proposed to be taken on site to protect badger setts which would remain and associated badgers shall be shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To protect the badgers and their setts.

14. The nature conservation mitigation measures, including measures in relation to protected species, specified in the Detailed Environmental Assessment - Volume 1 Section 3.12, the Updated Bat Survey Method Statement and Mitigation Strategy (July 2009) Section 10 and the Great Crested Newt Survey Method Statement and Mitigation Strategy Section 6 shall be fully implemented unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation

Annexe to Reasons for Conditions

(as required by Article 22 of the Town and Country Planning

(General Procedure) Order 1995 - as amended)

South East Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England (May 2009)

Policy SH7: South Hampshire sub-regional transport strategy

The transport and planning authorities will work together to:

i. reduce the need to travel through the development of smarter choices, such as travel planning and measures to discourage less sustainable journeys

ii. manage the strategic transport network for longer distance journeys (especially from/to the ports of Southampton and Portsmouth and Southampton Airport) and the local network for shorter journeys

iii. invest in new schemes to manage demand and provide additional public transport and highway capacity

A delivery agency, based upon Transport for South Hampshire, will be developed for South Hampshire with the responsibility and necessary powers to manage and integrate public and private transport.

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review (June 2000) saved policies.

Policy DG1 environmental impact

Development will be permitted provided that:

(A) it does not detract from the use and enjoyment of adjacent land or have an

adverse impact on the wider environment by reason of noise, dust, fumes, heat, smoke, liquids, vibration or light;

(B) it provides for the satisfactory disposal of surface and waste water;

(C) it is not located in areas at risk from flooding or where it would increase flood risk in other areas, except in appropriate circumstances where protection measures are provided to the necessary standards;

(D) it would not be detrimental to the management and protection of water

resources; and

(E) the Borough Council is satisfied that, where appropriate, opportunities for the reuse of materials and recycling of materials have been maximised.

Policy DG3 impact on the surrounding area

Development will be permitted provided that it:

(A) does not detract from the existing landscape, streetscene, skyline and building line;

(B) is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area in terms of scale,

layout, density, form, height, mass and space around and between buildings;

(C) does not conflict with adjoining land uses or result in a volume of traffic which would adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding area.

Policy DG4 site characteristics

Development will be permitted, provided that it:

(A) retains any important historic features on the site;

(B) does not detract from the natural landform of the site;

(D) respects views into and out of the site; and

(E) takes proper account of any contamination of the land.

Policy DG5 design

Development will be permitted provided that it:

(A) is of a high standard of design and, where appropriate, incorporates materials and design elements sympathetic to local character;

(B) respects privacy, outlook and sunlight;

(C) provides safe access for pedestrians and cyclists and vehicular traffic including, where appropriate, footpaths, cycleways and greenways;

(D) provides satisfactory servicing, cycle and car parking or garaging;

(E) where appropriate in the case of residential development, a useable garden or open area is provided outside the canopy of any retained trees; and where appropriate, the Council is satisfied that it has regard to:

(i) the Residential Development Guidelines in Appendix 6 and the Council's

Extension Design Guide;

(ii) the needs of people with disabilities and other people with impaired mobility;

(iii) crime prevention measures; and

(iv) the conservation of energy.

Policy C14: Statutory National and Local Nature Conservation Designations

Development will not be permitted where it would adversely affect statutorily

designated sites for nature conservation, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves and Local Nature Reserves unless measures can be undertaken which prevent damage to important habitats or physical features. Where appropriate, a permission will be conditioned to ensure the provision of preventative measures or a legal agreement sought to secure:

(a) long term management of the site; and/or

(b) the provision of funds for management; and/or(c) the replacement of habitats or features lost to development.

Policy C16: Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation

Development will not be permitted where it would adversely affect Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation unless the need for the development outweighs the nature conservation value of the site. Where appropriate, a permission will be conditioned to ensure the provision of preventative measures or a legal agreement sought to secure:

(a) long term management of the site; and/or

(b) the provision of funds for management; and/or(c) the replacement of habitats or features lost to development.

Policy C17: Sites of Nature Conservation Value

Development which would adversely affect non designated sites or features of nature conservation value will be not permitted unless, where possible, provision is made to offset the adverse impact. Where appropriate, a legal agreement will be sought to secure the replacement of habitats or features lost to development.

Policy C18: Protected Species

Development which would adversely affect species, or their habitats, protected by the Habitats Regulations 1994, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or other legislation will not be permitted unless measures can be undertaken which prevent harm to the species or damage to the habitats.

Where appropriate, a permission will be conditioned or a legal agreement sought to secure the protection of the species or their haC18 protected species.

Policy T2: public transport

Public transport systems, new railway stations, bus stations and facilities for `park and ride' will be permitted in appropriate locations.

Policy T3: Safeguarding the line of the proposed South Hampshire Rapid Transit system

The line of the proposed South Hampshire Rapid Transit system will be safeguarded from development which would prejudice its use for this purpose.

Gosport Borough Local Plan Review (May 2006) saved policies.

Policy R/DP1 general standards of development within urban area

Development proposals will be permitted within the urban area, as defined on the Proposals Map, provided that:

i. the scheme does not cause significant harm to the character of the surrounding

area in terms of scale, setting, design, layout, materials, landscaping and the

retention of important views;

ii. significant harm is not caused to the historic environment and buildings of national and local importance, nature conservation interests and important landscape

features;

iii. where proposals are submitted either on or near to a site that is either known to be, or may be contaminated, the nature and extent of any such contamination has been determined and if appropriate the necessary remediation measures have been identified and agreed;

iv. there is no significant loss of amenity, which could include issues such as traffic generation, noise, vibration, smell or pollution;

v. any new scheme does not prevent the ability in appropriate circumstances to obtaining the proper comprehensive development of adjoining land;

vi. appropriate infrastructure, safe access and parking arrangements can be provided or are available to the site;

vii. any layout is designed to reduce the potential for criminal activity and anti-social behaviour; and

viii. it has been demonstrated that the risk of flooding both to the proposed

development and arising from the development has been appropriately considered and that the proposal incorporates relevant on-site and off-site flood prevention measures as appropriate.

R/T5 South Hampshire Rapid Transit

Development proposals will not be permitted where they would conflict with land required to be safeguarded for the implementation of the South Hampshire Rapid Transit: Fareham-Gosport-Portsmouth.

R/T6 Improvements to public transport

Development proposals which promote improvements to public transport interchanges and corridors, bus priority measures and other measures that will encourage the use of public transport will be permitted.

R/T9 Cycleways and footpaths

Development proposals which improve and extend the footway, footpath and cycleway network including those identified in the Gosport Cycling Strategy will be permitted.

R/OS11 Protection of Areas of National Nature Conservation Importance

Development proposals will not be permitted if they may directly or indirectly harm a Site of Special Scientific Interest unless the reasons for the development clearly outweigh:

i. the nature conservation importance of the site itself; and

ii. the national policy to safeguard such sites.

Where development is exceptionally permitted the Authority will consider the use of conditions or planning obligations to ensure the protection of the site' s nature conservation interest.

Policy R/OS12 Locally Designated Areas of Nature Conservation Importance

Development likely to have an adverse effect on a Local Nature Reserve, Site of Importance for Nature Conservation or a locally designated site will not be permitted unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there are reasons for the proposal which outweigh the need to safeguard the substantive nature conservation value of the site. Where development is permitted the Local Planning Authority will consider the use of conditions or planning obligations to provide appropriate mitigation and compensatory

measures.

R/OS13 protection of habitats supporting protected species

Development will not be permitted on a site that would have an adverse impact on a protected species or its habitat unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there is an overriding need for the development. In such instances, the planning authority will impose conditions on the planning permission or enter into planning obligations to:

i. facilitate the survival of individual members of the species;

ii. reduce disturbance to a minimum; and

iii. provide adequate alternative habitats to sustain at least the current levels of population of the species.

This content is archived