Retrospective application for extension to area of hardstanding.

1. The proposed hardstanding would represent an undesirable intrusion into an area of countryside and designated settlement gap for which there is no overriding agricultural or planning justification. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies DM5 and DM6 of the Local Plan.
2. The proposed development includes a significant and unjustified expanse of hardstanding laid across the entirety of the site and the subsequent loss of soft landscaping and trees with no replacement soft landscaping scheme provided to reintroduce planting to the site boundary. Furthermore the proposed hardstanding material comprises a mixture of bricks, concrete, plastic and other waste material within the MOT Type 1 offering an unsuitable set of materials laid as hardstanding for this countryside location. Also the poorly compacted material creates uneven levels and an unkempt appearance that creates a poorly designed and unduly harmful intrusion into an area of countryside which would be detrimental to the rural, verdant character and designated settlement gap the site is located within, amounting to significant overdevelopment. For these reasons the scheme has created a poor design that fails to respond to the character of this countryside setting, contrary to Policies S5, S6, DM1 and DM11 of the Local Plan and the aims of the Quality Spaces SPD.
3. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate the change in land levels across the site from the proposed hardstanding, with no existing or proposed level plan submitted. Without this provided the application cannot be accurately assessed to understand its impact on drainage and visual intrusion into the countryside, contrary to Policies DM1 and DM6 of the Local Plan.
4. The installed hardstanding has not been compacted to secure the loose materials which could therefore enter the road network through vehicle movements when entering and exiting the site, and disrupt the safe flow of traffic along Grange Road, contrary to Policy DM13 of the Local Plan.
5. The felling of trees on site have not been proposed to be replaced with trees that are of equal or enhanced value, and the proposal would result in a significant worsening to the visual amenity, green infrastructure and biodiversity of the site. Furthermore, retained trees have not been suitably protected, with hardstanding located around the tree trunk and above the tree collar causing significant harm and creating soil compaction reducing natural infiltration, harming the long term preservation of these trees. Also, due to the use of MOT Type 1 material comprising fine grains, this can stop gaseous exchange with the roots, exacerbating harm to trees. Furthermore, plans are inaccurate and do not show any loss of trees between the existing and proposed block plan, demonstrating inconsistencies with works carried out on site. For these reasons the proposal is contrary to Policies S5, S6, DM1 and DM11 of the Local Plan and the Trees and Development SPD.
6. The application has failed to provide sufficient ecological information to enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the potential impact of the proposed development on protected species and provide any suitable mitigation required, particularly for great crested newts. In the absence of a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, the proposal is contrary to Policy DM11 of the Local Plan, the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 15 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).
7. The proposal has not provided a pre-development baseline biodiversity measurement or a biodiversity net gain plan to show that the site can result in an overall biodiversity net gain.With the scheme proposing a significant loss in biodiversity and no replacement biodiversity enhancements provided, the scheme is contrary to Policy DM11 of the Local Plan.
8. Infiltration testing has not been provided to substantiate claims that the laid material can appropriately infiltrate surface water on site without entering the surrounding road network, the adjacent woodland or nearby ponds. Furthermore, no level plan has been submitted to demonstrate the changes to land levels across the site from the laid hardstanding to allow an assessment of further drainage impact from the change in levels. The drainage strategy has also not demonstrated compliance with hazard mitigation requirements in the Ciria SuDS manual. For the reasons the scheme is contrary to Policy DM6 of the Local Plan.
9. The application was refused following the assessment of the following Plans: 2511GR_R1_000, 2511GR_R1_001, 22511GR_R1_002. In accordance with paragraph 39 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024), Eastleigh Borough Council takes a positive approach to the handling of development proposals so as to achieve, whenever possible, a positive outcome and to ensure all proposals are dealt with in a timely manner. In this instance the application has been refused as it is contrary to the relevant policies of the Local Plan and the planning harm was unable to be resolved in a timely manner.

No related records were published in this section.