46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 6, 7, 8 and 9 February 2024 Site visit made on 6 February 2024 by J P Longmuir BA(Hons) DipUD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th April 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 Mount Royal, 46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, Hampshire GU34 5AH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Gladman Developments Ltd against East Hampshire District Council. • The application Ref 56082/004 is dated 24 March 2023. • The development proposed is outline planning application for demolition of 46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks and the erection of up to 60 dwellings with vehicular access point, public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). All matters reserved except for means. Decision 1.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of 46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks and the erection of up to 60 dwellings with vehicular access point, public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 56082/004, dated 24 March 2023, subject to the conditions in the conditions annexe. Preliminary Matters 2. The Council did not determine the application and gave putative reasons in their Statement of Case (SoC). The first reason foresees that the proposal due to its density, layout and siting would lead to a discordant form of development which would be harmful to the character of the area. 3. The second reason was the likelihood of the intended residents being car dependent for access to services and facilities. Subsequent to the SoC a Connectivity Study, Transport Note and Framework Travel Plan were submitted. The Council accepted that these demonstrated the site’s accessibility to facilities and the potential for a safe access. I consider these issues latterly. 4. The lack of information on ecology was another concern of the Council.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Subsequent to the SoC a revised and updated ecological survey was submitted to the Council, which addressed this concern. I consider this also latterly. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Subsequent to the SoC a revised and updated ecological survey was submitted to the Council, which addressed this concern. I consider this also latterly. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 5. The lack of a submitted Section 106 agreement was the subject of the Council’s final putative reason, which they suggested would jeopardise delivery of affordable housing, management of open space and highway/accessibility measures. Subsequently a legal agreement dated 29 February 2024 was submitted on 4 March 2024 covering affordable housing, sustainable travel, highway works, management of open space, an on-site play area, a contribution towards off site recreation and monitoring. The Council confirmed at the Inquiry that this would satisfy their objections in this respect. 6. The application was submitted in outline except for details of the access. A Framework Plan was submitted which shows the extent of open space and the potential development area. An indicative Master Plan was submitted, and I have only considered it as titled, illustrating one possible layout. 7. The December 2023 revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) were duly considered by both parties in their written evidence to the Inquiry.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision In addition, Planning Practice Guidance on Housing supply and delivery (Housing supply Ppg) was revised on 5 February 2024 and considered by all parties at the Inquiry. Main Issue 8. The single remaining concern from the Council’s SoC is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. I consider this is the main issue. Reasons The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area 9. Policy CP10 of The East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (CP), provides the spatial strategy for new housing. It allows for development within settlement policy boundaries where development maintains and enhances character and quality of life. The policy also allocates a minimum of 175 dwellings at Four Marks/South Medstead1. 10. In March 2023 the Council adopted the Housing Outside Settlement Boundaries SPD. This provides an elaboration of saved policies including CP10 on the existing spatial strategy for growth. Acceptable development outside settlement boundaries will depend upon a community need, reinforcement of settlement role and function, inability to accommodate within the settlement and has local support. 11.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision The appeal site, with the exception of the access, is outside the identified settlement policy boundary, where CP19 applies in the countryside and restricts development to that needed for farming, forestry and rural enterprises. 12. Policy CP20 seeks to conserve and enhance local distinctiveness, sense of place and tranquillity of the landscape. 13. Policy CP29 requires exemplary and high standard of design. All development is required to respect character, identity, and context. Relatedly the layout and design are required to contribute to local distinctiveness and sense of place. 1 The neighbouring area to the north of Four Marks https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision The appeal site, with the exception of the access, is outside the identified settlement policy boundary, where CP19 applies in the countryside and restricts development to that needed for farming, forestry and rural enterprises. 12. Policy CP20 seeks to conserve and enhance local distinctiveness, sense of place and tranquillity of the landscape. 13. Policy CP29 requires exemplary and high standard of design. All development is required to respect character, identity, and context. Relatedly the layout and design are required to contribute to local distinctiveness and sense of place. 1 The neighbouring area to the north of Four Marks https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 14. Policy CP28 requires new development to maintain, manage and enhance the network of new and existing Green Infrastructure (GI). New GI should be provided on site or via financial contributions. 15. The Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan (NP) Policy 1 is similar to CP10 as development within the Settlement Policy Boundary is supported in principle. Policy 9 also supports the provision of GI. 16. The Local Plan is being reviewed and both parties suggested the emerging plan warrants only very limited weight2 and no party made reference to it in evidence. 17. The appeal site is approximately 1.5km west of the South Downs National Park, but no party raised any concern about the impact of the proposal on its setting and I similarly find no harm in this respect. 18. The appeal site is within the southeastern part of the 'Hampshire Downs' national character area, whereby the settlement pattern is along lower river valleys or as dense string of nucleated villages on higher slopes. 19.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision The site is within 'the clay plateau' in the East Hampshire District landscape character assessment, where the countryside is gently elevated, and enclosure varies according to woodland cover and allows some open views. The settlement pattern is nucleated villages. The sub area 'Four Marks Clay Plateau' has undulating countryside, rolling landform to north, blocks of woodland and intact hedgerow network. Four Marks is noted as having a higher density than other settlements within the Clay Plateau. 20. The East Hampshire District Council Landscape Capacity study aims to retain tree cover, restore field boundaries, management of woodland blocks, and conserve the rural character of lanes. Capacity is suggested to be constrained by the rural and generally tranquil character, distinctive field patterns and rural setting of settlements. The site and environs are within a broad area shown as medium capacity to accommodate new development providing it has regard to the setting and form of the settlement. 21. The site is not within any of the identified Four Marks character areas within the Council’s 'Neighbourhood Character Study' (NCA). The Council suggest it is akin to 'Telegraph Lane'.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision However, Telegraph Lane is a very elevated area, being on one of the highest points of the village, with significant tree cover and a sense of openness on one side (the east) towards the National Park. The Inquiry was not presented with clear evidence to demonstrate similarities with the appeal site environs. Moreover, as the appeal site is not identified as within any NCA area, I find the Study of limited benefit in this case, and consider it is more meaningful to focus on the site itself and its surroundings. 22. The appeal site is on the southern edge of Four Marks and behind residential frontages on two sides: Brislands Lane and Lymington Bottom. The existing houses on both are prominent as their front gardens are largely open with limited screening vegetation. The houses themselves obscure much of the appeal site so that it is only visible in glimpses through gaps in the building lines. Consequently, the proposed houses, confirmed as two storey, would not be prominent and in any event would be experienced in a residential setting. 2 Statement of Common Ground paragraph 2.3.3 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 23. The other two sides of the appeal site border open fields, which are publicly experienced in the distance as evident in the uncontested viewpoints within the LVIA. Consequently, the houses would be a very small component of these views and so would not be harmful. 24. The proposal would lead to development in depth behind two frontages, which the Council suggested would be incongruous. Whilst there is some discernible frontage/linearity to Brislands Lane, in the vicinity of the appeal site there is an adjacent area of development in depth, at Lapwing Way. Whilst Lymington Bottom has some linearity there was no evidence before the Inquiry to demonstrate why this has cultural or historic significance. Indeed, the Village Design Statement comments on the extent of twentieth century housing, which is also echoed in the subsequent NP in 2016, and I find that the shape of the village has been largely derived from twentieth century development. Moreover, the East Hampshire District landscape character assessment characterises the village as a nucleated settlement. 25. The new housing would be sited on a hillside whereas Lymington Bottom is flat as is Brislands Road in part.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision However, that is not reflective of much of the village and the NP comments on Four Marks being in an elevated position in the landscape3. Additionally, the site is within the Hampshire Downs national character area, whereby the settlement pattern is characterised as a dense string of nucleated villages on higher slopes. Consequently, I do not find that this hillside siting of development would be inappropriate. 26. The density4 of the development across the appeal site has been agreed as 20.7 dwellings/hectare. Mr Griffiths on behalf of the Council argued this would be harmful and suggested it should be akin to Telegraph Lane in the NCA. However, as I have found above this is not a comparable character. Indeed, Lapwing Way is the nearest new significant development to the appeal site and a similar context which has a density of 25.5 dwellings/hectare5. I find the density of the proposal would be low. 27. The indicative master plan illustrates the potential to accommodate the scale of development. The Development Framework Plan shows the provision of 1.19ha6 open space, concentrated around the boundaries of the site, which would soften the new houses.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision This space could be landscaped so that trees would attract attention and assert a rural character. Similarly, the submitted plans demonstrate tree lined avenues would be feasible which would soften the access road and the passing vehicles. 28. The proposal would lead to a new access into the site whereby potentially such movement and noise of vehicles could potentially reduce tranquillity. However, this would be slight as the proposal at most would only be likely to generate approximately 30 vehicle movements at the a.m. peak hour7, and Lymington Bottom and Brislands Lane attract considerably more flows of through traffic. The tree lined avenues above would also help the perception of tranquillity. 29. Concern is raised by local residents about the extent of recent development and the threat to the village character. The effects aside from connectivity, 3 Paragraph 1.7 4 Mr Griffiths Rebuttal Proof of Evidence paragraph 7.3 5 Appendix 7 Ms Gruner Proof of Evidence 6 Appellant closing paragraph 48 7 Paragraph 5.8 Transport Assessment https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 social cohesion and facilities, will largely depend upon the particular characteristics of the site, the proposal and the nature of the surroundings, which have influenced my conclusion below. 30. In conclusion there are few publicly clear views of the site, and the development would be likely to be experienced in glimpsed views amongst other houses on two sides. However, the proposal would lead to the loss of a grass field which would harm the countryside setting of the village. I therefore find that the proposal would lead to limited harm at the outset but after the new landscaping has become established and flourishing after 15 years, that harm would become very limited. 31. The proposal being development outside a settlement policy boundary and in the countryside would be contrary to Policy CP10 (and the Council’s Housing Outside Settlement Boundaries SPD), CP19 and similarly NP Policy 1. It would be contrary to CP20 due to landscape harm. 32. The proposal would provide significant public open space thereby contributing to the GI in the area in accordance with Policy CP28 and empathise with the GI network shown in the Neighbourhood Plan and its Policy 9. 33.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Policy CP29 requires exemplary standard of design and highly appealing visual appearance, creating a sense of place and local distinctiveness. The proposal includes open space, potentially tree lined avenues and retention of boundary vegetation, which meets these policy criteria. The Policy also requires sympathetic height and density which again are met by the proposal. However, CP29 also requires the respect of character, and in this regard the proposal would be in conflict as limited/very limited harm would arise; overall, the proposal would conflict with Policy CP29. Other matters 34. Local residents expressed concern about the potential of surface water run-off flooding nearby houses as the site is elevated. However, the proposal has a strategy agreed by the Lead Local Flood Authority, which involves capture and containment of water on site using a pond at the lower end and accompanying ditches. Additionally permeable surfaces are also envisaged to slow run off and help water quality by filtration. The precise details of the scheme including maintenance could be controlled by their submission and approval in a condition, whereas currently there is no surface water retention on site and run-off is unabated.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision I therefore find that suitable drainage to address the impact of this development can be provided. 35. Local residents also expressed concern about the road safety implications from the additional traffic resulting from the development and the effect on the nearby school. During my site visit I saw the school road frontages at the end of the school day and, whilst there was extensive on street parking, a diligent highway official stopped and controlled traffic at appropriate moments to allow safe crossing, which I was advised is an everyday operation. The surveyed speeds are generally around 35mph8 and the proposal provides funding for traffic calming and pedestrian measures in the Section 106 agreement towards a County Council scheme. The access from the appeal site would have visibility to meet accepted national standards and has been positively assessed in a road 8 Paragraph 3.4 Transport Response Note https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 safety audit. The highway authority had no objection on safety grounds, and I concur. 36. Comments were made that the residents would be reliant upon car use for their everyday needs. However, on my site visit I observed primary school children walking or using scooters up to and beyond the appeal site. The nearest shops, which are wide ranging, are on the A31 and I walked along both connecting routes: Merlin Road/Blackberry Lane and along Lymington Bottom. Both routes have roadside pavements which are safely overlooked and, although there is an uphill element, the steepness would not be overly discouraging for many. I therefore find that walking would be feasible for most residents. There are also bus stops along the A31 with widespread services to surrounding towns. The well-kept recreation ground is also close by. Comments were made about the lack of employment in Four Marks but the nature of employment, and its associated travel if undertaken, is complex. In any event, the village has had recent development and indeed Lapwing Way is larger than this proposal, so 60 houses would not be inappropriate. 37. Concern was expressed about the potential impact on ecology.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision The submitted survey showed presence of bats, largely around the vegetation which is on the site boundaries. The submitted Framework Plan shows that the hedges and trees would be retained, and potential dark corridors can be maintained. The ecologist’s report did not show any other protected species or habitat on the site. The proposal includes a significantly sized open space and tree lined avenues are envisaged, which together with the SUDs drainage would offer opportunities to diversify the habitat on the site: a potential biodiversity net gain has been demonstrated. The Council had no objection on ecological grounds at the Inquiry and I similarly concur. 38. Concern is made about whether the access for emergency services would be constrained by the adjacent houses. However, the development would have its own access, constructed to adoptable set standards, where sufficient width and manoeuvrability would be expected to be provided. 39. There is also concern about the possible impact on the living conditions of the occupants in the neighbouring homes. On my site visit I noted the relative heights of the neighbouring dwellings and the nature of the boundaries to their gardens.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision However, this is an outline proposal, and the precise details of the intended dwellings would have to be considered in the reserved matters. Moreover, there is scope for a detailed scheme to allow sufficient distance, orientation, siting, elevations and boundary screening to maintain the living conditions of the nearby residents. Planning Obligations 40. The 2010 CIL Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL) and paragraph 57 of the Framework provide the legal and policy tests for obligations. These tests require that planning obligations should only be sought where they are: a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. This is also confirmed in the Planning practice guidance on Planning obligations (obligations Ppg). 41. The Council have provided evidence in a CIL compliance statement to show that the obligations include measures to mitigate the impacts of development https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 and meet the costs of associated infrastructure. NP Policy 5 supports community facilities within the village. 42. The provision of 40% of the housing as affordable is necessary to ensure that the development provides for the needs of the community as a whole. This accords with Policies CP11 and CP13 and is an important consideration in the planning balance. 43. Provision is made for a contribution towards the pavilion at the recreation ground, where the new residents would be readily able to enjoy recreation opportunities. The contribution is based on the number of houses and bedrooms so reasonably relates to need. Provision of an equipped play area on site is also needed for younger residents and is the subject of an obligation. Both of these measures would ensure that the new residents have the facilities to support their health and well-being as well as encouraging community mixing, in accordance with Policy CP18 and NP Policy 5 which specifically seeks improvements to the recreation ground. 44. The agreement also makes provision for the submission of works to form the open space and provide for its management.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision This is necessary for the character and appearance of the area in accordance with CP28. 45. A contribution of £228,500 is intended towards a new gateway feature to calm vehicle speeds, build outs along Lymington Bottom road and an informal crossing point, a linking footway to connect Lymington Bottom with adjacent roads to improve access to the primary school, a wayfinding strategy, and a new public right of way along Brislands Road towards the recreation facilities. Similarly, a £750 per dwelling contribution would be made towards a Travel Plan. Both of these obligations would support the promotion of non-private vehicular transport in the interests of limiting new traffic and the environmental implications, which accords with Policy CP31. 46. The agreement also requires implementation of the site access works to ensure that safe access is provided without delay, which also accords with Policy CP31. Public access into the appeal site is also subject of an obligation to allow for the wide benefit of the open space and potential onward footpath connections in accordance with Policy CP28. 47.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Both County and District Councils requested monitoring fees, based on their own calculations for their particular responsibilities in each obligation within the agreement as outlined in their respective obligations guidance. The obligations Ppg9 allows for monitoring costs if proportionate and reasonable. The obligations would have to be checked by the Council staff throughout the progress of the development and payments would need to be requested, received, and actioned. Both Councils have particular responsibilities for overseeing the obligations and the funding. I therefore find that the monitoring fees are necessary and reasonably related to the proposal. 48. The above obligations are intended to mitigate the needs and impact of the intended occupants of up to 60 additional houses, to avoid placing undue pressure on the existing community facilities. The requirements were based on calculating the resulting new residents and the likely need for the particular facilities. 9 Paragraph 36 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 49. The CIL Compliance evidence sets out how each obligation would meet the tests in the CIL Regulations and the Framework. I am satisfied that each obligation above would meet the tests in that they are all necessary to make the development acceptable, directly related and fairly and reasonably related in kind and scale. Provision is also necessary to accord with the above Development Plan Policies. 50. I therefore confirm that the obligations contained in the section 106 agreement would be necessary and reasonable. Housing Land Supply 51. The yearly requirement of 464 dwellings is agreed by both parties. This is calculated using the standard method as the Local Plan is more than 5 years old. The Council has 112% in the latest Housing Delivery Test as at 2022 and therefore no additional buffer is required. Following publication of the December 2023 revisions to the Framework and 5 February 2024 revisions to the Housing supply Ppg both parties agree that the Council is required to provide 4 years supply as measured over the 5 year period. The parties also agree that the base date for the land supply calculation is 1 April 2023. 52.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision The disagreement between the parties is centred on the supply. The Council considers there is 4.74 years whereas the Appellant finds 3.59 years. 53. Both parties acknowledge that the NPPF glossary provides the definition of deliverable housing sites; this refers to the need for clear evidence. 54. Land east of Horndean has only outline planning permission. The Appellant advised that the Council’s Environmental Health Officers are concerned about ventilation, their Policy team have concerns about the design of the scheme and the Highway Authority have objected as well as the Parish Council. A reserved matters scheme has been submitted but is undetermined. Therefore, the submitted evidence does not clearly show this is deliverable in the time period and 200 dwellings should be deleted from the supply. 55. The Mill Chase Academy site is allocated for development, whilst a permission was granted there are various conditions including pre-commencement, which have yet to be discharged. The Council suggest that this should be completed within 5 years, with a rate of 50 dwellings per year, however this is not clearly substantiated.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Moreover, it does not compare with other large sites, where the build rate is typically 30 dwellings per year which appears realistic. Therefore 57 dwellings should be deleted from the supply. 56. The Alton Neighbourhood Plan allocates a site by the Manor House for 15 dwellings. Whilst this was granted permission on appeal in June 2023, at the agreed base date of 1 April 2023 this did not have permission and so would be erroneous to include: a firm base date is needed as permissions will contribute to supply and so can be added but equally completions will need to be accounted at the same time which lead to the supply being diminished. As a result, 15 dwellings should be deleted from the Council’s supply. 57. Development on the Molson Coors site for flats has commenced but the precise stage of construction and future work was not presented to gauge its deliverability within the 5 year housing land delivery trajectory. There are also other variations in the trajectories, including Treloar Hospital which changed from 20 dwellings a year to 40. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 58. The Council at the Inquiry suggested that 1,096 dwellings from large sites with detailed planning permission will contribute to land supply, the Appellant considers 89210. The difference is due to the assumption of build rates which is based on the estimated trajectory for each site. 59. The 892 dwellings delivery is based on the Council’s position statement Appendix E. This states that 'a realistic phasing schedule has been maintained to ensure accuracy'. It is additionally stated that there has been 'regular contact' with representatives of those developments along with development management officers of the Council and that 'there is clear evidence for all sites counted'. 60. The Council at the Inquiry stated that the trajectory in their Appendix E was erroneous as it showed large sites being phased incorrectly to include only sites under construction rather not what was expected from them. Whilst the Council suggest that the 1,096 figure is valid, they confirmed at the Inquiry that at the present time no 'pro-forma' questions are sent to the particular house builders or any other written communications with developers, rather it is derived from officers opinion.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision There was no written evidence to support the trajectories. Moreover, the District Council do not do their own monitoring rather it is undertaken by the County Council which further distances their officers from understanding the sites constraints and the County Council did not submit evidence to the Inquiry on this matter. 61. Whilst the District Council offered reassurance about the genuine assumptions to the trajectories, there was no evidence from the housebuilders themselves, which is particularly important as they are in clear positions to understand their own site and its particular constraints. The Framework glossary refers to the need for clear evidence to demonstrate the deliverability, and accordingly I cannot conclusively conclude that any more than 892 dwellings are deliverable, and so 204 dwellings should be deleted from the supply. 62. The Ppg also states a windfall allowance may be justified. Paragraph 72 of the Framework confirms the need for compelling evidence and any allowance should be realistic having regard to strategic land availability assessment, historic windfall and expected future trends. The Council include 112 dwellings as a foreseen windfall allowance.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision However, this is in addition to small sites with planning permission. In the two years 2026/27 and 2027/28 this would indicate 102 dwellings which far surpasses the windfall completions to date which the Appellant quantifies at 58 dwellings per year11. I therefore find that there is not compelling evidence to assume greater than historic delivery and therefore 53 dwellings should be deleted from the supply. 63. The Council suggest total supply is 2,198 dwellings, whereas the Appellant suggests 1,664 thereby leading to the respective positions of 4.74 and 3.59 years supply. Taking the above deletions into account, I therefore find that the supply at 1 April 2023 is 3.59 years based on the particular evidence before this Inquiry. 64. The Local Plan review suggests the potential for improving supply in the future although at this particular stage it is not guaranteed when suitable and deliverable sites will be found. In addition, the Council will have to make 10 Paragraph 2.4 Statement of Common Ground on Housing Land Supply 11 Mr Pycroft Proof of Evidence paragraphs 6.35 -6.37 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 further provision to contribute to the needs of the National Park. Moreover, since 2011 there has been a near consistent under delivery of housing completions in East Hampshire against the adopted housing requirement12. I therefore find that the future prospects are uncertain. 65. The Appellant advocated that meeting supply will entail making up the difference between 4 and 5 years supply sometime in the future, although the Council argued that as the supply is a rolling figure, completions (loss of supply) will be replaced by new permissions (additions to supply). The Ppg refers to an allowance to maintain a 4 year target for up to 2 years, but in any event, this will have to be assessed in the Local Plan review including its examination. Development Plan and Planning Balance 66. The proposal being development on a site largely outside the settlement policy boundary would conflict with Policies CP10 and CP19 of the Core Strategy and similarly would be contrary to NP Policy 1. As above I also have found conflict with CP20 in that the proposal would result in limited/very limited landscape harm. 67.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision I have also found that overall, there would be conflict with CP29: whilst the proposal has several notable design attributes it would cause limited/very limited harm to the countryside setting of the village. 68. The proposal would provide a significant area for public open space which would accord with Policy CP28 and NP Policy 9. 69. Considering the above collectively there is some accordance but also some conflict with the Development Plan policies. When taken as a whole, I find that the proposal would be contrary to the Development Plan. 70. As I found above the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a four year housing land supply and in such circumstances paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is triggered. Paragraph 11(d) criterion ii requires consideration of whether any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. 71. Paragraph 7 of the Framework states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. In order to achieve this paragraph 8 of the Framework provides three overarching objectives: economic, social and environmental. 72.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision In terms of the economic objective the proposal would provide up to 60 houses which would have benefits from their construction: £7 million13 cost is quoted by the Appellant and uncontested. The housing land supply shortfall is significant with uncertain prospects for improvement and paragraph 60 of the Framework confirms the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. 73. The Appellant suggests the proposed dwellings would be completed in 1.714 years. I find this would appear to be marginally optimistic but not wholly 12 Mr Pycroft Proof of Evidence table 3 13 Paragraph 9.4.7 Ms Fitzgerald Proof of Evidence 14 Paragraph 9.4.7 Ms Fitzgerald Proof of Evidence https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision In terms of the economic objective the proposal would provide up to 60 houses which would have benefits from their construction: £7 million13 cost is quoted by the Appellant and uncontested. The housing land supply shortfall is significant with uncertain prospects for improvement and paragraph 60 of the Framework confirms the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. 73. The Appellant suggests the proposed dwellings would be completed in 1.714 years. I find this would appear to be marginally optimistic but not wholly 12 Mr Pycroft Proof of Evidence table 3 13 Paragraph 9.4.7 Ms Fitzgerald Proof of Evidence 14 Paragraph 9.4.7 Ms Fitzgerald Proof of Evidence https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 unrealistic bearing in mind the typical 30 dwellings a year build rate on other sites, as raised earlier. Indeed, the site is largely greenfield, and construction would not be expected to be constrained. Whilst demolition of the existing dwelling would be required at the outset, there is space to do such work. Additionally, it was explained at the Inquiry that marketing would be undertaken by a specialist team with contacts in hand and it is not the practice of the Appellant to withhold implementation of development sites. The reserved matters would have to be timely, and I conclude a good number of the dwellings would be likely to contribute to the housing land supply. 74. In terms of the social objective, the Framework refers to the need to provide sufficient number and range of homes to meet the needs for present and future generations. Bearing in mind the housing land supply shortfall there is a pressing need to increase supply from deliverable sites. The proposal would provide a range of new homes, in terms of size, form and tenure. 75.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision The affordable housing would also contribute to the social objective, particularly as 40% of the dwellings would be affordable which is a very significant proportion. Notably, the average cost of a home in East Hampshire in 2022 was 12.5 times the area average salary compared with 5.17 in 199715. The Inspector’s report examining the Local Plan in 2013 identifies an acute need for affordable housing and thereafter since 2019 the number of people on the housing register16 has increased whilst affordable housing delivery has substantially fallen. The Council’s HEDNA17 records in 2022/23 a shortfall of 502 affordable homes in that year alone. 76. The affordable housing would contribute to the local need and support the community as a whole helping to retain villagers and the Parish Council submissions remark on the scarcity of 20-40 year olds. The proposal would provide an accepted standard of everyday living for those currently waiting for suitable homes. I therefore find that the housing provision would have substantial economic and social benefits. 77.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision The Section 106 obligations for funding towards the recreation ground pavilion would benefit existing as well as new residents which would contribute to the social objective. In addition, over £700,000 in CIL would be generated of which 25% would go to the Parish Council which would also benefit the area. 78. In terms of the environmental objective the proposal would lead to limited landscape harm becoming very limited over time. Conversely, the occupants of the dwellings would be close to facilities without reliance upon car use, thereby helping towards low carbon living as advocated within this criterion of paragraph 8. Also, the proposal would promote the sustainable access to facilities and provide traffic calming. Additionally, the proposal has been demonstrated to potentially improve biodiversity, which would be a benefit. 79. In the light of the above I therefore conclude that the adverse impacts of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The proposal therefore benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision The benefits of the proposed development and presumption in favour of 15 Paragraph 8.1.9 Ms Fitzgerald Proof of Evidence 16 Figure 1 page 43 Ms Fitzgerald Proof of Evidence 17 Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 11

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision The benefits of the proposed development and presumption in favour of 15 Paragraph 8.1.9 Ms Fitzgerald Proof of Evidence 16 Figure 1 page 43 Ms Fitzgerald Proof of Evidence 17 Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 11

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 sustainable development in the context of the paragraph 11(d) balance therefore lead me to conclude that the appeal should be approved not in accordance with the development plan as material considerations indicate a decision otherwise is appropriate. Conditions 80. Paragraph 56 of the Framework and the Planning practice guidance, Use of planning conditions (PPG), provide the tests for the imposition of conditions. There was considerable agreement on the wording of conditions. However, the Framework is clear that planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning, and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. I have assessed the suggested conditions accordingly. 81. A condition is needed to confirm which details are the subject of reserved matters. Similarly, the conditions on timing and approved plans help provide clarity and certainty. Similarly, a condition is warranted to confirm the maximum number of dwellings as density has been a consideration. 82.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Rather than the standard 3 years for the submission of application(s) for reserved matters, it was discussed at the Inquiry whether this should be reduced to 2 years. Whilst the Appellant indicated this may not be necessary it was acknowledged that it might help demonstrate the site’s deliverability. I find this would encourage the proposal’s implementation and support its contribution to the 5-year housing land supply requirement, in accordance with paragraph 77 of the Framework. 83. The two conditions on construction management are combined due to overlap in their requirements. The provisions are needed to safeguard the reasonable living conditions of local residents and highway safety. It is worded as pre- commencement to ensure that the required measures are in place from the outset. 84. A condition is needed to ensure that the visibility splays to the sides of the access are kept clear in the interests of safety. A condition requiring details of levels, drainage and lighting strategy of the new roads to be included in reserved matters would ensure that the roads can be considered comprehensively. 85. A condition to investigate and potentially remediate land contamination is suggested.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision The field has been used for agriculture in the past and it is possible that some chemicals may have been used. This is warranted as a precaution to ensure the health of the new residents. 86. The landscaping details are a reserved matter, but a condition is needed on the timing of planting and any replacement of lost specimens. A condition is also needed to ensure that tree works, and their protection, are undertaken to conserve important specimens. In addition, a condition is needed to promote biodiversity on the site and ensure a net gain. 87. A condition on approval of a detailed surface water drainage scheme is necessary so that additional water run-off from the new hard surfaces is accommodated on site to avoid exacerbating flooding. The condition requires submission of details in compliance with the strategy submitted as part of this https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 12

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 proposal. Similarly, conditions are warranted on maintenance of the above and use of porous surfaces. 88. The archaeological conditions would ensure that any significant remains are properly recorded. One is worded as pre-commencement out of necessity. Conclusion 89. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions in the conditions annexe below and the Section 106 agreement.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — John Longmuir INSPECTOR Appearances For the Council Mr Scott Stemp Counsel, No 5 Chambers, Mr Carl Griffiths BA(Hons) MPlan Planning Manager Capita Mr Adam Harvey BA(Hons) MA MRTPI Planning Policy Manager East Hampshire Ms Holly Drury BSc(Hons) MSc MCIHT Principal Transport Planner Hampshire CC For the Appellant Mr Christian Hawley, Counsel, No 5 Chambers, Mr Clive Burbridge BSc(Hons) MSc MRTPI FCIHT FIHE CMILT, Director of Transportation, Iceni Projects Mr Colin Whittingham BSc(Hons) MSc MCIWEM C.WEM PIEMA, Director, RSK Mr Ben Pycroft BA(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI, Director, Emery Planning Ms Silke Gruner (BHons) CMLI, Director (Landscape), Iceni Projects Ms Kathryn Fitzgerald BA(Hons) MPlan MRTPI, Planning Manager, Gladman Developments Ltd Interested parties Mr Paul McAllister Four Marks Parish Council Dr Arthur Barlow Chairman Fight for Four Marks Dr David Aston Local resident Mr Brian Timms Local resident Mr Frank Mallony Local resident https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 13

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — John Longmuir Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 Documents submitted during the Inquiry INQ1 Opening statement from the Appellant INQ2 Opening statement from the Council INQ3 East Hampshire Five Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement INQ4 Addendum to above INQ5 Hampshire County Council note on highway obligations INQ6 Appellant: Note on flood risk INQ7 Appellant: Transport Response Note to Residents Concerns INQ8 Suggested conditions INQ9 Draft legal agreement INQ9 Council closing INQ10 Appellant closing Conditions annexe 1. Application for approval of all the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission and the development shall be begun either before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last reserved matters to be approved whichever is the latter. 2. No development shall start on site until plans and particulars showing details relating to appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale of the development shall be submitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — John Longmuir These details shall comprise the 'reserved matters' and shall be submitted within the time constraints referred to in Condition 1 above before any development is commenced. 3. The development shall be carried in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan: CSA/3402/117 Rev A, Site Access Drawing: 22-T082-01 Rev F and Framework Plan. 4. No more than 60 dwellings (Use class C3) shall be constructed on the site. 5. 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 and construction work; b) The provision of long-term parking for all site operatives and visitors; c) The arrangements for deliveries associated with all construction works; d) Methods and phasing of construction works; e) Access and egress for plant and machinery; f) Protection of pedestrian routes during construction; g) Location of temporary site buildings, compounds, construction material, and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 14

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — John Longmuir Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 plant storage areas; h) Location of temporary site buildings, compounds, construction material, and storage areas; i) Details of the methodology for ensuring dirt is not transferred onto the highway from the site (wheel washing), and onwards mitigation should this fail, such as the employment of mechanical road sweepers, and the subsequent refresh of street lining (as and when required) should this be damaged during the process; j) A public communication strategy, including a complaints procedure; k) Loading and unloading of plant and materials; l) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; m) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; n) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction to include a site specific dust management plan; and o) Measures to control noise and vibration during construction. 6. The approved lines of site splays as shown on drawing 22-T082-01 Rev F and 22-T082-07 shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 0.6m in height above the adjacent carriageway. 7.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — John Longmuir The details submitted in relation to the reserved matters stage shall include details to demonstrate an appropriate street design. These details shall include: a) Street Lighting Strategy; b) Drainage Strategy and Design details in relation to the site and any new street and footpath; c) Final ground levels plan; and d) Final materials plan; The above matters should be implemented in accordance with the approved plans. 8. No above ground development shall commence until the reserved matters for landscaping details together with a programme for implementation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All landscaping shall be carried in accordance with the approved scheme and the approved implementation programme. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. 9.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — John Longmuir Prior to commencement of development activities, an ecological mitigation and management strategy (to include but not be restricted to: details of protection measures for retained habitat; details; details such as timings, locations and ongoing maintenance of mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures for ecological features) shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall be in accordance with the mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures detailed within the Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Assessment (CSA, November 2023). Any such measures shall thereafter be implemented in strict accordance with the agreed details. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 15

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — John Longmuir Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 10. No development shall begin until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the principles within the Flood Risk Assessment, has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include: a. A technical summary highlighting any changes to the design from that within the approved Flood Risk Assessment; and b. Winter groundwater monitoring and infiltration test results undertaken in accordance with BRE365 and providing a representative assessment of those locations where infiltration features are proposed c. Detailed drainage plans to include type, layout and dimensions of drainage features including references to link to the drainage calculations. d. Detailed drainage calculations to demonstrate existing runoff rates are not exceeded and there is sufficient attenuation for storm events up to and including 1:100 + climate change. e. Evidence that urban creep has been included within the calculations. f. Confirmation that sufficient water quality measures have been included to satisfy the methodology in the Ciria SuDS Manual C753. g.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — John Longmuir Exceedance plans demonstrating the flow paths and areas of ponding in the event of blockages or storms exceeding design criteria. 11. Details for the long term maintenance arrangements for the surface water drainage system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings. The submitted details shall include: a. Maintenance schedules for each drainage feature type and ownership; and b. Details of protection measures. . 12. The proposed hard surfaces shall either be made of porous materials or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surfaces to a permeable or porous surface within the site. 13. No development shall start on site, including demolition, until an Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 14. No development shall commence until the applicant has submitted, and the Local Planning Authority has approved in writing, a written scheme for the programme of archaeological evaluation within that Development Phase area.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — John Longmuir The programme of archaeological evaluation shall then be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme. 15. No development shall commence until the applicant has submitted, and the Local Planning Authority has approved in writing a Written Scheme for recording all historic assets within that Development Phase area. The recording of all historic assets shall then be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme. 16. Following completion of archaeological fieldwork within the Development site a report shall be produced in accordance with an approved programme including where appropriate post-excavation assessment, specialist analysis and reports, https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 16

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — John Longmuir The programme of archaeological evaluation shall then be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme. 15. No development shall commence until the applicant has submitted, and the Local Planning Authority has approved in writing a Written Scheme for recording all historic assets within that Development Phase area. The recording of all historic assets shall then be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme. 16. Following completion of archaeological fieldwork within the Development site a report shall be produced in accordance with an approved programme including where appropriate post-excavation assessment, specialist analysis and reports, https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 16

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — John Longmuir Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 publication and public engagement related to that Development Phase area and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. 17. No development shall commence on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local 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 Local 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; (c) and 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.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — John Longmuir 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’. 18. Before any part of the development is first occupied or brought into use a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried out and a completion certificate confirming the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — John Longmuir 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. 19. All development on a Development Phase shall be stopped immediately in the event that contamination not previously identified is found to be present on that Development Phase, and details of the contamination shall be reported immediately in writing to the Local Planning Authority. Development on that Development Phase shall not re-start until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Environment Agency: (a) scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 17

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — John Longmuir Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/23/3329928 (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 Local 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. (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.

46 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, East Hampshire, GU34 5AH — East Hampshire District Council — John Longmuir 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 relevant Development Phase is occupied or used (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local 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 in that Development Phase shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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'. This condition shall apply to individual phases of development End of conditions https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 18