bursledon buro happold site appraisal report

024601 Site Appraisal, Shop Lane, Bursledon 01 October 2008

Revision 01

Site Appraisal, Shop Lane, Bursledon Revision 01 Site Appraisal Report October 2008 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited of 73

Buro Happold

Revision Description Issued by Date Checked

00 Draft report for client review RSO 23/09/2008 TC

01 Final report RSO 31/10/2008 TC

\\srv-london02\Project Filing\024601 - Site Appraisals Houghton Regis and Stroud\F39

Environment\Bursledon\Reports\081031 Final report\081031 RO 024601 Site Appraisal Report 01.doc

This report has been prepared for the sole benefit, use and information of European Property Ventures (South

Hampshire) Ltd. for the purposes set out in the report or instructions commissioning it. The liability of Buro

Happold Limited in respect of the information contained in the report will not extend to any third party.

author Richard Orriss

signature

date 31/10/2008

approved Trevor Curson

signature

date 31/10/2008


Buro Happold

Contents

1 Executive Summary 9

1.1 Introduction 9

1.2 Key Benefits 9

1.3 Key Issues 10

2 Introduction 13

3 Site Description and Land Uses 14

3.1 Introduction 14

3.2 Site Location 14

3.3 Site Description 15

3.4 Adjacent Land Uses 16

3.5 Historical Land Use 17

4 Planning Policy and Land Use 19

4.1 Introduction 19

4.2 Current Planning Instruments 19

4.3 Proposed Planning Instruments 19

4.4 Regional Spatial Strategy 19

4.5 Local Development Framework 19

4.6 Local Plan 20

4.7 Countryside 22

4.8 Agricultural Land Classification 22

4.9 Strategic Gap 23

4.10 Housing Allocation 23

4.10.1 Hampshire County Council 23

4.10.2 Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 23

4.10.3 The South East Plan 23

4.10.4 Affordable Housing 23

4.11 Implications for development – Planning Policies 24

5 Socio-Economic and Community 25

5.1 Introduction 25

5.2 Socio-Economic Conditions 25

5.2.1 Population 25

5.2.2 Economic and Occupational Status 25

5.2.3 Personal Safety 25

5.3 Community Involvement 25

5.4 Location of Public Facilities 25

5.5 Implications for Site Development: Socio-economic 26

6 Political Overview 27

6.1 County Council 27

6.2 District Council 27

6.3 Parish Council 28

7 Water Resources 29

7.1 Surface Water Features 29

7.2 Groundwater 29

7.3 Flood Risk Guidance 30

7.3.1 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk 30

Revision 01 Site Appraisal, Shop Lane, Bursledon October 2008 Site Appraisal Report of 73 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited

Buro Happold

7.3.2 Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 30

7.3.3 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 30

7.4 Fluvial Flood Risk 31

7.5 Surface Water Flooding 31

7.6 Implications for Site Development 31

8 Contaminated Land, Geology and Soils 32

8.1 Contamination risk assessment 32

8.2 Geology, hydrogeology and hydrology 32

8.2.1 Potentially Contaminative Activities 32

8.2.2 Receptors and Pathways 33

8.2.3 Risks Associated with Potentially Contaminated Land 33

8.3 Implications for Site Development and Recommendations 34

9 Ecology (flora and fauna) 35

9.1 Introduction 35

9.2 Existing Conditions 35

9.3 Designated Sites 35

9.3.1 Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) 35

9.3.2 Special Protection Areas (SPA) 35

9.3.3 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 35

9.3.4 Ramsar Sites 36

9.3.5 Local Nature Reserves (LNR) 36

9.3.6 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) 36

9.4 Key Habitat Features 37

9.5 Protected or Notable Species 37

9.6 Implications for Site Development: Ecology 37

9.6.1 Key ecological issues 37

9.6.2 Further Assessment Requirements 38

10 Built Heritage and Archaeology 39

10.1 Introduction 39

10.2 Archaeology 39

10.3 Historic Buildings 39


11 Traffic and Transport 41

11.1 Site Location 41

11.2 Bus 41

11.3 Railway 42

11.4 Airport 42

11.5 Trip Generation 42

11.6 Site Access 43

11.7 Planning Policy 43

11.7.1 Hampshire Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 43

11.8 Way Forward 43

12 Landscape and Visual 44


12.2 Landform 44

12.3 Visual 44

12.3.1 Views into the site 44

12.3.2 Views within the site 46

12.3.3 Views from the site 46


Buro Happold

12.4 Sensitive Visual Receptors 46

12.5 Implications for Site Development: Visual 46

13 Noise and Vibration 47


13.2 Baseline Conditions 47

13.3 Planning Policy Guidance note 24, Planning and noise 47

13.4 Assessment 47

13.5 Construction Impacts 48


14 Air Quality 49


14.2 Air Quality Objectives 49

14.3 Pollution from Roads 51

14.4 Other Air Quality Issues 52

14.5 Implications for Site Development – Air Quality 52

15 Utilities 53

15.1 Electricity 53

15.2 Implications for Site Development: Electricity 53

15.3 Gas 53

15.4 Implications for Site Development: Gas 53

15.5 Water 53

15.6 Implications for Site Development: Water 53

15.7 Sewerage and Drainage 53

15.8 Implications for Site Development: Sewerage and Drainage 54

15.9 Telecommunications 54

15.10 Implications for Site Development: Telecommunications 54

15.11 Oil/ Fuel 54

15.12 Implications for Site Development: Oil/ Fuel 55

16 Conclusions and Recommendations 57

References

Appendix A: Site Photos

Appendix B: Envirocheck Maps & Historical Mapping

Appendix C: Socio-Economic Data

Appendix D: Summary of Legal Protection of British Plants and Animals and Protected/ Notable

Species Records

Appendix E: Archaeological Data

Appendix F: PPG24 Planning and Noise

Appendix G: Utility Plans


Buro Happold

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction

European Property Ventures (South Hampshire) Ltd. commissioned Buro Happold in July 2008 to conduct a site

appraisal for land off Portsmouth Road in Bursledon. The purpose of this report is to assist in identifying the

strategy to be pursued and issues to be addressed in the promotion of the site in order to secure its allocation

for development in the local development framework. This section provides a summary of the key issues

identified that may influence development and provide a baseline for further detailed studies.

1.2 Key Benefits

The key benefits of locating a residential scheme in this location include:

Topic Key Benefits Section Reference

Socio-economic

and Community

Bursledon has relatively good levels of socio-

economic indicators, with good levels of employment,

reducing crime rates, and a number of public facilities

such as schools and doctors within ease of reach.

Section 5.2 Socio-Economic

Conditions

Section 5.4 Location of Public

Facilities

Water Resources The site is not at risk from fluvial flooding from the

adjacent watercourses, nor is the site located in a

source protection zone (due to high permeability soils

sustainable drainage systems and petrol interceptors

are recommended).

Section 7.2 Groundwater

Section 7.4 Fluvial Flood Risk

Ecology The site is not covered by any statutory or non-

statutory designations for nature conservation.

Section 9.3 Designated Sites

Built Heritage

and Archaeology

No known archaeological records exist for the site

itself.

Section 10.2 Archaeology

Traffic and

Transport

The site has good potential links to Portsmouth Road

and/or Hamble Lane

Section 11.6 Site Access

Topic Key Benefits Section Reference

Landscape and

Visual

The site is not located in or in close proximity to

significant landscape designations. Residential

development already exists to the south and east of

the site.

Section 12 Landscape and

Visual

Noise and

Vibration

Construction of the new development is unlikely to

cause noise and vibration issues to nearby residents

because of the relatively low intensity and short term

nature of construction activity for any development.

Mitigation measures are unlikely to be required to

protect the site from road traffic noise from either

Portsmouth Road or Hamble Lane.

Section 13.4 Assessment

Section 13.6 Implications for

Site Development

Utilities Electricity, gas, potable water, sewerage and

drainage and telecommunication services are in the

vicinity of the site and it is likely that they can be

utilised/ upgraded to supply the proposed

development.

Section 15 Utilities


Buro Happold

1.3 Key Issues

The key issues of locating a residential scheme in this location include:

Topic Key Issues Section Reference

Planning Policies

and Land Use

Site is in an area designated as countryside and a

strategic gap. However the emerging RSS core

strategy has identified gaps as constraints to

sustainable development and as such recommends

frequent review of the gap boundaries.

As detailed in the local plan, the provision of 35%

affordable housing is required for sites with the

capacity to accommodate 15 or more dwellings.

The land is Agricultural Land Class 3, further

research is required to determine whether it is

Class 3a or 3b, if the former then it would fall within

the Local Plan agricultural protection policies.

Section 4.7 Countryside

Section 4.9 Strategic Gap

Section 4.10.4 Affordable

Housing

Section 4.8 Agricultural Land

Classification

Socio-economic

and Community

The closest A&E hospital is relatively far from the

site – 14km.

Section 5.4 Location of Public

Facilities

Water Resources As the site footprint is greater than 1 hectare a

surface water drainage strategy and further

consultation with the Environment Agency will be

required as part of the planning application to

address flooding issues, in line with Planning Policy

Statement 25.

The site overlies a minor aquifer of high/

intermediate permeability.

The site is upstream of a SINC (site of importance

for nature conservation) and appropriate measures

to prevent pollution of this feature may be required

during construction and use of any new

Section 7.2 Groundwater

Section 7.4 Fluvial Flood Risk

Section 7.5 Surface Water

Flooding

development.

Contaminated

Land, Geology and

Soils

The potential risks related to migration of landfill

gas on to site from the nearby landfill are assessed

as Moderate, reflecting the sensitivity and

proximity of the potential hazard.

A preliminary risk assessment, based on a detailed

desk study and geo-environmental investigation

with regards to contamination, should be

conducted prior to detailed design should a

sensitive land use such as housing be proposed for

the site.

At the appropriate time, a geo-environmental site

investigation should be carried out in conjunction

with the geotechnical investigation which will be

necessary to collect data on ground conditions


Site Development and

Recommendations

Ecology If legally protected or notable species or habitats

are found on site, the proposed development

would need to be designed to avoid any potential

adverse impact. Further ecological assessments

are recommended to fully assess the ecological

value of the site and any implications of the site.

Section 9.5 Protected or

Notable Species

Section 9.6.2 Further

Assessment Requirements

Built Heritage and

Archaeology

A number of archaeological finds are recorded near

the site, and a survey is likely to be required as a

condition of any planning application with a

watching brief during any works

Section 10.2 Archaeology


Site Development

Traffic and

Transport

Multiple accesses to the site will need to be

created, and these will require negotiations with

neighbouring owners and consultations with the

authorities.

Section 11.6 Site Access


Buro Happold

Landscape and

visual

Several existing houses overlook the site, and its

development is likely to be perceived as an erosion

of the strategic gap between Bursledon and

Southampton.

Section 12.3.1 Views into the

site

Air quality In order to determine whether or not increased

traffic on Hamble Lane would cause further

deterioration of air quality due to high NO2 levels,

further analysis of more recent monitoring results,

along with the possibility of further monitoring and

modelling to ensure no exceedences are expected

with higher traffic levels is recommended


Site Development – Air Quality

Utilities A GPSS oil pipeline runs south-north beneath the

site. In line with Section 16 of the Land Powers

(Defence) Act, a wayleave limits the erection of

buildings within a 3m buffer zone from the edge of

the pipeline. New utilities serving the site may have

to pass beneath the pipeline. An alternative

procedure comprises the diversion of the pipeline

away from the site.

Section 15.11 Oil/ Fuel


Site Development: Oil/ Fuel


Buro Happold

2 Introduction

European Property Ventures (South Hampshire) Ltd. commissioned Buro Happold in September 2008 to

conduct a site appraisal for land off Shop Lane, Bursledon, in the county of Hampshire.

The purpose of this report is to assist in identifying the strategy to be pursued and issues to be addressed in the

promotion of the site in order to secure its allocation for development in the Local Development Framework.

This report and the accompanying Executive Summary provides European Property Ventures (South

Hampshire) Ltd. with a body of information that can be used to promote the site.

The site appraisal assesses baseline conditions at the site in relation to environmental, infrastructure and social

aspects. A desk based study identified key issues that may influence development in this location, or require

further assessment to ensure that they can be managed through the masterplanning or design process. The

site appraisal process has also identified a number of secondary issues for consideration.

A site visit and desktop study provided baseline information on the site. A number of sources were employed

including an Envirocheck report (relevant planning policies, planning applications and previous land uses),

Groundwise utilities report, species record information requests and various council and government authority

websites, databases and information sources. A full list of data sources is provided in the References Section.

All mapping sources for the site are reproduced throughout the report or provided as Appendices.


Buro Happold

3 Site Description and Land Uses

3.1 Introduction

This site description is based on information gathered from a desk study exercise, an Envirocheck report

(04/09/2008) and a site visit carried out on 08/09/2008. The Envirocheck report provided historical land use

information, data on contamination issues, site sensitivity issues and other factors which may affect the site

such as adjacent land uses.

The site survey was carried out on 08/09/2008 commencing at 11:00am. The weather was generally dull and

overcast, but the prevailing conditions were dry with good visibility.

3.2 Site Location

The site in question is situated on the western developed extent of the village of Bursledon. Bursledon is

located within the borough of Eastleigh, a local government district and borough bordering the unitary authority

of Southampton, the City of Winchester and the borough of Fareham, and is situated on the southern edge of

the county of Hampshire.

The site is bounded to the west by Shop Lane, to the east by a stream/ drainage ditch (running north-south) and

residential properties adjacent to Beverley Gardens and Green Lane and, and to the north by a low hedgerow

and public footpath.

The location of the site in a local, wider and regional context are shown Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-3.

Figure 3-1 Local site context


Buro Happold

Figure 3-2 Wider site context

Figure 3-3 Regional site context

3.3 Site Description

The vast majority of the 8.6 hectare (21.3 acre) site supports the cultivation of maize standing at approximately

2.5m at the time of the site visit. The base soil consists of a silty texture accompanied with fragments of flint.

A patch of wet grassland supporting intermittent rushes is present to the south-east (see Figure 3-4), acting as a

retention/ attenuation store for surface water runoff from the site. A footpath (public right of way) is located

adjacent to the northern site boundary, which is accessed via a stile at the north-east corner, or a footpath gate

at the western corner (see Figure 16-1). Informal footpaths exist along the other boundaries of the site.


Buro Happold

Figure 3-4 View southward along eastern site boundary, wet grassland in foreground and maize to the

right

Figure 3-5 Footpath along northern site boundary, low hedgerow to the left

3.4 Adjacent Land Uses

North

The northern site boundary is defined by a low hedgerow (trees and shrubbery) and a formal grassy footpath

(see Figure 3-5). This margin separates the site from a neighbouring agricultural field, again growing maize,

immediately to the north. Two bungalow properties (names: Octavia and Hantonia) accessed from Shop Lane

are adjacent to the north-west corner of the site.

The eastern extent of Sholing, a suburb on the eastern envelope of the city of Southampton is defined by Botley

Road located 700m to the north-west of the site, comprising primarily residential properties.

West

The site is bordered to the west by Shop Lane, a rural lane connecting Portsmouth Road to the south and

Botley Road to the north.

The land immediately west of the site comprises a large house, surrounding pasture, and a large shed (see

Figure 3-6). Further west, to the north of Portsmouth Road, are a number of open agricultural fields, an isolated

collection of residential buildings, and a sports playing fields. A disused camp-site ground enclosing Burrows

Copse is situated to the west on the southern edge of Portsmouth Road.

Figure 3-6 Old Netley Dairy Farm


Buro Happold

South

Portsmouth Road runs east-west just to the south of the site. The Plough Public House and accompanying

grounds are located on the southern verge of Portsmouth Road, as shown in Figure 3-7.

Figure 3-7 Portsmouth Road and the Plough PH

The wider south-western region comprises agricultural land. A series of lakes follow the route of the drainage

ditches through the neighbouring land, following the narrow band of Priors Hill Copse to the south. The urban

settlement, dominated with residential housing extends south-west from the site.

East

The garden plots of houses lining Beverley Gardens and Green Lane follow the eastern boundary of the site.

Beverley Gardens comprises detached bungalow units, while Green Lane has two large detached properties

neighbouring the site boundary. A series of two-storey flats also overlook the site at the western end of

Wheelers Meadow, a small residential road branching off Green Lane.

Directly west of Green Lane lies a further agricultural field of maize, and north of this, an open field with

vehicular tracks used to host Sunday car boot sales, defined to the east by Hamble Lane. Past Hamble Lane is

Old Netley, merging into the residential area of Lowford. A large Tesco superstore is present to the north of

these settlements adjacent to Windhover Roundabout.

3.5 Historical Land Use

Former land uses of the site and surrounding area were identified by studying historical Ordnance Survey maps

(1870 – 2008) presented in the Envirocheck report. The information is summarised in Table 3—1, and a copy of

the maps are available in Appendix B.

The site

In the earliest available map, 1898, the site is shown to be empty with a footpath running along the northern

boundary – no changes to the site itself are shown in mapping between 1898 and the present date.

The surrounding area

In 1870 the area surrounding the site was occupied by undeveloped land, including open fields, common land

(Netley and Bursledon Commons are located to the north) and areas of woodland (Pilands Wood to the south-

east). Netley Farm and outbuildings are shown to the west of the site, with a number of residential properties

lining Grange Road immediately to the north. The Plough Public House (PH) fronts Portsmouth Road directly to

the south of the site.

In 1898 mapping a cluster of buildings (presumably residential), including the Manor House PH are first shown

at Netley Green to the south-east at the Portsmouth Road/ Green Lane junction. A collection of buildings are

also shown at Lowford Bottom approximately 1km to the east along Portsmouth Road. Quarrying was

commonplace and indicated by a number of gravel pits in the area, including one to the north of the site

towards the end of Green Lane.

By 1909 the collection of buildings in Lowford had expanded. New residential properties were shown along the

southern end of Green Lane adjacent to the site and along Hamble Lane to the east.

In 1938, a large area of development was apparent to 1.0km north-west of the site on Netley Common.

Historical mapping also highlights a sewage works and brick works directly south of the site adjacent to

Portsmouth Road.

From 1938 onwards, the areas of Lowford and the west of Netley Common experienced extensive growth in

residential properties and residential estates; the open fields adjacent to the site to the north, east and south

remained undeveloped.

1968 maps show the introduction of residential development adjacent to the site, including Beverley Gardens

branching from Portsmouth Road to the east of the site, and two bungalow properties, Octavia and Hantonia

neighbouring the north-west corner of the site.


Buro Happold

Historical mapping in 1972 highlights an improvement in regional transport links with the introduction of the

M27 motorway bypassing the site to the north-east, incorporating a junction link to a new large roundabout

(Windhover Roundabout) disconnecting Province Hill and Bursledon Road. The improvement in the local and

regional transport network was accompanied by the introduction of the Tesco superstore and petrol station to

the north of Hamble Lane, built prior to 1989.

Feature Location First

shown

Change Comments

Netley Farm and

outbuildings

Immediately south on

Grange Road

1870 None Now referred to as

Old Netley Dairy

Farm

The Plough PH Immediately south on

Portsmouth Road

1870 None -

The Manor House PH Immediately south on

Portsmouth Road

1898 None -

Residential development Netley Green to the south-

east on Portsmouth Road/

Green Lane junction.

1898 None Expanded

Residential development Lowford Bottom 1km to the

east on Portsmouth Road

1898 None Expanded

Gravel Pits Many locations in local

vicinity

1898 None Indication of

quarrying in the area

Residential development Southern end of Green

Lane and on Hamble Lane

1909 None -

Large-scale

development

West of Netley Common,

1.0km to north-west.

1938 None Expansion

Feature Location First

shown

Change Comments

Large-scale

development

Lowford and Netley

Common

1938

onwards

None -

Residential development Beverley Gardens adjacent

to eastern site boundary

1968 None -

Octavia and Hantonia

bungalows

Neighbouring westerly

corner of the site

1968 None -

M27 Motorway 1.0km to the north-east 1972 None -

Windhover Roundabout 600m to the north-east 1972 None -

Tesco Superstore 450m to the north-east 1989 None -

Table 3—1 Historical land uses


Buro Happold

4 Planning Policy and Land Use

4.1 Introduction

This section describes the planning policy framework relevant to the site and identifies how planning policies

could influence site development for residential and commercial purposes. Transport planning policies are

addressed in Section 11 Traffic and Transport

4.2 Current Planning Instruments

Current planning instruments in force comprise:

• Regional Panning Guidance for the South East (RPG 9) (2001 – 2016). The primary purpose of the

document is to provide a regional framework for the preparation of unitary authority Structure Plans.

• Hampshire Structure Plan (1996 – 2011). This document sets out a county level strategic planning

framework which addresses the broad context for new development and aims to guide the preparation of

Local Plans. The Plan was adopted in March 2000. As a consequence of changes to the planning

system, the Hampshire County Structure Plan ceased to have any effect from 27/07/2007 with the

exception of 24 policies. Those 24 policies remain in force due to a Direction issued by the Secretary of

State for Communities and Local Government

• Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011). The Local Plan sets out detailed policies and specific

proposals for the development and use of land in the region. It is the main policy document referred to

by the local planning authority when determining planning applications. The Plan was adopted in May

2006.

Figure 4-1 Current planning instruments

4.3 Proposed Planning Instruments

Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, all Regional Planning Guidance documents, County

Structure Plans and Local Development Plans are to be replaced with Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and

Local Development Frameworks (LDF).

4.4 Regional Spatial Strategy

The RSS for the South East of England, the South East Plan, is currently being prepared by the South East

Regional Assembly. The draft South East Plan Part 1 entitled ‘Core Regional Policies’ was submitted to the

government in July 2005. County, district and unitary councils submitted the results of the consultation on

local, district and sub-regional housing densities to the Regional Assembly in December 2005. The full Plan

was submitted for consultation in March – June 2006, with a panel report published in August 2007. In July

2008 Government published the changes it intends to make to the Plan, taking into account the Panel’s

recommendations. Comments on these proposals will be received until 24th October 2008. The intention is to

publish the final South East Plan in late 2008 or early 2009 which will guide the preparation of the Core Strategy

of the Eastleigh Local Development Framework.

4.5 Local Development Framework

The Eastleigh Local Development Framework (LDF) is currently in development. The key elements of the LDF

are the Local Development Documents (LDDs), comprising Development Plan Documents (DPDs) and

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs). The DPDs are the Core Strategy, Development Control Policies,

Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG 9) 2001 - 2016

Hampshire Structure Plan 1996 - 2011

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011

Hampshire, Portsmouth &

Southampton Minerals & Waste

Local Plan 1998


Buro Happold

Central Area Action Plan, and Site Allocations and Designations. The SPDs elaborate on the policies and

proposals outlined in the Core Strategy.

The Core Strategy provides the context within which other parts of the LDF will be prepared and will set out the

vision for the region. The Core Strategy will also set out the key objectives and strategic planning policies for

Eastleigh and will be the primary document considered when determining planning applications. The LDF

Issues Consultation Paper was completed in September 2008.

The early stakeholder engagement period for the Housing and Employment Site Specific Allocations DPD is

proposed to be October 2008 to March 2009 (according to the timetable adopted in July 2007).

Figure 4-2 Proposed planning instruments

Until the South East Plan and Eastleigh LDF Core Strategy have been adopted, planning decisions will still be

made with regards to the current planning instruments as outlined in Figure 4-1.

4.6 Local Plan

The site location is designated as countryside and is located in a designated strategic gap in the Local Plan

Review Proposals Map. A summary of relevant Local Plan policies that are considered relevant to the site for

future residential and commercial use is provided in Table 4—1. Note that some of the policies have been

abbreviated; please refer to the Local Plan Review for the definitive text.

Policy Description

1.CO Planning permission will not be granted for development outside the urban

edge unless:

i. it is necessary for agricultural, forestry or horticultural purposes and a

countryside location is required; or

ii. it is for an outdoor recreational use or is genuinely required as ancillary to

such a use and does not require the provision of buildings, hardstanding or

structures which, are of a form, scale or design which would demonstrably

harm the character of the locality; or

iii. it is essential for the provision of a public utility service or the appropriate

extension of an existing education or health facility and it cannot be located

within the urban edge; or

iv. it meets the criteria in the other policies of this Plan.

The extension of private gardens into the countryside will not be permitted.

2.CO Planning permission will not be granted for development which would physically

or visually diminish a strategic gap as identified on the proposals map.

4.CO Development proposals which would cause the permanent loss of the best and

most versatile agricultural land will not be permitted (Grades 1, 2 and 3a in the

MAFF Agricultural Land Classification system) unless it can be demonstrated to

the satisfaction of the Borough Council that there are no appropriate

alternatives and there are over-riding sustainability benefits.

18.CO Development which fails to respect, or has an adverse impact on the intrinsic

character of the landscape, will be refused.

19.CO Development in the countryside or in urban areas will be refused if it would

result in the loss of or damage to locally important features in the landscape,

such as water courses, ponds and lakes. Where the Council is satisfied that the

loss or reduction of a feature is fully justified, it will require appropriate

replacement features to be included in the proposals.

Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East (South East Plan)

Eastleigh Local Development Framework

The Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan

Local Development Scheme

Statement of Community Involvement

Sustainability Appraisal

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework

Supplementary Planning Guidance Documents


Buro Happold

Policy Description

23.NC Development which is likely to have a direct or indirect adverse affect on a Site

of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) will not be permitted, unless it

can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Borough Council that the

benefits of the development clearly outweigh the need to safeguard the nature

conservation value of the site. If development is to be permitted, the Council

will require appropriate measures to be taken to mitigate for the adverse effects

on the SINC.

24.NC Development will not be permitted where it would adversely affect species or

habitats which are protected by legislation, unless appropriate measures are

proposed which would acceptably mitigate the impact on those species.

25.NC Development which will adversely affect a habitat or feature of importance for

wild fauna and flora will not be permitted, unless it can be demonstrated to the

satisfaction of the Council that:

i. the benefits of the development outweigh the adverse impacts;

ii. the adverse impacts are unavoidable, and

iii. appropriate measures are taken which would mitigate or compensate for any

adverse impact.

26.NC Development proposals will be required to include measures to enhance the

value of features and habitats of nature conservation importance where

reasonable opportunities exist in connection with the development.

28.ES Provision should be made in the design and layout of housing developments for

the storage and collection of domestic waste and recyclable materials. These

facilities must be sited in locations that would not give rise to disturbance to the

occupiers of residential property.

32.ES Proposals for uses which may generate air, land or water pollution will only be

permitted if the Borough Council is satisfied that they have been designed to

control their impact to an acceptable level.

Policy Description

34.ES Planning permission will only be granted for proposals which make an

appropriate contribution towards the Government’s target to reduce levels of

carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by:

i. ensuring the use of the most sustainable construction materials and

construction methods;

ii. minimising the energy demands associated with the occupation of the

development by using energy efficient equipment and incorporating high levels

of insulation; and

iii. maximising the proportion of energy that is generated from renewable

sources.

45.ES Development proposals must incorporate adequate measures for the disposal

of surface water from the development including, where practicable, source

control techniques and sustainable drainage systems, incorporating defined

arrangements for the future maintenance of the system.

71.H The Council will encourage mixed use developments where appropriate and will

consider the need for a mix of uses on a site by site basis with the objectives of

reducing the need to travel and introducing vitality into urban areas.

73.H Housing proposals for 15 dwellings or more will be required to provide

appropriate mix of dwelling types.


Buro Happold

Policy Description

74.H Affordable housing: To secure the provision of affordable housing, the Borough

Council will seek to ensure all of the following:

i. that a target of 35% of the new dwellings provided on sites which meet the

other criteria set out below are affordable;

ii. that affordable dwellings are provided on all sites capable of accommodating

15 or more dwellings and in special circumstances that affordable dwellings are

provided on smaller sites, these circumstances are:-

a) where sites are located in parts of the Borough with the highest level of

need for affordable housing, or

b) where the location is particularly sustainable in respect of proximity to

shops, schools, community facilities and good public transport, or

c) where the number of sites for 15 or more dwellings that come forward

is likely to be limited in a particular area of the Borough.

iii. a mix of types of affordable dwellings; and

iv. that the affordable elements are integrated with the whole development.

100.T Appropriate proposals for development will be permitted provided that the

developer has made arrangements for the provision of the infrastructure,

services, facilities and amenities directly made necessary by the development

or has made arrangements to contribute towards the early improvement of

existing infrastructure, services, facilities and amenities, the need for which will

increase as a direct result of the development proposed

114.OS The Borough Council will require, in connection with new residential

developments, the minimum provision of 2.85 hectares of public open space

per 1,000 population.

166.LB Development which would destroy or damage, directly or indirectly, a

scheduled ancient monument or other nationally important monument, or

adversely affect their settings, will be refused.

Policy Description

168.LB Planning applications for development affecting a site where there is evidence

that archaeological remains may exist but whose extent and importance are

unknown, will only be permitted if the developer arranges for an appropriate

level of evaluation to be carried out.

190.IN Proposals for development will only be permitted where adequate services and

infrastructure are available or suitable arrangements can be made for their

provision.

191.IN Appropriate proposals for development will be permitted provided that the

developer has made arrangements for the provision of the infrastructure,

services, facilities and amenities directly made necessary by the development

or has made arrangements to contribute towards the early improvement of

existing infrastructure, services, facilities and amenities, the need for which will

increase as a direct result of the development proposed

Table 4—1Relevant planning policies from the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review

4.7 Countryside

As outlined in the Local Plan Review, the protection and enhancement of the countryside within the borough is

a key objective of the council for reasons including agricultural protection, landscape value, providing a setting

for towns and villages and for nature conservation. The plan recognises that allowance for genuine

development needs should be accommodated. The site in question is designated in the local plan proposals

map as an area of countryside. Development is constrained in countryside designations under Policy 1.CO of

the local plan (see Table 4—1).

4.8 Agricultural Land Classification

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) (now the Department for Environment, Food and Rural

Affairs) Agricultural Land Classification System (ALC) classifies agricultural land into five grades of quality; grade

one being the best quality and grade five being the poorest quality. As detailed in Policy 4.CO of the Eastleigh

Borough Local Plan Review, the council seeks to protect the most versatile agricultural land, classed as grades

1, 2 and 3a in the ALC system, unless there are over-riding sustainability advantages. The site in question is

located in a grade 3 zone. The ALC system sub-divides grade 3 into sub-grades 3a and 3b, being ‘good’ and


Buro Happold

‘moderate’ quality respectively. In order to determine the sub-classification of the grade 3 land, further

consultation with the local authority and potential surveying of the site is required.

4.9 Strategic Gap

Strategic gaps comprise an area of land between settlements, which perform the function of protecting the

individual identity of those settlements. The Hampshire Structure Plan highlights two strategic gaps in the

borough, one of them comprising Southampton-Bursledon. The local plan proposal map locates the site in this

strategic gap. Policy 2.CO of the local plan limits development which would “physically or visually diminish a

strategic gap”.

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan: Bursledon – Southampton Strategic Gap

This strategic gap is comparatively narrow and its boundaries are formed by the urban edges of Hedge

End, West End, Thornhill, Bursledon and Netley Abbey. The significance of the gap can be appreciated

from several locations including the M27, St Johns Road, the A334, Upper Northam Close/Drive, Botley

Road, Tollbar Way, Grange Road, Moorgreen Road, Kanes Hill, Portsmouth Road, Woolston Road,

Abbey Hill and Grange Road.

Source: Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001 – 2011)

The Panel Report on the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East Plan highlights the importance of strategic

gaps to perform a settlement-shaping role, and public support behind existing strategic gap policies. However,

the report further notes that gap polices are often used “in an inflexible way, as long-term restraints on

opportunities for sustainable development in urban fringe locations” and as such, the report recommends the

review of existing strategic gap policies in Hampshire.

4.10 Housing Allocation

4.10.1 Hampshire County Council

The key housing objectives of Hampshire County Council are:

• Create or maintain mixed and balanced communities

• Address all sections of the community, including those in need of affordable housing (see Section 4.10.4)

• Accommodate as many dwelling as possible within existing built up areas or on land committed for

development

4.10.2 Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review

The housing provision in Eastleigh is based on figures published in the Second Deposit Plan, recommendations

provided by the local plan inquiry inspector in 2004/ 2005, and consideration of conformity with provisions

outlined in the Hampshire Structure Plan.

Policy 70.H

The Council will make the following provision for new housing in the period September 2001 to March

2011, as follows: Baseline: 5608 dwellings; Reserve: 395 dwellings. In order to be in general conformity

with the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review).


The key points to note from the housing provision provided in the local plan are:

• The local plan identifies 1,700 dwellings more than the baseline requirement outlined in the structure plan

• The local plan is 700 dwellings short of the reserve requirement provided in the structure plan

• The local plan has met the full reserve requirement set out by the local plan inquiry inspector with an

additional margin of 300 dwellings.

4.10.3 The South East Plan

The paragraphs below provide a summary of key policies with regards to housing provision and the

recommended amendments to these policies by the Panel of Inspectors.

The South East Plan requires an annual average housing provision of 28,900 additional dwellings throughout the

region between 2006 and 2026. For the district of Eastleigh, an annual housing provision of 384 dwellings

between 2006 and 2026 is suggested.

With regards to the location of new housing, the South East Plan requires that at least 60% of housing is to be

provided on previously developed land. The Panel’s report suggests that the most sustainable solution for

some sub-regions may be the use of selected sites located within the Green Belt, although Local Authorities

may face extensive local resistance.

4.10.4 Affordable Housing

Planning Policy and Guidance 3 (PPG3) recognises the government’s requirement for consideration of

affordable housing provision in planning applications.


Buro Happold

Affordable housing is defined in the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan as: “housing the cost of which is significantly

lower than average for the type of property on the open market locally, such that it can be afforded by

households below the income threshold where the cost of housing would be in excess of 25% of gross

household income.”

The local plan notes that house prices in the Eastleigh borough are high, making it difficult for many households

to purchase on the open market. The council conducted a Housing Needs Survey (revised 2004) which

identified the requirement for additional affordable housing. The survey determined an annual building

requirement of 672 affordable homes to meet a backlog and targets set out for the 2011 period.

The council will seek affordable housing on sites accommodating fifteen residential dwellings or more (sites of

0.5 hectares or more) as justified by figures presented in the Housing Needs Survey. Affordable housing must

be integrated within the overall development, ideally in a series of small clusters.

As set out in policy 74.H (Table 4—1) the site should aim to provide a 35% proportion of a mix of types of

affordable dwellings.

The draft South East Plan states that Local Plans should have regard to the overall regional target that 25% of

all new housing should be social rented accommodation and 10% should comprise other forms of affordable

housing. The South East Plan also states that in rural areas, Local Development Documents should promote

small scale affordable housing sites within settlements, possibly including land which would not otherwise be

released for development.

The Eastleigh Borough Council LDF Issues Consultation Paper (Core Strategy) reflects the opinion held in the

local plan that house prices are high. The paper identifies that affordable housing is often provided through new

development, with developers required to provide a defined percentage on new residential sites as outlined in

the local plan. The paper notes that an Affordable Housing Economic Study is currently being compiled to test

the proportion of affordable housing that can be realistically be provided on new residential development sites

in Eastleigh.

Issue 6: Increase the numbers of affordable homes

The need for affordable housing in the borough is very substantial. It is usually provided as a

proportion of new development, or by financial contribution from new development; other means of

provision include buying into existing stock (which is expensive).

Source: Eastleigh Borough LDF: Issues Consultation Paper

4.11 Implications for development – Planning Policies

In accordance with current planning guidance, the following factors will require further investigation:

• The site is located in a designated area of countryside in the Eastleigh Local Plan, and there is a

presumption against further development under current local plan policies.

• The site is located in a strategic and local gap which are protected under 2.CO and 3.CO in the Eastleigh

Local Plan; however progression of the emerging RSS core strategy has identified constraints to

sustainable development and as such recommends frequent review of the green belt/ gap boundaries.

• Further consultation and possible surveying is required to identify the MAFF ALC grade 3 subcategory in

order to establish whether Policy 4.CO of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review applies.

• As detailed in the local plan, the provision of 35% affordable housing is required for sites with the

capacity to accommodate 15 or more dwellings.


Buro Happold

5 Socio-Economic and Community

5.1 Introduction

This section provides an overall summary of the socio-economic conditions in the Bursledon and Old Netley

Ward and provides a comparison to Eastleigh and South East England.

A summary of active community and interest groups and information on public facilities for the local area is

provided to enable European Property Ventures (South Hampshire) Ltd. to understand the potential level of

community interest in the site and the locality.

5.2 Socio-Economic Conditions

The figures below have been taken from the Census 2001 Key Statistics.

5.2.1 Population

The site is located in the Bursledon and Old Netley ward in the borough of Eastleigh. The total population in the

Bursledon and Old Netley Ward in 2001 was 7,445; the total population of Eastleigh was 116,169.

Full figures for the Ward, Eastleigh and South-East Region are shown in Appendix C.

5.2.2 Economic and Occupational Status

The total percentage of people in employment between the ages of 16-74 is 72.11% for the Bursledon and Old

Netley Ward, 74.15% for the borough of Eastleigh and 70.22% for the South East England.

The industries in the Bursledon and Old Netley Ward with the highest number of employees are ‘managers and

senior officials’ and ‘administrative and secretarial’ occupations, employing 16.08% and 15.05% respectively.

The most common industry of employment for the ward, Eastleigh and South East England is ‘wholesale and

retail trade’, followed by ‘manufacturing’ and ‘real estate, renting and business activities’.

5.2.3 Personal Safety

The Home Office recorded 9,949 counts of criminal activity during the 2007 – 2008 in Eastleigh, equivalent to a

crime rate per 1000 population of 83.61. This equates to a crime rate reduction over of the 2006 – 2007 annum

of 5.6 per 1000 population, highlighting an improvement in public safety (Home Office Research Development

Statistics website - http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ia/atlas.html)

A partnership approach has been adopted to reduce crime and disorder, anti-social behaviour and drugs and

alcohol misuse within the Borough of Eastleigh. The Eastleigh Borough Community Safety Partnership is

responsible for tackling these issues, fronted by a Strategic Steering Group comprising representatives from the

borough and county councils, community services, youth offending teams and fire and police authorities.

The Eastleigh Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy has developed a series of objectives to address the

specific priorities set out in Eastleigh Borough Councils audit of crime and disorder to reduce crime, disorder,

anti-social behaviour and drugs and substance misuse.

5.3 Community Involvement

A search of the Eastleigh Borough Council website revealed many active community groups, organisations and

facilities in the vicinity of the site. Examples of these are:

• A number of community centres are present in Bursledon including the Bursledon Community Centre and

the Bursledon Village Hall

• Bursledon Community Centre offers Yoga and Pilates classes

• The Pilands Wood Centre provides activities for young and old including computer drop-in sessions,

dancing, martial arts and photography

• The Eastleigh Southern Parishes Older Peoples Forum, with a newsletter and open meetings

• The Bursledon and District Gardening Club

• The Bursledon History Group

• The Bursledon Women’s Institute

• The Bursledon Arts and Craft Group

5.4 Location of Public Facilities

The following sections outline the availability of community and public facilities within accessible reach of the

development site. Geographical locations of those nearest to the site are presented in Figure 5-1.

Schools

A number of primary, secondary and sixth form schools are located within the vicinity of the site.

The closest primary schools to the site are as follows:

• Bursledon Junior School (1.0 kilometres), for children aged 7 – 11 years old

• Heathfield Junior School (1.4 kilometres), for children aged 7 – 11 years old

• Hightown Primary School (1.5 kilometres), for children aged 4 – 11 years old


Buro Happold

The closest secondary schools to the site are as follows:

• Grove Park Business and Enterprise College (1.5km), for ages 11 – 16

• Hamble Community Sports College (1.9km), for ages 11- 16

• Chamberlayne Park School (2.0km), for ages 11 – 16

A number of sixth form colleges are within commutable distance from the site. Those closest are:

• Itchen College (2.9km), for ages 16 +

• Southampton City College (5.0km), for ages 16 +

Hospitals and Doctor Surgeries

The Bursledon Surgery is located approximately 0.6km from the site at Manor Crescent, Bursledon. The

surgery has two doctors and other staff including nurses. The surgery is open from 8:30 – 18:30 Monday to

Friday.

The nearest NHS hospital (no Accident and Emergency (A&E)) is Coldeast located on Bridge Road, Sarisbury

Green, approximately 6.7km from the site. The closest hospital with an A&E department is Southampton

General Hospital located 14km from the site in Southampton.

Shops

A number of shops and facilities are located within the vicinity including the following:

• Food shops: A large Tesco supermarket is located within walking distance to the north-east of the site. A

local newsagent is located on Portsmouth Road approximately 1.0km from the site.

• Bursledon Post Office is situated on Portsmouth Road approximately 0.9km from the site.

• Four public houses are present within a 1.0km radius, including the Plough pub situated immediately

south of the site on Portsmouth Road.

5.5 Implications for Site Development: Socio-economic

The data presented above indicates that Bursledon is an area with relatively good levels of socio-economic

indicators.

In comparison to regional statistics, employment levels are high and crime rates reducing. Public facilities are

good, with a number of primary, secondary and sixth form schools located within an accessible proximity. A

doctor’s surgery is within easy reach from the site; however the closest hospital with an A&E department is

further afield at 14km from the site.

Figure 5-1 Location of public facilities

Tesco

Newsagent

Manor

House PH

Bursledon

Surgery

Bursledon Junior

School

Bursledon

Village Hall

Bursledon

C. Centre

Pilands

Wood Centre

Grove Park

Business and

Enterprise College


Buro Happold

6 Political Overview

The site in question falls within the county council of Hampshire, the borough council of Eastleigh, and the

parish council of Bursledon. The Eastleigh Member of Parliament (MP), Christopher Huhne of the Liberal

Democrat Party represents Eastleigh in the House of Commons. This section provides information on the

political composition of each of the councils.

6.1 County Council

Hampshire County Council is divided into 78 electoral divisions represented by 78 councillors. Local elections

are held every four years, with the most recent held in May 2005. The results of this election in produced the

following democratic composition for the council:

Party Number of seats

Conservative 46

Liberal Democrat 28

Labour 4

The site is located in the county division of Hamble; the Hamble County Councillor is Keith House of the Liberal

Democrat Party.

6.2 District Council

Bursledon is represented by the borough council of Eastleigh. Eastleigh Borough Council has 44 councillors

representing 19 wards; the political composition is as follows:

Party Number of seats

Liberal Democrat 38

Conservative 4

Labour 2

The site is located in Bursledon and Old Netley Ward. The councillors elected from this ward are Tonia Craig,

Steve Holes and Hugh Millar, all of the Liberal Democrat Party.

A map illustrating the ward boundaries in the borough of Eastleigh is shown in Figure 6-1.

Source: Hampshire County Council (/www3.hants.gov.uk/es/planning/factsandfigures)

Figure 6-1 Eastleigh Ward Boundaries


Buro Happold

6.3 Parish Council

Town and Parish Councils are set up under the Local Government Act 1972 and are an essential part of the

structure of local democracy. Parish Councils provide comment and guidance on planning applications; their

view is taken into account by the planning authority when arriving at planning consent decisions.

The site lies within Hound parish council area, represented by ten parish councilors; the chair for the council is

Dave Palframan and the Clerk is Sue Hobbs.


Buro Happold

7 Water Resources

This chapter provides information on surface water features, surface water quality, groundwater and flood risk

within the vicinity of the site which may influence site development.

Hydrological information has been obtained from an Envirocheck report (dated 04 September 2008), the

Environment Agency, and a site walkover (08 September 2008).

7.1 Surface Water Features

A drainage ditch, originating 200m north of the site runs parallel along the eastern site boundary north to south.

This enables the transfer of surface water runoff from the agricultural land away from the site to prevent ponding

of water. The drainage ditch discharges into a patch of bog / wet grassland in the south-eastern corner of the

site; the channel connects with a small stream, Butlocks Heath Stream, diverting surface water southwards into

a series of ponds contained within the ‘Priors Hill Copse/Hound Grove’ and ‘Priors Hill Brickworks’ Sites of

Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) approximately 200m from the site boundary, and eventually into

Southampton Water 2.8km to the south. The site may require pollution intervention measures to prevent a

pathway of pollutants to the SINC via the drainage ditch along the eastern boundary.

The tidal section of the River Hamble is located 2.0km to the east of the site. The river is known throughout the

sailing world as ‘the heart of British yachting’ due to a large presence of sailing vessels navigating the water.

Southampton Water, a stretch of the sea north of the Isle of Wight and the Solent, is present 2.8km to the south

of the site.

The Envirocheck Report has classified the Butlocks Heath Stream as Quality B: Good, in line with the

Environment Agency’s General Quality Assessment Scheme (GQA) for classifying the water quality of rivers.

The location of local surface water features is provided in Figure 7-1.

Figure 7-1 Location of surface water features (landfill zones shown in red)

7.2 Groundwater

Maps obtained from the Envirocheck report show the site to overlie a minor aquifer with high/ intermediate

permeability soils, as illustrated in Figure 7-2. A minor aquifer may be capable of supporting groundwater

Butlocks Heath Stream

Drainage ditch along

eastern boundary

Boggy

wetland patch

Ponds


Buro Happold

abstraction on a local level for public potable water supply. The depth of groundwater is unknown at this stage,

although when considering the close proximity of the River Hamble and Southampton Water, and the relatively

flat nature of the land in this area it is likely that groundwater is relatively shallow.

Figure 7-2 Groundwater vulnerability

Maps showing the location of Source Protection Zones (SPZ) for major aquifers used for potable water supply

have been obtained from the Envirocheck report (see Appendix B).

The mapping indicates that the site is not underlain by a SPZ, nor is a SPZ located in the vicinity of the site.

Although the site is located outside of a source protection zone, and above a minor aquifer, the soil is of high

permeability, allowing for high infiltration rates, and as such the groundwater should be protected. It is

recommended that the discharge of surface water runoff from roads and vehicle parking facilities incorporates

sustainable drainage systems and petrol interceptors.

In accordance with the Envirocheck report, the closest groundwater abstraction point is 1.9km east of the site

and is operated by Messrs Game Bros for farming and domestic purposes. There are four recorded surface

water abstractions within 2km of the site; the closest is located 420m south and is operated by D. and M.

Draper for spray irrigation.

7.3 Flood Risk Guidance

7.3.1 Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk

Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25): Development and Flood Risk sets out Government’s national policies on

flood risk and is the principal document referred to by planning authorities when preparing strategic plans and

assessing individual planning applications. PPS25 requires that a sequential risk-based approach is taken to

determine the suitability of land for development in flood risk areas and identify available sites with a lower

probability of flooding that would be appropriate for the type of development or land use proposed. If, after

following the sequential test, it is not consistent with wider sustainability objectives to locate development in

areas with a lower probability of flooding, the exception test can be applied. The exception text provides a

method of managing flood risk whilst still allowing necessary development to occur. Within each flood zone,

new development should be directed first to areas within the lowest probability of flooding, i.e. at the higher

levels of the site.

7.3.2 Eastleigh Borough Local Plan

The Eastleigh Borough Local Plan sets out policies relating to development and flood risk. The local plan

proposals map locates the development site out of flood plain, permitting all development land uses.

7.3.3 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) was compiled in 2006 for the borough of Eastleigh to supplement

the Eastleigh Borough LDF in accordance with guidance from the EA and the Department for Communities and

Local Government. This document has enabled the Council to identify areas that are considered to be suitable

for development based on flood risk.

Major Aquifer

(Highly Permeable)

High (H) 1, 2, 3, U

Intermediate (I) 1, 2

Low

Minor Aquifer

(Variably Permeable)

High (H) 1, 2, 3, U

Intermediate (I) 1, 2

Low


Buro Happold

The SFRA modelled flood plain mapping shows the site in Flood Zone 1 (less than 1 in 1000 annual probability

of flooding).

7.4 Fluvial Flood Risk

Information regarding flood risk has been obtained from the Environment Agency and Envirocheck records. An

indicative flood map showing the extent of flood risk is provided in Appendix B. The indicative flood zone

mapping shows the development site to be located within Flood Zone 1 (white area) – flood risk less than the 1

in 1000 year return period (i.e. less than 0.1% probability of flooding in any year).

Table D.1 in PPS25 defines the flood zones and associated appropriate land use and flood risk assessment

requirements. In accordance with Table D.1, Flood Zone 1 is potentially suitable for all land uses.

The site is therefore not at risk from fluvial flooding. However, PPS25 notes that flood risk should be addressed

for sites exceeding a footprint of one hectare through a Flood Risk Assessment. This should be submitted

alongside the planning application.

As the drainage ditch/ Butlocks Heath stream are minor watercourses, flood risk is not addressed through EA

indicative flood zone mapping. However, at Flood Risk Assessment stage, an analysis of potential fluvial

flooding arising from these adjacent watercourses should be addressed.

7.5 Surface Water Flooding

The existing site is greenfield in nature, thus minimising surface water runoff. The introduction of development

within the site boundary will undoubtedly increase the percentage impermeable area over current ground

surface conditions. Surface water runoff rates are therefore anticipated to increase due to reduced percolation.

The EA will require that the surface water drainage system should not increase the discharge rate above the

existing rate. The system should also be designed to ensure that neither the development nor third parties are

at risk of flooding in the 1 in 100 year rainfall/runoff event. The increase in surface water runoff from the

proposed development will therefore require attenuation to existing conditions.

Surface water flooding from the proposed development should be addressed through a drainage strategy in the

Flood Risk Assessment, as discussed in Section 7.4.

7.6 Implications for Site Development

As there are no significant water-bodies in the vicinity of the site, the development has a low risk of fluvial

flooding. However, in line with planning guidance for flood risk PPS25, a Surface Water Drainage Strategy will

be required as part of a Flood Risk Assessment to demonstrate how surface water will be controlled on site.

The strategy should include the consideration of Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) options for

sustainable surface water management


Buro Happold

8 Contaminated Land, Geology and Soils

8.1 Contamination risk assessment

According to PPS23 Guidelines (ref.1), a possibility of contamination should be assumed when considering

sensitive land uses such as housing, schools and children’s play areas. PPS23 also goes on to say that land

contamination is a material consideration and that it is the landowner/ developer’s responsibility to:

• identify the nature and scale of any contamination on the site and

• ensure safe development (i.e. by means of appropriate investigation, risk assessment and remediation).

Local Planning Authorities are advised that developers should provide sufficient information to determine the

presence, nature and extent of any contamination, the risks it may pose and whether these risks are capable of

mitigation to an acceptably low level. PPS23 goes on to recommend a phased approach in accordance with the

Environment Agency Model Procedures (CLR11, ref.2). This current report presents the information of the first

phase of this process, namely a Desk Study (hazard identification and assessment).

8.2 Geology, hydrogeology and hydrology

According to the 1: 50,000 geological map of Southampton (Sheet 315, 1987), the site is underlain by River

Terrace Deposits followed by the Wittering Formation (~25m thick sand and clay) and the London Clay at depth

(~100m thick). The Wittering Formation is present at the surface along the eastern boundary of the site. The

groundwater vulnerability map for South Hampshire and Isle of Wight (Sheet 52, 1996) indicates that the River

Terrace Deposits and the Wittering Formation are classified as Minor Aquifers. The London Clay is classified as

a Non-Aquifer.

According to the Envirocheck report, there are no groundwater abstraction points within 1km of the site. The

nearest is 1.9km E and is operated by Messrs Game Bros for general farming and domestic purposes. The site

is not situated within an Environment Agency Source Protection Zone (SPZ). In terms of surface water, Butlocks

Heath Stream (Quality B: good) forms the eastern boundary of the site; it runs from north to south west. There

are four recorded surface water abstractions within 2km of the site. The nearest is located 420m S and is

operated by D. and M. Draper for spray irrigation.

According to the British Geological Survey (BGS) data, the area is not affected by radon. There are no ground

stability hazards from ground collapse, ground dissolution or compression. The ground stability hazards from

landslide and running sand are classified as very low. The ground stability hazards from shrinking or swelling

clay are classified as moderate.

8.2.1 Potentially Contaminative Activities

The contaminants of concern in this risk assessment are based primarily on information from the review of

historical information (see Section 2), the results of the walkover survey and reference to DEFRA R&D

Publication CLR 8 ‘Priority contaminants for the assessment of land’ (ref.3). Table 8—1 summarises the

principal potential sources of contamination.

Potential source (likely age) Location

[Envirocheck map id

no.]

Potential contaminants of concern

Agricultural activities (>100 years) On site Pesticides, herbicides, nitrates, ammonia,

fuel oils.

Buried oil pipeline On site Petroleum hydrocarbons.

Historical landfill sites 60m NE [36]

350m W [56]

Leachate (heavy metals, organics), landfill

gases (methane, carbon dioxide, VOCs).

Table 8—1 Contamination sources

The historical landfill area 60m NE of the site was previously used to deposit waste including household waste,

and broadly coincides with the location of the existing car boot sale site.

Figure 8-1 shows the location of adjacent historical landfill sites marked and licensed waste management

facilities marked .


Buro Happold

Figure 8-1 Location of historical landfill sites

Several other activities in the vicinity of the site, located at distances over 100m, were not subject to formal risk

assessment in this study, due to their nature and distance from the site. These include a former brickfield (250m

south), former gravel pits (450m north east, 450m south west), a former sewage works (250m south) and

historical landfill sites (seven between 350m and 950m away from the site).

8.2.2 Receptors and Pathways

People (future site users, construction and maintenance workers and casual visitors), controlled waters

(Butlocks Heath Stream, groundwater in the Minor Aquifer), the local environment (e.g. animal and plant life) and

buildings could be at risk from contamination if present. Any soil contaminants from on site activities can

migrate as a free or dissolved phase on/ in the groundwater, as well as via leaching and runoff.

Potential migration pathways which may link future site users to the sources identified above include ingestion

of soil and dust, dermal contact with soil and dust, and inhalation of dust and vapours. These pathways could

be reduced if the majority of the site is covered in hardstanding in the future development. Construction and

maintenance workers and site users of adjacent properties could also come into contact with contamination via

dermal contact with soil and groundwater and inhalation of dust during construction, respectively. Pathways for

plant life typically include root uptake. In terms of buildings, high concentrations of sulphate or sulphur

compounds that may potentially be converted into sulphate, as well as chloride can have adverse effects on

building materials.

8.2.3 Risks Associated with Potentially Contaminated Land

A Preliminary Risk Assessment with respect to ground contamination of the site in Bursledon has been carried

out on the basis of the data described above. Source-pathway-receptor linkages have been identified and

considered. The results of this risk assessment are summarised below.

8.2.3.1 Potential risks related to on-site land use

The potential risks to future site users from soil contamination linked to historical and current on site activities

have been assessed as Moderate/ Low. This reflects the potential for future site users to come into contact

with contaminated soil and groundwater in gardens and areas of soft landscape (if present). In addition,

appropriate investigation and mitigation in the final development is likely (see recommendations below). The

potential risks to construction workers from such soil contamination are assessed as Low, reflecting the likely

implementation of appropriate health and safety procedures. The risk to controlled waters is assessed as

Moderate/ Low, reflecting the likely limited nature and extent of the potential contaminant sources, but also the

proximity to the Butlocks Heath Stream and the sensitivity of the controlled water resources in this area (Minor

Aquifers).


Buro Happold

This risk assessment was carried out on the basis of the future site use being residential with gardens. Should

the site be redeveloped with a less sensitive end use such as commercial/ industrial with predominantly

hardstanding, the risks to future site users will be reduced to Low.

8.2.3.2 Potential risks related to the oil pipeline

The potential risks related to possible leakage/ loss from the oil pipeline which crosses the site are assessed as

Very Low to Low. This reflects the facts that the pipeline is buried at depth (depth unknown), its age and

condition are unknown and any contamination is likely to be relatively localised along its length. The liability

associated with any such contamination is likely to be with the pipeline owner/ operator.

8.2.3.3 Potential risks related to the off site landfill

The potential risks related to possible migration of landfill gas on to site from the nearby landfill are assessed as

Moderate. This assessment reflects the sensitivity of the potential hazard, the proximity of the landfill and the

nature of the intervening geology.

In the event of elevated concentrations of landfill gas being recorded on site, it is the responsibility of the

developer to ensure safe development (i.e. to construct the new dwellings with appropriate gas protection

measures). However, some element of liability may also fall to the owner of the landfill site and in such an event,

specialist legal advice should be sought.

8.3 Implications for Site Development and Recommendations

In accordance with PPS23, risk assessment based on a detailed desk study and geoenvironmental investigation

with regards to contamination should be conducted when a sensitive land use such as housing is proposed on

land potentially affected by contamination (especially if soft landscaping is to be included in the design). Such

an investigation will normally include trial pitting and boreholes, and sampling and analysis (of ground, water

and gas) to allow a fully interpretive report to be prepared to accompany a more detailed assessment of the

site’s development potential.

It is therefore recommended that at the appropriate time, a geoenvironmental site investigation should be

carried out in conjunction with the geotechnical investigation which will be necessary to collect data on ground

conditions (and which will also allow foundation and drainage design for any future development).

It is recommended that such an investigation should be designed to determine the following:

• the nature/ extent of any on-site contamination related to the historic use of the site;

• the groundwater and surface water quality; and

• the ground gas regime (particularly in the vicinity of the off-site landfill to the north east).


Buro Happold

9 Ecology (flora and fauna)

9.1 Introduction

An assessment of the baseline ecological conditions, the potential implications for future development and the

likely requirements for further ecological assessment has been undertaken based on information gathered from

the site visit on 08 September 2008 and a desk top study.

The desk top study involved the following:

• Review of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan to identify any relevant designated sites relating to nature

conservation policies

• Review of interactive maps held on Magic www.magic.gov.uk to identify relevant designated sites and

habitats

• Review of the National Biodiversity Gateway Network (NBGN) www.searchnbn.net to identify any known

records for protected or notable species

• Review of information provided by the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre to identify relevant

designated sites and habitats.

It should be noted that this assessment is based on the current site conditions and management regime and the

information available from the desk study, in the absence of any ecological site surveys or consultation with the

County Ecologist. For this reason the assessment is necessarily precautionary. On completion of more detailed

assessments, it may be possible to discount some of the potential risks identified. If conditions on the site

change, then the ecological value of the site and potential to support certain species is likely to also change as

a result.

9.2 Existing Conditions

The 8.6 hectare site is currently dominated by a crop of maize supported by a silty sub-soil. A footpath

overgrown with grass circumnavigates the perimeter of the site. A patch of grassy wetland is maintained to the

south-east of the site which provides attenuation to surface water drained off the crop area.

The site is bounded by a mixture of mature and semi-mature trees, shrubs, and brambles/ long grass. Trees

line the majority of the east and southern boundaries.

9.3 Designated Sites

The site is not covered by any statutory or non-statutory designations for nature conservation.

The following designated sites are located within 2.0km of the site.

9.3.1 Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)

The Habitats Directive (as amended) includes lists of 189 habitat types and 788 species for which Member

States must consider designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs).

• Solent Maritime SAC (approximately 1.75km south-east-east of the site) – 11,240 hectares of SAC

designation. The sections of the River Hamble that are designated under this SAC are principally

saltmarsh habitats dominated by cord grass and mudflats, supporting a large assemblage of

invertebrates, crustacean and molluscs, and therefore providing extensive feeding grounds for birds.

9.3.2 Special Protection Areas (SPA)

Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are strictly protected sites classified in accordance with Article 4 of the EC

Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC), also known as the ‘Birds Directive’, which came into

force in April 1979. They are designated for rare and vulnerable birds, listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive,

and for regularly occurring migratory species.

• Solent and Southampton Water SPA (approximately 1.75km south-east of the site) – an area of 5400

hectares designated due to the presence of mudflats supporting bird species including the mediterranean

gull, dark-bellied brent geese, roseate tern, sandwich tern, teal, common tern, ringed plover, little tern and

black-tailed godwit.

9.3.3 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

A Site of Special Scientific Interest or SSSI is a conservation designation denoting a protected area in the UK.

SSSIs are the basic 'building blocks' of UK nature conservation legislation and most other legal

nature/geological conservation designations are based upon them, including National Nature Reserves, Ramsar

Sites, Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation.

• Upper Hamble Estuary and Woods (approximately 2.3km east of the site) – 151 hectares of SSSI

designation. The site includes woodland community species of ancient semi-natural woodland. There is

a graduation from the woodland to estuarine saltmarsh, dominated by species such as sea couch grass,

sea club rush and sea arrow grass. The mudland supports large populations of marine invertebrates and

is subsequently a feeding ground for birds including waders and ducks.

• Lincegrove and Hackett’s Marsh (approximately 1.85km south-east of the site) - 37 hectares of mature

saltmarsh, supporting sea purslane, common cord grass, saltmarsh grass, sea lavender, thrift, sea aster

and sea club rush, and providing a feeding ground for waders and geese.


Buro Happold

9.3.4 Ramsar Sites

Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention. The initial

emphasis was on selecting sites of importance to waterbirds within the UK. In the UK Ramsar sites are given

the same strict legal protection as sites designated under the Birds and Habitats Directive as part of the Natural

2000 network (SPAs and SACs).

• Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar (approximately 1.75km south-east of the site) – 5300 hectares

of wetland of international importance, supporting 20,000 waterfowl and species including the teal

sandwich tern and the roseate tern.

9.3.5 Local Nature Reserves (LNR)

A Local Nature Reserve is a statutory designation under Section21 of the National Parks and Access to the

Countryside Act 1949. LNRs are places with wildlife or geological features that are of local special interest and

offer opportunities to members of the public to study, learn or appreciate nature. LNRs have a degree of

protection against development on and in the vicinity.

• Hackett’s Marsh LNR (approximately 1.85km south-east of the site) – 20.5 hectares of saltmarsh and

meadows supporting uninterrupted grassland and saltmarsh habitats.

9.3.6 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs)

The non-statutory SINC system highlights sites that are important at a local level to ensure that the interest of

these sites is not lost. SINCs form part of a wider national network of non-statutory locally valued wildlife sites

and are generally administered by local authorities in partnership with conservation organisations. Local plan

policies exist to help protect these sites:

Policy 23.NC

Development which is likely to have a direct or indirect adverse affect on a Site of Importance for

Nature Conservation (SINC) will not be permitted, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of

the Borough Council that the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the need to safeguard the

nature conservation value of the site. If development is to be permitted, the Council will require

appropriate measures to be taken to mitigate for the adverse effects on the SINC.

Source: Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review

Figure 9-1 Location of statutory designated sites

There are a number of SINCs in the locality of the site. The SINC criteria identify sites that are considered to be

of particular importance in Hampshire and are defined by Hampshire County Council.

SINCs worth noting, as identified by the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre are the ‘Priors Hill

Copse/Hound Grove’ (criteria: 1A - Ancient semi-natural woodland) and ‘Priors Hill Brickworks’ (criteria: 1B -

other woodland where there is a significant element of ancient semi-natural woodland surviving/ 2D -

grasslands which have become impoverished through inappropriate management but which retain sufficient

elements of relic unimproved grassland to enable recovery/ 3Bi - areas of heathland which are afforested or

have succeeded to woodland if they retain significant remnants of heathland vegetation which would enable

their recovery), 200m and 850m south of the site respectively, as these sites are downstream receptors of the

drainage ditch present on the site in question.

Hackett’s

Marsh (LNR)

Upper Hamble Estuary

& Woods (SSSI)

Solent Maritime

(SAC)

Solent &

Southampton Water

(RAMSAR, SPA)

Lincegrove & Hackett’s

Marsh (SSSI)


Buro Happold

9.4 Key Habitat Features

From the desk study and initial site visit the following key habitat features of the site have been identified:

• Trees – The trees lining the east and southern boundaries could provide potentially valuable ecological

habitat. Tree lines can play an important role in providing habitat connectivity and, in particular, can often

function as important foraging and commuting corridors for bats. Semi-mature and mature trees

themselves can also offer habitat to nesting birds, roosting bats and invertebrates.

• Hedgerows – The hedgerows defining primarily the northern site boundary could provide wildlife-rich

habitats for many species of concern, including globally threatened or rapidly declining species.

Hedgerows are important for butterflies and moths, smaller farmland birds and dormice. Hedgerows also

act as wildlife corridors for many species including reptiles and amphibians.

• Scrub and grassland/ wetland area – the area of wetland supporting grass and rushes to the south-east

of the site provides potential habitat for reptiles and amphibians.

9.5 Protected or Notable Species

Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre

Information provided by the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre indicated that the following legally

protected or notable species have been recorded within a 2km radius from the site (for details of the level of

legal protection afforded to each species see Appendix D). Note that many of these species are likely to be

found in the SAC/ SPA/ SSSI sites which are greater that 1.5km from the site and are unlikely to be unaffected

by development.

• A total of six amphibians and reptile species have been recorded within a 2km radius of the site, of which

only the great crested newt is a priority species in UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP):

• Slow-worm (Anguis fragilis) • Grass Snake (Natrix natrix)

• Common Toad (Bufo bufo) • Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus)

• Common Lizzard (Lacerta vivipara) • Adder (Vipera berus)

• A total of 78 notable/ protected birds – 24 species designated under the UK BAP, 32 listed as priority

species under the Hampshire BAP, 46 listed under the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) birds of

conservation concern amber list, and 18 listed on the BTO red list. 25 birds are protected under Section

1 of the WCA 1981. Please see Appendix D for full details.

• A total of 59 notable/ protected higher plant (flowering plant) species – The Tubular Water-dropwort

(Oenanthe fistulosa), Triangular Club-rush (Schoenoplectus triqueter) and Annual Knawel (Scleranthus

annuus) are designated under UK BAP; 6 species are designated under the Hampshire BAP; 2 species,

the Bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta) and Triangular Club-rush (Schoenoplectus triqueter) are

protected under Section 8 of the WCA 1981. Please see Appendix D for full details.

• A large number of notable/ protected invertebrates are recorded with many designated under the UK and

Hampshire BAPs.

• According to records supplied by the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre, the following mammals

are all designated under the UK BAP except for the Badger which is legally protected under the

Protection of Badgers Act 1992:

• Badger (Meles meles) • Water Vole (Arvicola terrestris)

• West European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) • Harvest Mouse (Micromys minutus)

• Otter (Lutra lutra)

Bat Records

The Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre does not hold records of any species of bat present in the

locality of the site. Bat records should be sought prior to planning application from the Hampshire Bat Group,

however at the time of writing records were unavailable.

Considering the presence of semi-mature trees and hedgerows lining the outskirts of the site, roosting habitat is

available and hence the presence of bats likely. Consultation should be held prior to planning application stage

with the Hampshire Bat Group to gain further detailed information.

9.6 Implications for Site Development: Ecology

9.6.1 Key ecological issues

The key ecological issues potentially associated with this site are:

• Bats (European protected species) – could potentially be using grassland and site boundaries/hedgerows

for commuting and foraging and mature trees for roosting


Buro Happold

• Great Crested Newts (European protected species) – could potentially use the hedgerows and grassland

as terrestrial habitat and movement corridors

• Badgers (UK protected species) – could use the site for foraging

• Reptiles (UK protected species) – could be present in the grassland and field margins

• Birds (UK protected species) – could be using the site for foraging and nesting including the hedgerows

and trees.

The implications on future development depend very much on the scale and extent of any proposal and the

nature of the ecological resources found to be on site.

If legally protected or notable species were found to be present on site then any proposed development would

need to be designed such to avoid any illegal or damaging activities. This may involve changes to the timing of

certain activities, protection and retention of certain features within the development, and/or provision of

adequate mitigation measures to permit a licence from Natural England to be obtained to permit the proposed

activities. Mitigation requirements could include:

• Removal of vegetation in the winter to avoid the bird breeding season

• Translocation of species from the site to a suitable receptor site (not possible for all species)

In some cases where licences need to be obtained, detailed surveys will be required to support the application.

Under PPS9 (Planning Policy Statement 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) when determining

planning applications the local authority must ensure that species and habitats are protected from the adverse

effects of development and must assess whether any harm to biodiversity is outweighed by the need and

benefit of the proposed development when determining planning applications. Opportunities for ‘building-in’

beneficial biodiversity features into the proposal should therefore be taken to ensure any proposal represents

good design and conforms with best practice guidelines.

9.6.2 Further Assessment Requirements

To ensure any development proposal adequately addresses the ecological issues associated with the site it is

important to obtain as much information on the current ecological status of the site as early in the planning and

design process as possible. It should be noted that many ecological surveys are seasonally restricted and

therefore should be planned into the development timetable well in advance to avoid delays to submission of a

planning application.

The following ecological assessment may be required to fully assess the ecological value of the site and

therefore the implications to development:

• Updated desk study

• Consultation with County Council ecologist

• Botanical survey

• Wintering bird survey

• Bat surveys

• Great Crested Newt surveys

• Badger survey

• Reptile survey

• Invertebrate surveys


Buro Happold

10 Built Heritage and Archaeology

10.1 Introduction

The possibility of any heritage or archaeological findings on or near the site was investigated through the

English Heritage website and consultation with the Landscape, Planning and Heritage department at Hampshire

County Council. A map highlighting the locations of findings in relation to the site is shown in (larger copies are

provided in Appendix E). Full information for the Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) numbers quoted in the

map can be found in Appendix E.

10.2 Archaeology

A search for any archaeological records undertaken by Hampshire Landscape, Planning and Heritage

Archaeology confirmed a number of records within the vicinity of the site, as highlighted in Figure 10-1. Many of

these records have been unearthed to the south-west of the site along Grange Road and at the Old Netley Dairy

Farm. Those closest to the site are:

• ID: 50215 – recorded observation and earthworks within the gardens of the Manor House PH. The event

was recorded in 2000 as part of the Historic Rural Settlement project.

• ID: 50217 – traces of pre-turnpike road junction and green from the medieval to post-medieval period

(1066 – 1850). The event was recorded in 2000 as part of the Historic Rural Settlement project.

• ID: 54657 – A potential site of a small church. The church at Netley, noted in 1086, may have been

located in 'Old Netley'. The area around this grid reference was noted as being a 'chapelyard' on the

1696 terrier. This area now comprises a hummocky pasture field. A document of 1603 noted that the

chapel had been out of use for many years. This document also suggests that this chapel was

consecrated in 1411 to 1412 and may be a different chapel to that mentioned in Domesday Book.

• ID: 54783 – a cartographic depiction of a shrunken village at Old Netley based on historical mapping.

• ID: 50214 - site of pound in Pound Lane, recorded as part of the Historic Rural Settlement project

• The locations of post-medieval buildings have been recorded in archaeological documentation, outlined

in the 1838 Tithe map: ID: 50221, 50223, 50224, 50225, 50226, 50227, 50228

Figure 10-1 Archaeological records in the site region

10.3 Historic Buildings

A search for historical buildings undertaken by Hampshire Landscape, Planning and Heritage confirmed five

records within 1km of the site, as shown in Figure 10-2.

The only record within a reasonable proximity to the site is ID 50698 comprising a barn at Old Netley Farm to

the south of the site. The barn is unlisted and has been converted into two domestic units.


Buro Happold

Figure 10-2 Historical buildings in the area


Although there are a number of listed buildings, archaeological findings and archaeological events near to the

site, none are located on the site itself. It is not anticipated that development of the site will cause any adverse

effects on the existing sites, but it is expected that the planning authority will require archaeological

investigation (e.g. trial trenching) prior to any development of the site.

Consultation with the district archaeologist would confirm whether any further assessment of the site is required

prior to development, and/or an archaeological watching brief during construction is required.


Buro Happold

11 Traffic and Transport

11.1 Site Location

There is a well connected highway network surrounding the site, with the M27 within a 2 km driving distance

(Figure 11-1).

Figure 11-1: Strategic Location (Image produced using Microsoft AutoRoute)

Figure 11-2 shows the site’s surrounding road network, which consists of Beverley Gardens, Green Lane &

Hamble Lane (A3025) to the East, Portsmouth Road (A3025) to the South, Shop Lane & Grange Road to the

West, and Bentley Road (B3033) & Bursledon Road (A3024) to the North.

Figure 11-2: Local Highway Network (Image produced using Microsoft AutoRoute)

Shop Lane is a 4 metre wide rural lane, with no footways. The speed limit on Shop Lane is 30 mph. Portsmouth

Road is a two-way road, with footways on either side at the Shop Lane intersection. The speed limit on

Portsmouth Road is 40 mph changing to 30 mph on entering Bursledon. Beverley Gardens and Green Lane are

both cul-de-sac residential roads, connecting to Portsmouth Road.

11.2 Bus

The site is reasonably well connected to the local bus network (Figure 11-3), which is operated by FirstGroup.

Portsmouth Road, situated to the South of the site is served by bus routes 72 and 80. Route 72 runs between

Gosport Ferry and Southampton, with a frequency of 1 service per hour on weekday peak hours. Route 80 runs

between Fareham and Southampton, also with a frequency of 1 service per peak hour. Other routes which serve

the nearby region are 78, 79, 16A and 12C.

Site


Buro Happold

Figure 11-3: Local Bus Network (Source: FirstGroup)

11.3 Railway

Bursledon and Hamble are the closest railway stations to the site (Figure 11-4). They are on the West Coastway

Line, operated by South West Trains. There is an hourly service between Southampton Central and Portsmouth

Harbour on each day of the week, with additional trains at peak periods.

Route 16A can be taken to Netley railway station, whilst route 16A which is accessible from Hamble Road goes

to Hamble railway station. Routes 72 and 80 are available for public transport between the site and Bursledon

station. Bursledon station is approximately 3.5km to the south east of the site and Hamble Station is

approximately 2.5 km to the south west of the site.

Figure 11-4: Railway Stations (Image produced using Microsoft AutoRoute)

11.4 Airport

The site is located 4 miles southeast from Southampton Airport. Southampton airport is accessible from the

site, within a 6 mile drive along the M27. Southampton Airport has its own dedicated railway station,

Southampton Airport Parkway. Fast trains run three times an hour from London Waterloo directly to the airport

station.

11.5 Trip Generation

Assuming a development density of 30 dwellings per hectare over 75% of the site area, the site which has an

area of approximately 7.5 hectares can accommodate approximately 170 dwellings.

The proposed development will typically have a trip profile which is higher over the weekday AM and PM peak

periods, with trip activity predominantly being outbound in the morning peak and inbound in the evening peak.

The computer package TRICS (Trip Rate Information Computer System) has been used to estimate peak hour

Site

Site


Buro Happold

trip generation for the proposed development. From application of relatively recent survey data (between 2000-

2007) available within the TRICS database, for private residential housing developments in the South East, the

average AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip rates have been estimated as 0.58 and 0.5 respectively per dwelling.

It has been calculated that the development will generate approximately 100 and 85 vehicle trips over the AM

and PM peak hours respectively. These trip estimations are inclusive of both inbound and outbound vehicle

trips.

Results of a manual traffic count undertaken on 08/09/08 on Portsmouth Road at the intersection with Shop

Lane, indicate westbound and eastbound hourly traffic flows of 400 and 450 vehicles respectively, between

12:15-13:15. The proposals would significantly increase traffic volumes in the vicinity of the area. It is

recommended that traffic count surveys are carried out followed by traffic modelling for peak hour periods on

the roads onto which site access is proposed, this will enable an assessment of available spare capacity and

the effect the development will have on the existing local highway network to be ascertained. This assessment

would indicate whether any actions are required to mitigate the effects the development is expected to have on

the highway network. Furthermore if necessary, such actions would support approval of any planning

application to the Local Authority.

11.6 Site Access

Internal permeability is important for any proposed residential development but the area also needs to be

appropriately connected with adjacent street networks. A development with poor links to the surrounding area

creates an enclave which encourages movement to and from it by car rather than by other modes. Looking at

the nature of surrounding residential developments, the aim should be to provide multiple connections, with a

minimum of two accesses. The nearest roads from the site, onto which there is potential to construct external

site access, are Shop Lane, Portsmouth Road, and Hamble Lane.

Discussions would be necessary with the Local Council and Planning Authority, Eastleigh Borough Council, in

order to ascertain their thoughts on the development and access proposals, including any likely mitigation

measures they would be required. Applications within Bursledon will also be considered by Bursledon Parish

Council. The Bursledon Parish Council's view is taken into account by the Planning Authority when arriving at its

decision.

Two accesses could be provided onto the stretch of Shop Lane which borders the west side of the site,

however this would require an upgrade of this road to a higher capacity (minimum carriageway width of 4.8m in

addition to footway), and several trees to be removed. It is expected that development traffic would split in both

the north and south directions from access onto Shop Lane, in order to take access onto Botley Road and

Portsmouth Road respectively.

Another option would be to provide an access route from the site directly onto Portsmouth Road via the field

situated to the west of the site, and hence would require access or ownership negotiations. This route would

intersect through Shop Lane, and hence require junction options to be tested. Connection onto Portsmouth

Road would be in the form of a priority junction.

Another option is to provide an external connection from the site onto Hamble Lane. This route would start

approximately half way down the site’s eastern boundary length, and then intersect through the fields situated

to the east of the site, along with Green Lane, to arrive at Hamble Lane at the location of the Jurd Way

roundabout. This would also require negotiations regarding access arrangements.

Foot access to the site already exists from the north east and west (public footpath) and from the south

(informal access from Shop Lane). The footpath will need to be maintained as part of any future development.

11.7 Planning Policy

11.7.1 Hampshire Local Transport Plan 2006-2011

Hampshire’s current Local Transport Plan (LTP) covers the period from 2006 to 2011. The LTP sets out the

County Council’s transport strategy and has been designed to achieve wider policy objectives, such as:

• improving quality of life,

• protecting the environment, and

• securing economic prosperity.

11.8 Way Forward

In order to ensure a thorough understanding of the key transport issues it would be appropriate to engage with

the local Authority once initial proposals for the site have been established. A Transport Assessment would also

be required to support the planning application for the proposed development. The contents of this document

would be agreed with the relevant authorities through a Scoping Study. In addition a Masterplan in support of a

sustainable transport strategy is advised.


Buro Happold

12 Landscape and Visual

12.1 Introduction

This section considers the landforms around the site, the current land uses, the current views of the site and

surrounding land, and identifies the key receptors around the site that would be affected by the development.

Information has been gathered from the site visit carried out on 08/09/2008, from the Eastleigh Borough Local

Plan and from the Urban Character Assessment for Eastleigh.

Photographs of the site and surrounding area are provided in Appendix A.

12.2 Landform

The Eastleigh Borough Local Plan proposals map designates the site as countryside. This refers to a rural part

of the borough lying outside the housing settlement boundaries and general employment areas as defined by

the urban edge.

The area in the vicinity of the site is broadly flat with no imposing hills or valleys present. The site itself is

essentially level with only local variations, and has an level of approximately 40m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD)

The urban edge of Bursledon is located directly east of the site boundary along Beverley Gardens. An Urban

Character Assessment has been developed for Eastleigh Borough Council to prepare guidance to development

control staff and prospective planning applicants, to ensure that new development in the borough is

sympathetic to its surroundings and helps retain the overall character associated with the area. The report will

be adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document in the Eastleigh Borough Local Development Framework.

The document describes the adjacent residential housing of Beverley Gardens as inter-war/ immediate post-war

development in fair condition (strength of character: moderate). The document also notes that properties in

Beverley Gardens have no significant views. Properties at the southern end of Green Lane (see Figure 12-1) are

defined as Victorian to intermediate post-war villas/ semi-detached pairs (strength of character: moderate).

Figure 12-1 Green Lane looking north

12.3 Visual

12.3.1 Views into the site

Along Shop Lane, a line of semi-mature trees and shrubbery lines the southern development boundary (Figure

12-2), limiting views into the site. The footpath entrance, controlled by an operational footpath gate and a

dilapidated vehicle gate on the north-west corner provides the only opportunity for viewing the site along this

route, as shown in Figure 12-3.


Buro Happold

Figure 12-2 Tree line along Shop Lane – view to south east

Figure 12-3 Entrance to site from Shop Lane – view to north east

The eastern site boundary is lined by scattered semi-mature tress. A number of properties (gardens and

residential units) along Green Lane, Beverley Gardens border the eastern site margin, in addition to the two

bungalow properties adjacent to the western corner of the site, generally have a limited view of the

undeveloped, open land. However, where gaps in the tree line are present, a number of properties along

Beverley Gardens and Green Lane are afforded clear views of the site from both ground floor levels and second

floor balconies. These properties are illustrated in Figure 12-4 and Figure 12-5. Although there are limited

views into the site at present, creation of site access routes (see Section 11) may create further view corridors

into the site.

Figure 12-4 Properties on Beverley Gardens overlooking the site

Figure 12-5 Properties on Green Lane partially overlooking the site


Buro Happold

12.3.2 Views within the site

Within the site boundary, views are limited and currently dominated by a crop of maize. A patch of open, boggy

grassland supporting rushes is present at the south-eastern corner of the site.

12.3.3 Views from the site

Few views are available from the site due to the surrounding shelterbelts and tree lines. The north part of the

site is slightly elevated and some views may be available depending on the layout of any future development.

Some properties along Green Lane and Beverley Gardens are visible along the eastern site boundary.

The adjacent agricultural field to the north, similarly in maize at present, is visible over the hedgerow boundary.

Other views are restricted to those available through small gaps in the shelterbelts such as Shop Lane to the

west.

12.4 Sensitive Visual Receptors

The potential key sensitive visual receptors identified are:

• Residents of properties along the western side of Beverley Gardens and Green Lane

• Users of Shop Lane

• The occupiers of the two houses to the north west of the site

12.5 Implications for Site Development: Visual

The proposed development would alter the views of the site from the residential units along Beverley Gardens

and Green Lane, the occupiers of the two houses to the north west, and users of Shop Lane.

Careful consideration should be given to the design of the proposed development to ensure that it respects and

enhances its setting and minimises the impact on the currently designated strategic gap. This could be

achieved through careful consideration of housing density, orientation and massing of buildings, landscape

design and location of access routes.


Buro Happold

13 Noise and Vibration

13.1 Introduction

A preliminary, desk based noise assessment has been undertaken for the site, to supplement information

gained during the site visit.

13.2 Baseline Conditions

Ambient noise levels are influenced by road traffic noise from Portsmouth Road and Shop Lane, and to a lesser

extent from Hamble Lane. However in no part of the site was road traffic noise considered to be dominant or

intrusive.

The topography between the site and these two roads is flat, with both largely hidden by trees, and there will be

significant soft ground attenuation of noise.

No other significant noise sources were identified in the area.

13.3 Planning Policy Guidance note 24, Planning and noise

The aim of PPG24 is ‘to provide advice on how the planning system can be used to minimise the adverse impact

of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development or adding unduly to the costs and

administrative burdens of business’. It seeks, through land use planning, to site noisy development away from

noise-sensitive land uses and, wherever practicable, to ensure that noise-sensitive development is separated

from major sources of noise.

PPG24 has been the central guidance document for noise assessments of this kind in the UK since it was

published by the Department of the Environment in 1994. However, its main objective is to provide guidance on

the introduction of noise-sensitive development in areas which are affected by existing environmental sources

of noise such as roads and railways. To this end, PPG24 sets out a series of four Noise Exposure Categories

(NECs) which correspond to various levels of environmental noise and for which planning guidance is provided:

NEC A Daytime

Night-time

< 55 dB LAeq,16h

< 45 dB LAeq, 8h

NEC B Daytime

Night-time

55 – 63 dB LAeq,16h

45 – 57 dB LAeq, 8h

NEC C Daytime

Night-time

63 – 72 dB LAeq,16h

57 – 66 dB LAeq, 8h

NEC D Daytime

Night-time

> 72 dB LAeq,16h

> 66 dB LAeq, 8h

Table 13—1 PPG24 NECs

The guidance provided by PPG 24 for each of these NECs is as follows:

NEC A Noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting

planning permission, although the noise level at the high end of the

category should not be regarded as a desirable level.

NEC B Noise should be taken into account when determining planning

applications and, where appropriate, conditions imposed to ensure an

adequate level of protection against noise.

NEC C Planning permission should not normally be granted. Where it is

considered that permission should be given, for example because there

are no alternative quieter sites available, conditions should be imposed to

ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise.

NEC D Planning permission should normally be refused.

Table 13—2 PPG24 NEC guidance

13.4 Assessment

Noise levels on the site will vary according to the distance from the Portsmouth Road and Hamble Lane as the

main sources of traffic noise. In the south of the site development will generally not be less than 50m from

Portsmouth Road, with almost all developable land significantly further than this from the main source of road

traffic noise. In the east of the site development will be over 300m from Hamble Lane. Significant attenuation


Buro Happold

of road traffic noise will occur over these distances, such that prevailing noise levels would place the site in NEC

A or NEC B as defined by PPG 24. Based on these very indicative estimations, PPG 24 recommends:

“For NEC B - Noise should be taken into account when determining planning applications and, where

appropriate, conditions imposed to ensure an adequate level of protection against noise.

For NEC A - Noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting planning permission, although

the noise level at the high end of the category should not be regarded as a desirable level.”

13.5 Construction Impacts

Construction of the new development is unlikely to cause noise and vibration issues to nearby residents

because of the relatively low intensity and short term nature of construction activity for any development.


Mitigation measures are unlikely to be required to protect the site from road traffic noise from either Portsmouth

Road or Hamble Lane.


Buro Happold

14 Air Quality

14.1 Introduction

The UK Government Air Quality Objectives (AQO)are set out in the UK Air Quality Strategy (Defra 2007) and are

shown below in Table 14—1.

Pollutant To be met by Period Frequency Criterion

CO 2004 8-hr Maximum annual running 8-hour

mean

10000 μgm-3

NO2 2005 1-yr Annual average 40 μgm-3

2003 1-yr Annual average 16.25μgm-3 Benzene

2010 1-yr Annual average 5 μgm-3

1, 3 butadiene 2003 1-yr Annual average 2.25 μgm-3

24 hr Number of days when 24 hour

mean PM10 limit value of 50 μgm-3

is exceeded

35 days 2004

1-yr Annual average 40 μgm-3

24 hr Number of days when 24 hour

mean PM10 limit value of 50 μgm-3

is exceeded

7 days

PM10

2005

1-yr Annual average 40 μgm-3

Table 14—1 UK Air Quality Objectives

μg/m-3= micrograms per metre cubed

14.2 Air Quality Objectives

Part IV of the Environmental Act 1995 requires Local Authorities to periodically undertake reviews of the air

quality in their districts and assess the present and likely future quality with regard to standards prescribed by

the Government, as laid out in The Air Quality Standard Regulations 2007.

For the purposes of this report, at this stage of the development proposal the statutory assessments

undertaken by the Local Authority have been used rather than any site specific monitoring.

Eastleigh Borough Council is the local authority responsible for assessing and monitoring air quality in the

Bursledon area, with Southampton City Council responsible for the adjacent area to the west.

As detailed in the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review, the council aims to contribute towards the

government’s target to achieve a 20% reduction in the 1990 level of carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. Policy

34.ES of the local plan puts an obligation on development proposals to make an appropriate contribution

towards the government’s reduction target.

In terms of local Air Quality Management (AQM), the council has an ongoing duty to review and assess air

quality. Where a statutory air quality objective is likely to be surpassed, an AQM Area must be declared and an

action plan implemented to improve the local air quality. This is set out in Policy 33.ES of the local plan.

33.ES Where new development appears likely to have a significant impact on air quality in the locality,

or future occupiers of the development may be subject to unacceptable air quality, the Council will

require a suitable air quality assessment to be carried out prior to consideration of the application.


An AQMA was declared by Eastleigh Borough Council in 2006 for exceedences of NO2 at Hamble Lane,

approximately 400m from the development, this is illustrated in Figure 14-1.


Buro Happold

Figure 14-1 Hamble Lane AQMA

The guideline concentration is exceeded at two points where 2006 monitoring results recorded levels in Hamble

Lane of 41.68μg/m3 and 45.4μg/m3. The development is expected to cause an increase in traffic on Hamble

Lane and therefore possibly increase NO2 levels in an already sensitive area. At the site visit it was noted that

automated traffic monitoring was in place on Hamble Lane north of the Jurd Way roundabout, which is possibly

linked to the existence of the AQMA.

There are no AQMAs in place for any of the other pollutants specified in the UK Air Quality Strategy, PM10 levels

are also monitored, and no annual exceedences have been recorded.

In 2005 six Air Quality Management Areas were declared by Southampton City Council due to transport related

NO2 exceedences, Victoria Road was added to this in 2006. These AQMAs are highlighted in Table 14—2 below

with distance from the site.

AQMA Distance from Development Site Reason for AQMA Declaration

Bevois Valley 6.9 km NO2 exceedence

Annual mean of 54.3μg/m3 (2006)

Bitterne Road West 3.5 km NO2 exceedence

Annual mean of 40μg/m3 (2006)

Winchester Road 8.3 km NO2 exceedence


Town Quay 6.7 km NO2 exceedence


Redbridge Road 9.3 km NO2 exceedence

Annual mean of 40μg/m3 (2006)

Victoria Road 4.5 km NO2 exceedence


Romsey Road 9.6 km NO2 exceedence


Table 14—2 Southampton AQMAs in relation to the proposed site (3)

In terms of air quality these are a considerable distance away from the site, Figure 14-2 illustrates this.


Buro Happold

Figure 14-2 Southampton AQMAs in relation to the site

The closest monitoring points to the proposed site are summarised in Table 14—3below.

Site Name Distance to Site Type of Site NO2 concentration

Hamble Lane, Bursledon 300m Roadside 41.68μg/m3

Hamble Lane 2,

Bursledon

300m Roadside 45.4μg/m3

Table 14—3 Closest NO2 monitoring sites based on 2006 data

Based on the above concentrations it is obvious that air quality close to the site is relatively poor, with NO2

levels exceeding National objective levels of 40μg/m3.

However the projected levels produced by Eastleigh Borough Council indicate a predicted decrease in NO2

concentrations by 2010, and concentrations at the above sites are expected to drop to 39.45μg/m3 and

38.61μg/m3 respectively.

Southampton Council have also predicted and modelled a decrease in NO2 levels in Bursledon, along

Bursledon Road, approximately 1 mile from the development site.

There are no exceedences of any other pollutant in this area.

14.3 Pollution from Roads

The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) (2003) states that it is only necessary to consider sections of

road within 200m of the receptor site for purposes of an air quality assessment.

There are a number of roads within 200m of the site these are; A3025 Portsmouth Road, Beverley Gardens,

Wheelers Mow, Green Lane, Shop Lane, Cranbury Gardens, Manor Close, Lowford Hill, Pound Road and

Elmslie Gardens. The location of these roads is highlighted on the in Figure 11-2 (Transport section).

There is no traffic flow data for the roads around the site apart from Portsmouth road, which had a two way

average 12 hour traffic flow of 12609 in 2003, and traffic data for Bursledon Road (0.46km away) has a twelve

hour two way traffic flow of 15535/day in 2003(5).

Government guidance states that roads with less than 10,000 vehicles per day are unlikely to have a negative

impact on air quality.

In areas where road traffic is a major source of pollution, concentrations fall rapidly with distance from the road.

As an example, the conservative screening methodology provided by the Department for Transport (DfT)

indicates that, at 30 metres from the kerbside, concentrations are reduced by 50%; at 50 metres the reduction

is 70%.

Other roads in the vicinity are either residential or small B-roads, which are unlikely to have an impact on air

quality, and will not have traffic flows which exceed 10,000 vehicles per day. Air quality monitoring on

Portsmouth Road, 3.21 km away, indicates that in terms of NO2, air quality is reasonable, 30.8μg/m3 (2006), and

it is likely that traffic flows along Portsmouth Road close to the site will not have implications on air quality in the

area or at the site.


Buro Happold

Increases in traffic along Hamble Lane could have an effect on air quality at the site, as this is a designated

AQMA and further exceedences of the National Air Quality Objectives could potentially occur, further monitoring

of traffic flows would be necessary to determine the effect of increased traffic along Hamble Lane due to the

development.

14.4 Other Air Quality Issues

It is understood that there are no Part A industrial processes, as specified by the Environmental Protection

Regulations (1991) as amended and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) regulations within

Bursledon.

There are two local authority pollution prevention and control processes in the area; these are a petrol filling

stations (1.4 km away) and a BP Safeway Service Station (0.9 km away). Both are controlled by the local

authority with the necessary power to control any unreasonable emissions to the atmosphere. Neither

installation is considered to adversely affect quality conditions at the site. The Fawley oil storage and refining

facility is approximately 5.6km to the south.

14.5 Implications for Site Development – Air Quality

From the perspective of air quality the site is suitable for residential development as monitoring illustrates that

there are no exceedences or predicted exceedences of NO2 or PM10 in the area, excluding that at Hamble Lane.

In order to determine whether or not increased traffic on Hamble Lane would cause further deterioration of air

quality due to high NO2 levels, further analysis of more recent monitoring results is recommended, along with

the possibility of further monitoring and modelling to ensure no exceedences are expected with higher traffic

levels. There are no potentially significant impacts from the surrounding roads and there are no other sources of

air pollution in the vicinity of the site which could adversely affect air quality. The local authority has concluded

that air quality in the Bursledon area is above the standard set in the National Air Quality Objectives.


Buro Happold

15 Utilities

An infrastructure search was commissioned using Groundwise Searches Ltd (11 September 2008) to obtain

plans of apparatus in the vicinity of the site from all utility providers registered in the region. This chapter gives

a brief description of the services identified based on the plans received from the utility providers. The

implications for future development of the site for residential and commercial use as associated within the

location and presence of utilities is also discussed.

Location plans received from utility providers are shown in Appendix G. The accuracy of the plans cannot be

guaranteed and are for general guidance only. Exact locations would need to be confirmed via a survey.

15.1 Electricity

Information regarding low voltage and high voltage above and below ground power lines within the vicinity of

the site has been provided by Scottish and Southern Electric Power Distribution.

An 11kV High Voltage (HV) below ground power line is located along the northern verge of Portsmouth Road to

the south-east of the site, extending along the western verge of Shop Lane immediately west of the site. HV

below ground power lines are also present along the eastern verge of Beverley Garden immediately to the east,

and along the western verge of Green Lane to the east.

15.2 Implications for Site Development: Electricity

The presence of below ground power cables within the vicinity of the site suggests that the proposed

development can be supplied with electricity. Consultation with Scottish and Southern Energy should be

undertaken to determine if any upgrade works are required.

Further investigation is required to determine the exact location of the high voltage power cables located

adjacent to the site.

Should the development be accessed via Shop Lane, or via a new junction on Hamble Lane approximately

250m to the east in conjunction with a road cutting across Green Lane, buried cables running along either Shop

Lane or Green Lane may require lowering to provide nominal cover underneath the new road surface. This is

common practice and should not cause any restriction to site development.

15.3 Gas

Maps showing the location of below ground gas mains within the vicinity of the site have been provided by

Southern Gas Networks, the principal gas transporter in the locality of the site.

Low Pressure (LP) gas mains run parallel to Portsmouth Road with junctions to branches serving Beverley

Gardens (eastern verge) and Green Lane (eastern verge) to the east of the site. A Medium Pressure (MP) gas

mains runs parallel with the western verge of Hamble Lane to the east of the site. Plans indicate that no gas

utilities are present along Shop Lane to the south-west.

15.4 Implications for Site Development: Gas

The presence of low pressure gas mains within the vicinity of the site suggests that the proposed development

can be supplied with gas.

Consultation with Scotia Gas (the holding company of Southern Gas Networks) should be undertaken to

determine the capacity and upgrade works that are required should the site link directly into the existing gas

network. The possible option of the installation of a gas main along Shop Lane, with a connection to the

existing supply along Portsmouth Road will require consultation with Scotia Gas to determine the feasibility of

connection and design considerations.

If modifications to the Portsmouth Road – Shop Lane junction are anticipated, the below ground gas mains

running parallel to the northern verge of Portsmouth Road may have to be lowered to provide sufficient cover

underneath the new road surface. This is common practice and should not cause any restriction to site

development.

15.5 Water

Southern Water has provided records of potable water supply mains located within the vicinity of the site. A

distribution mains runs along the southern verge of Portsmouth Road, with branches supplying properties along

the eastern verge of Beverley Gardens, and the western verge of Green Lane. There are no potable distribution

mains along Shop Lane or Grange Road.

15.6 Implications for Site Development: Water

The presence of potable water supply within close proximity of the site suggests that the site can be served

with potable water. Consultation with Southern Water will be required to determine the current available

capacity of the network and determine whether any upgrading will be required to serve the proposed

development.

15.7 Sewerage and Drainage

Plans highlighting the foul and surface water public sewerage network in the vicinity of the site have been

supplied by Southern Water. Southern Water are only responsible for public sewers in this area and therefore

do not show any private sewers or connections that may be present.


Buro Happold

A foul water sewer network serves existing residential development to the south-east of the site and generally

drains towards the south. A 150mm Vitreous Clay (VC) foul sewer serves the properties of Beverley Gardens

and properties located at the lower end of Green Lane. Foul sewers are not shown to be present along

Portsmouth Road westerly past the Plough PH, along Shop Lane and on Grange Road.

The site currently transfers surface water runoff into a drainage ditch running along the eastern boundary of the

site (see Section 7 - Water Resources).

No public surface water sewers are indicated on the plans provided by Southern Water.

15.8 Implications for Site Development: Sewerage and Drainage

The site currently has no public sewer facilities or connections. There are no existing activities resulting in the

production of biological sanitary waste, and surface water is treated via natural diversion and attenuation. The

introduction of new development will require due consideration of foul and surface water facilities.

Surface water: As the development is anticipated to increase the impermeable area coverage, surface water

runoff rates will heighten and therefore require adequate drainage and attenuation measures. Surface water

may be transferred through a sewer main to connect into the existing public network, or discharged through a

combination of soakaways and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDs), or to local drains.

Foul water: The installation of foul sewers will be required to transfer sewerage from the site to the public

network to the south-east.

Consultation with Southern Water will be required to determine the available capacity within the sewerage

network and consequently determine whether any upgrade works to the existing network will be required as a

result of development.

15.9 Telecommunications

A number of telecommunication providers were consulted to establish the presence of any under ground or

above ground cabling in the vicinity of the site. British Telecom (BT) and Virgin Media are the only

telecommunication suppliers operating cable services in the locality of the site.

Virgin utility plans show below ground cables running along the southern verge of Portsmouth Road, with

branches into Beverley Gardens and the southern end of Green Lane.

BT utility plans show an underground cable running along the western verge of Shop Lane and along both

verges of Beverley Gardens. Overhead lines run parallel to the northern verge of Portsmouth Road and along

the western verge of Green Lane.

15.10 Implications for Site Development: Telecommunications

The presence of telecoms cables within the vicinity of the site indicates that the proposed development can be

supplied with a telecom service. If proposed access routes cross existing underground cables, consultation

with the provider will be necessary, and repositioning costs may be incurred.

15.11 Oil/ Fuel

Information regarding oil pipelines present within the vicinity of the site has been provided by Fisher German

Chartered Surveyors. Their plans indicate that an operation oil pipeline owned by Government Pipelines and

Storage Systems (GPSS) passes through the site running approximately south to north (solid line on plan in

Appendix G). The route of an abandoned pipeline also runs parallel to the operational pipeline (dotted line on

plan in Appendix G).

The GPSS is a United Kingdom pipeline system managed by the Oil and Pipelines Agency (OPA) on behalf of

the Secretary of State for Defence. The facilities are constructed and maintained under the Land and War

Works Act 1945 and 1948 and the Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958.

The operational pipeline section is part of the Aldermaston (Reading) to Satchell Lane (Hamble) pipeline route,

comprising a steel formed 200mm (8 inch) diameter pipe, with a 725psi operating pressure. The depth below

ground level is approximately 1.1m; however this varies over the length.

The oil pipeline enters the southern extent of the site adjacent to Portsmouth Road, progressing in a north-

north-west direction to exit the site along the northern boundary line defined by a footpath. There are two

GPSS markers indicating the location of the pipeline that were noted on the site visit. These are situated on the

western boundary to the site adjacent to Shop Lane (Figure 15-1), and on the northern edge of Portsmouth

Road.


Buro Happold

Figure 15-1 GPSS pipeline marker on site boundary

The approximate routes of the operational and abandoned pipelines are provided in Appendix G. Should the

exact route of the pipelines be required, the pipeline contractor, Amco Construction will need to be contacted to

peg out the location on site.

15.12 Implications for Site Development: Oil/ Fuel

Operational Pipeline

GPSS have issued a document entitled ‘Standard requirements for crossing or working near to GPSS pipelines’

(December 2004). The key points noted in this document that are envisaged to impact site development are:

• Consent under Section 16 of the Land Powers (Defence) Act is required for the majority of work within the

wayleave. The erection of buildings or obstructions within the wayleave is generally not permitted. The

construction of essential crossing points such as roads and paths is permissible (note: crossings should

where possible transverse the pipeline at right angles, minimum 60 degrees).

• The OPA will generally agree to the diversion, lowering or re-alignment of a GPSS pipeline, providing such

arrangements do not impact on the ability of the pipeline to fulfil its transportation functions safely.

• A Section 16 consent should be submitted to the OPA, providing a detailed summary of the site and

proposed work, drawings of existing and proposed services, risk assessments and method statement,

emergency procedures, responsibilities, form of indemnity. Consultation should be held with the ODA to

establish the full information required for a Section 16 application.

• New utilities such as gas, water and electricity serving the site may have to pass beneath the pipeline

with a 300mm separation, crossing the pipeline at right angles where possible (minimum 60 degrees).

Roads and railways, small diameter gravity sewers or drains and other minor services (at the discretion of

OPA) will generally be permitted to pass over the pipeline.

Note: the wayleave is a buffer zone generally extending 3.048m either side of the outside of the pipeline. This is

shown in Figure 15-2.

Further consultation with GPSS is required to establish the most suitable approach for development affecting

the pipeline. Initial discussions with a GPSS representative highlighted the above implications to development,

and highlighted the following primary options:

• divert the pipeline away from the site area as necessary – this will incur a high diversion cost

• provide an easement for access to the pipeline with a 3m buffer band either side of the pipe.


Buro Happold

Figure 15-2 Oil pipeline location and wayleave buffer zone

Abandoned Pipeline

The abandoned pipeline originally carried hydrocarbons (petroleum products), and as part of the abandonment

process it is likely that the pipeline was flushed, water filled and capped off. As such, due care should be taken

when working in proximity to the pipeline to prevent breakage.

Alternatively, the section of pipeline underneath the site may be removed and disposed of as furnace scrap.

This includes excavation, cleaning, status confirmation, section removal and disposal from site, and grout filling

of the annulus at each cut point.

Site Appraisal, Shop Lane, Bursledon Revision 01 Site Appraisal Report October 2008 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited

Buro Happold

16 Conclusions and Recommendations

The key issues related to the site in Bursledon are summarised as follows along with recommended further

investigations:

Planning Policy and Land Use

The Eastleigh Borough Local plan proposals map locates the site in question in an area designated as

countryside and a strategic gap. As such, there is a policy presumption against development in this location.

The RSS core strategy has identified gaps as constraints to sustainable development. The Panel Report on the

Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East Plan recommends frequent review of the gap boundaries in

Hampshire.

Further consultation and possible surveying is required to identify the MAFF ALC grade 3 sub-category in order

to establish compliance with the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review.

As detailed in the local plan, the provision of 35% affordable housing is required for sites with the capacity to

accommodate 15 or more dwellings.

Water

In line with planning guidance for flood risk (PPS25), a Surface Water Drainage Strategy will be required as part

of a Flood Risk Assessment to demonstrate how surface water will be controlled on site. The assessment

should consider fluvial flooding from the adjacent drainage ditch/ Butlocks Heath stream. The strategy should

include the consideration of Sustainable Urban Drainage system (SUDS) options for sustainable surface water

management.

Contaminated Land, Geology and Soils

In accordance with PPS23, a preliminary risk assessment based on a detailed desk study and geo-

environmental investigation with regards to contamination should be conducted when a sensitive land use such

as housing is proposed on land potentially affected by contamination.

At the appropriate time, a geo-environmental site investigation should be carried out in conjunction with the

geotechnical investigation which will be necessary to collect data on ground conditions (and which will also

allow foundation and drainage design for any future development).

Ecology

If legally protected or notable species were found to be present on site then any proposed development would

need to be designed such to avoid any illegal or damaging activities. This may involve changes to the timing of

certain activities, protection and retention of certain features within the development, and/or provision of

adequate mitigation measures to permit a licence from DEFRA or English Nature to be obtained to permit the

proposed activities.

The following ecological assessment may be required to fully assess the ecological value of the site and

therefore the implications to development:

• Updated desk study

• Consultation with Council ecologist

• Botanical survey

• Wintering bird survey

• Bat surveys

• Great Crested Newt surveys

• Badger survey

• Reptile survey

• Invertebrate surveys

Archaeology

It is anticipated that the planning authority will require archaeological investigation (e.g. trial trenching) prior to

any development of the site. Consultation with the county archaeologist would confirm whether any further

assessment of the site is required prior to development, and/or an archaeological watching brief during

construction is required.

Traffic and Transport

In order to ensure a thorough understanding of the key transport issues it would be appropriate to engage with

the local Authority once initial proposals for the site have been established. A Transport Assessment would be

required to support the planning application for the proposed development. The contents of this document

would be agreed with the relevant authorities through a Scoping Study. In addition a Masterplan in support of a

sustainable transport strategy is advised.

Revision 01 Site Appraisal, Shop Lane, Bursledon October 2008 Site Appraisal Report Copyright © Buro Happold Limited

Buro Happold

Landscape and Visual

The proposed development would alter the views of the site from the residential units along Beverley Gardens

and Green Lane, the occupiers of the two houses to the north west, and users of Shop Lane.

Careful consideration should be given to the design of the proposed development to ensure that it respects and

enhances its setting. This could be achieved through careful consideration of housing density, orientation and

massing of buildings, landscape design and location of access routes.

Noise and Vibration

Construction of the new development is unlikely to cause noise and vibration issues to nearby residents

because of the relatively low intensity and short term nature of construction activity for any development.

Mitigation measures are unlikely to be required to protect the site from road traffic noise from either Portsmouth

Road or Hamble Lane.

Air Quality

The site is suitable for residential development as monitoring illustrates that there are no exceedences or

predicted exceedences of NO2 or PM10 in the area, excluding Hamble Road. In order to determine whether or

not increased traffic on Hamble Lane would cause further deterioration of air quality due to high NO2 levels,

further analysis of more recent monitoring results, along with the possibility of further monitoring and modelling

to ensure no exceedences are expected with higher traffic levels is recommended.

The local authority has concluded that air quality in the Bursledon area is above the standard set in the National

Air Quality Objectives.

Utilities

The presence of electricity, gas, potable water supply, sewerage and drainage, and telecommunications within

the vicinity of the site indicates that the proposed development can be supplied with utility services required for

residential purposes.

The erection of buildings or obstructions within a 3.048m wayleave either side of the GPSS oil pipeline will not

be permitted. New utilities such as gas, water and electricity serving the site may have to pass beneath the

pipeline with a 300mm separation, crossing the pipeline at right angles where possible. Due care should be

taken when working in proximity to the pipeline to prevent breakage. Further consultation with GPSS is

recommended to establish the most suitable approach for development around the pipeline.

Site Appraisal, Shop Lane, Bursledon Revision 01 Site Appraisal Report October 2008 Copyright © Buro Happold Limited

Buro Happold

References

General

Bursledon Parish Council http://bursledon.org/

Eastleigh Borough Council http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/

Envirocheck Report, ref 26251179_1_1, dated 04/09/2008

Hampshire County Council http://www.hants.gov.uk/

Neighbourhood Statistics http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/

Planning Policy and Land Use

Eastleigh Borough Council: Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001 – 2011)

http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-2094

Government Office for the South East (2007) Panel Report on the Regional Spatial Strategy for South East

England http://www.gos.gov.uk/gose/planning/regionalPlanning/southEastPlan/?a=42496

Hampshire County Council: Hampshire Structure Plan Saved Policies http://www.hants.gov.uk/structureplan/

Socio-economic and Community:

Home Office http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ia/atlas.html

Office for National Statistics http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/

Water Resources:

Communities and Local Government (2006) Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk, The

Stationery Office, London

Eastleigh Borough Council (2006) Local Development Framework: Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

Environment Agency flood map: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/maps

Environment Agency water quality http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/maps

Contaminated Land

Communities and Local Government (2004) Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control, The

Stationery Office, London

Environment Agency (2002). Potential Contaminants for the Assessment of Land - Contaminated Land Report 8

(CLR8)

Environment Agency (2004) Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11

Ecology

Magic Geographical Information System http://www.magic.gov.uk/

National Biodiversity Gateway Network (NBGN): http://www.searchnbn.net

Natural England http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/

Protected and Notable Species Search from Hampshire County Council Biodiversity Information Centre

Built Heritage and Archaeology

English Heritage http://www.english-heritage.org.uk

Archaeological Search from Hampshire County Council Landscape, Planning and Heritage department

Traffic and Transport

Hampshire County Council (2006) Local Transport Plan (2006 – 2011)

Landscape and Visual

Eastleigh Borough Council (2008) Local Development Framework: Character Area Appraisals – Bursledon,

Hamble-le-Rice and Hound

Noise and Vibration

Communities and Local Government (2004) Planning Policy Statement 24: Planning and Noise

Air Quality

The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Vol 1

Eastleigh Borough Council Air Quality Progress Report 2007

http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/PDF/AirQualityProgressApril2007.pdf

Revision 01 Site Appraisal, Shop Lane, Bursledon October 2008 Site Appraisal Report Copyright © Buro Happold Limited

Buro Happold

Southampton air quality action plan, 2008

http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/Air%20Quality%20Action%20Plan_tcm46-201416.pdf

Air quality review and assessment; detailed assessment for Southampton,

http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/Detailed%20Assessment%202007_tcm46-200707.pdf

Annual traffic flows

http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/O.%20APR%20Annex%20F%20Traffic%20Flows_tcm46-160680.pdf

Utilities

Fisher German Chartered Surveyors: GPSS Oil Pipeline Information (August 2008)

Groundwise Searches Limited: Utility Plans, ref 4939LE

Richard Orriss Buro Happold Limited Camden Mill Lower Bristol Road Bath BA2 3DQ UK

Telephone: +44 (0)1225 320600 Facsimile: +44 (0)870 787 4148

Email: [email protected]

bursledon buro happold site appraisal report

Real Estate

site location14

site photos

site access439

site development408

site location418

site appraisal reportpage

site development48 appendix

development planning