200 homes and open space at Lynwood Farm, Stone Road, Holbury, Fawley

The site and surroundings

The site is agricultural land outside Holbury and Blackfield’s settlement boundary, adjoining roads, housing, the National Park, a school and protected areas.

“SITE DESCRIPTION The application site lies outside, but partly adjoins, the settlement boundary of Holbury and Blackfield as set out in the adopted New Forest Local Plan 2016-2036. The application site comprises generally flat agricultural land split into a number of large fields which run north to south, with a further large field that runs east west along the southern boundary of the site.”

“To the west of the site lies the New Forest National Park which has its boundary directly adjoining the western boundary of the site along Roughdown Lane (the Lane is shown to be outside the National Park), then continuing along Bell Lane. The boundary of the National Park runs westwards from the point at which Roughdown Lane has its junction with Rollestone Road and then turns northwards to tightly enclose the urban edge of Holbury.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier matters included an environmental impact assessment screening opinion, pre-application advice for 200 homes and a 1962 agricultural workers’ dwelling approval.

“PLANNING HISTORY 24/10318 Request for an EIA Screening Opinion EIA required confirmed on 10/06/24”

“XX/NFR/11567 Agricultural workers dwelling approved 20/12/62 (Oaklands Bungalow)”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the housing, affordable homes, open space and environmental measures outweighed identified harms, subject to conditions and a legal agreement.

“The proposal would provide significant additional new housing to assist in addressing the current significant shortfall in the district’s five-year housing land supply. The proposal would, subject to suitable conditions and a s106 planning obligation, provide a Local Plan Policy compliant quantum of 70 affordable housing units, including 23 Social Rented units, with a suitable mix of residential typologies and unit sizes.”

“The proposal would provide a significant amount (18.2 hectares) of new public open space including the proposed ANRG, equipped play area, allotments, community orchard, dog exercise area and informal public open space. Individually and cumulatively the public open spaces could benefit local public health. The proposal would also provide environmental enhancements in terms of new planting, trees and wildlife habitats.”

Officer report

What people said

Most local letters objected to the development’s effect on countryside, infrastructure, wildlife, the National Park, transport and agriculture; nine letters supported it.

“Ecology and wildlife: • Negative impact on wildlife and biodiversity with the loss of another green space • Impact on ecology of the National Park through extra recreational pressure • New Forest area needs to be protected - this development will not do so • New public open spaces will not outweigh the adverse impact • Will impact adversely on natural beauty and tranquillity of the area…”

“Impact on the National Park: • Adverse impact on National Park setting • Brown field should be developed first • Loss of this greenfield site will not assist with climate change • Loss of back up grazing land will be detrimental to New Forest stock husbandry…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant, a highways consultant, an NHS representative, an objector, a residents’ representative and Fawley Parish Council addressed the committee.

Members’ key issue

Members considered whether the requested healthcare contribution met the legal tests for planning obligations.

“A verbal update was provided where it was explained that a representation was received from the Integrated Care Board (ICB) after the publication of the agenda. Although the representation was shared with Members and included in summary in the Committee Updates, the Committee was advised that for any planning obligation to be lawful there were three tests that needed to be met, these tests were set out in regulation 122 of the…”

“Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations and duplicated at paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In short, the ICB letter suggested that the requested contribution towards primary healthcare infrastructure was justified and necessary, however were not satisfied that the ICS’s suggested obligations met the three required tests.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved to grant permission, subject to the report’s obligations and conditions, adding £199,478 for primary care infrastructure.

“Delegated Authority be given to the Service Manager Development Management to GRANT PERMISSION subject to:”

Minutes