920-home mixed-use neighbourhood at Land At Whitenap, Luzborough Lane, Romsey

“PROPOSAL 3.1 Outline application for up to 920 dwellings including affordable homes with associated open space, roads, parking, service infrastructure, local food production and landscaping.”

“ES Amendments During the application process the ES has been updated and amended to have due consideration to the evolving and changing submission. This has included the future delivery of the railway bridge. The ES has been updated to address and consider the changes proposed following the original submission of the application and all subsequent changes, addendum documents and additional information have been consulted on and advertised accordingly.”

“SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site is approximately 75.77 hectares located to the south of Romsey and to the west of North Baddesley. To the west, the site is adjacent to an operational railway line which provides rail services between Romsey and Southampton. Beyond the railway line lies agricultural fields and the A27 (Southampton Road). Further to the west lies the Broadlands Estate.”

“Site topography, green and blue infrastructure The site is at its highest to the north-east where it includes Whitenap Barns and is adjacent to Foxills. The site then slopes down towards the railway line and towards the existing Ashfield roundabout where the site is at its lowest. The areas to the west/south of the site are relatively flat.”

“RELEVANT HISTORY 4.1 20/01357/SCOS - Scoping opinion under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 for approximately 1300 houses, 6 hectares of commercial uses and supporting infrastructure – Scoping Opinion Issued 13.08.2020”

“23/00761/FULLS- Change of Use of Woodland to Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG)- Planning Permission subject to conditions issued 19.10.2023 5.0 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Active Travel England- Further information required (Comment): • Commitment to provide the bridge is welcome • The proposed bridge is necessary to make this development acceptable so need Network Rail and HCC Highways to confirm that they are satisfied with this element of the proposal.”

“There would be conflict with Polices COM3 and LE3 of the TVBRLP. There would also be conflict with Policy E9 in respect of ‘less than substantial’ harm to heritage assets and the development fails to deliver 40% of all residential units as affordable housing. As outlined above, there is harm, but it is considered that this would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme when taken as a ’whole’ and therefore there would be no conflict with the NPPF.”

“It has also been identified that there would be harm to the setting of a designated heritage asset. Although the harm would be at the lower level it is recognised that the conclusion does not satisfy the legal duty of ‘preserving’ the special historic character and setting of Listed property. As identified above, the benefits of the scheme are nevertheless considered sufficient to outweigh the harm that has been identified.”

“Location of the school not acceptable due to noise and parking issues in St Barbs Close. • Concern about 4 storey dwellings. • If s106 agreement is required should be negotiated in an open and transparent way. • Reduction in affordable housing to 10% is unacceptable. • Absence of a orchard next to Whitenap Barns and residents of Five Elms Drive is not acceptable. • No plans showing location of affordable housing.”

“Masterplan Layout • School is in the wrong place – should be in the Local Centre to prevent unnecessary car travel. • Proposed school location will have detrimental impact on Tadburn Road residents as cars will park randomly on Tadburn Road and surrounding cul-de-sacs at the start and end of the school day. • Hampshire County Council confirm that a 2Ha site is required for the school. Applicant should explain why a 1.6Ha site is provided.”

“The Officer’s recommendation, as per the agenda and update paper, was proposed by Councillor A Dowden seconded by Councillor Parker. During debate there was a proposal by Councillor Parker to defer the application and was seconded by Councillor Gidley. Upon being put to the vote the motion was carried.”

“DEFERRED on all grounds, but in particular to: • Enable the completion of the development viability assessment to enable a greater understanding of the effect on the percentage of affordable housing provision being delivered; and • To achieve a satisfactory consultation with the Environment Agency with regard to the risk of flooding at the site.”