Planning and Design Brief
Hinton Hotel, Catisfield Lane, Catisfield
Appendix 3
Chapter 6 - Housing
Conclusion of Inspector's Report on land to the north of the Catisfield Lane Housing Allocation as part of the Inquiry into the objections to the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review
Issue
6.255 Whether the site should be allocated for housing development under Policy Hi.
Conclusions
6.256 I am satisfied that the Plan allocates sufficient housing land to meet the strategic housing requirement as set out in the submitted SPR - see paragraphs 6.11-6.17 above.
6.257 The objection site comprises an area of paddock and storage area to the north of the Catisfield Lane allocation. The site is in the same ownership as the allocated land to the south. At the root of the objection is the owners' view that the allocated land has a significantly greater value in its existing use(s) than as a housing site thus the allocated site will not be developed. The objectors therefore seek a larger site for development in order to extinguish the existing uses on the allocated site and in order to make its development worthwhile.
6.258 The objection land is outside the urban boundary of Catisfield and falls, therefore, in the countryside.
The land is also within the extensive Titchfield Abbey Conservation Area (CA); it also forms part of the Meon Valley ASLC and is within the Meon Valley strategic gap. As part of the countryside the land should be protected for its own sake.
6.259 Objections 0390 and 0481 challenge the boundaries of the Meon Strategic Gap, the ASLC and the CA. I have considered the Councils approach to both ASLCs and the Meon Strategic Gap in Chapter 3 above (see paras 3.23-3.29 and 3.53-3.59). In general, I support the boundaries shown on the PM. PPGI5, para 2.9 confirms that the LPR process is not the appropriate means by which CA boundaries should be reviewed.
6.260 The northern boundary of the allocated site provides a logical, hard and easily delineated boundary to the built-up area of the village. An extension to the built-up area as proposed would encroach into the countryside which here provides an open setting to the village of Catisfield. This would erode and blur the existing well defined boundary contrary to Policies C and C3. I agree with the Councils assessment that the proposed development would register as a substantial incursion into the open land to the north of the hotel in long views from the footpaths across the golf course and in the vicinity of the Tithe Barn. The proposal would also result in development within the CA and the ASLC. Such development would seriously harm the open character and appearance of the CA and, consequently the ASLC (Policies HE6 and C38).
6.261 Moreover, the site is located in the narrowest corridor of the Meon strategic gap (Policy C2A). It is a little over I km wide at this point. Accordingly, I see this as a particularly vulnerable part of the gap which would be eroded unacceptably by the proposed development. The proposed screen planting and low-density development in the countryside would not overcome this objection to the principle of development. Thus I find the reasons for resisting the proposal are valid and should not lightly be set aside.
6.262 There is a substantial difference between respective valuations of the allocated site and the enclosures/uses to the north (Plan 1 of FBC/H/4/4). On the owners side it may be difficult to separate a realistic value from the 'hope' value attaching to the various uses within the site. According to the Council, there are a number of uses within the complex which are of dubious legality. Moreover, the Council questions whether the 1976 outline permission remains extant. J declined to accept the submission of the owners' detailed valuation because it could not be made public. This meant that the valuation could not be tested in cross-examination. Accordingly, in the absence of comparable detail to that set out in the Council's valuation. I can give little weight to Primmer Olds estimate of valuation (letter to Ms Downes I3.3.98). Nevertheless, it is clear that unless the owners consider that the development of the allocated site is financially viable it will not happen. I am conscious, however, that changes in the local and national economy could significantly affect values and, therefore, investment decisions during the period of the Plan. That said, however, I find it unsatisfactory that the LPA should be placed in a position where, through the LP process, it is being asked, in effect, to pay to extinguish undesirable buildings and uses by permitting development on adjoining land. This could create a potentially harmful precedent.
6.263 In the circumstances the best that the LPR can do is to provide the certainty on which development decisions can be made. The existing uses and buildings on the Catisfield Lane site do little to raise the quality of the townscape in this part of the village. I fully support the Councils efforts in providing an incentive to secure the redevelopment of the allocated site. However, in my judgement, that redevelopment does not justify the substantial extension of the built up area over the land to the north. In coming to this view, I have carefully considered the weight of objectors and the written and oral submissions in support of the proposal. However, I am firmly of the view that the harm to the countryside, the setting of the settlement, the strategic gap, the CA and the ASLC, arising from the proposal, far outweigh the desirable objective of replacing the existing commercial uses and buildings on the allocated site.
|.
|.
