Committee and OV Panels - Report, 23 June 2010 - … Committee... · Web view2010/06/23 · Notwithstanding the sign's close proximity to the egress onto Botley Road from the residential

Report toPlanning Committee

Date: 23 June 2010

Report of: Director of Regulatory Services

Subject: PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER

SUMMARY

This report recommends action on various planning applications and miscellaneous item.

RECOMMENDATION

The recommendations are detailed individually at the end of the report on each planning application.

dc-100623-r04-lsm

Item 6 (i)

2

Index List of Applications with Item Numbers

Application No. ItemFAREHAM EAST

P/10/0421/FP/M 18 HARTLANDS ROAD, FAREHAMPART ROOF CONVERSION TO PROVIDE TWO STOREY ACCOMMODATION

Permission 8

FAREHAM NORTH

P/10/0403/OA 33 FUNTLEY HILL - ST FRANCIS CHURCH -, FAREHAMERECTION OF THREE TWO-STOREY DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, NEW ACCESS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING ACCESS TO CHURCH WITH NEW PARKING AREA (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

Outline Permission

9

P/10/0417/FP 9 KILN ROAD, FAREHAMDEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH GARAGES & LANDSCAPING (ALTERNA

Permission 10

FAREHAM SOUTH

P/10/0231/FP REDLANDS LANE - PARKER FOODS SITE -, FAREHAMRE-DEVELOPMENT OF SITE BY ERECTION OF 54 EXTRA CARE APARTMENTS, 4 BUNGALOWS, DAY CARE FACILITIES & PARKING

Permission 11

P/10/0433/FP 128 PAXTON ROAD, FAREHAM, - LAND ADJACENT -ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING Permission 12

FAREHAM WEST

P/10/0375/FP 31 HEATHFIELD AVENUE, FAREHAMDEMOLITION OF ATTACHED GARAGE AND ERECTION OF GARAGE WITH FIRST FLOOR SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION INCLUDING FRONT & REAR DORMERS &

Permission 13

dc-100623-r04-lsm

3

BARN HIP ROOF

HILL HEAD

P/10/0320/CU 60 HILL HEAD ROAD, HILL HEADALTERATIONS TO DETACHED WORKSHOP TO FORM AN ANNEXE

Permission 14

P/10/0368/FP 43 OLD STREET, FAREHAMERECTION OF SIDE AND REAR EXTENSIONS, RESITE EXISTING CONSERVATORY AND PROVISION OF NEW ROOF TO PROVIDE FIRST FLOOR ACCOMMODATION WITH JULIET BALCONY

Permission 15

LOCKS HEATH

P/10/0369/FP 6 CUNNINGHAM DRIVE, LOCKS HEATHRETENTION OF DETACHED LOG CABIN IN REAR GARDEN

Permission 1

SARISBURY

P/10/0366/AD 152 BOTLEY ROAD - YEW TREE, FARMHOUSE - SWANWICKDISPLAY OF EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED HANGING SIGN

Consent For 5 Years

2

STUBBINGTON

P/10/0304/FP 20 ALBERT ROAD, FAREHAMRETENTION OF FIRST FLOOR REAR BALCONY

Permission 16

TITCHFIELD

P/10/0380/FP 335 SOUTHAMPTON ROAD, TITCHFIELDERECTION OF TWO STOREY FRONT AND REAR EXTENSIONS

Permission 3

P/10/0410/FP 9 BEECHCROFT CLOSE, FAREHAMERECTION OF REAR CONSERVATORY Permission 4

dc-100623-r04-lsm

4

WARSASH

P/09/1075/CU 21 SHORE ROAD, WARSASHCHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP (CLASS A1) TO HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY (CLASS A5) AND PROVISION OF REAR EXTRACTION FLUE

Permission 5

P/10/0373/TO 88 NEWTOWN ROAD, WARSASHFELL WHITEBEAM AND BEECH AND CARRY OUT VARIOUS WORKS TO ASH, MONTEREY CYPRESS AND MONTEREY PINE COVERED BY F.T.P.O.

Consent 6

P/10/0434/FP 9 WARSASH ROAD, WARSASHERECTION OF FIRST FLOOR AND TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION

Permission 7

dc-100623-r04-lsm

5

ZONE 1 – WESTERN WARDS

Locks Heath Park Gate

SarisburyTitchfield Titchfield CommonWarsash

dc-100623-r04-lsm

6

(1) P/10/0369/FP LOCKS HEATH Mr Allan Tribe

RETENTION OF DETACHED LOG CABIN IN REAR GARDEN

6 CUNNINGHAM DRIVE LOCKS HEATH SO31 6SS

OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge ext. 2677/2301

Site Description

This application relates to a detached dwelling on the west side of Cunningham Drive which is to the south of Admirals Road.

Description of Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the retention of a detached log cabin sited in the rear garden of the property which measures 5.1 metres in width, 3 metres in depth with a ridge height of 2.65 metres.

Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review - DG1; DG3 and DG5

Representations

Two letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

Size Very imposing Impact on selling or neighbouring property No guarantee of its usage Large and out of character

Comments

This application relates to a detached dwelling on the west side of Cunningham Drive which is to the south of Admirals Road. Permission is sought for the retention of a log cabin within the rear garden of the property and is currently used to store the applicant's own collection of books.

Concern has been raised that the structure is imposing, large and out of character. Officers have considered these concerns are of the view that whilst the structure has a floor area of 14.4m² its overall height is only 2.65 metres which is not excessive or over bearing when viewed from the neighbouring properties.

Concern was also raised about the intended use of the structure. Officers are proposing to condition the building so that it cannot be used for any business or commercial use what so ever.

dc-100623-r04-lsm

7

Officers are of the opinion that in light of the design, scale and siting of the log cabin the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties are not compromised and the structure therefore complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review.

RECOMMEND:

PERMISSION: Building not to be used for business or commercial activities.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: P/10/0369/FP

(2) P/10/0366/AD SARISBURY Mr Michael Sealey

DISPLAY OF EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED HANGING SIGN

152 BOTLEY ROAD - YEW TREE FARMHOUSE - SWANWICK SO31 1BU

OFFICERS REPORT - Richard Wright ext. 2356

Site Description

This application relates to a freestanding hanging sign post located on the highway verge alongside Botley Road, Swanwick. The sign lies between the one way access and egress from the highway to Yew Tree Farmhouse and Yew Tree Court south of the roundabout with Yew Tree Drive. The land is part of the adopted highway within the ownership of Hampshire County Council.

The hanging sign post measures approximately 2.4 metres high. The space for the sign is 900mm x 700mm. The post is illuminated by two downward facing overhanging spot lights attached to the top of the post.


It is proposed to display a sign in the existing sign framework. The purpose of the sign would be to direct visitors to Yew Tree Farmhouse, a private residential property.

Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policy DG7

Representations

Two letters have been received objecting on the following grounds: Confusion for road users No relevant purpose Would set a precedent for the erection of "to my house" signs on public property No indication of if and when the sign would be lit No details of responsibility for upkeep of sign

Consultations

dc-100623-r04-lsm

8

Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Highways) - A licence for the display of such a sign would be required from the highways authority. No objection on highway safety grounds.

Comments

This application proposes the display of an illuminated sign in an existing freestanding hanging sign post structure on the public highway. From a planning perspective the acceptability of this proposal turns on two key issues - the visual impact of the sign on the character of the area and the likely impact on public and highway safety.

The sign post has been in this position for a number of years. However, it has not been used for the purposes of displaying a sign in recent times and therefore officer's have recommended that the local planning authority's express consent would now be required for it to be used in this way. Given that the structure is already in place officers do not believe that the addition of a hanging sign in the space available would materially affect the appearance or character of the area.

Notwithstanding the sign's close proximity to the egress onto Botley Road from the residential development at Yew Tree Court and Yew Tree Farmhouse itself, the Council's Highways Engineer has not raised an objection to the proposal on highway safety grounds. He has advised that the applicant would need to successfully obtain the separate consent of the highways authority to display the sign on the public highway.

Officers believe this application to accord with the relevant policies of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review.

RECOMMEND:

CONSENT 5 YEARS: standard advertisement conditions; illumination screened and non-intermittent; illumination max 530cd/m2

BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/10/0366/AD

(3) P/10/0380/FP TITCHFIELD as amended by email dated 9th June 2010.

Mr Pillai Agent: Mr B K Lawrence

ERECTION OF TWO STOREY FRONT AND SINGLE AND TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSIONS

335 SOUTHAMPTON ROAD TITCHFIELD PO14 4AX

OFFICERS REPORT - Simon Thompson ext. 4815

Site Description

dc-100623-r04-lsm

9

335 Southampton Road, Titchfield, is a detached house with side conservatory and a detached garage, located on the north side of this road, slightly east of the junction of Southampton Road with Southampton Hill, Titchfield.

The land in this area slopes down towards the River Meon to the east. There is a small field immediately adjacent to the west, a field/farm complex to its north, a detached dwelling, to its east, and mature trees and quite tall hedgerow/fencing to the immediate frontage.

This locality is countryside and strategic gap


Erection of two storey front and single storey and two storey rear extensions. No additional bedrooms are specifically shown as a part of these proposals.

Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review: DG3, DG5, C1, C11, H11 and H13Fareham Borough Council Extension Design Guide.

Relevant Planning History

P/99/0720/FP - Retention of two metre high boundary fence - Retain development August 1999FBC.4999/3, /9, /12, /13 & P/95/0879/OA - Erection of dwelling (two schemes including a garage) - Refused in 1981, 1987, 1990, 1991 & 1995 - Appeal dismissed regarding the 1995 refusalFBC.4999/8 - Erection of two storey side extensions and single storey front extension - Permitted April 1987FBC.106/2 - Erection of double garage - Permitted March 1972

Representations

One email has been received from 337 Southampton Road objecting on the following grounds:

Loss of light; Loss of privacy; and No objection if this property was extended on its western side the site having room for

this.

Comments

The proposed extensions are designed to be subsidiary to the existing house and over 3m from this site's nearest boundary. There is a good degree of screening by mature trees/hedging/fencing in this area at and near the frontage with Southampton Road, and along the northwest/northern boundary, and off site nearby to its west and east. Considering Local Plan policies and the Council's Extension Design Guide, and subject to matching external materials, these proposed extensions are considered by Officers as acceptable.

dc-100623-r04-lsm

10

The nearest part of the proposed extensions would be about 11m from the western flank wall of 337 Southampton Road. This exceeds the minimum distances expected in the Council's Extension Design Guide for protection of light to neighbouring dwellinghouses.

In terms of privacy, no first floor windows are proposed in the extension side elevations, other than a bathroom window which would face towards the neighbours front garden. The proposed rear first floor bedroom window would be about 13m from the back boundary it faces, with only oblique views to the western side neighbouring garden.

Considering the Local Plan and the Council's Extension Design Guide, the light and privacy implications of these proposals are considered acceptable by Officers.

RECOMMEND:

PERMISSION: Matching materials. BACKGROUND PAPERS:

(4) P/10/0410/FP TITCHFIELD Mr Ian Fox Agent: Mrs Sarah Bax

ERECTION OF REAR CONSERVATORY

9 BEECHCROFT CLOSE FAREHAM PO15 5NJ


Site Description

This application relates to an end of terrace property located on the southern side of Beechcroft Close, Catisfield, Fareham. A patio area lies immediately to the rear of the house, beyond which the garden, mostly laid to lawn, slopes away. A 1.8 metre high brick wall runs along the party boundary with the adjoining property, 8 Beechcroft Close. The adjoining property, 8 Beechcroft Close, remains as originally built and is not extended at the rear.


This proposal is for the erection of a rear P-shaped conservatory. The conservatory would be 3 metres in depth along the party boundary. The other end of the conservatory would feature an additional 45 degree angled return projecting a further metre in depth from the rear elevation of the house. It would span the whole width of the property (7.4 metres) and would feature a fully hipped roof design measuring 2.6 metres high to eaves and 3.75 metres to its highest point (the apex of the roof).


P/10/0184/FP - Erection of Rear Conservatory - Refused 30 April 2010

dc-100623-r04-lsm

11

Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review: DG5Extension Design guide

Representations

Two letters have been received objecting on the following grounds: Overbearing impact on neighbouring property Increase in noise

Comments

A previous planning application submitted earlier this year was refused under officer delegated powers. The application proposed a similar conservatory to that hereby proposed with the exception being that the P-shaped part was intended to be placed alongside the party boundary. Taking into account the size of the proposed conservatory and the modest rear garden serving the neighbouring property at 8 Beechcroft, officers believed the impact upon the neighbouring property would have been overbearing and unacceptable.

This revised planning application proposes to move the P-shaped part away from the party boundary thereby reducing the visual impact on the neighbouring property. The proposal now is for the conservatory to extend 3 metres along the party boundary. According to the Council's approved Extension Design Guide, normally single storey rear extensions up to three metres in length on the property boundary are acceptable in relation to loss of light and change of outlook from the adjoining property. A further consideration is that, under permitted development rights, the applicant could erect a conservatory without the P-shaped element up to 3 metres in depth along the boundary without the need to apply to the Council for planning permission. Given these considerations, officers are satisfied that the proposal is acceptable and would not harm the amenities of the occupant of the adjoining property.

Officers do not believe the noise generated by domestic use of the conservatory would be in excess of that typically expected. Officers are satisfied that statutory powers afforded to the Council would be adequate in addressing any issues of domestic noise nuisance.

Officers consider the proposal to be in accordance with the relevant policies of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review.

RECOMMEND:

PERMISSION:

BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/10/0184/FP

(5) P/09/1075/CU WARSASH as amplified and amended by email dated 20 th January 2010 and 11th June 2010 and plan received 18th May 2010.

IVENS & HAMPTON AGENT: DANIELLS HARRISON SURVEYORS

dc-100623-r04-lsm

12

CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP (CLASS A1) TO HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY (CLASS A5) AND PROVISION OF REAR EXTRACTION FLUE

21 SHORE ROAD, WARSASH, SO31 9FS


Site Description

This application relates to a shop unit at 21 Shore Road, Warsash which was last used as a carpet shop.

No.21 is situated in a ground floor parade of retail and commercial units located on the south side of Shore Road westwards from this road's junction with Newtown Road, Warsash.

It is located in the Warsash local centre and urban area as referred to in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. Description of Proposal

This application seeks permission to change the use of this ground floor unit from class A1 (shops) use to class A5 (hot food takeaway) and, at the rear of this premises, for the provision of an extraction flue.

The application's Design and Access statement explains that it is intended for a fish and chip shop, with no external alterations (other than the extraction flue), and otherwise just minor internal alterations.

The proposed opening hours for this fish and chip shop would be Monday to Saturday 11.30am to 2.00pm and 5.00pm to 9.30pm only.

Details of a revised rear extraction flue design has also been submitted and proposed as a part of this application.

Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review: Policies DG1, DG3, DG5, DG9, S7, S12 and T5.


None relevant specifically relating to No.21.

Representations

21 letters and emails have been received from or on behalf of 19 individual parties. A petition statement with 112 signatures has also been received. These object to this application on the following grounds:

Increased local litter detracting from village character/environmental quality, no measures (e.g. bins) are proposed to tackle this;

dc-100623-r04-lsm

13

Increased people loitering outside unit (e.g. after they have visited pubs); Already good/several/sufficient/variety of food outlets in the Village and along Barnes

Lane, no need/demand for this extra one; Increased parking/traffic/congestion/dangerous (including delivery lorry) parking

problems, nearby parking/footpath being restricted (e.g. In front of 19 to 33 Shore Road, this is in private, not public, car park and footpath also being narrow here), conflicting with other close by businesses;

Significant smells from cooking at this unit, (e.g. extraction fans may not be appropriate for future uses after this proposal);

Generation of crime/disorder problems, previously problems of Village night time street violence and crime have occurred causing licensing changes and intensive policing;

Better if this is definitely a fish & chip shop (rather than a kebab one); Extra noise/disturbance, here and nearby affecting residents; Proposal not in best interests of local community/business, could remove takings from

existing/newly opening businesses, that struggle financially in the current economic situation;

Lack of space for associated commercial bins, resulting in unsightly residential bins being brought to property frontage in this area, and possible increased foxes/vermin. Private agreement is needed for the proposed continued storage of waste in the rear service yard;

Would help turn beautiful Warsash village into commercial town; Planning decisions need a more balanced perspective on provision of local shops and

should better reflect the true nature of service demand as transport energy constraints bite. Something more useful should be done with this site of value to the whole village/locality rather than the being driven by financial benefit for real estate agents;

Strain on water drainage system; Loss of retail use, useful shops in the Village are needed to attract not only local people

but visitors too; Extension of non-retail uses in this local centre, excessive concentration of A2/A3/A5

uses in this particular shopping parade, reducing retail attractiveness/vitality for example for normal shoppers during the day;

Questionable whether a window display would be maintained. Proposed hours of opening are not known; Full specification of odour neutralising equipment is needed to ensure effective cooking

smell and noise mitigation for nearby residencies; Proposed rear extraction flue will be an unattractive addition to the building; Submitted Design and Access Statement is misleading/incorrect in several respects; Proposal is contrary to Local Plan Policies DG1(A), DG3(C), S7(A) & (C) and S12(C) and

with no material considerations to justify a decision contrary to this Local Plan, it should be refused.

Two letters have been received as a result of additional publicity raising no new issues.

Consultations

Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Highways) - The proposal is likely to generate an increase in vehicle trips to this site. Parking to service the takeaway may exacerbate parking problems in Warsash. An assessment of likely trips attending the site will be required.

dc-100623-r04-lsm

14

Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) - This type of premises can create noise, car exhaust fumes and odour problems, though on the first two the existing frontage parking is well used into the evening without complaint with existing hot food takeaways nearby not being a source of noise or odour complaints over the last few years. Refuse storage details are absent and litter bins could be considered. Content with the now provided proposed opening hours and the revised flue design would be satisfactory in terms of nuisance from odours and noise.

Hampshire Constabulary (Park Gate Sector) - Concerned takeaway will encourage youths and pub leavers to dwell in village centre, creating noise and disturbance to local residents, and acting as a "flash point" for trouble when frequented with persons "in drink". Would like the current situation, where Warsash village does not have a significant problem of youths "hanging around" its village centre, to continue. Allowing this proposed takeaway could change this.

Comments

The core of the Warsash local centre is focused around the junction of Shore Road/Newtown Road/Warsash Road/Brook Lane, though the text of the Local Plan refers to this Centre extending from here along Warsash Road to its junction with Dibles Road and describing also that its range of shops provides for basic day-to-day needs.

This application's Design and Access Statement and submitted plans indicate in the vicinity of this core area that 16 premises/units (62%) are in A1 (shop) use, with 10 units (38%) in non-A1 use, including in the latter, 1 unit in existing A5 (takeaway) use, 1 unit in A4 (drinking establishment/pub) use, 2 units in A3 (restaurant/café) use, and 2 units in A2 (financial & professional services e.g. estate agent) use. On the basis of these figures, this proposed change of use would still leave 65% of premises/units in A1 (shop) use.

It is Officers opinion that this proposed change of use would not cause non-retail uses to dominate the character of or unacceptably discourage shoppers from using this local centre.

The proposed non-retail use (as a hot food takeaway) is not considered inappropriate to a shopping centre, and with no external alterations proposed (other than the rear extract flue to be situated adjacent to a rear service yard and near an adjacent property's existing rear extract flue), the existing front shop window would be retained, and the visual environmental and character consequences of this scheme are thought likely to be satisfactory by Officers.

In terms of amenity, (e.g. noise, disturbance, smells) the Council's Environmental Health Section comments indicate that noise, smell, etc complaints from use of the site's adjacent parking area and from other nearby similar uses, are not presently a significant issue in this local centre. Indeed, Environmental Health are content with the proposed opening hours and revised flue design for cooking smell attenuation and noise from use of that extract flue. By conditioning the opening hours to that proposed, this should help contain noise, disturbance issues to outside late night/early morning hours. Such conditioning being likely to help address Hampshire Constabulary's concerns which seem to be connected to inebriated persons who might be expected later at night than these proposed opening hours. A condition is also recommended below to require the installation of this revised extract flue.

In terms of the concerns expressed about traffic, including those of the Council's highway engineers, the unit is already a commercial shop within an existing local centre, which would

dc-100623-r04-lsm

15

itself generate traffic flows, with the proposed opening hours not being held by Officers to be excessive in this regard and with the potential change in trips thought unlikely to be sufficient to necessitate a transport contribution. To conclude, whilst taking into account other material planning considerations and the various points of objection received from third parties, subject to consideration of further comments from the Council's Environmental Health Section and the suggested planning conditions, this application's proposals are considered by Officers to be sufficiently in accordance with relevant policies of the Local Plan such to be recommended for permission.

RECOMMEND:

PERMISSION: Opening hours restricted to Monday to Saturday 11.30am to 2.00pm and 5.00pm to 9.30pm only, approved extract flue to be erected before the takeaway is first brought into use and shall be retained at all times.

(6) P/10/0373/TO WARSASH Mr Peter Lawrence

FELL WHITEBEAM AND BEECH AND CARRY OUT VARIOUS WORKS TO ASH, MONTEREY CYPRESS AND MONTEREY PINE COVERED BY F.T.P.O.261

88 NEWTOWN ROAD WARSASH SO31 9GB


Site Description

This application relates to 5 trees located within the residential curtilage of 88 Newtown Road, Warsash. The trees are covered by an area tree preservation order (FTPO 261).


The proposed works are as follows: 1 whitebeam - fell and remove (due to the danger to property it presents) 1 beech - fell and remove (due to the danger to property it presents) 1 ash - shorten lateral limb by 2 - 3 metres (due to branches overhanging property) 1 Monterey Cypress - remove low branches to 4 metres above ground 1 Monterey Pine - shorten branches over roof back to suitable growth points to be

agreed with FBC Arborist on site

Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review DG4


Various applications at site including:

dc-100623-r04-lsm

16

P/08/1138/FP - Conversion of Existing Dwelling & Annexe To Seven Dwellings - Permission 12/3/2009

P/08/0601/FP - Erection of new Porch and Garage - Permission 2/07/2008

Representations

Eight letters have been received objecting on the following grounds: The TPO should be respected The trees are an asset to and important to the community Detriment to owl habitat Failure to protect trees affected by development Original development should not have been allowed Limited pollarding is needed Replacement trees will not replace the mature specimens already there Dangerous precedent will be set for more tree removals Loss of privacy Insufficient supporting evidence to support removal of trees Concern over future ownership of and responsibility for trees

Consultations

Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Arborist) - no objections

Comments

Permission was initially granted in 2009 for the creation of seven dwellings at 88 Newtown Road and an alternative to this scheme approved later that year for six dwellings. The existing dwelling was sub-divided with unit No. 1 created at the southern end of the site close to the boundary. Four of the trees to which this application relates lie in the private garden area of this residential unit.

The comments received from local residents are predominantly concerned over the removal of two trees (1 whitebeam and 1 beech) close to unit No 1. The trees are in close proximity to the building. This current application must be determined with regard to the existing circumstances and the degree to which the loss of these two trees would affect the public amenity value of the group of trees in this location.

Officers are of the opinion that the contribution of the two trees proposed to be felled is limited. Whilst the trees are close to the southern boundary of the site, numerous other mature species surround them to the extent that they are not readily visible from the public realm when looking at the site from various viewpoints along Newtown Road. Given this observation, as well as the accompanying limited works proposed to the other trees on the site, the loss of the whitebeam and beech trees would not harm the long term public amenity value of the area under the protection of FTPO 261 and its contribution to the character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, whilst the Council aims to achieve consistency and continuity in decision making, every application for tree works must be determined on their own merits. In consenting to the removal of these trees the Council would not set a precedent of any kind for further such works in the area.

dc-100623-r04-lsm

17

In conclusion, officers believe that the proposal is in accordance with Policy DG4 of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review.

RECOMMEND:

CONSENT: Two replacement trees in positions to be agreed.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/10/0373/TO; P/08/1138/FP; P/09/0601/FP.

(7).P/10/0434/FP WARSASH Mr B Horton Agent: Mr B K Lawrence

ERECTION OF FIRST FLOOR AND TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION

9 WARSASH ROAD WARSASH SO31 9HW


Site Description

This application relates to a detached two storey property located behind properties on the northern side of Warsash Road. The house has previously been extended in the late 1970's to provide a flat roofed rear extension and a side extension with a mono-pitched roof.

The house is accessed via a single lane vehicular access from Warsash Road. The house stands at the centre of a generous sized plot with a block paved driveway and a garden area mainly laid to lawn with various boundary planting. A boundary hedge runs along much of the western boundary of the site at a current height of around 3 metres. Close boarded fencing at a height of 1.8 metres runs along most of the eastern boundary. Various small fruit trees are planted in the rear garden and several larger mature trees can be found in the north western corner of the site.


A first floor extension is proposed over the existing flat roofed rear extension which itself would be extended slightly at ground floor level. The extension would create a master bedroom with a window to the rear plus a set of doors leading to a Juliet balcony. A second bedroom would be created with rear and side facing windows. Two new landing windows are proposed in the western elevation.

Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies DG5 & T5Extension Design GuideResidential Car & Cycle Parking Standards SPD

Representations


dc-100623-r04-lsm

18

Overlooking of properties in Wightway Mews Overshadowing Loss of light Concern over business use of property Visually overbearing

Consultations

Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Arborist) - no objections

Comments

The principal issue to be addressed in determining this application is the affect of the proposal on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, namely those whose rear gardens abut the eastern boundary of the site.

Various plants, bushes, hedgerows and trees populate the eastern boundary, some at a height well in excess of the 1.8 metre high close boarded fence present. This boundary treatment currently screens the house from view from the properties in Wightway Mews. The proposal would extend the first floor of the dwelling approximately 5.5 metres over the existing rear ground floor extension. Whilst the extension would be visible from the garden of 2 Wightway Mews its presence is not considered to be overbearing due to the width and spacious nature of that garden. Neither is the proposal likely to affect the light into or outlook from that neighbouring property. The extension would be approximately 18 - 19 metres from the rear of the house at 2 Wightway Mews. The Council's Extension Design Guide recommends a minimum acceptable distance in such situations of around 12.5 metres. No windows are proposed at first floor level in the eastern facing elevation and therefore no overlooking of the adjacent garden or house would be afforded. The rear facing windows and Juliet balcony proposed would not provide direct views into neighbouring gardens and the privacy of their occupants is not likely to be harmed. The first floor bedroom window proposed to be inserted into the western elevation should be conditioned to be obscure glazed and of a non-opening design up to 1.7 metres above internal finished floor level. Similarly, the landing window proposed for the western elevation of the extension should be obscure glazed and fixed shut throughout due to the varying levels of the staircase it would be positioned above. This is in order to prevent the overlooking of the rear garden of 10 Brook Lane directly over which these windows would look at a distance of just 5 - 6 metres.

A concern has also been raised by a local resident over the business use of the application property. This householder application is for residential purposes only. Should any business use being carried out from the house amount to a material change of use then a further planning application would be required for this use at which point any concerns over the implications of such a use could be considered.

The property has adequate on-site parking and is in accordance with the requirements of the Council's adopted Residential Car & Cycle Parking Standards SPD.

In conclusion, officers believe the proposal to accord with the relevant policies of the Local Plan Review.

RECOMMEND:

dc-100623-r04-lsm

19

PERMISSION: materials to match; obscure glaze and fix shut to height of 1.7m above internal finished floor level first floor window in western elevation; obscure glaze and fix shut landing window in western elevation

Informative: Reminder that the window shown on the plans to be inserted at first floor level of western elevation of existing dwelling should meet the conditions of the General Permitted Development Order (Amended) 2008, Class A, Part 1, A.3(b). BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/10/0434/FP

dc-100623-r04-lsm

20

MISCELLANEOUS ITEM

(1) Universal Marina, Crableck Lane, Sarisbury Green

Erection of a replacement building following demolition of existing two storey shed - variation to approved scheme of road improvements- details pursuant to condition 4 of P/06/1619/FP

Officer Report: Kim Hayler - Ext: 2367

A previous miscellaneous item was reported to the Planning Development Control Committee on 3 March 2010. At that meeting Members resolved to defer the matter pending further information to be obtained by officers in relation to the revised road improvements.

Comments

Planning permission was granted on 5 March 2007 for the erection of a replacement building following demolition of an existing two storey shed. Condition 4 of the planning permission stated:

'No development shall commence in implementation of this permission until the access road between Universal Marina and Holly Hill Lane has been improved in all respects in accordance with the details shown on Escher Silverman's Drawing ES0646/500/A, or in a substantially similar form as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.'

The approved road improvements included resurfacing a substantial length of the Lane and a number of traffic calming measures including four passing bays along the lane and speed reducing ramps. The passing bays were proposed on land not in the control of the applicant. Despite the applicants' best endeavours to secure land owners consent, the applicant was not able to do so for two of the passing bays. As a result of not obtaining land owners consent, the applicant met with local residents to discuss and agree revised improvements to the road. The revised scheme of works was carried out early 2007.

Last year a complaint was received that the road improvements carried out were not in accordance with the approved details. Officers contacted the applicants who confirmed that for reasons of landownership and in response to other requests from local residents some changes were made to the scheme. Revised drawings were subsequently submitted to the Council seeking to regularise the situation and it is these which are now before Members.

On receipt of the revised details, six neighbours along Crableck Lane were notified and given the opportunity to comment upon the proposals. Six letters of representation have been received, from five households, including one from the owner of land along the Lane. Two letters received confirm that the works carried out are in accordance with the details agreed at the residents meeting. The other three letters raise the following points:

It was agreed that 'build-outs' would be constructed in the road, the present ramps are useless and do not calm the traffic;

The applicants have not complied with condition 4; therefore the development is unauthorised;

dc-100623-r04-lsm

21

If the conditions are not enforced, then alternative measures should be put in place to control the traffic;

The original red edge was only around the building and the blue edge around the remainder of the site;

Was the condition reasonable, as there was no prospect of the applicant being able to fulfil the requirements of the Grampian condition;

The applicant advised in January 2008 that the improvements had been carried out in accordance with the agreed details - this was not true;

Does the condition meet the tests of Circular 11/95? Local residents had not agreed to the revised scheme of works; The applicant made no attempt to provide passing places specified on the approved

plans.

The representations received question the validity of condition 4. The 'Grampian' condition imposed included works on land outside of the applicant's control. However the condition did allow for an alternative scheme to be approved by the Local Planning Authority if it was not possible to gain the relevant land owners consent.

Following the 3 March 2010 Planning Development Control Committee meeting, the applicant met with local residents in order to discuss amendments/suggestions to the traffic calming measures. Issues relating to additional signage, imposition of speed limits and traffic management of large heavy good vehicles were discussed. No further amendments have been submitted to date however the applicant has indicated a willingness to officers that they would be prepared to provide additional signage and put traffic management measures in place.

The traffic calming measures and detailed plans showing the approved scheme along with the scheme of works undertaken will be available for Members to view at the meeting.

The Council's Highway Engineer has visited the site and commented as follows:

At a point approximately 130 metres south west of its junction with Holly Hill Lane, Crableck Lane forks. It then continues south west and a private access serving a number of properties and the marina runs north west. Whilst Crableck Lane and the access are unadopted, highway safety is a material planning consideration. It is apparent that not all local residents are happy with the works carried out. The improvements which have been carried out are however substantial, including new surfacing and speed humps to moderate the traffic speeds. The lower part of the lane could benefit from an additional passing bay and users of the lane would benefit from some alignment marking and a caution sign at the junction with Holly Hill Lane to advise on the narrow road ahead. However, without these additional suggested works it is not considered that highway safety is compromised. The works carried out are a clear improvement on the original condition of the lane.

Conclusion

There appears to be some conflict of view locally as to the road improvements which the applicant alleges were agreed with residents. Notwithstanding this Officers believe the works undertaken represent a considerable improvement to the road and are otherwise acceptable.

dc-100623-r04-lsm

22

RECOMMEND:

That Members APPROVE the revised road improvements as shown on drawing 8686/124 as details pursuant to condition 4 of P/06/1619/FP

dc-100623-r04-lsm

23

ZONE 2 – FAREHAM

North North WestWestEastSouth

dc-100623-r04-lsm

24

(8) P/10/0421/FP/M FAREHAM EAST Eric Dunn

PART ROOF CONVERSION TO PROVIDE TWO STOREY ACCOMMODATION

18 HARTLANDS ROAD FAREHAM PO16 0NJ


Site Description

This application relates to a detached bungalow located on the western side of Hartlands Road, Fareham. The dwelling has a roof fully hipped on all sides and features a small flat roofed dormer window in the northern side elevation which serves the only first floor room. The property benefits from two on-site parking spaces.


This application proposes additional accommodation at first floor level at the property. This would involve converting part of the existing roof by raising the height of the flank walls to two storey level with a new fully hipped roof on top. The new roof would stand at a height of approximately 8.3 metres to the roof ridge. The first floor would accommodate two bedrooms, one study and one bathroom.

Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies DG3, DG5 & T5Extension Design GuideResidential Car & Cycle Parking Standards

Representations

One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds: Overbearing effect on adjacent property Loss of light to property Loss of light to apple tree

Comments

The two key issues in determining this application are the likely impact on the amenity of occupants of neighbouring properties and the affect on the visual appearance and character of the streetscene.

Impact on neighbouring residential amenity

The adjacent property at 20 Hartlands Road has a garden level approximately 800mm lower than the application site. The adjacent property has a courtyard style amenity area approximately 14 - 15 metres in length which extends along the side of the back half of the dwelling, where it is 5.3 metres in width, and to the rear. The proposed first floor addition to the bungalow at the application site would extend approximately 5.7 metres along the

dc-100623-r04-lsm

25

western boundary of this amenity area and would be set back from the boundary by around 2 metres. Its flank wall would be 7.3 metres from the flank wall of 20 Hartlands Road. Officers do not consider the height, depth and resultant bulk of the proposal would be overbearing on this amenity area, which is sufficient size so as to not be dominated by the proposal.

Policy DG5(B) of the Local Plan Review requires development to have respect for the level of sunlight, outlook and privacy enjoyed by neighbouring properties. In amplifying this policy, the Council's approved Extension Design Guide recommends that a minimum distance of six metres be kept between side facing windows in neighbouring properties and new development. In this case the neighbouring property to the north features no windows in the side elevation. To the south, 20 Hartlands Road has one ground floor kitchen window and one first floor bedroom window which would face out onto the flank wall of the development. The distance is 7.3 metres and would therefore meet the minimum separation distance required. The southern elevation of the proposed roof extension would feature one landing and one bedroom window. These windows would be conditioned so that they are obscure glazed and fixed shut in order to secure the privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring property. Similarly, the side facing windows proposed for the northern elevation should be obscure glazed and fixed shut to 1.7m high given that they will be in close proximity to the first floor bedroom window in the front elevation of 17 Hartlands Road.

Impact on character and visual amenity of streetscene

The application property is the only bungalow sitting amongst two-storey dwellings along this part of Hartlands Road. The extension of the dwelling upwards to add accommodation at first floor level would therefore not be out of character with the area. The scale of the alterations is also considered to be in keeping with the surrounding area. The accompanying streetscene diagram submitted shows the height of the roof to match that of the adjacent dwelling at 20 Hartlands Road.

The upper part of Hartlands Road (1 - 17) has a strong consistent building line with dwellings typically set back around 7 - 10 metres from the highway. Along the lower part of Hartlands Road (20 - 33) this set back distance is less at around 4 - 5 metres. Falling between these two sections of the road, the forward projection of the proposed first floor extension at 18 Hartlands Road has been designed to respect both of these distinct building lines. It would stand slightly forward of the building line of the upper half of Hartlands Road whilst being set well back from the lower built line. This would result in the bulk of the roof mass being set back out of view when approaching the property from the north and even less visible travelling along the road from the south. Subject to the materials to be used matching those on the existing dwelling, officers do not consider the proposed alterations would be harmful to the appearance or character of the streetscene.

Other considerations

A mature apple tree stands very close to the party boundary within the neighbours' property. The development would be to the north of the tree meaning that it would not be deprived of any direct sunlight.

Summary

In summary, the proposal is deemed in accordance with the relevant policies of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review.

dc-100623-r04-lsm

26

RECOMMEND:

PERMISSION: obscure glaze & fix shut to 1.7m high all FF windows in side elevations (landing window fixed shut entirely); materials to match existing


(9).P/10/0403/OA FAREHAM NORTH HJC Baily Trust & PCC Agent: Mr Derek Marlow St Peter and St Paul Fareham

ERECTION OF THREE TWO-STOREY DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, NEW ACCESS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING ACCESS TO CHURCH WITH NEW PARKING AREA (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

33 FUNTLEY HILL - ST FRANCIS CHURCH - FAREHAM PO16 7UY

OFFICERS REPORT - Kim Hayler ext. 2367

Site Description

The site lies on the western side of Funtley Hill, Fareham and south of the rear garden of 33 Funtley Hill;

The site lies to the rear of the Church of St Francis, a Grade II listed building;

The land is currently grassed with mature planting and trees around its south, east and western boundaries;

Standing in the northern ground and against the common boundary with 33 Funtley Hill are two significant mature oak trees which are subject of a Tree Preservation Order;

Residential properties in The Waters lie to the west of the site at a higher level.


The proposal seeks outline planning permission for the erection of a terrace of three 2/3 bedroom two storey cottages. Means of access, layout and scale are for consideration;

Access to the cottages would be through the existing church access on Funtley Hill. There is an existing break in the rear boundary wall of the church; part of which would be removed to facilitate the access. These works would require listed building consent;

Two parking spaces would be provided for each cottage;

The proposal also includes the provision of a surfaced area, incorporating five parking spaces for the church;

dc-100623-r04-lsm

27

Although this is an outline application, the applicant has submitted illustrative elevations of the proposed dwellings.

Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies DG3, DG4, DG5, DG9, H2, HE2, R5 and T5


P/02/0057/OA - Erection of detached dwelling on land to the south of St Francis Church - Refused March 2002

Pre-application discussions have been on-going between the applicant and officers for some time. The scale and design of the three dwellings was in principle supported by officers. However, concerns were raised regarding the impact of the proposed dwellings on the existing property, 33 Funtley Hill and the parking arrangements. The applicant has addressed these concerns in the submission. Representations

Eight letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:

There should be no on street parking for a distance either side of the entrance; Unnecessary and overdevelopment of the site will add to traffic hazards; Impact on the quaint church; completely inappropriate; No indication of bedroom numbers with application. This will have an impact on parking; Flooding within this area will be exacerbated; Sight lines cannot be achieved with on street parking; Overlooking; Terms of S.106 Agreement are unclear. There should be additional mature planting. Lack of detail regarding proposed planting; Location of bus stops would cause traffic problems; Loss of privacy; Impact on value of property; Proposal would make it easier for burglars to access neighbouring properties; Residents of cottages will use church spaces; Impact of wildlife.

One letter has been received from the Parish Church of St. Peter and St. Paul advising that access to the site has been made possible by an agreement between the owners of the site and the Church Council as it will be of considerable benefit to the church for the following reasons:

Revenue from the proposal will enable the provision of sewage connection serving the kitchen and toilet;

Revenue will assist the church to maintain the property which is a listed building; It is hoped that these improvements will make the church more suitable for use by the

community; The development is sensitive to the existing building and local residents.

Consultations

dc-100623-r04-lsm

28

Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Arborist) - No objection subject to conditions

Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Conservation Manager) - There is no objection to the layout proposed which has been discussed at a pre-application stage. The proposed cottages are of a scale that would not harm the setting of the church and would be seen in context with the church. The external materials to be used should be the subject of a planning condition. The layout of the access proposed has an informal surface, designed not to harm the immediate setting of the church. The alterations to the listed wall will require a separate listed building consent application.

Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Highways) - no objection

Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) - no objection subject to conditions

Comments

The site is within the urban area where residential infilling; redevelopment and development on neglected and underused land will be permitted, providing it does not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area or amenity of existing residents.

The area of land to the south of the church is accessed from a vehicular gate and serves as intermittent informal parking for parishioners and clergy. This area is subject to water logging in poor weather.

The existing metal five-bar gate would be removed and an informal, simple solution would be proposed for the access. The existing walls on either side of the existing access would be retained; modestly raising land levels to overcome localised ground water logging and finishing the area in a more durable, but low-key permeable resin-bonded gravel. The drive way alignment will be extended into the application site through an existing break in the wall. The fallen wall would be repaired either side of the new access, the works of which would require listed building consent.

The indicative submitted drawings show the cottages would have a reduced eaves height and roof lines below those of neighbouring dwellings and the adjoining church building. They would be provided with rear gardens 11 - 12 metres in depth. Views of the dwellings would be limited, as indicated by the illustrative street scene elevations.

The design is likened to almshouses; modest sized dwellings, grouped close to the church, complementing its scale and setting.

The residential properties to the west in The Waters are at a higher level than the application site and there is intervening screening in the form of trees along their rear boundaries. The distance between the proposed cottages and these properties would measure approximately 27.5 metres. This exceeds the Council's minimum distance of 22 metres normally required between facing windows.

The residential property to the north, 33 Funtley Hill has ground and first floor windows facing south across the existing church grounds and what will be the front garden of the proposed northernmost cottage (plot 3). The property also has a ground floor kitchen window facing west, into its rear garden. This window is some 6 metres from the boundary. Plot 3 would be

dc-100623-r04-lsm

29

sited 3.5 metres from the north boundary and would have a reduced eaves and ridge height. In light of the foregoing, Officers consider that the amenities of the occupiers of 33 Funtley Hill would not be compromised as a result of the development.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding the concerns raised by local residents, officers consider that the proposal would not harm the setting of the listed church, the amenities of neighbouring properties or have unacceptable highway implications. It is therefore the opinion of officers that the proposal is an acceptable form of development.

Officers consider the development should be approved subject to the prior completion of the planning obligation and the imposition of conditions as detailed below.

RECOMMEND:

Subject to the applicant/owner first entering into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council to secure a financial contribution towards off-site public open space and/or facilities and a transport contribution by 29 June 2010.

GRANT OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION: Reserved matters - appearance and landscaping; eaves height no more than 4 metres; ridge height no more than 7 metres; no windows at first floor north elevation plot 3 and south elevation plot 1; materials; hardsurfacing; landscaping and implementation; boundary treatment; parking; sound attenuation; levels; arboricultural report and method statement; contamination; construction hours; no burning; no mud on roads.

OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required S.106 Agreement by 29 June 2010.

REFUSE: Contrary to policy; inadequate provision for public open space and highway infrastructure

BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/10/0403/OA

(10).P/10/0417/FP FAREHAM NORTHas amended by plans received 2 June 2010

Gudgeon Developments Ltd Agent: Richard Pearce Associates

DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH GARAGES & LANDSCAPING (ALTERNATIVE TO P/09/1017/FP)

9 KILN ROAD FAREHAM PO16 7UA

OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin ext. 2412

Site Description

dc-100623-r04-lsm

30

This application relates to a site to the south of Kiln Road just to the west of the junction with the Mallards. The site is located within the urban area and an Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC). The site is well screened from Kiln Road by trees which are covered by a Tree Preservation Order.

The site was previously occupied by a detached chalet bungalow which had a large rear garden. The dwelling is currently in the process of being demolished. There is a large pond within the rear garden which is within the gardens of both 9 and 7a Kiln Road. The pond and therefore the surrounding area is a known habitat of Great Crested Newts.


Planning permission is sought to demolish the existing property and erect two detached 4-bed properties. Planning permission has previously been granted for the erection of two dwellings although the current application seeks a number of amendments to the approved scheme.

The amendments to Plot A include various alterations to the fenestration including the enlargement of a first floor side window within the east elevation. It is proposed to provide a study within the roofspace which would involve the installation of two rooflights on the rear elevation. A chimney stack is proposed to the eastern side of the dwelling and the front porch would be reduced in size.

The amendments to Plot B include various amendments to the fenestration, the front porch, the introduction of a chimney stack to the eastern elevation and a rooflight within the front elevation.

Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies - DG1, DG3, DG4, DG5, DG9, H2, H3, C18, T5 and R5


FBC.3022/9 Residential Development and Estate RoadRefused 18 December 1987Allowed on Appeal 21 April 1989

P/08/1328/FP Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Erection of Two Detached HousesRefused 16 March 2009

P/09/0773/FP Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Erection of Two Detached DwellingsRefused 3 November 2009

P/09/0875/FP Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Erection of Building Comprising Six Flats together with Car Parking and LandscapingRefused 1 December 2009

P/09/1017/FP Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Erection of Two Detached Dwellings and Garage and Landscaping

dc-100623-r04-lsm

31

Permission 22 January 2010

Representations

The neighbour notification period expires 21 June 2010. At the time of writing this report two letters had been received objecting on the following grounds:

The design and access statement does not refer to all the amendments proposed The plans are not accurate Objections to proposal as previous application Restrictive covenant on Kiln Road states that no property should have a frontage less

than 55ft Detrimental to Area of Special Residential Character Cramped development Additional driveway on to a busy road Increased surface water runoff Impact to Great Crested Newt Chimney encroaches 4 metre separation gap with neighbouring property Boundary fencing not yet erected Land to rear must not be developed Parking should not occur in the Mallards Construction hours should be restricted

Any letters subsequently received will be reported at the committee meeting.

Consultations

The Director of Planning and Environment (Highways) - Comments awaited

The Director of Planning and Environment (Arborist) - Comments awaited

The Director of Planning and Environment (Ecology)- Comments awaited

Natural England - Comments awaited

Comments

The principle of developing this site by the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of two detached dwellings was established by the grant of planning permission in January of this year. At that time the impact on the character of the Area of Special Residential Character, the amenities of neighbouring properties and the population of Great Crested Newts was fully considered and the proposal was found to be acceptable in all respects.

Although the proposed amendments to that approved scheme are limited, the objections have not only raised matters of principle but also in respect of the changes. These are addressed below.

One comment draws attention to an anomaly in the submitted drawings and design and access statement. These errors have been resolved by the agent and an amended schedule of all the amendments has been received together with an amended drawing to accurately represent the proposal.

dc-100623-r04-lsm

32

An objection has been made in respect of the introduction of a chimney stack to the east side elevation of plot A, facing the side boundary with no.7A Kiln Road. This objection indicates that the chimney would be located closer to the neighbouring dwelling than the separation distance of 4 metres suggested within Appendix 6 of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review would allow and would therefore be contrary to policy. This design guideline is intended to protect the amenities of adjacent properties against loss of outlook and sunlight to existing secondary windows caused by two storey flank walls. Whilst the side flank wall does mostly comply with this guideline, only the chimney stack itself would be closer, at 3.56 metres from the neighbouring flank wall. As the dimensions of the chimney are relatively small, 1.003 x 0.440m, it is not considered that this minor element within the proposed side wall would have a material effect on the outlook or sunlight available to the neighbours.

Other matters raised include the requirement for boundary treatment to secure the rear of the site and the protection of the pond and great crested newt colony. In these respects as the existing planning permission and the current application are for mostly similar development schemes, it is proposed to use the same conditions as previously imposed.

The erection of a new 1.8 m close boarded fence has been agreed at the rear boundary of the site in the Mallards. A proposed condition requires that all new boundary treatment is erected before the dwellings are occupied and not before development commences.

The area of land to the south of the application site, surrounding the pond, is not intended to be developed or form part of the rear gardens to the dwellings. It is to be set aside as part of the ecological mitigation measures to provide newt habitat. This area would be left as grassland, to be strimmed once a year, with additional shrub and tree planting around the boundaries. A full ecological mitigation strategy has been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority including full details of the landscaping of the site. It is considered that the proposal would accord with legislation relating to protected species, maintain the conservation status of the great crested newts and safeguard the species for the future.

In conclusion, the proposed amendments, as listed in the description of development above, are not considered to have any detrimental impact to the character of the area, the amenity of neighbouring properties or the Great Crested Newts. Indeed several of the amendments would be considered to be non-material amendments not requiring a full planning application or consultation with third parties.

Contributions towards public open space and highways infrastructure have been made in accordance with the Council's adopted Open Space SPG and Hampshire County Council Transport Contributions Policy. The proposal is considered acceptable.

RECOMMEND:

Subject to;

i) Comments from The Director of Planning and Environment (Highways) ii) Comments from The Director of Planning and Environment (Arborist) iii) Comments from The Director of Planning and Environment (Ecology)iv) Comments from Natural England

dc-100623-r04-lsm

33

PERMISSION: Materials as approved, Boundary Treatment as approved, Parking, Remove PD (extensions, outbuildings , boundary treatment and hard surfacing), Obscure glaze and fix shut first floor windows side elevations; Ecological Mitigation Strategy as approved; Development to be undertaken in accordance with Arboricultural Development Statement; Retention of fencing within rear gardens; Construction hours, No mud on road as approved, No burning on site

REFUSE: Contrary to Policy; inadequate provision for highway infrastructure.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: P/09/1017/FP; P/10/0417/FP

(11) P/10/0231/FP FAREHAM SOUTHas amended and amplified by plans received on 30 April 2010 and 9 June 2010HIGHWOOD RESIDENTIAL HAMPSHIRE AGENT: LUKEN BECK

REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE BY ERECTION OF 54 EXTRA CARE APARTMENTS, 4 BUNGALOWS, DAY CARE FACILITIES & PARKING

REDLANDS LANE - PARKER FOODS SITE -FAREHAM PO16 0QH

OFFICERS REPORT - Kim Hayler ext. 2367

Introduction

This application was reported to the Planning Committee on 26 May 2010. At that meeting Members resolved to defer the application in order for officers to report additional information addressing issues relating to air quality and parking provision.

Site Description

The site is located on the junction of Gosport Road/Newgate Lane with Redlands Lane;

The site comprises a number of large industrial/storage buildings, farm house and extensive hard surfaced areas and was formerly used as a depot for dairy products for Parker Foods Limited;

To the west and south of the site are four-storey blocks of residential flats; to the north, beyond Redlands Lane and a pedestrian footbridge, is a late Victorian terrace of houses. To the east, beyond the main A32 are more residential areas.

The site is within the urban area and within an Air Quality Management Area.


Permission is sought for the erection of a 54 extra care units and 4 bungalows comprising:

40 units (Block A) within one three storey block fronting Newgate Lane/Gosport Road and Redlands Lane;

dc-100623-r04-lsm

34

10 units (Block B) within one two/four storey block in the south western corner of the site;

4 single storey bungalows attached to Block B on its south eastern side.

The access would be from the north western side of the site.

Twenty eight parking spaces would be provided including access for ambulances.

A central landscaped garden would be provided, together with a landscaped setting around the building.

Provision of a footway along the Redlands Lane frontage of the site.

The following information was submitted with the application:

Design and Access Statement Contamination Desk Study Transport Assessment Noise Assessment Air Quality Assessment Bat Survey and Report

Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies: DG1, DG3, DG5, DG9, H2, H10, R5 and T5


P/09/0993/FP Demolition of buildings and redevelopment of the site by the erection of 58 extra care apartments and 4 bungalows - Refused January 2010

P/09/0510/FP Demolition of buildings and redevelopment of the site by the erection of 60 extra care apartments and 4 bungalows - Refused Sept 2010

Representations


The proposal is similar to the previous applications; This is an unhealthy environment for people to live; Over development of the site and not enough parking; Loss of light from Block B.

One letter has been received from The Fareham Society supporting the proposal and commenting as follows:

The Society considers the revised plans are a great improvement particularly in terms of design and scale on the previously submitted schemes;

dc-100623-r04-lsm

35

It is essential that the materials used are good quality, easy to maintain and that will retain a good visual quality over the years;

It is assumed highway measures would be put in place to secure the safety of residents crossing Redlands Lane and there should be adequate storage space for buggies.

Consultations

Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Highways) - no objection subject to conditions

Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Planning Policy and Design Officer) - The design approach seeks to address the variety of development in the locality, but within a cohesive architectural expression. The siting approach to Newgate Lane/Redlands Lane is considered appropriate, reflecting good urban design principles by providing street frontage. This approach responds to the terrace of Victorian dwellings to the north, which front the street. The frontage is 3 storey which is considered an appropriate transition height taking account of the two storey properties to the north, 4 storey maisonettes to the west and the scale of the 4/5 lane carriageway. The boundary will aid the creation of defensible space and tree planting alongside will, over time, extend the green canopy corridor along Newgate Lane that commences to the south of the site.

To the rear of the site is proposed a 4 storey block with a single storey terrace attached. The 4 storey block in terms of its scale and siting is considered compatible with those within the housing estate albeit of a difference shape and slightly larger footprint.

The key elevation to Newgate Lane/Redlands Lane comprises a series of blocks with glazed links significantly set back. Each block having a high degree of symmetrical composition with relieving articulation helped by the balconies and significantly strong glazing. It is considered that this arrangement will provide rhythm to the street scene and reduce the mass of the development frontage. Importantly the corner has been designed creating continuity of the frontage as it turns into Redlands Lane and will give identity to the scheme and this part of Newgate Lane.

Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Ecologist) - No objection subject to mitigation measures

Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) - Noise - No objection subject to conditions

Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) - Contamination - No objection subject to conditions

Southern Water Services - No objection subject to conditions

Natural England - No objection

Director of Community and Streetscene (Strategic Housing) - The scheme will generate 40% affordable housing; 15 bedrooms for low cost home ownership and 23 bedrooms for social rent. No objection.

dc-100623-r04-lsm

36

Director of Community and Streetscene (Waste Advisory Team) - No objection subject to conditions.

Environment Agency - No objection

Hampshire Constabulary (Crime Prevention Design Advisor) - No objection

Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) - Air Quality -

The site lies within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The AQMA was declared in April 2006 as air quality monitoring and computer modelling indicated that the current mean annual objective set by the Government for the air pollutant, nitrogen dioxide was being exceeded in a section of the Gosport Road. The main source of the pollutant is traffic exhaust emissions. Nitrogen dioxide is an irritant gas that at high levels causes inflammation of the airways. Long term exposure may affect lung function and respiratory symptoms.

The Council undertakes continual monitoring within the AQMA, the testing equipment being sited close to the road including the front facades of the terrace of houses north of the application site. Last year only one annual mean test result exceeded the Government annual mean objective. This was located on a lamppost at the junction of Alders Road and Gosport Road. The other results were all under the Government annual mean objective.

The applicant commissioned a comprehensive Air Quality Assessment of the proposed scheme. Monitoring was undertaken on site which demonstrated that the air quality objective would not be breached at any location relevant for exposure within the scheme. The mean results for each monitoring location were less than the air quality objective. The report stated that pollutant concentrations reduce sharply with distance from the kerb and also diminish with height above the source. This is demonstrated by the monitoring results carried out on site compared to the monitoring results undertaken by the Council close to the road. Incorporated into the proposed scheme is a buffer strip of 8 metres between the pavement of Newgate Lane Fareham and the building façade of the extra care facility.

In light of the findings of the report and the design and siting of the scheme no objection is raised in respect of air quality issues.

At the previous meeting Members were particularly concerned with the location of four small ground floor terraces facing Gosport Road. Amended plans have been received removing these terraces from the proposed scheme. The facade of the building would therefore measure approximately 8 - 11 metres from the road side.

Comments

Principle of development Design/character of the area Impact on neighbouring residential properties Highway implications

Principle of development

dc-100623-r04-lsm

37

The site has been included in the list of existing employment sites in the Employment and Skills section of Fareham Borough Council Site Allocations Development Plan Document. However, the document is at the Issues and Options stage and has yet to progress to the Preferred Options stage and is therefore unlikely to be adopted within the LDF for some time. Therefore little weight can be given to the document.

The industrial use for the site is out of keeping with the predominantly residential nature of the surrounding area. The principle of residential redevelopment on the site is considered to be acceptable as judged against the saved policies of the Local Plan.

Design/character of the area

Two previous planning applications for redevelopment of the site have been refused under officer's delegated powers. Officers considered with both applications, the building fronting Newgate Lane/Redlands Lane (Block A) by virtue of its height, bulk, scale and design would constitute a form of development out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the vicinity to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area.

The applicant has worked closely with officers since the previous refusals in order to seek to address the concerns raised. The proposal has been significantly amended and resubmitted for determination.

The development would provide an extra care scheme comprising two buildings with associated 1 bedroom bungalow units and day care centre facilities and landscaped grounds. The scheme would be made up of 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom apartments and four 1 bedroom bungalows.

The building fronting Newgate Lane and Redlands Lane (Block A) would be three storey in height with the second floor being set back to reduce the massing. The building is well articulated in order to reduce its bulk and visual massing. The building at the rear (Block B) is 4 storey at the western boundary of the site dropping to two storey and then single storey bungalows.

The elevation treatment of the buildings comprises a mixture of traditional and modern materials with contemporary detailing, combining predominantly brick with render with small areas of coloured panelling. It is considered that this palette would provide visual interest and would sit comfortable in the street context.

Impact on neighbouring residential properties

The nearest residential properties are situated 30 metres to the south west in Langstone House, however these maisonettes do not directly face the proposed buildings. Officers consider that in light of the proximity of the proposed buildings to the site boundaries and relationship with nearby residential properties, the proposal would not harm the amenities of the residents of nearby properties.

Parking and Highways implications

Twenty eight parking spaces are proposed which are based on the Hampshire County Council standards. The proposed occupiers would be considered least active elderly and therefore least likely to have a car. The applicant has provided information in relation to a

dc-100623-r04-lsm

38

comparable scheme which has been operating since 2007 in Portsmouth. This scheme was for 55 extra care units with 13 parking spaces. Only one resident in the development has a car. On a normal day, there are approximately 10 spaces occupied. Unlike a nursing home, the staffing levels are relatively low, with maybe a maximum of 6/7 at peak times of the day.

The level of parking on the submitted scheme is greater than that mentioned above. Additional parking could be provided within the central courtyard area, however this would be considered a detriment to the pleasant layout of the scheme

Although the use of the site has been fairly low-key for some years, the permitted use of the site is that of a storage and distribution centre. It is considered that the proposed daily trips to the site would be less than the permitted use and the nature of the vehicles somewhat different. There are currently two access points into the site, including one directly from Newgate Lane. It is considered that to have the opportunity to close this access would benefit highway safety.

Officers consider that in highway safety terms the proposal is acceptable.

Conclusion

The proposed redevelopment of the site would result in the removal of all hard surfacing and buildings at the site. A number of improvements would arise for neighbouring residents and the appearance of the area if the current use and industrial buildings were replaced with the proposed buildings. The removal of the commercial use and its replacement with residential uses would improve the environment. The redevelopment of the site would also enable land contamination issues to be addressed.

Officers consider the development should be approved subject to the prior completion of the planning obligation and the imposition of conditions as detailed below.

RECOMMEND:

Subject to the applicant/owner first entering into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council to secure a financial contribution towards off-site public open space and/or facilities and the construction of a footway and associated barriers by 30 June 2010.

PERMISSION: materials; hard surfacing; landscaping and its implementation; levels; construction traffic; no burning; demolition between September and February; no mud on road; construction hours; parking; drainage; existing access off Newgate Lane to be closed; no construction traffic to use Newgate Lane access; footway and safety barriers to be constructed; works in accordance with bat survey report; works in accordance with noise report; boundary treatment; age restriction of 55 and above

OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required Section 106 Agreement by 30 June 2010.

REFUSE: Contrary to policy; inadequate provision for public open space and highway safety


dc-100623-r04-lsm

39

dc-100623-r04-lsm

40

(12) P/10/0433/FP FAREHAM SOUTH Mr D J Sheppard Agent: Mr D Boddy

ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING

128 PAXTON ROAD FAREHAM - LAND ADJACENT -


Site Description

This application relates to a site to the south-west of Paxton Road adjacent to the Gillies public footpath.

The site is within the urban area and is currently overgrown with vegetation.


Planning permission is sought to erect a detached 3-bed dwelling. Two car parking spaces would be provided on the drive.

Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies - DG1, DG3, DG5, DG9, H2, R5 and T5


P/07/1190/FP Erection of Detached DwellingPermission 1 November 2007

P/01/1134/RM Erection of Chalet Bungalow (Reserved Matters Application)Refused 25 January 2002

P/97/0991/OA Erection of Detached Dwelling with Integral GarageOutline permission 6 January 1999

Representations

One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

Impact on sewerage system Will boundary wall be reinstated if damaged? Overlooking

Consultations

The Director of Planning and Environment (Highways) - No objection

Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) - No objection subject to condition

dc-100623-r04-lsm

41

Southern Water - Comments awaited

Comments

The main issues which need to be considered in the determination of this application are: Principle of Development; Impact on the Amenities of Neighbouring Properties

Principle of Development

The site lies within the urban area where residential infilling, redevelopment and development on neglected and underused land will be permitted, providing it does not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area or amenity of existing residents.

Planning permission was granted in 2007 for the erection of a detached dwelling on the site. This application seeks permission for a dwelling of alternative design although it would be similar in height and scale.

It is not considered that the proposal would have any detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the streetscene or character of the area. The overgrown plot is an unsightly feature within the streetscene and there is a mixture of dwelling types within the surrounding area.

Car parking would be provided on site in accordance with the Council's Residential Car and Cycle Parking SPD.

Impact on the Amenities of Neighbouring Properties

The occupants of the property to the rear have expressed concern regarding the potential for overlooking of their back garden from a single, first floor window shown in the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling. This first floor window would serve a bedroom and would be 11.2 metres from the garden boundary. This separation complies with the design guideline distance of 11 metres set out within the local plan and it is not considered that the proposal would result in the unacceptable overlooking of the property to the neighbouring garden.

Officers acknowledge the concern raised in respect of the diversion of the public sewer that currently crosses the application site. The sewer would be diverted around the edge of the application site and underneath the public footpath before connecting back into the existing system. This diversion was also a part of the previous development scheme for which planning permission has been granted. In any event, should planning permission be granted for the revised scheme, approval under the Building Regulations would be necessary for the construction works. As part of Building Regulations application the applicant would need to demonstrate that foul water can be satisfactorily disposed. Comment from Southern Water has been sought and an update on this will be provided at the committee meeting.

Any damage to the boundary wall during construction would be a private legal matter between the parties involved and is not a material planning consideration.

RECOMMEND:

Subject to

dc-100623-r04-lsm

42

i) Comments from Southern Water ii) the applicant/owner first entering into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council to secure a financial contribution towards off-site public open space and/ or facilities and highway infrastructure improvements by the 6 July 2010.

PERMISSION: Materials to be agreed, Boundary Treatment, Parking, Contamination, Obscure glaze and fix shut to 1.7m first floor windows (south-east and north-west elevations), No Burning on Site, No Mud on Road, Construction Hours

OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required Section 106 Agreement by 6 July 2010.

REFUSE: Contrary to Policy; inadequate provision for public open space and highway infrastructure.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: P/10/0433/FP

(13) P/10/0375/FP FAREHAM WEST Mr Graham Goddard

DEMOLITION OF ATTACHED GARAGE AND ERECTION OF GARAGE WITH FIRST FLOOR SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION INCLUDING FRONT & REAR DORMERS & BARN HIP ROOF

31 HEATHFIELD AVENUE FAREHAM PO15 5QA


Site Description

31 Heathfield Avenue is a two storey house with integral, flat roofed, single garage, situated in the urban area of Fareham as defined in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review.

The surrounding properties and area in general are residential, typified by two storey detached, semi-detached and terraced houses.


This application proposes the demolition of the existing garage and the reconstruction of another attached garage in its place with a first floor side and rear extension above this and above an existing, single storey, side and rear, flat roofed extension.

This extension would feature a barn hip roof and one front and two rear dormers all with front hipped ridge roofs.

Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review - Policies DG3, DG5 and T5Fareham Borough Council Extension Design Guide

dc-100623-r04-lsm

43

Fareham Borough Council Residential Car and Cycle Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document


P/09/0336/FP - Demolition of attached garage and erection of attached garage and first floor side and rear extension - Refused August 2009 - Appeal dismissed December 2009P/06/1027/FP - Erection of first floor rear and two storey side extensions - Refused September 2006P/94/0789/FP - Pitched roof over existing flat roof - Permitted September 1994FBC.3398/52 - Provision of pitched roof over existing flat roof - Permitted June 1988FBC.3398/31 - Extension - Permitted August 1972FBC.3398/29 - First floor extension over garage - Refused May 1972

Representations

One letter has been received from 9 Heathfield Avenue, which is opposite to the east across the road, and a letter and email has been received from 30 Heathfield Avenue, which is the adjacent dwelling to the north.

No.9 objects on the following grounds:

Would look like a ugly carbuncle out of keeping with other nearby properties; Overlooking from the proposed first floor front bathroom; Impeding of view and loss of greenery affecting this road and its locality's ambiance.

No.30 objects for the following reasons:

Negative impact on this neighbouring property in terms of:(i) It's available light to its secondary side and main (particularly front) lounge

windows; (ii) Privacy by overlooking;(iii) Loss of outlook from front window;(iv) Commercial viability (compounded by existing large extension next door to its

north);(v) Noise, dust, disruption because of its close proximity to the proposed

development; Not in keeping with other properties/spatial character of the road, e.g. by being bulky with

the garage protruding beyond the main building line; Size, unsuitability and impact on the street and neighbours are themes of previous

refusals; this latest proposal would make little difference to the original implications of the 2006 refusal; and

Should be refused again for same reasons as earlier application, the minor changes made since then making little difference to its likely impact.

Consultations

Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Highways) - No objection, subject to the proposed garage meeting Fareham Borough Council parking provision criteria.

Comments

dc-100623-r04-lsm

44

This application is a resubmission of an application (P/09/0336/FP) refused in August 2009 and dismissed on appeal in December 2009.

The 2006 application was refused, in summary, because its proposals':

(i) Had unacceptable outlook and light effects on the neighbouring house to the north; and

(ii) Would be an unsympathetic addition to its dwelling, being detrimental to its appearance and the visual amenities of the street scene.

The 2009 application was refused only for item (ii) above. The planning inspector upheld this refusal because he considered that the proposal was a poor design and would materially detract from the appearance of the house and the street scene.

At this time, the Inspector considered the proposal's effects on the living conditions of the neighbour to the north and decided not to dismiss that scheme upon that basis. In this he considered the light and outlook effects of that proposal upon the secondary side and rear and front main windows, concluding that there would be no material harm to the living conditions of that property.

The current application before Members would be smaller than that refused in 2009 and no closer to the neighbour. As with the previous application, Officers consider that the light and outlook effects of this current scheme on the neighbour would be acceptable.

To address the previous concerns over the implications for the appearance of this dwelling and streetscene impact, the current application's extension now:

Has a top roof ridge lower than that of the existing dwelling; Has a barn hip to its proposed roof; Has a narrower front dormer; Has two rear dormers of similar positioning, size and design of that now proposed at the

front of this extension. That is, being set in from the top, sides and bottom of the proposed extension's roof with these dormers featuring hipped front and ridge roofs.

These rear dormers are now proposed compared to a single, considerably larger one. The properties rear dormer was several times larger, rising immediately up from single storey eaves height and occupying the majority of the then proposed extension's first floor elevation with a cat slide roof up to the apex of that proposed extension's roof's top ridge.

In Officers opinion these are acceptable in relation to the appearance of this dwelling and its streetscene impact, and sufficiently in line with Local Plan Policy.

In terms of the other points raised by the neighbours:

The proposed bathroom window would look out onto and across the public road at Heathfield Avenue.

In terms of impeding of view, again the distance involved is over 25m which Officers do not consider unacceptable in this regard.

dc-100623-r04-lsm

45

On privacy, views from the new rear first floor windows towards the private rear garden of the neighbour to the north would be oblique and therefore not held by Officers to be unacceptable in privacy terms. The proposed first floor side window is not specifically shown on the submitted plans to have a sill height of at least 1.7m above its floor level. However, it is equally not shown to be opening and on this basis can be conditioned to be obscure glazed and fixed shut to preserve privacy.

Loss of financial value of adjacent or nearby properties because of proposed development is not a material planning consideration and cannot be taken into account in determining planning applications; and

Noise, dust or disruption through construction of this development would be transitory with the development proposed not being of a sufficient scale or likely duration to be held by Officers to be sufficient basis to refuse or control by condition such construction works.

To conclude, whilst taking into account other material planning considerations, the points made by third parties, and subject to planning condition, this current application's proposals are considered to sufficiently accord with relevant Local Plan policies and the Council's Extension Design Guide, such that it is recommended for permission.

RECOMMEND:

PERMISSION: Matching materials; First floor north east elevation window to be obscure glazed and fixed shut.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: P/06/1027/FP; P/09/0336/FP

dc-100623-r04-lsm

46

ZONE 3 – EASTERN WARDS

Hill HeadPortchester WestPortchester EastStubbington

dc-100623-r04-lsm

47

(14) P/10/0320/CU HILL HEAD amplified by plans received 11 May 2010 and amended by plan received 27 May 2010Mr Martin Ashworth Agent: Mr Lee Sergeant

ALTERATIONS TO DETACHED WORKSHOP TO FORM AN ANNEXE

60 HILL HEAD ROAD HILL HEAD PO14 3JL


Site Description

This application relates to a detached chalet bungalow to the north of Hill Head Road just to the east of the junction with Solent Road. The dwelling has a detached workshop within the rear garden.

The site lies within the urban area and an Area of Special Residential Character.

Planning permission was previously granted to erect a detached bungalow to the rear of the dwelling which has now been constructed and is accessed from Solent Road.


Planning permission is sought to make external alterations to the existing detached workshop to the rear of the dwelling. The workshop would then be used as a residential annexe ancillary to the main dwelling.

Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies - DG1, DG3, DG4, DG5, H3, H9, T5


P/07/0059/LU Use of Former Garage as a Separate Unit of Accommodation (Certificate of Lawfulness) Lawful Use Certificate Refused 27 March 2007

P/06/0183/FP Erection of Detached Bungalow with Associated Parking and AmenityRefused 10 April 2006Appeal Allowed 8 January 2007

P/05/1626/FP Demolition and Erection of a Pair of Semi-Detached DwellingsRefused 9 January 2006

P/05/0923/FP Erection of a Pair of Semi- Detached Houses and One Bungalow and ParkingRefused 31 August 2005

P/05/0494/FP Redevelop Site With Four Flats, Car Parking, Bin & Cycle StoresRefused 20 May 2005

dc-100623-r04-lsm

48

P/03/0617/OA Erection of Detached Dwelling & Garage fronting Solent Road (Outline Application)Refused 16 June 2003Appeal Dismissed 29 March 2004

Representations

One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

Contrary to Policy H9 of local plan The property is on the market and there is no requirement for an annexe A ploy to maximise asking price Inadequate amenity space Vehicles have to reverse on to Hill Head Road with limited visibility The workshop will need major work to bring it to a satisfactory standard Asbestos roof unsafe for human habitation Contamination found on plot to rear Legal agreements have been overturned resulting in separate dwellings

Consultations

The Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Highways) - No objection subject to provision of adequate car parking on site.

Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) - No objection subject to condition

Comments

The existing workshop is in poor condition and it is proposed to carry out a number of internal and external alterations to bring it up to a habitable standard. This includes building an external skin to the north elevation of the building to form a cavity for insulation, rendering the external walls, rebuilding the existing internal staircase, replacing the roof with concrete tiles, and installation of replacement windows and new rooflights. The general footprint and form of the building would not be altered. The building will be required to comply with Building Regulations to ensure it is habitable.

Policy H9 of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review relates to the provision of annexes for dependent relatives. It states that the provision of self contained annexes to accommodate dependent relatives will be permitted, provided that it is not possible to satisfactorily cater for dependent relatives within the existing dwelling, the annexe can be used as an ancillary part of the existing dwelling when there is no longer a need for the annexe and adequate gardens and car parking spaces are provided. Where an annexe is detached from the original dwelling, a legal agreement will be sought to prevent the use of the annexe as a separate dwelling. Although there have been instances where former annexes have been permitted to be used as separate dwellings it is considered that in this instance due to the relationship between the workshop and the dwelling and the limited site area this would not be permitted in the future.

dc-100623-r04-lsm

49

The applicant has confirmed that the annexe is intended for his elderly parents who require a degree of care. When the annexe is no longer required by the intended occupants the annexe could be used as an extension to the existing dwelling by members of the family.

The dwelling has two car parking spaces available on the frontage and parking for a minimum of three additional vehicles to the side. This is considered ample parking to serve the existing dwelling and the proposed annexe. Vehicles currently have to reverse out on to Hill Head Road as there is no on site turning however Hill Head Road is not a busy road and this is considered acceptable. Although the rear garden to the existing property is limited in size there would be no change to the current provision. As the annexe would be occupied by family members the amenity space would be a shared facility.

The proposal involves only minor external alterations to an existing building which will improve its visual appearance to surrounding properties. It is considered that subject to a legal agreement preventing the use of the annexe as a separate dwelling the proposal is acceptable.

RECOMMEND:

Subject to the applicant/owner first entering into a legal agreement on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council to prevent the use of the annexe as a separate dwelling by 12 July 2010.

PERMISSION: Contamination; Obscure glaze and fix shut window (north elevation), Rooflights to have min sill height 1.7m (east & west elevations), Withdraw PD roofslopes

OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required legal agreement by 12 July 2010.

REFUSE: Contrary to Policy; site is incapable of accommodating separate unit of accommodation

BACKGROUND PAPERS: P/10/0320/CU

(15) P/10/0368/FP HILL HEAD Mr M Naylor Agent: Ian Marshall

ERECTION OF SIDE AND REAR EXTENSIONS, RESITE EXISTING CONSERVATORY AND PROVISION OF NEW ROOF TO PROVIDE FIRST FLOOR ACCOMMODATION WITH JULIET BALCONY

43 OLD STREET FAREHAM PO14 3HQ


Site Description

43 Old Street is a bungalow with side garage which has been extended in the past with single storey rear extensions including a conservatory.

dc-100623-r04-lsm

50

It is located on the western side of Old Street approximately 70m to the north of this road's junction with Fury Way, Hill Head.

No. 43 is at the southern end of a ribbon of dwellings on the western side of Old Street, with agricultural land to its south and west, and more residential properties to its northeast, east and south east partly across a grassed open space beside Old Street.

This site is within the countryside and Meon Valley Area of Special Landscape Character and Meon Gap Strategic Gap.


Erection of side and rear extensions, re-site existing conservatory and provision of new roof to provide first floor accommodation with juliet balcony. Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review - Policies DG3, DG4, DG5, C1, C9, C11, H13 and T5Fareham Borough Council Extension Design GuideFareham Borough Council Residential Car and Cycle Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document


Q/0078/10 - Pre-application advice sought - Informal officer reply given in April 2010 inviting submission subject to inclusion of floor plan's of proposed relocated conservatoryP/09/0545/FP - Erection of rear extension and provision of new roof to provide first floor accommodation with Juliet balcony - Refused September 2009P/97/0160/FP - Erection of rear conservatory - Permission April 1997FBC.1214/1 - Erection of single storey rear extensions - Permission January 1982

Representations

One letter has been received from the neighbouring dwelling to the north, 45 Old Street, objecting on the following grounds:

Comments on the previous application mostly still apply (e.g. on outlook, privacy and loss of light);

Changes made since previous application marginally reduce visual effect, but little has changed relating to loss of sunlight with only the impact on its kitchen window addressed. Windows of a dining and living room would also be affected. Clear potential, including from quantitative assessment, that a Building Research Establishment (BRE) Good Practice Guide on Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight would not be significantly met. Concerned about Policy DG5 on sunlight being met and building proximity under Policy DG3;

Overlooking from proposed balcony not now thought a privacy issue; Out of keeping from the character of the surrounding area/against spirit of Policy DG3 in

terms of shape, size, style, scale, layout, height, mass and space around and between buildings;

Little boundary shrubbery between No.45 and No. 43, a 2m high fence is now on this boundary, and in places is considered to exceed this;

dc-100623-r04-lsm

51

The extension may cause trees on No.43's side to suffer, and a tree at No.45 may be within falling distance, need removal or pruning;

Do not object to an extension at No.43, but to the design submitted.

Consultations

Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Tree Officer) - No objections

Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Highways) - No objections

Comments

This latest application is essentially a re-submission of application P/09/0545/FP which was refused on the following grounds:

"The proposed development is contrary to Policy DG5(B) of the adopted Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and the approved Fareham Borough Council Extension Design Guide and is unacceptable in that:

i) by virtue of its height, depth, bulk and proximity to the northern boundary, the rear extension and new roof would unacceptably reduce the outlook from and light available to the neighbouring residential property, 45 Old Street, Hill Head, to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of that property."

In terms of outlook and light issues for No.45 at that time, the Officer report noted:

"This application involves physical alterations that are likely to affect the outlook and light of south side windows of No.45. Most of these windows would not experience such a net change in light and outlook to merit refusal of this application. However, the south facing kitchen window would be positioned about 2.75m from the new rear extension. The Council's approved Extension Design Guide would normally expect a 4m minimum distance, bearing in mind such things as the size and height of the extension, whether the window is main or secondary and any intervening screening. In this case, this window is a second main window serving a kitchen/habitable room and there is some intervening screening vegetation. Officers consider the proposed development as unacceptable in terms of outlook and light to this kitchen window"

This latest application has sought to address this concern by:

Removing the pitched roof which would have featured closest to this kitchen window above a proposed guest bedroom/study room and which would have been introduced above an existing flat roofed bathroom on that side;

Relocating this bed/study room 0.5m further off the boundary; Including reference to a 2m high fence on the boundary opposite this kitchen window; and Including a BRE reference line to indicate daylight retention.

In Officers opinion, despite the points of objection from the neighbour, these changes have adequately resolved the reasons for refusal to the earlier application. It should be remembered that both the BRE and the Council's Extension Design Guide are guidelines, and this kitchen also benefits from light and outlook from a second, similar sized, clear glazed window, positioned opposite to it in the north elevation.

dc-100623-r04-lsm

52

The now proposed lack of a pitched roof to the flat roofed bathroom could also assist in maintaining the light and outlook of a side dining room window at 45 old Street, the proposed rising roof now starting some 3m from the these properties' mutual boundary, to a ridge height of 6.6m some 7.4m from that boundary.

Whilst the proposals would cause a change in the scale of this building, Officers do not consider the scheme as likely to be out of character from that of the locality, bearing in mind the size and type of other types of dwellings nearby, the distances between them and the availability of existing mature vegetation on site and nearby which would help to soften the impact of the new development over that which pre-exists.

The Council's tree officer has raised no objections to these proposals.

On parking/highways issues, the proposals would lead to a four or five bedroom dwelling being created from the current two bedroom dwelling. Three on-site car parking spaces would be expected for this proposed size of dwelling and the existing drive and integral garage would be sufficient in Officers' opinion to meet this requirement.

In overall conclusion, whilst taking into account material planning considerations, the points of objection from the neighbour and subject to planning condition, this application's proposals are considered to sufficiently accord with relevant Local Plan policies, and the Council's Extension Design Guide and such that it is recommended for permission.

RECOMMEND:

PERMISSION: Materials to match.

BACKGROUND PAPERS:

dc-100623-r04-lsm

53

(16) P/10/0304/FP STUBBINGTON Mr Steve Davies

RETENTION OF FIRST FLOOR REAR BALCONY

20 ALBERT ROAD FAREHAM PO14 1BD


Site Description

This application relates to an end of terrace residential property located on the northern side of Albert Road, Fareham. The site is outside of any designated urban settlement area. The property has recently been extended and converted to two dwellings with the property now known as 20 Albert Road occupying the western end of the building and the entire first floor. The newly created 20A Albert Road consists of a ground floor flat with attached conservatory and separate private garden area to the rear enclosed by a 1.8 - 2m boundary fence.


A first floor balcony has been erected at 20 Albert Road with access via a pair of large patio doors. It measures 4.7 metres wide by 2 metres deep. The balcony has steel ballustrading around it to a height of 1.1 metres with frosted glass panels.

Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policy DG5


P/09/0019/FP - Conversion Of 3-Bed House To Two Flats With Parking - Permission March 2009

Representations

One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds: Loss of privacy to garden area

Comments

The provision of the rear first floor balcony at this property currently gives rise to overlooking of the adjacent property 20A Albert Road. The adjacent ground floor flat has a conservatory at the rear and the balcony allows views downwards into the room to the detriment of the privacy any occupant of that property. The balcony also affords oblique views over the rear gardens of 20A and 18 Albert Road however, given the close proximity of these dwellings, this is not considered any more harmful than views already commonly afforded from rear facing first floor windows.

Subject to the erection of a privacy screen along the eastern end of the balcony to prevent views into the conservatory, the proposed retention is considered acceptable and to accord

dc-100623-r04-lsm

54

with the policies of the Local Plan Review. The privacy screen should be up to 1.7 metres above the level of the decking of the balcony and should be constructed in such a way and from such materials so as not to allow any views through it (ie. opaque glass, timber, etc).

RECOMMEND:

RETAIN DEVELOPMENT: privacy screen up to 1.7m above decking level of balcony along eastern side


dc-100623-r04-lsm

55

PLANNING APPEALS

The following list details the current situation regarding new and outstanding planning appeals and decisions.

APPEALS LODGED

1. P/10/0182/ADAppellant: Mrs Kim AnnearSite: 127 Brook Lane, Sarisbury GreenDecision Maker: Officer's Delegated Powers Recommendation: RefusalCouncil's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 13th May 2010 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse consent for the retention of non-illuminated sign attached to fence on southern boundary.

2. P/10/0222/FPAppellant: Mr & Mrs WebbSite: 19 Shannon Road, Hill HeadDecision Maker: Planning CommitteeRecommendation: RefusalCouncil's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 18th May 2010 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of single storey side/rear extension.

3. P/10/0192/VCAppellant: Mr Kevin SmithSite: 1-11 The MeadowsDecision Maker: Planning CommitteeRecommendation: RefusalCouncil's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 18th May 2010 Reason for Appeal: against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the relief from condition 9 of planning permission P/08/1295/OA(to remove the proposed lay-by from the permitted scheme erection of 11 two bedroomed aged persons bungalows) & part-variation of the approved landscaping scheme (P/09/0568/RM).

4. P/10/0087/FPAppellant: Mr D BushSite: 45 Newtown, PortchesterDecision Maker: Planning CommitteeRecommendation: RefusalCouncil's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 27th May 2010 Reason for Appeal: against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse

dc-100623-r04-lsm

56

planning permission for the erection of side and rear extensions to convert dwelling into four one-bedroomed aged persons' units.

5. Enforcement Appeal 3882Appellant: Mr N CastleSite: 197 Botley Road, land r/o Burridge Enforcement Notice Served: 22nd April 2010Date Lodged: 2nd June 2010 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to serve an enforcement notice, requiring the appellant to cease the use of the land for open storage, the repair and servicing of builder's plant, machines and motor vehicles and the assembly and fabrication of building components in the open.

HEARINGS/INQUIRY DATES

6. P/09/0721/FPAppellant: Mr P HayesSite: Land at 62-64 Warsash Road Decision Maker: Officer's Delegated Powers Recommendation: RefusalCouncil's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 11th March 2010 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of three detached dwellings with garages and private access drive.

7. P/09/0731/FPAppellant: Mr P HayesSite: Land at 62-64 Warsash Road Decision Maker: Officer's Delegated Powers Recommendation: RefusalCouncil's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 11th March 2010 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of three detached dwellings with garages and private access drive.Hearing Date: 20th July 2010 (Both appeals relating to 62-64 Warsash Road will be heard together)

8. Enforcement Appeal 3868Appellants: Mr & Mrs ToddSite: Rooksbridge Poultry Farm, 91a Burridge Road, Burridge Enforcement Notice Served: 15th January 2010Date Lodged: 18th March 2010 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to serve an enforcement notice, requiring the appellants to remove both the mobile home and the associated hardstanding from the land. The mobile home and associated hardstanding were given temporary retention permission on the 15th November 2005 with a condition that the mobile home & associated hardstanding should be removed, from the site, on or before 30th November 2008 unless a further planning permission had been granted before the expiry of such period. No such permission has been granted.

dc-100623-r04-lsm

57

Inquiry Date: 27th July 2010

9. P/09/0462/FPAppellants: Mr & Mrs C A LatimerSite: 157 White Hart Lane Decision Maker: Planning Committee Recommendation: RefusalCouncil's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 1st April 2010 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of two 4-bed and four 3-bed houses with associated access & garages to replace existing dwelling.Hearing Date: 10th August 2010

Withdrawn

10. P/10/0034/FPAppellant: Mr Mark CameronSite: 4 Pilgrims WayDecision Maker: Officer's Delegated Powers Recommendation: PermissionCouncil's Decision: PermissionDate Lodged: 27th April 2010 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to impose a planning condition (3). The condition states that the first floor windows proposed to be inserted into the northern and southern elevations shall be glazed with obscure glass and be of a non opening design and construction to a height of 1.7 metres above internal finished floor and shall thereafter be retained in that condition at all times. The permission is for the erection of two storey front extension and alterations to roof to provide additional first floor accommodation.Withdrawn: 9th June 2010

Decisions

11. P/09/0474/FPAppellant: Mr Edward JamesSite: Land adjacent Daisy Cottage, brook Avenue, Warsash Decision Maker: Officer's Delegated Powers Recommendation: RefusalCouncil's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 14th January 2010 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of a detached 4-bed dwelling with garage.Decision: DismissedDate of Decision: 20th May 2010

12. P/09/0851/VCAppellant: Mr P NewmanSite: 25 Hewett Road Decision Maker: Officer's Delegated Powers Recommendation: Refusal

dc-100623-r04-lsm

58

Council's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 19th February 2010 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the variation of condition 5 of P/94/0920/FP (to enable annexe to become separate dwelling) and erection of single storey front and rear extension.Decision: DismissedDate of Decision: 20th May 2010

13. P/09/0/0447/FPAppellant: Mr N AhmedSite: 161 West Street, Fareham Decision Maker: Officer's Delegated Powers Recommendation: RefusalCouncil's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 31st December 2009Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the use of the rear car park for hand car wash facility, linked to restaurant & the erection of brick piers and gates.Decision: DismissedDate of Decision: 25th May 2010

14. P/09/0/0874/FPAppellant: Kiln LodgeSite: 74 Kiln Road, Fareham Decision Maker: Planning Committee Recommendation: RefusalCouncil's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 29th December 2009 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the partial demolition, erection of extension and change of use to residential care home with ancillary accommodation.Decision: AllowedInspector's Reason: The Inspector concluded that whilst the proposal would have an impact on the character and appearance of the southern part of Kneller Court Lane and its junction with Kiln Road, the overall impact would not be so great as to significantly adversely affect the character and appearance of the area or the ASRC generally. The Inspector found that the proposal would not have a significantly adverse effect on the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties.Date of Decision: 4th June 2010

15. P/09/0/0478FPAppellant: Grosvenor Developments LtdSite: 253 - 255 Bridge Road, Land R/O, SwanwickDecision Maker: Officer's Delegated Powers Recommendation: RefusalCouncil's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 8th January 2010 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of two semi detached dwellings with access and parking.Decision: Allowed

dc-100623-r04-lsm

59

Inspector's Reason: The Inspector concluded that that the proposal would not have a cramped or over-intensive appearance and would not be an undesirable form of backland development. The Inspector stated that in his view the proposal would comply with Policies DG3(A) and (B), DG5, HE3 and HE4(A) of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review (LP) adopted June 2000 and that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA.Date of Decision: 4th June 2010

Enquiries:For further information on this report please contact Lee Smith. (Ext 2427)

UPDATE LIST dc-100623-r04-lsm

60

23 June 2010

Item PageZONE 1

7 17 P/10/0434/FP - 9 WARSASH ROAD, WARSASH

The case officer has carried out a further site visit during which access was provided to the existing flat roof extension at the property to get an appreciation for the likely level of overlooking of the adjacent property, 10 Brook Lane. Following this site visit officers are of the opinion that no condition is required with regards to the landing window above the staircase which would not give rise to any overlooking of the neighbouring property.

Amended Recommendation:

PERMISSION: materials to match; obscure glaze and fix shut to height of 1.7m above internal finished floor level first floor window in western elevation

ZONE 2

9 26 P/10/0403/OA - LAND AT 33 FUNTLEY HILL

Four further letters of objection received raising the following additional points:

The garden area for the development is out of proportion resulting in problems;

Additional traffic parking on this busy fast road leading to highway safety implications;

As a result of the development, the church facilities would be improved resulting in additional traffic;

Impact on the setting of the church.

10 30 P/10/0417/FP - 9 KILN ROAD, FAREHAM

One further letter of objection received raising the following additional points:

Overlooking of property to rear from roof windows; Building operations and drainage works will cause

disturbance to newts

The Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Highways) - No objection. Car parking meets FBC standards.

dc-100623-r04-lsm

61

The Director of Strategic Planning and Environment (Ecology) - An up-to-date schedule and mitigation strategy should be provided and approved by the authority to help to secure management of suitable great crested newt habitat at 9 Kiln Road in the long term and avoid negative impacts on the Great Crested Newt population.

Natural England - no objection to development on basis of national and international designations. Known local population of Great Crested Newts - local ecology consultation recommended.

Additional condition - contractors parking and materials storage

dc-100623-r04-lsm

Documents

Committee and OV Panels - Report, 23 June 2010 - … Committee... · Web view2010/06/23 · Notwithstanding the sign's close proximity to the egress onto Botley Road from the residential