Report to Planning Development Control Committee Committee/200511… · P/01/0506/VC Variation of condition 3 & 4 of P/98/0212/CU (To increase number of Children from 90 to 96 and

dc-051102-r01-awe.doc

Report to Planning Development Control Committee

Date: 2 November 2005 Report of: Chief Development Control Officer Subject: PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

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 and miscellaneous item.

Item7 (i)


-2- Index List of Applications with Page Numbers

Number Item

FAREHAM EAST

P/05/1308/CU 36 Geoffrey Crescent, Fareham

Use of Double Garage as Business Premises for Blacksmiths Company (Retrospective Application)

Permission 12

P/05/1369/FP 15 Alders Road, Fareham

Erection of Rear Conservatory Permission 13

FAREHAM NORTH

P/05/1298/FP 15 Bruce Close, Fareham

Erection of Single Storey Rear Extension, To Replace PVCu Canopy and To Construct Pitched Roof over Front

Permission 14

P/05/1340/FP 47 Park Lane, Fareham

Erect Two Storey Side Extension ,Single Storey Side/Rear Extension incorporating Garage and ear Conservatory

Permission 15

FAREHAM NORTH-WEST

P/05/1380/FP 52 Fareham Park Road, Fareham

Erection of a Pair of Semi- Detached Dwellings with Associated Parking

Permission 16

FAREHAM SOUTH

P/05/1322/FP 93 Redlands Lane – Former Elliotts Site

Demolish Existing Buildings and Erect 44 No Flats & 3 No Houses With Associated Parking and Landscaping

Permission 17

FAREHAM WEST

P/05/1208/TO 4 Pine Trees Close, Fareham

Crown Reduce Two Oaks by 30% covered by F.T.P.O.15 and F.T.P.O.276

Part Consent/Part Refuse

18

P/05/1310/FP 76 The Avenue, Fareham, - Land to Rear of -

Erection of Detached Dwelling with Integral Garage

Permission 19


-3-

P/05/1317/FP 36 Ferneham Road, Fareham

Build up Hip to Gable & Provision of Front & Rear Dormers to Accommodate Loft Conversion

Permission 20

P/05/1353/SU Rowan Way/Peak Lane, Fareham

Installation of 15m High Telecommunications Mast with 3 Antennas, Transmission Dish& Ancillary Equipment

Prior Approval Not Required

21

HILL HEAD

P/05/1273/FP 6 Seafield Park Road, Hill Head

Raise Roof, Erection of First Floor Rear Extension and Single Storey Front Extension

Permission 22

P/05/1297/FP 120 Plymouth Drive, Stubbington

Erection of Rear Conservatory Permission 23

P/05/1333/FP 18 Monks Way, Hill Head

Erection of Two Storey Front & Side Extensions & Single Storey Rear Extension &Increase in Height

Permission 24

P/05/1372/OA 127 Stubbington Lane, Stubbington, - Land to rear of -

Erection of Detached Bungalow (Outline Application)

Outline Permission 25

LOCKS HEATH

P/05/1183/FP 7 Downland Close, Locks Heath

Replace Existing Hedge with Wall in Excess of One Metre adjacent to Highway

Permission 1

P/05/1246/VC 37B-39 Locks Road - Pixies Day Nursery, Locks Heath, Southampton

Relief of Condition 3 P/01/0506/VC(To Increase No of Children to 99 & Parking Spaces to 31)

Permission 2

P/05/1303/VC 19 Crispin Close, Locks Heath

Relief From Condition 3 of P/05/0018/FP to allow Limited Business use of Hobbies Room over Garage/Workshop

Temporary Permission

3


-4-

PARK GATE

P/05/1168/FP 70 Botley Road/5 Duncan Road - Land at Bastins, and Rear of Locks Heath Working Mens Club -, Park Gate

Erection of 16No. Flats with Associated Alterations to Parking and Cycle Storage Part (Alternative to P/04/1156/FP)

Permission 4

PORTCHESTER EAST

P/05/1242/FP 56 Castle Street, Portchester

Erection of Single Storey Rear Extension Permission 26

P/05/1244/FP 23 East Street, Portchester

Erection of First Floor Side and Single Storey Rear Extension

Permission 27

P/05/1302/VC 50-54 Cornaway Lane, Portchester

Relief from Condition 2 of P/03/0736/FP (Not restricting Age of Occupiers) &Provision of 1 Additional Parking Space.

Permission 28

P/05/1390/FP 47 Denville Avenue, Portchester

Erection of Front Dormer Permission 29

PORTCHESTER WEST

P/05/1240/FP 8 Partridge Close, Fareham

Erection of Two Storey Side and Rear Extension and Single Storey Rear Extension

Permission 30

P/05/1262/FP 82 Portchester Road, Fareham

Retrospective Proposal for the Demolition of the Existing Dwelling & Erection of New Replacement Dwelling

Permission 31

SARISBURY

P/05/0962/FP Rooksbridge Poultry Farm, 91a Burridge Road, Burridge

Retention of Mobile Home in Connection with Agricultural Use on a 3 year Temporary Basis

Temporary Permission

5


-5-

P/05/1169/FP 9 John Bunyan Close, Whiteley

Erection of Two Storey Side Extension and Rear Conservatory

Permission 6

P/05/1342/FP 206 Botley Road, Burridge

Erection of Three Detached Houses with Balconies to Master Bedrooms (Alternative toP/05/0799/FP)

Permission 7

TITCHFIELD

P/05/1234/FP Whiteley Lane - Marlborough -, Titchfield

Erection of 51 Units with Car Parking and Garages and Vehicle Access from Whiteley Lane

Permission 8

P/05/1398/VC 25 Purslane Gardens, Fareham

Vary 3 of P/04/0637/FP - To Change Window Type to Flat Obscure Glazed with Top Opener & Right Hand Restrictor

Permission 9

WARSASH

P/05/1104/FP Shore Road - Foreshore, Warsash

Installation of a Jetty Consisting of a 90m x 2m Pontoon.

Permission 10

P/05/1395/FP 25 Greenaway Lane, Warsash

Erection of Two Storey/First Floor Front Extension (Alternative to P/05/1077/FP)

Permission 11


-6-

ZONE 1 – WESTERN WARDS Locks Heath Park Gate Sarisbury Titchfield Titchfield Common Warsash


-7- (1) P/05/1183/FP LOCKS HEATH

CDR I C BAILEY-WILLMOT

REPLACE EXISTING HEDGE WITH 7 DOWNLAND CLOSE WALL IN EXCESS OF ONE METRE LOCKS HEATH ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677

Site Description

This application relates to a detached dwelling to the south of Downlands Close which is to the west of Meadow Avenue

Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought to remove a hedge and extend an existing wall at a height of 1.8 metres in its place. The wall has now been constructed. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG3 and DG5 Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

Height

Length

General ugliness

Detract from the character of the close

Detracting from the openness of the Close

Unsightly

It will attract youths to play football against

An attractive target for graffiti vandalism

Reduce direct surveillance of anyone coming in or out of the Close Consultations Chief Planning & Transportation Officer (highway) - As the wall will be lower than the existing hedge – No Objection Comments The application site is situated within a set of 8 houses which are located to the south of Downland Close off Meadow Avenue. This application has been submitted to erect a 1.8 metre high wall to replace an existing 2 metre hedge along the western front boundary. An existing 1.8 metre high wall encloses the rear garden; the proposed wall would be a continuation of that wall using similar materials.


-8-

The objector has raised a number of concerns in relation to the appearance of the wall however officers consider that there would not be a detrimental impact created by the wall on the character and appearance of Downland Close. Officers consider the wall to be acceptable in compliance with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1183/FP

(2) P/05/1246/VC LOCKS HEATH

MR MIKE SCOTT

RELIEF OF CONDITION 3 37B-39 LOCKS ROAD - PIXIES DAY NURSERY

P/01/0506/VC (TO INCREASE NO OF LOCKS HEATH CHILDREN TO 99 & PARKING SOUTHAMPTON SPACES TO 31) OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin Ext 2412

Introduction This application was on the agenda for the 5 October 2005 committee. The neighbour notification period expired on the 6 October 2005 and further letters were received on this date. As some of the objectors were unaware the application was being heard by the committee on 5 October 2005 the decision was deferred. At the meeting on 5 October 2005 the committee resolved to permit the application subject to the comments of Social Services and further letters received. Site Description

This application relates to Pixies Day Nursery on the west side of Locks Road close to the junction with James Grieve Avenue.

Description of Proposal Permission is sought to:

increase the number of children at the day nursery between 07:00-19:00 by three to a total of ninety-nine

increase the number of parking spaces within the existing car park by four to a total of thirty-one spaces.

Policies


-9-

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG1, DG3, DG5 and T5 Relevant Planning History P/96/0516/CU Change of Use of Ground Floor to Day Nursery to

Accommodate 40 Children Permission 6 September 1996 P/97/0778/CU Change of Use of First Floor to Part Day Nursery and

Residential Flat (allowing an increase in children to be accommodated at the site to 60)

Permission 8 October 1997 P/98/0212/CU Change of Use from Residential (Class C3) to Day Nursery

(Class D1) of No.37B Additional Car Parking Areas and Alteration to Permitted Car Parking Layout.

Permission 9 June 1998 P/98/0213/CU Change of Use from Residential (Class C3) to Day Nursery

(Class D1) Two Storey Extension with Front Porch and Additional Car Parking Areas and Alterations to Permitted Car Parking Layout.

Permission 9 June 1998 P/99/1170/VC Variation of Condition 4 of P/98/0212/CU (Hours of Opening). Permission 22 October 1999 P/01/0506/VC Variation of condition 3 & 4 of P/98/0212/CU (To increase

number of Children from 90 to 96 and to allow 96 Children between 07:00 & 19:00 hours and 15 Children between 19:00 & 07:00)

Permission 16 July 2001 Representations Four letters of objection received objecting on the following grounds;

Parking Problems

Road Safety

Cars are parked all along Locks Road

Cars are parked in the passing areas on James Grieve Avenue

Access to properties blocked by parked cars

Pixies has continued to expand with little or no regard for local residents

Commercial use on a residential road detracts from the neighbourhood

Consultations


-10-

Director of Social Services – No comment Chief Health and Regulatory Services Officer – No Objection Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objection to an increase in three children. Any additional car parking welcome.

Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – Comments awaited

Comments Officers do not consider that the additional traffic generated by the three additional children attending the nursery would have an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties. It is considered that the four additional parking spaces would be sufficient for the increased number of cars dropping off and collecting children. Highways have raised no objection to the proposal, which complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and is considered acceptable. RECOMMEND: Subject to: The Chief Planning and Transportation Officers Comments

PERMISSION: Personal permission, restrict to 99 children 07:00-19:00 and 15 children between 19:00-07:00 hours, no visitors to the nursery 20:00-07:00, limit car parking area 19:00-07:00, retention of fence BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1246/VC

(3) P/05/1303/VC LOCKS HEATH MR A JONES Agent: MR R B TUTTON

RELIEF FROM CONDITION 3 OF 19 CRISPIN CLOSE P/05/0018/FP TO ALLOW LIMITED LOCKS HEATH BUSINESS USE OF HOBBIES ROOM OVER GARAGE/WORKSHOP OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677

Site Description

This application relates to a detached dwelling on the north side of Crispin Close, east of St Cuthberts Lane.


-11-

Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought to vary condition 3 of P/05/1303/VC which was placed on a previous application for conversion of the existing garage to a car port and erection of detached garage/workshop with hobby room over. Condition three states as follows:- The use of the garage hereby permitted shall be limited to purposes incidental to the enjoyment by the occupants of the property as a single family residence and shall at no time be used for any business, commercial or industrial use. REASON: In order that the residential character of the area may not be harmed in accordance with Policies DG1 and DG3 of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG3 and DG5 Relevant Planning History P/03/1723/FP Erection of a Triple Garage to Rear and Convert Existing Garage to Car Port with Extended Garage Roof - Permission - 09-01-2004 P/04/0146/FP Erection of Triple Garage with Room over and Convert Existing Garage to Car Port – Permission - 15-03-2004 P/04/1114/FP Erection of Triple Garage with Room over and Internal Staircase and Convert Garage to Car Port (Alternative to P/04/0146/FP) – Permission - 10-09-2004 P/05/0018/FP Conversion of Existing Garage to Car Port and Erection of Garage/Workshop with Hobbies Room Over (Alternative to P/04/1114/FP) - Permission - 18-02-2005 Representations Six letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

Environmental impact (noise, fumes and vibrations) Increase in traffic

Delivery vans hurtle through the street at present

Insufficient parking spaces on site

Parking within the street would cause problems with the practical use of the road and turning point for residents

Delivery vans parking within the road

Loss of privacy (employee having lunch in garden)

More journeys would be created due to the two sites

Representatives could call unannounced

Not in character with the area

Highway Safety


-12-

Consultations Chief Planning & Transportation Officer (highways) – No objection Chief Health and Regulatory Services Officer (Environmental Health) – No adverse comments to make Comments This application relates to a detached dwelling on the west side of Crispin Close which is off St Cuthberts Lane. This application also relates to a detached building within the rear garden of the application site which was originally proposed as a triple garage and was approved on the 17 November 2005. There has since been various applications to change the design of the garage, alterations to roof, add rooms in roof and the more recent application to change two of the garages to a workshop. This current application has been submitted for relief of condition 3 of P/05/0018/FP which was to restrict the use of the building to incidental to the dwelling. A supporting letter was submitted with the application which includes the following information:- The applicant is the proprietor of ‘wholesale Nutrition’ a modest company that distributes cosmetic products from storage facilities at Aztec House at 1a Southampton Road, Park Gate. The enterprise is primarily devoted to the sale of cosmetic products by mail-order and the applicant would like to use the first-floor ‘hobbies’ area of the permitted building at his home. Within this application he is also proposing for two of his part time employees to work at the site. There has been confirmation that no sales representatives or customers will be invited to visit Crispin Close on business. Regarding the concern raised with delivery vans this has been confirmed in writing that the applicant does not own a delivery van, there will be no delivery vans either picking up or dropping off stock to the site and no stock is kept on site as all the storage and fulfilment is processed from the existing premises at Southampton Road. The issues raised regarding Environmental impact, insufficient parking spaces on site, parking on road and highway safety have been considered. The Council’s Environmental Highway Departments have been consulted and no objection were raised to the application. Officers consider the application to be acceptable in compliance with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. But recommend a temporary permission for 1 year from the decision date to assess the application.


-13- RECOMMEND:

TEMPORARY PERMISSION: Temporary permission for 1 year, Hours of use between 09:00-17:00, no deliveries in relation to the business use, no clients to visit property, Personal business (Mr Joans) with a maximum of two employees. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1303/VC, P/03/1723/FP, P/04/1114/FP, P/04/0146/FP, P/05/0018/FP

(4) P/05/1168/FP PARK GATE

FOREMAN HOMES NORTH LTD

ERECTION OF 16NO. FLATS WITH 70 BOTLEY ROAD/5 DUNCAN PARKING AND CYCLE STORAGE ROAD - OF WORKING MENS AND ALTERATIONS TO WORKING CLUB PARK GATE MENS CLUB CAR PARK (ALTERNATIVE TO P/04/1156/FP) OFFICERS REPORT - Tony Boswell Ext 2526

Introduction Members will recall that at their meeting on 8 September 2004, they granted planning permission for residential development at this site (P/04/1156/FP refers). This application concerns an amendment to the design of the permitted “Building One” in the central part of the site, behind the working men’s club on Duncan Road and the former “Bastins” shop on Botley Road. In principle the amendment described below is minor in nature, but requires that the permission as a whole be re-issued rather than dealt with in isolation.

Site Description The application site as a whole is situated on the eastern side of Botley Road, and comprises a “Y” shaped area of land formed by the Bastins shop premises at 70 Botley Road, the Working Mens Club at 5 Duncan Road, together with land to the rear of both premises that runs down to the Lower Duncan Road Industrial Estate.

Prior to commencement of development the land was used for shopping, associated parking, Working Mens Club (WMC) and associated parking, and additional land which had no particular beneficial use, i.e. was overgrown and un-used.

There are dramatic changes in levels of land to the rear of Duncan Road and Botley Road. The application site drops some 9 metres from the respective road frontages down to the lowest part of the site at the intersection of the “Y”.


-14- The site adjoins the parking areas to commercial premises fronting Botley

Road, the Lower Duncan Road industrial estate to the north-east, and a recently occupied block of flats to the north (Addison Court). The relevant Building One concerned in this application lies in the lower part of the site, immediately behind the WMC. Description of Proposal Building One was to have included 15 flats together with related parking, bin and cycle stores in its semi basement, which will be at street level in relation to the new spine road serving the development as a whole. The building has now been amended in its ground floor layout to reconfigure the proposed parking and bin/cycle store, with an additional one bedroomed flat at street level on the frontage. In other respects the building would remain near identical to that permitted originally. Being at ground floor level, the proposed flat would have a rear garden or amenity area to its rear. There are further slight changes to the cycle store for Building One and the adjacent layout of parking for the WMC – (although numbers are unchanged). Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review: Policies DG1, DG3, DG4, DG5, H2, S6, S8, R5 and T5 Relevant Planning History Various applications for extensions and alterations to Bastins & WMC. P/04/0574/FP - Demolish existing shop and erection of 49 flats, 3 shops, alterations and extension to club, car parking access road and bin and bike stores - Refused July 2004. Appeal allowed. P/04/1156/FP – Demolish shop & erect 49 flats in 4 storey blocks, 3 shops alterations and extension to club, parking, bin and bike store and access road – Permission October 2004

Representations Advertised in local press, site notice and neighbour notification One letter of objection has been received raising the following issues:

This development has a potential to cause traffic chaos in Botley Road

Concerns about health and safety in respect of deliveries and mechanical plant at work

The road infrastructure simply cannot cope with any more development

More development will increase doctors’ waiting lists

Schools are overcrowded.


-15- Consultations

Chief Planning and Transportation (Highways) - No objection Chief Planning and Transportation (Arborist) – No objection Hampshire Constabulary (Crime Reduction) – No objection Chief Health and Regulatory Services Officer – suggesting conditions regarding noise attenuation relating to the working men’s club and further studies of ground contamination issues. Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions on contamination and water pollution issues. Comments The Committee’s original permission acknowledged that in planning policy terms the application site is situated within the Park Gate Local Centre (Botley Road frontage) and the urban settlement boundary. There is a clear presumption in favour of re-developing the site, retaining frontage shopping, the Working Mens Club (WMC), and developing the remainder of the site for residential development. Furthermore, Government guidance contained in PPG3 “Housing” and PPG13 “Transport” urges higher densities and a better mix of house types, making the most efficient use of urban land as a means of relieving pressure on greenfield sites, encouraging development in sustainable locations, and the imposition of maximum parking standards. The site also adjoins the Park Gate Lower Duncan Road employment area.

The proposed amendment involves the addition of one dwelling, with an arguably slight improvement to parking and bin/cycle storage arrangements. It has no other implications and is hence recommended. In the opinion of officers the changes proposed accords with the Policies of the Adopted Local Plan and is otherwise acceptable.

RECOMMEND:

PERMISSION: Materials, implementation and performance of landscaping scheme, surfacing of all hard surfaced areas, tree protection, boundary treatment and details of retaining walls, Environment Agency conditions, noise attenuation to flats, conditions relating to noise report findings regarding working mens’ club, provision of parking, sight lines, no burning on site, provision of on site affordable housing. site and slab levels.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1168/FP; P/04/1156/FP; P/01/0358/FP; P/04/0574/FP


-16-

(5) P/05/0962/FP SARISBURY

MR AND MRS TODD Agent: THE BRYAN JEZEPH CONSULTANCY

RETENTION OF MOBILE HOME IN ROOKSBRIDGE POULTRY CONNECTION WITH AGRICULTURAL FARM 91A BURRIDGE ROAD USE ON A 3 YEAR TEMPORARY BURRIDGE BASIS OFFICERS REPORT - Kim Hayler Ext 2367

Site Description

The application site is located within an area of countryside to the west of the main built up area of Burridge. It is accessed via a long drive off the south-western arm of the unmetalled portion of Burridge Road.

There are a number of buildings at present on the site, and the mobile home subject of this application. They are in use related to the use of part of the land for the raising of chickens.

The area retains a strong rural character and the site is enclosed by areas of woodland to the north and west. Bloomfield Copse, which is adjacent to the western boundary, is designated as an SSSI.

The site is within the countryside and an area of special landscape character.

Description of Proposal

The applicants are seeking the retention of a mobile home on a 3 year temporary basis.

Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies C1; C3; C4, C9, C10, DG3; DG4 and H11 PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Relevant Planning History P/03/1166/OA - Erection of agricultural workers dwelling –Refused September 2003; dismissed on appeal December 2004. P/02/1288/FP - Erection of single storey building to form stable – Permission November 2002.


-17- An enforcement notice was issues on 28th November 2003 for the change of

use of the land to a mixed use of the land for agricultural and residential (in the mobile home) use. An appeal against that decision resulted in an extended period of compliance to 19th October 2004. Representations Two letters have been received including one from the Burridge & Swanwick Residents’ Association objecting on the following grounds:

Will set a precedent for future development in the area

The retention of the mobile home is the subject of enforcement action

If this proposal was permitted then it would lead to a full application for a permanent dwelling.

Back land development is locked Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objection Chief Health and Regulatory Services Officer – no objection Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Policy) – Policy C1 is most relevant to this application; it states that permission will be granted for development essential for agricultural purposes. C3 states that development must not be prominently sited and grouped within existing buildings, and form part of a farm plan. Policy C10 defines that development must respect or enhance the distinctive character of the land. Policy C9 ensures that there is no loss of essential features or characteristics. Policy H11 permits agricultural or horticulture workers dwellings in the countryside subject to three criteria, the first of which states ‘an overriding need to live on the holding and no other accommodation is available in the vicinity.’ The application for the retention of the mobile home should not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the agricultural activity could sustain the proposed mobile home for a temporary period. Comments Previous planning history The applicant/owner of the land currently lives in a mobile home on the site. Planning permission was refused in September 2003 for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling on the site. On the basis of the limited information received it was considered there was no overriding agricultural need for an additional dwelling in the countryside. A planning enforcement notice was served in November 2003 requiring the use of the land for residential use to cease and the removal of the mobile home.


-18-

An appeal was lodged against the refusal of planning permission and the enforcement notice. The appeal was dismissed as the inspector considered that the introduction of a new dwelling, however modest in size or sympathetic in design would appear out of keeping with the distinctive rural character of the area and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the business could sustain or maintain a dwelling and no firm evidence or projections to support the appellants’ case that profitability will increase was put forward. The enforcement notice was upheld, but the period for compliance extended. It is pertinent to explain that the appeal decision makes it clear that because the correct fee was not paid within the specified period, the appeal on ground (a) and the deemed application for planning permission had lapsed. The planning merits of the development were therefore not considered. The applicant had a different planning adviser then. Current application The current application has been submitted in order to seek to retain the existing mobile home on the site for a temporary period of three years. A supporting statement has been submitted by a national firm of Rural Business Consultants. The statement confirms that it is the clear objective of Mr & Mrs Todd to increase the turnover of the business over the next 3 years. The current business activity is agricultural as defined by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Mr & Mrs Todd brought approximately 5 acres at Rooksbridge Farm in 2003 having been tenants on the site since 1995. The original tenanted holding was approximately 12 acres and included 3 extra buildings than they have now and a mobile home. Substantial investment has been made over the years in the infrastructure of the business including sheds, temporary sheds, fencing and drainage. The main enterprise of the farm is rearing hybrid hens from day old chicks to the point of lay to the general public, including collectors, and to commercial organisations such as farmers for commercial egg production. In addition to the main enterprise there are also ducks and geese reared and the applicant also builds poultry pens and sheds. A considerable part of the business is collecting and incubating eggs.

The applicant has both demonstrated commitment to this project through capital investment and expenditure and demonstrated they wish to carry on expanding the business.


-19- The site is situated in a rural location. There are relatively few properties in

the locality. In order to absolutely ensure sufficient livestock husbandry standards are met to alleviate the security burden, and to be on site in case of an emergency the applicant considers there is a justifiable need to place temporary accommodation on the holding. A financial test in Annex A of PPS7 requires evidence of the size of dwelling which an agricultural unit can sustain and states that an agricultural dwelling should be of a size commensurate with the established functional requirement. The previous appeal inspector concluded that the balance sheet for a single year was inadequate to demonstrate that the business could sustain or maintain the erection of a permanent dwelling on the site. The current application provides financial profitability projections for the next three years demonstrating that profits will increase. The Council have sought an independent assessment from agricultural consultants of the need for a dwelling on the site. The consultant has commented as follows: This present application has been submitted against the background of the previous appeal dismissal for what is ostensibly the same agricultural business. But, crucially, the facts presented with this current application are clear, whereas the ‘facts’ available to the Inspector at the time of the earlier appeal did not accurately describe the nature of the agricultural business undertaken by Mr and Mrs Todd. This present application has been prepared and submitted by a planning consultant and is supported by a professional agricultural report that describes the agricultural enterprise undertaken. It also presents a reasoned argument as to why they consider there to be an essential need for the Todds to live on the site. For the sake of clarity it is also reiterated that this current application seeks permission of the retention of a mobile home, as opposed to seeking permission for a permanent dwelling – for which the planning guidance in PPS7 is significantly different. In terms of addressing the first test; that of intention and ability; I am of the opinion that the Todds do satisfy the test and have demonstrated a commitment to the business and an ability to generate an income from the rearing and growing-on of day-old chicks. The second test; that of functional need. The Todds are engaged in the rearing of poultry which, although not being undertaken on a large scale, does appear capable of generating sufficient funds in the future to be sustained. Although previously it was suggested that the Todds could adequately manage this unit from off-site I consider having properly discussed their operation and seen the way they choose to run the business that this suggestion has inherent difficulties due to:

the fact that this business relies on the constant (or at least properly programmed) availability of birds to be available for sale and that should a


-20- batch of birds be lost there is no way that those birds could be adequately

sourced from other units to fill the shortfall;

the birds reared by the Todds include speciality pure-bred hens that they keep, and the loss of these parent birds would have a significant impact on the profitability of the business;

power cuts; causing potential losses in incubating eggs;

fox and other predator losses;

theft and vandalism. On the issue of the financial test I note that there is a significant difference between the policy requirement for a permanent dwelling and a temporary one. For the former the applicant has to prove that the business is profitable and can be sustained; for a temporary dwelling the test simply requires evidence that the business is planned on a sound financial basis. Details of a sales ledger for the business have been provided which provides a measure of confidence in the projected income figures; this information was not made available at the time of the 2004 appeal. Having examined these figures in detail I consider the assumptions made to be realistic. Assuming that the business grows in the manner predicted, which is mainly the responsibility of the Todds, I consider that the business ought to be sustainable and capable of providing reasonable returns to the inputs deployed; land, labour and capital. In light of the further and better information that has been provided, I consider the only way this unit and enterprise can function properly is with the staff living on, or adjacent to the site. I know of no such properties that are available sufficiently close to meet that need.

Conclusion On the basis of the supporting information provided and the independent assessment undertaken, officers believe that there are material considerations in this case which justify granting temporary planning permission for a three year period. The mobile home is an average size and is not unusually large in relation to the agricultural needs of the unit and the income it can sustain in the long term. The mobile home is sited next to the existing shed out of sight of any neighbouring properties. Officers consider the proposal would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside. RECOMMEND: TEMPORARY PERMISSION: Three years; mobile home for the benefit of Mr & Mrs Todd only; siting as hatched on the approved plan


-21-

BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/0962/FP; P/03/1166/OA; P/02/1288/FP. (6) P/05/1169/FP/O SARISBURY

MR & MRS HAWKINS Agent: MR R E WILDIG

ERECTION OF TWO STOREY SIDE 9 JOHN BUNYAN CLOSE EXTENSION AND REAR WHITELEY CONSERVATORY OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677

Site Description

This application relates to a end-terrace property on the east side of John Bunyan Close which is off Buchan Avenue.

Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought for (i) a two storey side extension which measures 5.5 metres in width, 8.3 metres in depth with an eaves height of 4.6 metres with an ridge height of 8 metres. (ii) rear conservatory which measures 4 metres in depth, 4.8 metres in width with an eaves height of 2.2 metres and a ridge height of 3.3 metres. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG3 and DG5 Relevant Planning History P/02/0296/CU Change of Use of Land to Private Garden and Relief from Conditions 2, 3, and 7 of P/96/1261/RM to Enable the Erection of a Shed, Greenhouse and Hard Standing and Retention of Relocated 6ft. Close Boarded Fence.- Permission 20-05-2002 Representations No letters received Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (arborist) - Has recommended that conditions are attached to the permission to protect nearby trees. Comments The application site consists of an end of terrace property with a detached garage within the rear garden and a shed to the side of the house.


-22-

The two storey side extension is proposed to be attached to the eastern elevation of the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling consists of a gable end style roof at the front (south elevation). The side extension has been designed with a hipped roof to reduce the bulk. A similar extension has previously been approved for a two storey side extension on a property directly opposite the application site (10 John Bunyan). Therefore this style of extension would not look out of character with the surrounding area or the street-scene. The rear conservatory is proposed to have an overall depth of 4 metres. The west elevation, which is closest to the only adjoining neighbour, is proposed to have a total depth of 2.6 metres on the boundary. This depth complies with the extension design guide in relation to extension on the boundary. Officers consider the proposals to be acceptable both in compliance with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and the Council’s approved Extension Design Guide. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Material to match, Protective fencing, Root Protection areas, details of construction BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1169/FP

(7) P/05/1342/FP SARISBURY

PRIDE HOMES LTD Agent: ROMANS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

ERECTION OF THREE DETACHED 206 BOTLEY ROAD HOUSES WITH BALCONIES TO BURRIDGE MASTER BEDROOMS (ALTERNATIVE TO P/05/0799/FP) OFFICERS REPORT - Joanne Wilson Ext 2679

Site Description

The application site comprises of the side garden of 206 Botley Road situated on the south-eastern side of Botley Road. The south-eastern boundary consists of fields; an access road forms the north-east boundary whilst Botley Road forms the north-west boundary.


Permission is sought for the erection of three, four bedroom detached houses, (the existing bungalow will not be demolished;)


-23- The dwellings would measure a maximum of 14.2 metres in depth; 13

metres in width and 8 metres in height;

Four parking spaces would be provided for each of the three houses by an integral double garage and two parking spaces.

Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG3; DG5; H2 and T5 Relevant Planning History P/04/0692/OA – Erection of Three Detached Dwellings with Garages and Formation of Access – Outline Permission 20 July 2004. P/05/0799/FP – Erection of Three Detached Dwellings with Garages with Access – Permission 3 August 2005. Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

Over development of the site by the replacement of one bungalow by three large houses;

Increase in traffic to an already busy road system;

Loss of value to neighbouring properties. Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objections Comments The principle of residential development has already been established at this site and detailed planning permission has previously been granted for the erection of three detached dwellings. The change to the approved plans is an amendment to the rear elevations by the introduction of French doors at first floor with a Juliet balcony in place of windows. Officers considered that the proposed change was too great to deal with as a minor amendment. The alteration would also potentially allow for a remaining flat roofed area to be used as a balcony. Officers consider it necessary to remove permitted development rights to ensure that a balcony cannot be created onto the single storey roof as this would result in overlooking of neighbouring properties. It is considered by officers that with the removal of permitted development rights the proposal is acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review.

RECOMMEND:


-24- PERMISSION: Materials in accordance with approved details; hard surfacing

details to be submitted; no openings in specified elevations; boundary treatment in accordance with approved details; parking; landscaping in accordance with approved details; landscaping implementation; tree protection and arboricultural method statement in accordance with approved details; contamination assessment; levels; no mud on road; hours of construction; no burning. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1342/FP; P/05/0799/FP; P/04/0692/OA

(8) P/05/1234/FP TITCHFIELD as amended by plans received on 7 October 2005 FOREMAN HOMES LTD

ERECTION OF 51 UNITS WITH CAR WHITELEY LANE - PARKING AND GARAGES AND MARLBOROUGH -TITCHFIELD VEHICLE ACCESS FROM WHITELEY LANE OFFICERS REPORT – Joanna Wilson Ext. 2679

Site Description

The site is located on the west side of Whiteley Lane and on the north side of Segensworth Road, characterised with new residential development to the south, east and west

Immediately north of the site is an undeveloped area of land containing trees/grass and tarmac. Further north is an employment area.

The access is proposed from the eastern side of the site, directly from Whiteley Lane.

The site measures some 0.84 ha in area, and currently contains one bungalow, known as Marlborough, with detached ancillary buildings, and a paddock. The site is also used by the occupier of the bungalow as a haulage yard.

The topography of the site varies by some 2.5 metres with the higher land on the northern half of the site sloping down towards the south.

An informal belt of hedgerow trees exists on the southern boundary adjacent to Segensworth Road.

The site forms part of an area designated in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review as an allocated housing site.

Description of Proposal The application proposes the demolition of three dwellings on the site, and the erection of 51 units. These units form a mixture of 35 flats and 16 houses, with the majority of the site contained within 2 storey buildings and with just


-25- the corner being developed to two and a half storeys. Some of the buildings

accommodating the flats have units within the roofspace thus providing accommodation on three levels. At its tallest point the building facing Segensworth Road measures some 10.4 metres from the ground level to the apex of the roof. The tallest section of the building facing Whiteley Lane would be in the region of 10 metres high. The design and articulation of the buildings facing Whiteley Lane and Segensworth Road is such that much of the building will be lower that this. The proposed road servicing the majority of the site runs from Whiteley Lane in a similar location to an existing unmade access servicing outbuildings of the property known as Marlborough. Three dwellings would be accessed individually from Segensworth Road. A highway report has been submitted with the application, demonstrating that the proposed access can provide adequate visibility splays. A footpath is also proposed along Whiteley Lane on the western side to improve safety for pedestrians walking along this road. Within the site car parking provision is stated as providing 50 spaces for the apartments comprising of 1 space for each one bed and 1.5 spaces for the remainder and 2 spaces per house. A tree survey was also submitted with the application and in total the report recommends the felling of a number (61)of trees. The majority of these trees are in a poor condition, but this is also to physically allow the development to proceed. Policies Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review): Policies UB1, UB3, H6, H11, R2, T4, T5. Fareham Borough Local Plan Review (2000): Policies H1, H2, H10, R5, T5, DG2, DG3, DG4, DG5 Relevant Planning History P/00/1313/FP – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of nine dwellings – Withdrawn 5 March 2002; P/00/1312/FP - Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of nine dwellings – Withdrawn 16 February 2001; P/04/0673/FP – Erection of twenty six houses and flats with car parking, garages and vehicular access – Refused 6 August 2004; P/04/1397/FP – Erection of 25 units with car parking, garages and vehicular access from Whiteley Lane; Withdrawn 30 November 2004


-26- P/04/1398/FP – Erection of 51 units with car parking and garages and

vehicular access from Whiteley Lane – Refused 10 December 2004 – Appeal lodged 7 January 2005

Representations Three letters of objection have been received raising the following issues:

Overdevelopment of the site

Adverse impact upon schooling

Impact upon parking – particularly off-road for the residents in the proposed development

Concern about overlooking/loss of privacy

Out of character with the area

Increase in traffic

Inadequate number of car parking spaces provided

Proposed access via Whiteley will cause impact upon traffic safety as there is a black- spot in the corner turning from Segensworth Road

Concerns over loss of trees which add character to the area

Housing rather than flats would be more appropriate. Consultations Chief Strategic Housing Officer – In accordance with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and the SPG for affordable housing. The mix of on site affordable provision has been agreed. Hampshire Constabulary – No observations or comments to make. Chief Health and Regulatory Services Officer (Environment Health) – No objection subject to conditions. The past use of the site and surrounding land may have caused the land to be affected by contamination and in need of a scheme of remediation to ensure that the land is suitable for the proposed use. The proposed dwelling is to be located close to busy roads and a noise assessment should be provided. Chief Planning & Transportation Officer (Highways) – The site falls within a low accessibility area. The amount of on site parking is below the maximum allowable within the Council’s Local Practice Note. As 1.6 spaces would be provided across the site it would not be appropriate to recommend refusal on this issue.

Hampshire County Council (Archaeologist) –No objection subject to a phased programme of archaeological work been carried out and subject to conditions. Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – No objection subject to conditions. English Heritage – No objection Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions


-27-

Comments The previous scheme now subject of an appeal was refused as a result of the limited area of amenity space provided for the flats and the relationship to highways and parking areas which would have resulted in unacceptable amenity areas; in addition the application was refused as a planning obligation was not completed which secured a financial contribution to highway improvements, public open space and to avoid the creation of a ransom strip. Main Issues

Design

Amenity space

Impact on the character of the area and amenity space

Impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties

Highway Matters

The development is allocated in the adopted Local Plan as a housing site; the principle of the development is acceptable. The development now proposed broadly follows the previous layout.

Design With regard to the design of the buildings, these are considered to be of a good quality with an attractive distinct style. Although 2½ storey elements are not found within immediate developments, it is not considered to harm the surrounding area, and indeed will create more of a focus for this relatively prominent site on the corner of the estate. Limiting the taller buildings to the lower half of the site, this will not harm the appearance of the area in the view of officers.

Amenity Space

The previous application was refused as a limited area of amenity space was provided for the flats and the amenity space shown was close to highways and parking areas. The level of amenity space now shown is in accordance with the 25 square metres normally sought by the Local Plan. The amenity spaces shown would be separated from parking areas through hedging and landscaping. This would ensure that they would now be useable; in addition those areas adjacent to the highway can now be used by the ground floor flats, as doors are shown to enable access onto these areas. These areas will also be screened by hedging to lessen any impact from the use of the highway. Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties A number of comments have been received from concerned neighbours regarding the impact of the development on the amenities of their own properties, particularly with regard to privacy, overbearing aspect, noise and


-28- disturbance, and overshadowing. None of the new properties are considered

close enough to existing properties to cause a material degree of overshadowing, and all meet the Council’s guidelines for distances between existing and proposed buildings as contained in appendix 6 of the Local Plan. The flats proposed adjacent the junction of the site are located 12.5 metres from the rear garden of 14 & 18 Orpine Close at their closest point. Those flats opposite no.1 Orpine Close would be located approximately 20 metres from the rear garden of that property. This relationship has improved from the previous scheme and Members should be aware that this was not a reason for refusal on the last scheme. It is considered by officers that the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. Highway Matters

The applicant has satisfied the Council’s Highway Engineers that the access is safe, and that the proposed footpath on the western side of Whiteley Lane will result in an improvement to the safety of the road for pedestrians. The Engineers have commented that the parking provision is below the maximum requirement. The development overall provides 1.6 spaces per dwelling which is in line with Government Guidance in PPG3. The guidance specifically states:

‘Car parking standards that result, on average, in development with more than 1.5 off-street car parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the Government’s emphasis on securing sustainable residential development’.

In addition bearing in mind the emphasis in PPG3 and PPG13 to use parking standards as maximum standards, and the significant amount of cycle parking/storage provided within the flats it is not considered that the shortfall warrants a reason for refusal on this particular issue.

Summary This application relates to the development of all but a small area of the land remaining within the Segensworth North development area. Access to the last remaining area should be safeguarded through a planning obligation. The construction of larger buildings along the Segensworth Road and Whiteley Lane frontage to accommodate flats would enable the introduction of varying interesting buildings in the opinion of officers. Notwithstanding the objections received officers believe that subject to the imposition of suitable conditions the scheme is acceptable.

RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: details of external materials; landscape details and implementation; tree protection; contamination assessment and remedial works, parking provision and retention; site visibility splays; site and floor levels; access road to be constructed in entirety to base course before any


-29- dwelling is occupied unless otherwise agreed; specified plots to be used as

affordable housing only; affordable housing to be provided before 25 private housing units are occupied; boundary treatment; hard surfacing materials; no burning; no mud of highways; construction hours; parking details for site operatives/vehicles etc; noise attenuation for dwellings; sight lines to be provided and retained; roller shutter garage door to be used for Plots 46 and 46. Further Information

1. The desk top study should be in accordance with British Standards Institute BS 10175: 2001 Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice and should be carried out by or under the supervision of suitability qualified competent person. This person should be a chartered member of an appropriate professional body and have experience in investigating contaminated sites.

2. Please note that commercial property searches available over the internet are not considered to be sufficiently detailed enough to constitute a desk study in the context of the above condition. These desk studies do not formulate a conceptual model for the site neither do they qualitatively risk assess the site. They should not be used. Please do contact Wendy Harrison, Contaminated Land Officer to discuss this in more detail.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1234/FP; P/00/1312/FP; P/00/1313/FP; P/04/0673/FP; P/04/1397FP; P/04/1398/FP

(9) P/05/1398/VC TITCHFIELD

MR & MRS ASQUITH

VARY CONDITION3 OF P/04/0637/FP 25 PURSLANE GARDENS TO CHANGE WINDOW TYPE TO FLAT FAREHAM OBSCURE GLAZED WITH TOP OPENER & RIGHT HAND RESTRICTOR OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677

Site Description

This application relates to a semi-detached dwelling on the west side of Purslane Gardens which is south of Segensworth Road.

Description of Proposal Relief of condition 3 of P/04/0637/FP which states:- None of the development hereby approved shall be brought into use until the first floor window as marked in blue on the approved plan on the western elevation of the two storey side extension hereby approved has been obscure


-30- glazed and fixed shut. This window shall subsequently be retained in that

condition at all times. REASON: To prevent overlooking and to protect the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent property in accordance with Policy DG5 of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. The window to be inserted was in the form of an oriel window partly fixed and obscure and partly opening. However on construction of an approved extension a standard flat opening clear glazed window was inserted. Following investigation by enforcement an application was submitted for the relief of the condition to change the window from an oriel to a flat obscure glazed window with high level opener at 1.7 metres above internal floor level. This application was approved by committee on 10 August 2005. However this has not been implemented as it does not meet building regulation in terms of means of escape. This current application has been submitted to change the design of the flat window to be obscure glazed made up of three panes one to have a high level opener at 1.7 metres internal floor level, the middle pane to be fixed shut and the last pane to have a side opener with a restrictor fitted. This window would meet building regulation requirements. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review –DG5 Relevant Planning History P/04/0637/FP Erection of Two Storey Side and Rear Extensions and Detached Garage following Demolition of Outbuildings permission 25-06-2004 P/05/0790/VC Vary Condition 3 of P/04/0637/FP to Change Window type to Flat Obscure Glazed and Fixed Shut with High Level Openers - Permission 23-08-2005 Representations One letter has been received with no grounds stated but on the previous application there was the issue raised regarding the following:-

Invasion of privacy (overhearing of conversations) Comments The application site abuts a new residential development which is still under construction called Wild Flower Drive which is located to the rear of 109-115 Segensworth Road and is to the west of the application site.


-31- A condition was placed on the previous approved application for the two storey

extension, which was for the oriel window within the west elevation to be partly fixed shut and obscure glazed to prevent overlooking of the neighbouring property to the west. An additional application was submitted to vary the condition placed on the window to regularise a flat window fitted with obscure glazing fixed shut up to 1.7 metres from internal floor level which was approved at committee. This design of window did not comply with building regulations therefore this current application has been submitted to change the design. The window would still be fitted with obscure glazing and have one top opener but one pane would have a side opener with a restrictor fitted. Officers consider that with the restrictor fitted and obscure glazing there would not be a detrimental impact created on the privacy of the neighbouring property . The window would then comply with building regulations for an escape route in the case of a fire. Officers consider the application to be acceptable incompliance with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Window to obscure glazed, details of restrictor, works to be undertaken within 1 month, restrictor to be retained at all times BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1398/VC

(10) P/05/1104/FP WARSASH

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

INSTALLATION OF A JETTY SHORE ROAD - FORESHORE CONSISTING OF A 90M X 2M WARSASH PONTOON. OFFICERS REPORT - Kim Hayler Ext 2367

Site Description

The site lies on the western side of Shore Road, adjacent to the public slipway and public car park.

The site is situated on the Main River Hamble partially within the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC); within 50 metres of the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and the Lee-on-the-Solent to Itchen Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).


-32-

Description of Proposal The works consist of the installation of a fisherman’s pontoon comprising a 90 metre x 2 metre wide pontoon extending from the adjacent public amenity area out into the river. At the outer end a 20 metre x 3 metre ‘L’ shaped landing pontoon will be positioned at right angles to the main walkway. The pontoons would be secured by 4 piles. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies C1; C6; C7; ;C8; C13; C14; DG4; DG5; HE4; HE6. Relevant Planning History P/99/0213/CC – Environmental improvements to car park and slipway and setting of harbour masters office and war memorial - Permission April 1999 Representations

Seven letters have been received raising the following issues:

Will cause obstruction to the use by the general public in the launching and recovery of sailing and motor boats from the Warsash Hard

Concerns regarding safety along an unsupervised pontoon

Safety considerations for the fishermen transporting their heavy catch along the pontoon

Maintenance cost would be far above the estimate in the application due to the pontoon being in a very exposed position liable to storm damage

Concerns regarding ‘safe navigation’ as the proposed jetty sticks out into the existing line of approach and exit to the long standing public hard

It will make it more dangerous for vessels to achieve a safe approach in the strong tide in this section of the River Hamble

Loss of public amenity

A better solution can be achieved

Difficulty in getting in out of berth

Dangerous for dinghies launching and recovering

Would prefer to see the jetty shorter and having a rule allowing one boat at a time to use the jetty.

Would cause obstruction and would appear to form a barrier, presenting dangerous conditions and cutting off easy access from the north

Risk to members of the general public who may walk and play on the pontoon


-33-

Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) - It is not foreseen that any extra traffic will be generated by the proposal, therefore no objection

Environment Agency - No objection subject to mitigation and enhancement to offset the loss of this intertidal area in relation to their Solent Coastal Habitat Action Plan objectives. Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Countryside Officer) – no objection subject to conditions and an equivalent area of intertidal mud habitat being released as compensation for the loss of intertidal mud as a result of the new pontoons siting on the intertidal at low water. The Crown Estate – no objection English Nature - no objection subject to conditions Comments

Currently the local fishing fleet are secured to moorings in the middle of the River Hamble. At the end of each working shift their catch is transferred ashore in small low freeboard tenders sometimes heavily loaded. The tenders are also used to transfer equipment to and from the fishing vessels. The catch is placed on the training wall immediately upstream of the existing public slipway at Warsash from where it is collected and loaded into vans and or trucks. Often the catch is transferred in the hours of darkness. An independent review of this procedure has identified the need for risk improvement measure to be put in place. The proposed pontoon is itself proposed as a risk improvement measure. The proposed jetty would be used by commercial fisherman to land their catches. These are expected to consist of oysters, cockles, mussels, squid and other white fish. Fisherman would be able to load their catch directly into cooler trucks from the jetty that will drive onto the slipway. There will be no need for access onto the public decking area for fisherman and their catch. No loading or unloading will take place on the public decking or the walkway. The current loading areas will not change; all loading will take place on the slipway as is the case at this time. The pontoon is required at the proposed length in order to ensure it is available at all states of the tide with sufficient depth of water. The proposed pontoon would be sited 28 metres from the Warsash Sailing Club jetty providing room for other boats to manoeuvre.

The applicant has undertaken a risk assessment for the proposed development. In light of the fact that the Harbour Authority is the applicant in this case, the Council have sought an independent risk assessment on the proposal which concluded:


-34-

‘The introduction of the fisherman’s jetty will reduce the level of risk to the commercial fishermen and also improve navigational safety in the immediate area thus reducing hazards to both fishermen and other River users. The risk assessment has identified a number of risk improvements which when introduced reduce the identified risks to manageable levels. Attention is drawn to the fact that risk assessment is a process requiring review and as a consequence the risk assessment should be updated based on the experience of operation.’ Discussions with the various consultee organisations, in particular English Nature and the Environment Agency resulted in the applicant offering mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures in order to minimise the loss of inter-tidal habitats. These mitigation measures would further benefit the immediate area and consist of the following:

Remove from the foreshore at Warsash 18 concrete blocks;

Remove from the bank at Bursledon Bend, two disused landing pontoons that are resting on the mud.

Conclusion In summary officers consider that the proposal is acceptable in terms of navigational safety, visual terms and nature conservation interests. RECOMMEND: Subject to the owner/applicant first completing a section 106 Agreement on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council addressing mitigation of mudflat loss through the setting aside and future management of non-designated mudflat for nature conservation purposes by 18 November 2005. PERMISSION: Non-percussive pile driving should be used. OR If the requested planning obligation is not completed by 18 November 2005. REFUSE: Contrary to policy, impact on nature conservation BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1104/FP; P/99/0213/CC


-35-

(11) P/05/1395/FP/O WARSASH MR & MRS M WILLIAMS Agent: MR R E WILDIG

ERECTION OF TWO STOREY/FIRST 25 GREENAWAY LANE FLOOR FRONT EXTENSION WARSASH (ALTERNATIVE TO P/05/1077/FP) OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677

Site Description

This application relates to detached dwelling on the south side of Greenaway Lane which is to the east of Lockswood Road

Description of Proposal Planning permission has previously been granted for the following though not yet implemented:- Two storey extension – 4 metres in depth, 5.5 metres in width with an eaves height of 4.7 metres and a ridge height of 7.5 metres. First floor extension – 5.5 metes in depth, 5.5 metres in width with an eaves height of 4.7 and a ridge of 7.5 metres This current application has a different roof design from the previous approved application. The approved roof was hipped with a front dormer within the north elevation the new roof is shown to be a gable end replacing the front dormer. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review –DG3 and DG5 Relevant Planning History P/05/1077/FP Erection of Two Storey/ First Floor Front Extension Incorporating Front Dormer Permission - 08-09-2005 Representations No letters received at the time of writing this report. Neighbour notification expiries on 03-11-05 Comments The application site consists of a detached dwelling with a double garage which is attached to the main house. The garage is positioned to the front of the dwelling a distance of 4.7 metres from the road.


-36- The application has been submitted to extend at first floor level over the

double garage with a small two storey element which is tucked behind the garage along the eastern boundary. The neighbouring property to the east has no habitable windows within the west elevation of their property that would look onto the proposal therefore no impact would be created with regards to light to habitable rooms. Officers consider the current application with the roof alteration to be acceptable with no detrimental impact on the street scene or on any neighbouring properties. The application is incompliance with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and the Council’s Approved Extension Design Guide. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to Match BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1395/FP


-37-

MISCELLANEOUS ITEM

(1) TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION 279 BOTLEY ROAD, BURRIDGE

(P/03/0435/FP) OFFICERS REPORT: Alan Wells Ext 2431 Introduction Complaints have been made about this two storey extension, the erection of which is now well advanced. The complaints refer to impact upon side windows to the living room of the adjacent bungalow taking away light and sun ignoring the Ancient Light Act 1829 by creating a dungeon effect. Reference is also made to adverse impact on television reception and possibly upon the chimney to the living room. This report deals with the planning issues raised by the complaints. The Committee made a site inspection on the 13th October 2005. Planning Permission P/03/0435/FP The property at 279 Botley Road was, when this application was considered, a chalet bungalow with a barn hipped roof. That roof contained dormer windows and roof lights. To the north-east is the complainant’s bungalow that before the commencement of the development the subject of this application, was a little over 5 metres from the side elevation of the chalet bungalow with its front wall set forward of the front wall of 279 Botley Road. The initially submitted application for a two storey extension was received on 24 March 2003, and proposed a two storey extension to the north-east of the existing dwelling with a ridge height the same as that of the existing dwelling. It was a little over 3 metres in width and some 2.1 metres from the side wall of the complainant’s bungalow. The extension was of substantial depth (11.2 metres and 12 metres including a bay window) with a rear projection some 3 metres deep beyond the main rear wall of 279 Botley Road and some 5.8 metres beyond the rear part of 281 Botley Road which has a conservatory to the rear of the living room referred to above. The front of the extension was shown in line with the existing forward most part of 279 Botley Road. The side wall of the extension was shown slightly behind (0.15m) the most forward of one of two side windows in the side elevation of the complainant’s property. These two windows are in the south-western elevation of the bungalow


-38- and serve the living room along with a pair of french windows that lead into the

conservatory referred to above. The occupier of the two adjacent dwellings, including the complainant, were notified about the application but did not comment upon those plans. The case officer’s recollection is that she spoke to the complainant who was concerned about the extent of the rear extension proposed since it would impact upon the main source of light to her living room (by way of the french windows). Subsequently an amended plan was submitted with the rear projection reduced by 3 metres and an addition to the front, 1.7 metres further forward (0.9 metres forward of the bay window) than the initial scheme. No further publicity was given to the application and permission was granted by officers under their delegated powers. It was concluded that the scheme was substantially improved in that the two side windows on the complainant’s property served little purpose because of their limited size and curtained condition when the site was inspected which seemed confirmed by the lack of comment upon the initial scheme and the oral comments recalled by the case officer. Officer Comments Had the complainant been given the opportunity to comment upon the amended plan and objected to it then the application would have been determined by the Committee. It is important therefore that consideration is given to this proposal having regard for relevant policies, including the Extension Design Guide, and the other circumstances described above. Details of the scheme will be displayed at the meeting.

Relevant Policies are in Fareham Borough Local Plan Review: DG3, DG5 and C1, and the Extension Design Guide.

Relevant Planning History is a planning application (P/02/0950/FP) for erection of a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension with swimming pool that was withdrawn.

Planning permission was granted ( P/02/1521/FP 25 Southmead) for the erection of a single and one and a half storey side extension to a property situated 1-2 metres from the neighbouring property. The neighbour had 2 small side windows within the south western elevation which served a lounge; the lounge had another light source to the front and rear. The neighbour made a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman alleging he was not given enough notice to make a deputation. In investigating the complaint, the Ombudsman was satisfied that had the neighbour made a deputation this would not have affected the decision of the Committee. The decision was therefore considered sound.


-39- Significant policy issues are the impact that the development has upon the

surrounding area in terms of whether it is in keeping with the surrounding area in terms of scale, form, height, mass and space around and between buildings; the design of the development and whether it respects privacy, outlook and sunlight.

The height and scale of the extension respects that of the existing dwelling and nearby development, whilst the distance between the extension and the complainant’s property is in excess of 2 metres and provides adequate space to retain the character of the area.

The complainant draws specific attention to the loss of light from the extension because of the proximity of it to two side windows.

Clearly there will be light loss since the two windows are essentially south facing though they are limited in size and based on the experience of officers are curtained with net curtains.

The room that they serve is some 3.5m by 4.10m in size with french windows to the rear as a main light source.

The Extension Design Guide (referred to in DG5) is a material consideration in assessing the planning merits of the scheme and therein refers to the expectation that normally with secondary windows in relation to a two storey extension a minimum distance of 4 metres would be retained.

In this case, however, there are three windows serving this relatively small room and I believe this to be a material consideration.

On the balance of relevant considerations I believe the amended scheme to be an acceptable one. The changes from the initial scheme were made to address the impact upon the complainant’s property including specifically the living room by reducing the rear projection.

Conclusion I believe it would have been appropriate to re-consult upon the amended plans, despite the complainant not commenting upon the initially submitted proposals and, as I understand it, saying to the case officer that her concern was with the rear element of the extension. Nonetheless I believe that having regard for the specific circumstances of this case, including the size of the living room and the number and nature of windows serving it, that the decision made earlier was soundly based. The right to light legislation is a private matter and not a material planning consideration. The issue of the chimney raised by the complainant has been assessed and does not fall within the specific requirements of the Building Act 1984 by virtue of its distance from the development (it is over 6 feet from the development).


-40- Television reception is not a planning issue and details of the appropriate contact

for such complaints will be passed to the complainant. RECOMMEND:

That the Committee endorses the decision made upon this application but ask officers to apologise for the failure to consult upon the amended plans.

(2) P/05/0635/FP – ERECTION OF REAR CONSERVATORY 12 GRASSYMEAD, TITCHFIELD COMMON Officers Report: Alan Wells Ex 2431

Introduction

The above application was received on 10 May 2005. Neighbour notification letters were posted on 17 May 2005. In error the occupiers of No.11 Grassymead were not notified. The application was determined under delegated powers on 24 June 2005 when planning permission was granted. Construction works have recently commenced. An occupier of No.11 Grassymead has contacted the Council complaining that they were not notified about the application. They are concerned by the proximity of the conservatory to their property and by its height. The application site is an end of terrace property to the north of Grassymead. The complainant’s property adjoins the application site. The application was for a conservatory 3.1 metres in depth, the full width of the property with a ridge height of 3.2 metres. The complainant’s property extends 1.5 metres further back to the rear than the application property. Although the conservatory will be 3.1 metres in depth, it will therefore extend only 1.6 metres beyond the main rear wall of the complainant’s property. The complainant has a rear conservatory close to the boundary which is 3.9 metres in depth. The Fareham Borough Council Extension Design Guide states that single storey extensions up to three metres in length on the property boundary are normally acceptable. In this instance, however, the complainant’s conservatory extends out to the rear by over 2 metres beyond the permitted conservatory at the application site. Officers Comments In officers opinion the proposal complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review (Policies DG3 and DG5 are particularly relevant) and Extension Design Guide. It is officers view that notwithstanding the comments made by the complainant, there is no planning basis to resist the conservatory.

RECOMMEND: That the decision is upheld.


-41-

ZONE 2 – FAREHAM North North West West East South


-42-

(12) P/05/1308/CU FAREHAM EAST MR M STOKER

USE OF DOUBLE GARAGE AS 36 GEOFFREY CRESCENT BUSINESS PREMISES FOR FAREHAM BLACKSMITHS COMPANY (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION) OFFICERS REPORT - Clare Roberts Ext 2428

Site Description

This application relates to an end of terrace dwelling, in particular the garage which is located to the rear of the site. The site is located on the western side of Geoffrey Crescent, north of the junction with Gosport Road.

Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the double garage for use as a blacksmiths. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG1, DG3, DG5, T5 Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

The use causes extra traffic to the detriment of Geoffrey Crescent

When is a garage not a garage? Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objection Chief Health and Regulatory Services Officer – No objection Comments The application is for the change of use of the garage for the use as a blacksmith, it is a retrospective application and the use has been in operation for approximately two years. The applicant works alone and visits his clients; therefore no one visits the property in connection with the business except from an occasional delivery of materials. The applicant works between Monday and Friday 9am - 5pm and the occasional Saturday 9 am – 1pm. The Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) originally raised concern to the loss of the garage and the resultant loss of car parking. The applicant


-43- already has one car parking space at the front of their house and are prepared

to add an extra space within the rear garden. This would therefore provide two off road car parking spaces and overcome highways and the objectors reasons for concern. Officers are of the opinion that the use is acceptable due to the limited nature of the business and the size of the building. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Personal condition, hours of use, no staff, no visitors, car parking business use limited to garage only. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1308/CU

(13) P/05/1369/FP/O FAREHAM EAST

MRS L S HOLTON

ERECTION OF REAR CONSERVATORY 15 ALDERS ROAD FAREHAM OFFICERS REPORT - Clare Roberts Ext 2428

Site Description

This application relates to a semi-detached dwelling on the southern side of Alders Road, east of the junction with Gosport Road

Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought for the erection of a rear conservatory. The conservatory would measure 3.1 metres in depth, 3.1 metres in width with an eaves height of 2 metres in height and a ridge height of 2.9 metres. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG5 Relevant Planning History FBC.7383 – Erection of a rear extension – Permission – 09-09-1974 Comments This application is for a rear conservatory, the adjoining property to the west also has a conservatory built within close proximity to the boundary, and therefore the proposed conservatory would not have a detrimental impact on the adjoining neighbours. Officers consider that the proposal is acceptable


-44- and complies with Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and the adopted

Fareham Borough Council Extension Design Guide. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1369/FP

(14) P/05/1298/FP/O FAREHAM NORTH

MR AND MRS GREENWOOD

ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR 15 BRUCE CLOSE EXTENSION, REPLACEMENT UPVC FAREHAM CANOPY AND TO CONSTRUCT PITCHED ROOF OVER EXISTING FRONT FLAT ROOF OFFICERS REPORT - Clare Roberts Ext 2428

Site Description

This application relates to a semi-detached dwelling on the eastern side of Bruce Close, north of the junction with Somervell Drive.

Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey rear extension, a replacement UPVC canopy and to construct a pitched roof over the exiting flat roof at the front of the dwelling. The rear extension would measure 4 metres in depth, 4.4 metres in width, with an eaves height of 2.6 metres and a ridge height of 3.4 metres. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG3 and DG5 Relevant Planning History FBC.3707/52 - Extension and garage – Permission – 01-09-1971 Comments The application forms three parts, the pitched roof on the front elevation would not have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties or the streetscene. The UPVC canopy replaces the existing canopy and therefore would not have any detrimental impacts on neighbouring properties. The rear extension would be set off southern boundary by 3.4 metres and 4.4 metres


-45- from the northern boundary, therefore the proposal would not have a

detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties. Officers consider that the proposal is acceptable and complies with Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and the adopted Fareham Borough Council Extension Design Guide. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to match

BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1298/FP

(15) P/05/1340/FP FAREHAM NORTH

MR D COOKE Agent: MR A J GRIFFITHS

ERECT TWO STOREY SIDE EXTN 47 PARK LANE SINGLE STOREY SIDE/REAR FAREHAM EXTN INCORPORATING GARAGE AND REAR CONSERVATORY OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677

Site Description

This application relates to a detached property on the west side of Park Lane south of Kiln Road.

Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought for:- Single storey side extension measuring 3.7 metres in width, 10 metres in depth with an eaves height of 2.4 metres and ridge of 3.9 metres Two storey rear extension measuring 5 metres in width, 4.1 metres in depth with an eaves height of 5.1 metres and a ridge height of 7 metres. Rear conservatory measuring 4.7 metres in depth 4.1 metres in width with an eaves height of 2.5 metres and a ridge height of 3.5 metres Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG3 and DG5 Relevant Planning History P/05/0608/FP Erection of Two Two Storey Side/Rear Extensions and Rear Conservatory - Refused 29-06-2005


-46- Representations

One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

Garage would be obtrusive

Loss of amenities

Loss of light

Loss of view Consultations Chief of Planning & Transportation Officer (highways) – No Objection Comments This application has been submitted on a detached dwelling on the west side of Park Lane. The application is a resubmission following a recent refusal which was refused on the following grounds:- The proposal is contrary to Polices DG3 (a), DG5 (b) and H3 of the adopted Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and is otherwise unacceptable in that: (i) by virtue of its size, overall bulk, proximity to the northern boundary of the site and relationship with No.49 Park Lane the two storey side extension would result in an unacceptable loss of space about the building and the loss of a visual gap to the detriment of the visual amenities, and special characteristics of the area and to the outlook available from rear windows to this property to the detriment of the living condition currently available to them. (ii) the proposed two storey rear extension is unacceptable in that the proximity of the side extension to the main side window in the property to the south No. 45 would have an unacceptable and adverse impact upon the outlook from and light available to the residents of that property to detriment of the living conditions currently available to them. The proposal has been altered to overcome the previous reasons for refusal by deleting the second storey which was along the northern boundary (No 49), setting the remaining single storey extension 1 metre off the boundary and obscure glazing a window within the side elevation of No 45 (which is owned by the applicant). The objection raised regarding loss of light, amenities and the garage would be obtrusive has been taken into account but officers consider that the single storey side extension is acceptable due to the distance away from the neighbour’s windows and the proposed roof hipping away from the boundary. Officers consider the application to be acceptable, in compliance with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and the Councils Approved Extension Design Guide. RECOMMEND:


-47- PERMISSION: Materials to Match, Withdraw Pd rights north and south

elevations BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1340/FP

(16) P/05/1380/FP FAREHAM NORTH-WEST

MR S TOUT Agent: DEREK TREAGUS ASSOCIATES

ERECTION OF A PAIR OF SEMI- 52 FAREHAM PARK ROAD DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH FAREHAM ASSOCIATED PARKING OFFICERS REPORT - Joanne Wilson Ext 2679

Site Description

The application site comprises of a detached property situated on the western side of Fareham Park Road just north of the junction with Tewkesbury Avenue

The site currently consists of a detached bungalow with an existing access onto Fareham Park Road

The site is currently overgrown with vegetation along most of the boundaries


Permission is sought for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of two semi-detached chalet bungalows, both with three bedrooms;

The dormer windows would measure 5.9 metres in height; 10.4 metres in depth and 10.3 metres in width;

Parking would be provided by a hardstanding at the front of the properties with two spaces for each property.

Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG3; DG4; DG5; T5; H2 and R5 Relevant Planning History P/05/0724/FP – Demolition of Existing Dwelling and the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings – Refused 18 July 2005 Representations


-48- At the time of writing this report two letters have been received objecting on

the following grounds:

Over-development of the site;

Out of character with the neighbouring properties.

The publicity period expires on the 27 October 2005. The application has been publicised by notifying neighbours and a site notice. Any letters subsequently received will be reported at the meeting. Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objections. Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – there are no significant trees affected by the development and therefore no adverse impact in arboricultural terms. Chief Health and Regulatory Services Officer – no objection Comments The previous application was refused as it was considered that the overall bulk and mass of the roof of the semi-detached dwellings would have resulted in a development of a scale out of keeping with the immediate surrounding properties to the detriment of the visual amenities and character of the area. The main issues which need to be considered in the determination of this application are:

Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties

Impact on the character of the area . Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties In general terms the layout of the scheme is acceptable and complies with the separation distances required by Policy DG5 (and set out in Appendix 6 of the adopted Fareham Borough Local Plan Review). The neighbouring property to the north-west has three main principal windows in the side elevation facing onto the proposal. There would be a separation of 7.6 metres from the closest point of the proposed building to this property. The Council’s normal practice is to secure a separation of at least 6 metres from the sole window of a habitable room at the side of a dwelling to a two storey flank wall. As well as exceeding the distance of 6 metres the proposed flank wall is not two storey in scale. With regard to the impact on the property to the south-east, this property comprises of a bungalow with linked attached garage to the side. This property has a number of windows in the side elevation but these windows are


-49- positioned behind an existing garage. In addition there is a separation of 5.3

metres between these windows and the proposed buildings. Officers consider that it would be necessary to restrict any windows inserted into the flank walls facing these properties to be obscure glazed and fixed shut to a height of 1.7 metres above internal finished floor level. Officers consider that the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact on the residential amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. Impact on the character of the area The area consists of a mix of plot sizes and house types comprising of detached bungalows adjacent to the application site, semi-detached bungalows directly opposite, and two storey semi-detached houses to the north of the site. The proposed semi-detached chalet bungalows have been reduced in height by 0.60 metres from those previously refused; the dwellings would now be slightly lower than the ridge height of both adjoining dwellings. It is considered that as a result the proposal would not look out of character or result in a detrimental impact on the streetscene. Officers consider that the proposal is acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review.

RECOMMEND:

PERMISSION: materials to be submitted; boundary treatment; windows at first floor level within side elevations to be obscure glazed and fixed up to 1.7 metres; no other openings at first floor within side elevation; levels to be agreed; parking; landscaping; landscaping implementation; hours of construction; no burning; no mud on roads; drainage details to be agreed. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1380/FP; P/05/0724/FP

(17) P/05/1322/FP FAREHAM SOUTH

LINDEN HOMES SOUTHERN LIMITED Agent: WHITE YOUNG GREEN

ERECTION OF 44 NO. FLATS AND 93 REDLANDS LANE - FORMER 3 NO. HOUSES ASSOCIATED ELLIOTS SITE PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND ACCESS OFFICERS REPORT – Tony Boswell Ext 2433

Site Description

The site is the former “Elliot’s” builder’s merchant yard on Redlands Lane. Cams Alders Playing Field lies to the south with a public footpath and


-50- landscaping immediately to the south, with a public footpath and landscaping

immediately adjoining the boundary. To the north are the grounds and various buildings of St. John’s Church, including the Vicarage. To the south west of the site is Upper St Michaels Grove serving rear garages of properties in Highfield Avenue, and the flats of St Michael’s House. On the Redlands Lane frontage, number 91 lies immediately to the north of the site, 116 and 116a are immediately opposite with the return frontage of number 1 Chamberlain Grove. The site has a frontage of 76 metres to Redlands Lane and an overall area of 0.52 hectares.

Description of Proposals The bulk of the proposal would be grouped around a new vehicular entrance towards the northern end of the frontage some 43 metres from Chamberlain Grove opposite the southern part of the site. Between that entrance and the existing house at 91 Redlands Lane would be a terrace of three x 2½ storey houses with gardens to their rear. To the south of the entrance, opposite number 1 Chamberlain Grove, would be a 2½ storey building of 1 and 2 bedroomed flats. The upper floor within the roof space faces only into the development and thus the elevation to Redlands Lane is that of a two storey building – with slightly taller roof than normal. Abutting that building and continuing south around to the boundary onto Cams Alders would be a further building of 2 and 3 storeys containing further 1 and 2 bedroomed flats. In the centre of Cams Alders frontage would be a larger 3 and 3½ storey building also containing 1 and 2 bedroomed flats. Finally, towards the rear and reached from Upper St Michaels Grove would be a further 2 and 2½ storey building containing 8 x 1 and 2 bedroomed flats. Alongside the above would be a landscaped car park with 17 car spaces accessed from that same direction. Accessed from the main access to Redlands Lane would be a further of 45 car spaces – 6 within car ports. Resident’s amenity area, in the form of communal areas, private terraces, and balconies have been provided at the site. As an average across the site the level of space provided exceeds 25 square metres per unit. Materials are intended to be brick and tile throughout, with horizontal timber cladding used at upper floor levels. Internal bin and secure cycle stores are all provided within or alongside the ground floor lobbies of the buildings concerned. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review policies DG1, DG3, DG4, DG5, H2, R5 H10 and T5. Relevant Planning History P/05/0633/FP – 49 Flats and 3 Houses - Refused May 2005 - Appeal Lodged


-51- P/05/0941/FP – 49 Flats and 3 Houses – Refused August 2005 – Appeal

Lodged Representations Nineteen letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

Height of buildings – particularly in relation to bungalows in Chamberlain Grove opposite “Block “E” (2½ storey flats).

The development is forward of the original building line established by Elliot’s building and 91 Redlands Lane – thus Redlands Lane may never be widened in future?

Likelihood of overspill parking in surrounding area

Requesting that Chamberlain Grove have a resident’s only parking scheme.

Additional traffic onto Redlands Lane – particularly in light of other flats proposed in the vicinity. Suggestion of a mini-roundabout at the junction of Redlands Lane and St Michael’s Grove to slow traffic?

Is sewerage capacity adequate as smells are already evident?

Precedent for development of Cams Alders Playing Field?

Danger of future residents using the church car park

Concern at loss of light, outlook and privacy to the vicarage (3A St Michael’s Grove) and surrounding properties

Requesting the prevention of Sunday working

Concern regarding the height of blocks and plots 1-3 facing Redlands Lane

Concern that screening/landscaping will not be implemented in accordance with the plans

Water pressure will be impaired

There is already a strain on the doctors surgeries and inadequate NHS dental serviced in the area

The proposed development is still too dense

No allowance has been made for the drying of laundry.

Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objections in principle but comments on detailed layout awaited. Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – There are no significant trees within the site itself. However more supporting information will be required regarding the protection of trees, hedgerows and other boundary planting during development. Chief Strategic Housing Officer – supports proposal subject to changes to the internal layout of the dwellings. Chief Health and Regulatory Services Officer – No adverse comments but requests conditions regarding decontamination arising from former uses.


-52-

Hampshire Constabulary – no objections Southern Water – no objections Comments The previous application for 52 units at this site (P/05/0941/FP) was considered by the Planning Development Control Committee at its meeting in August. At that meeting members resolved to refuse the planning application for 3 main reasons: i) Insufficient provision was made on site for useable amenity space for

future residents. ii) Insufficient car parking was provided on site which would have lead to

cars being parked on the access roads or other nearby public roads. iii) The extensive scale and height of block C would have been visually

harmful to the area. Since the refusal of the application, the applicants have given careful consideration to the concerns raised by Members and local residents and have discussed the proposals further with planning officers. In summary the application now before Members: i) Reduces the numbers of units by 5 ii) Increases the level of car parking provision iii) Reduces the scale of Block C iv) Has a reconfigured layout increasing the amount of amenity space available and providing ‘private’ areas for some of the ground floor units. These issues are set out in more detail below: Amenity Space Provision

The western part of the site in particular has now been re-configured to provide a much larger area of “useable” amenity area. Other areas around the perimeter of buildings have also been configured as semi private zones for use by the adjacent flats. The sum total of amenity area has increased to an average of in excess of 25 square metres per flat, which would in the opinion of officers be inseable.

Car Parking Provision

The parking provision has now increased to 62 car spaces for 47 dwellings, as opposed to 60 car spaces to serve the former 52 dwellings as refused permission.

The site is assessed in the Council’s Residential Parking Standards as having “low/medium” accessibility. Within such an area the maximum permissible level of a car parking to serve the number and mix of units proposed is 67 spaces. The application therefore proposes 5 spaces less


-53- than the maximum permissible. The applicants have pointed out that the

site is within 800 metres of town centre facilities, the rail station and more local facilities including schools and public transport. In their opinion the site is therefore relatively accessible. Furthermore the applicants have pointed out that 10 of the units are affordable. Such units in their view generally have car ownership levels which are lower than open market residential. The experience of officers on other schemes around the Borough has been that car ownership is slightly lower on affordable housing sites.

In light of these factors, compiled with the reduction in unit numbers and the slight increase in actual provision, officers believe it would be difficult to substantiate a refusal on those grounds.

Visual Impact of Block C

Block C whilst still providing accommodation on 4 levels has now been substantially amended and is of much reduced height and bulk at roof level. The reduction in scale would ensure that the building would not appear conspicuous on the site and would integrate far better with other buildings proposed on the site officers believe the redesigned building of reduced scale is now acceptable.

Other Matters Raised

The applicants have been in discussion with Southern Water regarding sewerage matters and the absence of objection from Southern Water will be noted.

The proposed buildings are at substantially more than 22 metres from the house and garden at 3A Upper St Michael’s Grove (the vicarage) and no material overlooking/loss of privacy to that dwelling would occur. The prevention of Sunday working is the subject of recommended conditions.

Summary

In the opinion of officers the earlier concerns of Members have been addressed by these revised proposals and, subject to the following points and conditions, the scheme is acceptable.

RECOMMEND: Subject to: The applicant entering into a Section 106 planning obligation on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council to secure an appropriate financial contribution to the provision and/or enhancement of public open space and/or recreational facilities, by the 14th of December 2005 PERMISSION: External materials, surfacing materials, levels, scheme for affordable housing to be submitted, obscure glazing; romove permitted development for additional windows provision and layout of parking, bin/cycle storage, landscaping details, landscaping implementation and maintainence,


-54- provision for construction vehicles and materials, desk top study and

implementation of decontamination, no mud on roads, hours of construction, no burning; drainage works. OR: In the event that a planning obligation is not entered into by the 14th of December, REFUSE: Contrary to policy, absence of open space contribution. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1322/FP, P/05/0941/FP, P/05/0633/FP

(18) P/05/1208/TO FAREHAM WEST

MR A R TERRY (A) CROWN REDUCE ONE OAK BY 4 PINE TREES CLOSE 30% (T1) AND REDUCE BY 10-15% FAREHAM AND CROWN CLEAN ONE OAK (T2) (B) CROWN REDCUTION BY 30% ONE OAK (T2) COVERED BY F.T.P.O.15

AND F.T.P.O.276 OFFICERS REPORT - Clare Roberts Ext 2428

Site Description

This application relates to two oaks within the rear/side garden of 4 Pine Trees Close which is located within south-east corner of the Close.

Description of Proposal Consent is sought to crown reduce two oaks by 30% (see arborist comments). Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review - DG4 Relevant Planning History P/93/1167/TO – Prune oak tree covered by FPTO15 – Consent – 15 November 2005 P/02/0488/TO – Fell one oak tree and one pine tree covered by FPTO15 – Part consent (Oak) and part refuse (Pine) – 30 May 2002 Representations Four letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:


-55- The 30% reduction should be applied to the whole oak or it would

unbalance the tree.

The tree is entwined with a large pine tree and has become entangled with the telegraph pole; the works to the tree should release the telegraph pole.

The neighbouring properties are disappointed that the application does not include works to the pine tree.

In 2002 the neighbour was given permission to fell the tree as it had structural problems but did not implement the consent.

Consultations Director of Planning and Transportation (Arboriculturist) – Recommend part consent/part refuse. Comments Consent is sought to carry out works to two oaks, the arborist has been consulted and states that the Oak tree in the rear garden (T2) is of normal vigour and appears outwardly sound and healthy, exhibiting normal growth characteristics to type with no signs of instability. The oak in the front/side garden (T1) is bifurcated at two metres and the trunk and crown shape is heavily distorted due to the immediate proximity of a mature Corsican pine, which has grown through the crown of the oak. The northern stem of the oak is pressing directly against the main stem of the pine. There does not appear to be any significant movement between the two stems, and there is no evidence of decay or damaged bark present and no sign of any significant thickening or either stem at the point of contact. The arborist therefore states that the works to tree (T2) would have a detrimental impact to the health and wellbeing of the tree. The arborist therefore suggests that a crown reduction by 10-15% to reshape and balance crown and crown clean would be more acceptable for the oak tree (T2). The arborist is also of the opinion that the works to tree (T1) are acceptable. The neighbouring properties raise a number of issues including that the works to the trees would cause the trees to become unstable. In light of comments from the arborist officers are of the opinion that the works would not have a detrimental impact on the health or safety of tree. The objectors also raise the issue that works should be applied to the pine tree as well or that the trees should be felled, however officers can only consider what has been applied for. The proposed works are considered acceptable. RECOMMEND: CONSENT: Crown reduce one oak by 30% (T1) and reduce by 10-15% and crown clean one oak (T2) REFUSE: Crown reduction by 30% one oak (T2) – detrimental to health of tree BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1208/TO


-56-

(19) P/05/1310/FP FAREHAM WEST STONECREST CONSULTANTS LTD Agent: EDWARD CAUSH & ASSOCIATES

ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING 76 THE AVENUE WITH INTEGRAL GARAGE FAREHAM - LAND TO REAR OF - OFFICERS REPORT - Joanne Wilson Ext 2679

Site Description

The application site comprises an area of garden land to the rear of 76 The Avenue. To the east of the site is the rear of the rear garden of No.74 The Avenue. The eastward extension of the new estate road which is being constructed for the adjoining development by Miller Homes would form the northern boundary whilst the rear garden of No.78 The Avenue is to the west.


Permission is sought for the erection of a five bedroom detached house with an integral garage of conventional Cottage style that has low front eaves height creating a building of modest scale. An attic is shown in the roof lit by rooflights.

The dwelling would measure a maximum of 12.2 metres in length; 10.6 metres in width with a maximum roof height of 9.3 metres;

Access would be gained by utilising the estate road currently being constructed for the development to the rear of 84-86 The Avenue by Miller Homes;

There is an agreement in place preventing a ransom situation from the above road so as not to discourage development of this adjacent land.

Parking would be provided by an integral garage and a parking space. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG3; DG5; H2; H3; T5 and R5 PPS1 – Delivery Sustainable Communities, PPG3 – Housing, PPG13 – Transportation. Representations Five letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

Dwelling would be built across an existing rights of way access and would prevent continued use of this access;


-57- The regulations of a maximum length of a cul de sac would be

contravened;

Increase in noise and pollution;

Loss of privacy and security;

Out of keeping with the adjacent development;

The right of way should not be used by this development;

How will boundaries be protected and secured;

Landscaping scheme should be submitted with suitable trees;

Piecemeal development Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objections Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – no adverse impact in arboricultural terms Chief Health and Regulatory Services Officer – no objections

Comments The main issue which need to be considered in the determination of this application are:

Principle of development

Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties;

Impact on the character of the area. Principle of development

The land 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. Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties Impact from the proposed dwelling would be limited, and mainly on the occupants of No.76 the Avenue and No.22 Heath Lawns. With regard to the impact on No.76 the Avenue there would be a separation of 36 metres between the proposed dwelling and this property; within Appendix 6 of the local plan there is a requirement for a minimum of 22 metres. There would be a separation of approximately 16 metres between the windows at first floor level within the proposed dwelling and the rear garden of No.22 Heath Lawns; this is in excess of the 11 metre requirement set out within the local plan. Officers consider that the proposal would not result in a materially detrimental impact on the amenities available to the occupiers of neighbouring properties.


-58- It was considered that the dwelling would be constructed across a right of way,

however this is a private legal matter and is not a material planning consideration. Its relevance is, of course, an implementation issue if planning permission is granted. Impact on the Area of Special Residential Character The surrounding area contains a mix of house types, but mainly larger dwellings set within large mature gardens along the Avenue. To the west and north-west a new development is being constructed comprising dwellings in large plots and apartments, set in landscaping to replicate Edwardian villas currently being demolished to make way for the new development. It is considered that the proposed dwelling would not look out of character with the surrounding area as it would be similar in height and width to those currently being constructed to the west, whilst the scale of the building has been kept down by its design consistent with its fairly compact plot which none the less complies with the Council’s spatial standards. Officers consider that the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact on the area of special residential character as a large separation would be achieved between the proposed dwelling and existing development, whilst it has been specifically designed for this plot between existing dwellings. Officers consider that the proposal is acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. Insofar as it makes best use of previously developed land and has been designed specifically for this backland site then it also complies with relevant Government Policy. RECOMMEND: Subject to the owner/applicant entering into a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, or an agreement under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, to secure a financial contribution towards the provision of and/or improvement of off site public open space by 18 November 2005. PERMISSION: Materials to be submitted; levels; parking; boundary treatment; landscaping; landscaping implementation; no openings within side elevations; specified windows to be obscure glazed and fixed up to 1.7m; no mud on road; hours of construction; no burning. OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the Section 106/111 agreement by 18 November 2005 or submit the required amended plans. REFUSE: Contrary to Policy; inadequate provision for public open space. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1310/FP


-59-

(20) P/05/1317/FP FAREHAM WEST MR HORROCKS Agent: MDT DESIGN

BUILD UP HIP TO GABLE & 36 FERNEHAM ROAD PROVISION OF FRONT & REAR FAREHAM DORMERS TO ACCOMMODATE LOFT CONVERSION OFFICERS REPORT - Clare Roberts Ext 2428

Site Description

This application relates to a semi-detached bungalow on the eastern side of Ferneham Road north of the junction with Blackbrook Road.

Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought to build up the gable and the provision of front and rear dormers to accommodate a loft conversion. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG3 and DG5 Relevant Planning History P/04/1056/FP - Retention of Single Storey Rear Extension and Decking and Erection of Replacement Garage – Refuse – 31-08-2004 – Committee resolved not to take enforcement action on 16 November 2004 Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

The proposed rear dormer would overlook the property to the rear

Devaluation of the property to the rear.

Comments Planning permission is sought to build up the hip to a gable and the provision of front and rear dormers. There are many similar developments in close proximity and therefore officers are of the opinion the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the streetscene. The objector to the rear raises concern that the proposal would cause overlooking and loss of privacy, the dormer would be approximately 20 metres to the boundary and 30 metres to the rear of the neighbouring property. This therefore complies with policies and guidance contained within the local plan. The objector raises the issue that the proposal would devalue their property, whilst officers appreciate that this is a concern to the objector it is not a


-60- material planning consideration and can not be taken into account when

determining the application. Officers consider that the proposal is acceptable and complies with Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and the adopted Fareham Borough Council Extension Design Guide. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to match, obscure glaze and fix shut window – first floor – northern, withdraw pd right re: windows – northern elevation. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1317/FP

(21) P/05/1353/SU FAREHAM WEST amplified by letter dated 17 October 2005

HUTCHISON 3G ANDREW WILKES & ASSOCIATES

INSTALLATION OF 15M HIGH ROWAN WAY/PEAK LANE TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAST WITH FAREHAM 3 ANTENNAS, TRANSMISSION DISH & ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT OFFICERS REPORT - Kim Hayler Ext 2367

Introduction

This application has been submitted in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Part 24 to establish whether or not the Local Planning Authority considers the proposed works require prior approval.

Site Description

The site is located to the south west of the roundabout at the junction of Peak Lane and Rowan Way.

The site is located on the wide grassed verge by the roundabout set amongst mature trees which provide a backdrop and screen to the proposal, particularly from the open countryside to the south.

The nearest residential properties are located 60 – 70 metres away to the north.

The site lies just inside the countryside boundary.


-61- Description of Proposal

The proposal comprises a slimline ‘streetworks’ monopole telecommunication mast surmounted with 3 antennae within a shroud, one transmission dish (300 mm diameter) and an equipment cabinet. The overall height of the structure including the antennae is 15 metres.

The proposed location is on land designated as part of the public highway.

Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies C1, DG3 and FS7 Representations Twenty five letters have been received from 12 households objecting on the following grounds:

To site a mast at the bottom of a hill is an unwise choice; it would have to be higher;

The existing mast in Ranvilles Lane should be modified or replaced;

The mast is close to schools and houses;

The photographs submitted with the application are dubious;

Could the mast be located in the middle of the fields to the south?

Perceived health risks; risk to health from 3G base stations;

The mast would destroy the open aspect of adjacent properties;

Impact on the environment, visual amenity and landscape;

Impact on house prices;

The site is close to an airfield;

There has been little or no pre-application consultation with the local community by the operator;

The distance from adjacent houses is misleading;

The LPA should consider making an Article 4 Direction on this site;

There is no difference between this site and the discounted sites;

The Council should state it is not receiving income from the mast;

The proposal does not benefit local people

Impact on television reception;

Has FBC insurance to cover possible future litigations relating to mast emissions

One letter has been received withdrawing an original objection, stating that the installation is well planned. Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objection


-62- Comments

The site is required to provide coverage to a part of the Fareham area including the local transport network and the commercial and residential properties in the area. Eight alternative sites were considered by the operator however they were either considered unacceptable from a technical or visual point of view. These sites included Longfield Avenue, Mitre Court, The Oast and Squire, the junction with Peak Lane with The Avenue, The Avenue and Newlands Farm. The overall height of the monopole has been determined by the physical characteristics of the area and is required in order to provide coverage to the target area whilst avoiding interference from existing structures. The technical information submitted in support of the application demonstrates a gap in the coverage area within this area. Coverage plot maps show the nearest ‘3’ sites to the proposed mast in the west (Ranvilles Lane) and in the east (Cams Sports Field). The maps clearly indicate a ‘coverage hole’ within the residential areas east and west of the northernmost arm of Peak Lane. The installation will therefore form an integral part of a comprehensive 3G network. It is extremely difficult finding a suitable location within residential areas which meets the technical requirements but is not close to residential properties. The mast would be sited adjacent to the highway close to existing trees and other structures such as street lamps and road signs. During the publicity period officers arranged for a visual demonstration to be carried out at the site which included a ‘pump-up’ mast demonstrating its height and location. This exercise demonstrated that the mast would be partially screened by trees when viewed from nearby residential properties. However when travelling north towards the site from Stubbington the mast would be seen rising between the trees. This matter could be addressed by painting the lower part of the mast green and the top part grey, which would be seen with the sky as a backdrop. The operator has made a commitment to agree the colour of the mast with the Planning Authority prior to its installation.

Potential Health Risks Members and officers are acutely aware of the concerns often expressed by local residents and organisations that exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) or radio waves may have possible adverse effects upon their health. The Government acknowledges in PPG8 that health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval and that it is for the Authority to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case. However the Government is of the firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Government's view, if a proposed


-63- mobile phone base station meets ICNIRP (International Commission on

Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines for public exposure, it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing applications, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them. There has been some judicial guidance on perceived health risks as material considerations in respect of mobile phone masts. If the Local Planning Authority do wish to consider the health issues further the courts seem to imply that authoritative guidance on the risk of potential harm from EMF emissions should be obtained from official scientific sources - however these uniformly advise that the risk of harm is tolerable. It has been held that a Local Planning Authority might be acting unreasonably in refusing on the basis of "unsubstantiated fears”. A certificate has been submitted with the application confirming that the installation would not exceed the ICNIRP (International Commission of Non-Ionising Radiation) for public exposure as expressed in EU recommendation of July 1999. The certificate takes into account the cumulative effect of the emissions from the proposed and all other radio base stations nearby. Conclusion

Whilst it is appreciated that the proposal lies within the countryside it is on the edge of the built up area. The mast would be taller than the existing street furniture however Officers consider that the proposed siting and design is such that it would not be an unduly intrusive or incongruous feature. Officers therefore conclude that the installation has been designed and sited in order to minimise its visual appearance and is therefore considered acceptable. RECOMMEND: PRIOR APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1353/SU.


-64-

ZONE 3 – EASTERN WARDS Hill Head Portchester West Portchester East Stubbington


-65- (22) P/05/1273/FP HILL HEAD

MR AND MRS BERRY Agent: ARCHITECTRESS

RAISE ROOF, ERECTION OF FIRST 6 SEAFIELD PARK ROAD FLOOR REAR EXTENSION AND HILLHEAD SINGLE STOREY FRONT EXTENSION OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin Ext 2412

Site Description

This application relates to a detached dwelling on the south side of Seafield Park Road close to the junction with Crofton Lane.

Description of Proposal Permission is sought to;

Raise the height of the roof by 1.1 metres.

Erect a first floor rear extension measuring 2.5 metres in depth for the full width of the property.

Erect a single storey front extension measuring 2.7 metres in depth and 5.7 metres in width.

Policies Fareham Local Plan Review Policies – DG3, DG5, H3 Relevant Planning History P/97/0347/FP Two storey side and single storey rear extension Permitted 6 June 1997 Representations Four letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

The garage would obstruct the view towards and from neighbouring properties

The garage would be out of character

The repositioned drive would encourage vehicles to use it as a turning spot

The garage would ruin the spacious aspect of the road

Loss of outlook and light as a result of proposed garage

Windows and door proposed in east elevation would result in loss of privacy

Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No Objection


-66- Comments

The proposal as originally submitted included a detached double garage within the front garden. Officers expressed concern over the positioning of the garage and amended plans were received omitting the garage. As an alternative it is now proposed to extend the existing integral garage out by 2.7 metres at the front of the property. The majority of the objections relate to the detached garage and have therefore been overcome. It is no longer proposed to revise the positioning of the access. The objector to the east was concerned about loss of privacy as a result of the windows and door proposed at ground floor level within the east elevation. The windows are to be inserted into the existing property and can not be conditioned to be obscure glazed. Officers do not consider the proposal would have a detrimental impact to the neighbouring properties or on the streetscene. The proposal complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and Extension Design Guide and is considered acceptable. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to match, Remove PD Windows: First Floor East & West BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1273/FP

(23) P/05/1297/FP HILL HEAD

MR AND MRS KING Agent: MR JK WARBURTON

RETENTION OF REAR 120 PLYMOUTH DRIVE CONSERVATORY STUBBINGTON OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677

Site Description

This application relates to a end-terrace property on the west side of Plymouth Drive which is to the north of Blankney Close.

Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought for retention of a rear conservatory which measures 3.6 metres in depth, 6 metres in width with an eaves height of 2.4 metre and a ridge of 3.5 metres.


-67- Policies

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG3 and DG5 Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

When the structure was built the right of way to the garages were continually obstructed

Invasion of privacy due to the raised floor Comments This application has been submitted for the retention of a rear conservatory on an end-terrace property. The property is situated side ways on to the properties in Blankney Close. The conservatory has been designed in a ‘P’ shape with a depth of 2.6 metres along the boundary which then splays out to a total depth of 3.6 metes. In relation to loss of privacy officers consider that the windows within the conservatory do result in overlooking into the neighbours property. It is considered that a condition to obscure glaze the windows is required to protect the privacy of the neighbouring property. Officer consider the conservatory to be acceptable with the relevant condition, the application is incompliance with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and the Council’s Approved Extension Design Guide. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Fix shut and obscure glaze up to 1.7 metres internal floor level southern elevation with 1 month. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1297/FP


-68-

(24) P/05/1333/FP HILL HEAD

M BAYLEY Agent: MR G HARDSTAFF

ERECTION OF TWO STOREY FRONT 18 MONKS WAY EXTENSION & SINGLE STOREY HILL HEAD

REAR EXTENSION, REAR BALCONY & INCREASE IN HEIGHT OF ROOF OFFICERS REPORT - Clare Roberts Ext 2428

Site Description

This application relates to a detached dwelling with an existing conservatory on the southern side of Monks Way and the northern side of Salterns Road.

Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two storey front and single storey rear extension and balcony and an increase in the height of the roof. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG3, DG5, C5 Relevant Planning History P/93/0941/FP – Conservatory – Permission – 21-09-1993 P/05/1306/FP - Erection of Two Storey Front & Side Extensions & Single Storey Rear Extension & Increase In Height of Roof - Withdrawn Representations Three letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

The size of the balcony and screen would have large impact on the neighbouring property to the east.

A balcony smaller in depth would be more suitable.

Loss of view

The building would be in front of the building line and therefore would result in an inevitable creep forward.

The 45 degree line is broken from side window of the property to the west.

Loss of privacy

Transmission of noise

There is an inaccuracy in the plans on the eastern elevation Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objection


-69-

Comments In July 2005 an application was received for the erection of two storey front and side extensions and single storey rear extension (including a balcony) and an increase in the height of the roof. The application was withdrawn after officers raised concerns regarding the application. A new application has now been received for a similar scheme however there have been amendments to the original proposal. The front extension has been reduced by 4.7 metres and now just provides an extension over the existing garage. The roof height has been reduced by 0.7 metres, and the balcony has been brought in 1.5 metres on either side, and the plans indicate an obscure screen on either side to protect the privacy of the neighbouring properties. The objectors concerns relate primarily to the single storey rear extension and the rear balcony. The single storey rear extension replaces the existing conservatory; the depth of the extension is the same but extends the whole width of the property, officers are therefore of the opinion that the proposal would not push the building line forward. The neighbouring property to the west has a secondary window in the side elevation which they have raised concern about, however this faces onto the existing dwelling and therefore officers do not consider that there would be a detrimental impact on this window. The balcony has been reduced from the original application by 1.5 metres from either side of the extension so that the screens will be 2.9 metres from the eastern boundary and 4 metres from the western boundary, therefore officers are of the opinion that the proposal would not impact on the neighbouring properties. The objectors also raise the issue of noise from the balcony; officers are of the opinion that the noise would not be any different from noise produced from people in their garden.

The objectors raise the issue that the extension/balcony blocks their view, whilst officers appreciate that this is a concern for the neighbouring properties it is not a material planning consideration and therefore can not be taken into account when determining the application. The issue has also been raised that the plans are inaccurate; the agent has been contacted to request amended plans. Officers are therefore of the opinion that the proposal has overcome the previous concerns. RECOMMEND: Subject to amended plans PERMISSION: Material samples, remove pd right re: windows - eastern and western elevation, obscure glaze and fixed shut to 1.7m window - eastern elevation, balcony screens


-70- BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1333/FP

(25) P/05/1372/OA HILL HEAD

MRS M SHELTON Agent: MR A J HOLLOWAY

ERECTION OF DETACHED BUNGALOW 127 STUBBINGTON LANE (OUTLINE APPLICATION) STUBBINGTON - LAND TO REAR OF - OFFICERS REPORT - Joanne Wilson Ext 2679

Site Description

The application site comprises of an area of land to the rear of 127 Stubbington Lane. Number 125 Stubbington Lane forms the northern boundary; No’s 10 and 11 Kingsmead Avenue form the eastern boundary whilst No’s 4 - 8 Kingsmead Avenue adjoin the southern boundary.


Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached bungalow with means of access and siting considered at this stage with all other matters reserved.

As submitted access would be provided by widening the existing access for 127 Stubbington Lane.

Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG1; DG3; DG5; H2; T5 and R5 Relevant Planning History P/05/0320/OA – Erection of Detached Bungalow – Refused 9 May 2005. Representations Two letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

Set a precedent for neighbouring properties with large gardens;

The junction would be opposite Moody Road which would cause highway safety problems;

Loss of privacy;

The proposed driveway is not wide enough and does not take into account external stack pipes and the roof overhang;

Out of character with the surrounding area;

Increase in traffic;

This could increase result in over-development of the area.


-71- Consultations

Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – Amended plans should be submitted showing a separate access for the existing dwelling with its own turning and parking facility. The existing entrance should be increased in width to allow for two cars to pass. Chief Health and Regulatory Services Officer – no objections Comments The previous application was refused as it was considered that the proposal would have resulted in noise and disturbance from the driveway passing in close proximity to the neighbouring properties and their rear garden areas; additional vehicles using the access close to the junction with Moody Road; the width of the driveway was insufficient to allow access for emergency vehicles and the absence of a commuted payment towards public open space. The main issues which need to be considered in the determination of this application are:

Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties

Impact on the character of the area

Highway safety Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties In general terms the layout of the scheme is acceptable and complies with the separation distances required by Policy DG5 (and set out in Appendix 6 of the adopted Fareham Borough Local Plan Review). The bungalow proposed would have a single storey eaves height and officers consider that the privacy of adjoining occupiers can be secured by removing permitted development rights in relation to extensions/windows within the roofplane. It is considered that with satisfactory screening and the removal of permitted development rights the proposal would not result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. The access drive would run between 125 and 127 Stubbington Lane. There is a separation of 4.45 metres between the two properties and there are no habitable room windows within the side elevations. To overcome the concerns raised that the proposal would result in noise and disturbance to these properties, the materials to be used in the construction of the drive are shown as asphalt and a 1.8 metre high fence is proposed along both boundaries. Officers consider on balance that with the proposed screening and surfacing materials for the driveway, and the limited size of the proposed dwelling the use of the accessway would not result in such a level of disturbance to justify refusing planning permission.


-72- Impact on the character of the area

The site is a predominantly well established residential area. There are a variety of dwelling types, ages and sizes in the vicinity of the site. The bungalow shown would have a single storey eaves height and as a result officers consider that the proposal would not detract from the character and appearance of the immediate area.

The size of the rear garden would meet the minimum guidelines in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and would provide satisfactory and useable amenity space for the bungalow.

Highway safety The width of the driveway has now been increased by 1 metre and the applicant is proposing to either reposition the existing fire hydrant or to install a new fire hydrant to satisfy Building Regulations. As a result the Council’s Highway Engineers have been consulted and consider that the access is sufficient in width to allow for vehicles to access the site. In addition, provided the required amended plans are submitted the proposal would not result in a danger and inconvenience to users of the public highway at the junction with Moody Road. It is considered by officers that subject to amended plans being received addressing the matters raised by the Highway Engineers the proposal is acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: Subject to:

1. the receipt of satisfactory amended plans showing the alterations to the access as requested by the Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways);

2. the applicant/owner 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 by 23 November 2005.

OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION: Submission of reserved matters (design, external appearance and landscaping); parking; materials to be submitted; boundary screening; landscaping implementation; levels; single storey eaves height with no accommodation within the roof; remove pd rights (roof alterations) hours of construction; no burning; no mud on road; surfacing of driveway OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the Section 106 agreement by 23 November 2005 and/or fails to submit the required amended plans.


-73-

REFUSE: Contrary to Policy; inadequate provision for pubic open space and danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1372/OA; P/05/0320/OA

(26) P/05/1242/FP PORTCHESTER EAST

ACER WEBSTER Agent: JOHN CROWN

ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR 56 CASTLE STREET EXTENSION PORTCHESTER OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677

Site Description

This application relates to an end-terrace property on the east side of Castle Street just north of Cow Lane.

Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought for a single storey rear extension measuring 9 metres in depth, 6 metres in width with an eaves height of 2.9metres and a ridge height of 3.9 metres. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG3 and DG5 Relevant Planning History P/99/0663/FP Erection of Replacement Single Storey Extension and Conservatory and Single Garage - Permission 26-07-1999 P/03/0348/FP Erection of Summerhouse /Shed and Storage Building - Refused 22-04-2003 P/05/1161/FP Erection of Double Garage and Summer House/Games Room - Refused - 10-10-2005 Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

The extension would be built over a sewers they could collapse

Loss of sunlight

The extension would be built partly on the neighbours land


-74- Loss of rear access for the neighbouring properly

Use of side access as a driveway Consultations Chief Planning & Transportation Officer (Highways) - No Objection Comments This application has been submitted for a single storey rear extension on an end-terrace property on the east side of Castle Street. An almost identical application was permitted in 1999. That application had the same depth and width as the current application however it is now proposed with a solid roof covered with slates. It was considered that this change was too great to deal with as an amendment to the original permission. The objector has raised concern with the loss of sunlight, this situation has not changed since the previous application. The neighbouring property to the south does not have any habitable windows at ground floor level, therefore no detrimental impact would be created. The loss of access for the neighbouring property is a private legal matter. The issues relating to the side access and the collapsing sewer are not material to the determination of this application. Officers consider that there have been no material change in circumstances since the original application was permitted and therefore the change to the roof design is considered acceptable. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to match, FURTHER INFORMATION: Consent must be gained from your neighbour if any of the extension overhangs the boundary. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1242/FP


-75-

(27) P/05/1244/FP PORTCHESTER EAST MR P SHIPP Agent: DAVID JAMES As amended by plan received 5th October 2005

ERECTION OF FIRST FLOOR SIDE 23 EAST STREET AND SINGLE STOREY REAR PORTCHESTER EXTENSION OFFICERS REPORT - Clare Roberts Ext 2428

Site Description

This application relates to a semi-detached dwelling on the southern side of East Street, east of the junction with Castle Street.

Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought for a first floor side and single storey rear extension. The first floor side extension would measure 2.3 metres in width, 8.3 metres in depth and 7.4 metres in height. The rear extension which would replace the existing conservatory on a slightly larger footprint and would measure 5 metres in depth, 3.3 metres in width and 2.9 metres in height and a roof lantern which would protrude 0.8 metres above the roof. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG3 and DG5 Relevant Planning History P/05/0538/FP - Erection of First Floor Side and Single Storey Rear Extension – Refused – 16-06-2005. Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

The proposed plans do not have enough detail to see how the proposed extension affects the neighbours extension

The neighbours extension is only built to withstand a single storey extension

The guttering should not run into the neighbours side

None of the proposed extension should be connected to the neighbours wall.

Comments An application was received in April 2005 for a first floor side extension and a single storey rear extension. The application was refused on the basis that the first floor storey side extension would reduce the gap between the


-76- application site and the neighbouring property and therefore would be

detrimental to the streetscene. The single storey rear extension was not included in the reason for refusal as officers were of the opinion that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the adjoining neighbour as they too have a rear extension. A new application has been received for a similar application, however the roof has been lowered therefore providing greater space above the side extension. This would also create an extension similar to those found further along East Street. The objector raises a number of issues relating to how the extension would be built and how the drainage would work, whilst officers appreciate this is an area of concern for the neighbouring property it is not a planning consideration and therefore can not be taken into account when determining this application. Officers are of the opinion that the proposal overcomes the previous reason for refusal. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to match, remove pd re: windows – western (first floor). BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1244/FP

(28) P/05/1302/VC PORTCHESTER EAST

K AND N THOMAS Agent: MR J H KNOTT

RELIEF FROM CONDITION 2 OF 50-54 CORNAWAY LANE P/03/0736/FP (NOT RESTRICTING PORTCHESTER AGE OF OCCUPIERS) & PROVISION OF ONE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE OFFICERS REPORT – Kim Hayler Ext 2367

Site Description


-77- The site lies at the southern end, and on the east side of Cornaway Lane,

with access off a short length of cul-de-sac;

The site comprise nos. 50 and 52 which are semi-detached residential units and 54 which was formerly used for car sales, maintenance and repairs;

The site is within a predominantly residential area.


Relief of Condition 2 of P/03/0736/FP which states:

‘The occupiers of the development hereby approved shall be limited to persons aged over 55 years of age.

REASON: The development incorporates a reduced standard for car and cycle parking which would not be appropriate to serve unrestricted private market residential accommodation.’

This would enable the 13 permitted flats to be occupied by any age group

The submitted plans show one additional car parking space will be provided within the development layout

Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies DG1, DG3, DG4, DG5, H2, H7 and R5 Relevant Planning History P/02/0600/FP– Erection of three storey residential building-(16 Flats) Refused 30 July 2002 - Appeal dismissed 20 March 2003. P/02/1156/FP- Erection of three storey residential building- (16 Flats) Refused 28 September 2002 P/03/0736/FP – Erection of three storey building to form thirteen flats with altered access and car parking. Permission 13 August 2003 P/05/0531/VC – Relief from Condition 2 of P/03/0736/FP (Not restricting age of occupiers) & Provision of two additional car spaces. Refused 19 May 2005 – Appeal dismissed 1 September 2005. Representations Nine letters have been received including one from the Portchester Society objecting on the following grounds:

If age restriction is lifted the plot could not support the increase of vehicles parking (probably two cars for each flat)

Development could be opened up to letting agents with a constant supply of tenants who may not maintain the flats


-78- Increased activity of cars would be a constant hazard to children and

senior citizens

It is an ideal location for the over 55’s

There is very little on-street parking available to cope with more younger people living in the area

The altered access running parallel to No 48 Cornaway Lane will not change the dangers when exiting our property

As the property already has a lift it is ideal for the over 55’s

The developer will readily be able to sell the units to the over 55’s

The balance between landscape area and hard standing is very important; even one extra parking space on the landscape margin is totally unacceptable.

Our interpretation of the new plan suggests this parking deficit has in fact increased to 3.5

Consultations Chief of Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objection subject to conditions. Comments Recent appeal decision Planning permission was refused on 19 May 2005 for Variation from Condition 2 of P/03/0736/FP and provision of two additional car spaces for the following reason:

Adequate provision cannot be made on the site for the parking of vehicles in a satisfactory manner. The proposed development would be likely to encourage parking of vehicles on the public highway which would interrupt the free flow of traffic and thereby impact on highway safety.

The proposal would have inadequate levels of amenity space and landscaping about the building with a resultant poor level of amenity for any future occupants.

An appeal was lodged and subsequently dismissed on 1 September 2005. In dealing with both aspects of the refusal the inspector commented as follows: Although the approved scheme restricts occupation to those aged over 55 years, it is not designed as a conventional retirement home scheme with communal lounge and warden’s accommodation, and in my experience, it is not of a scale that would warrant being operated thus. Also, the level of car parking exceeds that usually provided for a retirement home scheme. Whilst I have no doubt that the accommodation would be of appeal to older persons, I consider that flats could be equally attractive to younger households. Prospective purchasers would be aware of the level of on-site parking provision and the highway waiting restrictions in the locality, whereby they are unlikely to appeal to 2 car households. In the view of the presence of regular buses and its ready accessibility to local shops and school, I regard that as


-79- being an adequate provision for general purpose flats on this site. (Council

underling) The two additional car parking spaces that are proposed for visitors would entail the erosion of areas formerly shown as grassed amenity areas. Whilst the proposal would certainly increase the amount of hard surfacing, it is evident that the Council’s officers regarded the impact of that as being slight and acceptable. I generally agree with that sentiment, particularly as the site benefits from having the wide grassed verge area separating it from Cornaway Lane that also provides some visual amenity. However, whilst I consider that the proposed space no. 15 could be acceptably sited alongside the flank wall of the building, I consider proposed space no. 14 would make a significant inroad into the amenity area that adjoins Flat 4, reducing its overall width and leaving narrow strips of limited utility at either end. Moreover, any car parked thereon would intrude into views from the lounge window of that dwelling and leading to its driver and passengers passing close by, having implications for privacy. The Inspector concluded in an extremely finely balanced decision, that the combination of these factors would result in a poor living environment for the future occupiers of Flat 4. Current application Car parking standards would permit a maximum of 19 spaces in association with this size of development. The age restriction incorporated within Condition 2 was imposed on the original planning permission in light of the level of car parking provided. The site falls within a low to medium accessibility area, where 1 vehicle space is required for one bedroom units and 1.5 spaces are required for two bedroom units. The original approved application (subject to the over 55 years of age condition) provided 13 parking spaces; the current application involves the provision of one additional car parking space sited alongside the flank wall of the building, giving a total of 14 spaces. The Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) has considered the proposal carefully particularly in relation to the on-street parking problems that had been associated with the original garage site and the need to avoid any continuance of these problems. The present scheme proposes five spaces less than the maximum number set out within the Council’s approved car parking standards SPG. Notwithstanding this fact Officers believe it would be difficult to substantiate the refusal of planning permission as the Inspector when considering the recent appeal concluded that there was an adequate provision of car parking for general purpose flats on this site (15 spaces serving 13 units). In terms of site layout the location of the proposed additional space is the same as that proposed in the previous application and considered acceptable in the Inspectors decision notice.


-80- In the view of officers the variation sought is acceptable.

RECOMMEND:

PERMISSION: Landscaping and boundary treatment as agreed, landscaping implementation, obscure glaze and fix windows in specified elevation, cycle storage as agreed, parking, construction traffic, no mud on road, access, materials including hard surfacing as agreed, construction hours, no burning on site, foundation details as agreed, soil survey, levels as agreed, bin storage as agreed, no further windows in specified elevations. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1302/VC; P/03/0736/FP; P/02/1156/FP; P/02/0600/FP.

(29) P/05/1390/FP PORTCHESTER EAST MRS J TAYLOR Agent: THORNS YOUNG ARCHITECTURAL

ERECTION OF FRONT 47 DENVILLE AVENUE DORMER PORTCHESTER OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin Ext 2412

Site Description

This application relates to a semi-detached bungalow on the south side of Denville Avenue.

Description of Proposal Permission is sought to erect one pitched roof front dormer. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG3 and DG5 Relevant Planning History P/05/0929/FP Build Up Hipped Roof to form Barn Hip and Provision of Front

and Rear Dormers Refused 17 August 2005 Representations The neighbour notification period expires on 1 November 2005. At the time of writing this report one letter had been received objecting on the following grounds:


-81- Loss of privacy

Loss of view Any letters subsequently received will be reported at the committee meeting. Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objection Comments An application was refused earlier this year to build up the gable of this property incorporating front and rear dormers. The reason for refusal was that officers considered the gable build up would result in a detrimental loss of light and outlook to the neighbouring property which has a sole kitchen window within the side elevation. The gable build up and rear dormer are currently being erected under permitted development rights. Planning permission is required for the front dormer. The objectors property is approximately 25 metres behind the application property. The proposed front dormer would therefore not result in loss of privacy to this property as it does not overlook it. The objection relates to the rear dormer which is permitted development. Officer consider that the front dormer would not have a detrimental impact on the streetscene or the neighbouring properties. The proposal complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and Extension Design Guide and is considered acceptable. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to match BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1390/FP


-82-

(30) P/05/1240/FP PORTCHESTER WEST

MR AND MRS PATTERSON Agent: AJ GRIFFITHS

ERECTION OF TWO STOREY SIDE 8 PARTRIDGE CLOSE AND REAR EXTENSION AND SINGLE FAREHAM STOREY REAR EXTENSION OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin Ext 2412

Site Description

This application relates to a detached dwelling to the north of Partridge Close.

Description of Proposal Permission is sought to erect ;

a two storey side extension measuring 9.4 metres in depth, 4.2 metres in width with a ridge height of 7.4 metres.

A single storey rear extension measuring 3 metres in depth, 5.9 metres in width with a ridge height of 3.7 metres.

Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG3, DG5, HE3, HE4 Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

Loss of light and outlook

The proximity of the extension to the boundary would result in damage to the roots of mature trees

The two windows at first floor level in the side elevation would result in a loss of privacy

Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – No objection Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Conservation Officer) – No objection Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objection Comments The objectors property is on Birdwood Grove to the west. The rear windows of the objectors property face towards the flank wall of 8 Partridge Close. The Fareham Borough Local Plan Review states that a two storey flank wall


-83- containing no windows must be no closer than 12.5 metres from the rear

windows of a dwelling. The distance between the rear windows of the objectors property and the proposed two storey extension would be in excess of 25 metres. The windows on the side elevation of the proposed extension would be conditioned to be obscure glazed and fixed shut to prevent overlooking.

Officers were concerned by the potential for overlooking of the garden of the neighbouring property to the north from the first floor rear window of the proposed two storey side extension. The Fareham Borough Local Plan Review states that new windows which overlook adjacent dwellings must be a minimum of 11 metres away from adjacent private garden areas. The distance from the rear boundary to the proposed window would be approximately 9.5 metres. The window would therefore be conditioned to be obscure glazed and fixed shut to 1.7 metres. Officers do not consider that the proposed two storey side extension would be detrimental to the streetscene as it is set back from the front of the property by 2.4 metres and the application property is situated in the corner of the close so that the extension would not be easily visible within the streetscene. Although the objector was concerned about damage to tree roots on the boundary the Councils Arborist has raised no objection to the proposal. The proposal complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and Extension Design Guide and is considered acceptable. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to match, Obscure glaze and fix shut (first floor west elevation), Obscure glaze and fix shut to 1.7 metres (first floor north elevation), Withdraw PD rights (first floor west elevation) BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1240/FP

(31) P/05/1262/FP PORTCHESTER WEST

MR AND MRS KILLE Agent: PAUL JONES (ARCHITECTS)

RETROSPECTIVE PROPOSAL FOR THE 82 PORTCHESTER ROAD DEMOLITION OF THE ORIGINIAL FAREHAM DWELLING & ERECTION OF NEW REPLACEMENT DWELLING OFFICERS REPORT - Clare Roberts Ext 2428

Site Description


-84-

This application relates to a detached dwelling on the northern side of Portchester Road

Description of Proposal Retrospective planning permission is sought for the demolition of the original dwelling and the erection of a new replacement dwelling. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG3 and DG5 Relevant Planning History P/04/1885/FP - Erection of Detached Double Garage to Front – Permission – 04-03-2005 P/04/1886/FP - Erection of Two Storey Front, Side and Rear Extensions – Permission – 02-02-2005 Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

The proposal is not in keeping with neighbouring properties and overwhelms them.

It is more visually intrusive then the now demolished dwelling

The visual impact is unacceptable. One letter of support has been received. Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objection Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – No objection Chief Health and Regulatory Services Officer – No objection Comments An application was received on 21 December 2004 for the erection of two storey front, side and rear extensions, this was determined under delegated powers and was granted permission on 2 February 2005. Subsequently the original dwelling had to be demolished due to problems with the original foundations and the dwelling was made 0.55 metres bigger in width and 0.45 metres bigger in depth. As a result of this the applicants were requested to stop work and submit a new application for the demolition of the original dwelling and the erection of a new dwelling. This was received on 7 September 2005.


-85-

The main alterations include the slight increase in the footprint as previously discussed together some alterations to the fenestration and the front door has been brought flush with front of the dwelling. The objector raises the issue that the proposal is not in keeping and overwhelms the neighbouring properties. Officers are of the opinion that there are a vast array of housing types and sizes along Portchester Road, and therefore the dwelling does not look out of keeping with other dwellings along the road or is detrimental to the streetscene. The proposal is considered acceptable.

RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Obscure glaze and fix shut – east –first floor, Remove pd rights re: windows, high level window – west – first floor BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/1262/FP


-86-

MISCELLANEOUS ITEM (3) CONSTRUCT NEW SEARCH & RESCUE FACILITY INCLUDING HELICOPTER

HANGAR, ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS & INSTALL AIRFIELD FENCING – HMS DAEDALUS AIRFIELD, LEE-ON-SOLENT (P/05/0507/GC) OFFICERS REPORT: Kim Hayler Ext. 2367 Introduction Members will recall the above application was reported to the meeting of the Planning Development Control Committee in May of this year (a copy of that report along with the officers update is attached as Appendix A). At that meeting Members raised the following holding objection to the proposal: ‘Fareham Borough Council raise a holding objection in relation to the erection of the proposed fencing until further clarification is provided regarding the implication of the fencing upon others users of the airfield.’ Further details have been received from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency advising that the site area being acquired is to be substantially increased to include all the runways on the site. To accommodate the other users of the airfield the fencing would be set back from taxiways with security access points onto the airfield and runways. In light of the inclusion of all the runways within the revised site area officers are of the opinion that the concern raised in the holding objection has been overcome. RECOMMEND: On the basis of the increased/amended site area this council should now remove its holding objection and raise no objection to the proposals


-87-

APPENDIX A

(47) P/05/0507/GC STUBBINGTON

HM COASTGAURD/MARITIME & MR M MILLS COASTGUARD AGENCY/DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT

CONSTRUCT NEW SEARCH & RESCUE BROOM WAY - FACILITY INCLUDING HELICOPTER H.M.S. DAEDALUS AIRFIELD - HANGAR, ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS & LEE ON SOLENT INSTALL AIRFIELD FENCING OFFICERS REPORT - Kim Hayler Ext 2367

Site Description

This application relates to the western section including the runway of the HMS Daedalus airfield Site;

The existing HM Coastguard/Maritime & Coastguard Agency facility is sited adjacent to the western boundary immediately behind properties in Kingsmead Avenue.

Description of Proposal This is a consultation by HM Coastguard/Maritime and Coastguard Agency regarding development on Crown land.

Construction of a new search and rescue facility including helicopter hangar and associated buildings to be erected south of the airfield site behind existing buildings within the site. The existing facility would be given up/vacated when the proposed helicopter hangar and associated buildings are brought into use. The major part of the new hangar would be sited within Gosport Borough; for this reason a duplicate consultation has been sent to Gosport Borough Council;

Erection of 2.4 metre high heras fencing with a barbed top to be erected around the perimeter of the site with ‘crashgates’ at either end of the main runway for emergency access.

Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – Policies DG1, DG3, DG5, DG12, C1, C3, C11, T5 Relevant Planning History


-88- P/99/0460/GC – Erection of new hangar incorporating stores, workshops and

crew accommodation – no objection 2 August 1999 Representations The application was publicised by site notices. No letters had been received at the time of writing this report. Consultations Director of Planning and Transportation (Highways) – no objection Chief Health and Regulatory Services Officer – comments awaited Comments HM Coastguard/Maritime & Coastguard Agency are in the process of acquiring part of HMS Daedalus airfield site from Ministry of Defence and propose to construct a new search and rescue facility including helicopter hangar, associated buildings and install airfield fencing. HM Coastguard is an emergency service and has a statutory obligation to be at the site of a reported incident within a designated time limit. Lee-on-the-Solent is one of four Coastguard helicopter bases in the British Isles, which are available 24 hours a day 365 days a year. The principle of the proposal is consistent with the use of this airfield and the continued presence of this service at Daedalus is welcomed. This proposal provides the opportunity to enhance the amenities of local residents by moving the facilities away from residential properties. The new buildings would be sited near existing buildings and would not therefore detract from the openness of the strategic gap when seen from key view points. The details submitted relating to the proposed fencing are limited. The supporting documentation advises that the fencing would be erected around the perimeter of the site however the specific details of whether the fencing would be erected along the highway boundary or set back as the existing fencing it is not clear. Officers have sought clarification on this matter from the applicant. In this respect if additional information is submitted showing the proposed fencing erected along the highway frontage then officers consider this would be visually unacceptable, detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and character of the area. However if the fencing were to be set back from the highway along the existing fence line then the proposal would be considered acceptable.


-89- RECOMMEND:

Subject to (i) Clarification from the applicant indicating the location/position of the

proposed fencing. (ii) The comments of the Chief Health and Regulatory Services Officer. In the event that the fencing is to be erected along the existing fence line then: NO OBJECTION: In the event that clarification is not received from the applicant in relation to the location/position of the fencing or that it is proposed to erect the fencing along the highway frontage then: RAISE OBJECTION: Lack of information/impact on the visual amenities of the area. (Objection raised to the fencing element of the proposal only). BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/05/0507/GC; P/99/0460/GC

UPDATE REPORT

47 109 P/05/0507/GC – HMS DAEDALUS AIRFIELD

Letters dated 11 May and 12 May and plans received on 11 May 2005 advising the following:

Repair/replace where necessary the existing close boarded fence along the Stubbington Lane boundary and erection of new fence set back 2 metres within the existing fence;

Repair/replace where necessary the existing concrete post and chain link fencing along the Gosport Road and erection of new fence set back 2 metres within the existing fence;

Overall an increase in the facility is expected to be slight;

Clarify that the access route with vehicles to the proposed facility will be across the airfield from the present access in Broom Way;

A land quality assessment has been commissioned in respect of the whole HMS Daedalus site;

An archaeological watching brief would be undertaken.

Comments of the Chief Health and Regulatory Officer – no objection subject to conditions (contamination survey) Add condition: Contamination survey required.


-90- PLANNING APPEALS

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

APPEALS LODGED

1. P/05/0620/FP

Appellants: Mr K Turnbull Site: 90 White Hart Lane Portchester Decision Maker: Planning Development Control Committee Recommendation: Permission Council's Decision: Refused

Date Lodged: 6th October 2005 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the retention of a replacement wall and erection of gates in excess of one metre in height.

2. P/05/0560/OA

Appellant: Martin Fay Site: Crofton Avenue-Crofton Cliff - Lee on Solent Decision Maker: Officers’ Delegated Powers Recommendation: Refuse Council's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 7th October 2005 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the demolition of the existing house & outbuildings, retain the swimming pool & erect 5no. dwellings & garages.

3. P/05/1068/OA Appellants: Mr & Mrs Leach Site: 212 Brook Lane, Sarisbury – Land to rear of - Decision Maker: Planning Development Control Committee Recommendation: Refuse Council's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 18th October 2005 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of two storey building to provide two one bed flats.

4. P/05/0975/FP Appellants: Mr E Bond Site: 34 Cranleigh Road, Portchester Decision Maker: Officers’ Delegated Powers Recommendation: Refuse Council's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 20th October 2005 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the build up of the hipped roof to form gable end and provision of rear dormer.


-91-

5. P/05/0601/FP Appellants: Greene King Pub Partners Site: The Jolly Miller PH Miller Drive, Fareham Decision Maker: Planning Development Control Committee Recommendation: Permission Council's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 20th October 2005 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the provision of external decking area.

HEARING & INQUIRY DATES 6. P/04/1084/VC, 0962/VC, 0918/VC, 0888/VC,1388/VC

Appellants: Mr P R Hook, Mr Southwell & Mrs Keedwell, Ms D Ridley, Mr Butters and Ms M Walker Site: 23b, 30, 60, 72, 85 Solent Breezes, Hook Lane, Warsash Decision Maker: Officers’ Delegated Powers Recommendation: Refuse Council's Decision: Refused

Date Lodged: 20 October 2004 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for variation condition 3 of FBC 7456 (or FMU 5477/24) to enable all year round occupancy of chalets.

Hearing Date: Tuesday 18 October 2005 Awaiting Decision

7. P/04/1269/FP

Appellant: Mr & Mrs Fay Site: Crofton Cliff, Cfofton Avenue, Hill Head Decision Maker: Planning Development Control Committee Recommendation: Permission Council's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 4 January 2005 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage.

Hearing Date: 6 December 2005 8. P/05/0560/OA

Appellant: Martin Fay Site: Crofton Avenue-Crofton Cliff - Lee on Solent Decision Maker: Officers’ Delegated Powers Recommendation: Refuse Council's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 7th October 2005 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the demolition of the existing house & outbuildings, retain the swimming pool & erect 5no. dwellings & garages. Hearing Date: 6 December 2005 Both appeals will be heard together.


-92- 9. P/04/1130/FP

Appellant: Mr J Purkiss Site: Five Oaks Trout Lake, Sarisbury Green Decision Maker: Planning Development Control Committee Recommendation: Refuse Council's Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 9 December 2004 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of two short stay fishing lodges & office with disabled WC.

Hearing Date: 7 December 2005 10. P/04/1907/OA

Appellant: Gudgeon Developments ltd & Hyde Housing Association Site: Land North of Cranleigh Road, Portchester, Fareham

Decision Maker: Officers’ Delegated Powers Recommendation: Refuse Council's Decision: Refused

Date Lodged: 1 June 2005 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse outline planning permission for Residential Development comprising of 230 dwellings together with New Square incorporating Community Uses (A1 & D1) Open Space, Landscaping & Roads.

Inquiry Dates: 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th April 2006 11. P/05/0633/FP

Appellants: Linden Homes Southern Ltd Site: 93 Redlands Lane – Former Elliotts Site - Fareham Decision Maker: Officers’ Delegated Powers Recommendation: Refuse Council's Decision: Refused

Date Lodged: 19 July 2005 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 49no. flats & 3no. Houses with associated

parking & landscaping Inquiry Dates: 25, 26 April 2006 12. P/05/0941/FP

Appellants: Linden Homes Southern Ltd Site: 93 Redlands Lane – Former Elliotts Site - Fareham Decision Maker: Planning Development Control Committee Recommendation: Permission Council's Decision: Refused

Date Lodged: 2nd September 2005 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 49no. flats & 3no. Houses with associated

parking & landscaping Inquiry Dates: 25, 26 April 2006 Both appeals will be heard together.


-93-

DECISIONS

13. P/05/0315/VC

Appellant: Mr Chris Beeching Site: 115a Dibles Road, Warsash

Decision Maker: Planning Development Control Committee Recommendation: Permission Council's Decision: Refuse

Date Lodged: 07 June 2005 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for variation of condition 5, P/04/0602/FP (in part to enable retention of close boarded fence). Decision: Dismissed Date of Decision: 07 October 2005

Enquiries:

For further information on this report please contact Alan Wells. (Ext 2431)


-94-

PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

UPDATES

2nd NOVEMBER 2005 Item Page ZONE 1 2:30 2 8 P/05/1246/VC – 37B-39 LOCKS ROAD - PIXIES Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – No objection 3 10 P/05/1303/VC – 19 CRISPIN CLOSE Letter received from the agent requesting alteration to the

recommended time period from one year to two years due to the following:-

1. Final completion of the building work will not finish until January/February next year.

2. Transferring digital phone lines without incurring considerable extra cost requires minimum contact periods of 2 years.

3. Transferring computers and office equipment takes time and money and becomes commercially less viable if the effective trial period was only 9 months of so (after completion).

Officers have not changed the recommendation of one year.

7

22 P/05/1342/FP – 206 BOTLEY ROAD BURRIDGE Additional condition: remove pd rights for balconies

8 24 P/05/1234/FP – MARLBOROUGH WHITELEY LANE Within site description, Paragraph 3 should read …contains three bungalows, 106 Segensworth Road, Woodlands and Marlborough, with detached ancillary buildings, and a paddock. The site is also used as a haulage yard by the occupier of Marlborough.

10 31 P/05/1104/FP – SHORE ROAD WARSASH Amplifying details in respect of mitigation and enhancement

measures in relation to nature conservation issues have recently been submitted. Officers believe that English Nature should be consulted on the submitted details. In light of this the


-95- recommendation should read: Subject to the consideration of the

mitigation measures by English Nature.

In the event that English Nature are not satisfied by the mitigation measures then the application should be refused on nature conservation issues. As a result of the further consultation with English Nature the timescale available for the completion of the S. 106 agreement should be changed to 9 December 2005.

11 35 P/05/1395/FP/O – 25 GREENAWAY LANE One letter of objection received raising the following concerns:-

During construction there will be vans, lorries, tucks, contractors own vehicles parked directly outside making it impossible to exit and gain access to neighbouring properties.

Neighbour notification expires on 4th November 2005 Subject to no new material issues

Misc 1 37 P/03/0435/FP – 279 BOTLEY ROAD One letter has been received following the committee site visit re-

iterating the issues previously received, including the following:

Before the site visit took place the scaffolding was taken down; windows were installed; skips removed and the site was tidied up.

Concerns that the french doors on the upstairs window will lead to a balcony;

Concerns over surface water draining onto path;

The neighbour was never informed by FBC in respect of the planning application. (Office records indicate that both immediate neighbours were notified of the original application.)

Misc 2 40 P/05/0635/FP – 12 GRASSYMEAD One letter of objection has been received raising the following

objections:

How can a building with brick walls that go up to the roof and with a toilet in one end with a tiled roof be considered a conservatory?

Only part of the roof has been fitted so modifications could be made. (The moving of the wall at least one metre from


-96- boundary).

It would be physically impossible to carry out any cleaning or repairs to the neighbouring property.

ZONE 2 4:15

12 42 P/05/1308/CU – 36 GEOFFREY CRESCENT Objection has now been withdrawn

Change of Description to: Conversion of premises to mixed residential and business (blacksmiths)use Additional Conditions:

Garage to revert back to incidental garage after use ceases

Windows and doors should be shut during operation

Use in accordance with agreed schedule in terms of method of operation and tools used

14 44 P/05/1298/FP/O – 15 BRUCE CLOSE Amended plans received indicating two new velux windows on the

rear elevation.

16 47 P/05/1380/FP – 52 FAREHAM PARK ROAD

Three further letters of objection have been received raising the following objections:

The dwelling will interrupt the run of bungalows;

The description should read semi-detached houses, which is out of character with the immediate surroundings;

Increase in cars parking on the road;

Dormers have not been allowed in the past;

Proximity to public sewer and boundary;

Room sizes are very small and fall below the ‘Good standard of design’;

Height is still higher than surrounding properties;

Additional dwellings will cause problems with the already strained sewerage system.

17 49 P/05/1322/FP – 93 REDLANDS LANE FORMER ELLIOTTS SITE Page 52 under the paragraph ‘Amenity Space Provision’ the final

word should read useable 21 60 P/05/1353/SU – ROWAN WAY/PEAK LANE

A further nine letters of objection have been received raising the


-97- following additional issues.

The safety of masts has never been confirmed, any risk to

safety of residents should be the councils first and major concern

The mast would be among mature deciduous trees, not screened for 4-5 months of the year

Comments from the Health Protection Agency website states ‘ there remain particular concerns in the UK about the impact of base stations on health, including wellbeing.’

Concerns about effects on property value with base stations being built near to their homes.

There are several large fields and industrial sites more suitable in the area

Any mast with a transmitting aerial on it produces a significant degree of danger

Infrastructure for mobile communication already exists

Hampshire Constabulary – No objection ZONE 3 5:45 22 65 P/05/1273/FP – 6 SEAFIELD PARK ROAD, HILL HEAD One additional letter received from one of the original objectors

objecting to the amended plan on the following grounds; The proposal does not comply with DG3(A)(B) and DG5(A)(B)

The raised roof would be out of character

Extending forwards of the building line would have an adverse affect on outlook

Loss of privacy

24 68 P/05/1333/FP – 18 MONKS WAY Amended plans received 19 October 2005

Proposed main roof height: Ridge:8.7 Eaves: 5.1 Proposed extension roof height: Ridge: 7.8 Eaves: 5.1 Existing roof height: Ridge: 7.3 Eaves: 5.1

26 73 P/05/1242/FP – 56 CASTLE STREET The applicant has confirmed in writing that the extension will be built

completely on their land and no part would encroach on the neighbouring site.

28 76 P/05/1302/VC – 50-54 CORNAWAY LANE


-98-

Five further letters of objection have been received raising the following additional issues:

Parking bays 12 and 13 divide the landscape margin, and

vehicles parking in these will infringe on the privacy of the bedrooms of flat 5

On the original application there was a wall alongside flat 3. This wall has been removed leaving this building very vulnerable to intruders

There is no on-road parking in Cornaway Lane as there are double yellow lines

Increased traffic movement will be detrimental to all the young children that pass the entrance on their way to school.

Misc 3 86 HMS DAEDALUS AIRFIELD

The agent confirms the proposed amendment of fencing design to a ‘Y’ post design with straight strands of barbed wire. Fencing panels are to remain as previously submitted, ‘Heras’ Chaperon welded mesh panel.

In the event that Members resolve to remove the holding objection

then the applicant would be advised to submit a revised C.18/84 consultation in order for public consultation/publicity to be undertaken in relation to the extended site area.

Documents

Report to Planning Development Control Committee Committee/200511… · P/01/0506/VC Variation of condition 3 & 4 of P/98/0212/CU (To increase number of Children from 90 to 96 and