report to planning development control committee
TRANSCRIPT
dc-071031-r04-lsm
Report to Planning Development Control Committee
Date: 31 October 2007 Report of: Director of Regulatory Services Subject: PLANNING APPLICATIONS
SUMMARY
This report recommends action on various planning applications and one miscellaneous item
RECOMMENDATION
The recommendations are detailed individually at the end of the report on each planning application.
Item 6(i)
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-2-
Index List of Applications with Page Numbers
Planning No. Item
FAREHAM EAST P/07/1229/FP 48 ELMS ROAD, FAREHAM CONVERSION OF EXISTING DWELLING
TO TWO FLATS Permission 16
P/07/1259/CU 161 WEST STREET - GROUND FLOOR -,
FAREHAM
CHANGE USE FROM RETAIL (CLASS A1) TO MIXED RESTAURANT (CLASS A3) & ANCILLARY TAKEAWAY (CLASS A5) & INSTALL REAR FLUE
Permission 17
FAREHAM NORTH P/07/1206/OA 18 THE DRIVE, FAREHAM DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUNGALOW &
GARAGE AND ERECTION OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS & GARAGES (OUTLINE APPLICATION)
Outline Permission
18
FAREHAM NORTH-WEST P/07/1242/FP 11 NEPTUNE ROAD, FAREHAM ERECTION OF TWO STOREY REAR
EXTENSION AND SINGLE STOREY SIDE/FRONT EXTENSION
Permission 19
P/07/1271/FP 6 LOVATT GROVE, FAREHAM ERECTION OF ATTACHED TWO STOREY
DWELLING Permission 20
FAREHAM SOUTH P/07/1180/FP 4A HOLBROOK ROAD, FAREHAM PROVISION OF REAR DORMER AND
CHIMNEY TO SIDE ELEVATION Permission 21
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-3-
P/07/1190/FP 128 PAXTON ROAD, FAREHAM, LAND
ADJACENT TO
ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING Permission 22 P/07/1256/FP 126 PAXTON ROAD, FAREHAM, LAND TO
REAR OF
ERECT TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO EXISTING HOUSE & ERECT TWO FLATS & FOUR HOUSES INCLUDING LANDSCAPING, ACCESS & PARKING
Permission 23
FAREHAM WEST P/07/1283/FP 78-80 THE AVENUE, - LAND TO REAR -,
FAREHAM
ERECTION OF DETACHED FIVE- BED DWELLING
Permission 24
HILL HEAD P/07/1208/VC 57 OLD STREET, HILL HEAD, - LAND
ADJACENT TO
VARY CONDITION 4 OF P/07/0742/FP (TO ENABLE PROVISION OF NEW PEDESTRAIN ACCESS GATE IN EXISTING GAP IN HEDEGROW
Permission 25
P/07/1258/FP 120 CUCKOO LANE, - THE CUCKOO PINT -
, FAREHAM
RETENTION OF OUTDOOR SMOKING SHELTER AND THREE SCREENS
Permission 26
LOCKS HEATH P/07/0977/FP CENTRE WAY - LOCKS HEATH CENTRE -,
LOCKS HEATH
ERECTION OF NEW RETAIL TERRACE WITH FULL MEZZANINE AND RE- CONFIGURATION OF CAR PARK AND EXTERNAL AREAS
Permission 1
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-4-
P/07/0978/FP CENTRE WAY - LOCKS HEATH CENTRE -,
LOCKS HEATH
ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND EXTERNAL WORKS
Permission 2
PARK GATE P/07/1223/FP 18 VALLEY RISE, SARISBURY GREEN ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY
SIDE/REAR EXTENSION TO PROVIDE ANNEXE
Permission 3
P/07/1238/FP 2 HEATH ROAD NORTH, LOCKS HEATH RAISE EXISTING ROOF TO PROVIDE
ACCOMMODATION IN ROOF SPACE & PROVIDE THREE FRONT DORMERS (ALTERNATIVE TO P/07/0174/FP)
Permission 4
PORTCHESTER EAST P/07/1188/FP 43 GROVE AVENUE, PORTCHESTER BUILD UP HIPPED ROOF TO FORM BARN
HIP, ERECT TWO FRONT DORMERS & REAR EXTENSION WITH ACCOMMODATION WITHIN ROOFSPACE
Permission 27
P/07/1193/VC CASTLE TRADING ESTATE -
SCHEFENACKER -, EAST STREET, PORTCHESTER
VARIATION OF CONDITION 14 OF FBC 2125 (TO RETAIN STORAGE OF MATERIALS WITHIN REAR PARKING AREA)
Permission 28
PORTCHESTER WEST P/07/1173/FP 45 THE RIDGEWAY, FAREHAM ERECT SINGLE STOREY FRONT EXTNS
TO GARAGE & FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION INCORPORATING FRONT & REAR DORMERS
Permission 29
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-5-
SARISBURY P/07/1212/FP 88 SWANWICK LANE, SWANWICK DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING
AND ERECTION OF TWO CHALET DWELLINGS
Permission 5
P/07/1213/FP 264 BOTLEY ROAD, BURRIDGE ERECTION OF TRELLIS TO FENCE ON
SOUTH EAST AND NORTH EAST BOUNDARY
Refuse 6
P/07/1220/FP 59 HOLLY HILL LANE, SARISBURY
GREEN, SOUTHAMPTON
ERECTION OF SINGLE AND TWO STOREY FRONT EXTENSION, SIDE PORCH AND RAISE ROOFLINE
Refuse 7
P/07/1226/FP 14 SWANWICK LANE, SWANWICK RETENTION OF STRUCTURE ATTACHED
TO GARAGE Permission 8
P/07/1231/TO 136 SWANWICK LANE, SWANWICK CARRY OUT WORKS TO OAK TREES
COVERED BY FTPO481 Consent 9
TITCHFIELD P/07/1058/FP 57 WEST STREET, TITCHFIELD ALTERATION, EXTENSION TO AND
CONVERSION OF EXISTING GARAGE TO DINGHY STORE AND ERECTION OF NEW BOUNDARY WALL
Permission 10
P/07/1199/TO 17A CHAPELSIDE, TITCHFIELD FELL TWO CONIFER TREES AND REDUCE
BAY TREE AND PLUM TREE BY 50% COVERED BY FTPO 253
Consent 11
P/07/1268/FP 173 SEGENSWORTH ROAD, - LAND TO
REAR -, FAREHAM
ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING FRONTING MERECROFT
Permission 12
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-6-
WARSASH P/07/0985/CU SHORE ROAD - MARINERS QUAY -,
WARSASH
CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO OFFICE (A2) & STORAGE (B8) TO PROVIDE FOR STORAGE OF BOATS AND OFFICE USE
To Be Updated 13
P/07/1217/FP 37 WARSASH ROAD, WARSASH, -
WARSASH DENTAL PRACTICE -
ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTN TO FORM TWO ADDITIONAL SURGERIES & DISABLED W.C.& NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS
To Be Updated 14
P/07/1294/OA 226-228 WARSASH ROAD, - LAND TO
REAR -, WARSASH
ERECTION OF DETACHED BUNGALOW AND GARAGE
Refuse 15
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-7-
ZONE 1 – WESTERN WARDS Locks Heath Park Gate Sarisbury Titchfield Titchfield Common Warsash
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-8-
(1) P/07/0977/FP LOCKS HEATH as amplified by plan received 9th August 2007; amended by plan received 3rd
October 2007; amplified by email dated 4th October 2007 CPI ACTIVE RETAIL MANAGEMENT Agent: SMC CORSTORPHINE & WRIGHT
ERECTION OF NEW RETAIL TERRACE CENTRE WAY - WITH FULL MEZZANINE AND RE- LOCKS HEATH CENTRE - CONFIGURATION OF CAR PARK LOCKS HEATH AND EXTERNAL AREAS OFFICERS REPORT – Alan Wells Ext 2431 / Sue Purcell Ext 2433 Introduction
This proposal is for the provision of a terrace of new shop units in a two storey building to the east of the supermarket within the existing shipping centre.
There is another item on this agenda relating to a proposed drive through restaurant. This application also proposes significant re-configuration of the car parking areas so making best use of the available land, improving highway safety by reducing access points on to Centre Way, and ensuring that these schemes do not prevent delivery of swimming pool and other leisure facilities by the Council on adjacent land because of a shortfall in car parking facilities.
Site Description
The Locks Heath District Centre comprises predominantly brick and tile buildings arranged in a U shaped plan form with a plaza and car parking within that U, with further parking to the east.
The proposals would affect the car parking areas but not now the plaza which with the clock tower would be retained. Amended plans showing this have been the subject of fresh publicity.
Description of Proposal
Planning permission is sought to provide an additional 3,038 square metres of floor space over 2 floors in a stand alone pavilion located along the eastern side of the existing food store. Shopping floor space and associated storage would be accommodated in the building.
Reconfiguration of the car park to improve parking provision and provision of safer access is proposed. Staff parking is proposed next to the service yard at the north-west of the site.
Policies
Hampshire County Structure Plan Review: Policies E1, E2, E3, EC1, T10 and T12. Fareham Borough Local Plan Review: Policies DG1, DG3, DG4, DG5, DG6, T1, T5, T6, E1, E2, S6 and S9.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-9-
A development brief for Locks Heath District Centre was approved in 1979.
In that brief it says that the site is intended to provide the major shopping facility for the Western Wards together with offices, community facilities, residential development and a town park.
Reference is made to other uses also being incorporated within the development and this list (para 3.1.4) includes "a separate café/restaurant".
The site of the proposed retail units is shown within the urban area and immediately adjoining the District Centre in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review (FBLPR) Proposals Map.
Paragraph 10.43 of the FBLPR says that the district and local centres and parades continue to provide for the day-to-day needs of the local community …. "it is considered necessary to restrict the introduction of uses which do not support or complement the activity of retailing."
In respect of any additional shopping development in the District and Local Centres there is reference to protecting nearby residential amenities (para 10.41).
Nathaniel Lichfield Retail and Centres Study 2004.
Relevant Planning History
Outline permission (FBC.4653/12) was granted in 1982 for the erection of a District Centre for the Western Wards, including a commercial centre with shops, offices, community buildings, public house and petrol station, etc., a town park. Some areas of housing, close to but distinct from the centre, were also included. Landscaped areas of parking, to meet the needs of the centre communally, closely accord with the Development Brief for the Centre.
Detailed approval (FBC.4653/13) of the commercial centre, car parking and servicing, together with roads and greenways was granted concurrently with the outline permission.
Deemed permission by the County Council(FBC.7200) was granted in 1990 for the erection of a Primary School on open land to the south of the District Centre with access onto Centre Way. This has not been activated and is no longer valid.
P/95/0030/FP – Widening and straightening of Centre Way and installation of security fencing, gates and enclosures – Refused 1995.
Representations A letter from The Fareham Society raises the following concerns:
The effect of the proposed extra shopping units will diminish important aspects of facilities enjoyed by the visitors to the centre;
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-10-
Changes around the clock tower will result in the removal of seating and play area (now amended);
Concerns about the traffic arrangements and that traffic movements are much closer to the shopping area;
The proposed parade of shops does not fit comfortably alongside the Co-op building;
It is unsatisfactory that the entrance of the upper floors has yet to be decided;
The service area to the rear of the proposed shops will be very visible if it is to be open railing gates.
One letter received very much in favour of the centre development (but not the KFC) and one letter having no objection in principle to development of the centre but having concern about the parking arrangements/layout as the existing car parking facilities are never fully utilised. Fifty-nine letters in total have been received raising the following issues:
The area surrounding the clock tower is used by young and old alike for playing, meeting or just sitting. To remove this area and use it for parking spaces is no benefit to the community and will ruin our recreational space (now amended)
Unhappy with the layout of the shops. Mixing delivery lorries with customer parking and pedestrian access is unsatisfactory (deliveries could be restricted to outside normal trading period);
Additional shops will create a corridor behind the shops that will be difficult to make secure and will create another opportunity for anti- social behaviour;
Concerns about re-siting of the clock tower and the removal of the pedestrian parade west of the tower to make way for additional car parking (now amended);
There are already empty retail outlets in the centre;
The proposed extension to the central parking area would disrupt all the natural walking routes between shopping outlets which are sites around the plaza (now amended);
Coach drivers use the ‘island’ parking to pick up and set down passengers, they should be allowed to continue this (beyond the scope of this application);
Insufficient car parking spaces;
The community spirit will be lost when more car parking spaces are introduced within the present amenity space (now amended);
The new units should be built in matching brick;
The clock tower is a focal/ meeting point in the pedestrian area, which it should be, not stranded in a car park (now amended);
To change the form of the car parking will cause danger to pedestrians and drivers
Time given for comments to be submitted is not long enough;
The proposed development will be a threat to the quality of life of the surrounding residents;
The proposed pavilion will obscure the views of trees and woodland;
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-11-
Some visualisations show large banners advertising the stores in the new units; these will be out of keeping with the tone of the centre (now reduced in size);
Insufficient information regarding the operation for the car parking activity. The site plan does not show car park flows and the loss of two dedicated exits and entrances to be replaced by one new entry point;
Loss of habitat for wildlife;
There should be no felling or cutting of trees as part of this development;
Concerns that the ‘walkway’ through the trees at the side of the car park will not stay;
A safe place to wait for taxis and coaches needs to be provided;
The residents do not want to lose the paved area around the Tower (now amended);
There is no mention for the provision for parking of emergency vehicles and the ‘care bus’;
The area of pleasing landscape around the clock tower will be damaged (now amended);
It would seem the height of folly to take an area of social space which people approve and enjoy and wantonly to destroy it for no good reason (now amended);
There was not sufficient notification and the site notices were hard to find;
The submitted plan is a visual lie;
No cycle racks are provided;
Concerns that recycling facilities will be removed (now shown retained);
The parking arrangement will inconvenience disabled people using the facility, unless they only intend to visit one area of the precinct (disabled parking now amended);
Concerns that the matures trees will be felled;
The so called ‘contemporary’ design is not reflecting the more pleasant aspect of the building that already exist;
There is a loss of parent/child parking facilities;
No provision for children’s play area or equipment;
The design of the proposed new retail terrace is not in keeping with the character of the area;
The glass façade of shops with metal upright completely detract from the existing landscape and street scene;
Additional traffic coming in via external road leading to the centre cannot be supported by infrastructure already in place;
The proposed development will cause a hazardous situation for the traffic attempting to turn right out of the petrol station.
Six further letters have been received as a result of notification of amended plans raising the following new issues:
No directions of the traffic flows were indicated on the plans
Concerns about how the delivery lorries would reach the shops
No spaces are indicated for mother and toddler parking
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-12-
Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objection subject to detailed clarification of access details including in/out signage and road markings.
Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) - no objection.
Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) - no objection.
Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Policy) – Reference is made to the 2004 retail study which is supportive of providing additional floorspace at the District Centre and that the proposals, in terms of rationalising car parking, and access arrangements have been designed in a way that is compatible with the intention of the Council to provide leisure facilities at the centre.
Southern Water Services – no objection subject to conditions and informative
Crime Prevention Design Adviser - Detailed comments about the access arrangements and CCTV coverage of the delivery corridor are made. Highway officers believe that the latter cannot be justified and that other matters can be addressed by conditions.
Access Officer – Detailed comments about requirements for access for the disabled.
Environment Agency – Object pending the submission of a flood risk assessment. This was still awaited at the time that the report was written.
County Surveyor – Comments awaited
Director of Customer Services – Comments awaited
Comments The application proposals have been amended to address strong concerns about the impact upon the Plaza and any comments received in response to those changes will be reported at the meeting. The Plaza, it is proposed, should remain intact. Other issues raised by the proposals are:
Principle of additional floorspace;
Vitality and viability of the District Centre;
Design of the proposed building;
Design of car parking including highway safety issues.
Principle of additional floorspace Local Plan policies and the 2004 retail study are supportive of the provision of additional retail units that are of a size to attract a variety of retailers, provided that the development is appropriate to local needs and does not result in an
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-13-
unacceptable extension of the centre. It is considered that the development proposed complies with these criteria. Vitality and viability of the District Centre The size and location of the proposed retail units would contribute positively to the vitality and viability of the Centre in a sustainable way by providing a better choice of shops locally. Design of the Proposed Building The detailing, scale and signage of the proposals have been designed taking on board officers comments including the urban designers comments, to limit the scale of the building avoiding conflict with the existing scale of buildings, whilst introducing a more interesting elevation on entrance to the Centre with suitably scaled down trader advertisement panels on the front of the building. There would be no public access to the rear of the building, which can be conditioned. Design of car parking including highway safety issues In order to support the extended retail offer, the restaurant and leisure facilities planned by the Council, the car parking layout has been radically altered to make better use of the available space.
There would be some tree and shrub loss and the landscape scheme required by condition should include some larger trees to avoid too drastic a short term loss of vegetation. The amended plans include improved pedestrian facilities, a site for re-cycling facilities whilst retaining less access points on to Centre Way with inherent safety improvements in such an approach. Car parking provision for staff at the north-west of the site should reduce pressure upon the car parking available for other users of the Centre.
Conclusion
Extensive improvements and changes to the scheme have been secured in response to public comments and officers believe that the proposals strike a balance between more intensive use of the site to secure a viable Centre, and safeguarding amenities here with a strong emphasis on a sustainable approach to transportation
RECOMMEND: Subject to: (i) the consideration of any further comments received by the 24th October 2007; (ii) the applicant/owner first entering into an agreement pursuant to Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 on terms to the satisfaction of
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-14-
the Head of Development Control to secure a financial contribution towards transportation improvements on site and; (iii) the receipt of a satisfactorily flood risk assessment and the receipt of clarification of access details.
PERMISSION: Travel plan; levels; external materials; delivery restrictions/hours; landscaping scheme; landscape maintenance; car parking and cycle storage; no burning on site; details of lighting/flood lighting; access for disabled; no mud on roads; provision of re-cycling facility; parking facilities during construction works; means of enclosure, including preventing of access behind shops; hours of construction; road construction and signage details.
Further Information:
(1) A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester SO23 9EH (tel 01962 858600). (2) Your attention is drawn to the Comments from Building Control Manager regarding access (copy attached). (3) Your attention is drawn to policy comments regarding the benefits of providing CCTV (copy attached). BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/0977/FP
(2) P/07/0978/FP LOCKS HEATH
CPI ACTIVE MANAGEMENT Agent: SMC CORSTORPHINE & WRIGHT
ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY CENTRE WAY DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT LOCKS HEATH CENTRE WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LOCKS HEATH EXTERNAL WORKS OFFICERS REPORT – Alan Wells Ext 2431/Sue Purcell Ext 2433 Introduction
This proposal is for the erection of an alternative drive through restaurant to that permitted in July 2002.
The building proposed is smaller than the earlier scheme; it would be at the south rather than the north of the site; the building is of contemporary flat roof design rather than the permitted design which though essentially flat roofed has hipped roof features around it, and is strongly associated with the previous applicant’s corporate identity.
Commencement of the development means that implementation of the earlier scheme can be completed without the need for a further planning permission.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-15-
Site Description
Eastern area of car parking provided on a communal basis in connection with the District Centre.
Until the commencement of development upon the previously permitted restaurant the area provided 61 parking spaces with re-cycling facilities provided upon 6 of them.
This area is surrounded by the access road and the bus stop link with low level shrubs and tree planting at its fringes.
These were essentially the least conveniently located parking spaces of the communal parking area and the most lightly used.
Description of Proposal
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a drive through restaurant covering 194 sq metres in a stand alone pavilion located along the south side of what was an ‘island’ surface parking area.
The proposals re-configure that car park to ensure that the impact upon the provision of parking across the site is minimised. This is in order to accommodate the additional need generated by the new restaurant. The new car park would be landscaped. The initially proposed access and servicing arrangements have been significantly amended in response to highway objections to them, and it is now proposed to retain an in and out arrangement at one point on the western side of the site.
The design of the building reflects the KFC corporate style comprising a series of cubed elements with corporate signage on them.
Policies
Hampshire County Structure Plan Review: Policies E1, E2, E3, EC1, T10 and T12. Fareham Borough Local Plan Review: Policies DG1, DG3, DG4, DG5, DG6, T1, T5, T6, E1, E2, S7 and S12.
A development brief for Locks Heath District Centre was approved in 1979.
In that brief it says that the site is intended to provide the major shopping facility for the Western Wards together with offices, community facilities, residential development and a town park.
Reference is made to other uses also being incorporated within the development and this list (para 3.1.4) includes "a separate café/restaurant".
The site is within the urban area but is not shown within the District Centre in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review (FBLPR) Proposals Map.
Paragraph 10.43 of the FBLPR says that the district and local centres and
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-16-
parades continue to provide for the day-to-day needs of the local community …. "it is considered necessary to restrict the introduction of uses which do not support or complement the activity of retailing."
In respect of any additional shopping development in the District and Local Centres there is reference to protecting nearby residential amenities (para 10.41).
Nathaniel Lichfield Retail and Centres Study 2004.
Relevant Planning History
Outline permission (FBC.4653/12) was granted in 1982 for the erection of a District Centre for the Western Wards, including a commercial centre with shops, offices, community buildings, public house and petrol station, etc., a town park. Some areas of housing, close to but distinct from the centre, were also included. Landscaped areas of parking, to meet the needs of the centre communally, closely accord with the Development Brief for the Centre.
Detailed approval (FBC.4653/13) of the commercial centre, car parking and servicing, together with roads and greenways was granted concurrently with the outline permission.
Deemed permission by the County Council (FBC.7200) was granted in 1990 for the erection of a Primary School on open land to the south of the District Centre with access onto Centre Way. This has not been activated and is no longer valid.
Permission (P/93/0702/D3) in 1993 for the siting of a recycling collection point on two of the car spaces on this site.
Day Care Centre (P/94/0282/FP) and Genesis Youth Centre (P/94/0872/FP) were permitted in 1994 on land immediately to the south of this application site separated from it by a bus-only road.
P/95/0030/FP – Widening and straightening of Centre Way and installation of security fencing, gates and enclosures – Refused 1995.
P/01/0625/FP – Erection of Freestanding Restaurant with Drive-through facility with Associated Landscaping and Parking – Permission July 2002. Development commenced earlier this year.
Spatial Context of the Application Site
Details of this will be displayed at the meeting.
There are dwellings in the immediate locality of the site, the closest being some 70 metres from the closest part of the car park, with others in the same cul-de-sac (High Oaks Close).
There is other residential development in proximity to the District Centre
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-17-
itself and to the points of access both vehicular and pedestrian.
Representations One letter has been received from The Fareham Society raising the following concern:
The design is out of keeping with the area
Sixty letters have been received objecting/commenting on the following grounds:
Lighting, both internal and external will be a nuisance;
Concerns about extraction and filtration systems used;
Whilst the proposal might have seemed a good idea 4 years ago, it does not mean that it is necessarily so today;
The smell and rubbish will devalue the properties in the close vicinity;
Will increase traffic along Centre Way;
Concerns about the close proximity of the take-away from the residential properties;
The proposed development of the KFC is in fact a fait accompi;
The movement of traffic in and around the entrance/exit to KFC will be hampered by the poor sight line created by the north-east corner of the site;
Insufficient car parking spaces;
To change the form of the car parking will cause danger to pedestrians and drivers;
Time given for comments to be submitted is not long enough;
The proposed development will be a threat to the quality of life of the surrounding residents;
There should be no felling or cutting down of trees as part of this development;
There are already enough eating places within the centre;
Will increase late night traffic;
Will encourage the gathering of teenagers and associated noise;
Increase in rubbish and vermin;
The operation would have a large carbon footprint being a large consumer of energy for the heating of the product;
Concerns about standing traffic on a blind corner waiting to be served;
Car parking problems would be detrimental to ever getting the long awaited swimming pool;
The cheap and cheerful construction is more suited to out of town shopping;
Concerns that the bus stop will be removed (not proposed);
Articulated vehicle unloading areas are not adequate;
The planning documentation does not specifically address the issue of traffic exiting the car park safely;
Not a drive through;
Will promote unhealthy eating;
Food ‘buckets’ would be dropped making Locks Heath look filthy;
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-18-
Rats are already a problem in the area; the fast food restaurant will attract more litter and more rats;
Having a drive-through will promote younger drivers and encourage street races.
Seventeen further letters have been received as a result of notification of amended plans raising the following new issues;
It would cause more chaos and danger for pedestrians and children;
Superficial changes have been made to the parking arrangements and do not make any real alterations;
Additional pollution caused by car engines running while queuing for orders of food.
How can a survey carried out in 2001 regarding the impact of a restaurant on the same site is now sufficient to justify the statement ‘ …it is not considered that it would be possible to demonstrate materially adverse impact upon the amenities to local residents….
No directions of the traffic flows were indicated on the plans
Concerns about how the delivery lorries would reach the shops
No spaces are indicated for mother and toddler parking Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objection to amended plan subject to conditions Director of Environment (HCC) – object to initial highway arrangements (now changed).
Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) - no objection subject to conditions and informative to applicant/agent.
Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – no objection
Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Policy) – no objection Local Architects Panel – Design considered acceptable Southern Water Services – no objection subject to conditions and informative
Building Control Manager - Access Officer – no objection
Crime Prevention Design Adviser – Concerns about the initial access arrangements were raised. The scheme has now been amended. CCTV should be installed and the building and scheme generally should be designed to minimise break-ins.
Environment Agency - no objection
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-19-
Comments There is an extant planning permission for a restaurant with take away food sales upon this site, and so the principle of such a facility being provided here has been established. A letter submitted with the application refers to that permission and that works have now commenced in accordance with it. Clearly that development could be completed without further planning permission being granted, and the submitted planning statement refers to that permission being a material consideration in terms of the favourable determination of this application. It is appropriate in determining this application to consider the following issues also:
Size and location of the building
Design of the building and layout of the scheme (1) Size and location of the building The proposed restaurant at 194 square metres is significantly smaller than the permitted McDonalds building of 267 square metres. It is slightly closer to residential properties than that already permitted but is still over 70 metres from the nearest property and objection is not seen to the proposal by Environmental Health Officers. It is pertinent to emphasise that cooking smells, disturbance to residents and environmental impact were specifically considered by the Committee before, and based on advice from Environmental Health Officers it was concluded that these matters did not justify withholding permission. The applicants have said that they are aware that the previous consent restricted the hours of opening to 0800-2300 7 days a week and that the proposed operators are willing to accept a similar planning condition. A similar restriction was placed upon deliveries or despatches from the site (but totally excluding Sundays) and that would be appropriate in this case also. (2) Design of the building and site layout.
The building proposed by virtue of its location will make more of a street scene contribution than that permitted earlier. It would be better located in terms of the pedestrian and public transport links in the area. However, it would introduce a new design approach into the locality by virtue of its form and external cladding since existing buildings in the centre are faced predominantly with brick and tiles. The site is an island feature though, and the building would be seen as a freestanding feature in its landscaped setting. The Local Architects Panel consider the design to be acceptable.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-20-
This scheme because of the smaller building and internal layout would provide both a smaller building and a larger number of parking spaces. The latter would provide parking both for the restaurant and take away but for the shopping centre generally. Conclusion The location of the building, with its more limited size, means that it could contribute better to the appearance of the centre and provide a facility for users of the centre, whilst retaining more car park spaces than the earlier scheme. It is recognised that there continue to be significant concerns about the introduction of a restaurant and take away here, but on the balance of considerations these proposals have measurable benefits over the development that can be implemented now.
RECOMMEND:
PERMISSION: Only one building to be provided; external materials; landscaping scheme and maintenance of landscaping; parking manoeuvring areas/cycle storage; boundary treatment; hours of use 0800 to 2300; details of lighting and floodlighting; delivery routing and hours; refuse storage/collection details; disabled access arrangements; construction traffic site compound details; no burning; no mud on roads; slab levels; hours of construction.
Further Information: 1. A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is
required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester SO23 9EH (tel 01962 858600)
2. The desk 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 a suitable qualified competent person. This person should be a chartered member of an appropriate professional body and have experience in investigating contamination sites.
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.
3. Your attention is drawn to the police comments regarding the merits of providing CCTV
BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/0978/FP
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-21-
(3) P/07/1223/FP PARK GATE MR E GIGG Agent: RTB DRAWING SERVICES
ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY 18 VALLEY RISE SIDE/REAR EXTENSION TO PROVIDE SARISBURY GREEN ANNEXE OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677
Site Description This application relates to a semi-detached dwelling on the south side of Valley Rise which is to the south of Dene Close.
Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey side/rear extension to provide an annexe. The structure would measure 5.5 metres in width, 10.80 metres in depth with an eaves height of 2.4 metres and a ridge height of 4.1 metres. Policies Fareham Borough Local Review – DG3, DG5 and H9. Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:
The extension is closer to the boundary and my property than the existing structure;
The increased height due to the pitched roof seriously affects the outlook and light from my property.
Consultations Chief Planning & Transportation Officer (Highways) - no objection. Comments This application relates to a semi-detached dwelling on the south side of Valley Rise which is off Barnbrook Road. The proposal is for the demolition of an existing detached garage and the erection of a single storey side/rear extension to create an annexe comprising a lounge, bedroom and en-suite. The annexe would be linked to the main house with a lobby and the existing kitchen will be shared between the annex and the main house. Concern has been raised that the proposed extension would result in loss of light and outlook to the neighbouring property at the rear of the site. Officers have considered this concern and are of the view that due to the overall
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-22-
distance (13 metres) between the neighbour’s property and the extension, and its height and design, a detrimental impact would not be created. Officers consider that the proposed extension its proposed location would be acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. A condition is proposed to ensure the unit is not used as a separate unit of accommodation. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to match, annexe (ancillary) BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1223/FP
(4) P/07/1238/FP PARK GATE
MR & MRS M TOUT Agent: MR RICHARD HEADEY
RAISE EXISTING ROOF TO PROVIDE 2 HEATH ROAD NORTH ACCOMMODATION IN ROOF SPACE & LOCKS HEATH PROVIDE THREE FRONT DORMERS (ALTERNATIVE TO P/07/0174/FP) OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677
Site Description
This application relates to a detached property on the west side of Heath Road North which is to the south of Brook Lane.
Description of Proposal Planning permission has been submitted for an alteration to a previously approved proposal (P/07/0174/FP refers), which incorporated raising the existing roof to 6 metres with the provision of three dormers windows within the front elevation and to provide rooms within the roof space. The proposed alteration is to the rear of the property. Three gables were permitted with the middle gable set back from the rear elevation by 1.5 metres. This application has been submitted in order to extend the middle gable out so it is in line with the gables either side. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG3 and DG5. Relevant Planning History P/06/1585/FP Raise Existing Roof to Provide Accommodation in Roof Space - Refused 12-01-2007.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-23-
P/07/0174/FP Raise Existing Roof to Provide Accommodation in Roof Space and Three Front Dormers – Permission 23-03-2007. Representations Two letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:
The house has already been built with three straight rear windows which goes against the planning consent granted;
The present position of the third window means that my level of privacy has been decreased even more so than the agreed initial plan;
My garden up to this point in time has offered complete privacy but with the proposed siting of the third window it will be greatly affected and therefore devalue the value of my property;
The original application was refused as it violated the street scene which resulted in them turning it around giving us the view which you rejected; to make it worse they are bringing the centre window forward making it uglier.
Comments This application relates to a detached property on the west side of Heath Road North which is to the east of Brook Lane. This current application has been submitted in order to amend the central gable at the rear of the property which was approved on the previous application. The proposal is to extend the gable by 1.5metres in depth so it is in line with the two end gables. The proposal is currently under construction. Officers have measured the overall height of the building and can confirm that the overall height of the roof is slightly lower than that approved. The concern has been raised that the neighbouring properties level of privacy has decreased with the extension to the central gable. Officers are of the view that a detrimental impact has not been created with the new position of the middle window. There is a distance of 28 metres between the rear windows and the garden boundary which exceeds the minimum distance of 11 metres normally requested. The representation received also stated that the design is uglier with the third gable extended however officers are of the view that the design is acceptable and does not have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the area. Officers are of the view that application in compliance with the Fareham Borough local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: No openings specific elevations; fix shut and obscure window in south elevation. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1238/FP
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-24-
(5) P/07/1212/FP SARISBURY
JORDON HOMES LTD Agent: A.D.P. ARCHITECTS LTD
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 88 SWANWICK LANE DWELLING AND ERECTION OF SWANWICK TWO CHALET DWELLINGS OFFICERS REPORT - Joanne Wilson Ext 2679
Site Description
The application site is situated on the northern side of Swanwick Lane, just east of the junction with New Road. No.90 Swanwick Lane forms the western boundary and No.86 Swanwick Lane forms the eastern boundary. The site is located within a continuous built up frontage defined as countryside within the adopted local plan.
Description of Proposal
Permission is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of two individually designed chalet style bungalows;
The proposed chalet bungalows would utilise the existing access and one property would have an integral garage and two further parking spaces and the other would have three parking spaces within the front garden.
Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG3; DG5; H11; H14; R5 and T5.
Representations Two letters have been received; they are not objecting to the principle of development but would like the following comments to be considered:
To ensure that there is no loss of privacy all the windows should be obscure glass facing neighbouring properties;
A 1.8 metre high wall should be erected along the boundary with No.86 to alleviate any issues of noise and disturbance;
The boundary treatment to No.90 should be at least 1.8 metres high to ensure no loss of privacy;
Of concern would be the additional traffic using the shared access, would it be possible to create a separate access?.
Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objections Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) – no adverse comments
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-25-
Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – no objections subject to conditions. Comments The site falls within an area allocated as coast and countryside where ̀ residential infilling for one or two dwellings will be permitted providing it occupies a gap between existing dwellings in an otherwise continuously built-up frontage. In the view of officers the site is part of a continuous built up frontage. The redevelopment of the single dwelling with two detached dwellings would comply with the spirit of the policy. The surrounding area comprises of a mix of dwelling types and many of the surrounding properties are individually designed with a mix of plot sizes. The application proposes two individually designed chalet bungalows, which would be comparable in height to surrounding properties around the area. It is considered by officers that the proposed dwellings would not result in a detrimental impact on the streetscene or the character of the area. With regard to the comments raised by neighbouring properties that the windows facing them should be obscure glazed, it is considered by officers that to ensure that there would be no overlooking of neighbouring properties it would be appropriate to impose a condition to ensure that the windows are obscure glazed and fixed shut to a height of 1.7 metres. The only window that the applicant has requested would be clear glazed is a ground floor lounge window. Officers consider that provided screening of not less than 1.8 metres high is erected the window could remain as clear glass. With regard to the concerns raised that the parking spaces within the front garden would cause noise and disturbance, a 1.8 metre wall is proposed along the boundary with No.86 to ensure that the amenities of the occupiers of this property are not harmed. Officers consider that the proposal is acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review.
RECOMMEND: Subject to the applicant/owner first entering into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council to secure a financial contribution towards off-site public open space and/ or facilities by the 5th November 2007.
PERMISSION: materials to be submitted; hard surface details to be submitted; boundary treatment; wall 1.8 metres high along eastern boundary; parking; specific windows to be obscure glazed and fixed shut; no further openings within eastern and western elevation; landscaping scheme showing new and replacement tree planting; landscaping implementation; no burning; hours of construction; no mud on road; tree protection measures; levels.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-26-
OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required section 106 by the 5th November 2007.
REFUSE: Contrary to Policy; inadequate provision for public open space; BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1212/FP
(6) P/07/1213/FP SARISBURY MR & MRS J DE LA HAYE
ERECTION OF TRELLIS TO FENCE ON 264 BOTLEY ROAD SOUTH EAST AND NORTH EAST BURRIDGE BOUNDARY
OFFICERS REPORT – Richard Wright 2356
Site Description The proposal is in relation to the rear garden of a detached dwelling on the eastern side of Botley Road, Burridge. There is a footpath running along the north eastern boundary of the property running between Caigers Green and Botley Road, which is to be adopted by Hampshire Highways.
Description of Proposal Permission is sought to erect trellis on two boundaries of the rear garden.
The trellis proposed for the south east boundary would be attached to posts separate from the existing 1.8 metre fence. The trellis would be 1.8 metre from ground level extending up to a height of 2.61 metres, and would extend the full 21.5 metre width of the rear boundary.
The trellis proposed for the north east boundary would be attached on top of the existing 2 metre high brick wall. The trellis is proposed to extend up to a height of 2.915 metres, and would extend the full 37.5 metre length of the boundary alongside the public footpath.
Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies: DG3 and DG5. Relevant Planning History P/02/0279/OA – Development of Residential Dwellings, Access Roads, and Footpaths – Permitted 27th November 2002. P/05/0759/RM – Erection of Twenty-Two Houses & Garages – Approved – 18thJune 2005. Representations Two letters of representation have been received.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-27-
One letter in support of the application had the following comments:
The owner of the property to the rear of our properties (7 Caigers Green) has erected two very large structures in his garden which affect the privacy of our houses and gardens.
One letter in objection to the application raises the following comments:
The application does not comply with Policy DG3 – it detracts from the existing landscape, streetscene and skyline.
The application does not comply with Policy DG5 – the structure is not of a high standard of design and is unsympathetic to the local character. It fails to respect our privacy, outlook and sunlight.
The proposed structure is of poor design, will be top heavy and inherently unsafe.
The trellis will be aggravated further by the weight of the conifer trees growing up and pressing against the structure… causing risk of injury to us/our children whilst in our garden, injury to members of the public passing over the footpath, damage to our property.
The proximity and height of the trellis and posts in relation to the wall abutting the path may also hinder its use by emergency vehicles.
The structure is entirely out of character with the area and specifically the uniform 1.8m fence which continues along our garden and the extended boundary with our other neighbour at 262 Botley Road
The trellis would be just 5 metres from our property and would destroy our light and amenity.
The application is evidence of their excessive sensitivity, is un-neighbourly and is devoid of community spirit.
Comments This application is for the erection of two sets of trellis along two boundaries of the rear garden of the property at 264 Botley Road. The planning issues in this application are in respect to the proposal’s potential impact on the surrounding area and the affect on the outlook and light enjoyed by neighbouring properties. Firstly, in addressing the issue of impact on the surrounding area, the Fareham Local Plan Review Policy DG3 (A) states development will be permitted provided that it does not detract from the existing landscape and streetscene. Policy DG5 (A) of the Local Plan also highlights the importance of incorporating materials and design which are sympathetic to local character. In the opinion of officers, the proposed materials, height, design and the positioning of the trellis on the application site, where it would be clearly viewable from the public realm would unacceptably impact on the visual amenity of the area.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-28-
Secondly, with respect to the issue of the proposal’s potential impact on the outlook and light of 7 Caigers Green which is located immediately to the rear of the application site. The Fareham Local Plan Review Policy DG5 (B) states development will be permitted provided that it respects privacy, outlook and sunlight. This guideline is elaborated more in the Council’s Extension Design Guide. In the absence of specific guidance on the impact of trellis or fencing, for purposes of determining this application officers were minded to treat the trellis as if it were the wall of a proposed extension. The Extension Design Guide states that in the case of first or two storey side extensions the minimum distance required between a side window serving a habitable room and a proposed development will normally be six metres. As the majority of the private garden area of 7 Caigers Green is to the south of the dwelling, for purposes of determining this application it is viewed that the portion of land to the west of the house, which borders the application site and the proposed location of the trellis, be treated as the side elevation. The height of the trellis and existing wall would measure 2.61 metres with a distance of approximately 5 metres from the west facing windows within 7 Caigers Green. Given these circumstances it is the opinion of officers that the proposed trellis would not unacceptably affect the outlook and light currently enjoyed by the side windows of 7 Caigers Green. In conclusion, the application is considered not to comply with the Policies within the Fareham Borough Local Plan in that by virtue of its materials, height and design it would impact on the visual amenities of the area and is therefore unacceptable. RECOMMEND: REFUSE: Contrary to Policies DG3(A) & DG5 (A) of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review; impact on the visual amenities of the area. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1213/FP
(7) P/07/1220/FP SARISBURY MRS A CAPON Agent: MISS C JENKINS
ERECTION OF TWO 59 HOLLY HILL LANE STOREY/ SINGLE STOREY FRONT SARISBURY GREEN EXTENSION, PORCH AND RAISE SOUTHAMPTON ROOFLINE OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin Ext 2412
Site Description This application relates to a detached chalet bungalow to the east of Holly Hill Lane.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-29-
The property is located within a continuous built up frontage with an area designated as countryside and an area of special landscape character within the adopted local plan.
Description of Proposal Permission is sought to;
Extend the front of the property forwards 3.5 metres across the entire width of the property.
Erect a side porch to the south of the property measuring 2.3 metres in width, 2.7 metres in depth with a ridge height of 3.5 metres
Raise the height of the roof 1.5 metre from 5.8 metres to7.3 metre to form a first floor with roof above. The eaves height would be increased from 2.3 metres to 4.8 metres
Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG3, DG5, C1, H11 and H13. Relevant Planning History FBC 4042/15 Erection of Single Storey Rear Extension and Provision of
Roof Extension with Rear Dormer Permission 28 July 1988. FBC 4042/13 Erection of Rear Extension Refused 2 October 1987 Representations Two letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:
Loss of light
Loss of outlook
Loss of privacy
Previous application for rooms in the roof has been refused
The property will project forward of the building line
Contrary to Extension Design Guide Comments The proposal involves the alteration of a detached chalet bungalow into a two storey house. The property has been designed with a single storey element on the northern side. There are a variety of different house types in the area and officers do not consider that the height increase or the forward projection of the property would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the streetscene or character of the area
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-30-
The neighbouring property to the north has a sole bedroom window within the side elevation at first floor level. The distance from this window to the two storey element of the proposal would be 4.8 metres. The outlook from this window would not be of a two storey flank wall as the window is at first floor level. Officers consider that the separation distance is sufficient and that the proposal would not have a material impact up on this property in terms of loss of light or outlook. The neighbouring property to the south has a bedroom window in the side elevation facing north. This bedroom is also served by a window on the front elevation however the window on the front is smaller, at a higher level and is located within the corner of the room. Officers consider that the window on the side elevation is the main window serving this room which at present offers an outlook over the roof of the bungalow. The distance between this window and the proposed two storey flank wall would be 3 metres. The Extension Design Guide states that in the case of first or two storey side or rear extensions the distance required between a side window serving a habitable room and a proposed development will normally be 6 metres. Only in exceptional circumstances depending on the presence of screening the size and height of the extension and the nature of the window (main or secondary), character, levels and orientation will smaller distances to a minimum of 4 metres be acceptable. In light of the guidance given within the Extension Design Guide it is considered that the proposal would unacceptably reduce the outlook available from the property to the south. Officers therefore recommend that the application is refused. RECOMMEND: REFUSE: Contrary to Policy: Detrimental to amenities of neighbouring property to the south BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1220/FP
(8) P/07/1226/FP SARISBURY
A G DAY
RETENTION OF STRUCTURE 14 SWANWICK LANE ATTACHED TO GARAGE SWANWICK OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-31-
Site Description
This application relates to a detached property on the north side of Swanwick Lane which is to the west of Botley Road.
Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought for the retention of a PVC structure which has been erected 50 metres away from the dwelling; attached to an existing garage and measures 12.20 metres in depth, 5.20 metres in width with an eaves height of 3.12 metres and a ridge height of 3.35 metres. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG3, DG5 and C1. Relevant Planning History P/02/1165/FP Erection of a Conservatory to Side - Permission 11-10-2002. Representations Three letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:
The question relating to existing and proposed garaging is left blank on the application form;
The structure is large enough to hold 4 family sized cars. If no cars are to be parked there then why is that not stated;
The application refers to a structure and not a carport as in the supporting documents; what is the real purpose of the structure if not for garaging cars;
If the structure is for garaging cars what will happen to the existing garage of similar size?;
The question about demolition has been answered yes but there is no further information;
There is no full dimensions of this structure;
The structure is overlarge and has a structural height well in excess of that normally accepted for a domestic garage;
The structure does not in any way match the style and colour of the existing garage. That earlier structure has a pitched roof this is flat roofed. The adjacent and existing garage is roofed in green this is in brilliant white PVC sheeting;
If this proposal is accepted then some form of covenant should be imposed upon this owner and all following owners that will restrict the use of this new structure away from any form of commercial use to purely domestic uses.
Comments This application relates to a detached property on the north side of Swanwick Lane which is to the east of Botley Road. This application has been submitted
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-32-
for the retention of a PVC structure which has been erected within the rear garden of the site which is 50 metres away from the dwelling and 48 metres away from the nearest neighbouring property to the east. The structure requires planning permission as it is in excess of 3 metres in height with a mono pitched roof. The representations received raise many comments relating to the forms and information submitted as part of the application but officers are satisfied that the information submitted provides all relevant information required in order for a decision to be made on the application. With regards to the comment made stating that there were no dimensions and that its height is in excess of a domestic garage, officers can confirm that the drawings submitted were to a metric scale and that there is not a set height for the acceptability of structures/garages as each application is judged on its own merits. Concern was also raised that the structure does not match the style and colour of the existing garage. Officers are of the view that as the structure is positioned at the rear of the site surrounded by trees and vegetation within the garden and along the boundary, the structure is screened and does not create a detrimental impact on the surrounding area. Officers propose to impose a condition on the decision notice in order to secure that the structure is used incidental to the enjoyment of dwelling house and that it is not used for any business, industrial or commercial purposes whatsoever. It is not intended to restrict the structure for the parking of vehicles as the site can accommodate parking for many vehicles. Officers have considered the size, design and location of the structure and are of the view that it does not create a detrimental impact on the visual amenities or the character of the area or dwelling. The application complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Use incidental to dwelling; no commercial or business use. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1226/FP
(9) P/07/1231/TO SARISBURY
MR C LANGDALE
CARRY OUT WORKS TO OAK TREES 136 SWANWICK LANE COVERED BY FTPO481 SWANWICK OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677
Site Description
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-33-
This application relates to detached property currently under construction on the north side of Swanwick Lane, on its corner with of Sopwith Way.
Description of Proposal Consent is sought to carry out works to oak trees situated to the north and east of the new dwelling. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG4. Relevant Planning History P/07/0273/FP Erection of Detached Dwelling Utilising Access onto Sopwith Way & Alterations to Existing Access to 138 Swanwick lane – Permission 22-05-2007 Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:
If the new dwelling is correctly positioned then there should be no need to interfere with the natural growth of any of these protected trees;
I think you will find on closer inspection that trees to the east have already sustained damage from tipper lorries delivering building materials to the new site;
I have already expressed my concern for public record that the health of the trees to the north of the dwelling is seriously challenged and it would not come of any surprise to see an application to remove it on health and safety reasons;
There are no justifiable grounds to approve this application. Consultations Chief Planning & Transportation Officer (Arborist) - No objection subjection to description change to Crown raise to 4 metres and crown clean Comments This application has been submitted on a site which is situated on the north side of Swanwick Lane which is to the west of Sopwith Way. Planning permission was granted for the erection of a detached dwelling on the 22nd May 2007. This application is requesting consent to carry out works to a number of oak trees on the site around the new dwelling.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-34-
Officers have considered the points raised by the objector and the Council’s Arborist comments. The proposed works include crown lifting to 4 metres and crown cleaning; officers consider these works would not have a detrimental impact on the health of the trees or the visual amenities of the area. Officers consider the proposed trees works to comply with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: CONSENT: Works in accordance with BS 3998 (1989), crown lift and crown clean only. Further information: 5 day notice of tree works BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1231/TO
(10) P/07/1058/FP TITCHFIELD MR C G WATSON Agent: C G B DESIGNS
ALTERATION, EXTENSION TO AND 57 WEST STREET CONVERSION OF EXISTING GARAGE TITCHFIELD TO DINGHY STORE AND ERECTION OF NEW BOUNDARY WALL
OFFICERS REPORT – Richard Wright 2356
Site Description
The proposal is in respect of a locally listed property in the Titchfield Conservation Area. It is a detached house located to the rear of properties on West Street, with a long drive which has an existing detached garage at the end of it.
Introduction Members will recall this item was deferred from committee on Wednesday 3rd October 2007 in order for officers to obtain further information from the applicant on the intended use of the building. Description of Proposal Permission is sought to alter, extend and convert the existing garage to a dinghy store.
The dinghy store extension would add 7.8 metres to the length of the current outbuilding, be 2.85 metres wide, and 2 metres high to the roof eaves and 3.5 metres high to the roof ridge.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-35-
Access to the dwelling and garden would be via a covered access corridor in the eastern side of the store. The western side of the store would be enclosed store with access via sliding doors to the access corridor.
In the north of the eastern elevation of the dinghy store would be an ornamental iron gate leading to the property and garden. This gate would be housed in a small pitch roofed entrance porch which would extend 0.7 metres further than the side of the dinghy store and would measure 2.9 metres high to roof ridge.
Permission is also sought for the erection of a replacement boundary wall. The new wall would replace an existing timber fence, and form a continuation of the traditional brick garden wall currently serving the property further along the southern boundary.
Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies: DG3 and DG5. Relevant Planning History P/04/0726/FP – Erection of Porch and Car Port and Replacement Boundary Wall – Permission July 2004. Representations Three letters of representation have been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:
The proposed store would overlook an adjacent garden resulting in a loss of privacy;
The proposal would affect the light enjoyed by an adjacent property;
The proposal will be overbearing and dominate the rear of the neighbouring dwelling;
Local residents will suffer disturbance from the noise of opening doors, removal of sizeable items and shouts of instruction;
Noise and fumes generated by cars using the two marked parking spaces will further detract from the enjoyment of the garden;
The proposal will encourage more on street parking;
Fears of a commercial operation inappropriate to the location;
The rebuilding of the boundary wall will cause noise, mess and a loss of privacy whilst it is being rebuilt.
Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objections
Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Conservation) – no objections provided external material details are conditioned.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-36-
Comments This application is very similar to one permitted in 2004, part of which involved the erection of a car port. This application differs in that it seeks to enclose the car port area as a dinghy store and introduce an entrance gate. The proposed dinghy store alteration, conversion and extension is of a broadly sympathetic design in the Conservation Area and is in keeping with the aesthetic of the existing garage. The dinghy store would not overlook the garden of the adjacent dwelling. There are no windows proposed in the single storey structure. The existing boundary treatment to be retained between the dinghy store and the neighbouring gardens on both sides is in the form of a 1.8 – 2.0 metre high timber fence running the length of the access driveway. This would result in no change in the level of privacy currently enjoyed by either set of neighbours. The dinghy stores location is considered by officers to have no adverse impact on the light enjoyed by 69 West Street. Furthermore, any noise created by usage of the dinghy store is not believed to likely to be material in terms of impact on neighbours. The proposal allows for the retention of 2 existing car parking spaces which is viewed as adequate for the dwelling and would result in no increase in on street parking or noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties. The usage of the dinghy store is proposed as incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling and not for commercial purposes. The proposed new boundary wall would be marked improvement aesthetically on the existing timber fence which currently stands at the southern boundary of the property. In response to Members request for further information on the access to the dinghy store, the Council’s Building Control Partnership have advised that for access to a single dwelling the proposal meets their requirements. The agent for this application has also informed officers of his clients’s intention to submit amended plans before the committee meeting showing new doors in the end (front) elevation to allow for easier loading and unloading of dinghies. These plans will be available for members to view at the meeting. In conclusion, this development is considered to accord with the policies of the Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to be approved (bond, brick, pointing style, mortar details and roof tiles); use incidental. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1058/FP
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-37-
(11) P/07/1199/TO TITCHFIELD MR G DUNN Agent: MR MATT GODWIN
FELL TWO CONIFER TREES AND 17A CHAPELSIDE REDUCE BAY TREE AND PLUM TREE TITCHFIELD BY 50% COVERED BY FTPO 253 OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677
Site Description
This application relates to a detached property on the south side of Chapelside which is to the south of East Street.
Description of Proposal Planning consent is sought to fell two conifer trees and reduce bay tree and plum tree by 50% which are located along the northern boundary of the site. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – DG4. Relevant Planning History P/02/0490/TC Prune Two Conifers and One Fruit Tree by 50% which lie within Titchfield Conservation Area – Consent 17-05-2002. P/93/0124/TC Prune One Fir Tree and One Evergreen; Fell One Fir Tree – Consent 11-03-1993. Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:
The trees at the front offer privacy;
The developer advised that these trees could not be felled due to a preservation order that existed;
We have no objection to the trees being reduced in preference to them being removed;
If they are to be felled them we would expect them to be replaced by others of substantial height and width.
Consultations Chief Planning & Transportation Officer (Arborist) – No objection
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-38-
Comments This application relates to a site on the south side of Chapelside which is to the south of East Street. The trees are situated along the north boundary of the site and the trees consist of two conifers, a bay and plum tree. The Council’s Arborist has been consulted on the application and has commented as follows: The proposed tree works will have no significant adverse affect on local public amenity. Officers have considered the comments received by the representation and the council’s arborist and are of the view that provided a condition is attached to the consent for replacement trees to be planted then the application is acceptable. Officers are of the view that the application complies the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Works in accordance with BS 3998 (1989), replacement trees Further information: 5 day notice of tree works; BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1199/TO
(12) P/07/1268/FP TITCHFIELD GUDGEON DEVELOPMENTS LTD Agent: TOWN & COUNTRY ARCHITECTURE LTD
ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING 173 SEGENSWORTH ROAD FRONTING MERECROFT - LAND TO REAR - OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin Ext 2412
Site Description This application relates to land to the rear of 173 Segensworth Road. The site fronts onto Merecroft.
Description of Proposal Permission is sought to erect a detached two storey 4-bed property with access from Merecroft.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-39-
The property would have an integral garage and one additional car parking space on the drive. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG1, DG3, DG5, T5, R5 and H2. Relevant Planning History P/02/1064/OA Erection of Dwelling (Outline Application) Refused 3 October 2002. P/02/1609/OA Erection of Chalet Style Dwelling Refused 9 January 2003
Appeal Dismissed 1 October 2003. Representations The neighbour notification period expires 18 October 2007. At the time of writing this report three letters had been received objecting on the following grounds:
Lack of off road parking;
Construction traffic should access site from Segensworth Road;
The access strip to the side of 173 should not be used;
The Design and Access statement contains misleading inaccuracies about the surrounding area.
Any subsequent letters received will be reported at the committee meeting. Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objection. Director of Health and Regulatory Services – No objection. Comments The site lies within the urban area where residential infilling, redevelopment and development on neglected and underused land will be permitted, providing it does not adversely affect the character of the area or amenity of existing residents. There have been two applications for the erection of a dwelling on this site refused in the last few years. The previous two applications were for a dwelling with an access from Segensworth Road. The most recently refused application went to appeal and was dismissed. The appeal was dismissed as it was judged that the access to the property (which ran between 171 and 173 Segensworth Road) would result in noise and disturbance to the occupiers of the neighbouring properties No.’s 171 and 173 Segensworth Road.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-40-
The current application is for a property fronting onto Merecroft with access from this road. The proposed property would occupy a gap between Nos 2 and 4 Merecroft. The property would sit immediately adjacent to No.4 Merecroft and would be staggered back from No. 2 Merecroft. The proposed dwelling would have an integral garage with one additional car parking space on the drive. Officers are of the opinion that the previous reasons for refusal have been overcome. It is not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring properties nor have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the streetscene.
The proposal complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and is considered acceptable. RECOMMEND: Subject to the applicant/owner first entering into an agreement pursuant to Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 on terms to the satisfaction of the Head of Development Control to secure a financial contribution towards off-site public open space and/ or facilities by the 12 November 2007. PERMISSION: Materials to be agreed, Boundary Treatment, Levels, Parking, Obscure glaze and fix shut to 1.7m first floor window (east & west), Remove PD windows first floor (east & west), Construction Hours, No Mud, No Burning; vehicular access from Merecroft only. OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required agreement by the 12 November 2007. REFUSE: Contrary to Policy; inadequate provision of public open space. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1268/FP
(13) P/07/0985/CU WARSASH
as amended by letters dated 8th and 13th August 2007, plans received 14th August 2007 and as amplified by plans received on 3rd September and 17th September 2007 HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Agent: CHRIS PITTOCK
CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO SHORE ROAD - MARINERS OFFICE (A2) & STORAGE (B8) TO QUAY - WARSASH PROVIDE FOR STORAGE OF BOATS AND OFFICE USE OFFICERS REPORT - Simon Thompson Ext 4815
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-41-
Site Description
Mariners Quay is situated on the western side of Shore Road, Warsash approximately 60 metres to the south of where it joins with Passage Lane. To the north of the site is Lobster Quay, to the east residential properties on Shore Road, to the south a public car park, and to the west the Harbour Master’s Office and the River Hamble.
The site is in the countryside of the Borough as defined in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review just beyond the urban boundary of Warsash which runs north – south along Shore Road to the east. The site is also within the Warsash Conservation Area, the Lower Hamble Area of Special Landscape Character and the Coastal Zone as shown in the Local Plan Review.
Description of Proposal This application seeks the change of use of Mariner’s Quay from Solent School of Yachting (Sui Generis) to office (A2) and storage (B8), to provide for the storage of 13 boats and office use. The office use would be located within an existing building located towards the northern boundary of the site and storage on the remainder of the site, excluding an area on the southern boundary allocated for car parking. The current planning permission for the site is a personal permission relating to the Solent School of Yachting for use of the site for marine-related activities, including a training facility. The current planning application therefore seeks a non-personal permission to allow the site to be used for the storage of boats and office use. The planning application has been amended since submission to exclude a building on its western side, and a small area of land to the south of this, from the application site. Also the A2 office use is no longer proposed to be ancillary to the boat storage. A feasibility study was submitted on 17 September 2007 demonstrating how 13 boats could be stored and manoeuvred on the site. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – Policies DG1, DG3, DG5, C1, C2, C5, C6, C9, C10, HE3, HE4, R6, E10 and T5. Relevant Planning History This site has, for almost thirty years before 2000, been used by the Solent School of Yachting. Relevant planning history from this period is: FBC.1785/23 – Erection of single storey building to house the Solent School of Yachting – Permission 23 September 1985. P/94/0418/FP – Erection of new teaching and administration accommodation – Refused 3 November 1994 – Granted on Appeal 25 April 1995.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-42-
Representations Three letters and an email have been received objecting on the following grounds:
Space is inadequate for storage of more than 4 or 6 boats. In practice 15 to 20 boats are so closely stored that the public highway, road and paths are needed to act as an extension to the yard when boats are moved, obstructing the road, on yellow lines and going contrary to the one way road system along Shore Road.
Noise and fumes from tractors and diesel fork trucks moving the boats affecting neighbouring residential properties
Dust from grinding and noise and fine water spray from pressure hosing of entire boats and smell from epoxy resins, affect residential neighbours
Invasion of privacy from people working on boats towards residential neighbours because deck level is often at first floor storey height of those residential neighbours
Dry sailing occurs when boats are moved to and from the river at any day at any hour by tractors near to neighbouring residential properties
Site has been operating contrary to planning permission for the last 18 months by Warsash Marine as a boat store, trailer store with dry sailing launch and load service
Fire and explosion risk from fuel tanks on board the motor boats and ribs, inadequate fire prevention measures/fire alarms
Parking of caravans and motor homes occurs for many days on the site, this not being compliant to boat storage
Proposal is neither in the right location or large enough to facilitate its proposed activities and is contrary to Local Plan review Policies DG1, DG3, C5, HE3, HE4 and T5
The application and B8 statement is vague and should be clarified on a number of factors including number, size and location of boats to be stored on site, whether this includes boat trailers, turning space and access/egress arrangements and hours of opening.
If this proposal is to be permitted, then conditions should be imposed limiting the number of boats (e.g. to 8 boats and 8 trailers), no working on boats in such a way to cause flying dust and noise, limit times of movement in and out the yard (e.g. 08:00 to sunset), no parking of caravans or motor homes (occupied or not), and provision of proper turning area so boats can come and go into and out of the yard in forward motion.
One email of support has been received indicating the following:
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-43-
Proposed use is fitting for the area as it lies adjacent to well established boat storage yard in use by other commercial/leisure users. The area having historically been used for marine related activities, mainly for commercial fishing with an increasing change to marine leisure activities.
Boats in use by the sailing school were stored/worked on in the yard. There will be no increase in disturbance.
The proposals ensure the site will remain in use for marine purposes as was the original planning consent.
There will be no adverse social, environmental or economic impacts from this proposal.
The amplifying plans received on 17 September were submitted in order to demonstrate the manoeuvrability of 13 boats within the site. As a result of publicising these plans three further letters of objection have been received raising the following points:
It is noticeable that activity and movements of boats whilst attention has been focussed on Mariners Quay have been greatly reduced;
Boat sizes vary. What control would there be on the workings of the yard and the enforcement of restrictions to prevent the problems recurring;
Spare trailers should not be permitted except when carrying boats;
The one-way system is disregarded. What does the future hold for the compliance of any future regulations imposed?
It would not be possible to store 9 boats along the northern boundary;
The feasibility study is not accurate and boats would need moving manually;
The study shows the vehicle towing the boat against the one way system;
To move boats of this size manually would be contrary to Health and Safety;
The scale of the feasibility plans is too small;
No account has been made for the jockey wheel;
It is not possible to store this number of boats on the site;
A 9 metre boat has a beam of 2.5 to 3 metres.
Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Conservation Manager) – This site lies within the Warsash Conservation Area and is in a prominent position on the waterfront. The Warsash Conservation Area character assessment has been adopted by the Council and is relevant to the consideration of this application. The site is shown as coast and countryside in the Local Plan Review. The character assessment refers in the summary of features to preserve and enhance to “the dinghy parks and small scale marine-related buildings on the site of the former lobster pond.” The current authorised use of this land and the two buildings on it is marine-related. The substantial barn like structure, which is a workshop/store, at the western end of the site is now excluded from the application site and it is not clear how this building will be used or accessed when separated from the rest of the unit.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-44-
No objection is raised to the proposal to store boats on the land, subject to reasonable safeguards as to numbers, access and manoeuvring. This is consistent with the character of this waterfront site and of the conservation area. The change of use of the existing single storey building from sailing school to offices will not in itself harm the character of the conservation area. The future use of the store/workshop building and access to it, which is at present through the application site, needs to be clarified before permission is given to split up the present planning unit, potentially into three separate uses. Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – The application makes no provision for on-site parking in respect of the office use proposed. However, in view of the free off-street parking adjacent to the site, then providing the office use is limited to the existing building only, I do not wish to raise a highway objection. Further to the above, I have met local residents who have raised issues with the existing use and practices thereon. If the application is to be approved I would recommend it is subject to the serious consideration of conditions to limit the proposed use in terms of: (1) limiting the number of boats to be stored (with their trailers) to the
agreed layout along the northern boundary of the site, details to be submitted for approval and to include the provision of a turning area to enable the boats to be moved into and out of the site without recourse to manoeuvring on Shore Road. Such turning area to be clear of all obstruction (permanent or temporary) at all times;
(2) There should be no camping on site at any time (3) The number of users of the site to be strictly controlled (4) Operation of the site being limited to 08:00 to 18:00 on any day and
use of machinery being restricted to 09:00 to 16:00 Monday to Friday only
(5) Only boats registered to park on the site shall be permitted to use the site
(6) Provision of four on site parking bays shall be laid out on site in accordance with submitted plans and vehicles should not park elsewhere on the site to cause obstruction to the safe movement of the stored boats at all times
The following comments were received in relation to the feasibility study received on 17 September 2007:
While the plans appear to indicate a means of removing/parking boats on this compound, it is questionable whether it is possible in practice. It is requested that the layout is demonstrated on site and conditioned.
Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) – The site is very close to residential properties and there is the potential for noise, fumes and dust to affect the occupiers of these dwellings. I understand that there are currently up to 20 boats stored on this site at any one time and leads to considerable disturbance when boats are manoeuvred around the site to accommodate
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-45-
new boats and to enable boats to be launched. I understand also the owners of the boats are also permitted to carry out repairs and maintenance to their boats on site at any time and that this sometimes occurs late at night disturbing neighbours. Further information should be obtained from the applicant, or, if planners are minded to grant the application, then some conditions should be applied, namely: (1) prohibiting repairs or maintenance of boats to be carried out at this site (2) restricting the number of boats to be stored to a number that will allow
the boats to be manoeuvred within the site boundary without having to stray onto the public highway
(3) reasonable hours of operation restrictions be imposed Fire Officer – No objection. Comments Condition 3 of planning permission FBC.1485/23 states that any boat and trailer storage at the site shall only be of those boats and trailers used in connection with the Solent School of Yachting, the reason cited being in order to maintain adequate on site parking facilities. It is apparent from the comments received that recently the site has been used by Warsash Marine for the storage of boats and associated activities. This planning application seeks to regularise the situation following investigations by Planning Enforcement Officers. In respect of the comments of the Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Conservation Manager) and the barn like building just outside and to the west of the modified application area, the applicant’s agent has confirmed that this building is used solely by the Harbour Master as a workshop/store. The agent continues that pedestrian access is currently provided outside the application site via a footpath located to the south, and that vehicular access has never been provided in the past and has never been required due to the small scale nature of operations carried out within this building. The principle that the application site be used for boat storage has been accepted by earlier planning permissions for the Solent School of Yachting. It is the manner of current boat storage and associated activities by the new operator that causes concern. To remedy the situation, Officers are in negotiation with the applicant to apply appropriate conditions so that which occurs is of an acceptable nature. In particular, it has been proposed by Officers that: (1) the number of boats and trailers stored on site be limited; (2) Opening and operational hours (in terms of movements of boats and
vehicles) being restricted to 08:00 hours to 19:00 hours on any day; (3) No repairs or maintenance to boats to occur on site; (4) Provision of four on site parking bays shall be laid out on site in
accordance with submitted plans, with no parking of hard surface
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-46-
terrain motor vehicles elsewhere on site to cause obstruction to the safe movement of stored boats at all times.
(5) The area marked for B8 storage and distribution use on the submitted plan shall be used for storage of boats and boat trailers and for no other purpose including any other purpose in Class B8 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), or any provision equivalent to that Class in any Statutory Instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order.
In light of the concerns raised by local residents and the Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) regarding the storage and manoeuvrability of 13 boats on the site, officers have arranged an onsite demonstration with the applicant. The outcome of this demonstration and the subsequent recommendation will be reported to Members in the form of an update. BACKGROUND PAPERS: Files FBC.1785/23, P/94/0418/FP and P/07/0985/CU
(14) P/07/1217/FP WARSASH
DR G WILBY-LOPEZ Agent: CHRISTOPHER FEARN
ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR 37 WARSASH ROAD EXTENSION TO FORM TWO WARSASH SURGERIES & DISABLED W.C. & - WARSASH DENTAL PRACTICE NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS OFFICERS REPORT - Simon Thompson Ext 4815
Site Description Number 37 Warsash Road is a detached two storey building with single storey western side element. It currently is the home of Warsash Dental practice which has two surgeries upstairs and reception and waiting element downstairs. It has an existing vehicular entrance on the western front to the property serving a small car park on site. This property is located in the urban area of Warsash on the northern side of Warsash Road approximately 20 metres to the east of this road’s junction with Church Road, Warsash. Its immediate location is residential but with commercial buildings a short distance away to the east at Dibles Road junction with Warsash Road and further away to the west focused at the roundabout junction of Warsash Road with Newtown, Shore and Brook Roads.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-47-
Residential properties abut the application site to the west and east and are also situated across Warsash Road to the south. To the north of the application site is land designated as countryside and local gap in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review.
There is an existing drive to the east of the site which serves 39a Warsash Road to the rear.
Description of Proposal This application seeks permission to build a single storey rear extension which would house two dentist surgeries; disabled toilet, hallway and conservatory type disabled entrance, and alter the existing single storey side element to house a staff room and stores where an existing side preparation and storeroom is, in part once used as a garage. One of the existing first floor surgeries would be converted into a plaster room, therefore the site would support three surgeries. An additional vehicular entrance is proposed on the eastern front of the site from Warsash Road. Three staff parking spaces are proposed at the rear of the premises. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – Policies DG1, DG3, DG5 and T5. Relevant Planning History FBC.4731/6 – Use of part of dwelling as dental surgery – Permission February 1977. P/01/0150/LU – Breach of condition 2 of planning permission FBC.4731/6 by use of the whole of the dwelling house comprising 37 Warsash Road as a dental surgery – Certificate of Lawful Use or Development Issued 23 April 2001 P/02/0448/OA – Erection of detached dwelling and garage at land to rear of 37 Warsash Road – Refused August 2002 – Appeal Dismissed May 2003 P/06/1625/FP – Erection of single storey rear extension to form two additional surgeries and disabled W.C. – Withdrawn February 2007 P/07/1216/AD – Display of non-illuminated sign attached to south elevation and two free standing to road frontage – Submitted August 2007, Undetermined at time of writing this Committee Report
Representations Three letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:
While in general agreement with the extension, object to the rear garden being used as a car park beyond the building line;
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-48-
Assume division between houses will be made good when hedge and trees are removed from west of the new surgery;
Reasonably happy with principle of development, but concerned that with more than three or four cars to the rear the garden will become a serious car park, overwhelm the garden and open up the possibility of a dwelling which was turned down some 3 or 4 years ago;
No objection to the extension but have concerns regarding parking provision together with boundary and surfacing treatments, etc. as follows:
Appeals on Warsash Road were dismissed on ground of highway safety. The appeal inspector was concerned that a driveway on the western side of the site would be a danger to road users, both pedestrian and vehicular. Since the appeal decision, the traffic has increased since development of Polybond opposite and Warsash Road is a main feeder route;
Cars could be accommodated on site by providing a single access point in the middle of the frontage and staff vehicles could be parked to the side of the building as existing. Parking to the rear will result in unacceptable noise and disturbance to neighbours, detrimental to their amenity. Approval for a new entrance, could establish a principle for a new dwelling to the rear, contrary to the Inspector’s decision;
The proposed seven numbers of staff seems low to serve the facilities proposed. Patients will not be able to park in the nearby car park as this free facility is often full of student cars attending the University in Newtown Road. Parking on the road outside the surgery is a danger near Church Road, especially at school starting and finishing;
No turning area shown for vehicles at the rear and no provision is made for deliveries. Vans regularly park on the road creating a further danger especially as the bus stop is opposite and approximately 5 metres from the proposed entrance, outside 39 Warsash Road;
Proposed fencing will result in loss of a hedgerow with no details of fencing proposed length or height or remedial works effecting the vehicular entrance to and visibility from 39a Warsash Road next door;
Lack of landscaping or surfacing details with cars up against the waiting area window giving poor outlook;
The travel plan states patients will be encouraged to use other means of transport but no proposals are put forward. It acknowledges 63% of patients live over half a mile away. Based on the number of cars on site during surgery hours most currently use their cars and the car park is fully occupied at the existing level. Furthermore, Highways in their accessible area study for the Borough accept Warsash is poorly served by public transport. There is no rail link nearby and the buses only run hourly at peak times. All in all, not conducive to a trip to the dentist.
Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No highway objections, subject to:
meeting FBC parking standards;
provision of a footway crossing under licence from Hampshire County Council prior to commencement of development; and
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-49-
the provision of 2m x 2m sightlines either side of each entrance shall be maintained free of all obstructions above the height of 0.6 metres.
Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) – Comments awaited Comments
The use of the premises as a dental surgery was established some years ago. There are currently two surgeries at first floor; the proposal involves providing two new ground floor surgeries, whilst retaining one at first floor. The application would therefore result in an increase of one surgery. The building design of the extension is acceptable and should not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of neighbouring residents to the west, though this is subject to receipt of Environmental Health’s comments. The issues raised by the received public objections are mainly in respect of the travel, access and car parking arrangements. The text of the local plan indicates that a dentist surgery in a local centre is broadly acceptable as it would help avoid the need to travel, and indeed the submitted travel plan reveals 27% of the 1893 registered patients live within half a mile of the practice with bus stops within a short distance of the practice and the proposals include providing a cycle rack on site for patients and staff. The proposal would involve client and disabled parking to the front, with three staff parking spaces at the rear, accessed via the eastern side of the building. Officers are concerned with this element of the proposal as it would introduce noise and activity in this location, close to the rear garden of the neighbouring residential property to the west. In light of the foregoing the vehicular access arrangements and car parking proposals on site is the subject of further discussion with the applicant’s agent. The outcome of this will be reported to Members through an update, as will Environmental Health’s comments on noise and disturbance issues pending on the outcome of these discussions, the update will also include an Officer recommendation.
BACKGROUND PAPERS: Files FBC.4731/6, P/01/0150/LU, P/02/0448/OA, P/06/1625/FP, P/07/1216/AD and P/07/1217/FP
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-50-
(15) P/07/1294/OA/O WARSASH MESSRS & MRS R JEFFERY & TURNER Agent: MR ROGER WILDIG
ERECTION OF DETACHED BUNGALOW 226-228 WARSASH ROAD AND GARAGE - LAND TO REAR - WARSASH OFFICERS REPORT - Joanne Wilson Ext 2679
Site Description
The application site consists of part of the rear gardens of No’s 226-228 Warsash Road. No. 224 Warsash Road forms the western boundary; No.230 Warsash Road forms the eastern boundary whilst No.43 Corvette Avenue forms the southern boundary.
Description of Proposal The application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of a detached bungalow and garage with access between No’s 226-228 Warsash Road. Layout, means of access and landscaping are to be considered at this stage with all other matters reserved. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG3; DG4; DG5; H2; R5 and T5. Relevant Planning History P/07/0964/OA – Erection of Detached Bungalow and Garage – Refused 7 September 2007. Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:
Loss of privacy and view from the proposed bungalow;
The existing shed needs to be checked for bats;
Warsash Road is extremely busy with poor sight lines; the proposal would exacerbate the situation.
Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objections.
Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) – comments awaited.
Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – no objections.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-51-
Comments The previous application was refused as it was considered that the proposal would have constituted an undesirable form of backland development out of character with the prevailing pattern of development sizes in Warsash Road; in addition it would have resulted in the existing dwellings and that proposed having plots noticeably smaller than those prevailing in the area. Furthermore by virtue of its size and close proximity to the southern boundary the proposed dwelling would have resulted in an overbearing form of development harmful to the outlook available from the kitchen window within the flank wall of No.43 Corvette Avenue. The plot sizes of the existing properties in the vicinity are amongst the smallest in this section of Warsash Road. In particular parts of their rear gardens were taken for the development to the south of the site (now the eastern end of Corvette Avenue). It is considered by officers that the proposed dwelling would result in the over development of this site, creating limited plot sizes which would lead to a cramped form of development, out of character with the prevailing pattern of development within the surrounding area.
With regard to the impact on the neighbouring properties, the closest property to the site is No.43 Corvette Avenue; the side elevation of this property is adjacent to the rear boundary of the site. This property has a number of windows within its side elevation and one of these comprises of a secondary kitchen window. The proposal has been amended so that there would now be a separation distance of 4 metres between the proposed dwelling and this window. Officers consider that this element of the previous refusal has been overcome and the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of that property.
Having regard for the siting of the proposed bungalow in relation to other existing properties, officers consider that the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact for the occupiers of those properties. Officers consider that the proposal would detract from the character of the area and consider that the application should be refused.
RECOMMEND: Subject to the receipt of the comments of the Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health)
REFUSE: Contrary to policy, limited plot size, impact on the character of the area; inadequate open space provision. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1294/OA; P/07/0964/FP
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-52-
ZONE 2 – FAREHAM
North North West West East South
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-53-
(16) P/07/1229/FP FAREHAM EAST MR M BULLOCK & MR P HESELTINE Agent: MR B K LAWRENCE
CONVERSION OF EXISTING 48 ELMS ROAD DWELLING TO TWO FLATS FAREHAM OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin Ext 2412
Site Description
This application relates to a semi-detached property to the east of Elms Road.
Description of Proposal Permission is sought to convert a single three bedroom dwelling into two, two-bed flats. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG3, DG5 and H5. Relevant Planning History FBC.5579/10 Erection of Two Storey Rear Extension
Permission 29 August 1986
Representations Two letters have been received raising the following concerns:
No additional windows should be allowed on the south elevation
A privacy wall should be provided on the southern boundary Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objection subject to the applicant demonstrating cars can be satisfactorily parked on site. Director of Health and Regulatory Services – No objection Comments Policy H5 of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review refers to the conversion of existing dwellings to flats. It states that conversion will be permitted provided that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the area or have an unacceptable environmental, amenity or traffic implication. The proposal does not involve any external alterations to the property except replacement doors and windows. Officers do not consider that the character of the area will be affected by the proposal. Although there is a high level of on-street parking in the area the property does
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-54-
have off-road parking available. It is considered that two vehicles could be
parked on the site; a parking layout has been requested to demonstrate this. Subject to the receipt of a satisfactory layout, it is not considered that the proposal would have unacceptable traffic implications and the Council’s Highway Engineers Officer have raised no objection to the proposal on this basis. The property has a large rear garden which could be sub-divided to provide a private garden area for each flat. Details of the subdivision have not been provided but these can be secured through a condition along with boundary treatment. The property has previously had a two storey rear extension. The occupants of the neighbouring property to the south are concerned that although none are proposed any additional windows inserted within the side of this extension would overlook their property. Officers are recommending a condition be imposed removing permitted development rights for any windows within the flank walls of the extension at first floor level. Subject to the conditions recommended officers believe the proposal complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and is considered acceptable. RECOMMEND: Subject to: i) the receipt of satisfactory car parking layout ii) the applicant/owner first entering into a planning obligation pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council to secure a financial contribution towards off-site public open by the 6 November 2007. PERMISSION: Details of Division of Garden to be provided, Boundary treatment, Parking; remove permitted development rights for side facing windows at first floor within rear extension.
OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required Section 106 by the 6 November 2007. REFUSE: Contrary to policy, inadequate provision for public open space BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1229/FP
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-55-
(17) P/07/1259/CU FAREHAM EAST MR N AHMED Agent: LES WEYMES
CHANGE USE FROM RETAIL (CLASS 161 WEST STREET - GROUND A1) TO MIXED RESTAURANT (CLASS FLOOR – FAREHAM A3) & ANCILLARY TAKEAWAY (CLASS A5) & INSTALL REAR FLUE OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677
Site Description
• This application relates to a shop which has been vacant for some time. The premises are situated on the north side of West Street on its corner with Trinity Street. • The premises are situated within Fareham Town Centre, in the Centre’s retail core. It is within the secondary shopping area, as defined in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. Description of Proposal Permission is sought for the change use of the premises from (A1) shop to restaurant with ancillary takeaway. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – Policies DG1, DG3, DG5, S3 and T5. Relevant Planning History FBC.4452/7 Change of Use from Store to Retail Shop - Permission19-07-1982. Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:
Any change of use to a class A3 restaurant is likely to materially affect the office above due to the likely smells and potentially the storage of rubbish and deliveries to the car park which is already very tight;
The flue extract indicated on the planning drawing will rise adjacent to our offices, with the flue terminating just above eaves; this is likely to allow cooking smells to propagate through our offices;
In addition, the flue is very unsightly for clients parking in the car park and walking to the office which has it main entrance in the rear courtyard adjacent to the back entrance to the existing shop;
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-56-
The letter from the agent is factually incorrect as it states that the upper flat will continue to be continue to occupied as a self contained dwelling, this is clearly a falsehood as we have the upper floor currently let under a 15 year lease as offices;
The agents letter also notes that there are only a few restaurant facilities to serve the immediate vicinity, this is incorrect as there are 12 restaurants;
The intended opening hours will be from 10:00 am until midnight which will potentially conflict directly with the office hours in terms of parking;
In addition potential problems with antisocial behaviour of people leaving the restaurant at night and returning to their cars may lead to deterioration of the area to the rear of the shop;
Potential noise disturbance for the office should the kitchen noises and music be played during opening hours;
Highway safety as the junction with Trinity Street and West Street is narrow and already congested and with the difficult visibility when emerging form the car park along with the speed of traffic entering Trinity Street.
Consultations Chief Planning & Transportation Officer (Highways) – No highway objections in view of the large car park at the rear, and several off-street car parks in the locality. Fareham Police Station (Crime Prevention Design Adviser) – The Hampshire Constabulary have no observations to make regarding this application. Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) – No objection subject to conditions.
Comments This application has been submitted for a change of use from A1 retail to mixed A3 restaurant and ancillary take away A5 and the installation of a rear flue. Policy S3 of the Local Plan is relevant in respect of non-retail uses in the retail core and specifically in secondary shopping areas. The change of use of a ground floor shop (Class A1) to a non-retail use will be permitted, provided that: (A) The use would not extend or consolidate existing non-retail uses so that they harm the vitality and viability of the area and discourage shoppers from using the centre; (B) The use provides a service appropriate to the shopping centre; and (C) A shop window display is maintained.
Officers are of the view that A1 retail use would remain the dominant use within West Street with this unit altered and in officer’s opinion, would maintain the vitality and viability of the area and still encourage shoppers to visit the
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-57-
centre. The window display would be retained with an alteration to the entrance with the installation of a ramp and a new door.
In terms of amenity implications such as noise and smells, the Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) raises no objection, subject to a planning condition in respect of extraction, conditioning or refrigeration systems to be installed.
With regards to disturbance, the Hampshire Constabulary have no adverse comment to make and the comments from highways were no objection in view of the large car park at the rear and the several off-street car parks in the locality. In terms of visual amenity, the proposed external flue is positioned at the rear of the property which whilst is visible from the Trinity Street would be painted black to soften its appearance and reduce any impact on the visual amenities of the street scene.
Officers are of the view that the change of use is acceptable and comply with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review subject to conditions. RECOMMEND:
PERMISSION: details of extraction, conditioning or refrigeration systems; hours of opening; flue to be finished in matt black
BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1259/CU
(18) P/07/1206/OA FAREHAM NORTH
as amended by plans received on 15th October 2007 P A HOWES Agent: EDWARD CAUSH + ASSOCIATES
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 18 THE DRIVE BUNGALOW & GARAGE AND ERECTION FAREHAM OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS & GARAGES (OUTLINE APPLICATION) OFFICERS REPORT - Joanne Wilson Ext 2679
Site Description
The application site is situated on the southern side of The Drive, just west of the junction with Arundel Drive. No.16 The Drive forms the eastern boundary; No.20 The Drive forms the western boundary whilst No’s 134-136 Gordon Road forms the southern boundary. The application site is within the urban area.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-58-
Description of Proposal The application seeks outline planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. Means of access and layout is to be considered at this stage with all other matters reserved. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG3; DG4; DG5; H2; R5 and T5. Relevant Planning History P/07/0736/OA – Demolition of Existing Bungalow and Garage and Erection of Two Detached Dwellings and Garages (Outline application) – Refused 20 July 2007. Representations Two letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:
Loss of privacy to neighbouring properties from the additional dwelling;
The size of the plot is only adequate for one dwelling;
Impact on neighbouring properties from noise and light pollution;
The existing drainage system is already full, the proposal would exacerbate the problem;
Loss of light to neighbouring properties;
The proposal would have an impact on the trees at the front of the site.
As a result of the receipt of amended plans the application has been re-advertised by notifying neighbours. The publicity period expires on the 31 October 2007; any letters subsequently received will be reported to members at the meeting. Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objection Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) – no objections Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – Hampshire County Council should be consulted as there is a London Pine on the highway verge Hampshire County Council – comments awaited
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-59-
Comments The previous application for two detached dwellings was refused as it was considered that the proposal would have resulted in an overbearing form of development harmful to the outlook available from the kitchen window within the flank wall of the neighbouring property No.16 The Drive. In addition no financial contribution was made towards the provision for public open space. The main issues which need to be considered in the determination of this application are: Principle of development
The site is within the urban area where residential infilling; redevelopment and development on neglected and underused land will be permitted, providing it does not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area or amenity of existing residents. Impact on the Character of the Area The surrounding area comprises of a mix of house types. The immediate neighbouring properties comprise of a semi-detached bungalow with dormers and a detached two storey dwelling, however, within the wider area there are semi-detached two storey houses and bungalows. It is considered that the proposed development of a pair of semi-detached dwellings would not look out of character with the prevailing pattern of development within the area. As originally submitted the proposed dwellings would be sited only 0.50 metres from the boundary with No.20 The Drive. All the surrounding properties have a minimum of at least 1 metre to the boundary and amendments to the scheme were therefore sought. Amended plans have been subsequently received increasing the separation to 1.5 metres. It is considered by officers that the increase in separation between the properties would ensure that the development is in keeping with the surrounding area and the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact on the character of the area. With regard to the concerns raised that the proposal would result in a detrimental impact on the existing trees, as originally shown the proposed drive would have been very close to one of the trees. As a result of the amended plans the proposed drive would be located further away from these trees. Officers are awaiting comments from the Arborist to ensure that the revised location of the drives would not result in a detrimental impact on the health of the trees. Impact on the Amenities of Neighbouring Properties The closest properties to the application site are No’s 16 and 20 The Drive. No.16 has a main kitchen window within the side elevation of the property looking onto the proposal. As originally submitted there would have been a separation of 7 metres between the proposed dwellings and this property. In
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-60-
order to increase the space between the building and the boundary with No.20 the separation has been reduced to 6 metres. Appendix 6 of the Local Plan states that 6 metres should be provided between a two storey flank wall and a main habitable room window. The proposal would be in accordance with this requirement. With regard to No.20 The Drive, this property has no habitable room windows within the side elevation. It is considered that the proposed dwellings would not result in a detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Officers consider that the proposal would be acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: Subject to: i) the receipt of comments from Hampshire County Council and any
conditions they may recommend; ii) the applicant/owner first entering into a planning obligation pursuant to
section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council to secure a financial contribution towards off-site public open space and/ or facilities by the 2 November 2007.
GRANT OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION: Submission of reserved matters (scale; appearance and landscaping) surfacing materials; boundary treatment; parking; landscaping implementation and maintenance; measures to prevent mud on road; hours of construction, no burning; levels.
OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required obligation by the 2 November 2007.
REFUSE: Contrary to policy, inadequate provision for public open space. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1206/OA; P/07/0736/OA
(19) P/07/1242/FP FAREHAM NORTH-WEST
MR & MRS M LISKUTIN Agent: MISS C JENKINS
ERECTION OF TWO STOREY REAR 11 NEPTUNE ROAD EXTENSION AND SINGLE STOREY FAREHAM SIDE/FRONT EXTENSION OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin Ext 2412
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-61-
Site Description
This application relates to an end of terrace property to the west of Neptune Road. To the south east of the site are the rear garden areas of 7- 10 Neptune Road.
Description of Proposal Permission is sought to erect;
A two storey rear extension measuring 3.2 metres in depth, 3.5 metres in width with a ridge height of 6.1 metres
A single storey side/front extension measuring 13.4 metres in depth, varying in width from1.3 metres to 4.4 metres with a maximum ridge height of 4.8 metres
Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG3 and DG5. Relevant Planning History P/05/1072/FP Erection of Two Storey Side and Rear Extension, Single
Storey Rear Extension and Garage Refused 27 September 2005. P/07/0588/FP Erection of Single Storey Front Extension and Two Storey
Side/Rear Extension Refused 27 June 2007 Appeal Lodged. Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:
Loss of privacy;
Loss of outlook;
Loss of light;
Impact on property value.
Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objection Comments There have been two previous applications refused at this property. The first application featured a two storey side extension set on the rear garden boundary of No.10 Neptune Road which is at right angles to the application property. This application was refused on the grounds that the two storey side
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-62-
extension would have resulted in an overbearing and unneighbourly form of development unacceptably reducing the level of outlook available to No.10 Neptune to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of that property.
The second application also featured a two storey/single storey side extension with a reduced ridge height. Officers were still concerned by the impact the side extension would have on the outlook from No.10 Neptune Road and the application was refused. The Fareham Borough Local Plan Review states that a two storey wall containing no windows must be no closer than 12.5 metres from the rear windows of a dwelling. There is currently less than this distance between the flank wall of No.11 Neptune Road and the rear of No.10 Neptune Road so it follows that any two storey side extension would not meet the required minimum distance of separation. This application is now subject to an appeal. The current application is for a single storey side/front extension and two storey rear extension. The objector (who occupies 9 Neptune Road) is concerned about the two storey rear extension which has not previously been part of the reason for refusal. The two storey rear extension would extend 3 metres along the objector’s rear garden boundary and would be set 1.7 metres off this boundary. The distance from the flank wall of the two storey rear extension and the rear of No.9 Neptune Close would be a minimum of 12.5 metres. It should be noted that the extension does not extend the whole width of the objector’s garden and is located to the north/north-west of the objector. Officers do not consider that the two storey rear extension would result in a material loss of light or outlook to the objector’s property.
The first floor rear window within this extension would give oblique views towards the objector’s garden however officers do not consider that would have a detrimental impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupants of this property. The existing first floor rear windows similarly have a potential to overlook the objector’s property at present. Officers are of the opinion that since the two storey side extension has been reduced in height to single storey the previous reason for refusal has been addressed. Notwithstanding the objections received the proposal complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and is considered acceptable.
RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to match, Remove PD windows first floor (south-east and north-west) BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1242/FP
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-63-
(20) P/07/1271/FP FAREHAM NORTH-WEST as amended by plan received 18 October 2007
MR ANDREW MALONEY Agent: MR KEN ROSS
ERECTION OF ATTACHED TWO 6 LOVATT GROVE STOREY DWELLING FAREHAM OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin Ext 2412
Site Description The site is located adjacent to No.6 Lovatt Grove which is to the north of Lovatt Grove. The application site currently forms part of the side/rear garden of this property. There is no vehicular access to Lovatt Grove. There are two rows of three terrace properties which front onto a pedestrian footpath. The footpath links Glenesha Gardens and the parking/service area to the rear of shops at the Highlands Road shopping precinct.
Parking for the existing properties is provided within a garage block within the service area.
Description of Proposal Full permission is sought to erect a two storey 2-bed attached dwelling adjacent to No.6 Lovatt Grove. One car parking space would be provided within the front garden accessed from the parking/service area to the west. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG1, DG3, DG5, H2, R5 and T5. Representations The neighbour notification period expires 19 October 2007. At the time of writing this report three letters had been received objecting on the following grounds:
The plot is not big enough;
The gardens for the properties will be considerably smaller than at present
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-64-
Additional pressure on drainage system;
Access to proposed car parking space should not be allowed;
Where will construction traffic park;
Overlooking garages;
Construction will result in danger to children playing;
The builders would have built a 7th house at the time if there should be one.
Noise and disruption during construction
The proposed property would exceed the building line at the rear Any letters subsequently received will be reported at the committee meeting. Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objection subject to meeting Residential Car Parking Standards Director of Health and Regulatory Services – No objection
Comments The site lies within the urban area where residential infilling, redevelopment and development on neglected and underused land will be permitted, providing it does not adversely affect the character of the area or amenity of existing residents. The existing property at No.6 Lovatt Grove currently has a large side garden. The proposal would result in the subdivision of this garden but the resulting plot sizes are not considered to be out of character with the area. Similarly whilst the garden areas would be smaller than many around they would still be usable. The proposed dwelling would have no first floor window on the rear elevation. The rear bedroom window would be on the side elevation overlooking the car parking and service area to the west. It is not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. The site located within a low/medium area within the Council’s residential car parking standards local practice note. Within such a location the Council can seek a maximum of 1.5 car parking spaces for a unit of the size proposed. Officers consider the one space proposed in this particular case, having regard for the modest size of the unit, is sufficient. Officers acknowledge the concerns raised in respect of drainage. Should planning permission be granted for this proposal, then Building Regulations approval would need to be sought. As part of the application under the Building Regulations the applicant would need to demonstrate that roof and foul water can be satisfactorily disposed of.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-65-
Officers consider that the proposal complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and consider the proposal acceptable. RECOMMEND: Subject to the applicant/owner first entering into an agreement pursuant to Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 on terms to the satisfaction of the Head of Development Control to secure a financial contribution towards off-site public open space and/ or facilities by the 14 November 2007. PERMISSION: Materials to be agreed, Boundary treatment, Levels, Parking, Remove PD windows first floor (north-east), No mud, Construction hours, no burning on site OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required by the 14 November 2007. REFUSE: Contrary to Policy; inadequate provision of public open space. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1271/FP
(21) P/07/1180/FP/O FAREHAM SOUTH MR S & MRS D HARRISON Agent: DAVEY PLANNING AND DESIGN
PROVISION OF REAR DORMER 4A HOLBROOK ROAD AND CHIMNEY TO SIDE ELEVATION FAREHAM
OFFICERS REPORT – Richard Wright 2356
Site Description
The proposal is in respect of a detached house on the eastern side of Holbrook Road, Fareham. It is in the urban area of the Borough.
Description of Proposal Permission is sought for the provision of a flat roof rear dormer in the roof plane and a chimney located on the southern side of the property running from the top of the adjoining garage roof to beyond the roof of the house itself.
The rear dormer would measure 4.4 metres wide by 3.2 metres deep from the roof plane by 1.7 metres high off the roof plane;
The external materials used in the construction of the rear dormer would be plain concrete interlocking tiles to match existing;
The chimney would measure 1.2 metres wide by 0.4 metres deep from the side wall of the house by 5.6 metres high (1.0 metre above the height of the house roof ridge);
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-66-
The external materials used in the construction of the chimney would be brick to match existing.
In addition, the application also includes two roof lights inserted in the front elevation roof plane and one small window in each of the side elevations at second storey level. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies: DG3 and DG5.
Representations No representations received as a result of publicising the application.
Comments This application relates to the provision of a rear dormer window and chimney in the side elevation. In addition, two roof lights are proposed in the front elevation roof plane and one small window in each of the side elevations at second storey level. The proposed rear dormer would not be overlooking any of the surrounding dwellings or private gardens. The property immediately to the rear of the application site, is of commercial use. Furthermore the flat roof design is considered acceptable in that it would not be clearly viewable from the surrounding streets by virtue of being placed on the rear of the property. The chimney is considered to be of sympathetic design to the existing dwelling given the proposed use of matching brick. There would be no adverse impact on any of the surrounding properties in terms of loss of light or outlook caused by the erection of the chimney. In summary, this development is considered to accord with the policies of the Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: Subject to the receipt of amended plans showing precise dimensions PERMISSION: Material sample for chimney brick; BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1180/FP
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-67-
(22) P/07/1190/FP FAREHAM SOUTH
MR D SHEPPARD Agent: SIMON ATKINSON
ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING 128 PAXTON ROAD FAREHAM - LAND ADJACENT TO - OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin Ext 2412
Site Description This application relates to a site to the north of 128 Paxton Road on the west side of Paxton Road. This site previously formed part of the garden of No.128 but has been fenced off and is now in different ownership to No.128. There is a footpath immediately to the north of the site which provides a link between Redlands Lane to the west and The Gillies.
Description of Proposal Full permission is sought to erect a detached 3-bed chalet style dwelling. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG1, DG3, DG4, DG5, H2, R5 and T5. Relevant Planning History P/97/0991/OA Erection of a Dwelling with Integral Garage Outline Permission 6 January 1999. P/01/1134/RM Erection of Chalet Bungalow Refused 25 January 2001. Representations Three letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:
Sewage system is overloaded;
Sewer pipe would need to be diverted around the proposed property;
No.128 would be left without drainage connection;
Legal consent would be required for new manholes and drainage within garden of No.128;
Overlooking;
Cycle/footpath should be maintained during construction and no vehicles should be allowed on the footpath.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-68-
Consultations Director of Health and Regulatory Services – No objection subject to conditions Southern Water – It may be possible to divert the public sewer so long as this would result in no unacceptable loss of hydraulic capacity. Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objection
Comments The site lies within the urban area where residential infilling, redevelopment and development on neglected and underused land will be permitted, providing it does not adversely affect the character of the area or amenity of existing residents. The site has an underground foul sewer running through it and it is proposed to relocate this under the public footpath to the north. Outline planning permission was granted for the erection of one dwelling on this site in 1999. The location of the foul sewer has so far hindered the development of this site. Southern Water have been consulted on the proposal and have raised no objection to relocating the sewer but the works would need to be carried out at the developers expense to the satisfaction of Southern Water. The occupants of the property to the rear are concerned about overlooking. The proposed dwelling would have one first floor window within the rear elevation which would serve a bedroom. This window would be 14 metres from the rear garden boundary. The Fareham Borough Local Plan Review states that new windows which overlook adjacent dwellings must be a minimum of 11 metres from private garden areas. The proposed dwelling would be set 1.2 metres off the boundary with the neighbouring property to the south (No.128). There would be 4 metres separation between the two properties. Officers do not consider that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on this property. The neighbouring properties are a mixture of two storey properties and chalet bungalows. It is not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the streetscene or character of the area. The proposal complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and is considered acceptable. RECOMMEND: Subject to the applicant/owner first entering into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council to secure a financial contribution towards off-site public open space and/ or facilities by the 31 October 2007.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-69-
PERMISSION: Levels, Boundary Treatment, Parking, Remove PD windows first floor (north & south), Obscure glaze first floor window (north), Contamination, Remove PD extensions and outbuildings, No mud, No Burning on site, Construction hours; diversion of the sewer. Note to Applicant: The developer must advise Southern Water of the measures which will be undertaken to divert and protect the public sewers prior to the commencement of the development. In addition a formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to serve this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Southern Water. OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required section 106 by the 31 October 2007. REFUSE: Contrary to policy, inadequate provision for public open space. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1190/FP
(23) P/07/1256/FP FAREHAM SOUTH
BURTON PROPERTY LTD Agent: WHITE YOUNG GREEN PLANNING
ERECT TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO 126 PAXTON ROAD EXISTING HOUSE & ERECT TWO FAREHAM FLATS & FOUR HOUSES INCLUDING - LAND TO REAR OF - LANDSCAPING, ACCESS & PARKING OFFICERS REPORT - Joanne Wilson Ext 2679
Site Description
The site fronts onto Paxton Road on its north-eastern boundary; on its south-western boundary, the site adjoins a pedestrian/cycle route known as The Gillies whilst the northern boundary comprises of No.124 Paxton Road.
The site comprises a broadly triangular parcel of land which extends to approximately 0.15 hectares in area;
The site was historically a former piggery and has for a number of years been subject to dumping and is very overgrown.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-70-
Description of Proposal
Permission is sought for the erection of a two storey side extension to the existing house which would measure 4 metres in width; 5 metres in depth with a maximum roof height of 6.6 metres;
The erection of two two bedroomed flats, two one bedroomed houses and two three bedroomed houses;
Access to the site would utilise the existing access road which services a parking area for the residents of No’s 120 -124 Paxton Road;
Ten parking spaces are proposed for the six units and three existing dwellings.
Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies– DG1; DG3; DG4; DG5; R5; H2 and T5. Relevant Planning History P/02/0422/OA – Erection of detached dwelling – Outline permission October 2002. P/00/0859/OA – Erection of detached bungalow - Dismissed on Appeal December 2000. P/96/0593/FP – Erection of two dwellings with parking – Refused November 1996. Representations Seven letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:
Proposed dwelling will cause overlooking and loss of light;
Loss of birds and trees;
Area is very overdeveloped and further flats are not required;
The proposal would exceed the number of units allowed off a private drive;
Loss of view which will be replaced by skyline;
Inadequate parking spaces shown,
Garages and drives to the houses should be provided
Who would be responsible for the upkeep of the road, this should be addressed before permission is granted;
New properties do not fall within the building line of Paxton Road;
Request that the existing cycle/footpath is maintained and that no vehicles are permitted to use the path during construction
All access to be via Paxton Road;
This may tidy up the area, however the existing drainage system is overstretched and no new dwellings should be allowed;
The height of the buildings should be reduced or the roof should be changed to a barn hip;
There have been a number of applications historically refused;
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-71-
Houses facing onto The Gillies is inappropriate as the existing houses get vandalised and the will suffer from the drunks that cause disturbance at night;
Slow worms are on this site and should be removed before developing;
No vehicular access for emergency vehicles;
Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objections subject to conditions. Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) – no objection subject to conditions. Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – no objections subject to conditions which include the existing hedgerow along the cycle way to be retained and reinforced. Hampshire Constabulary – no observations. Comments The main issues which need to be considered in the determination of this application are:
Principle of Development;
Impact on the Character of the Area;
Impact on the Amenities of Neighbouring Properties. Principle of development
The site is within the urban area where residential infilling; redevelopment and -development on neglected and underused land will be permitted, providing it does not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area or amenity of existing residents.
Impact on the Character of the Area The site is a residential area comprising of a mix of detached, semi-detached, terrace properties and bungalows. The existing property No.126 is a two storey detached dwelling. The proposed extension to this property would be set back from the front of the dwelling and the roof would be subservient to the main dwelling. Officers consider that the proposed extension would not be detrimental to the existing dwelling or the streetscene. The proposed dwellings would be provided in two buildings, the first of which provides two semi detached houses and the second comprises of two houses and two flats. The houses and flats have been designed as dual frontage which enables a number of the proposed dwellings to front onto The Gillies which provides an opportunity for surveillance of the footpath.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-72-
It is considered by officers that the design of the proposed buildings is in keeping with the prevailing pattern of development around the area and would not result in a detrimental impact on the character of the area. In addition it is considered that the redevelopment of this site would result in the tidying of a very overgrown area which is currently used as a rubbish dump and been the subject of complaints. Impact on the Amenities of Neighbouring Properties The impact on neighbouring properties needs to be carefully considered as the proposed houses are located close to a number of rear garden areas. The proposed houses facing The Gillies have been designed with oriel windows at first floor level to ensure that the windows facing towards neighbouring gardens would be obscure glazed and the remaining windows would look up The Gillies footpath and not directly into rear gardens. With regard to the building comprising of the houses and flats the elevation facing No.124 Paxton Road has no windows within this elevation and officers consider that a condition should be imposed to restrict any openings. With regard to the elevation facing No.128 Paxton Road this would look onto its own garden and The Gillies and in addition there is an existing hedge and trees which are to be retained. Officers consider that the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties and is acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: Subject to the applicant/owner first entering into an agreement pursuant to section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 on terms to the satisfaction of the Head of Development Control to secure a financial contribution towards off-site public open space and/ or facilities by the 18 November 2007. PERMISSION: Materials to be submitted; no openings within specified elevations; obscure glazing to specified windows; landscaping; landscaping implementation; retention of hedging; hard surface details; parking; contamination assessment; remove pd rights for extensions and outbuildings; no mud on road; hours of construction; no burning; boundary treatment; levels; tree protection measures. OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required section 111 by the 18 November 2007.
REFUSE: Contrary to Policy; inadequate provision for public open space; BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1256/FP; P/02/0422/OA; P/00/0859/OA; P/96/0593/FP
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-73-
(24) P/07/1283/FP FAREHAM WEST As amended by plans received on 15th October 2007 MR W ALLEN Agent: DEREK LINDSAY
ERECTION OF DETACHED FIVE- 78-80 THE AVENUE BED DWELLING - LAND TO REAR - FAREHAM OFFICERS REPORT - Joanne Wilson Ext 2679
Site Description
The application site comprises part of the rear garden of No’s 78-80 The Avenue. The eastern boundary comprises of the rear garden of No.76 The Avenue, which is part of a larger site for which planning permission has been granted for four dwellings (P/06/1390/FP refers). To the west are a number of apartments recently constructed by Miller Homes whilst the access road forms the northern boundary.
The site is situated within the urban area and an Area of Special Residential Character.
Description of Proposal
Permission is sought for the erection of one five bedroom detached dwelling with an integral double garage;
The dwelling would be two storeys and measure 16.1 metres in width; a maximum of 9 metres in depth with a maximum roof height of 8.6 metres;
Parking would be provided by a double integral garage and two additional parking spaces.
Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG3; DG5; H2; H3; T5 and R5. Relevant Planning History P/05/1310/FP – Erection of detached dwelling with integral garage (76 The
Avenue) – Permission November 2005.
P/06/0300/FP – Erection of 8 detached dwellings with garages (70-80 The Avenue) – Refused April 2006.
P/06/0768/FP – Erection of 7 detached dwellings with garages (70-80 The Avenue) – Refused October 2006 – Dismissed on Appeal.
P/06/1390/FP – Erection of four detached houses with garages and associated landscaping – Permission 19 December 2006.
P/06/1391/FP – Erection of five detached houses with garages and associated landscaping – Refused 30 November 2006.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-74-
P/06/1592/FP - Erection of two detached houses with garages and associated landscaping – Withdrawn.
Representations At time of writing this report one letter had been received objecting on the following grounds:
The proposed dwelling shows a dormer window in the rear elevation which contravenes a covenant;
The dwellings looks like a nice house however can the developer ensure that the road is kept clean and any damage is rectified.
The application has been advertised by a site notice and notifying neighbours. The publicity period expires on 31 October 2007; any letters subsequently received will be reported to members at the meeting. Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objections. Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) – no adverse comments Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – no objections subject to conditions. Comments Previous Refusals
There have been a number of applications upon this site and land to the east which have been refused. It was considered that by virtue of the number and size of the buildings, their plot sizes, and the close positioning to their boundaries, the proposals would have resulted in the over development of this site which would lead to a cramped and unsympathetic form of development, detrimental to the Area of Special Residential Character.
A concern raised by members about this particular part of the site was that the two dwellings previously proposed would have resulted in a cramped appearance and a detrimental impact on the character of the Area of Special Residential Character and in addition would have resulted in overlooking of the properties opposite in Chalford Grange. The inspector did not dismiss the appeal on the grounds of overlooking. The current proposal increases the distance between windows in the proposed dwelling and these in the dwellings opposite. Impact on the Character of the Area
The site is within an Area of Special Residential Character as defined within the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. Policy H3 is of specific relevance
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-75-
and states: ‘Residential infilling and redevelopment in areas of special residential character will only be permitted if it is demonstrated that the residential character will not be harmed’.
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 has been recently constructed comprising dwellings in large plots, and apartments set in landscaping, to replicate the Edwardian villas demolished to make way for the new development. The proposed scheme would consist of a large dwelling in a spacious plot and would have a ridge height less than those dwellings recently constructed by Miller Homes which have ridge heights of 9 metres. It is considered by officers that the proposed dwelling would not look out of character with the surrounding area and would be in keeping in size with the surrounding pattern of development. Officers consider that the proposed scheme would not have a detrimental impact on the Area of Special Residential Character. Impact on the Amenities of Neighbouring Properties
With regard to the impact from the proposed dwellings on neighbouring properties, any impact would primarily be upon the properties opposite within Chalford Grange and those immediately behind within The Avenue. In general terms the layout of the scheme is acceptable in terms of outlook and privacy. There would be a separation of 22 metres between the proposed dwellings and the closest first floor window of properties in Chalford Grange. There is in excess of 30 metres between the proposed dwellings and the properties within The Avenue whilst the proposed dwelling has an extensive side garden the rear garden is less than 11 metres in depth. As a result amended plans have been sought (and received) showing the relocation of some first floor windows and secondary windows to rooms to be glazed with obscure glass. Officers consider that the amended plans which have been submitted showing the proposed alterations overcome the concerns raised and the proposal would not result in a materially detrimental impact on the amenities available to the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
Officers consider that the reduction in the number of dwellings has overcome the previous concerns and is now acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: Subject to the applicant/owner first entering into a planning obligation pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council to secure a financial contribution towards off-site public open space and/ or facilities by the 22 November 2007. PERMISSION: Materials to be submitted; hard surfacing; boundary treatment; parking; tree protections measures; arboricultural method statement; no mud on road; hours of construction; provision for construction vehicles and materials; no burning; levels; specified elevations shall be obscure glazed and
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-76-
fixed shut up to 1.7 metres; no further openings; landscaping; landscaping implementation; tree protection measures including pre-commencement site meeting. OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required section 106 by the 22 November 2007.
REFUSE: Contrary to Policy; inadequate provision for public open space; BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1283/FP; P/06/1592/FP; P/06/1391/FP; P/06/1390/FP; P/06/0768/FP; P/06/0300/FP; P/05/1310/FP
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-77-
ZONE 3 – EASTERN WARDS
Hill Head Portchester West Portchester East Stubbington
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-78-
(25) P/07/1208/VC HILL HEAD as amended by plans received 19th October 2007 BENSAM HOMES Agent: SIMPSON HILDER ASSOCIATES
VARY CONDITION 4 OF P/07/0742/FP (TO 57 OLD STREET ENABLE PROVISION OF NEW PEDSTRIAN HILL HEAD - LAND ACCESS GATE IN EXISTING GAP IN ADJACENT TO HEDGEROW)
OFFICERS REPORT – Richard Wright 2356
Site Description
The proposal is in respect to a dwelling currently being constructed on land adjacent to 57 Old Street, Hillhead which is located on the western side of the road. The application site is within designated countryside, a Strategic Gap and Area of Special Landscape Character. Description of Proposal Permission is sought to vary a condition placed on the application currently being implemented (P/07/0742/FP). The condition secures the retention of the planting along the frontage of the site outlined in the landscaping scheme for the development and also specifically prohibits the creation of any vehicular or pedestrian access/egress through this planting unless first agreed with the Local Planning Authority. This proposal is for a new pedestrian access and gate to be inserted in the south eastern corner of the application site onto Old Street. The gate would be sited within an existing gap in the hedgerow and would measure 900mm wide between two 100mm square timber gate posts.
Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies: DG3 and DG5. Relevant Planning History P/05/0921/FP – Erection of single detached dwelling and garages – Refused 16/08/2005 – Dismissed on appeal 13/03/2006. P/06/0652/FP / Erection of single detached dwelling and garage – Refused 17/07/2006. P/06/1618/FP – Erection of detached dwelling and garage. P/07/0742/FP – Erection of detached dwelling and garage (alternative to P/06/1618/FP) – Permitted 18/07/2007.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-79-
Representations Nine letters of representation have been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:
Traffic hazard;
Increased number of visiting vehicles parked on the street by the new access;
No pavement on this side of the street;
Inadequate visibility for pedestrians;
Contrary to conditions relating to landscaping scheme and screening of the development;
Why is emergency access proposed?;
Loss of Privacy / Overlooking;
Gateway could be used by motorcycles. Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objection subject to the provision of a pedestrian landing on the adjacent highway verge under agreement with HCC. Comments This application is to vary a condition to enable the insertion of a pedestrian access gate at a new development adjacent to 57 Old Street. On reflection of the content of the letters of representation received, the two main issues debated relating to this case are that of highway safety and visual amenity. A previous application for the erection of the dwelling and garages (P/05/0921/FP) was dismissed on appeal. The Inspector commented on the potential highway safety danger caused by the proposed access to Old Street from the application site. However, it is important to consider that the inspector’s comments were made in relation to vehicular access as was proposed at the time which involved the loss of a considerable amount of hedgerow. The inspector also commented that the loss of the hedgerow would open up views into the site. Subsequent applications for this site which were granted planning permission in 2006 (P/06/1618/FP) and 2007 (P/07/0742/FP) proposed alternative access to the rear of the application site to overcome this problem. In light therefore of the comments of the Council’s Highway Engineer who raises no objection to the proposal, it is the opinion of officers that, provided a pedestrian landing is incorporated into the plan for the access gate, highway safety would not be compromised in this instance. With respect to the matter of the visual amenity of the site, certain conditions, which still stand, relate to ensuring the satisfactory appearance of the development in the interests of visual amenity of the locality. Given that the
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-80-
gate proposed is 1.1 metres in width (including gate posts), it is the opinion of officers that this in itself would not provide a gap in the screening large enough to detract from the overall visual amenity. Amended details have been received amending the landscaping details and demonstrating that the pedestrian landing required for highway safety reasons can be accommodated with no further detraction from the visual amenity of the site frontage provided by the screening and planting. The proposal is deemed acceptable and to accord with the policies of the Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Boundary treatment as agreed; planting to be retained; landscaping scheme implementation; restrict opening’s in south and north elevations; high level windows; parking/turning; contamination amendment; measures to prevent mud as approved; hours of work; no burning; tree protection measures. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1208/VC
(26) P/07/1258/FP HILL HEAD
GREENE KING PLC Agent: DHA PLANNING
RETENTION OF OUTDOOR SMOKING 120 CUCKOO LANE SHELTER AND THREE SCREENS - THE CUCKOO PINT - FAREHAM OFFICERS REPORT - Simon Thompson Ext 4815
Site Description
The Cuckoo Pint is a freestanding public house situated on the north side of Cuckoo Lane at its junction with Plymouth Drive, Stubbington. To the west of this pub is the pub’s beer garden and to the east is a large car park of the pub. To the east of this car park is a co-op store and car park. Residential development surrounds the pub otherwise, but this is on the other side of Cuckoo Lane to the south and west and the other side of Upper Old Street to the north.
The smoking shelter and three screens are already located at the pub. The smoking shelter is situated immediately adjacent to the south east corner of the pub with the pub building enclosing it to its north west, north and north east. The three screens are situated next to the low boundary wall of the pub to the south of three outside tables and benches of the pub which are the other side of a path which runs from the pub entrance to the pub car park south of the smoking shelter.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-81-
Description of Proposal This application seeks planning permission for the retention of the smoking shelter and three tall, ivy covered, landscaping screens to the south of this on the walled boundary to the pub beside Cuckoo Lane. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – Policies DG1, DG3, DG5 and T5. Representations Two letters and one email have has been received objecting on the following grounds:
Noise since the smoking ban has been from outside the pub and for a lot longer and loud and very noisy at closing times.
Outside noise has increased since the shelter has been installed from pub customers congregating in and around the shelter and is especially noticeable into the evening and beyond closing time as it is accessible even then. The planning authority’s own website in relation to the smoking ban and sending drinkers outside states “neighbours should not have to put up with high noise levels now, or once smoke free legislation has come into force”;
Licensing conditions intended to limit noise have been negated by people spending extra time outside the pub;
Whilst the application might seem to help secure the pub’s financial viability this should not be considered. Greene King’s profitability is not likely to be adversely affected by the smoking ban but would broaden the appeal of pubs as there have experienced in Scotland. Financial expediency from the development should not be at the expense of adverse effects on the residential community nearby;
The shelter should be located in the pub’s western beer garden where its effects would be lessened. Presently the shelter faces south towards totally residential property including old people’s accommodation and houses with young children. Its use could then be stopped at 23:00 hours, a common practice with beer gardens, and noise pollution significantly reduced. Under Human Rights legislation and European Court judgements people in effect have a fundamental right of a good night’s sleep
The design of the shelter is poor compared to guidance adopted by most other Council’s which favour metal “bus stop” type shelters rather than the “garden building” constructed which does not fit in with the brick built appearance of the existing pub.. The screens also detract form the appearance of the site and provide little obstruction to the view from the residential area;
The shelter is more than 50% enclosed against the Council’s own Planning Advice Note;
The shelter disregards the character of the site and area, it is in fact cramped and intrusive with a lack of space for passing patrons of the pub;
It is a fire risk made of timber close to the existing building and car parked vehicles;
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-82-
The applicants should not be allowed to play music or amplified speech outside;
In conclusion, the application should be refused. Three letters and emails have been received supporting on the following grounds:
Smokers need a shelter to have a cigarette in the dry;
The development is not obtrusive or unsightly to those using the pub, residents in the surrounding area or others that pass by;
The three screens provide a form of cover and privacy to users of the pub and its smoking shelter and also for residents in the area;
Relieved shelter is not in pub garden to the north west as there is already noise from the there.
Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objection Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) – (a) No objection in that the shelter complies with smoke free legislation (b) Noise, disturbance and feasibility of use – No objection. Comments The smoking shelter is composed of natural shade wood with green felt roofing. It is shielded from view from the northwest and north by the pub building. More exposed views are possible across the pub car park to the east and from the south east but the three screens and existing vegetation to the south help shield the shelter from view from the nearest residential property at 1 Plymouth Drive to the south across Cuckoo Lane and from drivers view when stopping their vehicles at the northern end of Plymouth Drive when they reach the road junction with Cuckoo Lane. Residential properties to the west and south west are beyond Cuckoo Lane and have their backs to the pub and pub shelter and face on to Hamble Court. In visual terms the shelter and its three screens are acceptable additions to the streetscene. The Council’s highway engineers do not object to the retention of these structures on highway grounds. In terms of noise and disturbance through use of these facilities, Environmental Health are raising no objection. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1258/FP
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-83-
(27) P/07/1188/FP PORTCHESTER EAST
MR R E BROWN
BUILD UP HIPPED ROOF TO FORM 43 GROVE AVENUE BARN HIP, ERECT TWO FRONT PORTCHESTER DORMERS & REAR EXTENSION WITH ACCOMMODATION WITHIN ROOFSPACE OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin Ext 2412
Site Description
This application relates to a semi-detached bungalow on the eastern side of Grove Avenue.
Description of Proposal Permission is sought to;
Build up the hipped roof to form a barn hip
Erection of two pitched roof front dormers
Erect a rear extension measuring 6.3 metres in width, a maximum of 4 metres in depth with a ridge height of 6.3 metres. Accommodation to be provided within the roofspace also.
Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG3 and DG5. Relevant Planning History P/07/0432/FP Build up Hipped Roof to Form Gable End, Provide Two Front
Dormers, Erect Two Storey Rear Extension and Demolish Garage
Refused 9 May 2007 Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:
Loss of light;
Overshadowing conservatory and garden;
Loss of property value;
Out of character. Comments An application for roof extensions to this property was refused earlier this year. The reason for refusal stated that by virtue of the height and bulk of the two
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-84-
storey rear extension and the close proximity of the flank wall of the resultant building to the neighbouring property to the north the proposal would result in an overbearing form of development harmful to the light available to the kitchen window within the flank wall of the neighbouring property. It was also considered that due to the design of the roof on the front elevation the proposed front dormers would result in unsympathetic additions to the property detrimental to the appearance of the dwelling and the visual amenities of the street scene. The application has been revised and resubmitted. The eaves height of the rear extension have been lowered from that previously refused and are now approximately 4 metres above ground level. A projecting section of the roof has been modified on the front elevation of the property so that the dormers sit better within the roofplane. The objector’s property to the north has a bathroom and kitchen window within the side elevation. This Council does not treat bathrooms as habitable rooms for which outlook and light are safeguarded. The kitchen window already faces onto the side of the application property at a distance of little more than 2 metres and as a result the outlook from the room is limited. The objector has a conservatory to the rear of their property with a solid brick flank wall. The proposed extension would extend only marginally beyond this conservatory. Roof extensions of this kind are common throughout Portchester and the appearance of the dwelling would not be unacceptable. In the opinion of Officers the proposal would not unacceptably impact upon the neighbour’s conservatory or rear garden area. The objector’s kitchen window already faces towards the existing bungalow. The extensions to the bungalow would increase the scale of the building close to this window. Officers do not believe that the change in outlook would justify the refusal of the application. Officers do however acknowledge that the build up of the roof close to the window would result in a reduction in light available to it. This loss of light needs to be weighed against the fact that the applicant is proposing to light render the elevation facing the objector’s property. In the opinion of officers this is a very finely balanced case. Officers consider on balance that planning permission should be granted subject to the imposition of conditions including these to ensure the rendering of the flank facing the objector’s property. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to match, Obscure glaze first floor window (north), Rooflight north elevation min sill height 1.7m, Withdraw PD windows first floor (north & south); roof above neighbours bay window to be modified in accordance with approved plans before front dormers constructed; render north elevation before extensions bought into use. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1188/FP
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-85-
(28) P/07/1193/VC PORTCHESTER EAST SCHEFENACKER VISION
SYSTEMS UK VARIATION OF CONDTION 14 OF FBC 2125 CASTLE TRADING (TO RETAIN STORAGE OF MATERIALS ESTATE EAST WITHIN REAR PARKING AREA) STREET PORTCHESTER
OFFICERS REPORT – Richard Wright 2356
Site Description
The proposal is in respect of a large unit on an industrial estate in Portchester south of the A27. The south western boundary of the application site borders the Castle Street conservation area. The industrial estate is a Category A Employment Area.
Description of Proposal Permission is sought to vary a condition placed on the original decision for the premises. The condition in question prevents the depositing or storage of goods, plant or materials in the open on the site. The reason for the condition was to protect the visual amenities of the area and to maintain adequate parking. Schefenacker Vision Systems UK have sought to vary the condition in order to retain the storage of wooden pallets and plastic waste for recycling on site. The proposed storage areas are:
to the north eastern end of the car park in space currently allocated to 5 car parking spaces (for the wooden pallets);
to the southern end of the car park, in space currently allocated to 9 car parking spaces (for the plastic waste for recycling).
Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies: DG1, DG3 and T5. Relevant Planning History FBC.2125/131 – Erection of factory with ancillary office and associated vehicle parking – 5/9/1989 Representations Two letters of representation from the same objector have been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-86-
The proposal is contrary to the original planning application;
There is a danger of fire or other damage to nearby properties because the materials being stored could be targeted by local juveniles in the area. There have already been instances of small fires started close by in the past;
The pallets have previously been stored close by to trees and our neighbour’s fence.
Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objections. Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – no objections. Comments This application is for the variation of a condition imposed on a previous planning decision to allow the applicants to store materials in two places in the open within the car park. The original condition was placed on the decision for reasons of protecting the visual amenity of the nearby open space and the employment area, and to maintain adequate parking areas. With respect to the issue of visual amenity, it is not the opinion of officers that the storage of materials in the open would detract from the streetscene or the enjoyment of surrounding areas. The majority of the surrounding built environment is comprised of other units within the industrial estate. The proposed locations for the pallets and recycling material are such that they would not be viewed from the road serving the industrial estate. No dwellings border the application site and the nearest house is over 65 metres from the nearest proposed location of the wooden pallets. Nearby dwellings to the north and west in The Keep are shielded by means of a man made bund which was created as a condition on the original application for the unit. Large, densely vegetated trees on and around the bund screen the houses from any possible views of and from the application site car park. These same trees and bund screen the application site from the open space in the nearby conservation area to the south and west. The council’s highways engineers have reported that the car park is currently underused. In the opinion of officers, the loss of 14 car parking spaces will not unduly affect the ability of the car park to cope with the demand for parking spaces. With respect to one of the comments made in objection to this application, it is not believed that materials stored in the car park would present any increased danger to nearby properties in terms of fire safety or the potential for criminal damage. Officers consider it would be wise to restrict the height of the stored materials to 2 metres, which can be secured by a planning condition.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-87-
In summary, this development is considered to accord with the policies of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Height to which pallets and materials to be recycled can be stacked to be limited to 2 metres; storage on the area since hatched. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1193/FP Further Information: Your attention is drawn to the conditions on FBC 2125/131 which continue to apply.
(29) P/07/1173/FP PORTCHESTER WEST
MRS T LYNCH Agent: M2 ARCHITECTURE
ERECT SINGLE STOREY FRONT 45 THE RIDGEWAY EXTNS TO GARAGE & FIRST FLOOR FAREHAM SIDE EXTENSION INCORPORATING FRONT & REAR DORMERS OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677
Site Description This application relates to a detached dwelling with a single storey side attached garage on the south side of The Ridgeway which is to the north of Portchester Road. Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought for:- (i) The erection of a single storey front extension which measures 3.5 metre in width, 1.5 metres in depth with an eaves height of 2.4 metres and a right height of 3.6 metres. (ii) First floor side extension which would involve the increase in the existing side attached garage pitched roof by 0.5 metres and the provision of front and rear dormers which measures 2.1 metres in width, 3 metre in depth with a ridge height of 2.2 metres. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review – H3, DG3 and DG5
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-88-
Relevant Planning History P/07/0525/FP Erection of Single Storey Front Extension to Garage and First Floor Side Extension – Refused 23-05-2007. FBC.1945/206 Erection of Single Storey Side and Rear Extensions – Permission 08-08-1986. Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:
Approval should not be given unless acceptable to extend neighbouring properties in the same manner;
Inconsistent with other properties on same road;
Garage extension breaches title covenant defining minimum distance from property to front boundary;
Plan front elevation shows garage extension roof overhangs neighbours land;
No agreements to access neighbours property for construction/maintenance;
Less privacy for neighbours as new second floor windows are set back further.
Comments This application has been submitted following a previous application that was refused on the following grounds:- The proposed development is contrary to Policies DG3 (A) (B) and H3 (I) of the adopted Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and the approved Fareham Borough Council Extension Design Guide and is otherwise unacceptable in that: by the virtue of the height, width, bulk and design (particularly lack of subservience), and proximity to the eastern boundary, the proposed side extension would: i) Unacceptably reduce the space about the building to the detriment of the spatial character and visual amenities of the streetscene within this area of special residential character; and ii) Result in an unsympathetic addition to this dwelling, detrimental to the appearance and visual amenities of the streetscene. The previous application was proposing a full two storey extension with a ridge line at the same height as the existing property. This current application has altered the extension so that the proposed ridge line is set 1.5 metres lower than the existing ridge (increasing the height of the existing single storey side extension by 500mm) with the first floor accommodation within the roof area including the provision of front and rear dormer windows with a single storey front extension.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-89-
Concern has been raised that the development breaches the covenant defining minimum distance from properties to front boundaries but covenants are not material planning considerations. The neighbour has raised concern relating to the position of the dormer windows. Officers are of the view that the dormer windows face north and south over the applicant’s rear and front garden area and would therefore not compromise the neighbours privacy. The comment has also been made that the proposed eaves would overhang the boundary of the neighbouring property. Officer’s have contacted the agent on this matter and confirmation was given that the building will be amended to ensure that there is no overhang. Officer also requested an alteration to the application in relation to the front dormer window size which was agreed. Officers consider that the proposed increase in the roof height, front extension and front and rear dormers would not have a detrimental impact on the street scene or the character of the area. The application complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: Subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans confirming that no part of the eaves would overhang the neighbouring property and reducing the width of the front dormer window by 0.5 metre. PERMISSION: Materials to match BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/07/1173/FP
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-90-
MISCELLANEOUS ITEM 1
Erection of Restaurant on the Focus DIY Car Park at Newgate Lane, Fareham Officers Report- Lee Smith Ext 2427 At their meeting on the 11th July 2007 Members of the Planning Development Control Committee resolved to grant planning permission for the above proposal. The resolution was subject to a number of conditions including one which required a cycleway to be constructed alongside Newgate Lane to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority. The applicant has requested that this matter be dealt with by way of a contribution paid to the Highway Authority upon commencement of development for the construction of the cycleway. The Highway Authority has confirmed that such an approach is acceptable and that the parties have agreed on the level of contribution. Should Members be happy with the approach now suggested the earlier resolution will need to be amended as set out below. RECOMMEND That the resolution of the Planning Development Control Committee of 11th July 2007 in respect of item 36 be amended to require that the applicant/owner first enter into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor of the Council to secure a financial contribution for the construction of a cycleway along side Newgate Lane.
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-91-
PLANNING APPEALS
The following list details the current situation regarding new and outstanding planning appeals and decisions.
APPEALS LODGED 1. P/07/0323/FP
Appellant: C Wilby & J Quick Site: 17 Redwood Drive, Portchester Decision Maker: Officers’ Delegated Powers Recommendation: Refusal
Council’s Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 8th October 2007 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to
refuse planning for the erection of a rear dormer. 2. P/07/0137/FP
Appellant: Mr & Mrs S Callaghan Site: 10 Church Road – land to the rear of - Warsash Decision Maker: Officers’ Delegated Powers Recommendation: Refusal
Council’s Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 11th October 2007 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to
refuse planning for the erection of a detached dwelling. PUBLIC INQUIRY/HEARING DATES 3. P/07/0258/FP
Appellant: Churchill Retirement Living Site: Botley Road, 4-12 – Park Gate Decision Maker: Officers’ Delegated Powers Recommendation: Refusal
Council’s Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 29th June 2007 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to
refuse planning permission for the demolition of existing and erect 38 sheltered apartments for the elderly, lodge, access parking and landscaping.
Public Inquiry: 6 &7th November 2007
dc-071031-r04-lsm
-92-
DECISIONS 4. P/07/0287/FP
Appellant: Mr Graham Louch Site: 79 Quintrel Avenue, Fareham Decision Maker: Officers’ Delegated Powers Recommendation: Refusal
Council’s Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 22nd June 2007 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to
refuse planning permission for the erection of a 4 bedroom detached dwelling. Decision: Dismissed Date of Decision: 12th October 2007 5. P/07/0351/FP
Appellant: Mr & Mrs McGuigan Site: 25 Home Rule Road, Locks Heath Decision Maker: Officers’ Delegated Powers Recommendation: Refusal
Council’s Decision: Refused Date Lodged: 9 July 2007 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to
refuse planning for the erection of a rear conservatory. Decision: Allowed Inspector’s Reason: The Inspector said that there was not sufficient evidence
proposed conservatory would materially affect the light of the neighbouring property. Also he said that there was not sufficient evidence proposed conservatory would affect the outlook from the neighbour’s living room. The Inspector imposed a condition that said samples of materials had to be approved by the Council before development took place.
Date of Decision: 15th October 2007
Enquiries: For further information on this report please contact Lee Smith (Ext 2427).