Report to Planning Committee - Fareham Committee...2012/09/12 · 31 MIDDLE ROAD PARK GATE SOUTHAMPTON SO31 7GH Report By Site Description Description of Proposal Policies Relevant

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 1 -

Item 6(i)

Date:

Report of:

Subject:

12 September 2012

Director of Planning and Environment

PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION

This report recommends action on various planning applications and miscellaneous items

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

Report to Planning Committee

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 2 -

Reference Item No

P/12/0371/FP

P/12/0531/FP

P/12/0647/FP

P/12/0588/CU

P/12/0625/FP

P/12/0436/FP

P/12/0573/FP

P/12/0574/LB

31 MIDDLE ROAD PARK GATE SOUTHAMPTON SO317GH

4 PALOMINO DRIVE WHITELEY FAREHAM HANTS PO157BF

39 HOLLY HILL LANE SARISBURY GREENSOUTHAMPTON SO31 7AB

9 PARK GLEN PARK GATE SO31 6BZ

AVON PARK RESIDENTIAL HOME 66 SOUTHAMPTONROAD PARK GATE SOUTHAMPTON SO31 6AF

128 GOSPORT ROAD

14 NORTH WALLINGTON FAREHAM PO16 8SN

14 NORTH WALLINGTON FAREHAM HANTS PO16 8SN

EXTENSION OF SINGLE STOREY MIXED USE GARAGEAND DOCUMENT STORAGE BUILDING TO ADD AFURTHER STOREY ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT(RESUBMISSION OF P/11/0833/FP)

VARIATION OF CONDITION 17 OF FBC 7437/21 (TOALLOW FULL CONVERSION OF EXISTING INTEGRALGARAGES TO FORM LIVING ACCOMMODATION) ANDERECTION OF DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE

ERECTION OF DETACHED HOUSE WITH INTEGRALGARAGE AND PARKINGas amended by plan received 22 August 2012

RETENTION OF USE OF DOMESTIC GARAGE ASPERSONAL TRAINING STUDIO

REPLACEMENT OF FLAT ROOF WITH PITCHED ROOFOVER PART OF EXISTING BUILDING INCLUDINGPROPOSED WINDOWS IN EASTERN AND WESTERNELEVATIONS TO EXISTING BEDROOM

RETENTION OF CANOPY TO SIDE OF BUILDING

ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION


1

2

5

3

4

6

7

8

INDEX LIST OF APPLICATIONS BY WARD

REFUSE

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

LISTEDBUILDINGCONSENT

Park Gate

Sarisbury

Titchfield Common

Fareham East

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 3 -

P/12/0639/FP

P/12/0597/FP

P/12/0628/CU

P/12/0592/TO

P/12/0653/TO

P/12/0562/FP

P/12/0656/FP

P/12/0581/FP

P/12/0591/FP

23 WICKHAM ROAD FAREHAM HANTS PO16 7LU

70 PRIVETT ROAD FAREHAM PO15 6SP

41 FAIRFIELD AVENUE FAREHAM HANTS PO14 1EH

1 CHALFORD GRANGE FAREHAM HANTS PO15 5QW

BOUNDARY ADJACENT JONATHAN ROADBLACKBROOK BUSINESS PARK BLACKBROOK ROADFAREHAM HAMPSHIRE PO15 5DR

2 CLIFF ROAD FAREHAM PO14 3JS

24 WALNUT DRIVE FAREHAM PO14 2DH

198 CASTLE STREET PORTCHESTER FAREHAM PO169QH

24 ALTON GROVE FAREHAM PO16 9NJ

RETENTION OF CLOSE BOARDED WOODENBOUNDARY GATE AND FENCING MOUNTED IN FRONTOF RAILINGS ABOVE EXISTING LOW BRICK WALL,OVER ONE METRE IN HEIGHT ADJACENT TO THEPUBLIC HIGHWAY (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)

DEMOLITION OF SHOP UNIT AND ERECTION OFBUNGALOW

CHANGE OF USE FROM DENTIST SURGERY (D1) TOHAIRDRESSERS (A1)

CARRY OUT WORKS TO 3NO TREES (1 NO SYCAMORE& 2 NO LIME)COVERED BY FTPO 543

REDUCE LEYLANDII TREES COVERED BY FTPO 252 BY2M IN HEIGHT

ERECTION OF FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION TOPROVIDE FIVE BEDROOM EXTENSION TO CARE HOMEas amended by plan received 16 August 2012

RETENTION OF FOUR SOLAR PANELS TO EXISTINGGARAGE ROOF (PART ALTERNATIVE TO P/11/0744/FP)

ERECTION OF TWO STOREY FRONT EXTENSION ANDALTERATION TO THE EXISTING FENESTRATION

ERECTION OF TWO BEDROOM DWELLINGas amended by plans received 20 August 2012

12

10

11

9

13

14

18

15

17

REFUSE

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

CONSENT

CONSENT

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

REFUSE

PERMISSION

Fareham North-West

Fareham South

Fareham West

Hill Head

Portchester East

Stubbington

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 4 -

P/12/0589/FP SOLENT GATE SPEEDFIELDS PARK FAREHAMHAMPSHIRE PO14 1TLINSTALLATION OF EXTERNAL PLANT OUTSIDE UNITS 4AND UNITS 6 AND 7 AND PROVIDE THREE PARKINGSPACES OPPOSITE UNIT 4

16PERMISSION

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 5 -

ZONE 1 - WESTERN WARDS

Park Gate

Titchfield

Sarisbury

Locks Heath

Warsash

Titchfield Common

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 6 -

EXTENSION OF SINGLE STOREY MIXED USE GARAGE AND DOCUMENT STORAGEBUILDING TO ADD A FURTHER STOREY ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT(RESUBMISSION OF P/11/0833/FP)

31 MIDDLE ROAD PARK GATE SOUTHAMPTON SO31 7GH

Report By

Site Description

Description of Proposal

Policies

Relevant Planning History

Representations

Emma Marks Extn.2677

This application relates to a detached ancillary flat roof commercial building which lies at therear of frontage commercial premises to the west of Middle Road which is north of BridgeRoad.

The site lies within the Park Gate (Middle Road) Local Centre.

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a first floor extension above an existingsingle storey detached building which would result in a two storey building measuring 6.720metres in width, 6.020 metre in depth with an eaves height of 4.870 and a ridge height of7.4 metres.

The following policies apply to this application:

The following planning history is relevant:

Four letters of support have been received based on the following grounds:-

i) The proposed extra storey would substantially improve the visual amenity of the area ii) The extension would dramatically enhance this particular commercial areaiii) The extension to it will be of great benefit to the employers that will make use of it

One letter of objection has been received objecting on the following grounds:-

i) Reduction in light entering the factor, shadow cast by the second floor construction willdarkened some area for much of the dayii) The construction will be out of keeping with the rest of the siteiii) Tunnel effect

(1) P/12/0371/FP PARK GATE

MR S PLACIDI AGENT: MT PLANNING

Approved Fareham Borough Core StrategyCS17 - High Quality Design

P/11/0866/FP EXTENSION OF SINGLE STOREY MIXED USE GARAGE ANDDOCUMENT STORAGE BUILDING TO ADD A FURTHER 2STOREYS ON THE SAME FOOTPRINTREFUSE 16/12/2011

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 7 -

Consultations

Planning Considerations - Key Issues

Recommendation

Director of Planning & Environment(Highways):- No objection

Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services(Environmental Health):- No objection

The proposed extension would provide additional document storage on site for theapplicant's business (solicitors).

The building is located off an access road from Middle Road and is directly behind 29-31Middle Road. The building cannot be viewed from Middle Road due to the two storeyterrace building on the frontage however when entering the rear of the site the building islocated in the middle of a parking area and is prominent within this large open space.

The proposal is to extend this building by adding an additional first floor with a pitched roofover the existing garage/store. Officers have considered the design of the first floorextension in conjunction with the comments received and are of the view that as thebuilding is increasing in height to make a full two storey structure in the middle of this openarea it would be out of keeping with the surrounding buildings. The height of the buildingwould have an adverse impact on the visual amenities of the area.

Officers are of the view that the extension is unacceptable and is contrary to policies withinthe Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy.

Refuse: Visual impact on area due to height, bulk and design.

Site Location Map follows on next page

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 8 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 9 -

VARIATION OF CONDITION 17 OF FBC 7437/21 (TO ALLOW FULL CONVERSION OFEXISTING INTEGRAL GARAGES TO FORM LIVING ACCOMMODATION) ANDERECTION OF DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE

4 PALOMINO DRIVE WHITELEY FAREHAM HANTS PO15 7BF

Report By

Introduction

Site Description


Policies

Arleta Miszewska ext. 4666

Councillor Swanbrow has called this application onto the Planning Committee fordetermination.

This application relates to a two storey detached residential property currently served by twointegral garages and a driveway providing two car parking spaces. The property is locatedat the south western end of Palomino Drive.

The application site also consists of a small plot of land which forms a part of the frontgarden of 2 Persian Drive, directly opposite the front of 4 Palomino Drive. The land isgrassed and hosts a conifer hedge approximately 2 metres in height and a young mapletree.

Planning permission was granted in January 2012 to convert one integral garage to ahabitable room, subject to the remaining garage and two car parking spaces, at the front ofthe property, being kept available for the parking of cars at all times.

This submission seeks planning permission to convert part of the integral garage to ahabitable room and to erect a new double garage. The garage would be sited on landacross the road (south east) which currently forms part of the front garden of 2 PersianDrive.

The proposed garage would measure 4600mm by 6000mm and would be 4100mm highwith a pitched roof. It would be built of brickwork and interlocking tiles matching no. 4Palomino Drive.

The proposal would result in the removal approximately 6 metres of the existing coniferhedge and one young maple tree.


(2) P/12/0531/FP SARISBURY

MR & MRS N KELLY AGENT: MR MARTIN REYNOLDS

Approved Fareham Borough Core Strategy

Approved SPG/SPD

CS17 - High Quality Design

RCCPS - Residential Car and Cycle Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 10 -


Representations

Consultations



Two online comments have been received from no. 2 Persian Drive summarised as follows:

(i) no detrimental effect on 2 Persian Drive or outlook,(ii) no negative effect on the neighbourhood; the proposed elevation will be in keeping withthe general street scene.

Director of Planning & Environment (Highways) - raises no objection subject to conditions.

Director of Planning & Environment (Arboriculture) - raises no objection subject toconditions.

The main considerations in this case include impact on the character and appearance of thesurrounding area, the residential amenities of the adjacent neighbours, including loss oflight, outlook and privacy and highway safety.

The surrounding area is characterised by the presence of garages, although close to theapplication site they are mainly integral, there are some detached single and doublegarages further away, for example, on Clydesdale Road and Mustang Avenue. Theproposed construction materials would be in keeping with the host dwelling and theproposed design would respect the key characteristics of the nearby area. Furthermore, it isproposed to retain a part of the existing hedge, which would screen the proposed garage.Consequently, Officers conclude that this proposal would maintain the character andappearance of the area and is considered acceptable, in this respect.

At the request of officers, the footprint of the garage has been pegged out on site. TheCouncil's Principal Tree Officer visited the site and has confirmed that it would be possibleto construct the proposed garage and retain the existing hedge as shown on the submittedplans. No objection is raised subject to a planning condition requiring trimming of thehedge before any works can start, a tree/hedge protection method statement andtree/hedge replacement. One small maple tree sited behind the hedge would be removedin order to facilitate the garage. This tree is viewed from the street with mature treesbehind; its removal would not harm the character of the area or street scene.

In terms of traffic and highway safety, the Council's Highway Officer concluded that despitethe proposed access arrangement, the proposed garage would not result in vehicles beingparked on the highway, provided the existing car parking spaces within the front driveway

Fareham Borough Local Plan ReviewDG4 - Site Characteristics

P/11/1052/VC VARIATION OF CONDITION 17 OF FBC 7437/21 ( TO ALLOWCONVERSION OF PART OF EXISTING INTEGRAL GARAGES TOFORM A HABITABLE ROOM)APPROVE 25/01/2012

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 11 -

Reasons For Granting Permission

Recommendation

are retained.

As to the residential amenities of neighbours, the proposed development does not raiseprivacy concerns. From the orientation of the garage and the movement of the sun, it isclear that it would not cause a detrimental overshadowing of any of the adjacent properties,including the property across the road (1 Persian Drive). Similarly, the separation distancebetween the garage and the adjacent properties would safeguard the outlook fromhabitable room windows. Moreover, the adjacent neighbours were consulted and raised noobjections. Officers consider that the proposal does not prove to be harmful to residentialamenities of the adjacent neighbours.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised by theconsultees, Officers conclude that this proposal complies with the Local Plan.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan as set out above. The proposal is not considered to result inunacceptable impacts upon the street scene or character of the area, or upon the amenitiesof neighbouring properties or highway safety, other material considerations being judged notto have sufficient weight or direction to justify a refusal of the application, and, whereapplicable, conditions having been applied in order to satisfy these matters. The scheme istherefore judged to be in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and CompulsoryPurchase Act 2004 and thus planning permission should therefore be granted.

Permission - time, materials, in accordance with plans, alterations only brought into usewhen garage available, parking areas to be kept available, garage ancillary to the mainhouse, arboricultural method statement, schedule of works, replacement planting.


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 12 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 13 -

RETENTION OF USE OF DOMESTIC GARAGE AS PERSONAL TRAINING STUDIO

9 PARK GLEN PARK GATE SO31 6BZ

Report By

Site Description


Policies


Representations


This application relates to a two storey detached property situated at the end of Park Glencul-de-sac, located within the residential area in Titchfield Common, characterised by largedetached properties, benefiting from two garages and substantial driveways,accommodating two parking spaces.

Retrospective planning permission is sought for conversion of a domestic double garage toa personal training room.

From the information provided by the applicant and online comments received, it is clearthat the use has been taking place for the last 18 months.

The use includes approximately twenty, one hour training sessions for one or twoindividuals. The sessions would take place between:- Monday, Tuesday and Thursday: 9.30am and 21.00pm- Wednesday: 18.30pm and 21.00pm- Saturday: 7.30am and 12.00 noon,- Sunday and Bank Holidays: 10.00am and 12.00pm.


There is no relevant planning history for this site.

Four online comments supporting the application have been received from the followingproperties:- 8 Park Glen,- 11 Park Glen, - 12 Park Glen, and- 85 Wheatlands.Summary of comments:

(3) P/12/0588/CU TITCHFIELD COMMON

MR & MRS ABBOTT


Approved SPG/SPD



pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 14 -

Consultations


- no increase in traffic; - cars pass in front of neighbouring property and it does not cause any inconvenience ornoise nuisance to the occupiers; - no driveways are ever blocked; you would never know that there is a business at 9 ParkGlen, it is still the same quiet cul-de-sac it always has been, no danger from clients parkingcars;- this is a valuable service to the local community;- the security of neighbouring houses is improved by the presence of clients, as anyburglars would be deterred by the comings and goings of cars or foot traffic.

One letter of objection, from 7 Park Glen, has been received stating the following:- devalue property,- increase in traffic,- excess car fumes,- excess noise, - lack of adequate parking, parked cars may block access to driveway,- risk of injury when using rear garden, - privacy,- risk of injury when using drive, - unsightly air-conditioning unit,- hours of business, not acceptable in residential area,- details of application differ from web page,- no mention of adequate liability cover, in case of damage to neighbouring property.

Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services (Environmental Health) - the Departmenthas not received any nuisance complaints in respect of this already operating development.The only source of noise that is likely to be audible is the noise from customers arriving andleaving in their cars which is a noise nuisance that cannot be deal with under theEnvironmental Protection Act 1990. However, it is not considered that the noise from themovement of one or two cars for each appointment (around 20 hours per week) wouldcause a major impact on any of the neighbours having regard to the stated working hours.For these reasons, no objection has been raised.

Director of Planning & Environment (Highways) - the detached property has four bedroomsand thus, against current standards, would require three car parking spaces excluding anygarage. The present property has a double garage (currently being used as a personaltraining studio) with two car parking spaces in front. The studio use would require at leastone additional parking space. According to the planning application, the use is limited to around 20 hours per weekalthough the total functioning hours amount to 43.5 hours per week. In light of this it isrecommended that the use is permitted provided it is made personal to the applicants andan additional car parking space is made available at the front of the house, or temporarypermission is granted.

The main consideration includes the impact on the character and appearance of the localarea, residential amenities, parking provision and highway safety.

The development under consideration did not result in any material changes to theappearance of the dwelling having no impact on the appearance of the local surrounding

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 15 -


Recommendation

area. Furthermore, the additional car journeys, on average four journeys a day, would notbe considered out of character with this residential area. For these reasons, the use is notconsidered out of character of the area.

In terms of residential amenities, in particular noise impact, the Environmental HealthOfficer was consulted and commented that the additional traffic movement would not causea major impact on any of the neighbours having regard to the stated working hours.Moreover, this development has not resulted in any complaints to the Environmental HealthDepartment.

The Council's Highway Officer was also consulted. He concluded that the studio use wouldrequire at least one additional parking space. As the total functioning hours amount to 43.5hours per week it is recommended that the use is permitted provided it is made personal tothe applicants and an additional car parking space is made available at the front of thehouse, or a temporary use for one year. There is parking available on street in the form of alay-by.

Officers have considered the matter carefully; the fact that the use has been operating forsome 18 months, without complaints is a material consideration. The four letters of supportfrom adjacent neighbours is a clear indication that local residents have not encounteredproblems during that time. The letters of support indicate that the applicant is running thebusiness in a satisfactory manner so as not to cause a nuisance. A personal permissionwould prevent the business being run by others and would also seek to address some ofthe concerns raised by the objector. Officers therefore recommend that in this instance apersonal permission should be granted.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan as set out above. Other material considerations including impact on theappearance of the area and residential amenities, in terms of a loss of outlook, privacy andovershadowing have been considered and are not judged to have sufficient weight to justifya refusal of the application, and where applicable conditions have been applied in order tosatisfy these matters. The scheme is therefore judged to be in accordance with Section38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planning permissionshould therefore be granted.

PERMISSION: Personal permission; hours of operation


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 16 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 17 -

REPLACEMENT OF FLAT ROOF WITH PITCHED ROOF OVER PART OF EXISTINGBUILDING INCLUDING PROPOSED WINDOWS IN EASTERN AND WESTERNELEVATIONS TO EXISTING BEDROOM

AVON PARK RESIDENTIAL HOME 66 SOUTHAMPTON ROAD PARK GATESOUTHAMPTON SO31 6AF

Report By

Site Description


Policies



This application relates to a detached rest home situated on the old part of SouthamptonRoad, Park Gate, set off the main road with private on site parking.

The site is bounded to the rear and sides with timber fencing and mature shrubs. To thefront, car parking is available for visitors and staff bounded by high brick walls.

The site lies within the urban area.

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a pitched roof over an existing flat roofelement of the building. As a result of this, one window and one dormer window areproposed which would serve two existing bedrooms.

There would be no increase in bedrooms as a result of this application.



(4) P/12/0625/FP TITCHFIELD COMMON

MR ALEX NETHERSOLE AGENT: TOWN & COUNTRYARCHITECTURE LT


P/03/1846/VC

P/00/0897/VC

P/99/1368/FP

P/99/0475/FP

Vary Cond. 1 of P/00/0897/VC ( Window at 1st Floor Level in SouthElevation to be Clear Glazed) -Retrospective Application

Conversion of Roof Space to Two Ensuite Bedrooms and One BoxRoom (Vary Condition 4 of P/99/1368/FP) RetrospectiveApplication

Installation of Window to Front and Rear Gable of Pitched RoofErected over Flat Roof

REFUSE

RETAIN DEVLPMT

PERMISSION

02/02/2004

04/09/2000

03/02/2000

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 18 -

Representations


One letter of objection has been recieved raising the following concerns:

i) Overbearingii) The new roof would cut out light and visible sky iii) Overlooking

Planning permission is sought for the construction of a pitched roof over an existing flat roofelement of the building and to relocate windows to residents bedrooms where the new roofwill affect the outlook from these rooms. The existing structure is topped with a flat roof ofprofiled steel cladding which has out lived the life span of the roof and has become prone toleaking. Officers consider in design terms, the proposal respects the scale and form of thesurrounding area.

Concern has been raised that the roof will be overbearing and would cut out light to theneighbouring properties to the south in Park Glen. There would be a distance of some 30metres between these properties and the part of the building to be extended. The new roofwould also be hipping away from these properties and would be no higher than the existingbuilding.

The proposal includes the provision of a dormer window within the western elevation and awindow within the eastern elevation. The west facing window would be orientated towardsthe rear garden of the neighbouring property to the west however there would be a distanceof 11 metres from this window to the boundary. This complies with the separation distancenormally sought between new windows and a garden boundary. Also, this elevationcurrently contains first floor windows looking in this direction. Officers are of the opinion thatthe new window would not materially worsen the current situation. The proposed eastfacing window would look over the parking area.

Officers consider the proposal would not materially harm the amenities of the neighbouringproperties in terms of outlook, light and privacy. Officers are of the opinion that the

P/94/1405/FP

P/94/1169/VC

P/94/0939/FP

Erection of Two Storey Extension to provide six further bedrooms,self contained staff flat and new pitched roof (alternative toP/94/1405/FP)

ERECT TWO STOREY EXTENSION PROVIDING 6 FURTHERBEDROOMS, SELF CONTAINED STAFF FLAT & NEW PITCHEDROOF

VARIATION OF CONDITION No.2 OF P/94/0939/FP (TO ALLOW 28RESIDENTS)

ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY ENTRANCE RECEPTION &SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION CREATING AN ADDITIONAL5No. BEDROOMS

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

16/09/1999

14/08/1995

16/12/1994

26/10/1994

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 19 -


Recommendation

application is acceptable and complies with the Adopted Fareham Borough Core Stategy.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies of the Local Plan as set outin this report. The proposal is not considered likely to result in an impact on the amenity ofadjoining occupiers and the character of the area. There are no other materialconsiderations that are judged to have sufficient weight to justify a refusal of the application,and where applicable conditions have been applied in order to satisfy these matters. Thescheme is therefore judged to be in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning andCompulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planning permission should therefore be granted.

Permission - Tiles to match


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 20 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 21 -

ERECTION OF DETACHED HOUSE WITH INTEGRAL GARAGE AND PARKINGas amended by plan received 22 August 2012

39 HOLLY HILL LANE SARISBURY GREEN SOUTHAMPTON SO31 7AB

Report By

Site Description


Policies


Susannah Emery Ext 2412

The application site comprises of an area of land on the southern side of Holly Hill Lanewithin the countryside. An access track to fields at the rear forms the eastern boundarywhilst no. 41 forms the western boundary. The site is at a slightly elevated position to thelane.

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached two storey 4-bed dwelling. Thedwelling would have an integral double garage and parking on the driveway for a minimumof two vehicles.



(5) P/12/0647/FP SARISBURY

MR WILLIAM TRACY AGENT: DAVID NEWELLCONSULTANCY LTD


Approved SPG/SPD

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review

CS2 - Housing Provision

CS5 - Transport Strategy and Infrastructure

CS6 - The Development Strategy

CS9 - Development in Western Wards and Whiteley

CS14 - Development Outside Settlements

CS16 - Natural Resources and Renewable Energy

CS15 - Sustainable Development and Climate Change


CS20 - Infrastructure and Development Contributions


H14 - Frontage Infill in the Countryside

DG4 - Site Characteristics

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 22 -

Representations

Consultations


One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds; · there should be no need for in-fill development as the new community north of Farehamshould meet housing needs for the Borough · Holly Hill Lane does not need any more properties · The lane is quite narrow and often blocked by vehicles making access difficult anddangerous particularly for large vehicles trying to get to Crableck Lane and the marina · The development is near a sharp bend · Visitors to Hillside Mews often park on the lane reducing visibility · It will not be long before there is a line of parked vehicles from the top to the bend · The existing access and dropped curb could be used instead of making another access · The land to the rear could be accessed from further along Holly Hill Lane which wouldoffer a safer option · Some trees are to be felled but there are no details of replacement planting. The treescould be retained if the existing access were used

Director of Planning and Transportation (Highways) - Two car parking spaces along with aseparate turning space should be provided in addition to the double garage. Subject to thisthere would be no highways objection.

Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services (Environmental Health) - Commentsawaited

Director of Planning and Environment (Arborist) - Comments awaited

Principle of Development & Impact to Character of Area

The principle of development on this site has previously been established although theproposal should be assessed against current planning policy since the Core Strategy hasbeen adopted since the previous application. Policy CS2 of the Fareham Borough CoreStrategy sets out the level of housing provision required to meet housing targets outside ofthe Strategic Development Area north of Fareham. In achieving this housing target it isexpected that new greenfield sites will be required.

Policy CS14 states that built development on land outside the defined settlements will bestrictly controlled to protect the countryside and coastline from development which wouldadversely affect its landscape character, appearance and function. Holly Hill Lane has acontinuously built up frontage and this plot is considered to be an in-fill plot within thefrontage which could be developed without detriment to the character of the area.

The proposal is still considered to comply with Policy H14 of the Fareham Borough Local

P/06/1543/OA

P/09/0995/OR

ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING WITH INTEGRAL GARAGE(OUTLINE APPLICATION)

ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING WITH INTEGRAL GARAGE(FULL RENEWAL OF P/06/1543/OA)

OUTLINE PERM

OUTLINE PERM

19/01/2007

22/12/2009

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 23 -


Plan Review which states that residential development for one or two dwellings on infill siteswithin the countryside will be permitted subject to certain criteria. The dwelling would occupya gap in an otherwise continuously built up frontage. The plot and the dwelling proposedwould be similar in size to adjoining properties. The proposal does not result in theextension of a frontage or the consolidation of an isolated group of dwellings and it does notinvolve the siting of a dwelling to the rear of the frontage.

Impact to Neighbouring Properties

The proposed dwelling would sit in line with the adjacent properties to the east and westthereby respecting the building line along Holly Hill Lane. A large gap would be retainedbetween the dwellings to either side. Given the separation distances of approx 16 metres tothe west and 11.5m to the east it is not considered that the proposal would have anydetrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light oroutlook. A condition would be imposed to ensure that all first floor windows within the sideelevations would be obscure glazed and fixed shut to 1.7m above floor level to prevent anyloss of privacy

Highways

The proposed dwelling would have a double garage and sufficient space to park a minimumof two vehicles on the driveway. On site turning would also be provided to ensure thatvehicles could enter the highway in a forward gear. It is not considered that the proposalwould be likely to result in vehicles being parked on the highway to the detriment of highwaysafety.

The access track which runs parallel to the eastern boundary of the site is required to beretained to provide access to the large area of open land to the rear. Whilst an alternativeaccess could potentially be provided to this land from further along the lane this matter isoutside the scope of this planning application. The proposed access to the dwelling isconsidered satisfactory and it is not considered that the proximity to the bend isunacceptable in highway terms.

Ecology & Trees

The site is well maintained and grass kept mown. In light of this there are no ecologyissues.

The proposal would result in the loss of some Macrapona trees which are in poor health anddo not contribute significantly to the visual amenity of the streetscene. Details oflandscaping would be sought by condition to ensure that there would be some replacementplanting on the frontage to retain the semi- rural character of the lane.

Officers consider the proposal is acceptable and complies with the relevant policies of theFareham Borough Core Strategy and Local Plan Review.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan as set out above. The proposal is not considered likely to result in animpact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers, highway safety or the visual amenity of thearea. There are no other material considerations that are judged to have sufficient weight to

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 24 -

Recommendation

Background Papers

justify a refusal of the application, and where applicable conditions have been applied inorder to satisfy these matters. The scheme is therefore judged to be in accordance withSection 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planningpermission should therefore be granted.

Subject to

i) the applicant/owner first entering into a planning obligation under Section 106 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council tosecure a financial contribution towards off-site public open space facilities and highwayinfrastructure by 9 October 2012.

ii) the comments of the Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services (EnvironmentalHealth)

iii) the comments of the Director of Planning and Environment (Arborist)

PERMISSION: Materials, Boundary Treatment, Parking, Vehicular Access, Gradient ofDrive, Obscure glaze & fix shut to 1.7m first floor windows (east & west elevations),Landscaping, Landscaping Implementation, Mud on road, Construction hours, No burningon site

OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required Section 106Agreement by 9 October 2012.

REFUSE: Contrary to Policy; inadequate provision towards public open space and highwayinfrastructure.

P/12/0647/FP; P/09/0995/OR; P/06/1543/OA


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 25 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 26 -

ZONE 2 - FAREHAM

Fareham North-West

Fareham West

Fareham North

Fareham East

Fareham South

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 27 -

RETENTION OF CANOPY TO SIDE OF BUILDING

128 GOSPORT ROAD

Report By

Site Description


Policies


Representations


Richard Wright x2356

This application relates to a two storey building located on the eastern side of Gosport Road(A32) on the corner of Alders Road. The ground floor of the building is used as a shopselling car parts and accessories with some ancillary car servicing, repairs andmodifications taking place at the rear of the building within the integral garage area. Aresidential flat is understood to occupy the first floor.

Permission is sought to retain a lean-to canopy structure which has been erected alongmuch of the northern side of the building. The canopy measures approximately 2.4 metreshigh to its eaves and 2.6 metres to its highest point. It is constructed from timber framingand polycarbonate roof and side panels.



One letter has been received objecting to the retention of the canopy on the followinggrounds:- The structure is attached to and overhangs the top of the neighbour's boundary wall- The structure is attached to and discharges its rain water into neighbour's garage- No access is possible for maintenance and repair to neighbour's garage guttering andfascias- Concerns over bolier flue which passes through structure

The canopy is a long, thin and lightweight structure tucked away down the northern side ofthe building. Its appearance is not harmful to the visual amenities or character of thesurrounding area. It is not large or bulky enough to have a material effect on the livingconditions of the neighbours at 126 Gosport Road.

The neighbour at 126 Gosport Road has written in to raise concerns over the fact that thecanopy is physically attached to the party boundary wall and their garage. As a result it isalleged that the canopy is causing damage to the neighbour's property and making itimpossible for maintenance and repairs to be carried out. These concerns are not material

(6) P/12/0436/FP FAREHAM EAST

MISS F SHEK AGENT: RAY & CO


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 28 -


Recommendation

Background Papers

planning considerations and officers have asked colleagues in the Council's BuildingControl section to advise the neighbour further in this regard. Similarly, safety concernsover the boiler flue which protrudes from the canopy roof is not a planning issue.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan as set out above. The canopy is not detrimental to the appearance ofthe building or the character of the surrounding area. It has no material effect on the livingconditions of neighbours living adjacent to the site. Other material considerations are notjudged to have sufficient weight to justify a refusal of the application, and where applicableconditions have been applied in order to satisfy these matters. The scheme is thereforejudged to be in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory PurchaseAct 2004 and thus planning permission should therefore be granted.

PERMISSION:

P/12/0436/FP


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 29 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 30 -


14 NORTH WALLINGTON FAREHAM PO16 8SN

Report By

Site Description


Policies


Representations

Emma Marks - Ext. 2677

This and the following application relates to a grade two listed building situated withinWallington Village Conservation area. The property is located on the west side of NorthWallington with its rear garden extending to the River Wallington. The property is attachedto the south western end of a terrace of cottages.

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey 'L' shaped rear extensionwhich would measures 4.4 metres in depth, 4.6 metres in width at its widest part, with aneaves height of 2.2 metres and a ridge height of 3.5 metres.



Three letters have been recieved from the neighbour to the north (15 North Wallington)objecting on the following grounds:-

· Loss of light to kitchen and in particular to the main work and preparation space that isused around the area of the kitchen sink and the gas cooker; · Footings to the extension extend beyond the wall and therefore over the boundary intoneighbouring property. Do not agree to this and there are concerns about potential damageto neighbour's stone paving slabs; · The extension will go over the existing boundary into neighbouring property by about 4


MR STEVE WEBB AGENT: THORNS-YOUNG LTD


Approved SPG/SPD



EXTDG - Extension Design Guide (1993)

P/12/0574/LB

P/09/1132/LB


ALTERATIONS TO REAR EXTENSION & INFILL SECTION ANDINTERNAL ALTERATIONSCONSENT 17/02/2010

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 31 -

Consultations



Recommendation

inches again this is not agreed; · The plans suggest that the guttering for the extension will trespass even further over theboundary; permission will not be given for this; · Incorrect statement on application regarding trees and hedges as there is a hedge thatwill be affected on the boundary;The extension is deeper than should normally be allowed.

Director of Planning & Environment (Conservation):- Awaiting comments

This application relates to a grade two listed building within Wallington conservation area.Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey rear extension to beerected along the northern boundary, attached to an existing rear addition.

The neighbouring property to the north has a two storey rear extension which would runparallel with the proposed extension. This extension is isted approximately one metre fromthe boundary and contains a ground floor side window facing south towards the applicationproperty. This window is obscure glazed, providing secondary light to a kitchen area whichis linked to a dining space with a set of double doors at the rear of the property facing downthe rear garden.

Concern has been raised by the neighbour that the extension would impact upon the levelof light to the kitchen area. The extension has been designed similar to the existing rearaddition. The eaves and roof height are the same. The roof would be designed hippingaway from the boundary. Officers acknowledge that the proposed extension would extendin front of the neighbours window however in light of the fact that this is a secondaryobscure glazed window and the extension has been designed sympathetically, officersconsider the proposal would not materially harm the amenities of the neighbouring property.

The neighbour has also expressed concern that the footings and guttering would overhangthe boundary. Officers have spoken with the agent regarding this matter, and it has beenconfirmed that no part of the extension, including footings, would extend over the partyboundary and amended plans will be submitted to demonstrate this.

Subject to the receipt of amended plans Officers are of the opinion that the applicationcomplies with the Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies of the Local Plan as set outin this report. The proposal is not considered likely to result in an impact on the amenity ofadjoining occupiers and the character of the area. There are no other materialconsiderations that are judged to have sufficient weight to justify a refusal of the application,and where applicable conditions have been applied in order to satisfy these matters. Thescheme is therefore judged to be in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning andCompulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planning permission should therefore be granted.

Subject to:

(i) the receipt of amended plans confirming that no part of the extension would extend onto

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 32 -

Background Papers

neighbouring property;(ii) the comments of the Director of Planning and Environment (Conservation).

PERMISSION - Details of materials

P/12/0574/LB


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 33 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 34 -


14 NORTH WALLINGTON FAREHAM HANTS PO16 8SN

Report By

Introduction

Consultations


Recommendation

Background Papers

Emma Marks - Ext.2677

This application has been submitted in conjunction with the full planning applicationP/12/0573/FP. Details of the application are reported on the preceding report.

Director of Planning & Environment(Conservation):- Awaiting comments

The development is acceptable with regard to the desirability of preserving a listed buildingor its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.The scheme is therefore judged to be in accordance with Sections 16(2) and 66(1) of thePlanning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and thus listed buildingconsent should therefore be granted.

Subject to;

(i) the receipt of amended plans as reported in the previous report (P/12/0573/FP);(ii) the comments of the Director of Planning and Environment (Conservation);GRANT LISTED BUILDING CONSENT: details of external materials

P/12/0573/FP

(8) P/12/0574/LB FAREHAM EAST

MR STEVE WEBB AGENT: THORNS-YOUNG LTD


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 35 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 36 -

CARRY OUT WORKS TO 3NO TREES (1 NO SYCAMORE & 2 NO LIME)COVERED BYFTPO 543

1 CHALFORD GRANGE FAREHAM HANTS PO15 5QW

Report By

Site Description


Policies


Representations


This application relates to a detached dwelling on the north side Chalford Grange which isto the east of Heathfield Avenue. There are a number of protected trees within the reargarden.

Planning consent is sought to fell one sycamore tree and carry out works to two limes andone sycamore covered by F.T.P.O 543. The works proposed are:-

i)One sycamore (T1 on plan) - Reduce southern stem by 3 metres and remove lowest 3branches towards dwelling;

ii)One lime (T2 on plan) - remove all epicormic & basal growth and crown lift to 4 metresabove ground level;

iii)One lime (T3 on plan) - Crown lift to 4 metres above ground level;

The application also include the felling of one further sycamore (T4 on plan) however thistree is not protected and does not therefore require consent for its felling.



Two letters of objection have been received objecting on the following grounds:-

· The housing development within Chalford Grange was granted based upon maintenanceof the mature and established landscape of the area · The trees hold high prominence to the local landscape with an estimated amenity value · Any permission to fell &/or carry out works to this established landscape is contrary to theoriginal planning condition · There are no sound arboricultural reasons to support this application · These trees provide wild life habitat for the area · No ecological survey or assessment has been carried out · Loss of such breeding grounds will cause irretrievable harm to wildlife in the area

(9) P/12/0592/TO FAREHAM WEST

MR MARSH AGENT: MR MATT GODWIN


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 37 -

Consultations


PERMISSION

Notes for Information

· Against the felling of the one tree but definitely in support of some cutting back

One letter of support has been received raising the following points:-

· The trees in question cut out much of the light to the garden of the house; they alsoimpact on the light in neighbouring gardens · The trees constantly shed large amounts of debris into the garden · The large overgrowth of branches are inhibiting small bushes and flowering plants whichin turn discourage the small birds and do not encourage bees · A great deal of the leaf density is due to off shoots from the trees themselves which hasdetrimental effects on other plants and adds to the light inhibition.

Director of Planning & Environment(Arboriculture):- No objection

This application relates four trees within the rear garden of a detached property on the northside of Chalford Grange. The application includes works to be carried out to two limes treesand one sycamore and the felling of a sycamore tree not protected by a preservation order.

Representation has been received objecting to the proposal on the basis that the works willhave an adverse impact on the visual amenities of the landscape area and that there is noarboricultural reasons to support this application .

The Council's Principle Tree Officer has been consulted and his comments are as follows:-

The proposed tree works will not be detrimental to the health and vitality of the trees andwill have no adverse impact on local public amenity.

Concern has also been raised that the works may impact on wildlife habitat. It is standardpractice when dealing with tree applications that an informative is placed on the decisionnotice bringing to the attention of the applicant that special care must be taken not to disturbwild animals and plants protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).This includes birds and bats that nest or roost in trees.

In light of the comments from the Principle Tree Officer, Officers are of the view that theproposed tree works are acceptable.

CONSENT: Work to be undertaken within 2 years; Work to accord with BS3998;Specification of consented work

Notice of work commencement; Right to carry out work over property other than applicant'sown; Terms as BS3998 and work in accordance with recent arboricultural research; Care towildlife and bat protection. You are advised that the sycamore tree (T4 on the plan) is notprotected and consent is not therefore required for its felling.


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 38 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 39 -

DEMOLITION OF SHOP UNIT AND ERECTION OF BUNGALOW

70 PRIVETT ROAD FAREHAM PO15 6SP

Report By

Site Description


Policies

Representations


This application relates to a site on the north side of Privett Road. The site currently has asingle storey flat roofed shop building on it which is surrounded by residential properties.The shop has been vacant since late 2010.

The eastern boundary of the site forms the rear boundaries of the properties at 64, 66 and68 Privett Road.

There are a variety of different house types in the area consisting of flats, semi-detachedand terrace properties. The immediate neighbour to the west is a single storey dwelling.

Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing single storey flat roofedshop and the erection of a detached two bed bungalow.

The proposal is for a bungalow with no accommodation within the roof space with the roofbeing hipped on all four sides. The eaves height of the property will be 2.2 metres with aridge height of 5.6 metres. The garden will measure 6 metres in depth at the deepest pointand will range between 8.5 and 11 metres in width.

The site is within the urban area.


(10) P/12/0597/FP FAREHAM NORTH-WEST

FIRST WESSEX AGENT: HARRINGTON DESIGN +BLOOMFIELD






CS21 - Protection and Provision of Open Space

CS4 - Green Infrastructure, Biodiversity and Geological Conservation


S8 - Retention of Local Shops

DG4 - Site Characteristics

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 40 -

Consultations


Three letters have been received raising the following concerns:-

i) The security of the neighbouring property at 68 Privett Road should be ensured with the erection of a brick wall along the boundary ii) Neighbouring property needs to be kept secure during the redevelopment of the siteiii) The drain situation should be explained further iv) No adverse impact on parking to be created v) I and my neighbour have requested that a 6ft metal pole fence with lockable gates to beerected to stop ant-social behaviour this should be also applied to 70 Privett Road.

Director of Planning & Environment(Highways):- No objection

Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services(Environmental Health):- Awaitingcomments

Hampshire County Council (Archaeologist) :- No objection

Crime Prevention Design Adviser :- Awaiting comments

Loss of a retail unit

Policy S8 of The Fareham Borough Local Plan Review is a saved policy and states that achange of use of a local shop from retail will not be permitted unless, there is an alternativelocal shop which can conveniently serve the area or the unit is vacant and there have beenreasonable attempts to let the retail use.

The shop on site has been closed since the 15th December 2010. The previous retail useceased primarily because trade was very poor as a result of competition from nearby unitsin Highlands Road.

As the unit has been vacant for an extended period and other retail units are located closeby in Highlands Road, the loss of this retail unit is considered acceptable.

Impact on Visual Amenity of the Area

The existing building is flat roofed and has been vacant for some time. The proposedbuilding is of traditional design and is modest in scale. It is located immediately alongsidean existing single storey dwelling.

Officers consider that the scale and design of the dwelling proposed is in keeping with theexisting properties within the area. Furthermore the proposal would enhance theappearance of this site within the street.

Impact on the Amenities of Neighbouring properties

The neighbouring property to the west of the application site is a semi-detached bungalowwhich has no side windows that would face directly towards the proposal. The property tothe east is a two storey dwelling whose rear elevation faces the proposal.

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 41 -


Recommendation

The proposed bungalow roof hips away from the neighbouring garden to the east. Thiscoupled with the modest scale of the building ensures that no material harm would becaused to the outlook available from and the light available to that property.

Highways

The existing shop does not have any off-road parking available although a layby is providedimmediately outside. The dwelling proposed would not be provided with any dedicated onsite parking.

The use of the site as a two bedroomed bungalow is likely to generate far less trafficmovements than when it was used as a shop.

The lay-by which is positioned directly in front of the site would be available for residentsand visitors. On street car parking already occurs within the area.

Officers are satisfied that the proposal would not materially harm highway safety.

Open Space Contribution

The proposal triggers the requirement for off-site public open space contributions. As theland is owned by Fareham Borough Council the payment of the contribution will becompleted as part of the land transaction.

Conclusion

The proposed development is considered to accord with the policies of the adopted localplan and is otherwise acceptable.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies of the Local Plan as set outin this report. The proposal is not considered likely to result in a material adverse impact onthe amenity of adjoining occupiers, the character of the area or highway safety. The loss ofthe retail unit is acceptable in light of the length of vacancy and the close proximity ofalternative shopping facilities. There are no other materialconsiderations that are judged tohave sufficient weight to justify a refusal of the application,and where applicable conditionshave been applied in order to satisfy these matters. The scheme is therefore judged to be inaccordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 andthus planning permission should therefore be granted.

Permission - Materials, Boundary treatment, Construction hours, No Burning on Site and Nomud on Road, site and slab levels, remove permitted development rights for windows in thenorth and east roof slopes.


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 42 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 43 -

CHANGE OF USE FROM DENTIST SURGERY (D1) TO HAIRDRESSERS (A1)

41 FAIRFIELD AVENUE FAREHAM HANTS PO14 1EH

Report By

Amendments

Site Description


Policies


Representations

Simon Thompson - Ext. 4815

This application has been amplified by emails dated 20th, 21st, 24th and 28th August 2012and by plan received on 29th August 2012.

This application relates to the above property (No.41) which is set at the end of a smallshopping parade/local centre within a residential neighbourhood of the urban area ofFareham. This parade is identified as a retail parade/local centre on the Proposals Map ofthe Fareham Borough Local Plan Review.

This application seeks permission to change the use of No.41 from a dentist (authorised byplanning permission P/07/1615/CU) back to its previous A1 (retail) use, in this currentapplication case specifically to serve as a hairdressers (barbers).



One email has been received from an adjoining neighbour, 41B Fairfield Avenue (No.41B)raising the following concerns:

(11) P/12/0628/CU FAREHAM SOUTH

MR STEPHEN DOBBINS



CS3 - Vitality and Viability of Centres


S9 - New Local Shops

P/07/1615/CU

P/07/0593/FP

P/07/0136/CU

CHANGE OF USE FROM RETAIL (A1) TO DENTIST (D1)

ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION TO CREATEGROUND FLOOR FLAT

ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION ANDFORMATION OF ROOF TERRACE TO REAR AT FIRST FLOOR

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

31/01/2008

15/06/2007

23/03/2007

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 44 -

Consultations


- Noise and disturbance - Hours of opening needed to be known and whether would tradeon Sunday - Quiet enjoyment being desired at No.41B, its bedroom being next to No.41;- Drainage - This property having flooded once in the past, hairdressers needing specialistdrainage due to the amount of hair coming away, this proposed hairdressers being rightnear another hairdressers and a dog parlour;- Viability - This proposed hairdressers would probably go out of business, this proposalcreating two in close proximity and another being at Broadlaw Walk.

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

In terms of the points of the neighbour's concerns, the applicant has replied by pointing out:

Noise and Disturbance

The proposed opening hours are not changed from the application form, being Monday toWednesday 09.00-17.30, Thursday to Friday 09.00-19.00 and Saturday 08.30-16.30. Noiselevels will be minimal and a lot less than a normal retail shop, the room adjacent to No.41Bwill be used as a staff area for lunch and coffee breaks only with trading at the front of theshop area and not at the back.

Drainage

Impact on drains will be at an absolute minimum, as the premises will be operating as abarber shop and not a ladies hairdressers. Hair would be swept up off the floor and placedin a black bin liner inside a bin, no hair will be put down the drain. The applicnat advises,very few men if any will want their hair washed when they get their hair cut, though it isintended to install a single backwash station, but this will be used at a minimum as barbersspray the hair rather than wash it.

The landowner has also stated that:

There was a problem with the main drainage system that runs parallel to the rear of all theproperties along the Fairfield Road, the problem stemming 3 or 4 properties along where anillegal connection has been made to the main sewer line. The Council was made aware ofthe problem and the landowners works were conducted with the approval of buildingregulations, the blockage having not reoccurred.

Officers comment as follows:

Viability

It is not the role of the planning system to prevent new businesses being established if thereis some question over competition and business financial viability for developments such asthis. In this case though it may be that the applicant is relying on customers beingpredominately male to a specialised barbers rather than compared to the existing(seemingly women orientated) hairdressers in the same shopping parade.

Noise and Disturbance

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 45 -


Recommendation

Background Papers

A barbers might well prove to be quieter than a dentist, thinking of the existing authoriseduse of this premises as a dentists.

Other matters

Officers consider this proposed use as compatable with the parade/local centre function ofthe units here, compliant to development plan policies in its proposed use, and acceptableoverall e.g. in terms of potential impacts on neighbours' amenity, on the character orappearance of the local area, and in terms of impact on the local highway network.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan as set out above. The proposal is not considered to result inunacceptable impacts upon the street scene or character of the area, or upon the amenitiesof neighbouring properties, or on the local highway network, or upon the function of this unitor retail parade/local centre, or upon drainage interests, other material considerations beingjudged not to have sufficient weight or direction to justify a refusal of the application, and,where applicable, conditions having been applied in order to satisfy these matters. Thescheme is therefore judged to be in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning andCompulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planning permission should therefore be granted.

PERMISSION:

File P/12/0628/CU and those referred to in the relevant planning history section above.


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 46 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 47 -

RETENTION OF CLOSE BOARDED WOODEN BOUNDARY GATE AND FENCINGMOUNTED IN FRONT OF RAILINGS ABOVE EXISTING LOW BRICK WALL, OVER ONEMETRE IN HEIGHT ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY (RETROSPECTIVEAPPLICATION)

23 WICKHAM ROAD FAREHAM HANTS PO16 7LU

Report By

Introduction

Site Description


Policies


Simon Thompson - Ext. 4815

Councillor Mrs Trott has called this application to Planning Committee for determination.

This planning application relates to a dwelling within the urban area. Directly opposite thesite across Wickham Road and further to the south, is the Fareham High StreetConservation Area. Number 23 occupies a very prominent location on the approach to theTown Centre.

Retention of close boarded wooden boundary gate and fencing mounted in front of railingsabove existing low brick wall, over one metre in height adjacent to the public highway.

The applicant has suggested both staining the fence any colour to keep the fence andhaving planters built to allow ivy to grow across it, and has written stating variousjustifications for why this fence was erected and ought to be retained. These include:

- To enable secure children play space, there being found on this front forecourt usedneedles, seemingly from nearby drug abusers;- To safeguard from fights, such having been observed in the adjacent alley; - For property security, a motor bike having been stolen from this forecourt;- Other gardens nearby having fences at least as high as that proposed, with some othergardens appearing messy compared to that of the applicant; and- The applicant not realising this fence needed planning permission and apologising for notapplying beforehand.




MRS CAROLINE ROGERS

Approved Fareham Borough Core StrategyCS6 - The Development Strategy


FBC.6393/7APPROVE 20/07/1982

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 48 -

Representations

Consultations


The applicant has sent in a letter signed by local residents in support of their application,that letter being signed by occupiers of 10 other properties on Wickham Road. In addition, 5letters in support of these proposals have been received from one same and four othernearby properties.

These letters repeat some of the applicant's above justifications for this fence and add forexample that:

- Litter and beer cans were constantly found behind the original boundary treatment;- I also find drug, beer and rubbish dumped or left on my wall;- Arguments occur in the alley, not just fights;- Trees have been attempted to be grown instead but would not grow in the planters neededas the area is concrete;- No objection because of noise and bin movement from the flats at 24 Wickham Road;- Fence gives privacy; and- Approximately 15 to 20 years ago, a 6 feet woven panel fence was erected at the samesite, which no one locally complained about.

Director of Planning and Environment (Highways) - No highway objection.

This application is a retrospective one seeking the retention of close boarded woodenboundary gate and fencing mounted in front of railings above existing low brick wall, overone metre in height adjacent to the public highway.

The Council's Highways Officer raises no objection on highway grounds.

However, this fence is in a prominent location on a curve to a busy route into and out ofFareham town centre, opposite the entrance and exit of Fareham High Street ConservationArea.

The original boundary treatment was a combination of a low wall with railings above whichfitted with the aesthetics of this site considerably better than that fence which has beenerected.

In visual terms the fence is jarring, being of a light orange type appearance, and ofcomposition and form that does not fit with this property's or the local area's external fabricand character and appearance.

Other, more visually sympathetic options might be pursued, such as well planted hedging, ahigher wall of matching brickwork or other means of enclosure within the site.

Officers do not consider the justifications given for this fence as having sufficient weight to

FBC.6393/9

FBC.6393/15

REFUSE

PERMISSION

20/02/1985

05/02/1991

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 49 -

Recommendation

Background Papers

justify its permanent retention. The fence is considered visually obtrusive, incongruous andunsympathetic feature/fence, even if it was improved by being stained a darker shade forexample.

REFUSE: The boundary fence is contrary to Policy CS17 of the Adopted Fareham BoroughCore Strategy and is unacceptable in that:

i) by virtue of its height, colour, materials, prominent siting and proximity alongside thehighway and opposite the entrance/exit to Fareham High Street Conservation Area, thefence results in a visually obtrusive, incongruous and unsympathetic feature, detrimental tothe visual amenities of the streetscene.

File P/12/0639/FP and those mentioned in the relevant planning history section above.


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 50 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 51 -

REDUCE LEYLANDII TREES COVERED BY FTPO 252 BY 2M IN HEIGHT

BOUNDARY ADJACENT JONATHAN ROAD BLACKBROOK BUSINESS PARKBLACKBROOK ROAD FAREHAM HAMPSHIRE PO15 5DR

Report By

Site Description


Policies


Representations

Consultations



This application relates to a line of protected leylandii trees situated between the rearboundary of properties in Jonathon Road and the southern boundary of BlackbrookBusiness Park. The trees are currently approximately 8 - 10 metres in height and extend forsome 140 metres.

Consent is sought to reduce the height of the leylandii trees which are covered by F.T.P.O252 by 2 metres.



Two letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:-

i)Previous reduction of height has left neighbouring property without adequate screeningfrom the adjacent industrial buildingsii)The trees are now not growingiii)Ivy and bramble bushes have taken over and are not being controllediv)The number of birds using the trees has greatly reduced since the last reduction

Director of Planning & Environment (Arboriculture):- No objection. The proposed tree workswill not be detrimental to the health and condition of the trees affected and will not exposeviews into the industrial park.

The Council's Principle Tree Officer has been consulted and has confirmed that thereduction in height of the leylandii by two metres would not be detrimental to their health

(13) P/12/0653/TO FAREHAM WEST

MRS LYNNE BENSTEAD


P/09/0403/TO REDUCE HEIGHT OF LEYLANDII TREES ALONG BOUNDARYFENCE ADJACENT TO JONATHAN ROAD COVERED BYF.T.P.O.252CONSENT 29/06/2009

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 52 -


Recommendation

Notes for Information

Background Papers

and vitality. The reduction in height by two metres would not expose views into the industrialpark. As a result the works would have no significant adverse impact on local publicamenity.

The representation received has raised concern about the impact on the wildlife and birds.It is standard practice to impose an informative on a decision notice for works of this kind,bringing to the attention of the applicant that special care must be taken not to disturb wildanimals and plants protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Officers are of the opinion that the application is acceptable and complies with the FarehamBorough Local Plan Review.

The proposed tree works will not be detrimental to the health and condition of the leylandiiand will have no adverse impact on local public amenity.

CONSENT: Work to be undertaken within 2 years; Work to accord with BS3998;Specification of consented work and replacement trees/ hedging required

Notice of work commencement; Right to carry out work over property other than applicant'sown; Terms as BS3998 and work in accordance with recent arboricultural research; Care towildlife and bat protection.

P/09/0402/TO


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 53 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 54 -

ZONE 3 - EASTERN WARDS

Portchester West

Hill Head

Stubbington

Portchester East

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 55 -

ERECTION OF FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION TO PROVIDE FIVE BEDROOMEXTENSION TO CARE HOMEas amended by plan received 16 August 2012

2 CLIFF ROAD FAREHAM PO14 3JS

Report By

Site Description


Policies



This application relates to the residential care home on the corner of Old Street and CliffRoad. The care home was originally two residential dwellings; 2 Cliff Road and 1 Old Street.The dwellings have now been linked by a single storey extension.

The car park lies to the eastern side of the buildings and has an 'In' and 'Out' accessarrangement. The site is well screened along the southern frontage by planting whichencloses the amenity area at the southern end of the site.

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a first floor side extension to the westernside of the building to contain five additional single bedrooms. This would increase thenumber of bedrooms within the care home from thirty to thirty-five (thirty-four single and onedouble).



(14) P/12/0562/FP HILL HEAD

SOLENT CLIFFS CARE HOMELTD

AGENT: GREGORY HAVANT LTD


P/02/1191/FP

P/98/1161/FP

P/98/1162/FP

P/95/0460/FP

P/94/0050/FP

Erection of Single Storey Link Building, Comprising Laundry, StaffRoom, Offices & Store & Part Enclosed Fire Escape

Erection of Conservatory

Erection of Conservatory

SINGLE STOREY FRONT, SIDE AND LINK EXTENSION JOININGREST HOME TO ADJ. NURSING HOME (ALTERNATIVE TOP/93/0321/CU)

EXTENSION TO UTILITY AREA

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

14/11/2002

04/12/1998

04/12/1998

30/06/1995

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 56 -

Representations

Consultations


Four letters have been received objecting on the following grounds; · The building is totally out of keeping with other properties in the area · The proposed extension will add to what is already an unsightly and inappropriateconglomeration of buildings with total disregard for the nature and quality of the residentialneighbourhood · The care home and immediate vicinity have taken on the appearance of an industrialestate with all the trade vehicles that regularly visit the site · Concerned over the increased traffic, deliveries and activity likely to result from extendingthe building · The large lorry that delivers food on a daily basis has damaged the verge by the property · Increased staff and visitor numbers would mean more on-street parking as the car park isalready inadequate · The congestion that already occurs in Old Street will become worse causing a hazard atthe road junction · Previous applications to extend the home have been rejected · The nursing home makes no effort to discuss matters with the local residents of seek theirviews on matters that directly effect everyday life

Director of Planning and Environment (Highways) - Subject to the marking out of the spaceswith the rear tandem spaces shown for staff I would be satisfied with the parkingarrangements.

Director of Democratic and Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) - No objections

The two main issues in this case are the visual impact of the proposed extension and theadequacy of the car parking provision to serve the extended care home.

The proposed extension to the building would be set a minimum of 1.75 metres off the party

P/93/1091/FP

P/93/0630/FP

P/93/0321/CU

P/93/0018/CU

P/92/0584/CU

ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION INCLUDINGGARAGE

ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION

ERECTION OF SINGLE/TWO STOREY EXTENSIONS AND CHANGEOF USE TO REST HOME

ERECTION OF TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION ANDSUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF USE TO REST HOME

CHANGE OF USE TO REST HOME INCLUDING RECONSTRUCTIONOF GARAGE AS BEDROOM

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

REFUSE

PERMISSION

REFUSE

PERMISSION

25/02/1994

04/11/1993

21/07/1993

20/05/1993

18/02/1993

09/07/1992

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 57 -


Recommendation

Background Papers

boundary with the neighbouring property and this distance increases to the rear of theextension. The neighbouring dwelling has a detached flat roofed double garage on itseastern side. A large gap would therefore be retained at first floor level between the twobuildings of approx 10 metres. The extension would be set in excess of 25 metres backfrom Cliff Road and substantial planting would limit views of it from the south and east.Officers therefore do not consider that the proposal would be harmful to the spaciouscharacter of the area. The extension has been designed so that there would be no first floorwindows overlooking the adjacent dwelling.

Concerns have been raised that the car park could not accommodate the additionalvehicles associated with increased staff and visitor numbers. Current staffing levels at thecare home comprise twenty-nine nursing staff; fifteen full time and fourteen part time. Thenight shift comprises four nursing staff. On the busiest shift, in the morning, the staffinglevels are nine care staff (nursing) and five ancillary staff (kitchen and domestic). Theproposed extension would increase the number of bedrooms from thirty to thirty-five. Theadditional bedrooms would result in a short term need for an additional daytime carerhowever planned care staff training is expected to result in the need for a lower number ofcare staff. A transport survey carried out by the care home of the existing staff has revealedthat thirty-five of the fourty-four members of staff live within the local area of Hill Head andStubbington. Most of the staff are dropped off and collected, sixteen walk/cycle to work andsixteen car share depending on their shifts.

The existing car park provides seventeen car parking spaces and an ambulance bay. It issuggested by the applicant that there is often spaces available within the car park which hasalso been the findings of officer's on various site inspections. It is proposed to provide anadditional two car parking spaces within the car park and re-locate the bin storage. Officersare of the opinion that these additional two spaces would be adequate to cater for the oneadditional member of staff required and the additional visitors to the site as a result of theproposed extension. It is however considered that the car park could be improved by ascheme for signage clearly indicating which spaces are to be used by staff and which are tobe used by visitors. There are a number of tandem spaces and these should be used bystaff thereby leaving the other spaces available to visitors.

Notwithstanding the objections received, Officers consider that the proposal complies withthe relevant policy of the Fareham Borough Core Strategy and is acceptable.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan as set out above. The proposal is not considered likely to result in animpact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers, highway safety or the visual amenity of thearea. There are no other material considerations that are judged to have sufficient weight tojustify a refusal of the application, and where applicable conditions have been applied inorder to satisfy these matters. The scheme is therefore judged to be in accordance withSection 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planningpermission should therefore be granted.

PERMISSION; Materials to match; Parking to be laid out in accordance with approved plan;Scheme for signage; Bin/Cycle Store

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 58 -

P/12/0562/FP


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 59 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 60 -

ERECTION OF TWO STOREY FRONT EXTENSION AND ALTERATION TO THEEXISTING FENESTRATION

198 CASTLE STREET PORTCHESTER FAREHAM PO16 9QH

Report By

Introduction

Site Description


Policies

Richard Wright x2356

This application has been called onto the Planning Committee by Councillor Price.

The application site comprises the residential curtilage of this property and its vehicularaccess running from between 204 & 214 Castle Street. It lies behind the frontageproperties along the eastern side of Castle Street, namely 196 & 200 Castle Street theformer of which is included on the local list and the latter being a Grade II listed building.The site is located within the urban area and the Portchester Castle Street ConservationArea.

The dwelling itself is a two-storey house constructed in the mid-1970's which sits in thesouth-western half of the site. The area between the house and the south-westernboundary is mainly hard surfaced with some mature hedgerow and planting around theperimeter. It is understood that the neighbouring dwelling at 196 Castle Street enjoys aprivate right of way through the application site and vice versa the applicant benefits frompedestrian access via a small gate through the neighbour's garden to Castle Street.

Permission is sought for the erection of a two storey front extension to the south-westernelevation of the house. The proposal was amended by plans received on 8th Augustshowing a reduced footprint of approximately 5.5 x 5.2 metres and amended roofline. Therevised roofline would be set under the height of the main dual pitched roof ridge of thehouse and would extend with a new ridge of 2.6 metres which would then give way to a "catslide" roof ending up with single storey level eaves.

Also proposed are changes to the ground floor fenestration with a set of bi-fold doors in theexisting north-eastern elevation of the house replacing an existing window.


(15) P/12/0581/FP PORTCHESTER EAST

MRS C POWELL AGENT: ARCHITECTRESS


Approved SPG/SPD



EXTDG - Extension Design Guide (1993)


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 61 -


Representations

Consultations



Three letters have been received from local residents objecting to the application on thefollowing grounds:- Extension is intrusive and brings the building closer to neighbouring property- Loss of views of castle- Adverse effect on character of conservation area- Loss of light

One further letter has been received expressing concern over the effect on the private rightof way through the application site but not raising an objection or lending support to theproposal.

One letter has been received from the Portchester Society with the following comments:- It would be totally intrusive to other properties and out of being within a conservation area

Director of Planning & Environment (Highways) - No objection subject to condition securingcar parking space to be retained within curtilage.

Director of Planning & Environment (Conservation) - This site lies in the Portchester (CastleStreet) Conservation area, in the setting of listed buildings and the wider setting ofPortchester Castle (a grade 1 listed building and scheduled ancient monument). Theexisting building is a two storey modern house on a backland plot set back from the CastleStreet frontage. The building is clearly open to view from Castle Street between the historicbuildings and is also prominent in views from the access to the allotments beside no 196. Itsmodern design and scale departs from the established character of the conservation areaand its siting disrupts the historic pattern of frontage development.

A further two storey extension to the existing dwelling would not be supported. Theproposed addition would result in an increase in scale and prominence of the building andan erosion of the space around it that would be harmful to the character and appearance ofthe Portchester (Castle Street) Conservation Area and also the setting of listed buildings.

English Heritage - The application should be determined in accordance with national andlocal policy guidance and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

i) Impact on character of conservation area and setting of nearby listed buildings

The existing dwelling on the site is the result of residential infill development carried out inthe mid-1970s. The house is notably larger in scale and more modern in design than, andat odds with, the surrounding conservation area and those properties which front ontoCastle Street. It is also clearly visible through the gap in that frontage between nos 196 &200 which are both listed buildings (local and statutory). With this context in mind any

P/06/0014/FP Erection of Single Storey Front and Rear Extensions and FirstFloor Side ExtensionPERMISSION 15/02/2006

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 62 -

Reasons For Refusal

Recommendation

Background Papers

extension should in the opinion of officers avoid adding to the size and bulk of the dwellingthereby further eroding the space between it and the historic frontage development alongCastle Street. Despite the submission of amended drawings, the proposed extension isconsidered too large an addition on this most sensitive and prominent elevation of thehouse and by virtue of its scale and bulk would be harmful to the character and appearanceof the conservation area and the setting of the listed buildings nearby.

ii) Impact on amenities of neighbours

The extension would be sufficient distance from neighbouring properties so as not to haveany adverse effect on the enjoyment of adjacent garden areas or to unduly restrict light to oroutlook from those properties. The proposal would not give rise to the overlooking ofneighbouring properties.

iii) Highways and parking provision

There is ample space within the application site to cater for the parking demands of theextended dwelling proposed.

iv) Other issues

The effect of the proposal on the private right of way through the application site is not amaterial planning consideration.

Several neighbours have commented on the application with concerns over the effect thedevelopment would have on views currently enjoyed from nearby properties of PortchesterCastle. The loss of such private views is not considered to be material planningconsideration.

The development is unacceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan as set out above, in particular Policies CS6 & CS17 of the FarehamBorough Core Strategy, and in considering the desirability of preserving or enhancing thecharacter of the Portchester Castle Street conservation area. The proposed developmentwould be harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the settingof nearby listed buildings. There are no other material considerations judged to havesufficient weight to outweigh this harmful impact. In accordance therefore with Section38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 72 of the Planning(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 planning permission should be refused.

REFUSE: contrary to policy; harmful to conservation area character and appearance andsetting of listed buildings

P/12/0581/FP


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 63 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 64 -

INSTALLATION OF EXTERNAL PLANT OUTSIDE UNITS 4 AND UNITS 6 AND 7 ANDPROVIDE THREE PARKING SPACES OPPOSITE UNIT 4

SOLENT GATE SPEEDFIELDS PARK FAREHAM HAMPSHIRE PO14 1TL

Report By

Site Description


Policies


Representations

Consultations


This application relates to Units 2 to 7 of Solent Gate within Speedfields Park an allocatedemployment area, located to the east of Newgate Lane, Stubbington.

The applicant is a commercial bakery company who manufacture, store and manage thetransport of various foods from the above premises.

Planning permission is sought for the installation of external plants outside of Units 4 and 6and three new car parking spaces to the north of the site, in a close proximity to Units 4 and5.

The proposed external plants would act as chillers to internally installed freezers in Unit 4and 6. The external plant at the front of Unit 6 would be situated within three car parkingspaces, and therefore, an additional three car parking spaces are proposed. The secondexternal plant would be installed by the north eastern elevation of Unit 4.

As result of the internal alterations within Unit 4, it is also proposed to provide two externalaccess stairs to the existing fire exits within the south western elevation of Unit 4.


There is no relevant planning history for this site.

One online comment received raising the following:(i) no reference to the risk assessment or the health and safety with reference to theacoustic noise produced by the eight fans being used in the cooling condensers, which willproduce audible background hums,(ii) as these units were built next to an existing residential area, consideration should begiven to the environmental welfare of my surroundings.

(16) P/12/0589/FP STUBBINGTON

RICH PRODUCTS AGENT: STUDIO FOURARCHITECTS LTD

Approved Fareham Borough Core StrategyCS5 - Transport Strategy and Infrastructure


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 65 -



Recommendation

Director of Planning & Environment (Highways) - no objection subject to condition.Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services (Environmental Health) - no objectionsubject to condition.Gosport Borough Council (Environmental Health: Residential and Pollution Team) - noobjection subject to condition.

The works involved relate to an existing commercial premises situated within a designatedemployment area.

In terms of the online comments received, an environmental noise survey has beenundertaken and measurements have been made to establish the current background noiseclimate. The survey findings have been used to assess noise from the proposedequipment and the likelihood of complaints from the existing residential properties atWoodside and Field Close, Gosport. This was assessed using British Standard 4142:1997"Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas". Theassessment indicated that the likelihood of complaints would be less than marginal for theproposed equipment.

Environmental Health Officers at both Fareham and Gosport Borough Council were alsoconsulted and raised no objections, subject to measures suggested in the submitted NoiseAssessment being implemented. This would result in the plant by Unit 6 being enclosed byacoustic barriers at least 0.5m taller than the top of the plant and approximately 2m from theplant room. It has been also confirmed that both Councils' Environmental Health Officeshave not received any complaints in connection with noise emanating from this site.

For the reasons given above the Officers conclude that the proposal would have no adverseimpact on the residential amenities of the residents to the east and highway safety, andrecommend approval.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan as set out above. Other material considerations have been consideredand are not judged to have sufficient weight to justify a refusal of the application, and whereapplicable conditions have been applied in order to satisfy these matters. The scheme istherefore judged to be in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and CompulsoryPurchase Act 2004 and thus planning permission should therefore be granted.

PERMISSION - time, in accordance with approved plans, in accordance with noiseassessment, three additional car parking spaces to be provided.


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 66 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 67 -

ERECTION OF TWO BEDROOM DWELLINGas amended by plans received 20 August 2012

24 ALTON GROVE FAREHAM PO16 9NJ

Report By

Site Description


Policies



This application relates to land within the urban area to the western side of 24 Alton Grovewhich lies on the southern side of the road. The land currently forms part of the residentialcurtilage of this dwelling and is used for car parking at the front and garden land to the rear.

To the west of the application site lies an area of open space and to the south lies thecoastline of Portsmouth Harbour.

The site lies within Flood Zone 3.

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached 2-bed chalet bungalow. Twoparking spaces would be provided for the existing dwelling to the side of the dwelling andtwo car parking spaces would be provided for the proposed dwelling on the frontage.



(17) P/12/0591/FP PORTCHESTER EAST

MR GEOFF EBBAGE AGENT: ARCHITECTURALDRAWING SERVICES


Approved SPG/SPD

CS2 - Housing Provision



CS11 - Development in Portchester, Stubbington and Hill Head




CS20 - Infrastructure and Development Contributions


P/06/0070/OA Erection of One Semi-Detached Bungalow (Outline Application)REFUSE 17/03/2006

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 68 -

Representations

Consultations


Three letters have been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds;

- The grounds for the Council's previous refusal still stand- Parking is an issue in Alton Grove- The need for an additional dropped kerb would reduce roadside parking- Additional parked cars could restrict access for emergency services and be hazardous tohighway safety- Vehicles are often parked obstructing the road or footpath- The vehicles currently parked on this land will be moved on to the road causing additionalcongestion- Additional pressure to open spaces and play areas in vicinity- This area is at flood risk and therefore an additional dwelling would not seem appropriate- Out of keeping to cram another house into this space- The environmental aspect of this coastal area and views will be spoilt by the constructionof the dwelling

One letter of support has been received

Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services (Environmental Health) - No objection

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

Environment Agency - Comments awaited

Principle of Development & Impact to Character of Area

The previous planning application in 2010 for the erection of a detached dwelling on this sitewas refused as it resulted in the development of residential garden land. Since that time theCouncil has revised its position in relation to this form of development and in principle thiscan now be supported subject to compliance with Policy CS17 of the subsequently adoptedFareham Borough Core Strategy (2011).

Policy CS17 relates to high quality design and states that development will need to bedesigned to respond positively to and be respectful of the key characteristics of the areaincluding heritage assets, landscape, scale, form, spaciousness and use of materials. Theexisting dwelling has a relatively wide plot and the subdivision would result in two plots ofcomparable width to neighbouring properties. The proposal would not result in a crampedform of development as there would be a large gap of approx 5.5 metres between theexisting dwelling to the east and the proposed dwelling. There is no developmentimmediately to the west or south of the application site. The proposed dwelling would besimilar in height and design to the row of chalet bungalows it would sit adjacent to and couldbe constructed of similar complementary materials. It is not considered that the proposed

P/06/0362/OA

P/10/0388/FP

Erection of Detached Bungalow (Outline Application)

ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING

REFUSE

REFUSE

08/06/2006

21/09/2010

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 69 -


Recommendation

dwelling would be out of character with the area or detrimental to the visual amenity of thestreetscene and officers are of the opinion that the proposal would comply with Policy CS17of the Core Strategy.

Impact on Neighbouring Properties

The proposed dwelling would have only one first floor window within the front elevationwhich would be approx 10 metres from the garden boundary of the dwelling on the oppositeside of the road (No.84 Merton Ave) which has a side on relationship. Given that thisrelationship is the same as with the existing dwelling it is not considered that the proposalwould result in a detrimental loss of privacy to this property. The occupants of this dwellinghave also written in support of the planning application.

The proposal would have no detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the existingdwelling.

Highways

The previous planning application was also refused as it did not provide adequate carparking for the existing dwelling. The current application initially proposed two car parkingspaces on the frontage of the existing dwelling but this area is not of sufficient depth toprovide a standard size parking space. Other properties along Alton Grove do park theirvehicles overhanging the public highway but in this instance it is possible and neccesary toseek a satisfactory alternative. An amended plan has now been received showing twotandem parking spaces to the side of the existing dwelling to serve this property. This hasbeen achieved by repositioning the proposed dwelling slightly to the west and removing theside attached garage. The proposed dwelling would be set slightly further back into the sitethan the existing property and it is possible to provide two car parking spaces for theproposed dwelling side by side on the frontage. The proposal accords with the FarehamBorough Residential Car and Cycle Parking SPD.

Flood Risk

The site lies within Flood Zone 3 defined by PPS25: Development and Flood Risk as havinga high probability of flooding. As such the applicant is required to submit a Flood RiskAssessment and this was an omission of the previous application. The Flood RiskAssessment has been received and comments are awaited from the Environment Agency.An update will be provided at the committee meeting.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan as set out above. The proposal is not considered likely to result in animpact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers, highway safety or the visual amenity of thearea. There are no other material considerations that are judged to have sufficient weight tojustify a refusal of the application, and where applicable conditions have been applied inorder to satisfy these matters. The scheme is therefore judged to be in accordance withSection 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planningpermission should therefore be granted.

Subject to

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 70 -

Background Papers

i) the applicant/owner first entering into a planning obligation under Section 106 ofthe Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council tosecure a financial contribution towards off-site public open space facilities and highwayinfrastructure by 1 November 2012.

ii) the comments of the Environment Agency

PERMISSION: Materials, Boundary Treatment, Parking, Vehicular Access, Bin/CycleStorage, No mud on road, Construction hours, No burning on site

OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required Section 106Agreement by 1 November 2012.

REFUSE: Contrary to Policy; inadequate provision towards public open space and highwayinfrastructure.

P/12/0591/FP; P/10/0388/FP


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 71 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 72 -

RETENTION OF FOUR SOLAR PANELS TO EXISTING GARAGE ROOF (PARTALTERNATIVE TO P/11/0744/FP)

24 WALNUT DRIVE FAREHAM PO14 2DH

Report By

Site Description


Policies


Richard Wright - Ext. 2356

This application relates to a single storey semi-detached dwellinghouse located within theurban area.

Planning permission was granted by members of the planning committee in December lastyear (P/12/0656/FP) for the erection of a single storey rear extension and the installation ofsolar panels on the roof of the extension and also atop of the roof of the existing detachedsingle garage which lies to the rear and side of the dwelling. The development has beencarried out with a total of six solar panels mounted on A-frames installed on the roof of therear extension. A further four panels have been mounted on the roof of the garage, againusing A-frames to install them at an angle most conducive to gathering solar energy.

A thermal solar panel has also been installed on the rear roof plane of the original househowever this panel did not form part of the approved works. Planning permission would nothave been required for this additional panel owing to its size and position.

The applicant has been invited to make a retrospective application for the retention of thefour solar panels on the roof of the garage. The approved drawings granted permission inDecember last year (P/11/0744/FP) are inconsistent in the number of panels shown on thegarage roof. Whilst the roof plan shows four panels being proposed the elevation drawingsshow only two. In the interests of clarifying the extent of the development permitted theapplicant has submitted this application, which shows clearly four solar panels mounted onA-frames on the roof of the garage, as a part alternative to the development previouslyapproved.



(18) P/12/0656/FP HILL HEAD

MR G COLVERSON AGENT: BUILDING CONTROLCONSULTANCY L

Approved Fareham Borough Core StrategyCS16 - Natural Resources and Renewable Energy


P/11/0744/FP DEMOLISH EXISTING REAR CONSERVATORY WITH SINGLESTOREY EXTENSION TO REAR AND INSTALL SOLAR PANELS TOPROPOSED EXTENSION AND EXISTING GARAGE

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 73 -

Representations



Recommendation

Background Papers

Three letters have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds:- The panels and frames are an eyesore/unsightly- Detracts from outlook from nearby properties- Devaluation of other properties

As explained in the introduction to this report, owing to a discrepancy in the previousapproved plans this new application seeks retrospective permission for the installation offour solar panels on top of the detached single garage at the application site. Since theapplication is presented as a part alternative to the previously proposed scheme theacceptability of the rear extension and panels atop of that extension are not to beconsidered again.

The drawings approved by this committee last year under planning permissionP/11/0744/FP show four panels atop of the garage on the approved roof layout but only twoon the approved rear elevation. This discrepancy has been corrected in the submitteddrawings for this new application. In effect therefore members are now asked to considerthe material effect of an increase in just two solar panels to a total of four on top of thegarage. Notwithstanding the fact that these panels can be viewed from nearby privategardens and the street, officers consider that the visual impact of four solar panels is littledifferent to that of two. Given that the previously approved scheme was held to beacceptable, this alternative proposal is not considered harmful to the visual amenities of thearea. Furthermore the positive contribution the solar panels make towards the provision ofrenewable energy and tackling climate change and as extolled by Policy CS16 (NaturalResources and Renewable Energy) of the adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy shouldbe taken into account.

The effect of development on the value of adjacent or nearby properties is not a materialplanning consideration.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan as set out above. The solar panels are not considered to be harmful tothe appearance or character of the streetscene and would make a positive contributiontowards providing renewable energy and tackling climate change. There are no othermaterial considerations judged to have sufficient weight to justify a refusal of the application,and where applicable conditions have been applied in order to satisfy these matters. Thescheme is therefore judged to be in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning andCompulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planning permission should therefore be granted.

PERMISSION:

P/12/0656/FP

APPROVE 14/12/2011


pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 74 -

pc-120912-r04-lsm

- 75 -

P/12/0148/FPMRS JULIE GILES2 The Grounds, Heath Road North Locks Heath Southampton SO317PLOfficers Delegated PowersREFUSEREFUSE28 August 2012PROPOSED NEW VEHICLE ACCESS ONTO LOCKSWOOD ROAD

Appellant:Site:

Decision Maker:Recommendation:Council's Decision:Date Lodged:Reason for Appeal:

LODGED

PLANNING APPEALSThe following list details the current situation regarding new and outstanding planning appealsand decisions.

Documents

Report to Planning Committee - Fareham Committee...2012/09/12 · 31 MIDDLE ROAD PARK GATE SOUTHAMPTON SO31 7GH Report By Site Description Description of Proposal Policies Relevant