Public Document Pack

AGENDA PLANNING COMMITTEE

Date: Wednesday, 30 July 2014

Time: 2.30 pm

Venue: Collingwood Room - Civic Offices

Members: Councillor N J Walker (Chairman)

Councillor A Mandry (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors B Bayford T M Cartwright, MBE K D Evans M J Ford, JP R H Price, JP D C S Swanbrow Mrs K K Trott

Deputies: P J Davies Mrs C L A Hockley D J Norris P W Whittle, JP

- 2 -

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Minutes of Previous Meeting (Pages 1 - 14) To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 2 July 2014.

3. Chairman's Announcements

4. Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from members in accordance with Standing Orders and the Council’s Code of Conduct.

5. Deputations To receive any deputations of which notice has been lodged.

6. Actual Revenue Expenditure 2013/14 (Pages 15 - 20) To consider a report by the Director of Finance and Resources which provides details of the actual revenue expenditure for 2013/14 in respect of the services for which the Committee is responsible.

7. Planning applications and Miscellaneous Matters including an update on Planning Appeals (Page 21) To consider a report by the Director of Planning and Environment on development control matters, including information regarding new planning appeals and decisions.

ZONE 1 - WESTERN WARDS

(1) HG/14/0001 - 170 LOCKS ROAD LOCKS HEATH (Pages 23 - 26)

(2) P/14/0519/TO - ESSO LOCKSHEATH SERVICE STN BRIDGE ROAD PARK GATE (Pages 27 - 29)

(3) P/14/0530/FP - 151 HUNTS POND ROAD (PLOT 3) PARK GATE (Pages 30 - 36)

(4) P/14/0570/VC - YEW TREE DRIVE FAREHAM (Pages 37 - 41)

(5) P/14/0545/FP - 312 OLD SWANWICK LANE LOWER SWANWICK (Pages 42 - 47) ZONE 2 - FAREHAM

(6) P/14/0559/FP - 27 NICHOLAS CRESCENT FAREHAM (Pages 49 - 52)

- 3 -

ZONE 3 - EASTERN WARDS

(7) P/14/0383/FP - 1 HILL VIEW ROAD FAREHAM (Pages 54 - 58)

(8) P/14/0458/FP - CAMS RIDGE NURSING HOME 7 CHARLEMONT DRIVE FAREHAM (Pages 59 - 64)

(9) P/14/0488/FP - 18 DOWN END ROAD FAREHAM (Pages 65 - 68)

(10) P/14/0537/FP - 32 MAYS LANE STUBBINGTON FAREHAM (Pages 69 - 71)

(11) Planning Appeals (Pages 72 - 74)

8. Tree Preservation Order

(i) Tree Preservation Order No 694 – 56 Maylings Farm Road, Fareham

The Committee is requested to consider the confirmation of the above Tree Preservation Order which has been made by officers under delegated powers and to which no formal objections have been received.

Tree Preservation Order No 694 was made on 3 June 2014 covering 2 individual trees.

It is recommended that Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 694 be confirmed as made and served.

P GRIMWOOD Chief Executive Officer

Civic Offices www.fareham.gov.uk 22 July 2014

For further information please contact: Democratic Services, Civic Offices, Fareham, PO16 7AZ Tel:01329 236100 [email protected]

Agenda Item 2

Minutes of the Planning Committee

(to be confirmed at the next meeting)

Date: Wednesday, 2 July 2014

Venue: Collingwood Room - Civic Offices

PRESENT: N J Walker (Chairman)

A Mandry (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors: B Bayford, T M Cartwright, MBE, M J Ford, JP, R H Price, JP, P J Davies (deputising for D C S Swanbrow) and D J Norris (deputising for Mrs K K Trott)

Page 1 Planning Committee - 2 - 2 July 2014

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Evans, Councillor Swanbrow and Councillor Mrs Trott.

2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 4 June 2014 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

3. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no Chairman’s announcements made at this meeting.

4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

In accordance with Standing Orders and the Council’s Code of Conduct, declarations of interest were made by the following Councillors on the items indicated:-

Name Pecuniary/Non- Planning Minute Number Pecuniary Application/Site Interest Address

All Members Non-Pecuniary P/14/0368/FP – 1 6(3) present Lower Church Road, Fareham

Councillor P J Non-Pecuniary P/14/0400/D3 – 6 (14) Davies Private Car Park Palmerston Avenue, Fareham Councillor T M Non-Pecuniary P/14/0221/FP – 6(19) Cartwright Hangars West, Land at Daedalus West

Councillor M J Non-Pecuniary -ditto- -ditto- Ford

Councillor A Non-Pecuniary -ditto- -ditto- Mandry

Councillor A Pecuniary P/14/0042/FP - 6(21) Mandry Lee on Solent Golf Club, Brune Lane, Lee on Solent

Page 2 Planning Committee - 3 - 2 July 2014

5. DEPUTATIONS

The Committee received deputations from the following in respect of the applications indicated and were thanked accordingly.

Name Spokesperson Subject Supporting Minute No/ representing or Application the persons Opposing No listed the Application

ZONE 1 Mr J Brook Lane Rest Opposing 6 (1) McPherson Home, 290 Brook P/14/0321/FP Lane, Sarisbury Green,– Proposed ground floor extension to rear to allow re- organisation of existing accommodation and circulation space and the provision of three additional bedrooms, widening of vehicular access from Brook Lane and re- configuration of car parking to provide three additional parking spaces

Mr C Ward 63 Bridge Road, Park Supporting 6 (2) (Agent) Gate – Proposed P/14/0340/FP building of two three bedroom chalet bungalows to the rear of 63 Bridge Road using the existing site entrance

Mr G 1 Lower Church Road Opposing 6 (3) Townley Fareham - proposed P/14/0368/FP first-floor extension over garage, to achieve the provision of a one-bedroomed annexe.

Mr R Tutton -ditto- Supporting -ditto- (Agent)

Page 3 Planning Committee - 4 - 2 July 2014

Mr N Green Land to the South Supporting 6 (5) (Agent) West Side of Burridge P/14/0415/FP Road Burridge Road, Burridge Southampton - Redesign of an existing pitch, including relocation of the caravans and utility/day room granted for residential purposes for 1 no gypsy pitch with the retention of the granted hard standing ancillary to that use

Ms L Pinnick 61A Swanwick Lane Supporting 6 (7) Swanwick P/14/0455/FP Southampton - Conversion of garage with home office above to garage with granny annexe

Mr P Smith 5 Brook Lane, Warash Supporting 6 (8) – Change of use from P/14/0468/CU A1 (retail) to A2 (estate agent) Mr J White Mr & Mrs 67 Church Road, Opposing 6 (11) Rogers Locks Heath – P/14/0409/OA Mr & Mrs Demolition of existing Henderson detached bungalow Mr & Mrs and garage and Palmer erection of a pair of Mrs Marsh semi-detached 3-bed Ms Howard houses, one detached Mr Wells chalet 4-bed bungalow and a 3-bed bungalow

Mr L 8 Pimpernel Close, Supporting 6 (12) Rosenthal Locks Heath – P/14/0462/FP (Agent) Erection of single storey side and rear extension

Stephen 266 Brook Lane Supporting 6 (13) Whitewood Sarisbury Green - P/14/0315/FP Front boundary wall of 1.46 metres in height with scalloped upper edge.

Page 4 Planning Committee - 5 - 2 July 2014

ZONE 2 Mr J Charles Wykeham House Supporting 6 (16) (also on School, 6 High Street, P/14/0463/VC behalf of Mrs Fareham – Variation of L Clarke and condition 3 of Mr D Bryant) P/14/0171/CU to increase the number of pupils to a maximum of 60 by August 2018.

Mr A Spragg 10 Holly Grove, Supporting 6 (17) Fareham – Two storey P/14/0384/FP side extension including front dormer and single storey rear extension ZONE 3 Mr M Cope Mr C Nuttall Land at Hangars West, Opposing 6 (19) Mr R Austin Daedalus West, Broom P/14/0221/FP Mr R Goman Way,– Planning Ms SThomas application for erection Mr B Staniland of two terraces of Ms C Johnson hangars within class B2 and class B8, toilet block, car parking and associated works

Mr A Phillips Mr L Clewer -ditto- -ditto- -ditto- Mr B Parsons Mr J Lissamer Ms S Ramsden Ms P Freestone

Ms Esther -ditto- Supporting -ditto- Croft

6. PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS INCLUDING AN UPDATE ON PLANNING APPEALS

The Committee noted a report by the Director of Planning and Development on development control applications and miscellaneous matters, including information on Planning Appeals. An Update Report was tabled at the meeting.

Page 5 Planning Committee - 6 - 2 July 2014

(1) P/14/0321/FP - BROOK LANE REST HOME 290 BROOK LANE SARISBURY GREEN

The Committee received the deputation referred to in minute 5 above.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information: One further comment has been received objecting to the proposal and referring to the previous dismissed appeal. There have been numerous applications and there should be a final stop to development.

A motion was proposed and seconded that the application be refused. Upon being put to the vote the motion was NOT CARRIED (Voting: 2 for refusal; 6 against refusal).

A further motion was proposed and seconded that the officer recommendation to grant planning permission be granted subject to the conditions in the report. Upon being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED. (Voting: 6 in favour; 2 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

(2) P/14/0340/FP - 63 BRIDGE ROAD PARK GATE

The Committee received the deputation referred to in minute 5 above.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to:-

(i) The applicants providing a Unilateral Undertaking Under Section 106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 to make an appropriate financial contribution towards the provision of off-site ecological mitigation; and

(ii) the conditions in the report, was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to:-

(i) The applicants providing a Unilateral undertaking Under Section 106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 to make an appropriate financial contribution towards the provision of off site ecological mitigation; and

(ii) the conditions in the report,

PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

(3) P/14/0368/FP - 1 LOWER CHURCH ROAD FAREHAM

The Committee received the deputations referred to in minute 5 above.

Page 6 Planning Committee - 7 - 2 July 2014

All members present declared a non-pecuniary interest in this application on the grounds that the applicant if a fellow Fareham Borough councillor.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report, was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

(4) P/14/0405/FP - 54 BEACON WAY PARK GATE

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report, was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that subject to the conditions in the report PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

(5) P/14/0415/FP - LAND TO THE SOUTH WEST SIDE OF BURRIDGE ROAD BURRIDGE

The Committee received the deputation referred to in minute 5 above.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- 1 further letter has been received from Hamble Reach: - How many permanent gypsy sites have you got? as in 2006 the Council should have had 6. We found out in 2013, seven years after, that the council has only two temporary sites. As far as I am concerned we are paying for the Council's incompetence on the lack of alternative sites! How many more tax paying residents are going to be affected by the Council's unprofessional conduct before you take action to get the set amount of gypsy sites in the area. I blame Fareham Borough Council for this gypsy site in Burridge Road.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the condition in the report, was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the condition in the report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

(6) P/14/0429/FP - 5 EASTBROOK CLOSE PARK GATE

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the condition in the report, was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

Page 7 Planning Committee - 8 - 2 July 2014

RESOLVED that subject to the condition in the report PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

(7) P/14/0455/FP - 61A SWANWICK LANE SWANWICK

The Committee received the deputation referred to in minute 5 above.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to:-

(i) the receipt of amended plans correcting minor discrepancies between the submitted elevations and those on the ground; and

(ii) the conditions in the report, was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that subject to:-

(i) the receipt of amended plans correcting minor discrepancies between the submitted elevations and those on the ground; and

(ii) the conditions in the report,

PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

(8) P/14/0468/CU - 5 BROOK LANE WARSASH SOUTHAMPTON

The Committee received the deputation referred to in minute 5 above.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- Recommendation is for PERMISSION.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant permission for a change of use from A1 (Retail) to A2 (Estate Agent) was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that PERMISSION for a change of use from A1 (Retail) to A2 (Estate Agent) be granted.

(9) P/14/0485/FP - 28 HAMPTON GROVE FAREHAM - APPLICATION WITHDRAWN BY THE AGENT

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- This application has been withdrawn.

(10) P/14/0498/SU - HUNTS POND ROAD/NETLEY ROAD TITCHFIELD

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation that prior approval was not required was voted on and CARRIED.

Page 8 Planning Committee - 9 - 2 July 2014

(Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that PRIOR APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED.

(11) P/14/0409/OA - 67 CHURCH ROAD LOCKS HEATH

The Committee received the deputation referred to in minute 5 above.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- 1. An updated ecological survey has been received following which the Director of Planning and Development (Ecology) has no objections subject to an additional condition to secure compliance with this latest report. 2. Members are advised that the proposed Unilateral Undertaking is only necessary if the Applicant wishes. S111 of the Local Government Act 1972 may now be used to collect contributions without recourse to an agreement.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant outline planning permission subject to:-

(i) completion of a Unilateral Undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure a contribution towards mitigation of the impact of the development upon the coastal SPA, if the applicant wishes; and

(ii) the conditions in the report, was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against).

RESOLVED that subject to:-

(i) completion of a Unilateral Undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure a contribution towards mitigation of the impact of the development upon the coastal SPA if the applicant wishes; and

(ii) the conditions in the report,

OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

(12) P/14/0462/FP - 8 PIMPERNEL CLOSE LOCKS HEATH

The Committee received the deputation referred to in minute 5 above

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report, was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

Page 9 Planning Committee - 10 - 2 July 2014

(13) P/14/0315/FP - 266 BROOK LANE SARISBURY GREEN

The Committee received the deputation referred to in minute 5 above.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- The description which heads the report and describes the wall as being 1.46m in height is the description provided by the applicant and is incorrect. The proposed wall would have brick piers of 2.3- 2.4m in height with a scalloped edge of between 1.8 and 2.2m.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 6 in favour of refusal; 2 against refusal)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for refusal: It is considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the area contrary to Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy and saved Policy DG4 of the Local Plan Review.

Policies: Approved Fareham Borough Core Strategy – CS17 - High Quality Design; Development Sites and Policies: DSP2 – Design; Fareham Borough local plan Review: DG4 – Site Characteristics.

(14) P/14/0400/D3 - PRIVATE CAR PARK PALMERSTON AVENUE FAREHAM

Councillor Davies declared a non-pecuniary interest in this application on the grounds that he is Chairman of Fareham Borough Council’s Housing Tenancy Board.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, subject to:-

(i) the conditions in the report; and

(ii) an additional condition requiring details of lighting within the parking area and along the access routes for pedestrians to be submitted for approval and subsequently installed. was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that subject to:-

(i) the conditions in the report; and

(ii) an additional condition requiring details of lighting within the parking area and along the access routes for pedestrians to be submitted for approval and subsequently installed

Page 10 Planning Committee - 11 - 2 July 2014

PLANNING PERMISSION pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 be granted.

(15) P/14/0456/SU - LONGFIELD AVENUE FAREHAM

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation that prior approval was not required was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that PRIOR APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED.

(16) P/14/0463/VC - WYKEHAM HOUSE SCHOOL 6 HIGH STREET FAREHAM

The Committee received the deputation referred to in minute 5 above.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- Travel and Access Plan received 30th June 2014. This document is acceptable to the Director of Planning and Development (Highways). Its implementation should be made subject to a condition.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission for a variation of condition 3 of planning permission P/14/0171/CU, subject to the conditions in the report relating to maximum number of pupils and compliance with agreed Travel and Access Plan was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against;)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report relating to maximum number of pupils and compliance with agreed Travel and Access Plan, PLANNING PERMISSION for a variation of condition 3 of planning permission P/14/0171/CU, be granted.

(17) P/14/0384/FP - 10 HOLLY GROVE FAREHAM

The Committee received the deputation referred to in minute 5 above

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the condition in the report, was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against).

RESOLVED that subject to the condition in the report PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

(18) P/14/0476/LB - FAREHAM CEMETERY WICKHAM ROAD FAREHAM

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- Further details have been submitted to confirm that all the coping stones are to be replaced, the railings are to be repaired with steel and the new horizontal bar at the bottom of the railings will be 40mm

A motion was proposed and seconded to approve the officer recommendation to forward the application to the Secretary of State of the Department for

Page 11 Planning Committee - 12 - 2 July 2014

Communities and Local Government for listed building consent, subject to the receipt of satisfactory details in respect of the following matters:-

 The extent of the coping stone replacement; the materials used in the repair of the railings; and the diameter of the new horizontal bar along the base of the railings; and

 The Secretary of State be invited to impose the following conditions on any consent granted:-

(i) The construction of the piers should be recorded before dismantling. The piers should be reconstructed to ensure that the quoins and capping stones are accurately replaced in their original locations replicating the dimensions of their bedding joints as closely as possible.

(ii) The lime mortar used to bed the quoins, coping stones and flints should match as closely as possible that used for the existing wall. The ratio of flints to mortar should be carefully replicated with any shortfall made up with flints to match.

(iii) Details of the replacement coping stone shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing before the works are carried out.

The motion was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that subject to the receipt of satisfactory details in respect of the following matters:-

 The extent of the coping stone replacement; the materials used in the repair of the railings; and the diameter of the new horizontal bar along the base of the railings; and

 The Secretary of State be invited to impose the following conditions on any consent granted:-

(i) The construction of the piers should be recorded before dismantling. The piers should be reconstructed to ensure that the quoins and capping stones are accurately replaced in their original locations replicating the dimensions of their bedding joints as closely as possible.

(ii) The lime mortar used to bed the quoins, coping stones and flints should match as closely as possible that used for the existing wall. The ratio of flints to mortar should be carefully replicated with any shortfall made up with flints to match.

(iii) Details of the replacement coping stone shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing before the works are carried out.

Page 12 Planning Committee - 13 - 2 July 2014

(19) P/14/0221/FP - LAND AT BROOM WAY DAEDALUS WEST HANGARS WEST

The Committee received the deputations referred to in minute 5 above.

The following members declared a non-pecuniary interest in this application on the grounds indicated:-

Councillor A Mandry Member of Daedalus Strategy Group

Councillor T M Chairman of Daedalus Working Group Cartwright

Councillor M J Ford Member of Daedalus Working Group

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- One further letter of objection has been received from 11 Jersey Close. No new issues to those in the main agenda are raised but matters of size, noise, disturbance are repeated.

(During the course of discussion on this application the Committee agreed to adjourn the meeting from 5.40pm to 5.45pm)

It was proposed and seconded to approve the officer recommendation to grant planning permission subject to:-

(i) the conditions in the report, ( excluding the condition restricting hours of use from 0700 – 2300hours ); and

(ii) an amended condition stating the hours of use are restricted to 0700 to 2000 hours (aircraft movement excepted.) was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that subject to:-

(i) the conditions in the report, ( excluding the condition restricting hours of use from 0700 – 2300hours ); and

(ii) an amended condition stating the hours of use are restricted to 0700 to 2000 hours (aircraft movement excepted)

PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

(20) P/14/0304/FP - 30 PENTLAND RISE FAREHAM

A motion was proposed and seconded that the Committee note that the representations made by a neighbour and reported within the officer report, presented to the Committee on 4 June 2014, should have been regarded as comments only and not an objection. The motion was voted on and CARRIED.

Page 13 Planning Committee - 14 - 2 July 2014

(Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that the Committee note that representations made by a neighbour and reported within the officer report, presented to the Committee on 4 June 2014, are to be regarded as comments only and not an objection.

(21) P/14/0042/FP - LEE ON SOLENT GOLF CLUB BRUNE LANE LEE ON SOLENT

Councillor Mandry declared a pecuniary interest in this application on the grounds that he is Chairman of the charity to whom the golf club has made an application for funding. Councillor Mandry left the meeting room prior to consideration of the application and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the report was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 7 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

7. PLANNING APPEALS

The Committee noted the information contained in the report.

8. UPDATE REPORT

The Update Report was tabled at the meeting and considered with the relevant agenda item.

(The meeting started at 2.30 pm and ended at 6.15 pm).

Page 14 Agenda Item 6

Report to Planning Committee

Date 30 July 2014

Report of: Director of Finance and Resources

Subject: ACTUAL REVENUE EXPENDITURE 2013/14

SUMMARY

This report sets out, for the information of members, details of the actual revenue expenditure for 2013/14 in respect of the services for which this Committee is responsible.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is asked to note the report.

pc-140730- sde.docx Page 15 - 2 - INTRODUCTION

1. The final accounts for the financial year for this Committee shows that the actual expenditure of £622,748 was £84,652 (12%), below the revised budget of £707,400 which was approved by this Committee on 20 November 2013.

2. The actual totals of gross expenditure and income are set out in the table below.

Base Revised Budget Budget Actual Variance 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 £ £ £ £ Employees 696,600 726,700 706,934 -19,766 Transport 2,200 11,000 10,435 -565 Supplies & Services 44,700 42,800 101,843 59,043 Contract Payments 62,600 65,300 53,939 -11,361 Internal Support 227,200 225,900 234,960 9,060 GROSS EXPENDITURE 1,033,300 1,071,700 1,108,111 36,411

Sales -2,600 -2,600 -2,262 338 Fees & Charges -361,700 -361,700 -483,101 -121,401 GROSS INCOME -364,300 -364,300 -485,363 -121,063

NET EXPENDITURE 669,000 707,400 622,748 -84,652

3. The actual expenditure shows a net underspend of £84,652. The under spend is due to a combination of savings on employee costs and additional income being received. This has been off-set by higher than anticipated spend on supplies & services and internal support.

4. The number of applications submitted has increased by 92, from 1,052 in 2012/13 to 1144 for financial year 2013/14. The number of major applications increased from 16 in 2012/13 to 22 in 2013/14.

5. The actual net revenue expenditure for the year analysed over the main service heading is shown in the following table:-

Base Revised Budget Estimates Actual Variance 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 £ £ £ £ Planning Advice 240,600 287,500 282,013 -5,487 Enforcement of Planning Control 140,400 130,100 104,758 -25,342 Appeals 78,700 73,100 69,424 -3,676 Processing Applications 209,300 216,700 166,553 -50,147 669,000 707,400 622,748 -84,652

pc-140730- sde.docx

Page 16 - 3 -

6. A detailed breakdown of the actual cost of the individual services is shown in Appendix A. The main variations from the approved budgets are detailed below.

PLANNING ADVICE

7. The overall underspend for this service was £5,000. The main reason was an under spend of £7,000 in the employment budget for staff vacancies with a further underspend of £6,000 for legal advice. These were offset by an increase in internal charges of £4,000 and also reduced fees for planning advice, which was £4,000 below the revised budget.

ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL

8. The under spend for this service was £25,000 with the main reason was the saving in the employee budget for vacant posts (£26,000) which was offset by increased legal charges of £1,000.

APPEALS

9. The small variance of £4,000 for this service was mainly due to reduced costs on the employment costs from vacant posts of £2,000 and the supplies & services budget that was £4,000 under budget. This was offset against the increased expenditure incurred for legal services of £2,000.

PROCESSING APPLICATIONS

10. Overall there was an under spend on this service of £50,000 against the revised budget. Employee expenditure was £16,000 higher than anticipated due to more spend on agency staff to cover staff vacancies.

11. The additional spend on consultants (£54,000) reflected the need for maternity leave cover and also time spent on some of the larger projects in the borough during the year.

12. There was also an over spend of £10,000 on other supplies and services, £4,000 over spend on internal recharges which were both offset by a reduction in legal charges of £9,000.

13. Planning fee income exceeded the budget by £125,000. This was due to a large planning application fee, which was received at the end of the financial year for the south side of Fareham development.

RISK ASSESSMENT

14. There are no significant risk considerations in relation to this report.

CONCLUSION

15. The cost of the services provided by this Committee was £84,652 lower than anticipated when the revised budgets were prepared and the reason for this are set out in this report. pc-140730- sde.docx

Page 17 - 4 -

Background Papers: None Reference Papers: APPENDIX A – cost of individual services.

Enquiries: For further information on this report please contact Sonia Dent, Senior Management Accountant (Ext 4313).

pc-140730- sde.docx

Page 18 - 5 -

APPENDIX A

PLANNING ADVICE Base Revised Budget Budget Actual Variance 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 £ £ £ £ EMPLOYEE RELATED EXPENDITURE 157,500 198,500 190,926 -7,574 TRANSPORT 0 2,000 1,557 -443 SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 400 0 202 202 CONTRACT PAYMENTS 42,700 41,900 36,171 -5,729 INTERNAL SUPPORT 54,700 59,800 64,045 4,245 GROSS EXPENDITURE 255,300 302,200 292,900 -9,300

FEES AND CHARGES -14,700 -14,700 -10,887 3,813 GROSS INCOME -14,700 -14,700 -10,887 3,813

NET EXPENDITURE 240,600 287,500 282,013 -5,487

ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL Base Revised Budget Budget Actual Variance 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 £ £ £ £ EMPLOYEE RELATED EXPENDITURE 100,900 92,000 65,828 -26,172 TRANSPORT 1,000 2,200 1,554 -646 SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 2,400 2,100 2,019 -81 CONTRACT PAYMENTS 6,700 6,700 8,169 1,469 INTERNAL SUPPORT 29,400 27,100 27,188 88 GROSS EXPENDITURE 140,400 130,100 104,758 -25,342

NET EXPENDITURE 140,400 130,100 104,758 -25,342

pc-140730- sde.docx

Page 19 - 6 -

APPEALS Base Revised Budget Budget Actual Variance 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 £ £ £ £ EMPLOYEE RELATED EXPENDITURE 39,100 35,900 33,746 -2,154 TRANSPORT 0 100 85 -15 SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 21,700 21,700 17,837 -3,863 CONTRACT PAYMENTS 3,500 2,700 4,814 2,114 INTERNAL SUPPORT 14,400 12,700 12,943 243 GROSS EXPENDITURE 78,700 73,100 69,424 -3,676

NET EXPENDITURE 78,700 73,100 69,424 -3,676

PROCESSING APPLICATIONS Base Revised Budget Budget Actual Variance 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 £ £ £ £ EMPLOYEE RELATED EXPENDITURE 399,100 400,300 416,435 16,135 TRANSPORT 1,200 6,700 7,239 539 SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 20,200 19,000 81,785 62,785 CONTRACT PAYMENTS 9,700 14,000 4,786 -9,214 INTERNAL SUPPORT 128,700 126,300 130,784 4,484 GROSS EXPENDITURE 558,900 566,300 641,029 74,729

SALES -2,600 -2,600 -2,262 338 FEES AND CHARGES -347,000 -347,000 -472,213 -125,213 GROSS INCOME -349,600 -349,600 -474,476 -124,876

NET EXPENDITURE 209,300 216,700 166,553 -50,147

PLANNING COMMITTEE NET EXPENDITURE 669,000 707,400 622,748 -84,652

pc-140730- sde.docx

Page 20 Agenda Item 7

Report to Planning Committee

Date: 30 July 2014

Report of: Director of Planning and Environment

Subject: PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

SUMMARY

This report recommends action on various planning applications and miscellaneous items

RECOMMENDATION

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

AGENDA

(1) Items relating to development in the Western Wards; Sarisbury, Warsash, Park Gate, Titchfield, Titchfield Common and Locks Heath will be heard from 2.30pm

2) Items relating to development in the Fareham Town, Fareham South, Fareham North, Fareham North-West, Fareham East, Fareham West, Stubbington, Hill Head and Portchester will be heard no earlier than 3.30pm

Page 21 Agenda Annex ZONE 1 - WESTERN WARDS

Park Gate Titchfield Sarisbury Locks Heath Warsash Titchfield Common Reference Item No

HG/14/0001 170 LOCKS ROAD LOCKS HEATH SOUTHAMPTON HANTS 1 LOCKS HEATH HIGH HEDGE COMPLAINT AT 170 LOCKS ROAD P/14/0519/TO ESSO LOCKSHEATH SERVICE STN BRIDGE ROAD PARK GATE 2 PARK GATE SOUTHAMPTON SO31 7ZE CONSENT FELL ONE MONTEREY PINE TREE PROTECTED BY TPO 209 DUE TO STEM DEFECT/SIGNIFICANT BASAL DECAY IDENTIFIED FOLLOWING DETAILED INVESTIGATION P/14/0530/FP 151 HUNTS POND ROAD (PLOT 3) PARK GATE SOUTHAMPTON 3 TITCHFIELD SO31 6RD PERMISSION COMMON ERECTION OF A NEW DWELLING AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SHARED DRIVEWAY AND LANDSCAPING. P/14/0570/VC YEW TREE DRIVE FAREHAM HAMPSHIRE 4 SARISBURY VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 OF P/13/0547/VC TO EXTEND PERMISSION THE TRIAL OPENING OF THE BUS GATE FOR A FURTHER SIX MONTHS P/14/0545/FP 312 OLD SWANWICK LANE LOWER SWANWICK 5 SARISBURY SOUTHAMPTON SO31 7GS PERMISSION EXTENSION AND REFURBISHMENT OF EXISTING BUNGALOWS TO CREATE FIRST FLOOR ACCOMMODATION, GARAGE EXTENSION WITH HABITABLE ACCOMMODATION ABOVE

Page 22 Agenda Item 7(1) HG/14/0001 ENFORCEMENT LOCKS HEATH

HIGH HEDGE COMPLAINT AT 170 LOCKS ROAD 170 LOCKS ROAD LOCKS HEATH SOUTHAMPTON HANTS

Report By [Brendan Flynn ext 4665] Comments Introduction This complaint is made following attempts by complainant to engage with hedge owner as required by Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 Section 8.

A site visit to the complainant's property was undertaken on 7th May 2014 by the case officer. Measurements of the complainant's garden and house and the height of the hedge were taken during that visit.

An earlier site visit was also carried out at the hedge owner's property on 11th April 2014. Measurements of the height of the hedge were also taken during that visit.

The Hedge and its surroundings

The hedge is a Leyland cypress which is in average health. The hedge is located at the eastern end of the rear garden of the 170 Locks Road and provides a screen between the garden and the property at 14 Topiary Gardens. The complainant's property at 14 Topiary Gardens backs onto the site where the hedge is located meaning that the boundary along which the hedge is located runs partway across the rear boundary of the complainant's property.

The hedge at the time of the inspection was 4.6 metres high. The hedge is located approximately 10.5 metres from the rear elevation of the dwelling at 14 Topiary Gardens. At ground floor level in the rear elevation of the house are several clear glazed windows. There are further windows at first floor level at the rear of the dwelling.

Case for the complainant

The complainant's concerns are as follows:-

* The loss of sunlight to the rear of the house and rear garden. * The hedge is very imposing * The hedge is impossible to maintain safely * The hedge inhibits plant growth

Case for the Owner/Occupier of the land where the Hedge is situated

The hedge owner commented as follows:-

* The trees are mature

Page 23 * The trees provide cover to prevent the owner's bees from entering the complainant's property * The trees are a haven for wildlife

Light obstruction

The council followed the method in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guideline on 'Hedge height and light loss' for calculating which height a hedge should be in order not to cause an unreasonable obstruction of light to windows and gardens. The results indicate that at 4.6 metres in height the hedge is currently having a significant impact on light to and enjoyment of the complainant's garden area and windows in the rear elevation of the dwelling. The overall action hedge height is therefore calculated to be 3.7 metres.

Visual amenity

The hedge has no adverse impact on the visual amenity of the general area.

Privacy

A reduction in height of the hedge to a minimum of 3.7 metres would have no material impact on the privacy of the hedge owner's property or on the complainants.

Health of the hedge

The calculation identified that the hedge should be reduced to 3.7 metres and therefore, taking into account the margin for regrowth of the hedge, the initial action required should theoretically reduce the hedge to approximately 3.2 metres.

Para 6.24 of the government issued guidance High Hedge Complaints: Prevention and Cure (ODPM, 2005) recommends that "Leylandii cypress hedges will usually respond well to a reduction of up to one-third of their height".

Relevant policies or legislation

There are no relevant policies or other legislation that have any material effect on the Council's decision in particular instance.

Main Considerations are: loss of light/obstruction of light, amenity, privacy, health of hedge.

The Council considers that the height of the hedge in close proximity to the rear private garden area of the complainant's property is causing a significant loss of light to the garden and dwelling and is having an adverse effect on the reasonable enjoyment of the property as a result.

Conclusion

The hedge is causing obstruction of daylight and sunlight to the complainant's garden area and dwelling. A remedial notice should be served requiring the hedge to be brought down to 3.2 metres in height and prevented from exceeding a height of 3.7 metres in the future. This figure has been reached after taking account of both the need to reduce the hedge in height and also the need to protect the health and vitality of the trees by not removing too much live crown. Page 24 Good practice guidance should also be given advising that complete removal of the hedge should be considered in the circumstances and if a boundary hedge were to be replanted careful consideration should be given to the choice of species of that hedge and its maintenance. Recommendation The height of the hedge is adversely affecting the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of their property and it is recommended that a remedial notice be issued.

Page 25

Page 26 Agenda Item 7(2) P/14/0519/TO PARK GATE ESSO SERVICE STATION AGENT: RICHARD PROWSE FELL ONE MONTEREY PINE TREE PROTECTED BY TPO 209 DUE TO STEM DEFECT/SIGNIFICANT BASAL DECAY IDENTIFIED FOLLOWING DETAILED INVESTIGATION ESSO LOCKSHEATH SERVICE STN BRIDGE ROAD PARK GATE SOUTHAMPTON SO31 7ZE

Report By Paul Johnston - Ext.4451 Site Description This application relates to a tree situated on the frontage of the Locks Heath Service Station and adjacent to the Station Road / Bridge Road roundabout.

Description of Proposal Consent is sought to fell one monterey pine protected by TPO 209. Policies The following policies apply to this application:

Approved Fareham Borough Core Strategy CS4 - Green Infrastructure, Biodiversity and Geological Conservation CS17 - High Quality Design Fareham Borough Local Plan Review DG4 - Site Characteristics

Relevant Planning History The following planning history is relevant:

P/11/0354/TO CARRY OUT WORKS TO MONTEREY PINE COVERED BY FTPO 209 CONSENT 16/06/2011 Representations Two objections have been received objecting to the works because it is felt that further investigation is required. Further comments note that the tree is a significant landmark that should be retained.

One representation did not object to the felling but would like a replacement tree of significant size planted.

Planning Considerations - Key Issues Government guidance suggests that in considering applications to fell protected trees the Local Planning Authority are advised:

(1) to assess the amenity value of the tree or woodland and the likely impact of the proposal on the amenity of the area, and

Page 27 (2) in the light of their assessment at (1) above, to consider whether or not the proposal is justified, having regard to the reasons put forward in support of it.

They are advised also to consider whether any loss or damage is likely to arise if consent is refused or granted subject to conditions.

In general terms, it follows that the higher the amenity value of the tree or woodland and the greater the impact of the application on the amenity of the area, the stronger the reasons needed before consent is granted. On the other hand, if the amenity value of the tree or woodland is low then the impact of the application in amenity terms is likely to be negligible.

Tree preservation orders seek to protect trees in the interest of public amenity; therefore it follows that the removal of a protected tree should only be sanctioned where its public amenity value is outweighed by other considerations.

The subject pine is a very large and prominent mature specimen, which makes a significant contribution to the public amenity of its surroundings. The removal of this tree will only be mitigated in the long term by any replacement planting.

During a recent detailed investigation on the 20 March 2014 two Picus Tomograph (acoustic measurement) readings were undertaken at 50 & 500mm above ground level following the observation Sparassis crispa (Cauliflower fungus) around the base of the tree. The tomography revealed internal decay at the base of the main stem over approximately 50% of the cross sectional area. Sparassis typically develops in the root system, sometimes extending up into the stem base. The fungus causes a cubical 'brown-rot' resulting in virtually no tensile strength and a significant increased risk of breakage (brittle fracture) in the root-plate or at the stem base. 'Brown rot' wood decay can result in a sudden catastrophic failure without any visible adaptive growth features being exhibited by the tree. There are no failure criteria available for wood decay of the root system and stem base, which makes assessing and managing the risk of failure impossible.

Following the tomography results and in accordance with the recommendations of the March inspection report, further investigation was undertaken on 8 July 2014 using a Resistograph (IML ResiF400) micro-drill to assess wood strength and the extent of decay below the 50mm tomograph. The tree was drilled close to ground level on the four compass points - north, east, south and west. The results show extensive internal decay at the base of the stem, which is more severe than initially thought.

To conclude, officers consider that the tree now poses an unacceptable risk to the public and thereby support its removal. Recommendation CONSENT: Works to be undertaken within 2 years, replacement to be planted and work to accord with BS3998. Notes for Information Notice of work commencement; Right to carry out work over property other than applicant's own; Replacement tree; Terms as BS3998 and work in accordance with recent arboricultural research; Care to wildlife and bat protection. Background Papers Please see planning history above. Page 28

Page 29 Agenda Item 7(3) P/14/0530/FP TITCHFIELD COMMON MS JACQUELINE EAGLE AGENT: COX MARTIN DESIGN LTD ERECTION OF A NEW DWELLING AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SHARED DRIVEWAY AND LANDSCAPING. 151 HUNTS POND ROAD (PLOT 3) PARK GATE SOUTHAMPTON SO31 6RD

Report By Graham Pretty (Ext. 2526) Amendments Amended layout plan received 14th July 2014 Site Description The application site is located on the east side of Hunts Pond Road, approximately opposite the junction with Daisy Lane. The site is currently open and flat and in part is crossed by the existing access drive to two bungalows set to the rear of Nos. 147 and 148 Hunts Pond Road.

Description of Proposal The proposal is to erect a two bedroomed chalet style dwelling fronting on to Hunts Pond Road with a revised alignment to the existing access to the bungalows to the rear, to the south of the proposed dwelling and with car parking in the front garden.

Policies The following policies apply to this application:

National Planning Policy Framework

Approved Fareham Borough Core Strategy CS15 - Sustainable Development and Climate Change CS16 - Natural Resources and Renewable Energy CS17 - High Quality Design CS2 - Housing Provision CS5 - Transport Strategy and Infrastructure CS6 - The Development Strategy CS9 - Development in Western Wards and Whiteley Development Sites and Policies DPS1 - Sustainable Development DSP2 - Design DSP4 - Impact on Living Conditions DSP15 - Recreational Disturbance on the Solent Special Protection Areas Fareham Borough Local Plan Review DG4 - Site Characteristics Page 30 Relevant Planning History The following planning history is relevant:

P/08/0288/FP ERECTION OF DETACHED BUNGALOW REFUSE 03/04/2008 P/07/1095/FP ERECTION OF DETACHED BUNGALOW REFUSE 18/09/2007 P/02/1594/DP/B Demolition of Bungalow and Erection of Two Detached Bungalows with Garages: Details Pursuant to Condition 7 - 1.8 metre high close boarded fence in lieu of brick wall DETAIL 07/09/2004 APPROVAL P/02/1594/DP/A Demolition of Bungalow and Erection of Two Detached Bungalows with Garages:Details Pursuant to Condition 2 (Materials), Condition 3 (Levels) and Condition 4 (Landscaping) DETAIL 19/06/2003 APPROVAL P/02/1594/FP Demolition of Bungalow and Erection of Two Detached Bungalows with Garages PERMISSION 22/01/2003 P/02/1225/FP Erection of Two Bungalows and Garages REFUSE 05/11/2002 P/02/0850/OA Erection of Three Bungalows and Garages (Outline Application) REFUSE 07/08/2002 P/00/0145/OA Demolition of Existing Bungalow and Out Buildings and Erection of Four Bungalows and Garages (Outline Application) REFUSE 30/06/2000 Representations Six letters have been received on behalf of 7 households, raising the following objections:

- Realigned access drive to the bungalows to the rear is of insufficient width to allow two vehicles to pass safely - The proposed access curves around the corner of the proposed dwelling obscuring visibility along the drive - There are no margins along the proposed drive would allow vehicles to pass and to prevent feeling of 'unpleasant enclosure' - The proposed frontage car parking spaces have insufficient manoeuvring - Sense of confinement to existing bungalows to rear of site by provision of screen fencing - Notice should have been served upon the residents of the bungalows to the rear - Cramped form of development - Insufficient rear garden to new dwelling - Appeal against a bungalow on the same site was dismissed due to overdevelopment - Loss of landscaped area - Adverse impact of realigned access on the amenities of the frontage property (153) to the south

Page 31 - Request for a visitor parking space within the turning area for Nos. 151 and 151a is strongly opposed - Plans do not demonstrate required forward visibility on to Hunts Pond Road - Council officers have previously advised that a further dwelling would be unlikely to be permitted - Front car parking would be visually intrusive - Loss of light to side window to No.149 to north

Consultations Director of Community (Environmental Health) - A traffic noise assessment should be undertaken to assess whether or not the new development will be subject to unacceptable levels of traffic noise pollution. Reference should be made to the World Health Organisation's guidelines for community noise for acceptable noise levels both within and outside the properties.

Depending on the outcome of the noise assessment, the developer may have to ensure an adequate level protection against noise from traffic, for example, by providing double glazing, acoustically insulated trickle vents, barrier techniques, mechanical ventilators etc. Any such remedial action to be included in the noise assessment.

Director of Planning and Development (Highways) - No objection to amended plans.

Planning Considerations - Key Issues The key issues relating to this application are:

- The Principle of Development - Impact upon the character of the area - Impact on Neighbouring Properties - Highways Principle of development The site is located within the urban area as defined by the adopted Local plan and is therefore considered to be sustainable and appropriate, in principle, for further development, subject to detailed consideration of design and impact.

Historically the site has been the subject of refused planning applications and a dismissed appeal. This matter has been raised by those objecting to the proposed development. However, it is necessary to consider the refusal and the dismissed appeal in the context of the application as submitted. That application (P/08/0288/FP) was for a further bungalow, however the plot was narrower than the current planning application with the existing access drive being maintained in its current straight alignment. The refused bungalow was proposed with a long, narrow footprint with its front elevation facing onto the access drive and a proposed private garden fronting on to Hunts Pond Road. In dismissing the appeal the Planning Inspector specifically referred to the narrow frontage of the plot on to Hunts Pond Road which he considered would be cramped. He also referred to the poor location of the proposed private garden and the potential for inappropriate screening in this frontage position and the poor relationship of the front elevation of the proposed dwelling to the shared drive. The Inspector considered objections by neighbours regarding loss of light, outlook, building disruption, noise and disturbance but did not consider these to be overriding.

The current application is markedly different from the dismissed proposal and must be Page 32 considered on its merits, which are explored further below. Impact on character of the area The development as now proposed fronts on to Hunts Pond Road. The maximum width of the plot would be 10m (13m including width of drive) and whilst this is narrower than the immediately adjacent properties (No 149 being 15.4m and No.153 approx.15m), there is a mix of frontage widths along the immediate section of Hunts Pond Road, ranging from as little as 6.1m, and the proposed plot is not therefore considered to be out of keeping. The width of the dwelling at 8m is only about 0.8m narrower that of No.149 to the north. The proposed dwelling would be approx 4.5m from the side elevation of No.149 and approx. 5m from No.153. It is considered that the plot width and spacing are such that the development as currently proposed is in keeping with the established character of the area.

The design of the proposed dwelling is that of a chalet bungalow with small, flat roofed side dormers serving a bathroom and a landing on each side. There is a wide mix of dwelling designs in the locality including bungalows, two storey dwellings and chalets. the properties to the north and south are bungalows but to the north of No.149 are two storey dwellings and to the south of No.153 a recently constructed chalet. The submitted street scene indicates that the proposed dwelling would sit comfortably within the established street. Impact on neighbouring properties The proposed dwelling would be located roughly on a line between the front elevations of the adjacent dwellings. To the north No.149 has a side window which appears to be secondary as there is a front window which to serves the western end of the same room. The resident of 149 has objected on grounds of loss of light, however the new dwelling would be separated by 4.5m and there is an existing 1.8m high fence obscuring the outlook from the lower part of the window. Additionally, the eaves height of the proposed dwelling would be 2.45m and the roof then pitches up and away from this boundary. To the south the bungalow at No.153 appears to have two non-habitable windows, already looking on to a 1.8m screen fence along the boundary (the resident of this property has not objected on grounds of loss of light or outlook). It is noted that the Planning Inspector did not dismiss the 2008 appeal on the grounds of its impact upon the adjacent properties, although that proposal was for a bungalow only.

It is considered that the proposed dwelling is acceptable given the Council's normal criteria for considering relationships of this nature. Highways The objectors have raised a number of matters regarding the safety of the proposed realigned access drive. However, no objection has been raised by the Director of Planning and Development (Highways) who has considered the objections raised and comments that:

1. The revised access layout provides greater than a 5m width for the initial 9m on leaving Hunts Pond Road, giving adequate width for two cars to pass in this area.

2. Because of the proposed splaying of the corner of the property and the 0.8m wide landscaped margin along its side, there would be adequate intervisibility for drivers approaching and leaving the shared drive. At a width of 3m, compared with a typical car width of 2m, there will be a 0.5m wide space on each side of a car. Given the numbers of vehicles and pedestrians anticipated and the limited speeds of vehicles, it is not considered there would be more than a minimal risk for pedestrians. Page 33 3. The two car parking spaces at the front of the property would have a clear 6m manoeuvring aisle. As a result of the building splay and landscaped area, there would be adequate vision of vehicles reversing. To aid visibility for vehicles entering, the position of the two front parking spaces has been adjusted further from Hunts Pond Road and the frontage landscaping would be no higher than a drivers eye height.

The suggestion of providing a small area of hardstanding to facilitate easier turning or an additional car parking space opposite the two existing dwellings, was made only to assist the occupants of those dwellings.

Other Matters -

Issue has been raised with the depth of the private garden, however, at 10m this is the same as the property to the north. Further, there is no issue in this case, with overlooking windows since the private garden adjoins only the front garden and parking areas to the bungalows to the rear and Appendix 6 to the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review indicates that 11m is only required to prevent overlooking of private gardens.

It has been suggested that the applicant should have served notice upon the residents of the bungalows to the rear since they enjoy a right of access. This is not considered to be correct since the planning application forms make it quite clear that notice is to be served upon those having a freehold or long leashold interest; a right of way is neither of these. Nontheless, the occupants of the two buglaows have not been prejudiced in their ability to make representations on the application which they have done.

Solent Disturbance Mitigation - this application represents a new dwelling for which contributions are now regularly sought. Conclusion Notwithstanding that previously, permission has been refused and dismissed on appeal for a bunglow on this frontage site, it is considered that the current proposal is markedly different. It is considered that the proposed chalet dwelling would be acceptable within the overall character of the area and that it would not adversely affect the amenities of adjoining residents. The realignment of the drive is considered, in planning terms, to be satisfactory. It is not considered that there are the same objections to the current proposals as were raised against the dismissed development. On balance, it is considered that the proposed development can be permitted.

Recommendation PERMISSION:

Subject to the applicants providing the necessary contribution towards ecological mitigation for the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project then conditions as follows:

Development in accordance with plans; Code level 4; Noise assessment and implementation of conclusions; landscaping details and maintenance; details of hardsurfacing; details of boundary treatment; access and entrance on to Hunts Pond Road to be constructed in accordance with plans and carried out before remainder of development is commenced; provision and maintenance of car parking area; Provision of bin collection point for properties to rear;fixed and obscure glazing to side dormers up to 1.7m above internal floor level; remove pd rights for extensions and outbuildings; hours of construction; area for construction vehicles and materials; mud on road. Page 34 Background Papers P/08/0288/FP; P/14/0539/FP

Page 35

Page 36 Agenda Item 7(4) P/14/0570/VC SARISBURY HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL AGENT: HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 OF P/13/0547/VC TO EXTEND THE TRIAL OPENING OF THE BUS GATE FOR A FURTHER SIX MONTHS YEW TREE DRIVE FAREHAM HAMPSHIRE

Report By Kim Hayler - Ext 2367 Site Description The site is located off Botley Road, Swanwick just south of Ashley Close. A connection was opened in 2008 between Botley Road and Yew Tree Drive (leading to the development of Whiteley) with restricted access for emergency vehicles and buses only.

Description of Proposal The access connection was permitted under planning permission P/05/1533/FP and was subject to the following condition (No.2):

'No development shall take place until details of the bus gate, including bus control measures have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The approved bus control measures shall be constructed before the bus link is first brought into use and shall be retained at all times. The link road shall subsequently be used by buses and emergency vehicles only unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority following the submission of a planning application made for that purpose.'

Temporary planning permission was granted under P/13/0547/VC on 23 August 2013 allowing the bus gate to be opened to all traffic for a temporary period of one year during which a three month trial period would be carried out.

Condition 2 of the planning permission stated:

'Following a 12 month period expiring on 23rd August 2014, the link road permitted under planning reference P/05/1533/FP shall be used by buses and emergency vehicles only (and controlled to prevent use by other vehcles as previously agreed pursuant to P/05/1533/FP) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority following the submission of a planning application made for that purpose.'

This application seeks an extension of time to allow the opening of the bus gate for a further six months.

Policies The following policies apply to this application:

Approved Fareham Borough Core Strategy CS5 - Transport Strategy and Infrastructure Development Sites and Policies

Page 37 T9 - Access to Whiteley Fareham Borough Local Plan Review T8 - Improvements to the Distributor Road Network T9 - Access to Whiteley

Relevant Planning History The following planning history is relevant:

P/13/0547/VC TO ENABLE A TRIAL OPENING OF THE BUS GATE FOR ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF DECISION SO THE EFFECTS OF THE BUS GATE OPENING TO ALL TRAFFIC (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES) CAN BE MONITORED BY HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL AS HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 P/05/1533/FP) APPROVE 23/08/2013 P/05/1533/FP Construction of Roundabout & Yew Tree Drive Link Road (Bus Only Access) PERMISSION 23/12/2005 Representations Three representations have been received at the time of writing this report raising the following concerns:

- The problem of traffic in the area has arisen because of the failure to complete Whiteley Way;

- The present temporary opening has resulted in a very significant increase in vehicle flows on Botley Road and through Burridge;

- Object to further temporary opening and permanent opening until the completion of Whiteley Way;

- A large increase in traffic has been seen passing the primary school;

- The gate should be closed now to allow clearer analysis as to whether the opening is right for local residents;

- Since opening of the bus gate there is additional activity and noise around the roundabout;

- Hazard from speeding traffic.

Consultations Director of Community (Environmental Health) - No objection

Director of Planning and Development (Highways) - no objection

Planning Considerations - Key Issues The Yew Tree Drive bus link was originally opened as a bus only link onto the Botley Road in May 2008. This aimed to give priority to public transport in the Whiteley area. Since then Page 38 residents have asked whether traffic congestion around Whiteley could be reduced if the link was open to all vehicles.

The Yew Tree Drive bus gate was opened to all traffic over a three week period in July 2012 as a result of National Grid maintenance works. This provided an initial opportunity to monitor traffic flows with the bus gate open for a set period of time.

Following the three week opening of the bus gate a public consultation was undertaken in February 2013. This consultation identified that 84% of respondants wanted a trial opening of the bus gate to take place.

A planning application, P/13/0547/VC refers, was submitted last year to enable a trial opening of the bus gate to all traffic, for one year from 23 August 2013 (with the exception of heavy goods vehicles) allowing monitoring by Hampshire County Council as Highway Authority.

As a result of the trial opening of the bus gate, the following mitigation measures were introduced in the Whiteley area as a requirement of the planning permission, prior to the formal opening of the bus gate:

- Speed cushions on the length of Yew Tree Drive from its junction with Botley Road to its junction with Rookery Avenue;

- Toucan crossing - a new signal controlled pedestrian and cycle crossing at an existing crossing place to the south of Gull Coppice, where the School Crossing Patrol currently operates;

- Experimental Heavy Goods Vehicle ban - creation of a vehicle weight restriction, for all vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes on Yew Tree Drive between its junctions with Botley Road and Clydesdale Road (the Yew Tree Drive Bus Gate). The traffic regulation order bans all HGV movements through the bus gate even for access;

- Experimental Heavy Goods Vehicle ban - creation of a vehicle weight restriction, accept for access, for all vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes on Yew Tree Drive between its junctions with Rookery Avenue and Clydesdale Road. The traffic regulation order will allow for HGV's in excess of 7.5 tonnes to access Yew Tree Drive to serve residential areas etc., but will not allow Yew Tree Drive to be used as a through route. Access to Yew Tree Drive will only be allowed however via Rookery Avenue;

- Additional white lining on Swanwick Lane - the introduction of carriageway edge lines and the removal of centreline markings along Swanwick Lane;

- Pedestrian refuge island on the western end of Swanwick Lane at the eastern end of the lay-by near to the playground;

- Uncontrolled crossing on Botley Road to the north of Station Road - measures include new dropped kerbs, tactile paving, reflective bollards and a coloured road surfacing strip;

- Uncontrolled crossing on Botley Road near Beacon Bottom - measures include new dropped kerbs, tactile paving, reflective bollards and a coloured road surfacing strip;

- Pedestrian refuge island on Botley Road midway between Rookery Avenue and Page 39 Calabrese;

- Relocation of bus stop on Yew Tree Drive near Gull Coppice to allow waiting buses to be clear of the informal crossing point;

- Relocation of the bus stop to the east of Sweethills Crescent to improve visibility of on coming vehicles for pedestrians wishing to cross Yew Tree Drive;

- Speed cushions on the currently un-calmed arm of Sweethills Crescent;

- 20 mph speed limit on Yew Tree Drive in the vicinity of Gull Coppice to include the proposed Toucan crossing.

The implementation of the above mitigation works was programmed to commence following completion by the Highways Agency of bridge pier replacement works on the M27 in the vicinity of junction 9. Construction works therefore started on 25 November 2013. Due to the unusually wet weather conditions over the winter period, the implementation of these works took longer than anticipated and did not complete until the end of February 2014. As such a three month formal monitoring period commenced on Monday 24 February 2014.

Subsequent to the completion of the monitoring period, analysis of the data obtained during the monitoring period, such as traffic counts, speed data, vehicle classification information, air and noise quality data, is being undertaken. In addition a public consultation has been carried out, which ended on 4 July 2014, to determine public perception of the opening and the mitigation measures that were implemented. The responses from the consultation will need to be analysed.

The results from both the monitoring data and the public consultation analysis will feed into a report, which is to go to the Hampshire County Council's Executive Member for Economy, Transport and Environment, in September. This report will contain a recommendation on whether an application should be made for the permanent opening of the bus gate or not and if any additional mitigation measures are required.

Due to the timescales involved, this application is seeking an extension in the trial opening of the bus gate for a further six months in order to allow for the monitoring and analysis of the data and responses to be carried out, together with the potential time required to apply for a permanent opening should this be required.

Conclusion

Officers are aware of the importance of extending the trial opening of the bus gate for a further period of six months in order for the Highway Authority to fully assess the monitoring, data and public responses as a result of the formal trial period and the recent public consultation. Reasons For Granting Permission TEMPORARY PERMISSION: Limited period of six months; conditions on P/14/0570/VC continue to apply.

Background Papers P/05/1533/FP, P/13/0547/VC

Page 40

Page 41 Agenda Item 7(5) P/14/0545/FP SARISBURY MR RICHARD FREEMANTLE AGENT: AR DESIGN STUDIO EXTENSION AND REFURBISHMENT OF EXISTING BUNGALOWS TO CREATE FIRST FLOOR ACCOMMODATION, GARAGE EXTENSION WITH HABITABLE ACCOMMODATION ABOVE 312 OLD SWANWICK LANE LOWER SWANWICK SOUTHAMPTON SO31 7GS

Report By R Hebden Introduction The application has been submitted following the withdrawal of a previous application earlier this year to enable further consultation with the neighbours and subsequent amendments to the proposal. The application also follows a planning application, which was approved in 2012, for alterations and extensions to the existing property to form a two- storey dwelling. The current application seeks a different approach in terms of design and massing to that previously approved.

In accordance with the Council's Scheme of Delegation, following receipt of a letter of objection from the neighbouring property the application falls to be considered by the Planning Committee. Site Description Old Swanwick Lane is a residential road located within the settlement policy boundary in Sarisbury. The site is located on the west side of Old Swanwick Lane with residential properties to the north, east and south. The western boundary of the site abuts Bridge Road.

The site currently contains a detached bungalow which is set back from the front of the plot by between 20 and 30 metres. The dwelling faces north east and consequently is angled away from Old Swanwick Lane which runs from north to south. To the front of the dwelling there is a detached garage and a hard surfaced turning area. There are also some trees along the edge of the drive that partially screen the dwelling from view within the streetscene, although these trees are not subject to a Tree Preservation Order.

The land to the rear of the dwelling is mainly laid to lawn with dense conifer hedging along the rear boundary with Bridge Road. There are also some mature trees along the east boundary within the curtilage of Riverside, Bridge Road.

Description of Proposal The application seeks to alter and extend the existing bungalow to create a two-storey dwelling with two pitched roofed elements and a flat roofed link section. The main body of the house would have a gable front with a pitched roof of 8.1 meters in height to enable accommodation to be provided at first floor level. The remainder of the existing bungalow would have a flat roof which would link to the second element in the south of the site. The section in the south of the site would also have a pitched roof, however it would have a ridge height of 6.2 meters. The proposed pitched roof section in the south of the site would replace the existing detached garage with an integral garage. There would also be a home gym at ground floor level with annexe accommodation at first floor level for the applicant's Page 42 daughter. The dwelling would have a contemporary design appearance and the proposed material finish includes timber clad and rendered elevations with dark grey aluminium fenestration.

Policies The following policies apply to this application:

Approved Fareham Borough Core Strategy CS15 - Sustainable Development and Climate Change CS17 - High Quality Design CS5 - Transport Strategy and Infrastructure Development Sites and Policies DSP2 - Design DSP4 - Impact on Living Conditions Fareham Borough Local Plan Review DG4 - Site Characteristics

Relevant Planning History The following planning history is relevant:

P/14/0277/FP EXTENSION AND REFURBISHMENT OF EXISTING BUNGALOW TO CREATE FIRST FLOOR ACCOMMODATION, GARAGE EXTENSION WITH HABITABLE ACCOMMODATION ABOVE WITHDRAWN 02/06/2014 P/11/0973/FP ALTERATIONS TO BUNGALOW TO CREATE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ACCOMMODATION AND EXTEND ITS FOOTPRINT APPROVE 02/02/2012 P/11/0648/FP ALTERATION TO BUNGALOW TO CREATE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ACCOMMODATION PLUS FRONT AND REAR EXTENSIONS WITHDRAWN 07/10/2011 P/04/1237/OA Erection of Eight Flats following Demolition of Existing Dwelling (Outline Application) REFUSE 16/09/2004 Representations One letter of representation has been received from the neighbours (no. 314) raising the following issues:

-like the design of the house, however have concerns -the southern section would appear domineering when viewed from their home and garden -shading of garden, summerhouse and swimming pool area -loss of light to study -inaccuracies in the design and access statement -rear boundary of no. 314 is not correctly shown on the location plan

Consultations

Page 43 Director of Planning and Development (Highways) - No objection Planning Considerations - Key Issues The application needs to be considered in terms of the planning history of the site and the following key issues: 1. The principle of development 2. Effect on the character of the area 3. Effect on the amenities of neighbouring properties 4. Provision of annexe accommodation

1. Principle of Development Since the site is within the settlement policy boundary, the proposed alterations and extensions are therefore acceptable in principle. Furthermore, the Council has previously accepted the principle of extending the existing property to form a three-storey dwelling (planning permission P/11/0973/FP refers).

2. Effect on the character of the area As noted above, Old Swanwick Lane contains a mix of dwelling types of which the majority are two storey and of a traditional character. The dwellings are regularly spaced with a palette of materials consisting of red or brown brick, white render and brown tile hanging. The roof forms are hipped or pitched (with the exception of one cat slide) and predominantly consist of red or brown roof tiles.

The proposal would be of a contemporary design with pitched roofs to match those of the surrounding properties. The division of the living accommodation across two sections would prevent the dwelling from appearing overly dominant within the streetscene. It is of relevance to note that the overall mass and bulk of the proposed two storey dwelling would be significantly less than that of the previously approved three storey dwelling. The use of a flat roofed link section would provide a contrast to the pitched roof side sections and would ensure the overall design is coherent. The incorporation of an integral garage within the smaller pitched roofed section would appear more refined than retaining the existing detached garage. The proposed use of dark timber cladding and white render would complement the palette of materials within Old Swanwick Lane. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling would be partially visible from Bridge Road to the west, however is considered to be of an appropriate scale and design in the context of the 2-3 storey apartment block Swanwick Quay.

Overall the proposed development would be of a high-quality contemporary design which would complement and enhance the existing vernacular within Old Swanwick Lane and Bridge Road and would accord with the requirements of Policies CS17 and DSP2.

3. Effect on the amenities of neighbouring properties The proposed pitched roofed section in the north of the site would be visible from Swanwick Quay apartments to the north-west of the site, however, the increase in height is modest and would therefore not appear overbearing or result in a loss of available sunlight. There are two windows at first floor level of the north elevation, however the window serving the bathroom would be high level and the window serving the landing would be obscure glazed, therefore they would not result in a loss of privacy to the adjacent apartments. The proposed roof lights in the north-west facing roof slope would be high level and would therefore not result in a loss of privacy to the adjacent apartments.

The owners of no. 314 to the south east of the site have raised concerns regarding the Page 44 impact that the proposal would have on the amount of light available to their study. Notwithstanding the use of the room as a study rather than as a primary room such as a kitchen or living room, the proposed extension would be positioned to the north of the study and would therefore not have a significant impact on the amount of available sunlight.

The owners of no. 314 have also raised concerns regarding the impact that the proposed garage extension of the proposal would have on their front garden in particular on their swimming pool. They are concerned about the size and proximity of the garage and the impact it would have on their front garden and pool in terms of loss of outlook and the amount of available sunlight. No. 314 has an unorthodox shape of plot, such that the rear garden is comparatively small. The front garden has therefore been designed to provide additional private amenity space.

The proposed garage extension would be visible from the neighbour's garden, however it would not be so large as to appear overbearing. The front garden would also retain an open aspect on all of the remaining boundaries. The applicant has also agreed that planting can be provided between the garage and the boundary to soften its appearance and the position and type of planting can be secured via condition should members resolve to grant planning permission. The garage extension would be positioned to the south west of the swimming pool and may therefore result in a loss of available sunlight at certain times of the day, however the area directly south of the garden and pool would retain an open aspect which would ensure the area still benefitted from a high amount of sunlight and remained useable. There are no windows proposed in the garage's north east elevation, therefore it would not result in any overlooking of the no. 314's front garden. Permitted development rights for the addition of windows could be removed via condition to protect the future privacy of no. 314's front garden.

It is noted that the neighbouring resident has raised concern with the accuracy of the plans in relation to the depiction of the rear boundary of no. 314 Old Swanwick Lane, however, since the rear boundary of no. 314 does not abut the site, it's position is not, therefore, material to the consideration of this application.

4. Provision of annexe accommodation

The southern section of the house would contain a garage and home gym at ground floor level with living accommodation at first floor level. In the previously approved application, a balcony was proposed above the flat roof which would have provided a direct link between the first floor accommodation in the main house and the section above the garage, however the neighbour was concerned about a loss of privacy to his garden and the applicant agreed to remove this element of the proposal. The living accommodation above the garage therefore has one point of access to the main dwelling and this is at ground floor level through the lounge. It is considered that the proposed layout has a link between the main house and the annexe above the garage which would be sufficient to ensure it remains linked to the main house. The position of the annexe in relation to the main dwelling would not be suitable as an independent unit of accommodation as it would not have independent amenity space or provision for car parking and cycle/bin storage. The applicant has agreed that a condition can be included to ensure the use of the annexe is ancillary to that of the main house. Conclusion The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of the Development Plan as set out above. The proposed development would not harm the Page 45 amenities of neighbours nor would it detract from the appearance or character of the streetscene. Parking provision on site is considered adequate for the size of the extended dwelling. Other material considerations are not 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.

Recommendation PERMISSION: time, materials, in accordance with approved plans, remove permitted development rights for windows in the north east elevation of the garage/annexe, and the north west elevation of the main house, landing window in the north west elevation to remain obscure glazed and of a type not capable of being opened, bathroom window in the north west elevation to remain high level and obscure glazed, roof lights in the north west elevation to remain high level, details of planting between the garage and the boundary with no. 314 to be provided, garage to be retained for parking of vehicles, annexe to be used for purposes ancillary to the main dwelling,

Page 46

Page 47 Agenda Annex ZONE 2 - FAREHAM

Fareham North-West Fareham West Fareham North Fareham East Fareham South Reference Item No

P/14/0559/FP 27 NICHOLAS CRESCENT FAREHAM HAMPSHIRE PO15 5AH 6 FAREHAM ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO ROOF TO FORM FIRST PERMISSION NORTH FLOOR ACCOMMODATION AND THE PROVISION OF FRONT AND REAR DORMER WINDOWS

Page 48 Agenda Item 7(6) P/14/0559/FP FAREHAM NORTH MR IAN MCINTYRE AGENT: YOUR HOME PLANS LTD ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO ROOF TO FORM FIRST FLOOR ACCOMMODATION AND THE PROVISION OF FRONT AND REAR DORMER WINDOWS 27 NICHOLAS CRESCENT FAREHAM HAMPSHIRE PO15 5AH

Report By Graham Pretty (Ext.2526) Site Description The application site is located on the west side of the eastern arm of Nicholas Crescent and is a detached bungalow with a fully hipped, low pitched roof. The plot is significantly wider than is the average for Nicholas Crescent. The property has a detached garage to the rear with parking for at least three cars. Description of Proposal The existing bungalow has an 'L' shaped front elevation. The proposed development is to infill this area and to extend over the whole property with a new steeper pitched roof to provide first floor accommodation within the roofspace achieved. Two pitched roof dormer windows are proposed within the front elevation and a single dormer to the rear. The resultant dwelling would have four bedrooms. Policies The following policies apply to this application:

National Planning Policy Framework

Approved Fareham Borough Core Strategy CS17 - High Quality Design CS5 - Transport Strategy and Infrastructure Development Sites and Policies DSP2 - Design DSP4 - Impact on Living Conditions Fareham Borough Local Plan Review DG4 - Site Characteristics

Representations One letter has been received in support of the application.

Two letters have been received raising the following concerns:

- Existing small bungalow fits with the area - Concern over disruption during construction - Problems with parking

Page 49 Planning Considerations - Key Issues The key issues in this case are:

- The principle of development - Impact on the character of the area - Impact on neighbouring properties - Highways Principle of development The application site is located within the urban area of Fareham where the principle of extending existing residential properties may be accepted subject to design and impact. Impact on character of the area Nicholas Crescent is chacterised by a mix of single storey bungalows and chalet bungalows with hipped dormer windows. The property to the north is at a slightly higher level and has a significantly steeper roof pitch resulting in higher ridge. The proposed new roof to the application property would raise the ridge height by approximately 2.35m to 6.35m. The resultant building would be no higher than the adjoining property.

There are numerous examples of properties with dormer windows to front and rear. The application property is unusual within the locality due to its width and low design. As a result of the proposal it is possible to insert two dormers in its front elevation. However, this is not considered to be out of keeping with the character of the area, indeed the resultant building will be arguably more in keeping than the existing. Impact on neighbouring properties The nearest property lies to the northwest and is some 5.3m away and set at a higher level. There is a side door and a secondary ground floor kitchen window on the elevation facing the application site. The side window looks out towards the gap between the application dwelling and its detached garage. With the rise in levels to this property from the application site it is not considered that the amenities of the neighbour are adversely impacted.

The nearest properties to the rear are 15m and 22m away. The rear facing windows are to serve ensuite bathrooms only. The amenities of the occupiers of these properties would not, therefore, be harmed. Highways One of the objections has raised issue with car parking claiming that spaces used by a lodger at the site are taking parking away from other residents. On street parking is not a matter which the Council can control. It can only consider the level of on site parking available. In this case there is a garage but the drive is more than 15m long giving space for three vehicles to park off road. This is up to the adopted standard for a four bedroomed property as proposed in this case.

Recommendation PERMISSION:

Details of Materials; No further windows at first floor in the rear elevation; obscure glazing to rear first floor windows (inc. rooflights) and fixed to 1.7m above internal floor height; hours of construction work

Background Papers Page 50 P/14/0559/FP

Page 51

Page 52 Agenda Annex ZONE 3 - EASTERN WARDS

Portchester West Hill Head Stubbington Portchester East Reference Item No

P/14/0383/FP 1 HILL VIEW ROAD FAREHAM HAMPSHIRE PO16 8DB 7 PORTCHESTER ERECTION OF REAR EXTENSION WITH ACCOMMODATION PERMISSION WEST ABOVE, BUILD UP HIPPED ROOF TO CROPPED GABLE WITH FRONT DORMER WINDOW AND REPLACEMENT DETACHED GARAGE WITH COVERED AREA P/14/0458/FP CAMS RIDGE NURSING HOME 7 CHARLEMONT DRIVE 8 PORTCHESTER FAREHAM HAMPSHIRE PO16 8RT PERMISSION WEST CHANGES TO EXISTING CARE HOME TO INCREASE CAPACITY FROM 46 TO 51 BEDROOMS INCLUDING SINGLE & TWO STOREY EXTENSIONS, INTRODUCTION OF ANGLED WINDOW TO EXISTING BUILDING AT FIRST FLOOR LEVEL IN WESTERN ELEVATION, CHANGES TO EXTERNAL GROUND LEVELS ON SOUTHERN SIDE OF ENLARGED BUILDING TO PROVIDE RAISED TERRACE AND PATHWAY, RECONFIGURATION AND ENLARGEMENT OF EXISTING CAR PARKING AREAS AND ERECTION OF THREE STORAGE SHEDS P/14/0488/FP 18 DOWN END ROAD FAREHAM HAMPSHIRE PO16 8RG 9 PORTCHESTER PROPOSED NEW ACCESS WAY, CLOSE BOARDED FENCE AT PERMISSION WEST THE FRONT BOUNDARY AND TIMBER PANEL GATE, HARD SURFACING AREA AT THE FRONT AND A TIMBER FRAMED CAR PORT P/14/0537/FP 32 MAYS LANE STUBBINGTON FAREHAM HAMPSHIRE PO14 10 STUBBINGTON 2EW PERMISSION SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING SENSORY ROOM

Page 53 Agenda Item 7(7) P/14/0383/FP PORTCHESTER WEST MR P JACKSON AGENT: IAN MARSHALL ERECTION OF REAR EXTENSION WITH ACCOMMODATION ABOVE, BUILD UP HIPPED ROOF TO CROPPED GABLE WITH FRONT DORMER WINDOW AND REPLACEMENT DETACHED GARAGE WITH COVERED AREA 1 HILL VIEW ROAD FAREHAM HAMPSHIRE PO16 8DB

Report By Arleta Miszewska ext. 4666 Site Description The application site is located within the urban area and comprises the residential curtilage of this semi-detached dwelling.

The dwelling is single storey in scale and in terms of its external appearance, however it has a bedroom at first floor level within the existing roof space. To the rear is a conservatory. A single detached garage is located to the side and rear of the house.

The site slopes north to south. Description of Proposal Permission is sought to replace the existing rear conservatory with a rear extension, roof alteration from hipped to a cropped gable end, front and side dormer windows to increase the floor space of the existing accommodation at first floor level.

The proposal would result in the extension of a lounge and a kitchen on the ground floor and the provision of a larger bedroom and additional bedroom and a shower room within the roof space at first floor level. The development would increase the overall number of bedrooms from three to four. A julliette balcony is proposed in the rear elevation facing down the rear garden.

Also proposed is a detached garage/covered area in the same approximate location as the existing detached garage.

Policies The following policies apply to this application:

Approved Fareham Borough Core Strategy CS17 - High Quality Design Approved SPG/SPD EXTDG - Extension Design Guide (1993) RCCPS - Residential Car and Cycle Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document, Development Sites and Policies DSP2 - Design DSP4 - Impact on Living Conditions

Relevant Planning History Page 54 The following planning history is relevant:

P/13/0999/FP ERECTION OF REAR EXTENSION WITH ACCOMMODATION ABOVE AND REPLACEMENT DETACHED GARAGE WITH COVERED AREA REFUSE 13/01/2014 Representations Four letters have been received in relation to the proposal as originally submitted raising the following concerns:

- Overlooking and noise from the west facing dormer window into the adjoining house, - Practical implications of construction of roof valley between dwellings, - Overlooking of no. 29 from the proposed window inserted in the eastern roof slope, - Overshadowing of no. 29, - The size and bulk of the extension will effect the character of the area and the value of no. 29, - Proposed windows will overlook no. 27, - Overshadowing of no. 27, - Design will be out of context, - Sketches have no dimensions, scale bar and are wrongly titled and incorrect, - The difference in levels will exacerbate the impacts of the body and mass of the extension (1 in 10 slope), - The presence of Public Sewer Manhole within the application site, - The existing garage has got an asbestos roof - demolition would create a health hazard, - Loss of view of sun, sunlight to no. 25, - The proposal is against the original rules for the original estate.

The neighbours have been notified of the amended plans. At the time of writing this report, two further letters of comment had been received raising the following points:

- It is noted the wall has been cropped and the window removed, however the overall size and bulk will be even closer than 22 metres; - The slope stops close to the southern extension; Dore Avenue slopes continually from Hill View Road to the Hillway; - The new plan shows a double door and balcony; - Public sewer postion to be confirmed by Water Board/Building Regulations and consideration given to its maintenance; - Concern due to demolition of garage which has an asbestos roof; - Extension is out of context with the area due to the size and scale, particularly at its junction of Hill View Road with Dore Avenue; - This application is still contrary to Policy CS17.

If any further comments are received they will be reported in an update to Members.

Planning Considerations - Key Issues i) Introduction

In 2013, the Officers refused planning permission (P/13/0999/FP refers) for the erection of a rear extension with accommodation above at first floor level including the provision of two side dormer windows set within the east and west roof planes. Also proposed was a detached garage/covered area in the same approximate location as the existing detached garage, but extending further down the garden. Page 55 The application was refused for the following reasons: a) the proposed extension would be an unsightly and visually obstrusive form of development which, by virtue of its scale, bulk and design, particularly the excessive length, bulk and flat roof design of the proposed flat roof dormer, would detract from the appearance of the dwelling and be harmful to the character of the streetscene; b) the first floor windows located within the eastern elevation of the proposed extension would give rise to the unacceptable overlooking of the adjacent property at 27 Dore Avenue to the detriment of the privacy of its occupants.

The current application has been submitted in order to address the previous reason for refusal. The dormer window within the eastern elevation of the rear extension has been removed and there are no overlooking windows.

This submission originally consisted of the erection of a rear extension with accommodation above, building up the hipped roof to gable end and replacement of a detached garage with covered area. The proposal included a high level window within the eastern roof slope.

Following neighbour consultation the proposal has been amended in order to seek to overcome some of the concerns raised. The main alterations include:

- the removal of the high level window from the eastern gable wall, - the proposed gable end roof has been cropped, - the front dormer window has been centered within the roof slope. ii) Residential amenities, including privacy, outlook and overshadowing

The proposed design incorporates two dormer windows, one at the front and one to the western side of the rear extension. Concerns have been raised by the adjoining neighbour relating to over overlooking from the proposed side dormer window. This dormer would have two windows: one obscure glazed serving a shower room and one high level secondary bedroom window. Officers are satisfied that, subject to these windows being conditioned, this proposal would not compromise the privacy of the adjoining neighbour.

The neighbour at 29 Dore Avenue to the east raised concerns relating to a high level window proposed within the eastern gable. The removal of the window has overcome the neighbours concerns.

As to the outlook and light, the adjacent semi-detached pair has been already extended to the rear and therefore would not be affected by this proposal. Concerns have been raised over loss of outlook from and overshadowing of the properties located to the east of the application site, at nos. 29, 27 and 25 Dore Avenue. The proposed rear extension would be sited approximately 18 metres away from the property at no. 27 and 25 metres from the property at no. 25. The proposed roof extension would be 17 metres away from the property at no. 29. This relationship has been improved as the applicant has reduced the bulk of the roof extension by designing a cropped gable. Notwithstanding the fact that the property is sited on higher land, given these separation distances together with the presence of intervening structures within the rear gardens of these properties, Officers are satisfied that this proposal would cause no demonstrable harm to the adjacent properties in terms of outlook and light.

Page 56 iii) Design and impact on the appearance of the street scene

The nearby area is characterised by the presence of detached and semi-detached dwellings of varying architectural styles, sizes and heights, including single storey bungalows and two storey dwellinghouses.

The application site is a single storey dwelling with accommodation at first floor level. The proposed additions would maintain its single storey external appearance. Notwithstanding this, the increased floor space within the first floor level would not be out of context, given the adjoining neighbour's roof extension and the existence of two storey dwellings in this area.

As to the proposed roof extension and a front dormer window, given the number of front dormer windows in the area and the wide variety of roof designs, this proposal would not be out of context. iv) Other matters

The proposal indicates that three car parking spaces would be provided within the residential curtilage. This level of parking provision meets that expected for a four bedroom house as set out in the Council's adopted Residential Car & Cycle Parking Standards SPD.

Whilst the practical implications of the roof valley between the two adjoining dwellings at no. 1 and no. 3 is acknowledged, this is a private matter between neighbours. Furthermore the removal of hazardous substances from the site would be controlled by other legislation.

The proposed garage and covered area is not considered to be harmful to the appearance or character of the street scene nor is it found to be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbours. The garage/covered area was considered acceptable previously. v) Conclusion

When compared with the proposal refused in 2013, this submission offers a development of reduced scale and improved design. In officers opinion these changes overcome the previous reasons for refusal.

Recommendation PERMISSION: Standard conditions (time, in accordance with approved plans, materials matching existing); remove PD rights, no windows at first floor level within the eastern elevation; obscure glaze/high level windows in western elevation of rear extension.

Page 57

Page 58 Agenda Item 7(8) P/14/0458/FP PORTCHESTER WEST LARCH NURSING HOME LTD AGENT: WARD ASSOCIATES CONSULTING LTD CHANGES TO EXISTING CARE HOME TO INCREASE CAPACITY FROM 46 TO 51 BEDROOMS INCLUDING SINGLE & TWO STOREY EXTENSIONS, INTRODUCTION OF ANGLED WINDOW TO EXISTING BUILDING AT FIRST FLOOR LEVEL IN WESTERN ELEVATION, CHANGES TO EXTERNAL GROUND LEVELS ON SOUTHERN SIDE OF ENLARGED BUILDING TO PROVIDE RAISED TERRACE AND PATHWAY, RECONFIGURATION AND ENLARGEMENT OF EXISTING CAR PARKING AREAS AND ERECTION OF THREE STORAGE SHEDS CAMS RIDGE NURSING HOME 7 CHARLEMONT DRIVE FAREHAM HAMPSHIRE PO16 8RT

Report By Richard Wright Site Description Cams Ridge Care Home is a two storey building located within the urban area providing residential accommodation and care facilities for elderly people.

The building in its original form is believed to have been constructed in the late Victorian period and has since been extended in various ways most noticably in the form of two storey extensions within the north-west and southern parts of the site. The building is surrounded by car parking areas to its immediate north and east with 'grass-crete' surfacing providing overspill parking on its southern side. A garden area lies in the western and south-western parts of the site and there is a central 'courtyard' area for residents to use.

Access to the property is via Charlemont Drive, a private road leading northwards from Cams Hill. Charlemont Drive has a steep incline from its junction with Cams Hill and the care home is on significantly higher ground than the houses to the south. Three houses are accessed further along Charlemont Drive to the west (nos. 3, 4 & 5). A further dwelling, 8 Charlemont Drive, is accessed through the car park of the care home and lies to the immediate north-east of the site.

Numerous mature trees line the site's southern boundary with Charlemont Drive.

Description of Proposal The application originally proposed extensions to increase the capacity of the care home from 46 to 58 bedrooms.

The application has been subsequently amended and now proposes an increase to 51 bedrooms involving the following works:

- An infill extension to the eastern side of the building - A two storey extension to the south-western corner of the building - The introduction of an angled window to the existing building on its western elevation at first floor level - Changes to the external ground levels on the southern side of the building to provide a raised terrace and pathway Page 59 - Reconfiguration of the existing car parking areas including an enlargement of the car parking area to the south of the building - Three storage sheds located on the northern side of the building

Policies The following policies apply to this application:

Approved Fareham Borough Core Strategy CS5 - Transport Strategy and Infrastructure CS6 - The Development Strategy CS15 - Sustainable Development and Climate Change CS16 - Natural Resources and Renewable Energy CS17 - High Quality Design Development Sites and Policies DSP2 - Design DSP4 - Impact on Living Conditions Fareham Borough Local Plan Review DG4 - Site Characteristics

Relevant Planning History The following planning history is relevant:

P/02/1383/VC Relief From Condition 6c of P/99/0972/FP (Provision of a 1.8 Metre Fence on the Western Boundary) PERMISSION 12/12/2002 P/99/0972/FP Erection of Two Storey Extension PERMISSION 10/02/2000 P/92/0679/FP TWO STOREY EXTENSION AND SUN LOUNGE WITH THE RETENTION OF 8 BEDSIT ROOMS TO THE FIRST FLOOR NORTH WING PERMISSION 19/10/1992 Representations Two letters have been received in objection to the application with the following comments:

- There are current parking problems - Builders and delivery vehicles will add to the parking problems - There appears to be no provision of additional car parking spaces within the site - I have concerns related to the increase in staff and visitor vehicular activity and parking overspill from the site - Has there been any consideration of commercial vehicular activity in the site, such as HGVs, ambulances, hospital transport vehicles? - HGVs have previously caused damage to trees and fences - The method of supplying electricity to the street furniture along Charlemont Drive is dangerous - The boundary is incorrectly drawn

Page 60 A further letter has been received from the neighbour living at 5 Charlemont Drive with the following comments:

- I would expect a condition to ensure no windows could be formed in the west elevation of the existing building - The transport asessment / parking survey appears to ignore the fact that cars from the care home often park in Charlemont Drive causing an obstruction

Consultations Director of Planning & Development (Highways) -

Following changes to the scale of the proposed extension and to the layout and number of car parking spaces and the provision of staff travel data, it is considered that the on-site proposals are now satisfactory.

Director of Community (Environmental Health) -

Due to the close proximity of the care home to the railway, bedrooms with new windows in the western elevation should have a high specification of glazing to reduce the level of external noise sufficiently and those rooms should be equipped with mechanical ventilation so that it is not necessary to open the windows to ventilate the room. A planning condition could be used to require the applicant to provide details of those measures and to ensure that they are put in place before the rooms are occupied. Planning Considerations - Key Issues This application seeks to upgrade the accommodation and facilities of this residential care home and increase the capacity from 46 to 51 bedrooms. The main planning issues relate to the design and appearance of the building, how the proposals may affect the living conditions of neighbours and future residents of the care home and the level of parking provision within the site. i) Design and appearance

The existing care home building consists of the original late-Victorian two-storey house and later extensions at a similar scale but more modern in appearance.

The proposed two storey addition to the building forms the main piece of development in this application which would extend the care home into the south-western part of the site. It would create a central courtyard area as well as enabling the internal layout of the building to be based around a circular corridor. Officers understand from the applicant that both of these are design features important to improving the operation of the building as a care home.

The applicant's agent has worked with Officers to improve the standard of the originally proposed design. The result is a revised proposal which has reduced the amount of floor space proposed to be added to the care home and which has incorporated high quality design features such as a two-storey glazed link section and traditional style bay windows. Officers consider that the proposal will improve the appearance of the care home building and will have no harmful effect on the character of the surrounding area.

The proposal meets the design related criteria of Policy CS17 of the adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy. Page 61 ii) Living conditions of neighbours

The revised application proposes that some of the windows in the western elevation of the existing building and the two storey extension will be angled in order to prevent any overlooking of the nearest neighbouring property to the west, 5 Charlemont Drive. A tall hedgerow runs along the party boundary however the use of the angled windows ensures that, should the hedgerow be reduced in height in the future, the privacy of those nighbours would not be materially reduced. Other first floor windows in the western facing elevation would look out onto the frontage of the neighbouring property.

The dwelling at 8 Charlemont Drive is accessed through the car park of the care home and lies close by to the north-east of the building. The proposed changes will facilitate an increase in the care home's capacity however this is unlikely to have any material effect on the living conditions of those neighbours.

There would be no materially harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbours arising from the proposed development. iii) Living conditions of future occupants

Officers have worked with the applicant's agent to reduce the footprint of the proposed extensions to the building and ensure that a good size of outside space is retained for use by the residents. The proposal will create a courtyard area within the centre of the building which will offer the care home an area of practical outdoor amenity space which can be easily managed. The proposed glazed link section of the two storey extension will not only connect two ends of the building but also provide a direct through route from the courtyard to the new raised terrace and the garden around the edge of the site.

A railway line runs to the immediate north of the site. The advice received from Environmental Health Officers is that suitable sound attenuation measures should be incorporated in those bedrooms on the western side of the extension.

The application is acceptable in that it satisfactorily takes account of the living conditions for future occupants. iv) Car parking and highway safety

The submitted survey drawings indicate that the site currently provides parking space for 21 cars. Several of these spaces however are impractical for everyday normal use and are difficult to access. The proposed reconfiguration of the car park improves the layout of the car park to the north of the building which staff members ordinarily use whilst extending and formalising the overspill car park to the south. The plans show a net increase of two parking spaces making 23 spaces. Unlike the current parking arrangement all of the spaces would be accessible so that they could be used by staff and visitors to the care home.

The application is accompanied by a transport assessment which offers a breakdown of parking requirements for the care home. The care home currently has a maximum of 27 staff on duty at any one time. The transport assessment provides details of a survey carried out with existing staff members which shows that just under half of the staff travel to work by car (48%). If on average 13 members of staff travel to the site then 8 spaces remain for visitors to park in. Page 62 The proposal would increase capacity at the home so that, based on a pro-rata increase in employees, there would be a maximum of 30 staff members on site at any one time with 14 - 15 of those travelling by car. The newly revised and enlarged car park would then provide 8 - 9 spaces for visitor parking. This level of proposed parking is considered sufficient for the likely demand created by the care home once extended. Officers are therefore satisfied that the proposal meets the expectations of Policy CS17 of the adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy in regards to providing an appropriate level of parking. v) Other matters

Various large mature trees lie within the site close to the southern boundary adjacent to Charlemont Drive itself. It is proposed to fell two trees, a cedar tree which was badly damaged in storms at the start of the year and a poor quality eucalyptus tree. Other trees would not be adversely affected by the development. vi) Conclusion

The proposed development will enhance the appearance of the building whilst increasing the capacity and improving the facilities available at the care home. Appropriate outdoor amenity space will be provided for future residents to use and sound attenuation measures will ensure noise from the nearby railway would not affect the living conditions in certain bedrooms. There would be no material harm to the living conditions of neighbours and the level and arrangement of car parking provision within the site is sufficient to meet the demands of the extended care home.

The proposal accords with Policies CS5, CS6 & CS17 of the adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy and Policies DSP2 & DSP4 of the emerging Fareham Borough Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies.

Recommendation PERMISSION: Implementation within 3 years; list of approved documents; obscure glaze and fix shut to 1.7m above internal floor level norh west facing window pane in first floor bay window on west elevation; sound attenuation scheme for bedrooms with new windows in west elevation; materials to match existing; tree protection; car parking improvements to be carried out before extensions brought into use and level of car parking thereafter retained; limit number of residents to 51; BREEAM standard; details of car parking provision for contractors during construction.

Background Papers P/14/0458/FP, P/02/1383/VC, P/99/0972/FP, P/92/0679/FP

Page 63

Page 64 Agenda Item 7(9) P/14/0488/FP PORTCHESTER WEST MR M O'DONNELL AGENT: WHOLE CONCEPTS PROPOSED NEW ACCESS WAY, CLOSE BOARDED FENCE AT THE FRONT BOUNDARY AND TIMBER PANEL GATE, HARD SURFACING AREA AT THE FRONT AND A TIMBER FRAMED CAR PORT 18 DOWN END ROAD FAREHAM HAMPSHIRE PO16 8RG

Report By Graham Pretty (Ext. 2526) Amendments As amended by plans received 4 July 2014. Site Description No.18 Down End Road is a modern, two storey detached dwelling set 41m back from the highway. A double garage to the front of the dwelling has been converted to accommodation. The site encompasses an area of land to the rear of Nos. 10 and 12 Down End Road. The existing access is located on the north side of the site and also serves Nos.12, 14 and 16 Down End Road.

Description of Proposal The development (as amended) involves the construction of a three bay car port building adjacent to the north boundary with No.20 Down End Road and the relocation of the existing access point to the southern side of the road frontage. The car port is proposed to be constructed of timber with a fully hipped, plain tile roof. Policies The following policies apply to this application:

Approved Fareham Borough Core Strategy CS17 - High Quality Design CS5 - Transport Strategy and Infrastructure Development Sites and Policies DSP2 - Design DSP4 - Impact on Living Conditions Fareham Borough Local Plan Review DG4 - Site Characteristics

Relevant Planning History The following planning history is relevant:

P/12/0895/FP ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING REFUSE 24/12/2012 Representations One letter of objection has been received on the amended plans from the adjacent property

Page 65 to the north, objecting on the grounds of the loss of light and outlook from a bay window facing the site. The window serves a well used living room. There would appear to be no reason why the car port could not be sited on the opposite side of the site.

Consultations Director of Planning and Development (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions Planning Considerations - Key Issues The key issues in this case are:

- The impact upon the character and Appearance of the Locality - The impact upon the Amenities of the Adjecent Property - Highways

The impact upon the character and Appearance of the Locality -

The existing dwelling is set well back from the highway and is therefore not prominent in the street scene. Planning permission was refused on 2013, and dismissed on appeal, for a dwelling fronting Down End Road south of the position of the current access. The land subject of that appeal is now part of the curtilage of No.18. This application is intended to make more efficient use of the enlarged frontage part of the site by providing parking for the dwelling to replace the converted garage. The proposal also makes simplified and secure access for Nos.12, 14 and 16 by providing a straight access behind a recessed electronic gate. The frontage to Downend Road, which is currently open would be enclosed by fencing, 1.2m high. The fence, whilst a new feature, will be set back from the actual carriageway and hard boundary treatments are not uncommon in the street scene with low brick walls opposite the site and a closed board timber fence around a garden at the junction of Downend Road and The Thicket due north of the site. The application drawings indicate that the fence would be set behind a new hedgerow however this hedge appears to be outside of the application site on the highway verge such that this would be outside the condtol of the applicant.

The new car port, set behind the frontage screening is a low structure, only 2.15m to the eaves with a ridge height of 3.85m. It will sit comfortably in the street scene mirroring an existing garage serving No. 12.

The impact upon the Amenities of the Adjecent Property -

The originally submitted plans were for a four bay car port with gabled side elevations. The location was proposed directly in front of the existing side bay window being the only light to a well used living room to No.20 Down End Road to the north. Following negotiations with the applicant, the amended plans have been submitted which have reduced the scale of the proposed building such that the neighbouring bay window retains a significant portion of its outlook. The eaves of the proposed building are approximately level with the lower sill of the window; the revised size of the car port means that there will continue to be outlook to the south and southeast and outlook to the southwest will be much improved with the roof being hipped to the south and also to the west.

The neighbour maintains that the loss of outlook and light is still significant and objects on these grounds.

Highways - Page 66 The layout has been considered from a functional and highway safety perspective and is considered to be acceptable subject to such matters as gradient and visibility being conditioned. However, for the reasons outlined above this objection is not supported. Conclusion It is considered that the revised plans are a significant improvement to the original submission. The harm to the amenity of the neighbour is not felt to be sufficient to recommend refusal. Recommendation PERMISSION:

Development as submitted plans; provision of parking and turning as submitted; car ports to remain as car ports; gradient of drive; visibility splays.

Notes for Information Contact Hampshire Highways. Background Papers P/14/0488/FP

Page 67

Page 68 Agenda Item 7(10) P/14/0537/FP STUBBINGTON MR MICHAEL FORZANI AGENT: DAVID SAYER & ASSOCIATES LTD SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING SENSORY ROOM 32 MAYS LANE STUBBINGTON FAREHAM HAMPSHIRE PO14 2EW

Report By Brendan Flynn X 4665 Introduction This application is reported to committee in accordance with the Council's scheme of delegation.

Site Description The application site comprises a detached bungalow set within a generous plot on the west side of Mays Lane. The property is occupied by five adults with learning disabilities who are cared for by three carers.To the rear of the property is a former single storey detached garage that has been converted into a sensory room.

The area characterised by detached bungalows set on good sized plots strung along an informal road layout.

Description of Proposal The applicant proposes to increase the length of the existing sensory room by 1.54 metres to provide a wc/shower facility.The existing facility is within the former garage which has retained the original up and over garage door.

Policies The following policies apply to this application:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Planning Practice Guidance

Approved Fareham Borough Core Strategy CS15 - Sustainable Development and Climate Change CS17 - High Quality Design Development Sites and Policies DPS1 - Sustainable Development DSP2 - Design Fareham Borough Local Plan Review DG4 - Site Characteristics

Relevant Planning History There is no relevant planning history. Representations

Page 69 Two lettesr of objection have been received from 32A & 34 Mays Lane -Property is two small for the occupants -Insufficient parking -There was no planning permission to convert the garage -Flooding -Unacceptable noise levels Consultations None Planning Considerations - Key Issues The key issues in the determination of the application are: - The principle of development - Impact on the character of the area - Residential Amenity - Parking & drainage

THE PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT: The application site is located within the defined settlement boundary as delineated on the inset map of the Borough Local Plan Review. The principle of development is therefore acceptable subject to other relevant matters being duly considered.

IMPACT UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA: As described previously the area characterised by detached bungalows set on good sized plots.The proposal will extend forward the existing sensory room that is set at the rear of the property by 1.54 metres. The proposal is acceptable without demonstrable harm to the character of the area.

NEIGHBOURING AMENITY: The dwelling is already in use as a care home for five adults with learning disabilities. There is no proposed increase to the number of occupants or carers attending on a day to day basis.The existing use of the building as a sensory room is accepted as incidental to the main property. Given there is no significant increase in the use of the site or the number of residents, the site remains as one planning unit such that the potential noise from the proposed extension is not considered to cause significant additional harm to the amenity of the neighbours properties over and above the existing use.The bulk of the proposed extension brings the extension closer 34 Mays Lane, however the proposal is single storey and an acceptable degree of separation remains between the properties to mitigate the impact of the proposal.

PARKING AND DRAINAGE The proposal is for a shower room/WC and would not impact on the existing parking on site. It is proposed that the drainage for the new shower room/WC will be connected into the existing foul sewer

CONCLUSION The proposal is acceptable for permission without demonstrable harm to the character of the area or the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Recommendation PERMISSION: Materials to match.

Page 70

Page 71 Agenda Item 7(11) PLANNING APPEALS The following list details the current situation regarding new and outstanding planning appeals and decisions.

CURRENT

ENF/13/0009 Appellant: Mr T. Beal Kensington Homes Ltd Site: 68 High Street Fareham Date Lodged: 02 January 2014 Reason for Appeal: An appeal against the issue of an enforcement notice by Fareham Borough Council. It relates to the erection of a fence to the rear of the building built between the adjoining boundary walls (burgage walls) to contain the rear of the site in its totality.

P/13/0859/LU Appellant: MR L DUNKASON Site: 46 Glen Road Sarisbury Southampton Hants SO31 7FF Decision Maker: Officers Delegated Powers Recommendation: REFUSE Council's Decision: REFUSE Date Lodged: 18 July 2014 Reason for Appeal: USE OF DETACHED ANNEXE AS AN INDEPENDENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT (CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR AN EXISTING USE)

P/13/0919/FP Appellant: RYAN ALLEN & CAROLINE ALLEN Site: 247 Titchfield Road Titchfield PO14 3EP Decision Maker: Committee Recommendation: REFUSE Council's Decision: REFUSE Date Lodged: 24 June 2014 Reason for Appeal: NEW DWELLING WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND DRIVEWAY

Page 72 PLANNING APPEALS The following list details the current situation regarding new and outstanding planning appeals and decisions.

CURRENT

P/13/1121/OA Appellant: VILLAGE GREEN PLC Site: The Navigator - Land Adjacent - Swanwick Lane Swanwick Southampton Decision Maker: Officers Delegated Powers Recommendation: REFUSE Council's Decision: REFUSE Date Lodged: 17 June 2014 Reason for Appeal: ERECTION OF 37NO DWELLINGS TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS AND PARKING FOR EXISTING PLAY AREA (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

P/14/0056/CU Appellant: MR ROY HOLT Site: 68 High Street Fareham Hampshire PO16 7BB Decision Maker: Committee Recommendation: REFUSE Council's Decision: REFUSE Date Lodged: 12 June 2014 Reason for Appeal: CHANGE OF USE FROM CLASS A3 (RESTAURANT) TO CLASS C3 (DWELLING HOUSE)

P/14/0245/FP Appellant: MR & MRS HUMPHREYS Site: 2 Irvine Close Fareham Hampshire PO16 7QB Decision Maker: Officers Delegated Powers Recommendation: REFUSE Council's Decision: REFUSE Date Lodged: 10 June 2014 Reason for Appeal: SINGLE STOREY FRONT, SIDES & REAR EXTENSIONS

DECISIONS

Page 73 PLANNING APPEALS The following list details the current situation regarding new and outstanding planning appeals and decisions.

DECISIONS

P/13/0834/FP Appellant: MR BRIAN ROGERS Site: Hill Park Baptist Church 217 Gudge Heath Lane Fareham PO15 6PZ Decision Maker: Committee Recommendation: APPROVE Council's Decision: APPROVE Date Lodged: 26 February 2014 Reason for Appeal: Demolition of Existing Building and Erection of Replacement Church Buildings

The Appeal is against the decision to impose condition 13. The premises shall be used for, or in connection with, public worship or religious instruction and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class D1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

Decision: DISMISSED Decision Date: 10 June 2014

P/13/1100/FP Appellant: MISS CATHERINE BENNET Site: 358 Brook Lane Sarisbury Green Southampton SO31 7DP Decision Maker: Officers Delegated Powers Recommendation: REFUSE Council's Decision: REFUSE Date Lodged: 17 April 2014 Reason for Appeal: ERECTION OF FRONT PORCH AND TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION Decision: PART ALLOWED Decision Date: 04 June 2014

Page 74