Cttee: 7 August 2013 Item No. 1 Application No: BDB/77559 For

Cttee: 7 August 2013 Item No. 1

Application no: BDB/77559 For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address 55 Sheridan Crescent, Baughurst, Tadley, RG26 5HQ Proposal Change of use of dwelling (use class C3) to a mixed use of dwelling (use class C3) and bed and breakfast (use class C1) and retention of attached timber store (Retrospective)

Registered: 25 February 2013 Expiry Date: 15 July 2013 Type of Retention of Case Officer: Claire Cook Application: Development 01256 845444 (Section 73A) Applicant: Ms Merrick Agent: Ward: Baughurst And Ward Member(s): Cllr Michael Bound Tadley North Cllr Graham Round

Parish: TADLEY CP OS Grid Reference: 458407 162154

Recommendation: the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions listed at the end of this report.

Reasons for Approval

1. The development is of an appropriate design and relates to surrounding development in a sympathetic manner and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

2. The development does not result in an undue loss of privacy or cause undue overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing or noise and disturbance impacts to neighbouring properties and as such complies with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

3. The development (subject to the proposed conditions) would not cause an adverse impact on highway safety and adequate parking would be provided to serve the proposed development. As such the proposal complies with Saved Policy A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

General comments

This application has been brought to the Development Control Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation because of the number of objections which have been received and the Officer's recommendation for approval.

Amended plans (received 26/06/2013)

 Existing and proposed site layout plans amended to be to scale and to show a revised parking layout. 1 of 69

 Proposed front elevation drawing amended to show retention of garage door. Proposed ground floor plan amended to remove internal insulation within garage.

Planning Policy

The application site is located within the Settlement Policy Boundary of Tadley. The site also lies within the inner zone for the Detailed Emergency Planning Zone (DEPZ) surrounding the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE).

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Section 2 (Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres) Section 7 (Requiring Good Design)

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

Policy D4 (Sub-division and loss of dwellings) Policy D5 (Residential and other development within settlements) Policy EC11 (Hotels) Policy E1 (Development Control) Policy A1 (Car Parking)

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance

Residential Parking Standards Non-residential Parking Standards Tadley Village Design Statement.

Description of Site

The host dwelling is a detached property located within a residential area consisting of a series of cul-de-sacs. The application site is located off a private driveway serving three properties (including the host dwelling). The host dwelling has an integral garage with a driveway in front, there is also an area of grassed front garden. The property is currently being used unlawfully as a bed and breakfast and a single storey timber store has been erected on the south-east elevation of the host dwelling without the benefit of planning permission.

Proposal

The retrospective change of use from a dwelling (Class Use C3) to a mixed use as a dwelling (Class C3) and bed and breakfast (B&B) (Class C1). The property has three bedrooms and the application proposes to regularise the use of two bedrooms for B&B purposes and retain one of the bedrooms for residential use.

It is proposed to extend the size of the front driveway to create additional parking to serve the use. The amendments propose the creation of three parking spaces on an external driveway and the retention of one space within the integral garage.

The application also proposes the retention of an attached timber store on the south-east elevation of the property. The store measures 3.1m in width, 4.9m in depth and 2.8m in height (these measurements do not include the overhang of the roof). The store is only 2 of 69 accessible from the rear garden and not from within the host property. The store is constructed of timber with a timber and felt roof.

Consultations

Tadley Town Council: Objection to initial and amended plans.

"Object. This type of business is totally inappropriate in this area and could set a precedent also Councillors object to retrospective applications. Change of use of the garage to residential use will increase parking problems which will also be exacerbated by the parking issues generated by this type of business. The timber shed should not be used for accommodation. If approved restrictions regarding noise outdoors at night from regular al fresco dining should be enforced. Neighbours are already experiencing problems with late night noise and inconsiderate parking. Residents also appear to be running another business (Horizon Electrical Services) from the property. A site visit is requested at the appropriate time."

Highway Officer: No objection (subject to conditions).

Environmental Health Officer: No objection.

Hampshire County Council Emergency Planner: Comments awaited.

ONR: Do not advise against the development.

Public Observations

7 letters of objection received to initial consultation raising the following concerns:

 No objection in principle to a B&B but concerned about the limited parking and the potential for overspill parking onto Sheridan Crescent and associated Closes'.  The property is located off a private driveway and it unlikely this could absorb cars without causing difficulties to immediate neighbours.  There are limited options for cars to park safely along Sheridan Crescent and these are already oversubscribed by neighbouring local properties.  No objection to B&B or proposed changes but concerned about increased noise and limited parking on neighbouring properties.  Plans show garage is proposed to be converted.  Noise and fumes created by parking and moving cars could cause an issue to neighbouring properties bedroom windows.  The residents and visitors to the application site regularly park on the surrounding roads.  Not convinced that the proposed extension of the driveway would alleviate parking problems.  Applicant is also running an electrical business from the site and employees leave their vehicles on the roads all day and travel to work in one vehicle.  The previous application (BDB/77122) was withdrawn on the day of the decision.  Time delay between withdrawal of previous application and current application.  B&B has been running for considerable time and during this time there has been increased noise.  Garage is not currently used for parking and only big enough for one vehicle.  Applicants existing driveway very rarely used for two vehicles.

3 of 69

 Pictures of parking issues submitted.  Adding commercial parking to existing parking issues would create additional problems.  A residential housing estate is not the place for a B&B.  Approving a change of use to a B&B would set a dangerous precedent.  The applicants did not approach neighbours before undertaking the venture.  Website states that three bedrooms are available for B&B accommodation.  Applicants and their guest vehicles have created some serious parking issues.  The Police have been involved and have reminded residents about parking considerately.  Noise from cars coming and going (including turning and moving for cars to leave), banging of car doors and transferring of bags and luggage.  It is hoped that the fact the business has been operating without change of use is a sufficient reason for the council to reject the application.  No objection to timber store provided that the fence in front of it is not removed increasing the visual impact.  Object to store which is obviously designed for something more than storing timber.  A white polythene plastic tank has also recently been erected alongside the store.  The use of the premise has continued unabated.  The confirmed nature of the estate does not lend itself to a business which is dependent on constant flow of extra traffic.  Difficult for people to enter and exit their driveways due to parking.  Increased and additional noise and smells from Al fresco dining at breakfast and evening meals and associated chat, laughter and music.  Should a car parked in the garage need to leave it would result in moving cars and there is insufficient room to turn on site.  Parking problems cause a highway safety issue and a hazard to children playing.

5 letters of objection received in relation to amended plans (4 from existing objectors and 1 from a new objector making the overall number of objections received 8) these reiterate previous objections and raise the following additional concerns:

 Whilst three vehicles are proposed the applicant owns three vehicles therefore there are no spaces for their B&B residents.  Extra B&B parking would therefore occur on the highway causing traffic chaos and safety issues.  No precedent locally for a B&B facility.  No solution has been proposed regarding excessive noise resulting from the additional visitors and traffic movements.  How would the Council make sure that the parking spaces were built and used by all at No.55.  How would residents know that further expansion of the B&B would not take place if and when the garage is converted and no planning permission is required.  This application has been dragging on for months and the applicant has continued to operate and make a profit.  In emergency situations the parking problems on the roads could threaten lives.  The workshops structure has resulted in intermittent noise, it is large and unsightly and its size is excessive and not in keeping with the house or the surrounding area.  Concerns regarding the timescales associated with the current application.

4 of 69

Relevant Planning History

BDB/77122 Retrospective change of use of dwelling (use Withdrawn class C3) to a mixed use of dwelling (use class 12/12/12 C3) and bed and breakfast (use class C1) and retention of attached timber store. Conversion of garage to living accommodation and installation of front bay window.

Assessment

Planning History

The Local Planning Authority originally became aware of a Bed and Breakfast operating from the application site as a result of an enforcement complaint received in August 2011.

The applicants were advised that planning permission was required and a planning application was submitted on 16/10/2012 reference BDB/77122, which proposed the retrospective change of use of a dwelling (Use Class C3) to a mixed use of dwelling (Class C3) and bed and breakfast (Class C1) and the retention of an attached timber store. In addition the application also proposed the conversation of the garage to living accommodation and the replacement of the garage door with a window.

Under this earlier application it was proposed to convert the garage into an additional bedroom and to convert the existing dressing room at first floor (previously a bedroom) back into a bedroom, thus providing 5 bedrooms overall with two proposed as B&B accommodation. Amendments were proposed to the external parking arrangements to provide three parking spaces.

However, within this earlier application the Highway Officer raised an objection to the proposed development as inadequate parking was proposed to serve the use and number of rooms proposed (residential and B&B) and as a result concluded the development would be likely to encourage the parking of vehicles off-site causing undue interference with the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining roadways. The Highway Officer also stated that given the proposed use of the site it would be expected for guests to be able to independently access the parking spaces (arrive and depart) without causing disturbance to other guests, residents and neighbours.

The Environmental Health Team also sought additional information regarding how the premise is/would be managed to mitigate the impact of the development on neighbouring properties.

As a result the agent was advised that the application would be recommended for refusal. Following discussions with the Local Planning Authority the applicant decided to withdraw the application (on the 12/12/12) with an intention to resubmit a new application making amendments to the proposal and providing additional information to overcome the concerns which were raised.

The current application was subsequently registered on 25/02/2013, this application has been amended compared to the earlier application as follows: 5 of 69

 The garage is no longer proposed to be converted and would provide 1 parking space.  Amendments are proposed to the front garden to provide additional external parking for three vehicles, including independent access to the parking spaces to enable vehicles to arrive and depart independent of each other.  The omission of the proposal to convert the first floor dressing room into an additional bedroom.  Additional supporting information to support the application.

Following registration of the application it was noted that the layout plans submitted did not scale accurately. Officers worked with the applicant to get suitable plans submitted to enable an accurate assessment of the application to be made. These were received on the 26/06/2013 and have been subject to re-consultation.

Principle of Bed & Breakfast Use

The property is located within the Tadley Settlement Policy Boundary, in an area characterised by residential development. The application proposes to regularise the use of two of the three bedrooms within the property as B&B accommodation. Whether or not planning permission is required to run a B&B from a dwellinghouse is assessed on a case by case basis dependent upon factors such as the location of the development, the number of rooms being used and the overall level of activity associated with the use (these are similar considerations as to whether permission is required to run a business from home). The applicants state that they carried out research before starting up the B&B business and thought that planning permission was not required due to only two rooms being used. However, Officers are of the view that planning permission is required for a change of use as the residential use and character of the property has been altered by the level of facilities provided and due to the level of usage, the B&B accommodation is not considered to be ancillary or incidental to the residential use. As such, it is considered that a mixed residential and B&B use is occurring at the site.

The application seeks to use part of the building for B&B purposes and in all other respects the property will continue to function as a dwellinghouse. Saved Policy D5 (Residential and other development within settlements), in principle (subject to development contributing to social, economic and environmental well-being) allows for such development within settlement policy boundaries. With regard to Saved Policy D4 (Loss and sub-divisions of dwellings), the proposal would not result in the loss of the dwelling and there would be no formal sub-division. Therefore the proposal would not be contrary to this policy.

A B&B use is considered not to be a main town centre use as it is not specifically stated as such within the NPPF or the Local Plan, it is small scale accommodation and B&B accommodation is found across rural and urban areas (this was the same conclusion reached by an Inspector under an enforcement appeal for 41 London Road, Old Basing, Ref No. EC/10/00152, dated 8th November 2010, which also proposed B&B accommodation). Therefore Saved Policy EC11 (Hotels) of the Local Plan and Section 2 of the NPPF (Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres) are not considered to be relevant to this proposal.

With regard to the property’s location within the inner zone for the Detailed Emergency Planning Zone (DEPZ) surrounding the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), no objections have been raised as it is considered that it would not be likely to lead 6 of 69 to an increase in population given that the dwelling already exists and there is no overall increase in the number of bedrooms.

The principle of a B&B is therefore considered to be acceptable in this location subject to consideration of all other relevant material considerations, discussed below.

Impact on the character of the area/ design

Change of use to B&B

The change of use of the dwelling to incorporate a B&B use has and would not require any external alterations to the appearance of the dwellinghouse therefore there are no design issues relating to the proposal. The proposals would result in the front garden of the application site being hardsurfaced to provide adequate parking, however, the hard surfacing of a front garden could be achieved under permitted development and would not require planning permission. Therefore concerns with regard to the visual impact of this would not be justified on this basis.

The use would regularise a B&B facility within a residential area. However, it is only proposed to use two bedrooms for B&B purposes and the proposed levels of activity associated with the use (including the coming an goings of people) would be similar to the house being inhabited by a family occupying all the bedrooms. The proposal is therefore unlikely to have a significant impact on levels of use compared to what could otherwise be expected and would not result in a harmful change to the character of the area.

Store

The timber store that has been erected is located to the south-east side elevation of the host building. The building is constructed of timber with a felt roof and is only accessible from the garden and not from within the host dwelling. At the time of the Case Officer’s site visit the store was being used for general residential storage purposes.

The extension is of a single storey design and is a subservient addition to the property. Whilst the extension is of an unusual design due to the large overhang of the roof it is considered that it does not harm the appearance of the host dwelling. Furthermore, the structure is largely screened from wider views by the fence along the boundary of the application site and due to this and its overall size and design it is considered that it does not have a harmful impact on the character of the area.

Impact on neighbouring amenities

Change of use to B&B

Objections have been raised that the change of use has resulted in an increase in noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties.

The provision of B&B accommodation would result in associated traffic movements to and from the site. At the current time the parking provision for the site is not sufficient to meet the Council's standards which is likely to result in a greater impact as a result of cars parking off site within the local area and the movement of vehicles to enable other cars to leave. The proposals would provide adequate additional parking which would result in less vehicles manoeuvring within the site (and private drive) which would reduce disturbance to neighbouring properties in this regard. Furthermore, if the property was occupied as a

7 of 69 dwellinghouse similar movements could be expected.

Concerns have also been raised regarding the noise of people eating and socialising outside. However, the applicant has stated that they do not offer evening meals or self- catering facilities. Furthermore, outdoor eating and associated noise could occur should the property be occupied as a family dwellinghouse. Tadley Town Council's request for a condition to restrict alfresco dining would not meet the tests of Circular 11/95 which states that conditions should be necessary, relevant to planning and the development, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

Therefore, it is considered that the movement of vehicles and any associated car fumes for two B&B rooms and associated noise would not be more harmful than the occupation of the property as a single dwellinghouse and would not result in an undue impact on neighbouring amenities to warrant the refusal of the application. The Environmental Health Officer has also raised no objection to the development in relation to the impact of the development on neighbouring amenities. However it is considered necessary to limit the number of bedrooms used in association with the B&B use to a maximum of two in the interests of neighbouring amenities as the creation of more B&B accommodation could result in a greater impacts on neighbour amenities which the Local Planning Authority would want to consider by way of a planning application.

In terms of loss of privacy or overlooking, the actual use of the rooms at first floor level will not change from that as a bedroom associated with occupancy as a single dwellinghouse. No additional windows are proposed and therefore there would be no further increase in overlooking.

Store

It is considered that the due to the size and design of the store, the boundary treatment along the southern boundary of the application site (fence) and the siting of the proposed store in relation to the nearest neighbouring property, No. 57 Sheridan Crescent that the building does not have any undue impact on the amenities this neighbouring property. Concerns have been raised within a letter of objection that noise and disturbance has been caused from activities within the store. However, it is considered that the use of the building would not be likely in itself to give rise to any unacceptable noise or disturbance and that any activity beyond what would typically be expected for a single residential dwellinghouse. Any noise nuisance would need to be reported to the Environmental Health Team who would assess whether such nuisance was statutory within Environmental Health Legislation.

It is considered that the store would not have a harmful impact on any other neighbouring properties.

Parking

The application site currently benefits from an integral garage and a driveway, therefore providing parking provision for three vehicles.

Under existing standards, the layout as proposed requires one space per B&B room. In addition the residential bedroom would require 1.25 parking spaces rounded to 2 spaces. It is also noted that the dressing room (previously a bedroom) could be converted back into a bedroom which would increase the parking standard to 1.75 parking spaces, rounded to 2. It is therefore considered necessary for four parking spaces to be provided

8 of 69 and the two spaces for the B&B use should be able to be accessed and exited separately to the residential spaces, and each other, due to their independent use.

The plans propose three external spaces and one space within the garage. The Highway Officer has advised that the layout also needs to include unobstructed pedestrian access to the primary entrance of the dwelling on site (a minimum 0.9m is required). It is considered that sufficient room exists to provide the required pedestrian width between the external motor vehicle parking spaces subject to the hard surfacing being extended and this could be secured by condition.

Subject to this condition the site layout would include, on-site motor vehicle parking provision for four vehicles with two independently accessible spaces for guess frequenting the bed and breakfast commercial activity, with two tandem spaces for the residential element (including one within the garage), and room for secure cycle parking within the garage. Vehicles accessing the premises should be able to drive into the premises, then reverse and turn within the communal area fronting Nos 55, 57 and 59 before re-entering Sheridan Crescent in a forward gear as would happen with the property solely in residential use as a single dwellinghouse.

A number of concerns have been raised regarding the current parking problems within the area and that this is attributed to, and made worse by, the use of the application site as a B&B. The current layout provides limited on-site motor vehicle parking provision for guests and the residential use, which would be likely to lead to motor vehicle parking elsewhere in the vicinity. However, the proposal would result in the provision of adequate parking in accordance with the Council's standards. Whilst this is the case the Council can only require sufficient parking in accordance with the standards and not based on the individual number of cars a property owns. Furthermore, the Council cannot prevent people choosing to park on the surrounding roads rather than within the site should they choose to and this planning application cannot solve existing parking problems that are as a direct result of the development.

No objection is raised in relation to parking subject to conditions to secure a drawing for an amended parking layout to provide pedestrian access and its implementation, that the parking spaces and cycle parking is provided and that the garage is retained for parking. It is also considered necessary to limit the number of bedrooms used for B&B purposes to two as there would be insufficient parking to serve any additional B&B bedrooms.

The site is also considered to be sustainable given the proximity of the site to a bus stop, cycle routes and the opportunities for walking.

Other matters

Letters of objection have made reference to the applicant running an electrical services business from the application site and website details of this have been provided by an objector. However, there is nothing to prevent a business being run from a dwellinghouse subject to it not being of a level or intensity to constitute a change of use. From the Officers site visits there was no evidence of an electrical services business being run from the application site and the evidence provided by objectors does not demonstrate that a material change of use has occurred in this regard. Therefore no further action is required in this regard at the current time.

A condition is proposed to limit the number of bedrooms used in association with the B&B use to a maximum of two. The supporting documentation states that the website refers to

9 of 69 all three rooms being available, in the past the main bedroom has been offered as B&B accommodation and the occupier has moved into one of the smaller rooms. Officers have no objection to any of the three rooms being used for B&B accommodation provided that only two rooms in total are used and therefore the condition is proposed to be flexible in this regard.

The majority of objectors concerns, particularly those relating to use and highway issues, have been addressed above.

There is concern that this application will set a precedent for further developments of this nature, however each application would need to be assessed on its own merits and upon the relevant Planning Policies at the time.

A letter of objection has made reference to white containers within the rear garden of the application site. These were observed during the Officers site visit and are a form of water collection off the roof of the store. The white containers are not considered to require any form of planning permission and, notwithstanding this, it is not considered that they have any harmful impact on the visual amenity of the area.

There is also concern that the B&B use would be expanded in the future. The granting of this application would mean that the property would not benefit from permitted development rights to extend. Therefore any further extension to the property or expansion of the B&B would require planning permission. A condition is also proposed to restrict the number of bedrooms. The LPA would therefore be able to assess any future proposals at the time and local residents would have the opportunity to comment upon any proposals in a similar manner such as this.

Summary

The LPA is satisfied that the mixed use can continue to operate within the area without detriment to its character or the amenities of neighbouring properties. However, it is recommended that appropriate planning conditions be used to retain the parking area and to limit the number of rooms that can be used for B&B accommodation within the property to protect the amenities of neighbouring residents and the character of the area. Overall it is considered that the proposal would accord with the relevant local and national planning policies and therefore the application is recommended for approval.

Conditions

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:

Proposed first floor plan received 25/02/2013 Existing and proposed elevations received 26/06/2013 Drawing No. A102 (Proposed Plan) received 26/06/2013 Proposed ground floor plan received 26/06/2012 REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2 Within one calendar month from the date of the permission hereby granted, detailed drawings shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing, such drawings to show an external motor vehicle parking layout for 3 motor vehicles (minimum parking space dimensions 2.4m by 4.8m), including an unobstructed

10 of 69

pedestrian access (minimum width 0.9m) to the primary entrance of the property, each motor vehicle parking space must be independently accessible without hindrance by other on-site paraphernalia. The approved external motor vehicle parking layout for 3 motor vehicles shall be constructed and fully implemented within the curtilage of the property within two months of written approval to the details and the areas of land so provided shall be thereafter maintained and shall not be used for any purposes other than the, manoeuvring, loading and unloading and parking of vehicles, and access/egress for pedestrians, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

3 The development hereby permitted shall in total provide 4 motor vehicle parking spaces and secure bicycle parking for 2 long and 1 short stay places, together with unobstructed pedestrian access (minimum width 0.9m) to the primary entrance of the property, within the curtilage of the property in accordance with the approved plans and the areas of land so provided shall be thereafter maintained and shall not be used for any purposes other than the loading, unloading and parking of vehicles and bicycles, and access for pedestrians, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policies E1, A1 and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

4 The garage so provided within the development hereby approved shall be retained for parking and shall not be used in connection with any trade, business, profession or commercial enterprise. The garage so provided shall not be converted or used for any residential purpose other than as a domestic garage for the parking of vehicles and bicycles. REASON: To ensure adequate on-site parking provision and to discourage parking on the adjoining highway in the interest of local amenity and highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

5 The total number of Class C1 (Hotels) bedrooms within the approved site shall not exceed two at any time. REASON: To limit the total number of bedrooms to ensure that adequate vehicle parking and manoeuvring areas will continue to be available within the site, in the interests of the amenity and character of the area, in accordance with Saved Policies A1 and E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Local Plan 1996-2011.

Informative(s):-

1. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-

 offering a pre-application advice service  seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the application

11 of 69

In this instance:

 the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit

In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

2. 1.1 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met.

1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £97 per request or £28 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

12 of 69

Cttee: 7 August 2013 Item No. 2

Application no: BDB/77805 For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Mayfield Farm, Binley Bottom, Binley, Andover, SP11 6HA Proposal Erection of a detached six bedroom dwelling with basement, detached garage and workshop building with ancillary living accommodation over. Construction of swimming pool and associated landscaping works. Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings

Registered: 2 April 2013 Expiry Date: 7 May 2013 Type of Full Planning Case Officer: Laura Callan Application: Application 01256 845244 Applicant: Mr Soames Agent: Mr Ellis Ward: Burghclere, Ward Member(s): Cllr Horace Mitchell Highclere And St Cllr John Izett Mary Bourne Parish: ST MARY BOURNE OS Grid Reference: 442313 153772 CP

Recommendation: the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal

1. The proposed dwelling, garage, hardstanding, swimming pool and residential curtilage would result in an unacceptable scale and unsustainable form of development which would be visually harmful to the character and appearance of this area of the countryside and the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty within which it would sit. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Saved Policies E1, E6 and D6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, Appendix 13 (Extending Your Home and Replacement Dwellings), Appendix 14 ‘Countryside Design Summary’ of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document and the St Mary Bourne Village Design Statement.

2. Given the replacement dwelling and workshop/garage/annexe building is considered unacceptable for the reasons outlined above (refusal reason no.1), the proposal as a whole would not offer an overall planning benefit and therefore the loss of the existing dwelling granted under Certificate of Lawful Use (BDB/75431) would be contrary to Saved Policy D4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan since it would result in the overall depletion of housing stock within the Borough.

General comments

The application has been brought before the Development Control Committee at the request of Councillor Mitchell and Supported by Councillor Izett, for the following reason:

‘I’ve not yet seen the officer report but, based on discussion, it appears that the reasons for rejection are mainly subjective. There is an argument that the proposed development would be a significant enhancement of the site and the immediate landscape, which at present has a large number of decrepit and unsightly (and unused) buildings spread widely 13 of 69 across the site. There appear to be no views of the site from any publicly accessible path other than the adjoining road, from which most of the site is not visible. There appears to be some contention as to the areas of existing curtilage, but the proposed curtilage is closely contained around the proposed dwelling, while the removal of other buildings and related curtilage will release considerable land that is currently cluttered with buildings and domestic / agricultural / horticultural impedimenta. I look forward to sight of the report, which may raise additional matters; however the case appears to be finely balanced between whatever harm may be thought to be caused and the benefits of improving the site and providing a desirable replacement residence.’

Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Section 1 (Building a strong competitive economy) Section 3 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy) Section 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes) Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

E1 (Development Control) E6 (Landscape Character) E7 (Nature/Biodiversity Conservation) D4 (Sub-division and Loss of Dwellings) D6 (New Residential Accommodation in the Countryside) C1 (Section 106 Contributions) A1 (Car Parking) A2 (Alternatives to the Car/Public Transport)

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance

Appendix 10 – ‘Residential Annexes’ - Design and Sustainability SPD Appendix 13 – ‘Extending your home and replacement dwellings - Design and Sustainability SPD Appendix 14 – ‘Countryside Design Summary

Residential Parking Standards SPD St Mary Bourne Village Design Statement

Description of Site

The site comprises of a modest two storey brick and tile dwelling, a number of associated agricultural and equestrian related outbuildings and a dwelling/annexe which was granted a certificate of lawfulness for its use as a separate dwelling under BDB/75431. This dwelling is a single storey cabin/chalet style structure which is situated within the eastern part of the site.

Within the blue land associated with the application site are a number of other agricultural buildings and land which it appears is used for the purposes of agriculture.

14 of 69

The site is situated at a higher level than the road as the land rises to the east. There are some significant mature trees within the site.

Proposal

The proposal is to demolish the two existing dwellings on the site and almost all of the agricultural buildings and other outbuildings (with the exception of building 8 which is to be retained for the purposes of creating a bat loft) and erect a replacement dwelling which would have 6 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, 4 reception rooms, an underground gym, games room/cinema, wine cellar, store, shower room and kitchenette. The dwelling would have a footprint of 20m x 15m and a projecting two storey wing of 9m x 6m. The height of the dwelling would be 9m to the ridge. Also proposed is a detached garage building which would contain 1 bedroom annexe accommodation at first floor, a workshop, a 3 bay garage and a store at ground floor level. A swimming pool is also proposed to the west of the main dwelling.

The proposal also includes a landscaping scheme to create wildflower meadows to the south, west and north of the site and a new woodland to the east.

Consultations

Parish: No objection.

Landscape Officer: Objection due to unacceptable impact upon landscape character and visual amenity and impact upon AONB.

Trees: No objection subject to conditions.

Biodiversity: Additional information required. Comment to be provided on Update Paper.

Natural England: No objection subject to condition.

AONB Officer: No comment.

Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions.

Highways: No objection subject to conditions.

Environment Agency: Proposal is assessed as having a low environmental risk and therefore no comment provided.

Architects Panel: The reduction in length of the secondary wing is welcomed and is a big improvement. However, the fenestration of this wing still needs work. Changing to a slate roof for the main house works better and simplifies the overall roof forms. Secondary wing- window size and number is too high and doesn't relate to the functions within. The majority of the comments made by the Panel back in October still remain. The Panel still consider the secondary wing to be somewhat alien to the main house.

Public Observations

None

15 of 69

Relevant Planning History

BDB/75431 Application for Certificate of Lawfulness for use of Split decision. building as a self-contained independent dwelling with Dwelling associated ancillary buildings, turning and parking granted, area and garden garden area refused 22/03/12

BDB/76748 Erection of a detached six bedroom dwelling with Withdrawn basement, detached garage and workshop building 18/10/12 with ancillary living accommodation over. Construction of tennis court, swimming pool and associated landscaping works. Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings

BDB/76870 Erection of two storey house with detached garage Withdrawn after demolition of existing dwelling, outbuildings and 18/10/12 redundant farm buildings (This proposed to replace the existing Annexe dwelling approved under BDB/75431)

Assessment

The proposal has been revised from the previously withdrawn scheme (BDB/76748) through relocation of the dwelling further west, 3.5m lower down the slope bringing it into the valley and less on the exposed side in order to reduce the visual impacts. A tennis court is no longer proposed and the secondary wing of the main dwelling has been reduced in length by 2.5m.

The detail of the proposed detached garage and annexe building has been altered to include window and door styles typically associated with agricultural buildings in order to reduce the domestic appearance whilst the size, location and amount of accommodation remains as proposed under the previous scheme.

Minor alterations have taken place to the detail of the fenestration of the main dwelling and the materials to be used on the roof.

The hard and soft landscaping details have been altered to provide a woodland to the east of the site, areas of additional planting along the northern and southern boundaries and a pond and wildflower meadow to the east of the building.

Principle of development

The principle of a replacement dwelling is acceptable in accordance with Saved Policy D6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 which states residential development within the countryside will only be permitted where it is a one for one replacement of an existing dwelling which has been continuously occupied and is not the result of a temporary or series of temporary permissions and the building is not derelict or no longer in existence. The supporting text of this policy goes on to state that replacement dwellings 'should not significantly change the siting, scale, setting and character of the existing dwelling in order to protect the rural character of the area and ensure that there

16 of 69 remains a variety of dwelling sizes in the countryside to provide for a range of housing needs'.

Also of relevance is Appendix 13 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (Extending Your Home and Replacement Dwellings). This document states that proposals for new dwellings that are significantly larger than the dwellings that they are replacing will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where the development can be appropriately justified. The guidance also recommends that replacement dwellings should not be sited in a significantly different position than the original building. Re-siting a dwelling will only be considered if a clear environmental benefit can be proven. In general, extensions to or the re-arrangement of residential curtilages to accommodate a replacement dwelling will not be permitted. If this is essential to accommodate a proposal then it is a good indication that the proposal is too large for the plot concerned.

In accordance with paragraph 215 of the NPPF, full weight cannot be given to the saved policies of the current Local Plan and therefore in determining applications consideration needs to be given to the degree of consistency a saved policy has with regard to the NPPF. Policy D6 (New Residential Accommodation In the Countryside) is considered to be in general conformity with the NPPF, however the NPPF does offer a more flexible approach.

Having regard to paragraph 14 of the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, for decision taking this means sustainable development should be approved unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the framework taken as a whole or unless specific policies in the framework indicate that development should be restricted (such as paragraph 115 of the NPPF relating to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty). The three dimensions to achieving sustainable development are defined in the NPPF as economic, social and environmental.

The NPPF, paragraph 115, advises that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty within the AONB.

The proposal also includes the removal of a dwelling (granted certificate of lawfulness under BDB/75431) and as such Saved Policy D4 is of relevance. This states that except where development proposals can be shown to result in an overall planning benefit, permission will not be granted for development, redevelopment or change of use which would result in an overall depletion of the existing dwelling stock.

Design and Impact upon the Character of the Countryside

The site is situated within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NWD AONB). The Countryside Design Summary (Appendix 14 of the Design and Sustainability SPD) and St Mary Bourne Village Design Statement has identified the area as having a low settlement density with villages and hamlets often infrequent and widely scattered. It also states that new development should be small scale reflecting the traditional patterns of settlement growth and siting of development should take into account long views to and from the open downs and scarp. The traditional building styles and materials used across the area should be reflected in new development.

The proposal dwelling would be significantly larger, of a greater bulk than the existing Mayfield Farm dwelling and would be of a more grand appearance. The applicant states that the proposed dwelling is an elegant design of classical proportions that is a 21st

17 of 69 century take on historic country house design traditions.

The design of the dwelling was considered by the North East Hampshire Architects Panel and concerns were raised to the size and quantum of development which appeared excessive. Whilst some of the details and the reduction in size of the secondary wing of the house was an improvement from the previous design (withdrawn application BDB/76748), many of the concerns regarding the detailing and size of the dwelling remain.

The proposed dwelling, given its design, substantial size and location in an elevated position would have a significant visual impact. The proposed dwelling would be sited 20m east of the existing dwelling with a significantly larger and more formal curtilage which would not accord with the guidance set out in Appendix 13 (Extending Your Home and Replacement Dwellings) SPD.

The proposed detached garage would be a part two storey L shaped building with a barn hipped roof. The two storey element would have a footprint of 5.5m x 10.9m and a height of 7.5m and the open three bay garage and store would extend out from the building by 13mx7m with a height of 6m. The visual appearance of the resultant building would therefore be substantial and it would appear as a two storey unit of accommodation with garaging. This would add to the visual impact of the built form on the site.

It is considered that the proposed dwelling would not relate positively to the immediate rural character of the site. It would be sited on higher ground than the existing dwelling and would appear imposing and visually uncomfortable within the landscape. This would result in a significant change to the appearance of the site and character of the landscape.

The application has been accompanied by detailed planting proposals, a landscape assessment and a landscape strategy. The landscape assessment has been revised from the previous submission to include new assessments and photographs from various viewpoints. It demonstrates that there would be views from the grounds of ‘Great Eastwards’ close to the footpath from Binley to Wadwick but it states that young trees would screen the farm in time. There would also be views from land above Highfield Farm, although this is not a public point and there would be limited views from the lane which passes the site up to the land itself. The landscape assessment concludes that a country house of architectural merit would therefore be an improvement on the existing situation, however it does not assess the visual impacts upon the landscape and AONB in great detail. The assessment is also somewhat confusing as it refers to demolition of a dilapidated barn, replacement with a low key cottage and no extension of the built footprint which does not appear to relate to this current application. It does however identify that the location of the proposed garage building, given that it is sited next to what was once a large barn would have limited impact upon the landscape. Given the limited detail provided in the Landscape Assessment and given some of the confused statements within it, it does not provide convincing justification for the development proposed that would outweigh the assessment provided by the Council’s Landscape Officer.

The Landscape Officer has reviewed the submitted information in detail and has concluded that overall the proposals are considered to be significantly more grand than the existing character which is described in the Landscape Character Assessment as being a landscape with a distinctive sense of place, unspoilt, quiet and rural, with a sense of remoteness and limited intrusion. Whilst it is acknowledged that visibility would be somewhat constrained by vegetation cover and landform, the development would be visible from some vantage points along the passing road. The proposal would appear dominant and imposing and would not be sympathetic to the landscape character of the

18 of 69 area. It is not considered that the harm resulting from the scale and appearance of the development can be mitigated against through increased planting and screening as the harm to the landscape character of the site itself would remain.

The applicant contends that the environmental benefits of the scheme include the removal of dilapidated buildings, incorporation of a wetland environment, planting of a new woodland, planting of wild flower meadows and planting of an orchard which would improve the distinctiveness of the immediate landscape and increase biodiversity.

Consideration has been given to the proposal to remove a number of buildings from the land which would equate to 674m² of floorspace (not including the dwellings to be demolished). The proposed floorspace of the new dwelling and garage/outbuilding would equate to 905 m² whereas the floorspace of the existing dwelling measures 218m² and the Annex dwelling 48m².

Some weight can be given to the overall planning benefit of the removal of a poor quality dwelling and a number of other outbuildings however many of the buildings to be removed are single storey and have a typically agricultural appearance which is sympathetic to the character of the location. Therefore the benefits of the proposed removal of the existing buildings would not outweigh the harm identified as a result of the proposed development.

Curtilage

The applicant has submitted additional information to justify the re-location of the dwelling and the curtilage proposed in order to address the concerns of the Landscape Officer. The applicant states that historically until approximately 1961, the existing curtilage was much larger but some of the land was used for the keeping of horses. Historical maps have been submitted to support this point and it does appear to show that the land surrounding Mayfield Farm House has changed over time. However, it does not show how the land was used and can only offer limited information. The applicant contends that the current proposals do not result in unacceptable size of curtilage or unacceptably domesticated appearance and would not result in visual intrusion. Whilst the proposed dwelling would have a larger curtilage than the existing dwelling on the site, it is the combined impact of the proposed built form and the level and spread of development over the land which includes the proposed curtilage, that is considered to result in harm to landscape character.

Cessation of Use and Removal of the Annexe Dwelling

The site contains a building which was granted a certificate of lawful use as a separate dwelling under BDB/75431. The dwelling is of very poor quality having originally been a mobile home style building and it has been extended and altered over time. The external appearance of the dwelling is of poor quality. It is situated within very close proximity to agricultural buildings and should these buildings be in use, the living conditions for the occupiers would not be satisfactory. It also contains a very small residential curtilage and as such would not meet current planning policy requirements. The condition of the structure of the dwelling and its suitability as a dwelling is not known. However, given the appearance and location of the building within an isolated countryside location, it is not considered to be a dwelling worthy of retention. Saved Policy D4 states that except where development proposals can be shown to result in an overall planning benefit, permission will not be granted for development, redevelopment or change of use which would result in an overall depletion of the existing dwelling stock.

19 of 69

Given the poor design quality of the existing dwelling and its isolated location within the countryside, the cessation of the use and the removal of the building is not objectionable. However, given the concerns raised to the replacement dwelling, the application proposal as a whole would not offer an overall planning benefit and therefore the loss of this dwelling would also comprise a reason for refusal as it would be contrary to Saved Policy D4.

Should the proposal have been acceptable in all other respects, it would have been necessary to enter into a legal agreement to secure the removal and cessation of the use of Mayfield Farm Annex (granted a certificate of lawfulness under BDB/75431) and the removal of all other buildings as proposed to ensure that this planning benefit could be achieved.

Proposed Annexe Accommodation

The proposed annexe accommodation above the garage would not comply with a number of the criteria set out in Appendix 10 of the Design and Sustainability SPD in that it is not internally linked to the main dwelling and could not be used as part of the main house at a later date. However, given that it would share the main vehicular access to the house and would be in close proximity, it could be considered acceptable provided that measures were in place to ensure that it remained in the same ownership as the main house, was not sold or let separately to the main house and would remain in use for the purposes of employee accommodation or dependant relative accommodation only.

Should the proposal have been acceptable in other respects, a legal agreement could have been entered into to ensure the ownership of the annex would remain in the same ownership as the dwelling and not let separately. However the applicant considers that appropriate conditions could be attached to achieve the same outcome. Given that the annexe has the ability to be occupied as a separate dwelling due to its form and siting, it is considered that in these circumstances it is reasonable and necessary for the Local Planning Authority to seek to have the additional assurance of a legal agreement restricting its occupation or sale

Impact Upon Neighbouring Amenity

Given the distances to neighbouring dwellings it is not considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable overlooking or overbearing impacts to neighbours.

Highways and Parking

The proposal would provide adequate parking to serve the development and there are no objections in terms of highway safety. In order to achieve sightlines the hedgerow at the access would need to be cut back and should the application be recommended for approval, a condition would have been recommended to secure this.

Other matters

The applicant has referenced a number of approved planning applications for replacement dwellings in the countryside which have common features to the application site and where large increases in size have been permitted, examples include Great Eastwards (Appeal Allowed 1999 BDB/43025), Nothing Hill House (BDB/74258 approved 2011 by DC committee contrary to officer recommendation), Elm Farm (BDB/59791 granted 2005), Slade Bottom Farm (BDB/72810 approved 2010 by DC committee contrary to Officer

20 of 69 recommendation), The Laurels (Granted 2010) and Overbourne House (BDB/74978 granted 2011).

The circumstances of these planning applications have been reviewed however none are directly comparable to the application site, or carry sufficient weight to override the objections to this application as outlined above.

Conclusion

Having regard to paragraph 14 of the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the three dimensions to achieving sustainable development ( economic, social and environmental as defined in the NPPF) must be considered. The implementation of the scheme would have a positive impact on economic sustainability through the construction phase and creation of jobs however it is not an application for economic development and this impact would be very limited and short term. The proposed development would not contribute significantly to the social role of sustainable development given that it is for a replacement dwelling, however it would result in the removal of a building which is of very poor quality (the annexe dwelling).

In considering environmental sustainability, the proposal would offer some benefits in terms of the removal of a poor quality dwelling and numerous outbuildings and the provision of improved opportunities for biodiversity and landscape enhancements. However, because of the level and form of development proposed in terms of the size of the dwelling, garage, hardstanding, swimming pool and curtilage, the development would not be considered to be sustainable as it would fail to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and AONB and therefore fail to conserve or enhance the natural environment contrary to paragraph 17 of the NPPF and Saved Policies D6, E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan.

The NPPF advises that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty within the AONB and given the harm identified to landscape character the proposal would fail to achieve this.

The benefits of the proposal in terms of delivering sustainable development would not outweigh the harm identified to the character of the area and the failure to meet the objectives of environmental sustainability as set out in the NPPF and therefore refusal is recommended.

21 of 69

Cttee: 7 August 2013 Item No. 3

Application no: 13/00314/FUL For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address 4-9 Plantation Farm Cottages Rectory Lane Wolverton Tadley Proposal Demolition and replacement of 6 no. dwelling units and the erection of a four bed detached dwelling and associated garage. Erection of a pair of 2 bed semi-detached cottages and a terrace of 2 no. 1 bed and 1 no. 2 bed cottages

Registered: 3 June 2013 Expiry Date: 27 June 2013 Type of Full Planning Case Officer: Laura Callan Application: Application 01256 845244 Applicant: Mr & Mrs R Bandey Agent: Mr Michael Fowler Ward: Kingsclere Ward Member(s): Cllr Cathy Osselton Cllr Donald Sherlock

Parish: HANNINGTON CP OS Grid Reference: 454396 157297

Recommendation: the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal

1. The proposed detached dwelling, garage, associated hardstanding and extension of residential curtilage together with the remainder of the proposed development (plots 1- 5), and associated parking and boundary treatments, would result in an unacceptable scale and unsustainable form of development which would be visually harmful to the character and appearance of this area of the countryside and the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty within which it would sit. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the national Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Saved Policies D6, E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011; and Appendix 13 ‘Extending Your Home and Replacement Dwellings, Appendix 14 ‘Countryside Design Summary’ of the Council’s Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document and the Kingsclere Village Design Statement.

2. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that adequate parking for the proposed dwellings and turning and access for service vehicles within the site can be provided. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with Saved Policies E1 and A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan and the Residential Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document.

General comments

The application is brought to the Development Control Committee at the request of Cllr Osselton and supported by Cllr Sherlock for the following reason:

‘As this will be a replacement dwelling in the countryside, I would like the Committee to discuss the visual impact of this development and to ascertain whether it is in keeping with 22 of 69 the local character of the area. The officer has recommended refusal due to the unacceptable impact upon the AONB and character of the countryside as a result of the siting and size of the dwelling house proposed and the impact of the increase in built form upon the rural character which would result in visual harm.’

Planning Policy

The site is situated outside of any recognised Settlement Policy Boundary within the countryside and the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NWD AONB).

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Section 1 (Building a strong competitive economy) Section 3 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy) Section 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes) Section 7 (Requiring good design) Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

E1 (Development Control) E6 (Landscape Character) E7 (Nature/Biodiversity Conservation) D4 (Sub division and Loss of Dwellings) D6 (New Residential Accommodation in the Countryside) C1 (Section 106 Contributions) A1 (Car Parking) A2 (Alternatives to the Car/Public Transport)

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance

Appendix 6 – ‘Storage and Collection of waste and recycling’ - Design and Sustainability SPD Appendix 13 – ‘Extending your home and replacement dwellings - Design and Sustainability SPD Appendix 14 – ‘Countryside design summary - Design and Sustainability SPD Appendix 16 – ‘Residential amenity’ - Design and Sustainability SPD

Residential Parking Standards SPD S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance Note (Updated April 2012)

Other Material Documents

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport (BEST) HCC Transport Contributions Policy 2007

Description of Site

Pinks Lane is mainly a residential area of detached properties within modest sized plots and provides access to the residential estate of O`Bee Gardens. Pinks Lane is an adopted road with speed restrictions.

Red Roof is a six bedroomed, detached, two storey, brick and tile property to the south of Pinks Lane. To the east of the property is a bungalow and to the west is a public footpath running in a north/south direction. Further to the west is Fairview, a care home, owned by the applicant.

The western, southern and eastern boundaries consist of 1.8m high close board fencing and along the southern boundary are protected trees.

There are two accessed onto Pinks Lane from the property and the area in front of the property is gravelled for parking purposes. There is a low brick wall along part of the front northern boundary.

To the rear and adjoining the western boundary is a large detached double garage with a gabled roof. Access is gained down the western side of the property and gates across the access are positioned near the front of the house.

35 of 69

Proposal

Change of use from a residential dwelling (Class C3) to a residential care home (Class C2) for eight adults with learning difficulties and mental health disorders. Within the main dwelling there would be accommodation for six residents with en-suite bedrooms and a communal lounge, dining room, kitchen and laundry facilities.

The existing garage would be extended to the north and converted to form a two bedroom annexe for use in connection with care home. This would provide accommodation for another two residents with en-suite facilities, small lounge and kitchenette each. The extension would measure 2m deep and 7m in width and would continue the existing ridge height of the building (5.5m high). There would be a door and window in the northern elevation, a window in the southern elevation and a door/window in the eastern elevation.

It is also proposed to insert a bedroom window at first floor in the western elevation of the main two storey building.

There would be three parking spaces provided at the front of the main building and two parking spaces to the rear, near the garage.

The residents at the care home would be cared for by a team of full time members of staff working a three shift pattern rotation with a maximum of 5 staff members present on site during each day shift and one managerial staff member between the hours of 9am and 5.30pm. Two members of staff would be present during the night. Although there would be staff present 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, no staff would reside at the property.

A daytime programme of recreational, sensory and educational activities would be provided for residents within and away from the property using local colleges and community resources.

Consultations

Town Council: Objection: `Cllrs were concerned that the number of parking places is inadequate. Pinks Lane is narrow and already suffers from overflow parking in connection with an existing care home in the road. The junction with Heath End Road is hazardous and an increase in the number of vehicles will increase the risk of accidents`.

Highways: No objection subject to condition to secure construction method statement, vehicle parking/cycle parking and refuse/recycling facility.

Planning Policy Team: No objection.

Trees: No objection subject to tree protection condition.

Biodiversity: No objection.

Environment Agency: Low environmental risk.

Environmental Health: No objection.

Transport Strategy: No objection.

36 of 69

Emergency Planners (Basingstoke and Deane, Hampshire and West Berkshire: No objection

Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR): No objection.

Public Observations

Three letters of objection raising the following:

 Would result in the loss of a family home.  The shops on Heath End Road park at junction with Pinks Lane.  Pinks Lane already suffers with access problems due to its narrow width.  Pinks Lane is a dead end road with cars currently using residential driveways to turn around in.  Fairview, the care home next door has between 5-8 cars parked on the property.  Staff for Red Roof will not use public transport.  Inadequate parking/room for delivery vehicles will lead to cars being parked on the road.  With both Fairview and Red Roof being care homes this will lead to a high percentage of the population in the cul-de-sac with learning difficulties.  The two care homes will not help integrate the residents within the community  Will change the character of the area.  Adverse increase in traffic using the road.  Pressure in the future for the footpath between Red Roof and Fairview to be relocated enabling them to combine both properties with future extensions and more residents.  The proposed rear parking spaces will create a security issue allowing residents to wander off.  The responsibility for emergency planning and AWE is inadequate.

A petition signed by 7 people raising the following:

 Disturbing and distressing noises particularly during the summer months.  Over concentration of care homes in a small residential area which will change the character of the area.  Additional commercial premises in a residential area with no benefits for local people.  Increased strain on local amenities which are already inadequate.

Relevant Planning History

BDB/77473 Change of use from residential dwelling (use Withdrawn 07.02.2013 Class C3) to residential care home (use Class C2) and installation of new window to west elevation of main building. Extension to and conversion of existing garage/workshop to form two bedroom annexe for use in connection with care home

37 of 69

BDB/61295 Change of use from class C3(B) residential care Granted 19.08.2005 home to class C2 residential care home at Fairview, Pinks Lane. (Fairview)

Assessment

Previous application

The previous planning application (BDB/77473) was withdrawn due to inadequate information about traffic generation and biodiversity issues.

This application has been resubmitted in order to overcome previous concerns.

AWE

The application site is within the 0-3km Inner Detailed Emergency Planning Zone (DEPZ) for the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston and in accordance with the emergency planning procedures as agreed by the relevant local authorities and the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), consultation was undertaken between these parties.

A Business Continuity Plan (BCP) has been submitted with the application to identify what needs to be done before an incident occurs to protect people, premises and provide information. Within the plan are contingencies and strategies to manage the consequences of any disruption, mitigate the impact on critical activities and get the home back to normal levels of operation as soon as possible afterwards

The emergency planners and the ONR have assessed the proposal and BCP and raise no objection as there would be no adverse impacts on the existing emergency plan to prevent the proposed development going ahead.

Principle of development

The NPPF states that local authorities should deliver a wide choice of high quality homes and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. It should also plan for a mix of housing need and the needs of different groups in the community, such as people with disabilities.

The site lies within the defined Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) for Tadley / Baughurst / Pamber Heath within which residential and other development and redevelopment proposals which contribute to social, economic and environmental well-being will be permitted under Saved Policy D5 of the Local Plan. The proposal is therefore supported in principle by this policy.

As the proposal involves the change of use of a single residential dwelling, Saved Policy D4 of the Local Plan is relevant. The key phrase in this policy is as follows:

"Except where development proposals can be shown to result in an overall planning benefit, permission will not be granted for development, redevelopment or change of use which would result in an overall depletion of the existing dwelling stock."

38 of 69

The proposal would result in the loss of an existing dwelling. However, given that the proposal would provide a residential facility (Class C2) for those with special needs, and as an element of residential use would be retained due to the nature of this accommodation, it is considered that there is no objection to this proposal against Saved Policy D4.

Saved Policy C4 (Housing for the Elderly and those with Special Needs) is also relevant and states:

"Proposals for residential development specifically designed and suitable in type and location to meet the needs of the elderly and people with special needs, including care or nursing homes and other housing to meet the needs of the Health Service Community Care departments, will be permitted within the defined settlements. Proposals outside of the defined settlements will exceptionally be permitted in response to local need."

Saved Policy C4 therefore provides support in principle for the proposal given that it is located within a defined SPB and near to local community and social facilities. Within the Design Statement submitted with the application is states that "there is a proven need for specialist care homes such as this within the county" and "the property can provide a sustainable, high quality facility that responds to this need".

The principle of the proposal is therefore supported by Saved Policies D4, D5 and C4 of the Local Plan. In addition, while the proposal involves the depletion of the existing dwelling stock, this could be acceptable under Saved Policy D4 taking account of the planning benefit of the provision of a residential care home for people with special needs. This though is subject to an overall assessment of the planning benefits and any adverse impacts the proposal may have.

Impact on the character of the area/ design

The change of use of the property would result in the provision of the first floor bedroom window in the western elevation, an extension and changes to the appearance of the garage building and provision of two spaces to the rear. These proposed external changes to the buildings on site and the provision of the rear parking spaces could be undertaken on a dwellinghouse and would not look out of place on this building. . The rear garden, apart from the two car spaces, would still remain as garden. The front area for the parking of cars, the driveway to the side and the gates across would also be retained as existing. It is therefore considered that the layout of the site would still remain residential in character.

As a six bedroom dwelling, it is not impossible for there to be six cars being parked on site. In terms of the Residential Parking Standards, the care home would require five parking spaces (see below) in this location. Therefore, in terms of visual impact, it is considered that the proposal would not appear significantly different than as a single dwelling to warrant a refusal of the application on this basis.

The use of the property as a residential institution and the potential for five staff to be on site at any one time (operating on a shift basis) is likely to result in an increase in regular movements that would be different to the pattern of use associated with a single dwellinghouse. However, it is considered that the occupation of the premises by eight residents and the associated staff supervision and visitors would be a relatively low intensity use. It is considered that the nature of the use of this residential institution would

39 of 69 not result in significantly higher movements than that of the existing six bedroom dwellinghouse and would not be detrimental to the character of the area.

The proposed garage extension would be of an appropriate design with materials to match the existing. As such, this element of the proposal would respect the host building and wider character of the area.

Although the use of the buildings on site would have changed, they would still remain fundamentally residential in character and is therefore considered to be appropriately located within a residential area such as this, compliant with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Local Plan.

Impact on neighbouring amenities

A number of concerns regarding noise from this property have been raised by objectors, both with regards to noisy behaviour of the residents themselves and also through general comings and goings related to the use of the residential institution and its staff.

The site is located within an urban area amongst other residential properties. There is a neighbouring garden to the east and south and a footpath to the west. Another care home is located beyond the footpath to the west. Some noise and disturbance would be expected between occupiers of these dwellings as a result of general domestic activities and traffic movements associated with the existing residential uses. Whilst the proposal would increase movements as a result of the staff operating on a shift-basis, there would only be eight permanent residents on site and it is considered that this use would not be so significantly intense as to cause undue noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents through comings and goings.

Objections have also been specifically raised with regards to noise and disturbance from the residents themselves due to their condition. The potential for noisy behaviour would vary from person to person (as with any residential development) and different residents would occupy the accommodation over the lifetime of the development.

No noise complaints have been received by the Council's Environmental Health Team for Fairview and it should be noted that the Environmental Health Team raises no objection to the application on the grounds of noise.

The proposed use of the property would not result in any loss of privacy in comparison to the existing use as a dwellinghouse. The proposed first floor side window would overlook the high, single storey gabled roof of Fairview and as such, no loss of privacy would result.

The proposed garage extension would be located 12m from One Oak, to the east, and 17.4m from Fairview, to the west. Given the single storey and sloping roof design away from the boundaries with each property and the intervening boundary treatment, no loss of outlook, light or overbearing impact would result.

The proposal is therefore considered to respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, thereby complying with Saved Policy E1 of the Local Plan.

Trees

The principal trees of landscape significance comprise of three oak trees on the southern boundary that are subject to TPO/BDB/546. The remaining vegetation on the site is not of

40 of 69 sufficient merit to be a constraint to development.

The change of use for the main dwelling house would have no direct impact on the protected oak trees.

It is proposed to add an extension to the existing garage to form a two bed annexe. The extension is located on the north side of the building away from the protected oak trees and would have no direct physical impact.

The southern bedroom within the annexe accommodation has a bedroom window on the southern elevation with an entrance on the eastern elevation. The tree canopy currently overhangs the roof so the bedroom window would not receive any daylight. Bedrooms are low light demanding rooms and the presence of the tree would not be an issue. The access on the eastern elevation is partially under the canopy of the adjacent oak tree. However, the door/window unit is full length which would increase the amount of available daylight. Services to the proposed annexe should have minimal impact on the protected oak trees.

In order to protect the trees during the building works it is considered necessary to impose a tree protection scheme.

As such, the Tree Officer raises no objection and the proposal would accord with Saved Policy E1 of the Local Plan.

Biodiversity

The bat survey submitted with the application has concluded that roosting bats are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed development.

As such the Biodiversity Officer raises no objection and the proposal would accord with Saved Policy E7 of the Local Plan.

Parking

In support of the application, a table of information has been provided listing the applicants existing care homes, the parking provided, staff numbers and travel mode choice at each of the existing homes. It is advised that typically there would be one visitor per day to a care home. Other vehicle movements are comprised of staff 'minibus' use and home delivery vehicles.

The table of information has average values from all the homes however the differing characteristics and geography of the homes might affect travel options at the locations. Without further knowledge, averages derived from all the homes could not be used with confidence.

The Local Highway Authority has therefore used the information relating to the neighbouring care home at Fairview which would be more typically representative for the location.

The information provided states that 47% of the staff of Fairview drive to work, although eight of the seventeen staff on payroll are listed as travelling by car. It would be possible that all five staff in a day shift might have travelled by car and that more staff might arrive by car at shift changeover.

41 of 69

Under planning application BDB/61295, Fairview was approved with six parking spaces.

Although the level of residents would be higher at Red Roof than at Fairview, the proposed level of staffing is the same as Fairview. As such, it would be reasonable to accept that the staff profile would be similar with comparable travel mode choice and parking demand. With eight residents for just one visitor per client, per week, the typical number of visitors would average more than one per day.

Although swept-path diagrams have been provided to show how vehicles can get in and out of parking spaces 1-3 in front of the building, the Local Highway Authority has commented that this arrangement may not always be practicable and three spaces could be provided to the front of the site instead of one at bay 1.

The parking standards for a residential care establishment are 1 space per 2FTE employees plus 1 space per 4 clients. This equates to 5 spaces and the proposal meets this standard.

The applicant states that principally 240L bins are used and that the site would require four bins. However neighbouring Fairview uses three large bins of at least 600L capacity each. No details of bin storage and bicycle storage have been provided with the application, and as there is room for these facilities to be accommodated within the site, it is recommended that these provisions be secured via appropriate conditions.

On balance, it is considered that the cumulative effects of the proposed development are unlikely to be so severe that development should be prevented and the Highway Authority would not wish to raise an objection to this application on highway safety or inadequate parking grounds.

Community Infrastructure Contributions

Due to the uplift in trips to the property as a care home compared to the existing residential use, the proposed development would attract the need for contributions towards the Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport (BEST).

The contributions that have been sought are considered to be in accordance with the test of the CIL Regulations 2010, in that they are:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development, and; (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

The applicant is willing to enter into a S106 Legal Agreement and therefore the proposal would comply with Saved Policy C1 of the Local Plan and the interim planning guidance note on `S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure.

Other matters

Due to the potential parking/highway issues and the site being within the DEPZ, it is recommended that the garage annexe to the rear of the site be tied to the main building by an appropriate condition.

A comment has been made that there would be pressure in the future for the footpath between Red Roof and Fairview to be relocated enabling them to combine both properties

42 of 69 with future extensions and more residents. This would require planning permission and the merits of such a scheme would have to be considered at this time.

It is not considered that the proposed rear parking spaces would create a security issue allowing residents to wander off and although there would be two care homes for people with learning difficulties within Pinks Lane, given the fact that the proposal would still remain largely residential in character, the proposal would complement the residential area that it lies within.

Summary

The principle of the proposal is supported by Saved Policies D5, D4 and C4 of the Local Plan. While the proposal involves the depletion of the existing dwelling stock, there is the planning benefit of the provision of a residential care home for people with special needs which would help to integrate the residents within the community. Also, it is considered that there would be no amenity or highway issues associated with the proposal to warrant refusal of the application.

Conditions

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:

Location Plan Scale 1:1250 received 10 May 2013 Site plan Scale 1:200 received on 10 May 2013 Proposed floor plans - main house Scale 1:100 received on10 May 2013 Proposed west elevation - main house Scale 1:100 received on 10 May 2013 Proposed floor plan- annexe Scale 1:50 received on 10 May 2013 Proposed elevations - annexe Scale 1:100 received on 10 May 2013 REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this planning permission. REASON: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

3 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match, in type, colour and texture those on the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

4 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i. the parking and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (all to be established within one week of the commencement of development); ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv. the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the

43 of 69

disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the Monday to Friday AM peak (08.00 to 09.00) and PM peak (16.30 to 18.00) periods. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

5 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or the use commence, whichever is the sooner, until provision for the loading and unloading of vehicles and the parking of a minimum five cars has been made within the curtilage of the premises and the areas of land so provided shall not be used for any purpose other than the manoeuvring, loading and unloading and parking of vehicles, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011

6 No part of the development shall be occupied until cycle parking facilities have been provided in accordance with detailed drawings to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such drawings to show the position, design, materials and finishes thereof. Development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and A1 and to improve provision for cyclists in accordance with Saved Policy A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

7 No development shall commence on site until details of a scheme for the storage (prior to disposal) of refuse and recycling materials, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not commence until the approved scheme has been fully implemented and the development shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved scheme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of general amenity and to ensure that no obstruction is caused on the adjoining highway and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

8 No development including site clearance, demolition, ground preparation, temporary access construction/widening, material storage or construction works shall commence until a scheme for the protection of the three oak trees on the southern boundary of Red Roof has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development or other operations shall take place other than in complete accordance with the approved tree protection scheme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The tree protection scheme shall include the following information:

(a) A tree protection plan comprising of a drawing at a scale of not less than 1:500 showing the position of protection zones, fencing and ground protection measures to be established for the three oak trees.

(b) The specification for protective fencing and a timetable to show when fencing will be erected and dismantled in relation to the different phases of the development;

44 of 69

(d) Provision for signage of protection zones and precautionary areas;

REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

9. The annexe accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied solely for purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of Red Roof as a care home and shall not be sold off, sub-let or used as a separate care home. REASON: The unit of accommodation is not in a satisfactory position and has insufficient private amenity space and parking spaces to be occupied separately from the main care home and in accordance Saved Policies E1 and A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

Informative(s):-

1. 1.1 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated. 1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met. 1.3 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £97 per request or £28 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.

2. This Decision Notice must be read in conjunction with a Planning Obligation completed under the terms of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). You are advised to satisfy yourself that you have all the relevant documentation.

3. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-

- offering a pre-application advice; - seeking further information following receipt of the application; - seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the application;

45 of 69

- considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement.

In this instance:

- the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit, - was provided with pre-application advice,

In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

46 of 69

Cttee: 7 August 2013 Item No. 5

Application no: 13/00620/FUL For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address Merrifield Knights Lane Ball Hill Newbury Proposal Erection of replacement dwelling and detached garage and store following demolition of the existing bungalow and relocation of the existing access.

Registered: 30 May 2013 Expiry Date: 1 August 2013 Type of Full Planning Case Officer: Claire Cook Application: Application 01256 845444 Applicant: Mr & Mrs Andrew Agent: Mr Andrew Macallan Macallan Ward: East Woodhay Ward Member(s): Cllr Clive Sanders

Parish: EAST WOODHAY OS Grid Reference: 442073 163296 CP

Recommendation: the application be APPROVED subject to no new material considerations arising from re-consultation on amended plans (expiry 01/08/2013) and the conditions listed at the end of the report.

Reasons for Approval

1. The proposed development would be of an appropriate size and design and relates to surrounding development in a sympathetic manner and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and Appendix 13 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008.

2. The proposed development would preserve the landscape character and scenic quality of the area and would not harm the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As such the development is considered to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

3. The proposed development would not result in an undue loss of privacy or cause undue overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing or noise and disturbance impacts to neighbouring properties and as such complies with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

47 of 69

General comments

Amended plans

 Plan submitted showing comparison between refused and current scheme (received 17/06/2013).  Elevation plan amended to remove outline of neighbouring property Little Garston on north elevation drawing (received 15/07/2013).  Size and design of proposed garage amended (received 16/07/2013).

Planning Policy

The site lies outside of any recognised Settlement Policy Boundary and therefore within a countryside location. The site is also within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) Section 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment)

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

Policy D6 (New Residential Accommodation in the Countryside) Policy E1 (Development Control) Policy E6 (Landscape Character) Policy E7 (Nature/Biodiversity) Policy A1 (Car Parking)

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance

Extending Your Home and Replacement Dwellings (Appendix 13) of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008 Residential Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document East Woodhay Village Design Statement

Description of Site

The existing dwelling is a brick and tile bungalow. The bungalow is of no architectural merit and is partially screened behind a conifer hedge located along the front boundary of the site. The vehicular access to the site is currently to the southern end of the western boundary.

The bungalow lies to the east of Knights Lane which is characterised by a mixture of two storey dwellings, chalet bungalows and traditional single storey bungalows, all of which are situated within generous plots and accessed from the main highway through private driveways. The land along Knights Lane slopes gradually down to the north and up to the 48 of 69 east, so properties within the existing street scene sit at differing levels from their adjacent neighbours and the properties which lie beyond the existing highway. The main highway consists of a single access track.

The adjacent neighbouring properties to the site lie to the north and south. To east of the site lies open woodland and countryside. To the west of the site lies the adjacent highway, beyond which lie further neighbouring properties.

Proposal

The erection of a 4 bedroom dwelling and detached 2 bay garage and storage building following demolition of the existing 3 bedroom bungalow. The proposal also seeks to relocate the existing access.

The property would have a dual aspect roof with a wider roof sat behind the front roof (both the same height). The main body of the building would be constructed of red brick with elements of tile hanging with a plain clay tiled roof. There are dormer windows proposed on the front and rear roof slopes which would have a flat lead or zinc roof. The proposed materials of the windows have been referenced as being to be agreed by condition.

The proposed garage/ store would be located along the north-eastern boundary of the application site. The structure would have a footprint of 6.5m in width, 6.3m in depth and 5.6m in height (5.8 at lower ground level). The structure would have a brick plinth, timber boarded structure and plain clay tiled roof. The structure would also be partly used for bicycle storage/ work benches. The structure would be sited 3m away from the north- eastern shared boundary.

The proposal also seeks to close the existing vehicular access and relocate it further north along the western boundary. The existing front boundary conifer hedge and low brick wall would be removed and replaced with a cleft chestnut post and rail fence and a mixed species hedgerow.

Consultations

East Woodhay Parish Council: No objection.

Highway Officer: No objection to initial or amended plans subject to conditions.

Environmental Health Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

Tree Officer: No objection subject to condition.

Biodiversity Officer: No objection subject to informative.

North Wessex Downs AONB Officer: No comments received.

Any additional responses received in response to the re-consultation that is currently being carried out in relation to the amendments to the proposed garage will be reported within the Committee Update Paper.

49 of 69

Public Observations

6 letters of objection raising the following concerns on the following grounds:

 The development would result in overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy to Ambleside.  The garage/store and plant to run ground source heat pump would result in light and possible noise to Ambleside.  The proposal would result in loss of trees and effect on trees  The proposal would result in an unsafe access, close to a dangerous bend in Knights Lane and would result in accidents.  The proposed development is unacceptable in design (size, scale and bulk) in appearance to other buildings in the area.  The proposed development does not comply with Saved Policy D6 of the Local Plan.  The proposed development does not overcome the reasons for refusal of BDB/77495 and should be refused on the same basis as it still doesn't comply with the NPPF.  There have been some positive revisions to the design.  The first floor rear windows would result in overbearing and overlooking to neighbouring amenities.  Other dormer windows in Knights Lane are more discrete and the proposed openings should be reduced in width.  The amendments to the proposed garage fail to overcome the reasons for refusal of BDB/77495, the garage projects further in front of the building line and is contrary to planning policy  The proposed garage would be an intrusion and planting could not be used as a basis for assessing the impact as its removal cannot be prevented.  The proposed garage would have an overbearing impact on Ambleside and its garden.  No other garages within Knights Lane extend forward of the building line.  A garage could be incorporated into the property.  When working out the size of the neighbouring properties in comparison to the proposed development the Design and Access Statement does not take into account the proposed garage/store.  The proposal is contrary to the Village Design Statement in regards to size, scale and design.  Application proposes a house in an area that is predominantly bungalows.  Due to the land levels Ambleside and other neighbours would be overlooked.  There is also an application for a house under BDB/77250 (The Paddocks), both properties sit either side our property.  Tintagel has no adverse effect on any surrounding properties and sits at a lower land level.  The proposal would be out of keeping with the street scene.

Any additional responses received in response to the reconsultation that is currently being carried out in relation to the amendments to the proposed garage will be reported within the Committee Update Paper.

50 of 69

Relevant Planning History

BDB/77495 Erection of 1 no.4 bedroom dwelling and Refused detached 3 bay garage and storage building 24.05.2013 following demolition of existing bungalow and relocation of existing access

BDB/60012 Erection of a single storey side extension Granted 04.02.2005

BDB/39026 Erection of single storey side extension with Granted accommodation in roofspace 29.02.1996

KWR/3000 Erection of type ‘H’ bungalow, Plots 6 and 7 Granted 08.01.1960

KWR/2642 Use of land for erection 9 dwellings Granted 10.06.1959

Assessment

Previous Planning Application

Planning permission was refused by the Development Control Committee under BDB/77495 in May 2013 for the erection of a 4no. bedroom dwelling and detached 3 bay garage and storage building following demolition of the existing bungalow and the relocation of the existing access.

The application was refused for two reasons:

1. The proposed replacement dwelling and associated detached double garage would, by virtue of its scale, size, bulk and design, be overly prominent in its setting and overbearing on the streetscene. The proposed development would therefore fail to respond to the local context of Knights Lane, contrary to Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011 and would be contrary to the guidance and recommendations contained within the East Woodhay Village Design Statement through its inappropriate design and use of materials.

2. The proposed replacement dwelling and associated detached garage would be overbearing on the immediate neighbouring dwelling to the north, Ambleside, by virtue of its bulk and close proximity, detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers therein. The proposed development is therefore considered contrary to Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 1996-2011 and the guidance contained within Appendix 16 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document.

51 of 69

No objection was raised under application BDB/77495 regarding the proposed relocation of the vehicular access.

The current application seeks to overcome the reasons for refusal set out above. The following amendments have been made to the proposed development:

Dwelling  The bay projections proposed on the front and rear elevations have been removed and replaced with dormer windows.  The rear roof height has been lowered (by 400mm) to match the front roof height.  The roof on the southern elevation has been hipped.  The length of the building has been reduced by 450mm.  The eaves at the rear of the building have been reduced by 450mm;  The materials have been amended with the omission of zinc cladding and large areas of oak boarding.  The dwelling is more traditional in appearance than previous contemporary approach.

Garage/Store  The garage has been reduced from a 3 bay to a 2 bay garage (9.1-6.5m in width) and the design of the roof has been amended to be half-hipped.  The garage has been moved 1m further away from the shared boundary with Ambleside (previously 2m now 3m).

Principle of development

The application site is located within the countryside and the principle of replacing the existing dwelling is considered to be acceptable in accordance with Saved Policy D6(i) of the Local Plan (Residential Accommodation in the Countryside). This policy requires that the property has been continuously occupied, is not the result of a temporary or series of temporary permissions, and that the building is not derelict. The proposal meets these requirements.

Impact on the character of the area/ design

The existing character of Knights Lane comprises of a mixture of two storey dwellings, chalet style bungalows and traditional, simply formed single storey bungalows. The majority of the properties on Knights Lane are set back within generous sized plots and face onto the existing highway, resulting in an established building line which maintains an open street scape. The land gradually descends further north along Knights Lane. There are examples of previous significant development to the properties within the existing street scene, in both scale and height. Furthermore, given the presence of two storey and chalet style bungalows within the existing street scene, the principle of first floor accommodation in this locality is considered to be acceptable subject to the merits of the case.

The existing dwelling is a simple, brick and tile gabled roof bungalow with a flat roof detached garage, siting largely across the width of the site. Due to the size and design of the existing bungalow it has a neutral impact within the street scene. The property is however considered to be of little architectural merit and no objection is raised to its demolition.

52 of 69

The proposed replacement dwelling needs to be assessed in accordance with the relevant policies of the Development Plan. Of particular relevance to assessing the design of the proposal are Section 7 of the NPPF, Saved Policies D6 and E1 of the Local Plan, Appendix 13 of the Design and Sustainability SPD ‘Extending Your Home and Replacement Dwellings’ and the East Woodhay VDS.

The previous application proposed a dwelling which was contemporary in appearance and the Development Control Committee considered that the proposed design would fail to respond to the local context of Knights Lane and would result in a building which would be overly prominent in its setting and overbearing on the street scene.

The supporting text to Saved Policy D6 states that replacement dwellings should not significantly change the siting, scale, setting and character of the existing dwelling in order to protect the rural character of the area. The proposed dwelling would not alter the siting or setting of the property, however, there would be an increase in the size and scale compared to the existing dwelling and the appearance would be different compared to the existing bungalow and surrounding properties.

Saved Policy E1 of the Local Plan states that proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. Furthermore, all development proposals should respond to the local context of buildings in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, reinforce attractive qualities of local distinctiveness and enhance areas of poor design; extensions should respect their host building.'

The East Woodhay Village Design Statement states that with reference to development within the hamlets of East Woodhay 'New developments and alterations should aim to complement the predominant scale and style of the hamlet, with care being taken to use existing colour palettes, materials and techniques. Architectural styles and features should be of good quality to provide interesting houses with limited repetition or commonality. There is some scope for a limited amount of innovative design of high quality.'

Compared to the previous proposal the overall scale and bulk of the proposal has been reduced, largely through the removal of the front and rear two storey projecting elements. The overall design and innovative nature of the proposal has also been amended to represent a more traditional design approach and palette of materials, for example the previous use of zinc and timber cladding and the vertical bay windows have been omitted. The VDS states that a limited amount of innovative design of a high quality is possible and puts emphasis on the use of materials characteristic of the area and it is considered that this proposal meets that criteria. The proposal still proposes a more unique design approach but using traditional materials and traditional styles. A condition would be required for material samples to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to ensure that good quality materials are used to enhance the appearance of the development.

The existing bungalow has a height of 5.5m at the highest point (where the land levels are lowest) and the proposed property would have a height of 6.7m representing an increase in height of 1.2m. A street scene drawing has been submitted which shows the dwelling in relation to two neighbouring properties to the south 'Little Garston' and 'The Paddocks' (recently granted planning permission under BDB/77250). The drawing shows that the proposed property would respect the staggered nature of development (which declines

53 of 69 northwards down Knights Lane), not extending unduly high within the street scene and having a ridge and eaves height below that of the direct neighbouring property 'Little Garston'. The proposed dwelling would be sited in the same location as the existing property but the overall width of development across the plot would be reduced and the depth would be increased, especially to the southern end, however this would be comparable with the depth of the neighbouring property ‘Little Garston’.

The development would extend a greater extent forward of the existing front building line of the existing bungalow and of the neighbouring property ‘Little Garston’ although the main projection forward would be the roof slope at single storey height. However, the overall size and scale of the proposed dwelling would be comparable to neighbouring properties and would respect the staggered nature in the height of the properties along Knights Lane.

The proposed property would also be viewed from the front of the neighbouring property 'Ambleside'. It is considered that views of the proposed garage and side of the dwelling from this angle would not be harmful to the wider street scene or character of the area.

It is considered that the size, design, scale and bulk of the property would respect the character of the area and that the proposal, in addition to the amendments to the garage discussed below would overcome the reason for refusal No.1 of BDB/77495.

The application also includes the incorporation of energy conservation equipment including a ground source heat pump and rainwater harvesting. The incorporation of renewable technologies is welcomed and it is considered that these proposals would not harm the visual amenities of the area.

Under BDB/77495 it was considered that the proposed garage/store was overbearing within the street scene.

The Village Design Statement states that 'so far as practical, garages should be set back behind the building line so that they do not become a prominent feature'. Appendix 13 of the Councils Design and Sustainability SPD also states that 'a garage should not project further forward of a strong building line. If a garage is sited closer to the highway than the main building line, it could be visually prominent in the street scene and have an undesirable impact on the established pattern and character of the area.' This guidance seeks to prevent unacceptable forms of development but does not prohibit any garage forward of the front elevation of dwellings and an assessment has to be made on a case by case basis as to whether a garage would harm the character of the area/ street scene.

The proposed garage has been reduced in size to that proposed under BDB/77495 and is now the required internal size for a double garage to meet the Council's Residential Parking Standards of 6m x 6m. The proposed garage would extend partially forward of the front elevation of the new dwelling and the wider building line within the street scene. However, given the cumulative impact of the reduction in the overall size of the garage, that the design continues to be a simple structure of rural appearance, that the garage is located partly to the side of the dwelling and that the application site is at the end of the street scene, it is considered that the proposed garage would not appear unduly prominent or overbearing within the street scene and the amendments would overcome the previous reason for refusal (No.1) under BDB/77495.

Impact on neighbouring amenities

54 of 69

Dwelling

Planning application BDB/77495 was refused on the basis that the proposed dwelling would have an overbearing impact on the dwelling to the north, ‘Ambleside’, by virtue of its bulk and close proximity to this neighbouring property.

The applicant has made a number of changes to reduce the overall size of the proposed dwelling. Compared to BDB/77495 the rear roof has been lowered in height by 400mm, the rear eaves level has been lowered by 450mm, the length of the building has been reduced by 450mm and the front and rear projections have been removed. In addition during the course of the current application the size of the garage has been reduced from 8.3m to 6.5m in width. It is considered that these changes compared to BDB/77495, in addition to the overall amendments to the appearance of the dwelling, would reduce the impact of the development on this neighbouring property and are sufficient to ensure that the proposal would not have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring property 'Ambleside'. In addition under BDB/77495 it was considered that the proposals would not result in any overshadowing or loss of light to ‘Ambleside’ and given that the current proposal has reduced the size of the dwelling and increased the distance of the development from this neighbouring property no objection is raised in these regards.

With regard to overlooking to the properties to the rear (including ‘Ambleside’, ‘Glenthorne’ and ‘Little Garston’) this did not form a reason for refusal under the previous application (BDB/77495), however, the proposal has changed in appearance since the previous application.

With regard to overlooking there is ground floor glazing to the northern side elevation and this would be largely screened by the existing boundary treatment. To the rear at first floor level, three small windows and two dormer windows are proposed. The small window nearest the neighbour 'Ambleside' would serve a bathroom and it is considered reasonable and necessary to condition that this window is obscure glazed given that it serves a bathroom and the potential to overlook the neighbouring property ‘Ambleside’. The dormer nearest this neighbouring property would serve a bedroom. The window would enable oblique views to the rear of the garden of Ambleside however these would be limited and would not result in undue harm to warrant refusal of the application. Furthermore, openings within the roof by way of rooflights and dormer windows are apparent within the local area and result in an existing level of overlooking amongst neighbouring properties. Conditions would also be required to secure that no additional windows are inserted in the northern side elevation in the interests of amenity.

There is over 20m between the application site and the neighbouring property to the north- east 'Glenthorne' and this is considered to be sufficient to result in no undue overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking impacts.

The proposed development would not extend beyond the rear elevation of the neighbouring property 'Little Garston'. This neighbour is set at a higher ground level and has a ground floor window and door and is positioned close to the boundary. The proposed development would not result in harmful overbearing or overshadowing to this property, given the relationship between the built development. Furthermore, no harmful loss of light would occur to the ground floor window and door which do not serve primary use rooms. No windows are proposed at first floor on the southern elevation and therefore no overlooking would result in this regard. The proposed rear windows, the nearest being a dormer window would result in limited oblique overlooking however this would not be

55 of 69 unduly harmful and there is already some limited overlooking from ‘Little Garston’ towards the application site from the rear dormer windows. As such, this relationship is considered to be acceptable.

The proposed dwelling would be located 27m away from the neighbouring properties to the west across Knights Lane which is considered to be a sufficient distance to ensure no undue overbearing or overshadowing impacts. The windows in the roof space of the proposed development would allow for overlooking towards the front gardens of these neighbouring properties. However given the distance between these properties and that it is the front garden area and not private amenity space this overlooking would not be unduly harmful as to warrant refusal of the application on this basis.

Garage

Planning application BDB/77495 was refused on the basis that the proposed garage would have an overbearing impact on the immediate dwelling to the north, ‘Ambleside’, by virtue of its bulk and close proximity to this neighbouring property. Due to the land level changes the garage would have been sited at a higher ground level than this neighbouring property.

Within this current application the garage/store has been reduced in width by 2.6m compared to BDB/77495 to form a two bay garage and has been moved 1m further south- west away from the shared boundary with ‘Ambleside’. As a result, the proposed garage/store would be located 5.150m from the nearest corner with this neighbouring property. Given the amendments that have been made to the size and siting of the garage, the design of the garage with a cat slide roof and the orientation of the sun and boundary treatment, it is considered that no undue overbearing, overshadowing would be caused and the proposal would overcome reason for refusal No.2 of BDB/77495. Furthermore, the garage is proposed for ancillary residential purposes and it is considered that no harmful noise and disturbance impacts would be caused.

Highways/Parking

The property is situated on the eastern side of Knights Lane just south of a significant bend in the road that deflects towards the property.

The proposal seeks to alter the location of the means of access to the property by moving it 7m closer to the bend in Knights Lane. The relocation of the access is proposed to achieve on-site turning as the location of the current access hard up against the southern boundary does not enable turning due to the distance between the built form and the front of the site. Therefore, at the current time vehicles reverse out of the site.

Under BDB/77495 it was also proposed to relocate the access, however this proposed to relocate it 8m north of the existing access towards the bend, thus a further 1m north than under the current application. The Highway Officer raised no objection and this did not form a reason for refusal under application BDB/77495.

Under BDB/77495 additional information was submitted to demonstrate that the proposed visibility splays were sufficient given the speed of traffic approaching and around the bend in the road. Under this application the Highway Officer has advised that the visibility sightlines from the existing means of access are already limited by the location of the bend and the associated vegetation. Relocation of the means of access reduces the 'Y' sightline distance to approximately 27m (equivalent speed 23mph), however the Applicant had previously, under BDB/77495, submitted a consultant's report to substantiate that the

56 of 69 proposed sightlines would be acceptable and given that this proposal would not move the access as close to the bend than as proposed under the previous scheme, it is considered that there are no in principle objections to the relocated access.

Therefore, whilst the proposed access would be located closer to the bend this would be coupled with the provision of on-site turning with vehicles likely to leave in a forward gear and with adequate visibility splays being provided and therefore it is considered that the proposal would not result compromise highway safety.

More detailed plans of the means of access including details of the stopping up of the existing access, materials and finishes, visibility sightlines and surface-water drainage details will be secured by way of a condition.

The application site is classified as rural within the Council's Residential Car Parking Standards. For the purposes of residential motor vehicle and secure cycle parking assessments a four bedroom dwelling would normally be expected to provide 3.25 (rounded to 4) spaces with secure cycle parking for 2 long and 1 short stay places plus refuse/recycling facilities for 2 no 240ltr wheelie bins and 1 no glass recycling box.

The proposal includes a garage with space for one vehicle. A further three vehicle spaces could be provided on the driveway with adequate space for on-site turning to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward gear. The proposed garage would provide sufficient space for secure cycle storage. The parking spaces and cycle storage can be secured by condition.

The Highway Officer has advised that the vehicle access and egress of the northern garage parking space is hindered by the limited extent of the external hardstanding area, however, this discrepancy is very minor and it is considered that the garage would still be usable.

There is also sufficient space within the application site for bin collection and storage without obstructing vehicle movements or the access.

Due to the location of the application site a condition to secure a Construction Method Statement will be imposed for details of how construction works will be managed in the interests of highway safety. This would include where construction vehicles are proposed to be parked.

Trees

There are a number of existing trees within the site and around the boundaries. The principal trees are located in the north west corner of the site on the boundary with Knights Lane and include ash, beech, holly, silver birch and western red cedar. The Tree Officer has advised that in landscape terms the principal trees are the hollies (shown on the plan as T7 and T8) which are proposed to be retained.

The proposed development seeks to remove five trees and the Tree Officer has advised that the removal of these trees would have a minimal impact on the local area and has raised no objection. The proposed outbuilding would incur into the Root Protection Area (RPA) of one holly tree however the Tree Officer has advised that this would not unduly harm the tree.

The Tree Officer has advised that the arboricultural assessment covers the essential

57 of 69 issues and provided the recommended tree and ground protection measures are followed there should be little adverse impact on the retained trees. A condition to secure that the development is carried out in accordance with the tree protection measures would be required.

Other matters

The Council's Biodiversity Officer has concluded that the potential for bats to be affected is low. Furthermore the trees to be removed do not appear to be suitable for the provision of bat roosts. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not have a harmful impact on biodiversity, however an informative is proposed to advise the applicant that should roosting bats be found at any time works must stop and the advice of an ecologist should be sought.

The Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection subject to conditions restricting hours of construction and deliveries in order to preserve the amenities of the neighbouring properties during the works, given their close proximity to the site. It is considered reasonable to impose conditions in this regard.

The Environmental Health Officer has also requested that land contamination conditions be recommended, given the sensitive nature of the site. Whilst the Local Planning Authority acknowledged that the site is currently in residential use, the Environment Health Officer has justified the need for such conditions by noting the rural nature of the application site and reasonably assuming that a domestic heating oil tank is either present on the site or has been present in the past. Given that the proposed use is sensitive to the presence of contamination, it is considered reasonable to recommend this condition.

The supporting documentation states that ground source energy from 3 bore holes located in the garden is proposed. The installation of a ground source heat pump is permitted development and it is therefore not considered necessary to secure any further details in this regard.

Conditions

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:

Location Plan received 30/05/2013 Drawing No. 3A.01 Rev E received 28/05/2013 Drawing No. 4A.01 Rev G received 28/05/2013 Drawing No. 3A.02 Rev B received 28/05/2013 Drawing No. 4A.05 Rev B received 16/07/2013 Drawing No. 4A.02 Rev B received 16/07/2013 Drawing No. 2A.03 Rev C received 16/07/2013 REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

58 of 69

3 No development shall commence on site until a material schedule including details of the types and colours of all external materials to be used, including colour of mortar and hard surfacing details, together with samples, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

4 No works shall take place on site until a schedule of windows, doors, dormers and roof lights, including glazing bar details, together with details of the door joinery, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the quality of the development and the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

5 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of screen walls/fences/hedges to be erected. The approved screen walls/fences shall be erected before the dwelling hereby approved is first occupied and shall subsequently be maintained. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, details of which shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before replacement occurs. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011.

6 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i. the parking and turning of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (all to be established within one week of the commencement of development); ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv. wheel washing facilities or an explanation why they are not necessary; v. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding where appropriate; vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vii. a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from construction work; and viii. the management and coordination of deliveries of plant and materials and the disposing of waste resulting from construction activities so as to avoid undue interference with the operation of the public highway, particularly during the Monday to Friday AM peak (08.00 to 09.00) and PM peak (16.30 to 18.00) periods. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

59 of 69

7 Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority no development shall take place on site until details of the method of construction of the altered access to the premises (shown in principle on Macallan Penfold Chartered Architects Drg No 2A.03 RevC received 16/07/2013), including materials and finishes, visibility sightlines and surface-water drainage details that prevents surface water run-off from the site entering the public highway, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved access details shall be constructed and fully implemented before the development hereby approved is occupied or the use commence, whichever is the sooner and shall be thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that a satisfactory means of access to the highway is constructed before the approved development is operational in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

8 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no works shall take place on-site until details of the means of closure (stopping up) of the existing access have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved closure (stopping up) of the existing access shall be fully implemented immediately after completion of the new access, and prior to the occupation of the building. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

9 No works pursuant to this permission shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:-

(a) a desk top study carried out by a competent person documenting all the previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report Nos. 2 and 3 and BS10175:2001;

and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

(b) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as being appropriate by the desk study in accordance with BS10175:2001- Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice;

and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

(c) a detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed and proposals for future maintenance and monitoring. Such scheme shall include nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works.

if during any works contamination is encountered which has not been previously identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme, agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

60 of 69

REASON: To ensure any soil, gas or water contamination on the site is remediated to protect the proposed occupants of the application site and/or adjacent land and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

10 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/brought into use until there has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority verification by the competent person approved under the provisions of condition 9(c) that any remediation scheme required and approved under the provisions of condition 9(c) has been implemented fully in accordance with the approved details (unless varied with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority in advance of implementation). Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority such verification shall comprise;

as built drawings of the implemented scheme;

photographs of the remediation works in progress;

certificates demonstrating that imported and/or material left in situ is free of contamination.

Thereafter the scheme shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the scheme approved under condition 9(c), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

11 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or the use commence, whichever is the sooner, until provision for turning (enter, turn and leave in a forward gear), manoeuvring, loading and unloading of vehicles and the parking of 4 vehicles and secure bicycle parking for 2 long and 1 short stay places, together with unobstructed pedestrian access to the primary entrance of the property, have been made within the curtilage of the property and the areas of land so provided shall not be used for any purposes other than the turning, manoeuvring, loading and unloading and parking of vehicles and bicycles, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policies E1, A1 and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

12 Any gates provided shall be set back a minimum distance of 5.5m from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway with the gates opening into the site away from the highway and they shall be thereafter maintained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

13 Protective measures, including fencing and ground protection shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Assessment report written by SMW Consultancy

61 of 69

and dated 4 January 2013, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interest of visual amenity and in accordance with Saved Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

14 No work relating to the construction of the development hereby approved, including works of demolition or preparation prior to operations, shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

15 No deliveries of construction materials or plant and machinery and no removal of any spoil from the site shall take place before the hours of 0730 nor after 1800 Monday to Friday, before the hours of 0800 nor after 1300 Saturdays nor on Sundays or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties during the construction period and in accordance Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

16 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no building, structure or other alteration permitted by Class A,B,C,D, and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be erected on the application site without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose. REASON: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site in the interests of the amenity of the area and to safeguard the amenities of the adjoining properties, in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

17 Prior to occupation, the en-suite window at first floor level serving bedroom one on the northern end of the eastern elevation shall be non-opening and glazed with obscured glass. Once installed the window shall be permanently maintained in that condition, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the privacy of the adjoining property and to prevent overlooking, in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

18 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no additional openings shall be inserted in the northern elevation of the dwelling or the north/north-east roof slope of the detached garage/store without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority on an application made for the purpose. REASON: To protect the amenity and privacy of the occupiers of adjoining property in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

62 of 69

Informative(s):-

1.1 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

2. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council has worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-

 offering a pre-application advice service;  seeking amendments to the proposed development following receipt of the application.

In this instance:

 the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit.

In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

3. The applicant is advised that, if roosting bats are found within the structure during demolition, work must stop and the advice of a suitably qualified ecologist sought, preferably an ecologist with a current Natural England bat licence.

4. With respect to the Means of Access Condition above Consent under the Town and Country Planning Acts must not be taken as approval for any works carried out on any footway, including a Public Right of Way, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the publically maintained highway. The development will involve works within the public highway. It is an offence to commence those works without the permission of the Local Highway Authority, Hampshire County Council. In the interests of highway safety the development must not commence on-site until permission has been obtained from the Local Highway Authority authorising any 63 of 69 necessary works, including street lighting and surface water drainage, within the publically maintained highway. Public Utility apparatus may also be affected by the development. Contact the appropriate public utility service to ensure agreement on any necessary alterations. Advice on this matter can be obtained from Hampshire County Council's Area Office, telephone 0845 8504422.

64 of 69

Cttee: 7 August 2013 Item No. 6

Application no: 13/00778/HSE For Details and Plans Click Here

Site Address 7 Main Road Tadley Hampshire RG26 3NJ Proposal Erection of side conservatory, decking and access steps

Registered: 10 June 2013 Expiry Date: 25 July 2013 Type of Householder Case Officer: Karen Wylde Application: Permission 01256 845515 Applicant: Mr R Musson Agent: Mr Kevin Mosley Ward: Tadley South Ward Member(s): Cllr Rob Musson Cllr David Leeks

Parish: TADLEY CP OS Grid Reference: 460505 160876

Recommendation: the application be APPROVED subject the conditions listed at the end of this report.

Reasons for Approval

2. The proposed development is appropriate in design terms and would neither dominate or compete with the host building and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and Appendix 13 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document.

3. The proposed development would preserve the character of the Conservation Area and as such complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Saved Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

4. The proposed development would not result in an undue loss of privacy or cause undue overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing or noise and disturbance impacts to neighbouring properties and as such complies with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

General comments

This application is brought to the Development Control Committee because the applicant is a Member of the Borough Council.

65 of 69

Planning Policy

The site is located within the Settlement Policy Boundary for Tadley and within the Tadley Conservation Area.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Section 7 (Requiring good design) Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment)

Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies)

E1 (Development Control) E3 (Areas of Architectural or Historic Interest)

Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance (SPD's and SPG's) and interim planning guidance

Appendix 13 ‘Extending Your Home and Replacement Dwellings’ of the Design and Sustainability SPD Appendix 4 ’The Historic Environment: Conservation Areas of the Design and Sustainability SPD Tadley Conservation Area Appraisal Tadley Village Design Statement

Description of Site

A detached house with integral garage built in the 1980's in the grounds of 5 Main Road. The site is accessed by a shared access with a drive along the frontage of No.5 and is enclosed along the north eastern boundary with Main Road by a high conifer hedge. The land slopes slightly down towards the south east, along which boundary there is tree and hedge screening. The south western boundary abuts the primary school playing field and is enclosed by a low hedge with some views over to the field.

The majority of the private amenity area is located to the south east of the dwelling. A raised patio area between 0.5m and 1m in height is located on the south eastern side elevation of the house.

Proposal

Erection of a side conservatory which would be elevated to match the existing floor levels replacing the existing patio area. The overall height of the conservatory including dwarf brick walls would be 3.6m where is joins the house and 2.9m at the front eaves. Its depth would be 3.9m and its width would be 7.6m.

An area of raised decking at a maximum height of 0.4m, a depth of 3.9m and width of 2.4m, would be accessed from the south western doors of the conservatory. Steps at a maximum height of 1m would descend to the south east from the conservatory and the decking.

Consultations

TadleyTown Council: No objections.

66 of 69

Ward Members: No comments received at the time of writing.

Public Observations: No comments received at the time of writing.

At the time of writing, the application is still within the consultation period which expires on 25/07/2013. Details of any comments received will be provided in the update paper.

Relevant Planning History

BDB/19706 Erection of house and garage Granted 22/01/1987

BDB/21514 New vehicular access Refused 22/01/1987

Assessment

Impact on the character of the area/ design

The proposed conservatory would be of an appropriate design and scale which would sit comfortably with the style of the dwelling. The materials would be brown effect upvc and red brick walls to match the existing dwelling, which would be acceptable. The decking area would not be overly large or of a significant height and no objections are raised in this respect.

The application site is located on the western edge of the Tadley Conservation Area and is completely screened from view by the high boundary hedge along the north eastern/eastern boundary. The host dwelling is a modern building that makes a neutral contribution to the Conservation Area. The proposed development would therefore not have a harmful impact on the wider Conservation Area or the character and appearance of the street scene. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

Impact on neighbouring amenities

The proposed conservatory and decking would be located approximately 23m from the south eastern boundary with the adjoining neighbouring property, The Old Chapel. As a result of this distance and the existing boundary treatment there would be no overlooking or loss of privacy for the occupiers of The Old Chapel and there would be no overbearing impact. The proposed decking would be located adjacent to the south western boundary with the school playing field and to the north west is 5 Main Road, from which the development would be predominantly screened by the existing dwelling. It is considered that the proposal would have in adverse impact upon the amenities of adjoining neighbours and no objections are raised in this regard.

Conditions

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:

 Site Location Plan @ 1:1250 received 10/06/2013  Drawing No. 000670/01 received 10/06/2013 67 of 69

 Drawing No. 000670/02 received 10/06/2013

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be as specified in the approved plans and particulars unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

Informative(s):-

1.1 The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

 considering the imposition of conditions.

In this instance:

 the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required.

68 of 69

In such ways the Council has demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

69 of 69