CFH Chandlers Ford and Hiltingbury Local Area Committee 28 June 2017 s1

CFH – Chandlers Ford and Hiltingbury Local Area Committee 28 June 2017

Application O/17/80003 Number: Case Officer: Gary Osmond Received Date: Tuesday 7 February 2017 Site Address: Land to rear of, 239 Winchester Road, Chandler's Ford, Eastleigh SO53 2DX Applicant: J Taylor Proposal: Outline: Construction of 1no. 4 bed dwelling with associated amenity space, parking and access from Winchester Road Recommendation: Refuse

CONDITIONS AND REASONS

The proposed development if permitted would result in a cramped and congested layout and a form of development which is not characteristic of the prevailing character and pattern of development in the surrounding Hiltingbury and Hocombe Park Special Policy Area, to the detriment of the amenity and character of the area and the amenity of future occupiers of the development. As such the application is considered to be contrary to the requirements of saved Policies 59.BE & 181.LB of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Policies DM1 & DM10 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, July 2014 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Documents 'Quality Places' and ‘Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury Character Areas’.

The constraints of the application site, namely the close proximity and extensive canopy of protected trees on and surrounding the site, the orientation of the site, as well as overlooking from neighbouring properties, would result in an excessively shaded and overlooked private amenity area, to the detriment of amenity and privacy of future occupiers of the proposed development and is likely to lead to future pressure to remove or undertake unnecessary works to those protected trees. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to saved Policies 59.BE & 181.LB of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Policies DM1 & DM10 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, July 2014 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Documents 'Quality Places' and ‘Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury Character Areas’.

The proposed driveway, by virtue of its close proximity to the south-western side elevation of No.239 Winchester Road, will result in unacceptable disturbance to the main habitable accommodation of this property to the detriment of the residential amenity of its occupiers. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to saved Policy 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Policy DM1 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, July 2014 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document 'Quality Places'. The layout proposed cannot adequately accommodate sufficient on-site parking and suitable turning space, which is considered necessary in order to allow a vehicle to enter and exit the site in a forward gear, to the detriment of highway safety and the amenity of future occupiers and neighbouring properties. As such the application is considered to be contrary to the requirements of saved Policy 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) and Policy DM1 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, July 2014.

Note to Applicant: This decision has been based on the following submitted plans: P16-0862_01 Rev B I, P16-0862_02 Rev A & P16-0862_03 Rev B.

Report:

This application has been referred to Committee by Councillors Atkinson, Grajewski and Hughes due to the site’s planning history.

Description of Application

1. The application seeks outline consent for the construction of a four bedroom detached dwelling with matters of access and siting to be considered at this stage. The remaining reserved matters of appearance, scale and landscaping would be for a later application should this outline application be approved.

2. A new access to the site would be created from Winchester Road and shared with No.239, the existing access for which would be blocked up and new boundary planting added.

Site Area

3. The total area of the site including No.239 Winchester Road equates to just under 0.22 hectares, with the proposed new plot taking up around half of this, although a significant portion is the driveway access.

Topography, Trees & Boundary Treatment

4. The site has a gentle slope upwards in a northerly direction and is surrounded by trees and hedging. The south-western side and north-western rear boundaries are marked by a mixed but mainly Laurel hedge, as well as a number of trees. The north-eastern side boundary is marked by a 1.8 metre timber fence, together with planting and a couple of trees. The south-eastern ‘front’ boundary is marked by dense planting. There are a number of important trees on and around the site, which are subject to a group Tree Preservation Order (TPO) which runs along the full length of the south-western and north- western boundaries and part way down the north-eastern boundary (TPO 716). Site Characteristics & Character of Locality

5. The site is a little used and overgrown part of the rear garden of No.239 Winchester Road which has now been cleared of undergrowth. It is surrounded on all four sides by neighbouring dwellings.

6. The surrounding area is made up of large detached mainly two storey dwellings on large generally well screened plots. Most of the houses date from the 1920s and 30s and are in a simple ‘Arts and Craft’ style, although there are a number of more modern additions and in-fills. The area has also been identified as being a Special Policy Area due to its attractive Arcadian character.

Relevant Planning History

7. Similar proposals for a dwelling to the rear of No.239 were submitted in 2011 (F/11/69061) and 2012 (F/12/70213), the first of which was withdrawn and the second refused in May 2102 on the grounds of impact upon the residential amenity of future occupiers of the development and neighbouring properties. This refusal was appealed but dismissed in April 2013 with the Appeal Inspector upholding the reasons for refusal.

8. Also of relevance were proposals for the subdivision of the plot to the rear of the site, No.237 Winchester Road, which would have provided two new dwellings to replace the original (F/14/75684). This application was refused and again upheld by the Appeal Inspector on the grounds of adverse impact to the character of the Special Policy Area.

Representations Received

9. At the time of writing only one representation has been received from the occupier of No.235 Winchester Road objecting to the application on the grounds of the height of the dwelling which would result in overlooking and loss of privacy, as well as loss of light. Concerns were also raised with regards to noise and disturbance during construction.

Consultation Responses

10. Head of Transportation & Engineering – Holding objection. While the minimum of three off-road parking spaces required by the Council’s ‘Residential Parking Standards’ SPD would be met (2 x driveway & 1 x garage), due to the elongated driveway length an on-site turning area will be required. This does not appear to be achievable based on the current layout.

11. With regards to the alterations to the existing dwelling, sufficient parking and turning area would be available but any gates should be set in sufficiently so as not to block access to the new dwelling.

12. The proposed new access onto Winchester Road is acceptable but the existing access for No.239 will need to be blocked up and the grass verge reinstated. A combined bin collection point at the entrance would also be required. Conditions on these two points are recommended.

13. Tree Services Manager – No objection subject to conditions regarding tree protection measures.

14. Chandler’s Ford Parish Council – No comments received.

Policy Context: Designation Applicable to Site

 Within Built-up Area Boundary  Within Established Residential Area  Within Special Policy Area

Development Plan Saved Policies and Emerging Local Plan Policies

 Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 saved Policies: 25.NC, 28.ES, 34.ES, 59.BE, 104.T & 181.LB

 Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, July 2014 Policies: DM1, DM2, DM9, DM10, DM24, DM25 & DM29

15. The Submitted Local Plan comprises: the Revised Pre-submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, published February 2014; and the Schedule of Proposed Minor Changes, submitted to the Secretary of State in July 2014.

Supplementary Planning Documents

 Supplementary Planning Document: Quality Places (November 2011)  Supplementary Planning Document: Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury Character Areas (January 2005)  Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Parking Standards (January 2009)  Supplementary Planning Document: Environmentally Sustainable Development (March 2009)

National Planning Policy Framework

16. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supports and encourages sustainable development which is considered to have three roles, economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 8 of the NPPF states that “These roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Economic growth can secure higher social and environmental standards, and well-designed buildings and places can improve the lives of people and communities. Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.” 17. Paragraph 17 sets out twelve core principles that underpin the planning system, one of which is that planning should “always seek to secure high quality design and good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”.

18. Paragraph 53 of the NPPF states that “Local planning authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.”

19. Paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

20. Paragraph 60 states that “policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative…” It goes on to state that “It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.”

21. It goes on to say in paragraph 64 that “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”

National Planning Practice Guidance

22. Where material, this guidance should be afforded weight in the consideration of planning applications.

Policy Commentary

23. The above policies and guidance combine to form the criteria against which this application will be assessed with particular regard to the relevant Local Plan policies and the principle of that proposed, the outline matters to be considered, i.e. access and siting, together with other material considerations of design and the character of the area, trees, residential amenity, environmental sustainability and nature conservation.

Comment on Consultation Responses and Representations Received

24. The concerns of noise and disturbance during construction should the application be approved are acknowledged and could be addressed through appropriate amenity protection conditions such as restricted working hours, no driven piling, etc.

Assessment of Proposal: Development Plan and / or Legislative Background

25. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:- "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise."

26. In this case policy issues for consideration include:

Policy & Principle

27. The application site lies within the urban edge where the basic principle of development is considered to be acceptable, with any formal planning approval being based upon the exact nature, design and impact of that proposed being considered appropriate and in accordance with the relevant Local Plan policies and Supplementary Planning Documents. The most relevant policies in this case are saved Policies 59.BE and 181.LB of the adopted Local Plan.

28. Saved Policy 59.BE requires development to take full and proper account of the context of the site including the character and appearance of the locality and be appropriate in mass, scale, materials, layout, design and siting. It also requires a high standard of landscape design, a satisfactory means of access and layout for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, to make provision for refuse and cycle storage and avoid unduly impacting on neighbouring uses through overlooking, loss of light, loss of outlook, and noise and fumes. Also of relevance is Policy DM1 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011- 2029, July 2014, which essentially reiterates the above requirements.

29. Saved Policy 181.LB which relates specifically to the ‘Hiltingbury and Hocombe Park’ Special Policy Area (SPA) which sets out a number of criteria intended to maintain the special character of that area. These are: i) that the size of any proposed plots is not significantly smaller than neighbouring plots; ii) proposals do not result in the loss or prejudice the retention of any mature trees; iii) that the design is compatible with the Arcadian character of the area; and iv) that the proposal also includes a landscape and planting scheme.

30. Also of relevance are the Inspector’s appeal decisions on the previous application relating to this site (F/12/70213) and on the neighbouring site to the rear for subdivision (F/14/75684) which are referenced where relevant below.

Matters for Consideration:

Access

31. While not raised as an issue for this application, strong concerns were expressed by a number of objectors at the time of the previous 2012 application and again in relation to the subdivision of No.237 Winchester Road, relating to the position of the proposed new shared access. The development proposes to block up the existing access for No.239 to the northern side of the site’s frontage and replace it with a shared access to the southern side immediately adjacent to a pair of existing accesses for Nos.237 and 235. Their concerns were that this would result in three driveways immediately next to each other which would potentially make it difficult to enter and exit from, as well as result in an additional hazard for pedestrians.

32. The proposals do not require an additional access to be constructed but simply to move an existing one. While it would serve an additional dwelling and therefore result in additional vehicle movements, the number of movements when considered against the total number of movements along Winchester Road and the number of similar driveway entrances would be so small as to have no real noticeable impact. While highlighting a number of points, the Head of Transportation and Engineering has not raised an objection to the position or formation of this new access, provided the existing access is closed up and verge reinstated. In terms of the physical access onto Winchester Road therefore, no objection is raised and it would be deemed acceptable provided conditions to stop up the existing access are included on any planning approval.

33. However, while not directly associated as such with highway issues, the position of the new shared driveway is of some concern in relation to its close proximity to the side elevation of No.239, in particular a set of French Doors which are in the south-western elevation. This driveway would run very close to this side elevation and would likely result in disturbance from vehicles using the drive. Such a close proximity to main living accommodation is not a feature found in the area, given that most plots are a good size and with good spacing between dwellings. It is stated within the submitted Design and Access statement that there is an intension for this window to be bricked up, thereby reducing any possible disturbance, and if necessary could be required by a Grampian condition of any planning approval. Whilst this may be the case, noise and disturbance would still result by virtue of the close proximity of this driveway to the living room windows to the front and rear and to the rear garden of No.239 and given the prevailing character of the surrounding area is not a situation/relationship which should really be encouraged.

Siting

34. The other main matter for consideration at this outline stage is siting. This assessment is based on the site layout plan submitted, despite it being labelled as ‘indicative’. Notwithstanding this, an assessment of the layout submitted, together with a review of the previous applications for this site, again raises many of the same issues and concerns, which principally relate to the ability of the site to successfully accommodate a dwelling of the size and scale expected in this popular residential area.

35. The proposed dwelling is to sit within the rear garden of No.239 which is a 1920s dwelling fronting onto Winchester Road. Its rear garden is split into two, a more formal half immediately adjacent to the house and a relatively unused and overgrown half behind this. It is this second area which is to be the proposed new development plot. This would result in back land or tandem development which is not permitted by Policy 181.LB, although it is acknowledged that this has become more prevalent along this part of Winchester Road through decisions taken prior to the SPA being formed and a number of older appeal decisions. However, while technically the proposal is contrary to policy in this respect, perhaps the more relevant issues to consider in this instance are the ability of the plot to accommodate a dwelling and the resulting impact of this upon the immediate surrounding context and SPA.

36. While in terms of overall area the application site is not dissimilar to other nearby plots, albeit at the lower end of the average plot size, a significant proportion of its overall area is required to accommodate the site access and driveway, leaving a more modest area to accommodate the bulk of the development, i.e. the dwelling, amenity space and parking areas. It is accepted that many of the minimum standards set out in the Council’s ‘Quality Places’ SPD are met but given the character and nature of the area, it is considered that this alone is not sufficient in order to demonstrate that the proposal respects the prevailing character and pattern of development within the Special Policy Area. The concerns of the previous 2012 application remain, in that it is not considered that the site as proposed can successfully accommodate a dwelling suitable and appropriate for the character of the area. This is discussed in more detail below.

Other Material Considerations:

Design & Area Character

37. While the issues of appearance and scale are reserved, the site layout plan and indicative floor plans demonstrate the constrained nature of the site. When compared with the average suburban development the proposed plot and size of dwelling could well be considered as quite generous. However, this stretch of Winchester Road and the wider Special Policy Area are by no means typical of the average suburban street. The area is characterised by large mainly two storey dwellings on generous and generally well treed and screened plots. This generous plot size means that dwellings are spaced well apart from each other and their plot boundaries. It also means that despite the presence of many mature trees, principally along boundaries, these plots also benefit from private amenity space which is private and which receive good levels of natural light.

38. The submitted site layout plan shows the main amenity space being around 8.0-9.0 metres deep, including the substantial boundary planting which reduces the usable area further, and that it would predominantly facing north. As a rule of thumb it would be expected that gardens should ideally be a minimum of ten metres deep and deeper still where they face north, in order to limit overshadowing. Notwithstanding the issues this raises for the amenity of future occupiers, it is very clear that the garden area being proposed is significantly less than even the smallest of nearby plots and substantially less than the vast majority of neighbouring properties within the SPA. 39. There may be scope to provide larger and more usable amenity space if the footprint of the dwelling proposed were to be reduced. However, it is again clear from the submitted layout drawing that at around 100 square metres it is also considerably smaller than the average footprint of neighbouring properties, which are generally of 150 square metres or more. While in most instances this would be a fairly generous amount of floor space, again there is a need to look at the wider character of the area and consider how this dwelling would fit in with the surrounding context and pattern of development.

40. As mentioned above, this is a popular residential area characterised by large dwellings on generous plots which command a premium price. As such there is an expectation from those living in and moving into the area in terms of the amount and quality of accommodation expected. While indicative, the submitted floor plans show that four double bedrooms with the requisite en- suite bathrooms and dressing areas can be accommodated, together with open plan living space and other facilities within the footprint proposed. However, this can only be achieved within the footprint proposed by accommodating it over three floor levels. Three storey dwellings are not a feature of the SPA and there are concerns that any resulting dwelling would appear overly tall and out of proportion to its neighbours. It is accepted that some dwellings do include loft accommodation, but this is generally much smaller subservient space fitted into original roof spaces. Given the shallow floor depth of the indicative dwelling proposed, the accommodation shown for the second floor could only be accommodated within an excessively steep pitched roof which would be out of character with surrounding development.

41. A further example which demonstrates that the constraints of the application site are such that it is not really considered suitable for development is the inability to provide the required three on-site parking spaces and a usable on- site turning area, as has been highlighted and required by the Head of Transportation and Engineering. The only way in which this could be provided would be to reposition the dwelling on the plot, i.e. move it further away from its south-eastern boundary. This would allow for two parking spaces side by side in front of the garage and a turning head. However, this would result in further reducing the usable external amenity space, which is already considered to be insufficient and out of character with surrounding plots.

42. The number and scale of trees on and surrounding the plot and their resulting impact upon the amenity of future occupiers of the development was one of the main reasons why the 2012 application was refused and later dismissed at appeal. It is accepted that a large Oak which was in the Northern corner of the site has since been removed as it was in a poor state of health, and that a number of other smaller trees have been felled. However, many significant trees remain, especially around the eastern, southern and western boundaries. While no objection has been raised by the Council’s Tree Services Manager on arboricultural grounds, the impact of these trees and in places dense boundary planting is still a concern in relation to the amenity and quality of environment for future occupiers of the development proposed. Residential Amenity

43. The shallow depth and north facing orientation of the main garden area, together with the remaining substantial boundary planting and trees would result in the garden being overshadowed for much of the day. This was highlighted by the Appeal Inspector in paragraph 6 of her report, “The front and rear gardens would experience a significant degree of overshadowing caused by the trees around and within the garden area. The situation would be exacerbated in the rear garden by the overshadowing caused by the proposed dwelling. …the terraces around the dwelling would receive very little sunlight, particularly at times of the day when they would be most likely to be in use. Due to the presence of the boundary planting and the level of overshadowing the development would provide an enclosed, cramped and overshadowed environment for its occupants.”

44. She goes on to state in paragraph 8 that “To address this at least some of the trees would need to be removed or regularly cut back, which would detract from the verdant character and appearance of the area. It would also expose the property to increased overlooking from the dwellings at Nos. 237, 239 and 243. As it is there are various ground floor windows and a first floor window at No.243 which would look directly into the garden area immediately to the rear of the proposed dwelling. In view of the topography of the immediate area the scope for overlooking and loss of privacy is considerable between these properties.”

45. The issue of overlooking from No.243 Winchester Road into the site has not been addressed by this latest proposal. No.243 has a main first floor bedroom window within its south-western flank elevation in relatively close proximity to the site boundary. While there are a number of trees along this boundary they are Silver Birch and as such have relatively sparse foliage during the summer and being deciduous have none during the winter. It is also the case that this boundary has the lowest and least dense boundary planting. Although it is accepted that the floor plans submitted are indicative, the position of this first floor window within the flank elevation of No.243 is such that it would allow clear views into the main living area within the proposed dwelling. It would also allow clear views of the whole of the north-eastern portion of the garden and the majority of the north-western portion. This together with the severe overshadowing would not be acceptable.

46. The Inspector concludes on this issue by saying, “…the scheme would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for the occupants of the proposed dwelling, due to inadequate daylight and sunlight and poor levels of privacy.”

47. While it is accepted the layout of this latest scheme does differ in some respects to the previous appeal scheme and that the large Oak has now been removed, it is still considered that these issues of overshadowing and overlooking remain. 48. With regards to the impact of that proposed upon the residential amenity of existing neighbouring properties, other than the concerns of disturbance from the proximity of the new driveway to No.239, it is not considered that there would be sufficient adverse impact upon any of the other immediate neighbours to warrant a justifiable reason for refusal. The concerns raised with regards to the resulting height of the dwelling and it being visual intrusive are understood but the orientation and proximity of neighbouring properties, together with the boundary screening present would ensure that there would be no detrimental impact upon their outlook. Equally, the distances between dwellings, other than in the case of No.243, meet the minimum standards within the Council’s ‘Quality Places’ SPD so as to not result in unacceptable loss of privacy or light.

Environmental Sustainability

49. The Council’s ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’ SPD requires all new dwellings to meet a minimum of code level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes together with a number of other mandatory requirements on water and energy conservation. However, the code has now been revoked with the intension that these requirements will be assessed by Building Regulations. Notwithstanding this, it is Council policy that any new dwellings must meet the equivalent of Code Level 4 with regards to water and energy conservation. This would be secured via a planning condition.

Nature Conservation

50. While the application site has not been regularly used as domestic garden, it is regularly cleared and therefore has limited biodiversity value. Those trees to be removed are generally small examples of non-native ornamental species. It is not therefore considered that the development of this site for a new dwelling is likely to result in any adverse harm to local wildlife or habitat.

Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, July 2014

51. Reference needs to be made the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, July 2014. However very little weight can be given to these policies as, although the Submission Local Plan has not been withdrawn the Council has confirmed that it has decided to prepare a new local plan which will cover the period up to 2036. With regards to this application, the new policies essentially echo those of the current plan and are not considered to affect the recommendation put forward.

Planning Obligations/Considerations

52. The changes to the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) have increased the threshold for when tariff based planning obligations can be required by new development. This means that developments of ten units or less (and which have a maximum combined floor space of no more than 1000 square metres) will be exempt from the need to provide tariff based planning obligations or affordable housing. The proposed development in this instance falls within this threshold and as such no planning obligations can be requested.

Conclusion

53. While acknowledging that the site context has altered to some degree since the refusal of the 2012 application, such as the removal of the Oak, the circumstances of the site and its relationship with neighbouring development is not considered to have changed to such an extent that the original concerns of the amenity and living environment for future occupiers, privacy, disturbance and the character of the area have been overcome. As such the application is again considered to be unacceptable and to be contrary to the requirements of saved Policies 59.BE and 181.LB of the adopted Local Plan, as well as the Council’s ‘Quality Places’ and ‘Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury Character Areas’ Supplementary Planning Documents. The application is therefore again recommended for refusal. Oakridge

Tennis Courts

Shelter

54.6m Title: Scale: 1:1250 239 Winchester Road Map Ref: SU4422SE O/17/80003 Date: 14/06/2017