Notice of Meeting

Civic Offices, Leigh Road, Eastleigh SO50 9YN

2000/01 Community Safety Preventing Crime and Disorder 4 April 2007 2002/03 Fostering Business Growth

NOTICE OF MEETING

HEDGE END, WEST END AND BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE will meet on Monday, 16 April 2007 beginning at 7:00 pm in Hedge End 2000 Centre, St John's Road, Hedge End, SO30 4AF

TO: Councillor George B Fraser (Chairman) Councillor Rupert G M Kyrle (Vice-Chairman) Councillor Louise Bloom BA (Hons) Councillor Steven D Broomfield MInstLM Councillor Mrs Cathie Fraser Councillor David Goodall Councillor Keith House Councillor Mrs June Hughes Councillor Derek R Pretty Councillor Julie Skinner Councillor Joyce Sortwell Councillor Bruce Tennent Councillor Mrs Jane Welsh

Staff Contacts: Julia Roy, Democratic Services Officer (Tel: 023 8068 8133; Email: [email protected]) Jon Riddell, Area Co-ordinator (Tel: 023 8068 8437; Email: [email protected])

RICHARD WARD Head of Legal and Democratic Services ______

Copies of this and all other agendas can be accessed via the Council's website - http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/meetings as well as in other formats, including Braille, audio, large print and other languages, upon request.

Members of the public are invited to speak on general items at the start of the meeting, and on individual agenda items at the time the item is discussed. To register please contact the Democratic Services Officer above.

AGENDA

1. Minutes (Pages 1 - 10) To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 March 2007.

2. Apologies

3. Declarations of Interest

4. Presentation on Planning Guidelines

5. Development Applications for Decision

(a) 38 High Street, Botley - Conservation Area Consent (Pages 11 - 20)

(b) 38 High Street, Botley (Pages 21 - 34)

(d) West End Service Station, Swaythling Road, West End (Pages 47 - 62)

(e) 1 & 2 Gaters Mill, Mansbridge Road, Southampton (Pages 63 - 76)

6. Planning Appeals The Head of Legal and Democratic Services to report:-

(a) that the following appeal has been lodged:-

F/07/58894 – 32 Oatlands Road, Boorley Green, Botley – appeal against refusal of application for 2 storey rear, single storey front and side extensions, following demolition of existing extension and detached garage

(b) that the following appeal has been withdrawn:-

Unit 8, Hedge End Trade Park, Tollbar Way, Hedge End

7. Heavy Goods Vehicle Movements - Burnetts Lane (Pages 77 - 82)

8. Dowds Farm District Park - Confirmation of Development Brief (Pages 83 - 104)

9. Speeding Cars and Assembly of Spectators - Tollbar Way Area, Hedge End (Pages 105 - 108)

10. Community Projects Grants for Botley (Pages 109 - 112)

11. HEWEB Youth Development Plan 2007-2010 (Pages 113 - 120)

12. Exempt Business To consider passing a resolution under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 in respect of the following item of business on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

The Schedule 12A categories have been amended and are now subject to the public interest test, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This came into effect on 1st March 2006.

It is considered that the following item is exempt from disclosure and that the public interest in not disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

EXEMPT ITEM

13. Holly Gardens - Unauthorised Encroachment of Gardens onto Public Open Space (Pages 121 - 126)

DATE OF NEXT MEETING Monday, 11 June 2007 at 7:00 pm at Hedge End 2000 Centre, St John's Road, Hedge End, SO30 4AF

Your Council’s electronic news service - e-news -

Register your email address free with the Council and keep up to date with what’s happening in the Borough. Simply select your topics and we will send you email updates with news as it happens including new Council Jobs, What’s On, Recycling, Transport plus lots more. www.eastleigh.gov.uk/enews

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 1 1

HEDGE END, WEST END AND BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday, 5 March 2007 (7:00 pm – 9:40 pm)

PRESENT:

Councillor G Fraser (Chairman); Councillors Bloom (from 7.25 pm until 9.15 pm), Broomfield, Mrs Fraser, Goodall, House, Mrs Hughes, Kyrle, Pretty, Sortwell, Tennent and Mrs Welsh

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Skinner

______

RESOLVED ITEMS (SUBJECT TO QUESTIONS ONLY)

1. MINUTES

RESOLVED -

That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2007 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members were invited to declare interests in relation to items of business on the agenda. Any interests declared are recorded in the relevant minute below.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEDGE END, WEST END AND BOTLEY YOUTH GRANTS PANEL 2007

Consideration was given to a report of the Area Co-ordinator, in partnership with the Hedge End, West End and Botley Youth Council, which invited the Committee to endorse the recommendations of the Youth Grants Panel, attached as an appendix to the report. A total of 18 applications had been received, with a total value exceeding £7,000. The Grants Panel had funding of £3,500 to award to local youth projects for 2007.

The Committee was also invited to extend its thanks to the volunteers who had participated in the decision making process, and to set aside £3,500 from the Committee’s Youth Initiatives budget so that the Youth Grants Panel could be convened in 2008.

RESOLVED -

(1) That the recommendations of the HEWEB Youth Grants Panel 2007, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, be ratified;

1 2

(2) That thanks be extended to members of the Youth Grants Panel and Ms Jenny Critchlow who facilitated this year’s process; and

(3) That £3,500 be set aside to enable local youth grants to be awarded in 2008.

(NOTE: Two members of the Youth Grants Panel spoke with regard to this item.)

4. PRESENTATION ON PLANNING GUIDELINES

Development Control staff gave a short presentation on guidelines that had to be taken into account when determining planning applications; in particular the issues that could, and could not, be taken into account. This was set against the broader policy framework.

5. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION

RESOLVED -

That the report of the Head of Development Control, a copy of which was attached to the Agenda, be received and the recommendations contained therein adopted, subject to the amendments listed in the Decision(s) below.

(a) Land at Bubb Lane, West End Construction of Crematorium with new access, ancillary landscaping & formation of new cycleway/footpath & change of use of agricultural land to gardens of remembrance – Ref. F/06/58578

Decision

This item was WITHDRAWN prior to the meeting.

(b) Hedge End Railway Station Car Park, Stroudley Way, Hedge End Extension of existing car park to create 26 additional car parking spaces & alterations to existing car park layout – Ref. F/06/58694

Decision

Permission GRANTED, subject to (a) the recommended conditions and (b) the following additional conditions: (i) “Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed means of surface water disposal shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority in consultation with Southern Water. Reason: To ensure adequate drainage provision is made.” (ii) “Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed measures which are to be undertaken to protect the

2 3

public sewers and public water supply main shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority in consultation with Southern Water. Reason: To protect the existing drainage infrastructure.”

(NOTES: (1) It was reported that no objection had been received from Southern Water, but that conditions were recommended about surface water disposal and protection of public sewer and mains water pipes. (2) Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and one spoke in support.)

Decision

Permission GRANTED, subject to the recommended conditions.

(NOTES: (1) Councillor Goodall declared an interest in this item and left the room during the discussion and voting thereon. (2) It was reported that one further letter of objection had been received.)

(d) Land adjacent 6 Western Road, West End Erection of 2 storey dwelling with new vehicular access & engineering works to include retaining walls & steps (amended scheme) – Ref. F/07/59057

Decision

DELEGATED to the Head of Development Control, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair, to PERMIT, subject to (a) the expiry of the 21 day neighbour notification period on 12 March and the consideration of any additional comments raised; (b) the recommended conditions; (c) the following additional condition: “The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of a suitable foul and surface water drainage scheme that addresses both the needs of the proposed development and which demonstrates that the development would not result in additional off site flooding has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority in consultation with Southern Water. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure satisfactory drainage provision/avoid intensification of off site flooding; and (d) the provision of developers’ contributions towards social and recreational facilities, off-site public space and transportation infrastructure in the local area. If these contributions are not secured by 22 March 2007, the application will be refused on these grounds.

3 4

(NOTES: (1) The drainage scheme detailed in (c) above is to be agreed with the Chair, Vice-Chair and Ward Members. (2) It was reported that (a) one additional letter of objection had been received and (b) no objection had been received from the Environment Agency. (3) Four members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the agent for the applicant spoke in support.)

(e) 6 Chalk Hill, West End Two storey side & rear extensions & front porch – Ref. F/07/59096

Decision

Permission GRANTED, subject to the recommended conditions.

(NOTE: Councillor Goodall declared an interest in this item and left the room during the discussion and voting thereon.)

(f) 5 Glenn Road, West End Single storey rear extension

Decision

Permission REFUSED for the recommended reasons.

(NOTE: Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application, the Chair read out a further letter of objection and the applicant spoke in support.)

6. CYCLING STRATEGY 2006-2011

Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Engineering concerning the Borough Cycling Strategy, which had been adopted in 1998. The report detailed a revision of the existing Strategy as there had been substantial changes in local and national cycling policy since that date.

Appendices to the report contained the Scheme Inventory for Hedge End, West End and Botley, which provided details of the identified pot of schemes for the area. This would act as a guide to the implementation of work towards the enhancement of the existing cycle network. The inventory identified 18 individual links, equating to 11,000m of extra cycle way.

The Committee was particularly concerned that funding held by Hampshire County Council as part of the Hedge End Area Transport Strategy should be utilised, with some of this funding being put towards cycle routes.

RESOLVED –

4 5

(1) That the approved Borough Cycling Strategy 2006-2011, which will assist planning and developing the cycle network, be noted;

(2) That the identified pot of schemes for the Hedge End, West End and Botley Local Area be adopted for consideration in the expenditure of developer contributions (HEATS), Community Investment programme (CIP), Local Transport Plan (LTP2) and other external funding opportunities; and

(3) That part of the Hedge End Area Transport Strategy funding identified for future programming be prioritised to implement a cycle scheme to link the centre of Botley with Hedge End and West End.

7. MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT WORK AT TELEGRAPH WOODS, WEST END

Consideration was given to a report of the Area Co-ordinator, in consultation with the Head of Countryside and Recreation Services, concerning the undertaking of maintenance and further improvement works at Telegraph Woods during 2007/08.

There was a need both to fell some mature trees on the southern perimeter and to extend footpath provision with top dressing to a key route running adjacent to the golf course. It was estimated that this work would cost approximately £7,000.

RESOLVED –

That an allocation of £7,683 be approved to fund maintenance and improvement work at Telegraph Woods, West End.

8. CCTV CAMERAS FOR BOTLEY

Consideration was given to a report of the Area Co-ordinator, in consultation with Inspector Shona Hood, Hedge End Police, Botley Market Town Partnership and the Community Safety Manager, concerning the installation of a local CCTV system in Botley village square.

The initial system would provide five cameras targeting key areas of Botley Square, where the evening economy had lead to increased concern over anti-social behaviour. The system was to be hosted by a member of the Botley Traders Association and was capable of providing high quality recording to enable evidential quality images to be provided to the Police.

The installation would cost £10,618 and was to be provided by this Committee and grant aid from the Eastleigh Community Safety Partnership.

5 6

RESOLVED –

That the installation of a local CCTV surveillance system in Botley Square, at an estimated cost of £10,618, be approved.

9. IMPROVING BASKETBALL FACILITIES - GRETA PARK, HEDGE END

Consideration was given to a report of the Area Co-ordinator, in consultation with the Clerk to Hedge End Town Council and the Head of Countryside and Recreation Services, which proposed that a maximum contribution of £30,000 be made available towards re-fencing and upgrading the basketball facility at Greta Park, Hedge End.

It was also necessary to set aside funding for staff time provided by the Head of Countryside and Recreation Services towards the project.

RESOLVED –

(1) That a maximum contribution of £30,00 be made available towards re-fencing and upgrading of the basketball facility at Greta Park, Hedge End; and

(2) That a sum of £1,600 be set aside to underwrite the cost of staff time to be provided by the Head of Countryside and Recreation Services.

10. ALCOHOL PROJECT - HEDGE END TEENAGE DROP-IN CENTRE

Consideration was given to a report of the Area Co-ordinator, in consultation with the Youth Development Officer (DAAT) and the Community Safety Manager, concerning a project to raise awareness in local young people of the problems related to excessive drinking.

The Hedge End Teenage Drop-In Centre (TADIC) had identified a trend whereby young people were exposing themselves to both health and safety risks, due to the ease with which they could obtain alcohol and drink, sometimes in public places.

TADIC had developed an alcohol project plan, the aim of which was to raise awareness in young people of the problems related to excessive drinking. The project proposal comprised three distinct elements:- training, outreach work and counselling. Financial support for the delivery of the pilot project had been requested from the Committee.

The report also recommended that alcohol consumption by young people be nominated as a community safety priority for the Committee’s area, as Police Officers were able to corroborate that such consumption was linked to anti-social behaviour problems. There were opportunities, through joint working, for a number of alcohol-related initiatives to be explored to tackle this problem.

6 7

RESOLVED –

(1) That £2,500 be allocated to enable the Hedge End Teenage Drop-In Centre to undertake a pilot outreach project targeting alcohol abuse amongst young people; and

(2) That alcohol consumption by young people be nominated as a community safety priority for the Hedge End, West End and Botley area.

11. DEVELOPING "BLUE LAMP"/SNAP DISCOS IN HEDGE END, WEST END AND BOTLEY

Consideration was given to a report of the area Co-ordinator in consultation with the Community Safety Manager, Youth Development Officer (DAAT), Hampshire Youth Service and Inspector Shona Hood, Hedge End Police Station, concerning the formation of an inter-agency group to develop ‘Blue Lamp’/Say No And Phone (SNAP) discos for the Committee’s area.

The start-up costs of the project were estimated to be approximately £3,000 for the first two discos and it was recommended that a contribution be made towards these costs. To ensure adequate funding was made available, it was also recommended that the Area Co-ordinator seek start- up funding through sponsorship and further local contributions.

A key objective of the events was to provide a positive experience for young people and to discourage anti-social behaviour. It was therefore proposed that each event be reviewed to enable continuous improvement.

RESOLVED –

(1) That the organisation of ‘Blue Lamp’/Say No And Phone (SNAP) discos in the local area be endorsed;

(2) That a £1,000 contribution from this Committee’s revenue budgets be approved;

(3) That the Area Co-ordinator be requested to seek start-up funding totalling £3,000 through sponsorship and further local contributions; and

(4) That monitoring of discos be undertaken by the Youth Development Officer (DAAT) and referred to the Hedge End, West End and Botley local action group.

7 8

12. IMPROVED BUS SHELTER PROVISION AND CYCLE STANDS IN HEDGE END

Consideration was given to a report of the Area Co-ordinator, in consultation with the Head of Engineering Services and the Clerk to Hedge End Town Council, recommended that contributions be made to the cost of both upgrading of an existing bus shelter in Lower Northam Road and the installation of a new shelter on Heath House Lane to serve Cranborne Park residents.

Reference was also made to the provision of three new cycle stands near the entrance to the Cotswold Leisure Outdoor shop in Lower Northam Road, to be installed from the Borough Council’s corporate cycle budget.

RESOLVED –

(1) That a £3,000 contribution be made towards the cost of upgrading an existing bus shelter in Lower Northam Road;

(2) That a new Arun style shelter be installed at Heath House Lane, in response to a request from Cranborne Park residents, at an estimated cost of £5,610 to include ground works; and

(3) That the provision of three cycle stands outside the Cotswold Leisure Outdoor shop, Hedge End, be noted.

(NOTES: (1) It was reported that Hedge End Town Council had agreed to adopt the shelter referred to in Resolution (2) above. (2) Councillors Fraser and Mrs Fraser declared an interest in this item, remained in the room, spoke and voted.)

13. PROPOSED PHARMACY AT DRUMMOND COMMUNITY CENTRE, HEDGE END

Consideration was given to a report of the Area Co-ordinator which provided background information on the creation of a community-based pharmacy at the Drummond Community Centre and sought endorsement for the Centre’s Managing Trustees to sub-let part of the site for such a pharmacy.

The Committee congratulated the Area Co-ordinator on the hard work that had been put into establishing the pharmacy.

RESOLVED –

That the principle of the Drummond Community Centre’s Managing Trustees sub-letting part of their grounds for the purpose of a community-based pharmacy be endorsed.

8 9

(NOTE: It was reported that the planning application for the pharmacy had been approved under delegated powers on 22 February 2007.)

______

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Declarations of interest were made as follows:

Minute Title Member Reason Development application: Councillor Goodall Lives next door to 3 Culvery Gardens, West application site End Development application: Councillor Goodall Known to applicants 6 Chalk Hill, West End Improved Bus Shelter Councillor Mrs Son is manager of Provison and Cycle Fraser Cotswold Leisure Stands in Hedge End Outdoor shop Improved Bus Shelter Councillor Fraser Son is manager of Provision and Cycle Cotswold Leisure Stands in Hedge End Outdoor shop

M3341

9 This page is intentionally left blank

10 Agenda Item 5a

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY Monday 16 April 2007 Case Officer Andy Grandfield

SITE: 38 High Street, Botley, Southampton, SO30 2EA

Ref. D/07/59119 Received: 29/01/2007 (27/02/2007)

APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Eatwell

PROPOSAL: Conservation Area Consent: Demolition of existing dwelling

AMENDMENTS: None

RECOMMENDATION:

REFUSE CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(1) The proposal fails to meet the criteria of Policy 170.LB and PPG 15 in that the existing building is not incapable of reasonable use nor has an appropriate and detailed scheme for a replacement building been submitted to, and approved by, the local planning authority.

Report:

This application has been referred to Committee because it has been referred by Councillors Kyrle, Fraser, and Mrs Fraser.

The site and its surroundings

Description of application

1. This application relates solely to the demolition of the existing detached dwelling which is located within the Botley Conservation Area. A separate

11 application for the replacement building is considered under planning application C/07/59121 which is also on the agenda.

Site area

2. 0.09ha

Residential development (net)

3. NA

Topography

4. The site drops from the High Street down to the existing dwelling by approximately 1.2m. The ground levels reduce further with the rear garden being between 1.1m and 1.3m lower than the finished floor level and frontage of the dwelling. There is a gentle drop in levels across the site from the west to the east.

Trees

5. To the front of the site are 2.5m high fir trees which act as a screen to the frontage. Along the eastern boundary adjacent to the side of the car park are some small young trees which appear of little amenity value. To the rear of the site is an attractive Weeping Willow.

Boundary treatment

6. To the east with no.40 High Street is a 1.8m high close boarded fence beyond which are fir trees at the front. Along the western boundary with 34a is a 1m high wall surmounted by a fence to the front increasing to a 2.5m high wall to the side of the existing dwelling. The rear gardens are separated by a 1.5 – 1.8m high close boarded fence which continue along the rear of the site.

Site characteristics

7. The site is occupied by a single dwelling built circa 1930 set back 16m from the highway. The frontage consists of a gravelled parking area set behind a row of fir trees and a low brick wall. A large double garage is located close to the front boundary. To the side and rear of the dwelling are extensive areas of decking stepping down to the main garden which is mostly laid to lawn.

Character of locality

12 8. The immediate area is predominantly residential with distinct identities. To the west are large detached dwellings set on good size plots set back a similar distance from the road as the no.38, whilst opposite are much older terraced properties set on the back edge of the footpath. To the rear are the bungalow and chalet properties in Cypress Gardens, whilst immediately east are two large detached properties set within the grounds of the old Forge.

Relevant planning history

9. C/07/59121 - Erection of 8 one-bed flats in a two-storey block, with parking, bin and cycle stores and alterations to the existing access following the demolition of the existing building. This has been submitted in conjunction with this demolition application and is on this agenda for determination by Members.

10. C/29770/7 Two storey side extension Permitted Dec 2003

11. C/29770/5 Alterations to roof and addition of rear dormer window Permitted Sept 2000

12. C/29770/4 Construction of two storey side extension and construction of detached double garage in front of dwelling Permitted June 1998

13. N/29770/3 Notification of intent to crown reduce willow in front garden. Raise no objection Jan 1998

14. C/29770/3 Construction of two detached dwellings, detached double garages and one linked double garage. Refused January 1995.

15. Z/29770/2 Relief of condition no.1 of planning permission reference 29770. Permit Jan 1992.

16. Z/29770/1 Conversion of existing dwelling to two dwellings and five additional dwellings. Refused June 1992.

17. Z/29770/0 Erection of three dwellings. Permit March 1998.

Representations received

18. To date, 5 letters of representation have been received, objecting to the proposals on the following grounds, contrary to the guidance in the local plan, existing building is not of inappropriate character or wholly beyond repair, its removal and replacement by proposed development would not enhance appearance or character of conservation area, disturbance from noise, dust, piling and vibration, contrary to aims to develop tourism and

13 maximise potential for businesses based on current attractiveness of village.

Consultation responses

19. Head of Planning Policy & Design - No objection to the principle of demolition as this provides an opportunity to replace a dwelling of limited architectural merit. However, the proposed replacement dwelling needs its front elevation lifted and improved, the entrance and roof form is weak, and more detailing is required around windows, heads and sills. Overall, the proposed replacement is of no special quality.

20. The Head of Environmental Health - No objections to the proposals, subject to conditions relating to hours of work, demolition and removal of materials, burning and dust be attached to any consent issued.

21. Botley Parish Council has objected to the proposals stating that while recognising the need for additional small housing units, the committee objects to the proposal for 1-bed units on the grounds that 2-bed units would attract a more diverse mix of inhabitants which would be better for the community. The increased use of the exit onto a blind bend caused by the additional vehicles would present a significant traffic hazard. The proposed multiple occupancy building is not appropriate for the locality and conflicts with the surrounding area. On-street parking is not possible and it is not appropriate for so many parking spaces in front of the building because it alters the street scene in the conservation area. The mobility cycle and bin storage areas should be at the rear of the property

Policy context: designation applicable to site

• Within Built-Up Area Boundary • Within Established Residential Area • Within Designated Conservation Area

Development plan policies

• Hampshire Country Structure Plan 1996-2011: E16, E17 • Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) 59.BE, 170.LB

Planning policy guidance / statement

• PPG – 15 Planning and the Historic Environment. • PPS – 1 Delivering Sustainable Development • 3 Housing

Policy commentary

22. The above policies combine to form the criteria which this application will be assessed with particular regard to the quality of the existing building, its contribution to the conservation area, the suitability of its replacement and the impact of demolition on the amenity of residents.

Comment on consultation responses

23. See below

Comment on representations received

24. See below

Assessment of proposal: Development plan and / or legislative background

25. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:

26. “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”.

27. The site also lies within a Conservation Area and Section 71 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation areas) Act 1990 states:

28. “In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the Conservation Area of any powers (under the Planning Acts), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area”

Principle

National Policy Guidance

29. PPG 15 sets out central Government guidance to local authorities on development within Conservation Areas. It advises that it is the quality and interest of areas, rather than that of individual buildings, which should be the prime consideration in identifying conservation areas (para 4.2).

30. Many conservation areas include buildings that make no positive contribution to the character or appearance of the area; and that their replacement should be a stimulus to imaginative, high quality design, and seen as an opportunity to enhance the area. What is important is not that new buildings should directly imitate earlier styles, but that they should be

15 designed with respect for their context, as part of a larger whole which has a well-established character and appearance of its own (para 4.17)

31. On the subject of demolition, PPG 15 advises account should clearly be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole (para 4.26). It clearly advises that there should be general presumption in favour of retaining buildings that make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area (para 4.27). In cases where a building makes little or no such contribution, the local planning authority will need to have full information about what is proposed for the site after demolition. Consent for demolition should not be given unless there are acceptable and detailed plans for any redevelopment. It has been held that the decision-maker is entitled to consider the merits of any proposed development in determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area.

Development Plan Policy

32. At county level, the Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 2001- 2016 encourages development that would be compatible with the character of historic towns and villages and will not cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance (E16). Development that would enhance the character and setting of historic towns and villages is supported if it would stimulate economic regeneration or promote environmental improvements (E17).

33. At a borough level, policy 170.LB of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001 - 2011 Second Deposit advises demolition of any building or important feature within the conservation will not be permitted unless;

i. it can be shown that the building is wholly beyond repair, or capable of reasonable beneficial use;

ii. its removal or replacement would enhance the appearance of area; or

iii. it is essential to enable a redevelopment scheme to take place, provided the scheme for redevelopment has already been or is concurrently approved and such a scheme would positively enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.

16 34. The Head of Planning Policy and Design has confirmed that the correct interpretation of this policy is if either i or ii can be demonstrated that an application for demolition and a replacement dwelling may be appropriate. This is in accordance with the Inspector’s view set out in the Inspector’s Report into Objections raised to the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review Second Deposit May 2003 in which the Inspector states that to meet all criteria would ‘reduce flexibility and effectiveness of this policy’.

35. It is clear from the policy advice and the view of the Head of Planning Policy and Design that the principle of demolition is acceptable if the building makes little or no contribution to the appearance of the conservation area and that there is a suitable scheme for a replacement building, which would preserve or enhance the conservation area.

Impact on character

36. The existing building is of no historical value, is of limited architectural value, comprises of a variety of materials but appears in reasonable condition. It has little impact on the street scene by virtue of its position within the plot which is in line with the dwellings on nos. 40 to 44. The Head of Planning Policy and Design has advised that the demolition of the building offers a good opportunity to provide a high quality replacement building, of more appropriate materials and appearance, which should enhance the conservation area.

37. The demolition of the building is considered acceptable provided that a suitable replacement building is permitted or if it is wholly beyond repair. No justification has ben submitted to suggest that the building is wholly beyond repair as such this application is therefore to be considered jointly with the application for a replacement building C/07/59121. This is on the agenda but recommended for refusal due to its design which would not preserve or enhance the conservation area. In the light that there is no a suitable replacement proposed or permitted on this site, the demolition of no.38 is not acceptable and would be contrary to national guidance and local plan policies.

Residential Amenity

38. To minimise the impact of the demolition process conditions have been recommended by Head of Environmental Health. Should members wish to approve this scheme these conditions could be included.

Highway Matters

17 39. The site is of sufficient size to accommodate operative vehicles during the demolition process, and the traffic associated with this is not considered to cause demonstrable harm to highway safety.

Other material considerations

40. It is considered that there is no other material consideration to warrant a decision otherwise than in accordance with the Development Plan and / or legislative background.

Conclusion

41. The demolition is not in accordance with national guidance and local plan policies as there is not a suitable replacement building, therefore consent for demolition should not be granted.

6 T 1 R U O C

R 1 I A F

Y A

M 2

2 S EN RD 6 A 7 G SS

P 4 k y Y 2 l e l C a r W Clogheen e b e l House m o c A

e 2 L The Belfry El Sub St a Castle Combe 52 5

WARNER D ra in a 1 30 5

t 34 o a 1

38 6

0 War Memorial 34b 0 BM 24 20a 2

HI 26

5 GH 4 28 T 11.52m STR 32 30 All Saints' EE 34 T 10.1m

Church

1 3 1 5 1 7

2 7

All Saints'

Church

2 1 9 a

th a P

Rear of 21 1

KILFO 1

RD COURT

b 1 9 1

19c

M OR

IM T E I 2

R M Scale 2 8

R 1 2 E O 4 A 22A22B El

0 10D 20 30 40 50 m R

3 Sub Sta

R D

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with Scale 1:1250 the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil Map Ref SU5113SW proceedings. Licence No. 100019622 (2007) Development Control Date 14/03/2007

19 This page is intentionally left blank

20 Agenda Item 5b

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY Monday 16 April 2007 Case Officer Andy Grandfield

SITE: 38 High Street, Botley, Southampton, SO30 2EA

Ref. C/07/59121 Received: 29/01/2007 (04/04/2007)

APPLICANT: Mrs Eatwell

PROPOSAL: Construction of 8no. 1 bed flats in a 2 storey block with ancillary bin & bike stores, car parking & alterations to access, following demolition of existing dwelling

AMENDMENTS: None

RECOMMENDATION:

REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(1) The proposed development, by reason of its siting, massing, design and layout is considered to result in a building of inappropriate appearance that would physically and visually dominate the site and neighbouring properties, and would be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring properties and the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to the aims and guidance contained within PPS1, PPG3 and PPG15 and to be contrary to the guidance contained within Policy UB3 and E16 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review) and Policy 59.BE and 169.LB of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011).

(2) The proposal fails to make adequate provision for the storage and collection of refuse, therefore is contrary to policies 28.ES and 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011.

(3) The proposal does not make contributions towards the provision of essential off- site open space works, social and recreational facilities or off-site transportation works, the need for which will increase as a direct result of the development proposed. The proposals are therefore contrary to policy T5 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan Review, and policies 101.T, 147.OS and 191.IN of

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011, the provisions of Government Circular 05/05 and PPG13: Transport.

This application has been referred to Committee by Councillors Kyrle, Fraser, and Mrs Fraser.

The Site and its surroundings

Description of application

1. Construction of a two storey block of 8no. one bed flats with detached bin and cycle stores, 8no. car parking spaces and widening of existing entrance.

Site area

2. 0.09ha

Residential development (net)

3. 89 dph

Topography

Trees

Boundary treatment

Site characteristics

Character of locality

8. The immediate area is predominantly residential with distinct identities. To the west are large detached dwellings set on good size plots set back a similar distance from the road as the no.38, whilst opposite are much older terraced properties set on the back edge of the footpath. To the rear are the bungalow and chalet properties in Cypress Gardens, whilst immediately east are two large detached properties set within the grounds of the old Forge.

Relevant planning history

9. D/07/59119 Conservation area consent for the demolition of the existing property, No 38 High Street, was submitted in conjunction with this application, and is on this agenda for determination by Members.

10. C/29770/7 Two storey side extension Permitted December 2003.

11. C/29770/5 Alterations to roof and addition of rear dormer window Permitted September 2000.

12. C/29770/4 Construction of two storey side extension and construction of detached double garage in front of dwelling Permitted June 1998.

13. N/29770/3 Notification of intent to crown reduce willow in front garden. Raise no objection January 1998.

14. C/29770/3 Construction of two detached dwellings, detached double garages and one linked double garage. Refused January 1995.

15. Z/29770/2 Relief of condition no.1 of planning permission reference 29770. Permit Jan 1992.

16. Z/29770/1 Conversion of existing dwelling to two dwellings and five additional dwellings. Refused June 1992.

17. Z/29770/0 Erection of three dwellings. Permit March 1998.

Representations received

18. To date, 10 letters of representation have been received, objecting to the proposals on the following grounds:

• will result in excessive dust and noise within conservation area

• out of character, overdevelopment and excessive density/mass, not in scale or harmony with existing buildings • negative impact to character of conservation area, and degradation of area, visually intrusive • inadequate car parking provision • detrimental impact to amenities of neighbouring properties • will result in overlooking and loss of privacy • loss of outlook, loss of light and claustrophobic, enclosing impact • will add to traffic congestion • concerns re highway safety from increased traffic, visibility is poor on this section of road • service vehicles will have to park on main road • shortage of family houses and will result in loss of family house • emphasis on higher densities altered in new PPS3 • concerns re drainage, which is poor and history of flooding • site has unstable ground • risk of damage to neighbouring properties and adjoining listed buildings • poor public transport links • existing building adds to character of High Street and is in good repair, and its loss would not enhance appearance of conservation area • risk of further redevelopment • position of bike store will result in loss of privacy to neighbouring gardens • proposal is contrary to relevant policy guidance

Consultation responses

19. The Head of Planning Policy & Design whilst supportive of the principle of the development, has objected to the proposals on the following grounds:

20. ‘This application offers the opportunity to replace the existing house, which is of limited architectural merit in the conservation area, with a development offering a higher architectural quality.

21. This is a significant site, close to the centre of Botley. The principal elevation facing High Street needs a significant lift in quality. The entrance is weak. The whole elevation is symmetrical except for the entrance door. This could be placed centrally with a window on either side if more space could be allocated internally between the door swing and the base of the stairs.

22. In Botley, there is a wealth of architectural detail to be observed which can influence the design of new buildings. Roof forms are strong while the proposed roof with a valley above the entrance is visually weak.

23. There is an opportunity to raise the design quality of a number of elements. For flats, the entrance should be given a strong focus. This can be done by introducing brick detailing, render of hung tiling. The windows, head and sill details are particularly weak when compared, for example, with the window design of the terrace opposite.

24. Are the chimneys decorative? Chimneys are an important feature in the roofscape of Botley and are to be welcomed in new proposals, but they do need to come with a function.

25. We may give consent for flats of a similar design elsewhere in the Borough but when it comes to conservation areas, contributions to the special character are to be sought. There are no special qualities about the design of these flats.’

26. The Head of Engineering has raised a holding objection to the proposals, on the following grounds:

27. ‘No objection in principle but some details need to be considered and amended plans are required.

28. The parking provision is in accordance with the maximum standard and this low accessibility area is acceptable. The cycle store is acceptable in size to accommodate the required 8 cycles but will need to be fitted out with at least 4 hoops or Sheffield stands. No access path to the store is evident and this is required.

29. The bin store appears too small – to conform to the SPD, 2 eurobins per 6 units are required, plus room for a glass recycling bin. The bin store is very awkward resulting in the need to remove one bin to get to the other on collection day. There also appears to be no access to the bins for either residents or refuse collection purposes, as it is blocked in by parking spaces and a wall/hedge.

30. Visibility appears to be restricted to around 40-50m looking left out of the access, which is well below the standard. The view to the left from the access is limited partially due to the curvature of the road but in this location the speeds are not sufficiently high to justify a refusal.

31. The plans show alterations to the access at back of footway, but no widening of the vehicle crossover. The dropped crossing needs to be extended to cater for the increased use and to ease entry/exit manoeuvres.

32. Southern Water records show a foul sewer across the front of the site – the building may be within the sewer easement corridor and Southern Water should be consulted. Surface water drainage is not good in this area, and there are no surface water sewers on sewer records. Particular attention will need to be given to drainage of surface water.

33. Contributions should be secured to go towards road traffic reductions measures for the additional dwellings.

34. The Head of Environmental Health has raised no objection to the proposals and has requested that conditions relating to hours of work, demolition and removal of materials, burning and dust be attached to any consent issued.

35. The Head of Direct Services has stated that the bon store needs to be large enough to accommodate 2xGrey and 1xGreen 1280 litre Eurobins. It needs to be wide enough to enable collectors to only have to take out the coloured bin that needs emptying on that particular week.

36. The Head of Housing has confirmed that there are 834 households registered on the Housing Register awaiting 1 bed general needs accommodation, and 62 households awaiting 4 bed accommodation.

37. Botley Parish Council has objected to the proposals on the following grounds:

• while recognising the need for additional small housing units, the committee objects to the proposal for 1-bed units on the grounds that 2-bed units would attract a more diverse mix of inhabitants which would be better for the community • the increased use of the exit onto a blind bend caused by the additional vehicles would present a significant traffic hazard • the proposed multiple occupancy building is not appropriate for the locality and conflicts with the surrounding area • on-street parking is not possible and it is not appropriate for so many parking spaces in front of the building because it alters the street scene in the conservation area • mobility cycle and bin storage areas should be at the rear of the property

38. The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposals.

39. Southern Water – they can provide foul drainage subject to a formal connection to the public sewerage system being agreed. Their initial investigations suggest there are no public surface water sewers to connect to so alternative means of disposal will need to be considered. There is a public sewer crossing the site and no tree planting shall be located within 3m either side of the centreline of the sewer.

40. SSE Power Distribution has raised no objection to the proposals.

41. Botley & Curdrige Local History Society has objected to the proposals on the following grounds:

• ‘The proposed development does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Botley Conservation Area, as defined in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

• The character and appearance of the conservation area will be affected by the size of the proposed development and the visual impact of the car parking in front of the proposed building.’

Policy context: Designation Applicable to Site

• Within Built-Up Area Boundary

• Within Established Residential Area • Within Designated Conservation Area

Development plan policies

• Hampshire Country Structure Plan 1996-2011: H5,T5,E6,E16,E17 • Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) 9.CO,18.CO,59.BE, 100.T,104.T, 147.OS,169.LB,170.LB,179.LB,180.LB, 191.IN • Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Amenity in the Borough of Eastleigh

Planning policy guidance / statement

• PPG – 13 Transportation • PPG – 15 Planning and the Historic Environment. • PPS – 1 Delivering Sustainable Development • 3 Housing

Policy commentary

42. The above policies combine to form the criteria which this application will be assessed with particular regard to the principle of the development and the impact to the character and appearance of the surrounding conservation area, highway matters and the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.

Comment on consultation responses

43. Please see report below.

Comment on representations received

44. Please see report below.

Assessment of proposal: development plan and / or legislative background

45. Section 74(3) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that Section 66 (1) of the Act applies. This indicates that in considering whether to grant Conservation Area consent:

46. “The Local Planning Authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.

47. In addition, Section 72(1) of the Act states:

48. “in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a Conservation Area of any powers (under the Planning Acts), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area”.

National Policy Guidance on Development in Conservation Areas

49. PPG 15 sets out central Government guidance to local authorities on development within Conservation Areas. It advises that it is the quality and interest of areas, rather than that of individual buildings, which should be the prime consideration in identifying conservation areas (para 4.2). Policies should clearly identify what it is about the character or appearance of the area which should be preserved or enhanced (para 4.9) and ensure new development accords with the area’s special architectural and historic interest (para 4.16).

50. Many conservation areas include buildings that make no positive contribution to the character or appearance of the area; and that their replacement should be a stimulus to imaginative, high quality design, and seen as an opportunity to enhance the area. What is important is not that new buildings should directly imitate earlier styles, but that they should be designed with respect for their context, as part of a larger whole which has a well-established character and appearance of its own (para 4.17). Special regard should be had to scale, height, form, massing, respect for traditional patterns of frontages, and detailed design (4.18).

51. The Courts have confirmed that planning decisions must give a high priority to the objective of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area. As to the precise interpretation of ‘preserve or enhance’ the Courts have held there is no requirement in legislation that conservation areas should be protected from all development which does not enhance or positively preserve. The objective of preservation can be achieved either through development that makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the area, or by development that leaves the character and appearance unharmed (para 4.20).

Development Plan Policy and Guidance on Development in Conservation Areas

52. At county level, the Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 2001- 2016 encourages development that would enhance the character and setting of historic villages (E17). Development should maintain and enhance areas of distinctive landscape character with regard being had to sense of place including the local character of buildings and settlements (E16).

53. At a Borough level, the site is within a conservation area and special policy area. Policy 169.LB of the local plan is a generic policy which relates to any conservation area within the Borough. It requires development to preserve or enhance the conservation area, to retain the existing street building line and rhythm of the street scene, be of a mass, scale and form in harmony with the existing and adjoining buildings in the area, be constructed of appropriate materials and do not generate excessive traffic.

54. It is clear from the national guidance and the policy advice of the Head of Planning Policy and Design, that the principle of demolition is acceptable if the existing building makes little or no contribution to the appearance of the

conservation area and that there is a suitable scheme for a replacement building, which preserves or enhances the conservation area.

Principle & Density

55. The application site lies within the urban edge, as defined in the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011). Policies 72.H and 75.H of this plan require the effective use of land for housing whilst policy 59.BE requires proposals to be “in sympathy with the appearance and character of the local environment” and to be appropriate in terms of massing, scale, materials, layout, density, design and siting..” This is supported by Policy UB3 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan Review. 56. These development plan policies supplement Central Government Guidance laid out in PPS3 which requires local planning authorities to make the best use of urban land (subject to provisos regarding the need to protect residential amenity and local character) and to locate new development in accessible areas close to existing facilities and public transport. PPS3 also requires development to be of a high quality and appropriate to its context. 57. The application site lies within a Zone 3 a low accessibility area (accessibility to all types of public transport) but is considered to have a reasonable bus service to Southampton, with services every 30 minutes during ‘working hours’ Monday to Saturday and hourly on Sundays. It is within easy walking distance to shops and other community facilities within Botley and would be 1 mile from a railway station. The regular buses and proximity to facilities are considered to be sufficiently accessible to justify higher density redevelopment than exists currently. The density proposed, at 89 dwellings per hectare is in excess of the Government target previously set in PPG 3 (30 – 50dph). However, the acceptability of physical impact of the development must be assessed against the requirements of other local plan policies.

Siting & Layout

58. The proposed flats would be positioned no closer to the frontage than the existing building but would be 5m wider and 7.5m deeper resulting in a building of significantly greater mass and presence. The increased bulk together with the development extending full width of the site erodes the spacing between properties such that the development would be physically and visually dominant both on the plot and the neighbouring property to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. The proposed design does not soften this impact and is architecturally weak. It does not offer a high quality building and is not considered to ‘preserve or enhance’ the conservation area’ by virtue of its detailing, roof form and elevational treatment.

59. The car park to the front is very similar to that which currently exists and would be set behind hedging and a wall. This arrangement is also found on other nearby sites and would not be detrimental to the visual qualities of the street scene or area.

60. The bin store is located where the double garage is currently sited and would be considerably smaller. The store appears too small to accommodate the 3 Eurobins required whilst no details are provided on how the store is to be accessed for waste disposal or servicing, or at what ground level the store will be at. As such, it is contrary to policy 28.ES of the Local Plan. It is unlikely that the store would be anymore visually intrusive than the existing garage provided no additional landscaping is to be removed to facilitate access to the store. The cycle store is located in a secure and accessible position against a blank elevation of the adjoining dwelling.

61. The application site is not located close to any existing areas of public open space. Given this, it is expected that there should be adequate on-site amenity space proposed. The Council’s SPG on Residential Amenity (2004) states that, as a guide, a minimum of 25 square metres amenity space per flat should be provided. This standard is exceeded by the development.

62. By virtue of the scale, bulk and design of the development it is not in accordance with the relevant criteria of Policies 59.BE and 169.LB of the EBLP Review and Policy UB3 and E16 of the HCSP Review or guidance contained in PGG 15.

Access & Parking

63. The access is to be widened slightly and Head of Engineering has confirmed that the proposed accesses to be appropriate and would have sufficient sight lines for traffic speeds in this location. The traffic movements from this site would not result in a reduction in highway safety. 64. The site does not allow for larger vehicles to enter, and turn within, the site but the degree of servicing associated with this development is not considered to undermine the highway safety of other road users. 65. Car parking provision at one space for each one bedroom unit meets the relevant standards for the site’s locality and is acceptable and in accordance with Policy 104.T of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review. Drainage

66. No objection from Environment Agency of Southern Water, however the rear of the site is known to flood/be very damp. The proposed development would not intensify surface water run-off from that which is currently experienced, but details of drainage provision should be secured through a condition if this application were to be approved. Southern Water is able to provide adequate foul drainage for this development. Subject to securing drainage details the development accords with policy 190.IN of the Local Plan.

Residential Amenity

67. Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Amenity in the Borough of Eastleigh requires 22m to be between first floor rear facing windows of properties. This distance is far exceeded to the rear (at 38m), however to the east no.34b is 21.2m away. Although this is less than the recommended

standard the first floor window in the flats would serve a kitchen, whilst the windows in 34b are in the front elevation. In the light that the windows are not to principle rooms and do not over look the “rear” elevations a relaxation by 80cm would not result in a loss of privacy on which refusal to could be justified. There would be no loss of privacy to no.34a due to the angle between windows, whilst a facing window at first floor is a secondary window.

68. Given the positioning of the development to the west of no.34a it is unlikely that resultant building would result in a loss of light to habitable room windows of neighbouring properties. At ground floor no.34b has a double garage whilst at first floor the windows serve a bedroom.

Other matters raised

69. Construction Impact – This could be controlled through restricting hours of construction and demolition, together with securing details on piling, siting of contractor’s parking, huts and materials.

70. Loss of family house – The local plan does not seek to retain individual dwellings but encourages efficient use of urban land. The provision of one bedroom units would meet a local need.

71. Unstable ground - Ensuring the development is constructed in a manner suited to the ground conditions is a matter for consideration under the Building Regulations.

72. Damage during construction process – Ensuring the development is constructed in a manner that does not cause damage to neighbouring properties is a matter for consideration under the Building Regulations.

73. Precedent – A precedent would not be set as the layout, design, site conditions and surroundings would be different on any future applications that may be submitted. Each case would need to be assessed on its own merits.

Planning obligation /considerations

74. In accordance with the guidance contained in Circular 05/05 and Policies 101.T, 147.OS and 191.IN of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan, this application is subject to the provision of developers’ contributions towards social and recreational facilities, off-site public open space and transportation infrastructure in the local area, to meet the additional demand created by new residents.

75. The applicant has been advised of the required level of contributions in respect of the proposed flats, but to date, no response has been received as to how these contributions are to be secured.

Other material considerations

76. It is considered that there are no other material considerations to warrant a decision otherwise than in accordance with the Development Plan and / or legislative background.

Conclusion

77. The principle of demolishing the dwelling and replacing it with flats is acceptable and in line with national and local planning policy. The design and mass o the building is not sympathetic to the locality and it would not preserve or enhance the conservation, as such the proposals are recommended for refusal.

Primary School 12

6 T 1 R U O C

R 1 I A F

M 2

2 S EN RD 6 A 7 G SS

P 4 k y Y 2 l 3 e l C 3 a r W Clogheen e b e l House m o c A

e 2 L The Belfry El Sub S ta Castle Combe 5 52 M WARNER ra in a 1 30 5

t 34 o a 1

38 War Memorial 34b 0 BM 24 20a 2

HI 26

5 GH 4 28 TC 11.52m STR 32 30 All Saints' EE 34 T 10.1m

Church

1 3 1 5 1 7

2 7

Church

2 1 a 9

th a P

Rear of 21 1

KILFO 1

RD COURT

9 b

1 C 1

19c M

Scale O R

0 10 20 30 40 50 mT E I 2

R M 2 8

R 1 2 E O 4 A 22A22B El D S b St Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with Scale 1:1250 the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil Map Ref SU5113SW proceedings. Licence No. 100019622 (2007) Development Control Date 14/03/2007

33 This page is intentionally left blank

34 Agenda Item 5c

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY Monday 16 April 2007 Case Officer Rachel Illsley

SITE: Land adjacent to 16 Ullswater Avenue, West End, Southampton, SO18 3QU

Ref. O/07/59181 Received: 02/02/2007 (31/03/2007)

APPLICANT: Ratlake Farm (Leisure) Ltd

PROPOSAL: Outline: Construction of detached dwelling with access from Ullswater Avenue

AMENDMENTS: 14-Mar-2007

RECOMMENDATION:

REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(1) By reason of the proposed siting and layout of the proposed development, it is considered that the proposals would result in a poor quality residential environment for future residents and would cause pressure to undertake undesirable work to protected trees. As such it is considered contrary to the guidance given in Policy UB3 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996- 2011 (Review) and Policy 47.ES and 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011).

(2) Based on the information submitted, the application has failed to demonstrate that the future health, stability and retention of the protected trees on the site would not be prejudiced and adversely affected by the proposed development. The proposals are therefore considered contrary to the guidance contained in Policies 47.ES and 59.BE(i) of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011).

(3) Based on the information provided, it is considered that the proposed development would result in a detrimental impact to the nature conservation interests of the adjoining Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and as such, the proposals are considered contrary to the guidance contained within Policies 24.NC and 59.BE(vii) of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011).

(4) Contrary to the guidance contained within Circular 05/05 and Policies 101.T, 147.OS and 191.IN of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), the application fails to make contributions towards the provision of social and recreational facilities, off-site public open space and transportation infrastructure in the local area, the need for which would increase as a result of this development.

Report:

This application has been referred to Committee for determination by Members as it is considered to be contentious.

The site and its surroundings

Description of application

1. This application seeks outline permission for the erection of a detached dwelling on a parcel of land which lies to the north of No 16 Ullswater Avenue.

2. The application seeks consideration of access and layout only, with appearance, landscaping and scale to be considered at reserved matters stage, should outline approval be granted.

3. The proposals are supported by a Design & Access Statement and an Ecological Survey & Assessment.

Site area

4. The site measures approximately 0.073ha in area.

Residential development (net)

5. The proposed dwelling equates to a density of approximately 14 dwellings per hectare.

Topography

6. The site is relatively level across the frontage with Ullswater Avenue, with ground levels falling away towards the rear of the site. Ground levels also rise as you progress further along Ullswater Avenue, to the south.

Trees

7. There are a number of substantial trees which run along the rear and side boundaries of the site, at the top of the bank which leads down into the woodland. These trees are covered by Tree Preservation Orders.

Boundary treatment

8. The front boundary with Ullswater Avenue is open, with clear views into the site. The only noticeable boundary treatment is the 1.8m close boarded fencing along the side boundary with No 16 Ullswater Avenue.

Site characteristics

9. The site is currently an open area of land within the street scene, which is very overgrown with vegetation, framed by a backdrop of mature trees.

Character of locality

10. The site is within an established residential area and backs onto West End Copse SINC.

Relevant planning history

11. Application Z/25268/005, which sought outline permission for a detached dwelling with vehicular access from Ullswater Avenue was refused in January 2002, on grounds of an adverse impact on and loss of protected trees/woodland, and an adverse impact on the adjoining SINC.

12. Application O/05/53985 was submitted in May 2005, seeking outline permission for the construction of a detached dwelling on the site, with vehicular access from Ullswater Avenue. This application was refused under delegated powers in July 2005, due to concerns regarding the impact of the proposals on protected trees and the adjoining Site of Importance for Nature Conservation

Representations received

13. To date, 10 letters of representation have been received, objecting to the proposals on the following grounds:

• loss of and impact on protected trees and wildlife habitat • inconvenience to residents during construction • would project further forward than existing dwelling • no changes from previously refused applications • land is designated as public open space and has amenity value for residents • surrounding area is already overdeveloped and no need for this additional dwelling • would result in additional traffic in area, adding to congestion and existing problems • sets precedent for future applications • Out of character in its position and size. • Impact of oil and pollutants on natural features.

Consultation responses

14. The Head of Engineering has raised no objection to the proposals, stating:

15. ‘No objection in principle as long as adequate off-road parking is provided and secure cycle storage. Contributions required, dependent on property size.

16. Conditions – DR2D & G, TH08 & 26’.

17. The Hampshire Senior Ecologist has stated that she has no comment to make on the application, but has requested that Eastleigh Borough Council’s own Biodiversity Officer be consulted, whose views she would support.

18. The Head of Countryside & Recreation has objected to the proposals, stating:

19. ‘Approximately half the proposed development site is within the woodland TPO 73 and the proposed building is too close to the mature trees, with a risk of damage during construction and a high likelihood of subsequent applications to remove or reduce trees in the future, and the posts of the proposed screen fencing would have to be driven through the tree roots.

20. With regards to nature conservation issues, it is not considered that there is sufficient space to site a house as illustrated on the plans without requiring substantial and unacceptable to the trees within the SINC, which was designated because of its woodland value.

21. I therefore believe the application will adversely affect the SINC and the trees within the woodland TPO – objection’.

22. The Head of Environmental Health has raised no objection to the proposals, but has requested that conditions be attached requiring a contaminated land assessment, restricting hours of work and preventing burning on site.

23. Natural England is satisfied that the Ecological Survey & Assessment has been carried out to an acceptable standard and has no objection to this application, subject to the following comments.

24. Bats - From the information provided, Natural England is satisfied that no bat population is adversely affected by the proposal. We understand that trees on this proposed development are to be retained.

25. Birds - All British birds, their nests and eggs are protected in law. It is an offence to take, kill or injure any wild bird or to take, damage or destroy any nest (while in use or being built) or egg of any wild bird under Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

26. To reduce the likelihood of harm to breeding birds, clearance of trees and areas of scrub should avoid the bird-breeding season (March to August inclusive).

27. Potential impact on local sites - Natural England is aware that this proposal may affect a SINC. We therefore recommend that you first consult the Authority’s Ecologist/Biodiversity Officer with regard to this application to ensure that the proposal accords with the local site policies in the Local Plan. In addition, the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre can provide species and habitat records for the area.

28. If the Local Planning Authority considers that there is a risk of damaging impacts on a local site, the Council should first consider the Key Principles in PPS9 and the policy regarding Regional and Local Sites set out in Paragraph 9. Where this is not an option, the LPA should consider recommending refusal or the use of conditions/planning obligations in the interests of nature conservation to secure adequate mitigation and/or compensation.’

29. The Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust has been consulted but has not responded.

30. West End Parish Council has objected to the proposals on the following grounds:

• potential loss of mature trees • concern re close proximity to conservation area

Policy context: designation applicable to site

• Within Built-Up Area Boundary • Within Established Residential Area • Adjacent to Site Of Nature Conservation Interest

Development plan policies

• Hampshire Country Structure Plan 1996-2011: UB3 • Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) : 23.NC, 47.ES, 59.BE, 101.T, 104.T, 147.OS, 191.IN • Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Amenity in the Borough of Eastleigh.

Planning policy guidance / statement

• PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development • PPS3 – Housing • PPS9 – Biodiversity & Geological Conservation

Policy commentary

31. The above policies combine to form the criteria that this application will be assessed with particular regard to the principle of development, the proposed siting and layout and the impact on the adjoining SINC and protected trees.

Comment on consultation responses

32. Please see report below.

Comment on representations received

33. Please see report below.

Assessment of proposal: Development plan and / or legislative background

34. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:

35. “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”.

Principle

36. The principle of additional residential development on this site is acceptable, given that the site lies within the defined urban edge and is within an existing residential area.

37. However, there are clear constraints to the development of the site, most notably the mature protected trees and the adjoining SINC area, and the ecological value of the site and its surroundings.

Density

38. With regards to density, the proposed new dwelling would equate to a density of approximately 14 dwellings per hectare.

39. PPG3, which prescribed density ranges of between 30-50 dwellings per hectare, and above in more accessible areas, as being appropriate for securing efficient use of land, has now been superseded by Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, which comes into force in April 2007. This guidance does not make reference to the 30-50 dwg/ha range previously promoted by PPG3, but states that 30 dwg/ha should be used as a national indicative minimum, to guide policy making and decision making.

40. PPS3 goes on to state that density is a measure of the number of units which can be accommodated on a site or within an area, and that the density of existing development should not dictate that of new housing by stifling change or requiring replication of existing style or form.

41. Policy 72.H of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) states that in accessible, sustainable locations, the Council will expect net residential developments to achieve the maximum residential development compatible with the protection of reasonable residential amenity, up to or beyond 50 dwg/ha.

42. However, the policy goes on to state that in exceptional circumstances, the Council will accept densities of less than 30 dwg/ha, where it is considered to be in the best interests of protecting the amenity of the area.

43. The proposed development equates to a density of approximately 14 dwg/ha – this is obviously below the desired 30 dwg/ha referred to in PPS3, but it is considered appropriate given the constraints and sensitivity of the site.

Siting & Layout

44. The application seeks outline permission for the erection of a detached dwelling, with only access and layout to be considered. The issues of appearance, landscaping and scale would be considered at reserved matters stage, if outline permission were granted.

45. The proposed site plan shows the proposed dwelling being positioned towards the south-east corner of the site. The dwelling is shown as having an ‘L’- shaped footprint, measuring 8.4m in width across the frontage, and between 9 and 6 metres in depth. The dwelling would be set back approximately 5m from the front boundary of the site, being positioned slightly further forward than No 16, which is approximately 6.8m back from the road frontage.

46. The proposed vehicular access is shown as being fairly central within the site frontage, with two parking spaces positioned within the north-east corner of the site, and the drive leading from the parking area to the side of the house.

47. In street scene terms, the proposed siting is considered acceptable, as it maintains the slightly staggered building line of the existing properties and has its front elevation addressing Ullswater Avenue.

48. However, due to the extent of tree coverage along the north-west boundary of the site, the position of the dwelling, combined with the parking spaces and driveway area, the proposed layout leaves very little open, useable amenity space to serve the new dwelling. The only areas of private space lie to the rear of the dwelling, measuring approximately 48 sqm in overall area.

49. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to residential amenity states, in paragraph 3.17, that garden size should be no less than 80% of the development footprint of the house, and that the space provided should be commensurately larger where mature trees are retained within the garden space.

50. The available garden area equates to approximately 80% of the footprint of the house, but this does not make allowances for the extent or impact of the tree canopy cover, as required by the SPG.

51. A recent application relating to new development at Byways, Portsmouth Road, Bursledon, (ref: F/06/55460), which was refused due to concerns relating to layout and the lack of adequate amenity space due to extensive tree coverage was dismissed, with the Inspector upholding the Council’s concerns that the area of available, amenity space outside the tree canopy was not sufficient to serve the needs of the future occupants, and it is considered that this application for Ullswater Avenue poses the same issues, and fails to provide adequate usable amenity space to serve the proposed dwelling.

Access & Parking

52. As noted above, the new vehicular access is proposed fairly centrally within the site, with two parking spaces shown to the right of the entrance.

53. Policy 59.BE of the adopted local plan requires proposals to have a satisfactory means of access and layout for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, including appropriate links to surrounding footpaths, cycle ways and public transport services.

54. Policy 104.T of the adopted local plan states that planning permission will only be granted for appropriate development which provides adequate off-highway parking up to the maximum standard set out in respect of the accessibility of that development.

55. The Head of Engineering has raised no objection in principle to the proposals, and has requested that contributions be made towards road traffic reduction measures in the area.

56. However, it is noted that the proposals do not show any form of cycle storage provision, which would be required for at least two cycles. This storage provision would need to sited within the garden area, as there is no garage proposed, thereby further reducing the amount of useable amenity space available.

Trees & Landscaping

57. As noted above, there are mature protected trees positioned along the north- west boundary of the site, which make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the street scene, and provide an attractive natural green back drop to this part of Ullswater Avenue. These trees are covered by Tree Preservation Order 73.

58. Policy 47.ES of the adopted local plan states that permission will not be granted for development which would involve the loss of trees which are the subject of Tree Preservation Orders. Policy 59.BE(i) also requires proposals,

amongst other things, to be appropriate in siting and layout in relation to trees worthy of retention.

59. The issue of the relationship of the proposed development of the site to the protected trees has been a concern on previous applications relating to the site, with the previous application, O/05/53985, having been refused due to the lack of information and the failure to demonstrate that the application would not have an adverse impact on the protected trees.

60. The Head of Countryside and Recreation has maintained his objection to the latest proposals on tree grounds, stating that the proposed building is too close to the mature trees, with a high risk of damage during construction. Concern has also been expressed regarding the pressure for future works to the trees and the impact of the proposed boundary fencing on the root systems of these trees.

61. In light of these concerns, the proposals are not considered to comply with the policy guidance outlined above and are not considered to be acceptable.

Nature Conservation Interests

62. The application site lies adjacent to West End Copse Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, designated for its woodland value, and consideration must therefore be given to the ecological value of the site and the impact of the proposals on these interests.

63. Again, the relationship of the proposed development of the site to the adjoining SINC has been a concern on previous applications, with application O/05/53985 being refused on these grounds.

64. Policy 23.NC of the adopted local plan states that development which is likely to have a direct or indirect adverse affect on a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation will not be permitted, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the need to safeguard the nature conservation value of the site. If development is to be permitted, the Council will require appropriate measures to be taken to mitigate for the adverse affects to the SINC.

65. The application is supported by an Ecological Survey & Assessment, which concludes that the development would not result in an adverse impact to the adjoining SINC.

66. The Head of Countryside & Recreation has objected to the proposals, as the application has failed to demonstrate that the proposals would not have an adverse impact on the adjoining SINC, as substantial and unacceptable works would be required to the trees within the SINC. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to the guidance contained within Policy 23.NC of the adopted local plan. The proposals are therefore not considered to be acceptable on these grounds.

Planning obligation /considerations

67. In accordance with the guidance contained in Circular 05/05, and Policies 101.T, 147.OS and 191.IN of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001- 2011), this application is subject to the provision of developers’ contributions towards social and recreational facilities, off-site public open space and transportation infrastructure in the local area, to meet the needs of the new residents.

68. The applicant has been informed of these requirements and has confirmed that he wishes to secure the contributions via a S106 agreement. At the time of writing this report, this agreement has not been completed.

69. It is also noted that the supporting Design & Access Statement states that the applicant is prepared to offer land to the north and west of the site, partly or wholly in lieu of the required open space contributions, to give access to the adjoining woodland. However, no information has been provided as to the extent of the area proposed, or confirmation of land ownership.

70. If outline permission were to be granted, the S106 agreement securing the contributions would need to be completed within 1 month of the date of the committee, as the 8-week period will have already expired at the date of the committee meeting.

Other material considerations

71. It is considered that there are no other material considerations to warrant a decision otherwise than in accordance with the Development Plan and / or legislative background.

Conclusion

72. Whilst the principle of additional residential development within the urban edge is acceptable, the application has failed to demonstrate that the proposed dwelling can be accommodated within the constraints of the site, without causing an adverse impact to the protected trees and adjoining SINC area, nor would the development result in an acceptable site layout, particularly with regard to the provision of amenity space.

73. In addition, the application has failed to secure the required developer’s contributions in respect of the proposed dwelling.

74. It is therefore recommended that outline permission be refused on these grounds.

5 S 2 DEN 1

D GAR 6

AN 7

WELL 1 2

1 1 1 0

LANE 9 IVY

1 2 NE 3 VY LA

OLD I E 1 U

N IV 6 E Y V LA A N R E E T

A 7

W 3 S L L U

Ivy

36.3m

6 1 The Willows

The Willows

Westend Copse

6 1

Pond

4 9

Little Croft

1 1

13 0 6

CLOSE 8 BARLE

a 7

1 6

Westend Copse

7 Scale 0 10 20 30 40 50 m Westend Copse

13 1

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with Scale 1:1250 the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil Map Ref SU4514NE proceedings. Licence No. 100019622 (2007) Development Control Date 14/03/2007

46 Agenda Item 5d

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY Monday 16 April 2007 Case Officer Narinder Phagura

SITE: West End Service Station, Swaythling Road, West End, Southampton, SO30 3AG

Ref. F/07/59214 Received: 07/02/2007 (13/04/2007)

APPLICANT: Azure Property LLP

PROPOSAL: Erection of new forecourt including 8no. Petrol pumps, pump islands canopy, single storey sales building, storage compound & provision of 13no. Car parking spaces & associated highway works

AMENDMENTS: 28/03/2007

RECOMMENDATION:

PERMIT

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(1) The development hereby permitted must be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

(2) The ancillary A3/A5 use hereby permitted shall not be operated except between the hours of 0800 and 2300 on any day. Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residents.

(3) The area used for the A3/A5 use hereby permitted shall not exceed 20 sq.m. Reason: To limit the area used for this use in the interests of amenity of local residents.

(4) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, full details of cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Implementation shall be in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision.

47 (5) Before the development commences, or by such later date as the Local Planning Authority may determine, a landscape scheme comprising planting, details of hard surfacing and means of enclosure must be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme must include a planting specification and schedule, and shall indicate the position, size, number, planting density and species of shrubs and trees. A seed or turf specification must be provided for areas to be grassed. The planting scheme must include details of phasing, timing and provision for management and maintenance during the first ten years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory.

(6) The landscape scheme must be completed within 12 months from the completion of the last building shell, or by such later date as the Local Planning Authority may determine. Any trees or plants which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased during the first five years must be replaced during the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory.

(7) No construction or demolition work must take place except between the hours 0800 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays or 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.

(8) The air/water and vacuum machine shall only be operated between 0700 hours to 1900 hours Monday to Saturdays and between 0800 hours and 1900 hours on Sunday or Public Holidays. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

(9) Developments shall not begin until a scheme of works to deal with dust from site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall then be implemented and retained to the satisfaction of the local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenity of the occupiers of adjoining properties.

(10)Impact/driven piling work shall not be carried out except between 0900 hours to 1600 hours Monday to Friday and 0900 hours to 1300 hours Saturday, and not at all on Sundays or Public Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenity of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.

(11) No external plant (such as extraction systems, refrigeration units and air handling plant) shall be installed without full details and its implementation being agreed in writing by the LPA. Any external plant designed for use in connection with the building must be provided with the sound mitigation measures necessary to ensure existing background noise levels are not exceeded as determined from the nearest noise sensitive premises. Reason: To protect the amenity of the occupiers of adjoining properties.

(12) No deliveries of commercial stock (excluding fuel) shall be received except between 0730 hours to 2100 hours Monday to Friday, 0800 hours to 1800 hours

48 on Saturday, and 1100 hours to 1600 hours on Sunday or Public Holidays. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

(13) Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. That scheme shall include all of the following elements unless specifically excluded, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:

1. A desk study identifying: - all previous uses - potential contaminants associated with those uses - a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors - potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site

2. A site investigation scheme based on (1) to provide information for an assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3. The results of the site investigation and risk assessment (2) and a method statement based on those results giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4. A verification report on completion of the works set out in (3) confirming the remediation measures that have been undertaken in accordance with the method statement and setting out measures for maintenance, further monitoring and reporting.

Any changes to these agreed elements require the express consent of the local planning authority. Reason: To protect the minor aquifer and potential springs and surface waters in the vicinity of the site. The site may be contaminated due to previous and current activities that have taken place onsite. Risk to groundwater and surface water has not yet been fully established on the site.

(14) If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an addendum to the Method Statement. This addendum to the Method Statement must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. Reason: To protect the minor aquifer and potential springs and surface waters in the vicinity of the site. The site may be contaminated due to previous and current activities that have taken place onsite. Risk to groundwater and surface water has not yet been fully established on the site. Please note PPS23 recommends that this condition is imposed.

(15) No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no

49 resultant risk to groundwater. Reason: To protect the minor aquifer and potential springs and surface waters in the vicinity of the site as the use of SUDS and soakaways can increase the potential for pollution if located in contaminated land.

(16) Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods will not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant risk to groundwater. Reason: To protect the minor aquifer and potential springs and surface waters in the vicinity of the site, If used, piling may provide direct pathways for contaminants to groundwater.

(17) No development approved by this planning permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the site drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To protect the minor aquifer and surface waters.

(18) No development approved by this planning permission shall be commenced until details for the surface water drainage have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such details should include provision for all surface water drainage from parking areas and areas of hardstanding to be passed through an oil separator designed to have the capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water should not pass through the separator. Reason: To protect the minor aquifer and surface waters.

(19) The development hereby permitted must not be brought into use until the areas shown on the plan to be approved for parking, loading and unloading of vehicles shall have been made available, surfaced and marked out, and the areas shall be retained in a condition to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for that purpose at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

(20) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 the level of land hatched green on the approved plan must be lowered so that the land and anything on it shall not be more than 0.1 metres above the level of the carriageway; and the resultant visibility splays shall be kept free of obstacles. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

(21) No development shall take commence until details of highway works shown in principle on drawing 0678/SL-30 have been approved in writing by the local planning authority, in consultation with the local Highway Authority, and no part of the development shall be occupied until the approved works have been constructed in accordance with the approved details, to the satisfaction of the local planning authority in consultation with the local Highway Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Note to Applicant:- The following planning informatives should be attached to any planning permission granted:

50 Under the Southern Region Land Drainage and Sea Defence Byelaws, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works within 8 metres of the top of the bank of the Townhill Stream, designated a 'main river'.

Advice to Planning Authority/Applicant:

Land Contamination

It is acknowledged that some site investigation has been undertaken for this site, although not referenced in support of this planning application. However the groundwater and contaminated Land team do not feel that the limited site investigation undertaken to date is adequate to characterise potential contamination on site.

It is noted that only 1 round of groundwater monitoring has been undertaken. The Environment Agency required that a minimum of three sampling rounds are undertaken from at least three boreholes in order to allow for accurate determination of the groundwater regime beneath the site. Three rounds of groundwater analysis also allow for accurate representation of contamination within the groundwater beneath the site and can allow for trends or lab errors to be identified. It is noted that from the single groundwater-sampling visit undertaken that contamination was identified within the groundwater. No information has been provided on the source or extent of this contamination. The Environment Agency will also require a program of monitoring to be undertaken during the development this should be submitted for agreement in writing with the Environment Agency.

It is noted that this planning application is only for redevelopment of certain aspects of the site. Following demolition of these areas further investigation should be undertaken to determine if contamination is present and the risk to controlled waters should it be identified. A risk assessment for controlled waters given that contamination has been identified may also be required following further groundwater monitoring and investigation.

It is strongly recommended that proposals for further investigation are submitted to and agreed in writing with us prior to undertaking in order to ensure that all of our concerns are covered to prevent further delays down the line.

Please be aware that these comments relate to the risks to controlled water alone. Aspects related to Human Health should be discusses with the appropriate Environmental Health officer at the Local Authority. Issues relating to human health do not fall within the Environment Agency’s remit for this site.

May we take this opportunity to remind you that the primary responsibility for safeguarding land and other property, including neighbouring land, against unacceptable risk from contamination rests with the owner and that where development is proposed, the developer is responsible for ensuring that development is safe and suitable for the purpose for which it is intended.

51 Construction & Demolition

Any construction or demolition activities should be carried out in accordance with the Agency's Pollution Prevention Guidelines No.6 - Working at Construction and Demolition sites.

Waste to be taken off site

Most contaminated soils are regarded as controlled waste. Therefore, their handling, transport, treatment and disposal are subject to waste management legislation, which includes:

i.) Duty of Care Regulations 1991 ii.) Hazardous Waste (22) Duty of Care Regulations 1991 ii.) Hazardous Waste (22) Duty of Care Regulations 1991 ii.) Hazardous Waste (21) Duty of Care Regulations 1991 ii.) Hazardous Waste (21) Duty of Care Regulations 1991 ii.) Hazardous Waste (21) Duty of Care Regulations 1991 ii.) Hazardous Waste (21) Duty of Care Regulations 1991 ii.) Hazardous Waste (21) Duty of Care Regulations 1991 ii.) Hazardous Waste (21) Duty of Care Regulations 1991 ii.) Hazardous Waste (21) Duty of Care Regulations 1991 ii.) Hazardous Waste (21) Duty of Care Regulations 1991 ii.) Hazardous Waste (England & Wales) Regulations 2005 iii.) Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (as amended)

Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically, and that the licensable status of any proposed off site operations is clear. If in doubt, the Agency should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays.

Pollution Prevention Guidance

To minimise the environmental impact of this development pollution prevention measures should be incorporated wherever appropriate. Guidance specific to this development can be found in the following Pollution Prevention Guidance:

PPG 01: General guide to the prevention of pollution PPG 02: Above ground storage tanks PPG 03: The use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems PPG 06: Construction and demolition PPG 07: Fuelling stations: construction & operation PPG 13: High-pressure water & steam cleaners PPG 18: Managing fire water and major spillages PPG 19: Garages and vehicle service centres PPG 20: Dewatering underground ducts and chambers PPG 21: Pollution Incident Response Planning PPG 26: Storage and handling of drums and intermediate bulk container PPG 27 Installation, Decommissioning and removal of underground oil storage tanks

Also recommended is the "Pollution Prevention Pays" leaflet accompanied by the "Is your Site Right? 10 point check list"

In order to minimise use of paper, the Pollution Prevention Guidelines mentioned in this letter may be freely viewed and downloaded from the NetRegs section of the Agency's website.

The website address is:www.environment- agency.gov.uk/netregs/resources/278006

In the event that you are unable to access this site, please contact the Customer Contact Team on Direct dial 01962 764867/fax 01962 841573 Direct e-mail [email protected] to receive hard copies of these documents.

Report:

This application has been referred to Committee by Councillor Broomfield, Councillor Goodall and Councillor Sortwell.

Description of application

1. The application seeks permission for the erection of a new forecourt including 8no. petrol pumps, pumps island canopy, single storey sales building, storage compound and provision of 13no. car parking spaces and associated highway works.

2. The proposed new sales building would extend a further 10.5m in length and 5.3 in width. The height would increase from 3.8m to 4.2m. The proposed new canopy would largely be to the same height as the existing and the number of pumps would be reduced to 8. The proposed storage compound would measure approximately 4.5m x 5.1m and 2.6m in height. The site would introduce 13no. car parking spaces. The other existing buildings on site that include the carwash and plant room are to remain.

3. The application also includes proposals to introduce a new right hand turn lane into the site off Swaythling Road.

4. The previous application was refused for a number of reasons that included; the provision of a guided pedestrian route within the site; an inappropriate design standard for the new right hand turn lane; insufficient information submitted with regards to the risk of pollution to controlled waters and detrimental impact to residential amenity. The current application has been revised to address these concerns.

Site area

5. Approximately 0.343 hectares.

53 Residential development (net)

6. n/a

Topography

7. The ground level rises between the boundaries with the residential properties in Eden road.

Trees

8. There is a mix of mature, tall and smaller trees along the side boundaries with the residential properties.

Boundary treatment

9. There is a mix of trees, brick walls and close boarded fencing along the site boundaries.

Site characteristics

10. The existing site accommodates a sales building, canopy, pumps, car wash and plant room. The site is located adjacent to the roundabout with access off Swaythling Road.

Character of locality

11. The site is located within a residential area although West End Village Centre is located nearby.

Relevant planning history

12. 15439/000 - Erection of additional garage building and sales kiosk - Conditional permission 31.10.74

13. 15439/001 - Installation of four post canopy complete with under lighting and drainage - Permit 09.06.78

14. 15439/003 - Car sales site - Permit 01.11.78

15. 15439/005 - Installation of underground petroleum storage tanks and associated works - Permit 12.03.81

16. Z/15439/007/00 - To redevelop site, sales kiosk and car wash - Permit 21- Dec-1989

17. Z/15439/010/00 – Redevelopment of site to form filling station, sales kiosk and car wash, without complying with condition 7 of planning permission 15439/7 (i.e. to vary car wash opening hours). - Permit 11-May-1992

18. Z/15439/011/00 – Construction of enclosed jet wash - Permit 15-Feb-1994

19. Z/15439/012/00 – Use of part of sales kiosk for sale of hot food - Permit 19- Jul-1996

20. Z/15439/013/00 – Construction of front extension to house A T M (Cash Machine) - Permit 13-Mar-1998

21. F/04/51745 - Extension to existing sales shop building removal of jet wash facility and removal of 1 no. petrol pump and island – Refused 28-Sep-2004

22. F/06/58180 – Erection of new forecourt including 8no. Petrol pumps, pump islands canopy, single storey sales building, storage compound & provision of 14no. Car parking spaces & associated highway works – Refused 08-Dec- 2006

23. A/06/58545 - Display of 4no. Internally illuminated canopy signs – Advert Consent 04-Jan-2007

Representations received

24. To date, 10 letters of representation has been received, objecting to the proposals on the following grounds:

• concern about the environmental and safety issues relating to proposals • vehicles attempting to enter/leave site present risk to pedestrians • will result in unacceptable levels of noise and light pollution • attracts anti-social behaviour, people sit on perimeter walls using alcohol • loss of trees to make way for additional parking • addition of pumps will increase air and noise pollution • loss of privacy due to cutting back of trees, and not clear that garage has right to touch these trees • no need to expand sales area when there are two other convenience stores nearby • concern re increase in traffic turning into service station, and implications for health and safety • increase in exhaust fumes will make sitting in back gardens intolerable • fear of increased risk of crime • inadequate parking provision • removal of trees should be avoided, particularly due to concerns re CO2 emissions • will result in increased risk of flooding • no change from last application

Consultation responses

25. The Head of Engineering has raised no objection to the proposals. Amended plans have been received to address the previous concerns raised by the engineers in respect to relocating the wall and providing suitable cycle and pedestrian provision.

26. The Head of Environmental Health has raised no objection to the proposals, subject to conditions relating to noise from external plant, hours of work, piling, dust, deliveries and the air/water and vacuum machine being attached to any consent issued.

27. Hampshire County Council has raised no objection to the proposals, making the following comments:

28. ‘The proposal involves highway works to be undertaken on Swaythling Road, including the provision of a right hand turn lane. The works have been agreed in principle by the Highway Authority. The proposal involves works to be carried out on the highway and therefore the applicant is required to enter into a Section 278 Agreement with the County Council in order to work on the highway. Prior to the signing of any agreement, it will be necessary for a design check to be carried out and approval granted.

29. I therefore raise no highways objection subject to the following Grampian Condition:

30. No development shall take commence until details of highway works shown in principle on drawing H531-100 have been approved in writing by the local planning authority, in consultation with the local Highway Authority, and no part of the development shall be occupied until the approved works have been constructed in accordance with the approved details, to the satisfaction of the local planning authority in consultation with the local Highway Authority.’

31. West End Parish Council has objected to the proposals on the grounds of overdevelopment, loss of privacy, highway safety issues and traffic concerns.

32. The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposals, subject to a number of conditions being attached relating to contaminated land, surface water drainage, piling and overall site drainage being attached to any consent issued, and a number of notes to applicant.

33. The Crime Reduction Officer has raised no objection to the proposals, but has stated that consideration should be given to the internal layout with regards to safety of staff.

34. Head of Planning Policy – has raised no objection to the proposals, making the following comments:

35. This site is within the urban edge as defined in the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001 – 2011). No other notation or zoning applies in the locality. The site contains a well-established petrol filling station, car wash and shop. The proposals involve an increase in the gross floorspace of the building on the site by some 235m2, with the retail floorspace increasing by 175m2 to 260m2.

56 36. In the Local Plan, policy 134.TC sets out a number of criteria against which development for retail purposes outside established centres is to be assessed. To be acceptable there must be a demonstrable need for the development and no suitable site for the development in an existing centre. The development must not undermine the vitality or viability of any nearby centre, must be adequately served by a variety of transport modes and must not increase the overall need to travel. There is no reference in this policy to the scale of development to which this policy should apply although the supporting text of the Local Plan identifies development in excess of 500m2 floor area as significant in relation to the policy.

37. The proposed increase in retail floorspace only amounts to 175m2, although the gross increase in the floor space of the building as a whole is 235m2. I do not consider that this increase in floorspace would have any material impact on nearby centres at Townhill Way or West End village. The provision of local shop facilities at petrol stations is a significant trend and in this case is strictly contrary to policy. However, this development is on a modest scale and I do not think that the policy issues are significant. The site is in an accessible location within the urban area and provides a convenient local facility for residents and for passers-by on foot and in a car and I do not think that it would increase the need to travel overall. Accordingly, I have NO POLICY OBJECTION to this proposal.

Policy context: designation applicable to site

• Within Built-Up Area Boundary • Within Established Residential Area

Development plan policies

• Hampshire Country Structure Plan 1996-2011: UB.3 • Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) : 59.BE, 134.TC, 133.TC, 102.T, 35.ES • Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Amenity in the Borough of Eastleigh.

Planning policy guidance / statement

• PPS 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development • PPS 6 – Planning for Town Centres • PPS 23 – Planning and Pollution Control

Policy commentary

38. The above policies combine to form the criteria which this application will be assessed with particular regard to the principle of the proposed development, siting and design, impact to residential amenity and highway and pedestrian safety.

57 Comment on consultation responses

39. Responded to below.

Comment on representations received

40. Responded to below.

Assessment of proposal: Development plan and / or legislative background

41. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:

42. “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”.

43. The proposal is considered to comply with the relevant Development Plan policies.

Principle

44. The application site lies within the defined urban edge and the applicable policies include Policy 134.TC and Policy 59.BE of the adopted local plan. Policy 134.TC states that development for retail purposes outside established centres would be permitted provided that:

• there is a demonstrable need for the development; • there are no other suitable sites within an existing centre; • the development must not undermine the vitality or viability of any nearby centre; • the development is accessible by a choice of transport modes and will not increase the need to travel overall.

45. There is no reference within this policy regarding the scale of proposed development. Although the new footprint of the sales building would be considerably larger, it still retains the established use of the site and the built form is not considered to result in the overdevelopment of the site. The proposals are also not considered to undermine the vitality or viability of the existing nearby centres.

46. With the increase in size of the sales building, it is likely that there may be additional car trips generated to the facility. Although this needs to be balanced with the reduction to the no. of pumps and the accessible location of the site, which is in close proximity to large areas of housing, thus any increase is not considered to be significant as many visitors will be passers-by on both foot and by car. These combined trips are a sustainable approach to this small scale retail planning. The proposals are not considered to result in a significant increased need to travel overall.

58 Siting and design

47. 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 to be appropriate in mass, scale, design and siting both in themselves and in relation to adjoining buildings.

48. The most significant change within this proposal will be to the footprint of the sales building. The height of the building and canopy would not be noticeably taller then is at present and building would remain to the north-west of the site. The proposed larger building is considered to be appropriate in terms of its size and design to the existing site and surrounding area.

Residential amenity

49. As the sales building would be in the same position, it is not considered that the extended footprint would cause any adverse impact to neighbouring properties. The height of the sales building would increase by approximately 0.5m and this is not considered to cause any issues of light pollution to residential properties. The majority of the existing screening is to remain along the southern boundary between residential properties which would also protect privacy. A condition is recommended to request a landscaping scheme in order to reinforce the screening along the southern and western boundaries. The introduction of car parking spaces along the southern and part western boundaries are not considered to cause a noise disturbance to adjoining properties as there are not an excessive number of spaces proposed and some level of parking in these areas exist at present.

50. In terms of any noise impact, although the sales area would increase, the number of pumps are being reduced from 10 no. to 8 no. overall I do not consider that this would result in unacceptable noise levels.

51. The Head of Environmental Health has raised no objection with respect to increased car fumes from the development and as has requested a number of conditions to that would protect residential amenity. A condition is also recommended to restrict the A3 use of the sale of hot food.

52. The Head of Engineering has requested that a guided route be provided for pedestrians within the site to address the issue of pedestrian safety. In terms of an increased risk of crime and anti-social behaviour, the Crime Reduction Officer has raised no objection to the proposals. The application relates to an enlargement of an existing facility and not the creation of a new shop. It would be difficult to defend a refusal on a perceived fear of increased risk of crime in the light of the Crime Reduction Officer comments.

53. Permission already exists for a restricted A3 use within the existing kiosk. The ancillary A3 use proposed within the sales building for the sale of hot food is therefore recommended to be restricted to a maximum of 20 square metres within the building in order to protect residential amenity and to certain hours.

59 Highway and pedestrian safety

54. The concerns previously expressed by The Head of Engineering have related to pedestrian movement and sight lines have been addressed through securing amended plans.

55. The Head of Engineering has raised no objection in terms of the level or location of car parking provided on site.

56. No objection has been received from HCC in respect of the new right hand turn lane which is subject to a S278 and recommended grampian condition. With the recommended conditions, together with HCC requirement for the design of the access to be assessed through a safety audit, the proposals would not undermine highway safety.

57. The Environment Agency has not raised an objection to the proposals based upon the information submitted. The site is not within a flood zone so there is no risk of flooding, and suitable provision will be made to ensure the site is adequately drained.

Planning obligation /considerations

58. n/a

Other material considerations

59. It is considered that there are no other material considerations to warrant a decision otherwise than in accordance with the Development Plan and / or legislative background.

Conclusion

60. The proposed development accords with the national planning guidance and Development Plan policies, as such it is recommended for approval.

7 O

A K

V A L E

13 19

1 West End Cottage 2

A YTHL ING ROAD

23.5m

3 2 9 2

W ard Bdy

R C 19.8m

Barnsland Cottages

1 2

8 Recreation

2 Ground 0

14 17

55 23.8m 1

1 6

T H E

7 D 2

LB 3 4 1 1 R I

El Sub Sta 2 V 3

1 E

1 41 1 1 Gas 0

Gov T

CL 1 1 1 0

9 S

3 4 a

1 1 E

1 0 4

A 4 3

7 0

R 1 9 U

4 3

N 6 1

O 2

E 9

A 8 54 9 D

D 3 4

4 3 E

5 N

2 4 4 3 R

3 3 O

o a

9 4

4 1

0 4

A 9 8

7 8

29.6m S 8

0 3 W m A

.67 Y 1 29 BM T H

5 L

3 N 8

Scale 78 G

9 O 0 10 20 30 40 50 m 3 A W D a r d

B d

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with Scale 1:1250 the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil Map Ref SU4515SE proceedings. Licence No. 100019622 (2007) Development Control Date 14/03/2007

61 This page is intentionally left blank

62 Agenda Item 5e

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY Monday 16 April 2007 Case Officer Rachel Illsley

SITE: 1 & 2 Gaters Mill, Mansbridge Road, Southampton, SO18 3HW

Ref. C/07/59322 Received: 19/02/2007 (17/04/2007)

APPLICANT: Simon & Derek Bartlett

PROPOSAL: Alterations & extensions to roof with addition of front & rear facing dormers to create 2 bed flat with 3 storey rear extension to provide staircase access & associated parking provision (amended scheme)

AMENDMENTS: None

RECOMMENDATION:

Subject to: i) the satisfactory provision of developers' contributions towards social and recreational facilities, off-site public open space and transportation infrastructure in the local area. If these contributions are not secured within one month of the date of committee, the 16th May 2007, it is recommended that planning permission be refused on these grounds.

PERMIT

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(2) Details and samples of all external facing and roofing materials must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The development must then accord with these approved details. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of any building is satisfactory.

(3) Details of Contractor's site hut location and any areas designated for the storage of building materials must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The development must then

63 accord with these approved details. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 site huts and building materials must not be stored elsewhere on the site without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that natural features are not damaged.

(4) Details of the proposed treatment of the site boundaries must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved measures must be implemented by a date to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of amenity.

(5) During the construction period no storage of building materials or parking of vehicles shall take place underneath the crown spread of the tree(s) to be retained on the site. Reason: To protect the health of the trees to be retained on the site.

(6) Before development commences, a plan must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing a line of protective fence around all trees, hedges and other natural features to be retained. Fencing shall be with chestnut pale minimum 1.2 metres high or other fencing approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No excavation shall commence on the site until the fencing has been erected and the fencing must be maintained during the course of works on the site. No access by vehicles or placement of goods, fuels or chemicals, soil or other materials shall take place inside the fencing area. Note: The card accompanying this notice should be sent to the Development Control Section when the protective fencing is in place and development must not commence until the fencing has been inspected and the card signed by the inspecting officer. Reason: To ensure the natural features are protected from damage throughout the construction period.

(7) The burning of materials obtained by site clearance or from any other source must not take place on this site or adjoining land. Reason: To protect the health of the trees to be retained on site.

(8) Before the development commences, or by such later date as the Local Planning Authority may determine, a landscape scheme comprising planting, details of hard surfacing and means of enclosure must be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme must include a planting specification and schedule, and shall indicate the position, size, number, planting density and species of shrubs and trees. A seed or turf specification must be provided for areas to be grassed. The planting scheme must include details of phasing, timing and provision for management and maintenance during the first ten years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory.

(9) The landscape scheme must be completed within 12 months from the completion of the last building shell, or by such later date as the Local Planning Authority may determine. Any trees or plants which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased during the first five years must be replaced during the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning

64 Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory.

(10) No construction or demolition work must take place except between the hours 0800 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays or 0900 to 1300 on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.

(11) The development hereby permitted must not be brought into use until the areas shown on the approved plan for the parking of vehicles and on-site turning shall have been made available, surfaced and marked out, and the areas must be retained in a condition to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, and reserved for that purpose at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

(12) The layout plan showing provision for a temporary car park within the site to accommodate operatives and construction vehicles during the construction and fitting -out period must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall indicate the eventual use of that area. The development must accord with these details. Reason: To avoid obstruction of the adjoining highway.

(13) Measures to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to prevent mud being deposited on the public highway by vehicles leaving the site must be implemented during the whole of the construction period. No vehicle shall leave the site unless its wheels have been sufficiently cleaned to prevent mud being deposited on the public highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

(14) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, full details of the cycle and bin storage areas to serve the new unit shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Implementation shall be in accordance with the approved details and provision made on site prior to the first occupation of the new unit. Reason: To ensure satisfactory on-site provision.

(15) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the proposed car park construction, surface treatment and the measures for the disposal of surface water from the car park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Implementation shall be in accordance with the approved details and provision made on site prior to the first occupation of the new unit. Reason: To protect the River Itchen SSSI/cSAC and retained trees.

Note to Applicant: It is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions and any obligations attached to this permission, the proposed development is acceptable because it will not materially harm the character of the area, the amenity of neighbours or highway safety, and it is in accordance with the policies and proposals of the development plan, as listed below, and after due regard to all other relevant material considerations the local planning authority is of the opinion that permission should be granted.

The following development plan policies are relevant to this decision and the conditions attached to it:

Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996 - 2011 [ C1, E16 ] Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 [ 1.CO, 2.CO, 22.NC, 24.NC, 59.BE, 101.T, 104.T, 147.OS, 169.LB, 191.IN ]

Notes to Applicant: The applicant is advised that should bats be discovered at any stage during the works, all work must stop immediately and Natural England contacted for further advice, (1). The applicant should ensure that appropriate pollution prevention measures are taken to avoid any contamination to the watercourse. There should be no discharge of silty or dirty water to any watercourse or surface water drain during the proposed works.

Any construction or demolition activities should be carried out in accordance with the Environment Agency's Pollution Prevention Guidelines No.6 - Working at Construction and Demolition sites.

The risk of pollution can significantly be reduced by providing secondary containment measures as detailed in the Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines No2 (Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks). The guidelines stipulate requirements for the standard of tanks, pipework and secondary containment, including bund walls.

Pollution Prevention Guidance:

PPG 01: General guide to the prevention of pollution PPG 02: Above ground storage tanks PPG 05: Works in, near or liable to affect watercourses PPG 06: Construction and demolition.

The Environment Agency website is www.environment- agency.gov.uk/netregs/resources/278006, or contact the Customer Contact Team on 01962 764867.

Conservation Area Report:

This application has been referred to Committee for determination by Members as the proposals represent a departure from the policy framework contained within the development plan.

The site and its surroundings

66 Description of application

1. The application seeks permission for alterations and extensions to the roof of the existing building, to create an additional 2-bed flat within the roof space, which would be served by front and rear facing dormer windows.

2. The proposals also include alterations to the elevational treatment of the building and the erection of a three-storey enclosed staircase to the rear, to provide access to the new 2nd floor flat.

Site area

3. The site measures approximately 0.054 hectares in area.

Residential development (net)

4. The application would result in the creation of a third residential unit on the site, giving an overall density of approximately 55 dwellings per hectare.

Topography

5. There are various changes of level across the site – the access from Mansbridge Road slopes downhill slightly towards No’s 1 and 2 Gaters Mill, but ground levels are then relatively flat across the front of the building. To the rear of the building, there is a pronounced change in levels, with the ground rising significantly towards the rear boundary of the site. There is a level courtyard area immediately to the rear of the building, with steps then leading up to rear garden area that is at higher ground level.

Trees

6. There is a large tree immediately adjacent to the front corner of the existing building and trees adjacent to the parking area on the riverbank. There are also various trees and shrubs to the rear of the garden area.

Boundary treatment

7. There is no boundary treatment across the front of the site, with the hard surfaced access road and gravelled parking area leading to the river bank. The side boundary adjacent to Mansbridge Road is marked by relatively low brick wall next to the building, which then has fence panels positioned above it towards the rear of the site, as ground levels rise. The rear boundary is marked by 1.8m fencing, as is the common boundary in the garden area with the adjoining property.

Site characteristics

67 8. No’s 1 & 2 Gaters Mill are contained within a fairly standard two-storey building, which is the end building in a terraced row facing the River Itchen.

Character of locality

9. The site is designated as a conservation area, centred around the mill buildings.

Relevant planning history

10. Application C/06/57636 was submitted in July 2006, seeking permission for an identical scheme, other than the proposed parking arrangements. This application was refused in December 2006 due to a failure to provide adequate parking and manoeuvring space within the site, to serve the additional development proposed.

Representations received

11. To date, no letters of representation have been received in respect of this application. Any comments that may be received will be reported to Members at the Local Area Committee meeting.

Consultation responses

12. The Head of Planning Policy has raised no objection to the proposals, stating:

13. ‘I have no policy objection to the creation of an additional residential unit of accommodation here if it achieves improvements to the conservation area, and the Council’s Conservation Architect has confirmed he has no objection to the proposals’.

14. The Head of Countryside & Recreation has made the following comments:

15. ‘I have no objection to this application in respect of nature conservation. The consultation is similar to the previous application, C/06/57636. However, it does not contain the extra information submitted with the earlier scheme relating to the drainage of the car park. I would therefore request that these details are conditioned.

16. I am satisfied that the bat survey (4Woods Ecology, October 2006), has been carried out to an acceptable standard. The report indicates that bats are not present on the above site and that the existing building provides limited opportunities for roosting bats. Therefore, development should not impact on this protected species’.

17. No objection has been raised in respect of trees, subject to conditions being attached requiring details of tree protection measures and details of the construction and surface treatment of the proposed parking areas.

68 18. The Head of Engineering has raised no objection to the proposals, stating:

19. ‘Secure cycle storage is required for two cycles plus contributions towards road traffic reduction measures in respect of the additional dwelling’.

20. The Head of Environmental Health has raised no objection to the proposals.

21. ‘Secure cycle storage for two cycles is required, plus a contribution towards road traffic reduction measures in respect of the additional dwelling’.

22. The Hampshire County Ecologist has stated she has no comments to make on the application.

23. Natural England has raised no objection to the proposals stating:

24. ‘Natural England is satisfied that the bat survey, (9 October 2006) has been carried out to an acceptable standard. The report states that no signs of bats were found in the building and that it is unlikely that bats or their roosts will be impacted upon by the proposed works.

25. In light of this information, Natural England has no objection to the proposed development. However, the applicant should be advised that should bats be discovered at any stage during the works, all work should stop immediately and Natural England contacted for further advice.’

26. The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposals, making the following comments:

27. ‘I can confirm the Environment Agency has no objection in principle to the proposal but would, however, wish the following to be taken into consideration:

28. Silt & Dirty Water - The applicant should ensure that appropriate pollution prevention measures are taken to avoid any contamination to the watercourse. There should be no discharge of silty or dirty water to any watercourse or surface water drain during the proposed works.

29. Construction & Demolition - Any construction or demolition activities should be carried out in accordance with the Agency's Pollution Prevention Guidelines No.6 - Working at Construction and Demolition sites.

30. Oil Storage - The risk of pollution can significantly be reduced by providing secondary containment measures as detailed in the Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines No2 (Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks). The guidelines stipulate requirements for the standard of tanks, pipe work and secondary containment, including bund walls.

31. Pollution Prevention Guidance: To minimise the environmental impact of this development pollution prevention measures should be incorporated wherever appropriate. Guidance specific to this development can be found in the following Pollution Prevention Guidance:

• PPG 01: General guide to the prevention of pollution • PPG 02: Above ground storage tanks • PPG 05: Works in, near or liable to affect watercourses • PPG 06: Construction and demolition’

32. Southampton City Council has raised no objection to the proposals.

33. West End Parish Council has raised no objection to the proposals.

Policy context: Designation Applicable to Site

• Within Strategic Gap • Outside Built-Up Area Boundary • Within Established Residential Area • Within Designated Conservation Area • Within candidate Special Area of Conservation • Within Site Of Special Scientific Interest

Development plan policies

• Hampshire Country Structure Plan 1996-2011: E16, C1, C2 • Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) : 1.CO, 2.CO, 22.NC, 24.NC, 59.BE, 101.T, 104.T, 147.OS, 169.LB & 191.IN

Planning policy guidance / statement

• PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development • PPS3 – Housing • PPG15 – Planning & the Historic Environment

Policy commentary

34. The above policies combine to form the criteria against which this application will be assessed with particular regard to the impact on the countryside, strategic gap and conservation area setting, the SSSI and cSAC interests, the visual appearance of the proposals and the impact to neighbouring properties.

Comment on consultation responses

35. Please see report below.

Comment on representations received

36. Please see report below.

Assessment of proposal: development plan and / or legislative background

70 37. Section 74(3) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that Section 66 (1) of the Act applies. This indicates that in considering whether to grant Conservation Area consent:

38. “The Local Planning Authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.

39. In addition, Section 72(1) of the Act states:

40. “in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a Conservation Area of any powers (under the Planning Acts), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area”.

Principle of Development

41. Policy 1.CO of the adopted local plan outlines the types of development considered appropriate for countryside locations, which include development necessary for agricultural, forestry or horticultural purposes, outdoor recreational uses, public utility services, extensions to education or health facilities and also states that any development should meet the other criteria of the plan.

42. Policy 2.CO of the adopted local plan relates to strategic gaps and states that planning permission will not be granted for development which would physically or visually diminish a strategic gap.

43. The principle of additional residential development in this area is therefore contrary to the policy guidance outlined in the local plan. However, the Head of Planning Policy & Design has indicated that an exception to this policy guidance may be considered acceptable for a scheme of high quality design, and of an appropriate size and scale in relation to neighbouring properties, in order to enhance the overall character and appearance of this section of the conservation area.

Density

44. The guidance contained in PPS3, which replaces PPG3, states that a density of 30 dwg/ha should be used as a national indicative minimum, to guide policy making and decision making. This guidance goes on to state that density is a measure of the number of units that can be accommodated on a site or within an area.

45. Policy 72.H of the adopted plan states that in accessible areas, the Council will expect residential developments to achieve the maximum residential density compatible with the protection of reasonable residential amenity up to or beyond 50 dwg/ha, if appropriate.

71 46. The proposed additional unit would result in a density of approximately 55 dwg/ha on the site – consideration therefore needs to be given to the visual impact of the proposals, the benefits offered to the conservation area, and the ability of the site to accommodate this level of development, in order to determine whether this application is appropriate for this sensitive location.

Siting & Layout

47. PPS1 sets out the Government’s policies on the delivery of sustainable development and places increased emphasis on promoting high quality design, stating that “…good design is indivisible from good planning”, (para 33). The guidance goes on to state that “…design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted”, (para 34).

48. This guidance is carried forward in Policy 59.BE of the adopted local plan, which states that amongst other criteria, proposals must take full and proper account of the context of the site, including the character and appearance of the locality or neighbourhood, and be appropriate in mass, scale, materials, layout, density, design and siting, both in themselves and in relation to adjoining buildings, spaces and views and trees worthy of retention.

49. Consideration must also be given to the fact that the site lies within a designated conservation area. PPG15 outlines the importance that the Government attaches to the protection of the historic environment. Paragraph 4.26 states that the local planning authorities are required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area in question, and that this should be a prime consideration in determining a consent application.

50. Policy 169.LB of the adopted local plan reiterates this guidance, and requires development to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and its setting, and requires materials to be used to be appropriate to and in sympathy with existing buildings and the particular character of the area.

51. As noted above, the existing building containing 1 & 2 Gaters Mill is quite plain in appearance in comparison to the rest of the buildings making up the Gaters Mill area. Due to the position of the building at the entrance to the site, this contrast in style and appearance is all the more apparent.

52. This application proposes a number of alterations to the appearance of the existing building, which are aimed at softening its appearance and creating an external appearance that is more sympathetic to the prevailing character and appearance of the rest of the conservation area.

53. In order to create the proposed additional flat within the roof space, the ridge height of the building would be raised to approximately 10.4m, marginally higher than the adjoining property, which measures approximately 10.1m in height. The shape of the roof would also be altered, with the existing hipped

72 roof being removed and replaced by a gable-ended roof, mirroring the roof form of the adjoining properties.

54. The new roof form would contain three dormers within the front roof slope and two within the rear. These windows are modest in size and sit comfortably within the roof area.

55. The other significant change is the addition of the stair tower to the rear elevation – this would provide the only means of access to the new flat, with the ground and first floor flats being served by the existing access from the front of the property.

56. The stair tower is, by necessity, three storeys in height, projecting approximately 2.2m from the rear elevation of the building, and measuring 9.3m in height. This new section of the building would extend out over the existing courtyard to the rear of the building, but given its size and position, is not considered to pose any risk of loss of light or amenity to the existing flats or adjoining property.

57. Changes are also proposed to the elevational treatment of the building. Where the building is all brickwork at the moment, the application includes a proposal to part render the building at first and second floor. These changes will help to break up the overall mass of the building, softening its appearance, and again, would result in a built form that is more sympathetic to its surroundings.

58. On balance, the proposals are considered to be sensitively designed, and offer a positive contribution and significant enhancement to the appearance of the building within the conservation area. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with the requirements of Policies 59.BE and 169.LB of the local plan, and are considered to enhance the conservation area setting, justifying an exception to the established policy framework which seeks to prevent new dwellings outside the urban edge.

Landscaping & Trees

59. The character of the Gaters Mill area is largely derived from the River Itchen that flows through the site, and the trees that line and overhang the riverbank. There is a large tree immediately adjacent to the front of the existing building and trees to the front of the site, adjacent to the parking area, which add to the setting and appearance of the site.

60. Whilst these trees are shown on the submitted plans, no details have been submitted in respect of the proposed works in relation to the trees. The Head of Countryside & Recreation has raised no objection to the proposals, subject to conditions being attached in respect of tree protection measures and details of the construction and surface treatment of the car parking areas.

61. No details in respect of landscaping have been submitted and it is therefore recommended that a condition be attached requiring a detailed landscaping

73 scheme to be submitted, and requiring its completion within 12 months of the completion of the building works.

Nature Conservation

62. The site lies within an area designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC). The site abuts the bank of the River Itchen, which is covered by these designations, and is an area of significant ecological value and importance.

63. Policy 22.NC of the adopted local plan states that development which is likely to have an adverse affect on an SSSI will not be permitted, unless the Borough Council is satisfied that the reasons for the development clearly outweigh the harm to the nature conservation value of the site.

64. This is supported by Policy 24.NC of the adopted local plan which states that development will not be permitted where it would adversely affect species or habitats which are protected by legislation, unless appropriate measures are proposed which would acceptably mitigate the impact on those species.

65. The application is supported by a Bat Survey, which reports that it is unlikely that a bat roost exists at the current property, and that it is therefore unlikely that the proposals would result in any adverse affect on bats.

66. It is noted that Natural England and Hampshire County Council’s Senior Ecologist have raised no objection to the proposals, subject to an informative requiring the applicant to contact Natural England, should bats be discovered during the works.

67. The Head of Countryside & Recreation has also confirmed he has no objection to the proposals, subject to a condition being attached requiring drainage details in respect of the car park area.

68. The Environment Agency has also raised no objection, subject to a number of notes to applicants regarding the constructions process.

Parking & Access

69. Policy 59.BE(v) of the adopted local plan states that development proposals should have a satisfactory means of access and layout for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, and criterion (vi) requires provision of secure storage for cycles.

70. The application does not contain any proposals to alter the existing access from Mansbridge Road, and shows a total of 5 parking spaces to the front of the property. The layout of this area has been revised from the previous application, to address the concerns raised by Head of Engineering in respect of turning and manoeuvring space.

74 71. The Head of Engineering has now confirmed he has no objection to the revised proposals, subject to a condition requiring the parking to be laid out and available prior to the first occupation of the additional unit, and a condition requiring details of the proposed cycle storage provision.

Planning obligation /considerations

72. In accordance with the requirements of Circular 05/05 and Policies 101.T, 147.OS and 191.IN of the Eastleigh Borough Council Local Plan Review (2001-2011), this application is subject to the provision of developers’ contributions towards social and recreational facilities, off-site public space and transportation infrastructure in the local area.

73. The applicant has been informed of the level of contributions required in respect of these proposals and has stated that the contributions would be secured via a direct payment, should a resolution be made to grant planning permission.

74. These monies would therefore need to be secured within one month of the date of committee, which would be the 16 May 2007, otherwise it is recommended that planning permission be refused on these grounds.

Other material considerations

75. It is considered that there are no other material considerations to warrant a decision otherwise than in accordance with the Development Plan and / or legislative background.

Conclusions

76. On balance, it is considered that the proposals would result in a significant improvement to the character and appearance of the conservation area, without any detrimental impact to the qualities of the countryside and strategic gap setting, or to the nature conservation interests of the site.

77. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the satisfactory provision of the required developers’ contributions for the additional residential unit. If these contributions are not secured by the 16 May 2007, it is recommended that planning permission be refused solely on these grounds.

y d B A U & t s n o C ro o B Sluices

Pumping Station

Gaters Mill Cottage Sluice

Gaters Mill Rive FF r Itc hen

Mill House The Farmhous F W

3 1 2

n i a r

D 1

10.7m G ate rs H ill RH

D ef

H am ilto n Ho FW

G a te rs H ill

El Sub Sta

Hill Cottage Scale 0 10 20 30 40 50 m

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with Scale 1:1250 the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil Map Ref SU4515NW proceedings. Licence No. 100019622 (2007) Development Control Date 14/03/2007

76 Agenda Item 7

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday 16 April 2007

BISHOPSTOKE, FAIR OAK & HORTON HEATH LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

23 May 2007

HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE MOVEMENTS – BURNETTS LANE

Joint Report of the Area Co-ordinators

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that both Committees:-

(1) Note the detrimental impact of heavy goods vehicles on the quality of life of residents living in and around Burnetts Lane;

(2) Thank Burnetts Lane Residents Association for drawing this issue to the attention of both the Borough Council and Transport Commissioner;

(3) Authorise staff support to Burnetts Lane Residents Association for the Public Inquiry, which is soon to be reconvened, using funds already allocated; and

(4) Endorse this Council’s commitment to support further work to minimise the impact of heavy goods vehicles in Burnetts Lane, particularly at night-time.

Summary

This report informs Committee of the detrimental impact of heavy goods vehicle movements affecting the quality of life of residents living in or near to Burnetts Lane, West End and Horton Heath. The report acknowledges the work of the Burnetts Lane Residents Association in drawing these quality of life issues to both the Council’s and the Transport Commissioner’s attention. Staff support should be given to the Burnetts Lane Residents Association when the Public Inquiry is resumed. Members are invited to endorse a policy of seeking measures to minimise the impact of heavy goods vehicle operations in this area particularly at night-time.

Statutory Powers

Section 2 Local Government Act 2000.

AC553JR-MP 1 77 Introduction

1. Members will be aware that the Burnetts Lane Residents Association (BLRA) was established in 2006 with the support of local Councillors, a community “start-up” grant and advice on a model constitution. The Association’s area of benefit extends from West End North Ward into Fair Oak. The Residents Association’s key objectives are to represent the interest of local residents living in both wards and their priority has been to highlight the detrimental impact of HGV movements on Burnetts Lane which travel to and from the Chalcroft Distribution Park.

2. The Residents Association has been in regular contact with the West End and Fair Oak Parish Councils, with local ward Councillors, key agencies, Council staff and Chris Huhne MP. They have made representations and presented petitions to both Local Area Committees who responded by hosting an evening meeting involving key Councillors and representatives from several Council Departments. The BLRA have benefited from advice and support from the neighbouring Moorgreen Residents Association who have shared concerns over the large number of HGVs accessing the Chalcroft Distribution Park through residential roads.

Quality of Life Issues

3. At the recent briefing held in the Civic Offices, residents highlighted a number of concerns that directly affect their quality of life. These are summarised as follows:-

(i) Burnetts Lane is too narrow to accommodate increasingly large and numerous HGVs (ii) There are “blind spots” on this route particularly at the railway bridge and near the junction of Bubb Lane (iii) HGVs are too large for the carriageway and there have been a number of accidents due to their excessive width. (iv) The scale of the HGVs is intimidating to both drivers and pedestrians (v) Noise and vibration caused by HGVs is detrimental to residential amenity (vi) The number of HGV movements, particularly at night, has increased dramatically (vii) Traffic counts undertaken by residents seem to point to the fact that HGV operations exceed limits set by both the Traffic Commissioner and the Planning Authority.

In addition the residents feel that increasing operations and vehicle movements, particularly at night-time, are directly affecting the health and welfare of families living along the Burnetts Lane corridor.

4. Officers have researched the planning history and status of the Chalcroft Distribution Park which was originally a Royal Navy Victualling Depot, run down and closed by the Ministry of Defence. The selling off of this site and its

78 AC553JR-MP 2 use for storage and distribution, in planning terms, has been confirmed as legitimate as it became ‘established use’ before the introduction of planning controls. The relevant extract from the Council’s adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) is Policy 123.E which states:- “Proposals for the alteration, extension or change of use of existing land and buildings at the Chalcroft Distribution Park will be permitted provided all of the following criteria are met:

(i) No development should extend beyond the curtiledge of the existing site;

(ii) They would not result in an increase in heavy goods vehicles or other traffic movements which would be detrimental to the surrounding highway network; and

(iii) They would not adversely affect the site of importance for nature conservation.”

The Head of Development Control, whenever planning applications have been submitted, has sought to attach conditions to limit the impact of operations at Chalcroft Distribution Park and on Burnetts Lane during night times and at weekends in accordance with this policy.

5. The Head of Development Control is currently reviewing operators compliance with licence and planning conditions related to specific units at Chalcroft Distribution Park and will continue to monitor applications.

6. The Head of Engineering Services, in consultation with the Hampshire County Council Highways staff, continues to monitor traffic and road conditions on Burnetts Lane and has made representations to the Traffic Commissioner who issues operators licences for companies owning and operating heavy goods vehicles.

The Traffic Commissioner

7. The Traffic Commissioner, through the advertisement of public notices, is obliged to advertise when licences for HGV operators are being renewed or amended.

8. The Borough Council has raised a formal objection to a licence application submitted by On-Line Logistics Ltd and an inquiry will be held by the Traffic Commissioner later this year.

9. In February 2007 the Borough Council’s Chief Executive submitted a letter in respect of a licence application for G J Cooper Holdings Ltd, highlighting the Borough Council’s concern at the increased volume of HGV lorries operating on Burnetts Lane and in particular the severe disturbance to the lives of local residents and road safety concerns that arise from the steadily increasing use of this site. The Traffic Commissioner was urged to consider limiting the hours when vehicles may use Burnetts Lane to access the site to between 7.00am and 7.00pm daily.

AC553JR-MP 3 79 Public Inquiry

10. The Burnetts Lane Residents Association attended the Public Inquiry for this operators licence which commenced on Friday 23 February 2007. Chris Huhne MP attended the inquiry in support of his constituents. The Inspector then heard detailed evidence from Chris Huhne MP and the Burnetts Residents Association before adjourning the inquiry so that it could be reconvened at a later date.

Borough Council Policy

11. In support of Policy 123E outlined in paragraph 3; the Borough Council has submitted a formal objection to On-Line Logistics licence application and £1,000 has been allocated by HEWEB and BIFOHH Area Committees for staff time to make representations at a second inquiry. In view of the adjournment of the G J Cooper Holdings Ltd Inquiry it would be appropriate to bring forward this funding so that staff support could be given to Burnetts Lane Residents Association when this current Inquiry is reconvened.

12. It is appropriate, in accordance with recommendation 4 of this report, for Council policy to be consistent and to support further work and measures to minimise the impact of heavy goods vehicles on Burnetts Lane, particularly for night operation. We can anticipate further licence applications from HGV operators and a consistent approach should be taken by this Council to suppress HGV movements particularly at night-time.

Financial Implications

13. A shared fund of £1,000 has been earmarked by HEWEB and BIFOHH Area Committees for staff time recharges. Further funds from revenue budgets maybe required to enable staff costs to be covered for the anticipated public inquiry into On-Line Logistics Ltd Operators Licence. Appropriate Committee authorisations will be sought if further funds will be required.

Risk Assessment

14. There are no identifiable risks associated with the recommendations made in this report.

Conclusion

15. The Burnetts Lane Residents Association, with the support of Moorgreen Road Residents Association, has been highly effective in drawing to the attention of this Council, as well as the Transport Commissioner, to the detrimental impact of HGV operations on Burnetts Lane. Council support should be provided to residents when the current Public Inquiry is reconvened using £1,000 funds already reserved. Council policy should recognise the detrimental impact of HGVs on Burnetts Lane to the quality of life of residents both in West End North and Fair Oak. A consistent policy stance should be taken to minimise the impact of HGV movements, particularly at night-time.

80 AC553JR-MP 4 JON RIDDELL MIN PARTNER Area Co-ordinator Area Co-ordinator

Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN

Date: 30 March 2007 Contact Officer: Jon Riddell Tel No: 023 8068 8437 e-mail: [email protected]/ [email protected] Appendices Attached: 0 Report No: AC553JR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:

Nil

AC553JR-MP 5 81 This page is intentionally left blank

82 Agenda Item 8

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday 16 April 2007

DOWDS FARM DISTRICT PARK – CONFIRMATION OF DEVELOPMENT BRIEF

Report of the Head of Countryside & Recreation Services in consultation with the Head of Planning Policy & Design & Area Co- ordinator

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that this Committee endorse the Dowds Farm District Park Development Brief.

Summary

The development of a 16 acre park is a key feature of the Dowds Farm development. The attached Development Brief has been devised after a series of public consultation exercises and has been endorsed by Hedge End Town Council. Members are invited to endorse this Brief so that it may be passed onto Bovis Homes Ltd who will be responsible for the detailed landscape design and, after further consultation, laying out of the Park.

Statutory Powers

Section 2 Local Government Act 2000.

Introduction

1. Members will recall in the spring and summer of last year undertaking a series of public consultation exercises which included the delivery of a newsletter, with survey forms to all residents living in the Grange Park area. In addition a series of consultations were held at St Lukes Church which resulted in the attached Development Brief being drawn up. There are a number of key themes and features within the Development Brief which reflect priorities identified by the local community. Key features include:

• A safe and pleasant parkland • A lake feature with access via a boardwalk and wetland planting • A key play area • A variety of zones for older children/youths • Picnic areas

AC552JR 1 83 • Routes for dog walkers • A Park with links into the existing greenways, cycleways and footpaths on Grange Park • A Park capable of achieving a ‘Green Flag’ award

The Development Brief

2. The attached Development Brief has been endorsed by Hedge End Town Council which has agreed to take on management and maintenance responsibility for the proposed Park. If approved the Development Brief will be forwarded to the landscape architect for Bovis Homes Ltd who will draw up a detailed landscape scheme to include key features and routes which will be subject to further consultation both with Members of this Committee, residents and Hedge End Town Council.

‘Green Flag’ Status

3. A key feature of this project, which will result in the largest Park development undertaken by the Borough Council for many years, will be to apply for a ‘Green Flag’ award. This is a national award and can only be given after independent adjudication and assessment on an annual basis. To enable an application for the award to be submitted it will be necessary to devise and submit a detailed plan that will act as a management framework for the Parkland as a whole. Key aspects of this plan will be to demonstrate public participation in the design and development of the Park, high quality signage, and a design to reduce community safety concerns. The Park includes biodiversity elements and provides high amenity value to local residents. It is proposed that the management plan and design will be circulated for further public consultation, particularly as first occupation of Phases I and II of the Dowds Farm development is now taking place.

4. Survey results in the attached Development Brief prove there is huge local support for the development of this Parkland and there is a core group of Grange Park residents who have already expressed an interest in joining a ‘Friends of Dowds Farm District Park’ group. It is anticipated that these volunteers will become key consultees in the process of landscape and design.

Timescales

5. It is anticipated that Bovis Homes Ltd will have plans ready for initial consultation in the early summer of this year. The initial groundworks and layout will be undertaken in autumn and winter of this year. It is anticipated that the developer will remain responsible for the Park for a period of one year prior to transfer but during this time more detailed work will be undertaken on developing a ‘Green Flag’ management plan with detailed consultation being undertaken with Hedge End Town Council.

84 AC552JR 2 Risk Management

6. Budget provision currently exists of £5,980 for staff time and consultation expenses. The Borough Council will be receiving developers’ contributions for social and recreational purposes in a series of tranches. It may be necessary for some of this funding to be used to enhance the basic features that will be laid out by Bovis Homes Ltd. One example of this is proposals to provide some street lighting on a key route which will join Hackworth Gardens which has a lit footpath and shared cycleway. Further landscape works may be required outside the designated Park area to enable a sympathetic fusion between Hackworth Gardens open space (currently managed by Hedge End Town Council) and the new Parkland. Should additional funding be required it is anticipated there will be resources available and reports will be brought forward to this Committee for approval of any required expenditure.

Conclusion

7. The prospect of a large park to serve both the current and growing population of the Grange Park area is to be welcomed. The approval of this Design Brief will enable Bovis Homes Ltd to progress with detailed landscape proposals.

DAVE BOWEN TIM DYER JON RIDDELL Parks & Open Spaces Landscape Architect Area Co-ordinator Manager

Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN

Date: 28 March 2007 Contact Officer: Jon Riddell Tel No: 023 8068 8437 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 1 Report No: AC552JR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:

Nil

AC552JR 3 85 This page is intentionally left blank

86 Project Brief for the Dowd’s Farm District Park 87 88

2 Dowd’s Farm District Park Brief 29/03/2007

Introduction

In the original Eastleigh Borough Council brief for the Dowd’s Farm development a large area of land was identified for a new park. At about 16 acres this District Park provides a great opportunity as a resource to the local community and through a process of consultation this document seeks to inform the parks developers as to how local people would like the park to be designed.

As the Local Authority for Dowd’s Farm, the park should reinforce Eastleigh Borough Council’s corporate strategy that states

Our mission is to improve the quality of life for all local people Our priorities are environment, health and prosperity Our way of working is through community involvement, community development and community leadership Our core values are customer focus, effectiveness, honesty, integrity and openness

Public spaces offer unique opportunities to visualise ideas. The park will in effect express the above aims to the local and wider community. The park, like all good public space, has the prospect to be not only functional and practical but to be creative, inspiring and to lift the area. An ordinary park will attract some people and extraordinary park will attract a lot more.

Eastleigh Borough Council is developing a Parks and Green Space Strategy that is at the draft stage and is unlikely to be finalised in time to use alongside this brief. However the park is expected to be able to meet the standard of the Green Flag Award. 89 Page 3 90 Dowd’s Farm District Park Brief 29/03/2007

Current Conditions

At around 16 acres (6.4 hectare) the site for the district park is located to the north of the new school and residential development.

Key Attributes

Existing Trees. The park’s crescent shaped northern boundary provides significant numbers of mature trees. Topography. The landform of the site is by no means flat, the wet hollow on the east being the low point, with the highpoint to the west of the sites centre. Local People. The park has within close proximity, a large number of existing residents. There is also a network of greenways for the park to connect into. However the overgrown nature and poor visual surveillance of these routes now discourages use of the pedestrian and cycle routes which should be addressed. At present the park site is accessed through a couple of informal points in the old boundary fences and there is little to physically or visually link the greenways and future park. Space. The existing character of the space is open with a wooded perimeter with the sense of natural flora and fauna being all around.

Page 4 Dowd’s Farm District Park Brief 29/03/2007

Public Consultation

A Dowd’s Farm Newsletter was delivered to all Grange Park residents, was available to pick up at council offices and downloadable from our web site. The newsletter gave a brief site history and included a questionnaire for the new district park. An exhibition and drop-in session took place at St Luke’s church hall on the 17-18th March 2006. The consultation period extended across the spring and summer of 2006 and concluded with the Hedge End Town Council endorsement in early 2007.

Over the consultation period more than 384 questionnaires were returned and the resulting graphs are included in the appendices.

Of those surveyed;

9 15 % were retired, 32% were single/couples, 16 % were families with teenagers and 37% were families with children under 11 9 56% would use the park weekly and 27% would visit daily 9 19% would join “Friends of Dowd’s Farm” and 84% would like to be kept informed as Dowd’s Farm develops 9 96% would like to discourage car use and develop better safe alternatives 9 Top 4 results for look and feel were Natural (top), Safe, Wooded and Welcoming 9 Top 4 activities were Exercise (top), Children’s play, Sitting and Picnics 9 Top 4 facilities were Seating (top), Lit footpaths/cycle routes, Nature walk and Children’s play area 9 Top feature/attraction was a Lake 91 Page 5 92 Dowd’s Farm District Park Brief 29/03/2007

Planning and Design Rational

A Welcoming Place First impressions are important; the district park should look positive and inviting. It should appeal to a wide range of the community. Provision should be made for elderly and disabled visitors. Signs both inside and outside the site should be clear and of appropriate design. Safety and equal access are also valuable features. In the public consultation ‘welcoming’ came in the top 4 of preferred feelings in the park

Healthy, Safe and Secure The park must be safe for all age groups and sectors of the community, including staff. A Health and Safety policy should be put into practice and hygiene issues such as dog fouling must be adequately addressed. As part of the design a safety audit should assess what facilities/emergency equipment would be required e.g. first aid facilities and/or life buoy and assess appropriate locations in the site. The design should also seek to minimize opportunities for antisocial behaviour for instance from joy rider dumping cars or fly tipping. In the public consultation ‘Safe’ came out as the top preferred feeling in the park

Clean and Well Maintained Although not an urban park, when construction finishes on the residential, school and community buildings, a high number of people will have access to the parkland. The public consultation highlights that, if appropriately designed, the site will be intensively used. The intensity of use will require the park to be designed and built to be easy to keep clean and maintain in good condition as well as to contain appropriate facilities for the number of people.

Sustainability The maintenance of the green space and its facilities should be environmentally sound. The application of pesticides should be minimised and the use of horticultural peat should be eliminated. Waste vegetation should be recycled, biodiversity promoted and water and energy use conserved. Existing elements should be realised/enhance during design and construction. Use of virgin material must be minimised, recycled materials maximised and locally sourced materials used where materials must be brought in. Waste must be minimise during the construction and operational phases by re-using and recycling.

Page 6 Dowd’s Farm District Park Brief 29/03/2007

Conservation and Heritage In the public consultation ‘natural’ and ‘wooded’ came in top for the preferred look of the park Every effort should be made to conserve and manage the natural heritage with consideration given to natural flora and fauna. Habitat creation is extremely important.

Community Involvement In the public consultation 82% of those surveyed expect to use the park daily or weekly Local people have been allowed to voice their feelings about the park in public consultation. Other schemes underway include… adopting/planting a tree; a volunteer/ friends of Dowd’s Farm scheme; and there are still aspirations to liaise with the existing/new schools to plant trees and involve in nature walks.

Marketing Publicity is essential to any successful park. Advertising events that happen within the park in the Dowd’s Farm Newsletter is the first step in this process. Outside the park: a website kept up to date is needed to communicate with the heavily online community in Grange Park. Within the park: lockable notice boards and leaflets need to be available for the same purpose.

Management A plan must be in place which illustrates the daily and long term management and operational schedules of the park. The plan should be regularly reviewed and a sound financial strategy demonstrated.

Green Flag The aim once the park is constructed is to apply for the Green Flag Award, now recognised by the government as the national standard for parks and green spaces. The eight headings above form part of the criteria for this award. Further details can be found at http://www.greenflagaward.org.uk/ 93 Page 7 94 Dowd’s Farm District Park Brief 29/03/2007

Themes and Events

Land Art. The parks topography provides a real opportunity to create an inspirational, artistic, event or feature. There does not necessarily need to be large volumes of earth moved or large financial cost incurred but appropriate subtle use of the landform could easily develop ripples, waves, lumps or serpentine curves Sustainability. Eastleigh Borough Council promotes sustainability across the organisation and the park should have sustainability issues designed in from the start. It is not a single subject but affects most areas of development. A few possible areas of interest are listed below (the comments below are not exhaustive and should be added to as the design progresses). o Biodiversity. During the design/construction phase thought should be given to enhancing the biodiversity of lake/pond, meadows and woodland. The final design will ensure that the appropriate maintenance methods are possible E.g. pond clearance with machinery etc o Minimise waste. Design/construction. Reduce / Reuse / Recycle For example balanced cut and fill ensures no off site disposal is required. The completed park should have bins provided for waste and recyclable materials. o Recycle during design/construction phase and facilities for continuing during use. e.g. crush local recycled glass to fine grade for use as sand, using bricks and concrete crushed as aggregate. Composting facilities for park maintenance within the park. o Some examples of reduce resource use. x Water. Planting to be appropriate to our climate so as not to require watering after establishing. x Energy. Use materials with low embodied energy that will stand the test of time. x Financial. Meadows require an annual cut and removal of arisings. Amenity grass requires 15 – 30 cuts per year o Local facilities. Provision of lockable maintenance compound with store/workshop and compost area for the parks maintenance team. Education. The park and surrounding incidental open space are at present significant natural resources. The existing fauna of bats and badgers may choose to move elsewhere but habitat creation of the flora in itself would be a wonderful and educational resource. With the close proximity of the new primary school within the Dowd’s Farm development and Berrywood School reasonably close the park could be an excellent educational resource (Learning through landscape http://www.ltl.org.uk/ ). Use of the park as an outdoor classroom with interpretation boards for the casual park user would help to develop understanding of why the park is maintained as it is, why habitats have been created and what will/could be in them.

Page 8 Dowd’s Farm District Park Brief 29/03/2007

Specific Requirements

Maintainable quality – Elements brought in to the park should be robust and low maintenance. Tree should be staked low and of size that is difficult to snap or planted as whips and given appropriate protection until they are established. Maintenance vehicles must be able to access the park through the main entrances, but the whole park must be secure from unauthorised vehicle access including parking along the parks edges Physically connect with the local community – The park will provide facilities for present and future residents of the area. Easy access therefore has to be available from the local area. In particular the school will require safe lit routes through the park to allow local people to walk to and from school throughout the year. Link with existing network - The new park is only part of the areas open space. Any new facility would have to link into the existing network of greenways, bridleways and footpaths that link the nature reserve, areas of public open space, access to public transport and the local housing. In particular the new park must integrate with the open space between Hackworth Gardens and Marsh Gardens Local ownership of park – Public consultation has identified various local activity requirements; o Exercise o Children’s play and designated space for older children and youths o Sitting o Picnics Attract a wide range of users - Provision of facilities that encourage use for all. Public consultation has identified various local requirements; o Lit footpaths/cycleways o Seating o Children’s play area / Youth zone o Nature walk

Provide a distinctive attractive space - Design, construct and maintain a space that develops its own identity from the existing site and that people will want to spend time in. Natural, Wooded, Safe and Welcoming – o Entrance features to give a sense of arrival with signs, bins at these locations and lockable information boards at the main entrances 95 Page 9 96 Dowd’s Farm District Park Brief 29/03/2007

o Natural planting, plant wooded areas (see National Urban Forestry Unit guidance http://www.nufu.org.uk/uploads/2747903477.pdf ), cultivate meadows, add semi mature tree groups Lake o Lake to look natural and offer suitable site for a range of wetland planting o Where possible soft engineering solutions to headwall inlet/outlets o Stream instead of culvert Nature Walk o Pond dipping platform through wooded areas and meadows o Some form of interpretation of pond/wood/meadow succession for educational purposes. Picnic Area o Containing bins, picnic benches, drinking water fountain, area of hard standing for an outside catering vehicle and shaded area (under trees or structures?). o Provision should be made for part of the picnic area to be dog free. Children’s Play Area – o There will be 2 children’s play areas in the park. One for toddlers and one for young people / juniors which will include a basket ball goal and football kick-a-bout area. A covered meeting point will also be considered. The exact equipment and design will be determined at a later stage following further consultation with the local community. Seating o Sociable seating for groups of people to meet up Exercise o Trim Trail circular route – The trim trail will include various ‘workout’ stations around the route at regular intervals. The number and type of stations will again be determined following further consultation. o Water fountain and signage to indicate how to find it in the park. Lit footpaths/cycle routes o Requested in public consultation but can we deliver this? Low level lighting was suggested by a number of local residents to lower the impact on the surrounding area both through light pollution and the likelihood of encouraging congregation of people at night). Should look to see if this can be delivered along the main footpath routes through the site Art o This will be managed by the Borough Council’s public art officer

Page 10 Dowd’s Farm District Park Brief 29/03/2007

Zoning Plan 97 Page 11 98 Dowd’s Farm District Park Brief 29/03/2007

Useful Documents

Making contracts work for wildlife: how to encourage biodiversity in urban parks (2006) CABE Space

Start with the park: creating sustainable urban green spaces in areas of housing growth and renewal (2005) CABE Space

Green spaces better places (2002) DTLR

Public Consultation Results

The results from the public consultation have been collated into the pie charts and graphs on the following pages.

Page 12 Dowd’s Farm District Park Brief 29/03/2007 99 Page 13 100 Dowd’s Farm District Park Brief 29/03/2007

Page 14 Dowd’s Farm District Park Brief 29/03/2007 101 Page 15 102 Dowd’s Farm District Park Brief 29/03/2007

Page 16 Dowd’s Farm District Park Brief 29/03/2007 103 Page 17 This page is intentionally left blank

104 Agenda Item 9

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday 16 April 2007

SPEEDING CARS AND ASSEMBLY OF SPECTATORS – TOLLBAR WAY AREA, HEDGE END

Report of the Area Co-ordinator in consultation with the Community Safety Manager and Inspector Shona Hood, Hedge End Police Station

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that this committee:-

(1) Notes progress being made on the PRIME project and its re-designation to “Speeding Cars and Assembly of Spectators in Tollbar Way area, Hedge End” be noted;

(2) Approves a grant of £2,500 from this Committee’s CIP programme E901/30/50 towards the cost of a “live monitored” CCTV camera to overview Tollbar Way and vehicle access to Hedge End Trade/Retail Park be approved; and

(3) The transfer of the remaining highways receipt TR33736/1 Hampshire County Council be supported, with the request that the receipt be spent on measures that will improve pedestrian safety and disrupt speeding cars on Tollbar Way, Hedge End.

Summary

This report updates Members on the Problem Resolution In a Multi-Agency Environment (PRIME) project and the re-designation of the project to “Speeding Cars and Assembly of Spectators”. The report recommends that a £2,500 contribution be made towards the installation of a CCTV camera which, through live monitoring, will overview a section of Tollbar Way and vehicle access to Hedge End Trade/Retail Park. The report recommends that a highways receipt, currently held by this Committee in its CIP programme, be transferred to Hampshire County Council with the request that it should be used to finance measures that improve pedestrian safety and disrupt speeding cars in Tollbar Way.

Statutory Powers

Section 2 Local Government Act 2000. Section 17 of Crime & Disorder Act 1998.

AC549JR 1 105 Update on PRIME Project

1. Members will recall that in early 2006 the Police designated the issue of speeding cars and “Cruise Club” activity in the Hedge End area as a PRIME project. In effect this means that a variety of agencies as well as private business representatives have been collaborating in addressing ongoing concerns about the assembly of “Cruise Club” members who congregate in the Hedge End Retail Park and in and around the Tollbar Way area. The Police have allocated a considerable amount of resources towards addressing the issue of speeding cars. Covert operations have been undertaken particularly on Sunday evenings when large assemblies of “Cruise Club” vehicles have occurred.

2. The Police have been monitoring websites and “cruisers” are acknowledged to be co-ordinating meetings at Hedge End and coming from as far away as Brighton, Chichester, Oxford and Bournemouth. On occasions over 200 vehicles have assembled at the Hedge End Trade/Retail Park with large numbers of spectators congregating along Tollbar Way to watch customised vehicles racing on timed laps in Tollbar Way, Charles Watts Way and Botley Road. The Police have undertaken two successful operations in June and latterly in October 2006 which involved a road closure of Tollbar Way, the deployment of the police aircraft support unit, Road Policing Unit (RPU) officers from across the County and inspectors from the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. Both police operations were successful and the October operation is now resulting in several prosecutions working their way through the Court system with fines and bans being issued to some of the Cruise Club participants.

3. As a result of PRIME meetings the Borough Council has proceeded to install a pedestrian refuge on Botley Road to narrow the width of this carriageway and a second refuge will be installed in the vicinity of the Herald Estate entrance later this year. The managing agents for the Hedge End Retail Park have participated in PRIME meetings as well as representatives from the operators of businesses on the Hedge End Trade/Retail Park site. With the approval of the Police; Jones Lang La Salle, the managing agents, have invested over £16,000 in the provision of bollards, speed humps and barriers which aim to disrupt large assemblies of vehicles and spectators in the retail park site.

4. In addition Jones Lang La Salle have identified a site for a CCTV camera to be mounted. This camera will be linked to a recording system but most importantly will interface with a remote control site where ‘live monitoring’ can be undertaken. The estimated cost of this camera installation is £5,000 and the value of the live monitoring is estimated to be £7,000.

5. PC Thomas of the RPU has undertaken a considerable amount of research to see whether speed cameras can be installed on Tollbar Way. The Camera Safety Partnership has very strict criteria which relate to personal injury data and at the time of writing this report PC Thomas is continuing to review all data related to accidents in the Hedge End area. Regrettably it would appear unlikely that speed cameras can be installed in the area, ironically because there have been insufficient serious personal injury accidents. That said, PC

106 AC549JR 2 Thomas’ research has proved that there are numerous non injury accidents involving speeding cars in the Tollbar Way area with, for example, no fewer than 34 ‘accidents’ occurring on the Tollbar Way roundabout with its junction onto Botley Road.

6. It is recommended that Members are invited to

(1) note progress being made on the PRIME project and its re- designation to “Speeding Cars and Assembly of Spectators in Tollbar Way are, Hedge End” and

(2) approve a grant of £2,500 from this Committee’s CIP programme E901/30/50 towards the cost of a “live monitored” CCTV camera to overview Tollbar Way and vehicle access to Hedge End Retail Park.

Developing long term solutions

7. The Police, with advice from the RPU are keen to meet representatives of both the Borough Council and Hampshire County Council’s Engineering Services teams to discuss and identify permanent design solutions which will reduce the propensity of speeding cars and spectator assembly in the Tollbar Way area. A variety of possibilities have been identified which are summarised as follows:

(i) The introduction of speed cameras (subject to the approval of the Hampshire Camera Safety Partnership) (ii) Provision of pedestrian refuges to provide safe crossing points and narrow the width of the carriageway on Botley Road and Tollbar Way. (iii) The introduction of a pedestrian controlled crossing point on Tollbar Way (iv) The introduction of appropriate traffic regulation orders to limit speed on all approach routes in the Botley, Hedge End & West End areas to 50mph. (v) The introduction of speed limit reminders (SLRs)

8. Members will recall approving the release of a developer’s receipt received from Quadrant Estates Ltd ref: TR 33736/1 to this Committee’s community investment programme. Part of this receipt is being used to fund improved lighting and cycleway links between West End and Hedge End but the remaining receipt of £121,114 is still held in this Committee’s community investment programme. The County Council has recently reviewed its highways agreement with Eastleigh Borough Council and has requested that this receipt be transferred.

9. Members are invited to support this transfer but, at the same time, to request that this receipt be used to fund measures that will improve pedestrian safety and disrupt speeding cars in Tollbar Way. The Police are anxious to participate in discussions and to explore with highway engineers of both Councils viable projects which were outlined in the paragraphs above.

AC549JR 3 107 10. It is therefore recommended that this Committee supports the transfer of the remaining highways receipt TR 33736/1 Hampshire County Council and requests that the receipt be spent on measures that will improve pedestrian safety and disrupt speeding cars on Tollbar Way, Hedge End.

Conclusion

11. The original designation of the PRIME project has been made more specific. The Police view is that the activities of ‘Cruise Club’ enthusiast are not in themselves an illegal past time. The real issues are around a minority of vehicle owners speeding in the Tollbar Way area and the encouragement given to them by large assemblies of spectators.

12. The PRIME project will continue to monitor and bring forward practical measures that will address concerns. It is likely that the actions taken by the project will disrupt but also displace the problems of speeding cars and spectators to other parts of the Hedge End area, but hopefully through the efforts of all agencies, and in particular County Council Highway colleagues, permanent measures will be brought forward to inhibit vehicle speed and reduce the attractiveness of this area for speeding and assemblies of spectators.

JON RIDDELL PETER BALDRY INSPECTOR SHONA HOOD Area Co-ordinator Community Safety Hedge End Police Station Manager

Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN

Date: 26 March 2007 Contact Officer: Jon Riddell Tel No: 023 8068 8437 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 0 Report No: AC549JR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:

Written quotation Secury fix provision of one Pelco Dome Camera transmission receiver for Broadband connection horn speaker with site audio power supply unit data cabinet, estimated cost £4,990 ex VAT.

108 AC549JR 4 Agenda Item 10

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday 16 April 2007

COMMUNITY PROJECTS GRANTS FOR BOTLEY

Report of the Area Co-ordinator

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:-

(1) A Community Buildings Grant of £500 be made to Botley Village Hall for heating system repair on condition that the committee bring forward long term proposals to fit an energy efficient heating system; and

(2) A grant of £1,750 be made to Botley C of E school as a contribution towards an activity play trail on condition that community users can access this facility at appropriate times.

Summary

The Botley Village Hall (Market Hall) requires an urgent heating repair estimated to cost £1,000. It is recommended that a contribution of £500 be made towards this repair on condition that the managing trustees bring forward longer term proposals to fit an energy efficient system.

Botley C of E Primary School has raised £4,000 towards the cost of installing an activity play trail adjacent to their reception unit. It is recommended that a grant of £1,750 be made towards this project on the condition that the new facility is available for community users at appropriate times.

Statutory Powers

Section 2 Local Government Act 2000

Botley Village Hall – repair to heating system

1. Botley Village Hall has an extensive and varied programme of community use. Over the last two years this Committee has made contributions towards improving access for disabled persons and exterior enhancements to this Grade II listed building. The managing trustees have requested a 50% grant towards the cost of replacing a Satronic Controller for the gas fired heating system. The hot air heating system is still viable but in the longer term a more energy efficient system should be considered for this community building. It

AC551JR 1 109 is recommended that a Community Buildings Grant of £500 be made to Botley village hall for heating system repair on condition that the committee bring forward long term proposals to fit an energy efficient heating system;

Financial Considerations

2. It is appropriate that £500 be taken from an unallocated developers’ contribution for social and recreational purposes. The identified contribution should be made from DCF/06/57633 Watercroft Homes Ltd.

Proposed activity trail – Botley C of E Controlled Primary School

3. It was proposed that a 5 station activity trail be installed adjacent to the reception unit at Botley C of E Primary School. The trail will comprise a balance weaver, suspension bridge, net swamp, Burma bridge and rubber step posts as well as an integrated safety surface. The cost of this project is estimated to be £5,750. Governors, parents and pupils have raised £4,000 and a request has been made for a contribution of £1,750 from this Committee. Staff and governors have embraced the “extended schools” agenda and currently welcome visits from playschools and host a community based after schools. It is recommended that a grant of £1,750 be made to Botley C of E school as a contribution towards an activity play trail on condition that community users can access this facility at appropriate times.

Financial Implications

4. It is appropriate that unallocated open space contributions are allocated to this project. Open space allocation of £1,750 should be made from OSC/06/58306 Grandy & White Ltd.

Risk Management

5. There are no identifiable risks associated with the recommendations. The Botley village hall grant will be released on production of a paid invoice and the Botley C of E Primary School grant will be made on receipt of copy invoices and a copy of a ROSPA inspection certificate. There are no revenue implications associated with the recommendations made.

Conclusion

6. It is appropriate that this Committee provides grants to both these community projects. The recommendations made in this report are consistent with this Committee’s polices of maintaining and improving local community provisions.

JON RIDDELL Area Co-ordinator

110 AC551JR 2 Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN

Date: 27 March 2007 Contact Officer: Jon Riddell Tel No: 023 8068 8437 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 0 Report No AC551JR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:

Section 100 Botley Village Hall Written quotation supplied by Nordair Niche Botley CofE Primary School written quotation reference 11890/FB and plans

AC551JR 3 111 This page is intentionally left blank

112 Agenda Item 11

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday 16 April 2007

HEWEB YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2007-10

Report of the Area Co-ordinator

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the attached local Youth Development Plan 2007-10 be approved.

Summary

Improving youth provision is a key corporate and local area priority having been consistently identified as a high priority in four Citizen Panel residential surveys. This Committee area has the largest child and youth population within the Borough and, in collaboration with a variety of agencies as well as local Councils, has supported youth provision within the local area through previous youth development plans. It is recommended that the HEWEB Youth Development Plan 2007-10 be approved as a policy framework for continued improvements for local youth provision over the next three years.

Statutory Powers

Section 2 Local Government Act 2000.

Introduction

1. Improving youth provision has been an identified priority by four Citizens Panels as a high priority. The Borough was ranked as 131 out of 140 in terms of investment in education spending on youth services but, thanks to local support and joint funding, youth provision has benefited from additional investment. This Committee has supported and maintained two previous youth development plans and given high priority to providing financial support to a wide variety of youth projects and initiatives across its area. Key achievements in 2003-6 include:

• Renewal of Service Level Agreement – Hedge End Teenage Drop-In Centre (total value £12,000 per year). • Continued partnership funding – HEWEB Detached Youth Work Project (total value £12,000 per year). • Youth Grants Panel – devolved responsibility for local youth grants to HEWEB Youth Council (£3,500 per year)

AC548JR 1 113 • Youth zones/shelters – three shelters installed, £20,000 contribution Skateboard Park – Woodhouse Lane Recreation Ground • Multi Use Games areas – Townhill Junior School/Botley/Moorgreen Rec. (£150,000). • Fairtrade Cafes established in local youth clubs • Improvements – Baden Powell Lodge, Woodhouse Lane • Improvements - 21st Itchen Scouts HQ Grange Park • Extension – youth café/IT equipment – the ‘Youthouse’, West End • 46 small grants to local youth projects

None of these achievements have been possible without collaborative partnership working with Town and Parish Councils, uniformed groups, Youth Services, Health Services or other partners and the theme of the next three year plan will be to continue to broaden this collaborative approach to local youth provision.

Youth Development Plan 2007-10

2. The attached plan has been drawn up in consultation with a variety of partners and has the support of the local Youth Service and crucially, the Police, who are putting much greater emphasis on addressing the need to divert young people by giving them access to a broad range of facilities and activities. This local plan has also been devised to complement the Eastleigh Children and Young Peoples Strategy 2007-10 which has been co-ordinated by Hampshire County Council’s local youth service. This plan, if endorsed by Committee, will be monitored using performance measures specifically identified within the Children and Young Peoples Strategy. This will enable effective monitoring and measurement of the plan over the next three years.

A Living Document

3. Whilst the attached plan aims to provide a clear statement of intentions over the next three years it can by no means be definitive. To be relevant and successful the plan must respond to opportunities and priorities that are identified by young people themselves. A key feature of the plan is to stay ‘in tune’ with the ideas and priorities of local young people and consultation opportunities, particularly with members of HEWEB Youth Council, will be a priority.

Conclusion

4. This Committee has given a high priority to the extension and improvement of local youth provision. There is no room for complacency and the plan aims to continue to extend and improve provision. Since the introduction of reporting and monitoring of the single non emergency number calls on the ‘101’ number, a significant disparity in youth nuisance between various areas of the Borough has been identified. Proportionally the HEWEB area has a lower level of reported youth nuisance than any other district in the Borough and in part this may be attributed not only to the good behaviour of local young

114 AC548JR 2 people but also to the provision of a growing range of youth services that diverts them from causing nuisance.

JON RIDDELL Area Co-ordinator

Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN

Date: 26 March 2007 Contact Officer: Jonathan Riddell Tel No: 023 8068 8437 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 1 Report No: AC548JR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:

Nil

AC548JR 3 115 This page is intentionally left blank

116 Consultation Draft

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2007-10

This Youth Development Plan outlines key actions and targets for the HEWEB area and is planned to complement the key objectives of the Eastleigh Children Young Peoples Strategy 2007-10. For further information or to comment please contact [email protected] tel 023 8068 8437

All projects rely on collaborative working and support from local Councils, Hampshire County Council, Churches, Police, voluntary sector and the Health Service.

PROJECT COMMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURE HEWEB Youth Council Supported by Jenny Critchlow, HCC Youth Service. Attend AGM (with HEWEB members) (Consultation opportunities) Attend AGM and meetings as required. Ensure HEWEB Youth Council are consulted on all Children & Young Peoples Strategy appropriate development projects and service provision. 2007-10 (C&YPS) “Make a positive Regular review of Youth Council ideas & priorities for the contribution to Society” district. HEWEB Detached Youth Joint funded and regulated through a rolling SLA/HCC. 2 review meetings per year Work Project HEWEB £6,000 (Youth workers in HETC £3,000 C&YPS “ Enjoy and Achieve” community) WEPC £2,000 BPC £1,000 Review/renew the SLA in 2008 Deployment of Detached Deploy Youth Workers to hotspots identified by C&YPS “Enjoy and Youth Workers/Twilight stakeholders/police/residents. Achieve”/”Staying Safe Project Youth Centre provision ‘The All three purpose built Youth Centres are well maintained Continue to provide financial support to Box’, Hedge End, ‘The and have received grant aid support from HEWEB. The maintain and extend use of these Youthouse’, West End, financial support of Town & Parish Councils is crucial to facilities. Youth & Scout Hall, Botley their ongoing success. C&YPS “Healthy Living/Staying Safe” Scout and Guide/Uniformed Support for Uniformed Groups has and will be continued as C&YPS “Healthy Living/Staying Safe

117 organisations and when appropriate

HEWEB YTH DEVELOPMENT PLAN 118

PROJECT COMMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURE HEWEB Youth Grants Delegate minimum of £3,000 to HEWEB Youth Council for Report Youth Council’s decision to (active citizenship – distribution to local youth projects. HEWEB (Annual presentation) delegate decision to Youth present grants at Annual Meeting of Council) HEWEB Youth Council

C&YPS “Make a positive contribution”

Hedge End Teenage Drop- Joint funded project circa £15,000pa In Centre HEWEB £3,250 Regular monitoring reports & reviews (Young People Health HETC £3,250 Project) PCT £7,000 6 meetings per year plus AGM Solvay Ltd (ad hoc) Other ad hoc grants as available C&YPS “Healthy Living” Alcohol Project Targeted health education by nurses outreach work Monitor nurses outputs/visits to local (Pilot Project) £2,000 HEWEB grant (supplements to SLA) youth clubs/schools/events - training – (inter agency/DAAT) - did they raise awareness of - outreach dangers of alcohol abuse/binge - counselling for individuals drinking? - No of contacts - No of referrals to counsellors

C&YPS “Healthy Living”/ “Staying Safe” Greta Park MUGA Upgrade and renew worn out basketball zone. Zone to be upgraded in 2007 (Diverting young people) Support to HETC – estimate for project £45,000 Consultation and feedback from young £30,000 HEWEB support people completed

Potential street league basketball initiative C&YPS “Healthy Living”/”Staying Safe” Townhill Farm MUGA Liaison with Headteacher on use and maintenance of dual 2 meetings per year (formal H & S use area - £4,000 required for extra fencing. inspection each Easter)

C&YPS “Healthy Living”/”Staying Safe”

HEWEB YTH DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT COMMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURE Botley MUGA Liaison with Clerk on ‘youth use’ of MUGA to comply with 2 reports/monitoring meetings per year £105,000 grant from EBC/HEWEB C&YPS “Healthy Living”/”Staying Safe” Youth Zones/shelters Provision of one additional youth shelter/free access facility C&YPS “Staying safe”/”Healthy per year. Living” Increase inventory of provision – currently 6 youth shelters 3 skateboard areas 4 MUGAs Targets for 2007 Sculptured bench/seat West End Copse Basketball Zone – Locke Road Were targets met? Identify new sites for 2008-10 Blue Lamp/SNAP Discos Diverting young people to regular disco events. 1. Identify £3,000 start up Joint project with Police, Church and County Council Youth 2. Support planning meetings/risk Workers, DAAT and TADIC. assessments/roles 3. Feedback/monitoring from events

C&YPS “Staying Safe”/” Healthy Living” Fairtrade Cafes ‘Renew’ the Fairtrade commitment in local Youth Clubs. Present certificate/grants at Fairtrade Youth Clubs Ask club to run a ‘Fairtrade’ awareness evening/event. evening/event. - ‘Youthouse’ Press coverage/photos - ‘Box’ - Botley C&YPS “Make a positive contribution” Townhill Farm Youth Drop-In Work with Chris Walsh/West End Parish Council on Develop Drop-In and evaluate upgrading Café at Townhill Farm Community Centre for Youth Drop-In. C&YPS “Staying Safe”/ “Healthy £4,900 HCF – matched funding from West End Parish Living” Council/HEWEB Healthy Communities Fund New fund available in 2007. Submit appropriate bids for C&YPS “Staying Safe/Healthy (EBC Health Portfolio Youth related projects in consultation with Police/Youth Living” Service/Health 119

HEWEB YTH DEVELOPMENT PLAN 120

PROJECT COMMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURE Dowds Farm Development A major development with linked urban park. The Successful development of and Urban Park challenge is to anticipate the needs of children and young infrastructure Urban Park, 2 play areas people that will relate to this neighbourhood and to develop and a ‘Youth Zone’. service provision for children/youths. Support to Salvation Army in construction of Community Centre and The Salvation Army will take a local lead on Youth service relevant programming for provision for this area. children/young people Interagency planning/delivery of youth outreach/detached youth work. C&YPS ‘Staying safe/Healthy Living” Cross boarder liaison:- Support opportunity to liaise with SCC youth workers/ Liaison on detached youth work and Southampton City Council members etc to share information and co-operate on other issues. appropriate projects. Meetings as required. Local Youth Projects in Support local projects subject to consultation with Press coverage/photos/brief monitoring HEWEB Members. reports - 31st Amazon Scouts – daffodil planting plus Press coverage/photos/brief monitoring stewards for Botley Festival report - 21st Itchen – environment project “ “ - Graffiti removal – sponsorship in return for labour “ “ - Youthouse summer project Press coverage/photos/brief monitoring - Botley Boys Football report - ‘Fuzzy Logic’ Boys dance project “ “ - Salvation Army - Saturday Football “ “ - Summer Project C&YPS “Make a positive - Botley MUGA Summer School contribution”/”Staying - Monday night youth club safe”/”Healthy Living”

HEYCA - Martial arts/dance groups - Performing arts company As identified and approved by Members Other projects 2008 onwards

HEWEB YTH DEVELOPMENT PLAN Agenda Item 13

Document is Restricted

121 This page is intentionally left blank

124 Document is Restricted

125 This page is intentionally left blank

126