- 1 - PDC919
PDC919 FOR INFORMATION GENERAL
PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
12 January 2012
PLANNING APPEALS – SUMMARY OF DECISIONS (July – December 2010)
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING MANAGEMENT
Contact Officer: Julie Pinnock contact 01962 848 439 jpinnock@winchester.gov.uk
RECENT REFERENCES:
PDC862 – Planning Appeals – Summary of Decisions – 29 July 2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report sets out a summary of appeal decisions received during the periods:
• 1 April 2010 – 30 June 2010 (Appendix A) • 1 July 2010 – 30 September 2010 (Appendix B) • 1 October 2010 – 31 December 2010 (Appendix C)
Copies of each appeal decision are available on the Council’s website.
In summary, the decisions for the period 1 April 2010 – 30 June 2010 provides details on 15 appeals in total. Of these there were:
• 1 split decision (part allowed/part refused) • 8 allowed • 6 dismissed
In summary, the decisions for the period 1 July – 30 September 2010 provides details on 30 appeals in total. Of these there were:
• 1 split decision (part allowed/part refused) • 5 allowed • 24 dismissed
In summary, the decisions for the period 1 October – 31 December 2010 provides - 2 - PDC919
details on 22 appeals in total. Of these there were:
• 1 withdrawn • 9 allowed • 12 dismissed
It is anticipated that there will be a further report bringing the Committee up-to-date on the Appeal decisions from 2011.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Report be noted.
Appendix A - 3 - PDC919
PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
PLANNING APPEALS – SUMMARY OF DECISIONS
REPORT FROM HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
A summary of appeal decisions received during the period 1st April 2010 – th 30 June 2010
Item No: 1
Date of Inspector’s 4th May Inspector’s Appeal Part Allowed/Part Decision: 2010 Decision: Dismissed Appeal Procedure W Costs: WCC Costs Dismissed (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/00903/AVC Ref No: W Case Officer: Beverley Morris Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Installation of 3 no. internally illuminated wall mounted signs Location: The Chimneys 1 Burnett Close Winchester Hampshire
Summary of Inspector’s Decision
The inspector considered, having regard to the comments of the previous Inspector, that the site is situated within a transition zone, between the local centre and the residential area to the North and that any signage on the store should respect this location.
The inspector considered that signs one and two would materially detract from the character and appearance of the area, given its transitional location and given their height above ground level and method of illumination. The inspector considered that they would be unduly dominant and obtrusive features within this part of the local centre.
With regard to sign three however, the inspector considered that although this sign would also be internally illuminated, as a result of its limited size and relatively discreet sighting, it would be in keeping with this part of the local centre and would not result in material harm to visual amenity.
Appendix A - 4 - PDC919
Item No: 2
Date of Inspector’s 21st April Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 08/02622/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Nick Fisher Original Decision Type: Committee Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Retention of existing motocross track including associated works to adapt the landform for such use and use for purposes of occasional elite motocross events Location: Matterley Basin Alresford Road Ovington Hampshire
Item No: 3
Date of Inspector’s 24th May Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure P Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01305/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Nick Parker Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Erection of 80 dwellings together with new vehicular access (including changes to Green Lane/Southwick Road junction) and pedestrian linkages, landscaping, public open space provision and parking on land at Little Frenchies Field Location: Little Frenchies Field Hambledon Road Denmead Hampshire
Appendix A - 5 - PDC919
Summary of Inspector’s Decision
The Inspector concluded that the release of the site for housing would be consistent with the objectives of PPS 3 and with the thrust of development plan policies and therefore its release for housing is justified. In terms of character the Inspector concluded that the detailed layout submitted demonstrates that the size, layout and location of the cental green space/play space and the impact this would have on the verdant character of the development and surrounding area, would have a significant detrimental effect on the character and appearance of Denmead contrary to policy DP.3 (ii) of the LP. In terms of open space the Inspector concluded the scheme provides insufficient on-site play space contrary to policy RT.4 of the Local Plan. The Inspector concluded that the development would have an acceptable impact on the highway network subject to the highway improvements and that the site is located within reasonable distance of services and facilities that could be reached by non-car modes of travel. The Inspector concluded that the development would not add to the risk of flooding in Southwick Road subject to conditions securing the implementation and maintenance of a surface water attenuation scheme that would restrict discharges from the site. The Inspector agreed with the Local Education Authority (LEA) that sufficient capacity to accommodate children from families occupying the proposed development, once built, would be available within the Denmead schools. The Inspector accepts the S106 legal agreement to secure affordable housing, highway improvements and contributions towards transport network improvements and off-site sports and play provision. The Inspector disagrees that the provision of additional informal open space is required in this instance.
Item No: 4
Date of Inspector’s 24th May Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/00289/OUT Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Outline application for the erection of 80 dwellings with new vehicular access including changes to Green Lane/Southwick Road junction and pedestrian linkages, landscaping, public open space provision and parking. Location: Little Frenchies Field Appendix A - 6 - PDC919
Hambledon Road Denmead Hampshire
Summary of Inspector’s Decision
The Inspector concluded that the release of the site for housing would be consistent with the objectives of PPS 3 and with the thrust of development plan policies and therefore its release for housing is justified. In terms of character the Inspector concluded that the illustrative layout submitted demonstrates that green spaces and soft landscaping, sufficient to preserve the character and appearance of Denmead, could be provided on the site at the proposed density and therefore accords with policy DP.3 (ii) of the Local Plan. In terms of open space the Inspector concluded the scheme provides sufficient on-site play space in accordance with policies RT.4 and DP.3 (vii) of the Local Plan. The Inspector also concluded that the development would have an acceptable impact on the highway network subject to the highway improvements and that the site is located within reasonable distance of services and facilities that could be reached by non-car modes of travel. The Inspector concluded that the development would not add to the risk of flooding in Southwick Road subject to conditions securing the implementation and maintenance of a surface water attenuation scheme that would restrict discharges from the site. The Inspector agreed with the Local Education Authority (LEA) that sufficient capacity to accommodate children from families occupying the proposed development, once built, would be available within the Denmead schools. In terms of residential amenity the Inspector is satisfied that a layout can be achieved that would protect the privacy of adjacent residents in accordance with policy DP.3 (vii) of the Local Plan. The Inspector accepts the S106 legal agreement to secure affordable housing, highway improvements and contributions towards transport network improvements and off-site sports and play provision. The Inspector disagrees that the provision of additional informal open space is required in this instance.
Item No: 5
Date of Inspector’s 11th May Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01875/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mrs Jane Rarok Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Appendix A - 7 - PDC919
Proposal: Revisions to elevations of planning permission 99/01809/FUL to facilitate use by electrical contractor Location: Baudelaire Ltd The Old Tin Barn Longwood Road Owslebury Winchester Hampshire SO21 1LL
Item No: 6
Date of Inspector’s 16th June Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01052/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mrs Jane Rarok Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Change of use of land to residential curtilage and erection of 2m high fence (RETROSPECTIVE) Location: 1 Russet Close Alresford Hampshire SO24 9PS
Item No: 7
Date of Inspector’s 11th May Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01738/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Neil Mackintosh Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Appendix A - 8 - PDC919
Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Change of Use of Agricultural Building to Farriery/Blacksmith's Forge Location: Oak View Liberty Road Newtown Fareham Hampshire PO17 6LB
Item No: 8
Date of Inspector’s 6th May Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01765/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Andrea Swain Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: 2 bedroom bungalow with associated parking Location: 210 Stanmore Lane Winchester Hampshire SO22 4BL
Item No: 9
Date of Inspector’s 29th April Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure I Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01660/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Lorna Hutchings Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Appendix A - 9 - PDC919
Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Proposed variation of condition 02 of consent W3293/7 and condition 02 of consent W3293/2 to allow the occupation of the dwelling to be occupied by a person solely or mainly employed or last employed at the site in the breeding, rearing and keeping of horses, or for a person solely or mainly employed or last employed within the locality in agriculture or forestry, or for a person solely or mainly employed as a Farrier at the forge, Owlesbury Bottom. Proposed change of use to the existing outbuilding from a forge to a commercial equestrian use for the breeding, rearing and keeping of horses to be operated by the occupier of the dwelling at the site. Proposed associated internal alterations to the building Location: The Forge Owslebury Bottom Owslebury Winchester Hampshire SO21 1LY
Item No: 10
Date of Inspector’s 23rd April Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01667/TPO Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Thomas Gregory Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Fell 1no. Ash tree Location: 10 Archery Lane Winchester Hampshire
Item No: 11
Date of Inspector’s 21st May Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs Appendix A - 10 - PDC919
(see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02082/TPO Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: 1no. Oak tree - crown reduce by 20% Location: 10 Crowders Green Colden Common Winchester Hampshire SO21 1TZ
Item No: 12
Date of Inspector’s 14th April Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure H Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01845/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Trish Price Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Front, rear and side extension to original bungalow and roof alterations to create additional accomodation Location: 57 Bereweeke Avenue Winchester Hampshire SO22 6BL
Item No: 13
Date of Inspector’s 10th May Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure H Costs: No Application for Costs Appendix A - 11 - PDC919
(see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01886/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Andrew Rushmer Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Relocation of garage Location: Alexandra House Hambledon Road Denmead Waterlooville Hampshire PO7 6ES
Item No: 14
Date of Inspector’s 26th April Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure H Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02327/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: (HOUSEHOLDER) Demolition of single garage and entrance porch and construction of two storey front extension to form bedroom with en-suite, study and entrance lobby and attached single garage with deck access above Location: Park View Main Road Itchen Abbas Winchester SO21 1BQ Appendix A - 12 - PDC919
Item No: 15
Date of Inspector’s 27th April Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure H Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02335/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Miss Megan Birkett Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: (HOUSEHOLDER) Two storey front extension with car port Location: Wood Whispers The Plantation Curdridge Southampton Hampshire SO32 2DT
Appendix B - 13 - PDC919
PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
PLANNING APPEALS – SUMMARY OF DECISIONS
REPORT FROM HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
A summary of appeal decisions received during the period 1st July 2010 – 30th September 2010.
Item No: 1
Date of Inspector’s 23rd July Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: Appellants Costs (see code below): Dismissed W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01527/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mrs Jill Lee Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Conversion of barn to one bedroom dwelling with landscaping Location: Barn To The Rear Of George House East Street Hambledon Hampshire
Item No: 2
Date of Inspector’s 23rd July Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: Appellants Costs (see code below): Dismissed W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01528/LIS Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Appendix B - 14 - PDC919
Proposal: Conversion of redundant barn to a single dwelling Location: Barn To The Rear Of George House East Street Hambledon Hampshire
Item No: 3
Date of Inspector’s 9th July Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure I Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 08/02890/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Committee Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Erection of security fence Location: Torbay Farm Sciviers Lane Lower Upham Southampton Hampshire SO32 1HB
Item No: 4
Date of Inspector’s 22nd July Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/00705/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Richard Whittington Original Decision Type: Committee Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Appendix B - 15 - PDC919
Proposal: 1 no. five bedroom dwelling (RESUBMISSION) Location: Rose Cottage Ludwells Lane Waltham Chase Hampshire SO32 2NP
Item No: 5
Date of Inspector’s 30th July Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/00761/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: 1 no. four bedroom dwelling with integral garage, parking and existing access Location: Beaulieu Forest Road Swanmore Southampton Hampshire SO32 2PL
Item No: 6
Date of Inspector’s 31st August Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01057/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Nick Fisher Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee? Appendix B - 16 - PDC919
Proposal: Erection of 1 no. detached four bedroom dwelling and attached garage (RESUBMISSION) Location: 46 Lynford Way Winchester Hampshire SO22 6BW
Item No: 7
Date of Inspector’s 6th July Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02133/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Neil Mackintosh Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: (HOUSEHOLDER) Erection of detached two storey building with car port at ground level and residential accommodation above(RESUBMISSION) Location: 18 St Thomas Street Winchester Hampshire SO23 9HJ
Item No: 8
Date of Inspector’s 9th Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: September Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01513/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr James Jenkison Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee? Appendix B - 17 - PDC919
Proposal: Insertion of 2 windows Location: 3 Peninsula Square Winchester Hampshire SO23 8GJ
Summary of Inspector’s Decision The proposal was to insert round windows in the stone pediments above the doorways of the former gymnasium of Peninsular Barracks. The Inspector agreed with the Councils position that this would be visially harmful to the character of the listed building and its setting and rejected claims that more daylight was necessary inside the dwelling, where a room was served by an existing window and where it was considered that stairwells were not commonly well lit by daylight. The existing situation inside the house was acceptable.
Item No: 9
Date of Inspector’s 9th Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: September Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01681/LIS Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr James Jenkison Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Insertion of 2 windows Location: 3 Peninsula Square Winchester Hampshire SO23 8GJ
Summary of Inspector’s Decision The proposal was to insert round windows in the stone pediments above the doorways of the former gymnasium of Peninsular Barracks. The Inspector agreed with the Councils position that this would be visially harmful to the character of the listed building and its setting and rejected claims that more daylight was necessary inside the dwelling, where a room was served by an existing window and where it was considered that stairwells were not commonly well lit by daylight. The existing situation inside the house was Appendix B - 18 - PDC919 acceptable.
Item No: 10
Date of Inspector’s 10th August Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01843/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Nick Fisher Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Conversion of existing chalet bungalow to 3 no. flats including rear extension and parking, erection of detached 4 bed bungalow in rear garden including car parking Location: 20 Mead End Road Denmead Waterlooville Hampshire PO7 6QB
Item No: 11
Date of Inspector’s 6th Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: September Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/00856/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Simon Avery Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Use of land for storage purposes (B8) and retention of office (RETROSPECTIVE) Location: A E Roberts Ltd Gravel Hill Appendix B - 19 - PDC919
Shirrell Heath Southampton Hampshire SO32 2JQ
Item No: 12
Date of Inspector’s 9th July Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure P Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 08/01284/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Neil Mackintosh Original Decision Type: Committee Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at Yes Committee?
Proposal: Erection of office and laboratory facilities with associated car parking and landscaping Location: Torbay Farm Sciviers Lane Lower Upham Southampton Hampshire SO32 1HB
Summary of Inspector’s Decision
The Inspector considered the main issue in this appeal was whether the proposed development meets the aims of national and local policy in respect of sustainable pattern of development; the effect on the character and appearance of the area, and the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of dwellings in the vicinity.
He considered the authorised use of the site, and explored the national and local policy context; he did not consider this site was a location that these policies considered such development taking place. He concluded that Lower Upham was not a sustainable location and would not contribute to national and local objectives to focus economic development in sustainable locations.
The Inspector considered that the levels of employment and associated traffic could be similar to what may be expected to be generated by the re-use of all the buildings and greater than that generated by those with a confirmed lawful employment use, he therefore concluded that the proposal would not Appendix B - 20 - PDC919
contribute to the underlying objectives of national and local policy in the delivery of sustainable patterns of development.
In terms of effect on the character of the area, the Inspector noted the position of the site, part within the National Park, but did not consider it would affect the National Park or the key characteristics of the Landscape Character area. He did however note that the proportion of the site covered by building proposed would reduce and replace a collection of buildings, which whilst typical in form, scale and bulk were acknowledged to be unattractive.
However he commented that the existing buildings were not readily visible from public viewpoints, so their removal would not confer any substantial benefit. Any benefit would be outweighed by the greater size and bulk of the proposed building. He commented that large bulky buildings are not characteristic of the village or the area, and that the design does not respect the local vernacular. He also raised concerns about the light intrusion which would diminish the rural character of the area. On this point he concluded that the design was incongruous in a village setting and did not respond positively to the character, appearance and variety of the local environment.
He did not consider that the proposal on balance would have an affect on the amenities of the occupiers of May Cottage and Torbay Farmhouse having regard to the fall back position, and the position of the proposed new building, car parking substantially further away and the upgrading of the boundary would be an improvement.
He did consider that the built form would result in a significant component of the view from the gardens and upper floor of The Thatched Cottage, however he considered that their would be no loss of privacy, and whilst noise from activity around building and car park might be perspective he would expect levels to be acceptable. Such noise could exist in any case in the event that the buildings were to be re-used. He concluded that in the short term, the effect on the outlook from The Thatched Cottage and to a lesser extent from White Lodge and from their gardens would be adversely affected by the present of the long, tall, bulky building at moderately close quarters, but this would be diminish in the longer term, and on balance considered that taken alone the effect on the living conditions would not be sufficiently adverse to justify withholding permission.
The Inspector also considered concerns by local residents about protests due to the nature of the activity undertaken at the site, this justified security fencing, and whilst such protests may have the potential to affect the amenity of some residents living nearby; this was not a good reason to oppose the development.
Appendix B - 21 - PDC919
Item No: 13
Date of Inspector’s 17th Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: September Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01653/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Dave Dimon Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Construction of 2 no. detached 3-bed houses following demolition of existing dwelling Location: Ashmaru The Plantation Curdridge Southampton Hampshire SO32 2DT
Item No: 14
Date of Inspector’s 6th Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: September Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01455/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mrs Jill Lee Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: new dwelling in back garden fronting onto Western Road, location of carparking spaces in front garden Location: Direct Denture Care 23 Stockbridge Road Winchester Hampshire SO22 6RN Appendix B - 22 - PDC919
Item No: 15
Date of Inspector’s 10th August Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01453/OUT Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr James Jenkison Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Proposed construction of 2 no. dwellings with access from Cemetery Lane (OUTLINE APPLICATION) Location: Land At Collins Lane Hursley Hampshire
Summary of Inspector’s Decision
Countryside site with a history of attempts of residential development. Inspector considered site related to countryside and not settlement, so was not infilling between existing development. Gardens areas were considered to be too small, with pressure to lop or cut down trees, making the development more visible from surroundings. Visually intrusive form of development.
Item No: 16
Date of Inspector’s 26th August Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01434/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Andrew Rushmer Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Two storey rear extension and double garage with roof garden (Amended plans received moving the extension further away Appendix B - 23 - PDC919
from the boundary with number 2 Avenue Road) Location: 1 Avenue Road Winchester Hampshire SO22 5AQ
Item No: 17
Date of Inspector’s 10th August Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01755/AVC Ref No: W Case Officer: Lorna Hutchings Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: 1 no. Internally illuminated double sided pole mounted display unit (PART RETROSPECTIVE) Location: Boarhunt Garage Ltd Southwick Road North Boarhunt Fareham Hampshire PO17 6JW
Item No: 18
Date of Inspector’s 25th August Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: Appellants Costs (see code below): Dismissed W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02160/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Nick Fisher Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Appendix B - 24 - PDC919
Proposal: (HOUSEHOLDER) Replace detached single garage with double garage (amendments to existing permission 07/01428/FUL) Location: 1 Pudding Lane Cottages Pudding Lane Headbourne Worthy Winchester Hampshire SO23 7JW
Item No: 19
Date of Inspector’s 2nd Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: September Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02454/AVC Ref No: W Case Officer: Beverley Morris Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Display of 1 no. 3m internally illuminated free standing totem sign and 1 no. 900mm internally illuminated fascia sign Location: Waitrose Food Store Stockbridge Road Winchester Hampshire SO22 6EL
Item No: 20
Date of Inspector’s 5th August Inspector’s Appeal Part Allowed/Part Decision: 2010 Decision: Dismissed Appeal Procedure I Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02210/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Simon Avery Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision Appendix B - 25 - PDC919
(Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Temporary siting of mobile home for a horticultural worker and retention of front boundary walls and gates (RETROSPECTIVE) Location: S And D Nursery Dradfield Lane Soberton Southampton Hampshire SO32 3QD
Item No: 21
Date of Inspector’s 21st Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: September Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure I Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/00935/REM Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr James Jenkison Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Redevelopment of site for the erection of three dwellings, revised access and internal footpath to serve Curdridge Lane (details in compliance following outline planning permission- W14873/04) Location: Crossways Curdridge Lane Curdridge Southampton Hampshire SO32 2BJ
Summary of Inspector’s Decision
Proposal for 3 large dwellings in a countryrad arrangment projecting forward of building line. Size of buildings larger than adjacent site and considered to be overbearing on neighbours property. Also at the countryside end of the village so the dense form of the development was considered to be inappropriate. Appendix B - 26 - PDC919
Item No: 22
Date of Inspector’s 20th July Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/00056/TPO Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Crown lift all branches overhanging communal drive to 5-6m , crown thin by 30% 1no. Walnut tree. Location: Fair View Cottage The Pastures Kings Worthy Winchester Hampshire SO23 7LX
Item No: 23
Date of Inspector’s 1st July Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure H Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01991/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Ian Cousins Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: (HOUSEHOLDER) New access and drop kerb Location: 2 Portland House Forest Road Waltham Chase Southampton Hampshire SO32 2LA Appendix B - 27 - PDC919
Item No: 24
Date of Inspector’s 5th July Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure H Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02629/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mrs Anna Hebard Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Two storey rear extension with raised roof to incorporate a bedroom and bathroom in the roofspace (HOUSEHOLDER) Location: The Laurels Bishops Sutton Road Bishops Sutton Alresford Hampshire SO24 0AN
Item No: 25
Date of Inspector’s 27th August Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/00596/TPO Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Fell 2no. Sycamores Location: Land At Marrelsmoor Coppice Purbrook Heath Road Purbrook Hampshire
Appendix B - 28 - PDC919
Item No: 26
Date of Inspector’s 4th August Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure H Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/00276/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Trish Price Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: (HOUSEHOLDER) Replacement of flat roofed rear extensions with 2-storey extension at rear. Increase in height of ridge to create first floor accommodation with dormer and roof lights to front. Single storey extension to front to create new entrance. Demolish existing garage and rebuild integral garage. Location: Whiteacre 19 Downs Road South Wonston Winchester Hampshire SO21 3EU
Item No: 27
Date of Inspector’s 2nd Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: September Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure H Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/00783/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: (HOUSEHOLDER)Extension to previous planning permission 08/00921/FUL Location: Broadview Appendix B - 29 - PDC919
Northside Lane Bishops Sutton Alresford Hampshire SO24 9SR
Item No: 28
Date of Inspector’s 1st Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: September Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure H Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02614/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Beverley Morris Original Decision Type: Committee Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at Yes Committee?
Proposal: (Amended plans received 26 February 2010) Single storey side and rear extension; garage conversion, car port and decking to front Location: The Black Barn Floud Lane West Meon Petersfield Hampshire GU32 1JD
Summary of Inspector’s Decision
The Inspector notes that The Black Barn is situated within a group of buildings, simple and rural in nature, but no longer agricultural in character. The Inspector considers that the spacing between these buildings is a feature and contributes to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposed side and rear extension and rear roof light are not considered by the Inspector to be of detrimental impact to the character of the area, similarly the proposed replacement steps are considered to preserve the character of the area provided they are carefully detailed. The Inspector notes that car port structures are relatively common in rural areas and that the proposed carport roof would reflect the existing shallow pitched lean to roof. Whilst it would be complex in its roof form this would not be appreciated from the ground. The Inspector considers that the reduction in the gap between The Black Barn Appendix B - 30 - PDC919
and Church Barn as a result of the proposed car port would erode the spacious character of the group of buildings and be detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The Inspector did not consider however that the car port would result in an unacceptable loss of light or outlook to the occupiers of Church Barn.
Item No: 29
Date of Inspector’s 17th Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: September Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure H Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02647/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Neil Mackintosh Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Raising of roof and construction of front and rear dormers Location: 11 Austen Avenue Olivers Battery Winchester Hampshire SO22 4HP
Item No: 30
Date of Inspector’s 17th Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: September Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure H Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02576/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Andrew Rushmer Original Decision Type: Committee Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at Yes Committee?
Appendix B - 31 - PDC919
Proposal: (HOUSEHOLDER) Construction of a new single storey extension to rear and side and new porch to front Location: 74 Woodfield Drive Winchester Hampshire SO22 5PU
Summary of Inspector’s Decision
The Inspector noted that the contemporary design of the extension cannot be said to reflect the traditional design of the parent property, but stated that it would not look incongruous or ill conceived. In relation to the rear element the Inspector considered that the rear extension would be acceptable in terms of its scale, design and/or layout, and responds positively to its context. Turning to the porch element, the Inspector was not convinced that it would be damaging to the wider street scene given its modest scale and essentially simple and restrained design. The Inspector considered that the porch would be perceived as a low key and sympathetic extension of the parent property. As such it would reinforce the diversity caused by minor extensions and alterations to properties in the locality.
With regard to the neighbour impact, the Inspector considered that no overlooking would be caused, and that the extension would not be overbearing even though it would be hard on the boundary, given that it would only be slightly higher than the reinstated boundary fence. The outlook from number 72 would also be maintained by the sedum roof, and whilst there would be some light spillage, this would not be unduly intrusive. Appendix C - 32 - PDC919
PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
PLANNING APPEALS – SUMMARY OF DECISIONS
REPORT FROM HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
A summary of appeal decisions received during the period 1st October 2010 to 31st December 2010.
Item No: 1
Date of Inspector’s 9th Inspector’s Appeal Allowed - Costs Decision: November Decision: Allowed 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: Costs Allowed (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/00508/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mrs Andrea Swain Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Erection of detached four bed dwelling to front of Sunnymount Location: Sunnymount 49 Downs Road South Wonston Winchester Hampshire SO21 3EW
Summary of Inspector’s Decision
The Inspector concluded that the main issue for consideration in this appeal was whether the proposal represented an acceptable consolidation of existing development in South Wonston in terms of character and form of development in the locality.
The Inspector explained the appeal site, which was situated to the front of 49 Downs Road, and the character of this part of Downs Road. He concluded that tandem arrangements should be considered on their individual merits, and that in this case he was not convinced that a dwelling in the front garden of 49 Downs Road would necessarily damage the character of the area. He agreed with the Council that this part of Downs Road was characterised by single storey dwellings, however commented that there are many examples of two storey development nearby and the chalet style proposed would be lower Appendix C - 33 - PDC919
than conventional two storey dwellings and not unacceptable at the appeal site. Item No: 2
Date of Inspector’s 26th October Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02004/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Jill Lee Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Retention of conservatory on rear of plot 92 as a sales office/display area (RETROSPECTIVE) Location: Dukes Meadow Hambledon Road Denmead Hampshire
Item No: 3
Date of Inspector’s 20th October Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01898/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mrs Jill Lee Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Erection of Detached Dwelling (RESUBMISSION) Location: Hill Cottage Warnford Road Corhampton Southampton Hampshire SO32 3ND
Appendix C - 34 - PDC919
Item No: 4
Date of Inspector’s 20th October Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/01897/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mrs Jill Lee Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Erection of detached dwelling house and detached garage (RESUBMISSION) Location: Periwinkle House Warnford Road Corhampton Southampton Hampshire SO32 1ND
Item No: 5
Date of Inspector’s 4th October Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02068/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Simon Avery Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Change of Use from A1 retail to B1 business. Location: The Old Post Office Station Road Wickham Hampshire
Appendix C - 35 - PDC919
Item No: 6
Date of Inspector’s 26th October Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: 2010 Decision: Appeal Procedure I Costs: Costs Allowed (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02556/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Andrea Swain Original Decision Type: Committee Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at Yes Committee?
Proposal: Demolition of no.16 Fox Lane & no.1 Chatham Road and erection of 2 no. two bedroom houses, 2 no. two bedroom flats and 2 no. one bedroom flats in two storey building Location: 16 Fox Lane Winchester Hampshire SO22 4DY
Summary of Inspector’s Decision
The Inspector concluded that the two main issues were: the effect upon the character and appearance of the area and; whether the scheme would harmfully increase the pressure on public recreational open space and transport/highway infrastructure and, if so, whether adequate provision has been made for mitigating any such harm.
The Inspector explained that the area is characterised by two storey semi- detached suburban houses, with much regularity in the arrangement of these buildings on their plots and a strong linear form to the layout of the houses. The uniformity and the generous garden spaces with mature planting are pleasing qualities.
The density of 57dph by itself this does not demonstrate any harm to the character or appearance of the area. The proposed layout would be very different from the strong linear form of the existing semi-detached houses on the site and would be quite unlike anything else in Fox Lane or Chatham Road. The development would erode the distinctive qualities of the local environment and, in so doing, conflict with PPS1, PPS3 and the relevant provisions of the development plan.
He commented that the Open Space Strategy demonstrated a deficiency in play and sports facilities within Winchester, and noted that the play area at Appendix C - 36 - PDC919
Somers Lane has already been upgraded. Nevertheless, contributions would be required to ensure that the proposal did not harm the quality of other scarce recreational facilities in the area. The level of contribution contained within the relevant planning obligation accords with the Council’s Contribution Scales. This is a necessary contribution.
Hampshire County Council’s Transport Contributions Policy (2007) sets out a tariff based approach for providing transport contributions across the county. The appeal inspector was uncertain if this policy document had been subject to a process of public consultation, therefore only gave it very limited weight in determining the appeal. Also there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposals would harmfully increase pressure on existing transport infrastructure, therefore find that the proposed transport contribution is unnecessary.
The Inspector awarded partial costs against the Council in respect of its concerns regarding density and architectural style. Its ‘position statement’, which had followed the publication of revised PPS3, recognised that some private garden land would be required to meet the necessary supply of housing land in the City. There was no objective evidence to demonstrate that the proposed increase in density would be harmful. The Council was also unable to produce any convincing evidence to substantiate its concerns regarding the proposed architectural style. It therefore acted unreasonably and caused the appellant to incur unnecessary expense in pursuing these elements of the appeal.
Item No: 7
Date of Inspector’s 19th Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: November Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02575/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Simon Avery Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Alterations to convert two dwellings into one no. 3 bedroom dwelling and erection of one no. 4 bedroom dwelling Location: Vine Cottage Sciviers Lane Lower Upham Hampshire Appendix C - 37 - PDC919
Item No: 8
Date of Inspector’s 6th Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: December Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/00752/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Mr Neil Mackintosh Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Erection of a dwelling to replace existing mobile home Location: Park Place Nurseries Titchfield Lane Wickham Fareham Hampshire PO17 5HB
Item No: 9
Date of Inspector’s 11th Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: November Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/00531/AVC Ref No: W Case Officer: Mrs Jill Lee Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: (Retrospective) 1 No. internally illuminated free standing double sided display unit alongside Texaco totem sign. Location: Workshop Rear Of Scotney Service Station Bullington Lane Sutton Scotney Winchester SO21 3LA Appendix C - 38 - PDC919
Item No: 10
Date of Inspector’s 11th Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: November Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/00758/AVC Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: 2.No internally illuminated free standing single sided display units. Location: Pitt Vale Service Station Romsey Road Pitt Winchester Hampshire SO22 5QN
Item No: 11
Date of Inspector’s 12th Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: November Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/00909/TPO Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: 1no. Oak 10% crown reduction on house side and 20% crown thin. Location: 1 Little Mead Denmead Waterlooville Hampshire PO7 6HS Appendix C - 39 - PDC919
Item No: 12
Date of Inspector’s 14th Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: December Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/00268/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Committee Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Demolition of existing sawmill and associated outbuildings and replacement with a new detached dwelling house together with new access and driveway Location: Totford Saw Mill Basingstoke Road Totford Hampshire
Item No: 13
Date of Inspector’s 22nd Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: December Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/00078/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Erection of poly tunnel (RETROSPECTIVE) Location: Church Meadows St Annes Lane Shedfield Hampshire
Appendix C - 40 - PDC919
Item No: 14
Date of Inspector’s 9th Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: December Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02633/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Nick Parker Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: New access drive Location: Watley Farm House Locks Lane Sparsholt Winchester Hampshire SO21 2LU
Item No: 15
Date of Inspector’s 2nd Inspector’s Application Withdrawn Decision: December Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure P Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/00416/LDC Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Use of land as garden (CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS) Location: 63 Collins Lane Hursley Winchester Hampshire SO21 2JX
Appendix C - 41 - PDC919
Item No: 16
Date of Inspector’s 13th Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: December Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 09/02564/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Variation of condition 04 of planning permission 06/00626/FUL to allow for an increase in the number of horses to 12 for the purpose of training and breeding at any time Location: Cherry Tree Stables Goscombe Lane Gundleton Alresford Hampshire SO24 9SP
Item No: 17
Date of Inspector’s 13th Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: December Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/01385/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Variation of condition no. 4 of 06/00626/FUL to allow for commercial training of 9 horses at any one time (RESUBMISSION) Location: Cherry Tree Stables Goscombe Lane Appendix C - 42 - PDC919
Gundleton Alresford Hampshire SO24 9SP
Item No: 18
Date of Inspector’s 7th Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: December Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure W Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/00294/AVC Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: Erection of free standing non illuminated sign at the vehicular entrance to the site Location: Createability Ltd Uplands House Micheldever Winchester Hampshire SO21 3BW
Item No: 19
Date of Inspector’s 18th Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: November Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure H Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/00967/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: (HOUSEHOLDER) Two storey side extension Location: 19 Bereweeke Way Appendix C - 43 - PDC919
Winchester Hampshire SO22 6BJ
Item No: 20
Date of Inspector’s 7th Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed Decision: December Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure H Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/01473/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: (HOUSEHOLDER) Balcony on rear elevation (RETROSPECTIVE) (RESUBMISSION) Location: 31 Sun Hill Crescent Alresford Hampshire SO24 9NJ
Item No: 21
Date of Inspector’s 7th Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: December Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure H Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/01122/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Elaine Walters Original Decision Type: Delegated Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at No Committee?
Proposal: (HOUSEHOLDER) Erection of detached twin bay garage Location: The Old Estate Cottage The Avenue Winchester Hill Appendix C - 44 - PDC919
Sutton Scotney Winchester SO21 3JN
Item No: 22
Date of Inspector’s 20th Inspector’s Appeal Allowed Decision: December Decision: 2010 Appeal Procedure H Costs: No Application for Costs (see code below): W – Written representation; I – Informal hearing; P – Public Inquiry; H - Householder
Case No: 10/01526/FUL Ref No: W Case Officer: Original Decision Type: Committee Decision (Planning Applications ONLY) Was Decision Overturned at Yes Committee?
Proposal: (HOUSEHOLDER) Demolition of existing single story side extension and erection of single story side and rear extension Location: 196 Stockbridge Road Winchester SO22 6RP
Summary of Inspector’s Decision
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of number 194, particularly with regard to visual impact. The Inspector noted that the outlook from the side window and door of 194 is on to the temporary structure and brick wall beyond. He added that on account of the narrow gaps between the dwellings and the slight step up to number 196 that the outlook is already very limited and much of the light comes from the second window in the rear elevation.
The inspector concluded that although the side extension would be slightly higher, this would not materially change the outlook so as to represent an increased sense of enclosure or over dominance, and that any reduction in light would be limited. The inspector also considered that although the rear extension would have French doors and that the boundary wall between number 194 and 196 is relatively low, this would not result in a significant loss of privacy when compared with the existing situation.