Civic Offices, Leigh Road, Eastleigh SO50 9YN

2000/01 Community Safety Preventing Crime and Disorder 2002/03 Fostering Business Growth 3 September 2010 2008/09 Tackling Climate Change

NOTICE OF MEETING

HEDGE END, WEST END AND BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE will meet on Monday, 13 September 2010 beginning at 7:00 pm in Hedge End 2000 Centre, St John's Road, Hedge End, SO30 4AF

TO: Councillor Rupert G M Kyrle (Chairman) Councillor David Goodall (Vice-Chairman) Councillor Louise Bloom BA (Hons) Councillor Daniel Clarke BA (Hons) PGCE Councillor Keith Day MA (Oxon) Councillor Mrs Cathie Fraser Councillor Keith House Councillor Mrs June Hughes Councillor Peter Hughes Councillor Tony Noyce Councillor Derek R Pretty Councillor Bruce Tennent BSc (Eng) MBA MIET 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 - 8) To consider the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 June 2010.

2. Apologies

3. Declarations of Interest Members are invited to declare interests in relation to items of business on the agenda. Any interests declared will be recorded in the Minutes.

4. Chairman's Report

5. Area Co-ordinator's Report

6. Presentation on Planning Guidelines

7. Planning Application - 47 Holly Gardens, West End (Pages 9 - 18) Ref. F/10/67471 - two storey front & single storey front extension with cellar

8. Planning Application - Ashdene, Moorhill Road, West End (Pages 19 - 28)

Ref: F/10/67617 – construction of 2no. 2 bed flats within a two storey block with a detached cycle and bin store and access from Moorhill Road

9. Planning Application - High Hill Field, Itchen Valley Country Park, Allington Lane, West End (Pages 29 - 34) Ref. F/10/67638 – installation of play equipment

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

(a) that the following appeals have been lodged:-

26 Chichester Close, Hedge End – appeal against refusal of application (Ref F/09/66130 – delegated decision) for construction of detached one bed bungalow with associated car parking and new access

The Piggeries, Allington Lane, West End – appeal against enforcement notice

6 St John’s Centre, Upper Northam Road, Hedge End – appeal against refusal of application (Ref F/10/66971 – Committee decision in line with officer recommendation) for change of use from retail (A1) to takeaway (A5), new shop front, 2no. air compressors and new flue

Roddington Forge, Allington Lane, West End – appeal against refusal of application (Ref A/10/66560 – delegated decision) for display of 2no. non- illuminated free standing signs

Longways, Burnetts Lane, West End – appeal against refusal of application (Ref F/10/67208 – delegated decision) for first floor extension

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

Land at Wildern Nature Reserve, rear of 62 Thistle Road, Hedge End – appeal against refusal of application (Ref T/10/66601 – delegated decision) for reduction of 3 oak trees by 2 - 3 metres on the south side

11. Allocation of Developers' Contributions (Pages 35 - 40)

12. Naming of Streets In West End and Hedge End (Pages 41 - 50)

13. Consultation on Future of Open Space between Harbourne Gardens and Duddon Close and Proposed Environmental Improvements (Pages 51 - 60)

14. Community Buildings Grant - Hilldene Community Centre, West End (Pages 61 - 64)

15. Grounds Maintenance Storage Facilities for West End Parish Council (Pages 65 - 68)

DATE OF NEXT MEETING Monday, 6 December 2010 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, 7 June 2010 (7:00 pm – 10:25 pm)

PRESENT:

Councillor Kyrle (Chairman); Councillors Clarke, Day, Mrs Fraser, Goodall, P Hughes, Noyce, Pretty, Tennent and Mrs Welsh

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bloom, House and Mrs Hughes

______

RESOLVED ITEMS (SUBJECT TO QUESTIONS ONLY)

1. MINUTES

RESOLVED -

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 April 2010 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors Tennent, Clarke and Day declared a personal interest in agenda item 13 (Extending Allotment Provision - West End and Hedge End). They are members of West End Parish Council.

Councillors Pretty, Mrs Welsh and P Hughes declared a personal interest in agenda item 13 (Extending Allotment Provision - West End and Hedge End). They are members of Hedge End Town Council.

Councillor Noyce declared a personal interest in agenda item 13 (Extending Allotment Provision - West End and Hedge End). He is a member of West End Parish Council and also an allotment holder.

3. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT

The Chairman reported on the following issues:

Itchen Valley Country Park: Following a Members’ meeting with the Countryside team, £400 had been allocated to ground works at West End Copse, £300 had been set aside for the Forest School volunteers to claim expenses and £470 had been allocated to improve signage and litter management. The Area Committee had also allocated £18,000 in its Community Investment Programme to underwrite the cost of new visitor interpretation panels and displays for children visiting the High Barn information centre.

1 2

The Green Flag assessors had visited the park on Wednesday 26 May 2010 and it was hoped that green flag status would be renewed later this year.

CCTV Camera System: £2,000 had been allocated from the district centres budget to fund the cost of upgrading and camera lenses for the CCTV camera system serving West End village centre, covering the High Street and Chapel Road.

Cranbourne Park Green Consultation: The Chairman was grateful to Councillors June and Peter Hughes and Councillor Jane Welsh, who had supported the recent consultation with Cranbourne Park residents on the provision of a goal post on the central green. It was understood that there had been a very successful “streetmeet” where local Members were able to talk directly to residents about their concerns. The conclusion of the consultation was that the goal post and kick-about screens would not be installed on the green because of the fear of anti-social behaviour and visual impact. Instead, the mini goal units had been offered to Hedge End Town Council so that they could be installed on the far side of the Rodaway recreation ground.

New Youth Shelters: After months of waiting, the Chairman was very pleased to confirm that the three portable youth shelters ordered by this Committee had now been installed. It was understood that the police were very pleased with the first few weeks of their operation as they had been able to monitor young people and encourage them to congregate in the youth shelters rather than in more public locations or play areas.

Members’ Meeting: The next Members’ meeting was scheduled for 6.30pm on Monday 21 June at the Civic Offices. The agenda was yet to be circulated but was likely to include attendance by Hampshire County Council transport engineers and with representatives from Southampton Primary Care Trust about future proposals on the Moorgreen Hospital site.

Environmental Improvements: An order had been placed to supply new heritage style seats and bins in Botley Square. A further four benches were to be installed in West End village and Hedge End in response to requests made by elderly residents.

4. AREA CO-ORDINATOR'S REPORT

The Area Co-ordinator reported on the following issues:

Transport Scheme Initiatives: Work had largely been completed on the provision of a pedestrian refuge on Moorgreen Road which gave a safer access to the West End surgery.

Contractors had made a start on the £120,000 pedestrian-controlled crossing scheme on Tollbar Way. Borough engineers were supervising the scheme, which would provide a safe pedestrian link between the

2 3

Marks & Spencer Retail Park and Hedge End Retail Park and McDonald’s restaurant.

An Arun shelter had now been installed on West End Road close to the Chalk Hill junction. The shelter, funded by public transport initiatives at a cost of £6,000, meant that all bus shelters in the West End parish were now Arun style, which had a much lower maintenance cost.

Challenge Project – Fairthorne Manor: Eleven young people between the ages of 8-12 years had successfully completed this year’s Fairthorne Manor challenge project. The 12 week project had culminated in an overnight camp and all the young people had received certificates and vouchers to acknowledge the completion of their course.

The course had been run in partnership with the police, the youth offending team and Hampshire County Youth Service, with £1,000 funding from both southern Area Committees. The Committee was grateful to the Hamble Valley Rotary Club, members of which had presented certificates and vouchers to all those who had completed the course, so that all eleven young people would be able to attend summer camps at Fairthorne Manor.

Dowd’s Farm Event: A successful community event had been held at Dowd’s Farm Park to celebrate the completion of the sculpture trail and the official opening of the play area, which was now managed by Hedge End Town Council. The event had attracted several hundred local residents, who were able to tour the parkland and see the five public art pieces that had now been installed by Adrian Mokes.

Park Sport: The annual Park Sport programme was being planned for the summer holidays and, thanks to Members, an additional £1,400 had been allocated so that some ‘girls only’ courses could be run in the local area, as well as some cricket events. A full programme was to be circulated when confirmation had been received. Friday night football had also been launched at Botley Parish Council’s multi-use games area. Twenty young people had attended the first session on Friday 28 May, which had been supervised by qualified FA coaches and NACRO outreach workers. The Committee was grateful to Botley Parish Council for free use of its facilities.

5. 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.

3 4

6. PLANNING APPLICATION - KINGS COPSE PRIMARY SCHOOL, KINGS COPSE ROAD, HEDGE END

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Control (Agenda Item 7) concerning an application for reserved matters pursuant to outline planning permission O/05/54780 for construction of 118 dwelling units with car parking, bin and cycle storage, open space, access road and landscaping (matters to be determined: appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and access) (Ref: R/09/66299).

RESOLVED -

That the reserved matters be APPROVED, subject to:

(1) The following additional conditions:

(a) All windows in the rear elevations of the flats on plots 46 - 55 inclusive (marked “obscure glazing” on drawings 09.22.132 Rev A and 09.22.133 Rev A) must be glazed with obscure glass and must be maintained in that condition. Reason: To preserve the amenity of the adjoining property; and

(b) The balconies in the rear elevations of the flats on plots 46 – 55 inclusive (as shown on drawings 09.22.132 Rev A and 09.22.133 Rev A) must be fitted with side screens in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved beforehand in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and these screens must be subsequently retained. Reason: To preserve the amenity of the adjoining property; and

(2) The recommended conditions and reasons.

(NOTE: Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and a representative from the applicant spoke in support of the application.)

7. PLANNING APPLICATION - DOWDS FARM, WELLSTEAD WAY, HEDGE END

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Control (Agenda Item 8) concerning an application for the construction of a community centre/worship hall with ancillary café, offices and classrooms, new vehicular access, car parking, landscaping and alterations to existing right of way, following felling of trees (Ref F/10/66882).

The Committee was advised that (a) an amended site layout plan had been received, but a further one had been requested; (b) a bat survey was

4 5

still required; (c) illustrative visuals had been received; (d) no objection had been received from the Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy, the Head of Transportation and Engineering, the Head of Environmental Health Services, the Disabled Access Officer or the Hampshire County Council Rights of Way Officer; and (e) the Head of Countryside and Recreation had no objection, subject to the receipt of a bat survey.

RESOLVED -

That the decision be DELEGATED to the Head of Development Control in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Ward Members, to PERMIT, subject to:

(1) The receipt of an amended site layout plan;

(2) The receipt of a bat survey of the farmhouse and surrounding trees;

(3) The following additional condition: “All windows and doors must be closed during band practice. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers”; and

(4) The recommended conditions and reasons.

(NOTE: One member of the public spoke in objection and one spoke with regard to the application and a representative from the applicant spoke in support.)

8. PLANNING APPLICATION - BOTLEY PARK HOTEL AND COUNTRY CLUB, WINCHESTER ROAD, BOTLEY

The Committee considered a report of the Head of Development Control (Agenda Item 9) concerning an application for new landscaping bunds and regrading works to holes 7 and 18 of the golf course (Ref: F/10/66934).

RESOLVED -

That permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that appropriate measures for sufficient disposal of surface water run-off are employed to ensure that an increase in surface water to residential curtilages detrimentally affecting amenity does not result from the proposal. This is contrary to Policy 45.ES of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011).

(NOTE: Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and two agents for the applicant spoke in support.)

5 6

9. PLANNING APPLICATION - BOTLEY PARK HOTEL AND COUNTRY CLUB, WINCHESTER ROAD, BOTLEY

The Committee considered a report of the Head of Development Control (Agenda Item 10) concerning an application for new landscaping bunds and regrading works to hole 1 of the golf course (Ref: F/10/66935).

RESOLVED -

That permission be GRANTED, subject to:

(1) The wording of Condition 9, concerning the timing of clearance/goundworks and the impact on reptiles and nesting birds, being checked by the Head of Development Control; and

(2) The recommended conditions and reasons.

(NOTE: Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the agent for the applicant spoke in support.)

10. PLANNING APPLICATION - 6 ST JOHNS CENTRE, ST JOHNS ROAD, HEDGE END

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Control (Agenda Item 11) concerning an application for change of use from retail (A1) to takeaway (A5), new shop front, 2no. air compressors and new flue (Ref: F/10/66971).

RESOLVED -

That permission be REFUSED for the recommended reason.

(NOTE: Two agents for the applicant spoke in support of the application.)

11. PLANNING APPEALS

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services reported:-

(a) that the following appeals had been lodged:-

Southbrook Farm, Brook Lane, Botley – appeal against refusal of application (Ref X/09/65938 - Committee decision in line with officer recommendation) for relief of conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission WIR 7932 to allow independent and unrestricted occupancy

62 Thistle Road, Hedge End – appeal against refusal of application (Ref T/10/66601 - delegated decision) for reduction of limbs of 3no. oak trees by 2-3m

6 7

5a St Johns Road, Hedge End – appeal against refusal of application (Ref A/10/66733 – delegated decision) for the display of 1no. internally illuminated fascia sign

The Piggeries, Allington Lane, West End – appeal against enforcement notice

(b) that the following appeal had been allowed:-

40 Marlborough Gardens, Hedge End – appeal against refusal of application (Ref F/09/65969 - delegated decision) for timber fence to front boundary

RESOLVED -

That the report be noted.

12. EXTENDING ALLOTMENT PROVISION - WEST END AND HEDGE END

Consideration was given to a report of the Area Co-ordinator, in consultation with the Clerks to West End Parish Council and Hedge End Town Council and the Head of Development Control, concerning the creation of up to 100 additional allotments in the local area.

It was recommended that grants using unallocated developer’s contributions be made to West End Parish Council to extend allotments at its Moorgreen Road site and to Hedge End Town Council to create a further 70 plots at its Kanes Hill site.

Updating the report, the Area Co-ordinator reported that Hedge End Town Council had started work on the extension of its allotments and that liaison was also taking place with Botley Allotment Association with a view to the provision of more allotments.

RESOLVED -

(1) That a grant of £10,300 to West End Parish Council using an unallocated developer’s contribution (OS 28141/10 McCarthy and Stone) be approved; and

(2) That a grant of £8,000 to Hedge End Town Council using unallocated developer’s contributions (OS/0554987 Warner Goodman Commercial and OS/0760658 D M and A G Taylor) be approved.

(NOTE: Councillors Clarke, Tennent, Noyce, Day, Hughes, Welsh and Pretty declared an interest in this item, remained in the room and voted.)

7 8

13. APPOINTMENTS TO OUTSIDE BODIES

RESOLVED -

That appointments to Outside Bodies for 2010/11 be made as follows:

Hedge End, West End and Botley Councillor Mrs C Fraser Community Safety Forum

Wildern Community Management Councillor K Day Committee

Wildern Education Trust Councillor K House

14. APPOINTMENTS TO REGULATORY PANEL, LAC SUB-GROUP, WORKING GROUP AND EASTLEIGH STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

RESOLVED -

That appointments for 2010/11 be made as follows:

Regulatory Panel That all members of the Committee be appointed to serve on the Local Area Regulatory Panel, as a ‘pool’ from which three Members could be called upon as required

LAC Sub-Group – Community Councillors Mrs Fraser, Goodall, Grants Kyrle and Pretty

Itchen Valley Country Park Councillors Mrs Fraser, Goodall, Working Group Kyrle, Noyce and Tennent

Eastleigh Strategic Partnership Councillor Goodall

M4272

8 Agenda Item 7

13/09/2010

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR DECISION

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY Monday 13 September 2010 Case Officer Nicola Reid

SITE: 47 Holly Gardens, West End, Southampton, SO30 3RU

Ref. F/10/67471 Received: 30/06/2010 (25/08/2010)

APPLICANT: Mr R Caws

PROPOSAL: Two storey front & single storey front extension with cellar

AMENDMENTS: None 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 materials to be used must match as closely as possible, in type, colour and texture, those on the existing building. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual relationship of the new development to the existing.

(3) No burning of materials obtained by site clearance or from any other source to take place on this site during the construction and fitting out process without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenity.

(4) 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.

(5) No construction, excavation or demolition work must take place except between the hours 0800 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays or 0900 to 1300 on

9 Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.

(6) Prior to the commencement of development details of the retaining structures for the cellar and the manner in which ground water is to be addressed shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development must accord with these approved details. Reason: In the interest of amenity.

(7) Detailed and plan of proposals for the disposal of foul and surface water shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The approved details shall be fully implemented before the building hereby approved is occupied. Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of foul and surface water drainage.

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:

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011, saved Policies. 59.BE

Under the Town and Country Planning [Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications][Amendment][England] Regulation 2008, a fee is now required for Discharge of Condition Applications. N.B. Conditions not fully discharged, invalidate the planning permission.

Report:

This application has been referred to Committee because it is considered to be contentious. A previous application, ref: F/10/66606, was considered by Members of the Hedge End, West End and Botley Local Area Committee in April 2010, the details of which are set out below.

10 The site and its surroundings

Description of application

1. This application seeks permission for the erection of two-storey and single storey extension to the front of the property and the creation of a cellar.

Site area

2. The site measures approximately 508.6 sqm.

Residential development (net)

3. n/a

Topography

4. The application site slopes downhill from west to east.

Trees

5. No trees would be affected by the proposed development.

Boundary treatment

6. Open frontage, 1.8m fencing along the boundary shared with No 33 Holly Gardens immediately south of the property.

Site characteristics

7. No 47 is a modern detached two-storey property, with a shared driveway providing access, on site parking and a detached double garage. The property occupies the corner position within a group of four properties.

Character of locality

8. Residential area comprising detached properties, some with integral garages and some with detached garages. There is a fairly uniform character in terms of the size and scale of the properties and the materials used.

Relevant planning history

9. Application F/10/66606 was submitted in February 2010, seeking permission for the construction of two-storey and single storey front extensions, a cellar and an extension to the existing garage with the raising of the roof to provide office space.

11 10. This application was considered by Members in April 2010 and permission was refused for the following reasons:

11. The proposed extensions to the dwelling and garage, due to their scale, design and position, will result in an unduly dominant and incongruous form of development, which is out of keeping with the scale and character of the original property, adversely affecting the appearance of the street scene and visual amenity of the area. As such, the proposals are contrary to the provisions of Policy 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011.

12. The proposed single storey front extension to the dwelling and alterations to the height and size of the garage, due to the combined scale, design and position, would result in the introduction of an overbearing built form that would create an adverse sense of enclosure and lead to a loss of outlook to the neighbouring properties, No 33 and No 45 Holly Gardens, to the detriment of the residential amenities of the properties. The proposals are therefore considered contrary to Policy 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 and Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Amenity in the Borough of Eastleigh.

Representations received

13. To date, 10 letters of objection have been received, raising the following concerns:

i. single storey front extension confines neighbouring properties, loss of outlook for No 33 Holly Gardens ii. size and nature of extensions has not altered from previous scheme which was refused, therefore remains unacceptable iii. unneighbourly and overbearing form of development and will have detrimental impact on amenity of neighbouring properties iv. overdevelopment of the site v. proposals are out of keeping with the scale and character of existing properties vi. concern re impact of water and mud arising from digging out for the cellar and subsequent drainage and subsidence vii. concern re possible damage from heavy lorries on site during construction phase viii. concerns re parking provision for construction workers and impact on existing residents in terms of access, traffic, congestion and pedestrian safety ix. concern re intended use of extensions in terms of increased business use and increase in associated parking, if approved x. would set precedent for future applications which would change entire estate

14. One letter of support has been received, making the following comments:

12

i. noticeable change to original application ii. as the proposals are for residential use, with no business use and will remain so in future, no objection

Consultation responses

15. The Head of Environmental Health has raised no objections to the proposals and has requested condition relating to hours of work and no burning on site be attached to any permission.

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

i. loss of amenity to neighbouring properties ii. design and layout would result in the introduction of an unduly prominent and unsympathetic building which would be detrimental to the street scene iii. concern that a business is being run from the property and the parking of commercial vehicles is already causing a loss of amenity to neighbours.

17. BAA has raised no objection to the proposals, stating that the proposals have been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and do not conflict with safeguarding criteria.

Policy context: designation applicable to site

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

Development plan policies

• Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011): 59.BE • Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Amenity in the Borough of Eastleigh. • Supplementary Planning Document: Parking

Planning policy guidance / statement

18. PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development

Policy commentary

19. The above policies combine to form the criteria on which this application will be assessed with particular regard to the impact on the character and appearance of the locality, impact on street scene and the impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.

13 Comment on consultation responses

20. Please see report below.

Comment on representations received

21. The planning matters raised, including the visual impact, impact on neighbouring properties and business use within a residential area are all discussed in the assessment section below.

Assessment of proposal: Development plan and / or legislative background

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

Principle

23. The site falls within the Urban Edge as designated in the Local Plan, where the principle of development is acceptable provided proposals comply with relevant Local Plan policies. The relevant policy in this case is 59.BE, which aims to promote good design and ensure that any development takes full and proper account of the context of the site including the character and appearance of the locality and is appropriate in mass, scale, layout, design, siting and materials both in themselves and in relation to adjoining buildings, spaces and views. It also seeks to ensure that development avoids unduly interfering, disturbing or conflicting with adjoining or nearby uses.

Character, Appearance & Residential Amenity

24. The current proposals have been revised following the refusal of the earlier application, with the proposed extensions and alterations to the detached garage having been removed from the scheme.

25. The proposed single storey and two-storey front extensions remain unchanged in terms of their scale and design and the additional space would provide an extended lounge and family room at ground floor level, and an enlarged bedroom and landing area at first floor level.

26. The proposed single storey extension would project approximately 4.5m from the existing front elevation maintaining the existing building line along the side elevation. There would be approximately 3.8m between the front elevation of the extension and the existing detached garage, which is considered to be more appropriate in terms of the visual appearance of the proposals within the context of the site and the surrounding street scene.

14

27. Under the previous application, the combination of the single storey extension and the extensions to, and increased roof area of, the existing garage were considered to be unacceptable, in terms of both the design and scale of the resulting built form and its relationship to neighbouring properties, and the concerns raised by local residents in respect of the current proposals are duly noted.

28. With the alterations to the garage now removed from the scheme, it is considered that the proposed single storey extension is more acceptable in terms of its relationship to its surroundings and in terms of its scale and form.

29. The proposed two-storey extension measures 2.1m in depth and is sympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing property and would not result in any detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties. The overall design is appropriate and conditions can be attached to ensure that the building materials match those of the existing property.

30. In terms of the relationship to No 33 Holly Gardens, which lies to the south, it is not considered that the proposed extension would have an unacceptable impact in terms of loss of outlook. There would be approximately 11m separation between the side elevation of the extension and the rear of No 33 with the roof of the extension pitching away from the common boundary between the two properties. In addition, the retention of a meaningful gap between the proposed extension and the existing garage means that the proposals would not result in any adverse sense of enclosure or overbearing impact to No 33.

31. The proposed extension would have two roof lights in the southern roof slope (towards no.33 Holly Gardens) but these windows would be positioned well above eye level and as such, it is not considered that the proposals would result in any increased risk of overlooking to the neighbouring properties to the south.

32. The omission of the previous proposed garage alterations ensures the current proposals comply with the guidance contained within Policy 59.BE of the Local Plan Review (2001-2011).

33. The concerns raised by local residents in terms of a possible increased business use at the property and additional traffic associated with this use are noted. However, the submitted plans do not indicate that the additional accommodation is to be used for anything other than residential living space. The dwelling already meets the parking standards for a 4 bedroom dwelling and no further parking is therefore required for this development.

15 34. Drainage and structural conditions are recommended to ensure the site suitably drained and soundly constructed without causing harm to the immediate locality.

35. A condition is recommended in respect to hours of construction and the provision of a temporary contractor’s storage and car parking areas.

Planning obligation /considerations

36. Planning obligations are not required in respect of this proposal.

Other material considerations

37. 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

38. In light of the comments made above, it is considered that the revised scheme satisfactorily addresses the previous reasons for refusal and complies with the guidance contained within Policy 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011). As such, it is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the agenda.

16 Cemetery 18 42

26

24

5

5

1 7

30 20 6 HOLLY GARDENS 4 2

7 4

ENS 1 5 ARD E G

LIM

7

4

1 3

1

1

7 35

31 1

1

5 1 9

9

2

9

1

0

7 2 BA RB E B AKE R AVE NU 5 E CHESTNUT

CLOSE 1

S

N

E

D

R 1

A

G

7 4 1 1

M

A

E 4 B

N 2

R

O 2 1 H

6

1 1

0 1

1

7 6

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 SU4615SE proceedings. Licence No. 100019622 (2010) Development Control Date 02/09/2010

17 This page is intentionally left blank

18 Agenda Item 8

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY Monday 13 September 2010 Case Officer Narinder Phagura

SITE: Ashdene, Moorhill Road, West End, SOUTHAMPTON, SO30 3AZ

Ref. F/10/67617 Received: 23/07/2010 (21/09/2010)

APPLICANT: c/o Mr R Wiles PROPOSAL: Construction of 2no. 2 bed flats within a two storey block with a detached cycle & bin store & access from Moorhill Road

AMENDMENTS: None RECOMMENDATION:

REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(1) The proposed development fails to provide satisfactory off road parking provision and on site turning space, being detrimental to highway safety and as such the development is contrary to Policies 59.BE (v) and 104.T of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011.

(2) The proposed development, by reason of its size, siting and design would result in the introduction of an overbearing built form that would create an adverse sense of enclosure leading to a loss of outlook and overshadowing to the neighbouring property, Kyrenia, to the detriment of the residential amenities of the property. The proposals are therefore considered contrary to Policy 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) and guidance contained in the Borough's Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Amenity.

(3) The proposed frontage parking area, by reason of its size, design and relationship to the proposed ground floor flat and existing property Ashdene, would represent an unneighbourly form of development, resulting in the loss of outlook to these properties The proposals would also represent development that is out of character with the area and as such, the proposals are contrary to Policy 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011).

(4) The proposal does not make contributions towards the provision of essential off-site open space works, community infrastructure, sustainable transport works or affordable housing. The proposals are therefore contrary to saved policies 74.H, 101.T, 147.OS and 191.IN of Eastleigh

19 Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011, the adopted Supplementary Planning Documents on 'Planning Obligations' and 'Affordable Housing', the provisions of Government Circular 05/05 and PPG13: Transport.

(5) The proposed cycle and bin store by reason of its siting is considered to result in a visually intrusive form of development that will be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area, as such is contrary to Policy 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011.

Report:

This application has been referred to Committee by the Head of Development Control.

Description of application

1. The application seeks permission for the construction of a detached two storey building that would consist of 2no 2 bed flats with a new vehicular access from Moorhill Road. The building would be sited in the side garden of Ashdene, where the plot would be separated by fencing. The proposals show a communal amenity area for the flats to the rear of the building and frontage parking for 2no. cars and a bin/cycle store fronting Moorhill Road.

Site area

2. 617.4 square metres

Residential development (net)

3. 48 d/ha

Topography

4. Relatively flat site although there is a raised bank along the rear boundary of the application site.

Trees

5. Mature trees along the rear boundary and some small trees on the site, no trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

Boundary treatment

6. A mix of close boarded fencing, mature trees and hedging. At present, there is a security fence across the site frontage.

20

Site characteristics

7. Ashdene is a two storey semi detached property currently unoccupied, with an existing vehicular access from Moorhill Road. The property has large side and rear gardens with an existing brick outbuilding to the rear.

Character of locality

8. Residential, the area is characterised by a mix of detached, semi detached and rows of small terraced properties.

Relevant planning history

9. Z/37428/001/00 - TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND CONVERSION OF EXISTING DWELLING TO FOUR FLATS – WDN 2005

10. Z/37428/000/00 - TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE IN REAR GARDEN AND ALTERATIONS TO ACCESS – PER 2001

Representations received

11. Three letters have been received on the application objecting to the development on the following grounds; overdevelopment, out of character, highway safety, inadequate on site parking, excessive density, plans inaccurate/out of date, no change in ownership as implied within submission, the state of Ashdene is affecting neighbouring properties, welcome opportunity to restore Ashdene to family home, no plans to show extensions to Ashdene, new garden for Ashdene would be inappropriate, cycle store would emphasis development of flats, no private space shown for occupants only communal, restoration of Ashdene must be priority, of light to habitable rooms, visually intrusive development.

Consultation responses

12. Head of Housing and Environmental Health did not object to the development subject to amenity protection conditions that would cover hours of work, no burning and control of dust.

13. West End Parish Council objected to the development on the grounds of size and design is an overdevelopment and would be visually intrusive, unneighbourly and detrimental to the amenities of adjacent properties, Ashton and Kyrenia, inadequate car parking spaces for the proposed development.

21 14. Head of Transportation and Engineering objected to the development on the grounds of inadequate vehicular parking, making the following comments;

15. Transport Policy Officer:

16. There are only two vehicle parking spaces proposed for this development, which falls well below the standards required. On road parking would be discouraged due to obvious issues of overtaking at this point which have been highlighted by the solid white line carriageway marking. Any on-road parking would simply increase the need for overtaking, and so increase potential highway accident risks. The minimum requirement for 2x2 bed flats and 1x3 bed dwelling is 5 vehicle spaces, and this is only if more than 50% of the spaces are unallocated and remain so by condition. I would recommend six spaces however in order to accommodate visitors also. If this parking provision can be demonstrated via appropriate drawings, I would be happy to review my objection accordingly. In regard to other highway aspects - visibility / refuse and emergency access / cycle parking, I am happy that these accord to current standards and are acceptable. Developer contributions would be required as a result of development, and these would be calculated in accordance to the HCC Transport Contributions Policy. The three bed dwelling would not attract contributions as it is already in situ; however the two two-beds would. The standard contribution is £3,745 per additional two-bed dwelling, which equates to a total contribution of £7,490 paid towards sustainable transport.

17. DC Engineer comments:

18. The previous started but abandoned scheme for site had more parking as I recall. With this location on A27 where parking on carriageway cannot take place, overspill parking may be attempted on the frontage footway/verge or on the grass verges opposite side of A27. This would lead to vehicles bumping off the carriageway causing potential kerb damage and erosion of grass areas.

19. An amended scheme is needed providing sufficent off road parking for all three properties and turning space.

20. Crime Prevention Design Advisor did not object to the development.

Policy context: designation applicable to site

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

Development plan policies

22 • Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) Saved Policies. 59.BE, 100.T, 104.T, 101.T, 104.T, 147.OS, 191.IN • Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Amenity in the Borough of Eastleigh. • Supplementary Planning Guidance: Storage and Collection of Domestic Waste & Recyclable Materials • Supplementary Planning Document: Planning Obligations

Planning policy guidance / statement

• PPG13 – Transport • PPS 1 – Delivering sustainable development • PPS 3 – Housing

Policy commentary

21. The above policies combine to form the criteria on which this application will be assessed with particular regard to principle, scale, design and layout, residential amenity, highway matters and planning obligations.

Comment on consultation responses

22. Please see below

Comment on representations received

23. Please see below

Assessment of proposal: Development plan and / or legislative background

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

25. The proposal is considered to conflict with the relevant Development Plan policies.

Principle

26. Central Government planning guidance set out in PPS 3 ‘Housing’ supports the principle of providing new housing within urban areas, making efficient use of under developed land. The new Government has abolished the need to achieve a minimum density for urban sites and omits residential gardens from the definition of ‘brownfield sites’. Greater emphasis is now to be placed on ensuring the key characteristics of the site and its host environment are protected and

23 not on maximising the development potential for a site.

27. The site is located within the urban edge and is bound by residential properties. It is located within a medium accessibility area and on a bus route, with relatively good pedestrian and cycle links to nearby facilities. 28. The character of the area is of two storey housing located within medium sized plots with private gardens. Whilst the principle of development on this site is acceptable, an intensification of development in the proposed built form is not considered to be in keeping with this character of the locality.

Scale, design and layout

29. Policy 59.BE requires development to take full and proper account of the context of the site, including the character of the locality or neighbourhood, and for proposals to 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.

30. The scale and design of the building is considered to be sympathetic to the character of the area. The building would sit at the height of the existing properties and give the appearance of a detached house. The materials would reflect those that are used on adjoining properties.

31. The private amenity space provided for the new flats would comply with the size standard as set out in the Borough’s Supplementary Guidance on Residential Amenity. The communal arrangement is considered to represent an acceptable arrangement as this would maintain the pattern of surrounding garden areas. The resulting narrow garden to serve Ashdene however is considered to be out of character with this pattern of development.

32. The development proposes an excessive area of hard standing to the property frontage to accommodate the parking, access and cycle/bin provision. With limited areas of landscaping proposed, the development would erode an existing green feature within the road and be visually intrusive and out of character with the area. The cycle and bin store would be visually prominent to the front of the site and it would be better to see this building located to the side or rear of the site.

Residential amenity

33. Policy 59.BE (vii) requires new development to be an appropriate use and avoid unduly conflicting with adjoining uses through, amongst other criteria, overlooking, loss of light and loss of outlook. Further guidance on this is provided within the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential Amenity.

24 34. The development would be sited approximately 2.6m from the side of the neighbouring property Kyrenia. A light test carried out in accordance with the Borough’s SPG on Residential Amenity demonstrates that there would be a detrimental loss of light to the kitchen area of this property, as the ground floor side window is the sole window serving this room and giving consideration to the orientation of buildings. In addition, with the relatively small distance between properties the development would result in the loss of outlook to this room and represent a visually dominant and overbearing built form.

35. The frontage hard standing and parking area is not considered to represent a neighbourly form of development. Cars would be parked right up to the property frontages, both for the existing property Ashdene and potential occupiers of the new ground floor flat resulting in a loss of outlook to these properties.

Highway matters

36. Policy 100.T of the Local Plan supports development provided, amongst other criteria, it can be well served by public transport, cycling and walking and it includes measures to minimise its impact on the existing road network. Policy 104.T requires development to provide adequate off-road car parking up to the maximum adopted standard.

37. The Head of Transportation and Engineering has raised an objection on grounds of inadequate parking and turning provision for the site stating that the proposals should accommodate a total of 6 car spaces to serve the existing property Ashdene and the new development. The 6 spaces would take into account visitor spaces along this busy road where on road parking is not encouraged.

Planning obligation /considerations

38. Under the provisions of Circular 05/2005, saved policies 101.T 147.OS, 191.IN of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 and the guidance set out in the background paper Supplementary Planning Document (SPD): ‘Planning Obligations and the use of Developers’ Contributions’ contributions are sought to offset the impact of the proposal on local infrastructure. For this development contributions are sought towards Community Infrastructure, Sustainable Transport and Public Open Space.

39. The applicant has been made aware of this requirement but no contributions have been received or legal agreement for the payment of these contributions entered into.

Other material considerations

25 40. The inaccuracies of the plan relate to the existing location plan submitted with the application. As the site plan has been updated to show the buildings currently on site, new plans have not been required or requested.

41. The land ownership of the site is being clarified with the agent. It is believed that the ownership of the site has not changed.

42. The design and access statement refers to the refurbishment of the existing property at Ashdene, which has been in a state of disrepair for over 15 years. As the refurbishment works do not constitute development, they have not been included within the considerations of this application.

Conclusion

43. In light of the above comments, it is recommended to refuse the application on grounds of inadequate on site parking and turning provision, cycle and bin store being visually intrusive, loss of light and visually dominant development detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring property at Kyrenia, unneighbourly form of development to the new flats and existing property at Ashdene, resulting garden to serve Ashdene being out of pattern with the surrounding development and lack of developer contributions.

26 Grey-Dene

Tytherley

Winstan

76.5m 2 8

Tynedale 80.8m

The Fairways 7 TCB 6 1 4

LB 8

1

7 0 Reservoir

Telegraph Cottage 71.0m A 2 7 1 The Nest F

2 F

1

6 0

Yew Tree 5 rt F u W 6 o Cottage C n to g in

8 Ov

7 High Firs 2 House Naini

1 Tal M 1 O

1 O R

2 T H

IC 9 D Kyrenia I

e L 4 H B f L O R 11 R

N O 6 E R A O

A 13 D 8 D Ashdene Moorhill

Ashton

0 Hill 1 Crest

Aripo

F F

4 A

1 2 3 2 7

6

1

2

7 3

1 ge tta 11 Co ak O tle Lit d oo ew Ny a P St p b g u l S S 1 E t 3 a Reservoir (covered)

f e

D

6 1 1

S EN B 2 D R 3 R A 9a GA M 2 T D O E O A F

N EL 1 R S O A A H D 2 2 5 7

2 9

3

1

2

2 7

F F C F 3 3

3 7

3 9 9 13 11

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 SU4713NW proceedings. Licence No. 100019622 (2010) Development Control Date 02/09/2010

27 This page is intentionally left blank

28 Agenda Item 9

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY Monday 13 September 2010 Case Officer Andy Grandfield

SITE: High Hill Field, Itchen Valley Country Park, Allington Lane, West End, SO30 3HQ

Ref. F/10/67638 Received: 26/07/2010 (20/09/2010)

APPLICANT: Mr R Ward

PROPOSAL: Installation of play equipment

AMENDMENTS: None 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.

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 adjoining uses or nature conservation 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:

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011, saved Policies. 1.CO, 59.BE, 160.TA

This application has been referred to Committee because it is a Council application

29 The site and its surroundings

Description of application

1. Construction of a piece of play/climbing equipment called “Admiral’s Lookout” within the High Hill play area. The equipment is 5.1m high and 3.9m in diameter and would be constructed of timber and rope.

2. Planning permission is required because the height of the equipment exceeds that allowed under permitted development. The application has been submitted on behalf of The Head of Countryside and Trees by The Head of Legal and Democratic Services.

Site area

3. 25 sqm

Residential development (net)

4. Not applicable

Topography

5. Flat

Trees

6. No trees within the site but mature woodland to the west.

Boundary treatment

7. Post and rail with chain link fencing enclosing the whole play area.

Site characteristics

8. A current play area comprising of various pieces of equipment. The other pieces of equipment are to be replaced under the Council’s permitted development rights.

Character of locality

9. Located within the Itchen Valley Country Park.

Relevant planning history

10. Go Ape high wire adventure course – Permitted July 2010

11. Flag Pole to display Green Flag award consented 2009. Various other permissions including dipping pond, amenity building, car parks, storage barn and visitors centre since 1990.

30

Representations received

12. 1 objection on grounds of being an inappropriate location, impact on local residents and impact on wildlife.

13. Period for comment expires 25 August 2010.

Consultation responses

14. West End Parish Council – no objection.

Policy context: designation applicable to site

• Outside Built-Up Area Boundary • Adjacent Site Of Nature Conservation Interest

Development plan policies

• Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) 1.CO, 59.BE, 160.TA • Supplementary Planning Document: Biodiversity.

Planning policy guidance / statement

• PPS – 7

Policy commentary

15. The above policies combine to form the criteria on which this application will be assessed with particular regard to amenity, nature conservation and trees

Comment on consultation responses

16. Nothing to report

Comment on representations received

17. This is an existing play area and a totally appropriate location for such a piece of equipment. There is no impact on wildlife or residential amenity (see below for further explanation).

Assessment of proposal: Development plan and / or legislative background

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

31 19. 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 ensure it is appropriate in scale, design, siting and materials. It also requires development to relate well to trees worthy of retention and not to cause undue disturbance of adjoining uses.

20. Policy 160.TA supports improvements to existing leisure and tourism facilities within the countryside subject to meeting the criteria set out in other policies on landscape/nature conservation and archaeological, does not involve the construction of large structures, and where a structure is required it should be essential to an open tourism use and close to existing buildings.

21. The proposal is considered to comply with these policies in that it would be within an existing outdoor play area, located with other equipment and would form part of an overall enhancement programme for the entire play area. Noise and activities associated with the use of the equipment would not be expected to be any greater or different to that currently experienced through the use of the existing play equipment. The use of the equipment would not be harmful or disturbing to other users of the park or neighbouring land uses.

22. The new play equipment will be located within the boundary of the existing play area, and the existing bark chipping surface will be retained. The play area itself contains no habitat of any value to wildlife, and is surrounded on 3 sides by amenity grass of very little wildlife value.

23. To the west is a narrow strip of rough grass and brambles which is beginning to be colonised by scrub. This separates the play area from the adjacent woodland which is a coniferous plantation on the site of ancient woodland and is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). These areas have some potential to support reptiles and common breeding birds but will not be physically affected by the development. Furthermore the existing play area is heavily used by children and these adjacent areas are therefore already subject to a high level of disturbance, limiting their use by birds in particular. The redevelopment of the play area will therefore not have any adverse effect on nature conservation.

24. There are no archaeological areas of interest that would be affected by this development.

25. The materials are appropriate for this play area.

Planning obligation /considerations

26. Not applicable

Other material considerations

27. 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.

32

Conclusion

28. The application complies with the requirements of policies 1.CO, 59.BE and 160.TA of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001 - 2011) and is recommended for approval.

33

Itchen Valley Country Park

Play

Area

h

t

a P

Tr ack

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 SU4616SW proceedings. Licence No. 100019622 (2010) Development Control Date 02/09/2010

34 Agenda Item 11

HEDGE END, WEST END AND BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday 13 September 2010

ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPERS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

Joint Report of the Head of Transportation & Engineering with the Head of Development Control

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that this Committee approve:

(1) The allocation of Developers’ Contributions held within this Committee’s CIP Programme for feasibility and implementation of prioritised transport schemes, as listed in Appendix 1.

(2) The allocation and spend of £26,700 (£10,100 EBC/£16,600 HCC) for TSI 371, Moorgreen Road, West End – Pedestrian Crossing and associated Footway Resurfacing.

Summary

Following the approval and prioritisation of local highway priorities in 2009 a review of progress and priorities was undertaken at the Members Team Meeting on 21 June 2010. The Head of Transportation & Engineering and the Head of Development Control, in consultation with the Local Area Co-ordinator and County officers, have updated and matched Developers’ Contributions with local transport schemes. These contributions consist of those currently unallocated; residual amounts remaining from completed schemes; and the reallocation of contributions allocated to schemes found to be unfeasible at this stage.

Once all or part of the funding is identified, priority transport schemes can be progressed to feasibility and costed. Implementation will depend on successful detailed design and assembling sufficient capital contributions either from Eastleigh Borough Council or Hampshire County Council receipts and when schemes are below £25,000 in value they will proceed using delegated powers.

These receipts against schemes will be monitored by the Head of Financial Services.

In the case of TSI 371 – Moorgreen Road, the scheme exceeds the £25,000 delegated powers limit and therefore Hedge End, West End & Botley Local Area Committee are requested to approve this spend of £27,000 accordingly.

Eastleigh Borough Council

35 Statutory Powers

Section 2 Local Government Act 2000.

Introduction

1. The approval sought from this Committee relates to the release of unallocated Developers’ Contributions held by Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) to fund local transport schemes.

2. On Monday, 21st June 2010 Members from this Committee participated in a Transport Scheme Inventory Review and identified a number of local schemes for implementation which were:

(i) Bursledon Road 30mph Gateway; (ii) Additional funding for the Wildern Park and Stride route (Budgens car park to Wildern School); and (iii) Off-street parking provision to serve the play area and open space at Botleigh Lakeside.

3. Eastleigh Borough Council holds Developers’ Contributions up to a value of £10,000 and contributions greater than £10,000 are held by Hampshire County Council (HCC). The matching process has aimed to make use of the smaller contributions held by EBC in order to progress transport schemes, topped up and in conjunction with additional Developers’ Contributions held by HCC. This has required close partnership working with HCC, which has benefited from having an agreed list of prioritised transport schemes as listed in the Transport Scheme Inventory (TSI), which has been prioritised by Members of this Committee.

4. The local transport schemes that are being considered for funding by EBC held Developers’ Contributions are, in the main, those that were given high priority by Members. Consideration has also been given to the ease of implementation, other funding sources available (HCC held funds) and ensuring the Developers’ Contributions are being used in accordance with their agreements.

5. With funding approved, schemes can be programmed for feasibility and progressed to implementation where appropriate, benefiting from more streamlined implementation processes that EBC and HCC have developed.

6. It is requested that TSI 371 is given Local Area Committee approval to proceed at a cost of £26,700 (£10,100 EBC/£16,600 HCC) as it exceeds the £25,000 limit for delegated powers.

Financial Implications - Capital

7. Where there is a capital shortfall in available contributions a proposed project may be topped up with funds allocated from this Committee’s Reserves, the

Eastleigh Borough Council

36 CIP, grants, joint funding sources or HCC capital or minor works programmes, if it can be demonstrated that the scheme still offers value for money.

Financial Implications - Revenue

8. Any other schemes completed on the highway will be adopted by the HCC for ongoing maintenance.

Monitoring and Implementation

9. Subject to the approval of allocations in Appendix 1, the Head of Financial Services will set up a separate monitoring process with this Committee’s Community Investment Programme (CIP). Each scheme will be allocated its own project reference and budget, which can be used for feasibility and detailed design. Once schemes are designed and fully costed, HCC may be invited to contribute additional funding where available and appropriate.

Risk Assessment

10. Many of the schemes listed will need detailed feasibility to identify the exact cost and implementation issues including local consultation, all of which poses a risk to delivery.

Equality and Diversity Implications

11. It is anticipated that the implementation of the prioritised local transport schemes listed in Appendix 1 will ultimately produce very practical improvements to local highway infrastructure. No formal equal opportunities assessment has been completed, however, consideration has been given to the elderly and disabled as well as young families. These groups in particular should benefit from the provision of enhanced networks of dropped kerbs, cycling routes, safe crossing points and speed reduction measures.

Conclusions

12. The approved funding allocations will ensure that EBC in partnership with HCC continues to have an up-to-date forward programme of feasibility and implementation, which consists of local transport schemes prioritised by this Committee.

13. Subject to the recommendations being approved progress on implementation of the Bursledon Road 30mph Gateway, additional parking provision at Botleigh Lakeside and upgrading of the western side of the Wildern Lane footpath between Budgens car park and Wildern School.

ED VOKES Head of Transport and Engineering

COLIN PETERS Head of Development Control

Eastleigh Borough Council

37 Date: 21 July 2010 Contact Officer: Matt Grantham Tel No: 023 8068 8195 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: No. 1 – Allocation of Developers’ Contributions for Hedge End, West End and Botley to prioritised local transport schemes. Report No: EN1138

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:

None

Eastleigh Borough Council

38

Appendix 1

HEWEB Contribution Reference Amount Suggested Allocation Priority Existing / Contracted use

TR F/09/65103 Drew Smith Ltd, Land £ TSI 179 - Bursledon Road Speed MED Unallocated Sustainable Transport r/o 28 Upper St Helens Road, Hedge End 3,897.91 reduction Gateway Feature E9043006 St Johns Road Gateway & TR 26063/006 Mr W Cartmel Re: 66 St £ TSI 473 - Wildern Lane footway HIGH Highway Improvements - Scheme Johns Road, Hedge End 228.01 improvements (Wildern Park & Stride) Completed E9043006 St Johns Road Gateway & TR F/06/57800 Mr Gardner Re: Land £ TSI 473 - Wildern Lane footway HIGH Highway Improvements - Scheme North of St Johns Road, Hedge End 2,728.63 improvements (Wildern Park & Stride) Completed E9043006 St Johns Road Gateway & TR F/07/59024 N Valentine Re: 14 St £ TSI 473 - Wildern Lane footway HIGH Highway Improvements - Scheme Johns Road, Hedge End 5,485.26 improvements (Wildern Park & Stride) Completed

TR 40561 Foreman Homes, Re. rear of £ TSI 473 – Wildern Lane footway E9033055 Hedge End Transport HIGH 62-64 Lower Northam Road, H End 3,111.79 improvements (Wildern Park & Stride) Initiatives

E9013065 Botley Rd/Bus Shelter, TR 40020/001 Brookton 200 Ltd., Re. £ TSI 473 – Wildern Lane footway HIGH Footway to Cycleway & Pedestrian 30-36 Botley Road, H End 88.39 improvements (Wildern Park & Stride) Refuge (10.4) E9013065 Botley Rd/Bus Shelter, TR 52318 Site B2 Hamilton Business £ TSI 473 – Wildern Lane footway HIGH Footway to Cycleway & Pedestrian Park, Botley Road, H End 2,318.75 improvements (Wildern Park & Stride) Refuge (10.4) TR 51969 Barratt Re: Dental Surgery £ TSI 490 - Re-instatement of parking Site, Beneath Plots 63 to 66, Lakeside HIGH E9033055 Hedge End Transport 2,105.93 provision at Fawn Crescent Development, Grange Road, Hedge End TSI 502 - Missing section of cycleway on TSI 398 T9053029 ITI (2.3.09) TR C/07/59322 Mr Bartlett Re: 1 & 2 £ Swaythling Road between Cutbush Lane HIGH Swaythling Rd - New Footway link to Gaters Mill, Mansbridge Road, West End 1,382.57 and Townhill Way existing bus shelter - HCC Completing

DC 37905/001 Barratt re: land north of £ TSI 490 – Fawn Crescent parking SINC land contribution (developer in HIGH Botleigh Grange Hotel, H End 6,159.48 reinstatement agreement with use)

39 Eastleigh Borough Council

This page is intentionally left blank

40 Agenda Item 12

HEDGE END WEST END & BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday 13 September 2010

NAMING OF STREETS IN HEDGE END AND WEST END

Report of the Head of Transportation and Engineering

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the names Hindmarch Crescent, Minchim Acres, Warner Close and Watson Court be approved as names for new streets in Hedge End and Rostron Close for a street in West End.

Summary

The report recommends the following names for new streets: Hindmarch Crescent, Minchim Acres, Warner Close and Watson Court for Hedge End and Rostron Close for West End.

Statutory Powers

Town Improvement Clauses Act 1847, Section 65 and Public Health Act, 1925, Section 19 and the Local Government Act 1972, Section 111.

Introduction

1. Street names are needed for new developments in the area so as properties can be given a locational address.

2. The proposed names are:

Hedge End: Minchim Acres and Warner Close for roads on part of Dowds Farm; and Hindmarch Crescent and Watson Court for roads on the development adjacent to Kings Copse School.

West End: Rostron Close for a road on the former scaffolding depot site in Chalk Hill.

3 The new names are not in use locally and provide a reminder of people and times past in the local communities. The concept behind the choice of names is:

Hindmarch Crescent - The Hindmarch family were well known in the Hedge End community and in 1992 Greta Hindmarch was awarded the ‘Citizen of Honour’ by the Borough Council.

Eastleigh Borough Council

41 Minchim Acres - For road overlooking park and lake. Henry Minchim was shown as a resident of Botley Grange in 1802, the location of Hedge End’s first lake.

Warner Close - James Warner was a Hedge End landowner shown on the 1838 Tithe map.

Watson Court - 1919 – 2008 - Don Watson was a well respected Hedge End Town Councillor. He was a Full Council Chairman 1990 – 1991, Chairman of the Recreation and Amenities Committee for many years and a Secretary of Hedge End Cricket Club.

Rostron Close – Captain Sir Arthur Henry Rostron KBE, RD, RNR (1869 – 1940) was Captain for the Cunard Line. He was Master of the ocean liner RMS Carpathia when it rescued survivors of RMS Titanic in 1912. He lived in Chalk Hill and his grave is in the cemetery in West End Road.

Consultation

4. Hedge End Town Council has raised no objections to the Hedge End names. The names were suggested by local Councillors in consultation with Hedge End Town Council.

5. West End Parish Council has no objection to Rostron Close, which was suggested by West End Local History Society.

6. Royal Mail has no objections.

7. Mrs Watson, former Mayor of Eastleigh Borough Council and the widow of Don Watson would be pleased for a road to be named after her late husband.

Financial Implications

8. The provision of new nameplates would initially be funded by the developer. Subsequent maintenance and replacement when the roads are adopted would be funded by the Local Area Committee’s devolved budget for street nameplates.

Equality and Diversity Implications

9 An equal opportunities assessment has not been carried out because the report does not contain proposals for significant changes to existing services, policies or strategies and does not introduce any new services, policies or strategies.

Conclusion

10. It is recommended that the street names proposed are approved.

ED VOKES Head of Transportation and Engineering

Eastleigh Borough Council

42

Date: 26 August 2010 Contact Officer: Eric Reed Tel No: 023 8068 8233 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 1 No Location Plan Report No: EN1141

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:

None

Eastleigh Borough Council

43 This page is intentionally left blank

44 45 46 47 48 49 This page is intentionally left blank

50 Agenda Item 13

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday 13 September 2010

CONSULTATION ON FUTURE OF OPEN SPACE BETWEEN HARBOURNE GARDENS AND DUDDON CLOSE AND PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS

Report of the Area Co-ordinator in consultation with the Principal Valuer, Head of Development Control & Head of Direct Services

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that this Committee:

(1) Notes the results of the recent community consultation and endorses Cabinet action to decline Foreman Homes Ltd’s offer to purchase the land;

(2) Approves the retention and improvement of the open space, which should be designated as “Chartwell Green”;

(3) Notes suggestions and ideas for local environmental improvements and approves a range of costed actions summarised in Appendix 2 to the report; and;

(4) Endorses the improvement plan for the woodland area between Culvery and Gatcombe Gardens, which should be designated as “Chartwell Copse”.

Summary

This report provides Members with a summary of the results of a recent consultation undertaken in the Chartwell Green area. It invites the Committee to endorse Cabinet action to refuse to sell the open space to Foreman Homes Ltd and to note a number of suggestions for local and environmental improvements. The report recommends that a range of improvements be made to the open space, which should be formally designated as “Chartwell Green”. Residents’ ideas and suggestions for local and environmental improvements are summarised in Appendix 2 to the report and a number of minor capital works projects are proposed to improve community safety, enable the safe crossing of Townhill Way and carry out environmental improvements to local open space. The report recommends that the Head of Direct Services implements an improvement plan for the woodland area between Culvery and Gatcombe Gardens and that this land be designated as “Chartwell Copse”.

Statutory Powers

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

Eastleigh Borough Council

AC726JR 51

Introduction

1. Members will recall that Foreman Homes Ltd were given planning approval to construct 13 homes on the former “Halstead” site on Townhill Way. Foreman Homes Ltd deferred construction of the 13th dwelling in case the open space at the rear of their site could be purchased for further residential development. This Council’s Cabinet, which is responsible for buildings and land in the ownership of the Borough Council, requested that a local consultation be undertaken to ascertain the current use of the open space and whether there were any local improvements that could be made should funds be drawn down from a potential land sale.

Public Consultation and feedback

2. A consultation letter was hand-delivered to 306 households in the Chartwell Green area. By the closing date the Council had received 151 returns, 33 using the Council’s website – the rest using a postage paid envelope. 113 householders confirmed that they made regular or occasional use of the “Harbourne open space” and therefore provided a majority of respondents requesting that the land be retained as public open space. The consultation provided clear evidence that this open space, a flat area of land laid to grass with a top railed fence, was regarded as a popular and safe amenity for children to play without danger from cars. There was also evidence that the open space is popular with dog walkers, particularly females who preferred the open nature of the ground rather than using the nearby West End copse.

3. The results of the survey were circulated to residents on the 21 July and the Principal Valuer, having briefed Council’s Cabinet, has already informed Foreman Homes Ltd that the public open space is not for sale and that no further action will be taken by the Council in respect of de-scheduling the area of public open space. It is recommended that this Committee notes the results of the recent community consultation and endorses Cabinet action to decline Foreman Homes Ltd’s offer to purchase the land.

Environmental Improvements

4. The residential survey invited residents to suggest environmental improvements that could be funded by the Council if a capital receipt was forthcoming from Foreman Homes Ltd. Whilst the land sale has been rejected, a number of the improvements proposed could be progressed and make a significant contribution to improve community safety and local residential amenity. The Area Co-ordinator met a number of Harbourne Gardens residents on Saturday 17 July and subsequently had a “walkabout” with the Streetscene Manager and Mrs Carolyn Pierce, who has co-ordinated a residents’ petition, to discuss in detail a range of measures which could be progressed through this Committee’s Community Investment Programme (CIP). An obvious priority should be to improve the existing open space and a popular suggestion is that it should be formally designated as “Chartwell Green” which would strengthen

Eastleigh Borough Council

52 AC726JR local identity and ownership. It is recommended that Members approve the retention and improvement of the open space, which should be designated as “Chartwell Green” and note suggestions and ideas for local environmental improvements and approve a range of costed actions summarised in Appendix 2 to the report.

Woodland area between Culvery and Gatcombe Gardens

5. A significant number of residents requested improvements to the woodland area that lies between Culvery and Gatcombe Gardens. This area is in the ownership of the Borough Council, but there is little evidence of regular maintenance. The Head of Direct Services has undertaken an initial assessment and, whilst the mature trees appear to be in relatively good condition, the pathway network is overgrown and impassable and overgrowth around the perimeter reduces natural surveillance. There has been some damage to fencing and kissing gates and there is evidence of den-building, fly- tipping and reports of anti-social behaviour within the woodland. The Head of Direct Services recommends a minor capital works project enabling the retention of all mature trees but thereafter, radical clearance of vegetation and overgrowth, re-instatement of footpaths, fencing and kissing gates and a subsequent programme of regular maintenance. The woodland is not formerly identified on Ordnance Survey maps and, in line with the suggestion to improve community identity, it is recommended that it be designated as “Chartwell Copse”. Members are therefore invited to endorse the improvement plan for the woodland area between Culvery and Gatcombe Gardens and approve the designation of this area as “Chartwell Copse”.

Financial Implications

6. Appendix 2 to this report outlines a schedule of practical proposals which should be funded from this Committee’s CIP. Subject to Members’ endorsement of Appendix 2, the Area Co-ordinator will oversee the implementation of all minor capital works. The Head of Direct Services will project manage improvements to both Chartwell Green and Chartwell Copse, aiming to complete most of the implementation by Spring 2011. The street lighting proposed will be installed to Hampshire County Council’s required standards so that lights can be integrated into the Public Finance Initiative (PFI), ensuring maintenance and energy costs are covered. The proposed safe crossing point at Townhill Way will be constructed to Hampshire Highways standards for on-going maintenance. Proposals to improve security at the communal car park at Harbourne Gardens is a one-off cost and the residents will remain responsible for the on-going maintenance and cleanliness of this area which is in shared ownership. The Head of Direct Services is already responsible for the maintenance of the open space and will absorb the cost of occasional maintenance to Chartwell Copse within this Committee’s revenue budget.

Risk Assessment

7. There are no specific risks identified with recommendations made in this report.

Eastleigh Borough Council

AC726JR 53 Equality and Diversity Implications

8. The recommendations in this report do not impact on current service provision and an equal opportunities assessment is not required. Some of the recommendations made in Appendix 2 should have a positive impact on community safety.

Conclusion

9. The recent local consultation has confirmed that the open space is a valued community amenity which must be retained and should be improved. The survey has provided a useful opportunity to gauge local opinion and preferences for environmental improvements, some of which should be implemented within this Committee’s Community Investment Programme.

10. The consultation initiated a strong community response and we acknowledge the efforts of Mrs Carolyn Pierce and neighbours to co-ordinate a petition and support protection of the open space. There are opportunities for continued work with local residents who expressed willingness to participate in tree planting on the green and other local environmental improvement projects. The recommendations made in this report complement the Council’s community engagement strategy providing further evidence that we are “a listening” Council and respond to our residents’ views and preferences.

JON RIDDELL Area Co-ordinator Date: 13 September 2010 Contact Officer: Jon Riddell Tel No: 023 8068 8437 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 2 Report No AC726JR

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:

None

Eastleigh Borough Council

54 AC726JR 55 This page is intentionally left blank

56 Appendix 2

PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS – COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Proposed Environmental Improvements Comment Proposed Action

Upgrade ‘play area’ with swings, slides, Very close proximity to housing. Likely to No action proposed goal posts import anti-social behaviour and cause nuisance. 2 key play areas recently upgraded at Carpathia Close and next to Townhill Farm Community Centre now devolved to West End Parish Council. If land retained it would be nice to create Head of Direct Services to implement two Recommendation garden area with plants and benches with areas of sustainable planting, with bench Head of Direct Services to project new fence. and bin. manage comprehensive improvement Involve residents in tree planting/ spring plan for existing open space. Allocate flower planting scheme. from O/S F/06/56692 Foreman Homes £6,000. Give the open space a name – there is no Excellent idea – would clarify site address Recommendation green in the ‘Chartwell Green’ area. and promote community ownership and Designate land as ‘Chartwell Green’ identity. and amend Ordnance Survey register

For signage and notify Ordnance Survey register allocate from DC O/06/56691 Foreman Homes £1,000 Install speed cameras on Townhill Way The Camera Safety Partnership would not No action feasible – but Head of consider this corridor merits speed Transportation and Engineering Services cameras. Whilst traffic speed is a local to monitor speed and accident data. concern the accident rate is low.

57

propenvironimproveAug10 58 Appendix 2

Proposed Environmental Improvements Comment Proposed Action

1. What the borough is poor at is good A site visit with Streetscene Manager has Head of Direct Services to undertake maintenance of amenities – this piece identified a number of key routes requiring heavy autumn maintenance programme of land is a good example. heavy maintenance and maintain clear pathway networks in 2. A lot of paths have become overgrown - Pine Walk future years. and brambles in summer make it - Ivy Lane to Townhill Way difficult to get by. - Cut back overgrowth around street 3. Tidy up Pine Walk and cut back over- lighting Duddon Close and growth leaving the trees. Harbourne Gardens - Cut back landscaped planting at pinch points in Culvery Gardens. Introduce safe crossing points on Townhill Whilst pedestrian controlled crossing is Recommendation Way desirable the County Council’sPV2 criteria Implement TS1 46 to provide an is not met. enhanced crossing point. Allocated Propose an enhanced crossing point on from TR F/08/63677 49 Harbourne key route to school to be located between Gardens £3,376.79 Harbourne Gardens and Lambourne Gardens. Improve street lighting on footpath Additional lighting would improve Recommendation network community safety. Allocate £5,230 for new lighting The County Council PFi will upgrade all columns to adoptable standard. light columns within the next 5 years. DC F/08/63677 49 Harbourne Gardens Recommend budget provision for circa 5 £1,518 additional columns to HCC adoptable DC O/06/56691 Halstead, Townhill Way standard. £3,712 £5,230

Ban dogs from the area Local opinion divided on whether the area Defer designating the area as ‘dog free’ should be designated a ‘dog free zone’ as but monitor situation. the fenced enclosure is popular with dog Head of Direct Services in consultation

propenvironimproveAug10 Appendix 2

Proposed Environmental Improvements Comment Proposed Action

owners. No evidence of fouling and with Ward Councillors to reserve ability to nearby dog bin is well used. exclude dogs from area.

Remove the old concrete posts and Desirable to improve image of the open Recommendation rusted railing and re-fence the area to a space and existing fence has Head of Direct Services to cost modern day standard deteriorated. alternative fencing options in A new fence would greatly improve the consultation with local members and open space and create a high quality residents. district park. Allocate – OS F/08/63677 49 Harbourne Gardens £1,464 OS F/08/63677 49 Harbourne Gardens £ 797 DC O/06/5669/2 Foreman Homes £14,000 OS Z/35655/002 SGB site/Matthew Homes £11,000 £27,261

(allocation to include fees and staff times) - Upgrade footpath network in West Head of Countryside and Trees manage Recommendation End Copse. West End Copse and has commenced Allocate £20,000 (£10k from each) - Improve gated entrances/security work on upgrading footpath network. OS & DC Z/35655/002 from motorcycles in West End Further investment in this popular SGB site/Mathew Homes Copse. woodland is desirable with a minor capital (POS and community infrastructure) - Additional dog/litter bins at works programme. The copse and open entrances to West End Copse. space maybe devolved to West End 59

propenvironimproveAug10 60 Appendix 2

Proposed Environmental Improvements Comment Proposed Action

Parish Council in 2011/12.

Open up and tidy up potentially attractive Many residents requested clearance, Recommendation copse adjacent to Culvery Gardens tidying and upgrading of this copse which Designate land as ‘Chartwell Copse’ currently difficult to use due to lack of is inaccessible and fly tipped. Some and amend Ordnance Survey register. maintenance and removal of rubbish. residents willing to volunteer to plant wild Allocate – Upgrade footpaths. flowers if area is cleared and improved. DC O/06/56691 Foreman Homes Replace staggered barrier which has Head of Direct Services advises a major £10,000 been burnt out. clearance and minor capital works improvement plan. (allocation to include fees and staff time)

Clear rubbish by communal car park This car park is in the shared ownership of Area Co-ordinator and Head of Direct boundary with open space and construct residents. Residential volunteers willing Services to co-ordinate clean up project fence to prevent trespass/improve to assist in a ‘community clear up project’ and install fence. security. supported by the Head of Direct Services. Allocate – A new security fence on EBC land OS O/06/56692 Foreman Homes £4,000 essential.

propenvironimproveAug10 Agenda Item 14

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday 13 September 2010

COMMUNITY BUILDINGS GRANT - HILLDENE COMMUNITY CENTRE, WEST END

Report of the Area Co-ordinator in consultation with the Community Development Manager and the Head of Development Control

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that a grant of £14,000 be made to the Hilldene Community Association to enable construction of a new kitchen.

Summary

Ambitious plans have been prepared to undertake a complete refurbishment and renovation of the Hilldene Community Centre, West End. The Managing Trustees have submitted a community buildings grant application requesting a £14,000 contribution towards the construction of a brand new kitchen. It is recommended that a grant of £14,000 be made, funded from appropriate developer’s contributions.

Statutory Powers

Section 2 Local Government Act 2000.

Introduction

1. The Managing Trustees of the Hilldene Community Centre have developed ambitious plans to undertake a major refurbishment and renovation of the Hilldene Community Centre. The overall plan, with an estimated cost in excess of £160,000, includes complete renewal of the old school building.

Kitchen Proposal

2. The Managing Trustees propose to convert the “Winifred Moody Room” to a large, fit-for-purpose, kitchen. They have secured grant aid of £3,294 from Hampshire County Council (redeemable on completion of works), £1,200 from County Councillor Tennant and £500 from West End Parish Council. They are seeking £14,000 from this Committee.

Eastleigh Borough Council

AC719JR 61 Grant Considerations

3. The proposal to create a new kitchen fits with the business plan prepared by the Managing Trustees who recognise that a high quality kitchen will broaden the ability of the Community Centre to attract private functions, weddings and parties. The Managing Trustees are keen to ensure their premises provide a community development hub for the local community. In this context the kitchen will also enable the Hilldene Community Centre to cater for luncheon clubs, café drop-ins and improve facilities for the large variety of community users who currently make use of the community centre.

4. In the context of the overall renovation programme the Managing Trustees, last year, completed the renovation of the school’s original bell tower which was in poor condition. The central heating system was renewed and they upgraded all 14 radiators to improve energy efficiency. The Hilldene Community Centre renovation plan is regarded as a high priority for this Committee’s Community Investment Programme. It is therefore recommended that a grant of £14,000 be made to the Hilldene Community Association to enable construction of a new kitchen.

Financial Implications

5. Subject to the approval of the recommendation; the Head of Development Control confirms that it is appropriate to allocate the following developer’s contributions which will be transferred to this Committee’s CIP programme:

DC F/08/64185 Mr Martin, land at 7 Southern Road, West End - £1,519.74

DC Z/35655/002 Matthew Homes, former SGB Depot, Swaythling Road, West End - £12,480.26

6. There are no revenue implications associated with this recommendation as the Managing Trustees have already confirmed, within their grant application form, their ability to underwrite all revenue and maintenance costs.

Risk Assessment

7. The current kitchen at the Hilldene Community Centre is cramped and inadequate. The provision of an enlarged new kitchen facility is a crucial part of the Hilldene Community Centre’s business plan. There is a substantial risk that the development of luncheon clubs as well as revenue income from private hires would be hindered without this improvement.

Equality and Diversity Implications

8. The Hilldene Community Association is a registered charity with a strong commitment to ensuring its facilities are open and accessible to the whole community. The Trustees, in partnership with the Community Development Manager, have completed an equalities impact assessment which has contributed to both their refurbishment and business plans.

Eastleigh Borough Council

62 AC719JR Conclusion

9. The Managing Trustees of the Hilldene Community Centre have already made substantial progress on the refurbishment programme for their building. The provision of a brand new kitchen is fundamental to the Hilldene Community Centre’s long term business plan. The recommendation made in this report is in line with both corporate and local area ambitions to provide accessible high quality community buildings to benefit local residents.

JON RIDDELL Area Co-ordinator

Date: 15 August 2010 Contact Officer: Jon Riddell Tel No: 023 8068 8437 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 0 Report No AC719JR

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:

i) Schedule of works cost estimates supplied by Anne Mortimer, Chair of Trustees.

ii) Community Buildings Grant application.

iii) Hilldene Community Centre business plan 2010-13.

Eastleigh Borough Council

AC719JR 63 This page is intentionally left blank

64 Agenda Item 15

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday 13 September 2010

GROUNDS MAINTENANCE STORAGE FACILITIES FOR WEST END PARISH COUNCIL

Report of the Area Co-ordinator in consultation with the Head of Development Control and the Clerk to West End Parish Council

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that a capital grant of £30,000 is made by this Committee towards the construction cost of a grounds maintenance store for West End Parish Council.

Summary

Both Hedge End Town and West End Parish Council are developing plans to construct purpose-built grounds maintenance storage facilities to accommodate their staff, vehicles, grounds maintenance machinery and workshop space. Both projects have been given a high priority in this Committee’s Community Investment Programme as the local Councils have taken on increased portfolios of buildings, recreation grounds, play areas and public open space in line with this Council’s asset transfer programme.

Members will recall giving planning consent for a grounds maintenance facility to be constructed on Hatch Grange immediately adjacent to the West End Parish Centre. The Parish Council has been through a tender process and is now in a position to proceed with the construction of a purpose-built grounds maintenance and storage facility.

Statutory Powers

Section 2 Local Government Act 2000

The Proposal and Tender Process

1. West End Parish Council’s proposal is to construct a “storage barn” within a secure compound with direct access from the Parish Centre’s car park. In line with Standing Orders the Parish Council invited tenders from local building companies, which originally varied from £180,000 – 250,000. Tenders were subject to close scrutiny and the Parish Council has reduced the building specification, which now has an estimated cost of £120,000. The Parish Council plans to proceed with the construction of the basic building with steel frame and cladding as approved in the planning consent. The building will be linked to main services and will include access, security fencing and a storage

Eastleigh Borough Council

AC722JR 65 yard. It is envisaged that the internal fitting out of mess room facilities, partition storage and workshop areas will be deferred until such times as funds become available, with Parish Council staff undertaking the majority of this fit-out work.

Capital Costs

2. The capital cost of construction of the basic building has been confirmed at £120,000, with the Parish Council having reserved £60,000. It has requested a £30,000 contribution from this Committee, having secured a public works loan sanction to cover the residual construction costs. It is therefore recommended that a capital grant of £30,000 is made by this Committee towards the construction cost of a grounds maintenance store for West End Parish Council.

Financial Implications

3. If the recommendation is approved the Head of Development Control has advised that it is appropriate to use unallocated developer’s contributions designated for “open space”. The following contributions would be used:

OS 27519/1 Southern Road £2,043.47 OS F/04/52810 Land r/o Little Oak £1,841.80 OS F/05/55476 bungalow site Burnetts Lane £3,074.86 (part) OS F/05/55476 bungalow site Burnetts Lane £2,244.63 OS Z/35655/002 former SGB site £20,795.23 (part) TOTAL £30,000

West End Parish Council will be responsible for on-going revenue and maintenance costs associated with the building and as a consequence there are no revenue implications for this Committee.

Grant Conditions

4. Standard grant conditions which require the Parish Council to acknowledge this Committee’s financial contribution are required. In addition, West End Parish Council will be required to vacate its current workshop/garage immediately adjacent to the Parish Centre’s library so that this space can be reserved for an extension to the public library facility as and when public finance permits.

Risk Assessment

5. The Parish Council will be responsible for managing the construction process and will ensure compliance with CDM regulations. There are no identifiable risks for the Borough Council.

Eastleigh Borough Council

66 AC722JR Equality and Diversity Implications

6. The construction of the grounds maintenance store does not represent a significant change in service provision for the Parish Council and an equalities impact assessment is not required.

Summary

7. The construction of the grounds maintenance storage facility for West End Parish Council will enable the Council to consolidate all of its vehicles, staff and grounds maintenance machine operations on to one site. This will provide the Council with long term capacity to continue to participate in the asset transfer programme of public lands currently in the ownership of Eastleigh Borough Council. The current workshop immediately adjacent to the Parish Centre’s public library should in the longer term be used to extend the library facility, in particular the children’s library, and to re-locate the Information Technology facilities which are popular with older residents who make regular use of the ‘people’s network’.

8. A provisional sum of £40,000 is earmarked as a contribution towards Hedge End Town Council’s grounds maintenance facilities and will be subject to a separate report as and when the Town Council is ready to proceed with its building project, which aims to consolidate all its grounds maintenance operations on a site adjacent to the Woodhouse Lane recreation ground.

Conclusion

9. The recommendation made in this report complements both local area and corporate priorities to encourage and accelerate the asset transfer of public buildings, open space and play areas to local council partners.

JON RIDDELL Area Co-ordinator Date: 3 August 2010 Contact Officer: Jon Riddell Tel No: 023 8068 8437 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 0 Report No AC722JR

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:

None

Eastleigh Borough Council

AC722JR 67 This page is intentionally left blank

68