NOTICE OF MEETING Northern Area Planning Committee
Date: Thursday, 18th January 2001 Time: 5.30 p.m. Venue: CNF ROOM 1, BEECH HURST, WEYHILL ROAD, ANDOVER
For further information or enquiries please contact: Joanne Glenn - 01264 368007 email: [email protected] Administration Service Test Valley Borough Council, Beech Hurst, Weyhill Road, Andover, Hampshire, SP10 3AJ www.testvalley.gov.uk
Copies of the development applications referred to in the Agenda will be available for Member's inspection 30 minutes before the meeting commences. The recommendations contained in the Agenda are made by the Officers and these recommendations may or may not be accepted by the Committee.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SCHEME If members of the public wish to address the meeting they should notify the Administration Service at the Council's Beech Hurst office by noon on the working day before the meeting. Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
MEMBERSHIP OF NORTHERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEMBER WARD Councillor J.E. Taylor Chairman Anna Councillor A.P. Baxter Vice-Chairman Tedworth Councillor N.R. Arnell Weyhill Councillor R.J. Bailey St. Mary's Councillor P.J. Boulton Nether Wallop & Broughton Councillor Mrs. Z. Brooks Millway Councillor D.R. Busk Stockbridge Councillor I.R. Carr Harroway Councillor R.M. Chattell Tedworth Councillor D.N.A. Drew Millway Councillor A.P. Dunnett Harewood Councillor Mrs. S.M. Hawke Millway Councillor A. Hope Over Wallop Councillor R. Hughes Alamein Councillor A.V. Jackson Bourne Valley Councillor Mrs. M.H. Kerley Winton Councillors Mrs. B.E. Levitt St. Mary's Councillor Mrs. V.K. Menzies St. Mary's Councillor I.R. Morrison Weyhill Councillors Mrs. J.H.I. Msonthi Alamein Councillor Mrs. P. Mutton Winton Councillor J.S. Neal Harewood Councillor G.E. Rankin Moore Alamein Councillor D.G.C. Roach Harroway Councillor A.J. Smith Winton Councillor Mrs. E.M.W. Townsend Anna Councillor Mrs. P.A. West Harroway
2 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
NORTHERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE Thursday 18th January, 2001 AGENDA
The order of these items may change as a result of members of the public wishing to speak
1. APOLOGIES
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
3. MINUTES - 7th December 2000
4. URGENT ITEMS
5. SUMMARY INDEX OF RECOMMENDATIONS 4
6. ENFORCEMENT ACTION CASES 5 - 6
7. NEW APPEALS 7
8. LOCAL INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS 8
9. VIEWING PANEL 9 - 14
10. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 15 - 63
3 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
ITEM 5 SUMMARY INDEX OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Parish Site Application Recommendation Page No. No.
ABBOTTS ANN Part OS Parcel 8600, TVN.08074 Permission 58 - 60 Salisbury Road, Kentsboro
CHILBOLTON 1 Brockley Cottage, TVN.00317/5 Permission 15 - 18 A30
HARROWAY 282 Weyhill Road TVN.01265/13 Permission 23 - 26
48 Charlton Road TVN.02078/8 Permission 27 - 30
LONGPARISH River Barn, TVN.05253/8 Permission 43 - 45 Southside Road
OVER WALLOP Land at the Firs, TVN.01704/3 Refuse 61 - 63 Palestine
SHIPTON Land at 5 Park TVN.08051 Refuse 46 - 50 BELLINGER House Mews, Cholderton
SMANNELL British Oak Inn TVN.02965/1 Permission 31 - 35
ST MARY’S Andover Cricket TVN.03385/4 Permission 36 - 39 Club, Batchelors Barn Road
Andover Down TVN.04710/10 Permission 40 - 42 Farm
UPPER Land adjacent to TVN.00335/7 Permission 19 - 22 CLATFORD Redbridge House, Water Lane
103 Bury Hill Close, TVN.08068 Permission 55 - 57 Anna Valley
WINTON 46 Anton Road TVN.08061 Permission 51 - 54
* Enforcement Cases, New Appeals and Local Inquiries are Reports to be Noted.
Background Papers (Local Government Act 1972 Section 100D) Author: Case Officer initials suffixed to the reference number of each report. File Ref: See reference number of each report.
4 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
ITEM 6
SUBJECT ENFORCEMENT ACTION CASES MEETING Northern Planning Committee DATE January 2001 REPORT OF Head of Administration
KEY:
AP - Application EN - Enforcement Notice APP - Appeal REQ - Requisition for Information BCN - Breach of Condition Notice SUM - Summons CLU- Certificate of Lawful Use S215 - Derelict Land Notice
1. TVN.01369/1
Unauthorised extension of residential curtilage, construction of driveway/hard 7 Dec 99 CLU Application registered standing, use of land for parking of 6 Jul 00 CLU Issued for use of land as motor vehicles. OS land parcel 7414 domestic garden land south-east of Gladstone Terrace, 12 Oct 00 EN Authorised (Delegated) (LONGPARISH) 28 Nov 00 EN Served 20 Dec 00 Notice of Appeal Awaiting Date of Appeal 2. TVN.05802/3
Unauthorised siting of mobile home for 10 Dec 99 EN authorised (Delegated) Agricultural worker - River View Farm, 13 Apr 00 EN issued Bullington Lane, Sutton Scotney, 17 Apr 00 EN served (BULLINGTON) Awaiting Compliance (19.05.01)
3. TVN.07536 17 Jul 00 EN Authorised (Delegated) TVN. LB. 00731 09 Aug 00 EN Issued 17 Aug 00 EN Served Unauthorised development of single- 16 Sept 00 Notice of Appeal storey rear extension and conservatory - Rivermead, Little Ann, Andover - (ABBOTTS ANN)
5 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
Awaiting Appeal hearing (23.01.01) TVN LB 00778 14 Aug 00 EN authorised (delegated) LB 28 Sept 00 REQ served. 00778 Unauthorised re-thatching of front 17 Oct 00 REQ returned elevation in Water Reed - Cowlease 20 Dec 00 EN Served Cottage, (LONGPARISH)
Awaiting Compliance (05.08.01)
5. TVN.00698
Breach of extant Enforcement Notice - 12 Oct 00 SUM authorised (Delegated) Unauthorised Siting of a residential mobile home - OS Land Parcel 0918 Stockbridge Road Lopscombe (NETHER WALLOP) Awaiting Issue of Summons
RECOMMENDED:
That the report be noted.
6 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
ITEM 7 ______
SUBJECT NEW APPEALS REPORT OF Head of Planning ______
PARISH/SITE APPLICATION NO/ DEVELOPMENT APPELLANT
VERNHAM DEAN
Yew Tree Cottage, Upton TVN.LB.00188/2 Erection of single and two Ms C Lees and Mr R storey extensions to provide McPherson kitchen/dayroom, store and shelter, with lobby, bedroom and dressing/shower room over on site of existing shed, and pitched roof over existing flat roofed accommodation
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report be noted.
7 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
ITEM 8 ______
SUBJECT LOCAL INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS MEETING Northern Area Planning Committee DATE 18th January 2001 REPORT OF Head of Planning
______
Plan No Appellant Development Date & Venue
TVN.02195/4 William Hill Change of use to A2 (use as 1 Day Hearing Organisation betting office) and alteration 27th February 2001 Limited to shop front Conference Room 1, Council Offices, Beech Hurst, Weyhill Road, Andover, 10.00am
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report be noted.
8 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
ITEM 9
SUBJECT VIEWING PANEL - 22 December 2000 Present: Councillor N R Arnell, R J Bailey, Z Brooks, A Jackson, I R Morrison, J S Neal, G E Rankin- Moore, D Roach, J Taylor, E M W Townsend, P West REPORT OF Head of Planning
APPLICATION NO. TVN.01818/2/CJ APPLICATION TYPE Full REGISTERED 31.08.00 APPLICANT Chapters Limited SITE Halls Farm, Vernham Street, VERNHAM DEAN PROPOSAL Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling and garage, and alterations to access. AMENDMENTS Amended plans received 7 & 10 November 2000, and 14 December 2000
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This application was deferred at the last Northern Planning Committee to allow for a Viewing Panel to take place, plus further negotiations to reduce the height and impact of the dwelling.
1.2 The application site is approximately 1 hectare in area and is in the main laid out to lawn. The existing dwelling is located in the northern part of the site with access to the dwelling gained from the junction between Vernham Street and Littledown. There is also a field access close to the southern boundary of the site.
1.3 There is also a disused agricultural building on the site which is to be demolished to allow for the construction of the dwelling, and a tennis court has been constructed on the western section of the site having been permitted in the 1980‟s.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a replacement dwelling. The existing brick and flint barn, which adjoins the current dwelling, is to be retained and the access to the property is to be retained in its current location.
9 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
2.2 The replacement dwelling is to be located further in to the site in approximately the position that the existing agricultural building is currently situated. The front elevation of the proposed dwelling will be east facing and the house itself will be located to the south of an extensive screen of trees to the north.
2.3 The scheme also sees the inclusion of a garage block connected to the main house by a single storey link extension, thus forming a partial courtyard to the front of the buildings.
3.0 HISTORY 3.1 TVN.1818 - erection of additional dwelling and garage - REFUSE (25.01.78) TVN.1818/1 - construction of tennis court with fence surrounding - PERMISSION (18.04.84)
4.0 CONSULTATIONS Environment No objection in principle Agency Highways No objection subject to conditions
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired 01.12.00 Letter 7 letters of objection have been received to the replacement dwelling. These letters contain points relating to; - need to ensure that any new buildings are constructed with sensitivity in the AONB - consider size of house and height of roof and chimneys to be completely out of place in the village. - design and sheer scale of house is out of keeping with the rest of Vernham Street. - concern over potential for overlooking and overwhelming impact on adjacent historic properties. - concerns over potential for absentee owners due to the size of the proposed dwelling. - important that the house does not visually dominate Littledown or Vernham Street - additional impact of the house on the street scene due to it‟s increased size over the original. - impact on highway safety during the construction period including mud on the road.
Parish Council Object to the scheme as consider the proposed development to be too large and over dominant in the setting of Vernham Street and the replacement property will be nearly 50% larger than the existing dwelling.
6.0 POLICY 6.1 TVBLP Policy C1 (development within countryside), C8 (replacement dwellings within the countryside), C10.2 (protection of sensitive areas in the countryside - AONB), E3 (impact on setting of listed building), D1 (general standards for development).
10 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The planning issues to consider in this instance are the appropriateness of the development, the design and size of the proposed dwelling, the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, adjacent listed building, and the residential amenities of adjacent properties.
7.2 The application site is within an area which is covered by the countryside policies of the adopted Test Valley Borough Local Plan. The main emphasis of these policies is towards the restraint of development of development in the countryside as a whole (policy C1). However, the replacement of an existing dwelling within the countryside may be acceptable providing it complies with policy C8 of the Borough Local Plan, which looks specifically at the replacement of dwellings within the countryside.
7.3 The requirements of policy C8 expect the existing dwelling to be long established and not temporary in nature, which is clearly the case in this instance. The principle of accepting a replacement dwelling in this instance is irrefutable. The size and design of the replacement dwelling are then considered at part 2b) where it is expected that the building be appropriate in character to its setting, not materially change the impact on the immediate surroundings, or adversely affect the character of the AONB. It is also expected that the proposed dwelling will not be disproportionate in size to neighbouring properties.
7.4 The floor area of the existing dwelling amounts to 370 square metres with the proposed dwelling totalling 520 square metres. This amounts to an increase of 40% in floor area overall which is within the 50% guideline included in the text of the policy. The text for policy C8 states that „new dwellings should reflect the character of dwellings in its immediate locality or should have limited impact because of its particular design or location.‟ The existing dwelling was already relatively large, and whilst there are other large or extensive dwellings in Vernham Street, it is accepted that the resultant dwelling in this instance will be towards the top-end of this scale.
7.5 The footprint of the replacement dwelling has been moved away from the originally proposed location to an area in the southern half of the site. The building will be well screened by an existing line mature of trees to the north, and there is existing dense boundary screening to the south. The existing field access will be closed and replaced by an appropriate boundary hedge to continue the line of the existing. The building will be visible from the west though this is from over farmland rather than from existing properties. It is therefore considered that there will not therefore be any adverse impact on the residential or visual amenities of the adjacent properties, or the area due to the revised location of the building.
7.6 The initial location of the replacement dwelling had caused some concerns particularly with regards to its impact on the character of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The revised location virtually extinguishes the opportunity for glimpsing the property from public viewpoints, due to the amount of existing and proposed screening. This factor coupled with the revisions in the design to reduce the height of the chimneys to a similar height to that of the roof, it is anticipated will reduce to acceptable levels the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
11 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
7.7 The design of the dwelling has been the subject of much discussion with the Local Authority‟s Design & Conservation team. Revised plans have been submitted which have seen a reduction in the height of the chimneys (as mentioned above), changes to the form, size and relative proportion of the fenestration on the front elevation, and the retention of the brick and flint barn which forms part of the existing frontage at the junction to Littledown. These alterations have been made in conjunction with discussions with the Local Authority and are considered to answer any outstanding issues relating to the design of the building which is felt to be acceptable.
7.8 The revised location of the replacement dwelling beyond existing screening has improved the relationship with Halls Farm Cottage, the neighbouring property to the north-west, though has now moved the property closer to Flowers Farm, a listed building to the south of the application site. It is not considered that there will be an adverse impact on the special character and appearance of the listed building or it‟s siting, and therefore complies with policy E3.
7.9 There are no significant community safety implications by this proposal.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 It is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling is acceptable in design, scale, and location and will not have a significant impact on the visual or residential amenities of the area, or the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
9.0 RECOMMENDATION PERMISSION subject to: 1. FT01 Full Permission – 5 years 2. GE06 Materials 3. Prior to the commencement of development, a sample of panel of the brick and mortar to be used in the construction of all external surfaces shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development has a satisfactory external appearance in the interest of visual amenities. 4. Returns to all openings shall be properly weathered and formed with true pencil rounded arrises. There shall be no use of metal angle or drip beads to form arrises in any external render. Reason: To ensure all works are of an appropriate standard for the building. 5. All gauged arches shall be formed traditionally using brick rubbers and lime mortar putty. Reason: To ensure all works are of an appropriate standard for the building. 6. HB11 Rainwater Goods [cast iron or die cast aluminium] 7. LA02 Landscaping Scheme [hard and] 8. LA07 Boundary treatment 9. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed strictly in accordance with the submitted plans, specifications and written particulars for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is completed in accordance with submitted and approved plans. 10. RS05 Replacement dwelling 11. HT13 Gates/splay set back from highway [4.5metres]
12 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
12. HT20 Non-migratory material [4.5 metres] 13. TR01 Tree Protection 14. EX05 Exclude PD (buildings & enclosures) Note to applicant: 1. TN01 Access works on the highway – Direct control 2. Please ensure that all development/works complies with the approved plans. Any changes must be advised in writing to the Local Planning Authority before they are carried out. This may require submission of a new planning application. Failure to do so may result in enforcement action/prosecution.
13 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001 map
14 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
ITEM 10
SUBJECT SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REPORT OF Head of Planning
1. APPLICATION NO. TVN.00317/5/CJ APPLICATION TYPE Full REGISTERED 10 October 2000 APPLICANT Mrs P Slade SITE 1 Brockley Cottage, A30, CHILBOLTON PROPOSAL Relief from condition No. 6 of TVN.00317/4 in connection with the building not being occupied other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1 Brockley Cottage is one of a pair of isolated semi-detached cottages located along the A30 and surrounded by agricultural land. Within the curtilage of the residential dwelling stands an open-sided barn, which is one of a pair of similar barns sited opposite each other across a yard.
1.2 The barn is of brick and flint construction on three walls with the remaining side open. The roof is of slate, now covered in moss, and has an uneven ridge suggesting that it would be unsafe. A number of the timber supports have gone, and the roof is being held up with metal poles.
1.3 The end walls of the barn extend beyond the roof, forming the boundary of the yard. The barn is set well back from the A30, with a large gravel parking area both in front of the barns and to the south. There are a couple of greenhouses adjacent, and it appears that a low-key horticultural business is being run from the site.
1.4 Permission has recently been granted for the conversion of one of the open fronted barns to a single storey dwelling (annexe).
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The recent permission for the conversion was subject to a condition restricting the use to a purpose ancillary to the residential use of 1 Brockley Cottage. This proposal is to seek relief from that condition.
15 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
3.0 HISTORY 3.1 TVN.0317/1 - permission granted for a 2 storey rear extension in may 1982. TVN.0317/2 - permission granted for change of use from 1 dwelling into 2 dwellings at 2 Brockley Cottage in November 1985. TVN.0317/3 - permission granted for a garage in February 1989. TVN.00317/4 - permission granted for the conversion of an open fronted barn to single storey dwelling (annexe) in November 1999
4.0 CONSULTATIONS Highways No objection
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired 10 November 2000 Letters 2 Brockley Cottage - raising concern over the capacity of the water and drainage systems to copy with additional demand (private well and septic tank to serve both properties) Parish Council Object - could lead to creation of a separate dwelling
6.0 POLICY 6.1 TVBLP C1 - restraint of development in the countryside C6 - change of use of non-agricultural buildings in the countryside
7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The main planning consideration is whether the relaxation of the condition would compromise the provisions of policies C1 and C6.
7.2 Planning permission was granted for the conversion of the barn to a residential annexe ancillary to the main building, to be occupied by dependent relatives. Because of the specific requirements of the dwellings, it was considered that the proposal was not contrary to policy C6. This policy allows for residential conversions where the building is considered to make a contribution to the rural environment, and where an alternative use (employment) would not be appropriate due to its proximity to other dwellings.
7.3 Although the relief of the condition would create an independent dwelling in the countryside, in principle in would still accord with policy C6 for the reasons given in para 7.2 above. These are that the barn is of sufficient architectural interest to warrant its retention, and that an alternative use would be inappropriate because of its proximity to the nearby residences.
7.4 There is sufficient curtilage to provide a satisfactory private garden, with an access independent from the main house. There is no highways objection to the proposal, as sufficient parking and turning space exists on the site to accommodate vehicles for both dwellings.
7.5 There are no significant community safety implications by this proposal.
16 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Although a residential use of the barn in association with the existing dwelling would be preferred, given that permission already exists for a dwelling, it would be difficult to argue that relaxing the condition is contrary to policy. It is therefore recommended that permission be granted.
9.0 RECOMMENDATION PERMISSION
17 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
MAP
18 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
2. APPLICATION NO. TVN.00335/7/CJ APPLICATION TYPE Full REGISTERED 15 September 2000 APPLICANT Mr and Mrs C J Spencer SITE Land adjacent to Redbridge House, Water Lane, UPPER CLATFORD PROPOSAL Erection of dwelling and detached garage and hobby room AMENDMENTS Amended plans received 11 December 2000
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The site lies off Water Lane, set back behind a semi-detached pair of dwellings. Access to the site is shared with the access to Redbridge House to the east and a garage to the west. The site is currently overgrown with a large flat roofed garage/workshop in the west corner. A mature hedgerow forms the southern boundary, whilst the site is screened on its northern boundary by a tall leylandii hedge.
1.2 The site is elevated above Redbridge House.
1.3 It lies within the Upper Clatford Conservation Area.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is to erect a detached house with separate double garage and workshop - this is an amended from the original application for house and garage and detached hobby room. The brick wall of the existing building on the site would remain to form a private walled garden for the dwelling.
3.0 HISTORY 3.1 TVN.00335/6 Permission refused for erection of dwelling and garage, covered storage area and hobby room in August 1999. Subsequent appeal dismissed.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS Conservation/Design Original application suggests too much development on site, contrary to Inspector‟s comments and should be refused unless there is a reduction in the amount of development. Design of house “ordinary”, but no objection as will be well-screened Highways No objection subject to conditions
19 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired 20 October and 30 December 2000 Letters 9 objecting for following reasons (original application): no change from dismissed appeal; backland development and therefore contrary to policy; over-development of small site making proposal unacceptable; out of character in conservation area because of size and design; increase in traffic on Water Lane; too close to neighbours causing overlooking; question that long-term commercial use of site; adverse impact on landscape; loss of open space and trees; increase in density contrary to VDS; could lead to future commercial use; site could be capable of some development. 3 further letters of objection reiterating previous comments Parish Council Object for following reasons (original application): little difference from appeal application; backland development and therefore contrary to policy; over-development of small site; would not enhance conservation area; loss of open area; contrary to draft VDS; Object to revised scheme: scale of development is too large for site; contrary to policy
6.0 POLICY 6.1 TVBLP C2 - frontage infill development only E5 - development in conservation areas Draft Village Design Statement - Upper Clatford
7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The main planning considerations are whether the amount and style of development proposed are acceptable within the conservation area, and whether the C2 policy would be compromised by this development.
7.2 A previous application for house and garage, plus hobby room and covered storage area was refused because it did not comply with the policy for the area and the amount of development was considered would be detrimental to the conservation area. Although the subsequent appeal was dismissed, again on the grounds of over-development, the Inspector did not consider that the erection of a house and garage would be inappropriate for the site, notwithstanding the policy for the area.
7.3 The site lies in an area where development is restricted to frontage only. However, given the nature of Upper Clatford at this particular point, together with the fact that a access already exists to the garage/workshop and another garage, it is not considered that development of this site would compromise policy C2. It is also considered that as the site is well screen it will preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.
20 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
7.4 The amount of building floorspace has been reduced to overcome the previous reasons for refusal. This has resulted in the site remaining fairly open, without a continuous line of development. It is considered that this is acceptable.
7.5 The design of new dwelling is considered acceptable, matching that of Redbridge House adjacent. The leylandii hedging will also provide a good screen to the property, restricting public views from the conservation area.
7.6 It is not considered that the amenities of the any of the adjacent property will be significantly harmed by the erection of the proposed dwelling, due mainly to the landform and distances involved.
7.7 There are no significant community safety implications by this proposal.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Although the development is strictly contrary to the policy of the local plan, the comments made by the Inspector in his decision letter together with the nature of the site, make it difficult to substantiate a reason for refusal. The amount of development has also been reduced significantly, and on balance it is considered that permission should be greatened.
9.0 RECOMMENDATION PERMISSION subject to: 1. FT01 Full Permission – 5 years 2. GE04 Site levels 3. GE06 Materials 4. HT20 Non-migratory material [Insert…4.5] 5. The development shall not be occupied until space has been laid out and provided for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles in accordance with the approved plans and this space shall thereafter be reserved for vehicle parking and manoeuvring at all times. Reason: In the interest of highway safety. 6. Neither the garage/hobby room hereby permitted nor the existing garage shall be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling hereby permitted on the approved plans. Reason: To avoid the establishment of a separate unit of accommodation or business. 7. RS01 Ancillary use [Insert…The garage/hobby room hereby permitted shall…] 8. LA07 Boundary treatment
21 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
MAP
22 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
3. APPLICATION NO. TVN.01265/13/CJ APPLICATION TYPE Relief from conditions REGISTERED 27 October 2000 APPLICANT Go Karting For Fun SITE 282 Weyhill Road, Andover (HARROWAY) PROPOSAL Extension of hours of operation of karts (variation of conditions 2 and 6 of TVN.01265/12)
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The site lies off Weyhill Road to the rear of the Peugeot Garage and Shell petrol filling station. It is a single storey brick built industrial building with corrugated metal roof and large sliding doors, which is used as an indoor go-karting arena. In front of the building is a large concrete apron providing car parking.
1.2 Access to the site, which runs along and area of wasteland, is shared with access to Trimtruck and NTL. To the rear of the building, at a lower level is a large commercial warehouse. To the south-east of the site is a residential property, but otherwise the site lies on the edge of the East Portway Industrial Estate.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is for a relaxation of the previous conditions which limited the hours of use. The existing permission varied end times which range between 1800 hours to 2230 hours, depending on the day of the week, with no operation on Public Holidays. The proposal is to have a single closing time of 2300 hours every day, to include Public Holidays.
3.0 HISTORY 3.1 TVN.01265/10 Temporary permission granted for go-karting until June 1990 TVN.01265/11 Permission for permanent use of premises for go-karting refused in February 1990 TVN.01265/12 Permission for permanent use of premises for go-karting granted in April 1990 subject to restriction on hours of use
4.0 CONSULTATIONS Highways No objection Env and Health No objection
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired 5 December 2000 Letters 1 (276 Weyhill Road) objects to extension of hours because current noise levels will continue into unsocial hours
6.0 POLICY 6.1 TVBLP D1 - general standards for the control of development (especially D1.13 on noise)
23 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The main planning consideration is whether the increase in hours will adversely affect the amenity of nearby residents.
7.2 When permission was granted for the permanent use of the premises for go-karting, this was subject to a restriction on hours of use. The restrictions were as follows: there should be no operation on Public Holidays, week-day use should cease at 2230 hours and on Sundays from April to September the use should cease at 1800, whilst for the remainder of the year the closing time should be 2000 hours. These restrictions were to protect the amenities of the nearby residential property.
7.3 A mixture of different uses, mainly industrial or employment including a petrol filling station, car show room and vehicle repairs, warehousing (East Portway estate) and a single residential property surrounds the go-karting centre. Thus a number of uses are noisy, but generally only noisy during “normal” working hours. However, this is a leisure use, and the restrictions imposed are likely to considerably reduce the success of the venture. Consideration should therefore be given to some extension of the hours of use, while at the same time respecting the amenity of the nearby residential property.
7.4 It is reported that there have been no noise complaints received, however this is more likely to reflect the fact that as permission was conditioned for specific hours there have not been any breaches against these conditions. It is noted that although advise from Environment and Health is to raise no objection to the proposal, concern is expressed to the full requested operating hours.
7.5 It is therefore considered that a partial lifting of the hours of use could be permitted without any detriment to the nearby resident, and it is suggested that the use of the go- karts could be extended to 2300 hours on Fridays and Saturdays, with use on Public Holidays to reflect the current restriction of hours of use for Sundays. (April to September the use should cease at 1800 hours, whilst for the remainder of the year the closing time should be 2000 hours.
7.6 There are no highway implications for an increase in hours of use.
7.7 There are no significant community safety implications by this proposal.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The current use has operated without any cause for complaint. It is therefore suggested that a further relaxation of hours of use would be appropriate.
24 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
9.0 RECOMMENDATION PERMISSION subject to: 1. FT01 Full Permission – 5 years 2. Operating of karts shall only take place between the following hours: (i) 1000-2230 hours Mondays to Thursdays (ii) 1000-2300 Fridays and Saturdays (iii) 1000-1800 hours Sundays and Public Holidays from 1st April - 30th September each year (iv) 1000-2000 hours Sundays and Public Holidays from 1st October - 31st March each year Reason: To protect the amenity of adjoining properties.
Note(s) to applicant 1. All other conditions of TVN.01265/12 shall remain in force.
25 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
MAP
26 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
4. APPLICATION NO. TVN.02078/8/RG APPLICATION TYPE Full REGISTERED 07.09.00 APPLICANT James Meade Ltd SITE 48 Charlton Road, Andover (HARROWAY) PROPOSAL Erection of two storey office building and single storey covered link to existing factory with ancillary parking
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The site is bordered by residential properties and the railway line. It is occupied by a substantial industrial unit.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 A 720 square metre two storey office building is proposed to the front of the existing industrial building and would be accompanied by additional parking area. The offices would be occupied by the current occupant of the industrial building who have a requirement for additional office space.
3.0 HISTORY 3.1 Planning permission in 1983 for four factory units including two on the site of the currently proposed offices.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS Highways No objection subject to conditions
Railtrack No objection subject to protection of railway property.
Env & Health No objection subject to restrictions on construction hours and waste burning.
Trees Tree protection required by Condition.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired 12.10.00 3 letters Neighbours at 4 and 10 Wellington Road and 54 Charlton Road object to overlooking, loss of light, noise nuisance from construction, alarms and car parking including in early morning and late at night, lack of upkeep of boundary, traffic congestion and inadequate parking and visual impact of building.
6.0 POLICY 6.1 TVBLP Policy D1 (General Standards) and transport policies
27 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The key issues are principally, impact upon adjoining residential properties and parking/access. 7.2 This site is in an established industrial use where there is an extant permission for further industrial building on the site of the current office proposal. The proposed building would have a 15 metre long elevation close to and facing onto the rear gardens of properties in Wellington Road. This elevation would have only high level windows at first floor level and an escape doorway leading to an external escape staircase. It is not considered that this arrangement would result in any significant overlooking of neighbouring properties or present an overbearing impact. First floor windows in the elevations running at right angles to the boundary with the Wellington Road properties will introduce some risk of overlooking of the ends of some gardens but this level of overlooking is not felt to be sufficient to justify refusal of the application. The building appearance with a pitched roof would be in keeping with the area.
7.3 The additional parking area proposed, whilst close to the boundary of the site would be 15 metres away from the nearest house and should not give rise to undue disturbance of residential amenities. The additional parking provision meets adopted standards for the offices proposed. Visibility from the access onto Charlton Road is limited by a railway bridge abutment however vehicle speeds are low at this point and therefore additional use of the access should not present any significant additional highway danger.
7.4 There are no significant community safety implications by this proposal.
7.5 Overall the submitted scheme is considered acceptable.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION PERMISSION subject to: 1. FT01 Full Permission – 5 years 2. HT05 Temporary parking/manoeuvring for contractors 3 HT09 Layout of Parking – Cars/cycle [36 car parking spaces including two disabled spaces] 4. TR01 Tree Protection 5. LA02 Landscaping Scheme [Insert…hard and] 6. LA04 Implementation & Maintenance [5] 7. No development shall commence until details of construction of all vehicle parking and manoeuvring and footpath areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved construction details. Reason: To protect adjacent trees from damage. 8. NS06 Construction operating times [0800][1830][0830][1300] 9. There shall be no burning of waste at the site for any reason. Reason: To protect the amenities of neighbouring properties.
28 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
10. GE06 Materials
Notes to applicants: 1. The proposed cycle parking should include the facility to secure at least two pedal cycles and two motorcycles 2. The footpath on the west side of the accessway should be 1.8 metres wide and be continuous to create a link between Charlton Road and both the proposed and existing buildings. 3. The car park between the two buildings will share an access with the service yard. Priorities should be established using white lining or revised kerbing to ensure that vehicles accessing the service yard will be unlikely to collide with vehicles exiting the car park.
29 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
MAP
30 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
5. APPLICATION NO. TVN.02965/1/CJ APPLICATION TYPE Full REGISTERED 25 August 2000 APPLICANT Wadworth and Company Limited SITE British Oak Inn, SMANNELL PROPOSAL Alterations and extensions to provide dining room, kitchen, toilets and porch and including rebuilding of existing porch AMENDMENTS Amended plans received 23 November 2000
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This application was deferred at the last committee for further negotiations over details and parking. Amended plans are expected and members will be updated at Committee.
1.2 The site is prominent within the village of Smannell, located on the junction of five roads. It is a substantial two-storey red brick building with more recent single storey timber extensions to the rear. To the rear is a gravelled area used for car parking, and a beer garden. The car park is accessed off Stoke Road.
1.3 The site, which is roughly triangular in shape, is slightly elevated above Stoke Road to the south. The boundaries to Stoke Road and the road junctions at the front are open, whilst that to north is formed by the walls of the building, a brick and flint wall and fence.
1.4 Opposite the site along Stoke Road is a row of detached dwellings set back from the road frontage. To the north is the Smannell primary school. To rear of the site is a paddock.
1.5 The pub is currently vacant and boarded up.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is to demolish the existing rear extensions and replace them with another single storey extension in brick to provide additional accommodation to the Pub. A more formal entrance will be introduced in the south elevation, and the porch at the front of the building is proposed to be replaced. The car park and beer garden will be improved, and a new smaller garden area will be introduced between the car park and new entrance. Internal alterations are also proposed.
3.0 HISTORY 3.1 TVN.02965 Permission granted for extension to car park in 1980 TVN.A.388 Permission granted for illuminated signs in 1988
31 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
4.0 CONSULTATIONS Highways No objection, subject to increasing the size of the car park and conditions. Reconsulted following meeting - car park to bed increased to provide 33 spaces Env and Health No observations HCC (Footpaths) Response awaited Ramblers No objections, beneficial when open (Footpath No 2) runs adjacent to it
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired 4 October 2000 Letters Church Farm House - see proposal as improvement in principle subject to few concerns: general noise, cooking smells and disturbance; opposed to excessive lighting; small beer garden adjacent Stoke Road to be used to additional planting; could sight lines at junction be improved and current arrangement re use of car park at school times continue Ridgelands - consideration to be given to relocating window in Stoke Road elevation due to loss of privacy; car park too small; query external lighting The Hawthornes - general support to principle subject to removal of small beer garden along Stoke Road frontage, will affect privacy; car park too small, and consideration to be given to overflow car parking; consideration to be given to hedge along Stoke Road Meadow House - generally acceptable in principle subject to side door in north elevation to be emergency/kitchen only; side wall to north boundary to be reinstated; screening along Stoke Road boundary; small beer garden is unnecessary; control over excessive lighting Aveton Chase - principle is welcomed, but object to small beer garden which will be intrusive; reinstatement of window in Stoke Road elevation; car park too small; lack of hedge along Stoke Road frontage to increase privacy for residents; lack of details of lighting Parish Council Support principle, but object to small beer garden; lack of boundary along Stoke Road frontage; car park too small - overflow car to be considered; lack of details of lighting
6.0 POLICY 6.1 TVBLP C1 - restraint of development in countryside S4 - retention of local facilities D1 - general standards for the control of development
32 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The main consideration is whether the proposed alterations will introduce changes to the existing building which will have an adverse affect on nearby residents. The issues of detail which has concerned the nearby residents have been raised with the applicant but, with the exception of an increase in parking provision, it is considered that they are not issues which will contribute to an improvement of the scheme.
7.2 In principle, the proposed development is acceptable. Although the building lies within the countryside where development is usually restricted to that necessary to agriculture, the extension replaces an existing one and will result in a marginal reduction in the amount of floorspace. The extensions to be replaced are rather dilapidated and not very attractive. It is considered that their replacement will enhance both the building and immediate surroundings, and be more in keeping architecturally with the original building.
7.3 Although the pub has only been vacated recently, the renovations and extensions will ensure its continued use as a pub which will accord with policy S4 which seeks to retain village facilities.
7.4 There are a number of concerns over the intrusion into the privacy of the adjacent properties, especially with the re-introduction of a window to the public bar and the addition of a small beer garden both on the Stoke Road frontage. It is not considered that the reinstatement of a window in the public bar will cause unacceptable overlooking. The distance between this window and the lounge window of the objector is 36m, and it is not considered that this would result in an adverse loss of privacy. In addition, three other existing windows on that elevation have not been considered to cause concern.
7.5 The small beer garden is located between the car park and the main entrance to the pub. There will be a considerable amount of general activity in that area with customers walking to and from the car park. In addition, as the main beer garden is relatively close by and elevated, it is not considered that the smaller area will add significantly to the general activity levels associated with the use.
7.6 There is some concern over the proposed size of the car park of 22 spaces. The standards suggest that 33 spaces are required. The concern with the lack of car park space is that customers will park along Stoke Road causing danger to other road users. However, this is an existing car park for a previous pub and restaurant use, and although the new extension will increase the trading area by 10 sq.m, it is felt that the car park is of sufficient size. The applicant comments that 22 cars in the car park, generally with more than one occupant, will make the pub unbearably full. However, the paddock adjacent is within the ownership of the applicant, and could be used for overflow parking if necessary.
33 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
7.7 There is no boundary to the Stoke Road frontage of the pub, and the applicant has indicated a continuation of the status quo. Stoke Road has a rural feel and the introduction of anything hard, such as a wall, would adversely change the character of the area. However, some consideration should be given to creating a hedge adjacent to the building and this can be conditioned.
7.8 No details have been given on any proposed lighting which will be subject to a conditioning or alternatively is related to adverts which would be subject to an application for advertisement consent.
7.9 There are no significant community safety implications by this proposal.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Much is to be gained by renovating and improving the existing pub to bring back a local facility into the village, and the changes will enhance both the building and surrounding area. The scheme as proposed is considered acceptable and should be permitted.
9.0 RECOMMENDATION PERMISSION subject to: 1. FT01 Full Permission – 5 years 2. GE06 Materials 3. GE09 External Lighting 4. LA07 Boundary treatment 5. NS06 Construction operating times [Insert…0730][Insert…1800][Insert…0800][Insert…1300] 6. The development shall not be occupied until space has been laid out and provided for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles in accordance with the approved plans and this spaced shall thereafter be reserved for vehicle parking and manoeuvring purposes at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 7. The use shall not commence until space has been laid out and provided for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles in accordance with the approved plans and this space shall thereafter be reserved for vehicle parking at all times. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
34 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
MAP
35 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
6. APPLICATION NO. TVN.03385/4/CJ APPLICATION TYPE Outline REGISTERED 10 October 2000 APPLICANT Andover Cricket Club SITE Batchelors Barn Road, Andover (ST MARY’S) PROPOSAL Outline - erection of cricket pavilion, incorporating new indoor training school and associated accommodation on site of existing pavilion AMENDMENTS Amended plans received 10 October 2000
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This application was deferred at the last committee for further negotiation over re-siting the pavilion.
1.2 The site is the existing cricket pavilion and the land which immediately surrounds it. It lies between two cricket pitches, with an area for parking to the east of the pavilion. Acre Path forms the boundary between the two cricket pitches.
1.3 The existing pavilion is a two-storey narrow building, with a flat-roofed single-storey lean-to and two sheds adjacent.
1.4 Access to the car park is from Batchelors Barn Road, with a secondary access from Acre Path. This access also leads to the hall used by Winton Pre-School and Winton Scouts. A new building for changing rooms exists to the north of the site.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal, which is in outline, is to demolish the existing building and erect a much larger building for use a cricket school with clubhouse. Siting is to be considered, with all other matters reserved. The existing car park will be used in connection with this use, and laid out for 59 spaces.
2.2 The land on which the building lies is owned by Test Valley Borough Council and leased to the Andover Cricket Club.
3.0 HISTORY 3.1 TVN.03385/3 Permission granted for the erection of garage for the storage of equipment in January 1991
4.0 CONSULTATIONS Archaeology No requirements Highways No objection, provided the car park is laid out for 59 spaces Estates No objection in principle. Comment that car park is retained by TVBC for use by both cricket pitches and that Andover Cricket Club have a right to use it. Env and Health No objection, subject to conditions
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired 10 November 2000
36 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
Letters 1 (40 Acre Path) objecting to the proposed size and siting of the building, which will have adverse effect on amenity of bungalow and garden through loss of daylight, noise from use of lounge/bar area Balksbury Junior School supporting facility which will form integral part of the sporting future for the town and schools
6.0 POLICY 6.1 TVBLP D1 - general standards for the control of development
7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The main consideration is the effect of the proposed development on the amenities of the adjacent properties.
7.2 The proposed building is considerably larger in terms of the floorspace than the existing pavilion. Its size is dictated by the facilities being provided in terms of the indoor nets for the cricket school. In addition, the other facilities for catering and official changing areas are necessary because of the cricket club‟s position in the particular league, and the mandatory requirements of the league. Were the club to be relegated, those facilities would still be required.
7.3 Although the building will be more prominent than that existing, it is not considered that the views from London Road would be adversely harmed by the development. There will however, be a change in impact for the two properties which back onto the cricket ground, in particular No 40 Acre Path. The new building will be within 10m of the rear boundary of No 40 (the current distance is 25m). Consideration has been given to re- siting the pavilion further away from the properties at Acre Path, but this has not proved practicable due to the considerable loss of playing area which would adversely affect the ability of the ground to be used satisfactorily, and car parking. Because of the limited area in which the pavilion can be sited, it is not possible to “hand” the pavilion and car park which would require access either in front of and behind the pavilion and further loss of playing area.
7.4 The nearest elevation will be single storey and to be used as the store. The balcony, lounge and catering area is proposed on the north-east elevation, furthest away from the properties to avoid undue noise disturbance.
7.5 It is accepted that the outlook from the bungalows at Acre Path will be different. However, with the orientation of the proposed cricket school to the north-east of the bungalow, and the fact that the building is in isolation rather than surrounded by other development, it is considered that the amenities of the bungalows will not be adversely affected through loss of daylight or sunlight. The positioning of the bar/lounge area away from the nearest houses will also help reduce disturbance.
7.5 The numbers of spaces in the car park is necessary, and appropriate to the size of the building.
7.6 There are no significant community safety implications by this proposal.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposed development is acceptable in terms of its use and siting. The plans
37 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
submitted of the elevations are illustrative only, and a detailed application will resolve outstanding issues of design. It is considered that the outline scheme should therefore be permitted.
9.0 RECOMMENDATION PERMISSION subject to: 1. FT03 Outline permission – time limits & submission of reserved matters 2. FT04 Outline permission commencement [Insert…before the building is occupied] [Insert…c, f, h, j, k, l, m, o matters to be submitted] 3. NS06 Construction operating times [Insert…0730][Insert…1800][Insert…0800][Insert…1300] 4. The development shall not be occupied until space has been laid out and provided for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles in accordance with the approved plan and this space shall thereafter be reserved for vehicle parking and manoeuvring purposes at all times. Reason: in the interests of highway safety. 5. NS02 Sound insulation [Insert…constructed] [Delete…of not less than …dB(A) 6. The use of the sports hall shall only take place between the hours of 0900 and 2130 hours on Mondays to Fridays, and 1000 hours and 1730 hours on Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area. 7. Noise levels arising from the development or any associated plat shall not cause the ambient background noise level due to the current activities (measured as a 15min L90) to be exceeded at any boundary when measured with the correctly calibrated sound level meter of type 2 or better. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
38 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
MAP
39 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
7. APPLICATION NO. TVN.04710/10/RG APPLICATION TYPE Full REGISTERED 10.10.00 APPLICANT Mr P Tarner SITE Andover Down Farm, Andover (ST MARY’S) PROPOSAL Retention of two security lamp posts
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Andover Down Farm is occupied by a number of businesses including pallet storage on the part of the site subject of this application. Footpath 51 runs close to the application site on its eastern side.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks permission for the retention of two 6 metre high boundary gantry posts with floodlight units. The light units illuminate the pallet storage area.
3.0 HISTORY 3.1 Business uses at the site benefit from an Established Use. Planning permission for additional buildings was made subject to the current application site being used for storage.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS Highways No objection County Rights of No objection Way Ramblers Assoc Do not consider lights will have any significant impact on the footpath. Believe that consideration should be given to limiting the amount of light projecting upwards in the interests of keeping light pollution in the rural area to a minimum.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired 14.11.00 Letter Neighbour at Harewood Peak House questions the need for security lighting on this part of the site where adjoining areas are lit and entrance to the site is past the owners dwelling. Objects to powerful lights being positioned to shine directly towards Harewood Peak House and causing light pollution out of keeping with the local rural surroundings.
6.0 POLICY 6.1 TVBLP Policy D1 (General Standards)
7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The key issue is the impact of the proposed lighting units and their illumination on this rural area and amenities of local residents.
40 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
7.2 Some degree of lighting for security purposes is probably reasonable in this situation though this should be achieved without significant harm to the character of the rural area and the amenities of neighbouring residential property. The posts, of themselves, do not have any significant visual impact on the surroundings. However during hours of darkness when the light units are on the lights can be seen from a considerable distance. In time with the substantial landscaping that has been carried out to the boundaries of the site the will conceal direct views of the light units.
7.3 The light units are installed to face towards Harewood Peak House. In having no cowls or baffles the units currently spread light widely. The degree of light intrusion could be reduced by fitting baffles or different light units thereby reducing light pollution. The recommendation for permission is subject to the light units being altered to reduce light spillage.
7.4 There are no significant community safety implications by this proposal.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION Delegate to Head of Planning subject to revision of the light units to reduce light spillage then PERMISSION subject to: 1. Any conditions considered appropriate on receipt of revised proposals.
41 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
MAP
42 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
8. APPLICATION NO. TVN.05253/8/CJ APPLICATION TYPE Full REGISTERED 4 July 2000 APPLICANT Mr and Mrs Hoggins SITE River Barn, Southside Road, LONGPARISH PROPOSAL Retention of 1.8m high fence AMENDMENTS Additional information received 9 October 2000
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 River Barn lies on Southside Road, opposite the junction with Nuns Walk. It lies immediately south of a bridge crossing the River Test. Behind the grass verge, a 1.8m high close-boarded fence has been erected.
1.2 Southside Road continues south out of the village of Longparish and is a rural lane, with hedges most of its length. Opposite lies an open area of water meadows which have been recently improved, whilst diagonally opposite is Southside Farm, the road boundary of which is formed by a low brick wall with iron railings.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is to retain the fencing, but the applicant has agreed to change the material to wattle panels and undertake some planting to the roadside.
3.0 HISTORY 3.1 None of relevance to this application.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS Env Agency No objection in principle, subject to informative note
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired 4 July and 27 October 2000 Parish Council Object because of loss of visual amenity. Continued objection after change of material, preferring a lower fence set further into the site
6.0 POLICY 6.1 TVBLP E5 - development in conservation areas
7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The main consideration is whether the retention of the fence will preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.
43 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
7.2 The site lies immediately south of a bridge across the River Test which affords views of the land either side. The fence now erected restricts the continuation of these public views into the land beyond and has a very stark appearance. However, with the change of materials to wattle panels, couple with additional planting to help screen the fence, it is considered that its continued siting will preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.
7.3 Southside Road at this point has a variety of boundary treatment, and it is not considered that this proposal will be out of keeping in the area and, once weathered, will blend in with the surrounding materials.
7.4 There are no significant community safety implications by this proposal.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION PERMISSION subject to 1. FT01 Full Permission – 5 years 2. GE06 Materials 3. LA07 Boundary treatment
44 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
MAP
45 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
APPLICATION NO. TVN.08051/VM APPLICATION TYPE Full application REGISTERED 27 October 2000 APPLICANT Mr. S. Hobday SITE Land at 5 Park House Mews, Cholderton, SHIPTON BELLINGER PROPOSAL Erection of block of 5 single garages and store room
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Parkhouse mews is a small residential development, of nine houses, converted principally from the stable block at Parkhouse Stud in 1985. It is located near the junction of the A338 and the A303. The proposed garage block and store room is located to the rear of the properties near the existing garages.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is for an L shaped building to accommodate five single garages with a store room in the corner of the building accessed through one of the garages.
The applicant has written to explain that currently there is one garage plus one parking space for each of the nine houses, but since 8 of the 9 houses have two cars this means that there is insufficient parking space for visitors and some people are renting garages some distance away. Since the early nineties he says there have been several break-ins to un-garaged cars in the Mews.
Parkhouse Mews Management Company Ltd. has a duty to maintain the communal sewage plant, drives and grounds and would use the storage area for the necessary equipment (with access via one of the garages for security reasons).
It is stated that the area selected for the garage block has been used to informally keep equipment and vehicles but in a disorganised and unsightly manner and the proposal would tidy the site and that three residents have already expressed a firm interest in renting one before it has even been publicised.
3.0 HISTORY 3.1 Planning permission was granted in 1985 for the conversion of a former stable building at Parkhouse Stud to dwellings.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS Landscape No objection Highways No objection. Presumption that residential link will be required.
46 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired 5.12.00 2 letters Objecting to the proposal.
One letter from the resident at 7 Parkhouse Mews states that although the block conforms in design with the existing he does not feel there is a need for additional garaging and that it will detract from the balanced layout of the development. A single detached dwelling would be more acceptable. He is concerned that the garages may be let to non-residents or sold at a later date and that this would cause problems with the communal upkeep rent. If they are to be allowed he would prefer them to be accessed separately and be self-contained.
One letter objecting from the owner of 9 Parkhouse Mews, also a shareholder in the Parkhouse Mews Management Company.
Raises questions about the use of the garages and whether they are for private or commercial car repairs. If garages are constructed in line with the character and standards of the existing garages their inclusion would not be detrimental to the mews but if once constructed they were used for car repairs then this would be detrimental, a nuisance and could become a hazard.
The planned access uses the track leading to 7,8,9, Parkhouse Mews and if use of this is denied by Parkhouse Mews Company Ltd the use of the garages may prove problematic. The five garages are likely to generate additional traffic increasing chances of collision and maybe creating a safety concern to children.
The gravel area in front of garages does not allow vehicles to enter and leave safely. The increased run off could add to problems with the sewage treatment plant and the need for power and light could overload existing arrangements for the Mews. The increase in cars and valuable equipment may increase the probability of the Mews being targeted by thieves.
47 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
Three letters in One letter in support from resident at 1 Parkhouse Mews who support considers the application will provide additional garaging for some of the nine properties and thereby improve the parking and general aspect. He is looking forward to renting one as he has a classic car which he at present is renting a garage some miles away to secure, which is a great inconvenience. Both his wife and he have vehicles for daily use. The building will be in keeping with the adjacent garages.
One letter in support from owners of 3 Parkhouse Mews, says very clearly a need for more garaging and they therefore support the application.
One letter stating no objection from The Gore, Cholderton providing the applicant sticks to his plans for the boundary since considers it would be an improvement on the present junk yard.
PC No objection
6.0 POLICY 6.1 C1 restraint of development in the countryside. D1 - general standards for the control of development.
7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The main planning consideration is whether this proposal has an overriding need to be located within the countryside and is positioned and designed to minimise its impact on the landscape.
The applicant has stated that the purpose of building the garages is purely as ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwellings nearby. They are to provide additional garaging for the residents and a store for equipment used to maintain the communal areas and sewage plant. This equipment is currently stored in the open on the site where the garages are proposed. Each of the houses at Parkhouse Mews currently has one garage and one parking space allocated and the applicant considers that this is insufficient and that there is a need for more garages. Providing the garages were solely used as ancillary to
Currently however the applicant has only stated that three residents have expressed a firm interest in renting garages and that the store room is required for equipment used to maintain the communal sewage plant and grounds. One letter has been received from a resident indicating that he would be interested in renting a garage. There appears to be some justification for up to three garages and the store room, but not for all five garages that are proposed. At present therefore there is only justification for part of the proposed development and unless there is further justification forthcoming for the additional two garages, they would be contrary to policy.
48 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
Whilst two letters have been received which express some concern that there may be commercial car repairs undertaken in the garages this is not the stated aim of the applicant. It would be possible to restrict the use of any garages to being ancillary to the use of the dwelling houses to ensure that this does not take place. Providing the garages were being used solely for these purposes then there would be no additional traffic or noise and activity, which were some of the main concerns raised by those objecting.
7.1 There are no significant community safety implications by this proposal.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The garages are proposed as ancillary to the use of the existing dwellings located within the countryside. They are designed to blend with the existing buildings in this location and positioned where there will be the least impact on the surrounding countryside. Currently however there appears to be insufficient justification for all five garages to be built, with only three residents expressing a desire to rent them. Without further evidence to support the need for all five garages the proposed development would be contrary to policy and therefore should be refused.
9.0 RECOMMENDATION REFUSE for the reason: 1. There is insufficient justification given for the need for all of the proposed garages and store room to be located within the countryside, therefore the proposed development is contrary to policy C1 of the adopted Borough Local Plan.
49 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
MAP
50 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
9. APPLICATION NO. TVN.08061/VM APPLICATION TYPE Full application REGISTERED 31 October 2000 APPLICANT Mr. I. Bartlett SITE 46 Anton Road, Andover (WINTON) PROPOSAL Erection of two storey side extension to provide hall, extended kitchen, garage, and w.c. with two bedrooms, landing, and bathroom at first floor and boxroom and gallery at second floor.
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The property is located within the built up area of Andover where there is a mixture of detached and semi-detached houses.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is to erect a two storey side extension to the house to provide a new garage, with a hall and enlarged kitchen and w.c. on the ground floor, two additional bedrooms, en-suite and bathroom on the first floor, with a gallery and boxroom on the second floor.
3.0 HISTORY 3.1 None relevant
4.0 CONSULTATIONS Highways No objection
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired 5.12.00 One letter One letter of objection has been received from 44 Anton Road outlining three main concerns : Current garage shares a common single brick wall with that at number 44. The neighbours have agreed in principle to ensure the continued integrity of the garage and surrounding structures. Extension projects 24 inches forward of the building line at front of the property. Believe this is not allowed in the deeds of properties in Anton Road. Such a projection would considerably reduce the light and view from my only window on that side of the house. Plans indicate numerous skylights that appear to be out of all proportion to the remaining tiled area of roof.
6.0 POLICY 6.1 D1 general standards for the control of development.
51 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The main considerations are whether the appearance and design of the extension is in keeping, and whether it provides for the privacy and amenity of adjoining properties and ensures adequate levels of daylight and sunlight.
7.2 The properties opposite the front of the proposed extension are set well back from the road and at an angle to it and there will be no adverse overlooking from the new windows proposed at the front of the house.
7.3 To the rear of the property the side wall of the adjoining property is some 20 meters away so there is limited overlooking in this direction. There will be some overlooking of the gardens of the two properties on either side of number 46 by the introduction of new windows to the rear elevation at first floor level and skylights at the second floor level, however the impact of this is not considered to be significant. There are mature evergreen trees between number 44 and 46 and the closest windows on the other side are rooflights.
7.4 The concerns raised about the impact on the existing garage at number 44 are not a planning matter and have been addressed by the applicant directly with the neighbour concerned. The projection forward of the existing building line by 0.5m is not considered to be out of keeping with the other buildings in this location. There are a variety of styles along the road and the two at this end of the road in particular are different in character to many of the others. There is a small high level stained glass window on the side elevation of number 44 Anton Road and a small obscure glazed window facing the road but set back behind the garage. Both of these windows may receive less light as a result of the extension but they are small windows with obscure glazing and the loss of light is not considered to be significant.
7.5 The existing house has all of its windows at first and second floor in the side elevation overlooking the side elevation of 44 Anton road. These have been largely replaced (apart from an obscure glazed bathroom window) by windows in the front and rear elevations including three rooflights on the first floor to the rear and three on the first floor elevation. Although the style of the rooflight is different to that of the existing small paned glass windows on the property it is not considered that they are so obtrusive for them to be not in keeping with the design of the existing property.
7.6 There are no significant community safety implications by this proposal.
7.7 The property has increased from a three bedroom house to four bedrooms and would normally require three off site parking spaces. Originally there was one space provided by the garage. There will still be one space provided by the garage and an additional parking space is provided in the front garden. There is on street parking available on Anton Road and in view of the fact that an additional parking space has been shown the parking available is considered acceptable.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The design of the extension is in keeping with the existing property, and does not have a significant impact in terms of overlooking or overshadowing of neighbouring properties.
52 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
9.0 RECOMMENDATION PERMISSION subject to: 1. FT01 Full permission - 5 years GE06 Materials
53 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
MAP
54 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
10. APPLICATION NO. TVN.08068/VM APPLICATION TYPE Full application REGISTERED 3 November 2000 APPLICANT Mr. And Mrs. S. Murphy SITE 103 Bury Hill Close, Anna Valley, (UPPER CLATFORD) PROPOSAL Erection of two-storey side extension to provide garage, utility and canopy with two bedrooms over
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site is located within the built up area of Upper Clatford. It is within an estate of relatively modern semi-detached and detached properties many of which are linked by garages. There are also a few terraced properties at the further end of the estate.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is to demolish the existing garage and internal passageway and to erect a two storey side extension to provide a garage , with a utility room behind and two bedrooms over. There will also be a new canopy over the front door. The garage will be positioned slightly further forward (1.3m) than the original and there will be an external side passageway (0.7m wide) along the edge of the extension.
3.0 HISTORY 3.1 None relevant.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS Highways No objection
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired 5.12.00 Letter One letter of objection has been received from the residents of Avalon, Foundry Road. They object to the proposal because it would look unsightly from the rear view making it look like terraced houses destroying the original architects concept. They feel that the character of the properties is altering providing a feeling of being boxed in, and that number 101 Bury Hill Close will probably be the next to apply. They ask for the following to be taken into consideration. Overlooking Over development Character of area Unsightly Loss of light
PC No objection
55 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
6.0 POLICY 6.1 D1 - general standards for the control of development
7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The main considerations are whether the appearance and design of the extension is in keeping. Also whether it provides for the privacy and amenity of adjoining properties and ensures adequate levels of daylight and sunlight.
The house to the north which adjoins the boundary with this property had a first floor extension over the garage approved in1987. Number 103 is set further back from this and the garage currently adjoins the end of the garage at 102. However the proposed extension includes a side passageway between the two properties. This and the fact that the property is set much further back means the extension will not give the appearance of it being a terraced property linked to its neighbour.
It is considered that the design of the extension reflects that of the existing property.
To the front of the property there is a long front garden so that there is some distance between it and the properties on the other side of the road. There will therefore be no overlooking in this direction. To the rear of the property the combined length of the rear gardens is over 30 metres to the houses directly behind and again there will be no greater overlooking than from existing bedroom windows.
The extension will bring two bedroom windows closer to the properties that front Foundry Road, located at right angles to number 103. The closest of these is Avalon which has a rear bedroom window at first floor level. The windows will however be at right angles and still some distance away and it is not felt that the degree of overlooking will be considerably greater than at present. There are currently two windows in the side elevation to number 103 and these will be removed.
With regard to the loss of light the extension will be to the west of the garden and just beyond the end of the garden. Whilst there may be a small reduction in light again it is not considered that this will be significant given that the two buildings are already close together, the extension will be beyond the end of the garden and there is a single storey extension already.
7.2 There are no significant community safety implications by this proposal.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposed extension will be in keeping with the existing property and will reflect the character and appearance of its surroundings. The amount of overlooking and loss of sunlight is not considered to have a significant impact on the adjacent properties.
9.0 RECOMMENDATION PERMISSION subject to: 1. FT01 Full permission - 5 years 2. GE06 Materials
56 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
MAP
57 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
12. APPLICATION NO. TVN.08074/CJ APPLICATION TYPE Full REGISTERED 1 November 2000 APPLICANT Orange Personal Communications Services Limited SITE Part OS Parcel 8600, Salisbury Road, Kentsboro (ABBOTTS ANN) PROPOSAL Erection of 25m high lattice tower with 2 antennae and equipment cabin, within 1.8m high steel mesh fenced compound
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The site lies off the A343 at Kentsboro, north-east of the Middle Wallop School of Army Aviation. It is access via RUPP 42/BOAT 24/U52.
1.2 Immediately to the north of the right of way is a triangular-shaped copse of tall mature trees, and tree belt. Opposite is an electricity sub-station. The landform rises from the direction of Andover toward the copse, then falls away to the airfield, thus the area is visible in distant views.
1.3 The site lies well away from residential development, the nearest dwellings being approximately 240m distance.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is to erect a 25m tower with antennae and associated equipment cabin at ground level. The mast is required to help fill a “hole” in the existing coverage provided by the applicant.
3.0 HISTORY 3.1 None. However, a temporary telecommunications tower has been erected at OS Parcel 6810 opposite under permitted development limits for emergency telecommunications equipment.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS Landscape No objection Env and Health Response awaited HCC (Footpaths) No objection, although point out that tract is used heavily for recreational purposes Defence Estates Concern over ownership of land Ramblers Site not particularly obtrusive, but question need for total coverage in rural areas
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired 8 December 2000 Abbotts Ann PC No objection Nether Wallop PC Object due to its extreme visibility creating an eyesore Over Wallop PC Response awaited Monxton PC Response awaited
58 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
6.0 POLICY 6.1 TVBLP F5 - telecommunications
7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The main planning consideration is whether the proposal will have an adverse impact in the wider landscape.
7.2 The telecommunications policy (F5) follows the advice of PPG8, and requires that the need for service provided cannot be questioned, but that alternative sites, masts or other structure should first be assessed for their suitability prior to the requirement for an additional tower.
7.3 The area along the A343 is currently poorly served by telecommunication facilities, which reduces the scope for any mast sharing. Although there are tall structures within the Middle Wallop development, particularly the water tower, the applicants have been unsuccessful in trying to secure the use of these structures. The water tower is also much closer to residential property than the current proposal, and in addition the recent permission granted for redevelopment of the residential area, indicates a childrens‟ play area adjacent to the tower. It is therefore accepted that a new structure is necessary.
7.4 The site chosen, whilst at the highest point of the landform, is well screened by the copse of very tall mature trees. Only the top of the mast is likely to be visible in the main public views. It is not considered that the mast will create an unduly intrusive feature into the landscape.
7.5 There are no significant community safety implications by this proposal.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The need for the mast is accepted, and the site chosen is appropriate due to the extensive nearby tree cover.
9.0 RECOMMENDATION PERMISSION subject to FT01 Full Permission – 5 years 1. 2. The mast shall be used for telecommunications purposes only and shall be removed and the land restored to its formed condition if at any time it ceases to be required for this purpose. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the surrounding area.
Note(s) to applicant 1. You are advised to contact the Army Air Corps at Middle Wallop concerning the installation of an aircraft warning light on the top of the mast. 2. Inquiries from other operators of telecommunications equipment will be asked to contact you with a view to sharing the tower permitted under this application.
59 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
MAP
60 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
13. APPLICATION NO. TVN.01704/3/CJ APPLICATION TYPE Outline REGISTERED 3 November 2000 APPLICANT Mr and Mrs B Cavill SITE Land at The Firs, Palestine, (OVER WALLOP) PROPOSAL Outline - erection of dwelling and garage
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The site is a level open grassed area lying adjacent to The Firs, a bungalow. It has the appearance of being part of the garden (lawn) to that property as there is no delineation of the boundary.
1.2 A line of conifers forms the northern boundary, which separates the site from the adjacent plot which has a number of unsightly sheds and a mobile home within in. The boundary to the road frontage comprises a line of conifers.
1.3 An unmade road (Salisbury Road) provides the access to the site, The Firs and two further properties. Opposite the site, the land is in agriculture and affords extensive views to the Middle Wallop Airfield.
1.4 This application comes to committee at the request of the ward councillor.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal, which is in outline, is for the erection of a dwellings and garage. The siting only is to be considered with all other issues to be dealt with as reserved matters.
3.0 HISTORY 3.1 TVN.01704/1 Permission granted for the retention of use of existing buildings for vehicle body building in February 1982 TVN.01704/2 Permission granted for rear extension in July 1983
4.0 CONSULTATIONS Highways No objection, subject to conditions HCC (Footpaths) No objection Ramblers Response awaited
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Expired 10 December 2000 None
6.0 POLICY 6.1 TVBLP C1 - restraint of development in the countryside
61 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
7.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The main planning consideration relates to the policy of the local plan.
7.2 The site lies in a part of Palestine which is not covered by any policy notation, and therefore is considered to be in the countryside. The general policy (C1) is one of restraint of development unless necessary for agriculture. No evidence of any justification for departing from this policy was submitted with the application; therefore it is considered to be contrary to policy.
7.3 In the area of Palestine, where similar plots are in evidence, it is considered that permitting development in this location would set a precedent, making it difficult to resist other development which would result in a change to the nature of the area.
7.4 There are no significant community safety implications by this proposal.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION REFUSE for the reason: 1. The proposed development is contrary to policy C2 of the approved Hampshire County Structure Review and policy C1 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan in that it would represent an undesirable additional dwelling in the countryside for which there is no over-riding justification.
62 Test Valley Borough Council - Northern Area Planning Committee - 18th January 2001
MAP
63