Eastleigh House Upper Market Street Eastleigh SO50 9YN
10 November 2020
NOTICE OF MEETING
CHANDLER'S FORD AND HILTINGBURY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE will meet on Wednesday, 18 November 2020 beginning at 7:00 pm
PLEASE NOTE: this will be a ‘virtual meeting’. The meeting can be viewed here: https://bit.ly/32yw7xR
TO: Councillor Alan Broadhurst (Chairman) Councillor Tim Groves (Vice-Chairman) Councillor Margaret Atkinson Councillor Judith Grajewski Councillor David Pragnell Councillor James Duguid
Staff Contacts: Nikki Dunne, Democratic Officer Tel:023 8068 8298 Email: [email protected]; Please email: [email protected] to register to speak before the meeting. Ross McClean, Local Area Manager, Tel: 023 8068 3367; Email: [email protected]
NATALIE WIGMAN Corporate Director – Strategy ______
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.
PLEASE NOTE that any member of the press and public may listen-in to proceedings at this ‘virtual’ meeting via a weblink which will be publicised on the Council website at least 24hrs before the meeting. It is important, however, that Councillors can discuss and take decisions without disruption, so the only participants in this virtual meeting will be the Councillors concerned, the officers advising the Committee and any participants who have registered in advance to speak. This meeting may be recorded.
1 AGENDA
1. Apologies
2. Minutes (Pages 5 - 8) To consider the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 September 2020.
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. Public Participation Councillors not on the Local Area Committee and members of the public can participate during this section of the meeting in the following ways:
If you are able to participate live (meet the technical requirements) and wish to be present and speak, you will need to notify Democratic Services 4 working days (Midday Thursday 12 November 2020) before the meeting. Technical and etiquette guides will be provided.
Alternatively, the public can email a statement to be read out by ‘the spokesperson’. Emailed statements will need to be received 2 working days (Midday Monday 16 November 2020) before the date of the meeting. Democratic Services will confirm receipt of the email and confirm it can be read out.
The statement (including questions) will be the equivalent of a maximum of three minutes if read out. Please therefore restrict your statement to one side of A4 (12 font). This applies audio/ video recordings also.
Alternatively a MP4 file will be sent to Democratic Services 4 working days (Midday Thursday 12 November 2020) before the meeting. This must be accompanied by a written transcript (emailed). In the event that the file does not meet technical requirements the transcript will be read by the spokesperson and shown on the screen.
Please contact us via [email protected]
5. Chair's report
6. Financial Management Report (Pages 9 - 18)
7. Presentation on Planning Guidelines
8. Planning Application - 16 KEBLE ROAD, CHANDLER'S FORD, EASTLEIGH, SO53 3DS (Pages 19 - 38) Erection of 4no. four bedroom detached dwellings with associated garages and 2 hard & soft landscaping following demolition of existing bungalow.
9. Planning Application - 1 OAKWOOD ROAD, CHANDLER'S FORD, EASTLEIGH, SO53 1LW (Pages 39 - 54) Erection of 1no. six bedroom detached dwelling following demolition of existing bungalow.
10. Planning Appeals The Head of Legal Services to report:-
(a) that the following appeals have been allowed:-
28 BROWNHILL ROAD, CHANDLER'S FORD, EASTLEIGH, SO53 2EA
Appeal against the Council’s refusal to grant permission for a 3 metre rear extension with interior changes. (H/20/87218)
DATE OF NEXT MEETING Wednesday, 13 January 2021 at 7:00 pm
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
3 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2 1
CHANDLER'S FORD AND HILTINGBURY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 16 September 2020 (7:03 pm – 8:48 pm)
PRESENT:
Councillor Broadhurst (Chairman); Councillors Groves, Atkinson, Grajewski, Pragnell and Duguid
______
RESOLVED ITEMS (SUBJECT TO QUESTIONS ONLY)
71. MINUTES
RESOLVED -
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2020 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.
72. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Grajewski declared a personal non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 8. Some of the objectors were known to Councillor Grajewski.
73. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There was no public participation on this occasion.
74. CHAIR'S REPORT
The Chair reiterated the importance of maintaining social distancing and following government guidance.
The Chair announced that the Local Area Manager, Julie Williams would be leaving her position at the end of the month. Councillors expressed their thanks and wished Julie well for the future. Ross McClean was welcomed into the role.
75. PRESENTATION ON PLANNING GUIDELINES
A short pre-recorded presentation was given 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.
76. PLANNING APPLICATION - 16 KEBLE ROAD, CHANDLER'S FORD, EASTLEIGH, SO53 3DS - F/19/85922
This Planning Application was deferred.
5 2
77. PLANNING APPLICATION - 32 RANDALL ROAD, CHANDLER'S FORD, EASTLEIGH, SO53 5AL - H/20/87573
In light of the interest declared, Councillor Grajewski did not take part in this item. In light of a suggestion of pre-determination, which was strongly refuted, surrounding the application Councillor Groves did not take part in this item.
The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management (Agenda item 8) concerning an application for a two-storey front, side, rear extensions; and single storey side and rear extension and addition of flue. (Ref: H/20/87573).
The Committee were updated as follows:
Report Corrections: - Paragrah 74, line 4 should read ‘has limited impact due to the design.’ - Paragraph 81, line 11 should read ‘can receive at least two hours of sunlight.’
1 additional letter of support was received.
RESOLVED -
To PERMIT, as set out in the Officer’s report, with amended condition 4 to state driven piling would not be permitted.
[NOTES: (A) One local resident spoke and one local resident submitted a written statement in objection to the application citing concerns over properties being overlooked, loss of light in neighbouring houses, the impact on the street scene and did not reflect the existing building line; and (B) the applicant spoke in support of the application stating that the road had properties that had been updated and their wish to have a sustainable, efficient and green home.]
78. PLANNING APPLICATION - 31 ORMESBY DRIVE, CHANDLER'S FORD, EASTLEIGH, SO53 1SH - H/20/88378
The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management (Agenda item 9) concerning an application for a single storey rear extension. (Ref: H/20/88378).
RESOLVED -
To PERMIT as set out in the Officer’s report.
6 3
79. PLANNING APPEALS
The Head of Legal Services reported:-
(a) that the following appeals had been lodged:-
28 Brownhill Road, Chandler’s Ford, Eastleigh, SO53 2EA
Appeal against raising of roof to provide loft space and mezzanine, two storey rear extension, removal of chimney and alterations to fenestration. (H/20/87218)
3 Oakwood Close, Chandler’s Ford, Eastleigh, SO53 5NW
Appeal against a garage conversion and hall extension. (H/20/87294)
(b) that the following appeals had been dismissed:-
Southampton Audi, 50-78 Bournemouth Road, Chandler’s Ford, Eastleigh, SO53 3DH
Appeal against the Council’s refusal to grant permission for a purpose designed, double sided, mobile, free standing point-of-sale device to display images of the products and services sold on the premises. This is not a digital sign, the unit contains canvases with a static image and text. (A/19/86647)
38 Guildford Drive, Chandler’s Ford, Eastleigh, SO53 3PT
Appeal against the Council’s refusal to grant permission for the construction of a single storey garden pavilion to the rear garden. (H/19/85385)
M6628
7 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6
CHANDLERS FORD LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY 18TH NOVEMBER 2020
FINANCIAL REPORT
Report of the Local Area Manager
Recommendations
It is recommended that this committee :
(1) Approves the proposed fees and charges from 01/01/2021 in relation to the cemetery (see appendix 1);
(2) Notes the current financial position in appendix 2;
(3) Agrees that £480 is allocated for the provision of a portable toilet at The Old Youth Club, Hiltingbury Road, funded from an annual revenue budget that CFH has allocated for community grants;
(4) Agrees that £340 is allocated for a new dual waste dog bin at Ramalley Woods, funded from Developers Contributions;
(5) Agrees that £1,890 is allocated for the purchase of a Speed Indicator Device for CFH funded from Developers Contributions; and
(6) Agrees that the Local Area Manager for CFH has a discretionary budget of up to £1600 £400 to spend on small works needed without approval from formal committee.
Summary
This report identifies funding for provision to meet local need and to enhance the local area. The Local Area Committee’s support is sought to enable their implementation.
Statutory Powers
Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 i.e. the Local Authority’s general power of competence, including power to act for the benefit of its area or persons resident or present in its area. S.106 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
9 Strategic Implications
1. The works outlined below contribute to the following strategic priorities:
Local First: where possible taking decisions at a local level about things which affect people’s lives, and using contributions from local developments for local projects Excellent Environment for all: creating a sense of place through improved pathways, additional bins and air quality Enabling health and wellbeing and tackling deprivation; improving community infrastructure, safety and places where different people can meet and receive support and services
Fees and charges
2. This report examines the effects of income received by the Council from fees and charges levied for services that are the responsibility of Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury Local Area Committee (LAC). A minimum increase in yield of 2% for all fees and charges is recommended to be implemented from January 2021 where possible.
3. LACs have the discretion to set fees for services devolved to their areas subject to compliance with the corporate target to generate an additional minimum yield from fees and charges of 2%.
4. The Service Manager has recommended increasing the Fees and Charges for Cemeteries from 1 January 2021 and the proposed charges are shown in appendix I.
Dog Bin at Ramalley Woods
5. The existing dog bin sited close to the site entrance to Ramalley Woods is currently damaged and considered to be very small in its capacity. It is proposed to be replaced with the a standard Broxap Derby 120 litre dual waste bin, as used and supplied across the Borough.
6. It is recommended that the siting of the bin be agreed in consultation with the Borough’s Countryside Manager.
7. The total supply and cost of fitting for the litter bin is £340. There is no additional cost to bins being emptied, which is apportioned locally.
8. In order to fund the purchase of the bin it is recommended that the following Developer’s Contribution is allocated for this purpose:
DC Reference Details Amount required
OSF/18/84154 Doswell Projects Ltd, 9 Valley £340 Road, Chandlers Ford
10 Grant application for Solent Youth Action
9. The Chandlers Ford and Hiltingbury Local Area Committee has an annual budget of £2,970 to allocate to community projects. Applications for grants can be made at any time.
10. The Solent Youth Action group are seeking a grant of £480 for the provision of a portable toilet until January 2021.
11. Solent Youth Action is a charity group that is entirely youth led and provides positive opportunities and activities for vulnerable young people of ages 10- 25. The group are currently providing supported volunteer projects and construction training at the Old Youth Club in Hiltingbury Road. The site does not have a suitable toilet facility until January 2021, so funding is required to hire a portable toilet to enable young people to be more comfortable on site.
Purchase of Speed Indicator Device for CFH
12. Each Local Area Committee (LAC) is being offered the opportunity to purchase a Speed Indicator Device (SID) for their own exclusive use.
13. SIDs are a variation of standard vehicle activated signs which can be moved around easily. They flash the current speed limit (e.g.30 mph, 40 mph etc) and these models flash a green smiley face if the motorist is approaching within the speed limit or a red sad face if the speed limit is exceeded.
14. In an area where speeding can be a problem, SIDs remind drivers of the speed limit by standing out from normal signs. Their use can help to break the habit of drivers who consistently use excessive speed.
15. The cost of the device is £1,650 due to a discounted rate for purchasing five at a bulk discount.
16. The cost of each deployment of the SID is £50 and we have previously budgeted for 28 deployments over 12 months. The budget will allow us to do the same again for 20/21. We also have the capacity to reduce the number of deployments or change the location of where the SID will be placed.
17. In order to fund the purchase of the SID it is recommended that the following Developer’s Contribution is allocated for this purpose.
DC Reference Amount required
TRF/16/77833 £1,650
Local Area Manager Discretionary Spend
18. It is requested that the Local Area Manager is given financial powers of up to £400 to cover small work projects such as fence replacements and bins.
11 19. All expenditure up to £500 approved by the LAM for small works will be put into the financial quarterly report for the CFH LAC for monitoring purposes.
20. Suggest a capped figure of £2000 per annum for the LAM to carry out small works, to be reviewed annually.
Financial Assessment
21. There are no identifiable financial risks attached to this proposal as this Committee’s budgets are sufficient to fund the recommendations. The quarter two Financial Monitoring shown at Appendix 2 presents the latest budget position as discussed in detail at the recent working group.
Risk Assessment
22. The risk of not purchasing the Speed Indicator Device is that an opportunity will be missed for CFH to have a device for exclusive use enabling the Committee to intervene where speeding is observed and reported. The SID also allows the Committee to receive more data to analyse average speeds, peak and off-peak travel periods and how many cars are using the road.
23. If the Committee decide to purchase a SID in the future, the cost of purchasing a stand-alone SID without the bulk discount negotiated by Local Area Services team will be approx. £3,000
24. Otherwise there are no identifiable risks attached to these proposals which should be brought to the attention of the Local Area Committee and Council.
Equality and Diversity Implications
25. The Equality Act is relevant to the decisions in this report because as the decisions relate to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, or fostering good relations between different people.
26. A full Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) has not been carried out, because while there are some equalities impacts, it is not proportionate to carry out a full EIA.
27. Climate Change and Environmental Implications
None of the proposals within this report will lead to increases in Greenhouse Gas/CO2, or damage ecology or the environment.
12
Conclusion
These recommendations are now submitted for Councillors’ final approval from the Local Area Committee’s revenue budget, revenue reserves and available developer contributions for the above projects.
ROSS MCCLEAN LOCAL AREA MANAGER
Date: 23rd October 2020 Contact Officer: Ross McClean Tel No: 02380 683367 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 2
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - SECTION 100D
The following is a list of documents which 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. This list does not include any published works or documents which would disclose exempt or confidential information.
Proposed Cemeteries fees and charges for 2021/22
13 This page is intentionally left blank APPENDIX 1 Cemeteries Fees and Charges with effect from 1 Jan 2021
01-Jan-20 01-Jan-21 Change Cemeteries £ £ % Internment:- All charges inclusive of VAT where applicable Child less than 12 years old (including - still born) Single depth 1,012.00 1,033.00 2.08% Double depth 1,287.00 1,315.00 2.18% Re-open to single depth 1,091.00 1,115.00 2.20% Cremated remains 348.00 356 2.30% For right to scatter ashes 94.00 96 2.13% Additional charge for providing a 24 hour 580.00 593 2.24% burial service Exhumation POA #VALUE! Additional Charge for Weekend Working 219.00 224 2.28% or late funerals incurring overtime.
Plot in Columbarium (includes purchase and rights for inscribed plaque and first 878.00 898 2.28% interment)
01-Jan-20 01-Jan-21 Change Exclusive burial rights: - 30 years
£ £ % Plot selected by Council (purchased at time of burial):- Plot for Adult 880.00 898 2.05% Plot for Cremated remains 368.00 376 2.17%
Plot selected by Purchaser 01-Jan-20 01-Jan-21 Change (Purchased in advance):- Only available at Eastleigh Cemetery £ £ % 01-Jan-20 01-Jan-21 Change Memorials: £ £ % Inscribing vase under 10” 98.00 100 2.04% Any memorial (includes memorial licence 382.00 390 2.09% for 10 years)
15 Charges for additional inscription 88.00 90 2.27%
Memorial shrubs or roses for 7 years 176.00 180 2.27%
Memorial benches for additional 7 years 94.00 96 2.13%
N.B Double charges will be made for all of the above fees to non- residents (after two years outside of the Borough). An exception is made where a resident transfers outside the Borough for specialist Nursing Home or Hospital Care.
16 APPENDIX 2
2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2020/21 Budget 2021/22 Original Rolling Estimated CHANDLERS FORD Actual Budget Budget Actual Left Budget £ £ £ £ £ £ Direct Costs Committee Costs 94,867 106,080 106,080 43,802.79 62,277 106,080 Depreciation Charges 167 160 160 0.00 160 160 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 95,033 106,240 106,240 43,802.79 62,437 106,240
Project Costs Contingency 105 1,920 1,920 0.00 1,920 1,920 Community Grants 0 2,970 2,970 500.00 2,470 2,970 Park Sport 0 2,000 2,000 0.00 2,000 2,000 Leaves 4,900 0 0 0.00 0 0 Roundabouts (1,885) 0 0 0.00 0 0 Reserve: 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 Youth Initiatives: Loft charges 5,319 6,000 6,000 652.00 5,348 6,000 Youth Group For Fryern 6,000 0 0 0.00 0 0 Local Initiatives 2,370 0 0 0.00 0 0 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 16,809 12,890 12,890 1,152.00 11,738 12,890
Total Direct & Project Costs 111,843 119,130 119,130 44,954.79 74,175 119,130
Devolved Budgets
Non-Discretionary Development Control (7,433) (23,010) (23,010) (23,010) (23,010) Democratic 0 0 0 0 0 Countryside Land Management 6,581 6,580 6,580 6,580 6,580 Open Spaces, Parks and Recreation Grounds 126,401 126,440 126,440 126,440 126,440 Trees 14,700 14,700 14,700 14,700 14,700 Cemeteries 41,648 41,650 41,650 41,650 41,650 Streetcare 101,770 101,770 101,770 101,770 101,770 Public Toilets 2,124 2,130 2,130 2,130 2,130 Bus Shelters 1,690 1,690 1,690 1,690 1,690 Footway Lighting 130 220 220 220 220 Footpaths 171 290 290 290 290 Car Parks - Chandlers Ford Station 1,335 1,430 1,430 1,430 1,430 Decriminalised Parking 0 0 0 0 0 Crime Prevention 0 430 430 430 430 Total Non Discretionary 289,116 274,320 274,320 0.00 274,320 274,320
Discretionary Democratic Services 2,225 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680 Countryside Management 10,126 18,700 18,700 18,700 18,700 Countryside Management Income (2,801) (260) (260) (260) (260) Trees 6,955 7,740 7,740 7,740 7,740 Cemeteries - expenditure 2,237 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Cemeteries - income (73,718) (72,360) (72,360) (72,360) (72,360) Open Spaces - expenditure 0 1,090 1,090 1,090 1,090 Open Spaces - income (495) (540) (540) (540) (540) Bus Shelters 0 1,210 1,210 1,210 1,210 Footway Lighting 1,552 240 240 240 240 Footpaths 0 440 440 440 440 Street Name Plates 400 4,840 4,840 4,840 4,840 Street Numbering 1,292 360 360 360 360 SLR 1,400 770 770 770 770 Traffic Issues 12,117 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Public Toilets 0 280 280 280 280 Car Parks - Chandlers Ford Station 53 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 Total Discretionary (38,658) (27,930) (27,930) 0.00 (27,930) (27,930)
TOTAL DEVOLVED BUDGET 250,459 246,390 246,390 0.00 246,390 246,390
TOTAL FOR CFH AREA COMMITTEE 362,302 365,520 365,520 44,954.79 320,565 365,520
17 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8
CFH – Chandlers Ford and Hiltingbury Local Area Committee Wednesday 16 September 2020.
Application Number: F/19/85922 Case Officer: Craig Morrison Received Date: Monday 24 June 2019 Site Address: 16 KEBLE ROAD, CHANDLER'S FORD, EASTLEIGH, SO53 3DS Applicant: K Warren Proposal: Erection of 4no. four bedroom detached dwellings with associated garages and hard & soft landscaping following demolition of existing bungalow.
Recommendation: REFUSE for the Reasons:
1. The layout of the proposed development would not allow sufficient access and turning space to for satisfactory collection of domestic waste from within the site such that collection of waste would have to take place on Keble Road. The resultant number of bins being placed on Keble Road on collection days would have an adverse impact on highway safety and function for vehicles and pedestrian and an adverse impact on the appearance of the locality from bins being left on the pavement between collections. The proposal is therefore contrary to Saved Policies 28.ES, 59.BE and 102.T of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2001 – 2011), Policies DM1 and DM13 of the Eastleigh Emerging Local Plan (2016 – 2036) and guidance contained in the NPPF.
2. The application fails to secure provision for mitigation of the proposed net gain of 3 dwellings on the site that would lead to an unacceptable increase in Nitrates leaving the site which would result in an in-combination adverse impact on the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area contrary to the Habitats and Species Regulation (2017).
This application has been referred to Committee by Cllrs Grajewski, Atkinson, Duguid, Groves and Broadhurst because the application is considered to be controversial.
1.0 Description of Application
1.1 Erection of 4no. four bedroom detached dwellings with associated garages and hard & soft landscaping following demolition of existing bungalow.
2.0 Site
2.1 16 Keble Road, Chandler’s Ford, Eastleigh SO53 3DS
3.0 Residential Development Density (Net)
3.1 23 Dwellings Per Hectare
19 4.0 Topography
4.1 The part of the site is located on a gentle slope with a fall of approximately 3 metres across the width of the site (from south-west to north-east) The access track which would remain physically unchanged falls by approximately 1 metre from north to south
5.0 Trees
5.1 The application is supported by a tree survey and arboricultural impact assessment which confirms the presence of two on site willow trees in the south western side of the site. These two trees are both classified as category ‘B’ (moderate quality) by the applicant’s arboricultural assessment and are both subject to a tree preservation order.
6.0 Boundary Treatment
6.1 Numerous fences surround the site to the north east and western boundaries. These vary in height from 1.8m on the western and northern boundaries, 1.2m on the eastern boundaries and 1m adjacent to 12 Keble Road. The southern boundary consists of a high hedge consisting of fir trees and a mixture of brick wall and concrete wall adjacent to The Coachways.
7.0 Site Characteristics
7.1 The site currently contains a single storey dwelling located in the eastern part of the site constructed of rendered walls and a tiled roof. The building has been subject to numerous alterations including flat roof canopies and connection to the single storey outbuilding to the north.
7.2 The site contains an access from Keble Road with a large turning circle within the site. There is a shed, greenhouse and a number of raised planters in the western portion of the site. It appears that the property has been empty for some time and the garden has become overgrown.
8.0 Character of Locality
8.1 The local area comprises a mature residential neighbourhood with a more modern development located to the South (The Coachways permitted by application Z/40216/000/00 in 2004).
8.2 Keble Road itself consists of mostly inter-war and post war properties with a mixture of bungalows, some of which have had dormers added, and two storey dwellings. Most properties are detached with some semi-detached properties.
8.3 Keble Road has treed verges and spaces between properties allow for views of mature trees in the wider area including the existing willow trees on the application site.
20 9.0 Planning History
9.1 Recent planning history on this site is limited to tree works to the two willow trees on site.
10.0 Representations Received
50 letters received from 32 Addresses. The matters raised are summarised below.
Highway Safety and Parking - Inadequate Access - Maintenance of road - Traffic Generation and Highway Safety - No visitor parking - Access to driveways for existing residents - Use of access via the Crossways is unacceptable - Access to the site should be from The Crossways - Highways Impact from Construction Traffic (including material on the highway) - Incorrect region used in Traffic Data.
Amenity - Air Quality impacts from additional traffic - Noise - Loss of Privacy - Impact on outlook from existing properties
Character and Streetscene - Permitted Development would allow for further inappropriate development on small plots - Materials proposed do not match others in the area - Overdevelopment
Trees - Trees will require frequent works - Damage to protected trees
Sewerage and Drainage - Difficulties connecting to main sewer - Drainage and ground stability impact
Other Matters
- Damage to existing properties and boundary treatments - Installation of a telecoms cabinet - Loss of Biodiversity - Enough building in the area
21 1 Letter received from Hampshire Swifts requesting swift bricks be incorporated into the dwellings proposed
11.0 Consultation Responses
11.1 EBC Direct Services – Objection
We have had a close look at this and given the restricted width of the access lane, the turning area at the top of the access lane does not provide a safe turning area for our vehicles, and the length of the lane means that we are not able reverse our collection vehicle along the access lane, as a result we are not able to use our standard collection vehicle. We have also considered if we could collect waste and recycling using smaller vehicles, however given the fact that we collect four separate commodities, residual waste, dry mixed recyclables, glass and food waste, this would require us to send four different vehicles and staff each week, which are unable to do as we do not have the vehicles available to do this or the staff.
Therefore, our only suggestion is for residents to place their waste and recycling bins out for collection at the top of the access lane on Keble Road.
Objection to the use of third party refuse collection as we have a statutory duty to collect domestic waste and recycling.
11.2 HCC Highways – No Objection
11.3 Ecology – No Objection
The PEA report is fine and the recommendations in the report should be conditioned.
These include precautionary roof tile stripping, vegetation clearance to be done outside of bird nesting season, a wildlife sensitive lighting scheme, bird and bat roost boxes, hedgehog hibernacula, small mammal access holes in any closed board fences, and the wildlife-friendly landscaping recommendations.
In addition, because the hedgerows will be in private gardens, a landscape management note should be added that the native hedgerows should be trimmed on a 3 year rotation (top, and each side in alternate years) to ensure a supply of fruit and flowers is always available for wildlife.
The proposed surface water drainage needs to be clarified. The Proposed Site Plan (Opt2, rev E, August 2020) shows that details of a proprietary soakaway system will be conditioned. The Amended DAS (section 6.4) (Sept 2019) shows a permeable surface on the shared access and block paving to parking and private driveways with a potential soakaway in each back garden. What was the original surface water drainage scheme for the original property? The existing footprint was 192 m2 and the proposed new footprint will be 496 m2 plus paving for drives, parking and shared access. In
22 total this appears to cover more than half of the site. Have drainage calculations and soil investigations been done to determine the amount of surface water runoff and what system is appropriate for this site?
11.4 Natural England – Await Amended Nutrient Budget
11.5 Southampton Airport Safeguarding – No objection subject to note to applicant regarding the use of cranes
11.6 Trees – No Objection to amended proposals subject to conditions
12.1 Policy Context: Designation Applicable to Site
Within Built-up Area Boundary Within Established Residential Area Within HRA Screening Area The site is located outside of but adjacent to the Bournemouth Road Special Policy Area.
12.2 Development Plan Saved Policies and Emerging Local Plan Policies
Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 saved Policies:25.NC (Biodiversity), 26.NC (Biodiversity Enhancement), 28.ES (Waste Collection and Recycling), 32.ES (Pollution Control), 33.ES (Air Quality),34.ES (Energy and Climate Change),36.ES (Lighting), 37.ES (Energy and Water Consumption) 59.BE, (Development Criteria), 62.BE (Access for People with Disability), 72.H (Housing Densities) 100.T (Transport and New Development) 102.T (Access), 104.T (Parking)
Due to the status of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 – 2029, this plan carries little weight in the determination of this application.
12.3 Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016- 2036:
The 2016-2036 Local Plan was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 31st October 2018 and the examination concluded in January 2020. The Council received the Inspector’s post-Hearing advice on 1 April 2020. The Council is progressing with modifications to the Local Plan to enable its adoption, anticipated in late 2020. Given the status of the Emerging Plan, it is considered that overall moderate weight can be attributed to it. The most relevant policies are:
DM1 (General Development Criteria), DM8 (Pollution), DM10 (Water and Waste Water), DM11 (Nature Conservation), DM 13 (General Development Criteria – Transport), DM14 (Parking), DM23 (Residential Development in Urban Areas), DM32 (Internal Space Standards for New Residential Development).
12.4 Supplementary Planning Documents
23
Supplementary Planning Document: Quality Places (November 2011) Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Parking Standards (January 2009) Supplementary Planning Document: Environmentally Sustainable Development (March 2009) Supplementary Planning Document: Planning Obligations (July 2008, updated 2010) Supplementary Planning Document: Affordable Housing (July 2009)
12.5 National Planning Policy Framework
12.6 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Para 11 sets out a general presumption in favour of sustainable development and states that development proposals which accord with the development plan should be approved without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out-of-date planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of the development would outweigh the benefits; or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted (paragraph 11). Local plan policies that do not accord with the NPPF are now deemed to be “out-of-date”. The NPPF requires that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. In other words, the closer the policies in the plan accord to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given.
12.7 National Planning Practice Guidance
12.8 Where material, this guidance should be afforded weight in the consideration of planning applications.
13.0 Policy Commentary
13.1 The above policies and guidance combine to form the criteria against which this application will be assessed with particular regard to the Principle of Development, The Impact on Amenity, Streetscene and Character, Highways, Ecology and Protected Species, Refuse Storage and Collection, Drainage, Noise and Air Quality, Planning Obligations, Sustainability Measures and Climate Change and Equalities Implications.
14.0 Comment on Consultation Responses and Representations Received
14.1 Concern has been raised on any damage that could be caused as a result of the failure of foul or surface drainage. The details of both of these will be covered and it would be the responsibility of the future owner(s) of the site to ensure that these are maintained in good working order. Any damage
24 caused by any part of the construction to neighbouring properties would be a civil matter between property owners.
14.2 A question has been raised on who would maintain the roads once completed. The roads cannot be built to adoptable standards and would therefore remain private and maintenance would be the responsibility of the future property owners.
14.3 Concern was raised that section 10.1 of the Transport Statement did not refer to the correct site, this has been amended, while this error was noted the findings of the transport statement are accepted by The Highways Authority (HCC).
15.0 Assessment of Proposal: Development Plan and / or Legislative Background
15.1 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."
15.2 Policy 59.BE of the Local Plan requires development to take full and proper account of the context of the site including the character and appearance of the locality and be appropriate in mass, scale, materials, layout, design and siting. It also requires a high standard of landscape design, have a satisfactory means of access and layout for vehicles, cyclist and pedestrians, make provision for refuse and cycle storage and avoid unduly impacting on neighbouring uses through overlooking, loss of light, loss of outlook, noise and fumes.
15.3 The proposal is considered to comply with relevant Development Plan policies as set out in the assessment below.
16.0 The Principle of Development
16.1 The application site lies within the Chandler’s Ford Urban Edge and therefore the principle of development and redevelopment is acceptable in principle subject to other detailed and technical considerations. The site lies within flood zone 1 (of least risk of flooding) and therefore the risk of flooding is not considered to be a constraint to the principle of development of the site.
17.0 The Impact on Amenity
25 17.1 Saved Policy 59.BE and Policy DM1 require development to avoid unduly interfering, disturbing or conflicting with neighbouring uses with particular reference made to noise, fumes, dust, overlooking, loss of daylight, loss of outlook, vibration, or from floodlighting or security lighting.
17.2 Noise, fumes, dust and vibration would only likely arise during construction which can be controlled via a Construction Management Plan condition. Floodlighting and security lighting can equally be controlled by condition to ensure that light spill does not disturb neighbouring occupiers. It is therefore necessary to consider the remaining three issues in further detail to ensure that the design of the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact on neighbouring occupiers.
Overlooking
17.3 The majority of the site is enclosed by existing boundary treatment but with some parts of the site, particularly the north-east corner on the boundary with 22 Keble Road. The fence along the access road is low in places and allows views into the neighbouring gardens. A condition is recommended to secure strengthening of the boundary treatments to ensure that the neighbours are secured an appropriate level of privacy from movements within the site. Given the narrow access and proximity to neighbouring gardens it is considered to be reasonable and proportionate to require updated boundary treatment to be agreed and installed prior to the commencement of development to reduce the level of impact on neighbours from the construction process.
17.4 Some filtered overlooking would be possible to the rear of the gardens of 8 – 22 Keble Road however the distance between the closest window and the boundary would be 6 metres and the level of overlooking in this case would not be an unusual situation in a suburban setting. Mutual overlooking between properties and gardens already exists in Keble Road and it is not considered that the additional properties would have a significant impact on the ability of existing residents to enjoy their gardens.
17.5 The adopted Quality Places SPD sets a minimum window to window distance of 22 metres to the rear windows of properties allowing for a reduced standard where the windows face the public realm. In the case of the properties in the crossways the majority of properties meet the 22 metre standard. Where plot 2 projects further south than the others it achieves 20 metres which, given its view towards the front bedrooms of the properties in the Crossways which have some visibility from the public realm this is considered to be an acceptable separation distance and is supported by the guidance contained in the Quality Places SPD. The properties in Keble Road are in excess of 25 metres and a distance of 23 metres is achieved between plot 1 and 75a Bournemouth Road which are in excess of the guidance contained within the Quality Places SPD. It is not considered that there is an unacceptable impact of overlooking on any neighbouring properties or gardens from the proposal.
26 Outlook
17.6 Given the distances between neighbouring properties (a minimum of 20 metres), the proposal is not considered to result in an overbearing impact on any neighbouring properties.
Loss of Light.
17.7 Due to the orientation of the properties in relation to the angle of the sun it is only necessary to consider the impact on properties to the north, east and west which are primarily properties in Keble Road. The properties in Keble Road have long gardens meaning that the nearest properties are in excess of 20 metres from the boundary of the site. Given the scale of the development loss of light would not have a material impact on these properties. There are mature trees within the gardens of 18 – 22 Keble Road such that any loss of light from the proposed dwellings would be limited.
17.8 Some loss of light would occur, particularly in the winter months to the end of the gardens of 10-12 and 22 Keble Road however these properties also have substantial gardens and any light lost would be to the ends of the gardens and leave much of the garden unaffected. The loss of light that would result from the proposals is not considered to result in a significant impact on the amenities of any neighbouring occupiers.
Future Occupiers
17.9 The proposed dwellings are orientated such that overlooking between properties is limited and there would not be significant levels of overshadowing between properties.
17.10 All properties have gardens that exceed 60% of their residential floorspace. Where plots 1 and 2 have large trees within the gardens these properties have much larger gardens as required by the Quality Places SPD. Given their orientation, notwithstanding the shadow cast from the trees the occupiers of these plots would still enjoy sufficient usable space and light levels within their gardens.
17.11 All plots in terms of the Nationally Described Space Standards would be considered as 4 bedroomed 7 person dwellings. At 124 square metres all plots would therefore exceed the minimum required floorspace of 115 square metres as required by Emerging Policy DM32.
Amenity Summary
17.12 As a whole the proposal has an acceptable impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, loss of light and outlook and provides for adequate levels of amenity for future occupiers of the proposed properties. Matters of noise, fumes, dust and vibration during construction and light spill
27 post construction could all be controlled by condition if permission were to be granted.
18.0 Streetscene and the Character of the Area Saved Policy 59.BE requires the development to take full and proper account of the context of the area.
18.1 The development would be seen in glimpsed views from Keble Road, as it sits on slightly higher ground however the spacing of properties and integration of the existing mature trees within and adjacent to the site would soften views of the properties such that the properties would integrate successfully into the surrounding townscape.
18.2 The plot sizes of the properties vary between approximately 225 and 390 square meters which is larger than the average property plot in The Crossways (120 and 300 square metres) but smaller than those plots in Keble Road which tend to be between 500 and 600 square metres.
18.3 The design of the properties is modern in style however their form and scale is traditional, with simple elevations and pitched, gabled roofs such that the more modern appearance of the properties would be most apparent from within the site and would not visibly jar with properties in Keble Road or those within The Crossways which take a more modern appearance in any case. While the majority of properties in Keble Road are brick faced there are examples of rendered properties within the streetscene and therefore the materials proposed are not alien to the wider area and given the varied form and style of properties in the area it is considered that a different style of property could successfully integrate with the surrounding area.
19.0 Highways Impact and Parking
19.1 Saved Policy 100.T requires development to be well served by public transport, cycling and walking. The site is located within a short walk and cycle of Bournemouth Road and Leigh Road which provides access to bus services and local shopping facilities and is approximately 10 minutes walk from Chandlers Ford Railway Station. Accordingly, it is considered that the site is situated in a sustainable location which provides alternatives to the private car to access other destinations thereby minimizing the development’s impact on the existing transport network.
19.2 While the proposal is not considered likely to generate large numbers of journeys for the purposes of criterion iii of Saved Policy 100.T the applicant has provided a transport assessment which shows that the development is likely to generate a total of 3 vehicle movements in the AM peak (2 additional) and 2 movements in the PM Peak (1 additional).
19.3 Concern has been raised by objectors regarding the suitability of the access route as it is capable only of allowing a vehicle to travel in 1 direction. The access is 42 metres in length and has a minimum width of 3.2 metres with
28 the majority of the access being between 3.4 and 3.7 in width. It has been suggested that the development would be better accessed from The Crossways. Other comments have been received stating that an access from The Crossways would be unacceptable, in any case the applicant has confirmed that the development cannot be accessed from the Crossways as there is an area of land that is outside of the applicant’s control between the boundary of the site and carriage of The Crossways.
19.4 It is accepted that there is the potential for conflict between vehicles using the existing single access track travelling in either direction along the access route which measures 42 metres in length. The County Highways Officer no longer raises a concern with regards to the access following a reduction from 5 to 4 units on site. In the County’s original comment, a preference was expressed for the track to widened to allow 2 cars width at the access onto Keble Road to stop off the road to allow another car to pass with a further passing place further. However, it was acknowledged that the relatively low traffic movements associated with the development would not result in harm to the highway network if vehicles paused at the access to allow another vehicle to exit.
19.5 The applicant does not own any land either side of the access track and therefore cannot widen the access at any point. There is sufficient width however to allow for a vehicle to travel in either direction while being able to safely pass a pedestrian.
19.6 The low numbers of vehicle movements shown in the transport assessment (a total of 3 movements in the am peak and 2 in the pm peak) show that the chance of two vehicles meeting along the access track is low. However, it is accepted that in some cases a vehicle may have to reverse back out onto Keble Road. Given that the majority of properties on Keble Road do not have space to turn within their curtilages it is considered that in the event that a vehicle had to reverse back out onto Keble Road that this would not present an unacceptable risk to highway safety. On balance therefore while a passing place and a wider access adjacent to Keble Road would be preferable it is not considered that the arrangement would lead to an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The council does however have concerns in reference to refuse and recycling collection and its impact on highway safety as explored in section 21.
19.7 Saved Policy 104.T requires residential development to comply with the standards as set out within the adopted Residential Parking Standards SPD. This requires 4 bedroomed houses to provide 3 car parking spaces as well as 3 visitor spaces (0.2% of the total), garages must be 3 metres x 6 metres to count as a car parking space. The proposal shows a suitably sized garage and 2 car parking spaces per dwelling. In terms of visitor spaces there is a visitor space adjacent to the parking for plot 2 and 2 informal visitor spaces opposite plot 3. In terms of spaces the proposal complies with the standards and therefore Policy 104.T.
29 20.0 Refuse Storage and Collection
20.1 The applicant has been unable to demonstrate that the council’s waste and recycling collection vehicles would be able to collect waste from within the site. The Council’s Environmental Health Team has raised an objection to the application on the basis that the length of the access and its restricted width would not allow for the Council’s Standard Refuse collection vehicles to access the site. This is compounded by the inability of the vehicles to turn within the site due to the layout.
20.2 The applicant has therefore suggested to secure a private waste collection that would use smaller vehicles that could collect from within the site. However, Eastleigh Borough Council is the waste Collection Authority and has a duty to collect waste from domestic premises under Section 45 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Which states that
It shall be the duty of each waste collection authority— (a)to arrange for the collection of household waste in its area except waste— (i)which is situated at a place which in the opinion of the authority is so isolated or inaccessible that the cost of collecting it would be unreasonably high, and (ii)as to which the authority is satisfied that adequate arrangements for its disposal have been or can reasonably be expected to be made by a person who controls the waste; and (b)if requested by the occupier of premises in its area to collect any commercial waste from the premises, to arrange for the collection of the waste; and (c)if requested by the occupier of premises in its area to collect from the premises dry recyclable waste or food waste presented for collection in accordance with section 34(2E) or (2F), to arrange for the collection of the waste.
20.3 It is considered that in relation to criteria a) that for the authority to be exempt from the requirement to collect domestic waste that both criteria of clause 1 a) must be met. In relation to clause i the site is not isolated and is surrounded by residential properties close to the centre of Chandler’s Ford. Whilst it is accepted that the applicant could make alternative arrangements that would be satisfactory to collect the residential waste as the first criteria is failed it is considered that the council is duty bound to collect waste and recycling from the proposed dwellings
30 20.4 The applicant has provided a number of decisions by the planning inspectorate whereby private waste collections have been allowed however, having taken advice from the Council’s Legal team it is not considered that the council could insist on waste being collected by a private operator as it would not be reasonable or enforceable given the council’s duty under the Environmental Protection Act.
20.5 As council refuse vehicles could not access the site waste would need to be collected from Keble Road. Given the number of dwellings there would be a need to store up to 8 bins where dual collections are required. There is not sufficient space to store this number of bins on the highway without restricting visibility for users of the access road or pedestrian users of Keble Road including those with mobility impairments who would not be able to walk on the grass verge. It is therefore considered that the proposal would interfere with the safety and function of the road network contrary to Saved Policy 102.T of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2001 – 2011) and Policy DM 12 of the Emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016 – 2036).
20.6 Given the length of the access it is likely that residents of the proposed dwellings may delay bring their bins back to their dwellings after collection or not bring them back at all such they would represent a permanent or semi- permanent presence on the highway. Notwithstanding the highways impact identified above this would also harm the appearance of the locality.
20.7 As the proposal does not provide adequate facilities for refuse storage which in turn would have an adverse impact on the safety and function of the highway and appearance of the locality the proposal is considered to be contrary to Saved Policies 28.ES, 59.BE and 102.T of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2001 – 2011), Policies DM1 and DM13 of the Eastleigh Emerging Local Plan (2016 – 2036) and guidance contained in the NPPF.
21.0 Trees
21.1 The application has been amended to reduce the number of dwellings to four, principally to allow for the retention of the two willow trees on site which are subject to Tree Preservation Order. Following the changes, the Council’s Tree Officer is satisfied that the construction of the dwellings does not prejudice the retention of the trees. The trees would remain within the gardens of plots 1 and 2 which can sometimes lead to pressure for additional works or removal. However, as set out in the amenity section the gardens of plots 1 and 2 are larger than the minimum requirements and given the additional protection of the Tree Preservation Order it is not considered that the management required would lead to their early demise or removal.
21.2 Permitted development rights would be removed from the proposed dwellings, both to protect garden sizes and to ensure that any further works to the dwellings would not have a detrimental impact on the roots of the trees.
22.0 Ecology and Protected Species
31
22.1 Due to the condition of the property and the overgrown nature of the garden a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been submitted by the applicant. The report found that in relation to bats, while there were some potential access points in the existing building, following emergence survey work no bats were found to be using the building but some were seen to commute across and around the site. It is considered that the development is therefore unlikely to adversely affect bats however bat roosting features should be incorporated into the new buildings.
22.2 In relation to reptiles, the nature of the site with overgrown lawns, hedgerow, vegetable plots and compost heaps are suitable habitats for reptiles. A phase II survey was therefore completed which found no evidence of reptiles using the site. It was concluded that this was likely due to the site’s historic separation from other suitable reptile habitats, no further assessment is required, therefore.
22.3 The report considers that the possibility of Great Crested Newts or dormice using the site is unlikely, but that birds and hedgehogs may be using the site. Careful clearance of the site is therefore recommended with steps set out in the report. The existing conifer hedge will also be replaced with a native multi-species hedgerow in order to provide bio-diversity net gain. A condition recommends the implementation of the recommendations of the report in relation to protections and enhancements of biodiversity.
22.4 It is considered as a result that the application has adequately assessed the impacts on biodiversity and protected species and would not result in a likely impact on protected species and with the conditions recommended would lead to an enhancement in biodiversity as required by Saved Policy 25.NC of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2001 – 2011), Policy DM11 of the Emerging Local Plan and Paragraph 104 (d) of the NPPF.
22.5 The site lies outside of the 5.6km buffer for recreation impact on overwintering birds in the Solent SPA however the proposal would result in an increase in nitrogen entering the Solent via Chickenhall Waste Water Treatment Works and thereby affecting the conservation objectives of the Solent and Southampton Water SPA. The applicant has agreed to mitigate this via the scheme provided by Eastleigh Borough Council removing agricultural land from the council’s land holdings at Horton heath from use and will be required to make a financial contribution of £4,500 (£13,500 in total for a net increase of 3 dwellings) in line with the council’s adopted and published strategy.
22.6 Taking into account the existing use of the Horton Heath site the offset of the 8.7 Kg of Nitrogen that would be generated by the development, 0.37 hectares of the site would be required in mitigation. The applicant has confirmed that This land is within the control of Eastleigh Borough Council as the competent authority for the purposes of Habitats and Species Regulation 2017 and therefore there is reasonable certainty that this land will be kept out
32 of agricultural use in perpetuity and the proposal would not result in a significant adverse effect on the Solent and Southampton Water SPA.
22.7 A Habitats Regulations Assessment has been completed and no response received from Natural England within the statutory Timeframe, it is therefore considered that Natural England have no objection to the proposal or findings of the Appropriate Assessment.
22.8 Were the proposal otherwise acceptable the applicant has indicated that wished to mitigate the impact via direct payment of the mitigation cost prior to grant of any planning permission. As the proposal is recommended for refusal this has not been secured and therefore remains unmitigated at this time. The unmitigated impact of nitrates is therefore a second recommended reason for refusal.
23.0 Drainage
23.1 The application site lies in flood zone 1 and therefore at lowest risk from flooding however the access is noted to be in an area at risk of surface water flooding. This is not considered to be a barrier to development, given that this area is already laid to hardstanding and a condition for drainage could be recommended if permission were to be granted.
24.0 Noise and Air Quality
24.1 Saved Policy 32.ES states that development will only be permitted if they have been designed to control the impact of air, land or water pollution to an acceptable level. It is accepted that without proper management that noise, dust and water pollution can become issues during construction. A condition requiring a Construction Environmental Management Plan is therefore recommended.
24.2 During operation it is not considered that the addition of 3 additional dwellings in an established residential area would unacceptable impacts in terms of noise air or water pollution. Concern has been raised regarding the impact of odours if sewerage systems were to fail due to the need to use a pump system to connect to the mains system in Keble Road. The application shows the foul water system connecting to the existing mains system in Keble Road. The specification and maintenance of such a system is dealt with at Building Regulation Stage at which stage the developer will have to demonstrate that the system is fit for purpose and has sufficient capacity.
24.3 It is acknowledged that there would be an increase in traffic using the access which runs between 12 and 18 Keble Road which currently has an approximately 1.2 metre fence on the boundary. In order to provide sufficient privacy and noise protection the applicant has agreed to increase the height of the boundary treatment in this area to 1.8 metres. For visual amenity purposes
33 the preferred option would be for a wall with a fence on top and it is recommended to secure the details of these by condition.
25.0 Planning obligation /considerations
24.1 In line with ministerial statements and case law this development for 3 additional dwellings cannot require contributions towards affordable housing or tariff style contributions towards matters such as transport infrastructure. Excluded from this are contributions towards mitigating the direct impacts of the development in terms of the impact of nutrients on the Southampton and Solent Special Protection Area and SAC. A contribution of £13,500 must be resolved by direct payment or secured by legal agreement before any permission could be granted.
26.0 Equalities Implications
26.1 Section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010 created the public sector equality duty. Section149 states: -
(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
When making policy decisions, the Council must take account of the equality duty and in particular any potential impact on protected groups.
26.2 It is considered that this application does not raise any equality implications.
27.0 Sustainability Measures and Climate Change:
27.1 National legislation and guidance, together with local policy ensure that all planning applications are tested for their resilience to and impact on the environment. Details elsewhere in this report set out the Climate Change and Environmental implications of this application and their proposed mitigations.
27.2 The NPPF (paragraphs 95-99), Saved Policies 34.ES and 37.ES of the Local Plan, and emerging Policies S1, DM2 and DM3 of the submitted Local Plan require development to be sustainable in terms of resource use, climate change and energy use. In March 2015 a Ministerial Statement announced that the Code for Sustainable Homes would cease to be applied to new development, although the requirement to achieve the Code’s levels for energy efficiency and water consumption remains. A condition requiring the new development to meet these requirements could reasonably be imposed.
34
28.0 Conclusion
28.1 The proposal is acceptable in principle, and whilst the access to the site is via a single width driveway it is not considered that this would result in a highway safety impact that would warrant refusal of the application. The proposal provides satisfactory levels of amenity to existing neighbouring properties and future occupiers and would not result in a detrimental impact on existing trees on site which can be satisfactorily retained within the design of the scheme.
28.2 The site is however unable to be adequately serviced by the Council’s refuse vehicles due to the width of the access and internal layout within the site. Due to the number of bins it is unacceptable to provide adequate refuse and recycling collection from Keble Road without an adverse impact on highway function and safety and the appearance of the locality.
28.3 Furthermore, the application has not mitigated the impact of nitrates on the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and therefore would be contrary to the requirements of the requirements of the Habitats and Species Regulation (2017).
35 This page is intentionally left blank Club NORT HDEN
E R 1 O
1 AD 6 6 0
1
4 9
F/19/85922 21 5 1
3 26 3
6
1
S OUTH
DENE
8 RO 1
1 1 AD
1 6
36.6m
El
1 6
1 1
3
1 1a
KE 6
BLE 3 4
CLO
SE 7
6
a 2
b 1 2 9 4 36.0m KE
BLE
ROAD 2
0 1
3 8 1 1
Hampshire Care a
2 7
3 2 3
1 3
1 0
3
7 5
6 3
1
7
7
5
7 a
6 1
52 6
3
8
3
0 3 TH E CR
8 OS
5 SW 60
A 1 6 Y 2 S
85a
3
8
7
8
7
a 1 2
37.5m 1
4
1
2
1
1 1 1a b 1 3
25
15
a 2 2
27 25a
0 0 1
SH
9 AF
1 TES
a B
URY 4 1 A VEN UE 39 (Childrens Nursery)
E S O 51 L C 5 K 5
O 8 O 2 R B
3
1
6
7 © Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey (LA100019622)
9
A1 ddress: 16 Keble Road, 2 Chandlers Ford. SO53 3DS E
S
O 1 L 4 C 2 1 37 D N 6 Date: 07/09/2020 Scale: 1:1250 0 1 E H T R 12 O N
8 6 M 0 EA 1
DOW
GR 5
1 O 1
1 VE 2
7
3
2 a 1 1 2
a
3
2
1 1
1 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9
(CFH, Chandlers Ford and Hiltingbury Local Area Committee 18/11/2020)
Application Number: F/20/88190 Case Officer: Richard Castro-Parker Received Date: 08/07/2020 Site Address: 1 OAKWOOD ROAD, CHANDLER'S FORD, EASTLEIGH, SO53 1LW Applicant: Mr & Mrs Shanker Proposal: Erection of 1no. six bedroom detached dwelling following demolition of existing bungalow
Recommendation:
Permit ______
CONDITIONS AND REASONS:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the following plans numbered: 4104-P-11 Revision I, 4104-P-12 Revision I, 4104-P13 Revision C and the ecology report by Hampshire Ecological Services (September 2020). Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
2. The development hereby permitted shall start no later than three years from the date of this decision. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3. No development shall take place past the dampproof course until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance in the interest of the amenities
4. No excavation, demolition or development related works shall take place on site until an updated arboricultural report and tree protection plan, as per British Standard 5837:2012 (Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations), have been submitted and approved by the LPA. The approved arboricultural documents must be adhered to in full, and may only be modified subject to written agreement from the LPA. Reason: to retain and protect the existing trees which form an important part of the amenity of the locality.
5. No construction or demolition work shall start until a Method Statement has
39 been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Demolition and construction work shall only take place in accordance with the approved method statement which shall include: a) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt generated by demolition and construction works, including measures to prevent mud on the highway; b) a scheme for controlling noise and vibration from demolition and construction activities including details of any piling; c) the arrangements for deliveries associated with all construction works, loading/ unloading of plant & materials and restoration of any damage to the highway [including vehicle crossovers and grass verges].
6. The rooflight in the south roofslope along with the first floor window serving the master bedroom in the south elevation, facing adjoining property number 3 Oakwood Road as marked on the approved plan Shall be obscure glazed to Pilkington level 3 or equivalent and fixed shut. Reason: To protect the amenity and privacy of the adjoining residential properties.
7. The proposed first floor window in the south elevation serving an en-suite bathroom as marked on the approved plan, shall be obscure glazed to Pilkington level 3 or equivalent and top hung opening only 1.7 metres above the floor of the room the window serves. Reason: To protect the amenity and privacy of the adjoining residential properties. 8.
9. No construction, demolition or deliveries to the site shall take place during the construction period except between the hours of 0800 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays or 0900 to 1300 on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.
10. The hardstanding as shown on the approved plans shall be constructed such that it is permeable. Reason: To ensure satisfactory surface water drainage.
11. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning [General Permitted Development] Order 1995 [or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification], no development permitted by Classes A-C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the order shall be carried out without the prior written consent of The Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of the locality and to maintain a good quality environment.
Note to Applicant: In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Eastleigh Borough Council takes a positive approach to the handling of development proposals so as to achieve, whenever possible, a positive outcome and to ensure all proposals are dealt with in a timely manner.
40
Report:
1. This application has been referred to Committee by Cllr. Grajewski, Cllr. Atkinson and Cllr Duguid.
Site Characteristics and Character of the Locality
2. The application site occupies a prominent corner plot on the junction of Hiltingbury Road and Oakwood Road featuring a number of trees, many which are TPO Trees. The proposal seeks to demolish the existing bungalow and garage and erect a two storey dwelling and garage. Oakwood Road contains generous sized family dwellings set in large plots with off road parking; Hiltingbury Road has much the same character. Within the area there are bungalows, chalet bungalows and 2 storey dwellings. Many, but not all, of the two storey dwellings tend to take the form of chalet style bungalows, or catslide roof features, with two storey extensions which are set back to avoid dominance. Of note is that the adjoining dwelling, number 3 Oakwood road and 2 Oakwood road opposite the application site are 2 storey dwellings.
Description of Application
3. Permission is sought for the erection of 1no. six bedroom detached dwelling following demolition of existing bungalow
Relevant Planning History
4. F/19/85885 - 1 Oakwood Road – Refused and then dismissed at appeal ref: APP/W1715/W/19/3239807
Representations Received
One representation of comment has been received and is summarised as follows:
• Proposal includes removal of a number of trees but in late 2018 application ref: T/18/83489 was only partially granted on the grounds some trees were healthy and deserved preservation.
• The remaining trees are healthy and the is repetition of the previous tree application.
• Hope no further tree removal allowed in line with previous.
5. No objection if 2 windows facing our direction are skylights would not want them to become dormers.
41
Consultation Responses:
6. Ecology – With regards to the ecology report by Hampshire Ecological Services (September 2020) the Ecology Officer is satisfied that there are no further ecology concerns. Recommends that the biodiversity enhancement recommendations in this report should be implemented.
7. Parish Council – No comments received
8. Tree Consultant – Does not object following amended plans showing no tree to be removed. Requests an updated arboricultural report. Advisees that this could be provided as a pre commencement condition. Provides a pre-commencement condition.
Policy Context and Designations Applicable to Site:
• Within Built-up Area Boundary • Within Urban Edge • Aviation Safeguarding (not applicable to proposed development) • Mod Safeguarding (not applicable to proposed development) • Within Established Residential Area • Tree Preservation Order trees on site • Within HRA Screening Area – River, SAC, SPA, Ramsar • Site falls within 100 m of The Lakes Hiltingbury SINC
Development Plan Saved Policies and Emerging Local Plan Policies
Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) Saved Policies:
• 28.ES (Waste Collection and Recycling) • 34.ES (Energy and Climate Change) • 59.BE (Design criteria) • 104.T (Off-highway parking)
Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, July 2014
9. The Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 was submitted for examination in July 2014 but the Inspector concluded that insufficient housing was being provided for in the Plan and that it was unsound. While this has not been withdrawn and remains a material consideration, it can therefore be considered to have extremely limited weight in the determination of this application.
Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016-2036
42 10. The 2016-2036 Local Plan was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 31st October 2018 and the examination hearings concluded in January 2020. The Council received the Inspector’s post-Hearing advice on 1 April 2020. The Council is progressing with modifications to the Local Plan to enable its adoption, anticipated in late during 2021. Given the status of the Emerging Plan, it is considered that overall moderate weight can be attributed to it. The most relevant policies are:
Development Management Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016- 2036:
• DM1 (General Development Criteria) • DM 11 (Ecology) • DM14 (Car Parking); • DM23 (Residential Development in Urban Areas);
Strategic Policies:
• S1 (Delivering sustainable development)
Supplementary Planning Documents
• Quality Places (November 2011); • Residential Parking Standards (January 2009); • Character Area Appraisal – Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury Character Area Appraisal.
National Planning Policy Framework
11. At national level, the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘NPPF’ or the ‘Framework’) is a material consideration of significant weight in the determination of planning applications. The National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘NPPF’ or the ‘Framework’) states that (as required by statute) applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise and sets out a general presumption in favour of sustainable development unless material considerations indicate otherwise. A deliverable 5 year supply of housing within each local authority area is required, and if this is not demonstrated a tilted balance in favour of the development applies. Agent of Change principles protect existing businesses.
12. Three dimensions of sustainability are to be sought jointly: economic (supporting economy and ensuring land availability); social (providing housing, creating high quality environment with accessible local
43 services); and environmental (contributing to, protecting and enhancing natural, built and historic environment) whilst local circumstances should also be taken into account, so that development responds to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas.
National Planning Practice Guidance:
16 Where material, the Planning Practice Guidance which supports the provisions and policies of the NPPF should be afforded weight in the consideration and determination of planning applications.
Assessment of Proposal: Development Plan and / or Legislative Background:
17 Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 require a Local Planning Authority determining an application to do so in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
18 The Development Plan comprises the Saved Policies of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011
19 The NPPF and the Planning Practice Guidance constitute material considerations of significant weight.
Principle:
20 The site is located within the urban edge where the principle of development is accepted, subject to the details of the proposal meeting the relevant planning policy.
21 The application site falls within an HRA Screening Area – River, SAC, SPA, Ramsar. However as the proposal is for a replacement dwelling within the Urban Edge no HRH screening has been carried out.
22 Policy 59.BE of the Local Plan requires development to take full and proper account of the context of the site including the character and appearance of the locality and be appropriate in mass, scale, materials, layout, design and siting. It also requires a high standard of landscape design, have a satisfactory means of access and layout for vehicles, cyclist and pedestrians, make provision for refuse and cycle storage and avoid unduly impacting on neighbouring uses through overlooking, loss of light, loss of outlook, noise and fumes.
Assessment of proposals: Design, Appearance, Scale and Density
44 23 The site is part of the Hiltingbury Road West character area of the Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury Character Area Appraisal which provides the following guidance on development and that they should ensure that:
o sufficient garden depth and area is retained by existing or replacement dwellings, commensurate with their size and character, which can accommodate appropriate tree planting in keeping with the character of existing plots. o no healthy mature trees would be felled or likely to be damaged o the design of any new building work, including extensions, is compatible with the character of adjacent good quality properties and fits well into the overall street-scene o the existing building line along street frontages is respected
24 The application site occupies a prominent corner plot on the junction of Hiltingbury Road and Oakwood Road, the proposal seeks to demolish the existing bungalow and garage and erect a two storey dwelling and garage. Oakwood Road contains generous sized family dwellings set in large plots with off road parking; Hiltingbury Road has much the same character although it is a busy thoroughfare, which features both bungalows as well as two storey dwellings of varying design. Many of the two storey dwellings take the form of chalet style bungalows, or catslide roof features, with two storey extensions which are set back to avoid dominance.
25 With corner plots the built form need to avoid being overbearing and dominant and respect the pattern of development not only of the street scene along Oakwood Road but also Hiltingbury road, given the dual frontage nature of the site.
26 Officers note that previous application ref: F/19/858885 for a 6 bedroomed dwellinghouse and garage was refused on the grounds that:
27 ‘The proposed development due to its siting, design and massing would create a visually intrusive and dominant built form at odds with the character and form of development of Oakwood Road.’
28 The Planning Officer considered that the principle of the development proposed was acceptable, however they had some concerns. They noted that:
29 ‘The proposed dwelling would have a much larger footprint than a number of the neighbouring dwellings on Oakwood Road.’
And
30 ‘The floor to ceiling windows in conjunction with the two storey front extensions would appear overly dominant with little or no consideration
45 taken account of neighbouring properties built form. The garage will be six metres in height and when viewed from Hiltingbury Road the pitch of the roof would lead to an overly visual built form, leaving very little clear distinction between the garage and the roof of the dwelling, as their siting and form would appear amalgamated thus creating a bulky built form resulting in an unacceptably dominant dwelling wholly at odds with the pattern of development of Oakwood Road.’
31 This current application also proposes a new 6 bed replacement dwelling and garage. It should be noted that the plans that are being assessed are amended from those originally submitted as part of this application.
32 The proposed dwelling features accommodation within the roofspace and in order to provide suitable headspace a crown pitch roof is proposed. Officers note that, while not an overly common feature other dwellings along Oakwood Road and the wider area feature crown pitch roofs.
33 Rooflights are proposed within the rear and side roof slopes of the dwelling. When the large crown pitch roof and rooflights are taken into account the dwelling would not overtly have the appearance of a 3 storey dwelling such that would be out of character with the area
34 As such taking into account the overall size, scale, height and massing of the dwelling it is considered that the crown pitch roof and accommodation within the roof space would not make the property look out of keeping with the surround area.
35 While Officers acknowledge the larger size of the proposed dwelling over the existing bungalow, surrounding properties 2 and 3 Oakwood Road are also fairly large 2 storey dwellings. The proposal would have a footprint larger than that of adjoining property number 3 and would also have a ridge height greater than that of adjoiing property number 3 Oakwood Road. However, from an assessment of the applicants submitted plans it is noted that the height of the proposed dwelling would be approximately 8.2 metres to the ridge while the height of adjoining property number 3 to the ridge is approximately 7.2 metres, a difference of approximately 1.0 metre. While this is higher, Officers do not consider it to be such that when the overall massing of the proposal are taking into account it would have a detrimental impact of the streetscene and the surrounding area.
36 While the footprint of the new dwelling would extend up to the common boundary to adjoining property number 3, the side wall of the of the 2 storey dwelling would be set in from the common boundary a sufficient
46 amount. With only the side elevation of the proposed single storey attached garage element being sited on the common boundary. As such it is considered that the proposal would not create a terracing effect.
37 Additionally the proposal would be set in into the site, back from the rear of the highways forming oakwood Road and Hiltingbury road and Oakwood road, a sufficient amount.
38 Having regard to that previously refused application ref: F/19/858885 along with the amendments made under this current application, it is considered that the height, scale and overall massing of the proposal would be sympathetic and in keeping with the surrounding area and development.
Materials:
39 As stated on the submitted application form, in section 7, the applicant has stated that the following external materials are to be used:
o Walls: Red/Brown Brick White Render and White timber weatherboarding o Roof: Brown Clay Tiles (as existing) o Windows and Doors: Grey powder coated. (existing dwelling features White Upvc windows and doors) • Vehicle Access and Hard-standing: Proprietary cellular confinement System and uncompacted Crushed Stone.
40 White timber weatherboarding is proposed. While weatherboarding is seen within the area given the site being a prominent corner plot, whilst the principle of this material is not objectionable officers want to ensure the suitability of the materials and as such a materials condition would be imposed upon any grant of permission.
Residential Amenity:
41 Saved policy 59.BE requires proposed development to avoid unduly impacting on neighbouring uses through overlooking, loss of light, loss of outlook, noise and fumes.
Windows are proposed into the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling along with 2 rooflights into the rear roof slope. Officers note the comments received from occupiers of adjoining properties and desire to not have dormer windows replace the rooflight.
47 42 Given the considerable separation distance from the rear of the proposed dwelling to the dwellings along Lakewood Road and the trees which act as screening, it is considered that no detrimental overlooking would occur to the occupiers of properties along Lakewood Road.
43 With regard to overlooking out toward adjoining property number 3 officers consider that no detrimental overlooking would occur from the windows in the rear elevation at ground and first floors. Additionally, officers consider that no detrimental overlooking would occur from the proposed rooflights in the rear roofslope. Officers note the windows at first floor in the south elevation, one serving the master bedroom and the other an ensuite. Officers consider that these windows would lead to detrimental overlooking of the rear of adjoining property number 3. As there is a window serving the master bedroom in the front, west elevation, officers consider that window in the south elevation should be fixed shut and obscurely glazed. Additionally, the window in the south elevation which would serve an en-suite should also be obscurely glazed but with restricted opening to allow airflow into and out of the bathroom.
44 With regard to overbearing impact it is considered that given the separation distance of the 2 storey dwelling, the modest height and scale of the proposed garage element along with the orientation of the site it is considered that the proposal would not have an overbearing impact or lead to a detrimental level of overshadowing on the occupiers of adjoining property number 3 .
45 It is not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of adjoining properties with regard to overlooking, overbearing impact and loss of light/sunlight.
Internal Space Standards:
46 The nationally described Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard states that a 2 storey, 6 bedroomed house with 7 bed spaces(persons) requires a minimum gross internal floor area and storage of 123 metres squared, while 8 bed spaces(persons) requires 132 metres squared.
47 From an assessment of the plans the Officer calculation the first floor alone would have an internal floor area of 139.718 metres squared. As such, it is considered that the proposal would exceed the required minimum gross internal floor area and storage of 132 metres squared. From an assessment of all other requirements set out in the nationally described Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard it is considered that the proposal would comply.
48
Access, Parking, Highway Safety and Bin Storage:
48 The NPPF supports the adoption of local parking standards for both residential and non-residential development.
49 The proposals would lead to an increase in the number of bedrooms over that of the existing bungalow by 3, bringing the total number of bedrooms proposed to 6. The Council’s Parking Guidelines SPD 2009 states that 3 parking spaces would be required. Officers consider that 3 off-road parking spaces could be provided. Additionally, Officers note that there are no on road parking restrictions. On this basis there is no concern that the proposal could not meet the requirements of saved policy 104.T and the Residential Parking Standards SPD
50 The site is able to adequately provide for bin storage which meets saved policy 28.ES.
51 The proposal includes the addition of an access out onto Oakwood Road and the comments of Hampshire County Council as the Highways Authority are awaited and will reported as a verbal update at committee..
52 From the above assessment it is considered that the proposals would comply to Saved Policy 104.T of the current Local Plan 2001-2011, Policy DM24 of the Local Plan 2011-2029, Policy DM13 The Submitted Local Plan 2016-2036 and The Council’s Parking Guidelines SPD 2009 subject to no material objection form the Highways Authority regarding the amended access.
Drainage and Flood Risk:
53 Officers note that the applicant has stated in section 11 of the application form that the proposal would be within 20 meters of an existing watercourse. Officers note that no flood risk statement has been provided. Upon assessment of the councils mapping Officers consider that both the Hiltingbury Lakes and the watercourse to the rear of Oakwood Close are more than 20 meters away. According to the Environment Agency Flood Risk Mapping the application site falls within Flood Risk Zone 1. As such it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon flooding or flood risk
54 In the Submitted Design and Access Statement it is stated that foul drainage will link into the existing below ground system as per the existing dwellings. This is a replacement dwelling and it is considered that linking into the existing drainage system would be acceptable.
49 55 Hard-standing proposed to be proprietary cellular confinement System and uncompacted Crushed Stone. Full details not provided but it is stated in the submitted Design and Access Statement that the hardstanding would be generally be of a permeable type to attenuate stormwater flows from rainfall and thereby minimise on site storage requirements. A condition will be imposed upon this application in order to ensure all hardstanding is permeable.
Ecology and Trees:
56 Neighbour comment regarding trees has been received. The neighbour comments reference that the proposal includes removal of a of trees but in late 2018 application ref: T/18/83489 was only partially granted on the grounds some trees were healthy and deserved preservation.
57 The application site is covered with a blanket TPO, Initially the Applicant proposed to remove the tree marked T1 on the submitted plans. However, following amended plans they sought to keep T1 rather than remove it. Therefore, the Tree Consultant requests an updated arboricultural report. The Tree Consultant advises that this could be provided as a pre-commencement condition, of which the applicant’s agreement to the proposed condition will be sought.
58 Even though the proposal is located with the HRA (Habitat Regulations Assessment) screening area, given the size, scale and massing of the proposal and that it seeks to make amendments to an existing dwelling rather than proposing a new dwelling no screening was carried out and no significant impact on notable features is anticipated. .
59 Not withstanding the submission and assessment of the requested arboricultural report the application site as such it is considered that there will be no adverse impact upon trees or other natural features worthy of retention.
60 The application site falls within 100 m of The Lakes Hiltingbury Site of Importance to Nature Conservation (SINC). Officers note the submitted ecology report by Hampshire Ecological Services (September 2020). The Council’s Ecologist has commented, raised no objection and considered that this report should be implemented.
Other material considerations
Equalities Implications:
61 Section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010 created the public sector equality duty. Section149 states:- A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:
50 a. eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; b. advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; c. foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
62 When making policy decisions, the Council must take account of the equality duty and in particular any potential impact on protected groups. It is considered that this application does not raise any equality implications.
Conclusion:
63 In conclusion of the assessment above, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with to the National Planning Policy Framework, saved policy 59.BE of the adopted Local Plan Review 2001-2011, policy DM1 of the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016-2036, and the Quality Places Supplementary Planning Document (2011).
51 This page is intentionally left blank GORDON ROAD 25 12 LB
19 F/20/88190 8 13 71
Orchard Lea
5
HILTINGBURY
67a
9a 4 CLOSE
9 HILTINGBURY
1 102
12 94
HILTINGBURY ROAD 46.3m
1
82 65 45
50.6m
2
1
56
50.6mROAD
LAKEWOOD
OAKWOOD ROAD 63 Path (um)
61
9
14
16
13
18
57
© Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey (LA100019622) 23
Address: 1 Oakwood Road, Chandler's Ford, Eastleigh
Path (um) SO53 1LW 51 53 Date: 10/11/2020 Scale: 1:1250
49
31 54 This page is intentionally left blank