Present: Cllrs Fleming (Chairman), Faulkner (from 7:45pm), Fellows, Hale, O’Neill and Robinson-Giannasi

In attendance: Mrs Tilt (Deputy Clerk)

Also present: 5 members of the public


Apologies were received from District Cllrs Crookes and Kennett


Cllr Fleming declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 165/14 – Down Farm, Land East of Hook Road, Castle Bridge House and The Chilli Pad.

Cllr Fellows declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 165/14 – Sixpenny Cottage.


It was confirmed that the Neighbourhood Plan Group consultation invitations have been sent out to everyone in the community. Cllrs are strongly encouraged to come along as well.

It was announced that Hart DC is currently going through the process of removing certain rights within the large field to the left of the dual-carriageway, where the B3349 and A287 join, between and the M3.


Case: 14/02546/LBC Address: Manisty Cottage, 19 High Street, Odiham, Hook, RG29 1LE Description: Remove modern internal ground floor blockwork wall. Install timber post midway along line of removed wall to support historic trimmer beam, wall and floor above. Insert steel beam between joists within floor depth to support newel post above. (Amendments to 14/00745/LBC) Decision: Grant listed building consent OPC Comment: Odiham parish council leaves it to the Conservation Officer to provide suitable advice.

Case: 14/02450/HMC Address: Willow Tree House, 17 Archery Fields, Odiham, Hook, RG29 1AE Description: Erection of single storey flat roof extension and alterations Decision: Grant permission OPC Comment: Odiham parish council raises no objection to this planning application.

Case: 14/02524/HMC Address: Sunray, Colt Hill, Odiham, Hook, Hampshire RG29 1AN Description: Erection of a single storey rear extension and increase in roof height and formation of 1 window, 5 dormer windows and 2 velux windows to create three new bedrooms in the roof space Decision: Grant permission

1 of 13 150105 Planning Minutes

OPC Comment: OPC objects to this application on the basis that it is still proposing much too large an extension, which would wholly alter the scale of the existing property and its relationship with its neighbours and with the street scene. As such it will adversely affect the amenity of all its neighbours - at both sides, front and rear. We believe it to be un-neighbourly over-development which is out of keeping with the character of this part of Road. We also consider that a 6 bedroomed property on this small plot will be unable to meet its own parking requirements on site, greatly exacerbating the narrow and already congested London Road where parking is already a major problem. In summary this is over-development.

Case: 14/02434/HMC Address: 6 Coronation Close, Odiham, Hook RG29 1AD Description: Erection of a two storey side extension to provide attached annex for dependant relative. Erection of front porch Decision: Grant permission OPC Comment: Odiham parish council comments that these plans remove side access to the property and access to upstairs is contrived. The council questions how real an annexe it is. Is it going to be part of the main residence or something separate?

Case: 14/02583/HMC Address: The Cottage, Whitehall, Odiham, Hook, Hampshire RG29 1JP Description: Erection of a two storey side and rear extension following demolition of garage/workshop Decision: Grant permission OPC Comment: Odiham parish council raises no objection to this planning application.

Case: 14/02389/FUL Address: The Penarth Stud, Road, Odiham, Hook, Hampshire RG29 1HR Description: replacement and extension of existing sand school to give an exercise area 50mx20m (no floodlighting is required or proposed Decision: Grant permission OPC Comment: Odiham parish council does not object to this application, but that is on the basis that there is to be no flood lighting, as stated. It would however like to comment that a drainage study should be carried out to ensure that no contamination of the Broadoak stream (which runs into the canal) will occur from any run off from the school, as this site is subject to inundation. Odiham parish council also recommends that the transport study is looked at again against the stated use of the horses for shows and fetes, all clearly off site. It further comments that the condition for private use and not commercial use also be retained. Additionally, can confirmation be given that neighbours have been consulted?


Case: 14/02659/LBC & 14/02670/HMC Address: Sixpenny Cottage, 3 West Street, Odiham, Hook, Hampshire RG29 1NR Description: Refurbishment of the building to include replacement windows on the front elevation and new canopy porch as well as internal alterations. Decision: Odiham parish council leaves it to the Conservation Officer to provide suitable advice.

Case: 14/02945/LBC Address: Pear Tree Cottage, The Bury, Odiham, Hook, Hampshire RG29 1LY Description: Erection of garden wall and gate to form enclosed garden area. Decision: Odiham parish council raises no objection to this planning application.

Case: 14/02938/HMC Address: Close Cottage, Alton Road, Odiham, Hook, Hampshire RG29 1PH Description: single story side extension. Removal of conservatory and outbuilding. Internal reconfiguring.

2 of 13 150105 Planning Minutes

Decision: Odiham parish council objects to this planning application for the following reasons:-

This is a listed building where its scale is an integral part of its function as a gatehouse. The proposed addition is overwhelming. The building currently looks like the gatehouse it was, but the proposed extension would introduce an unacceptable level of visual ambiguity. The extension is not required to make the house habitable or more commodious for modern living; the house can continue to function as a house perfectly well without the extension.

If an extension is to be considered, a more pleasing approach would be to put one at the rear. It is a charming building, partly because of its scale. The extension would reduce its charm in an area of Odiham that has been acknowledged on a number of occasions as being particularly precious. There are very few listed buildings in Odiham from the 19th century so we should protect what there is with vigour.

Case: 14/02800/MAJOR Address: Down Farm, The Firs, Odiham, Hook RG29 1PP Description: Erection of 17 dwellings with new vehicular access and internal road. Decision: A resident spoke for 3 minutes objecting to this planning application.

Odiham parish council objects to this application.

The application seeks to exploit the lack of a Hart Local Plan to put houses where they would never previously have been allowed. It is moreover an attempt to put houses where they would very unlikely be allowed once Hart does have a Local Plan, unless one is to believe that the relevant Hart policies, as outlined in its decision respecting 12/00540/FUL Erection of new dwelling and alteration to existing access, Clump House The Firs Odiham, and as upheld by an Inspector, will be voluntarily jettisoned by Hart. In fact, the very opportunism of the application merely serves to accentuate the weakness of the case for it.

Our objection is for the following reasons:

1. There has been no public consultation despite this being strongly promoted by the NPPF

The applicant quotes extensively from the NPPF, even including in his Planning, Design and Access Statement a section entitled ‘Conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework’. He makes no mention however of public consultation which, whilst not mandatory, is strongly promoted by the NPPF in sections 66 and 189:

Section 66 Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Proposals that can demonstrate this in developing the design of the new development should be looked on more favourably

Section 189 Local planning authorities have a key role to play in encouraging other parties to take maximum advantage of the pre-application stage. They cannot require that a developer engages with them before submitting a planning application, but they should encourage take-up of any pre-application services they do offer. They should also, where they think this would be beneficial, encourage any applicants who are not already required to do so by law to engage with the local community before submitting their applications.

Note that the NPPF even goes so far as to say in Section 66: ‘Proposals that can demonstrate this in developing the design of the new development should be looked on more favourably’. This proposal should therefore be looked on less

3 of 13 150105 Planning Minutes

favourably than it would otherwise be. We have no knowledge of any pre- application advice being sought by the developer and so, if this is the case, we would highlight this deficiency in the application.

The applicant is demonstrably failing to comply with the spirit of the NPPF. Furthermore, by failing even to attempt to address two whole sections of the NPPF, it would appear the applicant is either displaying a technical lack of understanding of the very document by which this application will be decided or else has chosen to address only parts of it.

2. Sustainability

The applicant claims in section 3.4 that the site is sustainable because it is ‘comfortably’ within walking and cycling distance of Odiham and there are ‘good bus services’. This is demonstrably not so, for the following reasons:

. Changes to bus routes on 5 January this year saw the withdrawal of all bus services serving Odiham High Street. This has highlighted that no developer can guarantee the continuation of any existing bus service, even one that serves the hundreds of residents of Odiham, many young, elderly or car-less for whom there is now no bus service without a long walk. The developer also incorrectly claims there is a bus service to Camberley; . There is no pavement along Firs Lane, a road with a 60 mph speed limit. Hampshire County Council has recently informed Odiham Parish Council it cannot progress a plan for pavements due to uncertainty as to who owns the land on which a pavement would be built. Children walking to Robert May’s School use The Firs and so have to walk in a road with a 60 mph speed limit. Their walk would be even more dangerous due to the extra cars should this development be allowed; . Firs Lane is on top of a hill, with a particularly steep section of road between The Firs and the western end of the village. The safest cycling route to The Firs is therefore the most physically challenging and beyond the capabilities of many in the community; . There is no alternative for cyclists other than to use public roads, the one that offers the shortest route being the busy B3349, the other being Firs Lane itself with its 60 mph speed limit and steep hill; . The recognised dangers for those wishing to cross the B3349. This includes children from the RAF base walking to Robert May’s School. These dangers have for many years been the subject of efforts to improve pedestrian safety, such as Odiham Parish Council’s recent selection of the RAF cross roads as a location for the Speed Indicator Device it is in the process of purchasing; . The junction of Firs Lane with the B3349 is a cross-roads which needs particular care when exiting during the rush hour due to the speed of the traffic on the B3349, the traffic entering and exiting RAF Odiham, and the vegetation which needs regularly to be cut back to preserve sight lines; . As much as the residents of Odiham would welcome a Hook-Odiham cycleway, we are not aware that this is guaranteed to happen after the recent aborted attempt by Hampshire Highways to progress the matter.

The reality is that most journeys to and from the site will be done in cars.

3. The proposed house designs do not respond to the location

Securing ‘high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings’ is a core principle of the NPPF (Section 17) but this application fails lamentably on this score.

Having correctly stated in section 1.14 of its Planning, Design and Access Statement that ‘there does not appear to be an overriding form of development in the area’ the applicant, instead of concluding this should suggest an approach to house design that stresses the individualistic and organic, instead proposes a dull,

4 of 13 150105 Planning Minutes

standard palette of modern designs that does not respond to the location or to the Village Design Standard as adopted by Hart Council.

4. The site is rural, not semi-rural

An Inspector has recently judged (in an appeal against the decision by Hart regarding 12/00540/FUL) that the location in which the site is located is a rural area, not semi-rural as claimed by the applicant, and most people would surely agree with the Inspector.

In Section 6 of his report on the appeal the Inspector talks about ‘the rural character and appearance of Firs Lane’. In sections 2.3 and 3.6 of the applicant’s Planning, Design and Access statement the applicant states the site is in a ‘semi- rural area’ but is unable to maintain even his own confidence in this statement for in section 3.7 he says the site ’could be considered as semi-rural’. Even if the applicant is asking that the view of an independent Inspector be disregarded, his own lack of confidence in stating the site is semi-rural is telling.

5. The development is contrary to S109 of the NPPF

Section 109 of the NPPF states: ‘The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes’. This application does neither.

The Firs is very much valued as a local landscape feature by residents of Odiham, , and . The eponymous trees are themselves owned by Odiham Parish Council and were given to the parish to commemorate the coronation of George VI in 1937 to ensure the permanent protection of one of the defining features of the Odiham landscape.

6. Impact on views of The Firs from the south-west

The proposed development would have a profound, negative impact on views from the south west towards the landmark feature that is The Firs.

The applicant states the site is not one where there is an ‘identified important view in either the Odiham Village Design Statement or the Odiham Conservation Area Appraisal’. Whilst pleased the applicant acknowledges the existence of these documents we would point out that where these consider views they are concerned primarily with the setting of the many heritage assets in Odiham, and their collective impact, rather than with the setting of places outside the settlement boundary.

The topography of the area south-west of the site is such that very little of the existing housing in The Firs is visible from the Upton Grey – North Warnborough road but the housing proposed will impose itself on this view. This will not only be true during daylight but it will also be true during hours of darkness due to the obvious inability of any lighting scheme to eliminate illumination visible from a location lower than the lighting itself. The approach to Odiham and North Warnborough from the south-west is the only one untainted by large housing estates and busy roads and so is the more precious for that.

7. The application is contrary to the views of a Planning Inspector as expressed in 12/00540/FUL - Erection of new dwelling and alteration to existing access - Clump House, The Firs, Odiham, Hook Hampshire RG29 1PP.

This was an application for a house between existing housing in Firs Lane. It went to appeal but the appeal was rejected by the Inspector. We draw attention to the Inspector’s main findings that:

5 of 13 150105 Planning Minutes

a) ‘there is no justification for the erection of a new dwelling in this particular location outside of any defined settlement boundary’; and that, b) ‘The scheme would detract from the rural character and appearance of Firs Lane’.

We quote at length from the Inspector’s report because of its clear relevance to this application:

‘The main issue in this case is whether the proposed development would comply with the national and local planning policies that aim to protect the countryside and promote sustainable rural development. ……. the appeal site comprises land which currently forms part of the undeveloped and landscaped grounds of Clump House, which is a large detached dwelling located on Firs Lane. To the south of the site along the western side of the lane is a small ribbon of development which is characterised by a central section of close knit detached and semi-detached properties with more spaciously sited housing at either end. Hedgerows and trees line Firs Lane and, in combination with the countryside that surrounds the housing, this results in its verdant and rural feel...... The proposal would be sited adjacent to Longfield within the large and mature landscaped garden to Clump House. The insertion of a new dwelling here and a separate curtilage, with the associated removal of mature trees and shrubs, would consolidate the ribbon of development here and result in a more built up appearance. Hence the scheme would detract from the rural character and appearance of Firs Lane……….I agree with the parties in that the scale, size and design of the proposed dwelling would be reflective of the other dwellings along Firs Lane. However, notwithstanding the detailed consideration of the proposal, there is no justification for the erection of a new dwelling in this particular location outside of any defined settlement boundary……………… I note that the appellant argues that the appeal site is “within a settlement” (paragraphs 5.02 and 7.01 of the Grounds of Appeal) however it seemed to me at my site inspection that the short ribbon of development along Firs Lane is merely sporadic development outside two clearly defined settlement boundaries. The scheme would most clearly be contrary to LP policy GEN1(iv) in that it would add to ribbon or sporadic development unrelated to existing patterns of development. The proposal also conflicts with paragraph 58 of the Framework which requires development to add to the overall quality of an area and respond to local character. In this case, additional built development would detract from the rural character here. As the new dwelling would be outside the built up area of any defined settlement and does not satisfy any other policy provisions within the HDLP, it would be contrary to saved policy RUR2.’

In summary, the application fails to meet Hart Saved Policies GEN1 and RUR 2 by adding to sporadic development unrelated to existing patterns of development, and by having a significant detrimental effect on the character and setting of the countryside by virtue of its siting, size and prominence in the landscape

8. The application is contrary to the views of Council as recently expressed in 14/01341/HMC - Proposed detached garage with gym above in the roof space - Highfield, The Firs, Odiham, Hook RG29 1PP

We draw attention to this recent rejected planning application for a garage at the house immediately to the north-west of the Firs Lane/B3349 cross-roads.

The application was rejected for two reasons:

1. The height, bulk and siting of the proposed garage would result in an intrusive structure on a prominent corner site which would detract from the open countryside, would be out of keeping with the area and have an adverse impact on the street scene. As such this would be contrary to saved Policies GEN1 and RUR2 of the Hart District Local Plan;

6 of 13 150105 Planning Minutes

2. The position of the proposed garage close to the boundary shared with Alton Road (B3349) together with a change in ground level would be a discordant feature, out of keeping with the open countryside and character of the street scene and likely to set an undesirable precedent which would have a cumulative negative impact on the character of the area. As such this would be contrary to saved policies GEN1, RUR2 and RUR3 of the Hart District Local Plan and advice in the NPPF.

As the Inspector said in 12/00540/FUL the NPPF does not invalidate these policies and these remain material considerations in considering any planning application in Hart.

9. The application fails to address Highways issues

There are clear Highways issues with this proposed development that the applicant has not addressed in the documents published on the web site. Whether this is through oversight, design, a desire to get something together that can be passed off as a complete application as quickly as possible, or some other reason, is not known to us.

The junction of The Firs and the B3349 is so narrow there is no room for a footpath. The narrowness of Firs Lane as it approaches the cross roads is very apparent. Additional traffic along Firs Lane would ordinarily require highway improvements but these are not proposed in the current application. If improvements were proposed it is difficult to see how these could be effected without damaging the rural nature of Firs Lane by, for example, requiring the extensive removal of hedges and trees, some of the very things that make the site rural.

10. The application relies on incorrect information regarding Hart’s housing supply and fails to comply with Hart’s Interim Housing Development Strategy.

We draw attention to the fact that Hart has a greater than 5 year housing supply (over 6 years’ as at 15 December 2014). We also draw attention to the fact that this proposal fails to meet Planning Principle 2 of Hart’s Interim Housing Development Strategy, being outside the settlement boundary and not consistent with the character of the area.

11. The application is premature

The Odiham Neighbourhood Plan is progressing apace and is on schedule to be made before the end of this calendar year. This illustrates that the parish is taking its responsibilities seriously and accepting the need for development of the right type in the right places. It is clear from recent Government statements and guidance that even unmade Neighbourhood Plans are being given greater weight than when the NPPF was first published. In view of this, Odiham Parish Council contends this application can be validly dismissed as premature.

Case: 14/03024/EIAE Address: Street Record, Dilly Lane, , Hook, Hampshire Description: Request for EIA Screening Opinion: Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impace Assessment) Regulations 2011 to determine the need for an EIA for the Dilly Lane, Hartley Wintney Phase 3, Off-Site Mains Reinforcement potable water pipeline scheme. Decision: Odiham parish council has no comment to make regarding this planning application.

Case: 14/01704/MAJOR Address: Land East of Hook Road, North Warnborough, Hook, Hampshire

7 of 13 150105 Planning Minutes

Description: Development of 37 dwellings, access, roads and associated landscape, drainage and infrastructure works. Decision: A resident spoke for 3 minutes objecting to this planning application.

Odiham Parish Council objects to this planning application and does not consider that the amendments make it acceptable.

OPC acknowledges that in early 2012, it considered the possibility of recommending this site for development. This was never pursued but had it been, it would have been at a lower density to preserve the character of the Conservation Area and to allow a more secure protection against flood risk downstream and downhill of the site.

We note that:

1) Hart has a greater than 5 year housing supply; 2) This proposal fails to meet Planning Principle 2 of Hart’s Interim Housing Development Strategy, being outside the settlement boundary, not consistent with the character of the area and risking flooding so lacking secure drainage infrastructure; 3) It fails to meet Hart Saved Policy RUR 2 (judged by the planning inspector for 12/00540/FUL, Clump House at the Firs as compliant with the NPPF, therefore up to date) by having a significant detrimental effect on the character and setting of the countryside by virtue of its siting, size and prominence in the landscape; 4) It twice fails to meet Saved Policy CON 13 by failing to conserve or enhance each of the North Warnborough and the Canal Conservation Areas; 5) It fails to meet paragraph 103 of the NPPF by failing to ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere; 6) Consideration needs to be given to the cumulative effect of the proposed development (with others granted but not yet built and those in progress and built) all in a very small area of the North Warnborough Conservation Area on both the Conservation Areas and on flood risk.

We will not repeat and expand these summary statements, given the time constraints caused by this application being submitted just before the Christmas break, but give further detailed comments as follows:

Effect on the North Warnborough Conservation Area:

The applicant’s Heritage Statement on page 8 admits minor harm – this therefore by definition fails to conserve or enhance the Conservation Area. It claims the character would be of open spaces interspersed with houses, but in fact would offer houses with a single small space between. A housing estate several houses deep, in a part of the Conservation Area which is a linear development single house deep (even essentially including Swan Mews) and characterised by its loose development would have a significantly urbanising effect. The somewhat scrubby appearance of the site is nonetheless a rural one which permits the views noted in the Conservation Area statement through the trees along the canal bank. We reiterate that the remarks about tidying the site refer to its state at the time the CA review took place, when there was a container on site and a number of chipboard panels propped up against the chain link fencing. The overall height of the houses will still be much greater than nearby listed buildings, most notably the Cat, which is only 7 metres, and then sits lower than the adjacent road, in turn lower than the site. We note that the two new houses on Dunleys Hill, universally agreed to be too high, are 8.3 metres high. The true effect of the proposal is not clear as the street scenes all show development on entirely flat ground which is inaccurate and misleading. Heights have to be calculated from the individual plot plans – they would surely be more prominently and easily visible if the applicant felt it would be to his advantage.

8 of 13 150105 Planning Minutes

The designs lack quality and appropriate references, still with excessively high roofs, and plots 13-14 are particularly inappropriate with the proposed height out of proportion to the width. We further note that no notice has been taken of JPH’s recommendation to omit plot 2.

Effect on the Conservation Area:

The proposed development and its road will inevitably have an urbanising effect on the Canal – this is where it comes out into countryside, with attractive views and glimpses of listed buildings across the field. We believe the Canal is due respect for its setting as a heritage asset in its own right, which this application fails to achieve. The 10 metre buffer zone to protect the Canal as SSSI is breached in several places, most notably and egregiously by the road between the 2 parts of the site. We have yet to see agreement by the Canal Authority that the bank stability is not at risk.

Flood risk:

Existing recurring flooding problems are seen by the applicant as anecdotal but that does not mean they do not exist as photographic records indicate. The flood work dismisses inconvenient real experience which is un-calibrated and can be summarised by the startlingly complacent statement at the end of the letter from Dr Khatibi to the planning officer on 12th September:

“Interaction of flooding problems from Different Sources: We would confirm that flood risk assessment practices are about an inclusive management of information. Thus, the consultant is required to take into account all the available information and gain an insight to the underlying complexity, through the available guidelines and models. For instance, currently we are required to account for the risk of flooding from all sources but no policy requires to model joint probabilities of the individual sources of flood risk occurring together. This is because such a capability is at the stage of research and development and not ready for practical applications.”

Yet the NPPF requires that development does not exacerbate flood risk off a site. The properties most at risk of flooding are DOWNHILL from the site; many are listed buildings, to which we owe a special duty of care, apart from the normal duty not to exacerbate flooding off a site as per the NPPF. So if the model is inadequate, there should be a real question of whether it is safe to consider development here at the present time.

Specific queries include:

Figure 5 shows high surface water flooding risk on the east side of the canal, just upstream of Ditch 1 before it flows under the canal, yet no assessment seems to have been made of the risk from that source; further we would like assurances that there is no potential risk of contamination of the canal from overwhelming of the culvert under the canal and consequent overspill into the canal, which as an SSSI is very sensitive to changes in water quality.

No proof has been offered that maintenance or lack of it is the only cause of flooding downstream of the site.

4.33 recognises that past incidents reflect extreme events, which are widely forecast both to continue and to become more extreme, yet fails to allow for them;

5.28 and 5.29 talk about flow control storage and constraining discharges to the watercourse, but in an extreme event the storage capacity may be overwhelmed. When the current sources of flooding incidents are merely dismissed as anecdotal, and the model is acknowledged to be unable to reflect real combined situations, it is impossible to see how confidence can be arrived at to allow development.

9 of 13 150105 Planning Minutes

The overall credibility of the entire FRA and Drainage Statement, December 2014 is strained when paragraph 4.34 states that “the sewers under Hook Road were surcharged at the time of the survey”, and yet para 4.49 states that:

“Proposed Mitigation

4.49 This desktop study did not identify any history of sewer surcharging in the vicinity of the site or flooding caused by pipe breakage and therefore no mitigation measure was investigated.”

Dr Khatibii prefers his model and desktop studies to the evidence of his own eyes.

Given the high water table and the ground water conditions described by some local residents (and found further “upstream” during the building of the two new houses on the site of Laleham at the bottom of Dunleys Hill in North Warnborough) we question whether the two attenuation ponds will not simply fill up from ground water and therefore be unable to play their anticipated role.

It is unsafe to consider granting this application with a condition to complete recommended 6 months’ monitoring – what would happen if monitoring demonstrates an inability of the site to cope with this proposal?

The applicant makes blithe assumptions that the pumping station has failed due to lack of maintenance, yet all 3 brand new pumps failed yet again on December 27th last year, so it is far from clear that better road access will help.

In summary, we question whether enough trust can be placed in the flood risk assessment to be confident enough to allow this application.

The cumulative effect of this development, coming on top of the large number of admittedly smaller sites all in close quarters and quick succession in North Warnborough, not all of which have even started, gives rise to grave concerns for the character of both North Warnborough and Canal Conservation Areas, and for the cumulative effect of flooding.

The Odiham Neighbourhood Plan is progressing apace and is now hoping to be made before the end of this calendar year. This illustrates that the parish is taking its responsibilities seriously and accepting the need for development of the right type in the right places. In the light of this, we reiterate that this application is premature.

Case: 14/02854/HMC Address: Castle Bridge House, The Green, North Warnborough, Hook, Hampshire RG29 1HQ Description: Two storey rear extension Decision: Odiham parish council raises no objection to this planning application.

Case: 14/02463/FUL Address: The Chilli Pad, Hook Road, North Warnborough, Hook, Hampshire RG29 1ET Description: Land to the rear of the former Chilli Pad. Erection of 3 no. dwellings together with associated parking and access. Decision: A resident spoke for 3 minutes objecting to this planning application.

Odiham parish council objects to this revised application on the following grounds:-

The alterations are too slight to make any meaningful improvement on the affect of the proposed development on the Conservation Area – the overall height, the proportion of roof to house, its “blockiness” remain inappropriate. We refer to and support the Conservation Officer’s comments on the original proposal and her recommendation to reduce to one or at most two small houses.

10 of 13 150105 Planning Minutes

We note and endorse the comments from the Barn House on amenity of the neighbouring listed property and garden, which seems to have been entirely ignored, giving consideration only to the relationship with the former Chilli Pad and the comments of 7 Castlebridge Cottages on vehicular access and parking.

We remain concerned about the flood risk to the Barn House, given the difference in levels between the height of the land on this site, the lower land in the garden of the Barn House and the still lower level of the house itself and neighbouring Strete Farm, both listed buildings and both subject already to flooding. This means that if the flood risk assessment proves incorrect, it is neighbouring listed properties that will bear the brunt by virtue of their low level, not the proposed new properties.

OPC notes that “the Applicant is willing to cooperate with HDC and parish council to clear and maintain existing ditches and culverts beyond the site. Subject to approval, a commuted sum is to be offered for local land drainage works to be included in Section 106 obligations.” Before considering any such offer, we would need to understand what actions the applicant is recommending be taken and how they would help avoid downstream flooding.

Finally, OPC is concerned that there is a cumulative effect in this part of North Warnborough, both on the Conservation Area of recent planning applications, some built and others not yet built – at Locke Cottage, Albion Yard, land behind Castlebridge Cottages, together with the current application at land to the east of Hook Road. The simple cumulative impact of all these will, in our opinion, have a detrimental effect upon the Conservation Area. The poor design and over- development proposed for this site will worsen this effect.

The same cumulative effect occurs with flood risk. We do not believe that models which deal with individual flood probabilities can be sure of accurate enough modelling to be sure of avoiding exacerbating an existing flood problem at properties downstream and downhill of the site. It is unclear whether simple maintenance of the culvert will suffice to alleviate the problem but this seems unlikely given regular experience of the culvert backing up. If maintenance were assuredly the right route, who would have the responsibility to maintain the culvert from end to end – it runs through and across a number of properties in separate ownership from east of the canal to Lodge Farm and can be overwhelmed at each and any point along its path.

In summary, this application should not be granted in its present form due to its detrimental effect on the character of the Conservation Area and is not safe to grant due to the risk of increasing flooding problems of downhill properties.


Case: 14/02360/PREAPP Address: 74 High Street, Odiham, Hook, Hampshire RG29 1LN Description: Change of use to a sports injury and general physio clinic Status: No further action

Case: 14/03058/PREAPP Address: Lloyds TSB Bank Plc, 61 High Street, Odiham, Hook, Hampshire RG29 1LD Description: Re-fit fire alarms Status: Answered

Case: 14/02730/PREAPP Address: 3 Adams Close, North Warnborough, Hook, Hampshire RG29 1BP Description: Rear extension and conversion of part of the roof space (above the extension) to habitable accommodation with the addition of a rear roof dormer. Status: Answered

Case: 14/03031/PREAPP

11 of 13 150105 Planning Minutes

Address: Kings Cottage Buryfields Odiham Hook Hampshire RG29 1NE Description: Alterations, refurbishment and extension to the existing house. Status: Pending Consideration




Enforcements Opened:


Enforcements Closed:

Case: 14/00139/ADVERT Address: Texaco, Dunleys Hill, Odiham, Hook, Hampshire RG29 1DT Complaint: A very large plastic coffee cup advertisement has been erected with flags, in a conservation area Conclusion: Not a breach of planning control

Case: 14/00152/OPERAT Address: Trinity Lodge, Colt Hill, Odiham, Hook, Hampshire RG29 1AL Complaint: Erection of shed in the front garden Conclusion: Not expedient to take enforcement action

Case: 14/00173/LISTED Address: Nevills House, Hook Road, North Warnborough, Hook, Hampshire RG29 1EU Complaint: Unauthorised works to a Grade II Listed Building Conclusion: Planning application approved


It was announced that after the NH Plan Group’s public engagement in January, they will be ready to move onto the next stage which will be to reveal potential sites for development. The NHP Group would initially like to organise a meeting with Cllrs to provide them with all the information. A date for this meeting will be arranged.

Cllr Fleming reported that Hart DC have recently produced updated information regarding CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) and the 5 year land supply which is a recommended read.


It was agreed that Cllrs will arrange to meet with Wates Developments on 12 January at 7pm to receive a brief on their proposed development at land south of Farnham Road, East of Archery Fields.


It was agreed that Cllrs will not meet with Bell Cornwell regarding changes to the application for land off Hook Road. Whilst invitations to meet are normally welcome, the timing of this particular request and the requirement for OPC to provide Hart with their comments regarding this planning application by 6 January, means OPC are unable to consider this offer.

12 of 13 150105 Planning Minutes

There being no further business the meeting closed at 10pm

Signed...... Date......

13 of 13 150105 Planning Minutes