Notice of Meeting

Civic Offices, Leigh Road, Eastleigh SO50 9YN

2000/01 Community Safety Preventing Crime and Disorder 11 October 2007 2002/03 Fostering Business Growth

NOTICE OF MEETING

HEDGE END, WEST END AND BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE will meet on Monday, 22 October 2007 beginning at 7:00 pm in Hedge End 2000 Centre, St John's Road, Hedge End, SO30 4AF

TO: Councillor Rupert G M Kyrle (Chairman), Councillor David Goodall (Vice-Chairman) Councillor Louise Bloom BA (Hons) Councillor Keith Day MA (OXON) Councillor Mrs Cathie Fraser Councillor Keith House Councillor Mrs June Hughes Councillor Tony Noyce Councillor Derek R Pretty Councillor Julie Skinner Councillor Joyce Sortwell Councillor Bruce Tennent Councillor Mrs Jane Welsh

Staff Contacts: Julia Roy, Democratic Services Officer Tel: 023 8068 8133; Email: [email protected]

Jon Riddell, Area Co-ordinator Tel: 023 8068 8437; Email: [email protected]

RICHARD WARD Head of Legal and Democratic Services ______

Copies of this and all other agendas can be accessed via the Council's website - http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/meetings as well as in other formats, including Braille, audio, large print and other languages, upon request.

Members of the public are invited to speak on general items at the start of the meeting, and on individual agenda items at the time the item is discussed. To register please contact the Democratic Services Officer above.

AGENDA

1. Minutes (Pages 1 - 6) To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2007.

2. Apologies

3. Declarations of Interest

4. Presentation on Planning Guidelines

5. Development Applications for Decision

(a) Former SGB Depot, Swaythling Road, West End (Pages 7 - 16)

(b) 23 Oatlands Road, Botley (Pages 17 - 26)

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

(a) that the following enforcement appeals have been allowed:-

Y/E/06/58686, Y/E/06/58683, Y/E/06/58687 and Y/E/06/58689 - Units 3,4,5 and 9 Hedge End Trade Park, Tollbar Way, Hedge End – appeals allowed subject to the enforcement notices being corrected and varied in the terms set out in the Formal Decision

(b) that the following enforcement appeal has been dismissed:-

Y/E/06/58688 - Unit 8 Hedge End Trade Park, Tollbar Way, Hedge End – appeal dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld with corrections and a variation

7. Eastleigh Public Transport Strategy: Borough-wide Strategic Bus Network 2008- 2011 (Pages 35 - 50)

8. Urban Character Area Appraisals (Pages 51 - 80) (NOTE: Appendix i to the report (Character Area Appraisals – Hedge End, West End and Botley) previously circulated to Members of the Committee. Members of the public may access the document from the Council’s website.)

9. Wildern Mill Planning Application - Cost Award (Pages 81 - 84)

10. Review of Hampshire Rose Bowl Complaints and Comments - 2007 Season (Pages 85 - 96)

11. Open Space Improvements - Hedge End (Pages 97 - 100)

12. The Drummond Community Centre and Assignment of Lease (Pages 101 - 104)

DATE OF NEXT MEETING Monday, 26 November 2007 at 7:00 pm at Hedge End 2000 Centre, St John's Road, Hedge End, SO30 4AF

Your Council’s electronic news service - e-news -

Register your email address free with the Council and keep up to date with what’s happening in the Borough. Simply select your topics and we will send you email updates with news as it happens including new Council Jobs, What’s On, Recycling, Transport plus lots more. www.eastleigh.gov.uk/enews

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 1 1

HEDGE END, WEST END AND BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday, 3 September 2007 (7:00 pm – 11:10 pm)

PRESENT:

Councillor Kyrle (Chairman); Councillors Bloom, Day, Mrs Fraser, Goodall, House, Mrs Hughes, Noyce, Pretty, Sortwell, Tennent and Mrs Welsh

______

RESOLVED ITEMS (SUBJECT TO QUESTIONS ONLY)

1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Councillor Mrs Hughes informed the Committee that a number of residents had contacted her regarding recent changes to bus routes in Hedge End. This particularly affected people travelling to Southampton from Grange Park. It was queried whether representation could be made to the bus operators on this issue.

2. MINUTES

RESOLVED -

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 2007 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members were invited to declare interests in relation to items of business on the agenda. Any interests declared are recorded in the relevant minute below.

4. PRESENTATION ON PLANNING GUIDELINES

Development Control staff gave a short presentation on guidelines that had to be taken into account when determining planning applications; in particular the issues that could, and could not, be taken into account. This was set against the broader policy framework.

5. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION

RESOLVED -

That the report of the Head of Development Control, a copy of which was attached to the Agenda, be received and the recommendations contained therein adopted, subject to the amendments listed in the Decisions below.

1 2

(a) Former SGB Depot, Swaythling Road, West End Reserved Matters: Pursuant to outline permission Z/35665/2 for redevelopment of site for 38 residential units comprising 16 houses and 22 flats with associated car parking, access from Chalk Hill and open space – Ref. R/07/59618

Decision

DEFERRED, pending the receipt and consideration of a Transport Assessment.

(b) Ashberry House, Winchester Road, Botley Construction of new single storey school building to include alterations to existing dwelling, alterations to existing access, formation of new access with ancillary car parking, court yard & recreation areas – Ref. F/07/60061

Decision

Permission REFUSED for the recommended reasons and the following additional reasons:

(a) The development would result in the loss of two protected trees which are worthy of retention and are considered to be of high public amenity value contrary to policy 47.ES and 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001- 2011.

(b) Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the site can be accessed in a safe manner without causing harm to highway safety, contrary to policies T6 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan review and 102.T of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011.

(NOTES: (1) It was reported that (a) additional information had been received from the applicant, but that the objections from the Head of Transportation and Engineering and Hampshire County Council’s Highway officer remained; (b) objections had been received from Durley Parish Council, Fair Oak and Horton Heath Parish Council and the Council’s tree officer; (c) no objection had been received from the Head of Environmental Health; (d) the Eastleigh and District Accessibility Forum had expressed concerns; and (e) 19 additional letters of support and four additional letters of objection had been received. (2) Three people spoke in objection to the application and three in support.)

(c) Land at Bubb Lane, Burnetts Lane, West End Construction of crematorium with new access, ancillary landscaping & formation of new cycleway/footpath, off site highway works, external lighting & change of use of agricultural land to gardens of remembrance – Ref. F/07/60158

2 3

Decision

Permission REFUSED for the following reason: “The proposal is contrary to policies C1, C2 and G2 of the Hampshire County Council Structure Plan Review (1996-2011) and 1.CO and 2.CO of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) in that it is not development necessary for agriculture or an essential public utility service and it would visually intrude upon the narrowest part of the Southampton – Hedge End/Bursledon/Netley Strategic Gap diminishing the value and function of this important and vulnerable part of the Gap.”

(NOTES: (1) The Local Area Committee requested that Cabinet, in developing the Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework to replace the Council’s Local Plan, gives specific consideration to the location of a crematorium. (2) It was reported that (a) additional information had been received from the applicant; (b) no objection had been received from the Head of Environmental Health; (c) Winchester and Eastleigh Architects Panel had commented that the design had been improved, but they would require a landmark building and (d) two additional letters of objection had been received. (3) Seven people spoke in objection to the application and four in support.)

(d) Hedge End Centre, St Johns Road, Hedge End Prior approval notification to install 11.7m high slim line streetworks pole with 3no. integral 2G/3G antennas, 2no. associated radio equipment cabinets with ancillary works – M/07/60584

Decision

Prior approval REFUSED for the following reasons:

(1) By virtue of the size, design and siting of the mast, the development would be visually intrusive and appear incongruous to the detriment of the street scene and verge, contrary to Policy TC1 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan and Policies 65.BE and 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review.

(2) Insufficient information has been provided on the consideration and justification of the lack of alternative sites, including mast sharing, therefore the proposals are contrary to the requirements of Policy TC1 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan and Policies 65.BE and 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review.

(NOTES: (1) Councillor Goodall declared an interest in this application and left the room during consideration thereof. (2) Two people spoke in objection to the application.)

3 4

6. PLANNING APPEALS

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services reported:-

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

T/07/59130 – 83 Chalk Hill, West End – appeal against part refusal of application to fell 1no. beech tree and 1no. sweet chestnut and crown raise and crown thinning of 1no. beech tree

F/07/59771 and F/07/59772 – land at 23 & 25 Shamblehurst Lane South, Hedge End - appeal against applications for erection of carports for plots 2 and 3 and construction of attached garage to plot 1

F/06/58386 – 10 Lyons Place, Hedge End – appeal against refusal of retrospective application for part relief of condition 13 of permission Z/39564/001 to allow the retention of garage door (formally plot 27)

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

F/07/58894 – 32 Oatlands Road, Boorley Green, Botley – appeal against refusal of application for 2 storey rear, single storey front and side extensions, following demolition of existing extension and detached garage

RESOLVED -

That the report be noted.

7. TRAFFIC STUDY, WOODHOUSE LANE, BOTLEY

Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Transportation and Engineering concerning the results of a traffic study undertaken on Woodhouse Lane, Botley.

The study discussed various issues regarding the speed and flows of traffic, personal injury accidents and concerns of residents and Councillors. The report provided options for improving the safety of the road, together with recommendations for further action.

RESOLVED -

That, subject to the necessary funds being made available:

(1) A request be made to Hampshire County Council Highways Sub-unit to trim the foliage around the signs and alongside the footway along Woodhouse Lane as a matter of urgency and that this should form part of a regular maintenance plan;

4 5

(2) The introduction of a 40 mph speed limit on Woodhouse Lane be progressed, subject to a statutory consultation; and

(3) If, following the introduction of a lower 40mph speed limit in Woodhouse Lane, additional work to the signing and surface treatment on the approach to the roundabout proves necessary, then this be requested of the County Council.

8. ST JOHNS ROAD, HEDGE END, WAITING RESTRICTIONS TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER OBJECTION REPORT

Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Engineering and Transportation which detailed the objections received following the public consultation period of a proposed Traffic Regulation Order to introduce waiting restrictions in St Johns Road, Hedge End.

The Committee was requested to consider the objectors’ comments before making a decision on the implementation of the Traffic Regulation Order.

RESOLVED -

That the Traffic Regulation Order be implemented as originally proposed (see plan E/TM/01/Q/30/003).

9. PUBLIC FOOTPATH DIVERSION AT DOWDS FARM, HEDGE END

Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Transportation and Engineering concerning the need for a Public Footpath Diversion Order to divert part of a footpath at Dowds Farm.

Planning permission had been granted for development to take place on land crossed by a public right of way and a Public Footpath Diversion Order was required to divert part of the footpath on an alternative alignment where affected by the development.

RESOLVED -

That authorisation be given for the processing of an Order under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the diversion of public footpath number 8 at Dowds Farm as necessary to facilitate the construction of development granted planning permission.

10. RE-ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPERS' CONTRIBUTIONS

Consideration was given to a report of the Area Co-ordinator, in consultation with the Head of Development Control and Head of Financial Services, concerning an error identified during a review of developers’ contributions.

5 6

The contributions had already been allocated to two projects approved by the Committee, at the Multi-Use Games Area at Wildern School and Hedge End Village Hall. These projects were now subject to a funding shortfall and it was recommended that further funds be allocated in order that they might proceed with appropriate funding.

RESOLVED -

(1) That the sum of £8,940 be allocated from appropriate developers’ contributions for the refurbishment of the Multi- Use Games Area at Wildern School; and

(2) That the sum of £1,500 be allocated from appropriate developers’ contributions to enable the payment of a Community Buildings grant to the Hedge End Village Hall.

(NOTE: Councillor Mrs Welsh declared an interest in this item, remained in the room but did not speak or vote. Councillors Bloom, House and Mrs Hughes declared an interest, remained in the room and voted, but did not speak.)

______

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Declarations of interest were made as follows:

Minute Title Member Reason Development Councillor Goodall Works for Applicatiion: Hedge End company making Centre, St Johns Road, mobile phone Hedge End equipment Re-allocation of Councillor Mrs Welsh Member of Hedge developers' contributions End Village Hall Management Committee Councillor Bloom Parent of Children at Wildern School Councillor House Parent of Children at Wildern School Councillor Mrs Hughes Member of Hedge End Village Hall Management Committee M3586

6 Agenda Item 5a

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY Monday 22 October 2007 Case Officer Louise Cutts

SITE: Former SGB Depot, Swaythling Road, West End, Southampton, SO30 3AH

Ref. R/07/59618 Received: 20/03/2007 (19/06/2007)

APPLICANT: Matthew Homes (Mr Ian Carey)

PROPOSAL: Reserved Matters: Pursuant to outline permission Z/35655/2 for redevelopment of site for 38 residential units comprising 16 houses and 22 flats with associated car parking, access from Chalk Hill and open space.

AMENDMENTS: 11/05/2007, 09/06/2007, 21/08/2007, 22/08/2007

RECOMMENDATION:

APPROVE THE RESERVED MATTERS

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(1) All development shall comply with the conditions imposed on the grant of the aforementioned outline planning permission.

(2) Details of external security lighting, lockable gates and all other crime prevention proposals must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The development must then accord with these approved details. Reason: In the interests of crime prevention.

(3) The area shown on the approved plans for open space, must be provided, landscaped and retained for this use and shall not be incorporated into private garden land or other uses without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that this area is not fragmented and remains to fulfill its original function.

(4) Construction of the development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul sewerage disposal have been

7 submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water. These approved details shall be fully implemented prior to first occupation of any part of the development. Reason: To provide adequate foul sewage disposal.

(5) No development shall take place until full details of soft and water landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, details must comply with CAA Advice Note 3 'Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity Landscaping and Building Design' available at www.caa.co.uk/srg/aerodrome. These details shall include: - grassed areas - the species, number and spacing of trees - details of any water features. No subsequent alterations to the approved landscaping scheme shall take place unless submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To avoid endangering the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Southampton Airport through the attraction of birds and an increase in the bird hazard risk of the application site.

For information: Berry bearing species should not exceed 10% of the total planting palette. The berry/fruit bearing species must be dispersed through the planting palette so as not to form pockets of exploitable habitat. Tree planting centres should be at 4m or greater.

Note to Applicant: It is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions and any obligations attached to this permission, the proposed development is acceptable because it will not materially harm the character of the area, the amenity of neighbours or highway safety, it is in accordance with the policies and proposals of the development plan, as listed below, and after due regard to all other relevant material considerations the local planning authority is of the opinion that permission should be granted.

The following development plan policies are relevant to this decision and the conditions attached to it:

Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 Review: UB3, T1-5 Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 59.BE, 36.ES, 100.T, 104.T, 101.T, 147.OS

A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, contact Southern Water's Network Development Team (6) based in Otterbourne, Hampshire or www.southernwater.co.uk.

A formal application for connection to the water supply is required in order to service the development. Contact Southern Water's Network

8 Development Team (Water) based in Chatham, Kent or www.southernwater.co.uk.

Report:

This application has been referred to Committee because it is controversial.

The site and its surroundings

1. The site has relatively recently been vacated by SGB Scaffolding who operated out of this industrial site for many years. The area is mostly hardstanding on which sit a number of large corrugated iron industrial storage sheds. Close to the entrance of the site lay a two storey office building. The site is currently accessed from Chalk Hill via a wide bellmouth. Boundary treatments are varied in materials and height.

2. The site is surrounded on all sides by residential development of mixed age, size and character. The entrance lies very near to the busy and recently improved junction of Swaythling Road/ Church Hill/Chalk Hill/ West End Road.

Description of application

3. The application is a Reserved Matters planning application for redevelopment of the site following an outline application for “residential development” granted in 2006. No details as to numbers of houses were submitted at that stage. In detail the current application proposes 38 residential units comprising 16 houses and 22 flats with associated car parking (62 spaces), access from Chalk Hill and open space. This is the second part of a two stage process. The Outline Application was considered in 2002 but not permitted until February 2006 after delays with the Section 106 agreement.

4. It appeared clear that the principle of the development and the access from Chalk Hill had been approved with only the remaining matters of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping for consideration at this stage. However Hampshire County Council (being the highways authority) believed that the access to the site had not been considered. On this basis the County Council carried out its own Transport Assessment the results of which are presented below.

Site area

5. 0.5 ha

Residential development density (net)

6. 76 dph ( 53dph on housing section, 110dph on flatted section)

9 Topography

7. The land slopes gently downwards towards the north-western corner of the site. Trees

8. There are trees both on the site and overhanging the site.

Boundary treatment

9. Varied – walls/fences/railings

Relevant planning history

10. 35655/2 – Outline application for the redevelopment of the site for housing – Approved Feb 2006

Representations received

11. 37 objections have been received to the plans on the grounds of the access being unsafe, traffic numbers, insufficient parking, design/height of buildings, loss of privacy, overlooking, density, not in keeping, trees, and lack of infrastructure. These will be addressed in the paragraphs below.

12. West End Parish Council – Object on the grounds of overdevelopment, visually dominant, dangerous access, inadequate parking facilities.

Consultation responses

13. Hampshire Highways – No objection subject to a ‘Keep Clear’ box being marked on the road at the access point.

14. Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy – No objection to the amended plans

15. Head of Transportation and Engineering – No objection to the amended plans.

16. Head of Environmental Health – No objection subject to updated conditions re contamination

17. Southern Water Services – No objection subject to conditions re foul water drainage

18. BAA plc – Recommend condition with regard to landscaping/bird habitat to ensure aircraft safety.

19. Head of Housing Services – Housing mix and tenure agreed (7 flats and 4 houses)

20. Crime Prevention Design Advisor – Advice given to applicant re general security measures both internal and external and condition added.

21. Eastleigh Access Group – Well-served by public transport, no simple access to nearest convenience store, speed restrictors should be avoided, flat level pedestrian access required – parking needs to include disabled parking, signage should be visible and clear, site should be well lit as should units, open space is on a slope – should be flat, hard landscaped and unobstructed.

22. Head of Countryside and Recreation – No response.

23. Head of Direct Services – No objection subject to appropriate bin storage.

Policy context: designation applicable to site

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

Development plan policies

• Hampshire Country Structure Plan 1996-2011: UB3 T1 – T5 • Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) 59.BE, 35.ES, 100.T, 104.T, 101.T, 147.OS. • Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Amenity in the Borough of Eastleigh. Housing Mix.

Planning policy guidance / statement

• PPS – 1, 3

Assessment of proposal

24. The reserved matters for consideration are set out under the headings below:

Means of Access

25. It is proposed to use the existing access to the site. Hampshire County Council has recently carried out their own Transport Assessment to assess the suitability of the access and have no objection subject to a ‘Keep Clear’ marking in front of the site access. In full their response to the application is:

26. “There will be an increase in traffic generated by the site of 59 vehicles per day but this equates to only an additional 4 cars in the AM peak and 5 cars in the PM peak which is not significant. The exiting traffic using

11 the A27 signal junction is such that this development will not have an impact on its operation at peak times. Whilst there is an increase in traffic to that of the industrial use of the site, there is a significant reduction in heavy vehicles and therefore it is considered to be safer in terms of using the existing access onto Chalk Hill. The visibility splays are sub standard and there is no opportunity to improve them but the access operated safely when the site was previously being used and therefore we can consider that it is acceptable for the residential development. “

27. The main concern raised in the significant level of objection to the proposals is the safety of the access and the impact of traffic upon the busy nearby junction. The transport assessment and its findings directly address these concerns. Members are advised that there is no defendable reason for refusal on traffic and access grounds. The site has an established storage depot use. When the previous operation was in use the site generated very large articulated lorries carrying large cherry pickers and other plant which, in order to enter the site, had to reverse into it. This used to entail enormous pirouette movements by the lorries which for some time blocked up the entire junction. In addition the entrance bellmouth was often parked with lorries waiting for the site to open in the morning. At the moment that established use remains in existence in planning terms. That means that any other similar use could carry out a similar operation without the need for planning permission. Indeed the applicants are searching for a site within the local area with a storage depot use for the plant they use on their building sites. In terms of the smooth operation of the junction, a residential use is much the preferred option.

Siting

28. The proposed development is divided into two main sections. The first is a three to four storey block of 22 flats on the site frontage and the second section, located to the rear of this block, will consist of 16 houses.

29. This is the preferred way of siting the units. A keynote corner needs to be created at the road junction to replace the former SGB building which will be demolished as a result of this development. This landmark is better made with a larger building of high quality design whilst the smaller, more traditional family housing is kept internal to the site. This arrangement also keeps the impact on the existing dwellings surrounding the site to a minimum. A small area of privately managed open space will be situated more internally on the site thereby overlooked by the type of housing whose occupiers might be most likely to use it.

30. The density of the development appears quite high at 76 dph. However the site is within a medium accessibility area and divided into two sections the densities of which are quite different. Naturally the flatted

12 element has a higher density of 110dph whilst the more suburban housing element has a density of 53dph. Both densities are considered acceptable on this particular site as they are a result of implementing desired design principles, street frontages, overlooked public areas etc.

31. In terms of the relationship of the new dwellings to the existing housing, all minimum standards have now been achieved in terms of distances between the new dwellings and the existing dwellings.

32. Garden areas range from the smallest patio area to 16m in length. It is considered that due to the peculiar shape of this site and in order to get the best layout, it is acceptable in this instance to allow this range of garden lengths, some obviously being less than the recommended minimum. However with the small area of private open space on site and also a much larger area of public open space just across the road, this is considered acceptable. Sustainable design is not simply about the way in which housing developments are constructed but the way in which the communities within them integrate. Using well established design principles there are active frontages in all areas of the site. There is a small area of open space overlooked by many of the dwellings. Along with the differing mix and tenure of the dwellings, the layout maximises the site’s potential for a mixed, balanced and integrated community. This is one of the main aims of current planning guidance.

33. The affordable housing mix has also been agreed with the Head of Housing Services. 2 x 3-bed houses and 2 x 4-bed houses are proposed along with 4 x 1-bed flats and 3 x 2-bed flats. 9 of the units would be general needs rented and two of the units would be shared ownership.

Design and External Appearance

34. The applicant’s attention has been drawn to the need for a high quality design in the proposed building on this corner and it is considered that this has been achieved. The building is divided into three sections with a positive four storey wing on the visually prominent road junction. Either side of this tower section the building then steps down to 3 storey wings along the road frontages. The south wing steps back to form the small landscaped entrance courtyard and a lower 3 storey wing projects forward creating a gateway on the corner of the new access lane. The design of this wing makes reference to the stone detailing, ecclesiastical character and red brick of the nearby St. James Church.

35. The new access lane and mews will consist of 2, 2.5 and 3 storey houses arranged around a central courtyard and open space, providing enclosure and giving this inner section of the site a clear identity. The built form will terminate the view along the lane approach, the lower level of Plot 35 and prominent canopies of plots 33 and 34 acting as a

13 modest focal point. This layout will also leave clear views from the rear of the existing terraces at number 16 to 20 Clifton Gardens.

36. Materials used will be a mixture of brick, render and tiles. Hard landscaping will be tarmac, block paving and sets.

Landscaping

37. A full hard and soft landscaping plan has been provided which adds to the high quality of the design. However the site is near to Southampton Airport and BAA has concerns regarding the percentage of berry- bearing species and planting centres (that is the distance between each plant planted). This is because the creation of a bird nesting habitat where there was not one before can increase the risk of bird strike to aircraft. Any approval would need to ensure through condition that the planting specification was controlled to reduce berry bearing species to under 10% and for the planting distances for new trees to be at least 4m.

Planning obligation /considerations

38. In accordance with Local Plan Policy, developers are required to contribute towards infrastructure and facilities made necessary by their proposed development or upon which pressure would increase due to the increase in population in the area. This development attracts the requirement for contributions towards:

• off-site public open space • road traffic reduction measures • social and recreational facilities • affordable housing • public art.

39. The application is subject to a Section 106 agreement which was agreed at the outline stage. All the above contributions were negotiated at that stage except for the precise mix of affordable housing which has now been agreed.

Response to objections received.

40. Although there is much concern with regard to this proposal, the principle of a residential development on this site has long been established through the granting of the outline planning permission in 2002. That permission, amongst other things, also established the access point to the site, a density of at least 30 dwellings to the hectare, a maximum parking standard of 1.5 spaces per dwelling and a landmark building at the corner of the site. The proposal before Members carries this permission forward. The particular concerns of local residents are addressed in the paragraphs above. Overall it is considered that this redevelopment is of high quality which has the

14 added benefit of extinguishing rights for an unneighbourly established use.

Conclusion

41. Although there is some disagreement over what was permitted at outline stage in terms of the access, Hampshire County Council through the production of a Transport Assessment have clarified that the access is suitable for this type of redevelopment subject to the painting of a ‘Keep Clear’ box at the access point. The siting of the dwellings aims to achieve an active, busy and neighbourly environment, the design of the dwellings is fairly traditional and the flats of very high quality, the external appearance uses traditional materials and the proposed landscape plans are also considered acceptable. Overall it is considered that this development takes a very awkwardly shaped site and maximises density in an innovative way whilst maintaining residential amenity both within and around the site. Accordingly, approval is recommended.

15 L

a I

5 N 1 2 8 0 G

1 9 R 0

1 2

O 1 5 S 2 H Lincoln 2 AR

A Court 6 ON

D 4 R

1 OA

2 D

2 1

6 8

6 2

7 1

2 5

2 3

0 1 1

2 0

1 3

2 8

3 3

1 1 7

GVC 3

Kontiki 6

Ivy House 3 5

1 35.7m 2

3 Redroof 1 1 to 34 Ivy Lodge 4 nd se wn To Rosemount Court NE LA Y 36.3m IV

Sharon

Linmonde 1 The Willows

The Krayson Wendy- Glen W a r d B d y

The Laurels 2 CR

Depot

39.6m Walnut

Little Croft Cottage Fourways 1

The Willow House 4

C El 2 H 4 Knightswood U Sub Sta R C L BM L H I

1 40.24m 19 M H H AN NS I C K L LO L

SE L 1 3 A

1 1

0 H 1 C

6 7

2 2 0

1 1

4 9

1 3

4 2 1a

4 C 2 L C I 7 O F O T O P N E Scale R

G ' 0 S A 3 R C 0 10 20 30 40 50 mD 1

3 E 1 9 O N

S S

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with Scale 1:1250 the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil Map Ref SU4614NW proceedings. Licence No. 100019622 (2007) Development Control Date 14/05/2007

16 Agenda Item 5b

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY Monday 22 October 2007 Case Officer Narinder Phagura

SITE: 23 Oatlands Road, Botley, Southampton, SO32 2DE

Ref. O/07/60832 Received: 07/08/2007 (03/10/2007)

APPLICANT: Mr P Jennings

PROPOSAL: Outline: Erection of 3no. Detached dwellings (2 no. 4 Bed & 1no. 3 bed) and associated parking with new vehicular access to Oatlands Road, following demolition of existing dwelling (layout & access to be considered)

AMENDMENTS: None

RECOMMENDATION:

REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(1) By reason of its cramped layout, the development would be out of keeping with the prevailing character of the area resulting in the overdevelopment of the site, loss of hedging and would result in the loss of privacy to Plot 3. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to Policy 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) and the Borough’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential Amenity.

(2) Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the existing foul water drainage systems to the detriment of the locality, therefore the scheme is contrary to policy 59.BE and 190.IN of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011.

(3) The proposal does not make contributions towards the provision of off-site open space works, social and recreational facilities or off-site transportation works, the need for which will increase as a direct result of the development

17 proposed. The proposals are therefore contrary to policies 101.T, 147.OS and 191.IN of Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 and the provisions of Government Circular 05/05 and PPG13: Transport.

Report:

This application has been referred to Committee because Councillor Mrs Fraser lives near the site.

Description of application

1. The outline application is for the construction of three detached dwellings to replace a single detached dwelling. The matters to be considered are layout and means of access.

Site area

2. 0.1030 ha

Residential development (net)

3. 29 d/ha

Topography

4. The garden steps up approximately ½ m to the rear boundary.

Trees

5. There are various small trees in the garden of no. 23 Oatlands Road along the boundary with no. 21.

Boundary treatment

6. There is a 1.8 hedge along the frontage of the site with a wooden gate to serve the driveway. This hedge continues along the front part of the boundary with no. 25 Oatlands Road, the remaining boundary is a mix of close boarded fencing and hedging. This is also carried across the rear boundary. There is staggered close boarded fencing along the boundary with no. 21 Oatlands Road.

Site characteristics

7. The site is located at the bottom of Oatlands Road near the junction with Maddoxford Lane. The site is currently occupied by a large detached

18 property that is 2 storeys high. The property has an attached carport and parking to the front for approximately 2 cars. The site has a relatively large rear garden with various small sheds set along the side and rear boundaries.

Character of locality

8. The application site is located within a residential area along Oatlands Road. The surrounding area is characterised by detached dwellings that share a similar rhythm in terms of spacing between properties. There is a mix of house designs and use of materials.

Relevant planning history

9. Z/34812/001/00 – Addition of conservatory at side, front porch and first floor bay window – Approved 10 September 1998.

10. O/06/57869 – Outline: Erection of 4no. detached dwellings & associated parking with new vehicular access to Oatlands Road following demolition of existing dwelling – Refused 03 November 2006.

Representations received

11. Eight letters have been received objecting on the grounds of development being out of character, overdevelopment, overlooking, visually intrusive development, proximity of development to adjoining dwellings, existing access, parking and traffic problems that would be made worse by the development, inadequate sewage system, noise from refuse vehicles, removal of mature trees, lack of boundary treatment, density too high, existing dwelling should be retained, lack of neighbour notification, unacceptable impact on elderly neighbours and development would lead to increased drug use and crime in the area.

Consultation responses

12. The Head of Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions covering the hours of work, demolition and removal of materials, no burning, and a scheme of works to deal with dust.

13. The Head of Transportation and Engineering - Low accessibility. No objection in principle. Secure cycle storage will be required for all properties. The garages appear to be less than the recommended minimum size of 6m x 3m internally so are not acceptable for cycle storage. A contribution in line with current rates for the additional dwellings

19 will be required. Recommended conditions DR2g, DR2l, HG05, TH08, TH25, TH32.

14. Southern Water – Following initial investigations, there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide sewage disposal to service the proposed development. The proposed development would increase flows to the public sewage system, and existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result. Additional off- site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers, will be required to provide sufficient capacity to the service the development. Section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991 provides a legal mechanism through which the appropriate infrastructure can be requested (by the developer) and provided to drain a specific location. Should this application receive planning approval, please include, as an informative to the permission, the following requirement: ‘‘The applicant/developer should enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service the development. Please contact Southern Water’s Network Development Team (Wastewater) based in Otterbourne, Hampshire or www.southernwater.co.uk’’. A scheme to improve the foul sewer has been devised but is not currently in the capital programme for construction in the near future. The Council’s Building Control officers or technical staff should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.

15. Following initial investigations, Southern Water can provide a water supply to the site. Southern Water requires a formal application for connection and on-site mains to be made by the applicant or developer. We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent: A formal application for connection to the water supply is required in order to service this development. Please contact Southern Water’s Network Development Team (Water) based in Chatham, Kent or www.southernwater.co.uk .

16. Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy

17. Relevant Policies - 59.BE, 102.T (Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011).

18. The proposal is located within the urban edge. Whilst there is a presumption in favour of appropriate new development within such a location, the development fails to meet the criteria of policy 59.BE.

19. Policy 59.BE requires amongst other things, development to be of an appropriate character, appearance, mass, scale, and form in relation to the locality and neighbourhood. The backland siting of the proposed three detached dwellings, which have small areas of private amenity space,

20 creates not only a cramped site, but a development which is out of character with the locality. In comparison, nearby dwellings are in individual plots with space around them. Policy objection.

20. Botley Parish Council - objected on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site and not in keeping with the prevailing character of the area. No evidence of the impact of the development on the existing foul water drainage system in Boorley Green. Insufficient off road parking. Failure to maintain the existing building line.

Policy context: designation applicable to site

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

Development plan policies

• Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) : 28.ES, 59.BE, 72.H, 75.H, 101.T, 102.T, 147.OS, 190.IN, 191.IN • Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Amenity in the Borough of Eastleigh.

Planning policy guidance / statement

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

Policy commentary

21. The above policies combine to form the criteria which this application will be assessed with particular regard to impact on the character and appearance of the area, siting and impact on the quality of the environment created for the proposed occupiers of the dwellings.

Comment on consultation responses

22. Please see below.

Comment on representations received

23. Please see below.

Assessment of proposal: Development plan and / or legislative background

24. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:

25. “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”.

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

Principle

27. The application site lies within the urban edge as defined in the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) and is within an established residential area. The principle of additional residential development is therefore considered to be acceptable in policy terms. Policies 72.H and 75.H require the effective use of land for housing. PPS3 states that a density of 30 d/ha should be used as a national indicative minimum for housing development. The density proposed under this application is 29d/ha, and although this falls short of the recommended level, PPS 3 also states that development should have regard to the local area in terms of scale, density, layout and access.

28. Although the principle of additional residential development is acceptable and supported by Government and local plan policy, the specific development for three dwellings as proposed is not in accordance with the more detailed guidance relating to siting, layout and impact to surrounding properties and protection of the character of the area.

Siting

29. Policy 59.BE requires proposals to be in sympathy with ‘‘the character and appearance of the locality’’ and to be ‘‘appropriate in terms of mass, scale, materials, layout, density, design and siting…’’. The surrounding area is characterised by large detached properties set in relatively large plots. The proposed development is not considered to respond well to the existing pattern of development within the area in terms of size and siting of dwellings nor does it respect the rhythm and spacing of properties along this side of Oatlands Road.

30. The development is also considered to result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to Plot 3 from the rear facing dormer window on number 20a Maddoxford Lane. The maximum distance proposed between Plot 3 and 20a Maddoxford Lane is 17.7m, this falls short of the recommended distance of 22m as set out in the Borough’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential Amenity that seeks to protect privacy for existing and proposed development. However, this guidance does relate to the

22 distances between 1st floor facing windows, but it would be reasonable to apply the same standard to the bungalow whose rear windows would likely serve habitable rooms. In addition, the dormer window would overlook the entire garden of Plot 3 therefore resulting in no ‘private’ garden space for this dwelling.

31. The Council’s SPG on Residential Amenity states that, as a guide, a minimum of 80% of the development footprint of houses should be provided. Although these standards are met for the proposed dwellings, the guidance does state that private gardens should be appropriate to the local context and for this reason the rear amenity areas are considered to be relatively small in comparison to surrounding development. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would result in the overdevelopment of the site, loss of amenity to Plot 3 and would be out of keeping with the character of the area.

Means of access

32. The dwellings to the front of the site would have their accesses off Oatlands Road straight onto driveways and a central access drive would serve Plot 3. The Head of Transportation and Engineering has raised no objection to the proposed access arrangements.

33. The provision of cycle and bin storage would be required for Plots 1 & 2 and the provision of bin storage would be required for Plot 3.

Drainage

34. Policy 190.IN requires there to be adequate infrastructure to serve a new development. Southern Water has stated that there is inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. In addition to which there has been a history of flooding in Boorley Green due to the inadequate drainage available. The applicant has not submitted any drainage details to address this and without this information the development doesn’t satisfactorily meet the requirements of 190.IN.

Other issues

35. The neighbour notification for this application followed the statutory requirement in that all adjoining properties that share a boundary with the site were notified.

36. With regards to noise from the development, the Head of Environmental Health raised no objection and recommended amenity protection conditions such as the restriction of construction hours. The potential

23 noise from refuse vehicles that would serve the development would not be unreasonable on a development of this scale.

37. The trees on the site are not subject to a Tree Preservation Order so no objection is raised to their removal.

38. The existing dwelling is not a listed building in which case no objection is raised to its removal.

39. Impact on elderly neighbours has been considered within this report under the standard amenity considerations.

40. The Local Planning Authority has not been made aware of any significant anti-social behaviour within the locality by the Crime Reduction Officer. I do not consider that a development of this scale would result in an increase of anti-social behaviour within the area.

Other material considerations

41. None.

Planning obligation /considerations

42. In accordance with the requirements of Circular 05/05 and the guidance contained within Policies 101.T, 147.OS and 191.IN of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), this application is subject to developer’s contributions towards the provision of social and recreational facilities, off-site public open space and transportation infrastructure in the local area.

43. Although the applicant has confirmed that the payment of developer contributions is acceptable, to date, no details have been received from the applicant on the chosen method of payment or manner in which this is to be secured.

Conclusion

44. Due to the concerns outlined above relating to the impact on the established character and appearance of the locality, loss of privacy to Plot 3, and inadequate drainage capacity in the local area, the proposed scheme is considered to be contrary to the guidance contained in the development plan. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons outlined above.

24 21

MA DD OX FO RD 31 L AN

E 33

2 33 1 a

2 1

22.3m

a 0 2

0 2

2 2

2 3

4 2

6 2

1 O 2 A T L A N D S

C 5

1 2 L 0 O

1 S

1 8

6 2 9

D A

1 a

8 3 R a S 2 D N 3 A LB L W T e A s th O o 3 S lm 2 E e N

1 6 S

W O R

6 C 1

1 Scale 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 m 9 2 1

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with Scale 1:1250 the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil Map Ref SU5014SE proceedings. Licence No. 100019622 (2007) Development Control Date 02/10/2007

25 This page is intentionally left blank

26 Agenda Item 5c

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY Monday 22 October 2007 Case Officer Gary Osmond

SITE: Unit 9 St Johns Centre, St Johns Road, Hedge End, Southampton, SO30 4QU

Ref. F/07/60850 Received: 10/08/2007 (05/10/2007)

APPLICANT: Mr B Bailey-Green

PROPOSAL: Change of use to mix of Retail (A1) & tanning salon (Sui Generis)

AMENDMENTS: None

RECOMMENDATION:

PERMIT

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(1) The development hereby permitted must be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

(2) No more than 30% of the current floor area shall be used for the purposes of the Sui Generis tanning salon use hereby permitted without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect and retain the current A1 retail use of the premises.

(3) The premises shall only be open to the public between the hours of 10am and 10pm on any day of the week. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring properties and to retain the existing openning hours of the premises.

Note to Applicant: Please contact the Environmental Health Service in order to discuss the health and safety issues concerning tanning salons

with the policies and proposals of the development plan, as listed below, and after due regard to all other relevant material considerations the local planning authority is of the opinion that permission should be granted.

The following development plan policies are relevant to this decision and the conditions attached to it:

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 [59.BE & 139.TC]

Report:

This application has been referred to Committee by Councillors Bloom, House and Fraser on the ground of public health concerns.

Description of application

1. The application premises is currently used as a video and DVD rental shop, considered to be Class A1 under the Use Classes Order 2005 and this use is to be retained. The additional proposed use as a tanning salon, a Sui Generis use under the Use Classes Order, is to run alongside the current video and DVD rental business. It is because of this Sui Generis classification that formal planning approval is required.

2. The proposals would not result in any significant physical alteration to the premises, other than the installation of three UV tanning booths/rooms. It is intended that the current staff who serve in the video shop will also supervise customer’s use of the tanning booths and will be trained in the necessary health and safety procedures. The booths themselves will not be of the coin operated type found in many self-service tanning salons but will be controlled by staff. Customers would have to register as ‘members’ and a record of how often they use the booths will be kept in order to monitor their use and prevent over exposure which could lead to health issues.

Site area

3. Approximately 78 square metres.

Residential development (net)

4. Not applicable.

Topography

5. The site is flat and level.

Trees

6. There are no trees on or adjacent to the site which would be affected by the proposals.

Boundary treatment

7. Neighbouring shop units to either side, pavement to front of shop and a small open yard to rear onto the St. Johns Centre car park.

Site characteristics

8. Unit 9 is one of a number of similar retail and commercial units contained within the St. Johns Centre. It is presently a video and DVD rental shop publicly accessed from St. Johns Road with a private service entrance to the rear and a public car park behind.

Character of locality

9. This part of Hedge End is the local retail and commercial centre with a reasonable range of shops and community services available.

Relevant planning history

10. There have been two planning applications relating to this retail unit. The first was for a change of use from shop to estate agency which was refused in October 1985. The second was for a similar application to that currently being proposed, for a change of use from video shop to toning bed salon which was refused in November 1991.

Representations received

11. No representations have been received.

Consultation responses

12. Head of Regeneration and Planning Policy – The site is located within the secondary zone of a district shopping centre. Under policy 138.TC, a change of use or redevelopment to A2, A3, A4, or A5 or club, leisure, or cultural use will be permitted. Further to this, paragraph 8.34 of the Local Plan Review states that “in the secondary shopping zone other town centre uses which attract customers will be acceptable.” The tanning salon element can be viewed as a leisure element. Therefore, there is no policy objection.

13. Head of Environmental Health – No objection has been raised by the Head of Environmental Health to the principle of the proposed use but has asked that an informative be included as part of any planning approval for the applicant to contact the Environmental Health Service for health and safety advice.

14. Hedge End Town Council – No objection.

Policy context: designation applicable to site

• Within Built-Up Area Boundary • Within the Secondary Zone of a district shopping centre

Development plan policies

• Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) : 59.BE & 138.TC • Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Amenity in the Borough of Eastleigh.

Planning policy guidance / statement

• PPS 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development • PPS 6 – Planning For Town Centres

Policy commentary

15. The above policies combine to form the criteria which this application will be assessed with particular regard to the principle of the proposed development, previous change of use applications for the unit, the impact of the proposed additional use on the retail centre and wider area and the concerns regarding public health.

Comment on consultation responses

16. Nothing further to add.

Comment on representations received

17. Not applicable.

Assessment of proposal: Development plan and / or legislative background

18. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:

19. “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

Principle

20. Policy 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) requires development to be sympathetic to its locality and avoid undue impact on neighbouring properties. This is supported by the requirements of policy UB3 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan Review. Guidance on assessing the impact on residential amenity is set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Residential Amenity in the Borough of Eastleigh’.

21. The application site lies within the urban edge. The local plan supports the principle of development in areas such as this, therefore the principle of that proposed is acceptable subject to consideration of the details of the proposal and its impact on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

22. Policy 138.TC of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) refers to areas identified as secondary zones of the designated town and district centres, Hedge End being one of these centres. This policy allows the change of use or redevelopment to an A2, A3, A4 or A5 or club, leisure or cultural use.

23. The proposed additional use as a tanning salon can be considered as a leisure use. Therefore, would be considered acceptable under Policy 138.TC.

Previous Applications

24. The previous planning application in 1991 (Z/28522/001), for a similar proposal, was refused on retail policy grounds intended to retain existing retail uses within the shopping area. The refusal was therefore not based on the actual proposed use as a tanning or toning salon but because it was a non- retail use within a shopping area. The current policy position relating to this particular part of Hedge End’s commercial centre has changed as can be seen by Policy 139.TC of the present adopted local plan which now encourages additional service uses for the wider community.

Impact

25. Supporting information supplied by the applicant states that the present video and DVD rental business has been losing trade for some time and that some form of diversification is needed in order to prevent closure of the business. The proposed mixture of video and DVD rental with a tanning salon is an unusual combination of uses but are not considered to conflict with each other.

26. No detailed information on expected customer numbers has been submitted but the proposed additional use combined with the existing footfall to the video store is not expected to be excessive in comparison to other existing uses within the commercial centre, such as the two supermarkets. The opening hours of the premises are to remain as they are at present, 10am – 10pm seven days a week so should not conflict with any residential units which may be within the centre.

27. The additional use as a tanning salon is therefore not considered to have any significant or detrimental impact on other surrounding uses or the commercial centre in general and is acceptable under Policy 138.TC of the local plan.

Public Health

28. The issue of public health has been raised as a significant concern by a number of Ward Councillors following issues with coin operated tanning salons which have become more popular in recent years. However, the issue of public health cannot be considered as a material planning concern and therefore

cannot be used as a reason to object to the proposals. Public health and health and safety issues are within the remit of Environmental Health, which has more appropriate legislation and enforcement powers to adequately control such uses.

29. The type of tanning booth proposed in this case is not of the coin operated type which has caused concern. The booths to be used will be controlled and supervised by staff present on site and records of each customer’s use will be recorded and monitored. These measures should alleviate concerns regarding public health and are in line with the latest guidance from the Sunbed Association.

Planning obligation /considerations

30. Due to the type and scale of the development proposed, the need for developer’s contributions is not considered to be necessary.

Other material considerations

31. It is considered that there are no other material considerations to warrant a decision otherwise than in accordance with the Development Plan and / or legislative background.

Conclusion

32. The proposed operation of the tanning salon will follow best practice as advised by the Sunbed Association and should not result in the misuse experienced in coin operated salons. The proposed mixed use of the application premises is not considered to conflict with any other uses present within the Hedge End Commercial Centre and is acceptable under Policies 59.BE and 138.TC of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011).

33. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

L O

1 0

Ascot Place 1 6 El Sub Sta

1 to 20 Ascot Place El Sub Sta E

O 2

L a Bank 11

C b 11 R 1

A 1

W D

E I L

C D 9b E 9a R 9 D N 7a OA R L 7 y M A Bd A 5a rd H N a T 5 W R 30.5 E O Shelter 3a N Bank ER CR OW 3 L d m 1 22 1c 0. 3 1b M

1a B 2 Bank

2 PC a 3 The TCBs Barleycorn Inn 5 (PH)

Tennis Courts Mast 7 AM RTH NO PER UP AD RO 1

Post Bank

Office 5

5 2 a

7 8

9 4 e ntr 32.9m Ce

n's Sara 1 oh 7

t J Stirling Hou S 1

0 House 8 Car Hedge

Park

1 1

e r E t End D U n N e A Gas E C O V Governor A s ' R Car Park S

n D

h S ' N 1 o U J N

t O H R S

O G 1 E

J 4 E R T F

1 5 5

PW 1

3 1 7 PW F 1 R lter E She E G R O U N D

S 7 1 14 A

a 2 E N The Catholic Church 3 U 1 D E

C BM 31.05m of the Assumption h A 1

a O D a p e R A l D 'S O 7 r o N R v El e H N ( O 9

Sub Sta P 2 J O 2 a 2 t T D h ) S E

L 1 b 1 S 1 The Fountain Inn Scale R 11 (PH) U a

B 0 10 20 30 40 50 m 1

F 13 6 R E E GR 17

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with Scale 1:1250 the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil Map Ref SU4912NW proceedings. Licence No. 100019622 (2007) Development Control Date 02/10/2007

33 This page is intentionally left blank

34 Agenda Item 7

HEDGE END, WEST END AND BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday 22 October 2007

EASTLEIGH LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Tuesday 30 October 2007

BISHOPSTOKE, FAIR OAK AND HORTON HEATH LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Wednesday 7 November 2007

BURSLEDON, HAMBLE-LE-RICE AND HOUND LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Thursday 8 November 2007

CHANDLER’S FORD LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Wednesday 14 November 2007

EASTLEIGH PUBLIC TRANSPORT STRATEGY: BOROUGH-WIDE STRATEGIC BUS NETWORK 2008-2011

Report of the Head of Transportation and Engineering

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Local Area Committee:-

(1) Support the policy as a means for prioritising existing funding for the Eastleigh Area Bus Network until 2011 as annual funding streams allow to support services on the strategic network and also the social dividend network of routes;

(2) Use the policy as a form of assessment when approached for top-up funding for services which are not operated commercially or subsidised by Hampshire County Council or other sources. Services shall be assessed on the grounds of where a service lies within the adopted policy alongside the cost per head of providing the service and the accessibility profile of services utilising the Council’s accessibility model.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\4\6\AI00017644\EastleighPublicTransportStrategy0.doc 1 35 Summary

Hampshire County Council (HCC) has recently re-tendered its supported bus network with some services no longer being funded due to the withdrawal of funding from HCC and rising industry costs. Bus services funded by Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) will be put under further pressure from the withdrawal of commercial services and also the increasing prices of subsidised services. The policy aims to direct the existing funding for public transport to services that meet the needs of the core strategic network with services which provide a social dividend.

Statutory Powers

Transport Act 1985

Introduction

1. The Eastleigh Passenger Transport Area Review was one of a series of district-based reviews undertaken throughout the county by Hampshire County Council to help ensure that the range of transport services supported keeps pace with changing travel needs, provides residents with a sustainable and affordable service and gives good access to essential services.

2. Costs within the bus industry are rising more steeply than local authority funding; the pressures are mainly due to driver wages, fuel prices and insurance. These cost increases continue to put the County’s bus subsidy budget under pressure. This in turn puts pressure on the limited discretionary resources of EBC and gives rise to the opportunity to prioritise previously reactionary piecemeal funding.

3. The Environment and Transport Scrutiny Panel has endorsed this policy subject to the views of each Local Area Committee and will be recommending that this policy be adopted by Cabinet.

Eastleigh Borough Public Transport Policy

4. Whilst EBC has no statutory obligation to provide subsidies for local bus services the Council has taken the decision to support certain local services which are deemed socially necessary and do not meet the current criterion set for a County Council subsidy. In addition to these direct subsidies the Council also provides top-up funding for certain HCC contracts in the area.

5. Within the context of rising costs of bus operation and the limited resource of the County Council, the way EBC funds public transport services needs to be prioritised to achieve overall best value that is in line with the aspirations of the Council but that also supports the aims of the Local Transport Plan

6. Until 2007 the funding of services by EBC evolved in a piecemeal manner over time. At the time HCC renewed its subsidies of local bus and transport services within the Borough it seemed timely that the criteria for top–up funding provided by limited resources allows for a clear and transparent

36 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\4\6\AI00017644\EastleighPublicTransportStrategy0.doc 2 allocation of funds dependent upon priorities consistent with policy. The Strategic Bus network policy seeks to provide this framework for funding.

7. The main priorities in supporting local bus services to, from, within and through the Borough are to maintain connections to main centres of population. The strategic network typically constitutes services operating a regular frequency at or above 1 bus per hour during daytime with additional evening and Sunday services, albeit at a reduced rate. The services are referred to as the Strategic Bus Network for Eastleigh – maintaining connections between nodes, centres of employment, housing and leisure. This means supporting commercial (HCC frontline) services and HCC subsidised services. Where budgets allow EBC can identify funding for service improvements in consultation with operators, HCC and users.

8. Social Dividend Routes are generally classed as those services which provide an hourly or less daytime service but with limited evening and Sunday services. These services generally will not fulfil the criteria of HCC funding but provide a social linkage, which should ideally be maintained.

9. The Social Dividend network is subject to funding within budgets available to EBC in terms of supporting services but is secondary to maintaining the strategic network and hence will be regularly reviewed where EBC provides all or some subsidy.

Financial Implications

10. The bus support revenue budget for 2007/2008 is £219,370. The policy allows an assessment of support, on an annual basis, which can be subsidised within the prevailing budget for that year.

Risk Management

11. The policy aims to reduce the risk of funding being diverted from supporting routes on the strategic network utilising limited funding to best effect.

Conclusion

12. The Strategic Bus Network policy will assist in identifying how prevailing funds for bus service support by EBC can be targeted to achieve best value. The views of the LAC are sought before proceeding to adoption by Cabinet.

DUNCAN MCVEY Head of Transportation and Engineering

Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\4\6\AI00017644\EastleighPublicTransportStrategy0.doc 3 37 Date: 11th October 2007 Contact Officer: Paul Walker Tel No: 023 8068 8278 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 1 Report No: EN1057

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:

Eastleigh Borough Public Transport Policy – Borough-wide Strategic Bus Network 2008-2011, September 2007

38 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\4\4\6\AI00017644\EastleighPublicTransportStrategy0.doc 4

Eastleigh Borough Public Transport Policy – Borough-wide Strategic Bus Network 2008-2011

1. Introduction

1.1 This paper aims to highlight how Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) should allocate its limited financial resources to topping up and subsidising bus services in line with Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2) and its own accessibility criteria.

1.2 The Eastleigh Passenger Transport Area Review was undertaken in early 2007 by Hampshire County Council to help ensure that the range of transport services Hampshire County Council (HCC) supported keeps pace with changing travel needs, provides residents with a sustainable and affordable service and gives good access to essential services.

1.3 Costs within the bus industry are rising more steeply than local authority funding; the pressures are mainly due to increases in driver wages, fuel prices and insurance. These cost increases continue to put the County’s bus subsidy budget under pressure. Additionally both HCC and Southampton City Council (SCC) cut bus service subsidy in 2007.

1.4 This in turn puts pressure on the limited discretionary resources of EBC and gives rise to the opportunity to prioritise previously reactionary piecemeal funding.

2. Local Transport Plan, Regional Guidance and Local Planning Frameworks

2.1 The majority of bus services in the Borough of Eastleigh are operated by Go South Coast and approximately 85% of all services are operated commercially without subsidy from either Hampshire County Council or Eastleigh Borough Council.

2.2 The Go-Ahead Group took control of the former Solent Blue Line in August 2005. Bluestar is the brand name for Go South Coast's key inter-urban and commuter route network into Southampton from Winchester, Eastleigh, Romsey and Hedge End. Bluestar services feature specially branded vehicles bearing a contemporary Bluestar star logo and supported by an interactive website, including stop-by-stop timetables. The Red Rocket Concept brand of midibus services based in Eastleigh, Chandler’s Ford and Hedge End commenced in September 2006 with the network taking in additional routes in February and September 2007.

2.3 In addition to Go South Coast’s network, First Hampshire & Dorset operates a number of services within the Borough including service 16 linking Hamble-le-Rice and Netley with Southampton and service 8A which provides a 20 minute frequency between Dowd’s Farm, The Rose Bowl, West End and Southampton.

2.4 First also operate service 72 between Gosport and Southampton, which passes through Lowford, service 78 & 79 between Fareham and Southampton, which passes through Windhover and Lowford, and service 80 between Southampton & Fareham via Lowford. Services 72,78,79 & 80 are financially supported by Hampshire County Council. Finally, First operate service 26 between Fareham and Hedge End via Botley.

2.5 Service 65 links Eastleigh with Romsey and Salisbury and is operated by Wilts and Dorset which is also part of the Go-Ahead Group.

2.6 The County Council has an influential role in improving services that are provided under contract. This creates a visible and integrated network of both commercial and supported services through the provision of high quality infrastructure, especially at interchanges

Version 1.1 August 2007 Page 1 39 2.7 Current legislation (Transport Act 1985) expects bus operators to provide commercial services where possible. The role of local authorities is to analyse the commercial network and tender for socially necessary services. Gaps in service provision may need to be filled at certain times of day or days of the week as well as places which are left completely without commercial services.

2.8 The bus network is dynamic; operators are required to give eight weeks’ notice of changes to commercial services. Withdrawal of a commercial service requires quick action to determine the case for support and arrange a replacement service, if funding is available.

2.9 Cost pressures and declining passenger numbers in rural and some urban areas have led operators to withdraw the worst-performing commercial services. The County Council cut £500,000 from supporting local bus services in 2007. This left much of the Borough without any evening and Sunday services which EBC funded out its existing public transport budget.

3. Existing Subsidised Bus Network

3.1 The services funded by Hampshire County Council from September 2007 are set out in Table 1.

3.2 Whilst EBC has no statutory obligation to provide subsidies for local bus services the Council has taken the decision to support certain local services which are deemed socially necessary and do not meet the current criterion set for a County Council Subsidy but may meet other strategic, land use or operational objectives – for example maintaining accessibility. In addition to these direct subsidies the Council also provides top-up funding for certain HCC contracts in the area. The subsidies paid by EBC are set out in table 2.

Version 1.1 August 2007 40 Page 2 Table 1: Services Funded by HCC (September 2007)

Operator Service No Contracted Route and Funded Journeys Notes Times (some routes continue without subsidy) Go South Bluestar 3 Hedge End – Botley Mon-Sat Eves Coast Go South Bluestar 3 Hedge End – Botley Sundays Coast Brijan Tours 7 Southampton – West Mon-Sat alternative Joint funded with End – Bishops Waltham jrnys Southampton City Council. See table 2 Brijan Tours 8 Eastleigh – Botley - Mon-Sat entire Bishops Waltham service First Hants & 8A Service extension Rose Mon-Sat New service extended Dorset Bowl – Dowd’s Farm for 5yrs from 02.09.07. First Hants & 16 Southampton - Hamble Sunday Daytime Dorset Brijan Tours 17 Bishops Waltham – Mon-Sat entire Petersfield (entire service service) First Hants & 24 Soton – IBM Hursley Mon-Fri peak Joint funded with Dorset Commuter Service Southampton City Council First Hants & 25 Boorley – Green – Mon- Sat service Joint funded with Dorset Hedge End - Woolston

See table 2 Go South Red Rocket Eastleigh - Hamble Mon-Sat Daytime & Coast A Eves

Go South Red Rocket Eastleigh- Hamble Sundays Early Weekday School Coast A (Sundays) Holiday & Winter Sundays funded by

See table 2 Go South Red Rocket Asda – Hiltingbury Mon-Sat Eastleigh – Asda Coast D section of route section ran commercially Go South Red Eastleigh – Boyatt Wood (Mon- Sat daytime Formally services 49, Coast Rocket E – Winchester and eves) 49A, 49B Go South Red Rocket Eastleigh- Bishops Mon- Sat service Formally service 43 Coast F Waltham – Waltham Chase Go South 507 Valley Park - Toynbee Schooldays Coast School Barfoot 542 Park Gate – Hamble Schooldays Community Sports College Barfoot 543 Lowford – Netley Infant Schooldays & Junior First Hants & 616 Hamble School Service Schooldays Dorset Brijan 654 St John the Baptist CE Schooldays Primary School Brijan A1 Bishopstoke – Wyvern- Schooldays Stoke Park infant and junior school Brijan A2 Wyvern – Fair Oak Schooldays Junior - Bishopstoke Sapphire Taxibus Chalvington Road – Mon-Sat Joint funded with Eastleigh Car Share

Sapphire Taxibus Campbell Road – Mon-Sat Joint funded with Eastleigh Car Share

Version 1.1 August 2007 Page 3 41 Table 2: Services Subsidised by Eastleigh Borough Council (September 2007)

Service Operator Route Journeys Subsidised

Bluestar 2 Go South Soton – Fair Oak - Sunday Joint funded with Coast Southampton City Council Red Rocket A Go South Eastleigh – Mansbridge – West End Early school holiday Coast – Hedge End – Bursledon – Netley - morning and winter Hamble Sundays

Red Rocket C Go South Eastleigh- Velmore Estate – 1 Journey Mon-Thurs Coast Chandler’s Ford – Oakmount Road – Eves, 5 Journeys Fri & Fryern Hill (Mon – Sat Eves) Sat Eves

Red Rocket C Go South Eastleigh- Velmore Estate – Sundays – 5 journeys Coast Chandler’s Ford – Oakmount Road – each way Fryern Hill

Red Rocket E Go South Eastleigh – Shakespeare Road - Sundays – 5 journeys Coast Boyatt Wood – Otterbourne – Badger each way Farm - Winchester

16 First Hants & Southampton – Woolston - Netley – Butlocks Heath Dorset Butlocks Heath - Hamble Diversion

16/17a First Hants & Soton- Hamble (Mon-Sat Eves) Joint funded with Dorset Southampton City Council 16 First Hants & Soton- Hamble (Sundays) Joint funded with Dorset Southampton City Council 25 First Hants & Boorley – Green – Hedge End - Joint funded with Dorset Woolston Hampshire County Council 56 First Hants & Thursday Eastleigh Market Bus Thursdays (3 journeys Dorset each way) N6 First Hants & Nitebus Service Fri/Sat Nights Dorset Southampton- West End- Hedge End (North)- Botley

N7 First Hants & Nitebus Service Fri/Sat Nights Dorset Southampton- Bursledon- Netley- Hamble 501 Go South Thorndean School service School Service Coast Taxibus Sapphire Chalvington Road – Eastleigh Car Joint funded with Share Hampshire County Council Taxibus Sapphire Campbell Road – Eastleigh Car Joint funded with Share Hampshire County Council

4. Services Subsidised by Eastleigh Borough Council

4.1 EBC subsidises the costs of operating Nitebus Services N6 & N7. Up until September 2004 EBC also operated N5, which was taken over commercially as services Nightstar 1 & Nightstar 2 which replicated the equivalent Bluestar services. In line with new licensing laws introduced in late 2005 additional 0315 departures were introduced on Saturdays in April 2006 and Fridays in September 2006 following a re-tender of the service won by First Hants and Dorset. EBC successfully secured Community Safety Partnership funding towards these services.

4.2 Thursday Market Bus Services were re-tendered in early 2006. The nature of commercial bus service provision made service 58 (Hamble- Hedge End- Eastleigh) unviable and in potential conflict with the Transport Act (1985) and was catered for along most of the route by Red Rocket A (formally 9a). Those sections that were not covered by existing commercial services were mopped up by an extension to the route of the 56, which links Eastleigh to Windhover, Fair Oak and Botley. This service will be kept under review to assess the impact of concessionary fares passes on ridership.

Version 1.1 August 2007 42 Page 4

4.3 From September 2007 EBC took on the responsibility of funding some services previously supported by Hampshire County Council. This included service 16 (Southampton-Hamble) after 1800 seven days a week jointly with Southampton City Council, Evening operation of Red Rocket C (Eastleigh- Chandler’s Ford) and Sunday evening services on Bluestar 2 (Fair Oak – Southampton). The withdrawal of funding from HCC due to overspending of non- highway related departments is disappointing in terms of catering for the overall transport need.

4.4 From the same date EBC ceased funding Friday and Saturday evening service 7a (Bishops Waltham – Southampton) due to low ridership, limited incursion into the Borough and that the majority of passengers boarded within Southampton city boundaries where alternatives exist. EBC also joint funds service 25 (Boorley Green – Hedge End – Woolston) and two taxibus schemes with HCC as well providing certain journeys on the Red Rocket A via HCC’s contract.

5. Quality Bus Partnership Routes

5.1 Bluestar Service 1, 2 and 3 along with service 16 are Quality Bus Partnership (QBP) routes on which the local authorities work the service operators to provide good quality services and vehicles along with on-street infrastructure (bus stops, shelters, access kerbs etc) as well as information both at stop and through electronic means including text messaging and real time information.

5.2 EBC works with operators and the County Council in this respect however there are concerns that reduced subsidy from HCC on QBP routes as part of overall budget cuts may affect the viability of the overall service provided. QBP routes need to be of a suitable frequency seven days a week, including evenings and not just at peak times.

6. Passenger Transport Area Reviews

6.1 Within LTP2, Hampshire County Council states that bus industry costs are forecast to continue to rise. This is accompanied by uncertainty over Government revenue funding for bus support. In this climate HCC consider it as crucial that it reviews its current service provision and demonstrates that: • It is achieving value for money; • Subsidy payments are open and transparent; • Spending is undertaken within the context of LTP2 and Bus Strategy objectives; • The optimum balance is achieved between conventional and innovative services; • The relationship between secured and commercial services achieves the best possible efficiency; • Funds are used to address the unmet needs of Hampshire residents.

6.2 The new approach by Hampshire County Council combines practical desk-top inputs based on local knowledge and expertise, with a new model for the County Council that is designed to test Value for Money and to encourage operator flexibility in service procurement. The greater flexibility includes: • Increasing and more effective use of ‘unconventional’ transport such as taxis, Community Transport, shared cars and demand responsive services; • Taking an ‘integrated’ approach in partnership with commercial bus operators; The aim is to maintain the viability and attractiveness of bus services through improving journey times, ease of use and improved coordination; • Marketing and promotional efforts, including ticketing initiatives, to reverse long term passenger loss.

6.3 With the cooperation of the major bus operators, the reviews consider both those services that are financially supported by the County Council and those that are operated on a wholly commercial basis in association with the Council. The model is intended to be an interactive tool to assist the assessment of utility and value for money of different

Version 1.1 August 2007 Page 5 43 options for public transport services, in terms of both mode and level of service. It will form part of a framework for decisions on resource allocation and will accommodate: • The application of minimum standards of service; • An assessment of service development proposals aimed at increasing public transport use. In so doing, it will not only aid the County Council in securing socially necessary public transport services which are not provided commercially, but also help fulfill a key role in achieving its corporate targets and wider policy objectives.

7. HCC Prioritised Bus Network

7.1 LTP2 identifies a hierarchy of bus services within Hampshire, comprising a Frontline network, a subsidiary network and a social network.

Frontline network

7.2 Strategic services that cater for key interurban links or high-volume urban flows. These usually operate on a commercial basis and carry the majority of passengers. Investment will normally be capital in nature and aimed at meeting patronage growth targets or ensuring a coherent, identifiable and functional network. Many services are likely to be suitable for QBP development and revenue support is envisaged as minimal.

Subsidiary network

7.3 Other regular bus services, often local in nature and either marginally commercial or supported by the County Council. Night services could feature here. Investment is likely to be primarily for revenue support although there may be some capital expenditure where a case can be made, in particular as part of creating a functional countywide network. Support is mainly targeted at addressing social inclusion and, in a number of limited cases, promoting passenger growth. These services may be suitable for re-planning through a Quality Network or Contract approach.

Social network

7.4 Services that are often less frequent in nature and feed into other parts of the network, particularly frontline services. The majority serve rural areas whilst some serve isolated residential areas in a more urban setting. They exist primarily to ensure social inclusion, although their existence may also reduce the need for car use. Such services are almost always supported by the County Council and are not necessarily operated by a conventional bus.

8. Eastleigh Strategic Network

8.1 Within the context of rising costs of bus operation and the limited resource of the County Council, the way Eastleigh Borough Council funds public transport services needs to be prioritised to achieve overall best value that is in line with the aspirations of the Council but that also supports the aims of the Local Transport Plan 2.

8.2 Regard also has to be made on issue of accessibility by public transport to various areas of the Borough. Such accessibility criteria is applied when assessing applications for new development, including parking provision based on public transport accessibility. To this end the Borough Council and HCC through its planning and LTP framework need to work within budgets to maintain such accessibility.

8.3 Until 2007, the funding of services by Eastleigh Borough Council evolved in a piecemeal manner over time. At the time HCC renewed its subsidies of local bus and transport services in Eastleigh Borough it seemed timely that a criteria for top –up funding provided by limited resources allows for a clear and transparent allocation of funds dependant upon priorities consistent with policy.

8.4 Whilst EBC acknowledges the HCC criterion and supports it the criteria for Eastleigh on this basis applies to revenue funding only for bus services and not the overall public transport

Version 1.1 August 2007 44 Page 6 infrastructure. Therefore the priority here is on pure bus service provision rather that the overall “package” of service and infrastructure.

8.5 EBC does provide for infrastructure improvements alongside the County Council through the Quality Bus Partnership and maintains much of the street infrastructure, including Eastleigh Bus Station. In addition developers contributions and the public transport initiatives budget allows for additional infrastructure to be provided. These funds will continue to be used for this purpose.

8.6 The main priorities in supporting local bus services to, from, within and through the Borough are to maintain connections to main centres of population. The strategic network typically constitutes services operating a regular frequency at or above 1 bus per hour during daytime with additional evening and Sunday services, albeit at a reduced rate. The services are referred to as the Strategic Bus Network for Eastleigh – maintaining connections between nodes, centres of employment, housing and leisure. This means supporting commercial (HCC frontline) services and HCC subsidised services. Where budgets allow EBC can identify funding for service improvements in consultation with operators, HCC and users. This strategic network is highlighted at Table3.

8.7 The identification of a strategic network is not an open chequebook for bus operators or the County Council. EBC sees this network as falling mainly into the frontline network identified by HCC or into the subsidised category and any bid for funding from EBC towards such provision needs to be justified in respect of this policy. EBC should not be disadvantaged due to the fact it makes discretionary provision for bus operation whereas other districts within the County do not. EBC top-up funding is exactly that and is provided to add extra value to HCC funding, not to replace it.

8.8 The majority of services in the strategic list provide main links between settlements within the Borough and other desirable nodes, notably Southampton, a major attractor regionally for travel. Modal transfer to other forms of transport than the car can only be achieved through reliable regular linkages by all forms of transport. Red Rocket branded Routes A & C primarily form north-south connections through the Borough cementing the strategic network.

8.9 Red Rocket E provides an essential link between the Borough and facilities in Winchester including health and shopping facilities and whilst the service may not flourish commercially Eastleigh Borough Council would wish to see this service continue at its present service level as a minimum.

Version 1.1 August 2007 Page 7 45 Table 3: Strategic Bus Network for the Borough of Eastleigh

Service No Quality Operator Strategic Connection Daytime Evening Sun Bus P’ship Freq. Freq. Freq. Route? (mins) (mins) (mins) Red Rocket No Go South Coast Eastleigh – Mansbridge 30 60 60 A – West End – Hedge End 60 120 120 – Bursledon – Netley - Hamble Red Rocket No Go South Coast Eastleigh- Velmore 20 1 jrnys 120 C Estate – Chandler’s (mon-thurs) Ford – Oakmount Road – Fryern Hill 60 (Fri & Sat Only) Bluestar 1 Yes Go South Coast Winchester – 20 60 30 (Bluestar Brand) Otterbourne – Fryern Hill – Chandler’s Ford – Bassett - Southampton Bluestar 2 Yes Go South Coast Fair Oak – Bishopstoke 15 60 30 – Eastleigh – Swaythling - Southampton Bluestar 3 Yes Go South Coast Oaklands Estate – 20 60 60 Hedge End- Thornhill Park Road – Bitterne - Southampton 8A No First Hants & Southampton – Bitterne 20 60 60 Dorset – West End – Moorgreen Hospital – Rose Bowl – Hedge End Station – Dowd’s Farm

16 Yes First Hants & Southampton – 20 60 60 Dorset Woolston - Netley – Butlocks Heath - (30 sat) Hamble

Red No Go South Coast Eastleigh – 60 120 120 Rocket E Shakespeare Road - Boyatt Wood – Otterbourne – Badger Farm - Winchester 69 No Stagecoach Winchester- Twyford- 60 Partial/ 180 Hampshire Colden Common- Fair irregular Oak- Bishops Waltham- Fareham

72 No First Hants & Southampton – Lowford 60 1 jrny 120 Dorset – Swanwick – Locks Heath – Gosport 80 No First Hants & Southampton – 60 60 - Dorset Windhover – Lowford – Swanwick – Warsash – Locks Heath – Fareham

New - - Eastleigh Town - - - Centre/Southampton Airport Parkway to Chandler’s Ford Link

9. Social Dividend Routes

9.1 Social Dividend Routes are classed as those services, which provide an hourly, or less daytime service but with limited evening and Sunday services. These services generally will not fulfil the criteria of HCC funding but provide a social linkage, which should ideally be maintained.

9.2 Such services could consist of services linking communities with shopping and civic amenities, such as outlying estates with poor private mobility or night services which allow younger residents to enjoy a night out with safe, cheap, reliable transport home, encouraging them to remain resident in the Borough whilst enjoying access to leisure facilities within a

Version 1.1 August 2007 46 Page 8 wider regional context. These services also provide links to outside of the Borough for commuting/ leisure interests.

Table 4: Proposed Eastleigh Social Dividend Services

Ser. No QBP Operator Route Freq Freq Freq Comments Rte Day Eve Sun

Red No Go South Coast Eastleigh- Shakespeare 30 - - Service cut Rocket B Road- Bosville- Boyatt Woo- from 20 to 30 St Catherine’s Road- min freq Feb Eastleigh 2007

7 No Brijan Tours Southampton – West End – 60 - - HCC Eastleigh Bishops Waltham Area Contract

8 No Brijan Tours Eastleigh – Botley – Bishop’s 60 - - HCC Eastleigh Waltham Area Contract

25 No First Hants and Hedge End and Boorley 60/120 - - Part funded by Dorset Green Local Service

26 No First Hants & Hedge End – Botley – 7-8 - - HCC Fareham Dorset Swanwick – Whiteley – jnys area contract Segensworth – Fareham per day Red No Go South Coast Eastleigh – Stoke Common – 60 on - 3 HCC Eastleigh Rocket F Bishops Waltham some jrnys Area Contract sectio ns Red No Go South Coast Eastleigh – Chestnut Avenue 60 - - Rocket D – Valley Park – Hiltingbury – Chandler’s Ford

46 No Stagecoach Winchester – Hiltingbury – 120 - - Southampton

56 No First Hants & Windhover- Lowford- Botley- 3 jrnys - - Funded by Dorset Fair Oak- Bishopstoke- Thu Eastleigh (Thursdays Only) only

65 No Wilts & Dorset Eastleigh- Nightingale 60 - - HCC Romsey Avenue- Templars Way- Area Contract North Baddesley- Romsey

78/79 No First Hants & Southampton – Windhover – 60 - 60 HCC Fareham Dorset Lowford – Swanwick – Area Contract Warsash – Locks Heath – (120) Fareham sat)

N6 n/a First Hants & Southampton- West End- - 4 - funded by Dorset Hedge End (North)- Botley jrnys fri & sat only

N7 n/a First Hants & Southampton- Bursledon- - 4 - funded by Dorset Netley- Hamble jrnys fri & sat only n/a n/a Saphhire Campbell Road – Eastleigh n/a n/a n/a Car Share n/a n/a Saphhire Chalvington Road – Eastleigh n/a n/a n/a Car Share

Version 1.1 August 2007 Page 9 47 9.3 The Social Dividend network is subject to funding within budgets available to EBC in terms of supporting services but are secondary to maintaining the strategic network and hence will be regularly reviewed where EBC provides all or some subsidy.

9.4 In terms of meeting transport needs EBC would be willing to support HCC and transport providers in investigation, and where viable supporting alternative transport services identified within LTP2, including demand responsive, taxi car and other schemes. It may be that where traditional bus services once provided a role the changing nature of access to these services mean a less traditional approach may be required that may take the form of a traditional bus service or part of a new type of transport provision.

9.5 Various services within the social dividend network provide local links rather than strategic ones which are important to the communities they serve. For example Red Rocket A, Services 8 and 25 provide cross Hedge End linkages without which some parts of the community would not be severed.

9.6 Red Rocket D provides a key local link to the strategic network, especially linking to Hiltingbury. The strategic network in this context for the Chandler’s Ford area is provided via Bluestar 1 and Red Rocket C, these linkages increase the limited transport opportunities in this area. There is potential for Red Rocket D jointly interworking either with service 65 or through improved frequency in its own right to grow patronage along the line of route which includes business, education and other uses.

9.7 The same is true for Stagecoach service 69, which provides local linkages between Twyford, Fair Oak, Winchester/Fareham connecting to other frontline/strategic services.

10. New Services

10.1 The style and pattern of services within Eastleigh has faired well in terms of changing to market conditions over the past few years with the introduction of Bluestar and more recently Red Rocket services. This fairs favourably in terms of much of Hampshire, which still shadows a network from the mid 1980’s. This presents both opportunities and threats. Opportunities in making new sites more accessible to all transport modes including buses and threats in some local nodes being missed out due to the perceived non commercial nature of the services. These latter services could benefit from pump priming initiatives such as the Kick Start programme to extend or amend existing services so that, in time such services grow a market and support themselves.

10.2 The Dowd’s Farm development near Hedge End allows for the development of over 750 dwellings between 2006 and 2011. Developer’s contributions exist to support existing services over a five-year period and as a result of the HCC tender exercise service 8A was extended to serve this development from September 2007 linking the development with Hedge End Station, West End and Southampton.

10.3 In 2006 Eastleigh Borough Council, Southampton University and B&Q joint funded a study examining linking Eastleigh Town Centre/ Southampton Airport Parkway and Chandler’s Ford to assist employees from Chandler’s Ford accessing Southampton Airport Parkway Station as well as students from the University accessing Wide Lane Sports Centre. In addition the study evaluated connecting either end of the route with existing education uses along Chestnut Avenue and residential areas. The study included providing a stand-alone service or connecting to an improved service 65, red rocket D or extended U1A. This work continues with both businesses and operators in terms of developing a public transport offer that meets the needs of the Chandler’s Ford Commuter Forum as well as the wider travelling public.

10.4 The strategic development area to the south of Eastleigh Town Centre is being put forward for development during the period upto 2011 and beyond as part of the Eastleigh Town Centre Action Plan and the largest brownfield site in the South East known as the South Hampshire Strategic Employment Zone. Public transport services in the Borough may have to be amended to take into account any new development. Accordingly the Partnership for an Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) work proposing major development up until 2020 near

Version 1.1 August 2007 48 Page 10 Hedge End of further residential housing will again need the tailoring of public transport services to reflect changing patterns of demand.

11. Vehicle Standards

11.1 Eastleigh Borough Council has assisted in improving overall vehicle standards through involvement in Quality Bus Partnership Schemes such as improved vehicles and marketing on service 16 connecting Southampton and Hamble and involvement in improving infrastructure on Blue Star and Red Rocket Routes identified in Table 3.

11.2 An increase in the number of low floor vehicles would assist the overall attractiveness of buses in the area although it is acknowledged that bus operators try to deliver maximum benefit from limited resources in this respect.

12. Conclusion

12.1 Eastleigh Borough Council has produced this policy to focus the limited discretionary funding towards providing bus services within the Borough. The strategic network aims to, in light of revised HCC funding, changes in the commercial network and the continuing changes in the nature of bus service operation provide clear and transparent guidance as to how public transport support funding will be allocated in the Borough.

Draft Version 1.2 2nd September 2007

Paul Walker Transport & Development Control Manager Eastleigh Borough Council Transportation & Engineering Unit Civic Offices Leigh Road EASTLEIGH Hampshire SO50 9YN Tel: 02380 688278 Fax: 02380 688336 Email: [email protected] www.eastleigh.gov.uk

Version 1.1 August 2007 Page 11 49 This page is intentionally left blank

50 Agenda Item 8 HEDGE END WEST END AND BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

22nd October 2007

EASTLEIGH LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

30th October 2007

BISHOPSTOKE FAIR OAK AND HORTON HEATH

LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

7th November 2007

BURSLEDON, HAMBLE- LE-RICE AND HOUND

LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

8th November 2007

URBAN CHARACTER AREA APPRAISALS

Report of the Acting Head of Planning Policy and Design

RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOCAL AREA COMMITTEES

That the Draft Character Appraisal document at Appendix i to this report (available through the Council’s website) be recommended to Cabinet for approval as a supplementary planning document (SPD) subject to the proposed amendments listed in the schedule attached to this report as appendix ii.

Summary

Approval is sought for a final amended version of the Character Area Appraisal document(s),following public consultation on the draft(s), with a view to adopting the work as SPD in December 2007 in order to provide better guidance to planning applicants and The Council when considering new development in residential areas.

Statutory Powers

Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\9\8\5\ai00017589\characterareaappraisal0.doc

1 51 Introduction

1. Like the earlier pilot study in Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury in 2005 the main purpose of the urban character appraisal work is to identify features which give residential areas their distinctive character and provide guidance for applicants, Area Committees and Council staff when planning applications are made, resulting in new residential development which fits better into its existing surroundings. The work is intended mainly to inform proposals for smaller scale development and infill schemes, not larger scale development, where development briefs are likely to provide more appropriate guidance. It is proposed that in their final form, the Character Area Appraisals be formally adopted as Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD). (Full text of documents may be found on the Council’s website).

2. Following the approval of HEWEB, ELAC, BIFOHH, BHH and Cabinet, draft urban character area appraisal documents were published and consultation carried out in July and August this year. The work has now been subjected to discussion by the public, Councillors and staff and a detailed schedule of comments and suggested detailed amendments has been prepared, covering generic issues and specific local proposals.

Description of the Work

3. A detailed description of the work was provided in the last report to the Local Area Committees, but Members are reminded that the study (carried out by Roger Evans Associates) has focused on residential areas, with the bulk of the time available being used to analyse housing areas built up to the 70’s, the older areas being judged to have most capacity for change. More recent areas have been mapped in summary form. Non residential areas and Conservation Areas (with the exception of the Bursledon Special Character Area which extensively overlaps the Conservation Area) are excluded from the work as these are being reviewed separately. The work is also limited to residential development within urban settlements, excluding small groups of houses outside the urban edge.

4. Under the procedure introduced under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the Council may adopt a version of the document(s) after consultation as SPD, which must include a sustainability appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment (see appendix iii). This SPD will form part of the Local Development Framework. The target date for adoption is December 2007.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\9\8\5\ai00017589\characterareaappraisal0.doc

52 2 Consultation

5. Copies of the draft documents were sent to The Town and Parish Councils , placed in local libraries and posted on the web. Consultation details were published in the local press and the Borough News and 4 public exhibitions were held (1 in each local area). Members of the public were invited to comment on the appraisals and in particular identify any particular features which made a particular contribution to the character of individual areas.

6. A total of 96 people visited the exhibitions, with 41 at HEWEB, 3 at ELAC, 35 at BHH and 17 at BIFOHH.

7. A number of commentators suggested generic changes to the work, mainly in the way the documents are set out, requesting clearer guidance and identifying those things in particular which give particular places a distinctive and strong sense of character.

8. A number of ‘place specific’ comments were received from those with a detailed knowledge of the areas.

9. A summary of comments with a list of suggested actions is attached as appendix ii. Members are asked to consider the proposed amendments as set out. Suggested changes have been based on the principle that the overall brief of the work remains as set out in paragraph 3 above.

10. Timetable:

Staffed Exhibitions in local areas took place:

• Hedge End 2000 Centre on 23rd July

• Civic Offices on 26th July

• Fair Oak Village Hall on 30th July

• Hamble Memorial Hall on 2nd August

Report consultation results and recommended amendments to Area Committees and Cabinet:

Committee Dates:

• HEWEB 22nd Oct • ELAC 30th Oct • BIFOHH 7th Nov • BHH 8th Nov • Cabinet 10th Dec

Print and publish adopted document 21st Dec

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\9\8\5\ai00017589\characterareaappraisal0.doc

3 53 Financial Implications

11. It envisaged that the cost of the work required to prepare the Character Area Appraisals will be completed within available financial resources, subject to proposed amendments requiring no fundamental changes to the scope of the study.

12. Risk Management

Late adoption of the work as SPD may have an adverse impact on the Council’s Planning Delivery Grant. Extending the scope of the work significantly could cause delay. If guidance is not formally adopted in its final form, its value as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications would be greatly diminished.

Conclusion

13. Amendments to the draft Urban Character Area Appraisal work, taking into account information gathered from the consultation exercise will help to ensure that the documents make a positive contribution to the encouragement of residential development which takes better account of the local character of each area and opportunities to enhance it.

Tony Wright Acting Head of Planning Policy and Design

Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN

Date: 1 October 2007 Contact Officer: Julian Davies Tel No: 023 8068 8244 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices: 3 (see website for appendix i)

Report No: PP000026

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:

Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury Character Area Appraisal 2005

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\9\8\5\ai00017589\characterareaappraisal0.doc

54 4 Appendix ii

Summary of Consultation Responses and Suggested Amendments To Draft Urban Character Area Appraisal Study (HEWEB)

Area Number of Comment Summary Suggested Action Responses

1-6 1 Suggest classify as one area, Changes in form of split is confusing. development apparent in different areas. No change proposed.

6 1 (DC comments) Southern/ Noted. Recent development Western/Telegraph Road- therefore not in detailed single and 2 storey, tree study area. No further action lined, widely spaced, at this stage. common roof form. Strong character.

8 1 Parking is a problem. Amend description.

9 3 (DC comments) Chalk Hill; Add comments to text and large detached dwellings, appropriate guidance tree lines, soft frontages, notes re trees and plots. generous plots. Strong character.

Parking is a problem. Amend description.

13 1 Extensive views to the north Views are limited from towards the airport. public vantage points. No further action.

There is a gentle slope Include reference to slope. towards the south/west of the area.

14 1 (DC comments) Midland Refer to distinctive estate, interwar/post war characteristics and strong housing, regular spacing, character in text and geometric layout, distinctive appropriate guidance house types. Strong notes re spacing and character. form.

15 1 Should discourage on-street Noted, not in the remit of parking. this study.

Area Number of Comment Summary Suggested Action

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\8\5\AI00017589\AreaAppraisalAppendixii0.doc

1 55 Responses

16 1 Discourage division into Noted, not in the remit of multi-occupancy properties. this study.

17/24 1 Review boundary to include Review boundary of 17, terraced housing in include part in area 24. Littlewood Gardens, and Woodland Mews, (Site South Botley House is between).

Predominant trees to front of Refer to trees in guidance. West End Road should be retained. South Botley Home Noted, but study does not could be redeveloped with seek to identify appropriate housing (terraced development sites. to complement terraced houses to N&S).

23 1 Some non-residential uses Parking noted in study, included, with parking issues. minor non-residential uses, no change.

24 1 Exclude commercial Review boundary. properties opposite Chapel Road.

25 1 Discourage division into Noted, not in the remit of multi-occupancy properties. this study.

27 1 (DC comments) Lower New Refer to distinctive Road/Hope Road bungalows, characteristics and strong regular spacing, regular character in text and frontages. Strong character. appropriate guidance notes.

29 1 Four residential properties Amend in area 29. are in the commercial centre 8-14 Chapel Road.

30 1 Discourage division into Noted, not in the remit of multi-occupancy properties. this study.

38 1 Older properties adjoining Review this area for Shamblehurst Lane should inclusion (5-29) be included in detailed study. Shamblehurst Lane.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\8\5\AI00017589\AreaAppraisalAppendixii0.doc

2 56 Area Number of Comment Summary Suggested Action Responses

47 5 Restrict height of Not necessarily appropriate developments to 2 storeys through the whole area. No and individual or semi- action re Character area detached properties. study.

Large scale apartment blocks Noted. Add note re like those on Bursledon Road planting with new are inappropriate in the development. context of this character area in terms of mass, scale, density and siting.

New blocks are built without boundary planting.

Traffic flow is increasing Noted. Traffic issues without mitigation. already picked up in guidance.

Reference is made to the Noted. No action re poor quality of footways in the Character area study. area.

47 6 Treatment of recreation Noted, but not directly ground by Town Council does appropriate for inclusion in not reflect its original text. purpose.

The landmark spire of St Already identified as a John the Evangelist Church is landmark feature in study, blocked by new development no further action. from the recreation ground.

Traffic regulations are not Noted, but not directly enforced re heavy vehicles. appropriate for inclusion in Traffic management to direct text. vehicles to strategic roads is required.

20 MPH speed limit required.

Appraisal work is too late. Noted. No action re this.

Useful and informative Noted. No action re this. exhibition.

Area Number of Comment Summary Suggested Action Responses

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\8\5\AI00017589\AreaAppraisalAppendixii0.doc

3 57 (DC comments): Refer to strength of character mainly defined Bursledon Road/St Johns by the form and materials Road strong character re of older properties in the older properties around area. spacing, appearance, positioning.

50-54 1 Edge of Hedge End but part Note Hedge End/Botley in in Botley Parish. summary description.

55 3 Freegrounds Road and Hobb Amend description to Lane identify the origins of the area and later infill. (Southern part) are incorrectly classified and need a separate character area, because they include Victorian villas and inter-war housing. Subsequent infilling has taken place with newer housing.

Retain brick wall boundaries. Add to description.

Dominant overhead power Add to description. cables.

55 3 Increased levels of housing Noted. Add reference to of 2 or more floors is the local street context. detrimental to the character of the area.

Building should be the same Noted. Not likely to be density as the older existing appropriate throughout the development. area.

56 1 Refer to distinctive thatched Add reference. cottage on Freegrounds Road.

60 1 Guidance note re uniformity Remove guidance notes of building heights (south end re this. of Wildern Lane) is too prescriptive and does not allow an appropriate increase in building height/density towards the centre of H. End.

Area Number of Comment Summary Suggested Action Responses

64 1 Area is in Botley Parish. Amend text to read ‘on the eastern edge of Hedge D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\8\5\AI00017589\AreaAppraisalAppendixii0.doc

4 58 End in the Parish of Botley’.

65 1 2 cottages go back to early Mention distinctive 18th century, one is thatched. historic houses in text.

Description of properties on Amend description to the northern edge of Long ‘northern edge of Boorley Common not geographically Green’ accurate, they are part of Boorley Green.

Long views from western Add to description and edge of Winchester Road to refer to views. Hedge End should be kept open.

Trees dominated by mature Add to guidance notes. broadleaved species. Refer to include new trees when opportunities arise.

66 1 Oatlands Close is not part of Amend appropriate rest of grouping. It aligns with descriptions to add detail, Oatlands Rd. In terms of the but no change to area order of age. The properties boundary. in Maddoxford Way were built at the same time as Maddoxford Lane in the late 50’s and early 60’s. The properties in Peartree Close were built in the 70’s .

Development is in Boorley Green, not Long Common.

Oatlands Close includes some newer infill development.

68 2 Bulk of properties built in 50’s Amend description. and 60’s. Also as previously mentioned location is Boorley Green not Long Common.

Area Number of Comment Summary Suggested Action Responses

Ref character of area, need Add to guidelines. to retain plot frontages and building line esp. in Oatlands D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\8\5\AI00017589\AreaAppraisalAppendixii0.doc

5 59 Road.

The area was developed from Note hedge origins. old Nursery land on North side of Oatlands Rd and the whole area has significant plot depths which are narrow and are bounded by mature traditional hedges.

As the whole area followed Amend to refer to old field boundaries there are hedgerow trees. significant deciduous trees along property boundaries and in particular between Oatlands Rd and Crow’s Nest Lane. Also in Maddoxford Lane and rear gardens of Oatlands Close.

There is to my knowledge Noted, but no change to only one TPO’d tree in document. Boorley Green and significant species not TPO’d. There is a need for an accurate tree survey to prevent loss of character.

68 2 Description in text refers Noted, but no change to maintaining existing plot document. widths. Recent backfill development breaches this and has introduced development that is cramped in comparison.

(DC comments) Add to description.

Maddoxford Lane, strong character, bungalows, regular spacing, urban edge setting.

69 1 Description referring to Long Amend to refer to Boorley Common is incorrect. Green.

Area Number of Comment Summary Suggested Action Responses

69 1 Agree with retention of Hedge Noted, but guidance refers Boundaries extend comment to plot frontage to cover properties adjoining boundaries and is less

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\8\5\AI00017589\AreaAppraisalAppendixii0.doc

6 60 Crow’s Nest Lane relevant to Crow’s Nest Lane where boundary types are mixed.

70 1 Crow’s Nest Lane. This lane Comments noted, add is bordered with significant reference to trees. Oak and occasional Elm trees that give the lane character and are now very old Crow’s Nest Lane is named because of the number of rooks roosting in the trees. The existing trees Noted, but outside study need protection. area. Urgent need for tree survey

as already mentioned.

Area omits Boorley Green Planting proposals already Cottages and Boorley Green mentioned in document. Farm House plus area beside farm. The cottages are probably late 19th but are surrounded by mature hedging which should be protected.

In any development involving Traffic issues noted, but Oatlands Rd and particularly outside scope of this study. Crow’s Nest Lane there should be measures put in to resist traffic rat running e.g. pinch points, use of planting.

Guide on materials to be Use of materials less consistent with 69. consistent on Crow’s Nest Lane, no change proposed.

71 1 No mention of maintaining Plot widths very variable plot widths as in other areas. here. No change to document proposed.

72 1 Overhead cables and traffic Noted. Add to levels are a negative description. influence in this area.

Area Number of Comment Summary Suggested Action Responses

73 1 Guidelines re Holmesland Include reference to roof Estate required re poor roof forms in description.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\8\5\AI00017589\AreaAppraisalAppendixii0.doc

7 61 extensions.

Attention needs to be drawn Refer to garage courts in to poor quality garage courts. text.

75 1 Traffic speeds high. Narrow Mitigation of impacts footpaths on west side of referred to already. Refer to Winchester Road narrow footpath in text.

77 4 Traffic and parking are a Noted. Modify description of problem parking.

Parking on verges is a Amend guidance to refer problem. Development to opportunity to plant on should provide more parking verges. Provision of more bays, possibly on verges. parking outside the remit of this study.

78 4 Low railings required to Noted, but not directly enable youngsters to play ball appropriate for inclusion in games but not run into fairly text. busy access road.

Green needs to be enhanced. Already referred to in guidelines.

Reinforce distinctive Refer to distinctive character of Four Acre characteristics and strong character in text and (DC comments) Four Acre, appropriate guidance distinctive semi–detached, notes re spacing, form hipped roofs, around central and materials. green, red brick and clay tiles (adjoining area 77 uses similar materials) strong character.

Other 3 Brook Lane should be In countryside, therefore comments included as it is a distinctive outside the remit of this area vulnerable to study. development pressures.

Other 1 West End PC concern re lack Noted. Outside the remit of comments of parking in centre and this study. further development in residential areas causing more parking pressures. Further development should therefore be discouraged which will add to this problem.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\8\5\AI00017589\AreaAppraisalAppendixii0.doc

8 62 GENERIC ISSUES (RE ALL CHARACTER AREAS)

COMMENT SUMMARY SUGGESTED ACTION

Provide an indication of strength of Include in document. character in the description table for each character area.

Show the direction of important views and Include in document. location of key landmarks on the character area plans.

Provide a short paragraph in the Include in document. introduction making it clear that the guidance does not apply to comprehensive redevelopment.

Provide an additional note in guidance to Include in document. cover formal compositions where they occur – eg maintain symmetry.

Provide a short paragraph in the Include in document. introduction making it clear that the guidance should not be seen as a means of preventing well designed development or resisting positive change, and neither is it intended to identify potential development sites, although the work will be useful in supporting future urban capacity studies.

Include more information from relevant Include updated SPA guidance notes where Local Plan policies and special policy area relevant to individual character areas in this guidance. document and include summary of background text in appendices, to enable freestanding SPA documents to be superseded.

Include town centres. Outside the remit of this study, no action.

Provide more detail from field study sheets Include in document. where this informs examples of particular distinctive/strong character, eg significant hedge boundaries, detail of particular building materials, etc.

Use clear photos. Achieve as good a resolution as is practicable.

Provide clearer explanation of descriptive Include glossary with simple diagrams. criteria.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\8\5\AI00017589\AreaAppraisalAppendixii0.doc

9 63 Numbering of areas is confusing. Clearer reference to detailed/summary character areas or re-ordering. Possible repositioning of key map in document.

Include road names. Difficult on all small maps - suggest listing the main roads for each area in the description, prefaced by local summary of location eg Botley, Horton Heath, etc.

Link methodology more clearly with Clearer cross reference. Annexes.

Clarity required re the detailed opportunities Drop references to ‘extending’ grassed to improve grassed areas. verges, be more specific about tree planting opportunities in these areas.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\8\5\AI00017589\AreaAppraisalAppendixii0.doc

10 64 Appendix iii

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL REPORT FOR

CHARACTER AREA APPRAISALS

September 2007

Contents Page Page

1 Non-technical Summary 1

2 Consultation 2

3 Process 2

4 Scoping Report 2

5 Compliance with the SEA Directive 2-3

6 Baseline Data 4

7 Key issues and Problems 4

8 SA Framework 4

9 SPD Objective and Options 5 -6

10 Mitigation 6

11 Monitoring 6

Appendix 1 – Matrix Tables Option 1 – 4 7 - 12

Appendix 2 – Conclusion 12

Tables:

1.1 Compliance with SEA Directive 2 - 3

1.2 SA Framework Objectives 4

1.3 SPD Objective Appraisal 5

1.4 Matrix – Option 1 7 - 8

1.5 Matrix – Option 2 9 - 10

1.6 Matrix – Option 3 11 - 12

66 Sustainability Appraisal (SA)/ Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Sustainability Appraisal Report Character Area Appraisals Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

1.Non-technical Summary

In order for the Character Area Appraisals documents to become Supplementary Planning Documents it needs to be put through an integrated SA/SEA. There are four Character Area Appraisal documents that cover the following Local Areas:

• Bursledon, Hound and Hamble • Hedge End, West End and Botley • Eastleigh • Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath

The Chandler’s Ford local area is not included in this assessment due to there being a current adopted SPD for this area – Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury Character Areas 2005. This assessment is to ensure that the documents are as sustainable as possible and results in the protection and enhancement of the environment, meets social and economic needs and maintains the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

This integrated environmental report has addressed three options:

1. Do nothing – Do not produce an SPD 2. Produce an SPD with specially selected character areas 3. Produce SPD with a comprehensive approach, to appraise all of the Local Areas (excluding Chandler’s Ford)

The preferred option is Option 3 the production of Supplementary Planning Documents with a comprehensive approach, to appraise all of the local areas (excluding Chandler’s Ford). This ensure a holistic approach is undertaken which promotes suitable development in each area and protects against inappropriate development. This is clearly outlined in tables 1.4 -1.6.

2.Consultation

2.1 This SA/SEA Integrated Environmental report has been put through a six week formal consultation process alongside the four SPD documents. The statutory consultees are:

• Natural England • The Environment Agency • English Heritage

2.2 The Statement of Community Involvement sets out what other groups/ individuals were consulted. The SPD documents and the Sustainability Appraisal Report will be made publicly available on the Borough Councils website. (www.eastleigh.gov.uk)

3. Process

3.1 The Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment process has been undertaken throughout the SPD process and the assessment of the SPD objective and options were undertaken by the project team to ensure a holistic approach was achieved.

3.2 The Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review, adopted May 2006, sets out the policies on which this SPD is set. These policies have been put through a SA/SEA; the report for this assessment is available from the planning policy and design unit.

4. Scoping Report

4.1 The Scoping Report (Stage A) sets out the baseline data and SA framework for the entire LDF. This has gone through the formal consultation process (September 2006) and has been formally adopted by the Council (April 2007) The Scoping Report can be found at www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-3227. This report will be updated annually.

5. Compliance with SEA directive

5.1 The following table outlines how the SEA directive requirements are met throughout this Integrated Environmental Report.

Information to be included in an Relevant Sections Environmental in the Integrated Environmental Report under SEA Regulations Report

An outline of the Contents, main objectives 3,4

68 of the plan and its relationship with other relevant plans and programmes The relevant aspects of the current state of 4,9 the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan The environmental characteristics of areas 4 likely to be significantly affected.

Any existing environmental problems 4 which are relevant to the plan, including in particular, those relating to any areas of a particular environmental importance, such as areas designated pursuant to Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC.

The environmental protection objectives, 4,9 established at international, Community or national level, which are relevant to the plan and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation.

The likely significant effects on the 4 environment, including on issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors

The measures envisaged to prevent, 10 reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan

An outline of the reasons for selecting the 9,3 alternatives dealt with and a description of how the assessment was undertaken including any difficulties.

A description of monitoring measures 12

A non-technical summary of the 1 information in the SA

Table 1.1

6. Baseline Data

6.1 The baseline data for this document can be found within the Scoping Report and Baseline data report as highlighted in section 4. These reports cover a wide range of topics which encompass those within the SPD therefore no extra baseline data was required.

7. Key issues and problems

The key issues and problems are identified within the scoping report, chapter 5 at www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-3227.

8. SA Framework

8.1 The SA Framework can be found within the Scoping Report (Chapter 6) a summary of the SA Objectives are in the following table:

SA Framework Objectives 1. Housing 2. Employment and Economy 3. Equity 4. Community Facilities 5. Land 6. Natural Resources 7. Traffic Impacts 8. Environmental Health and Safety 9. Energy Consumption (non-transport) 10. Climate Change 11. Waste Management and 12. Nature Conservation Minimisation 13. Open space, sport and recreation 14. Landscape and townscape quality 15. Culture and Heritage 16. Crime reduction and the perceptions of crime 17. Flood Risk 18. Global sustainable development Table 1.2

70 9. SPD Objective and Options

9.1 The objective of the SPD is:

To provide guidance to development control staff and prospective planning applicants to ensure that new development in Eastleigh Borough is appropriate to its surroundings and helps to retain the character that gives each area its identity.

SA Objective SPD Commentary Objective 1. Housing 3 Appropriate development for the area 2. Employment and Economy O 3. Equity ? 3 4. Community Facilities O 5. Land ? 3 Appropriate development for the area- best use of land 6. Natural Resources O 7. Traffic Impacts ? 3 Recommendation to reduce traffic. Dependent on areas 8. Environmental Health and Safety O 9. Energy Consumption(non-transport) O 10. Climate Change O 11. Waste management and O minimisation 12. Nature Conservation ? 3 Covered by other policies, potential for improvement 13. Open space, sport and recreation 3 Retention of open space. Covered by other policies, potential for improvement 14. Landscape and townscape 3 Development character appropriate for its setting 15. Culture and Heritage 3 Development appropriate for its setting 16. Crime reduction and the ? Uncertain perceptions of crime 17. Flood Risk O 18. Global Sustainable development 3 Improvement of areas environment – protection against unsuitable

71 development Table 1.3

The Options for the SPD are:

10. Mitigation

This SPD provides guidance to development control staff and prospective planning applicants. Therefore it is not necessary to include a table of mitigation measures due to the assessment process on the over-arching Local Plan Review policies.

11. Monitoring

The documents will be monitored through the Development Control process. The Council’s GIS system and the booking in of planning applications process will log the use of the documents. This can then be fed into the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) process.

72 Appendix 1

Option One – Do Nothing

SA Objective Potential Impact Commentary 1. Housing ?X SPD appropriate development in area 2. Employment and O Economy 3. Equity ? Uncertain 4. Community Facilities O 5. Land ? Most suitable use of land in area 6. Natural Resources O 7. Traffic Impacts ? 8. Environmental Health O and Safety 9. Energy O Consumption(non- transport) 10. Climate Change O 11. Waste management O and minimisation 12. Nature ?X Existing policies which protect nature conservation areas Conservation 13. Open space, sport ?X Existing policies which protect open space and recreation 14. Landscape and ?X townscape character 15. Culture and ?X Heritage 16. Crime reduction and ? 73 8 74

the perceptions of crime 17. Flood Risk O 18. Global Sustainable ?X SPD areas can be protected against inappropriate development development Table 1.4 Key

3 Clear Positive Effect Where a policy clearly aims to encourage / promote one of the sustainability criteria

?3 Possible Positive Effect Where a policy may have a positive effect on a criterion, but this is uncertain

x Clear Negative Effect Where a policy is likely to have an adverse effect on one of the sustainability criteria

?x Possible Negative Effect Where a policy may have a negative effect on a criterion, but this is uncertain

? Uncertain overall Effect Where there is a relationship between a policy and a criterion but the effect is uncertain. Also where there is a combination of positive and negative effects may the overall effect uncertain

0 No Impact Where there is no direct relationship between a policy and a criterion

9 Option Two – Produce an SPD with specially selected character areas

SA Objective Potential Impact Commentary 1. Housing ? 3 Only focused on certain areas 2. Employment and O Economy 3. Equity ? 3 Only focused on certain areas 4. Community Facilities O 5. Land ? 3 Only focused on certain areas 6. Natural Resources O 7. Traffic Impacts ? 8. Environmental Health O and Safety 9. Energy O Consumption(non- transport) 10. Climate Change O 11. Waste management O and minimisation 12. Nature ? 3 Covered by other policies – opportunity to increase/enhance however Conservation only in certain areas not a wider holistic assessment 13. Open space, sport ? 3 Covered by other policies – opportunity to increase/enhance however and recreation only in certain areas not a wider holistic assessment 14. Landscape and ? 3 townscape character 15. Culture and ? 3 Heritage 16. Crime reduction and ? the perceptions of crime 75 10 76

17. Flood Risk O 18. Global Sustainable ? 3 Restricted to certain areas does not take the wider areas into development consideration Table 1.5 Key

3 Clear Positive Effect Where a policy clearly aims to encourage / promote one of the sustainability criteria

?3 Possible Positive Effect Where a policy may have a positive effect on a criterion, but this is uncertain

x Clear Negative Effect Where a policy is likely to have an adverse effect on one of the sustainability criteria

?x Possible Negative Effect Where a policy may have a negative effect on a criterion, but this is uncertain

0 No Impact Where there is no direct relationship between a policy and a criterion

11 Option Three – Produce SPD with a comprehensive approach, to appraise all of the Local Areas(excluding Chandler’s Ford)

SA Objective Potential Impact Commentary 1. Housing 3 2. Employment and O Economy 3. Equity 3 4. Community Facilities O 5. Land 3 6. Natural Resources O 7. Traffic Impacts 8. Environmental Health O and Safety 9. Energy O Consumption(non- transport) 10. Climate Change O 11. Waste management O and minimisation 12. Nature ? 3 Current polices cover nature conservation. Opportunities to increase/ Conservation enhance if appropriate to area 13. Open space, sport ? 3 Current polices cover nature conservation. Opportunities to increase/ and recreation enhance if appropriate to area 14. Landscape and 3 townscape character 15. Culture and 3 Heritage 77 12 78

16. Crime reduction and ? the perceptions of crime 17. Flood Risk O 18. Global Sustainable 3 Best use of land, improving townscape in areas, protecting against development unsuitable development Table 1.6 Key

3 Clear Positive Effect Where a policy clearly aims to encourage / promote one of the sustainability criteria

?3 Possible Positive Effect Where a policy may have a positive effect on a criterion, but this is uncertain

x Clear Negative Effect Where a policy is likely to have an adverse effect on one of the sustainability criteria

?x Possible Negative Effect Where a policy may have a negative effect on a criterion, but this is uncertain

0 No Impact Where there is no direct relationship between a policy and a criterion

13 Appendix 2

80 Agenda Item 9

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday 22 October 2007

WILDERN MILL PLANNING APPLICATION – COST AWARD

Report of the Area Co-ordinator in consultation with the Head of Legal & Democratic Services, Head of Development Control and the Head of Financial Services

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that this Committee:

(1) Notes the negotiated settlement of £145,000 planning appeal costs in favour of Town Quay Developments Ltd; and

(2) Approves the allocation of £145,000 from this Committee’s Revenue Reserve as final settlement of this cost award.

Summary

This Committee rejected a planning application for the a major 184 residential housing development at Wildern Mill with access from Turnpike Way, Hedge End. Town Quay Developments Ltd, lodged an appeal against this Committee’s decision and at a subsequent Public Inquiry the Secretary of State approved the planning application and ordered a partial cost award in favour of the applicant. The cost award has been subject to negotiation and a final settlement of £145,000 has been negotiated. This Committee is liable for reimbursement of costs award to Town Quay Developments Ltd and approval is sought to allocate £145,000 from this Committee’s Revenue Reserve as final settlement of this cost award.

Statutory Powers

Section 2 Local Government Act 2000. Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Sections 78 and 320. Local Government Act 1972 Section 250 (5).

Introduction

1. Members will recall considering a major planning application (F/05/54973) by Town Quay Developments Ltd for development of flats and residential housing at Wildern Mill with access from Turnpike Way, Hedge End.

2. The Committee rejected this application at its meeting on 24 October 2005 on grounds which are summarised below:-

AC579JR 1 81 i) Provision of adequate public open space, social and recreational facilities to mitigate the impact of the development.

ii) Adequate provision for affordable housing.

iii) Proposed car park unsatisfactory in terms of design and layout.

iv) Visibility splays and access to Turnpike Way

3. Town Quay Developments Ltd submitted an appeal against this Committee’s decision which was subsequently subject to a four-day planning appeal held at the Civic Offices in June 2006.

4. Regrettably the Planning Inspector and Secretary of State found in favour of the applicant and approved the planning application and awarded partial costs to Town Quay Developments Ltd.

Cost Award

5. In April of this year Town Quay Developments submitted a costs claim for £182,777 associated with the appointment of legal representatives, consultants and professional fees associated with their planning appeal. A costs draughtsman was appointed, on behalf of this Committee, to review Town Quay Developments’ schedule of costs. The costs draughtsman advised that a settlement should be negotiated and the Head of Legal & Democratic Services, on behalf of this Committee, has agreed a final settlement of £145,000.

6. The liability for this cost award rests with this Committee as, in line with Standing Orders, any Area Committee deciding planning applications against officers’ recommendations should be liable for any subsequent appeal costs. Members are therefore invited to:-

1) Note the negotiated settlement of £145,000 in favour of Town Quay Developments Ltd.

2) Approve the allocation of £145,000 from this Committee’s Revenue Reserve fund as final settlement of this award.

Financial Implications

7. Since Town Quay Developments Ltd gave notification of their intention to appeal against this Committee’s decision there has been an ‘identifiable risk’ of a pending cost award being made against this Committee. Prudent action was authorised by this Committee’s previous Chairman as well as the current Chairman to increase this Committee’s Revenue Reserve.

8. With support from the Head of Financial Services a number of strategic savings have been made over the last two financial years as well as budget virements, authorised by the Chairmen of this Committee. This Committee’s Revenue Reserve has been steadily increased and it currently stands at

82 AC579JR 2 £146,000. This cost award can therefore be fully funded within the current financial year without major cuts in service provision devolved to this Committee.

Risk Assessment

9. As has been stated above financial risks were identified as part of this Committee’s decision to reject the Wildern Mill planning application. Appropriate and timely actions have been taken to mitigate the impact of a cost award on devolved revenue budgets.

10. If Members approve the recommendation this Committee’s Revenue Reserve will be significantly reduced to £1,000. This gives little scope for reacting to unforeseen expenditure pressures and the Area Co-ordinator is required to carefully monitor revenue expenditure in consultation with the Chairman and to rebuild reserve funds as soon as possible.

Conclusion

11. This is the first cost award to be made against the Hedge End, West End & Botley Local Area Committee in its eleven years of operation. Clearly it is a significant sum of money and Members will be justifiably disappointed in being required to make such a large payment. The efforts of staff to negotiate a reduction in the cost award and to prepare a financial strategy that has enabled full payment from Revenue Reserves is acknowledged and appreciated.

JON RIDDELL Area Co-ordinator

Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN

Date: 20 September 2007 Contact Officer: Jon Riddell Tel No: 023 8068 8437 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 0 Report No: AC579JR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:

Nil

AC579JR 3 83 This page is intentionally left blank

84 Agenda Item 10

ROSE BOWL LIAISON PANEL

Thursday 4 October 2007

HEDGE END WEST END & BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday 22 October 2007

REVIEW OF HAMPSHIRE ROSE BOWL COMPLAINTS AND COMMENTS – 2007 SEASON

Report of the Area Co-ordinator in consultation with the Chief Executive, Head of Environmental Health, Head of Engineering & Transportation Services and Community Safety Manager

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that this Panel and Committee:-

(1) Notes the complaints and comments analysis in respect of events at the Hampshire Rose Bowl during the 2007 season;

(2) Endorses recommendations to take further action to reduce residential concerns as outlined in paragraphs 4-14; and

(3) Continues regular liaison with the Rose Bowl’s Management Team to address matters of residential concern.

Summary

The purpose of this report is to review complaints and comments which have been received by all departments within Eastleigh Borough Council for the 2007 season. The report draws comparison with complaints and comments received in 2005 and 2006 and proposes a number of practical actions which should further reduce residential concerns.

Statutory Powers

Local Government Act 2000.

Introduction

1. This report provides a summary of complaints and comments (attached as Appendix 1) received in respect of cricket matches and large scale events held at Hampshire Rose Bowl during the 2007 season. The report aims to provide an overview of concerns and, where possible, make practical

AC580JR 1 85 recommendations which may address identified problems. The report summarises complaints and comments received by Borough Council staff, elected Members and the Rose Bowl ‘hotline’ which was staffed during ‘The Who’ Concert.

Monitoring Complaint and comments

2. Complaints and comments received during the 2007 season are summarised in the attached Appendix. To enable comparison a summary of statistics for the previous two seasons is included in the following table.

COMPLAINTS/COMMENTS 2007 2006 2005 Bus shuttles and traffic 4 2 11 Noise (Concerts) 7 4 21 Anti Social Behaviour/Policing 0 3 41 Parking 11 22 41 Customer/Audience complaints - 3 18 Satisfaction/Compliments 9 4 8 Other 3 TOTALS 34 38 140

3. The substantial reduction in complaints from the 2005 season (which included the ‘Oasis’ Concert and England v Hampshire match) has been maintained. Included within this years 34 comments are 9 compliments. An analysis of this year’s complaints and comments with recommended actions is summarised below.

Bus Shuttles and Traffic Flows

4. Positive progress was noted on Park & Ride arrangements at Bursledon for ‘The Who’ Concert but subsequently traffic flows were reported as being difficult for the England v India match on 21 August 2007. Traffic flows from junction 8 around the Windhover roundabout are always heavy with drivers accessing the Tesco store, the Hamble Peninsula and western parts of Southampton. Proposed action:-

• Review directional signs to Park & Ride to enable maximum pre warning of drivers.

• Rose Bowl to continue to market Park & Ride options for visitors and to also use Park & Ride facilities at Southampton Airport/Parkway as and when appropriate.

5. It should be noted that an increasing proportion of spectators are opting to use the Park & Ride facilities which significantly reduces the impact of individual cars in West End village.

86 AC580JR 2 Traffic Routing

6. Traffic routing during egress from major events relies on drivers following the recommended route through West End village. The shortest route to the A27 is via Telegraph Road where reports of heavy congestion have been noted. Recommended action:

• Review routing plan and discourage short cutting in Telegraph Road.

Noise from Concerts

7. The recently renewed temporary consent for concerts includes specific conditions limiting decibel levels from the concert. The Head of Environmental Health continues to deploy Environmental Health Officers who are monitoring sound levels at noise sensitive sites. This years ‘Who’ Concert was monitored and confirmed at being 7 decibels below prescribed levels. That said 5 complaints were received from residents in the Hedge End/Botley areas and the Head of Environmental Health responded accordingly. The Head of Environmental Health advises that the audibility of concert noise will vary according to wind and weather conditions during concerts. Proposed action:-

i) The Head of Environmental Health to continue to monitor concert noise as prescribed in temporary planning consent conditions.

ii) The Countess Mountbatten Hospice to be designated as a ‘noise sensitive site’ to confirm there is no statutory noise nuisance.

iii) The Head of Environmental Health to continue direct liaison with concert sound desk during events.

iv) Additional checks to be made in the Hedge End area to provide public reassurance.

v) The Rose Bowl to continue to make efforts to ‘pre warn’ West End and Hedge End residents of the dates of concerts to avoid residents making enquiries as to source of noise.

Anti Social Behaviour/Policing

8. The HEWEB Community Safety Forum identified policing and public reassurance during major events at the Rose Bowl as being a high priority. The Police, through new ‘safer neighbourhoods’ arrangements have put in place specific policing plans to coincide with concerts and major international events at the Rose Bowl. Police with support from PCSOs have provided high visibility patrols which have been welcomed by local residents and have undoubtedly been successful. The Community Safety Forum has undertaken a review of policing and recommends foot patrol should be deployed at the top of Telegraph Road by the main entrance to the woodland. Proposed action:-

AC580JR 3 87 i) Neighbourhood policing – plans should be repeated for future concerts and major events.

ii) A foot patrol should be deployed at the Telegraph Wood main entrance.

Parking

9. The introduction of permanent double yellow lines at a variety of junctions in West End village has prevented ongoing obstructions and reduced the need to deploy temporary cones. The inclusion of sections of Beacon Road, Chapel Road, Little Quob Lane and Dowds Close has worked well. That said a number of ‘hotspots’ have been identified during this season and it is appropriate to review the coning plans for low scale events as well as major events to ensure minimum inconvenience to local residents. Proposed actions:-

i) The Head of Engineering and Transportation Services in consultation with the Rose Bowl Management Team should review temporary coning plans for low scale matches as well as major events.

ii) Permanent double yellow lines/TROs should be extended on the east side of Moorgreen Road and part of the west side from the junction with Botley Road.

iii) Additional cones should be deployed in sections of Telegraph Road (west side).

iv) Temporary cones during low scale matches should be considered for St James Road/Hope Road.

v) ‘Keep clear’ marking at ‘Evant’, Little Quob Lane should be completed by contractors.

vi) Permanent TROs should be considered on Moorhill Road (in anticipation of a southern entrance being approved to the Rose Bowl).

vii) Permanent TROs should be considered at key junctions on Turnpike Way in anticipation of large scale events in future years.

viii) Temporary coning plan to be extended in Kenilworth Gardens to include turning head at top of close.

ix) The monitoring of coning plans should be continued by the Head of Engineering and Transportation Services as is current practice.

Further Comments

The effects of on-street parking by visitors to the Rose Bowl remains the single area generating most complaints. Enforcement by the Road Policing

88 AC580JR 4 Unit of the temporary coning plans and enforcement by the Borough Council’s parking patrol staff of TROs remains an important part of parking management. Further adjustments to coning plans for low scale as well as major events are required and the extension of permanent TROs at key junctions and hotspots should continue. There is also scope to increase local parking capacities by using car parks managed by Community Centres, Churches etc within the village. This would reduce demand for on-street parking and should be explored further. It is also noted that the Rose Bowl has negotiated additional car park capacity through Park & Walk arrangements and it is hoped that this arrangement can be continued with parking fees set at affordable levels.

Customer/Audience Complaints

10. No complaints have been received by the Borough Council from persons attending events at the Rose Bowl.

Satisfaction/Compliments

11. Nine positive comments have been received during this season which is a source of encouragement. Improved ‘high visibility policing’ has been welcomed in the West End and Hedge End areas. The effectiveness of clearing the ground after major events has been substantially improved. This in part is due to the ability of the Rose Bowl to enable large numbers of spectators to leave the arena by a new pedestrian exit direct onto Botley Road. Improvements have also been noted in the management of buses which have taken many hundreds of people away from the site in an efficient and prompt manner. Several positive comments have been received about the speed and efficiency of clearing West End village of litter and rubbish. The Head of Direct Services has deployed additional staff for key events as well as road sweepers and these arrangements, on a cost recovery basis, are highly effective and should be continued.

‘Other’ Complaints/Comments

12. Three comments have been received in this category. The first comment is that it is desirable for the Rose Bowl’s annual newsletter to be distributed earlier. The printing and distribution of this year’s document was delayed due to the Rose Bowl wanting confirmation that its new emergency exit would receive planning consent. It is desirable that this newsletter is distributed at least one week before seasonal events commence at the Rose Bowl and additional efforts should be made to ensure that the newsletter is distributed as widely as possible to give residents in both West End and Hedge End indications of key dates within the Rose Bowl calendar.

13. A second comment was received at a recent meeting of the Rose Bowl Liaison Panel which identified a need to extend the litter picking arrangements to include the main footpath route through Telegraph Wood. This will be included in the litter picking plan for future major events and the Head of

AC580JR 5 89 Countryside Services is installing an additional bin at the Beacon Road entrance to Telegraph Wood.

14. The third issue was overnight camping by two ‘lost’ Who fans – this is considered a ‘one-off’ event.

Conclusions and Overview

15. The relatively low level of complaints received from operations at the Rose Bowl for the 2007 season should be welcomed. There is scope to address concerns identified by local residents in recent months and these can be taken forward by the Head of Engineering and Transportation Services and Council staff in consultation with the Rose Bowl’s Management Team. A most encouraging factor is the continued positive communication being undertaken through the Rose Bowl Community Liaison Panel, the Borough Council and the Rose Bowl’s Management Team.

16. The efforts of West End Parish Council to co-ordinate liaison meetings is particularly appreciated as this has enabled direct communication between all interested parties and enabled residents to engage directly with Police, Borough Council staff and Rose Bowl staff to address issues of concern. The resident newsletter (particularly with its distribution to local households) is a most important communication made by the Rose Bowl to large numbers of local residents. It is hoped that this publication, which is a model of good practice, will continue in future seasons and be distributed to give notice of key dates in the 2008 season.

Financial Implications

17. All costs of coning local streets and residents newsletters are borne by the Rose Bowl. Expenditure incurred by the Borough Council on road closures and special litter picks are recouped on a full cost recovery basis. Any proposed additional TROs will be grouped with other proposals to ensure minimum revenue costs to this Committee’s budgets.

Future Development Proposals at the Rose Bowl

18. The Rose Bowl will be bringing forward a number of major planning applications to extend the capacity of their ground, develop a hotel and conference facility, an 18-hole golf course and proposals to create additional access to their site. The anticipated planning applications present both challenges and opportunities to further improve how the Rose Bowl as a regional and local facility sits within the West End and Hedge End communities. These plans will be subject to further discussion between the Rose Bowl Community Liaison Panel as well as formal consideration by the Borough Council and the Hedge End, West End & Botley Local Area Committee. If these plans come to fruition there may be further impacts on the West End and Hedge End area but the established structure of monitoring complaints and comments through the Rose Bowl Liaison Panel should enable problems to be identified at an early stage and addressed in

90 AC580JR 6 consultation with members of the Panel and the Rose Bowl’s Management Team.

JON RIDDELL Area Co-ordinator

Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN

Date: 20 September 2007 Contact Officer: Jon Riddell Tel No: 023 8068 8437 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 1 Report No: AC580JR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:

Nil

AC580JR 7 91 This page is intentionally left blank

92 Appendix 1 HAMPSHIRE ROSE BOWL – COMPLAINTS/COMMENTS ANALYSIS 2007 SEASON

Complaint/Comment Dept Event Issue Proposed Action/Improvement

1. Cars parking on street Cllr Tennent T20 Car parking on street St No formal obstruction observed. St James Road Middlesex James Road Consider coning for major events. 2. Mr B, Kenilworth Event – ‘hot line’ ‘The Who’ Cones not laid out. Cones were deployed by 11.30am. Gardens Area Co-ordinator visit No obstructions caused. Implement coning plan. 3. Mr H Rose Bowl – ‘hotline’ ‘The Who’ Compliment Well organised and staff were all polite and friendly. 4. Mrs W, Botley Road Rose Bowl – ‘hotline’ ‘The Who’ Compliment Everything cleared by early Sunday morning. 5. Cllr Parker, Hound Area Co-ordinator ‘The Who’ Park & Ride – Bursledon. Positive progress – review Mr Parker’s Parish Council Noted improvements in comments – adjust signage. signage/traffic management. 6. Mrs A, Woodleigh Event – ‘hot line’ ‘The Who’ Van parked opposite her Elderly/infirm resident. Cones could Gardens Area Co-ordinator visit drive – difficult accessing be deployed on both sides of street. driveway. 7. Woodland Mews Area Co-ordinator ‘The Who’ 2 people camping on AC attended 3/5/07 – 2 people landscaped area. apologised and were given coffee before leaving. 8. P Brown, Area Co-ordinator ‘The Who’ Sound levels on nearest Averaged 7db below prescribed level. Environmental Health properties significantly Important to monitor noise levels in Officer below permitted levels. Hedge End. 9. St James Road Rose Bowl - ’hot line’ ‘The Who’ Cars parking both sides of Photos taken. No formal obstruction Area Co-ordinator visit street – on verges. observed. Consider coning for major events. 10. Mr R, Village trader/ Area Co-ordinator ‘The Who’ Policing Very well organised event, high profile resident police/PCSOs patrols very good to see. 93

Rosebowlcomplaintsanalysis07 94

Complaint/Comment Dept Event Issue Proposed Action/Improvement 11. HEWEB Community Community Safety ‘The Who’/ Policing – key priority Neighbourhood policing Safety Forum Manager International Public Very effective deployment of matches PCSOs/officers in West End/Hedge End. Excellent deployment but include Telegraph Road patrol 12. Mr P, Valerian Road, Environmental Health ‘The Who’ Stage facing wrong way. Environmental Health to write. Stage Hedge End, SO30 Lack of noise control by position is probably appropriate in 0GR, Council receiving money terms of distance before residential from Rose Bowl. housing at Hedge End. 13. Monarch Way Rose Bowl – Hot line ‘The Who’ Notice late for concert. Desirable for newsletter to be distributed earlier. 14. Monarch Way Rose Bowl – Hot line ‘The Who’ Noise level high. Concert audible but noise level 7db Area Co-ordinator visit below limit. Coning restricted access for residents – one side would be better.

15. Resident, Woodland Area Co-ordinator ‘The Who’ Litter – well done. Very effective litter patrols. Mews Village/Botley Road spotless. 16. Mrs B , Walker Environmental Health ‘The Who’ Is there an impact on the Propose to designate a ‘noise Gardens Countess Mountbatten sensitive’ site to seek further Hospice? assurance. Hospice sheltered behind main buildings and by arena bund. 17. Mr C, Giles Close, Environmental Health ‘The Who’ Heard concert Environmental Health to contact. Hedge End, SO30 2TH 18. Mrs L, Hobb Lane, Environmental Health ‘The Who’ Didn’t know where music Suggest earlier longer spread of Hedge End, SO30 was coming from – no publicity. 0GH formal complaint 19. Mr B, Marls Road, Environmental Health ‘The Who’ Heard concert Environmental Health to contact. Botley, SO30 2NZ

Rosebowlcomplaintsanalysis07

Complaint/Comment Dept Event Issue Proposed Action/Improvement 20. Mrs C, Kenilworth Rose Bowl - Hotline ‘The Who’ Car blocking driveway Implement coning plan. Gardens 21. Cllr Sortwell Rose Bowl – Hotline ‘The Who’ Litter Impressed with litter picking and speed at which ground emptied. Co- operation between Rose Bowl, EBC and police excellent. 22. Mr P, Telegraph Rose Bowl – Hotline ‘The Who’ Cars parking on pavement If obstructing pavement police can Road, West End action. Monitor. 23. Mrs S, Littlewood Rose Bowl – Hotline ‘The Who’ Car blocking driveway Consider coning for major events. Gardens 24. Mr T, Monarch Way Rose Bowl – Hotline ‘The Who’ Brilliant evening 25. Fowlers Rd/Dowds Cllr House ‘The Who’ Cones at junction of Very effective – good traffic Close resident Dowds Close (major management. events plan) Enjoyed ‘free’ concert. 26. Cllr Parker – Hound Area Co-ordinator England v Park & Ride – Bursledon Review directional signs to enable Parish Council India 21/8/07 Long tail backs on Hamble maximum pre warning of drivers. Lane at Hound Corner and Providence Hill & access from J8 of M27 onto Windhover roundabout. Traffic from Providence Hill had great difficulty getting onto roundabout. Tesco estate roads full. Sheer volume of traffic for P&R was astonishing. Very large directional signs for Bursledon Rd entrance to P&R were again located at top of Hamble Lane – hence drivers in wrong lane!

Rosebowlcomplaintsanalysis07 96

Complaint/Comment Dept Event Issue Proposed Action/Improvement 27. Karen Bell, Hope Area Co-ordinator England v Obstructive parking Consider coning plan extension Road India 21/8/07 problems in St James Road and Hope Road 28. Mrs A, Midlands Area Co-ordinator England v Parking outside residents’ Uncertain if parking was directly Estate India 21/8/07 house on Midlands Estate attributable. Monitor for future events. 29. Cllr Joyce Sortwell Area Co-ordinator England v Thoroughly enjoyed match. India 21/8/07 Impressed with crowd control & dispersal arrangements at end (speed & orderliness). Plenty of buses for Park & Ride. Good organisation. 30. Mr P Telegraph Road Area Co-ordinator England v Post match congestion in Review coning plan India 21/8/07 Telegraph Road. Rose Bowl related traffic issues. 31. ‘101’ report Hants & IOW England v Post match congestion in Review coning plan Constabulary India 21/8/07 Telegraph Road. Rose Bowl related traffic issues. 32. Rose Bowl Liaison Area Co-ordinator Major Events Litter on main path through Add this pedestrian route to Direct Panel Telegraph Wood services schedule. Install litter bin at Beacon Road entrance. 33. Resident ‘Evant’ Little Area Co-ordinator All Driveway marking not Contractor to mark driveway Quob Lane completed by contractor 34. Cllr T Noyce/ Engineering Minor Events Obstructive parking on Permanent TROs to be installed on Moorgreen RA (4 occasions) Moorgreen Road East side of carriageway and part of West.

Rosebowlcomplaintsanalysis07 Agenda Item 11

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday 22 October 2007

OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENTS – HEDGE END

Report of the Area Co-ordinator in consultation with the Project Manager (Parks & Open Spaces) and Clerk to Hedge End Town Council

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that £5,082 be allocated from unallocated Open Space contributions towards the cost of improving facilities at Locke Road and Beattie Rise Open Space.

Summary

This Committee has been working with the Police, Youth Service and Hedge End Town Council to improve youth and play facilities at Beattie Rise Open Space and Locke Road Play Area. This report recommends a contribution of £5,082 be made from unallocated open space contributions towards costs of works.

Statutory Powers

Section 2 Local Government Act 2000.

Introduction

1. Earlier this year the Police and Police Community Support Officers identified potential conflicts between children playing at the Beattie Rise and Locke Road Play Areas and older youths. The Borough Council also received an MP enquiry expressing concern that safety surfaces at the recently refurbished Locke Road Play area should be improved.

2. In consultation with Hedge End Town Council an Action Plan was prepared which is summarised as follows:

i) In-situ wet pour safety surface should be extended at 2 locations on Locke Road Play Area;

ii) A single Basketball Post should be installed at Locke Road Play Area to divert older children/youths.

AC582JR 1 97 iii) A youth shelter should be installed at Beattie Rise Recreation Ground on the south side of the park away from the children’s play area.

iv) A purpose built goal should be installed at Beattie Rise to divert older youths playing football against the children’s play area fence.

After consultation with Hedge End Town Council it was agreed that they would make an £11,000 contribution towards the cost of these improvements with further funding coming from this Committee’s CIP Programme.

Improvement works

3. At the time of writing this report the schedule of works is almost complete and there is a requirement to balance the anticipated cost of these improvement works with further contributions being allocated by this Committee. It is therefore recommended that £5,082 be allocated from Open Space contributions towards the cost of improving facilities at Locke Road and Beattie Rise Open Space.

Financial Implications

4. Subject to Committee approval of the recommendation the following unallocated Open Space Contributions will be allocated to this Committee’s CIP Programme.

OS 51969 Barratt Homes 2,228 OS F/06/57316 Boson Construction Ltd 2,854 TOTAL £ 5,082

Risk Management

5. All improvements works have been undertaken by appropriately qualified contractors to meet health and safety requirements. The improved in-situ safety surface at Locke Road Play Area will substantially reduce the potential of injury by users of the play area. Ongoing maintenance of the newly installed equipment will be overseen by Hedge End Town Council who have developed substantial expertise in maintenance of open space facilities.

Conclusion

6. The recommendations in this report are in line with this Committee’s adopted Youth Plan 2007-9 and its commitment to maintain and improve play and open space provision for older children and youths.

JON RIDDELL DAVE BOWEN KEVIN GLYN-DAVIES Area Co-ordinator Project Manager Clerk to Hedge End Town (Parks & Opens Spaces) Council

98 AC582JR 2 Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN

Date: 3 October 2007 Contact Officer: Jon Riddell Tel No: 023 8068 8437 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 0 Report No: AC582JR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:

Nil

AC582JR 3 99 This page is intentionally left blank

100 Agenda Item 12

HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY LOCAL AREA COMMITTEE

Monday 22 October 2007

THE DRUMMOND COMMUNITY CENTRE AND ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE

Report of the Area Co-ordinator in consultation with the Community Development Manager, Principal Valuer and Clerk to Hedge End Town Council

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that this Committee:

(1) Extend its thanks to the Managing Trustees of the Drummond Community Centre who will stand down in December 2007;

(2) Request the Principal Valuer to assign the Drummond Community Centre’s lease to Hedge End Town Council; and

(3) Request the Principal Valuer seeks Cabinet approval for the transfer of Freehold rights of the Drummond Community Centre to Hedge End Town Council.

Summary

At the recent Annual General Meeting of the Drummond Community Association the Managing Trustees resolved to dissolve the Community Association which is a registered charity and recommend assignment of their current lease to Hedge End Town Council. This Committee extends its thanks to the retiring Managing Trustees who have developed and maintained the Community Centre which offers a varied programme of community use. The report requests that the Principal Valuer, in consultation with Hedge End Town Council, makes arrangements to assign the lease in order that Hedge End Town Council can continue on-going management of the facilities. In line with adopted Council Policy on devolution to local councils Cabinet approval is sought for Freehold rights to be transferred to Hedge End Town Council.

Statutory Powers

Local Government Act 2000.

Introduction

1. Since its opening, the Drummond Community Centre has provided a focal point for a variety of community uses in the Grange Park area of Hedge End. Through the voluntary effort of its Managing Trustees the Community AC581JR 1 101 Association, a registered charity, has been successful in maintaining and extending the Drummond Community Centre which includes a play area maintained by Hedge End Town Council and the recently established community based chemist. At their October Annual General Meeting the Trustees, after seeking further volunteers to join their committee, resolved to dissolve the Drummond Community Association and recommend assignment of their lease, the building and the Community Association’s assets to the Hedge End Town Council for on-going management. The efforts of local volunteers to maintain the Community Centre are greatly appreciated. The building has been maintained to a high standard and an extensive programme of community use has ensured the centre is a viable and a profitable operation. It is recommended that this Committee extends its thanks to the Managing Trustees of the Drummond Community Centre who will stand down in December 2007.

Assignment of Lease

2. Members will recall in 2006 approving the assignment of Townhill Farm Community Centre to West End Parish Council for on-going management. This transfer has been a great success and a similar arrangement is recommended to ensure the Drummond Community Centre remains available for community use. Hedge End Town Council has considerable expertise in managing a variety of local pavilions and community facilities and have confirmed they are willing to integrate management of the Drummond Community Centre into their organisation. They have requested the transfer of the freehold of the site and premises which will require further research and would need Cabinet approval. As an interim measure this Committee has powers to recommend lease arrangements. It is recommended that this Committee request the Principal Valuer to assign the Drummond Community Centre’s lease to Hedge End Town Council.

Freehold Transfer

3. The Borough Council has an established policy of devolving land and property assets, where appropriate and with Cabinet consent, to local Councils. Hedge End Town Council are the ‘natural custodians’ of the Drummond Community Centre and have requested that the freehold for the premises and land be transferred to them. It is recommended that this Committee request the Principal Valuer seeks Cabinet approval for the transfer of Freehold rights of the Drummond Community Centre to Hedge End Town Council Committee.

Financial Implications

4. The Community Centre is a viable operation with revenue from private lettings and regular community group hirings creating a small operating surplus. The proposed transfer will incur some staff costs and legal fees with this Council’s costs being borne by revenue budgets. Proceeds from the Chemist Shop ground rent will be split on a 50/50 basis with Hedge End Town Council. There are no significant revenue implications for this Council. As and when the Freehold rights to the Community Centre are transferred the Hedge End

102 AC581JR 2 Town Council will be required to cover the valuation and legal costs incurred by the Borough Council.

Risk Management

5. The building and its environs are an important community facility requiring regular maintenance and effective management. There is a significant risk of the building falling into disrepair if this transfer does not proceed.

Conclusion

6. Whilst it is disappointing that voluntary management of the Drummond Community Centre could not be sustained by volunteers the Centre will continue to offer high quality facilities to local community users through the revised management arrangements with Hedge End Town Council.

JON RIDDELL HELEN COLEMAN KEVIN WARREN Area Co-ordinator Community Development Principal Valuer Manager

Civic Offices Leigh Road Eastleigh Hampshire SO50 9YN

Date: 2 October 2007 Contact Officer: Jon Riddell Tel No: 023 8068 8437 e-mail: [email protected] Appendices Attached: 0 *Report No AC581JR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 100D

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:

Nil

AC581JR 3 103 This page is intentionally left blank

104