report to planning development control committee committee... · 2009-02-25 ·...

dc-090218-r04-lsm.doc

Report to Planning Development Control Committee

Date: 18 February 2009 Report of: Director of Regulatory Services Subject: PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

SUMMARY

This report recommends action on various planning applications and miscellaneous items

RECOMMENDATION

The recommendations are detailed individually at the end of the report on each planning application.

Item 6(i)-

- 2 -


Index List of Applications with Item Numbers

Application No. Item

FAREHAM EAST P/08/1303/VC 68 HIGH STREET - EDWINNS

RESTAURANT - FAREHAM

VARY CONDITIONS TO EXTEND HOURS (MON-THURS 10 am-11 pm FRI-SAT 10.00am-Midnight, SUN10 am-10.30pm, Garden 10 am-10 pm

Temporary Planning Permission

15

P/08/1314/FP 89 NORTH WALLINGTON, FAREHAM EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO

EXISTING DWELLING AND ROOF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION

Permission 16

HILL HEAD P/09/0042/FP 23 SEAFIELD PARK ROAD, HILL HEAD RETENTION OF GARAGE Permission 17 LOCKS HEATH P/08/1295/OA CRESCENT ROAD - 42-44 -, LOCKS HEATH ERECTION OF ELEVEN TWO

BEDROOMED AGED-PERSONS BUNGALOWS (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

Outline Permission 1

P/09/0022/FP 6 CARDINAL WAY, LOCKS HEATH ERECTION OF PART TWO STOREY AND

PART FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION Permission 2

PARK GATE P/08/1312/FP 4 LITTLEWOOD GARDENS, LOCKS HEATH ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE

EXTENSION AND INSTALLATION OF WINDOWS TO REAR ELEVATION

Permission 3

- 3 -


PORTCHESTER EAST P/09/0012/TC WHITE HART LANE, - LAND ADJACENT

COBHAM HALL -, PORTCHESTER

FELL TWO CHERRY TREES WITHIN CASTLE STREET CONSERVATION AREA

No Objection 18

P/09/0025/FP 21 MORNING SIDE AVENUE,

PORTCHESTER

BUILD UP HIPPED ROOF TO FORM BARN HIP, PROVISION OF FRONT & REAR DORMERS, ERECT SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION & DECKING

Permission 19

STUBBINGTON P/09/0019/FP 20 ALBERT ROAD, FAREHAM CONVERSION OF 3-BED HOUSE TO TWO

FLATS WITH PARKING Permission 20

TITCHFIELD P/08/1325/VC MEON ROAD - FOUR ACRE NURSERY -

TITCHFIELD, FAREHAM,

RELIEF FROM CONDITION 3 OF F.B.C.4679/6 (REMOVAL OF AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCY TIE)

Permission 4

P/09/0009/FP BROWNWICH LANE - MIZPAH -

TITCHFIELD

EXTENSION & ALTERATIONS TO BUNGALOW TO INCLUDE 1ST FLOOR ACCOMMODATION & ERECT NEW SINGLE GARAGE (ALTERNATIVE TO P/07/1021/FP)

Permission 5

P/09/0016/VC OCCUPATION LANE - LAND BETWEEN,

WINDYFIELD & LAPWINGS -, TITCHFIELD

VARIATION OF CONDITION 3 OF P/03/0162/VC (TO INCREASE NUMBER OF CARAVANS STORED ON SITE FROM 50-70)

Permission 6

- 4 -


P/09/0030/FP 8 GARSTONS CLOSE, TITCHFIELD ERECTION OF FRONT PORCH Permission 7 P/09/0099/TC 22 BRIDGE STREET, TITCHFIELD CARRY OUT WORKS TO TWO CONIFERS

AND ONE GLADITSIA SUNBURST WITHIN TITCHFIELD CONSERVATION AREA

No Objection 8

TITCHFIELD COMMON P/08/1271/CU 35 TREVOSE WAY, TITCHFIELD COMMON CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO PRIVATE

GARDEN, RELIEF FROM CONDITION 1 OF FBC.5257/40 & RETAIN 1METRE FENCE (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)

Permission 9

P/08/1326/RM HUNTS POND ROAD - COURSE PARK

FARM -, TITCHFIELD COMMON

ERECTION OF THIRTY-ONE DWELLINGS, PARKING AND ACCESS

Approve 10

WARSASH P/08/1138/FP 88 NEWTOWN ROAD, WARSASH CONVERSION OF EXISTING DWELLING &

ANNEXE TO SEVEN DWELLINGS Permission 11

P/08/1293/FP 46 NEWTOWN ROAD, WARSASH ERECT TWO STOREY/SINGLE STOREY

FRONT EXTENTION, TWO STOREY/ SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENTION, NEW ROOF & GARAGE BUILDING

Permission 12

P/08/1309/FP FAIRHAVEN, SOLENT BREEZES,

CHILLING LANE, WARSASH

ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSION TO EXISTING ROOF TO PROVIDE FIRST FLOOR ACCOMMODATION

Permission 13

- 5 -


P/08/1313/FP 121 FLEET END ROAD, WARSASH ERECT REAR EXTN , ALTS TO ROOF TO

PROVIDE 1ST FLOOR ACCOMMODATION, CAR PORT & REPLACEMENT GARAGE WITH STORAGE OVER

Permission 14

- 6 -


ZONE 1 – WESTERN WARDS Locks Heath Park Gate Sarisbury Titchfield Titchfield Common Warsash

- 7 -


(1) P/08/1295/OA LOCKS HEATH PRINCIPAL ESTATES LTD Agent: MR R B TUTTON

ERECTION OF ELEVEN TWO CRESCENT ROAD - 42-44 - BEDROOMED AGED-PERSONS LOCKS HEATH BUNGALOWS (OUTLINE APPLICATION) (as amended by plan received 06.02.09) OFFICERS REPORT - Newrick Martin Ext 2526

Site Description

The site lies on the western side of Crescent Road and until recently was occupied by two houses in extensive gardens. Bungalows of Bryony Close lie immediately to the rear. The site has a frontage of 39 metres to Crescent Road. Description of Proposal The application is an outline proposal seeking consideration of details of access and layout. The development would consist of five single storey buildings, four of which would be semi-detached units and a fifth being a terrace of three units. A single point of vehicle access is proposed onto Crescent Road with a gated entrance to provide a secure environment. Eleven car parking spaces and a vehicle turning area are included in the layout and a parking lay-by is indicated on the Crescent Road frontage. A communal garden area is to be provided and refuse bin collection points have been identified. Indicative elevation and perspective drawings show the scale and disposition of the proposed bungalows in relation to the surrounding residential dwellings. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies - H2, DG3, DG4, DG5, T5 and R5. Relevant Planning History P/06/0434/OA - Erection of four townhouses and one bungalow (at 44a Crescent Road) - Refused 19 December 2006. P/07/0809/FP - Demolition of two existing dwellings and erection of six dwellings, new access road and associated landscaping - Permission 18 September 2007. Representations Seven letters have been received objecting on the following grounds: although 1 of these letters welcomes the proposed single storey housing;

- 8 -


Concerns about the position of the car parking area adjacent to the boundary - one of the reasons for refusal on Foreman Homes original application;

As the site levels are higher than the surrounding properties there are concerns with regards to flooding;

The housing density of 55 dph is extremely high and not in keeping with the rest of the road;

Proposed car parking is not adequate;

Crescent Road is already congested and already causes a hazard to pedestrians, especially children using Brookfield School;

A large proportion of the site is to be of a non-absorbent surface and there are concerns that rainwater will be directed to Bryony Close and Bilberry Close;

Concerns are raised that provision is made for the moving of the footpath and construction of a layby on a bend in Crescent Road;

Privacy and peacefulness will be lost;

A mix of 1 and 2 bedroomed properties would be more appropriate and would allow for improved parking and green space;

Impose condition in respect of specific working hours;

Request that a wall together with planting be provided abutting 8 Bryony Close in place of the current flimsy wooden fence;

Request condition be imposed that any future development of roof space prohibits overlooking;

Could benching be provided in a protected area placed to catch the sunlight specifically for 'aged persons'.

Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objection subject to conditions for provision of sight lines and lay-by. Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – No objection subject to landscaping condition. Director of Health and Regulatory Services – No objection. Comments The principle of residential development of the site has been established by the grant of planning permission for 6 dwellings in 2007. It is noted that the approved scheme included 2 storey houses across the front of the site and 2 bungalows on plots to the rear, accessed from a driveway. Following from that established position, the key issues in this case are the potential impact on the character of the area and the impact on the dwellings to the rear of the site. The character of properties within this part of Crescent Road is a diverse mixture of bungalows, 1½ and 2 storey, detached and semi-detached dwellings. The layout of the frontage plots and the indicative elevations would

- 9 -


be in keeping with the local character and would therefore not be visually intrusive in the street scene. The proposed siting of the bungalows adjacent to the rear boundary, backing onto the bungalows in Bryony Close, is comparable to the previously approved scheme. Although the ground level of the application site is slightly higher than that of the adjacent gardens, the indicative elevations and site section show that the relative effect on amenity would be limited and in compliance within the guideline separation distances of the Local Plan Review. The dwellings are to be conditioned for occupation by "elderly persons" only, and the car parking provision of 1 space per unit is considered appropriate with this constraint. In conclusion, the proposed development of elderly person dwellings within a secure environment is considered to be acceptable in terms of its location within Crescent Road. Whilst the scale of the buildings is indicative at this outline stage, the supporting drawings show that the development may be carried out without a detrimental impact on adjacent dwellings in Crescent Road and Bryony Close. RECOMMEND: Subject to: 1. the applicant/owner first entering into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council to secure: 2. a financial contribution towards off-site public open space and/ or facilities, highway infrastructure; by the 13 March 2009 GRANT OUTLINE CONSENT: Submission of reserved matters (scale; appearance and landscaping); age limit; surfacing materials; boundary treatment; provision of parking and turning areas; provision of lay-by; sight lines; bin collection points; landscaping implementation and maintenance; measures to prevent mud on roads; hours of construction, provision for construction vehicles and materials; no burning; site and slab levels; drainage. OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required Section 106 Agreement by 13 March 2009.

REFUSE: Contrary to Policy; inadequate provision towards public open space and highway infrastructure.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/08/1295/OA

- 10 -


(2) P/09/0022/FP LOCKS HEATH

MR A BLAIR Agent: MR IAN MARSHALL

ERECTION OF PART TWO STOREY 6 CARDINAL WAY AND PART FIRST FLOOR SIDE LOCKS HEATH SIDE EXTENSION OFFICERS REPORT - Richard Wright Ext 2356

Site Description

The application property lies on the western side of Cardinal Way and is a modern detached house with an attached garage to the northern side. Immediately to the north lie the rear gardens of 2 & 4 Cardinal Way which back onto the property boundary.

Description of Proposal Permission is sought to extend the ground floor of the dwelling to infill the area to the side of the kitchen and behind the attached garage. A first floor extension is proposed over this extension and the existing garage. At the front of the house a small porch is also proposed. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG3, DG5 and T5.

Relevant Planning History P/08/1203/FP - Erection of Two Storey Front/Side Extension - Withdrawn Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

Being overlooked from a small distance is bad enough. This application would mean having windows almost up to the boundary. A little bit of privacy is important.

Comments The main planning considerations in determining this application are those concerning residential amenity, particularly the impact on light, outlook and privacy on the properties known as 2 & 4 Cardinal Way. With regards to maintaining adequate levels of privacy, it is clear from examining the plans that no potential for increased overlooking of the neighbouring properties exists. The two new windows proposed at first floor level, one in the side of the house and one to the rear, are both to be obscure

- 11 -


glazed. A planning condition requiring their retention in this manner would be reasonable for officers to impose. The rear garden at 4 Cardinal Way is relatively wide and as a result light into and outlook from its rear facing windows would not be unduly affected by the erection of the proposed side extension. With space, and therefore light and outlook, still afforded around the application property to the east of the proposed extension and rear garden of 4 Cardinal Way, officers do not consider that in this instance the distance between the proposed flank wall and habitable rooms is unacceptable. In conclusion, officers consider that the proposal is acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: materials to match, obscure glaze & fix shut to height of 1.7 metres above internal floor level a) window in side (north) elevation, and b) window in rear (west) elevation.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/09/0022/FP

(3) P/08/1312/FP PARK GATE

MR M & MRS P HOBSON Agent: MRS MELISSA PARSONS

ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE 4 LITTLEWOOD GARDENS EXTENSION AND INSTALLATION OF LOCKS HEATH WINDOWS TO REAR ELEVATION OFFICERS REPORT - Simon Thompson Ext 4815

Site Description

4 Littlewood Gardens is a chalet bungalow in a back land setting surrounded by residential properties which front Littlewood Gardens to the south, Cumber Road to the north east and Brook Lane, Locks Heath, to the northwest.

The property is accessed by a drive between 3 and 5 Littlewood Gardens. Running along the north eastern curtIlage boundary is a footpath connecting Brook Lane with Peters Road.

To the northwest of the dwelling within its residential curtilage, is a large English Oak tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

The whole application site and its surrounding residential properties are within the urban area of the Borough as defined in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review.

Description of Proposal

- 12 -


This application seeks permission to erect a single storey side extension to the north western side of the existing dwelling including the demolition of an existing, much smaller, flat roofed conservatory within the proposed extension's L shaped footprint. The extension would measure 8.0 metre wide at it's deepest point, reducing to 4.2 metres wide at the front corner of the existing property. The extension would measure 4.2 metres in height.

The description of submitted works includes reference to insertion of new rear windows within the existing dwelling adjacent to the public footpath, and, indeed, the proposed extension also includes one such rear facing window.

Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review - Policies DG3, DG4 and DG5.

Relevant Planning History FMU.3542/6 - Conversion of existing outbuilding to dwelling - Permission April 1959 FMU.3542/31 - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling - Permission August 1966 FBC.3542/54 - Erection of single storey front extension - Permission May 1980 FBC.3542/55 - Erection of side conservatory and amendment to bay window - Permission November 1990 Representations One email has been received from a resident at a neighbouring property to the east raising objection to the proposed north east elevation ground floor windows, stating that these proposed high level, fixed shut windows serving the wc and utility room, should be frosted or non-clear glass, because they over look that neighbour's rear garden and living room windows. Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) - This is a viable and supportable scheme in arboricultural terms subject to conditions. Comments In terms of the objection received from the neighbour to the east, the design and access statement submitted with the application states that the windows proposed in the east/footpath elevation of the existing dwelling and its proposed extension would be high level and fixed shut and obscure glazed and are intended to provide natural light into the ensuite, bathroom and utility room.

- 13 -


However, in terms of these particular proposed windows, the two to be inserted within the existing dwelling can, in practice, be inserted without planning permission. In terms of the other east facing window within the proposed extension, the Council does have planning control over such a window. The sill height of this window is shown to be 1.55 metres above the proposed extension's damp proof course and 1.7 metres above ground level. Such a latter height would prevent views from the footpath into the room whilst the former height raises the possibility of outlook onto that footpath and across it towards neighbouring private garden areas. These next door garden areas appear to have existing boundary fencing up to 1.7 metres high from ground level facing this proposed window. As a consequence, a condition is recommended to be imposed on this window, requiring it to be obscure glazed and fixed shut to 1.7 metres above floor level, to prevent the possibility of views into these neighbouring rear gardens.

In other respects the submitted proposal is considered by Officers to be acceptable. For example, the proposed extension would appear as a subsidiary element to the existing dwelling and, because of the dwelling's siting behind other residential properties, will have no discernable impact on the local street scene. In conclusion, this planning application is considered to meet the policy requirements of the Local Plan Review and Council's approved Extension Design Guide, and, subject to the conditions summarised below, is recommended for permission. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to match; Tree protection measures; East facing (rear) window of proposed extension to be obscure glazed and fixed shut to 1.7 metres above internal floor level; Remove permitted development rights for further windows in east (rear) elevation of proposed extension. BACKGROUND PAPERS: Files FMU.3542/6, FMU.3542/31, FBC.3542/54, FBC.3542/55 and P/08/1312/FP

(4) P/08/1325/VC TITCHFIELD MR G BONIFACE Agent: WHITE YOUNG GREEN PLANNING & DESIGN

RELIEF FROM CONDITION 3 OF MEON ROAD - FOUR ACRE F.B.C.4679/6 (REMOVAL OF NURSERY - AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCY TIE) TITCHFIELD FAREHAM OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin Ext 2412

- 14 -


Site Description

Fouracre Nursery lies to the east of Meon Road within the countryside and a strategic gap. The site was developed in 1990 and consists of a two storey detached 3-bed house and various horticultural buildings set within 4.3 acres of land. The property is subject to an agricultural occupancy condition which states that the occupant must be solely or mainly employed in agriculture.

Description of Proposal Permission is sought to remove the agricultural occupancy condition from the property. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review - Policy C1. Relevant Planning History FBC.4679/6 Erection of Agricultural Workers Dwelling

Permission 30th March 1988.

P/07/0446/VC Variation of Condition 3 of FBC.4679/6 (To remove Agricultural Occupancy Tie from Property)

Refused 31st May 2007. P/08/0113/VC Relief from Condition 3 of FBC.4679/6 (To Remove Agricultural Tie from Property) Refused 20th March 2008 Representations One letter of support has been received. Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objection.

Comments

There have been two applications refused for the removal of the agricultural occupancy tie in the past two years. The first application was submitted without any justification for the removal of the condition. Before agreeing to remove or waive an agricultural occupancy condition the Council would normally expect to be provided with documentary evidence that the agricultural dwelling concerned has been advertised and actively marketed as such for a period of some months. The second application which was submitted last year

- 15 -


was accompanied by evidence of the marketing exercise carried out late 2007 to early 2008. The marketing report included the particulars of the property for sale, the advertising programme, schedules of those expressing an interest in the property, subsequent viewings of the property and the offers that were received. The property value was assessed by a Chartered Surveyor and Land Agent with expertise in rural properties. Properties with an agricultural tie are generally marketed at 30-35% below the market value of the property and officers were satisfied that a fair value was sought for the property which took into account this reduction. Three offers were received for the property but these were substantially below the asking price of £535,000 ranging from £440,000-£455,000. Officers considered that this demonstrated that the nursery was no longer viable as a business and that the dwelling had ceased to be essential for agricultural purposes. Members did not agree with the Officers recommendation to allow the agricultural tie to be lifted and considered that one of the offers should have been accepted. The application was subsequently refused. The applicant's agent has requested that this decision be reviewed by the Council. Members should be particularly aware that although the three offers received were substantially lower than the asking price they were also from people who would not comply with the occupancy condition themselves. This may not have been made clear during the consideration of the previous application. One offer was from a commercial surveyor with connections in property development who indicated that he was considering growing organic vegetables as a sideline. A second offer came from someone who runs a sausage making business and was interested in the property for the purpose of keeping horses. The third offer was from someone with no connection to agriculture and on viewing the property this offer was withdrawn. If the sale had proceeded to one of these prospective purchasers the occupancy condition would still not have been met. The marketing exercise has not been repeated in light of the current property market conditions. It is considered that it would be highly unlikely to generate even the level of interest expressed previously particularly with the uncertainty of being able to secure a mortgage. Officers continue to be of the opinion that the existing dwelling has ceased to be essential for agricultural purposes and consider the proposal acceptable.

RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/08/1325/VC

- 16 -


(5) P/09/0009/FP TITCHFIELD

MISS JANE SUTTIE Agent: ALAN CULSHAW

EXTENSIOINS AND ALTERATIONS BROWNWICH LANE - MIZPAH - TO BUNGALOW TO INCLUDE TITCHFIELD 1ST FLOOR ACCOMMODATION & ERECT NEW SINGLE GARAGE (ALTERNATIVE TO P/07/1021/FP) OFFICERS REPORT - Simon Thompson Ext 4815

Site Description

Mizpah is a chalet bungalow situated on the eastern side of Brownwich Lane about 175 metres to the south of this lane's junction with Common Lane, Titchfield.

It forms part of a small ribbon of dwellings fronting onto Brownwich Lane in the countryside and a strategic gap as defined in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review.

Description of Proposal This application seeks an alternative permission from that previously permitted under planning permission P/07/1021/FP. The current application varies from the previous permission as follows:

A chimney has been added to the south elevation of the proposed rear extension and two smaller ground floor windows included either side of this instead of a previously permitted, larger single window;

A rear facing kitchen door and window has been altered to a larger single window;

A small porch has been added to the proposed north elevation's front door; and

An existing chimney on the front elevation is now to be retained. The rest of the application remains externally the same compared to the previous approval although there are also some internal revisions as well. The previously approved extensions and alterations involved primarily a chalet style rear extension with a footprint just over seven metres deeper than the existing rear façade of Mizpah. The approved extension's width was just over 12 metres, being about one and a half metres wider to the north than that northern most part of the existing bungalow to be retained whilst being flush with the same in a southerly direction. The highest part of the now proposed rear extension is the same as that previously approved (excluding the new chimney) being up to half a metre higher than the highest part of the existing bungalow.

- 17 -


Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review - Policies DG3, DG5, C1, C3, C11, H11, H13 and T5. Relevant Planning History Mizpah, Brownwich Lane: P/07/1021/FP - Extension and alterations to bungalow including 1st floor accommodation and erection of new single garage - Permission September 2007 Durnford, Brownwich Lane: P/07/0720/FP - Demolition of existing garage and erection of single storey side and rear extensions and conservatory (alternative to P/06/1478/FP) - Permission July 2007 Representations One email has been received raising the following comments:

Plot over development/out of character with the semi-rural nature of the lane;

Lack of parking, this household having two cars and frequent visitors. If they park on Brownwich Lane they will block the road.

Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) - No highway objections Comments The principle for this latest proposal to extend and alter the chalet bungalow at Mizpah and add a new front detached garage to this property has been established to a large degree by the earlier, similar and permitted scheme P/07/1021/FP. The main consideration in considering this latest application is whether the revised scheme is acceptable considering any material change in planning circumstances since the previous approval was granted. In this instance, the relevant planning policies of the Local Plan Review remain unaltered and likewise the Council's approved Extension Design Guide. What has changed, however, is that an extension to the existing dwelling adjacent to the north, permitted under planning permission P/07/0720/FP, has since been implemented. This recent extension involved the creation of habitable rooms closer to the proposed extensions to Mizpah. However, Officers have visited Durnford and assessed the latest proposal, including from its recent extension, and have concluded that the effect on Durnford (e.g. in terms of impact on

- 18 -


outlook and light to its habitable rooms) of the current submission is acceptable. Considering the concerns voiced by the objector over the latest submission being over built and out of character with the semi rural nature of the lane, the key local planning policy concerns remain the same in this respect, and the changes now proposed compared to the previous approved scheme are considered by Officers to have no significantly worse impact in terms of over development/effect on local character than that which the earlier approved scheme might involve. In respect of parking provision, the Council's highway engineers have been consulted on the application and raise no objection to the current submission. In summary, this application is considered by Officers to be acceptable and, subject to the conditions summarised below, is recommended for permission, it being held to be in accordance with the policies of the Local Plan Review and the Council's Extension Design Guide. This recommendation bears in mind those matters raised by the objector, the context of the previously permitted scheme (which itself could currently still be built), the current scheme proposals and its changes made compared to this previous permission and apparent changes of material planning circumstances since this earlier scheme was permitted, including the new extension at Durnford. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to match; First floor windows on south elevation of bungalow extension/alterations obscure glazed and fixed shut to 1.7 metres above internal floor level; Hedgerow/planting as hatched to south, south west and west of proposed garage to be retained. BACKGROUND PAPERS: Files P/07/0720/FP, P/07/1021/FP and P/09/0009/FP

(6) P/09/0016/VC TITCHFIELD Amplified by transport report received 4th February 2009

MRS PHYLLIS DOWNES

VARIATION OF CONDITION 3 OF OCCUPATION LANE - LAND P/03/0162/VC (TO INCREASE BETWEEN, WINDYFIELD & NUMBER OF CARAVANS STORED LAPWINGS -, TICHFIELD ON SITE FROM 50 - 70 OFFICERS REPORT - Richard Wright Ext 2356

Site Description

The application site is a field measuring approximately 2.00 hectares lying to the west and towards the southern end of Occupation Lane, an unadopted

- 19 -


highway leading south from Common Lane, Titchfield. Around 20 private dwellings are located along Occupation Lane. No permanent structures are on the land except one modest sized building close to the site entrance.

The field is of diversified farm use with a small variety of crops growing in the majority of the space. Along the southern boundary of the site up to 50 caravans may currently be stored.

A conservation hedgerow runs north to south near the entrance to the site and a further evergreen hedge over 3 metres height marks the boundary with Occupation Lane itself.

Description of Proposal Permission is sought to vary Condition 3 of planning permission P/03/0162/VC which restricts the number of caravans allowed to be stored on the site to a maximum of 50. A proposed increase in twenty caravans to a maximum of 70 is sought. The caravans are proposed to be located near the existing caravans set in from the southern boundary of the site on a portion of land measuring 72 x 10 metres. The applicant has submitted a detailed report effectively constituting a farm diversification plan to accompany this application giving information on the productivity of various crop types on the site from 2003 to present and estimated future expenditure. The applicant has also provided a traffic survey recording a total of 136 trips generated by caravan movements over a 10 month period during 2008 (Jan 2008 - October 2008). Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – C1, C4, C11, DG3, DG4, DG5 and T5.

Relevant Planning History P/00/0699/CU - Continued Use of Site for Mixed Use of Agriculture and for the Storage of Caravans - PERMISSION. P/03/0162/VC - Relief from Condition 1 of P/00/0699/CU (To enable continued Use Site for Mixed Agriculture & Caravan Storage) - CONSENT. Representations Two letters of representation have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds:

- 20 -


Level of increase in volume of traffic

The lane is already at saturation point.

It is not just caravans in and out each weekend, but the additional car journeys to and from the storage facility.

The lane is a dirt track and is not suitable for caravans.

Current condition of lane and consequences upon it of any increase in traffic volumes.

Impact of proposal on the character and appearance of the countryside

The additional traffic generated by additional caravans will destroy the already challenged ambience of the lane.

Will become the core function of the enterprise, not a supplementary part.

Highway safety;

Impact on privacy;

Impact on wildlife which should be protected.

Three further letters have been received from residents of Occupation Lane stating no objection to the proposal and making the following comments:

Although there is no objection to the proposal we do not wish to have caravans situated directly behind our property obstructing any views;

The caravans have not caused us any problems and the caravaners are very considerate and careful in their use;

Mr Downes maintains, as he has done for many years, and supplies for no charge the machinery for the upkeep of the lane;

The proposal will not cause issues to the lane in terms of traffic or lane degradation.

Consultations

Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – no objections, however it is suggested that the visibility from the site entrance be improved by cutting back the overgrown hedgerow. Any increase in use should be subject to agreement with the street managers.

Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) – no adverse comments. Comments This site was granted planning permission for change of use back in the year 2000. The need to diversify activity and supplement the farming output by offering a caravan storage facility was deemed acceptable. Temporary permission was granted and then permanency approved in 2003. The main issues for consideration when determining this proposal for intensification of this caravan storage use are:

The principle for further diversification of the farm business;

The impact on the character of this rural location;

- 21 -


The impact on highway safety and traffic volume with regards to the amenity of local residents.

The principle for further diversification of farm business The accompanying farm diversification plan reports that a number of different crops have been tried on the land over the past six years since the last planning application. With the exception of rhubarb, other crops such as pumpkins and strawberries have suffered from the combined effects of a local deer population, adverse weather conditions for growing and the fierce bulk-purchasing power of the supermarkets driving prices down. The applicants claim that their income is "not guaranteed" and keeping caravans on the land is the "one factor that allows them to continue in agriculture". They conclude that "this activity is essential to the continued use of this land for the growing of crops". In light of the information provided, Officers are of the opinion that an increase in the number of caravans stored on the site by 20, is justified in order to under pin the agricultural viability of the holding.

The impact on the character of this rural location The site is not prominent within the bRoarder landscape, nor overlooked by adjoining residential properties.

Planning permission P/00/0699/CU was issued with a number of landscaping conditions attached requiring the existing landscaping to be retained around the boundaries of the site and new landscaping to be planted close to the entrance to screen the caravans from the road. This combined landscaping is sufficient to allow limited further storage of caravans and protect the character of this countryside location. The impact on highway safety and traffic volume with regards to the amenity of local residents

The most pressing issue for the two local residents objecting to the application appears to be the potential increase in the volume of traffic to and from the site and the highway safety implications involved. The traffic survey provided by the applicant suggests an average of around 0.7 caravan movements per day from the site currently (based on 2008/9 survey, the existing caravans were used 136 times in 2008). Owing to the seasonal nature of caravan use, trip generation during the summer months is generally higher than at other times of the year. The transport report estimates that an additional 20 caravans would equate to 0.3 movements per day, based on the existing caravan usage in 2008. Taking a worst case scenario; based on all caravan movements being undertaken in 6 months of the year, this still only equates to an average of 0.6 movements per day. Notwithstanding this, and even with the additional traffic generated by a further 20 caravans on the site, officers are satisfied that the resulting volume of traffic would not be

- 22 -


unacceptable in terms of potential highway safety issues or harmful to the amenity of nearby properties. The uneven surfacing of Occupation Lane remains an issue to be addressed privately through the various stakeholders residing along the road. The applicant advises she has maintained the road for the past 20 years. The council's Highway Engineer meanwhile has reported no concerns over the increased traffic using the Occupation Lane/Common Lane junction. Conclusion In conclusion officers consider that the proposal is acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: caravan storage only within hatched areas, maximum of 70 caravans to be stored at any one time.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/09/0016/VC; P/03/0162/CU; P/00/0699/CU

(7) P/09/0030/FP TITCHFIELD MR ALLAN BOWDEN Agent: ALAN CULSHAW ASSOCIATES LTD

ERECTION OF FRONT PORCH 8 GARSTONS CLOSE TITCHFIELD OFFICERS REPORT - Richard Wright Ext 2356

Site Description The application property is a detached house situated on the northern side of Garstons Close.

Description of Proposal Permission is sought for a front porch measuring 2.25 x 1.17 metres. The porch would feature a ridged roof to a height of 3.2 metres. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies –DG3 and DG5.

Relevant Planning History P/08/0205/FP - Demolition of Existing Side Garage and Erection of Two Storey Side Extension and Single Storey Rear Extension - PERMISSION. Representation

- 23 -


One letter has been received objecting to the application on the following grounds:

Inconvenience for other local residents;

Traffic issues

Residues from work being carried out

This is a total transformation of the property taking many months. Comments A planning application submitted last year (P/08/0205/FP) granted planning permission for a side and rear extension to this property. The comments received from a local resident in objection to the application are with regard to issues concerning the construction of the side/rear extension, particularly the nuisance caused to other residents from increased traffic, parking and waste from the property. No planning conditions relating to these issues exist and officers are satisfied that other statutory controls are adequate in preventing harm to residential amenity and highway safety currently and in the future should permission be granted for this new application. Officers do not consider there to be any material planning reasons why consent should be withheld for this current proposal. Whilst the majority of properties along Garstons Close do not have front porches, its design is not considered to be potentially harmful to the visual amenity of the streetscene. Officers believe the proposal is acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: materials to match

BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/09/0030/FP; P/08/0205/FP

(8) P/09/0099/TC TITCHFIELD

MRS PENELOPE MAYSON

CARRY OUT WORKS TO TWO 22 BRIDGE STREET CONIFERS AND ONE GLADITSIA TITCHFIELD SUNBURST WITHIN TITCHFIELD CONSERVATION AREA OFFICERS REPORT - Emma Betteridge Ext 2677

Site Description

- 24 -


This application relates to a semi-detached dwelling on the north side of Bridge Street which is to the east of Coach Hill within Titchfield Conservation area.

Description of Proposal Notification is given to the Council to carry out works to remove one years growth from two conifers and remove three low branches to on Gladitsia. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review - DG4. Relevant Planning History P/08/0349/TC Carry out works to 2 Conifers and 1 Deodara within Titchfield Conservation area - No objection 22-04-2008. P/07/0456/TC Fell Conifer within Titchfield Conservation area - No objection 14-05-2007. P/06/0888/TC Carry out works to Four Conifers and One Bay Tree within Titchfield Conservation Area - No objection 16-03-2006. P/05/0143/TC Carry Out Works to Four Conifers Within Titchfield Conservation Area - No objection 21-03-2005. P/04/0693/TC Carry out Various Works to Acer, Robinia Frisia and Cedar which lie within Titchfield Conservation Area - No objection 08-06-2004. P/03/0704/TC Carry out Works to Various Trees which lie within Titchfield Conservation Area - No objection 06-06-2003. P/01/0313/TC Reshape One Cedar and Three Conifers situated within the Titchfield Conservation Area - No objection 23-04-2001. P/99/0065/TC Fell Conifer Tree and Prune Eucalyptus Tree which lie within Conservation Area - No objection 18-02-1999. Representations The publicity period expiries on the 26 February 2009, any comments that are received before committee will be updated to members.

Consultations Chief Planning & Transportation Officer (Arborist) - Awaiting comments. Comments

- 25 -


This application relates to a residential dwelling on the north side of Bridge Street within Titchfield Conservation area. Notification is given to carry out works to three trees within the rear garden of the site consisting of the removal of one year's regrowth from two conifers and to remove three low branches from a Gladitsia Sunburst. The reason for the proposed works to the conifers are to contain their size/limit growth and the removal of the three branches from Gladitsia Sunburst is to balance the tree and allow the crown to develop. Officers will update members on the Arborist's comments once they have been received. RECOMMEND: Subject to the comments of the Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist). NO OBJECTION:

BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/09/0099/TC, P/08/0349/TC, P/07/0456/TC, P/06/0888/TC, P/05/0143/TC, P/04/0693/TC, P/03/0704/TC, P/01/0313/TC, P/99/0065/TC

(9) P/08/1271/CU TITCHFIELD COMMON as amended by application area plan received 22nd December 2008 and

amended plan received 15 January 2009

MR RAYMOND HARDS Agent: HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO 35 TREVOSE WAY PRIVATE GARDEN, RELIEF FROM TITCHFIELD COMMON CONDITION 1 OF FBC.5257/40 AND RETAIN 1M FENCE (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION) OFFICERS REPORT - Simon Thompson Ext 4815

Site Description

- 26 -


This application's site area encompasses a detached two storey dwelling house situated on the northern side of Trevose Way approximately 65 metres to the north east of the junction of Trevose Way with Penhale Gardens, Titchfield Common.

This site is situated beside and near bends in the highway of Trevose Way and is within the urban area of the Borough as defined in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review.

Its dwelling house features a southern elevation front porch and eastern elevation, two storey side extension, all built under planning permission P/04/O633/FP.

Running from this side extension in an easterly and northerly direction is an about 1.8 metres high close boarded fence and brick wall that has two gate openings along its length. This fence/wall marks the eastern edge of this dwelling's established rear/side garden.

To the southeast, east and northeast of this house is a recently erected, 1 metre high, green stained, close boarded fence.

Inside this 1 metre fence are a number of plants up to about 3.5 metres high, including a tree, small conifers and a 2 metres high bush in the site's north eastern corner.

Outside and immediately to the south east of this fence is a sliver of land situated again inside of the curve of the road and pavement. This sliver of land is situated outside the application site and accommodates a couple of trees reaching about 4.5 in height and some low shrubs, bushes and other plants. This land would be retained as a highway sight line.

Description of Proposal This is a retrospective application seeking permission for change of use of that land inside the 1 metre high close boarded fence to private garden land, to form part of the residential curtilage at 35 Trevose Way, instead of its previous use of effectively highway verge to the east of the house and its 1.8 metre high, rear/side garden fence/wall. Part of this proposed garden land is covered by a condition of the planning permission for the house. This condition covers an area inside the bend in the road of Trevose Way and requires that nothing over 0.76 metres in height above the level of the carriageway shall be placed or permitted to remain. This application seeks relief of this condition as far as it applies to that land inside the 1 metre high fence and seeks permission to retain the 1 metre high fence. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review - Policies DG3, DG4, DG5 and T5. Relevant Planning History

- 27 -


FBC.5257/40 - Erection of seven houses and garages - Penhale Gardens and Trevose way - Permission February 1981. P/04/0220/FP – Erection of two storey side extension, porch and new boundary wall – Refused April 2004. P/04/0633/FP – Erection of two storey side extension and front porch – Permission July 2004. Representations The application was publicised when it was originally received and also upon submission of amended plans. Two emails have been received raising no objections subject to the site remaining in keeping with the area and no further encroachment on and future enforcement of driving visibility restrictions on this sharp corner. Five letters have been received from three residents raising the following concerns:

The line of sight should be reserved for the safety of road users and children;

Shrubs have become overgrown and restricted visibility;

Safety hazard;

The fence obscures the sight line creating a blind corner.

Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objection. Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) – No objection. Comments Before the 1 metre high fence was erected, the land between it and the house at 35 Trevose Way, lay outside this dwelling's defined residential curtilage and effectively served as highway verge, part of which was also subject to Condition 1 of planning permission FBC.5257/40. The reason cited for this condition being imposed, as set out on the 1981 planning decision notice of FBC.5257/40, is in order to secure safe traffic condition. Indeed, as set out above, a number of local residents have voiced concerns/objected to the submitted proposals impact on highway visibility and safety bearing in mind the current situation on the ground. However, since 1981, highway standards have altered (e.g. in terms of expected driver visibility requirements), and the applicant has worked with Hampshire County Council, as highway authority, including present day site visits, to gain its support and agreement to the submitted proposals, which indeed has been obtained. In addition, Fareham Borough Council's own

- 28 -


highway section has been consulted on the application and expressed no objection to the submitted scheme. There is also the issue of the potential impact on the local character and appearance of the area if this change of use is permitted and the 1 metre high perimeter fence retained. In this respect, whilst the locality has a relatively open frontage/grassed lawn appearance, a number of properties have low shrubs/bushes and/or low walls providing an element of enclosure to the front of their properties, this together with the proposed fence being only 1 metre in height, and thereby still offering to some extent an open aspect into the proposed side garden visible above this fence for example by passing pedestrians, Officers consider that on this criteria the proposal is acceptable. However, to preserve the open appearance of this side garden from potential future outbuildings and other possible structures, it is proposed to remove relevant residential permitted development rights from this side garden. Any physical extension of the house into this side garden or an increase in height of the fence to be retained above 1 metre is already subject to regulations that would similarly mean a planning application would be needed for such proposals. In conclusion, this planning application is recommended for permission, it being considered by Officers to be acceptable and in accordance with the policies of the Local Plan Review subject to conditions specified below.

RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Remove permitted development rights for outbuildings and other potential structures from private garden area. BACKGROUND PAPERS: Files FBC.5257/40, P/04/0220/FP, P/04/0633/FP and P/08/1271/CU

(10) P/08/1326/RM TITCHFIELD COMMON as amplified by plans received on 20th January 2009, Arboricultural Method

Statement received 23rd January 2009, amended plans received 5th February 2009

ESTATE OF MRS ROSE PECKHAM Agent: THE BRYAN JEZEPH CONSULTANCY

ERECTION OF THIRTY-ONE HUNTS POND ROAD - COURSE DWELLINGS, PARKING AND ACCESS PARK FARM -

TITCHFIELD COMMON OFFICERS REPORT - Kim Hayler Ext 2367

Site Description

- 29 -


The site is an area of just under one hectare which lies to the rear of 235 - 243A Hunts Pond Road. Course Park Crescent and an area of public open space lies to the east and Priestfields from which access would be derived is to the south. The northern boundary is occupied by 239 and 241 Hunts Pond Road, both of which are Grade II Listed buildings within grounds owned by Hampshire County Council;

The site has trees and hedgerows around the perimeter of the site, with central areas of open grassland;

The site lies within the urban area within an allocated housing site.

Description of Proposal This application is reserved matters for the erection of 31 dwellings, parking and access. Approval is sought for the siting, design, external appearance and landscaping of the development. The proposal includes the following mix of dwellings:

1 one bed flat above a garage;

3 two bed flats above a garage

12 two bed houses;

10 three bed houses;

5 four bed houses. Seventy parking spaces would be provided in total comprising, 23 garages/carports, 41 hard standing spaces and 6 visitor spaces. The following documents were submitted with the application:

Design and Access Statement;

Reptile Survey;

Desk Study Report;

Noise Impact Assessment;

Landscape Management and Maintenance Report;

Arboricultural Method Statement;

Building For Life Informal Assessment. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies DG2, DG3, DG4, DG5, DG6, H2, H10, R5 and T5. Relevant Planning History P/98/1288/OA - 31 Dwellings, open space and greenway - outline permission granted 11 June 2003.

- 30 -


P/05/1691/OA - Erection of 31 dwellings, parking and access - outline permission granted 2 March 2006. Representations Eight letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

The area cannot cope with any more houses;

Unacceptable volumes of traffic in Priestfields;

Wildlife is being destroyed and where will it go? Reptiles should be safely removed and protected;

More houses will lead to more traffic and would not benefit the local doctors surgery;

Concerns regarding the safety of the access from Priestfields during and after construction;

If the estate is going to be a part of Priestfields, it should look like the houses there;

The land should be used as a nature reserve and the listed buildings reinstated;

In the current market the additional dwellings will further reduce demand and prices. It is not acceptable to build the houses and let them sit empty;

If permitted traffic calming should be put in place;

Units should be removed in order to increase the green area;

Measures should be taken to prevent mud on the road and hours should be restricted;

Will the pavement outside 29/32 Priestfields be used as a construction car park and will the proposal impact on facilities during construction?

Consultations

Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) - There are no arboricultural grounds for refusal and therefore no objection is raised. Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Ecologist) - No objection. Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Conservation) - This development lies to the south of two listed cottages known as Course House. No objection is raised for the layout proposed which would not harm the setting of the listed buildings. Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Policy and Design) - Generally a good residential scheme with many plus points. Some improvements were suggested which have been addressed in amended plans. Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) - No objection. Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) -

Noise - No objection.

- 31 -


Contamination - discussions are ongoing between the Council's Contamination Officer and the applicant's environmental consultant. The planning condition requires details to be agreed before development commences.

Environment Agency - No objection, subject to conditions. Hampshire Constabulary (Crime Prevention Design Advisor) - A number of recommendations/suggestions relating to providing security by the design of the scheme have been dealt within the scheme Director of Customer Services - Leisure and Community (Parks and Open Spaces) - No objection. A number of comments were made regarding the relationship between proposed units and the greenway and existing/proposed trees. Director of Customer Services - Street Scene (Refuse and Recycling) - No objection Director of Customer Services - Housing Strategy Manager - The total number of bedspaces on the development is 133. Under consent P/05/1691/OA the affordable housing requirement on this site is that 25% of the bedspaces should be within the affordable housing element. The provision of 37 affordable bedspaces exceeds this requirement. Therefore Strategic Housing is happy that the number of affordable units meets the planning consent. The size of a number of units exceeds the current Homes and Community Agency Housing Quality Indicator size standards. The applicant is working with officers to overcome this issue and an update will be provided before the meeting.

Comments Introduction The principle of development was previously agreed under planning reference P/05/1691/OA. Outline planning permission was granted for the erection of 31 dwellings on the site with means of access from Priestfields. A S.106 Agreement was completed on 24 February 2006 under the outline permission securing the following:

The provision of onsite open space and its transfer to the Council;

An off-site open space contribution;

A contribution in respect of public transport and highways;

Provision of a greenway linking the open space to the east and Hunts Pond Road.

Character of the area

- 32 -


The scale and mass of the proposed buildings reflects that of the surrounding residential character. The dwellings would be predominantly two storey. The development layout has been designed with a home zone element on the western side. The layout has been designed to maintain access to the Hampshire County Council land to the north and includes space and a setting for the adjacent listed buildings. Dwellings have been designed where possible to overlook the greenway and open space. Plots 4 - 6, adjacent to the eastern boundary would have their rear elevation facing the existing open space. Usually in design terms dwellings would front open space, however the proposal was considered appropriate in light of the strong tree screen along the rear boundary, thus restricting views across the open space. These dwellings would have gardens a minimum of 11 metres in depth with a useable garden area outside of the canopy of these trees approximately 8 metres in depth. In light of the orientation of these dwellings it is considered that this relationship is acceptable. Affordable Housing The outline planning permission refers to the requirement for 25% bedspaces of the development to be affordable housing. The proposals include nine units for the provision of affordable housing, seeking to comply with the requirements of the Affordable Housing SPD. The proposed affordable housing would comprise a mix of dwellings and sizes, both social rented and intermediate housing.

Highway Issues Parking would be accommodated within private garages, or within parking courts. Four bedroom units would be provided with three parking spaces and 2/3 bedroom units would have two spaces. A number of visitor spaces would be provided within the layout. The proposal would provide a continuous link between Hunts Pond Road and its associated local facilities and the housing development to the east by the provision of a greenway link. Impact on neighbouring residential properties Building heights of the proposed dwellings to be erected adjacent to existing residential properties in Hunts Pond Road and Priestfields would be two storey. The distance between a kitchen window in an existing residential property and a proposed dwelling (Plot 18) does not meet the distance normally required. 237a Hunts Pond Road, situated on the western boundary of the site is a first floor residential flat. This flat has two habitable windows facing east into the

- 33 -


development site. These windows are set back from the rear elevation of the building by 2.5 metres, with a decking area and screening in the form of a 1.3 metre high close boarded fence. There are also mature trees along this boundary which form a partial screen between this property and the new development. The distance between the flat and the new dwelling to the rear would be approximately 16 metres. This falls short of the rear to rear distance of 22 metres normally required between dwellings. However, this is not a true rear to rear situation as the proposed dwelling would be sited at an angle to the existing flat, resulting in an oblique aspect. Also, in light of the trees along this boundary, the position of the windows and the intervening boundary treatment, officers are satisfied that the privacy of the occupiers of the flat would not be compromised by the development. It is considered that the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.

Conclusion The application site forms part of a development site allocated for housing in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. The proposed residential development of the site would provide a number of affordable dwellings, an extension to the existing open space serving the adjacent residential estate and a footpath link through to Hunts Pond Road. It is the opinion of officers that the proposal is an acceptable form of development. RECOMMEND: APPROVE: Surface water drainage scheme to be agreed; no additional windows or openings within rear elevation of Plots 1, 17 and 19; materials to be agreed Note for information: For the avoidance of doubt you are advised of the following: The affordable housing would comprise Plots 13 - 20 and Plot 31 (90% social rent and 10% low cost home ownership) The following conditions on the outline permission (P/05/1691/OA) require discharging before development commences: Condition 5 (ii), (iii) and (iv); Condition 17; Condition 19. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/08/1326/RM

- 34 -


(11) P/08/1138/FP WARSASH

MR PETER LAWRENCE Agent: MR DAVID NEWELL

CONVERSION OF EXISTING 88 NEWTOWN ROAD DWELLING & ANNEXE TO SEVEN WARSASH DWELLINGS OFFICERS REPORT - Newrick Martin Ext 2526

Site Description

The property is located on the west side of Newtown Road opposite the junction with Pitchponds Road. The western side of Newtown Road is characterised by large detached two storey dwellings set within large plots.

The site is situated within a Countryside area, within the Coastal Zone and in an Area of Special Residential Character. To the west of the site the property is bounded by the Warsash School of Navigation. Description of Proposal Permission is sought to;

Construct a new vehicle access on the Newtown Road frontage approximately 27 metres to the south of the existing gated entrance;

Closure of the existing site entrance;

Erect two storey front extension;

Erect front porch;

Erect a first floor rear extension on existing roof terrace;

Install additional dormer window in rear elevation;

Conversion works to subdivide main house to create four houses and two flats;

Use of self-contained annex as dwelling;

Provision of 13 car parking spaces and one integral garage;

Provision of communal and private garden areas;

Provision of refuse bin storage facilities. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies - C1, C2, C5, C9, H3, DG1, DG3, DG4, DG5, T5 and R5.

Relevant Planning History P/94/1411/OA - Outline - Erection of four detached houses and garages - Refused 27 April 1995 - Appeal dismissed. P/99/1067/OA - Outline - Erection of detached dwelling and garage - Refused 23 November 1999 - Appeal dismissed.

- 35 -


P/07/0872/FP - Conversion of triple garage block, gym & games room into self-contained annex - Permission 19 September 2007. Representations Fourteen letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

The proposed development will cause danger and disruption to flora and fauna;

Increased noise and population will make it intolerable;

Increased traffic will exacerbate an already dangerous situation in Newtown Road;

Threat to the waterfront and the inevitable increase in foot and cycle traffic which will accelerate erosion of footpaths and open spaces;

Development is not in keeping in the Area of Special Residential Character;

Loss of views;

Infrastructure cannot support the proposed development;

Smaller dwellings would set a precedent for future student accommodation;

Narrow road with poor visibility from the entrance;

The proposed development is contrary to countryside policies;

Loss of privacy;

The proposed development does not contribute towards the Council's housing objectives, as the development would not be 'integrated into existing settlements';

Out of keeping with the area;

The proposed development will harm the character of the streetscene;

Parking would almost certainly have to be better designed to ensure that an efficient use of space was designated;

The application is contrary to the River Hamble Local Plan;

More traffic will increase the danger at the junction of Pitchponds Road and Newtown Road.

Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – Revised access and provision of sight lines is a negotiated improvement over existing access arrangement. Parking provision and refuse collection facility meet FBC requirements. No objection subject to transport infrastructure contribution. Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) – No objection. Director of Health and Regulatory Services – No objection subject to contamination condition. Comments

- 36 -


The key planning issues in this case are the appropriateness of the physical works and conversion within the Countryside Area and the impact of the proposal on the Area of Special Residential Character. In principle, the development of new dwellings in the Countryside is normally resisted through the application of Policy C1 (Development in the Countryside) of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. However, it is necessary to identify those specific aspects of such a development that would cause harm to the countryside location or landscape interests. In this case the proposal is the re-use of an existing single dwelling and self-contained annex for multiple residential units. There would be no change of use of the property, the physical extension works are of a limited nature, being within the current footprint of the house, and the proposed car parking is to be within the existing gravelled forecourt of the property. The extension works are designed to be in keeping with the built form of the existing house and match the building in terms of design and external materials. As such the extension works would not have an adverse effect on either the existing building or the surrounding area. The proposed vehicle access allows the closure of that existing which is considered to be in a potentially dangerous position, immediately opposite the Pitchponds Road junction, and with below standard visibility. In these circumstances, the normal application of the countryside constraint is not considered to be appropriate. The Newtown Road Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC) is typified by large detached dwellings set within spacious plots. Through Policy H3 of the Local Plan Review, the Council seeks to ensure that the character of the existing residential area remains undamaged. This policy is specifically drafted to control inappropriate residential infilling and redevelopment. As the proposal is for the sub-division of the existing house, with only limited extensions wholly in keeping with the design and appearance of the building, the conversion is not considered by Officers to damage the residential character of the area. The proposed houses would be provided with private garden areas in addition to the extensive communal gardens to both front and rear of the property. The retention of the communal areas would ensure that the visual appearance of the property would remain much the same as existing when viewed from any external vantage point. Officers are satisfied that in terms of effect on the character of the area the proposed conversion and garden provision would not damage the ASRC. Although some concerns have been expressed about the possible effect on traffic conditions within Newtown Road, the Council's Highway Engineers are satisfied that the revised vehicular access arrangement, involving the closure of the existing gated entrance immediately opposite the Pitchponds Road junction, represents a betterment in highway terms. Loss of privacy to dwellings on the east side of Newtown Road is not a material factor as there are no new, directly facing windows on the frontage elevation of the building and separation distances, at 38 metres minimum, are much in excess of the Local Plan design guidelines. Loss of views across the application site is not a planning issue.

- 37 -


Officers consider that the proposed building works and conversion would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the area or the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. The proposed new access arrangements would reduce the possibility of traffic conflicts within Newtown Road. Overall, the application proposal is considered to be generally in accordance with the policies of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and in all planning respects acceptable. RECOMMEND: Subject to:

1.the applicant/owner first entering into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by 2. the Solicitor to the Council to secure:a financial contribution towards off-site public open space and/or facilities, and highway infrastructure; by the 11 March 2009 PERMISSION: No occupation before new access constructed; closure of existing access; Materials to match; Boundary treatment; Provision of parking and turning areas; Bin store details; Measures to prevent mud on roads; Hours of construction, Provision for construction vehicles and materials; No burning. OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required Section 106 Agreement by 11 March 2009.

REFUSE: Contrary to Policy; inadequate provision towards public open space and highway infrastructure. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/08/1138/FP


MR & MRS I & P SOUTHWELL Agent: MR MARTIN MOYSE MRICS

ERECT TWO STOREY/SINGLE 46 NEWTOWN ROAD STOREY FRONT EXTN, TWO STOREY/ WARSASH SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTN, NEW ROOF & GARAGE BLDG OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin Ext 2412

Site Description The property is located on the west side of Newtown Road opposite its junction with Queens Road. The western side of Newtown Road is characterised by large detached two storey dwellings set within large plots.

- 38 -


Planning permission was granted last year for the erection of two dwellings on the frontage of 46 and 48 Newtown Road. The dwelling to the front of 46 Newtown Road is currently under construction.

The site is situated within the urban area, an Area of Special Residential Character and the Coastal Zone. To the west of the application site is an area of open space known as the Strawberry Field, which forms part of the Warsash Conservation Area.

Description of Proposal Permission is sought to;

Erect a single storey/two storey front extension measuring a maximum of 10.7 metres in width, 8.5 metres in depth with a ridge height of 8.5 metres;

Erect a single storey/two storey side extension to the south side of the property to extend out by 3.8 metres at first floor level and 6.2 metres at ground floor level, a maximum of 15.8 metres in depth with a ridge height of 8.5 metres;

Erect a single storey rear extension measuring 5.7 metres in width, 1.8 metres in depth with a ridge height of 3.8 metres;

Erect a single storey side extension to the northern side of the property measuring 2.5 metres in width, 3.6 metres in depth with a ridge height of 3.8 metres;

Re-roof the existing property which currently has a ridge height of 6.7 metres with one which measures 8.5 metres in height;

Erect a detached garage to the front of the property adjacent to the southern boundary of the site. The garage would accommodate three vehicles with storage over and would measure 10.4 metres in length, 6 metres in depth, with a ridge height of 5.8 metres.

Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG1, DG3, DG4, DG5, C5, C9, C14, HE3, H2, H3, R5 and T5. Relevant Planning History P/04/0026/FP Erection of Detached Dwelling to the Front of the Property

Refused 10th February 2004.

P/05/1157/FP Demolition of Existing Dwelling and Erection of 6 Townhouses and 3 Detached Dwellings Withdrawn 30th September 2005.

P/06/0148/FP Demolition of Existing Buildings and Erection of 6

Townhouses and 3 Detached Dwellings

- 39 -


Refused 24th March 2006 Appeal Dismissed 21st February 2007.

P/07/1410/FP Erection of Detached Dwelling and Garage

Refused 21st December 2007.

P/08/0560/FP Erection of Detached Dwelling and Garage Permission 1st July 2008.

Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

The house occupies a prominent location and is clearly visible from the River Hamble;

The property would no longer be an incidental feature in the landscape as described by the planning inspector;

The western elevation should be reduced or there should be a suitable landscaping plan.

Seven letters of support have been received and one letter raising no objection to the proposal. Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) - No objection. Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) - No objection subject to conditions.

Comments The main consideration in this application is the impact of the proposal on the character of the Area of Special Residential Character, particularly when viewed from the Strawberry Field to the west. The application property is in a rather dilapidated condition and occupies a prominent position to take advantage of views towards the River Hamble. An application for the erection of six townhouses overlooking the Strawberry Field involving the demolition of the application property and the adjacent property (No.48) was refused in 2007. The Inspector concluded that the size, design and prominence of the two blocks of dwellings proposed would have an adverse effect on the overall character and appearance of the surrounding area. The height and bulk of the application property as extended would not be equal to that of the block of three townhouses previously proposed in this location. The Area of Special Residential Character is typified by large detached dwellings set within spacious plots. The proposal would be in keeping with this description. Officers do not consider that this proposal would harm the character of the area.

- 40 -


The proposal would make significant improvements to the visual appearance of the property and it is considered that this would be beneficial to views taken from the east, from the Strawberry Field. The single storey/two storey side extension proposed to the south of the dwelling has been designed to retain a significant gap of approx 7 metres at first floor level between the application property and the neighbouring property to the south (No.48). It was considered important to retain the spaciousness about the building to reflect the character of the area. The property to the north of the application property is sited much closer to the Newtown Road frontage. The property currently has a shallow roof pitch and the proposal includes re-roofing the property increasing the height of the ridge from 6.7 metres to 8.5 metres. The height of the roof would be comparable to the neighbouring property immediately to the south. The town houses previously proposed would have been 9.5 metres in height. The property is not prominent within the streetscene of Newtown Road as it is set back in excess of 70 metres from the road. There is significant tree planting on this boundary and the property currently under construction directly in front of the application property will further limit any views from Newtown Road. The property currently has unobstructed views to the rear over a low wire fence. It is not considered necessary to impose a condition for landscaping along this boundary adjacent to the Strawberry Field. Officers do not consider that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area and consider the proposal acceptable. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to be agreed, Obscure glaze and fit shut to 1.7m first floor windows (north elevation), Use of garage incidental to property no business/commercial use, Remove PD garage roofslope (south elevation), Works in accordance with Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/08/1293/FP

(13) P/08/1309/FP WARSASH As amended by plans received 13th January

MR K PERKINS Agent: ARCHITECTRESS

ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSION TO FAIRHAVEN, SOLENT BREEZES EXISTING ROOF TO PROVIDE CHILLING LANE, WARSASH ADDITIONAL FIRST FLOOR ACCOMODATION OFFICERS REPORT - Richard Wright Ext 2356

- 41 -


Site Description

The application property is a chalet bungalow style dwelling lying close to the coast within the Solent Breezes Holiday Park, Chilling Lane, Warsash. A detached garage lies within the property's curtilage to one side of the dwelling.

The site lies within the Countryside, Coastal Zone and Strategic Gap.

Description of Proposal Permission is sought for the following alterations to the dwelling:

Raise the roof 1.1 metres;

Extend front gable projection by 1.1 metres in height;

Reposition and enlarge two front dormers;

Reposition and enlarge one rear dormer and provision of a further two rear dormers;

A new semi-circular balcony extending 1.8 metres at its deepest from the front of the existing dwelling.

Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – C1, C5, C11, DG3, DG5, H13 and T5.

Relevant Planning History P/00/0263/FP - Erection of First Floor Extension and Alterations - Permission. P/00/0810/FP - Erection of First Floor Extension including Front and Rear Dormer Windows (Alternative to P/00/0263/FP) - Permission. P/08/0930/FP - Alterations to Provide Additional Second Storey Accommodation, New Raise Hipped Gable Roof and Balcony - Refused. Representations One letter has been received from The Fareham Society raising the following comments and objections:

These alterations will significantly increase the volume and hence the bulk of the building;

The increased height of the front gable with full glazing from first floor to apex will draw attention to the height of the roof especially when the room is lit at night;

The character of the Solent Breezes Holiday Park could be irreversibly changed if the application were allowed and set a precedent for similar developments on the park;

The proposed development is of a style more reminiscent of one seen on an urban estate.

- 42 -


Comments A planning application last year (P/08/0930/FP) was submitted which, had it not been refused planning permission, would have effectively transformed this chalet bungalow into a two-storey dwelling. Officers considered the proposal: "unacceptable in that by virtue of the height, width, bulk and design the proposed extensions would appear overbearing and out of character with the immediate area harmful to the character and appearance of this countryside area which also forms part of a strategic gap". On submission of this current application officers were concerned that the height and bulk of the dwelling were still unacceptable. It was after viewing these original plans that The Fareham Society commented on the application. However, following discussions with officers, the applicant amended the submission, lowering the height of the roof ridge alterations and reducing the scale of other elements of the proposal to suit. Officers are now satisfied that this proposal retains the chalet bungalow character of the dwelling with a modest increase in roof ridge height (1.1 metres). The proposal does not include a widening or increase in the footprint of the building. Therefore the resultant dwelling would, in the opinion of officers, not be out of character with the surrounding area. Whilst the majority of structures in this part of Solent Breezes are single storey the adjacent property known as The Cottage by the Lake is of a chalet bungalow style with rooms in the roof as is the application property already. It is also considered that, should members be minded to grant permission, the approval of this scheme would not alter the streetscene in a way so as to encourage or justify two storey development in the area. Officers consider that the proposal is acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: materials to match


- 43 -



MR S LOVEDAY

ERECT REAR EXTENTION, ALTS TO ROOF 121 FLEET END ROAD TO PROVIDE 1ST FLOOR ACCOMM, WARSASH CAR PORT & REPLACEMENT GARAGE WITH STORAGE OVER OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin Ext 2412

Site Description

This application relates to a detached bungalow to the east side of Fleet End Road to the south of the junction with Dibles Road.

The site is located in the countryside and a strategic gap.

Description of Proposal Permission is sought to;

Erect a rear extension to the bungalow measuring 8 metres in depth, 9.7 metres in width with a ridge height of 6.1 metres.

Insert rooflights and a dormer window on the northern elevation to provide accommodation within the roofslope.

Erect a car port on the frontage to accommodate two vehicles measuring 5.3 metres in width, 5.3 metres in depth with a ridge height of 4.5 metres.

Erect a detached garage within the rear garden with storage over measuring 8.9 metres in width, 6.7 metres in depth with a ridge height of 6.2 metres. Access to the garage would be to the southern side of the property.

Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies - DG3, DG5, C1, C3, C11 and T5.

Representations Four letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

The garage should be conditioned so it cannot be used for the purpose of trade or as an additional dwelling;

- 44 -


The property has been denied right of way over the access track to the rear;

Upstairs windows and garage windows will overlook neighbouring properties

A large amount of parking is proposed for a small residential property;

The applicant is a self employed builder and one wonders whether the garage will be used for storage of materials;

Numerous trees within the rear garden have been cut down;

Various commercial vehicles are being stored at the property causing noise and disturbance and a highway hazard;

Vehicles use the access down the side of the property which is adjacent to habitable room windows of the neighbouring property;

The property has a covenant which states it must not be used for commercial business purposes;

Could the pitch of the garage roof be reduced to prevent future conversion?. Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer - No objection Comments The rear extension to the property would include accommodation at first floor level. To prevent overlooking of neighbouring properties the rooflights proposed in the north and south elevations would be conditioned to have a minimum sill height of 1.7 metres above internal floor level. The window within the dormer window proposed on the northern elevation would also be conditioned to be obscure glazed and fixed shut to a height of 1.7m above floor level. The extension would therefore not result in loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. The neighbouring property to the south (No.123) has a sole bedroom window within the north elevation. The separation distance between this window and the extension would be 5.1 metres. Given this separation distance and the orientation of the neighbour's window officers do not consider that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the light and outlook available to this room. It is proposed to erect a detached garage with storage over within the rear garden of the property. Access to the garage would be to the southern side of the property adjacent to No.123. The occupants of the neighbouring property are concerned that vehicle movements along this access would result in noise and disturbance to their property. This concern is worsened by fears that the property will also be used for business purposes in connection with the applicant's construction business. The garage would be conditioned so that it would not be used for commercial purposes. The applicant does store his own vehicle at the property overnight and there have recently been other commercial vehicles visiting the property in connection with the renovations to the property currently being undertaken. It is not considered that the volume of traffic for a residential property would have a detrimental impact on the enjoyment of the neighbouring property. If

- 45 -


allegations of commercial use are reported these can be investigated at the time by the Local Planning Authority. However the garage could not be refused in anticipation that commercial use will occur and on the assumption that this would be unacceptable. Officers have also taken into account the fact that a garage of a lower height could be erected within the rear garden without planning permission. The rooflights proposed on the south elevation of the garage would be conditioned to be 1.7 metres above floor level to prevent overlooking. Permitted development rights for any further openings within the roofslope would also be withdrawn. The rear garden to the property slopes downwards so that garage would not be visible from the front of the property. Officers do not consider that the siting of the garage at the end of the garden would have a detrimental impact on the enjoyment of surrounding properties. It is not considered that the car port proposed on the frontage would be prominent within the streetscene due to the presence of hedges and planting on the frontages of neighbouring properties. It is therefore not considered that this open fronted structure which would be constructed of oak boarding and plain tiles, would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the streetscene or character of the area. The proposal complies with policy and is considered acceptable. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: Materials to be agreed, Use of garage incidental to residential property no business/commercial use, Rooflights in dwelling to have min sill height 1.7m above floor level (north& south elevations), En-suite window to be obscure glazed and fixed shut to 1.7m (north elevation), Rooflights in garage to have min sill height of 1.7m above floor level (south elevation), Remove PD rooflslope dwelling & garage, Hedge on frontage to be reinforced and retained at min height 1.8m BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/08/1313/FP

- 46 -


Miscellaneous (1) Request for a Deed of Release from a Legal Agreement restricting

periods of occupancy in respect of Chalets 21,60,61,85 and 86 Solent Breezes, Chilling Lane, Hook

Officers Report: Peter Cooper Ext 2430

Introduction

This item was first reported to the Planning Development Control Committee on the 21st January. At that meeting several residents who spoke raised concern that they only received written notification of the meeting a few days before the Committee meeting was held. They believed this had prejudiced them by not allowing them time to seek appropriate professional advice. In light of this Members resolved to defer the item to this meeting. Background

Solent Breezes is a holiday home park comprising holiday chalets and mobile homes and associated facilities. The mobile homes are predominately owned and managed by a holiday company. The chalets are in private freehold ownership.

The planning history commenced in the period before Fareham Borough Council was the local planning authority and at a time when planning matters were administered by Hampshire County Council.

In 1966 Hampshire County Council entered into a Section 37 Legal Agreement under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, with the then owner of the land. The agreement tied the land and any chalet in his ownership at that time (or subsequently built on the land) to occasional residential occupation.

Occasional residential occupation for holiday and recreational purposes was defined within the legal agreement as "occupation between 1st March and the 31st October inclusive and at other times only at weekends between the hours of 5.0 pm on a Friday and 9.0am on Monday and between the hours of 5.0pm on any day preceding a public holiday and 9.0am on the day immediately following the same public holiday"

In 1976 a planning application was submitted to Fareham Borough Council. In dealing with this application a planning condition was imposed relating to the times during which caravans and chalets at the site could be occupied. This condition was intended to ensure that the occupation periods for the caravans and chalets were the same as that in the legal agreement.

The condition stated that 'no holiday chalet, flat or caravan shall be used for residential purposes other than occasional residential occupation for summer seasonal and other weekend holiday and recreational purposes…'.

- 47 -


The use of caravans and chalets at the site for all year round occupation has been the subject of several planning appeals. The most recent of these were considered in 2004 and 2005 respectively.

In both cases the Planning Inspectors accepted that Solent Breezes was unsuitable for permanent residence, and such a use would be contrary to the countryside and housing policies of the local plan. One of the Inspectors further considered that if more permanent residential occupation was permitted the essential character of the site would over time change from that of a holiday complex to residential development.

Relevant Planning History

Solent Breezes is located within an area of coast and countryside, coastal zone and a strategic gap. The site comprises a number of static caravans and 88 chalets. Whilst some of these chalets are allowed to be occupied on an all year round basis, the majority are restricted in the times they may be occupied.

In recent times some chalet owners have sought and obtained Certificates of Lawful Use or Development. This Authority was obliged to grant such certificates where the applicant provided evidence to demonstrate that a planning condition had been breached for a period of ten years or more. When such Certificates are granted Fareham Borough Council is prevented from taking any planning enforcement action against the breach of the condition. The decision to grant the certificate or not is based solely on the basis of the available evidence not the merits of the case.

In addition to the condition however there is also the legal agreement dating from 1966 which limits the periods during which chalets can be occupied. This agreement continues to bind the owners / occupiers notwithstanding the grant of the certificate of lawful use. In some earlier cases this Council has agreed to release the owners from the legal agreement following the issuing of the Certificate of Lawful Use or Development. In doing so the Council removed the ability to seek any action through the Courts in respect of these chalets.

In 2008, five chalet owners were granted Certificates of Lawful Use or Development confirming that Fareham Borough Council accepted on the basis of the submitted information that the planning condition restricting occupation had been breached for 10 years or more. This has led to the five requests for a deed of release now before Members.

Matter for consideration

The matter for members to make a decision on at this meeting is whether or not to grant a deed of release in respect of these five chalets.

The planning status of the site has been considered in recent planning appeals as mentioned above, and inspectors have confirmed the validity of maintaining the occupancy restrictions on the site given its history and location. Notwithstanding the previous release of the covenants in some cases

- 48 -


the present applications fall to be considered on their own merits. There is no reason why the Council could not seek to enforce the covenants contained within the agreement if these are considered to still serve a useful planning purpose.

Officers do not consider it appropriate to recommend that a person who has obtained a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development by prolonged breach of planning conditions should be granted a deed of release from a valid legal agreement restricting occupancy periods. To grant such a deed of release would in effect legitimise permanent occupancy gained by breaching the planning condition and would undermine this Council's objective of protecting Solent Breezes as essentially a holiday complex.

RECOMMEND

That Members decline the requests for a Deed of Release from the Legal Agreement dated 3 October 1966 in respect of Chalets 21,60,61,85 and 86

- 49 -


ZONE 2 – FAREHAM North North West West East South

- 50 -


(15) P/08/1303/VC FAREHAM EAST as amplified by email dated 3rd February 2009

THE RESTAURANT GROUP Agent: I-LID DESIGN

VARY CONDITIONS TO EXTEND 68 HIGH STREET - EDWINNS HOURS (MON - THURS 10.00AM - RESTAURANT -, FAREHAM 11.00PM, FRI - SAT 10.00AM - MIDNIGHT, SUN 10.00AM - 10.30PM AND GARDEN 10.00AM - 10.00PM) OFFICERS REPORT - Richard Wright Ext 2356

Site Description

The application property is a restaurant/bistro situated on the eastern side of High Street, Fareham. The site lies within the High Street conservation area. The first floor of the building accommodates a large function room to the front and a marriage room to the rear.

To the rear of the building is a large garden area measuring approximately 28 x 20 metres, part of which is paved to accommodate outdoor furniture. The garden is enclosed by various 2 - 3 metre high fencing, hedging and boundary wall.

Description of Proposal Permission is sought to increase the opening hours of the establishment. These are currently as follows:

Monday - Saturday: 1000 - 2300 hrs

Sunday: 1000 - 1730 hrs

The garden (patio area only) can be used from 1000 - 2000 hrs (Mon - Sat) and 1100 - 1600 hrs (Sun). The footpath from the building to the car park can be used within the opening hours of the building.

The proposal is to vary the conditions of numerous planning permissions granted previously for the property relating to these opening hours. The new proposed hours are:

Monday - Thursday: 1000 - 2300 hrs (no change)

Friday - Saturday: 1000 - 2400 hrs

Sunday: 1000 - 2230 hrs

The patio area to be used from 1000 - 2200 (Mon - Sun). The footpath from the building to the car park can be used within the opening hours of the building.

For the avoidance of doubt the following conditions are sought to be varied.

Conditions 2 & 5 of P/94/1463/CU (As Amended by Appeal Decision Notice Dated 30 November 1995) - (Change of Use From Club To

- 51 -


Bistro/Tearoom and Conference Room (Grd Floor) and Antiques Showroom (First Floor))

Condition 3 of P/97/1082/CU - (Change of Use of Conference Room at Ground Floor To Restaurant/Bistro)

Condition 1 of P/97/1083/FR - (Continued Use of First Floor For Function and Marriage Room).

The applicant advises that the application is justified in order to maintain the commercial viability of the current business and to enable the operators to offer the level of service offered by their market place competitors Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG1 and DG3.

Relevant Planning History P/94/1463/CU - Change of Use from Club to Bistro/Tearoom and Conference Room (Grd Floor) and Antiques Showroom (First Floor) - Permission P/96/0357/VC - Variation of Condition No. 5 of P/94/1463/CU As Amended by Appeal to Extend Hours of Use of Garden with Existing Bistro - Temp Permission

P/96/0884/CU - Change of Use at First Floor For Function and Marriage Room - Permission P/97/0609/VC - Variation of Condition 1 of P/96/0357/VC (To Extend Hours of Use for the Garden on a Permanent Basis) - Consent P/97/1082/CU - Change of Use of Conference Room at Ground Floor to Restaurant/Bistro - Permission P/97/1083/FR - Continued Use of First Floor For Function and Marriage Room - Retain Development

P/08/1169/VC - Variation of Condition 1 of P/971083/FP (To Extend Hours of Opening For First Floor Function and Marriage Room) - Withdrawn Representations Three letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

Noise and disturbance caused by restaurant patrons especially late at night when leaving the premises.

The restaurant have breached the terms of their licence and planning conditions on various previous occasions.

The possibility of music being played in the first floor function room.

The extended use of the garden on Sundays is particularly concerning.

- 52 -


One letter has been received from The Fareham Society objecting to the proposals as follows:

The condition was imposed in order to protect the amenity of residents in High Street and Lysses Court;

Particular concern with extending the hours on Sundays and to open up the whole of the garden area;

It is unclear what activities will take place in the garden;

Customers are unlikely to clear the premises until 12.30 am Fridays and Saturdays. The premises should close no later than 11.30 pm on those evenings;

If the upstairs function rooms are to be used more frequently, would music be played;

If permission is considered appropriate then it should be on a temporary basis to enable the situation to be monitored

A petition with 44 signatures has been received objecting to the application on the following grounds:

We believe than an extension to the current opening hours would lead to an unacceptable increase in noise and instances of public nuisance.

Consultations

Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) – No objections.

Hampshire Constabulary (Crime Prevention Officer) - Hampshire Constabulary have no grounds to oppose the planning application for the above premises. An inspection of our records shows only two reports at the premises for the period 01/01/08 to date and neither of these were of great concern to the Police. Should there be problems at the premises in the future we reserve the right to apply for a review of the Alcohol & Entertainment licence by the Local Authority Licensing Committee.

Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) – no adverse comment. Whilst complaints have been received in relation to loud music, the applicants have installed an electronic sound limiting device which will automatically stop the music if set levels are exceeded. Since the introduction of the sound limiting device no further complaints have been received about this type of disturbance. In respect of the use of the outside areas, no complaint have been received to date, however such matters are best addressed through the licensing regime.

Comments The planning history for the premises is complicated, hence the array of conditions which are sought to be varied in this application. Notwithstanding this, the main issue for consideration is simply the impact of the extended opening hours at the restaurant on the amenity of nearby residents particularly late at night.

- 53 -


Extended Hours of Opening High Street conservation area is of a mixed-use character with a local residential community alongside various shops, offices and other town centre uses. There are also a number of establishments contributing to a thriving night time economy. Given its mixed use character and town centre location therefore it is reasonable to expect a degree of night time activity beyond that usually experienced within a residential area. Clearly the comments of the Council's Environmental Health Officer are critical in ascertaining whether extending the hours of opening for the restaurant are acceptable or not with regards to any increase in noise and disturbance. In this instance Environmental Health Officers have no adverse comments to make adding that electronic sound limiting devices fitted at the property, which automatically stop music if set levels are exceeded, are considered sufficient in controlling loud music coming from the premises. Other measures included within the premises licence, and beyond the remit of a reasonable planning condition, allow the council to control, monitor and review noise and disturbance issues suitably. Likewise, the local Police Crime Prevention Officer has reported with no objection to the proposal. Aside from Sunday opening, a proposed increase of just one hour in opening times on Fridays and Saturdays only would not present a vast difference in the scope for noise and disturbance to be created. On Sundays the restaurant must currently close by 1730 hrs. Whilst the proposed increase in Sunday opening hours is substantial, there is no reason to believe that this night of the week should provide greater opportunity for increased disturbance to local residents than any other day of the week. Garden Area As the assorted planning consents states, the usage of the garden area is currently limited to the patio area nearest to the building and from 1000 - 2000 hrs only (1100 - 1600 hrs on Sundays). Contrary to the applicant's Design & Access Statement and despite the provision of the premises' current licence, Condition 9 of P/94/1463/CU as amended by the inspectors' decision also prevents the playing of music in the rear garden at any time. The applicant has confirmed this would not be affected by the current proposal. A residential unit (1 Lysses Court) lies to the immediate north of the garden behind the high boundary wall and across the access drive. It is this property which would be most affected by any intensification of usage of the garden. Indeed, it is this property which the inspector makes specific mention of in his appeal decision letter (P/94/1463/CU) when justifying the conditions in place on the garden. However, given that in this instance the proposed usage would still be restricted to the patio area only and that no music is permitted outside, officers are satisfied that the extended hours of garden usage would not materially harm the residential amenity of this dwelling or others in the vicinity. Further controls over the usage of the garden patio available to the council in the premises licence reaffirm the acceptability of the proposal.

- 54 -


Conclusion Officers consider that the proposal is acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. However in light of the local concerns raised regarding noise and disturbance issues, officers consider in this instance it would be appropriate to grant temporary consent for one year only after which time any incidents of noise and disturbance could be taken into account when determining an application for permanency. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: temporary permission for 1 year; garden usage restricted to patio area only; opening hours Mon-Thurs 1000-2300; Friday - Sat 1000-2400; Sunday 1000-2230; garden patio area 1000-2200 Mon - Sun; parking for 23 cars kept available; use of rear garden incidental to 2nd floor accommodation except in patio area and footpath to car park; no music in garden area; first floor only to be used as long as second floor accommodation is ancillary; A3 class use only

BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/08/1303/VC

(16) P/08/1314/FP FAREHAM EAST

MR & MRS WILKINS Agent: SPACE & STYLE HOME DESIGN

EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO 89 NORTH WALLINGTON EXISTING DWELLING AND ROOF TO FAREHAM PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION OFFICERS REPORT - Richard Wright Ext 2356

Site Description The application property is a detached house on the south-eastern side of North Wallington. The property is accessed by an unmade road and is screened from view from the main portion of the road by various mature hedging and trees.

Description of Proposal Permission is sought for various extensions and alterations to this property. These include:

A porch/hall extension;

A new utility room in the space currently between the kitchen and garage;

A further two bedrooms and shower room at first floor level.

Policies

- 55 -


Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies – DG3 and DG5.

Representations One letter of representation has been received objecting to the application on the following grounds:

The proposed roofline would completely overshadow the first floor living room window and the ground floor kitchen window;

The new higher wall near the boundary would reduce light and sun coming into my home;

The whole higher and longer roofline would also affect the sun into my garden, in particular my front courtyard (outside my kitchen), even in summer.

Comments The proposed alterations to this property seek to create additional living space and improve on the current innovative design. Given the already disparate appearance of this dwelling and its neighbour at 90 North Wallington from the remaining properties along this stretch of the street, the design could not be considered out of keeping with the character of the area. The neighbour immediately to the north east of the application property is concerned that the increased height of the roofline and flank walls may have an impact on light enjoyed by their property. The ridge line of the roof would be altered from running sideways (east - west) to lengthways (north to south), raised by around 1.7 metres and extended forwards over the first floor front extension. The height of the north-eastern side of the property close to the boundary would also be increased and extended forward to accommodate the enlarged kitchen, utility room and two first-floor bedrooms. Notwithstanding this increase in height and bulk, the affected windows in the neighbouring property are in the side (south west) elevation and serve rooms (first-floor living room and kitchen) which benefit from other sources of natural light. The council's adopted Extension Design Guide states that "the minimum distance required between a side window serving a habitable room and a proposed development will normally be six metres". The distance in this instance measures approximately 5.4 metres to the boundary from the windows, and a further 1.5 metres to the proposed flank wall. In conclusion officers consider that the proposal is acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: materials to match, obscure glaze & fixed shut to height of 1.7 metres above internal floor level a) NE first floor shower room window, and b) SW first floor landing window.


- 56 -


ZONE 3 – EASTERN WARDS Hill Head Portchester West Portchester East Stubbington

- 57 -


(17) P/09/0042/FP HILL HEAD ALAN BIRTWISTLE

RETENTION OF GARAGE 23 SEAFIELD PARK ROAD HILL HEAD OFFICERS REPORT - Simon Thompson Ext 4815

Site Description

23 Seafield Park Road is a bungalow of reddish brick and tile construction situated on the northern side of Seafield Park Road at and on the eastern corner of this road's junction with Pilgrims Way, Hill Head.

Towards the north western corner of this property's curtilage is a single garage erected in April 2008.

This garage is comprised of cream and white painted, mock rough brick, pre-cast concrete wall panels. Its footprint is 7.35 metres long and 3.5 metres wide. It has an extremely low pitched and sheeted roof that is gable ended to the west elevation where it has a blue coloured, up and over garage door, fronting 3.6 metres away from the road carriageway of Pilgrims Way.

The northern boundary of 23 Seafield Park Road beside the flank of this garage is delineated by a low line of bricks and low level shrubs offering virtually open views of this flank of the garage when travelling south along Pilgrims Way. East of the garage on this northern and eastern boundary is a approximately 1.8 metre high close boarded fence.

Beside the garage on its south side is a much smaller, brown treated wooden shed, whose grey felt covered ridge approaches the height of the garage.

At the southern side of the vehicular access to the garage and west of this shed is a low brick wall with an approximately 1.6 metre high dense hedge above it. This wall/hedging runs from this point southwards along the western edge of 23 Seafield Park Road until it meets the western footpath entrance to the bungalow.

23 Seafield Park Road is within the urban area of the Hill Head as defined in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and shown in this plan as within the South-West Hill Head Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC).

Description of Proposal This application seeks planning permission to retain the garage described above at 23 Seafield Park Road. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review - Policies DG3, DG5, H3 and T5. Representations

- 58 -


Four letters have been received from residents in Pilgrims Way objecting on the following grounds:

The garage intended for retention is out of keeping and out of place with this lovely area. It is prefabricated and of poor repair, quality and finish compared with other garages nearby, having shabby, corrugated and galvanised metal sheet and one Perspex panel roofing, inappropriate in a residential area and an eye sore.

One letter of objection has been received from The Hill Head Residents Association making the following points:

This is an area of special residential character and development should not harm the residential character;

This second hand prefabricated garage is an unwelcome intrusion into the street scene and detracts from the local character.

Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) - The garage replaced an existing parking space with full footway crossing. No objection subject to:

The doors not opening out over the highway;

The hedge being cut back along the frontage;

A sightline of 2m by 2m being provided within the site on the south side of the garage's vehicular entrance; and

The existing shed being re-sited to enable this sight line to be achieved.

Comments The public representations received are concerned over the appearance of this garage, notably in respect of its materials used, arguing it is out of keeping in this local residential area. As noted above in the site description, the application site is within an ASRC covering South-West Hill Head. However, Policy H3 of the Fareham Local Plan Review relates to residential infilling and redevelopment only. In terms of impact on and appearance of the garage in the street scene, the garage's roof pitch is at an extremely low angle and above head height such that views of the garage's existing roofing materials from pedestrian level are only very marginal. Of more profound street scene impact is the existing colour scheme of the walls to the garage. Its white/cream painted walls make the structure stand out against its own dark, reddish brick and tile bungalow and other nearby buildings, and from the relatively green surrounding front and side gardens and nearby boundary hedging. Officers consider that if the structure's walls are repainted in a more sympathetic colour such to allow the building to merge more with its surroundings, this should significantly reduce that adverse effect the structure has on the local environment.

- 59 -


In terms of the comments made by the Council's highway engineers, Officers are satisfied the garage doors will not pass over the highway and that the requested sightlines, and consequential re-siting of the existing shed and trimming of the existing hedge, could not be sufficiently justified or required, as the site of the garage was already used for access, egress and parking of vehicles. In conclusion, subject to the summarised condition below requiring the repainting of its walls, Officers consider the proposed retention of this garage to be acceptable and meeting sufficiently the policy requirements and provisions of the Local Plan Review. It is thus recommended below that permission be granted to allow this garage's retention. RECOMMEND: RETAIN DEVELOPMENT: Within four weeks of the date of this planning permission, details of a colour scheme for the painting of the garage's walls shall be submitted for the approval in writing of the local planning authority. Within two weeks of these details being approved, the garage's walls shall be painted in accordance with the approved details and subsequently retained in accordance with that approved colour scheme at all times. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/09/0042/FP

(18) P/09/0012/TC PORTCHESTER EAST 3rd PORTCHESTER SCOUT GROUP

FELL TWO CHERRY TREES WITHIN WHITE HART LANE CASTLE STREET CONSERVATION - LAND ADJACENT COBHAM AREA HALL - PORTCHESTER OFFICERS REPORT - Simon Thompson Ext 4815

Site Description This application relates to two cherry trees of up to about 5 metres in height situated to the north and in front of the 3rd Portchester Scout Group Headquarters building known as Cobham Hall on the south side of White Hart Lane, approximately 35 metres to the west of White Hart Lane's junction with Castle Street, Portchester. These trees are beside the pavement on White Hart Lane adjacent to a bus stop on that road.

- 60 -


To the west of these trees is the site of the Church of Our Lady of Walsingham, across the road to the north is The White Hart Public House and to the east residential properties at Boxtree Court.

Cobham Hall and these trees are within the urban area of the Borough as defined in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and just within the western boundary of the Portchester (Castle Street) Conservation Area.

Description of Proposal This application is to inform the local planning authority of the Scout Group's intention to remove these two cherry trees. The Group Chairman explains in this notification that these trees are beginning to cause a hazard, their roots pushing up the tarmac of the forecourt/pavement and are causing problems for the Group members as they arrive and depart meetings. The Group Chairman's notification letter continues and says that as Cobham Hall is just inside the Conservation Area, the Group would be willing to replace these trees with two more suitable ones recommended by the Council. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review - Policies DG3, DG4, HE3 and HE4. Representations The Portchester Society has written in objecting on the following grounds:

Lack of a definite plan regarding the type and exact position of the proposed replacement trees;

Residents and the committee should know this replacement information before a decision is made to destroy these trees;

There appears to be no need for immediate action and it should be possible to decide a definitive replacement plan before the application comes before committee; and

In view of the Scout Groups splendid work for the great benefit of the Community, the Council should try to find funding to meet the costs of this replacement task.

Consultations Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Arborist) - Raise no objection. The removal of these two trees will have no significant adverse impact on the character of the Conservation Area or the public amenity of the surroundings.

Comments

- 61 -


The correspondence from the Scout Group represents a notification to undertake works to trees in a Conservation Area which are not the subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The purpose of this requirement in planning law is to provide the local planning authority with an opportunity to attach a TPO to such trees if they merit it. In this instance these cherry trees are very modest trees in the street scene and the Council's Arborist is of the opinion that their removal will have no significant effect on the character of the Conservation Area or the public amenity of the surroundings. In this context, Officers consider that there are insufficient grounds to impose a TPO to preserve these trees and consider that the Scout Group be informed that the local planning authority has no objection to their removal. In such a decision it is not possible to formally require the replacement of these trees or specify the type or position of replacement trees. RECOMMEND: NO OBJECTION:

Note for Information: Special care to be taken not to disturb wild animals; work to trees on or over land not owned by the applicant requires the consent of the land owner. BACKGROUND PAPERS: File P/09/0012/TC

(19) P/09/0025/FP/O PORTCHESTER EAST MESSRS JOHNATHON & Agent: MR DAVID CROFTS TIMOTHY EDNEY

BUILD UP HIPPED ROOF TO FORM 21 MORNINGSIDE AVENUE BARN HIP, PROVISION OF FRONT PORTCHESTER & REAR DORMERS, ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AND DECKING AREA OFFICERS REPORT - Richard Wright Ext 2356

Site Description

The application property is sited on the southern side of Morningside Avenue. It is a semi-detached bungalow property. The attached property like many others along the road has been extended to provide rooms in the roof with the provision of front and rear dormers and gable extensions.

Description of Proposal

- 62 -


Permission is sought for the following additions to the property:

Barn hip roof conversion;

Front pitched roof dormer window;

Two flat roof rear dormer windows;

Single storey rear extension across the width of the rear of the dwelling and approximately 2 metres in depth;

Timber decking across the width of the rear of the dwelling projecting a further 2 metres in depth and at a height of 0.6 metres above garden level.

Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies –DG3 and DG5.

Relevant Planning History P/08/1080/FP - Build Up Hipped Roof to Form Gable and Erection of Part Single Storey, Part Two Storey Rear Extension & Rear Dormer - Refused Representations - none Comments A planning application submitted last year (P/08/1080/FP) was refused under delegated powers due to its unacceptable impact on the amenities of occupiers of the adjacent property (19 Morningside Avenue) and its detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the streetscene. The main issue with this application was the bulk, height, design and proximity to the adjacent property of the proposed two storey rear extension. The current application amends the refused scheme by replacing the two storey rear extension with a single storey extension and two rear dormers. The result is a significant reduction in the bulk and thus impact on the neighbouring property and streetscene amenities. The provision of the front dormer and barn hip are in keeping with the character of the street with such additions to many of the other houses along Morningside Avenue. Should members be minded to grant permission it is advised that a condition be imposed requesting screening (to a height of 1.7 metres above decking level) to be erected along the eastern boundary of the proposed timber decking in order to prevent an unacceptable degree of overlooking to the adjacent property 23 Morningside Avenue. With this condition in place officers consider that the proposal is acceptable and complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review. RECOMMEND: PERMISSION: materials to match; screening to a height of 1.7 metres above level of decking erected between the points marked XX on the approved plans

- 63 -



(20) P/09/0019/FP STUBBINGTON

MR STEVE DAVIES

CONVERSION OF 3-BED HOUSE 20 ALBERT ROAD TO TWO FLATS WITH PARKING FAREHAM OFFICERS REPORT - Susannah Chaplin Ext 2412

Site Description

This application relates to a semi-detached chalet bungalow to the north of Albert Road. The property is located at the end of the cul-de-sac. The site is located within the countryside and a strategic gap. Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought to convert the existing property into two separate flats. The only external alterations to the property would be the conversion of the garage to a habitable room and the insertion of a new front door to the second flat on the front elevation. The existing parking layout would remain with one car parking space allocated to the 1-bed property and two car parking spaces allocated to the 2-bed property. The property currently has a large rear garden which would be subdivided into two to provide each flat with an area of private amenity space. Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review Policies - DG1, DG3, DG5, DG9, C1, C11, H5, R5 and T5. Relevant Planning History P/01/0660/FP Erection of Side Extension Incorporating Rear Roof

Extensions and Conservatory. Permission 18 September 2001

P/08/1118/FP Conversion of 3 Bed House into 2 Flats with Parking

Withdrawn 12 November 2008

Representations One letter has been received objecting on the following grounds:

Many vehicles and people come and go from the property;

- 64 -


Vehicles block driveways;

I feel the conversion has already been done.

Consultations

Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) - No objection.

Director of Regulatory Services (Environmental Health) – No objection.

Comments Policy H5 of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review refers to the conversion of existing dwellings to flats. It states that conversion will be permitted provided that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the area or have an unacceptable environmental, amenity or traffic implication.

The proposal involves only external alterations of a minor nature and it is therefore not considered that the proposal would have any detrimental impact to the visual amenities of the streetscene or character of the area. The property has a hard surfaced frontage at present and there will be no alteration to this parking area. The flats would be provided with the maximum parking in accordance with the Fareham Borough Council Residential Parking Standards. The Council's Highways Engineer has raised no objection to the proposal.

A site inspection has been carried out and the conversion has not already been carried out. The proposal complies with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and is considered acceptable.

RECOMMEND: Subject to; i) the applicant/owner first entering into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council to secure a financial contribution towards off-site public open space and/ or facilities and highway infrastructure improvements by the 27 February 2009. PERMISSION: Materials to match, Parking, Boundary Treatment OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required Section 106 Agreement by 27 February 2009.

REFUSE: Contrary to Policy; inadequate provision for public open space and highway infrastructure.


- 65 -


Miscellaneous

(2) Subject: 33 Jubilee Road Portchester

Unauthorised Change of Use of Land to Domestic Garden (ENF/08/0130)

Officers Report: Peter Strong Ext 2423

Introduction

This report was withdrawn from the agenda on the 21 January 2009 in order for officers to ensure full consultation was undertaken with the Council's Highway Engineers. Comments have now been received and the report amended accordingly.

Comments

In April 2008 a complaint was received that a 1.8 metre high fence had been erected at the side of 33 Jubilee Road partially blocking a vehicular accessway serving the rear of properties in Sunningdale Road. The area enclosed measures approximately 0.8 metres in width leaving an accessway width of approximately 2 metres. The accessway is one of a number in the immediate area. The properties in Sunningdale Road do not rely solely on the accessway subject to this report as these properties have the benefit of alternative accessways serving the rear of their properties. These accessways are located adjacent to numbers 1 and 35 Sunningdale Road respectively. A land registry search has revealed that the land in question forms part of the land owned by 33 Jubilee Road. Whilst the land is owned by 33 Jubilee Road it did not form part of the residential garden area for the property. The owner of the property has been informed that a material change in use of the land has occurred and planning permission is required. Despite requests no planning application has been submitted to date. As no planning application has been forthcoming it is now necessary for this Council to consider whether or not it is expedient to undertake planning enforcement action. Officers have consulted with the Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service and the Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) who have commented as follows: The Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service - no objection Chief Planning and Transportation Officer (Highways) - The closing of the access to vehicular traffic will have an effect on movement and circulation of vehicles, however there are alternative accesses which could be used by

- 66 -


vehicles, including large vehicles servicing the rear of properties. If a planning application were to be made to regularise the enclosure, then it would be difficult to substantiate a highway reason for refusal.

It is apparent that a number of local residents are objecting to the development, as whilst the land is owned by 33 Jubilee Road, they do have rights to pass over it. The Council's consideration of the issue must however be limited to the planning considerations which do not include the protection of individual private rights of way. If individuals are concerned that their right to pass over the alleyway is restricted, they are recommended to seek their own private legal advice as to the remedies available to them.

Whilst it is clearly unsatisfactory for anyone to carry out development without first obtaining planning permission, an enforcement notice should not normally be issued solely to 'regularise' development which is acceptable on planning merits but for which permission has not been sought. In considering any enforcement action the decision for this Council should be whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity or the existing use of land and buildings meriting protection in the public interest. Taking into consideration that no objections have been forthcoming from Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service and the Council's Highway Engineers and that there are alternative routes serving the rear of the properties concerned, officers are of the opinion that had an application been received this would have received a favourable officer recommendation. Accordingly officers are of the opinion that it is not expedient to recommend planning enforcement action in this instance.

RECOMMEND:

That members resolve that it is not expedient to take planning enforcement action in this instance.

- 67 -


PLANNING APPEALS

18th February 2009

The following list details the current situation regarding new and outstanding planning appeals and decisions. APPEALS LODGED

1. P/08/0994/OA Appellant: Lovett & Street Developments Site: 187 Segensworth Road, Titchfield, Decision Maker: Officer's Delegated Powers Recommendation: Refuse Council's Decision: Refusal

Date Lodged: 22 January 2009 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of a detached two bed bungalow.

HEARINGS

2. P/08/0761/FP

Appellant: Mr Stuart Callaghan Site: 10 Church Road Warsash - land to the rear of - Decision Maker: Planning Development Control Committee Recommendation: Permission Council's Decision: Refusal

Date Lodged: 21st August 2008 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of a detached bungalow and associated access. Hearing Date: 11th February 2008

3. P/08/0501/FP Appellant: Mr Trevor Harrison Site: Nyewood Avenue Portchester - land adjacent no. 5 Decision Maker: Planning Development Control Committee Recommendation: Permission Council's Decision: Refusal

Date Lodged: 24th September 2008 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of two detached bungalows. Hearing Date: 25th February 2009

- 68 -


DECISIONS 4. P/08/0621/AD

Appellant: Mrs Lesley-Ann Ings Site: 34 Stubbington Lane, Fareham Decision Maker: Officer's Delegated Powers Recommendation: Refuse Council's Decision: Refusal

Date Lodged: 14th August 2008 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning consent for the retention of a non - illuminated sign. Decision: Allowed Inspector's Reason: The Inspector considered that the sign would not be an obtrusive feature harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Date of Decision: 30th January 2009

5. P/08/0172/FP Appellant: Mr N Ratcliffe Site: Brook Lane Residential Care Home, 290 Brook Lane, Sarisbury Green Decision Maker: Planning Development Control Committee Recommendation: Permission Council's Decision: Refusal

Date Lodged: 5th June 2008 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension, first floor rear extension & reconfiguration of the front car parking area. Decision: Dismissed Date of Decision: 16th January 2009

6. P/08/0872/CU Appellant: Mr Abdul Kayum Site: 216 Gudge Heath Lane, Fareham Decision Maker: Planning Development Control Committee Recommendation: Permission Council's Decision: Refusal

Date Lodged: 2nd October 2008 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the change of use from financial & professional services(classA2) to hot food takeaway (class A5) & external flue. Decision: Allowed Inspector's Reason: The Inspector did not consider that the change of use to a hot food takeaway would not undermine the vitality and viability of the shopping centre. He also considered that highway safety would not be affected by the takeaway as there is adequate car parking for the shops. He stated that the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties would be protected by the installation of the most effective extraction equipment and this will be ensured by a condition to the planning approval. Date of Decision: 22nd January 2009

- 69 -


7. P/08/0682/FP

Appellant: Mr R Moore Site: 99 West Street, Portchester Decision Maker: Officer's Delegated Decision Recommendation: Refuse Council's Decision: Refusal

Date Lodged: 31st October 2008 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of a two storey rear extension and sub-division of property to four flats. Decision: Dismissed Date of Decision: 23 January 2009

8. P/08/0911/FP Appellant: Country Homes (Sussex) Ltd Site: 29 Catisfield Road, Fareham Decision Maker: Planning Development Control Committee Recommendation: Permission Council's Decision: Refusal

Date Lodged: 17th September 2008 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of five dwellings. Decision: Allowed Inspector's Reason: The Inspector considered that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. He concluded that the proposal accorded with the Local Plan policies DG3 and H2. Date of Decision: 26th January 2009

9. P/08/0124/FP Appellant: Mr & Mrs H A Greentree Site: Crofton Avenue – Dormers – Hill Head Decision Maker: Officers’ Delegated Powers Recommendation: Refuse Council's Decision: Refusal

Date Lodged: 17th July 2008 Reason for Appeal: Against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission for the erection of a chalet bungalow. Decision: Dismissed Date of Decision: 30th January 2009

Enquiries:

For further information on this report please contact Lee Smith. (Ext 2427) Civic Offices Civic Way Fareham PO16 7AZ www.fareham.gov.uk

http://www.fareham.gov.uk/

- 70 -


UPDATES

18 February 2009

Item Page

ZONE 1 - 2:30

1 7 P/08/1295/OA - 42-44 CRESCENT ROAD

Page 7 Relevant Planning History - Application number should read P/06/1434/OA (not P/06/0434/OA)

8 23 P/09/0099/TC - 22 BRIDGE STREET TITCHFIELD Comments received from the Chief Planning & Transportation Officer (Arborist) - No objection The proposed tree works will have no adverse impact on the character of the conservation area or local public amenity

10 28 P/08/1326/RM - COURSE PARK FARM TITCHFIELD COMMON

Strategic Housing have confirmed that the units sizes for the 2 x 2BF FOG units and the 2 x 3B houses now accord to the current Homes and Communities Agency Housing Quality Indicator (HQI) size standards. Amended plans received on 17 February 2009 reflecting these amendments.

Additional condition: Detailed design and specification for the no dig construction of parking bays adjacent to tree T3 and garage foundations adjacent to tree T17

14 43 P/08/1313/FP - 121 FLEET END ROAD, WARSASH

Amended plan received 10 February 2009 reducing the height of the garage to single storey.

46 MISCELLANEOUS ITEM 1 - SOLENT BREEZES

One letter as been received from the Solent Breezes Chalet Owners Association raising the following main points:

Believe the Council should grant all year living status to those chalet owners who apply for it

If the main reason for attempting to revoke these certificates is to keep the park a holiday site then this is already unattainable due to chalets having all year status

Those chalets owners who vacate their chalets during November

- 71 -


and March are confident about leaving their chalets unoccupied during the winter months knowing there is a small presence on site to allay fears of vandalism and burglary. A letter has been received from Southern Planning Practice on behalf of the chalet owners making the request for a deed of release. The main points raised can be summarised as follows:

Legality of 1966 agreement questioned

Lack of Ministerial Authority for the agreement questioned

Councillors have not been advised why the Council granted deeds of release in the past but are recommended not to so now. There is no material change in circumstances

Regard must be had for the human rights of the residents of these chalets

Implications of the decision have not been set out in the Committee report

The Council has stated at a earlier planning appeal that it would not seek to enforce this agreement.

ZONE 3 - 4.45

17 57 P/09/0042/FP - 23 SEAFIELD PARK ROAD, HILL HEAD Two emails have been received from residents in Pilgrims Way objecting on similar grounds to that already reported, though one of these suggests repainting the structure or masking it behind tall fencing/trellis work. An email has also been received from a resident in Seafield Park Road, stating no objection to the retention of their adjacent neighbour's garage.

report to planning development control committee committee... · 2009-02-25 ·...

Documents