planning

PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 10 October 2012 A

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR COMMITTEE DECISION - INDEX Parish Site App.No. Schedule Recommended __________________________________________________________________________ Fawley THE HAMPSHIRE YEOMAN,

HAMPTON LANE, BLACKFIELD FAWLEY SO45 1XA

12/99057 08 Head of Planning Authorised to Grant

_________________________________________________________________________ THE HAMPSHIRE YEOMAN,

HAMPTON LANE, BLACKFIELD, FAWLEY SO45 1XA

12/99058 09 Grant Subject to Conditions

_________________________________________________________________________

Deleted from Agenda 04 _________________________________________________________________________ Lymington and Pennington

GROUND FLOOR, 56 HIGH STREET, LYMINGTON SO41 9AH

12/98569 03 Refuse Listed Building Consent

_________________________________________________________________________ WAITROSE SUPERMARKET,

STANFORD ROAD, LYMINGTON SO41 9GF

12/99028 05 Grant The Variation Of Condition

_________________________________________________________________________

BRIDGE COTTAGE, BRIDGE

ROAD, LYMINGTON SO41 9BZ

12/99087 10 Refuse

_________________________________________________________________________




_________________________________________________________________________



12/99089 12 Refuse

_________________________________________________________________________

Marchwood MARCHWOOD QUARRY

JACOBS GUTTER LANE, MARCHWOOD SO40 4UD

12/99113 14 Raise No Objection

_________________________________________________________________________ MARCHWOOD JUNIOR

SCHOOL, MAIN ROAD, MARCHWOOD SO40 4ZH


_________________________________________________________________________ Milford-On-Sea FARTHINGS, VICTORIA

ROAD, MILFORD-ON-SEA SO41 0NL


_________________________________________________________________________ New Milton 50-52 STATION ROAD, NEW

MILTON BH25 6JX 12/98424 01 Split Decision

_________________________________________________________________________ Sopley AVON TYRRELL

RESERVOIR, RINGWOOD ROAD, AVON, SOPLEY BH23 7BQ


_________________________________________________________________________ Totton and Eling FORMER DAIRY SITE, 261-

263 SALISBURY ROAD, TOTTON SO40 3LY

12/98460 02 Head of Planning Grant or Refuse

_________________________________________________________________________ 19 STANLEY ROAD, TOTTON

SO40 3PS 12/99044 06 Grant Subject to

Conditions _________________________________________________________________________ 2 HYMANS WAY, TOTTON

SO40 3DL 12/99090 13 Refuse

_________________________________________________________________________

The background papers are on the planning application files listed in the report on each application (with the exception of information which is exempt within the terms of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985).

STATUTORY TESTS

Introduction In making a decision to approve or refuse planning applications, or applications for listed building consent, conservation area consent and other types of consent, the decision maker is required by law to have regard to certain matters. The most commonly used statutory tests are set out below. The list is not exhaustive. In reaching its decisions on the applications in this agenda, the Committee is obliged to take account of the relevant statutory tests. The Development Plan Section 38 Development Plan Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 “For the purposes of any other area in England the development plan is (a) the regional spatial strategy for the region in which the area is situated, and (b) the development plan documents (taken as a whole) which have been adopted or approved in relation to that area. “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” Listed Buildings Section 66 General duty as respects listed buildings in exercise of planning functions. Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features or special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Conservation Areas Section 72 General duty as respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (1) In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any powers under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. (2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) are the Planning Acts and Part 1 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB’s) Section 85. General duty as respects AONB’s in exercise of any function Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an area of outstanding natural beauty, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty. Trees

Section 197. Trees Town and Country Planning Act 1990 It shall be the duty of the local planning authority (a) to ensure, whenever it is appropriate, that in granting planning permission for any development adequate provision is made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees; and (b) to make such orders under section 198 as appear to the authority to be necessary in connection with the grant of such permission, whether for giving effect to such conditions or otherwise. Biodiversity Section 40. Duty to conserve biodiversity Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat. Equality Act 2010 The Equality Act 2010 provides protection from discrimination in respect of certain protected characteristics, namely: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or beliefs and sex and sexual orientation. It places the Council under a legal duty to have due regard to the advancement of equality in the exercise of its powers including planning powers. The Committee must be mindful of this duty inter alia when determining all planning applications. In particular the Committee must pay due regard to the need to: (1) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act; (2) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and (3) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

Planning Development Control Committee 10 October 2012 Item A 01 Application Number: 12/98424 Advertisement Consent

Site: 50-52 STATION ROAD, NEW MILTON BH25 6JX

Development: 3 non-illuminated projecting signs; Retention of 1 illuminated

fascia sign; 1 non-illuminated hoarding sign (Application for

Advertisement Consent)

Applicant: Mr I Poole

Target Date: 01/10/2012

________________________________________________________________________

1 REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Town Council View

2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER CONSTRAINTS

Built-up area Environmental Improvements Primary Shopping Area Town Centre Boundary

3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

Core Strategy Objectives 1. Special qualities, local distinctiveness and a high quality living environment 6. Towns, villages and built environment quality Policies CS2: Design quality Local Plan Policies DW-E17: Advertisements Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document (Proposed Submission Document) None relevant

4 RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND GOVERNMENT ADVICE

Section 38 Development Plan Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 National Planning Policy Framework NPPF Ch. 7 - Requiring good design Circular 11/95 Use of conditions in planning consents

5 RELEVANT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE AND DOCUMENTS

SPD - New Milton Local Distinctiveness

6 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

10/95453 Use first floor as sports bar granted subjects to conditions 2/08/2010

7 PARISH / TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

New Milton Town Council: recommend refusal 1) Inappropriate existing signage 2) Proposed first floor signage unnecessary

8 COUNCILLOR COMMENTS

None received

9 CONSULTEE COMMENTS

9.1 Drainage: no comment 9.2 HCC Highways: Refusal of sign B (Existing ground level hoarding). Would

favour split decision 9.3 Enforcement: no comment received

10 REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED

1 objection: - first floor signage would affect tenants of neighbouring property's visual amenity - additional signage could increase customer base, causing further disturbance to

tenants - Existing reputation of club dissuading tenants from renting neighbouring first floor

property - no objection to renewal of ground floor signage to improve look of club from street

view

11 CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Not applicable

12 ASSESSMENT

12.1 The application site consists of a first floor bar which is situated in a commercial frontage within the main shopping area of New Milton.

12.2 The issues to take into consideration when assessing this proposal, are:

• visual amenity, • public safety.

12.3 The application is for the retention of two signs: an existing illuminated fascia

sign which is sited above the street level access fronting the High Street, and a non-illuminated hoarding sign which is sited at ground level adjacent the entrance to the premises. The application is also proposing 3 non illuminated projecting signs to be sited level with the first floor windows of the premises.

12.4 It has been noted that on the first floor windows are single letters spelling out

the name of the premises. This sign is not authorised and does not form part of this application.

12.5 The existing fascia sign is in line with the existing fascias serving the neighbouring units, and is illuminated by a strip light sited above the sign; the sign is the same depth as the adjoining fascia for Coral bookmakers. The sign has a reflective black background with shiny lettering. The sign, by virtue of its siting and size would not be overly dominant within the street scene and is partially screened by the projecting sign serving Coral bookmakers. The sign would not detract from the visual amenity of the area, nor create an issue of public safety.

12.6 The existing ground level hoarding sign, replaces a previous sign which

extended further out over the pavement. Amended block and site plans have been submitted by the applicant, which indicate that this sign is on land within the ownership of the applicant. The existing sign is sited adjacent to the ground floor entrance door to the premises and is 1.4m high and details the name of the bar and a notice board section detailing forthcoming events at the bar. The sign is hinged with a bolt at the end locking it into place. There is an access down the side of this building, which provides vehicular access to residential dwellings to the rear. By virtue of the dimensions of the sign and its siting it would not adversely impact upon the visual amenity of the area. However, the Highways Authority are recommending refusal of this sign on the grounds that it would be likely to cause undue interference with the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway, Station Road. The size and location of this sign is likely to obstruct the visibility of vehicles emerging from the access to Park View looking northwards onto the adjacent footway in Station Road. Of particular concern is the restricted visibility in respect of small children and child buggies approaching the vehicular access from the north which would be shielded from view by the sign.

12.7 The proposed 3 projecting signs would be adjacent to the first floor windows

which serve the first floor bar. The existing building accommodates a bookmakers and card shop at ground level, which have fascia signs above the shop windows. The bookmakers also has a projecting sign sited on the fascia, and there is another small box style projecting sign serving the card shop sited in line with the fascia. The introduction of 3 projecting signs at first floor level, in conjunction with the existing signage at ground floor level, would clutter the appearance of this building. The proliferation of signage at first floor level would be excessive and result in harm to the visual amenity of the area. There are no public safety issues in relation to the hanging signs.

12.8 The National Planning Policy Framework Chap 7 para 67 states that 'Poorly

placed advertisements can have a negative impact on the appearance of the built and natural environment...Advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impact.' DW-E17 of the New Forest District Local Plan 'seeks to keep advertisement signs to a minimum to avoid visual clutter'. With regards to public safety, 'the Local Planning Authority will have regard to its potential impact on the use and operation of any mode of transport, including pedestrians...' The ground level hoarding sign would create an issue of public safety, and the three projecting signs, by virtue of their siting and being additional signage on this frontage, would detract from the character and appearance of the street scene to such a degree that they would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area. As such, only the fascia sign is recommended for approval.

12.9 In coming to this recommendation, consideration has been given to the rights

set out in Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst it is recognised that this

recommendation, if agreed, may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the applicant to develop the land in the way proposed, the objections to the planning application are serious ones and cannot be overcome by the imposition of conditions. The public interest and the rights and freedoms of neighbouring property owners can only be safeguarded by the refusal of permission.


set out in Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst it is recognised that there may be an interference with these rights and the rights of other third parties, such interference has to be balanced with the like rights of the applicant to develop the land in the way proposed. In this case it is considered that the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicant outweigh any possible interference that may result to any third party.

13. RECOMMENDATION Split Decision

Grant Permission for existing illuminated fascia sign

Standard Conditions

1. Any advertisements displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

2. Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying

advertisements shall be maintained in a safe condition. 3. Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the

removal shall be carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

4. No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site

or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission. 5. No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to obscure, or hinder the ready

interpretation of, any road traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air, or so as otherwise to render hazardous the use of any highway, railway, waterway (including any coastal waters) or aerodrome (civil or military).

Reason(s) for Recommendation to approve:

The proposed development is in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park and Policies DW-E17 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

The existing illuminated fascia sign would not create an issue of public safety nor would it be harmful to the visual amenity of the area.

A full copy of the officer's report explaining in more detail the reason(s) for the grant of this permission is available for inspection in the planning office.

Refuse Permission for existing ground level hoarding sign and proposed 3 first floor projecting signs

Reason(s) for Refusal:

1. The existing ground level hoarding sign would by virtue of its height and

siting, be likely to cause undue interference with the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway, Station Road. As such the existing sign would be contrary to Policy DW-E17 of the New Forest District Local Plan and National Planning Policy Framework Chap 7 para 67.

2. The three proposed projecting signs, by virtue of their siting would result in

an inappropriate proliferation of signage on the building and create an unacceptable level of visual clutter at first floor level which would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy DW-E17 of the New Forest District Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework Chap 7 para 67.

Notes for inclusion on certificate:

This decision also relates to amended plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 20 September 2012

Further Information:

Householder Team

Telephone: 023 8028 5345 (Option 1)

Chris ElliottHead of Development ControlNew Forest District CouncilAppletree CourtLyndhurstSO43 7PA

Tel: 023 8028 5000www.newforest.gov.uk

1:1250

N.B. If printing this plan from the internet, it will not be to scale.

SZ2495App No 12/98424

50-52

Scale

Station RoadNew Milton

A1Item No:

October 2012

Planning Development Control Committee

Shelter

15a

15b

1 to 15

Jasmine Court

Bowling Green

Town Hall

ESS

19

1 to 12

Car Park

6

6

to

1

Court

Ashton

Spencer Court

7 to 12

El Sub Sta

1 to 6

23a

23

Exchange

Tele

phone

20

1 to 10

1

2

59

Bank

Units 1

to 4

1 to 1

4

TCBBursledon House

Mallard Buildings

1

Alvandi Gardens

1 to 6

HE

RB

ER

T R

OA

D

7 to 12

1

4

SP

EN

CE

R R

OA

D

Pegasus C

ourt

1 to

12

1 to 1

8

Beau

Court

33a

El Sub Sta

Car Park

7

9 1

53

86

35.4m

61

15 to 21

2

1

33

PCs

7

22

HouseDenestead1 to

8

5

13

Russell

Court

Centre

Health

7

to

49

6

28

26

3

28b

Club

4

House

Homemill

Hall

46

1 to 6

Parkside Walk

13

2

PARK VlEW

4

Mews

Park View

52

32

to

Mallard Buildings

1

5

5

8

LB

54

64

2

74

42

36

Bank

32

8 6

4

2

84

El Sub Sta

1 to 14

Unit 1

Charlotte Court

14

10Unit 3

Recreation Ground

War Memorial

PC

Indoor Bowls

Play Area

New Milton

© Crown copyright and database rights 2012 Ordnance Survey 100026220

Planning Development Control Committee 10 October 2012 Item A 02 Application Number: 12/98460 Full Planning Permission

Site: FORMER DAIRY SITE, 261-263 SALISBURY ROAD, TOTTON

SO40 3LY

Development: Development of 19 dwellings comprised: 1 two-storey block of 12

flats; 1 terrace of 5 houses; convert farmhouse into 2 flats; bin

store; cycle store; access alterations; parking; landscaping;

demolition of existing buildings

Applicant: Frogmore Residential (Totton) Ltd.


________________________________________________________________________


Contrary to Policy (in part) & to agree reduction in contributions


Built-up area


Core Strategy Objectives 1. Special qualities, local distinctiveness and a high quality living environment 3. Housing 4. Economy 6. Towns, villages and built environment quality Policies CS1: Sustainable development principles CS2: Design quality CS3: Protecting and enhancing our special environment (Heritage and Nature Conservation) CS4: Energy and resource use CS7: Open spaces, sport and recreation CS15: Affordable housing contribution requirements from developments CS17: Employment and economic development CS24: Transport considerations CS25: Developers contributions Local Plan Policies DW-E8: Trees Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document (Proposed Submission Document) DM4: Contaminated land


Section 38 Development Plan Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 National Planning Policy Framework


SPD - Housing Design, Density and Character


6.1 Development of 14 dwellings comprised of 10 houses and 4 flats; access (89488o/l) - refused 27/4/07

6.2 12 dwellings; convert and extend 261 Salisbury Road for uses as office, car

parking, (91504o/l) - granted 5/9/08 6.3 Extension of Time Limit of PP 91504 (96811) - withdrawn May 2011 6.4 Development of 20 dwellings comprised of 1 block of 6 flats; 1 block of 3 flats;

1 block of 2 flats; 1 terrace of 4 houses; 1 terrace of 3 houses; 1 pair of semi-detached houses; refuse / cycle stores; associated parking; access alterations (95407) - refused 12/1/12


Totton & Eling Town Council:- Recommend permission but would accept a delegated decision - front open space should be securely enclosed and boundaries between car parking and existing property should be in brick.


None


9.1 Hampshire County Council Highways Engineer:- No objection subject to conditions on visibility, access and parking and subject to securing transport contribution

9.2 Environment Agency:- No comment 9.3 New Forest Ecologist:- No objection subject to conditions. 9.4 Land Drainage:- No objection subject to conditions 9.5 Waste & Recycling Officer:- if wheeled bins are to be provided they need to

be of drop fronted type. If not, block paving needs to be wide enough to be able to carry a refuse vehicle.

9.6 New Forest Access for All:- Access to dwellings should be flat and level and

without steps; dwellings should be designed to allow easy access for wheelchairs and scooters

9.7 Southern Water:- Requests informative and condition requiring approval of

details of proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal.

9.8 Senior Housing Development & Strategy Officer:- does not support - proposal should provide 7.6 affordable housing units (7 on-site dwellings and a separate financial contribution).

9.9 Environmental Design (tree team):- No objection subject to tree protection

condition. 9.10 Environmental Design (Urban Design):- As a general principle supports this

application for its innovative concept which is contextually appropriate. However, practical issues of how the external spaces work need to be resolved.

9.11 Environmental Health (Contaminated Land):- No objection - requests

standard contaminated land conditions. 9.12 Estates & Valuation:- As a result of the revised figures the viability of the

scheme would be such that a virtual break even position loss of -0.7% would be achieved, however this would be well below the developers 15% profit we allow. Remains concerned that there is no justification for any abnormal costs or the cost of converting the former dairy building.


3 letters of objection from neighbouring properties / nearby residents:- position of car parking area will result in noise nuisance and nuisance from exhaust fumes; light pollution; adverse impact on residential amenities; overlooking resulting in loss of neighbours' privacy; overdevelopment of the site; development would be of an inappropriate scale, appearance and design; loss of employment site; lack of any office provision; dangerous access; failure to secure adequate provision towards affordable housing and other contributions; potential impact on biodiversity; potential drainage and flooding problems; contrary to adopted policies.


See Assessment Below

12 ASSESSMENT

12.1 The application site comprises a former dairy depot (261-263 Salisbury Road), together with parts of the rear gardens of 1 and 3 Stanley Road. 261 Salisbury Road is a 2-storey 19th Century Farmhouse. 263 Salisbury Road is a twentieth century brick building. To the rear of these frontage buildings is a large prefabricated building, which is partly open sided. There are 2 relatively large single-storey structures at the rear of the site. Much of the open areas on site are laid to hardstanding, although there is an open grassed lawn area with young trees to the front of 261 Salisbury Road. The site has lain vacant for a number of years. Properties which surround the site are mainly 2-storeys and include semi-detached units, detached dwellings as well as the flats of Royston Court immediately to the north of the site.

12.2 An application for the redevelopment of this site with 12 dwellings and the

conversion of the 19th Century farmhouse building to offices was granted outline planning permission in September 2008. This permission has now lapsed.

12.3 More recently, an application to demolish all existing buildings on site and

redevelop the site with a scheme of 20 dwellings was refused planning permission in January 2012 for 9 reasons. The proposal was considered to

result in the unjustified loss of a local heritage asset in the form of the 19th Century farmhouse building fronting the site. The proposal was also felt to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and detrimental to the privacy of neighbouring properties. The proposal would have resulted in the loss of an existing employment site and failed to secure any contributions to affordable housing, public open space or transportation improvements. Furthermore, the proposal lacked adequate arboricultural information and adequate information on the Code for Sustainable Homes.

12.4 The application that has now been submitted is for 19 dwellings. The scheme

would be of a very different design to the development that was refused in January. The existing farmhouse building would be retained and converted to 2 flats. In addition a 2-storey block of 12 flats and a terrace of 5 houses is proposed. The application includes designated bin store and cycle store facilities and the access that would be provided onto Salisbury Road would serve 28 on-site car parking spaces. All existing buildings other than the farmhouse building would be demolished.

12.5 Given its status as a local heritage asset, the proposed retention and

restoration of the 19th Century farmhouse building is a very welcome and positive feature of this application. This building offers a link to the past and is important in underpinning a sense of place. The building is currently in a poor state of physical repair and the application would enable the building to be restored in a sympathetic manner. The application recognises the importance of the green setting to the front of the farmhouse and the layout would enable this important heritage asset to become a positive focal point at the entrance to the proposed development. Any planning permission would need to be subject to conditions to ensure that the works which are necessary to bring this building back into a viable use are implemented in an appropriate and timely manner.

12.6 The applicant's overall design concept is based on reinventing a farmyard

typology. In addition to retaining the main farmyard building, the applicant proposes 2 terraces based on barn-like forms framing a shared surfaced court. The new terraces that are proposed would be 2-storeys high and would reflect the prevailing 2-storey scale of other developments within the local area. They would pick up on typical (more traditional) building forms along Salisbury Road. The simple twin gabled roof form of the longer terrace would help to minimise the height and massing of this building. This terrace would address Salisbury Road in a sympathetic manner. Although it would project forward of the adjacent farmhouse building, it would be in line with the adjacent flats at Royston Court, thus helping to tie in the development to adjacent development to the north. Both terraced buildings would be well proportioned with appropriate visual interest. The rear terrace with its series of gables would create a saw tooth skyline with traditional forms and materials that would echo the simple forms that once might have created a farmyard around the original house. Overall, the applicant's design concept is considered to be a strong one that is sympathetic to the site's historic farmyard context.

12.7 The density of the development is relatively high. However, given the existing

brownfield context and the density of some adjacent developments (such as Royston Court), it is felt the density of the development per se would be acceptable. The gap between the 2 terraces would be modest, but would be sufficient to provide an acceptable spatial setting for the development. Rear gardens would be modest in size and those for the longer terrace would look out onto buildings at Royston Court in reasonably close proximity to those buildings. They would not therefore offer the highest quality amenity.

However, given that the gardens would serve flats rather than family dwellings and given that the communal street areas have been designed to offer a good quality shared amenity value, it is felt the dwellings' private amenity space areas would be just about acceptable.

12.8 The application includes a communal 'yard' area which is designed to be car

free whilst allowing access for fire appliances. This area, if well detailed, has the potential to be a good quality public space. The adjacent car park courtyard is shown as a tree dominated space. This also has the potential to be a pleasant space with amenity value and not just a place for vehicular parking. However, details will be absolutely critical to securing the landscape quality that is suggested in the applicant's Design and Access Statement.

12.9 There are a number of residential properties around the site, which would be

affected to varying degrees. The adjacent flats to the north at Royston Court would not be significantly affected. The longer terrace would largely overlook a communal parking area and any overlooking of the nearest flats would be at a sufficiently oblique angle. Some of the units in the shorter terrace at the rear of the site would overlook the rear garden of 5 Stanley Road. However, because only the rearmost part of a large garden set away from the dwelling would be overlooked, it is felt that the impact on 5 Stanley Road would be within acceptable limits. Existing trees and vegetation would also help to reduce the impact of any overlooking of this property's garden. One of the dwellings in the shorter terrace at the rear of the site would also overlook the very rear part of the garden of 6 Sutton Road. However, again this garden is quite long and the degree of overlooking is considered to be within acceptable limits. As a whole therefore, whilst the privacy of some neighbouring dwellings would be slightly affected, it is not felt that the overlooking would be so significant as to cause material harm to neighbours' privacy.

12.10 The other main effect on neighbouring properties would be from potential

noise and disturbance associated with the use of the proposed car parking areas. There would be a slight impact on properties at 6 Sutton Road and 259 Salisbury Road. However, the property most affected would be 4 Sutton Road, which only has a small rear garden and which would have a number of parking spaces adjacent to its rear boundary. The application proposes a new 1.8 metre high wall on this boundary as well as a landscape strip to reduce the visual impact of the parked cars. This buffer would also help to a degree to lessen the potential noise impact of the development, although it is accepted that the use of the car parking area would still have some impact. However, this impact needs to be viewed in the light of the site's lawful commercial use. This is not a greenfield site and historically, there would have been significant commercial activity on the site unrestricted by planning conditions, which could be lawfully resumed. Given the site's lawful use status, it is felt the impact of the development on 4 Sutton Road would, on balance, be acceptable.

12.11 The Highway Authority have confirmed that the proposed access

arrangements would be acceptable from a highway safety perspective. Adequate visibility could be secured and the proposal would make adequate provision to enable all vehicles to turn on site. The level of on site car parking spaces (28 spaces) would be less than the Council's recommended level of car parking provision, but the Highway Authority consider that such provision would be acceptable.

12.12 There are a small number of trees on or adjacent to the site, some of which

would be removed to accommodate the proposed development. The

Council's tree officer is satisfied that no trees of value would be adversely affected by the proposals.

12.13 The proposal would result in the total loss of an employment site, which

would not be in accordance with policy. The scheme previously approved in 2008 would have resulted in the loss of most of the site's employment function but would have retained an office use in the 19th Century farmhouse building. Therefore the principle of redeveloping most of the site for residential purposes has already been accepted. However, a 100% residential development has not been previously accepted. The applicant has suggested that retaining any employment use on the site would compromise the viability of the development and the potential to secure the restoration of the 19th Century farmhouse building. They have submitted a detailed viability assessment to support their case.

12.14 In submitting a viability assessment, the applicants have also sought to argue

that they cannot secure all of the target contributions that would be required in this case. The target contributions would be a public open space contribution of £45,563.70p, a transportation contribution of £63,989 (in this case the full transportation contribution would be sought because the previous use of the site has not taken place for a period in excess of 5 years, as a result traffic generated by the current proposal is considered to be new to the network) and an affordable housing contribution of 7.6 units (equating to 7 on-site units and a separate contribution of £11,415). The applicant is offering to make the full public open space contribution but feels they can offer only £20,000 towards transportation improvements and 2 shared-equity houses. Thus the expected transportation and affordable housing contributions would not be secured.

12.15 The Council's valuer was initially concerned that the applicants had not

adequately justified their case. Subsequently, the applicants have submitted further information to support their viability arguments. The further views of the Estates and Valuation Officer have been received and, based on the latest information, the scheme would make a loss of 0.7%. The level of profit normally considered acceptable is 15%. However, he is still concerned that there has been no information submitted for abnormal costs or the cost of converting the former dairy building. The applicants have been asked to submit this additional information. The applicants state that they recognise the Local Planning Authority's desire to provide for contributions to further legitimate planning objectives and are therefore prepared to make the contributions offered, notwithstanding the financial constraints in place.

12.16 Ultimately, it appears that the most significant reason why the ability to retain

an element of employment use and to secure the Council's target contributions would be compromised is because of the costs associated with the renovation of the 19th Century farmhouse. If the retention and restoration of the 19th Century farmhouse building is considered to be a key priority at this site, then inevitably it is felt that other policy objectives will need to be compromised. When the 2008 planning application was considered, members expressed the very strong view that the 19th Century farmhouse building should be retained and it is therefore felt that the retention of this building should be a key priority for the redevelopment of this site. Accepting this, it is felt that loss of the site's employment potential whilst regrettable would be justified. It is also felt that the reduced affordable housing and transportation contributions would be justified. The lower transportation contribution is also considered to be justified when one has regard to the transport impact that would have been associated with the site historically.

12.17 The application was submitted before 1st April 2012 and therefore the proposed new-build dwellings would need to meet level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The applicant has submitted details to indicate that Code level 3 is capable of being met. It would be appropriate to condition this matter to ensure that the requirements of Core Strategy Policy CS4 are met.

12.18 The site has previously been the subject of an ecological survey, which has

revealed little of interest. The submitted application was accompanied by a bat report, which has identified no evidence of bats on site. However, the County Ecologist considers further survey work should be undertaken before planning permission is granted.

12.19 Overall, the proposed development would be consistent with some Core

Strategy objectives and policies, whilst also being contrary to others. The proposed development is considered to be a well designed development that would be sympathetic in scale and character to its setting. The proposal would have an acceptable impact on the amenities of adjacent properties. However, the proposal would result in the loss of the site's employment potential and would fail to secure expected contributions towards affordable housing and transportation contributions. The scheme's disadvantages would in this case be outweighed by the scheme's significant benefits, particularly in terms of the retention and restoration of the 19th Century farmhouse building. Therefore, on balance, the application is recommended for permission.



Developers’ Contributions Summary Table

Proposal:

Type of Contribution NFDC Policy Requirement

Developer Proposed Provision

Difference

Affordable Housing

No. of Affordable dwellings

7 2 -5

Financial Contribution £11,415 0 -£11,415

Public Open Space

On site provision by area

0

Financial Contribution £45,563.70p £45,563.70p 0

Transport Infrastructure

Financial Contribution 63,989 £20,000 -£43,989

13. RECOMMENDATION That the Head of Planning and Transportation be AUTHORISED TO GRANT

PERMISSION subject to:

i) the completion, by 21st December 2012, of a planning obligation entered into by way of an Agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure appropriate contributions towards public open space (£45,563.70p), transportation improvements (£20,000) and affordable housing (2 shared-equity units)

ii) the imposition of the conditions set out below. BUT, in the event that the Agreement is not completed by 21st December 2012, the Head

of Planning and Transportation be AUTHORISED TO REFUSE PERMISSION for the reasons set out below.


1. The proposed development would fail to make any contribution toward

addressing the substantial need for affordable housing in the District. The proposal would therefore conflict with an objective of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park 2009 and with the terms of Policies CS15 and CS25 of the Core Strategy.

2. The proposed development would fail to make any contribution to enhance or create off-site provision and management of public open space to meet the needs of the occupants of the development for public open space. The proposal would therefore be contrary to an objective of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park 2009 and with the terms of Policies CS7 and CS25 of the Core Strategy.

3. The proposed development is likely to impose an additional burden on the

existing transport network which would require improvements in order to mitigate the impact of the development. In the absence of any contribution towards the costs of the necessary improvements to enable the additional travel needs to be satisfactorily and sustainably accommodated, the development conflicts with an objective of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park 2009 and with the terms of Policies CS24 and CS25 of the Core Strategy.

Conditions to be attached to any consent:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans: 1120-SK-120423-01, 1120-451, 1120-250, 1120-450, 1120-400 rev P1, 1120-401 rev P1, 1120-201, 1120-202, 47059171-SK-104 rev B, 1120-600 rev P1, 1120-601 rev P1, 1120-602 rev P1. Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of the development.

3. The new-build dwellings shall achieve Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable

Homes. No new-build dwelling shall be occupied until a final Code Certificate has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority certifying that the dwelling has achieved Code Level 3. Reason: In the interests of resource use and energy consumption in

accordance with policy CS4 of the Core Strategy for the New

Forest District outside the National Park.

4. Before development commences, details of the means of disposal of surface water from the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall only take place in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to ensure that the drainage arrangements are

appropriate and in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park and the New Forest District Council and New Forest National Park Authority Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for Local Development Frameworks.

5. Before the development is occupied details of the means of the future

maintenance of the drainage system approved under condition 4 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that the drainage arrangements are

appropriate and in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park and the New Forest District Council and New Forest National Park Authority Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for Local development Frameworks.

6. Before development commences, details of the means of foul sewerage

disposal from the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall only take place in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to ensure that the drainage arrangements are

appropriate and in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park and the New Forest District Council and New Forest National Park Authority Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for Local Development Frameworks.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof, the existing accesses to the site shall be stopped up and abandoned. The footway crossings shall be reinstated, in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, immediately after the completion of the new access and prior to occupation of the buildings. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy CS24

of the Core Strategy for New Forest District outside the National Park.

8. Visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 48 metres in a northerly direction and 2.4

metres by 46 metres in a southerly direction shall be provided at the junction of the proposed access with the public highway (Salisbury Road) before development commences and these visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of any obstacles over 600mm in height at all times.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy CS24

of the Core Strategy for New Forest District outside the National Park.

9. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the approved

arrangements for the parking and turning of vehicles (including cycles) on site have been implemented. These areas shall be kept available for their intended purposes at all times.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision is made, in the interest of

highway safety and to comply with Policy CS24 of the Core Strategy for New Forest District outside the National Park.

10. Before development commences (including site clearance, demolition and

any other preparatory works) tree protective fencing shall be erected in accordance with the submitted KJF tree report ref: TR/FDCS/261-263/SR/T/S.01. At least 3 working days notice shall be given to the Local Planning Authority that it has been erected prior to the commencement of any other site operations. This fencing is to comprise a framework of firmly driven poles and horizontal bars with bracing placed to the tree side, secured to withstand impact and supporting a 2 metre high ply hoarding or weldmesh (Heras type) panels. Reason: To ensure the retention of existing trees and natural features

and avoidance of damage during the construction phase in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park and Policy DW-E8 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

11. Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other

than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions relating to contamination no 12 to 14 have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 15 relating to the reporting of unexpected contamination has been complied with in relation to that contamination. Reason : To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users

of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy CS5 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

12. An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment

provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:

• human health, • property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock,

pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, • adjoining land, • groundwaters and surface waters, • ecological systems, • archaeological sites and ancient monuments; (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred

option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users


13. A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the

intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. Reason : To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users


14. The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with

its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason : To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users


15. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 12, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 13, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 14. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future

users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy CS5 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

16. A monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long-term

effectiveness of the proposed remediation over an agreed period (as stated in the remediation scheme), and the provision of reports on the same must be prepared, both of which are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme and when the remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced, and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users


17. Before development commences, the proposed slab levels of the dwellings

in relationship to the existing ground levels set to an agreed datum shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall only take place in accordance with those details which have been approved. Reason: To ensure that the development takes place in an appropriate

way in accordance with policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

18. No development shall take place until samples or exact details of the facing

and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the development in

accordance with policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New

Forest District outside the National Park.

19. Before development commences a scheme of landscaping of the site shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include : (a) the existing trees and shrubs which have been agreed to be retained; (b) a specification for new planting (species, size, spacing and location); (c) areas for hard surfacing and the materials to be used; (d) the treatment of the boundaries of the site and all other means of

enclosure; (e) elevational details of the electricity sub-station (f) a method and programme for its implementation and the means to

provide for its future maintenance. No development shall take place unless these details have been approved and then only in accordance with those details. Reason: To ensure that the development takes place in an appropriate

way and to prevent inappropriate car parking to comply with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

20. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any re-enactment of that Order) no extension otherwise approved by Classes A, B or C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order, garage or other outbuilding otherwise approved by Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order, hard surface otherwise approved by Class F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 the Order or means of enclosure otherwise approved by Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be erected, formed or carried out without express planning permission first having been granted. Reason: In view of the physical characteristics of the site, the Local

Planning Authority would wish to ensure that any future development proposals do not adversely affect the visual amenities of the area and the amenities of neighbouring properties, contrary to Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

21. The first floor / stairwell window in the north-west end elevation of the

approved terrace of 5 dwellings shall at all times be glazed with obscure glass and shall also be fixed permanently shut unless details of an opening restrictor have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the adjoining neighbouring

properties in accordance with policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

22. Before development commences a detailed schedule of works for the

refurbishment and renovation of the retained Old Dairy building (to include all those works shown on drawing 1120-451) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this schedule of works shall be implemented in full before any dwelling pursuant to this permission is occupied unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The benefit of restoring this original building is a key justification for permitting this proposal and it is therefore important that the proposed works to this building are implemented and to ensure that the development complies with Policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy for New Forest District outside the National Park.

23. Prior to development commencing, the following shall be submitted to and approved

in writing by the Local Planning Authority: method statement detailing how demolition/renovation works will be carried out carefully to minimise the risk of harm to bats. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to ensure that bats are dealt with appropriately and in

accordance with Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

24. Prior to development commencing the following shall be submitted to and approved

in writing by the Local Planning Authority: details of the type, specification and location of bird nesting and bat roosting opportunities that will be incorporated into the new buildings; details of a planting scheme to benefit biodiversity of the site. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to ensure that bat roost and bird nesting provision is make in

accordance with Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.


The proposed development is in accordance with Policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park. The proposed development would be a well designed development that would be contextually appropriate and which would respond positively to local distinctiveness. The retention and restoration of the 19th Century farmhouse building would be a significant benefit. The scheme's significant benefits and the site's planning history would justify the loss of an employment site contrary to Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy and would also justify reduced contributions towards affordable housing and transportation improvements. Although the development would have some impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, it is felt this impact would be within acceptable limits. The proposed development could be implemented without detriment to highway safety.


Notes for Inclusion on Certificate: Should bats be found during the course of development, the applicant should stop work

immediately and seek the advice of an ecological consultant. The applicant should note that it is a criminal offence to deliberately kill, injure or capture bats, or to deliberately disturb them or to damage or destroy their breeding sites and resting places (roosts). Further works may require a licence to proceed and failure to stop may result in prosecution.


Major Team




1:1250


SU3414App No 12/98460

Former Dairy Site

Scale

261-263 Salisbury RoadTotton

A2Item No:

October 2012


LB

241

Depot

200

24

1a

257

19

218

13

Sub Sta

El

216

216a

1

250

2

259

Depot

263

8.8m

4

Shelter

242 to 2441 to 14

246

273

SUTTON ROAD

6

13

12

Roysto

n Court

1 to 1

8

1

STANLEY ROAD

2

275

9.4m

SALIS

BURY R

OAD

18

283

279

25

30

36

8.8m

12

10

8

19

44

13

6

Baptist Church

16

Testwood

236a

Brambles

236b

The

7

TESTWOOD AVENUE

1

236

ED & Ward Bdy

8.8m

230

2

228

12

Grovely House

Totton & Eling


Planning Development Control Committee 10 October 2012 Item A 03 Application Number: 12/98569 Listed Building Alteration

Site: GROUND FLOOR, 56 HIGH STREET, LYMINGTON SO41 9AH

Development: Continued display of non-illuminated fascia & hanging sign;

retention of painted archway sign (Application for Listed Building

Consent)

Applicant: Nealfrith Retail Limited


________________________________________________________________________


Contrary to Town Council view


Built-up area Town Centre Boundary Listed Building


Core Strategy Objectives 1. Special qualities, local distinctiveness and a high quality living environment 6. Towns, villages and built environment quality Policies CS1: Sustainable development principles CS3: Protecting and enhancing our special environment (Heritage and Nature Conservation) Local Plan Policies DW-E18: Alterations, extensions and repairs to listed buildings DW-E26: Advertisements in Conservation Areas Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document (Proposed Submission Document) No relevant policies


Section 38 Development Plan Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 National Planning Policy Framework NPPF Ch. 12 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment


Lymington Local Distinctiveness Supplementary Planning Document


12/98557 - Continued display of non-illuminated hanging sign - Advertisement Consent granted 30 May 2012


Lymington & Pennington Town Council recommend permission


None received


9.1 Land Drainage - no comment 9.2 Conservation Officer - recommends refusal – fascia sign detracts from

symmetrical proportions of the Listed Building.


None received


No relevant implications

12 ASSESSMENT

12.1 56 High Street is a Grade II Listed Building situated in the historic core of the Lymington Conservation Area opposite the Grade II listed St Thomas Church and 63 High Street. It forms part of the significant group of C18-early C19 listed buildings, no's 55-62, which make an important contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The ground floor unit is a retail shop and has an archway to the western side leading to a courtyard area to the rear

12.2 This application seeks listed building consent for the retention of non-

illuminated fascia, archway and hanging signs. The main consideration for this application is whether the signage is appropriate to the architectural and historic interest of the Listed Building on which they are located.

12.3 The building's façade is divided vertically into three identical bays from the

top floor down to the ground floor modern shopfront. This creates a very strong architectural character which comprises part of the building's significance. Whilst the method of signwriting the fascia and archway signs is considered acceptable and appropriate for use on the listed building, the words of the fascia sign do not sit comfortably in relation to the three bay proportioning of the façade and therefore harms the architectural significance of the building.

12.4 Realigning the fascia signage to reflect the three bay proportioning of the

building would be a relatively simple and significant improvement, ensuring

that the architectural significance of the building is unharmed. It is advised that the 'Cook' sign is repositioned over the entrance door in the central bay; the contact details repositioned on the left side of the fascia board; and the green background is continued the full length of the fascia board including the section above the archway. The hanging sign is considered to be of an appropriate design, size, siting and materials that it does not detract from the architectural significance of the listed building.

12.4 The adjoining Listed Building (no. 55) has a similar symmetrical appearance,

although it is divided vertically into four bays rather than three bays. Like no. 56, the modern shopfront continues the vertical pattern of the identical bays of the first and second floors and the fascia sign has been positioned centrally so as not to detract from the symmetry. The Inspector's comments on a recent appeal decision relating to signage at no. 55 state that 'the modern ground floor façade respects what in my opinion is arguably the defining architectural characteristic of the main façade of the building, which is its symmetry', and '….. the fascia and text sit comfortably in relation to the formal, regular character of this Georgian building'.

12.5 It should be noted that listed building consent is also required for the menu

box. It is considered to contribute to the cluttering of the front facade, which cumulatively with the other signage has a harmful impact on the architectural significance of the building. It is advised that the menu box be removed and positioned internally.

12.6 In conclusion the proposed fascia and archway signs detract from the strong

architectural characteristics and proportioning of the front facade, harming the architectural significance of the listed building. The development therefore would conflict with Policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy, Policy DW-E18 of the Local Plan and the policies contained within the NPPF and accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.


set out in Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst it is recognised that this recommendation, if agreed, may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the applicant to develop the land in the way proposed, the objections to the planning application are serious ones and cannot be overcome by the imposition of conditions. The public interest and the rights and freedoms of neighbouring property owners can only be safeguarded by the refusal of permission.

13. RECOMMENDATION REFUSE LISTED BUILDING CONSENT


1. The proposed fascia and archway signs detract from the strong architectural characteristics and proportioning of the front facade, harming the architectural significance of the listed building. The application is therefore contrary to Policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District Outside the National Park, Policy DW-E18 of the New Forest

District Local Plan First Alteration and the National Planning Policy Framework.


Householder Team




1:1250


SZ3295App No 12/98569

Ground Floor

Scale

56 High StreetLymington

A3Item No:

October 2012


49b

49c

Gro

svenor G

ard

ens

Candlemakers

5

51

78 to 80

5049

2

3

2

1

1

2

Red H

ouse

Mew

s

PO

3 1

LB21.9m

54

TCB

73

House

Mulb

erry

Tel Ex

4

4

68

52c

52b

77

52a

55

54b

54a

Memorial

64

66

67

Sub S

taE

l

58

56

War

57

53 52d

AS

HLE

Y L

AN

E

Leew

ard

41

42

40

92 93

2

Grove

House

Ashley

Howards

End

Club

1 to 4

House

46

45

22.3m

44

43

8990

91

The O

ld M

anse

Church

Unite

d R

efo

rmed

Cottage

The Garden

House

49

Cottage

85b

81

83

48

6

47

7

15

11

62

1

Pala

mos H

ouse

Pla

ceTw

ymham

Monm

outh

11a

20.4m

St Thomas

Church

61

60

46

4748

1

4041 42

43

Surg

ery

45

Hall

63

1

39

3

37

1 to 15

Pilgrim Place

2

3

17

Quadrille

3

1 to 9

Monmouth

House

Mew

s

CourtMonmouth

4

El S

ub S

ta

Court

12

Lymington & Pennington

Boldre


Planning Development Control Committee 10 October 2012 Item A 04 Deleted from Agenda

Planning Development Control Committee 10 October 2012 Item A 05 Application Number: 12/99028 Variation / Removal of Condition

Site: WAITROSE SUPERMARKET, STANFORD ROAD, LYMINGTON

SO41 9GF

Development: Variation of Condition 2 of Planning Permission 09/94195 to allow

delivery times; 06.00 to 20.00hrs Monday - Saturday, 08.00 to

17.00 hrs Sundays, 07.00 to 17.00 hrs public holidays

Applicant: Waitrose Ltd


________________________________________________________________________




Built-up area Other Shopping Frontage Town Centre Boundary


Core Strategy Objectives 1. Special qualities, local distinctiveness and a high quality living environment 6. Towns, villages and built environment quality Policies CS2: Design quality CS20: Town, district, village and local centres Local Plan Policies BU-TC2: Shopping frontages outside the primary shopping area within defined town centres Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document (Proposed Submission Document) DM16: Secondary Shopping Frontages




SPD - Lymington Local Distinctiveness


6.1 Erection of a supermarket and alterations to existing access (22514) - refused 1/11/82 - appeal allowed

6.2 Relief of condition 8 of pp 22514 (62975) - granted 27/2/98 6.3 Vary condition 7 of pp 62975 to extend delivery hours (66098) - granted

21/5/99 6.4 Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 66098 to allow delivery times:

07.00 to 20.00 hrs Monday-Saturday, 09.00 to 17.00 hrs Sundays, 07.00 to 17.00 hrs public and bank holidays (94195) - granted 20/8/09

6.5 Acoustic cladding to service yard, fencing and gates (ref 12/99027) granted

24/9/12


Lymington & Pennington Town Council:- Recommend refusal - hours should be retained as existing; proposal would result in activity during unsociable hours


None


Environmental Health:- No objection to permission being granted on a 1 year temporary trial basis.


11 letters of objection or concern from local residents:- proposal would expose neighbouring residential properties to noise from lorry engines, reversing alarms and activities associated with deliveries at an unacceptably early time of the day to the detriment of the quiet amenities and quality of life of nearby residents; existing hours of operation already cause noise disturbance and proposal will exacerbate this; earlier winter deliveries will result in additional light pollution / nuisance; fencing will be inadequate in mitigating noise impact; additional fencing should be provided to mitigate noise impact; any permission would need to be subject to strict conditions.


No relevant considerations

12 ASSESSMENT

12.1 Waitrose superstore occupies a large parcel of land on the western edge of Lymington Town Centre. The site is bounded on its northern side by residential properties in Middle Road and The Old Maltings, on its western side by residential properties in Melbury Close and Southern Road and on its southern side by residential properties at Highfield.

12.2 When planning permission was granted for the store on appeal in 1983, a

condition was imposed that no deliveries shall take place between 8pm on one day and 7am on the following day. The condition also specifically

precluded deliveries taking place on Sundays and Public Holidays. 12.3 In 1999, planning permission was granted for the variation of the original

condition restricting delivery hours. A new condition was imposed which limited delivery hours to 7am to 8pm Mondays to Saturdays and 9am to 5pm on Sundays and Public Holidays. A further application in 2009 allowed deliveries on public holidays to commence at the earlier time of 7am.

12.4 This latest application seeks permission for an extension of delivery hours in

the early morning from Mondays to Saturdays. Currently deliveries are not permitted to take place before 7am. The application seeks to allow deliveries to take place from 6am onwards (ie 1 hour earlier). No change is proposed to the current permitted delivery hours on Sunday and Public Holidays.

12.5 In support of their application, the applicants indicate that earlier delivery

times are required because the store currently experiences difficulties in getting fresh products on the shelves in time for store opening. It is pointed out by the applicants that the store forms an important part of the overall offer of Lymington Town Centre and the ability to get shelves stocked properly is considered important to ensure the store can continue to meet the needs of customers and help to contribute to the vitality and viability of the town centre.

12.6 The key issue raised by this proposal is whether allowing deliveries to take

place 1 hour earlier than at present would be detrimental to the amenities of residential properties that are situated close to the site as a result of increased levels of noise in the early morning. The application is accompanied by a noise report and from this it is clear that there are 2 distinct aspects to the delivery cycle. The first is the impact arising from the arrival, departure and manoeuvring of vehicles. The second is the impact arising from the loading and unloading of vehicles. To mitigate the impact of loading and unloading of vehicles, the applicants are proposing to enclose the delivery bay with an acoustic structure (which is the subject of a separate planning application which was approved on 24/9/12). The Council's Environmental Health Officer had some initial concerns with the effectiveness of the proposed acoustic structure, but following the submission of additional information is now satisfied that the acoustic structure would be effective in mitigating the noise impact arising from loading and unloading activities.

12.7 The noise impact arising from earlier vehicle arrivals and movements would

be less easy to mitigate. Earlier deliveries would therefore have the potential to cause sleep disturbance. However, the applicants have suggested that the predicted noise environment would not be significantly different enough in character from the existing noise environment to have a material impact. They have also suggested that a noise management plan could be adopted, which could stipulate that lorries should arrive and depart as quietly as possible with reversing alarms disabled and refrigeration units turned off as lorries are unloaded. The applicants have suggested the management plan could also require drivers to use low revs and stipulate that no empty trolleys / cages should be manoeuvred external to the store during the first early morning delivery. On the basis of the information submitted by the applicant, the Council's Environmental Health Officer feels that it would be appropriate to permit the earlier delivery hours sought on a 1 year trial basis, which would then enable the impact of this activity to be properly quantified. It is felt the Council's Environmental Health Officer's conclusion on this matter is a reasonable one. Subject to appropriate conditions, a 1 year trial period would not be likely to cause undue harm to residential amenities. A 1 year trial period (rather than shorter trial period) is also felt appropriate to enable a clear conclusion to be reached on whether a permanent permission is justified

at the end of the trial period. 12.8 Concerns have also been raised about additional early morning light pollution

and nuisance. Whilst these concerns are noted, it is not felt the impact of additional artificial light in the early morning would be so significant as to justify refusal of planning permission.

12.9 Overall, it is considered that it would be inappropriate to grant planning

permission for this proposal on a permanent basis because there is too much doubt as to whether the proposal could take place without detriment to residential amenities. At the same time, it is felt that the applicants have made an acceptable case for permitting this proposal on a 1 year trial basis so that the impact of the proposal on residential amenities can be monitored and a firm conclusion on the acceptability of the application can be reached at the end of that 1 year trial period. It is considered that a 1 year temporary permission would be consistent with the Council's Core Strategy policies and objectives and the recommendation below reflects this.



13. RECOMMENDATION GRANT the VARIATION of CONDITION

Proposed Conditions:

1. Before the proposal hereby permitted is first commenced, acoustic cladding shall be provided around the service yard fencing and gates in accordance with the details approved under planning permission 12/99027, and a written letter shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to confirm that the acoustic cladding has been installed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect the amenities of neighbouring residential properties in

accordance with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for New Forest District outside the National Park.

2. For 1 calendar year only from the date of the letter submitted pursuant to

Condition 1 of this planning permission, confirming that the acoustic cladding has been installed around the service yard, and subject to the additional limitations set out in condition 4 of this planning permission, deliveries to the store and the stationing of delivery vehicles on the site with engines or cooling equipment operating shall only take place between the following hours:- 06.00 hours to 20.00 hours Monday to Saturdays 09.00 hours to 17.00 hours on Sundays 07:00 hours to 17:00 hours on Public holidays

At the end of 1 calendar year following the date of the letter submitted pursuant to condition 1 of this planning permission and subject to the relevant additional limitations set out in condition 4 of this planning permission, deliveries to the store and the stationing of delivery vehicles on the site with engines or cooling equipment operating shall only take place between the existing approved hours, namely:- 07.00 hours to 20.00 hours Monday to Saturdays 09.00 hours to 17.00 hours on Sundays 07:00 hours to 17:00 hours on Public holidays Reason: To enable the impact of earlier delivery hours to be monitored

and to comply with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for New Forest District outside the National Park.

3. On Public holidays, there shall be no more than 2 deliveries to the site

between 07.00 hours and 09.00 hours. Reason: To protect the amenities of neighbouring properties in

accordance with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for New Forest District outside the National Park.

4. Prior to 07:00 hours from Mondays to Saturdays and on Public holidays

between 07:00 hours and 09:00 hours:- a) all delivery vehicles shall have their reversing bleepers disengaged and, b) all delivery vehicles within the service yard shall switch off their

refrigeration units whilst stationary and, c) no empty cages shall be loaded onto delivery vehicles. Reason: To protect the amenities of neighbouring residential properties in

compliance with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for New Forest District outside the National Park.

5. No later than 12 months after the date when this proposal first commences,

a further noise assessment quantifying the noise impact of deliveries before 07:00 hours (am) on residential amenities shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. This noise assessment shall make reference to appropriate standards and the prevailing background noise levels during the arrival and departure phase of the delivery cycle. Reason: To enable the impact of the proposal on residential amenities to

be monitored and to enable an assessment to be made as to whether a permanent change to delivery hours would be appropriate and in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for New Forest District outside the National Park.


It is considered that the granting of a temporary permission would be in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park. It is considered that allowing this proposal for a 1 year trial period would be reasonable in the light of the information submitted with the application and would enable the impact of earlier deliveries on residential amenities to be monitored and more accurately assessed and would enable a decision to be reached on whether the proposal should be permitted on a permanent basis.



Major Team




1:1250


SZ3195App No 12/99028

Waitrose Supermarket

Scale

Stanford RoadLymington

A5Item No:

October 2012


14

11

7

3

26

15

Coach

House

The

5

Superstore

1

25

1

STA

NFO

RD

RO

AD

3 to 8

2

Old Maltings

16

2

El S

ub S

ta

3

7

1

Tank

The

Posts

26a

Park House

27

28a

17

14

Lerid

a

1 to

9

ST

TH

OM

AS

PA

RK

18

28

Court

Roundhouse

27

12

26

14

Car

10

11

Mews

Roundhouse

22

Pavilion

20

23

21

Ath

els

tan

1

5

Park

24 25

2PH

4

8

3

7

Court

2

6

House

Carrington

House

25

24

PH

A 337

QU

EE

N S

TR

EE

T

House

West E

nd

18

18a

8

Hearts of Oak Mews

Westgate1 to 5

2 to 5

10

13

21.6

m

31

7

9

12

11

1 to 7

Island

30

16

31

28

29

17

30 29

5

3 4

8

HIGHFIELD

2

19.2m

2525a 26

18a

19a

Court

St T

hom

as

18

54

Amber

1

3

PH

Court

3

2

13 1

2

5

LB

8 t

o 1

1

Sherlock

Homes

Maitland

Court

1 to 12

20 to 22

19

4

1 to

7

12

15

1116

5

Tem

ple

Bar C

otta

ge

7

Lynwood Court

6

PRIESTLANDS PLACE1

6

Reedley Mews5

12

Lodge

A 337

Buckle

rs

2AN

CH

OR

AG

E W

AY

1

10

1


Boldre



Site: 19 STANLEY ROAD, TOTTON SO40 3PS

Development: Single-storey side and rear extension

Applicant: Mr Singh


________________________________________________________________________


Member request


Built-up area


Core Strategy Objectives 1. Special qualities, local distinctiveness and a high quality living environment 6. Towns, villages and built environment quality Policies CS1: Sustainable development principles CS2: Design quality CS10: The spatial strategy Local Plan Policies DW-E8: Trees Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document (Proposed Submission Document) No relevant policies


Section 38 Development Plan Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 National Planning Policy Framework NPPF Ch. 7 - Requiring good design


No relevant documents


12/98914 Single storey side and rear extension (Lawful Development Certificate that permission is not required for proposal) decided as not lawful 27th July 2012


Totton & Eling Town Council recommend permission but would accept the decision reached by the District Council’s Officers under their delegated powers.


8.1 Councillor Dart - raised concern on vegetation being removed from the site 8.2 Councillor Lagdon - following receipt of comments from the neighbour he

has concern over loss of light and overlooking and would therefore ask that this application is given committee consideration.


9.1 Land Drainage - No comment 9.2 Arboricultural Officer - awaiting comments


10.1 Objections received from 2 neighbours the reasons for these are:- 21 Stanley Road - loss of sun light, obscure the view, overlooking from new

window, loss of trees and hedges (removed prior to application). 28 Sutton Road - overlooking on 21 Stanley Road 10.2 Two letters of comment received advising that the access way beyond the

rear boundary is for the use of properties in Sutton Road and that there would be no right of access to properties to Stanley Road.


No relevant implications

12 ASSESSMENT

12.1 The property is a detached bungalow with a low hipped roof design at the start of a row of similar properties. The neighbour to the north east is a two storey dwelling and there are two storey properties opposite. The rear elevation has been extended with a small conservatory. The rear garden is enclosed with high fences and a small fir tree is located close to the boundary with number 17.

12.2 The main issue to be taken into consideration when assessing this application is:

the impact on the neighbouring properties.

The description was changed during the course of the application to include the proposed single storey side extension and neighbours were reconsulted. A recent Lawful Development Certificate for the same scheme was deemed

as not complying with the Permitted Development Order solely because the height of the proposed extension would be 4.7 metres and not 4 metres as required for permitted development.

12.3 The neighbour at number 17 is a two storey semi detached property which has been extended with a single storey rear extension. There are windows on the side elevation facing the application site and these are already mostly screened with the high fence (1.85 metres) on the shared boundary. The proposed side extension would have a flat roof to a height of 2.7 metres and the start of the pitched roof would be positioned almost 4 metres away from this neighbour's windows. Therefore the overall impact in terms of loss of light would not be unacceptable. There are windows proposed for the side elevation facing this neighbour but it is considered that the high boundary fence would screen views sufficiently to overcome any potential loss of privacy.

12.4 The neighbour at number 21 is a bungalow with a detached garage built up to the shared boundary in the rear garden which is defined with a high fence (1.80 metres). The property has been extended with a single storey extension to the rear, similar to the proposed extension. This neighbouring property has several windows in the side elevation closest to the application site but the properties are separated by this neighbour's vehicular access to their garage. There is a low fence (1.16 metres) at this point running alongside the properties and there is a gap of nearly 3 metres between the properties. This neighbour has written an objection in relation to loss of light and overlooking from the proposed window. This neighbour does have one window which is in line with the existing bungalow and this is partly shaded by the existing dwelling, therefore whilst it is recognised that the proposed extension would cause some additional loss of morning sun the overall impact would not be materially more harmful. The neighbour also has a window in their side elevation which would face the side of the proposed extension, however this is secondary to the large window on the rear of the property which also serves this room. Furthermore, as the proposed extension would continue with the low eaves height of the existing dwelling and have a roof pitched away from the boundary there would not be a harmful impact on this neighbour in terms of loss of light or visual intrusion. A new window is proposed which would serve an existing bedroom that would face this neighbour at a point where there is a window in their side elevation. However this proposed window would be in the existing property and as such would not require planning permission. Therefore it would not be reasonable to place a condition on any approval for this window to be obscure glazed.

12.5 Concerns have been raised over the amount of vegetation that has recently been removed from the site. It would appear that bushes and small trees have been removed prior to the application but it is confirmed that there are no Tree Preservation Orders in place. A large fir tree still remains within the rear garden. The Council's Tree Officer has been consulted and has raised no objection.

12.6 Two letters of comment were received from neighbours to the rear of the application site advising that the access way beyond the rear boundary is for the use of properties in Sutton Road and that there would be no right of access to properties to Stanley Road. There is no indication that a new access would be formed.

12.7 In conclusion, given the distance between the host property and the neighbour at number 21 and the low eaves height, it is considered that the proposed extension would not unacceptably impact on this neighbour in terms of loss of light. The proposal would be in keeping with the host property and would not have a detrimental impact on the street scene. Therefore the application is recommended for approval.

12.8 In coming to this recommendation, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst it is recognised that there may be an interference with these rights and the rights of other third parties, such interference has to be balanced with the like rights of the applicant to develop the land in the way proposed. In this case it is considered that the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicant outweigh any possible interference that may result to any third party.

13. RECOMMENDATION Grant Subject to Conditions






following approved plans: sing sht 1, sing sht 2 & sing sht 3 Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of the development.


The proposed development is in accordance with Policies CS1, CS2 and CS10 of

the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park. The proposed alterations would not be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would not unreasonably affect the light, outlook or privacy of neighbouring properties.



Householder Team




1:1250


SU3414App No 12/99044

19 Stanley Road

Scale

Totton

A6Item No:

October 2012


241

1a

257

218

1

250

2

259

Depot

263

8.8m

4

Shelter

242 to 2441 to 14

246

273

SUTTON ROAD

6

13

Roysto

n Court

1 to 1

8

1

STANLEY ROAD

2

275

18

37

25

30

36

41

8.8m

12

10

8

19

44

47

13

29a

29

16

10

2

8

12

13

1

2

8

5

9

32

36

39

2

42

4

33

24

31

STANLEY RO

AD

13

236a

Brambles

236b

The

236

8.8m

230

228

Netley Marsh

Totton & Eling



Site: FARTHINGS, VICTORIA ROAD, MILFORD-ON-SEA SO41 0NL

Development: 2 houses; access; parking

Applicant: Pennyfarthing Homes Ltd.


________________________________________________________________________


Section 106 Negotiations.


Area of Special Character Built-up area


Core Strategy Objectives 1. Special qualities, local distinctiveness and a high quality living environment 3. Housing 6. Towns, villages and built environment quality Policies CS2: Design quality CS7: Open spaces, sport and recreation CS15: Affordable housing contribution requirements from developments CS24: Transport considerations CS15: Affordable housing contribution requirements from developments Local Plan DW-E8: Trees DW-E11: Areas of Special Character Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document (Proposed Submission Document)




None


6.1 Detached house - outline application with details only of siting and means of access (86684) Refused on the 2nd February 2006. Appeal allowed on the 1st December 2006

6.2 Detached house - outline application with details only of siting and means of

access renewal of planning permission 86684 (93868) Granted with conditions on the 30th July 2009.

6.3 Detached house - details of external, appearance, landscaping and design -

development granted by 93868 (97574) Granted with conditions on the 3rd October 2011.

6.4 2 houses, detached garage and car port, new access - demolition of existing

(96986) Refused on the 7th June 2011. Appeal dismissed 6.5 Two houses, new access - outline application with details only of access (98438)

Granted with conditions on the 12th July 2012.


Milford On Sea Parish Council: Recommend permission. The main concerns of the Parish Council which were the large areas of hardstanding and garages at the front of the site and the encroachment over the existing building line appear to have been addressed.


None


9.1 Environmental Design (Trees): No objection subject to condition 9.2 Environmental Health (historic land use): No objection subject to an informative

note


2 letters of objection concerned with certain aspects of the design and quality of the design of the dwellings and unacceptable overlooking. The submitted plans do not show the extension that was constructed to the rear of No 1 Whitby Road and the patio areas. Concerns were also expressed relating to the increase in the use of the garden which would cause additional noise and disturbance. One of the letters has stated that there have been improvements made compared to the previous application.



12 ASSESSMENT

12.1 The site fronts onto Victoria Road and contains a detached dwelling with a large front, side and rear garden area. The existing house is a 2 storey property located on one side of a substantial and largely rectangular plot. It is set well back from Victoria Road. The site is heavily treed and landscaped in a green setting. The

site also contains a number of ornamental trees. 12.2 The context of the surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of dwellings of

a variety of types and styles including bungalows, chalet style bungalows and two storey houses. Properties are generally set in large spacious plots with trees and vegetation defining the boundaries. Dwellings are generally large buildings of different shapes, forms and materials. The application site and surrounding area falls within a defined Area of Special Character which is characterised by its spatial qualities, trees and vegetation. Either side of Farthings are two large two-storey dwellings with gables and bays.

12.3 In terms of the planning history of the site, outline planning consent was recently

granted to demolish the existing house and to construct two detached two storey dwelling (under reference 98438). That permission is still extant and the layout involved the two dwellings fronting onto Victoria Road which were set back from the road consistent with the established building line and two new accesses were proposed.

12.4 This full planning application proposes to demolish the existing dwelling house

and to replace it with two detached two storey houses with integral garages, new accesses and car parking. In comparison to the previously approved outline application, the proposed dwellings would be sited in a similar position, although they would have a slightly larger footprint and would be positioned slightly closer to the road. Although it is important to note that they would be narrower buildings and that there would be more separation between the boundaries of the site and buildings.

12.5 Visually, the proposed dwellings would rise to two storeys, at around 10.8 metres

in height, with traditional pitched roofs and be constructed from brick under a tile or slate roof. It is considered that their scale, design and appearance would be compatible to the street scene and there would be adequate spacing between the buildings so as not to compromise the spatial character of the area. The proposed dwellings would be set back from the established building line, which was one of the concerns previously raised by the Council and Inspector. Whilst concerns have been raised relating to certain aspects of the design, such as the window shapes, roof form, and the general fenestration, it is considered that the overall design of the dwellings would be acceptable and that a refusal on these grounds could not be substantiated.

12.6 With regard to residential amenity, the proposed dwelling on plot 1 would be sited

in a similar position to the existing dwelling in relation to the adjoining neighbour at South Lea. Concerning overlooking, the proposed windows on the first floor side elevation would serve a bathroom and dressing area, in order to mitigate any overlooking, a condition could be imposed for these windows to be glazed with obscure glass. In terms of light and outlook, the adjoining neighbouring property at South Lea has a main window on the side (east), which faces the application site. Given that these windows currently face onto a high hedge along the side boundary, it is considered that the removal of the hedge would improve the amount of light and outlook to those windows. In addition, given the distances involved, the siting of the existing building on the site and its design with a hipped roof, it is not considered to compromise the available light or outlook of that neighbour.

12.7 The proposed dwelling on plot 2 would be sited closer to the boundaries of

Moonfleet and Kingsmead (predominately the boundary to Kingsmead) than the existing dwelling house. The distance from the side elevation of the building (two storey element) to the boundary being 4.5 metres. Given the distances between the proposed development and the neighbours to the east, and its orientation due

west, it is not considered to unacceptably impact on the light and outlook of those neighbours. No main windows are proposed in the side elevation which would maintain a reasonable level of privacy.

12.8 The proposed dwellings would be sited a sufficient distance away from the

neighbour to the rear at No 1 Whitby Road. The distance from the proposed first floor rear elevation on plot 1 to the rear boundary measures approximately 28 metres, which would be acceptable. Whilst comments have been made that the submitted plans do not illustrate the extension to the rear and the patio area, this is not of any significance as the distance of more than 28 metres to the rear boundary is more than an acceptable distance within the built up area. In addition, the increase in the use of the garden would not give rise to an unacceptable loss of amenity due to noise and disturbance given that the size of the garden to plot 1 and the separation between the properties.

12.9 With regard to car parking and public highway safety matters, the proposed

dwellings would incorporate an acceptable level of car parking provision, which is adequate and would accord with the recommended guidance for car parking in residential developments.

12.10 The Councils Tree Officer does not raise any objections subject to a condition

regarding the protection of the trees and any proposed planting. 12.11 It should be noted that no contributions would be required in this case. It is

considered that given the site benefits from an extant planning permission for an additional dwelling which can still be implemented and did not require any contributions, there should be no requirement to make contributions in this case. A previous outline planning application (98438) for two dwellings was recently approved and no contributions were required at that time.

12.12 In coming to this recommendation, consideration has been given to the rights set

out in Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst it is recognised that there may be an interference with these rights and the rights of other third parties, such interference has to be balanced with the like rights of the applicant to develop the land in the way proposed. In this case it is considered that the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicant outweigh any possible interference that may result to any third party.

Developers Contributions Summary Table

Proposal:



Difference

Affordable Housing 50% 0


0 0 0

Financial Contribution 97,350 0 97,350

Public Open Space


Financial Contribution 46,732 0 46,732


Financial Contribution 5457 0 5457







following approved plans: 4432/PL/101, 4432/PL/102, 4432/PL/201, 4432/PL/202, 4432/PL/300, 4303/PL/007, 4432-PL-100, 4432-PL-200, 4432-PL-001, 4432-PL-002, 939/01 rev A, 31219-01 rev X, Barrell Tree Protection Plan Ref: 11057-BT2. Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of the development.

3. The dwellings shall achieve Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. No

dwelling shall be occupied until a Final Code Certificate has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority certifying that the dwellings have achieved Code Level 4. Reason: In the interests of resource use and energy consumption in

accordance with policy CS4 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

4. No development shall take place until samples or exact details of the facing

and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the building in


5. The first floor windows on the side elevations of the approved dwellings on

plot 1 and 2 shall be obscurely glazed and other than fan light opening fixed shut at all times.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the adjoining neighbouring

properties in accordance with policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

6. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in full accordance with the

provisions set out within the Barrell Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement reference 1057-AIA2-DC dated 27 July 2012 or as may otherwise be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Attention is brought specifically to sections 2.1.2 of that report and requirement for pre-commencement site meeting and on-going monitoring to be agreed. Details of tree planting, showing positions, species and sizes shall be submitted in

writing to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. All planting is to be completed before the end of the current planting season following completion of the site. Any such trees that are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously damaged or defective within five years of planting shall be replaced with specimens of similar size and species as originally planted

Reason: To ensure the retention of existing trees and natural features and avoidance of damage during the construction phase in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park and Reason and Policy DW-E8 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

7. Before development commences, details of the means of disposal of surface

water from the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall only take place in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to ensure that the drainage arrangements are

appropriate and in accordance with Policy CS6 of the Core Strategy of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration and the New Forest District Council and New Forest National Park Authority Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for Local Development Frameworks.

8. The landscaping scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the

submitted Landscaping planting details and plan by Linda Oak Landscape Design Ltd and as set out under drawing reference number 939/O1 Rev A by the end of the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of development. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size or species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is acceptable

in this location in accordance with policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.


The proposed development is in accordance with Policies CS2, CS7, CS10, CS15, and CS24 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park and Policies DW-E8 and DW E11 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

The proposed development would not have a detrimental affect on the character and appearance of the area or on the living conditions of the adjoining neighbouring properties. The Council's Tree Officer does not raise any objections.



Please be informed that there are a number of sites near to this property which have had past contaminative uses. It is possible that some contamination may have migrated through the ground and groundwater. Whilst the Authority has no evidence to suggest that this is the case, any observed presence of contamination during any ground invasive works must be reported to the Environmental Health Officer and works halted whilst the matter is considered. It is advisable to obtain specialist advice concerning the potential for contamination and its recognition.


Major Team




1:1250


SZ2891App No 12/99052

Farthings

Scale

Victoria RoadMilford on Sea

A7Item No:

October 2012


1820a

1

10

1412

16

38

1

LB

42

El Sub Sta

40

1

WHITBY ROAD

12

Cottage

Pine

11 4143

14.3m

9

35

2 7

HA

MIL

TO

N C

OU

RT

1 8

16

28

19

20

HAMILTON

CO

UR

T

27

543 6

24

23

House

5Rookwood

3

Rookwood

House

Rookcliff

17

7

23

1 to 6

Court

Gas Gov

Copse HouseSamphire House

Needle

s

7 to

16

Shore Croft

House

Pear Tree

RO

AD

WA

RR

DE

LA

1

Kingsmead

Moonfleet

St George's

Hospital

Little

Haven

CliffCroftSea

SeasonsThree

1 to

12

Victoria

Cottage

Longcliff

1 to 3

Farthings

South Lea

Lothians

Trees

Two

Lim

esto

nes

ROAD

VICTORIA

Cott

Totland Court

1 to 6

Sea Pines

1 to 12

Osborne Court

Hurst Court

1 to 12

El Sub Sta

Milford-on-Sea



Site: THE HAMPSHIRE YEOMAN, HAMPTON LANE, BLACKFIELD

FAWLEY SO45 1XA

Development: Single-storey rear extension and new front entrance in

connection with use of building for retail purposes;

installation of atm; fenestration alterations; demolition of

timber structure

Applicant: Sainsbury's Supermarket Ltd.


________________________________________________________________________


Member Request


Built-up area


Core Strategy Objectives 1. Special qualities, local distinctiveness and a high quality living environment 4. Economy 6. Towns, villages and built environment quality Policies CS2: Design quality CS5: Safe and healthy communities CS10: The spatial strategy CS20: Town, district, village and local centres CS24: Transport considerations Local Plan Policies BU-LC2: Loss of public houses in built-up areas outside town centres Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document (Proposed Submission Document) DM20: Small local shops and public houses




None


6.1 37 flats in two blocks; one pair of town houses; one block of 4 garages with bin store; one cycle store; associated parking and access alterations (82306) - refused 29/9/04

6.2 Installation of 3 wall mounted air conditioning units, 1 four fan condensing

unit within a solid timber enclosure, 1 compressor unit in acoustic pack in brick enclosure (ref: 12/99058) current application Item No. A09 on this Agenda


Fawley Parish Council:- Recommend permission - supports


8.1 Councillor Wappet - Requests Committee consideration 8.2 Councillor Glass:- Proposal looks as if it could be a good thing


9.1 Hampshire County Council Highways Engineer:- to be updated. 9.2 Land Drainage:- No objection subject to condition 9.3 Environmental Health (contaminated land):- No objection subject to an

informative note 9.4 Policy:- It is considered that this location could be an appropriate one for a

retail use; the location of the site would make a logical extension to the existing defined shopping frontage in Blackfield. However, given its location in the centre of the village and the lack of availability of alternative pubs in the local area, the existing pub should be considered to be a local facility which it is important to retain under saved and emerging policies, although it is acknowledged that planning permission would not be required for the change of use proposed.

9.5 Southern Gas Networks:- advise of site's proximity to gas main 9.6 Health & Safety Executive:- Do not advise against granting of planning

permission.


10.1 8 letters of objection from local residents / businesses:- there is a lack of need for an additional retail supermarket; the loss of the public house would be detrimental to local community life and would result in the loss of the only public house in Blackfield; adverse economic impact; the extra traffic would be detrimental to highway safety; application could be a forerunner for a more significant retail redevelopment; increased noise disturbance.

10.2 1 letter of support from local resident:- Proposal would improve quality of area



12 ASSESSMENT

12.1 The Hampshire Yeoman Public House occupies a large and prominent corner site in the centre of Blackfield. The main building on the site is a relatively large 2 storey building that dates from the late 1950s. There are various single storey flat-roofed additions set to the rear of the building. The building is set well back from the site's 2 road frontages. To the front of the building are extensive areas of hardstanding used for vehicular parking as well as some fairly generous grassed areas, which gives the corner quite an open character. The main commercial heart of Blackfield lies immediately to the south and west of the application site, whilst areas to the north and east of the site are in residential use.

12.2 The submitted application seeks to add a single-storey extension to the rear

of the premises and a new front entrance to the property in connection with a planned Sainsbury's Local convenience retail shop. The extension would add 46 square metres of commercial floorspace resulting in a retail store with a total internal floorspace of 364 square metres. It is also proposed to install a new ATM machine on the front elevation of the building as well as make some minor alterations to certain window and door openings. An existing timber structure to the rear of the main building would be removed. The existing first floor of the building which is currently used as a manager's flat, ancillary to the primary public house use, would be mothballed.

12.3 Concerns have been raised that the proposal would result in the loss of a

Public House that is important to the local community. The Hampshire Yeoman is the only pub serving the central part of Blackfield. The nearest other pubs to the site are in Langley, Holbury and Fawley village. The pub is therefore considered to provide an important and valued facility for the people of Blackfield. Saved Policy BU-LC2 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration only allows for the loss of public houses where there is another pub within the neighbourhood served, (which there is not), or where the proposal is for an alternative community/leisure use or where the current use is in an inappropriate location and causes significant disturbance. There is no evidence that the existing pub's location is inappropriate or that the pub causes significant disturbance to local residents. In these circumstances, the proposal would be contrary to Policy BU-LC2 of the Local Plan. Emerging DPD Policy DM20 largely reflects saved Policy BU-LC2 and states that the loss of public houses will not be permitted where the proposal would result in the loss of an important local facility or if it would leave the local area without such a facility. It is considered the proposal would not comply with this emerging policy.

12.4 Whilst the proposal would result in the loss of an important public house, the

applicants have rightly pointed out that a Change of Use from a Public House (Use Class A4) to a retail shop (Use Class A1) is one which does not require planning permission. The change of use that this proposal would result in is expressly permitted under The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended in 2010) and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. The applicants have not therefore formally applied for a Change of Use to the building. In these circumstances, and even though the proposal entails more than a simple

Change of Use, it is felt that it would be unreasonable to object to the loss of the public house, notwithstanding the policy objection, simply because the applicants would be within their rights to change the use of the building to a retail shop without planning permission. It is felt that an objection to this application on the basis that the proposal would result in the loss of a valued public house would be unsustainable in an appeal situation and therefore whilst the loss of the public house is regrettable, it is felt that it must be accepted.

12.5 The application site lies outside, but adjoining, the defined local shopping

centre in Blackfield. Core Strategy Policy CS20 allows for new retail development in local centres where they are of a scale appropriate to the role of the centre and proportionate to its size. Emerging DPD Policy DM20 would allow for local convenience stores of up to 280 square metres on sites outside defined local shopping frontages. With a floorspace of 364 square metres what is proposed would be well over this limit. However, because the site adjoins the Blackfield Local Shopping Frontage on 2 sides, it is felt that it would be reasonable to view this proposal as a logical and justifiable extension of the existing defined shopping frontage and in these circumstances, it is felt a new convenience store in excess of 280 square metres would be justified. A retail shop of 318 square metres could be created in any event without planning permission and it is felt that the limited additional retail floorspace that would be created would result in a shop that would be of a size appropriate to the centre of Blackfield. There is no evidence that the proposal would not meet a reasonable need and the proposed retail shop would be clearly beneficial in supporting the local economy and in providing local employment. It is therefore felt that the principle of a retail shop of the size proposed can be reasonably supported.

12.6 Concerns have been raised that the proposal might be a forerunner for a

more significant retail redevelopment. However, every proposal must be judged on its merits and it would not be appropriate to refuse this application due to concerns about potential future alternative development proposals.

12.7 The alterations to the main front facade of the building are limited in extent

and would not materially harm the character of the existing building or undermine its architectural integrity. The flat roofed extension at the rear of the building would not be prominent within the streetscene and would reflect the character of existing flat-roofed additions. The extension would not therefore be visually harmful. The site is also of a size, whereby the proposed extension can be reasonably accommodated without appearing cramped or detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

12.8 Given its flat-roofed single storey design and distance from residential

properties to the rear, the proposed extension would have no significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. The impact of various equipment is considered under the separate related planning application 12/99058 (Agenda Item A9).

12.9 The proposal would entail a slight widening of the existing site access onto

Hampton Lane and the submitted plans indicate that 35 on-site car parking spaces would be provided to serve the proposed development. The views of the Highway Authority are still awaited and will be the subject of further update. However as the level of parking being provided would appear to be in excess of the maximum car parking standard for retail development, there would not appear to be any shortfall in on-site parking provision. Furthermore, whilst the level of parking may be slightly in excess of the maximum level of parking permitted under the Council's policies, the proposals would not

appear to increase the extent of the existing parking areas on site and in these circumstances an objection based on a excessive level of on-site parking would not be reasonable. Although the submitted plans do not show any on-site cycle parking provision, it is felt that this could be reasonably secured by condition.

12.10 Overall, the proposed development would not be consistent with all of the

Council's Core Strategy policies and objectives. The loss of the existing public house would not meet the local community's needs. However, the provision of a new retail shop would be beneficial in meeting the shopping needs of the local area. Given the applicant's permitted development rights, it is felt that the scheme's retail benefits must inevitably override the loss of the existing public house. The proposed development would be of an acceptable design and could take place without detriment to the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area. As such, the application is recommended for permission.



13. RECOMMENDATION That the Head of Planning and Transportation be AUTHORISED TO GRANT

PERMISSION subject to: i) the receipt of no material objections to the submitted plans from the Highway Authority, ii) the imposition of the conditions set out below.






following approved plans: 300, 304, 306, 307, 301, 302, 305, 303. Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of the development.

3. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the approved

arrangements for the parking and turning of vehicles on site have been implemented. These areas shall be kept available for their intended purposes at all times.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision is made in the interest of

highway safety and to comply with Policy CS24 of the Core

Strategy for New Forest District outside the National Park.

4. Before the commencement of development, details of the cycle parking that is to be provided in connection with the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved cycle parking areas shall be provided before the development hereby approved is first brought into use. Reason: To promote sustainable travel and to comply with Policies CS2

and CS24 of the Core Strategy for New Forest District outside the National Park.


The proposed development is in accordance with Policies CS2 and CS20 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park, but would not be in accordance with Policy BU-LC2 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration or fully in accordance with emerging policy DM20 of the Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document. The loss of the existing public house would be contrary to policy, but would be justified given that a change of use from a public house to a retail shop does not require planning permission. A retail shop of the size proposed is considered justified in this location in view of the applicant's permitted development rights, the scheme's economic benefits and the site's location immediately adjacent to the existing Blackfield Local Shopping Frontage. The proposed development would be of an acceptable design and appearance and could be provided without detriment to the character of the area or the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.



Please be informed that there are sites near to this property which have potentially contaminative uses. It is possible that some contamination may have migrated through the ground and groundwater. Whilst the Authority has no evidence to suggest that this is the case, any observed presence of contamination during any ground invasive works must be reported to the Environmental Health Officer and works halted whilst the matter is considered. It is advisable to obtain specialist advice concerning the potential for contamination and its recognition.


Major Team




1:1250


SU4402App No 12/99057-58

The Hampshire Yeoman

Scale

Hampton LaneBlackfield Fawley

A8 & A9Item No:

October 2012


Bungalow

Per

elan

dra

Ferndown

BlackfieldDown Yonder

Juneda

The Nook

Haslemere

Buckland

Esklyn

Chard

Laurels

The

Onslow

Sanguine

Finglebridge

Gateways

Holly Copse

Three Gates

2

The

Invergarry

LynnwoodTim

berto

ps

1

Niton

Clovelly

Rhodanthe

26.8m

BLA

CKFIE

LD R

OAD

Pinfolds

NEW

RO

AD

Larchwood

Laurels

Oakwood

65

55

PLA

CE

20

64

1

2

3

60

Rozel

Gwenmary

The End

61

Yalova

Withluck

Medina

Finistere

Waverley

Petrellyn

Gas

Gov

Denbigh

House

Durlston

Marston

Philm

ar

144

6

5

4

Lansdown

Spindlewood

Melbourne

Shelter

7

Garage

146

148

12

PENDLETON GARDENS

167 1

69

Ward

Bdy

GP

150

HA

MP

TO

N L

AN

E

The Hampshire Yeoman

154

(PH)

157

3

41 15

9 16

1

2

PO

El S

ub S

ta

14

Pc's

163

LB

27.4m

Library

23

187 1

89

191

193 to

199

15

215

2

201

6

5

Edale

Questover

Copperfie

lds

HUGHES CLOSE

223

221

Alpha

Sunnyville

Ingle

side

Fore

st Sid

e

Selwood Villa

Drove H

ouse

1

With

eria

Cotta

ge

Larch

wood

Church Hall

Baptist

Church

229

231

27.7m

1

Brambles

Fawley



Site: THE HAMPSHIRE YEOMAN, HAMPTON LANE, BLACKFIELD,

FAWLEY SO45 1XA

Development: Installation of 3 wall mounted air conditioning units; 1 four fan

condensing unit within a solid timber enclosure; 1 compressor unit

in acoustic pack within brickwork enclosure

Applicant: Sainsbury's Supermarket Ltd


________________________________________________________________________


Member Request


Built-up area


Core Strategy Objectives 1. Special qualities, local distinctiveness and a high quality living environment 4. Economy 6. Towns, villages and built environment quality Policies CS2: Design quality Local Plan Policies No relevant policies Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document (Proposed Submission Document) DM20: Small local shops and public houses




None


6.1 37 flats in two blocks; one pair of town houses; one block of 4 garages with bin store; one cycle store; associated parking and access alterations (82306) - refused 29/9/04

6.2 Single storey rear extension and new front entrance in connection with use of

building for retail purposes; installation of atm; fenestration alterations; demolition of timber structure (ref: 12/99057) Item A08 on this Agenda.


Fawley Parish Council:- Recommend permission - noise level should be monitored and suggest that any increase in noise experienced should not exceed one decibel above the existing.


8.1 Councillor Wappet - Requests Committee consideration 8.2 Councillor Glass - the current car park is often fully used, more details are

required to make any further comments


9.1 Land Drainage:- No comment 9.2 Environmental Health (Contaminated Land):- No objection 9.3 Southern Gas Networks:- advise of site's proximity to gas main 9.4 Environmental Health (pollution):- No objection subject to a condition that

ensures the units are installed as specified in the applicant's submitted report


10.1 1 letter of objection from nearby business:- comments relate primarily to extension and not to plant equipment.

10.2 3 letters of objection from:- comments relate primarily to extension and not to

plant equipment.



12 ASSESSMENT

12.1 The Hampshire Yeoman Public House occupies a large and prominent corner site in the centre of Blackfield. The main building on the site is a relatively large 2 storey building that dates from the late 1950s. There are various single storey flat-roofed additions set to the rear of the building. The building is set well back from the site's 2 road frontages. To the front of the building are extensive areas of hardstanding used for vehicular parking as well as some fairly generous grassed areas, which gives the corner quite an open character. The main commercial heart of Blackfield lies immediately to the south and west of the application site, whilst areas to the north and east of the site are in residential use.

12.2 The submitted application seeks to install 3 wall mounted air conditioning

units, a four fan condensing unit within a solid timber enclosure and a compressor unit in an acoustic pack within a brickwork enclosure. This development proposed would be either attached to or adjacent to the extension that is proposed under application 12/99057. The development is proposed in connection with the intended use of the building as a Sainsbury's Local convenience retail shop.

12.3 There are 2 main considerations raised by this particular development

proposal. The first is whether the proposed development would be visually acceptable. The second is whether the proposed development would result in noise that would affect residential amenities. On the first issue, the proposed plant equipment would be of a limited size and would not be sited in a visually prominent location. It is felt that the development would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area.

12.4 On the issue of noise, the submitted application is accompanied by a plant

noise impact report. The plant that is proposed would be sited in excess of 20 metres away from both the rear facade of the residential properties in Pendleton Gardens to the north side of the site and the nearest flats to the east of the site. The noise report concludes that the plant will not give rise to an increase in the background noise levels at any time of the day or night and will have no appreciable noise effects, and as such, complaints from nearby residential properties are unlikely. The Council's Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the submitted noise report and is satisfied with its conclusions. As such, it is felt the proposed development could be reasonably implemented without detriment to residential amenities.

12.5 As part of the proposed development would be attached to the associated

proposed extension, the proposal is partly reliant on that extension also being acceptable. However, as the extension is also considered acceptable (see assessment for application 12/99057), and given that the proposal is considered to be consistent with Core Strategy policies and objectives, the application is recommended for permission.







Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and

Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 300, 304, 306, 307, 301, 305, 303. Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of the development.

3. The units and external plant hereby approved shall be installed and

permanently maintained in accordance with the submitted Environmental Equipment Corporation Ltd Plant Noise Impact Planning Report Reference TM/EC12015-004 dated 26th July 2012 unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential

properties and to comply with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for New Forest District outside the National Park.


The proposed development is in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy

for the New Forest District outside the National Park. The proposed development would be reasonably related to the intended use of the building and could be implemented without adversely affecting the character and appearance of the area or the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.



Major Team



Site: BRIDGE COTTAGE, BRIDGE ROAD, LYMINGTON SO41 9BZ

Development: Retention of single-storey extension with alterations to form hipped

roof; retention of 1.8 metre high boundary wall

Applicant: Mrs Wyatt-Budd


________________________________________________________________________


Discretion of Head of Planning and Transportation


Built-up area Environmental Improvements


Core Strategy Objectives 1. Special qualities, local distinctiveness and a high quality living environment 6. Towns, villages and built environment quality Policies CS1: Sustainable development principles CS2: Design quality CS3: Protecting and enhancing our special environment (Heritage and Nature Conservation) CS10: The spatial strategy Local Plan Policies DW-E23: New development in conservation area Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document (Proposed Submission Document) None relevant


Section 38 Development Plan Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Section 72 General duty as respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 National Planning Policy Framework NPPF Ch. 7 - Requiring good design

NPPF Ch. 12 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment


SPG - Lymington - A Conservation Area Appraisal SPD - Lymington Local Distinctiveness

6 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 6.1 10/96521 Retention of garage with room over, retention of single-storey side

extension 15/03/2012 Refused 6.2 07/89380 Single-storey side extension (Alteration to Planning Permission

84394) 08/03/2007 Refused 6.3 05/84394 Single-storey side extension, double garage, roof alterations, rear

conservatory, access alterations and boundary walls 10/06/2005 Granted Subject to Conditions


Lymington and Pennington Town Council: comments awaited.


None received


9.1 Environment Agency: No comment 9.2 Natural England: No objection 9.3 Environmental Health (Land Contamination): No objection subject to

informative 9.4 Land Drainage: No objection subject to condition 9.5 Conservation Consultant: Recommend refusal


10.1 One letter of support: hip roof not necessary, it seems ok to remove the most important feature of the cottage which was a twin roof, but to quibble about something which no-one will notice making it less original

10.2 One letter of objection: as can be evidenced from the whole scale, design and

finish of the extension and wall, it is out of scale and keeping with the original cottage and too dominant and imposing on the street scene, the brick wall in terms of material is totally out of character



12 ASSESSMENT

12.1 The application site is a detached dwelling situated on a corner plot with both

Bridge Road and Waterloo Road. The site also lies within the Lymington Conservation Area. Waterloo Road is mixed in character however the properties surrounding the application site are mainly characterised by terraces of small, two-storey domestic cottages. This application seeks consent for the retention of single-storey extension with alterations to form hipped roof and retention of 1.8m high boundary wall. Each of these proposals shall be discussed below.

12.2 Side Extension: 12.3 History: 12.4 A single-storey side extension was granted consent in 2005 as part of a

package of proposals submitted and approved under reference 84394. The submitted plans showed that the side extension would be set back from the front elevation of the building by approximately 2.6m and incorporate a more refinely detailed and less imposing fireplace/external chimney feature. In 2007 another application was submitted for a side extension (our ref 89380) which sought permission to alter the previous consent to allow for a larger side addition that would no longer be set back from the front elevation to enable room for a utility room. This application was refused by the Council in March 2007 due to:

"As a result of its location the proposed extension would be

considered harmful to the character of the original cottage to an unacceptable extent. Bringing the extension forward to the existing building line increases its prominence and with the removal of the enclosing wall would adversely impact on the contribution that the cottage and its surrounding space makes to the conservation area."

12.5 The side extension in situ has not been built in accordance with the approved

plans and now sits flush with the front elevation. The applicant submitted another application to regularise these unauthorised works, our reference 96521, which was refused by Members at the March 2012 Development Control Committee meeting because:

'As a result of its location, the side extension has a harmful impact

upon the character of the original cottage to an unacceptable extent. Bringing the extension forward to the existing building line increases the prominence of this building element and significantly alters the relationship between the cottage and the side elevation on this prominent elevation adversely impacting upon the contribution that the cottage and its surrounding space makes to the character and appearance of the Lymington Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park, policy DW-E23 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration and Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.'

12.6 Since the refusal of the latest application by Members, the Council has issued

an enforcement notice which requires the demolition of this structure as well as the conservatory, garage and part of the boundary wall. The applicant has appealed this enforcement notice and the appeal hearing date is the 23rd October

12.7 Proposed alterations: The submitted scheme proposes to amend the roof form of this element to

reduce the impact of the extension. The submitted plans indicate that it is proposed to replace the lean-to with a hipped roof. It is recognised that this proposed alteration would have some effect on minimising the visual effect to the street by changing it from a white painted gable end to a slate hip, however it is only palliative and does not address the substantive issue of the forward position of the extension's front wall in relation to the house . It is therefore still considered that the proposed side extension as a result of its location, has a harmful impact upon the character of the original cottage to an unacceptable extent. Bringing the extension forward to the existing front building line increases the prominence of this building element and significantly devalues the form and character of the cottage. In particular the relationship between its front and side elevations when viewed from the street adversely impacts upon the contribution that the cottage makes toward the character and appearance of the Lymington Conservation Area.

12.8 Boundary Wall: 12.9 History: 12.10 Consent was granted for a boundary wall at this property in 2005. The

approved drawings in 2005 showed the wall terminating at the western end of the front elevation of Bridge Cottage facing onto Bridge Street. The boundary wall which has been built extends a further 2.5m eastwards in front of the cottage with a return to the front elevation of the building.

12.11 The Council has issued an enforcement notice which requires the demolition

of part of this boundary wall as well as the side extension, garage with room above and rear conservatory. The applicant has appealed this enforcement notice and the appeal hearing date is the 23rd October.

12.12 Proposed Alterations: The Council considers that this unauthorised increase in length of the wall

along this prominent corner to be an alien, over dominant and intrusive feature in the street scene to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The submitted proposal does not propose any amendments to this wall and as such it is not considered that the Council's concerns have been overcome.

12.13 Conclusions: 12.14 To conclude, it is considered that the front boundary wall, by reason of its

increase in length at its full height on this prominent corner in front of the cottage, results in an alien, over dominant and intrusive feature within the street scene, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area and the Lymington Conservation Area. Furthermore, as a result of its location, the side extension has a harmful impact upon the character of the original cottage to an unacceptable extent. Bringing the extension forward to the existing building line increases the prominence of this building element to the detriment of the character and appearance of the cottage adversely impacts upon the contribution that the cottage and its surrounding space makes to the character and appearance of the Lymington Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to both local and national planning policy and as such it is recommend that the application be refused.

12.15 In coming to this recommendation, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst it is recognised that this recommendation, if agreed, may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the applicant to develop the land in the way proposed, the objections to the planning application are serious ones and cannot be overcome by the imposition of conditions. The public interest and the rights and freedoms of neighbouring property owners can only be safeguarded by the refusal of permission.

13. RECOMMENDATION Refuse


1. As a result of its location, the side extension has a harmful impact upon the character of the original cottage to an unacceptable extent. Bringing the extension forward to the existing building line increases the prominence of this building element and significantly alters the relationship between the cottage and the side elevation on this prominent elevation adversely impacting upon the contribution that the cottage and its surrounding space makes to the character and appearance of the Lymington Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park, policy DW-E23 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration, Supplementary Planning Document Lymington Local Distinctiveness, Supplementary Planning Guidance Lymington Conservation Area Appraisal and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The front boundary wall, by reason of its increase in length at its full height

on this prominent corner to the front of the cottage, results in an alien, overdominant and intrusive feature within the street scene, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area and the Lymington Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park, policy DW-E23 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration


Householder Team




1:1250


SZ3296App No 12/99087-88-89

Bridge Cottage

Scale

Bridge RoadLymington

A10, A11 & A12Item No:

October 2012


Pear

Trees

2

Corner

4.0m

Ways

Avalon

Mayville

Durlston

House

FactoryPost

Sluice

MLWSM

Sluice

NTL

Shaunville

Flags

SL

Garage

16

Cotta

ge

Brid

ge

Cotta

ge

Vie

nna

2.1m

LC

BRIDGE

ROAD

39

32

28

Mud

B 3054

Mud

El

Sub Sta

Works

5

22

Works

WATER

LOO

RO

AD

21

Works

Works

Gantry

90

76 G

OS

PO

RT

ST

RE

ET

55

Court

River1

2

Riverside

3

6

Victo

ry

5

23

4

Adelaide

Court

1 to

7

1.5m

27

25

29

74

18 Business Park

1

to

17

Works

Works

Landing Stage

Pum

pin

g S

ta

Bridge

Lymington

SM

Cr

SL

CCLW


Boldre




Development: Retention of rear conservatory with alterations to lower lean-to roof



________________________________________________________________________


Discretion of Head of Planning


Built-up area Conservation Area




Section 38 Development Plan Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Section 72 General duty as respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 National Planning Policy Framework NPPF Ch. 7 - Requiring good design NPPF Ch. 12 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment


SPG - Lymington - A Conservation Area Appraisal SPD - Lymington Local Distinctiveness

6 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 05/84394 Single-storey side extension; double garage; roof alterations; rear conservatory; access alterations and boundary wall 10/06/2005 Granted Subject to Conditions


Lymington and Pennington Town Council: comments awaited.


None received


9.1 Land Drainage: No objections subject to conditions 9.2 Environmental Health (Land Contamination): No objections 9.3 Environment Agency: No comments 9.4 Natural England: No objections 9.5 Conservation Consultant: No Objections


10.1 One letter of support: will miss the present aesthetically pleasing roof 10.2 One letter of objection: out of scale and keeping with the original cottage as

well as everything else in the road, proposal is nothing like the original consented application



12 ASSESSMENT

12.1 The application site is a detached dwelling situated on a corner plot with both Bridge Road and Waterloo Road. The site also lies within the Lymington Conservation Area. Waterloo Road is mixed in character however the properties surrounding the application site are mainly characterised by terraces of small, two-storey domestic cottages. This application seeks consent for the retention of rear conservatory with alterations to lower lean-to roof.

12.2 History of the site: 12.2.1 The conservatory the subject of this permission was originally granted

consent in 2005 (our ref 84394) when planning permission was granted for a

traditional style of conservatory at the rear of Bridge Cottage, with a lean-to roof extending up to just beneath the cill line of the first floor windows, together with narrow casements with 'pointed arch-type' details to the windows. The conservatory which has been built varies from that permitted and exhibits a more contemporary styling with large full glazed panels with tinted glass, above a brick plinth, with a much steeper roof angle extending up to above the mid-point of the first floor windows.

12.2.2 The Council has issued an enforcement notice which requires the demolition

of this structure as well as the side extension, garage with room above and part of the boundary wall. The applicant has appealed this enforcement notice and the appeal hearing date is the 23rd October.

12.3 Proposed alterations: 12.3.1 The submitted scheme proposes to reduce the height of the conservatory that

is in situ so that the lean-to roof would sit below the first floor window resulting in a shallower roof pitch. The Council has stated within its evidence accompanying the current enforcement appeal that the main impact of the conservatory in situ is the increased height and change in the form of the roof because this has resulted in an interruption to the lean-to roof line, involving a strange roof detail to accommodate the window similar to an inverted dormer with solid internal panels flashed in.

12.3.2 The proposed decrease in the height of the conservatory is considered to be

an improvement in terms of the effect upon the elevation of the house. Notwithstanding this the Conservation Officer has stated that no attempt has been made in terms of re-design to address the fact that the subdivisions of the roof panel in relation to the window frames below not being aligned, results in a disjointed appearance. The design detail of the conservatory was not, however, raised as a concern within the enforcement notice and as such it would be imprudent to raise an objection on these grounds now.

12.4 Other matters 12.4.1 The Drainage Technician has requested that a condition is attached to the

consent requiring details of surface water disposal to be approved by the Local Planning Authority. As the footprint of the conservatory which is in situ would not be altered, and the amendment would relate solely to the lowering of the roof, it is not considered that this is a reasonable condition to attach to any consent given.

12.5 Conclusions: 12.5.1 To conclude, it is considered that the lowering of the glazed roof to below the

cill of the adjacent first floor window would overcome the concerns raised in the Enforcement Notice and as such it is recommended that permission is granted.

12.5.2 In coming to this recommendation, consideration has been given to the rights




1. The proposed alterations to the roof shall only be constructed using timber framing materials/finishes and glazing that match those used for the windows and glazing of the existing conservatory.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the building in



The proposed development is in accordance with Policies CS1, CS2, CS3 and

CS10 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park and Policy DW-E23 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

The lowering of the glazed roof to below the cill of the adjacent first floor window would result in an appropriate addition which would have an acceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the Lymington Conservation Area.



The historic and existing use of the land within the vicinity of the development site - railway land, works building and petrol tanks - indicates potential contaminative uses. Therefore, in the event that contamination is found at any time during any ground invasive works these must be immediately reported to Environmental Health and works halted whilst the matter is considered.


Householder Team




Development: Retention of garage including accommodation in roofspace with

alterations to remove front projecting gable feature and create

cropped gable roof form



________________________________________________________________________




Built-up area Conservation Area




Section 38 Development Plan Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Section 72 General duty as respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

National Planning Policy Framework NPPF Ch. 7 - Requiring good design NPPF Ch. 12 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment


SPD - Lymington Local Distinctiveness SPG - Lymington - A Conservation Area Appraisal


6.1 10/96521 Retention of garage with room over; retention of single-storey side extension Refused 15/3/2012

6.2 09/95005 Retention of garage with room over Refused 7/4/2010 Appeal

lodged but not valid 6.3 07/89380 Single-storey side extension (Alteration to Planning Permission

84394) Refused 8/3/2007 6.4 05/84394 Single-storey side extension; double garage; roof alterations; rear

conservatory; access alterations and boundary wall - Granted Subject to Conditions 10/6/2005


None received to date


None received


9.1 Land Drainage: No objection subject to condition 9.2 Environment Agency: No comments 9.3 Environmental Health (Land Contamination): No objection subject to

informative 9.4 Conservation Consultant: Recommend refusal


One letter of support



12 ASSESSMENT 12.1 The application site is a detached dwelling situated on a corner plot with both

Bridge Road and Waterloo Road. The site also lies within the Lymington Conservation Area. Waterloo Road is mixed in character however the properties surrounding the application site are mainly characterised by terraces of small, two-storey domestic cottages. This application seeks

consent for the retention of garage including accommodation in the roofspace with alterations to remove the front projecting gable feature and create cropped gable form.

12.2 History of the site: 12.2.1 The garage the subject of this permission was originally granted consent in

2005 (our ref 84394) when planning permission was granted for a large garage with domestic accommodation within its roof space set well forward in the street scene. The building that has been built varies from that permitted in a number of ways and two applications seeking retrospective consent for this addition, our references 95005 and 96521, were refused because:

'The garage due to its design, and the increase in the building's eaves

height, exacerbates the size of the building resulting in the gable being far more dominant and imposing in the street scene, and harmful to the visual amenities of the area. Furthermore, these variations have resulted in a building that is out of proportion and awkward in appearance which is incongruous to the context of the site, and harmful to the immediate context of the building which is characterised by small, domestic two-storey cottages and the wider architectural character and appearance of this part of the Lymington Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CS2 and CS3 of the New Forest District Council Core Strategy, policy DW-E23 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration and Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.'

12.2.2 Since the refusal of the last application by Members at the March

Development Control Committee meeting the Council has issued an enforcement notice which requires the demolition of this structure as well as the side extension, conservatory and part of the boundary wall. The applicant has appealed this enforcement notice and the appeal hearing date is the 23rd October.

12.2.3 The Council considered that the garage which was given permission in 2005

suggested an interesting building whose facades, particularly that fronting onto Waterloo Road would be broken down into a series of reasonably proportioned elements. For example two pairs of traditional, side hung garage doors created an interesting rhythm of smaller elements in a larger facade. The permitted design showed a gable proportionate to the street facade of the building allowing the building's roof to sit comfortably on the main body of the building, visually holding the whole building down. The permitted facade was further broken down with projecting joist ends, suggesting a traditional jettied construction supporting the projecting gable. The omission and variation of all of the above items in the building as built, as well as the increase in the building's eaves height above ground level, has exacerbated the apparent size of the building, as well as making the gable appear far more dominant and imposing in the street scene. It was therefore concluded that the garage as built appears out of proportion, awkward in appearance and incongruous to the context of the site that impacts adversely on both the architectural character and appearance of this part of the Lymington Conservation Area, and particularly that of the immediate context of the building which is characterised by small, domestic cottages.

12.3 Proposed alterations to the garage in situ: 12.3.1 The submitted application proposes the following alterations to the

appearance of the garage that is in situ:

1 Cutting back the garage roof where it currently projects forward of the face of the garage doors.

2 The removal of the timber support brackets. 3 The removal of the timber cladding above the garage doors and

replace with facing brick. 4 The introduction of cropped gables to the front and rear. 5 The introduction of a false sail-loft door within the gable end above

the garage door. The Agent has stated within the accompanying design and access statement

that it is considered that the above alterations would give the garage a more sympathetic domestic scale and appearance.

12.3.2 It is considered that the removal of the front projecting element of the garage

would be an improvement as it would reduce the impact the structure has upon the street scene, and would also appear less visually overbearing from the cottages opposite. Notwithstanding this, the proposed amendments fail to address what is considered to be the primary reason for the imbalance of this elevation, namely the increase in the building's eaves height. It is the increase in the eaves height by 560mm which alters the original approved design and therefore the scale of this end elevation which appears visually imposing, out of proportion, awkward in appearance and incongruous to the immediate context of the building which is characterised by small, domestic two-storey cottages which contribute positively to the streetscape as identified by the Lymington Local Distinctiveness SPD. It is important that new development respects the character and appearance of the locality and the Lymington Conservation Area Appraisal states that "new development in any zone identified within the conservation area should be of a scale that is not damagingly at variance with the established scale of traditional building and development in that zone. The style of new development should complement the character and styles of the established buildings" (para 4.5.2). This advice is further echoed by the National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 137 of the NPPF states that Local Authorities "should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas...and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance" and paragraph 64 states that "development should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area". It is considered that if the problem with the scale of the building is to be resolved in this small, narrow street then the imbalance of the elevation needs to be addressed. It is Officers opinion that this can only be achieved by reducing the eaves height of the building to its approved height. Moreover, it is not proposed to alter the existing garage door which due to its 'gaping' horizontal emphasis exacerbates the size of the building.

12.4 Conclusions: 12.4.1 To conclude, it is considered that the proposed alterations to the existing

garage, by reason of the design and the increase in building's eaves height exacerbates the size of the building, and would still result in a building that is out of proportion and awkward in appearance which would be incongruous to the context of the site, and harmful to the immediate context of the building which is characterised by small, domestic two-storey properties and the wider architectural character and appearance of this part of the Lymington Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to both local and national planning policy and as such it is recommend that the application be refused.

12.4.2 In coming to this recommendation, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst it is recognised that this recommendation, if agreed, may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the applicant to develop the land in the way proposed, the objections to the planning application are serious ones and cannot be overcome by the imposition of conditions. The public interest and the rights and freedoms of neighbouring property owners can only be safeguarded by the refusal of permission.



1. The proposals for the retention and alterations to the existing garage, would, by reason of their design and the building's eaves height exacerbate and emphasise the size of the building, resulting in a building that is out of scale, awkward in appearance and incongruous within the context of the site, which is characterised by small, domestic two-storey properties, to the detriment of the wider architectural character and appearance of this part of the Lymington Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park, policy DW-E23 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration, Supplementary Planning Document Lymington Local Distinctiveness, Supplementary Planning Guidance Lymington Conservation Area Appraisal and the National Planning Policy Framework.


Householder Team



Site: 2 HYMANS WAY, TOTTON SO40 3DL

Development: Use of ground floor as residential dwelling

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Edmonds


________________________________________________________________________


Contrary Town Council view.


Built-up area


Core Strategy Objectives 1. Special qualities, local distinctiveness and a high quality living environment 3. Housing 4. Economy Policies CS1: Sustainable development principles CS2: Design quality CS7: Open spaces, sport and recreation CS10: The spatial strategy CS15: Affordable housing contribution requirements from developments CS17: Employment and economic development CS24: Transport considerations CS25: Developers contributions Local Plan Policies None relevant Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document (Proposed Submission Document) DM20: Small local shops and public houses


Section 38 Development Plan Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 National Planning Policy Framework Achieving Sustainable Development NPPF Ch.1 - Building a strong, competitive economy NPPF Ch. 6 - Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes


None relevant


Use as a residential dwelling (ref: 12/98320) refused 16.04.2012


Totton and Eling Town Council - recommend permission and would not accept a delegated refusal. Can see no reason why it should not be granted


None received


9.1 Environment Agency - no comments 9.2 Building Control - difficult to achieve a suitable means of escape from

bedrooms 9.3 Drainage - no comment 9.4 Planning Policy - contrary to policy CS17 9.5 Southern Gas Networks - offer advice 9.6 Southern Water - request informative


The neighbour has written in to clarify the location of the joint boundary. They do not object.


None

12 ASSESSMENT

12.1 The site lies within the built up area of Totton in a predominantly residential area although there is a commercial use immediately adjacent and a further one around the corner. The property forms part of a pair of semi-detached two storey properties comprising commercial use at ground floor level with residential accommodation above. It is understood that the hairdressers has previously been used for residential purposes but not for several decades.

12.2 The proposal entails the change of use of the vacant hairdressers into a two

bedroom flat. It follows the previously refused application for the same proposal earlier this year. Whilst in principle, there are no objections to the provision of an additional dwelling within the built up area, the same proposal was previously refused for the following reason:

'Without justification for the loss of a use where there could be

employment and business activity, the proposal would be contrary to part (d) of CS17 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park which seeks to retain all such uses.'

In this respect, the application is not supported with any information to suggest that the continuation of a commercial enterprise would not be possible in this location and without such justification, the proposal is considered contrary to policy CS17. The supporting information does however suggest that there is a surplus of commercial property in the town although this is not supported with any details from local estate agents. It also makes reference to pre-application advice which was to provide additional evidence of marketing to justify the proposal yet this has not been forthcoming.

12.3 New residential development generates contributions to be made towards

public open space, affordable housing and transportation. The Highway Authority has stated in its comments that a transportation contribution is not required in this instance on the basis that it is unlikely that there would be any increase in trip generation to the property. The applicants have agreed to pay the appropriate level of contributions and a Section 106 Agreement is being drafted to this effect, however in the absence of the completed agreement, reasons for refusal Nos. 2 and 3 are justified.


set out in Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst it is recognised that this recommendation, if agreed, may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the applicant to develop the land in the way proposed, the objections to the planning application are serious ones and cannot be overcome by the imposition of conditions. The public interest and the rights and freedoms of neighbouring property owners can only be safeguarded by the refusal of permission.

Developers’ Contributions Summary Table

Proposal:



Difference

Affordable Housing


Financial Contribution £7,610 £7,610 0

Public Open Space


0.007ha 0.007ha 0

Financial Contribution £2,336.60 £2,336.60


Financial Contribution N/A



1. Without justification for the loss of a use where there could be employment and business activity, the proposal would be contrary to part (d) of CS17 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park which seeks to retain all such uses.

2. The proposed development would fail to make any contribution toward

addressing the substantial need for affordable housing in the District. The proposal would therefore conflict with an objective of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park 2009 and with the terms of Policies CS15 and CS25 of the Core Strategy.

3. The proposed development would fail to make any contribution to enhance or create off-site provision and management of public open space to meet the needs of the occupants of the development for public open space. The proposal would therefore be contrary to an objective of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park 2009 and with the terms of Policies CS7 and CS25 of the Core Strategy.


Major Team




1:1250


SU3513App No 12/99090

2 Hymans Way

Scale

Totton

A13Item No:

October 2012


52

46

53

Honeywood

9

18

61

62

12

71

15

73

BA

GB

ER

RO

AD

2

15

11a

11

2

2

18

18

5

3

84

9

13

1

88

2

Maria

Santa

6

1a

El Sub Sta

1g

93

97

9

72

1 to 5

85

17

10

11

12

91

87

1

8

9

3a

3Posts

HYMANS WAY

27

WIC

KH

AM

CO

UR

T

1

10

99

4 to 7

7

12

LYDLYNCH ROAD

Infant School

Lydlynch

1f

10

104a

104

103

105

WATER LANE

102

106

114

11

19

23

2

OAKFI

ELD

RO

AD

1

10

6

OAKLA

NDS A

VENUE

27

39

Posts

124a

124

122

Track

126

Totton & Eling


Planning Development Control Committee 10 October 2012 Item A 14 Application Number: 12/99113 Minerals (County Matter)

Site: MARCHWOOD QUARRY JACOBS GUTTER LANE,

MARCHWOOD SO40 4UD

Development: Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission 09/94536 to

extend the time period to 31st December 2025

Applicant: Marchwood Aggregates Ltd


________________________________________________________________________




Countryside


Core Strategy Objectives 1. Special qualities, local distinctiveness and a high quality living environment 2. Climate change and environmental sustainability Policies CS2: Design quality CS10: The spatial strategy CS24: Transport considerations Local Plan Policies No relevant policies Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document (Proposed Submission Document) No relevant policies Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2007)




None


6.1 Sand and gravel extraction with progressive infilling with inert material together with ancillary plant and buildings and the erection of a concrete batching plant (49867) - granted by County 14/11/1994

6.2 Variation of Condition - revised restoration scheme (66043) - granted by

County 2/9/1999 6.3 Importation of construction / demolition waste, its storage, processing and

despatch as secondary aggregate (70839) - Granted by County 13/8/01 6.4 Winning and working of sand and gravel with progressive reclamation by

importing and spreading of inert waste to restore farmland (76732) - granted by County 9/8/04

6.5. Variation of condition 1 of Planning permission 70839 to extend the date of

completion (94536) - granted by County 6/1/11 6.6 Variation of conditions 3 (scheme of working), 5 (scheme of restoration) and

25 (date of completion) of PP49867 (94538) - granted 10/11/10 6.7 Variation of condition 2 of PP76732 (extension of time) (94843) - granted by

County 5/1/11 6.8 Variation of Condition 2 of PP 09/94843 (extension of time until 30th June

2012) (96508) - granted by County 18/2/11


7.1 Totton & Eling Town Council:- Recommend refusal - concerns regarding HGV movements on Jacobs Gutter Lane and regarding environmental issues and safety concerns

7.2 Marchwood Parish Council:- Recommend permission - Support


None


None


None



12 ASSESSMENT

12.1 Marchwood Quarry is an active quarry that covers an extensive area of land to the north of Marchwood village that has been operational since 1995. The original 1994 planning permission for the quarry permitted the winning and

working of minerals to take place up until August 2009. Planning permission 09/94538 subsequently allowed the winning and working of minerals to take place up until 31st August 2012.

12.2 An application to allow the recycling of inert material on a small part of the

Marchwood Quarry site was granted permission in 2001 and was subject to a condition that operations cease in August 2009. Planning application 09/94536 subsequently allowed recycling operations to take place until 31st August 2012.

12.3 2 new planning applications have now been submitted. Both seek to extend

the timescales for completing operations. The first application covering the whole quarry site (12/99110) requires an Environmental Impact Assessment, which has not yet been submitted (this application cannot therefore be considered at the current time). This particular application (12/99113) relates just to the small part of the site where recycling was initially permitted in 2001. The proposal specifically seeks permission for the carrying out of recycling operations up until 31st December 2025, ie for another 12-13 years. The application is to be determined by Hampshire County Council. New Forest District Council are a consultee.

12.4 The supporting details for application 12/99110 indicate that the marked

decline in the economy in recent years has had a dramatic impact on the progress and timescales of mineral development at the Marchwood Quarry site, thereby slowing rates of progress. Whilst significant parts of the site have been worked and restored, other parts of the site have been extracted for minerals, but no reclamation has yet taken place. There also remain areas in the north-western part of the site which have not yet had minerals extracted. The recycling of inert waste that this particular application seeks to continue is designed to allow recycling to continue in parallel with the reclamation works that are proposed under application 12/99110. The application supporting details indicate that recycling is a minor but important element of the reclamation of Marchwood Quarry as it enables an element of the imported inert material to be treated to produce suitable reclamation materials as well as recover the harder fraction of the imported material. The operation is principally a dry screening unit, which is based on site, with the occasional use of a mobile crusher, which is brought to the site as and when needed.

12.5 Totton & Eling Town Council have concerns regarding HGV movements on

Jacobs Gutter Lane as well as concerns about environmental issues and safety concerns. However, the recycling that this application relates to covers only a small element of the overall quarry operations. There is no evidence that this particular aspect of the quarry operations has resulted in specific highway or environmental problems since first being permitted in 2001. To allow recycling operations to continue in parallel with the outstanding and planned reclamation works seems reasonable. The proposal would be consistent with Core Strategy policies and objectives and there is considered no reason to raise any objection to this particular application.

13. RECOMMENDATION Raise No Objection


Major Team




1:5000


SU3711App No 12/99113

Marchwood Quarry

Scale

Jacobs Gutter LaneMarchwood

A14Item No:

October 2012



Planning Development Control Committee 10 October 2012 Item A 15 Application Number: 12/99127 Minerals (County Matter)

Site: AVON TYRRELL RESERVOIR, RINGWOOD ROAD, AVON,

SOPLEY BH23 7BQ

Development: Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission 10/95734 to

extend the development period

Applicant: Avon Tyrell Estates


________________________________________________________________________




Green Belt River Valley Countryside outside the New Forest


Core Strategy Objectives 1. Special qualities, local distinctiveness and a high quality living environment 2. Climate change and environmental sustainability 4. Economy 7. The countryside Policies

CS-2 Design quality

CS-10 The spatial strategy Local Plan Policies None Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document (Proposed Submission Document)




None


6.1 Construction of an agricultural irrigation reservoir with removal of surplus materials (minerals and soils) arising in the course of construction (75228)

Granted by County on the 15th April 2005. 6.2 Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 75228 to extend development

period ( 95734) Grant temporary permission on the 1st April 2011.


Sopley Parish Council: No comments received to date


None


Land Drainage Engineer: no comment.


None



12 ASSESSMENT

12.1 This application is to be determined by the County Council, New Forest District Council is a consultee.

12.2 The site lies on the Avon Tyrrell Estate to the north west of Ripley and was

previously an open field which was accessed off the Ringwood Road. The site lies within the Green Belt, countryside and area defined as the River Valley. In addition, the site lies directly in line with the main east-west runway at Bournemouth Internal Airport. Planning permission was originally granted by Hampshire County Council back in March 2005 under planning reference 75228 for the construction of an agricultural reservoir. The construction process required the removal of surplus materials (mineral and soils) arising from the course of construction. The mineral which is being removed, sand and gravel, is taken for processing at New Milton Sand and Ballasts plant in New Milton. The speed at which it can be removed to form the void needed for the reservoir is controlled (in addition to planning control on the number of vehicles leaving the site on a daily basis) by the market for this material.

12.3 The construction started in late 2005 although extraction of the sand and

gravel did not get underway until mid 2006. When planning permission was granted back in 2005 a planning condition required that extraction of minerals

would cease by 31st July 2010 and restoration (the finishing of the reservoir)

shall be completed by 31st July 2011.

12.4 A subsequent planning application was submitted in 2010 under reference number 95734 to extend the development period for two years so that the reservoir could be completed before the end of July 2012. That application was required because the original intention to complete the void space to create the reservoir within 4 years was an ambitious programme which required extraction of the mineral at 100,000 tonnes per year. However, it has not been possible to complete the extraction of sand, gravel and soil to construct the reservoir by the required date. That planning application was approved by the County to extend the end date allowing the removal of sand and gravel to construct a reservoir and a condition was imposed for the extraction of minerals to cease by the 30th September 2012 and restoration including the removal of plant and buildings to be completed by the 31st July 2013

12.5 However, the extraction of the sand and gravel has still not been completed

and this current application seeks consent to further extend the development period. It is proposed to extend the period of time for one year from September 2012 to complete the extraction and one year from July 2013 to complete the restoration.

12.6 In support of the planning application it is stated that when the second

application was made in June 2010, it was not possible to predict that the global economic recession then affecting the construction industry would have run its course and that the construction would not be completed by 2012. Consequently the requirement for raw construction materials has not been as buoyant as was then anticipated. The second reason why the development has not been completed within the period of time is due to the extreme weather throughout 2012 and in particular rainfall which has consequently resulted in high volumes of groundwater.

12.7 It is considered that there are no objections to the principle of the extension of

time for one extra year to complete the extraction and restoration works and Hampshire County Council will need to assess and consider any comments made by consultees including English Nature, the operators of Bournemouth International Airport, the Environment Agency, Environmental Health and NATS.



Major Team




1:8000


SZ1598App No 12/99127

Avon Tyrrell Reservoir

Scale

Ringwood RoadAvon Sop[ley

A15Item No:

October 2012



Planning Development Control Committee 10 October 2012 Item A 16 Application Number: 12/99189 Application by Hampshire County Council

Site: MARCHWOOD JUNIOR SCHOOL, MAIN ROAD, MARCHWOOD

SO40 4ZH

Development: Continued siting of a single temporary classroom (ref 710257) for

a further 4 years

Applicant: Hampshire County Council


________________________________________________________________________


Discretion of the Head of Planning and Transportation


Built-up area


Core Strategy Objectives 6. Towns, villages and built environment quality Policies CS1: Sustainable development principles CS2: Design quality CS8: Community services and infrastructure Local Plan Policies None relevant Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document (Proposed Submission Document) None relevant


Section 38 Development Plan Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 National Planning Policy Framework Achieving Sustainable Development


None relevant


6.1 92311 - continued siting of classroom (temporary permission for a period of 4 years). Grant temporary permission 16.6.08

6.2 84215 - continued siting of one single temporary classroom (10257) until August 31st 2006. Granted by County 18.5.05

6.3 42913 - erection of single temporary classroom. Granted by County 13.11.89


Marchwood Parish Council - none received to date


None received


Land Drainage Engineer: no comment


None received


None

12 ASSESSMENT

12.1 The site lies within the built up area of Marchwood close to the village centre. It forms part of the junior school complex of buildings, other mobiles and playing fields. There is a public footpath running along the side of the school grounds and adjacent to this is the village hall and Parish Council offices. This application is to be determined by the County Council, this authority is a consultee.

12.2 The proposal entails the retention of the mobile classroom. It would seem

from the planning history that the structure has been in situ for over 20 years and despite of this, it is still in reasonable repair although could do with some repainting in places.

12.3 The mobile classroom is visible from the public footpath until adjacent to the

structure where it becomes screened by a mature boundary hedge. There is also vegetation within the school grounds which provide additional screening.

12.4 Although it would be preferable to have a more permanent structure in place,

no objections are raised to the retention of the existing structure at this time.



Major Team




1:1700


SU3810App No 12/99189

Marchwood Junior School

Scale

Main RoadMarchwood

A16Item No:

October 2012


2

3

6

71

1

Cottages

Clements

8.2m

LB

Forge

The

The

Forge

1

2

Elmleigh

7

2

23

14

12

17

TCB

The White

Horse

(PH)

9

11

7

Sub Sta

El

1

18

2

12

15

15a

EV

ER

GR

EE

N

CLO

SE

24

WO

OD

GLA

DE

CLO

SE

10

1

4

9

12

14

35

5

39

RO

AD

22

18

116

17

30

31

Mayfield B

eaumont

Clarem

ontPicton

112

Kinfauns

5

6

Toxteth

1

29

17PO

14

Cobourg

Upcott

Biljou

Almond

Barrie

Old M

althouse

7.6m

The

Haw

thor

ns

Norbury

House

1

2

El Sub Sta

Merrie

Meade

23

34

4

(PH)

The Roebuck

ST JO

HN

S C

OU

RT

Forestside

Sur

gery

17

18

20

19

14

21

16 1

5

3

8

21

7

4

3

POND CLOSE

1

8

Terra

ceM

arch

wood

11

12

2

2

4

CO

UR

TAAR

ON

1

BA

Y T

RE

E

3

6

4

3

8

18

Yawl House

1

GAR

DEN

S

9

24

Ashwells

House

Farm

Tomlins

7

14

Kimm

eridge

Carmargue

Edgefield

Mayfayre

Shalom

Hebegeebees

Marchwood

Junior School

6

9

MELI

CK

CLO

SE

1

31

33

12

16

Hall

26

1

Marchwood

7

Play Area14

12

28

10

CRAN

BERRY C

LOSE

41

11

26

35

15

47

43

36

1

20

37

29

36

39

18

11

THE ROWANS

El Sub

Sta

2

11

12

23

to

26

Villa

ge M

ew

s

27

to

30

18

to

15

22

toRecreation Ground

19

30

Play Area

711

910

6

5

VIC

AR

AG

E R

OA

D

Village Centre

18

12

14

Vicarage

19

28

BILB

ER

RY D

RIV

E

Denny Lodge

Marchwood

Hythe & Dibden


planning

Documents

major team

householder

fan condensing

jacobs gutter

cooling equipment

surrounding

obtain specialist

relevant protected