Report to Planning Committee - Fareham · 28.03.2012 · method statement with construction...

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 1 -

Item 6(i)

Date:

Report of:

Subject:

28 March 2012

Director of Planning and Environment

PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION

This report recommends action on various planning applications and miscellaneous items

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

Report to Planning Committee

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 2 -

Reference Item No

P/11/1082/OA

P/12/0146/AD

P/12/0050/CU

P/12/0095/FP

Q/0091/12

P/12/0060/FP

P/11/0743/FP

P/11/1112/FP

P/12/0045/AD

33 LOWER DUNCAN ROAD - LAND ADJACENT - PARKGATE SO31 1BE

256 BRIDGE ROAD SWANWICK SOUTHAMPTON SO317FL

73 ST MARGARETS LANE FAREHAM PO14 4BG

107 ABSHOT ROAD LOCKSHEATH FAREHAMHAMPSHIRE PO14 4NH

57 AND 58 SOLENT BREEZES CHILLING LANEWARSASH FAREHAM HANTS SO31 9HF

113 FLEET END ROAD WARSASH SO31 9JH

FORMER ST CHRISTOPHERS HOSPITAL WICKHAMROAD FAREHAM HANTS PO16 7JD

49 HIGH STREET FAREHAM PO16 7BQ

52 WICKHAM ROAD - ST CHRISTOPHERS HOSPITALFAREHAM PO16 7JE

ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING

POST MOUNTED INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BOX SIGN

RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUED USEOF UNIT A FOR D2 AND THEATRE PURPOSES ANDUNIT B FOR STORAGE USE

PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION

REQUESTING DEED OF RELEASE FOR 57 AND 58SOLENT BREEZES

RETENTION OF CAR PORT TO FRONT OF DWELLING

ERECTION OF THIRTY SEVEN DWELLINGS INCLUDINGTHE RETENTION AND CONVERSION OF FORMERHOSPITAL ENTRANCE BUILDING, ACCESS,LANDSCAPING AND PARKING

ERECTION OF REAR DOUBLE CAR PORT WITH LOGSTORE

PROPOSED ONE FASCIA V-BOARD SIGN AND FIVEFLAGPOLES

1

5

2

4

1

3

6

7

8

INDEX LIST OF APPLICATIONS BY WARD

OUTLINEPERMISSION

CONSENT

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

CONSENT

Park Gate

Sarisbury

Titchfield

Titchfield Common

Warsash

Fareham East

Miscellaneous

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 3 -

P/11/0479/CU

P/09/0892/DP/A

P/09/0892/DP/B

P/12/0130/FP

P/11/0688/FP

2 & 4 CASTLE STREET PORTCHESTER PO16 9PP

PORTCHESTER ROAD - CAMS HALL ESTATE -FAREHAM

PORTCHESTER ROAD - CAMS HALL ESTATE -FAREHAM

12 LAVEROCK LEA FAREHAM PO16 8DA

54 LINDEN LEA - THE LINDEN LEA - PORTCHESTERPO16 8EA

CHANGE OF USE FROM CLASS A1 (RETAIL) ANDCLASS A5 (HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY) TO MIXED USECLASS A3/A5 (RESTAURANT AND HOT FOODTAKEAWAY) INCLUDING REVISED FLUEARRANGEMENT

RECONSTRUCTION OF CAMS TIDAL MILL INCLUDINGRESTAURANT, BAR, KITCHEN STORES, ANCILLIARYACCOMODATION, SERVICE YARD, CAR PARK & RE-ALIGNMENT OF COASTAL PATH & CREATE NEWINTERTIDAL AREA: DETAILS PURSUANT TOCONDITION: 8I (SEAWALL/DEFENCE WORKS); 10LANDSCAPING; 11 PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY &MITIGATION; 12 CONTAMINATION & 19 ARCHAEOLOGY

RECONSTRUCTION OF CAMS TIDAL MILLINCORPORATING RESTAURANT, BAR, KITCHENSTORES, ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION, SERVICEYARD, CAR PARK AND RE-ALIGNMENT OF COASTALFOOTPATH & CREATE NEW INTERTIDAL AREA:DISCHARGE OF CONDITIONS NUMBERS 22 AND 23RELATED TO DETAILS OF TIDAL LAGOON ANDECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.

ERECTION OF SUMMERHOUSE AND DECKING ATNORTHERN EXTENT OF REAR GARDEN

DEMOLITION OF PUBLIC HOUSE AND ERECTION OFRETAIL UNIT (CLASS A1) WITH FIVE FLATS ABOVE &THREE DWELLINGS

11

9

10

12

13

PERMISSION

APPROVE

APPROVE

PERMISSION

PERMISSION

Portchester East

Portchester West

[O]

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 4 -

ZONE 1 - WESTERN WARDS

Locks Heath

Park Gate

Sarisbury

Titchfield

Titchfield Common

Warsash

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 5 -


33 LOWER DUNCAN ROAD - LAND ADJACENT - PARK GATE SO31 1BE

Report By

Site Description

Description of Proposal

Policies

Relevant Planning History

Richard Wright x2356

The application site comprises a piece of land within the urban area forming the side gardenof 33 Lower Duncan Road. The land is located to the north eastern side of the existing twostorey detached dwelling and on it currently is a large double garage outbuilding and afurther shed. Vehicular access to the site from the road is currently afforded by a pair ofgates in the north eastern boundary.

The garages and parking areas for 8 & 10 Collingworth Rise abut the north western siteboundary whilst Lower Duncan Road runs adjacent to the north eastern and south easternboundaries. The application site is mainly level however it is approximately 1.5 metreshigher than the adjacent road side at the south eastern boundary. Within the applicationsite close to that south eastern boundary lie two protected mature oak trees.

Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached dwelling with allmatters reserved.

The following policies apply to this application:

The following planning history is relevant:

(1) P/11/1082/OA PARK GATE

MR & MRS BIDWELL

Approved Fareham Borough Core Strategy

Approved SPG/SPD

Fareham Borough Local Plan Review

CS2 - Housing Provision

CS5 - Transport Strategy and Infrastructure

CS6 - The Development Strategy

CS9 - Development in Western Wards and Whiteley

CS17 - High Quality Design

CS20 - Infrastructure and Development Contributions

CS21 - Protection and Provision of Open Space

RCCPS - Residential Car and Cycle Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document

DG4 - Site Characteristics

P/07/0930/RM ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING (DETAILS PURSUANT TO

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 6 -

Representations

Consultations

Planning Considerations - Key Issues

Two letters have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds:- Loss of privacy- Loss of direct sunlight and daylight- Adverse effect on character and appearance of area- Lack of information submitted- Elevated level of site would exacerbate impact

Director of Planning & Environment (Highways) - Details of access and car/parking wouldneed to be demonstrated through any reserved matters approval. The HCC TransportContributions Policy would be applicable. Recommended sum based on current policy,justification of sum and details of improvement works to highway infrastructure in nearbyarea. Recommended condition for cycle parking.

Director of Planning & Environment (Arborist) - Insufficient arboricultural information hasbeen submitted to allow a balanced assessment to be made on of the potential implicationson trees. Information required includes tree survey with RPAs overlaid, full arboriculturalmethod statement with construction exclusion zones/tree protection plan, details of newutility service routes, ground protection measures, management of heavy plant andmachinery, techniques for construction, location of site offices/toilet facilities/materialsstorage, details of pre-commencement site meeting.

Director of Regulatory & Democractic Services (Environmental Health) - No adversecomments.

Director of Regulatory & Democractic Services (Contaminated Land) - Recommendapproval subject to condition regarding the cessation of works should any unexpectedground conditions or materials suggesting contamination be encountered.

a) Planning history

Outline planning permission was previously granted for an almost identical proposal inSeptember 2004, the only difference being that this current application does not not providedetails of the proposed means of access to the site to serve the new dwelling. A furthersubmission of the reserved matters was approved in September 2007. The approveddwelling was a three storey building with the lower storey providing an undercroft garage.The permission for this development has now lapsed.

b) Principle of development

The site is located within the urban area however such garden sites no longer fall within therevised definition of previously development land (PDL) in Planning Policy Statement 3:Housing (PPS3) the reuse of which would normally be given priority. Notwithstanding this,

P/04/1107/OA

OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION P/04/1107/OA)

Erection of Detached Dwelling (Outline Application)

APPROVE

OUTLINE PERM

07/09/2007

13/09/2004

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 7 -

Reasons For Granting Permission

Recommendation

proposals for new housing provision of this sort should not be automatically dismissed onthat basis but should instead be determined in line with local planning policy expressedthrough the borough development plan. Together Policies CS2 & CS9 of the adoptedFareham Borough Core Strategy establish the principle of new housing development withinthe settlement boundaries of the Western Wards. The erection of a new detached dwellingin this location is therefore considered acceptable subject to any other materialconsiderations.

c) Effect on character of the area

This current application proposes a new dwelling with an identical position and footprint tothat previously granted outline permission. The size of the plot and remaining garden of 33Lower Duncan Road is similar to and in some instances larger than other properties withinthe street. All details of the design and external appearance of the dwelling are reservedmatters to be considered at a later date.

d) Effect on living conditions of neighbours

At this stage the design of the proposal and details of the scale, height and massing of thedwelling have not been submitted, however due to the positioning of neighbouringproperties in relation to the application site officers consider that, subject to such detailsbeing satisfactory, the dwelling would not harm the amenities of neighbours living nearby interms of light and outlook. Where necessary any windows proposed in the reservedmatters to be considered could be conditioned so that they were obscure glazed and fixedshut so as to prevent any overlooking and similarly permitted development rights could bewithdrawn at this stage preventing any further windows from being inserted into the northeast or south west elevations without the planning authority's consent.

e) Impact on two oak trees

The two oak trees on the south eastern edge of the site are covered by FTPO 532. Officersare satisfied that a dwelling could be constructed on the site without harming either of thetrees. However control needs to be retained over the development in this regard and so anarboricultural impact assessment and tree protection method statement should be providedbefore any construction begins.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan as set out above. Other material considerations are not judged to havesufficient weight to justify a refusal of the application, and where applicable conditions havebeen applied in order to satisfy these matters. The scheme is therefore judged to be inaccordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 andthus planning permission should therefore be granted.

Subject to the applicant entering into a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town &Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council to secure afinancial contribution towards 1) off-site public open space and/or facilities, 2) improvementsto the highway infrastructure, by 2nd May 2012.

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 8 -

Background Papers

PERMISSION: submission of reserved matters (access, siting, design, external appearanceof building, landscaping); withdraw PD rights for windows in NE & SW elevations; externalmaterial samples; internal finished levels of dwelling; boundary treatment; landscaping;landscaping implementation; mud on highway; hours of construction; no burning on site;tree survey and arboricultural impact assessment; tree protection method statement; carparking; land contamination; cycle parking.

OR

In the event the applicant/owner fails to complete a planning obligation under Section 106 ofthe Town & Country Planning Act 1990 to the satisfaction of the Solicitor to the Council by2nd May 2012.

REFUSE: contrary to Policies CS20 & CS21 of the adopted Fareham Borough CoreStrategy

P/11/1082/OA

Site Location Map follows on next page

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 9 -

Land Adjacent to 33 Lower Duncan Road

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 10 -

RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUED USE OF UNIT A FOR D2 ANDTHEATRE PURPOSES AND UNIT B FOR STORAGE USE

73 ST MARGARETS LANE FAREHAM PO14 4BG

Report By

Introduction

Site Description


Policies

Jim Bennett ext. 2412

Titchfield Festival Theatre was set up in 2001 to perform plays in Titchfield Abbey, a facilitylost to the company in 2006, following which the adjoining Great Barn was used. Thecompany then moved to The Thatched Barn in Warsash, the lease on which was withdrawnin August 2010. The retrospective nature of the application results from withdrawal of thelease on The Thatched Barn, as a full season of plays were planned and in rehearsal, with73 St Margarets Lane an available alternative.

The proposal relates to a former warehouse/industrial building, located within an areadefined as countryside and the Meon Strategic Gap by the adopted Fareham Borough CoreStrategy. The site is bound by a building to the east, by fields to the north and south and bySt Margarets Lane to the west. The area is mixed use in character with commercial usesincluding a garden nursery, furniture workshop and builders yard in the locality andresidential development to the south and to the west, across St Margarets Lane.

The application is made retrospectively for continued use of a former industrial/warehousebuilding (Unit A) for D2 (assembly and leisure) and theatre purposes and Unit B forcontinued storage use. Unit A has been used for approximately 17 months for the purposeapplied for. Just over half of the unit would be used as a theatre, comprising 648 sq.m ofstage, stalls (210 seats) and other facilities at ground floor level and 159 sq.m of ancillaryaccommodation at first floor level. The remaining 649 sq.m (Unit B) would be retained asB1/B8 (office/light industrial/storage). Access to 30 no. off street parking spaces is provideddirectly off St Margarets Lane. Two overflow parking areas are indicated at the Holiday Innand Kites Croft Business Park.

The application is made on the basis that the hours of operation of operation of theD2/theatre use (Unit A) would be between 09:00 and 23:00 Monday to Saturday andbetween 10:00 and 22:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays on a total of 140 days/nights perannum.


(2) P/12/0050/CU TITCHFIELD

TITCHFIELD FESTIVALTHEATRE

Approved Fareham Borough Core StrategyCS1 - Employment Provision

CS3 - Vitality and Viability of Centres


pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 11 -


Representations

Consultations


P/10/0879/CU - Sub-division of units for B1/B8 use, community theatre use and provision ofoverflow car parking on land opposite - Withdrawn November 2010 due to deficiencies inthe information submitted with the application.

P/98/0184/CU - Change of use to mixed use of site for office, warehouse and light industrial- Permission April 1998, subject to condition that it should not be used or deliveries receivedbefore 0800 hours and after 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 09:00 hours to 13:00 hourson a Saturday and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Neighbouring residents have been notified by letter and a site notice posted for the requisiteperiod. One letter and one petition (from five local addresses) have been received,objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

· The retrospective nature of the application is criticised · Impact upon the free flow of traffic · Poor pedestrian links to the site · Detriment to highway safety · Parking provision is insufficient and poorly laid out · It is claimed that a third party is using the site as a delivery address · It is suggested that someone is living at the site in a caravan · Noise and disturbance caused by traffic, patrons leaving the site and loud music fromevents within the building · Light pollution · Unauthorised display of signs and advertisements · The number of seats applied for (210) exceeds the number approved by Licensing (170) · The applicant is not complying with the terms of their Premises License · If minded to approve, contributions should be requested to improve highway safety · If minded to approve, hours of operation need to be imposed

One hundred and seventy four letters have been received, supporting the proposal for thefollowing reasons:

· Titchfield Festival Theatre is an asset and a benefit to Fareham · The proposal constitutes an appropriate re-use of a previously vacant building · The facility has educational and training benefits · The site is accessible and reduces the requirement to travel further afield for patrons · The parking and access situation is well managed and marshalled · The Theatre needs a long term home to relieve the recent cycle of relocations

Director of Planning and Environment (Highways): The proposal would not result in any




pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 12 -


capacity concerns nor any highway safety issues regarding continued use of the existingvehicular accesses. The proposal complies with the adopted parking standards, as the siteaccommodates 30 spaces, which is within the maximum standard and two overflow parkingareas are indicated, both of which are within a reasonable walking distance. However, bothoverflow parking areas make use of third party land and the consequences of the usecontinuing without these overflows and potential impact for on-street parking along StMargarets Lane must be assessed. Typical average attendances do not generate significantparking demands and those that are generated can be accommodated within the existingsite. There are only a small number of annual occasions where parking demands cannot beaccommodated on site, thereby requiring the use of the overflow parking arrangements.Consideration must be given to the likely infrequence of demand outstripping spaces andthe likelihood of vehicles parking on-street. Considering the use has been in operation forsome time, there is little evidence that the theatre has or would result in detriment tohighway safety or to the free flow of traffic. Notwithstanding this, the applicant shouldprovide some form of written guarantee from the third parties that the land is available forparking. It is recommended that details of a parking management plan, is secured viacondition. It would is also recommended that the occupation of the premises for D2purposes is restricted only to the Titchfield Festival Theatre.

In terms of the parking layout, the majority of the parking spaces other than the disabledspaces are independently accessible. The car park should be laid out as per the drawingswithin an agreed time frame to maximise efficiency of use, to be ensured by condition.

The site benefits from a mixed B1/B8 use class permission, of which 50% of the floor areahas been converted to a theatre. There have been various previous occupiers, undertakingdifferent activities, each of which would have similar trip generation and patterns. Using theinformation provided by the applicant and undertaking a comparison using TRICS, whilstthere are a few differences, the broad outcomes are the same, with it agreed that thepermitted use would be more intensive than the theatre use. The HCC TransportContributions Policy would therefore not be applicable.

The sustainability of the location should be considered alongside other policy matters.Subject to the above no highway objections are raised.

Director of Planning and Environment (Strategic Planning): No objections, as the proposalis unlikely to undermine the vitality of existing centres or the availability of employment sites.

Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services (Environmental Health): No objections,subject to a condition that the proposed hours of use should be applied to both Units A andB, to include no night time deliveries and no work on a Sunday or Bank Holiday. In addition,a condition requiring sound proofing of the rehearsal rooms and the rear doors and toensure the treated rehearsal room doors and rear doors are closed duringrehearsals/performances, as far as is reasonably practicable, is recommended to preventany future potential noise nuisance.

The Principle of Development

The proposed use is a town centre use, as defined in PPS4 and should ideally be located in

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 13 -

one of the Borough's centres, unless it can be demonstrated why other similar venues intown and local/district centres are inappropriate. In light of this, a sequential test has beenundertaken by the applicant, which looks at alternative sites across the Borough. Whilst thelist is not exhaustive, it is considered appropriate that the Titchfield Festival Theatre look forunits primarily in Titchfield and the surrounding area. The test considers other venues suchas Ferneham Hall, the Ashcroft Centre, community centres, church halls and other industrialbuildings. These venues are discounted on the basis of one or more of the followingissues; their limited availability, cost, limited space, inadequate facilities and inappropriatelocation. It has been established that there is little in the way of usable units of the sizerequired within the vicinity of Titchfield and therefore, re-use of this unit would appear to beone of the few options available to the applicant. The former warehouse offers adequatespace for performance and ancillary facilities. The location of the use outside existingcentres, while not considered the most sustainable of locations, is considered the bestpracticable solution available to the applicant, given the significant lack of viable or availablealternatives. In light of the above, the proposal would not adversely impact upon the vitalityor viability of existing centres, in accordance with Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy.

The proposal will result in the loss of 648sq.m of light industrial/warehouse (B1/B8)floorspace. However, Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy allows for the redevelopment ofemployment sites to other uses that contribute towards economic development. PPS4(Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) defines economic development as that "withinthe B Use Classes, public and community uses and main town centre uses". As acommunity use, the proposal falls within the definition of economic development and assuch its use is consistent with the policies of the Core Strategy. It is also noted that the unithad been vacant for a considerable period of time and given the economic downturn, thelevel of vacant employment buildings elsewhere in the Borough and the quality and locationof this particular unit, it is unlikely that it would have found an alternative B use classoccupant, in the short to medium term. The re-use of Unit A for a community use andretention of Unit B in storage/distribution use, is considered to be of benefit to the widercommunity and would be in accordance with the provisions of Policy CS1 of the CoreStrategy and PPS4.

In light of the above, the principle of the development is considered to be acceptable.

Impact on character of the area

The proposal does not involve any external alterations to the building and in this respect itwould have no impact upon the key characteristics or appearance of the area. Somesignage has recently been erected on the premises, which would need to be consideredunder an appropriate application for advertisement consent, pending the outcome of theplanning application. It is accepted that the character of the area may be affected byactivities associated with the proposed change of use, reflected in the presence of vehicleswithin the parking areas and the comings and goings of patrons, performers and staff,before and after events. However, the nature of such impacts would not have any long termeffects on the character or appearance of the area and the short term impacts of theproposal are considered fully in the following sections. The proposal complies with thedesign and character impact provisions of Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy

Impact on adjoining residential amenity

The Environmental Health Section confirm that the premises is the subject of a premises

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 14 -

licence issued in March 2011. Several conditions of the licence relate to the prevention ofpublic nuisance eg noise level control and monitoring; signs asking people to be quiet onleaving; a limit on the number of events per year; no discos or karaoke; the requirement toprovide marshalling of the car park and a limit to the number of people attending any event.The theatre has been operational now for over a year and since the theatre received theirpremises licence, very few nuisance complaints have been received by the EnvironmentalHealth Section. They report that in July and August 2011, three complaints of loud musicwere received, two of these were associated with a private party at the unit. In October andDecember 2011, a total of two complaints were received regarding noise from deliveries tothe site between 05:00 and 06:00 hours. In February 2012 a further complaint was receivedregarding a lorry delivery of pamphlets at 05:30 hours. A noise complaint file has beenopened on the premises, but Environmental Health suggest incidents are happeninginfrequently. In light of this the Environmental Health Section have no objections to theproposal, subject to conditions.

While the premises has attracted complaints regarding occasional deliveries at early hoursof the morning, the main concern of notified parties is with regard to the intensity of siteusage, particularly associated with the comings and goings of patrons, cast and crew,before and after performances. A schedule of the Theatre's upcoming events showsperformances on 34 nights during the 74 days between 14th March and 26th May 2012, allstarting at 19:30. It is perhaps not arrival of people for performances, rather their departurebetween 22:00 and 23:00, which creates the greatest potential for disruption to adjoiningresidential amenity. The applicant states that cast and crew utilise the Holiday Inn car park,so their movements should not be too disruptive, being on foot. Nevertheless, thedeparture of patrons from the on-site car park after performances and the associated noiseand disturbance, may have implications for adjoining residents. The applicant states thatthe car park is marshalled, in accordance with the terms of the license and that it isgenerally cleared of vehicles within 12 minutes following performances. The premises islicensed to run events for a total of 140 nights of entertainment a year. The window ofpotential disturbance, while concentrated, is quite narrow and should be considered againstthe fall-back position, where the whole building is used for B1/B8 purposes, accessed bybigger, albeit fewer vehicles, throughout the working day. The proposal's impact must alsobe considered on the basis that no dwelling shares a common boundary with the site, thedistance of the car parking area to the nearest dwelling is 24m across St Margaret's Lane,that the presence of existing boundary treatments assists with prevention of headlight glareand disruption and that the premises is located on a main vehicular thoroughfare into thevillage, which is subject to a significant level of traffic movement.

In light of the above and subject to imposition of conditions to control the proposed hours ofuse and to ensure appropriate sound attenuation measures are incorporated into thebuilding, in addition to the restrictions placed on operation of the premises under the termsof its license, officers do not consider the proposal will have any significant adverse impacton adjoining residential amenity.

Highway Impacts

Theatre use results in different movement patterns than industrial/warehouse use, typicallybeing away from peak network periods, when it is recognised that the A27/St Margaret'sLane roundabout experiences significant congestion. The Director of Planning andEnvironment (Highways) does not consider the proposal would result in any capacityconcerns, nor any safety issues with the continued use of the existing vehicular accesses.

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 15 -

In terms of the parking layout, the majority of the parking spaces other than the disabledspaces are independently accessible. The fact that these spaces are not independentlyaccessed, whilst perhaps creating an inconvenience if a vehicle is boxed in is notnecessarily a highway problem. The proposal would only constitute a problem in highwayterms if vehicles spill out of the defined parking areas onto St Margaret's Lane, of whichthere is little evidence. While some photo evidence has been submitted by residents, ifregular overflow parking is taking place on-street at this time of year, the adjoining vergeswould be cut-up, of which there is no evidence. The Director of Planning and Environment(Highways) has liaised directly with the Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services(Traffic and Design Manager) who is unaware of any specific/known issues with parkingalong St Margaret's Lane, that could be linked to the theatre. Notwithstanding this, if thetheatre was aware of a particularly busy night they could liaise with Director of Regulatoryand Democratic Services (Traffic and Design Manager) to provide temporary trafficmanagement measures (such as the yellow 'no waiting' traffic cones) and could be includedwithin a parking management plan. If permitted, the car park should be laid out as per thedrawings within an agreed time frame.

The HCC 2002 Parking Standards set a maximum of 1 space per 5 seats, therefore for 210seats, a maximum provision of 42 spaces would be required. The site can accommodate 30spaces, which is within the maximum standard. PPG13 (Transport) includes the maximumstandard approach, which allows a developer to provide as many parking spaces as theywish, on the proviso that it does not result in highway safety issues that cannot be resolvedthrough the implementation of waiting restrictions. There are presently no restrictions onparking along St Margaret's Lane and thus there is the potential for parking to occur on-street. To alleviate the likelihood of on-street parking, two overflow parking areas areindicated; at the Holiday Inn and Kites Croft Business Park, both of which are within areasonable walking distance, although the attractiveness of these routes, especially in poorweather is queried by notified parties. The applicant points out that cast and crew use theHoliday Inn car park, some 350m away to the north, in order to reserve on-site parkingprimarily for use by theatre patrons. Typical average theatre attendances do not appear togenerate significant parking demands and those that are generated can be accommodatedwithin the existing site. Only a small number of annual occasions generate parkingdemands which cannot be accommodated on site, thereby requiring the use of the overflowparking arrangements by patrons. Considering the use has been in operation for some time,there is little evidence that this proposal has or would result in detriment to highway safetyor to the free flow of traffic by way of parking occurring along St Margaret's Lane.Notwithstanding this, the applicant has been requested to provide a written guarantee fromthe third parties upon who's land over flow parking would take place that this land isavailable. It is recommended that full details of a parking management plan is secured viacondition. In addition a condition should be imposed to ensure the identified overflowparking or an acceptable alternative is available to the theatre, in the interests of highwaysafety. Subject to these conditions, the proposal complies with the highway and parkingrelated provisions of Policies CS6 and CS17 of the Core Strategy.

Conclusion

The principle of the proposed change of use is considered acceptable, for the reasoningoutlined in the report above. The proposal complies with the saved policies of theFareham Borough Local Plan Review (2000), the Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy(2011) and the provision of PPS4 and is accordingly recommended for approval.

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 16 -


Recommendation

Background Papers

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies of the Development Plan asset out in this report. The proposal is not considered likely to result in any significantadverse impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers, the character of the area, highwaysafety employment land availability or viability of existing centres. There are no othermaterial considerations that are judged to have sufficient weight to justify a refusal of theapplication, and where applicable conditions have been applied in order to satisfy thesematters. The scheme is therefore judged to be in accordance with Section 38(6) of thePlanning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planning permission shouldtherefore be granted.

PERMISSION: Time Limit, Approved Plans, Parking Management Plan, Ensure identifiedoverflow parking or acceptable alternative is available, Use restricted only to the TitchfieldFestival Theatre, Approved Parking Layout marked out within 3 months, Unit A hours ofoperation 0900 - 2300 Monday to Saturday, 1000 - 2200 Sundays and Bank Holidays on atotal of 140 days/nights per annum, Sound proofing/attenuation; Unit B hours of operation0800 - 1800 Monday to Friday and 0900 - 1300 hours Saturday and not at all on Sundaysand bank Holidays.

File: P/10/0879/CU


pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 17 -

73 ST MARGARETS LANE

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 18 -

RETENTION OF CAR PORT TO FRONT OF DWELLING

113 FLEET END ROAD WARSASH SO31 9JH

Report By

Site Description


Policies


Arleta Miszewska ext. 4666

The application site consists of a two storey, detached property located on the eastern sideof Fleet End Road, in close proximity to its junction with Fleet End Bottom and Dibles Road.This predominantly residential area is identified in the development plan as Countrysideand Strategic Gap.

The front garden of the property consists of a garage and a double car port, which is to beremoved and replaced by the one under consideration. The dwelling and timber carport arepartially screened by Willow and Fir trees located within the front area.

The application site boundary comprises of approximately 1.2m high timber fencing to thewest and south, and a laurel hedge to the north.

Planning permission is sought for a double timber car port. The car port would beapproximately 7.5 metre long and 3.4 metre wide. Its sloping roof would be built of abitumen corrugated sheet and wooden fascia and would be between 2.3 and 2.6 metrehigh. The roof would be supported by wooden posts.

Furthermore, the mentioned above fir tree, which is currently growing through the existingcar port, would also be removed. The tree is not subject to a preservation order.



(3) P/12/0060/FP WARSASH

MR RICHARD DAISH


Approved SPG/SPD


CS14 - Development Outside Settlements

CS22 - Development in Strategic Gaps

EXTDG - Extension Design Guide (1993)

P/07/1468/FP ERECTION OF DOUBLE GARAGE AND CONVERSION OFEXISTING GARAGE TO ROOMPERMISSION 20/12/2007

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 19 -

Representations

Consultations



Recommendation

As result of the consultation process, one letter of objection has been received. Summary ofcomments:-proposed structure differs from the agreed one,-proposed structure needs planning permission,-overdevelopment of front garden,-location at the front of property is not appropriate,-enclosed sides of the structure,-visible from living room,-may obscure view.

Director of Planning & Environment (Highways) - no alterations to existing vehicular access,no net loss of car parking spaces, therefore no objection.

The main consideration includes whether the proposed car port replacement would beharmful to the character and appearance of the countryside area and residential amenitiesof adjoining neighbours, in terms of loss of outlook and overshadowing, in particular no. 115Fleet End Road.

The proposed structure, due to its modest design, size and construction materials, wouldnot be visually intrusive or out of sympathy with the appearance of the streetscene or thelocal area. Furthermore, it would be partially screened by the existing laurel hedge andwillow tree.

With regards to impact on residential amenities, the proposed car port would be located inclose proximity to the northern boundary, leaving approximately 8 metres to the nearestwindow of the adjoining property at no. 115 Fleet End Road. Officers consider that thisseparation distance would mitigate any potential harm caused by the proposal, in terms ofovershadowing and loss of outlook.

Therefore, Officers conclude that this development would not be harmful to the appearanceand character of the countryside area or the residential amenities of neighbouring propertiesto justify refusal of this application.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan as set out above. Other material considerations including impact on theappearance of the area and residential amenities, in terms of a loss of outlook, privacy andovershadowing have been considered and are not judged to have sufficient weight to justifya refusal of the application, and where applicable conditions have been applied in order tosatisfy these matters. The scheme is therefore judged to be in accordance with Section38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planning permissionshould therefore be granted.

PERMISSION - time, in accordance with approved plans, existing car port to be removedwithin 3 months

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 20 -

Background PapersFile - P/12/0060/FP


pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 21 -

113 FLEET END ROAD

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 22 -

PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION

107 ABSHOT ROAD LOCKSHEATH FAREHAM HAMPSHIRE PO14 4NH

Report By

Site Description


Policies


Representations



The application site consists of a two storey, detached property located on the corner ofAbshot Road and Orwell Crescent, which is a predominantly residential area in TitchfiledCommon, Fareham.

The property benefits from a single storey side extension, accommodating a single garageand a conservatory. The site is capable of providing three car parking spaces, one in thegarage and two within hard surfaced driveway area, at the front of the property.

Planning permission is sought to raise the roof of the single storey side extension by500mm and incorporate two dormer windows, one to the front and one to the rear, toaccommodate an additional (fourth) bedroom.


There is no relevant planning history for this site.

As result of the Fareham Borough Council's consultation process, two letters of objectionshave been received. Summary of comments:

- will block most of light from stairs and and first floor landing,- will restrict outlook,- will create shade in the garden,- will spoil enjoyment of property and may have an impact on its value for resale,- will overlook rear garden and first floor window.

The main considerations include design, impact on the appearance of the Abshot Road andOrwell Crescent streetscape and residential amenities of the surrounding neighbours, inparticular no. 105 Abshot Road and no. 1 Orwell Crescent.

(4) P/12/0095/FP TITCHFIELD COMMON

MR DARREN ROBERTS AGENT: THORNS-YOUNG LTD


Approved SPG/SPD



pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 23 -


The proposed development would introduce first floor accommodation through a sensitivedesign, including dormer windows rather than a visually prominent first floor extension. Theproposed front dormer window would be kept below the ridge and away from verges andeaves line of the roof, giving the development a sense of balance and proportion. The styleand size of the window would be in keeping with the house and would not visually dominatethe roof slope.

Although, the rear dormer window would have a flat roof, it would be set back from theexisting rear building line and would not be prominent, when standing on the publichighway.

In view of the above, the proposed design is considered to have no harmful impact on theestablished pattern of the both streetscenes or visual amenities of the local residents.

With regards to residential amenities of adjoining neighbours, the proposed developmentwould introduce a habitable room which would be served by a rear dormer window.

The Fareham Borough Council adopted Residential Design Guide (1993) clearly states that: "Where two storey rear extensions are proposed, 11 metres from a window at first floorlevel to the garden boundary is considered to be the minimum privacy requirement."

The proposed rear dormer window would be set back from the rear building line and wouldmeet the above criterion. Furthermore, the dormer window would not look directly onto anyprivate amenity space but a gable wall (and a garage gable wall) of no. 1 Orwell Crescent.

Overlooking of the rear garden area and a first floor side window of no.1 Orwell Crescenthas been suggested. The separation distance, of approximately 12 metres, together withexisting soft landscaping, would mitigate to a great extent any potential harm caused to theabove property, in terms of loss of privacy. The upper floor window would be at least 15metres away from the dormer window, therefore, it is considered that the suggested loss ofprivacy would not be harmful to extent justifying a refusal of this application.

Also, loss of light has been raised as a concern. The area to which this objection relatesaccommodates a staircase and a landing, which in planning terms, are not consideredhabitable rooms. Therefore, a loss of light or outlook from this window cannot justify refusalof this application.

To conclude, Officers are of the opinion that the proposed development would have noharmful impact on the appearance of the nearby area and would have acceptable impact onthe residential amenities, currently enjoyed by the surrounding neighbours.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan as set out above. Other material considerations including impact on theappearance of the area and residential amenities, in terms of a loss of outlook, privacy andovershadowing have been considered and are not judged to have sufficient weight to justifya refusal of the application, and where applicable conditions have been applied in order tosatisfy these matters. The scheme is therefore judged to be in accordance with Section38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planning permission

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 24 -

Recommendation

Background Papers

should therefore be granted.

PERMISSION - time, materials to match, in accordance with approved plans.

File - P/12/0095/FP


pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 25 -

107 Abshot Road

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 26 -

POST MOUNTED INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BOX SIGN

256 BRIDGE ROAD SWANWICK SOUTHAMPTON SO31 7FL

Report By

Site Description


Policies


Representations

Consultations


Richard Wright x2356

This application relates to a car sales forecourt located on the north-east side of BridgeRoad opposite the site of the Old Ship Inn.

Consent is sought for the display of a box sign measuring 5.5 metres long by 0.93 metrestall mounted on two posts. The highest part of the sign would be approximately 3.6 metresabove ground level. The sign would be internally illuminated to a level no greater than 720candelas per square metre.



One letter has been received objecting to the application on the following grounds:- Large illuminated sign harmful to road traffic safety- Out of character with the area

Director of Planning & Environment (Highways) - The sign is set back from the carriagewayedge and as such would have no highway safety consequences.

A larger sign measuring 7.3x 0.93m and standing 3.6m off the ground at its highest pointwas previously displayed at this site mounted on three poles. A retrospective application(ref P/11/0922/AD) was submitted seeking consent to keep the sign however afterdiscussing the proposal with officers the applicant agreed to withdraw the application andremove the sign.

This current application seeks permission for a smaller sign measuring 5.5m x 0.93m andstanding at its highest 3.6m off the ground. It is proposed to be positioned approximately

(5) P/12/0146/AD SARISBURY

MR NEIL SMITH AGENT: HEAD ROBERTS &ASSOCIATES

Fareham Borough Local Plan ReviewDG7 - Signs and Advertisements

P/11/0922/AD RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR INTERNALLY ILLUMINATEDFREE STANDING SIGNWITHDRAWN 07/02/2012

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 27 -


Recommendation

Background Papers

3.5 - 4.0 metres from the edge of the highway footpath within the car sales forecourt. Thereare two material considerations to take into account, the effect of the signage on thecharacter and visual amenity of the surrounding area and the effect on public safety.

The surrounding area of this section of Bridge Road is made up of a mixture of use typesincluding some housing, several office units, two public houses and the nearby marina. Tothe north of the site lies the Swanwick Business Centre comprising various units incommercial usage and immediately adjacent to the site are the office premises for Andarkdiving which has numerous signs, advertisements and banners displayed. The display ofthe proposed sign would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the area and isnot considered to be out of keeping with the varied mixture of commercial and non-commercial frontages in this part of the borough.

The proposed sign is intended to be set back from the adjacent highway footpath. Itsoverall size and level of illumination are not held to be excessive and would not in theopinion of officers distract drivers so as to adversely affect highway safety.

The advertisement is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of thedevelopment plan and having regards to other relevant factors such as amenity and publicsafety in accordance with Section 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Control ofAdvertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. Where applicable conditions have beenapplied in order satisfy the above considerations to limit or restrict the subject matter,content or design of what is to be displayed. In accordance therefore with Section 14(1) ofthose regulations express consent should be granted.

CONSENT 5 YEARS: standard advertisement conditions; illumination non-intermittent; maxillumination level 720 cd/m2

P/12/0146/AD


pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 28 -

256 BRIDGE ROAD

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 29 -

REQUESTING DEED OF RELEASE FOR 57 AND 58 SOLENT BREEZES

57 AND 58 SOLENT BREEZES CHILLING LANE WARSASH FAREHAM HANTS SO319HF

Report By

Introduction

Emma Betteridge Extn.2677

Members will be aware of the miscellaneous item reported to the Planning Committee on 1February 2012 which involved a request from the owners of Chalets 19, 60, 61 and 85Solent Breezes for the release of the occupancy restrictive covenant contained in aplanning agreement of 3 October 1966.

Members will be aware of the long and involved planning history of the chalets at SolentBreezes. A request from the owners of Chalets 21, 60, 61, 85 & 86 for the release of theoccupancy restrictive covenant contained in a planning agreement of 3 October 1966 wasreported to the Planning Development Control Committee on the 18 February 2009. At thatmeeting Members resolved to decline the requests for release from the occupancycovenant. At the Planning Committee meeting on the 21st July 2010 a further request onbehalf of the owners of chalets 60 and 85 was also declined.

Last year three planning appeals were allowed against the enforcement notices issued inrelation to breaches of the relevant occupancy planning conditions by the owners/occupiersof Chalets 19, 57 & 58. These successful planning appeals resulted in the granting of anunrestricted planning permission for the residential use of the chalets involved. At themeeting on 1 February 2012, the Committee authorised the Solicitor to the Council to enterinto Deeds of Release on behalf of the Council releasing the owners of the Chalets 19, 60,61 and 85 Solent Breezes from the occupancy covenant contained in the planningagreement of 3 October 1966

Requests have now been received from the owners of chalets 57 and 58 for the release ofthe 1966 occupancy restrictive covenant.

Background

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

The early planning history of Solent Breezes predates Fareham Borough Councilsucceeding Hampshire County Council as the local planning authority on 1 April 1974.

On 3 October 1966 Hampshire County Council entered into a planning agreement underSection 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 with the then owner of SolentBreezes. That agreement contained a covenant which restricted the chalets then existing(excepting a few specified chalets) or any chalets constructed subsequently to "occasional

(1) Q/0091/12 WARSASH

MRS JOYCE & MR AMATO AGENT: DUTTON GREGORY LLTSOLS

Miscellaneous Item

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 30 -


residential occupation for holiday and recreational purposes".

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

Many of the chalets were also subject to a planning condition restricting their use tooccasional residential occupation for holiday and recreational purposes.

In the relatively recent past, some chalet owners have sought and obtained Certificates ofLawfulness for the all year round residential use of their chalets in breach of the planningconditions restricting residential use to certain months of the year. The Council was legallybound to grant the certificates where the applicants provided evidence to demonstrate thatthe relevant planning condition had been breached for a period of ten years or more.Following the granting of the Certificates, the all year round occupation of the chaletsbecame lawful and the Council became unable to taking planning enforcement actionagainst the breach of the conditions.

In 2004 and 2005 two planning appeals were heard dealing with the matter of the SolentBreezes occupancy conditions. In both those cases, the Planning Inspectors accepted thatSolent Breezes was unsuitable for permanent residence, and such a use would be contraryto the countryside and housing policies of the local plan. One of the Inspectors furtherconsidered that if more permanent residential occupation was permitted the essentialcharacter of the site would over time change from that of a holiday complex to residentialdevelopment.

In 2010 the Council issued three enforcement notices relating to Chalets 19, 57 & 58requiring compliance with the relevant planning conditions that prevented all year roundresidential use. All three enforcement notices were appealed against. The planninginspector, in deciding the appeals took a different view to his colleagues in 2004 & 2005 andallowed all three appeals, quashed the enforcement notices and granted planningpermission for the all year round residential use of each of the three chalets. The HighCourt refused the Council leave to challenge the planning inspector's decisions on a point oflaw. There is no further right of appeal against an appeal decision on its merits and thus noway to challenge the findings of an inspector on the planning merits.

In the case of Chalets 19, 57 & 58 the grant of the appeal planning permissions last yearauthorises the unrestricted residential occupancy which the covenant contained in the 1966planning agreement seeks to prevent.

In some earlier cases the Council agreed to release chalets from the occupancy covenantcontained in the 1966 legal agreement following the issuing of the Certificates of Lawfulnessbut, as mentioned in the introduction to this report, in 2009 it refused to do so in five cases.The earlier reports focussed on whether the covenant was obsolete. Those reports did notdeal with whether or not the covenant might be discharged on the ground that itscontinuance would impede some reasonable user of the land for public or private purposes.

Following the three appeal decisions of last year the situation has now changed and the

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 31 -


Council has now received requests to reconsider the release of the occupancy covenants inrelation to Chalets 57 and 58 granted planning permission last year. At the 1 February2012 Planning Committee members resolved to accept the officer's recommendation thatthe covenant should be released in relation to Chalet 19. It is therefore now appropriate toconsider whether or not the discharge should be permitted upon the basis that thecovenants continued existence impedes some reasonable private user of the land ratherthan needing to reconsider the issue of whether the covenant is obsolete.

The Legal Test

It is appropriate for the committee to apply the same test as the Lands Tribunal would applyif an application were to be made to them for discharge of the covenant previously referredto in the 1966 agreement.

The power to discharge a covenant is set out in section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925.This section provides that to discharge the covenant the Upper Tribunal (Lands tribunal)must be satisfied that either (a) by reason of changes in the character of the property, or the neighbourhood, or othercircumstances of the case which the Upper Tribunal may deem material, the restrictionought to be deemed obsolete, or (aa) that the continued existence thereof would impede some reasonable user of the landfor public or private purposes.

In considering whether the covenant would impede some reasonable user of the land thetests are whether:- (a) the covenant does not secure to persons entitled to the benefit of it any practicalbenefits of substantial value or advantage to them; or (b) is contrary to the public interest;

The Upper Tribunal also, in considering the impediment test, has to take into account thedevelopment plan and any declared or ascertainable pattern for the grant or refusal ofplanning permissions in the relevant areas, as well as the period at which, and context inwhich, the restriction was created or imposed and any other material circumstances. Thusin applying the impediment test the range of factors may be wider than was considered byearlier Committees when looking at obseletion.

Matter for consideration

The matter for the committee to consider and make decision on at this meeting:-

Whether or not the Council should agree to the request for the grant of a deed of releasefrom the covenant contained in the 1966 planning agreement in respect of Chalet 57 and 58which are two of the three chalets that were granted planning permission on appeal lastyear, on the ground that the continued existence thereof would impede some reasonableuser of the land for private purposes.

The grant of planning permission, following the appeal against the 3 enforcement notices, isa material change since the earlier Committee decisions. Whether one appeal decision

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 32 -

Recommendation

Background Papers

could be said to show an ascertainable pattern for the grant of such permissions is notcertain, especially when given the previous history of support by previous inspectors, but itis not necessary to form a view on this as the grant of planning permission permits theunrestricted use of these chalets upon a year round basis. Given that that is the effect ofthe grant of the planning permission, if the Council were to enforce the covenant against theowners of these chalets, then it would impede their reasonable user of the chalets inaccordance with the terms of the planning permission. Being that planning permission hasbeen granted, the covenant does not secure any practical benefit to the local planningauthority and should in these circumstances be released.

That provided the applicants agree to pay the Councils legal costs for the Deed of Release,that the Committee authorises the Solicitor to the Council to enter into Deeds of Releaseon behalf of the Council releasing the owners of chalets 57 and 58 Solent Breezes from theoccupancy covenant contained in the planning agreement of 3 October 1966

Miscellaneous item report to Planning Committee on 1 February 2012 (Q/0409/11)

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 33 -

ZONE 2 - FAREHAM

Fareham East

Fareham North

Fareham North-West

Fareham South

Fareham West

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 34 -

ERECTION OF THIRTY SEVEN DWELLINGS INCLUDING THE RETENTION ANDCONVERSION OF FORMER HOSPITAL ENTRANCE BUILDING, ACCESS,LANDSCAPING AND PARKING

FORMER ST CHRISTOPHERS HOSPITAL WICKHAM ROAD FAREHAM HANTS PO167JD

Report By

Amendments

Site Description


Policies

Kim Hayler - Ext 2367

As amended by plans received on 28 February 2012, 7 March 2012 and 13 March 2012.

The application site is on the corner of Wickham Road and St Christophers Avenue andwas formerly Fareham Community Hospital.

The site is allocated for housing within the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and isidentified within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Study (SHLAA) with an indicativenumber of 40 units.

The site area is 0.775 hectares. The former buildings on the site have been demolishedapart from the original Fareham Union Workhouse building sited close to the WickhamRoad frontage. The retention of this building was secured through the previous planningapplications on the site.

Planning permission is sought for the erection of 16 flats and 21 houses, with 75 parkingspaces. It is proposed to convert the former workhouse building into one detached dwellinghouse.

A new access is proposed opposite St Sebastian Crescent and the existing access wouldbe reinstated as a kerb line and footway.


(6) P/11/0743/FP FAREHAM EAST

TAYLOR WIMPEY SOUTHERNCOUNTIES

AGENT: PPML CONSULTINGLIMITED

Approved Fareham Borough Core StrategyCS15 - Sustainable Development and Climate Change

CS16 - Natural Resources and Renewable Energy


CS18 - Provision of Affordable Housing

CS2 - Housing Provision



pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 35 -


Representations


P/12/0045/AD -Proposed one fascia V-board sign and five flagpoles - see applicationelsewhere within this report.

P/08/1180/OA - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 14houses and 26 flats with access & parking (Outline application - alternative toP/07/1003/OA)Permission 26/01/2009

P/07/1003/OA - Outline planning permission for 14 houses and 26 flats - Permission Oct2007

Twenty three letters of objection were received commenting on the application when it wasorginally submitted in August 2011 raising the following concerns:

Loss of light from the three storey apartment block on plots 1 - 9;Impact from additional traffic and highway safety implications;Lack of space between 50 Wickham Road and new dwellings;Loss of light as a result of fencing next to 50 Wickham Road;Hedgerow barrier should be reinstated;Plots 1 - 9 too high;Loss of privacy;Entrance too close to St Sebastian Crescent;Development out of character with the area;Trees and hedges have been removed;Overdevelopment;Impact of Plots 1 - 9 on street scene;Impact of 2 storey buildings on property in St Thomas Close, due to level differences;Impact on setting of the former workhouse building;No play areas or play equipment for children;No cycle access improvements in area;Boundary treatment should reflect the area;Facilities for refuse collection is importment;Parking in St Christophers Avenue is a problem.

The Fareham Society sent in a representation expressing concern that the proposed

Approved SPG/SPD



CS7 - Development in Fareham

RCCPS - Residential Car and Cycle Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document


H1 - Housing Allocations

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 36 -

Consultations

design and layout would impact on the setting of the retained building.

Amended plans were submitted on 28 February 2012; these plans were advertised and thefollowing representations were received in relation to these plans:

Two letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

Residents have been ignored; privacy is a big issue and only a few changes have beenmade to the landscaping;Flats are out of character;Trees and hedges not shown;Lack of parking.

Director of Planning & Environment (Highways)- Comments were provided in regards of theinitial scheme submitted in August. Whilst the layout has been slightly altered, theproposed access remains unchanged. The internal layout, which is to remain private, hasbeen demonstrated as being able to support the movement and turning of a refuse vehicle.

Contributions would be required towards the provision of waiting restrictions along theWickham Road frontage and where necessary along St Christopher's Avenue, and towardsthe reduction of the speed limit along Wickham Road from 40mph to 30mph. Theassociated Traffic Regulation Order processes would cost £10k (£5k per Order) and thusthe previously agreed sum would need to be increased.

How construction traffic would access the site should be subject to a planning condition,together with conditions securing the closure of the existing accesses and visibility splays.

There is no in principle highway objection.

Director of Planning & Environment (Arboriculture) - comments awaited

Director of Planning & Environment (Conservation)- St Christoper's Hospital was the formerFareham Workhouse. It is not a listed building and is not included on the Council's local list. However is it considered as a heritage asset and its significance as such is material in theconsideration of the planning application.

A number of details including the external finish of the building, the window and doorspecification, the principle of a building name and date on the string course, rainwatergoods and boundary treatment should be agreed in a schedule of works for the repair,restoration and conservation of the building, secured through the S.106 Agreement or by asuitable planning condition.

Director of Planning & Environment (Ecology) - No objection subject to conditions

Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services (Environmental Health) - no objection

Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services (Contaminated Land) - no objection subjectto condition

Director of Community & Streetscene (Refuse/recyling)- The refuse management

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 37 -

Principle of development

Impact on character of the area

arrangements are acceptable. The vehicle tracking layout is acceptable provided no carsare parked at the turning points or narrow corners. The applicant has confirmed that if thisis a problem post development, the matter will be addressed by the management company.

Director of Community & Streetscene (Strategic Housing)- We welcome the offer of 40%affordable housing on this site (40.5% of units / 39.5% of bedrooms). However we do regretthat we were not given the opportunity to influence the actual mix of affordable units, as ourpreference would have been 1-bedroom and 3-bedroom rented units and 2-bedroomshared ownership units, which reflect the greatest housing need, especially for a centralFareham site. Instead we have been offered 9 x 2-bedroom flats and 1 x 3-bedroom housefor rent, together with 3 x 2-bedroom flats and 2 x 3-bedroom houses for shared ownership.The Government's proposed new statutory guidance for local authorities on the allocation oflocal housing will, we believe lead to a further increase in demand for 1-bedroom properties.

Clearly there is a demand for all tenures and all sizes of rented accommodation andtherefore we are satisfied that the proposals will meet proven need. However we feel thatan opportunity has been missed to deliver a scheme that would have assisted the Councilto meet key priorities on an important site relatively close to the town centre.

Southern Water Services - no objection subject to condition

Outline planning permission has already been granted for 40 dwellings at this site, theproposal seeks detailed planning permission for residential development on the site.Furthermore the site is an allocated housing site as listed in Policy H1 of the FarehamBorough Local Plan Review. Its future use for residential development is thus acommitment, subject to compliance with other relevant policies.

Dwellings are proposed fronting Wickham Road in a very traditional way with a cornerturning apartment block at the junction of St Christopher Avenue. These buildings wouldcreate an interesting and continuous street scene. The dwellings adjacent to 50 WickhamRoad would respect their height (two storey), increasing to three storey, in line with theretained workhouse building. The corner apartment block has been broken up into anumber of elements in order to address the street scene and visual massing of the building.The retained workhouse building has been afforded separation and space from newdwellings, in order to create a setting.

The dwellings would be grouped as terraces, semi-detached or detached with dedicatedparking and private rear gardens. The apartments would be arranged in two separateblocks over three storeys within a landscape setting, private amenity and parking court.Four flats over garages are also proposed. The dwelling mix overall provides a balancedhousing mix.

The applicant will be required to enter into a Section 106 agreement to ensure that theworkhouse building is retained and a schedule of works shall be submitted for the repair,restoration and conservation of the building.

Officers are satisfied that the proposal would not harm the character or visual amenities ofthe area.

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 38 -

Impact on neighbouring properties

Highways

A number of concerns have been raised that the proposal would impact on the amenities ofneighbouring properties. The neighbouring properties across St Christopher Avenue to thenorth, in St Sebastian Crescent are sited at a lower level than the road and have their backgardens facing south onto the road. Concern has been raised that as a result of the levelchanges and scale of the three storey apartment block, the privacy of the occupiers of thesedwellings would be compromised. In order to seek to address these concerns, the applicanthas amended the design of the building and moved it further into the site, increasing thedistance between the rear of the properties in St Sebastian Crescent and the apartmentblock to 29 metres. Normally a minimum distance of 22 metres is sought between facingwindows, however, in light of the level changes and height of the apartment building thisdistance has been increased to 29 metres. Officers are satisfied that this relationship wouldbe acceptable and would not materially harm the amenities of the occupiers of thoseproperties.

A terrace of three of dwellings, two storey in height with rooms in the roof would be sited tothe east of the new access, again facing north towards the rear of properties in St SebastianCrescent. These properties are only marginally lower that the application site. The distancebetween these dwellings would measure 26 metres. Officers are satisfied that thisrelationship would be acceptable and would not materially harm the amenities of theoccupiers of those properties.

Existing dwellings in St Thomas Close are sited at a lower level than the application site.There is existing open space located to the north east of the development site and a strip ofland and informal footpath forming a separation between the site and the rear gardens ofthese properties. There are a number of trees planted along this boundary. The rear of 8St Thomas Close would face the side wall of the proposed dwelling on plot 31. Thisdwelling is designed with a hipped roof, reducing its bulk and would be sited some 22metres from the rear elevation of the neighbouring property. Notwithstanding the levelchanges involved, officers are satisfied that in light of the design and siting of the proposedunits along the north eastern side of the development layout and the distances between, theproposal would not materially harm the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouringresidential properties.

The site will be accessed by a single vehicular access from St Christopher Avenue, aspreviously approved in P/08/1180/OA. There will be an estate road running through thecentre of the development with mews courts and private parking courts accommodating theparking either side. The internal road configuration is of a home zone form.

The Director of Planning and the Environment (Highways) has been consulted andconsiders that the proposed access is acceptable. It would be appropriate to securecontributions for a Traffic Regulation Order across the whole of the Wickham Road frontageup to the boundary with No.50 Wickham Road and adjusting the 30mph speed limit furthernorthwards to improve highway safety on Wickham Road. On the basis of these aspectsbeing satisfactory addressed the proposal would not result in the danger and inconvenienceto users of the highway. Officers are also satisfied that the proposed parking meets thecriteria set out within the Counci's residential parking standards.

In light of the former use of the site as a community hospital it is not considered appropriateto apply the Hampshire County Council Transport Contributions Policy.

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 39 -

Conclusion


Recommendation

The proposed development is within the urban area and is acceptable as a matter ofprinciple. The proposed redevelopment of the site would enable the opportunity to achieveenvironmental enhancements of this vacant site, bring back into use the former workhousebuilding and deliver 15 affordable housing units. Officers therefore consider the proposal isacceptable in all respects.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan, notably Fareham Borough Core Strategy Policies CS2, CS6, CS7,CS15, CS16, CS17, CS18, CS20 and CS21 and Policies H1 and DG4 of the FarehamBorough Local Plan Review. The proposal is not considered to result in unacceptableimpacts upon the street scene or character of the area, or upon the amenities ofneighbouring properties, or on the local highway network, other material considerationsbeing judged not to have sufficient weight or direction to justify a refusal of the application,and, where applicable, conditions having been applied in order to satisfy these matters. Thescheme is therefore judged to be in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning andCompulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planning permission should therefore be granted.

Subject to

a) the comments of the Director of Planning and Environment (Arboriculture);

b) by 27 April 2012 the applicant/owner first enters into a planning obligation pursuant toSection 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor tothe Council to secure:

i) a financial contribution towards off-site public open space and/ or facilities;ii) contributions towards a Traffic Regulation Order over the whole frontage of the site andadjusting the speed limit to 30mph on Wickham Road; and,iii) the retention of the workhouse building; a schedule of works to be submitted for therepair, restoration and conservation of the building.

PERMISSION: External and surfacing materials; affordable housing provision andimplementation; boundary treatment; implementation of approved refuse managementstrategy; making up of highway; close up access/egress to Wickham Road and existingaccess to St Christopher Avenue ; parking and turning areas; removed PD rights in relationto enclosing car ports; landscaping implementation and maintenance; contaminationremediation if necessary; measures to prevent mud on roads; hours of construction,construction management; no burning on site; site and slab levels; drainage; works to becarried out in accordance with the approved bat survey report; scheme of biodiversityenhancements; archaeological watching brief.

OR: In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the required Section 106Agreement by the 27 April 2012.

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

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 40 -

Background PapersP/07/1003/OA, P/08/1180/OA


pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 41 -

FORMER ST CHRISTOPHERS HOSPITAL

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 42 -

ERECTION OF REAR DOUBLE CAR PORT WITH LOG STORE

49 HIGH STREET FAREHAM PO16 7BQ

Report By

Amendments

Site Description


Policies



As amended by plans received on 27 February 2012

This application relates to a Grade II listed building in the High Street Conservation Area,and within the urban area of the Borough;

There is a shared access drive on this building's north side leading to a paved hard standingat the rear, this hard standing being quite enclosed with walling. Number 50 High Streetalso has a pedestrian right of way over this access and paved area through to their reargarden;

The terrain generally drops from west to east, from the High Street down towardsWallington River to the east. Due to the steep downward slope beyond the backs of thebuildings, the hard standing is at a lower level than the back garden at 49 High Street;

Adjacent properties are also Grade II listed buildings.

Erection of car port and log store over existing hard standing/parking area at rear of No.49.



P/09/0744/FP - Erection of proposed car port and store over hard standing and parking areato the rear - Refused - dismissed on appeal July 2010P/09/0745/LB - Erection of proposed car port and store over hard standing and parking areato the rear - Refused - dismissed on appeal July 2010P/08/0798/FP - Erection of timber barn/coach house over existing parking area - RefusedAugust 2008P/08/0799/LB - Erection of timber barn/coach house over existing parking area - RefusedAugust 2008P/98/1318/FP - Construction of retaining walls and extension to existing hard standing -

(7) P/11/1112/FP FAREHAM EAST

MR JONATHAN LEACH

Approved Fareham Borough Core StrategyCS15 - Sustainable Development and Climate Change



pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 43 -

Representations

Consultations

Permission January 1999FBC.7608/1 - Erection of garage and forecourt - Permission July 1976

Three letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:

There is an objection to the scale of the proposed structure;The eaves of the structure will be higher than the boundary wall with no. 50;The current proposal detracts from the character and appearance fo the surrounding areaand would have an oppressive impact on the outlook from the garden of no. 50;The proposal does not address the appeal inspector's comments;The proposal will impact on the open nature of the gardens within the conservation area;Though this is a considerable improvement on the previous proposal, the structure would beout of scale, height, mass and form when compared to other outbuildings in theneighbouring gardens.

It was noted during the case officer's site visit that the submitted southern elevation plandid not reflect the existing boundary wall height accurately. As a result an amended planhas been received and publicised. The following correspondence has been received as aresult of publicity:

One letter of objection received from The Fareham Society stating the following:

It is recognised that the applicant has reduced the height of the car port roof however theappeal Inspector was particularly concerned about the effect of the development on thecharacter of the High Street Conservation Area and also the amenity of the residents of 50High Street;

In the Society's view the current proposal will still be too obtrusive on the outlook from thegarden of 50 High Street, whose southern boundary is already dominated by the threestorey extension to Lysses Hotel;

The plans do not depict the topography of the garden land at 50 High Street, whereaccurate ground level measurements are essential. At the moment from no. 50 a tall trellistopped fence is erected on top of a retaining wall which is a dominant feature; the ridge ofthe car port would be above this;

The proposal creates a large outbuilding to the rear of this group of listed buildings which isout of character in this part of the Conservation Area.

Director of Planning and Environment (Highways) - No Objection

Director of Planning and Environment (Conservation) - The site of this proposed garage lieswithin the curtilage of a grade II listed building in the High Street Conservation Area. Aprevious application P/09/0744/FP was refused and also dismissed on appeal in part due tothe impact on the character of the conservation area and the setting of listed buildings.

This revised proposal has been the subject of pre-application discussion and significantly

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 44 -


reduces the bulk of the building. The main roof has been reduced in height and length and alean-to log store added to the end. The design responds better to the change in groundlevel and in my view addresses the previous reason for refusal and the planning Inspectorsconcerns at the appeal.

The main issues in this case are the effect the proposal would have on the setting of thenearby listed buildings at 48, 49 and 50 High Street and also on the character orappearance of the Fareham High Street Conservation Area, and on the living conditions ofthe occupiers of 50 High Street with regard to outlook. Much of the development would notbe readily visible from the High Street or other public views, however it would be seen bythe occupiers of the nearby buildings.

The previous application, (P/09/0744/FP refers) for the erection of a car port and store overexisting hard standing and parking area was refused and subsequently dismissed on appealin July 2010. The proposed building would have measured 8 metres by 6.4 metres, with anoverall height of 5 metres. The roof was proposed with a gable to the front (facing thehouse) and a cropped barn hip to the rear. The structure was designed with steps and adoor from the existing patio area serving loft space within the roof of the structure. TheInspector commented that there are a few very modest structures in the back gardens ofneighbouring properties and that the spaciousness in the back gardens contributespositively to the character of the conservation area. The Inspector concluded that by virtueof its substantial footprint , height and bulk the proposal would be an incongruousdevelopment which would unacceptably intrude into, and harmfully erode, the importantspacious quality in the back gardens. With regards the neighbour to the south, no. 50 HighStreet, the Inspector considered that in light of its scale, height, bulk and siting close to thecommon boundary, the development would be unacceptably dominant and overbearing inthe lower garden area at 50 High Street.

The back garden at 50 High Street adjoins the application site at one side and at the rear. Ithas three terreaced garden levels to accommodate the steep downward slope away fromthe dwelling. It is somewhat enclosed by the adjacent Lyssess Hotel on one side, howeverthe northerly outlook from the garden is spacious.

The current proposal has been amended in order to seek to address the previous refusaland appeal Inspectors concerns. The footprint of the proposed structure would be muchthe same, however it would measure 5.7 metres by 6.4 metres, with a cropped barn hippedslate roof. The overall height of the car port would measure 3.7 metres. The rear of the carport would comprise a lean to log store measuring 2.1 metres by 6 metres. The roof of thelean to roof would sit under the eaves of the car port. There would be no accommodationwithin the roof space.

Although the overall footprint of the structure would be the same as previously considered,the scale, height and bulk of the structure has in officers opinion been substantiallyreduced. The structure would appear modest and subservient in scale, blending in with theexisting topography of the site. Notwithstanding the objections received, Officers considerthat the proposal would not harm the setting of the nearby listed buildings or the characterand appearance of the Conservation Area. Furthermore officers consider that the amenitiesof the neighbouring property, 50 High Street would not be compromised as a result of thedevelopment.

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 45 -


Recommendation

The development is acceptable taking into account the above policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan. The proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable impacts uponthe street scene or character of the area, or upon the amenities of neighbouring properties,or on the local highway network, or impact upon the character of the conersation area, othermaterial considerations being judged not to have sufficient weight or direction to justify arefusal of the application, and, where applicable, conditions having been applied in order tosatisfy these matters. The scheme is therefore judged to be in accordance with Section38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planning permissionshould therefore be granted.

PERMISSION: details of slate to be approved


pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 46 -

49 HIGH STREET

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 47 -

PROPOSED ONE FASCIA V-BOARD SIGN AND FIVE FLAGPOLES

52 WICKHAM ROAD - ST CHRISTOPHERS HOSPITAL FAREHAM PO16 7JE

Report By

Site Description


Policies


Representations

Consultations


Emma Betteridge Extn.2677

This application relates to the former St Christophers Hosiptial site which is on the corner ofWickham Road and St Christopher Avenue.

Consent is sought to display of two flag pole advertisements along St Christoper Avenueand three flag poles and one fascia v-board on Wickham Road.



One letter of objection has been received objecting on the following grounds:-

· The advertising for the site should remain on hold until planning permission is obtained · In the meanwhile the appearance of the hoarding needs to be addressed.

Director of Planning & Environment(Highways):- No highway objection is raised.

The application site is located on the corner of Wickham Road and St Christopher Avenue.This application relates to a modest number of advertisements proposed to promote theredevelopment of the new housing on the site.

Policy DG7 of the Local Plan Review states that signs and advertisements will be permittedprovided they do not adversely affect the character of the area. Given the scale andamount of advertisement proposed, the proposal is now deemed to accord with the principleof this policy.

Officers are of the view that the application is acceptable and complies with the Fareham

(8) P/12/0045/AD FAREHAM EAST

MR JAMES SNELGAR

Fareham Borough Local Plan ReviewDG7 - Signs and Advertisements

P/11/0743/FP ERECTION OF THIRTY SEVEN DWELLINGS INCLUDING THERETENTION AND CONVERSION OF FORMER HOSPITALENTRANCE BUILDING, ACCESS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 48 -


Recommendation

Background Papers

Borough Local Plan Review.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan as set out above. The signage would not be detrimental to highwaysafety nor would it harm the appearance or character of the surrounding area. There are noother material considerations judged to have sufficient weight to justify a refusal of theapplication, and where applicable conditions have been applied in order to satisfy thesematters. The scheme is therefore judged to be in accordance with Section 38(6) of thePlanning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planning permission shouldtherefore be granted.

TEMPORARY CONSENT: Signage to be removed within 2 years or upon sale of thelast dwelling whichever is the sooner.

P/11/0743/FP


pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 49 -

52 WICKHAM ROAD

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 50 -

ZONE 3 - EASTERN WARDS

Hill Head

Portchester East

Portchester West

Stubbington

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 51 -

RECONSTRUCTION OF CAMS TIDAL MILL INCLUDING RESTAURANT, BAR, KITCHENSTORES, ANCILLIARY ACCOMODATION, SERVICE YARD, CAR PARK & RE-ALIGNMENT OF COASTAL PATH & CREATE NEW INTERTIDAL AREA: DETAILSPURSUANT TO CONDITION: 8I (SEAWALL/DEFENCE WORKS); 10 LANDSCAPING; 11PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY & MITIGATION; 12 CONTAMINATION & 19ARCHAEOLOGY

PORTCHESTER ROAD - CAMS HALL ESTATE - FAREHAM

Report By

Introduction

Site Description


Jim Bennett Ext. 2412

Planning permission was granted on 6th April 2010 under ref. P/09/0892/FP. Thesubmission under ref. P/09/0892/DP/A seeks the Council's approval of details relating tocondition numbers 8(i), 10, 11, 12 and 19. Another item on this agenda, under ref.P/09/0892/DP/B, seeks the Council's approval of details relating to condition numbers 22and 23.

This item was withdrawn from the Planning Committee Agenda for the meeting of 1stFebruary 2012.

The Cams Hall Estate lies immediately to the south side of Portchester Road, to the east ofthe upper section of Fareham Lake. Cams Hall is a Grade II* listed building sited within itsextensive grounds, themselves included on the local list of Parks and Gardens of SpecialHistoric Interest.

The site to which the proposal relates is located immediately adjacent to the PortchesterRoad (A27) in the north west corner of the estate, with Fareham Lake forming its westernboundary. The site has an area of approximately 0.7 hectares.

Planning permission was granted for reconstruction of Cams Tidal Mill, incorporating arestaurant, bar, kitchen stores, ancillary accommodation, service yard, car park, realignmentof coastal footpath and creation of a new intertidal area. The permission was subject to 28conditions, 18 of which required the submission and approval of details prior to thecommencement of the approved development. This submission seeks the Council'sapproval of details relating to 5 conditions, specifically:

8(i) - Sea Wall/Defence Works10 - Landscaping Condition 11 - Protected Species Survey and Mitigation12 - Contamination19 - Archaeology

The other pre-commencement conditions are:

(9) P/09/0892/DP/A PORTCHESTER WEST

STRAND HARBOUR SECURITIESLTD

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 52 -

Representations

Consultations

3 - Material samples4 - Materials/sections of building5 - Materials of hard surfaces7 - Levels8 - Sea Wall details (ii) - Construction Strategy and (iii) - Timetabling9 - Boundary Treatment14 - Footpath Diversion15 - Car parking drainage21 - Surface water drainage22 - Details of tidal lagoon (see DP/B on this agenda)23 - Ecological Management Plan (see DP/B on this agenda)24 - Construction Environmental Management Plan25 - Construction Traffic Management Plan26 - Prevention of mud on road

Finally, details in relation to discharge of condition nos. 6 (external lighting) and 13(remediation of any on-site contamination) are required prior to occupation.

Sixteen individuals and interested parties have been notified by letter and a site noticeposted for the requisite period. Seventeen representations have been received from 12individuals/organisations raising the following comments along with reiterating concern overthe principle of the development in the first place:

· Concern over the level of information and detail available regarding the construction,management and impact of the approved intertidal basin. · Use of sheet piling and railings is inappropriate · Insufficient information and definition of the treatment of the Site of Special ScientificInterest (SSSI)/lagoon boundary · Implications for the Special Nature Conservation Order (SNCO) have been ignored. · The proposed lagoon does not constitute an effective intertidal wetland. · The proposed feeder channel is an unnecessary disturbance to the SSSI. · The 'mandatory' Kowalczyk tree plan has been ignored. · The footpath 523 diversion order new path plan is ignored · The utility and integrity of the SSSI is threatened · Possible impact on coastal erosion · Concern over pre-emptive loss of original hedging · Clipping height of proposed hedge at 1.5 metres is too low · The proposed landscaping adjacent to the 'SSSI mitigation' is inadequate · The Council cannot consider a landscaping plan until the removed hedgerow has beenreinstated · Materials proposed for the sea wall are inappropriate. · In view of recent damage caused, the proposed development should now be resited wellaway from the waters edge. · Was the hedge removed because evidence of bat foraging was found along it? · Lighting should be directed away from vegetation to the south of the development toprotect bat habitat · The banking along the basin is not shown landscaped and details need to be provided

Director of Planning and Environment (Landscape) - No objection

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 53 -


Director of Planning and Environment (Arboriculture) - No Objection

Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services (Contaminated Land) - No Objection

Director of Planning and Environment (Ecology) - Following initial comments concerningCondition 8 (i) and 10 and subsequent discussions/ correspondence - No Objection

Director of Planning and Environment (Conservation) - No objection.

Hampshire County Council Archaeologist - No requirement for further Archaeological work.No Objection

Director of Planning and Environment (Highways) - No highway implications in thedischarge of stated conditions. No Objection

Natural England - (Condition 11) The bat survey concludes that there will be a low tonegative impact on any bats providing that replacement hedgerows and trees are planted tomitigate the impacts of development. Therefore, on the basis of the information available inthis consultation, Natural England is broadly satisfied that the mitigation proposals, ifimplemented, are sufficient to avoid adverse impacts on bats.

(Condition 8(i)) Initial objection on the basis of insufficient information concerning anddetails of the construction methodology and materials to be used in the construction of thetidal basin.

Environment Agency - No comments

It is important to establish at the outset the credentials and purpose of the currentapplication. In a significant portion of the letters of representation objectors have:

1. Apparently viewed the submissions as a fresh planning application, revisiting originalconcerns over the principle of the development2. Raised further concerns over the removal of the hedging by the developer along theforeshore.3. Issue has also been raised that there has been no public involvement over the footpathdedication order for the western branch of the public footpath. Members are reminded thatthis is subject to separate processes and is not an issue for consideration as part of thecurrent 'Details Pursuant' application.

Whilst there are clearly matters included within the detailed submissions to which the publicis entitled to comment and to which Members may or may not grant consent, the submitteddetails must be seen in the light of what has been granted under the planning permissionand concerning which the details represent clarification as opposed to in principle approval.

For example, a tidal basin has already been permitted as part of the original planningpermission; the aim of conditions relating to this are to ensure that it is constructed in such amanner as to meet, as far as possible, the original aims of creating the basin which in partturned members towards granting permission in the first place. The maxim is true of all ofthe conditional details for which discharge is currently sought.

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 54 -

Members are reminded that the proposals for discharge of conditions are specific and thatwhilst some comments received from notified parties do not necessarily focus upon thespecifics of the details submitted, comments which do not relate to the discharge of theconditions contained in this submission package cannot be taken into account.

Each condition is now considered in turn:

Condition 8(i) - This part of the condition relates solely to the proposed 'construction andmaterials' of the sea wall/defence works adjacent the proposed building and tidal basin.Parts (ii) and (iii) relating to methodology and timetabling will form a further submission fordischarge. It is difficult to fully segregate parts of a development, which ultimately createsan integrated whole, but the submission of the further details will give the opportunity toensure that the solutions can be implemented in practice. If further amendments arerequired at that stage then those can be pursued. This principle has been recognised byNatural England in their response to the Developer's comments regarding this condition.

In detail, the original submission concerning the sea wall has been amended in response tocomments by the Director of Planning and Environment (Conservation). The proposal isnow that the sea wall is constructed in traditional brick in Flemish bond. The developerswished to construct the internals of the blind arches in matt black painted fairfacedblockwork, though concern was raised that even from a distance the black painting wouldappear false and not give the intended illusion of a deep arch; this would be accentuated incloser views from the foreshore footpath. It was also considered that the painted archeswould weather poorly over time to the detriment of the appearance of the finisheddevelopment. The applicant has now agreed to the use of brickwork within the blind arches.The brick type, colour and detail remain to be considered with the future discharge ofConditions 3 and 4, which relate to the submission of materials.

The plans identify the use of 'Maccaferri Enkamat' A20 to underpin the construction of thetidal basin. This provides 'immediate protection of banks from high velocities and smallwave attack'. It is intended that the system would create the stable basis for the basin,would be silt covered and would allow for natural growth on the bank. There have been noobjections regarding the actual material from consultees, whose concerns appear to rest inthe main with methodology. Methodology will be considered under future discharge ofCondition 8 (ii) and (iii).

The Council has sought further advice from the Coastal Partnership on use of the product inthis location, who comment that erosion forces are relatively low due to general tidal actionin this location. The channel, where water flows in and out of the lagoon is likely to be thearea most subject to erosion, though Enkamat is commonly used to stabilise channels andthe applicant points out that pre-filled Enkamat will be used for the area around the mouthof the channel. The site is close to the Wallington River, which discharges below the A27into Fareham Creek and is likely to be the predominant erosion source in the locality.However, the degree of separation between the line of the river and proposal site issufficient not to constitute a problem. Enkamat provides a less intrusive solution than manyother conventional erosion protection measures, as it can be used in a variety of erosiveenvironments and is commonly used to stabilise slopes and channels. In order to avoidexposure of the Enkamat it should be designed so that changes to sediment levels withinthe estuary will have limited effect. Methods of achieving this may include increasing thedepth of sediment above the top of the Enkamat erosion protection. This will be mostimportant around areas of the entrance to the tidal inlet being created. The

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 55 -

manufacturer/installer will be able to provide more specialist advice on use of the product inthis location.

Condition 10 - The Council's Landscape Officer has raised no objection to the landscapingscheme, which is also acceptable to the Arboriculturalist, the Ecologist and NaturalEngland, in so far as the planting provides the basis for the continuation of the foraginghabits of bats.

Objections appear to be mainly concerned with the removal of the original hedgerow alongthe foreshore, which was previously addressed by Members at the Committee meeting of12th October 2011. There is a legal agreement in place in respect of the process that mustbe undertaken by the developers under specified scenarios. Should the development nottake place then the legal agreement requires specified actions to take place at certaintimes.

Notified parties point out that the Kowalczyk Tree Report is not adhered to as per condition17 of the original approval. At the time that the planning proposals for the site weredeveloped, the intention was that some of the recently felled vegetation alongside the Creekwould be retained and protected during construction. Since then the applicant has re-evaluated the landscaping proposals for the site. The revised landscaping proposalsprovide substantial planting around the permitted restaurant building and its car park andhas led to replacement planting being proposed alongside the Creek. Whilst thereplacement planting alongside the Creek is a change of approach from two years ago, it isa change that the applicant is fully entitled to propose, in discharging condition no. 10. In theview of Officers the hedgerow planting alongside the Creek and the substantial plantingaround the restaurant would result in a high quality and acceptable approach tolandscaping, particularly as the Creek-side mounding and planting would screen the carpark from views from the far side of the Creek and provide screening/shelter for birds fromon-shore activity. It is reiterated that the Council's Landscape Officer and Tree Officershave no objection to the landscaping scheme/tree proposals, which are not consideredradically different to those approved under the intial planning permission and do not warrantsubmission of a new application.

The landscaping scheme now proposed is considered to be of a very high quality andreflects the change in the character of this part of the site which will arise from the newbuilding and use. The landscaping proposed immediately adjacent to the Creek comprisesthe replacement hedgerow planting undertaken late last year, following consideration by thePlanning Committee in October 2011. The scheme proposes that longer term the hedgerowis maintained at 1.5 metres in height, although Members may wish to consider theappropriateness of allowing the hedgerow to be of more natural form and scale, in light ofthe comments of notified parties.

Condition 11 - All relevant consultees have accepted that the survey work and mitigationproposals (which have impacted upon the design and detailing of the landscape scheme)are appropriate and that there will be no undue harm to protected species.

Condition 12 - The Contaminated Land Officer is satisfied that there will be no harm arisingfrom the proposed development in the light of the extensive survey work undertaken anddetails provided. Natural England did raise concern but are happy that there will be noproblems arising bearing in mind the Contaminated Land Officer's comments.

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 56 -

Recommendation

Background Papers

Condition 19 - Nothing of archaeological interest was found on the land, the CountyArchaeologist has no objections and no adverse comments have been received.

With regard to the comments of notified parties, which are not addressed above;construction details have been provided in this submission and have not resulted in anyadverse comment from consultees. The management and impact of the intertidal basin arenot part of this submission. The comments made in respect of the SNCO were not raised byNatural England (NE) at the time of the planning application or now. A SNCO can beapplied by the Secretary of State where operations are likely to harm the natureconservation interest of European Designations, though it is re-iterated that the proposeddevelopment does not encroach on the designated site and that the SNCO was designatedto address the impacts of commercial bait digging activity. The diversion of Footpath 523 isnot considered as part of this submission, it is subject to separate legislation, although theline of the diverted route is accommodated by the submitted plan, going either side of theproposed building.

Conclusion

The submitted details do not alter or extend the remit of the original planningapplication/permission they seek to explain and clarify details not available at the time ofdetermination, to Members' satisfaction. None of the proposals encroach on statutorilydesignated areas such as the adjacent SSSI, SPA, RAMSAR site so that there is nostatutory process involved in determining the submitted details; it is open to Committee todetermine if the details submitted are both sufficient and acceptable to be agreed. In doingso, Members must, of course give due account to the comments of consultees andobjectors.

In the view of Officers the details submitted in pursuance to the five conditions specifiedunder the 'Description of Development' are acceptable and the submission is accordinglyrecommended for approval.

That members resolve to APPROVE the details submitted pursuant to conditions 8(i), 10,11, 12 and 19 of P/09/0892/FP.

Files: P/09/0892/FP and P/09/0892/DP/A


pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 57 -

CAMS HALL ESTATE

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 58 -

RECONSTRUCTION OF CAMS TIDAL MILL INCORPORATING RESTAURANT, BAR,KITCHEN STORES, ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION, SERVICE YARD, CAR PARK ANDRE-ALIGNMENT OF COASTAL FOOTPATH & CREATE NEW INTERTIDAL AREA:DISCHARGE OF CONDITIONS NUMBERS 22 AND 23 RELATED TO DETAILS OF TIDALLAGOON AND ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.

PORTCHESTER ROAD - CAMS HALL ESTATE - FAREHAM

Report By

Introduction

Site Description



Planning permission was granted on 6th April 2010 under ref. P/09/0892/FP. Thissubmission, under ref. P/09/0892/DP/B seeks the Council's approval of details relating tocondition numbers 22 and 23. Another item on this agenda, under ref. P/09/0892/DP/Aseeks the Council's approval of details relating to condition numbers 8(i), 10, 11, 12 and 19.

Both items were withdrawn from the Planning Committee Agenda for the meeting of 1stFebruary 2012.

The Cams Hall Estate lies to the south side of Portchester Road, to the east of the uppersection of Fareham Lake. Cams Hall is a Grade II* listed building sited within its extensivegrounds, which are themselves included on the local list of Parks and Gardens of SpecialHistoric Interest.The site is located immediately adjacent to the Portchester Road (A27) in the north westcorner of the estate, with Fareham Lake forming its western boundary. The site has an areaof approximately 0.7 hectares.

Planning permission was granted under ref. P/09/0892/FP for reconstruction of Cams TidalMill, incorporating a restaurant, bar, kitchen stores, ancillary accommodation, service yard,car park, realignment of coastal footpath and creation of a new intertidal area. Thepermission was subject to 28 conditions, 18 of which required the submission and approvalof details prior to the commencement of the approved development. This submission seeksthe Council's approval of details relating to 2 conditions, specifically:

22 - Details of Tidal Lagoon23 - Ecological Management Plan

The other pre-commencement conditions are:

3 - Material samples4 - Materials/sections of building5 - Materials of hard surfaces7 - Levels8(i) - Sea Wall/Defence Works (see DP/A on this agenda)

(10) P/09/0892/DP/B PORTCHESTER WEST

STRAND HARBOUR SECURITIESLTD

AGENT: MR FRASER WHYTE

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 59 -

Representations

Consultations

8 - Sea Wall details (ii) - Construction Strategy and (iii) - Timetabling9 - Boundary Treatment10 - LandscapingCondition (see DP/A on this agenda)11 - Protected Species Survey and Mitigation (see DP/A on this agenda)12 - Contamination (see DP/A on this agenda)14 - Footpath Diversion15 - Car parking drainage19 - Archaeology (see DP/A on this agenda)21 - Surface water drainage24 - Construction Environmental Management Plan25 - Construction Traffic Management Plan26 - Prevention of mud on road

Finally, details in relation to discharge of condition nos. 6 (external lighting) and 13(remediation of any on-site contamination) are required prior to occupation.

Sixteen individuals and interested parties have been notified by letter and a site noticeposted for the requisite period. Five representations have been received raising thefollowing comments and reiterating concerns over the principle of the development: · Paragraph 2.3 of the management plan refers to the excavation of the bank to MHWNeap which will encroach upon the SPA/SSSI · Excavation to MHW will be ineffective and in hot weather may lead to 'bake out' duringneap periods · No detail of treatment of channel to prevent erosion · Needs to address measures to prevent 'eutrophic' conditions [Accumulation of nutrientscausing excessive plant growth and decay - causing strain on ecosystem] · The wish to engender 'naturalness' may not be appropriate to the intended use of thebuilding since naturalness can often be messy and smelly · The Special Nature Conservation Order (SNCO) is not taken into account · Bird Surveys have not taken place in appropriate cold snaps · Sheet piling other than behind mock culvert brick facing is inappropriate in context ofconservation area. · A bird hide has been deleted in preference to views from a longer partof the footpath, which is inconsistent with creating a barrier to the SSSI/SNCO · The proposed 1.5 metre managed hedging is too low - this should be raised to 5 metresto provide protective value. · Loss of further hedging due to sheet piling. · It would be better if the lagoon were to be made into a freshwater lake to avoid all of theissues.

Director of Planning and Environment (Ecology) - Notes that "it appears that what is beingput forward is as was previously approved and is unclear on the scope for changes to bemade to the application at this stage". Highlights the wording of the condition and that thelagoon and channel will be under tidal conditions only at certain times. Notes that usually"intertidal areas would be inundated at high tide and exposed at low tide, which does notappear to be the case here due to the channel design". Points out that if the habitat isrequired as mitigation then it is important that it perform the function as originally intended.Questions raised over:

· The impact of piling on migratory fish

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 60 -


· How will channel be kept clear · Are post construction bird surveys of the lagoon to be carried out at high or low tide?(Report states that surveys 'will follow low tide wetland bird [WeBS] survey guidelines withthe addition of a survey of birds using the lagoon at high tide') · Baseline surveys need to be carried out annually until commencement of works (Reportconfirms that delays in construction commencement will necessitate repeat surveys) · Are physical works proposed within the designated sites · What are the implications of carrying out restoration of bank works from harbourside?(The Report anticipates work from the landward side; given the mean high tide levelidentified if works have to take place on the harbour side this would not be within the SSSI). Natural England (NE)- Object on the grounds of insufficient information to determine if theproposed works are likely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the SPA andRAMSAR Sites. On Condition 22, NE state that the proposal cannot be classified asintertidal and therefore the developers need to consider either:

· Connecting the lagoon with the main channel which would require a Habitats RegulationsAssessment or · applying to vary the planning condition to allow the creation of a 'saline lagoon' in whichscenario the developers would need to further justify that the new habitat would be ofsufficiently high ecological value given that the requirement for the intertidal habitat was inresponse to the potential for disturbance to the SPA.Condition 23 would need to be revisited in the light of any changes under Condition 22.Attention is drawn to Section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which places aduty on the Planning Authority to "take reasonable steps, consistent with the properexercise of the authority's functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of theflora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is ofspecial scientific interest"

Environment Agency - Having reviewed the tidal lagoon habitat scheme and EcologicalManagement Plan, do not support the discharge of condition 22. Evidence is required thatthe proposed lagoon will function as an intertidal habitat. Recommend that the applicantrefers to advice given in Natural England's response. Do not recommend discharge ofcondition 23 as the Ecological Management Plan would need to be amended in response tocomments on condition 22. Attention is drawn to the potential impact of piling on migratoryfish, as no information has been provided regarding the proposed piling method. The risklargely depends on the location of works, timing and duration of the operation, type of pilingcarried out and the size of piles to be installed. Details should be provided within theconstruction Ecological Management Plan or a separate method statement.

It is important to establish, at the outset, the credentials and purpose of the currentapplication. Whilst there are clearly matters included within the detailed submissions towhich the public is entitled to comment and to which members may or may not grantconsent, the submitted details must be seen in the light of what has been granted under theplanning permission. In this respect the details represent clarification, as opposed to inprinciple approval. For example; a tidal basin has been approved and the aim of conditions relating to this areto ensure that it is constructed in such a manner as to meet as far as possible the originalaims of creating the basin which may, in part, have influenced Member's original decision,

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 61 -

not the creation of the basin itself. The maxim is true of all of the conditional details forwhich discharge is currently sought.

Members are reminded that the proposals for discharge of conditions are specific and thatwhilst some comments received from notified parties do not necessarily focus upon thespecifics of the details submitted, comments which do not relate to the discharge of theconditions contained in this submission package cannot be taken into account.

Each condition is now considered in turn:

Condition 22 - The wording of the condition is as follows:

" No development shall take place until a detailed scheme for the creation of the new areaof intertidal habitat has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority inwriting. The inter-tidal basin shall be constructed in accordance with the approved detailsand completed before the restaurant is first brought into use.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed creation of the inter-tidal habitat is implemented insuch a way that it contributes to the nature conservation value of the site in accordance withnational planning policy by providing suitable habitats for wildlife; in accordance withPolicies C14 and C18 of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review."

The intertidal basin was introduced by a schematic plan submitted on 13 November 2009,prior to the Planning Committee on 2 December 2009. That plan introduced broadly howthe intertidal basin would be formed in relation to existing land and tidal levels. The planestablished that the basin would be set above Mean High Water Springs by the creation ofa channel linked to the Mean High Water (MHW) level.

It is clear that in approving this schematic plan the Council did agree to the creation of abasin, wherein the water would be tidally replaced daily during the period of 'springs' hightides (above MHW), but with a period of no intertidal water exchange during the 'neap' tides(below MHW). This principle has been approved. The purpose of Condition 22 was totranslate the schematic plan into a detailed plan for the creation of the basin as a habitat,also in line with the approved layout plan which defined the area of land to be excavatedand formed into the basin. The submitted plans follow the lines of the schematic with theexception that the maximum depth of the basin below MHW has been increased from 0.5mto 0.9m creating a larger permanent water area to tidal mud area ratio.

Natural England (NE) and the Environment Agency (EA) do not support the proposals todischarge the conditions, although neither raised an objection to the principle of theproposal when it was first reported to Members in December 2009. NE stated "the proposalis unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on the interest features of the SPA/Ramsarsite and therefore does not require an appropriate assessment, provided any planningpermission is subject to conditions. Also advised that the SSSI is unlikely to be adverselyaffected, subject to conditions." The EA had no objection, subject to condition, which theapplicant now seeks to discharge.

Central to discharge of the conditions, is that the channel into the lagoon would be cut tothe line of MHW, being the boundary of the SSSI. It would, therefore, have no significantadverse impact upon the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar, which was initially agreed by NE and the EA.As it does not encroach, the proposal does not need to mitigate against harm caused to

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 62 -

nature conservation interests, the lagoon being a form of enhancement rather thanmitigation. The location of the channel cutting is specifically designed so as not to impingeupon the designated sites and while this has some implications regarding regular tidalinundation of the lagoon, the plans have not changed in this respect, and it is the view ofOfficers that NE and EA objections are unsustainable. This is not to suggest that theirviews of are unimportant or that they are not taken into account in considering the submitteddetails, however, it does mean that the initial view of NE that there is unlikely to be anysignificant adverse impact upon the designated sites may be considered overriding,particularly where there is a diversion of opinion as to the appropriateness of the final plans.

Subsequent correspondence with NE, has resulted in partial acceptance of Officerinterpretation, in that whether the lagoon is considered mitigation or enhancement orwhether the term 'intertidal' changes the position with regard to the previously agreedplans, NE would not pursue the matter further, should the submitted details on theconditions be approved.

The major point of divergence arises from the terminology of Condition 22 itself. Inparticular, difference of opinion has arisen over the term 'intertidal habitat'. Indeed NE andthe County Ecologist have drawn attention to what they deem to be the correct definition ofan intertidal habitat as being one where the area is subject to a tidal change of water on adaily basis. They claim therefore that an 'intertidal habitat' cannot be created because thewater will not be refreshed on a daily basis. While this is acknowledged, it does notrepresent a fundamental change to what has been permitted, as the term 'intertidal' hasbeen used in conjunction with the proposed basin at all times and it has always been clearthat the basin would only be refreshed during the 'spring' tide period. Notwithstanding anerror in an initial management plan, making reference to excavation of the bank to MHWNeap, corrected by errata on 29th October 2009, the boundary of the channel has alwaysbeen MHW. Consultation with NE and EA was always on this basis and it has never beenthe intention that the development would encroach over the boundary of the SSSI/MHWlevel.

The applicant states that taking the MHW level at 4.3m chart datum; on average the lagoonwould be subject to 7 days of inundation, followed by 7 or so days when the lagoon wouldnot be inundated, which is verified by the Coastal Partnership. Related to this matter,notified parties have raised concern that standing water might stagnate during the non-tidalperiods. The applicant's understanding is that this would not occur, on the basis ofrefreshment of the lagoon on a daily basis during spring tides, with the maximum dry periodbeing, on average, 7 days during neap tides. The depth of the lagoon has also beenincreased to 0.9m to create a larger permanent water area. The applicant confirms that anysilting of the channel will be cleared by hand to assist with prevention of eutrophicconditions and silting on a needs basis. In order to achieve more regular tidal inundation, the alternatives for the applicant would beto increase the channel depth to create a true 'intertidal area' (resulting in encroachmentupon the designated ecological sites) or to submit an application for the variation of thewording of the condition to match the type of habitat to be formed. Under the circumstancesneither of these scenarios can be considered reasonable where the application proposalhas not changed and has in its basic form been approved. It is therefore consideredunreasonable to withhold approval of the submitted details seeking discharge of condition22.

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 63 -

Condition 23 - The principal concerns have been raised over Condition 22. It is fair to saythat the Ecological Management Plan (EMP) in itself is less sensitive, since it seeks toensure that the works are undertaken appropriately, in response to appropriate and timelysurvey work and to ensure the maintenance of the habitats created and their continuedcontribution to the ecological diversity of the locality. However, it has been pointed out byconsultees and notified parties that the EMP is based on an intertidal lagoon. The intertidalnature of the lagoon has been discussed at length above and it is acknowledged that it willnot be inundated on a regular basis. There may, therefore, be subtle differences in the waythe lagoon is created, planted and managed in respect of the regularity of inundation andthe applicant has been requested to provide an addendum to the EMP to address thismatter. The lagoon would create a unique environment in its own right, as do similarlagoons on the golf course and Bunny Meadows. However, the requested addendum to theEMP will assist understanding of the type of habitat that would be created.

Members' attention is drawn to the fact that the habitat created would not represent anymitigation of harm caused by the proposed development, which is otherwise wholly locatedon land outside of the designated sites. Page 4 of the submitted Management Planconfirms that 'at no time will works enter the SSSI area'. The proposals are morereasonably considered as 'enhancements' so that the habitats created will be additional tothe existing and, more crucially, enhancement of existing, ecologically 'sparse' areas. Theapplicant has confirmed that this is particularly true since the original intention was primarilyto create an appropriate setting for the new building rather than specifically to create ahabitat, so that the creation of the new habitat is indeed a positive gain resulting from thedevelopment. In this respect the duty of LPA under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981Section 28G to further conservation and enhancement, is fulfilled.

Attention is drawn to the potential impact of piling on migratory fish. It is pointed out that asignificant portion of the piling lies around the proposed lagoon which will not be 'opened up'to the Creek until works are complete [Paragraph 4.12 of EMP]. The remaining length is atMean High Tide Springs so that there will be opportunity to carry out works without tidalencroachment and subsequent impact on fish. Full details on the timing and duration of theoperation, type of piling carried out and the size of piles to be installed should be submittedin details pursuant to discharge of condition no. 24, which relates to a ConstructionEnvironmental Management Plan.

With regard to the comments of notified parties not addressed above, the comments madein respect of the SNCO were not raised by NE at time of planning application or now. ASNCO can be applied by the Secretary of State where operations are likely to harm thenature conservation interest of European Designations, though the SNCO was designatedto address the impacts of commercial bait digging activity. Converting the lagoon into afreshwater lake or pushing the lagoon channel to the MLW Neaps or MHW Neaps would beinconsistent with approved development. Appropriate assessment has not been requestedby NE and is not required in this instance.

Conclusion

The submitted details do not materially alter or extend the remit of the original planningapplication/permission. They seek to explain and clarify details not available at the time ofdetermination, to Members' satisfaction. None of the proposals encroach on to statutorilydesignated areas such as the adjacent SSSI, SPA, RAMSAR site so that there is nostatutory process involved in determining the submitted details and, despite the reference

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 64 -

Recommendation

Background Papers

within the NE comments, the Council has considered and fulfilled its statutory duties. It isnow open to the Planning Committee to determine if the details submitted are both sufficientand acceptable to be agreed in the light of comments received.

In the view of Officers the details submitted in pursuance to the two conditions specifiedunder the 'Description of Development' are acceptable and the submission is accordinglyrecommended for approval.

That Members APPROVE the details submitted pursuant to conditions 22 and 23 ofP/09/0892/FP.

Files P/09/0892/FP and P/09/0892/DP/A


pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 65 -

CAMS HALL ESTATE

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 66 -

CHANGE OF USE FROM CLASS A1 (RETAIL) AND CLASS A5 (HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY)TO MIXED USE CLASS A3/A5 (RESTAURANT AND HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY)INCLUDING REVISED FLUE ARRANGEMENT

2 & 4 CASTLE STREET PORTCHESTER PO16 9PP

Report By

Amendments

Site Description


Policies


Representations


Amended plans received on 12 February 2012 and amplified by email dated 9 September2011.

This application relates to two units situated on the eastern corner of Castle Street. No. 2Castle Street comprises a former hat shop (A1 retail)which has been vacant for some timeand no. 4 Castle Street is an existing takeaway (A5 takeaway.

Both units fall within the urban area, outside of the designated district shopping cente ofPortchester.

Change of use of the two units to a mixed use of restaurant and takeaway.



Eight letters have been received objecting on the following grounds:

(11) P/11/0479/CU PORTCHESTER EAST

DIMAGOLD LTD. T/A MARMARIS AGENT: DANIELLS HARRISON





S12 - Hot Food Shops

S8 - Retention of Local Shops

P/04/1843/FP

P/04/1844/AD

Retention of Ventilation/Extraction Vents on Roof

Retention of Internally Illuminated Fascia and Projecting Sign

PERMISSION

PART CONSENT 5YEARS

26/01/2005

04/02/2005

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 67 -

Consultations


Too many other food outlets in the precinct;Impact from smells;No parking;Noise at night;Problems with litter and youths gathering outside;No objection as yet, provided any revised flue arrangement takes fumes away from theresidential properties.

Comment from the Portchester Society:Object to closing Thursday - Saturday at 0300 hours and no parking.

Comment from the Portchester Civic Society:Until the owner can control the anti-social behaviour and noise/pollution affecting theneighbouring shop and residents of Postern Close an objection is raised.

Director of Planning and Environment (Highways) - There is no parking for the existing usenor is there the ability for any to be provided as part of this application. Any car bornevisitors would be expected to make use of the nearby public car parks. It is noted that thereare enforceable no waiting restrictions in place in the immediate vicinity to ensure that theuse does not result in on-street parking that could be detrimental to highway safety. Thereis no highway objection to this proposal.

Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services (Environmental Health - pollution) -Following the receipt of additional information received in respect of the extraction systemproposed and subsequent communication with the installers, if installed, operated andmaintained in accordance with the installer's and manufacturer's guidelines, the proposedapplication would not be detrimental to nearby residential premises.

The conditions of the premises licence seek to control concerns in relation to noise frompatrons and litter arising from the premises.

Hampshire Constabulary - Comments awaited

a) Effect on character of area and vitality of shopping area

The application site lies within the urban area outside of the defined district shoppingcentre. Notwithstanding this the application site and its neighbour at 6 Castle Street havehistorically been in commercial use. No. 4 Castle Street has been a takeaway since the1960's. The change of use of no. 2 Castle Street to a non-retail use would not harm thecharacter of the surrounding area where there are other facilities in easy reach to meet theday-to-day needs of local residents.

b) Effect on amenities of neighbours - noise, odour and anti-social behaviour

Local residents have raised concerns over the effect of the proposed mixedrestaurant/takeaway use on their living conditions. These include anticipated noise fromcustomers, extraction systems, cooking odour from the premises and an increase in anti-social behaviour. In relation to cooking odour firstly, the Council's Environmental Health

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 68 -


Recommendation

officers have looked at the existing extraction system serving the takeaway and theproposed modifications to it. They do not anticipate cooking odour from the premises wouldhave an adverse effect on the amenities of nearby residents. The potential for the extractionsystem to generate an unacceptable level of noise has also been taken into account andhas not been found to be unacceptable.

The proposed use would attract customers to the unit predominantly during the eveningtime given the nature of the use. It is not considered this would be materially different tothe existing takeaway. It is unlikely that a significant increase in late night noise fromcustomers coming and going would arise as a result of the restaurant element of theproposal. For similar reasons it is not anticipated that levels of anti-social behaviour wouldrise either. In fact the proposal may encourage customers to eat on the premises ratherthan off site.

c) Visual appearance of extractor flue

There are already two steel extractor flues, one vertical and one horizontal, installed on theroof of the application site. As a result of recent dicussions with the Council's EnvironmentalHealth Officer a new filter system has recently been attached to the vertical flue. Thevertical extraction flue, by nature of its siting and design is visible from the street and fromnearby residential properties. This flue however was erected some years ago. The recentchanges to the filter do not materially worsen the visual appearance of the flue to justifyrefusing the application.

d) Parking

The Council's Highway Engineer raises no objection on highway safety grounds. There arepublic car parks nearby and on-street parking in the vicinity of the application site is severelyrestricted. The existing takeaway use has not resulted in highway safety issues in thislocation.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding the concerns raised officers are satisfied that the proposed mixedrestaurant/takeaway use would not effect the character of the area or impact upon theamenities of the neighbouring residential properties.

The development is acceptable taking into account the above policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan. The proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable impacts uponthe street scene or character of the area, or upon the amenities of neighbouring properties,or on the local highway network; other material considerations being judged not to havesufficient weight or direction to justify a refusal of the application, and, where applicable,conditions having been applied in order to satisfy these matters. The scheme is thereforejudged to be in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory PurchaseAct 2004 and thus planning permission should therefore be granted.

Subject to the comments of Hampshire Constabulary.

PERMISSION: extract filtration system installed, operated and maintained in accordance

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 69 -

with the installers and manufacturers guidelines; hours of opening 0800 - 0000 Sunday toWednesday; 0800 - 0300 Thursday - Saturday


pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 70 -

2 & 4 CASTLE STREET

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 71 -

ERECTION OF SUMMERHOUSE AND DECKING AT NORTHERN EXTENT OF REARGARDEN

12 LAVEROCK LEA FAREHAM PO16 8DA

Report By

Site Description


Policies


Representations



The application relates to a two storey, semi detached property located on the northern sideof Laverock Lea, which is a residential area within Portchester.

The property is served by a large rear garden which accommodates a single garage and aglasshouse located immediately on the common boundary with no. 14 Laverock Lea. Thelevels of the garden rise from drop from north to south.

The main rear boundary treatment consists of timber panel fencing, approximately 1.5metres high and soft landscaping, including trees on the northern boundary.

Planning permission is sought for a full-width raised decking within the last 4.85 metres ofthe rear garden. The decking would host a summerhouse, which would be positioned in thenorth western corner of the garden.

The summerhouse would be 2.8 metres wide and 2.8 metres long and would have apyramid roof with a pitch height of 2.85 metres.


There is no relevant planning history for this site.

As result of the Fareham Borough Council consultation process, two letters ofrepresentation have been received, one raising concerns that the current level of privacy willbe compromised.

The proposed development, due to its modest scale and sympathetic design, would notalter the appearance of the local area, therefore the main consideration includes its impact

(12) P/12/0130/FP PORTCHESTER WEST

MR WES KNIPE


Approved SPG/SPD



[O]

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 72 -


Recommendation

Background Papers

on the residential amenities of the adjoining neighbours, in terms of a loss of light andprivacy.

The proposed summerhouse would be located within the north western corner of the reargarden. Such orientation would result in limited morning shade of the rear garden of theneighbouring property at no. 14 Laverock Lea. However, the main shadow would occurduring afternoon hours and would cover the area to the east of the summerhouse, which isthe area proposed for the raised decking.

The existing boundary treatment is not considered sufficient to fully protect the privacycurrently enjoyed by the adjoining neighbours, therefore Officers consider that appropriatescreening should be provided, for the proposed development to be acceptable.

As this matter can be secured by imposing a planning condition, conditional approval isrecommended.

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of theDevelopment Plan as set out above. Other material considerations including impact on theappearance of the area and residential amenities, in terms of a loss of outlook, privacy andovershadowing have been considered and are not judged to have sufficient weight to justifya refusal of the application, and where applicable conditions have been applied in order tosatisfy these matters. The scheme is therefore judged to be in accordance with Section38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planning permissionshould therefore be granted.

PERMISSION - erection of 1.8 metres high screening on both sides of proposed decking

File - P/12/0130/FP


pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 73 -

12 LAVEROCK LEA

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 74 -

DEMOLITION OF PUBLIC HOUSE AND ERECTION OF RETAIL UNIT (CLASS A1) WITHFIVE FLATS ABOVE & THREE DWELLINGS

54 LINDEN LEA - THE LINDEN LEA - PORTCHESTER PO16 8EA

Report By

Amendments

Introduction

Site Description



As amended by plans received 4th October 2011

Members will recall that a decision on this application was deferred at the PlanningCommittee meeting of 29th February 2012, in order to provide Members with further detailson the scheme's viability in respect of the applicant's submitted Viability Assessment and itsappraisal by the Council's consultant surveyor, which concluded that the development couldnot support an affordable housing contribution.

The applicant has agreed to Members reviewing a summary of the consultant's comments,to enable determination of the application. However the summary contains commerciallysensitive information, is not to be made publicly available and is to be treated as strictlyprivate and confidential. The additional viability information is made available separately toMembers only, as an addendum to this report. Should Members wish to view theapplicant's full Viability Appraisal and the consultant surveyor's full comments, they areavailable to view on file at the Civic Offices.

In addition, the Committee requested more details on the specific allocation of Section 106contributions for public transport infrastructure. This is expanded upon in the HighwayImpacts Section below, otherwise the following report is the same as that produced for theCommittee meeting of 29th February 2012.

The application relates to the site and curtilage of the former Linden Lea public house. Thesite is within the urban area defined by the Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy(2011). The area is predominantly residential in nature and bound by the garden curtilagesof dwellings to the east and west, by the line of Linden Lea to the south and to an area ofpublic open space to the north.

Full planning permission is sought to demolish the public house and erect a Class A1 retailunit, with five 2 bedroom flats above and three 3 bedroom linked dwellings. The retail/flatblock would be of contemporary design with a monopitched roofing arrangement reflectingthat of the existing public house, albeit on two storeys. The building would be orientatednorth to south and the retail unit would have a gross internal floor area of 344 sq.m. Thelinked dwellings would be of more conventional design and appearance, with a hipped roof,fronting Linden Lea, with gardens to the rear, adjoining a car parking court. Off-streetparking would be provided for thirteen vehicles for the commercial unit and twelve spaces

(13) P/11/0688/FP PORTCHESTER WEST

BRIGHTBEECH INVESTMENTSLLP

AGENT: WYG PLANNING &DESIGN

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 75 -

Policies


Representations

Consultations

for the residential units, accessed directly off Linden Lea. The precise materials ofconstruction are not specified, though the plans show use of contrasting facing bricks, hungtiles and tiled roofing.



P/09/0172/FP - application to demolish public house and erect 4 apartments and 5 terraceddwellings - refused April 2009 due to concerns over design, privacy and impact upon openspace - dismissed at appeal December 2009

Adjoining neighbours have been notified by letter and a site notice posted for the requisiteperiod. Four letters have been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

· On-street parking will become a problem in the locality · Intensification of use will increase noise and disturbance in the locality · Queries are raised over the tenure of the housing · The Council's notification procedure is criticised · Increased retail competition · One letter accepts that the site needs to be tidied up. · If permission is granted conditions must be imposed to ensure privacy is not lost toadjoining dwellings and to ensure adequate boundary treatment is implemented

Director of Planning and Environment (Highways) - No highway objections are raised tothe proposal, subject to a HCC Transport Contributions Policy contribution and pedestriancrossing works being secured by a Section 106 Agreement. Conditions in relation to:vehicular access, car parking, cycle parking, footway extension, highway surface water



CS1 - Employment Provision



CS11 - Development in Portchester, Stubbington and Hill Head

CS15 - Sustainable Development and Climate Change


CS18 - Provision of Affordable Housing




S9 - New Local Shops

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 76 -


drainage, Traffic Regulation Order, and a servicing management plan are recommended.Informatives are also given.

Director of Planning and Environment (Arboriculture) - No objections, subject to conditionsto safeguard trees within and adjacent to the site.

Director of Planning and Environment (Ecology) - No objections, subject to conditions tosafeguard potential bat and reptile wildlife interests on the site. Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services (Environmental Health) - No objections,subject to a condition to address the potential for on site contamination.

The main issues to be considered in the determination of this application are:

· Principle of Development; · Impact on the Character of the Area; · Highway Impacts; · Impact on the Amenities of Neighbouring Properties and Future Occupiers · Viability of the Scheme

Principle of Development

The site is within the urban area where redevelopment and development on previouslydeveloped land will be permitted, subject to other material planning considerations.

The nature of the application has changed since the proposal refused and dismissed atappeal in 2009. That proposal was purely for residential development and while the value ofthe public house to the community was not given as a reason for refusal by the PlanningAuthority, some weight was attached to the importance of this facility to the community bythe Inspector. The Inspector considered that the public house provided a focus for thecommunity which, if lost would be harmful to the area's character and to the way that itfunctions, which was contrary to the provisions of Policy EC13 of PPS4 (Planning forSustainable Economic Growth). The retail element of the current proposal has beenintroduced to address concerns raised in respect of the Inspector's deliberations over theappeal against refusal of residential redevelopment of the site, as loss of the public houseas a community facility. While a convenience store would not provide the same type offacility as the former public house, it would provide a focal point for use by the localcommunity, as well as providing a sustainable base for economic growth and a facility forpeople's day to day needs. The Core Strategy allows for the redevelopment of previouslydeveloped sites to other uses that contribute towards economic development. PPS4includes retail development as that which contributes towards economic development andas such its use is consistent with the policies of the Core Strategy.

Given the size of the proposed store (344 sq.m) and its local catchment area, the proposalwould have no significant impact upon the vitality and viability of existing shopping centresand a sequential test is unnecessary. It is noted that an objection has been received on thebasis of increased competition, which is not material to consideration of the application. Aconvenience retail unit of the scale proposed would adhere to the principles of PPS4 andsaved Policy S9 of the Local Plan, to meet the day-to-day shopping needs of the immediatelocality and to promote consumer choice and competition.

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 77 -

The former public house has been vacant for a considerable period of time and theapplicant has submitted evidence to indicate that re-use of the premises as a public houseis not a viable option. Re-use of the site for mixed purposes is considered to be of benefit tothe surrounding area.

The principle of the proposed development is considered acceptable, providing it does notadversely affect the character of the surrounding area, highway safety, amenity of existingand future occupiers or impact adversely on other material planning considerations, whichare examined below.

Impact on the Character of the Area

The design of the proposal has been amended and evolved during the course of theapplication. Concerns were initially expressed over elements of the commercial building, asthe front and car park side elevations, at ground floor level were unfenestrated, creatinglarge expanses of blank wall at street level. The design was amended to incorporateground floor windows over the majority of the front elevation and part of the side elevation.The terraced row adheres to the established building line, is of scale and massingconsistent with those of adjoining dwellings and would be of generally acceptable design,materials and appearance.

One tree to the front of the site and several specimens to the rear are to be retained on siteand the Council's Arborist has no objections to the proposal in respect of its impact upontrees, subject to conditions. Indicative landscaping arrangements have been included onthe site layout, showing planting along much of the site frontage and eastern boundary. Fulldetails of landscaping and boundary treatment can be addressed by condition, in order toensure the proposed development is consistent with the character of the area.

The design, layout, scale, massing and indicative landscaping arrangements are consideredacceptable and would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the area. Itcomplies with the provisions of Policy CS17 of the Adopted Fareham Borough CoreStrategy (2011) and saved Policy DG4 of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review (2000).

Highway Impacts

The site currently has two vehicular accesses, to be closed and replaced with a singlecentral access point, which would be sufficient for the majority of vehicles using the site.Given the low number of visits by larger vehicles, it would be inappropriate to increase thegeometry of the access as this would otherwise create an oversized junction, out of keepingwith the surrounding area and unnecessary in relation to this proposal. The internal site layout could accommodate the turning of larger service vehicles, though aservicing management plan should be secured via condition to detail arrangements for theservicing of the store. The layout has been amended to accommodate a short length of footway on the westernside of the proposed access, terminating on the shared surface within the car park, whichshould be secured via condition. The submitted Transport Statement provides a comparison of the potential vehiclemovements arising from the existing and proposed uses, which indicates that the proposed

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 78 -

retail/residential uses would result in a relatively minor increase in daily vehicle movementsand there would be no particular concerns in these respects. Parking provision of 2 spaces per dwelling is indicated for the 3 bed houses, with 5unallocated spaces for the flats. residential visitor demands are likely to be short stay andcould reasonably be expected to make use of some of the parking associated with the retailunit and there are no concerns with the parking provision indicated for the residential units.

The Highway Engineer points out that parking provision for the retail element is within themaximum standard and reasonable considering the nature of the location, the size of storeand expected high turnover/short stay of vehicles.

A contribution would be required under the HCC Transport Contributions Policy and theapplicant has agreed to enter an obligation to ensure improvements to passenger transportinfrastructure on Linden Lea (likely to be enhancements to bus stops, including timetablinginformation, shelters and raised kerbs), improvements to cycle routes along the A27 corridorand provision of a uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point across Linden Lea, prior to thestore opening. In addition a TRO would need to be entered into, to secure waitingrestrictions in the locality on Linden Lea.

In light of the Member request for details on the specific allocation of Section 106contributions for transport infrastructures; Officers can confirm that they can only bedirected towards schemes on the adopted TCP list and the final decision as to their use lieswith HCC. With regard to passenger transport, the list does not include the subsidy of anybus services in Fareham and the County Highway Authority confirm that it is not their policyto use TCP contributions to fund bus service provision. However, Members may suggestappropriate schemes for inclusion in the TCP preferred schemes list, consultation on whichis carried out by HCC on a rolling basis.

Impact on the Amenities of Neighbouring Properties and Future Occupiers

The proposal is adequately separated from the nearest adjoining properties and shares asimilar building line to no. 52. The scale and massing of the retail/flat block is similar toflatted housing to the west. Conditions may be applied to any approval to ensure windowsin the side elevations are obscure glazed and to withdraw permitted development rights fornew openings and to ensure appropriate boundary treatment is erected, in the interests ofpreserving adjoining privacy.

Representations have been received in respect of intensification of use of the site, whichwill increase noise and disturbance in the locality. Considering the former use of the site asa public house, with a large expanse of car park, it is not anticipated that the intensity of useof the site will increase markedly, particularly considering the residential nature of much ofthe proposal. No objection has been received from the Environmental Health Section on thisbasis, though the imposition of conditions requiring details of boundary treatment andplanting will offer the opportunity to address such concerns.

Subject to conditions, the proposal would have no significant impact on existing adjoiningamenity or the amenity of future occupiers in terms of loss of privacy, light, disturbance oroverbearing impact.

Viability Assessment

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 79 -

Policy CS18 requires the provision of affordable housing on all schemes that can deliver anet gain of 5 or more dwellings. On sites of between 5 and 9 dwellings, developers will beexpected to provide 30% affordable units or the equivalent financial contribution towards off-site provision. Where development viability is an issue, developers will be expected toproduce a viability assessment in which it is clearly demonstrated the maximum number ofdwellings which can be achieved on site. Where an affordable housing contribution issought as an off-site payment, this must be in accordance with the principle of broadequivalence.

In light of Policy CS18 and its written justification, the applicant prepared a viabilityassessment, which has been reviewed by the Council's consultant (BPS CharteredSurveyors). Initially BPS concluded that the value of the proposed scheme may beunderstated and the existing use value may be overstated to the extent that the Councilwould be justified in negotiating an off-site affordable housing contribution, in line with thepolicy requirement for schemes of between 5 and 9 units. However, following a meetingwith the applicant and their advisers and submission of further information, BPS haveconsidered the additional material, which was not initially provided to the Council. A draftAddendum to BPS' report confirms that in light of the revised information and appraisals,there is no scope for an off-site affordable housing contribution to be made. Thatconclusion was drawn on the basis that an alternative existing use valuation should beconsidered, which assumed enlargement and conversion of the existing public house, foroccupation by an A1 food retailer. This made a significant improvement to the existing usevalue against which the value of the proposed scheme is assessed. The existing use valuewas accordingly compared with the value of the proposed scheme, based on the projectedvalues of the proposed residential units and yields gained from the sale of similar retailstores occupying converted public houses in Portchester and Gosport. In simple terms, theapplicant has demonstrated that the value of the proposed scheme is less than the existinguse value and cannot support an affordable housing contribution. One might ask thequestion; why would such an application be pursued for a limited return, although it ispointed out that a reasonable profit margin of 17.5% of the gross development value wouldbe drawn from the value of the proposed scheme and the applicant's interest in the siteitself could be disposed of.

While it has been demonstrated that the development cannot support an affordable housingcontribution, the applicant has agreed to enter a Section 106 Agreement to securecontributions for open space, transport infrastructure, a TRO and pedestrian crossing,amounting to £23,000.

Other Matters

With regard to queries raised over the possible tenure of the proposed housing, the tenureof housing, whether private or social rented or for private sale, is not material toconsideration of the planning application.

Conclusion

The principle of developing this site for mixed use purposes is considered acceptable, forthe reasoning outlined above. The proposal complies with the saved policies of theFareham Borough Local Plan Review (2000) and the Adopted Fareham Borough CoreStrategy (2011) and is recommended for approval.

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 80 -


Recommendation

Background Papers

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies of the Development Plan asset out in this report. The proposal is not considered likely to result in any significant impacton the amenity of adjoining occupiers, the character of the area or on highway safety. Thereare no other material considerations that are judged to have sufficient weight to justify arefusal of the application, and where applicable conditions have been applied in order tosatisfy these matters. The scheme is therefore judged to be in accordance with Section38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planning permissionshould therefore be granted.

Subject to the applicant/owner first entering into a planning obligation pursuant to Section106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms drafted by the Solicitor to theCouncil to secure financial contributions for off-site public open space and/or facilities andhighway infrastructure by 30th May 2012.

PERMISSION: Time limit, In accordance with approved plans, Materials to be agreed,Vehicular Access Provision, Car Parking Provision, Cycle Provision, Footway Extension,Highway Surface Water Drainage Scheme, Servicing Management Plan, TRO,Contaminated Land, Ecology Protection, Remove Extension PD rights, Obscure Glazing,No Additional Windows, Boundary Treatment, Tree Protection, Landscaping Details,Landscaping Implementation, Hours of Opening, Position/Design/Screening of externalchillers, No Mud on Road, Site Operations, Hours of Construction, Bonfires.

OR

In the event that the applicant/owner fails to complete the requisite Section 106 Agreementby 30th May 2012.

REFUSE:

Contrary to policy; inadequate provision for public open space and highway infrastructure.

File: P/09/0172/FP

Appendix A contains information exempt by virtue of Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12Aof the Local Government Act 1972.


pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 81 -

54 LINDEN LEA - THE LINDEN LEA -

pc-120328-r04-lsm

- 82 -

P/11/1051/CU

P/11/0511/FP

P/11/0621/FP

MR A OZDEMIR

SOUTHCOTT HOMES LIMITED

MR LEIGH DUNKASON

254 White Hart Lane Fareham PO16 9AR

Westley Grove - 40-42 Fareham Hampshire PO14 1HW

46 Glen Road Sarisbury SO31 7FF

Officers Delegated Powers



REFUSE

APPROVE

REFUSE

REFUSE

APPROVE

REFUSE

16 March 2012

22 December 2011

21 October 2011

PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE FROM BAKERY (CLASS A1) TOFISH-AND-CHIP SHOP (CLASS A5) WITH THE PROVISION OF ANEXTRACTOR FLUE ON THE WEST ELEVATION.

DEMOLITION OF 42 WESTLEY GROVE AND ERECTION OF 8 x 2BED DUPLEX, 2 x 1 BED AND 4 x 2 BED APARTMENTSTOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, PARKING ANDLANDSCAPING (ALTERNATIVE TO P/09/0274/FP)


Appellant:

Appellant:

Appellant:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Decision Maker:

Decision Maker:

Decision Maker:

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Council's Decision:

Council's Decision:

Council's Decision:

Date Lodged:

Date Lodged:

Date Lodged:

Reason for Appeal:

Reason for Appeal:

Reason for Appeal:

Decision:

Decision:

ALLOWED

DISMISSED

Decision Date:

Decision Date:

13 March 2012

09 March 2012

LODGED

DECISIONS

PLANNING APPEALSThe following list details the current situation regarding new and outstanding planning appealsand decisions.

Date post:	15-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Report to Planning Committee - Fareham · 28.03.2012 · method statement with construction...

Documents