Accept and Continue

Cookies on this site

This site uses cookies. For more information, please see our privacy policy.
Skip to main content

Current Applications and EWPC Responses

22/03396/HSE – Malverleys, Fullers Lane, East End, RG20 0AA.

It is noted that  there is an inconsistency in the language used regarding trees/hedges. On the one hand, the applicant states that “every effort” will be made to replace them; on the other, the language is unqualified, to the effect that the trees etc. “will be” replaced (emphasis added). The cross-references are as follows. 

At paragraphs 1.5 and 7.5 the words used are, respectively, “every effort will be made to replant...”and “it is intended that the trees lost will be replanted elsewhere... and new trees planted...”; whereas at paragraphs 4.7and 6.28 the words used are, respectively, “the trees and hedging will be...relocated [and] [N]ew trees and landscaping will be planted...” and similar language appears at paragraph 6.28.   The Committee suggest the qualifications in paragraphs 1.5 and 7.5 should be removed to ensure consistency with paragraphs 4.7 and 6.8 in order to ensure that there are no caveats about relocating existing trees and hedges and planting new trees. 

It is further noted that the application states that the building will be used as “a family art barn” or “gallery”, although the very large scale of the proposed development suggests a very large family. 

Given the private family nature of the art barn/gallery it is assumed that the applicant would readily accept a condition that the new development should not be used for commercial purposes.

 

22/03388/TDC - Land South West of Yewhurst, Heath End.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to the above application.  

However, as the East Woodhay Neighbourhood Plan was successful at referendum on the 19th January, the Committee would observe that the external lighting must have regard the North Wessex Downs AONB Guide to Good External Lighting (2021), in accordance with policy HO1, paragraph 10.21(a).

 

22/03365/HSE - 4 Harwood Rise, Woolton Hill, RG20 9XW.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no comments on or objections to the above application.

 

22/02328/FUL – 5 Copnor, Church Road, RG20 9XH

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council note that the revised drawings show a reduction in size by some 20% and reduction from 4 bedrooms to 3 bedrooms.  

However, on balance, we are unable to support this application for the following reasons:

1. It is our understanding that the land on which these houses are built was left to the community for the provision of housing after WW2; the gardens were left the size they are to allow for the growing ofvegetables etc. We understand that the property was sold by BDBC to the existing owner on 04-12-1978 and the detail of the restrictive covenants mentioned therein should be clarified, before any further work isundertaken.  This was raised by us in our earlier objection and has not yet been addressed. 

2. Regarding the construction of a building on this land, it is within the SPB of East Woodhay. It is also within the garden of an existing house and such a windfall site must be considered against the ‘harm’ it willcause to the local area (NPPF Para 69c). To build here will significantly change the appearance of the area in a way which is out of keeping with the character of the area. We therefore consider that undue harm will be caused by allowing this building to go ahead.  

3. There is no housing need within this parish, and certainly not for houses of this size, even noting that it has been reduced in size, it’s impact on the streetscene will be unacceptable. Further, this is within an AONB and, as such, further consideration should be given to the impact of development of this type which would undoubtedly cause increased density in an area which is presently open and spacious.  

4. Para 10.54 of the emerging Neighbourhood Plan supports development proposals on residential garden land, but only if they

a) Maintain the prevailing character and appearance of buildings in their immediate locality.  

b) Reflect the scale, mass, materials, design and layout of existing residential dwellings.  

c) Safeguard the amenities of adjacent residential dwelling and their curtilages.  

We feel that this proposal does not accord with a), b) or c) above:  

  • it does not maintain the prevailing character and appearance of buildings within the immediate locality – indeed the style is completely out of keeping with neighvouring properties;  
  • its scale and mass is out of keeping with the existing residential dwellings; 

  • and it will have an unacceptable and imposing dominance on neighbouring properties.  

The proposed development, by virtue of its form, design, siting, layout and appearance, fails to respect the character and pattern of development of the area, thereby adversely affecting the visual amenities andlandscape quality of the area, which is within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  

Also, the density of development and associated hardstanding would not be sympathetic to, and not successfully integrate with the surrounding area. As such, the development is considered contrary to therequirements of Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, Section 12 the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018).  

We are unable to support this application – it should be refused.  

We raised the following comment in our last letter -  subject to clarification on the covenants on the property - noting that the site is within the SPB and that our emerging Neighbourhood Plan will support certain development proposals within residential garden land, we would feel more able to support an application fora smaller residential dwelling (2-3 bedrooms).  This application still does not deal with the issues of overbearing impact on neighbouring properties and still does not offer a  design more in keeping with neighbouring properties.

 

T/00535/22/TPO - 6 Woolton Lodge Gardens, Woolton Hill, RG20 9SU.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council is content to leave the decision in this matter to the expertise of the Tree Officer.

 

22/03305/HSE - 85 Harwood Rise, Woolton Hill, RG20 9XZ.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.

 

22/02863/FUL - Chancers Barn, Trade Street, Woolton Hill, RG20 9UW.

The Planning Committee is pleased to note the proposed replacement of the new fence with a hedge. However, this change makes no material difference to the majority of the points made in the Committee's letter of objection of 15th November 2022.

 

22/03304/ADV - Malverleys Farm and Dining, Sungrove Farm, Abbey Wells Road, East End, RG20 0AF.

As the premises, the subject of this application,  are situated in a conservation area within an AONB the Planning Committee would usually object to additional lighting.  However, the Committee understand that the premises will be lit during opening hours and that the driveway will also have lighting; accordingly and noting the design of lighting on the sign to be down facing and as low as possible to respect the darkness of the area, raise no  objection  is raised.  However we would respectfully request that lighting on this signage and the driveway is limited to opening hours of the premises only.

 

TPO/BDB/0698 – The Beehive, Hollington, RG20 9XT.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Coucil has no objection to the above proposed temporary Tree Preservation Order.

 

T/00521/22/TPO - 15 Woolton Lodge Gardens, Woolton Hill, RG20 9SU.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council is content to leave the decision in this matter to the expertise of the Tree Officer.

 

22/03130/FUL – Yewhurst, Heath End Road, Heath End, RG20 0AP.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council note that there would appear to be no indication given of the proposed south west front elevation.  However, assuming that this is intended to be in keeping with the appearance of the original frontage, the Committee has no comment or objections to this application.

 

22/03171/FUL - Alma Farm, Westridge, Highclere, RG20 9RY.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.

 

22/03257/HSE - Springfield Cottage, Woolton Hill Road, Ball Hill, RG20 0NY.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.

 

T/00505/22/TPO - 31 Harwood Rise, Woolton Hill, RG20 9XW.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council note that the arboriculturalist report suggests that the tree can be managed rather than felled, despite having some honey fungus.  The Committee concur with that suggestion.

 

T/00497/22/TCA – Stargroves, Stargrove Lane, East End, RG20 0AE.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council is content to leave the decision in this matter to the expertise of the Tree Officer.

 

T/00472/22/TPO - 3 Harwood Rise, Woolton Hill, RG20 9XW.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council is content to leave the decision in this matter to the expertise of the Tree Officer.

 

T/00491/22/TPO - New Hay House, Blindmans Gate, Woolton Hill, RG20 9XB.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council note that the application form gives no detail regarding the condition of the trees; further there is no arboricultural report giving a reason why the trees should be felled.

In the absence of such a report, and unless it is imperative for reasons of safety that the trees be felled, the Planning Committee would prefer that the trees be managed rather than felled.

 

22/02863/FUL - Chancers Barn, Trade Street, Woolton Hill.

Introduction:

East Woodhay Parish Council objected to the original planning application, 21/01315/FUL,

and does not believe that the revised application has addressed the key issue ie., this small, narrow piece of land is unsuitable for the proposed development and would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area.

The Head of Planning, Sustainability and Infrastructure gave two main reasons for refusal of the original application, both of which EWPC fully endorse. We believe that the two grounds for rejection, set out below, are still entirely valid and have not been adequately addressed in this revised application:

Notice of Refusal Point 1: 11 th August 2022

The proposed development would result in an overdevelopment of the site and cramped form of development that would not be in keeping with the established character of the surrounding area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2021).

EWPC Comments:

a) The Location Plan within the application documents illustrates how small the plot is. The photographs supplied are misleading in that this is a long narrow stretch of land. This can be confirmed by looking at Google maps which illustrates how out of keeping it is with the size of plots in Trade Street. It is suitable only as a garden.

b) The measurement comparisons given in the documentation referring to the size of neighbouring gardens are misleading. Unlike the other examples given in Trade Street, where the houses sit more comfortably within the plot, the majority of the narrow garden is situated to the side of the proposed house.

c) This is confirmed within the proposed site plan which shows that one corner of the house will be 1 metre from the road and 1.8 metres from the boundary with the Parish field to the rear. With the exception of one house, all of the other houses in Trade Street are located at least three times this distance from the road and have sizeable grounds around them.

d) Removing the substantial, established hedge at the front of the property and replacing it with a 6- foot- high timber fence does indeed increase the depth of the plot marginally

but its replacement is out of keeping with the rural scene of this road.  ”This fence does not comply with permitted development and requires planning permission. Not only does this require retrospective planning permission but there is a requirement to replace it with hedging to ensure that it is in keeping with all of the other properties in Trade street which have retained their boundary hedges and the rural nature of the village” ( Basingstoke and Dean Head of Planning, Sustainability and Infrastructure).

e) In their covering letter, Jackson Planning put forward the view that this revised proposal cannot be described as “out of keeping with the established character of the area“. We would acknowledge that this is a fair description in terms of the design of the property, but our contention, as illustrated in some detail, is that the plot is fundamentally too small to accommodate this house.  

The statement made by the Planning Inspectorate in their recent rejection of the application to build in the rear garden of he Old Shop in Trade Street, around 150 metres from the site in question, summarises this view precisely:

“The proposed development would also be prominent from locations close to the site on Trade Street, as well as wider views from the undeveloped paddock (Parish Field) to the rear of the site. This prominence would exacerbate the unacceptable impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.”

Notice of Refusal Point 2: 11 th August 2022

The proposed development would result in the loss of amenity space for the existing dwelling which would result in a large family dwelling having inadequate amenity space contrary to Policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011-2029), the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2021).

EWPC Comments:

a) The plot is an elongated triangle which reduces substantially in depth at the far end. The nature of this narrow piece of garden, lacking in depth, together with the presence of a large oak tree, necessitates the proposed house being sited closer to Chancers Barn. The requirement for two parking places then involves further loss of garden for Chancers Barn. The result, for this 4 - bedroom house, is an “Amenity area” next to two parking spaces measuring 10m x 12m and a strip of garden at the rear 1.8 m x 20 m. Whilst this meets the general guidelines for this type of property, it ignores, once again the nature of development in the surrounding area.

b) The original proposal submitted a design for a “turntable” for parked cars which would have allowed cars to enter and leave the drive in a forward gear. However, the new proposal means that there is no opportunity to turn in the drive, resulting in cars either entering or leaving the property in reverse gear. The only other option is to use the “Amenity area” of Chancers Barn to turn. Given this location on Trade Street where the 85 th percentile speed is 26.3 mph and a top speed of 40 mph (Measured by SID unit in October 21 and July 22), it meets the required visibility splay, but would be extremely dangerous if cars left in reverse gear, which would on occasions be the only option.

c) No mention is made of visitor parking for either of the houses. Given the points made in b) above, it would be dangerous for visitors to park in the road.

Conclusion:

“Trade Street is largely characterised by low-density residential development fronting the Street. The dwellings are a mix of styles, but in the immediate context most are large, detached or semi - detached dwellings with some set back from the Street behind mid-sized hedgerows, with generous rear gardens and spaces in-between …………The verdant setting, low- density and simple pattern of development within the area provides a sense of space that positively contributes to the character and appearance of the settlement within the AONB”.

These statements were made by the Planning Inspectorate in the previously mentioned Appeal Decision for the “Old Shop” reference APP/H1705/W/22/3301105.

We believe that these statements also fully support our continued opposition to the Planning Application 22/02863/FUL for Chancers Barn in Trade Street, (just 150 metres from the Old Shop) and would ask that the Planning Department refuses to approve the revised application.

 

22/02877/HSE - December House, Broadlayings, Woolton Hill, RG20 9TR.

This application was last assessed in 2013 under 13/01644/HSE and was approved. The time to complete the work has elapsed. Looking at the application, it would seem that the following comments are appropriate:

a)  Clarification is needed as to why an additional driveway is necessary; access to all houses is already provided through a shared access point from the highway. A pertinent concern is that more or further dwellings in this development will seek to obtain individual access, resulting in the removal of more trees and hedgerows from the roadside. Such an outcome will be detrimental to the street scene and will add to the erosion of the leafy nature of the village of Woolton Hill.  As pointed out in the Parish Council's objection to the 2013 application, "..the removal of trees and hedgerow will be to the detriment of the locality from a visual amenity point of view. The houses at this location are inconspicuous because they are located with access behind an existing hedgerow and substantial tree cover."

b)  As this application necessitates the removal of the hedgerow and some trees the applicant should undertake Such works outside of bird nesting season. If any clearance work is undertaken during or a month on either side of nesting season, the area should first be checked for signs of nesting. If any signs of nesting are present, then clearance should stop until nesting has concluded and fledgelings have left the nest site.

c)  All the indicated trees for removal should be inspected for bats before felling. If any bat roosts are located, work should cease, and advice should be sought from Natural England or a suitably qualified bat licence ecologist.

d)  Adding a driveway to the highway necessitates bridging a ditch, as indicated in the application. The planning authority should agree on conditions to include the provision of suitable guard rails for bridging the ditch and replanting any gaps in the hedgerow after the access work is completed.

e) The planning authority should draw the applicant's attention to the protection of the breeding of birds and Wildlife and the Countryside Act 1981. This Act defines the offence of killing or harming birds or theireggs. Any works must seek to negate engaging this legislation.

 

22/02872/PIP – Land adjacent to Orchard House, Ball Hill.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council object to the above application and note that, as discussed below, there is a fairly considerable recent planning history attaching to this land and other land in very close proximity: 

1.  Application 20/03045/PIP for up to 4 dwellings refused by BDBC on 8th December 2020.  The reasons for refusal remain just as valid for this application; those reasons were: 

a)  The proposed development would result in the erection of up to four dwellings outside of a Settlement Policy Boundary, distanced from facilities and services, within the countryside and is notconsidered to represent a sustainable form of development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Sections 2and 5 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) (NPPF) and Policies SD1, SS1 and SS6 of theBasingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029. There is no justification for departing from the NPPF or the Development Plan nor are there any other material considerations such to establish the principle of development which would be of sufficient weight to accept the provision of up to four dwellings at this site. 

b) The proposed development would result in the unacceptable form of development and the loss of opencountryside by infilling an area that currently contributes to the sense of openness and sporadic development within the surrounding area.  The `infilling` of the space would result in an unsympathetic continuation of built form along the road frontage, detrimental to the landscape character of the area, which is within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the visual amenities of the area.  Theproposal would also result in the introduction of domestic built form and residential paraphernalia within the countryside which would have a harmful and urbanising effect upon the rural character and appearance of the area. Such development would appear uncharacteristic in the landscape in this location and would not satisfactorily integrate into its setting or positively contribute to the overall quality of the area.  The proposal would appear out of keeping with the established character and would be detrimental to the visual amenityofthe area contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies EM1 and EM10 of theBasingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees SupplementaryPlanning Document (2018) and East Woodhay Village Design Statement. 

2.  Application20/03355/PIP for up to 9 dwellings, which was withdrawn by the applicant In October 2021.  Many of the comments made by the Parish Council and others in respect of this application remain pertinent.  In particular, the comments made by the BDBC Landscape team remain just as valid for this new application as for the one which was withdrawn; namely: 

a)  The adverse impacts on landscape character and visual amenity contrary to policy EM1 of the AdoptedLocal Plan. 

b)  Proposals would potentially result in adverse impacts on the local character of the settlement by introducing residential development onto a significant open space; the proposals would also be out of keeping with the current pattern of development that is situated along Ball Hill Road. 

c)  The proposal of up to 9 dwellings would be a significantly dense scale of development in the surrounding context with the increase in built form having an adverse impact on the sense of openness. 

d)   It is considered that the impact of development on this site would have an adverse and significant impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the local area.  

e)  The development would be an infilling of an open area that gives Ball Hill its distinctive ‘hit-and-miss’character, where short lengths of built form are interspersed with small open spaces.  

f)  The development would be visible on the landscape, from Ball Hill Road, Woolton Hill and parts of the PRoW East Woodhay, especially during the months when vegetation is not in leaf, thus causing a visual impact on the landscape around Ball Hill. 

g)  The loss of rural character through suburbanising influences from new development (new fencing, lighting, signage, parking areas, paved footpaths, loss of native hedgerows and creation of new garden areas). 

h)  Adverse impacts on the surrounding landscape character with an urbanisation of the rural landscape which also contributes towards the setting of the AONB. 

3.  Application 22/02872/PIP (the current application) for up to 5 dwellings. 

As previously stated, the Committee object to this current application, for the reasons outlined above and: 

a) The application site is agricultural land, not a brownfield site.  As raised in previous objections, theCommittee understand that the land referred to in this application has, for at least the last 17 years, permission to be used as agricultural land for grazing horses, with permission to access the strip along the west side of the application site granted solely to enable access to, and the use of the barns on land east of Ashley (on the Heath End Road). 

b)  Further, on 9 May 2003 (BDB/55092) permission was granted for the erection of those barns.  Condition 3 of that permission, requiring the buildings not to be converted or used for any commercial purpose “other than for storage of hay and straw”, to “ensure that residential amenities of neighbouring properties are not adversely affected”. 

Accordingly, it is wholly disingenuous for the applicant to describe the land as a brownfield site. Moreover, it is unclear to us whether permission to use those barns for non-agricultural purposes (as currently seems to be the case) was ever sought or granted.  

Further, the Committee draw the attention of BDBC to the application discussed below. 

4.  Application 22/02019/PIP. Land south of Ashley, Ball Hill.  Although this application, recently refused by BDBC, does not concern the land the subject of the current application it does concern land that is in extremely close proximity to the current application site.  Again the reasons for refusal remain just as valid for this application, if not more so, given that this application is for 5 houses rather than one. Those reasons were: 

a)  The proposed development would result in the erection of a new dwelling outside of a
Settlement Policy Boundary, distanced from facilities and services, within the countryside and is not considered to represent a sustainable form of development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Sections 2 and 5 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) (NPPF) and Policies SD1, SS1 and SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. There is no justification for departing from the NPPF or the Development Plan nor are there any other material considerations such to establish the principle of development which would be of sufficient weight to accept the provision of a dwelling at this site. 

b)  The proposed development would introduce an inappropriate form of residential development into a countryside location, which would not be sympathetic to, and would fail to respect and integrate with the character, visual amenity and scenic quality of the
local landscape. As such the development is considered to be detrimental to the character of the area as the new dwelling would not satisfactorily integrate or positively contribute to the overall quality of the area, and would result in harm to the scenic   character of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Sections 12 and 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021, Polices EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan, the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2018 and the Landscape Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document 2018 and East Woodhay Village Design Statement. 

5.  Application  22/02872/PIP is contrary to policies in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.  

The East Woodhay Neighbourhood Plan has been now through the examination process and the Examiner has concluded that the Plan is in conformity with the NPPF and the Local Plan; at this stage the Neighbourhood Plan carries considerable weight. 

This application is not supported by Neighbourhood Plan Policy HO2, 10.30(a) as it will "...result in significant and adverse effects on landscape character and ......visual intrusion into open land that contributes to defining the form and character of the Parish."   

Conclusion: 

There have been a number of other applications in close proximity to this site which have been considered by BDBC Planning Department and which have been refused for all the reasons listed above.  Each application must be considered on its own merits but the reasons listed above remain just as valid when considered against this application.  The Committee  would suggest it should be refused.

 

22/02906/HSE - 17 Longmead, Woolton Hill, RG20 9XY.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.

 

22/02816/HSE - 3 Hazelby Cottages, Hilliers Farm Lane, North End, RG20 0BE.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.

 

T/00457/22/TPO - Longworthy Cottage, Burlyns Lane, Ball Hill, RG20 0NU.

The Planning Committee  of East Woodhay Parish Council is content to leave the decision in the above matter to the expertise of the Tree Officer.

 

22/02893/HSE - South View, Ball Hill Road, Ball Hill, RG20 0NL

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.

 

22/02892/HSE - 47 Greenacres, Woolton Hill, RG20 9TA.  

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.

 

T/00442/22/TPO – Maroma, Tile Barn, Woolton Hill, RG20 9XE.

The Planning Committee  of East Woodhay Parish Council is content to leave the decision in the above matter to the expertise of the Tree Officer.

T/00453/22/TCA - Sungrove Farm, Abbey Wells Road, East End, RG20 0AF.

The Planning Committee  of East Woodhay Parish Council is content to leave the decision in the above matter to the expertise of the Tree Officer.

 

T/00427/22/TCA - Pheasant Hill, Stargrove Lane, East End, RG20 0AD.

The Planning Committee  of East Woodhay Parish Council is content to leave the decision in the above matter to the expertise of the Tree Officer.

 

22/02728/TDC - Land adjacent to Gore End Road, Ball Hill.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to the above application.  However, the Committee is somewhat surpriseed that tandem parking is proposed as it is understod that this parking solution can be probematic.

 

22/02717/ROC - Rosemary Cottage, North End Road, North End, RG20 0BA.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.

 

22/02694/HSE - 13 Longmead, Woolton Hill, RG20 9XY

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.

 

22/02632/HSE -  Newbury Lodge, Tile Barn, Woolton Hill, RG20 9UZ.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.

 

22/02585/ROC - Heolor, Woolton Hill Road, Ball Hill.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Council object to the above application as it represents overdevelopment of the site.

The Committee would also point out that the Planning Officer's Report on the successful application to develop this land stated that there should be a condition removing permitted development rights.  It is understood that this recommendation has not been acted upon and the Committee would respectfully request that this apparent oversight is remedied as soon as possible.

 

22/01446/ROC – Land at Hollington Lane, Woolton Hill.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council commented on 27th July 2022 and note that one of the objections then raised has been satisfactorily resolved, namely the issue of drainage, with the applicant now confirming he will ensure connection to mains drainage, which is good progress. 

The revised plans which have now been submitted nevertheless fail adequately to resolve two other objections which have been raised in the past, as follows: 

1.  Height 

The applicant’s Design and Access Statement references a reduction in height to part of the design for Plot A.  This small reduction (of 300mm) is not measured against the plans which were originally approved and, as such, is still higher (by 540mm) than the elevations shown in those plans.   

The proposed revised height of Plot A continues to give greater bulk and mass on the plot and will have an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring properties, especially Scribblers and Hollington Corner.  We understand that the owner of Scribblers has sought specialist advice regarding the siting of Plot A, with particular attention being paid to the problems caused by overshadowing associated with height. We are not familiar with the detail of that advice, but we understand a suggestion has been made that the problem with overshadowing could be resolved by moving the proposed house on Plot A 6m (rather than 2.5m), so that it would then be positioned 13m fromthe NE boundary. This seems sensible, especially because it would also safeguard the amenities of adjacent residential dwellings in accordance with the Village Design Statement and our emerging Neighbourhood Plan. 

In this regard, the Village Design Statement states:  

046: “New dwellings should be of a size appropriate to their plot and the character of the surrounding area. A visual separation between individual properties, where this contributes to the character of the locality, should be maintained”. 

047: “Development should take into account the visual impact in relation to the size, height and positioning of the plot and neighbouring buildings”. 

In addition, the emerging East Woodhay Neighbourhood Plan references this issue and the Planning Officer’s attention is drawn to Policy 10.54, which states that development proposals on residential garden land will be supported provided that:  

10.54 (a) “They maintain the prevailing character and appearance of buildings in their immediate locality” and  

10.54 (c) “They safeguard the amenities of adjacent residential dwellings and their curtilages”. 

Taking all of the above into account, the problems caused by the proposed height of the building on Plot A could possibly be resolved by reducing the height to the level originally approved, and/or moving the proposed building further away from Scribblers. 

2.  Dark Skies within this AONB 

In previous correspondence we have referred to the lighting implications of this development and continue to refer the applicant to the AONB guidance set out in the 2021 publication “Dark Skies of the North Wessex Downs – A Guide to Good External Lighting”. 

The emerging East Woodhay Neighbourhood Plan (EWNP) also refers to this in Policies 7.27, 7.28 and 7.29.  We trust that all lighting plans will take account of this guidance and note that this will apparently form part of a subsequent submission or application. 

The change in design to Plot B raises further issues regarding lighting – not just about the treatment of outside lighting, as referenced above, but also now about significant light spill from the additional glass proposed in the revised design.  The plans previously submitted, and now amended again, did cause concern regarding the amount of light that might spill into the dark skies. With two facades now spilling light, it is imperative that this issue should be considered further. In particular, we note the southwest elevation and the revised south east elevation would have substantial glass panels which will cause light spill into the dark skies. We are not aware of any plans to mitigate this problem at present (e.g. use of “smart glass” toprevent such light spill), and would refer the Planning Officer in this contextspecifically to Page 24 of the AONB Lighting Guide:  

For example, an appeal by planning applicants in the Chilterns AONB, South Oxfordshire, was dismissed due to the amount of glazing facing an adjacent woodland. In the appeal decision, the inspector wrote: “In the absence of mitigation, such opening would give rise to significant light pollution. In this regard, the National Planning Policy Framework states that decisions should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.”” 

The large glass panels proposed on (now) two elevations raises the issue of lightspillage into a particularly dark area, towards a SINC, and will have unnecessary impact on wildlife in the area.   

Comparing the revised design for Plot B with the original design which has obtainedplanning permission, the change is significant and seems to us to be out of keeping with the area. 

If these designs are to be approved, we suggest imposing a condition that the use of special (or “smart”) glass be applied in order to reduce the impact of light spill on the area.  

3.  Permitted Development Rights 

The Planning Officer’s report of 7th December 2021 included the following paragraph (page 8): “The proposed dwellings would be set back from Hollington Lane situatedwithin two distinct plots and would be of a similar size to existing properties within the area. While the proposal would extend residential development further into the countryside it is considered given the Permission in Principle (19/02660/PIP – allowed at appeal – reference: APP/H1705/W/20/3247113) in place the proposal would overall be acceptable. To ensure that the site would not become overdeveloped, however, a condition will be imposed to remove Permitted Development to avoid an overdevelopment of the plots.” 

We note that this was not included as a condition in the outstanding offer letter and would respectfully request that it is included in any further revised offer letters, for the sake of clarity. 

 

22/02328/FUL - 5 Copnor, Church Road, Woolton Hill, RG20 9XH.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council wish to make the following comments: 

1.     It is our understanding that the land on which these houses are built was left to the community for the provision of housing after WW2; the gardens were left the size they are to allow for the growing of vegetables etc. We understand that the property was sold by BDBC to the existing owner on 04-12-1978 and the detail of the restrictive covenants mentioned therein should be clarified, before any further work is undertaken. 

2.     Regarding the construction of a building on this land, it is within the SPB of East Woodhay.  It is also within the garden of an existing house and such a windfall site must be considered against the ‘harm’ it will cause to the local area (NPPF Para 69c).  To build here will significantly change the appearance of the area in a way which is out of keeping with the character of the area.  We therefore consider that undue harm will be caused by allowing this building to go ahead. 

3.     There is no housing need within this parish, and certainly not for houses of this size.  Further, this is within an AONB and, as such, further consideration should be given to the impact of development of this type which would undoubtedly cause increased density in an area which is presently open and spacious.   
 

4.     Para 10.54 of the emerging Neighbourhood Plan supports development proposals on residential garden land, but only if they: 

  • Maintain the prevailing character and appearance of buildings in their immediate locality. 
  • Reflect the scale, mass, materials, design and layout of existing residential dwellings.
  • Safeguard the amenities of adjacent residential dwelling and their curtilages.

We feel that this proposal does not accord with a), b) or c) above; it does not maintain the prevailing character and appearance of buildings within the immediate locality; its scale and mass is out of keeping with the existing residential dwellings; and it will have an unacceptable and imposing dominance on neighbouring properties. 

The proposed development, by virtue of its form, design, siting, layout and appearance, fails to respect the character and pattern of development of the area, thereby adversely affecting the visual amenities and landscape quality of the area,which is within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Also, the density of development and associated hardstanding would not be sympathetic to, and not successfully integrate with the surrounding area. As such, the development is considered contrary to the requirements of Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029, Section 12 the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018).  

We are unable to support this application – it should be refused.   

However - subject to clarification on the covenants on the property - noting that thesite is within the SPB and that our emerging Neighbourhood Plan will support certain development proposals within residential garden land, we would feel more able to support an application for a smaller residential dwelling (2-3 bedrooms) and one with less overbearing impact on neighbouring properties and a design more in keeping with neighbouring properties. 

 

T/00334/22/TCA - 3 The Court, Stargrove Lane, East End, RG20 0AB.

The Planning Committee  of East Woodhay Parish Council is content to leave the decision in the above matter to the expertise of the Tree Officer.

 

22/02393/HSE – Ashley, Heath End Road, Ball Hill, RG20 0NS.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.

 

22/02279/HSE - Green Pastures, Tile Barn, Woolton Hill, RG20 9XE.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.

 

22/02263/TDC – Furzelea, Ball Hill Road, Hatt Common, RG20 0NQ.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.

 

22/01899/FUL -  Land West Of Pumping Station, Enborne Row, Wash Water

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council (adjacent to the land in question) object to the application for the following reasons: 

  1. AONB and the character of the proposed settlement  
  • The proposed development is immediately adjacent to the AONB and is inappropriate development for this designated area. 
  • The proposed buildings are not in character with the existing small settlements and remote homes in Enborne Parish. There are no estates of pre-fabricated park homes in the Parish of Enborne or East Woodhay.  
  • Planning was granted for this land to be changed into an equestrian centre – this is completely different to the original application and not acceptable in any form. 

This development should not be granted planning permission. 

  1. Wildlife Fairway 

The submission from the Environment Agency with regard to Common Farm has some pertinent points. This is supported by paragraphs 174 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): 

  • Mitigation measures are essential to prevent disturbance to otters. 
  • There should be an undeveloped buffer zone of 10m width along the River Enborne. 
  • Access to the watercourse should be carefully controlled to retain undisturbed areas for riparian species, especially otters. 
  • There should be no light spillage on to the river corridors. 

Otters are documented at the Chase, downstream of the proposed development in Enborne Row, and at the humpback bridge just upstream from the proposed development. Clearly this section of river is ecologicallysensitive and deserves protection. 

This development should not be granted planning permission. 

  1. River Nutrient Levels and Effluent Treatment 
  • Natural England wrote to all LPA heads on the 16th March, 2022 with advice for development proposals with the potential to affect water quality resulting in adverse nutrient impacts on habitats sites, as follows: 

“Natural England advises you, as the Competent Authority under the Habitats Regulations, to carefully consider the nutrients impacts of any new plans and projects (including new development proposals) on habitats sites and whether those impacts may have an adverse effect on the integrity of a habitats site that requires mitigation, including through nutrient neutrality.”  

  • Despite improvements in the quality of fish populations and dissolved oxygen and phosphate levels since 2016, the current (2019) status of the river Enborne (https://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/WaterBody/GB106039017280) is only moderate due to invasive North American Signal Crayfish, drought, land drainage and barriers created by ecological discontinuity. The river failed its chemical assessment in 2019 due to the presence of Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE). Water quality in the upper reaches of the river Enborne are moderate. 
  • The planning application that has been submitted makes no reference to the measures to be taken to deal with human effluent.  It would seem that  a septic tank was installed under the existing stables – but this is not confirmed.  Whatever the current situation, it is clear, the River Enborne does not need any additional effluent outflow from septic tank systems so planners should reject the application or insist on a main sewer hook-up. 

        4.    Groundwater Flooding and Surface Flooding 

The following map is taken from HCC flood risk assessment. Whilst written for Hampshire it shows that the proposed development is in an area  with potential for groundwater flooding. 

The shallow aquifer underlying the proposed development is important in the context of flood risk in the Enborne River Valley: 

  • The proposed development is within a groundwater protection zone 
  • The tarmacking of a substantial surface area will isolate the aquifer and encourage runoff into the River Enborne with adverse effects on flood risk downstream. 

No provision is made in the planning application for an attenuation pond to mitigate the increased runoff. Also, given the low level of the site relative to the river, it is hard to see where an effective attenuation pond could be located within the proposed development. Anything excavated below ground level would fill with groundwater rendering it useless as an attenuation basin.

The potential for damage to wildlife and our valuable natural resources by careless and inappropriate developments such as this, which flout all acceptable standards and planning regulations, is irresponsible.  The application should be refused.

 

22/02199/FUL – Yew Tree Farm, Ball Hill Road, Hatt Common, RG20 0NG

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council wish to make the following comments: 

  • The submitted Design and Access Statement, dated June 2022, lists a number of previous planning applications on this site.  It is not clear which one relates to the building of the existing ‘Function Barn’ and we would respectfully ask the Planning Officer to seek clarification on this matter.  Of course, if planning has not been granted for this ‘Function Barn’ it may make a difference to our view of the application and we would ask the Planning Officer to revert to us should that be the case. 
  • Moving forward positively and assuming that the above point can be clarified, we have no problem in supporting the application.  It will help to generateincome for the local community and is in line with our emerging Neighbourhood Plan which seeks to support the tourist industry in the area. 

Assuming planning is granted, it should be conditional on the properties remaining as holiday lets and not subsequently converted into private dwellings.

 

22/00183/PIP - Land adjacent to Woolton Hill Sports Club, Woolton Hill.

30 June 2022

Dear Sir/Madam, 

Further to the objections raised to the above development in our communication dated the 15th February 2022, by which we still stand, we would like you to take into account further information about Highway safety and other pertinent issues which were not available at the time of our previous comments. 

This new information has an even greater relevance to our objections given the developers’ plans to move the original entrance to one of two alternative locations, both of which are even closer to the blind bend than was previously the case.  We summarise below the adverse impact of this new information on both visibility splays and highways. 

Visibility Splays 

In order to achieve the minimum visibility splay, it is likely that up to 86 metres of hedgerow would require to be removed, in addition to the felling of several mature trees.  This would directly contravene policy EM1 of  BDBC’s Local Plan 2011-2029 “which requires new development to respect, conserve and enhance the elements of landscape character and visual amenity that contribute to its many qualities”. 

We would also question the visibility measurement of 43 metres on the Woolton Hill Road in the direction of Ball Hill (shown on PL-23), as this is achieved from a point on the road going up the hill towards Woolton Hill. This measurement is inaccurate because it fails to take account of the gradient. A more realistic measurement would likely reduce the visibility splay by at least 10 metres, to 33 metres. 

Highways 

Speed has been monitored on the Woolton Hill Road opposite the tennis courts in both directions in two consecutive time periods, using a Speed Indicator Device (SID) which was positioned well within the 30mph limit. 

The information in our objection of the 15th February 2022 only measured the traffic in the direction of Woolton Hill where the visibility splay appeared to be acceptable. However, the information that we now have in the direction of Ball Hill illustrates how potentially dangerous either of the two proposed entrances to the development would be. 

New SID Information measured 1st June – 16th June 2022 in the direction of Ball Hill. 

85th percentile speed 31.6 mph 

“Indicative of the speed that the majority of the road users are travelling at. A speed at or below which 85 percent of the people drive at any given location under good weather and visibility conditions may be considered as the maximum safe speed for that location.” 

Top speed 45 mph on the 2nd June at 1.25am 

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) – 522 vehicles 

Peak times:        7.00 – 8.00 am – 71 vehicles per hour 

                             3.00 – 4.00 pm – 56 vehicles per hour 

 % vehicles exceeding the 30 mph limit: 

30+ 18.5% 

35+ 2.3% 

40+ 0.6% 

Further, we have also verified the findings from our previous results which were reported in our objection letter dated the 15th February.  

17th May to the 1st June: Direction of the village of Woolton Hill. 

85th percentile speed – 34.1 mph 

“Indicative of the speed that the majority of the road users are travelling at. A speed at or below which 85 percent of the people drive at any given location under good weather and visibility conditions may be considered as the maximum safe speed for that location.” 

Top speed 60 mph on the 19th May at 5.20 pm 

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) – 795 vehicles 

Peak times:        7.00 – 8.00 am – 76 vehicles an hour 

                             2.00 – 3.00 pm – 90 vehicles per hour                     

% vehicles exceeding the 30 mph limit: 

30+ 34% 

35+ 11% 

40+ 2.8% 

NB: These figures are supported by the previous two periods in this position, 25th October – 29th October 2021 and the 24th February to the 4th March 2022 when the key figures were: 

85th percentile 34.1 and 33.5 mph respectively. 

Conclusion with regard to the development: 

In these concluding remarks, we assume for the sake of argument that a 43 metre splay is achievable (even though we believe it is not, based on PL-13 and PL-23). 

First and foremost, the two alternative entrances for the proposed development are positioned just below a blind bend off the brow of a hill, in the direction of Ball Hill. As indicated in the figures that we have obtained from our SID unit, the 85th percentile speed of the majority of road users is 34.1 mph in the direction of Woolton Hill and 31.6 mph in the direction of Ball Hill. This demonstrates that the speed limit is not being adhered to. We conclude from this that in the case of vehicles travelling in the direction of Ball Hill, even the removal of valuable hedgerows and the felling of trees to achieve the 43 metre splay, would be insufficient to avoid an accident.  At a speed of 30 mph, in normal weather conditions, this means that the stopping distance would be a combination of thinking time at 9 metres plus a braking distance of 14 metres, a total of 23 metres.  However, we have shown that around 20% of vehicles are exceeding the 30 mph speed limit, with some travelling at up to 40 mph in the direction of Ball Hill, which would increase the stopping distance to 36 metres in normal weather and road conditions. 

Research shows that braking distance can be doubled in wet conditions, meaning that even at 30 mph, within the speed limit, there is a potential stopping distance of 46 metres. Added to which, this road is not in good condition; and a large number of  vehicles using the road are vans and lorries, which can take up to 50% further to stop compared with a car. This means that even at 30 mph in dry conditions a van or lorry would take 36 metres to stop and in the wet the 43 metres available would be insufficient for them to stop in time to avoid cars exiting from the plot. Bear in mind also that the peak times for traffic in both directions is between 7am and 8am, when residents of the proposed development would be leaving for work and school. 

The proposal by the developers to remove the trees and almost 100 metres of hedgerow along the roadside, in an AONB designated landscape, is surprising given their commitment to protect this natural environment.  In the Council’s opinion, this unnecessary destruction does not materially affect/improve the sighting of vehicles entering and leaving the development and, as we have stated, is contrary to EM 1 of BDBC’s Local Plan. 

We strongly recommend that a highway officer makes a site visit which we believe will verify these findings.