Cookies

We use essential cookies to make our site work. We'd also like to set analytics cookies that help us make improvements by measuring how you use the site. These will be set only if you accept.

For more detailed information about the cookies we use, see our cookies page.

Essential Cookies

Essential cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. For example, the selections you make here about which cookies to accept are stored in a cookie.

You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytics Cookies

We'd like to set Google Analytics cookies to help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on how you use it. The cookies collect information in a way that does not directly identify you.

Third Party Cookies

Third party cookies are ones planted by other websites while using this site. This may occur (for example) where a Twitter or Facebook feed is embedded with a page. Selecting to turn these off will hide such content.

Skip to main content

Current Applications and EWPC Responses

24/00853/ROC - Yew Tree Cottage, Mount Road, Woolton Hill, RG20 9QZ.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish objects to this application.

A biodiversity survey has been requested.  Until such a survey is prepared and seen it is impossible to see what, if anything, is on the land; the process is not complete and a decision cannot be made.

 

24/00885/HSE - 35 Woolton Lodge Gardens, Woolton Hill, RG20 9SU

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

 

24/00871/HSE – Hazeldene, Broadlayings, Woolton Hill, RG20 9TR

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

 

23/02994/HSE – Trevellas, Knights Lane, Ball Hill, RG20 0NP.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council note that it is not clear what changes have been made to the plans, as the previously submitted plans are no longer shown online.

However, from memory, the amendments seem to represent a small improvement, although the Committee is still concerned that the design of the back of the property is not in keepng the Neighbourhood Plan or the Village Design Statement (as referenced in the NP), nor does it reflect the design of the front of the property.

 

24/00704/HSE - 10 Aird Close, Woolton Hill, RG20 9UH.

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

 

23/03071/FUL  -  Storage adjacent to Ashley, Ball Hill.

On the 11th January The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council raised some objections to this application, which have been addressed by the applicant as follows:

  1.  Concerns from neighbours of further commercial activity on the remaining land.  The owner has written to BDBC to confirm that this is not their intention.
  1.  The gateway between Plots 3 and 4 will remain.  However, the Committee  but is, advised, for personal access only.
  2. The development looked crammed onto the plot and there was a suggestion that this could be improved by adjusting the boundary between the building plot and the remaining paddock. This has been undertaken.4.  
  3. Changes have been made to the design of Plots 1 and 2.

Further amendments have been made in liaison with an immediate neighbour and the planning officer.  In the circumstances, the Committee has no further comments on the revised drawings, nor does it wish to raise further objections..

As previously commented, the Committee would suggest a further condition on each plot to prevent any further development/extensions to the properties. These would not be helpful to existing neighbouring properties or to the new development.

 

24/00613/LBC - Cottage Farm House, North End Road North End RG20 0AY.

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

 

24/00374/FUL - Southernwood, Tile Barn, Woolton Hill.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council object to this application and comment as follows: 

1.  The application makes no reference to the made East Woodhay Neighbourhood Plan which is an unacceptable oversight.  Reference to it might have helped achieve an overall more acceptable proposal.   

2.  Assessment of the proposal is made against the NPPF, Local Plan and defined guidelines as set out in the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) and the Village Design Statement (VDS) which is referred to in Policy HO1 of the NP.   

3. Tile Barn is traditionally large plots with one house only on the plot.  It is true that there is a higher density of housing further afield but these are on residential estates not on a private road, where traditionally there are large homes within large plots – even with those which have been more recently redeveloped. 

4.  It is contended that this proposal is not appropriate to the site’s context.  The application is for two large houses squeezed onto an irregularly shaped plot; the scale is out of keeping with the local environment and, even more importantly, the design is totally at odds with local designs, which draws further attention to the scale of the buildings proposed. 

5.  In terms of the NPPF, this application does not accord with:  

Paragraph 132: 

 “…….Neighbourhood planning groups can play an important role in identifying the special qualities of each area and explaining how this should be reflected in development, both through their own plans and by engaging in the production of design policy, guidance and codes by local planning authorities and developers.” 

The VDS is the design policy guidance for the parish of East Woodhay; it is well regarded within the parish and its terms have been incorporated into the NP (see paragraph 7 below).  It should be taken into account by developers; there is no indication that this has been in the case with this application. 

6.  This application does not conform to the Local Plan: 

Policy EM10: Delivering High Quality Development 

“All development proposals will be of high quality, based upon a robust design-led approach.” 

Further, this policy goes on to state that proposals should: 

d)  Promote the efficient use of land and achieve appropriate housing densities which respond to the local context, as informed by community documents, and which take into account the urban, suburban or rural location of the site;”. 

This policy goes on to state: 

“2. All development proposals will be required to respect the local environment and amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with the principles set out below. Development proposals will be permitted where they: 

a) Positively contribute to local distinctiveness, the sense of place and the existing street scene, taking into account all relevant SPDs and community documents.” 

The proposed housing density fails to respond to the local context, the rural location of the site, local distinctiveness or the existing street scene.   A footnote to paragraph d) makes it clear that the community documents referred to in this policy include Village Design Statements and Neighbourhood Plans.  

Both the VDS and the NP appear to have been ignored in their entirety; this should not be the case. 

7.  In terms of the NP, this application does not accord with:  

Policy HO1: Good Quality Design.  

Paragraph a) of this policy provides that applications should have regard to the Village Design Statement; this application does not have regard to the following paragraphs of the VDS: 

1. “045 - New development should not adversely affect the context of the built environment.”  

As previously stated, this proposal for two large properties is too large on the plot and the design makes no reference to local context.  The proposed white render and timber cladding is not in keeping with local context and will draw attention to the scale of the proposed buildings.   

  1. “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.”  

    Again, this proposal is too large for the plot in relation to neighbouring buildings which are well spaced out and in large plots.  The scale is unacceptable but is exacerbated by the design which is out of keeping with local design and guidance. 
  2. “047 - Development should take into account the visual impact in relation to the size, height and positioning of the plot and neighbouring buildings.”  

    This proposal does not take into account its visual impact – especially the height and positioning of the buildings.  This will result in a cramped overdevelopment of the plot. 

         d)    “….achieve high quality design, that respects locally distinctive patterns of development inrespect of pattern, context, scale, density, from, orientation, appearance and materials uses.  All these must be consistent with or complimentary to the locally distinctive character of the area.”  

    The proposal fails to meet any of the above criteria. 

    Policy HO5: Housing Replacements, Extensions, Residential Garden Land and Annexes 

    This policy states that: 

    The replacement or extension of a ‘dwelling’ will likely be permitted in the SPB and countryside provided that: 
    a) It would not result in a disproportionate increase in size over the existing dwelling. 
    b) It is sympathetic to the appearance and character of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. 
    c) It would not harm the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring properties by reason of overlooking or overshadowing.” 

    The proposal is for a development of two large properties that fail to meet the above criteria. 

    Conclusion 
    The Committee can see no evidence that the applicant has considered any of the above mentioned points, which are designed to ensure that new development fits harmoniously within its setting and does not impinge adversely on the amenities of neighbouring properties. Whilst the Committee has no inherent objection to the redevelopment of the plot, it is suggested that it is more appropriate inthis setting that this should be for one house only.  Further, the design of the property should be in keeping with the surrounding locale. 

    This proposal does not respect and relate to the character, form, and appearance of the surrounding development, nor does it respect the amenities of the neighbouring residents, in that the proposed properties will have an overbearing presence on the street scene by virtue of height, mass, design and width and lack of depth on the plot.  The proposal represents a cramped overdevelopment of the plot, leaving gardens which are tiny – relative to those of neighbouring houses. 
  3.  

24/00321/TDC -  Site adjacent to Summerfield, Hatt Common.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council object to this TDC application and comment as follows:

1. The application makes no reference to the made East Woodhay Neighbourhood Plan (NP) which is an unacceptable oversight. Reference to it might have helped achieve an overall more suitable design.

2. It is hard to find significant changes between this application and the one submitted in December 2023 under reference 23/02827/FUL. Certainly no changes appear to have been made to the overall design despite our previous comments.

3. Accordingly our comments remain as previously submitted and as set out below.

4. This is not a matter of how many people write to object or support the application. It is about an assessment of the proposal against defined guidelines as set out particularly in the Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plan (NP) and the Village Design Statement. (VDS). 

5. The Planning Officer’s Report at PIP stage (21/01271/PIP) dated 17 th May 2021 made note that: “The Officer did however raise that in relation to the technical details (TDC) stage any development must ensure that it sits comfortably within the parcel of land and sympathetic to the rural character. In particular much of the structural landscape should be retained to be appropriate, in particular the eastern and northern boundaries. This would be assessed at the TDC stage. “

We would request that this is reassessed in detail against this TDC application. 

6. Local Plan Policy SS6 - New Housing in the Countryside – notes the instances where residential development in the countryside is deemed to be acceptable. We feel this proposal does not fit with the guidance given; specifically:

a) iii) The proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site’s context.

We contend that this proposal is not appropriate to the site’s context. The scale is out of keeping with the local environment and even more importantly the design is totally at odds with local designs and draws further attention to the scale of the building proposed.

We note that there is a picture supplied in the application of Dan-Wood Energy Efficient Homes – whilst these may be appropriate in Poland where they are made, the principal design features are not transferable to this situation. No effort appears to have been made to make it more in keeping with local design guidance.

7. Local Plan Policy SS6 also makes reference to Small scale residential proposals which need to meet certain criteria: -

e) x) The development will respect the qualities of the local landscape and be sympathetic to its character and visual quality.

e) xi) The development will respect and relate to the character, form and appearance of surrounding development, and respect the amenities of the residents of neighbouring properties.

We contend that this proposal does not respect and relate to the character, form, and appearance of the surrounding development, nor does it respect the amenities of the neighbouring residents in that the proposed property has an overbearing presence on the street scene, by virtue of its height, mass, design and width and depth on the plot.

8. In terms of the NP, this application does not accord with Good Quality Design Policy HO1a). It does not have regard to the Village Design statement for the following reasons:

a) 045 - New development should not adversely affect the context of the built environment. This proposal is far too large on its plot and the design makes no reference to local context. The proposed white render and timber cladding is not in keeping with local context and will draw attention to the scale of the proposed building.

b) 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. This proposal is too large for the plot in relation to neighbouring buildings. The scale is unacceptable but is exacerbated by the design which is out of keeping with local design and guidance.

c) 047 - Development should take into account the visual impact in relation to the size, height and positioning of the plot and neighbouring buildings. This proposal does not take into account its visual impact – especially its height and positioning. Further the significant number of solar panels on the roof will have an unacceptable impact on the street scene – especially those on the front roof.

d) 059 - Wall material type and colour should be sympathetic and match commonly used existing materials such as red brick and hung tiles. This proposal shows no design considerations against the guidance given in the VDS and the NP.

e) 102 - Materials used in new developments should maintain the existing colour palette of the surrounding buildings. This proposal does not reflect local surrounding buildings in its choice of materials used nor in its colour palette.

f) 103 - New developments and alterations should aim to complement the predominant scale and style of the hamlet, with care being taken to use existing colour palettes, materials and techniques. Architectural styles and features should be of good quality to provide interesting houses with limited repetition or commonality. There is some scope for a limited amount of innovative design of high quality. We do not believe that this design shows sufficient regard to local designs, styles, materials for all the reasons stated above.

9. In terms of the NP, this application does not accord with Good Quality Design Policy HO1b) It does not ….achieve high quality design, that respects locally distinctive patterns of development in respect of pattern, context, scale, density, from, orientation, appearance and materials uses. All these must be consistent with or complimentary to the locally distinctive character of the area.

10. Conclusion

Whilst we accept that planning has been granted for the building of one property on this plot, we contend that this application is for something which is out of keeping with the local area in terms of its size, mass, height and overall impact on the site. For this and all the reasons cited above it should be refused.

 

T/00113/24/TPO - Street Record, Paddock End, Woolton Hill, RG20 9TJ

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.

 

24/00282/HSE - Rose Cottage, Hollington House, Hollington, Woolton Hill.

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

 

24/00184/HSE - 2 Pollard Cottages, Gore End Road, Ball Hill.

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

 

T/00071/24/TPO - Oakwood House, Church Road, Woolton Hill.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objecton to this sensible plan of tree management.

 

T/00062/24/TCA - Stargroves, Stargroves Lane, East End.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objecton to this sensible plan of tree management.

 

24/00155/RET - Knights Close, Ball Hill Road, Ball Hill, RG20 0NN.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council object to this retrospective application and raise the following concerns:

1.  It is understood that the this building was originally constructed, as a chicken shed and then used as a games room.  This is unlikely to mean that it has been built to a sufficiently high standard for full residential purposes, for which this retrospective planning application is seeking permission.  The Committee would suggest some reassurance should be sought that the building is suitable for long term residential use, in terms of sanitation, ventilation and insulation, including noise insulation, given its position on the boundary etc.

2. Regarding foul sewage, there is no indication of when drainage was installed and no answer to the question of how foul water is managed - this must be addressed.

3. The Committee note the comment from the neighbour about noise pollution on his personal space and note that the rear of this building is right on the boundary.  As a chicken shed this was probably acceptable, but if this were a new build it would not be acceptable and would have to be at least one metre from the boundary.  For full residential occupancy the building should not be positioned on the boundary in this way and therefore the Committee is unable to support it.

4. Should planning permission be granted it is suggested also that a condition is added to the planning permission that the annexe cannot be sold separately from the main building, ownership stays with the main house and no further driveways can be added.

 

T/00001/24/TPO - 33 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.

 

24/00017/HSE – Northways, Woodhay Downs, East Woodhay, RG20 0AL

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no inherent objection to this application.  

However, the Committee would comment that the proposed replacement gates may not be entirely in keeping with their surroundings and bring an urban aspect into a rural setting.

 

24/00092/RET - 1 Gore End Villas, Hilliers Farm Lane, Gore End, RG20 0PJ.

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

However, it is noted that the applicant is in course of replacing fencing at what appears to be the same height as that which was there - and/or is in line with the existing beech hedge - which is acceptable.  It does not appear that this would have an undesirable impact on the neighbouring property.

 

23/03148/HSE – Malverleys, Fullers Lane, East End.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to this proposal.  However, the following comments are made concerning two conditions which it is felt it would be prudent to introduce:

  1.   Given that the focus of this application is to provide additional accommodation for the family, it is assumed that the applicant would readily accept a condition that the new development should not be used for any commercial purposes.  
  2.  It is noted (paragraph 5.7 ofthe Planning Statement) that the applicant will also accept a condition that the building cannot be let or sold separately from the main house. 

The Committee would remind the applicant's agents of the East Woodhay Neighbourhood Plan and within this, reference to the North Wessex Downs AONB (now North Wessex Downs National Landscape) Guidance on lighting, which should be followed to avoid unacceptable additional light pollution in this special area. 

 

23/03122/ROC - Land at Hollington Lane, Woolton Hill.

However, the Committee remain concerned regarding the overall size of the proposed building on the plot: particularly its overpowering effect on Scribblers as a result of the substantially extended side.  Further, this new overly large design, with the proposed two storey glass window, overlooks the land still belonging to The Holt and would be intrusive.  The window would also have a detrimental effect on the local dark skies which is unacceptable.

The Committee suggest that the footprint (not the design) should be reduced in size back to that which was previously agreed and the large window removed from the rear of the property.  Objections to this style of window have been raised in the past, including for the property on Plot A.

Further, the Committee would point out that since this development was first proposed the East Woodhay Neighbourhood Plan has been made.  Specifically the applicant's attention is drawn to:

Policy HO1: Good Quality Design

10.21a) references the Village Design Statement to ensure choice of bricks, tiles, finishes etc. are in keeping with the local styles; and to the North Wessex Downs AONB (now the North Wessex Downs National Landscape) Guides on colour choice and appropriate external lighting.  These should be adhered to.