Current Applications and EWPC Responses
23/02794/HSE - 13 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.
23/02679/HSE - December House, Broadlayings, Woolton Hill, RG20 9TR
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to the above appllication so long as any building is not forward of the building line.
23/02579/PIP - Land adjoining The Barn, Hilliers Farm, Gore End.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council object to the above application on the following grounds:
1) It is contrary to the provisions of the NPPF
As the local planning authority cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (with the appropriate buffer) the policies relating to housing delivery in the Local Plan are currently given limited weight. In such circumstances, paragraph 11 of the NPPF applies to this application.
In this case the land is within the North Wessex Downs AONB. Therefore, as provided in paragraph 11(b)(i) of the NPPF, "the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area". Footnote 7 to this paragraph states that, "The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to.........an Area ofOutstanding Natural Beauty...............".
At paragraph 176 of the NPPF 2021 it is stated that, "Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in.........Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues."
For the purpose of plans and decisions applying a presumption in favour of sustainable development, the NPPF states, inter alia, at paragraph 11(d) that decision taking means, "where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
(i) the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason forrefusing the development proposed".
It is clear that the NPPF regards land within an AONB as an area or asset worthy of the highest status of protection and thus provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed in this application. The value of the site to the AONB derives from its contribution to the rural character of that surrounding area. This application site sits in a particularly rural and unspoilt part of a rural area and should be protected, as outlined above.
2) It is contrary to policies in the Local Plan
The site is located in an unsustainable location with limited public transport, contrary to Local Plan policies SD1(Presumption inFavour of Sustainable Development) and there is no locally agreed need for further housing in the Parish, SS6(e) (New Housing in the Countryside).
Further, the proposed development is contrary to (i) Local Plan policy EM1 (Landscape) as it would be detrimental to the character and visual amenity of the area; and (ii), policy EM10 (Delivering High Quality Development) as it would fail to respect the local environment and make a positive contribution to local distinctiveness.
3) It is contrary to policies in the Neighbourhood Plan
The application is not in accordance with Neighbourhood Plan policy NE1 (Protecting the Landscape), as it fails to protect the typical landscapes of the Parish as set out in that policy.
Further, the application is not supported by Policy HO2 (Settlement Policy Boundary and Building in the Countryside), paragraph10.30(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."
Nor is it consistent with 10.30(b) in that the application is not ".....consistent with the Local Plan policies SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside), CN2 (Rural Exceptions for Affordable Housing)". Further it is inconsistent with paragraph 10.30(c) as the proposed site is not “…. in a suitable location in terms of access to facilities, services and public transport.”
Paragraph 5.10 of the Planning Statement states that, “Firstly, the East Woodhay NP does not have an explicit policy preventing residential development outside of the defined settlement boundary and instead refers to the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan, stating at paragraph 10.26 that “Local Plan Policy SS6 (New Housing in the Countryside) supports development in exceptional circumstances outside the SPB (which may be adjacent to the SPB in some cases). Maintaining the rural character of the countryside in the Parish, outside the SPB of Woolton Hill, is regarded with high importance by thecommunity. Therefore, any planning applications for new housing outside the SPB should be determined in accordance with Policy SS6 in BDBC’s Local Plan….”.
It would therefore appear that applicant has not read the Neighbourhood Plan in its entirety and/or has paid little attention to it. As mentioned above, Neighbourhood Plan policy HO2 explicitly provides that proposals for development outside the SPB areconsistent with Local Plan policy SS6. Despite what is stated at paragraph 5.10 of the Planning Statement, the proposal does directly conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan.
The Committee also take this opportunity to draw attention to other points put forward in the Planning Statement which, in theview of the Committee take a very generous view of what is relevant to this application.
Whilst, as the Planning Statement says, there is a bus stop not far from the application site, public transport within the parish isextremely limited. Any residents of the proposed site will inevitably rely on private cars to access facilities and services, as do the overwhelming majority of current residents within the locality.
Further, application 21/02308/PIP is cited as being “… relevant planning history to the application site...”. This statement is erroneous. Although both applications are within a small area, application 21/02308/PIP relates to land at the end of a road of properties built quite closely together on what is clearly a residential street, albeit one in the countryside. The narrow lane fronting the application site is clearly very rural in nature and very narrow.
The relevance of application 21/03758/OUT to this application is also difficult to comprehend. The application site there is at least 18 miles from Gore End and Bramley is a very much larger settlement. The applications do not align in any relevantparticulars.
The Committee also take this opportunity to quote from the entirely relevant recent decision (7th September 2023) of the Planning Inspector in the matter of Appeal Ref: APP/H1705/W/22/3312833, Land to the South of Ashley, Ball Hill, RG20 0NS, a not dissimilar site within a mile of the proposed site.
In the decision in this matter the Inspector observed (regarding the matter of the suitability of the location) that “The evidence submitted indicates that the proposal would not satisfy any of the qualifying requirements set out in Policy SS6 for housing outside of settlement boundaries. As such the proposal would conflict with this Local Plan Policy…….. Consequently, I find that the appeal site would not be a suitable location for the proposal, having regard to the locational strategy of the development plan.”
Further, under the heading of “Character and Appearance”, the Inspector comments that the site has an “… undeveloped quality...” and this “…. is clearly perceptible from the lane and from surrounding properties. While there is some linear development on this lane, it is broken by significant pockets of undeveloped paddocks and fields, including that at the appeal site. With these parcels of land and limited development along the lane, the lane has a distinct semi-rural character.”
The Inspector later goes on to add that, “The fragmented ribbon of development on this lane appears as part of a wider settlement, scattered on a series of lanes connected to Ball Hill Road. I saw that there is undeveloped land in between and surrounding this wider scattered development so that the semi-rural character, in evidence at the appeal site, is relativelyconsistent in the wider area.”
Also pertinent are the comments made by the Inspector on the nature of any new residential development that, ”…..matters of design are not in the scope of this appeal, but it is reasonable to assume that, in addition to the dwelling, the proposal would result in other residential paraphernalia at the site. In addition to the garden and access, this is likely to include parked cars, hardstanding areas and outbuildings. In turn, this would significantly extend the built frontage along the lane, and this would diminish the existing intermittent pattern of development in the area. Such a significant encroachment into this undeveloped land would be at odds with the existing prevailing quality of the area and would significantly erode the semi-rural character of this part of the AONB.”
The Inspector goes on to state that, “The proposal would have a significant harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In this regard the proposal would conflict with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan. These policies collectively require, amongst other matters, that proposals in the AONB will be determined in accordance with national planning policy and the criteria set out in the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan.”
The Inspector then goes on to say that the NPPF framework, “…..confirms that policies relating to AONBs provide clear reasons for refusing planning permission. While the identified visual harm would be localised, I attach great weight to this harm, and I find this provides a clear reason to refuse permission in this case. Even if this was not so, the adverse impactsidentified to the character of the area in this case would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits of this proposal, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.”
This application stands on all fours with the reasons given by the Inspector for refusing Appeal Ref: APP/H1705/W/22/3312833. Combined with our other observations and comments, the Committee’s view is therefore that this application should be refused.
23/01696/HSE - Holly Bank, Broadlayings, Woolton Hill, RG20 9TP.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council continues to object to this application. It is assumed that some amendments have been made from the previous application but these are not clear.
It is noted that no consideration appears to have been given to the East Woodhay Neighbourhood Plan (NP) or to the Village Design Statement (VDS):
a) It is not in accordance with NP Policy HO1: Good Quality Design. Paragraph 10.22(a) of this Policy references the VDS; this application is not in conformity with the following paragraphs of the VDS:
Paragraph 059 - Wall material type and colour should be sympathetic and match commonly used existing materials such as red brick and hung tiles.
Paragraph 067 - The variety of roofs and dormer windows with varying ridge heights is to be encouraged in new developments. Thatched roofs should be retained and flat roofs should be avoided. Roof design should reflect the historical styles in the village.
b) Further, paragraph 10.22(B) of Policy HO1 references good quality design that respects locally distinctive patterns of development; this application appears to be out of keeping in respect of its context, scale, form, orientation, appearance and materials to be used.
The Committee recognise that the proposals have some design features which mirror a neighbour, but do not feel that these are in accordance with the guidance set out above. For this reason the Committee is unable to support this application, though the principle of developing the property is supported.
23/02070/HSE – Merrifield, Knights Lane, Ball Hill, RG20 0NW.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no further comment, but appreciate that the proposed building has been moved nearer the main house in order that it does cross the building line.
T/00419/23/TCA – Barn Croft, Heath End, RG20 0AP.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council is content to leave the decision in this matter to the expertise of the Tree Officer.
23/02379/HSE - The Cedars, Tile Barn, Woolton Hill, RG20 9UZ.
The Planning Committee has no objection to the above application. However, the Committee would draw the attention of the architects to the East Woodhay Neighbourhood Plan which was made on the 23rd February 2023. As such it forms part of the Local Development Plan and should be consulted and referenced alongside the Local Plan.
23/02362/HSE - Clere House, Church Road, Woolton Hill, RG20 9XQ.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above appllication.
23/02235/HSE - Gate Cottage, East Woodhay, RG20 0NF.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above appllication.
23/02241/HSE - 1 Rainbow Cottage, Woolton Hill, RG20 9UT.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no comments on or objections to the above application.
23/02170/HSE - Corylus, Abbey Wells Road, Heath End, RG20 0AP
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no comments on or objections to the above application.
23/01395/HSE – Gleneve, Broadlayings, Woolton Hill, RG20 9TT.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council write with reference to its response of 7th March 2022, where the issue of the siting of the garage was raised. At the time, it was stated that:
"This is forward of the building line and some would suggest this will spoil the streetscene and is out of keeping with the area. However, there is a fine balance of consideration here:
a) The house next door (Sweet Briars) also has a garage forward of the building line which is screened from the street with good hedgerows. It is noted that the applicant proposes additional new hedging alongside the new garage to provide screening from the street, which might make the siting of the new garage acceptable.
b) The position of this property on the bend in the road means that, exceptionally, a garage forward of the building line, might just fit without impacting negatively on the streetscene."
The Committee's view has not substantially changed in respect of this latest application and our comments remain as set out on 20th June.
Ideally there would be no building forward of the building line, but there is no surprise that this application is before the Committee for consideration. This latest iteration appears to provide more space between the garage and the public verge.
In the circumstances, provided:
a) it is kept low in height (ie. no rooms on the upper floor etc) and
b) there is a condition providing that suitable hedging be planted and maintained on the boundary, to shield it from street view, the Committee will, exceptionally, support this proposal.
T/00348/23/TCA - The Gate House Abbey Wells Road, East End, RG20 0AG.
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.
23/02070/HSE – Merrifield, Knights Lane, Ball Hill, RG20 0NW.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council have given this application, which appears simple at the outset, some considerable consideration.
The Committee wish to be supportive, are not intending to raise any objection to the application but would wish to make the following comments:
The Committee is not sure that the applicant has sought any guidance in advance from the Planning Officers at BDBC, as no reference is made in the application to the existence of relevant planning documents (SPD and NP) which may affect the decision; notably the made Neighbourhood Plan.
This application does not accord with the Design and Sustainability SPD - Para 11.45 which makes it clear that detached annexes will not normally be acceptable.
Looking at the NP Policy HO5, the application appears to comply with:
10.55a) – in that the proposal is unlikely to be capable of being made into a separate dwelling 10.55b) – in that the design is close enough to the main building to be used as an integral part of the main building at a later date; as well as being linked to the main building by shared drainage, driveway etc. 10.55c) – there will be no boundary demarcation or sub-division of garden areas between the curtilage of the principal dwelling and the annexe.
Looking at the NP Policy HO3, housing provision for the elderly; whilst this policy is really written with regard to the building of care homes etc. it may be argued that this application has some resonance with the policy: 10.36a) – in that it is meeting a proven identified need 10.36b) – the location is in proximity of the main carers, we understand10.36c) – the application does not accord with this policy in that its location is not near facilities and services – but it is near family carers.
Looking at the NP Policy HO5, the application does not accord with:
10.56a) – in that prevailing plot characteristics in the area do not have buildings to the forefront of the main building 10.56c) – in that the scale, mass, materials, design does not sit well with neighbouring buildings 10.56d) – in that there is some concern that the building will not safeguard the amenities of other residents, in that its location is on a ‘pinchpoint’ of the road – a sharp bend where a new building will have an overbearing influence on the streetscene.
All of that said, there is a large hedge on the boundary and provided a condition is made that it remains, it is unlikely that the proposed low build will have a major impact on the streetscene.
On balance, the Committee feel that this application, although technically outside some of the guidelines which have been put in place to prevent building in the countryside etc,
should be supported, as an exceptional matter. It is a wooden structure and provided the overall height is retained low, will have little impact on the streetscene.
The Committee is aware that permission has been granted in the past for similar buildings across the Parish and believe that in these circumstances, conditions have been to ensure that the proposed new annex remains in line with the spirit of the SPD and now the NP.
It is suggested that permission is granted but with appropriate conditions which ensure that the new annex is always treated as part of the existing house: eg.
- continue to share a driveway with the existing house
- not be capable of being sold off separately ie. remain as part of the existing house at all times
- be treated in all respects as part of the existing house eg. shared drainage, shared water supply.
- existing boundary hedging to remain in place and be maintained at all times.
23/01997/HSE - Tintagel, Knights Lane, Ball Hill, RG20 0NP.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council have given this application, which appears simple at the outset, some considerable deliberation.
.Technically it may be argued that this application is not in line with NP policy HO5 (10.55a and 10.55b). The annexe is too far away from the main dwelling and at one level, can be regarded as being capable of being made into a separate dwelling. In addition this application does not accord with the Design and Sustainability SPD - Para 11.45 which makes it clear that detached annexes will not normally be acceptable.
However, the Committee is not sure if the applicant has sought any guidance in advance from the Planning Officers at BDBC, and no reference is made in the application to the existence of relevant planning documents (SPD and NP) which may affect the decision made.
All of that said, it is noted that BDB/75039 granted planning in 2011 for an outbuilding on the site - it is this outbuilding which is now under discussion along with a garden shed adjacent to it, which will be demolished and replaced with a more substantial extension to the outbuilding. The overall increase in size proposed by this application is approx an additional one-third to what is already there (25m2 increasing to 39m2); and it is also noted that the proposed additional build is to replace an existing shed ie. a building which is already there.
On balance, the Committee feel that this application, although technically 'outside' some of the guidelines which have been put in place to prevent building in the countryside etc, should be supported, as an exceptional matter. The main consideration here is the majority of the building is already in situ and the proposed addition to it is replacing a shed which is also already in situ.
The Committee is also aware that permission has been granted in the past for similar buildingsacross the Parish and believe that in these circumstances, conditions have been applied to ensure that the proposed new annexe remains in line with the spirit of the SPD and now the NP.
It is suggested that permission is granted but with appropriate conditions which ensure that the new annexe is always treated as part of the existing house: eg.
- Continue to share a driveway with the existing house.
- Not be capable of being sold off separately ie. remain subservient to the existing house at all times.
- Be treated in all respects as part of the existing house eg. shared drainage, shared water supply.
23/01952/HSE - Arran, Tile Barn, Woolton Hill RG20 9UY.
The Planning Cimmittee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no comments on or objection to the above application.
T/00309/23/TPO - 8 Fairacre, Woolton Hill, RG20 9UF.
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.
23/01083/HSE - Tile Barn Holt, Tile Barn, Woolton Hill, RG20 9UZ.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council note that the design of the garage comprised in the above application has been reduced from three bays to two. The Committee has no objection to the amended application.
23/01389/FUL - Land off Heath End Road, East End.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.
23/01696/HSE - Holly Bank, Broadlayings, Woolton Hill, RG20 9TP.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to the principle of extending this property but objects to this application, as set out below.
No consideration appears to have been given to the East Woodhay Neighbourhood Plan (NP) or to the Village Design Statement (VDS):
a) It is not in accordance with NP Policy HO1: Good Quality Design. Paragraph 10.22(a) of this Policy references the VDS; this application is not in conformity with the following paragraphs of the VDS:
Paragraph 059 - Wall material type and colour should be sympathetic and match commonly used existing materials such as red brick and hung tiles.
Paragraph 067 - The variety of roofs and dormer windows with varying ridge heights is to be encouraged in new developments. Thatched roofs should be retained and flat roofs should be avoided. Roof design should reflect the historical styles in the village.
b) Further, paragraph 10.22(B) of Policy HO1 references good quality design that respects locally distinctive patterns of development; this application appears to be out of keeping in respect of its context, scale, form, orientation, appearance and materials to be used.
The Planning Committee is cognisant of the fact that it may be considered that certain elements of this design are sufficiently similar to those evident in the next door property, Highurst, for this proposal not to be out of keeping with its surroundings. However, Highurst itself is completely out of keeping with the surrounding traditionally styled properties and adds nothing positive to the street scene. Another property with some similarities of style should be avoided.
23/01767/OUT - Land at Watermill Bridge, Andover Road, Wash Water.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council objects to the proposed development because it fails to comply with the following Local Plan policies and East Woodhay Neighbourhood Plan policies. A more detailed submission will follow once the Committee has considered the supporting documents which have been submitted.
1. Presumption in favour of sustainable development, Policy SD1, CN9.
2. Scale and distribution of new housing Policy SS1, EM10.
3. Ensuring a deliverable supply of sites, Policy SS4.
4. Neighbourhood Planning, Policy SS5.
5. New housing in the countryside, Policy SS6.
6. Affordable housing, Policy CN1.
7. Housing for older people, Policy CN4.
8. Infrastructure, Policy CN6.
9. Essential facilities and services, Policy CN7.
10. Community, leisure and cultural facilities, Policy CN8.
11. Transport, Policy CN9.
12. Landscape ref Policy EM1.
13. Biodiversity, geodiversity and nature conservation, Policy EM4.
14. Green infrastructure, Policy EM5.
15. Water quality, Policy EM6.
16. Managing flood risk, Policy EM7.
17. Delivering High Quality Development, Policy EM10.
18. Pollution, Policy EM12.
19. East Woodhay Neighbourhood Plan Policies NE1, NE3, NE4, CF2, H01, H02, H03 and TT1.
In addition to the above objections the Committee has a number of questions relating to the new applicationand would be grateful for the Council’s advice on the following:
a) The description of the application refers to ‘A mixed use community to be delivered in separate phases, including a severable Outline application’. Could the Council explain the significance of inclusion of theword ‘severable’ and what the implications are in terms of the consideration of the application?
b) It is noted that, once again, a sequential test regarding the issue of flood risk has not been undertaken and the Council has previously advised one is not required. In the detailed submission to follow the Committee will raise the issue again; to support that submission reference will be made to a number of recent appeal decisions. In the context of those decisions, together with the fact that the applicant is promoting a site at Tadley for a similar number of homes, it is clearly demonstrated that there are preferable sites. Once again the Committee request BDBC to review its position in respect of the requirement for a sequential test.
The documentation that has been submitted in support of the application relies heavily on reports submitted in relation to the application 21/03394/OUT, which was refused. For example, the new Ecology Report is based on information that is between two and three years old. Further, the new Transport Assessment appears to rely on traffic survey data for May 2021. The Committee understand that best practice for such reports is that baseline data should not be more than two years old. As it is likely to be some time before theCouncil formally considers this application, should the Council not request these key reports be updated?
T/00299/23/TPO - 10 Greenways, Woolton Hill, RG20 9TD.
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/00286/23/TPO - 3 Douglas Ride, Woolton Hill, RG20 9UG.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council is content to leave the decision in this matter to the expertise of the Tree Officer.
23/01087/FUL - Yew Tree Cottage, Mount Road, Woolton Hill.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no comments or objections to the above application.
However, wthe Committee would draw your attention to an error which has occurred in the first report of the planning officer and now in the applicant's report: the site is within the Parish of East Woodhay (not Highcere). Ttherefore, all designs should be in accordance with the East Woodhay Village Design Statement and reference should also be made to the adopted East WoodhayNeighbourhood Plan.
T00236/23/TCA - The Old School House, Stargrove Lane, East End RG20 0AF.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council is content to leave the decision regarding these trees to the expertise of the tree offer.
23/00900/HSE - Tile Barn Holt, Tile Barn, Woolton Hill, RG20 9XZ.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.
23/01666/HSE - Walbury House, Trade Street, Woolton Hill, RG20 9UJ.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no comment on or objection to the above application.
23/01583/HSE – Woodsong, Trade Street, Woolton Hill, RG20 9UJ.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no comment on or objection to the above application.
23/01664/FUL - Long Meadow, North End Road, North End, RG20 0AX.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to the above application. However, the Committee would draw the attention to the Neighbourhood Plan Dark Skies Policy and to the AONB colour schemes.
23/01601/00BC – Land North of Spring Gardens, Andover Drove, Wash Water.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council comment as follows:
This application, like the earlier one which was withdrawn, represents a fine balance between the need to address the urgent climate change issues and the need to protect the countryside. Whilst not within East Woodhay Parish, the site is adjacent to it and adjacent to a designated AONB, and East Woodhay Parish Council (EWPC) has been consulted accordingly. Comments are also made with recognition that there is a proposal to develop land at Common Farm (21/03394/OUT) and that the EWPC Neighbourhood Plan is now fully adopted.
On balance, the Committee support the application for the following reasons:
It is a ‘hidden’ site which will have relatively low impact on the street scene, views of the
countryside etc. EWPC’s Neighbourhood Plan supports the protection of ‘green gaps’ between the Parish and Newbury. The general view is that any sort of development of these green gaps should therefore be discouraged in order to ensure proper separation between Newbury and outlying villages. Having said this, and whilst also recognising that a solar panel farm could be characterised as ‘urbanisation’ of the countryside, the exigencies of the climate change emergency also need to be weighed in the balance. Given the discrete nature of the proposed site, and the proposals for hiding the solar panels from general view (subject to our comments below), the Committee is inclined to think that the balance is tipped in favour of the application – on this relatively discreet site only.
We note that the issues of flooding mitigation have been given further consideration and can see that this is an ideal opportunity to endeavour to deal with and reduce or resolve the flooding issues, which are naturally concerning local residents. The proposed measures (contour parallel swales under the panels) to mitigate the rate of the runoff from the fieldshould be an improvement on the current situation.
We also note that the access gate is proposed to be moved further up Andover Drove and away from the residential area. We continue to raise the issue of existing hedge treatment to ensure that gaps are filled and that evergreen shielding of the site from neighbouring houses should also be made a priority – there are identified gaps where views of the site can be seen and these can be mitigated with some decent planting of trees or hedges.
RE: 23/00300/RES – Ball Hill Bakery, Burlyns Lane, Ball Hill.
The Planning Committee understood that the visualisation drawing was prepared for submission to the B&D planning department, although it is noted that no recently prepared visualisation drawing appears on the planning portal.
The Committee are not in a position to check the measurements, although it it was made clear that, although the visualisation looked good to the Committee, it should be submitted to the planning department in order than the measurements could be checked.
However, should the visualisation not be received and/or the measurements given therein not prove to be accurate, the original letter of objection cannot be withdrawn.
23/01422/FUL - Slade Hill Cottage, Station Road, Slade Hill, Woolton Hill, RG20 9TN.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council is conscious that since our last response regarding possible development on this site, the Neighbourhood Plan has been adopted.
We also note that the proposed development has addressed the issues which we raised last time; specifically in relation to scale, context and access.
The relevant policies in the Neighbourhood Plan which should be considered in respect of this proposal are:
HO1 (Good Quality Design) – the proposal fits within this policy.
HO2 (SPB and Building in the Countryside) - This policy specifically states that proposals will be permitted if they conform to various standards - which this application appears to do (see para. 10.30).
We are aware of neighbours’ legitimate concerns regarding a separate application to develop land opposite this site, which is presently at appeal (ref: 22/02091/PIP); but having regard to the relevant policies of the Neighbourhood Plan identified above, we have no comment or objection to this particular application. It fulfils the requirements of the Neighbourhood Plan and whilst it is just outside the SPB, it appears to conform with the detail of Policy HO2.
We would remind the Applicant that Policy HO1 also references the North Wessex Downs AONB Guide to Good Lighting. Any external lighting proposed for the site should therefore conform to the guidance therein.
T/00234/23/TCA - The Old Axe and Compass, Stargrove Lane, East End, RG20 0AA.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council is content to leave the decision in this matter to the expertise of the Tree Officer.
23/01401/ROC - Land at OS Ref 441457 163666 North End.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no comment on or objection to the above application.
23/01356/HSE - 11 Copnor, Trade Street, Woolton Hill, RG20 9UP.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no comment on or objection to the above application.
23/01403/HSE - Stepping Stone, Gore End Road, Ball Hill, RG20 0PG.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no comment on or objection to the above application.
23/00300/RES – Ball Hill Bakery, Burlyns Lane, Ball Hill.
XXX advised the Committee that following, its comments on this application, the applicants have:
a) Agreed to remove the balcony from the rear of the property.
b) Prepared a visualisation of the street scene showing the proposed property and the immediate neighbour.
The Committee agreed that, from the visualisation viewed by it, the proposed property does not appear of disproportionate size, when compared to neighbouring properties, nor does the density appear unacceptable it its setting, particularly given the set back single storey garage near the immediate neighbouring property, Laura Cottage.
The height sits well with its immediate neighbour and the shape of the roof assists with a feeling of space around it.
On the basis that the balcony is removed and that the visualisation is an exact presentation of what will be built (not checked as this was a ‘drop-in’ visit from the applicant), then the Committee would be happy to withdraw our objection letter and to support the application.
23/0123/01395/HSE – Gleneve, Broadlayings, Woolton Hill
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council write with reference to its response of 7th March 2022, where the issue of the siting of the garage was raised. At the time, it was stated that:
"This is forward of the building line and some would suggest this will spoil the streetscene and is out of keeping with the area. However, there is a fine balance of consideration here:
a) The house next door (Sweet Briars) also has a garage foward of the building line which is screened from the street with good hedgerows. It is noted that the applicant proposes additional new hedging alongside the new garage to provide screening from the street, which might make the siting of the new garage acceptable.
b) The position of this property on the bend in the road means that, exceptionally, a garage forward of the building line, might just fit without impacting negatively on the streetscene."
The Committee's view has not substantially changed in respect of the latest application. Ideally there would be no building forward of the building line, but there is no surprise that this application is before the Committee for consideration.
In the circumstances, provided it is kept low in height (ie. no rooms on the upper floor etc) and provided there is a condition providing that suitable hedging to be put onto the boundary, to shield it from street view, the Committee will, exceptionally, support this proposal.
23/01201/LDEU -The Apples, Hatt Common, RG20 0NQ.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.
23/01249/ROC - Gardeners Cottage, Abbey Wells, Woolton Hill,RG20 9UW.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council have the following comment to make upon the above application.
The reasoning behind condition 4 of permission 16/00518/HSE, which provides that the first floor window on south-west elevation be obscurely glazed and fixed shut, was set out in the Planning Officers report for that decision. This was stated to be because it would would provide views over the immediately adjoining curtilage (The Shadows) where the greatest level of privacy in the garden is to be expected. If was, therefore, considered reasonable and necessary that a condition be imposed that the first floor window on the south western side be obscurely glazed and fixed shut. In the interests of visual amenity.
In the circumstances, it is suggested that a compromise solution would be for only a comparatively small top section of the window to be able to open, for ventilation purposes, and to keep the window obscurely glazed.
T/00176/23/TPO - 31 Harwood Rise, Woolton Hill, RG20 9XW.
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.
23/01214/ROC – Land at Hollington Lane, Woolton Hill
East Woodhay Parish Council Planning Committee understand the rationale for the Applicant’s desire to vary conditions 4,5,6,10,11,12,16,17,18 and 21 of 22/01446/ROC in order to facilitate the phased development of the site. Nevertheless the Committee is concerned to ensure that a phased development should not have a deleterious effect either on the appearance of the site or on the privacy of residents occupying adjacent properties.
Accordingly, the Committee’s view is that conditions 5 (boundary treatment) and 6 (second access created and hedges made good) should remain unchanged. In particular, the making good of hedging on the perimeter (necessitated by the new point of access) should becompleted during Phase 1 rather than having to await the completion of Phase 2, which may be completed much later.
For ease of reference, your attention is respectfully drawn to the reasons given by the Planning Office for imposing conditions 5 and 6:
Condition 5 – REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in the interests of the privacy of the occupiers of adjoining residential properties, in accordance with Policy EM 10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
Condition 6 – REASON: To improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy EM 10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029.
T/00149/23/TCA - 1 Victoria Cottages, Stargrove Lane, East End, RG20 0AB
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council is content to leave the decision in this matter to the expertise of the Tree Officer.
23/01115/HSE - Tall Trees, Gore End Road, Ball Hill RG20 9XZ.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.
23/01078/HSE - December House, Broadlayings, Woolton Hill, RG20 9TR.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.
23/01083/HSE - Tile Barn Holt, Tile Barn, Woolton Hill, RG20 9UZ.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to the above application and note that there is a tall garage only two doors away at The Coach House; it is requested that any garage allowed by this application is no taller than that. The Committee commend the design of the roof tiles for the garage roof.
23/00900/HSE - Tile Barn Holt, Tile Barn, Woolton Hill RG20 9UZ.
The Planning Committee has no inherent objection to the principle of a swimming pool. However, in this particular case the Committee object to the application as follows
a) The proposed location is not appropriate; given the age of the building and that theproposed pool is positioned outside the front door of what was originally one house.
b) The proposed development is not in accordance with policy HO5 of the East WoodhayNeighbourhood Plan paragraphs 10.54(a) and (c) as it does not “…maintain the prevailing character and appearance of buildings in … immediate locality.”, nor, as it is very close to the boundary with its attached neighbour, does it “..safeguard the amenities of adjacent residential dwellings and their curtilages.”. Your Heritage Supplementary Planning Document makes it clear that, "Where applications fall within an area which has a made Neighbourhood Plan, they should comply with relevant policies within that Plan.". (Para. 2.2.4).
23/00994/FUL - Post Office Stores, Broadlayings, Woolton Hill, RG20 9TR.
Under normal circumstances the Planning Committee would not support an application of this type, which is not appropriate in a rural area. That said, the Committee understand the stress which has been caused to the owner of the shop and his family and also understand that he has explored what might, under normal circumstances, be considered a more appropriate solution ie. internal security shutters. However, it is understood that there is an issue with trying to fit these.
It is requested that should this application be granted that the shutter to the door be painted an appropriate colour so that it is in keeping with the rest of the building.
23/00866/HSE - Holly House, Hilliers Farm Lane, North End, RG20 0BE.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to the above application. However, the Committee ask that BDBC ensure that the new walls do complement the existing walls, as stated on the application form. As the application plans and pictures are all in black and white any match is not apparent.
23/00840/HSE - West View, Woolton Hil 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.
23/00767/HSE - 10 Greenacres, Woolton Hill.
The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council has no objection to or comments to make upon the above application.
723/00831/TENO - Telecom Mast at Blindmans Gate, Woolton Hill Road, Woolton Hill.
(Please see attachment at the bottom of the page)