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)

 

23/00726/FUL - Yewhurst, Heath End Road, Heath End, RG20 0AP.

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

 

22/02872/PIP  - Land Adjacent to Orchard House, Ball Hill.

The objections set out in the Committtee's objection of 22nd November 2022 remain as compelling now as they were then, irrespective of the applicant having reduced this PIP application from up to five houses to up to 4 houses.  The comments made in that letter should, therefore, be read in conjunction with the following: 

The EWPC Neighbourhood Plan has now been made, and this application fails to accord with the following policies contained within it: 

Policy NE1 – Protecting the Landscape.  This proposal does not seek to conserve or enhance the natural landscape, biodiversity and local character of the Parish.  It seeks instead to urbanise a rural area by dint of further and unnecessary building in the countryside. 

Policy HO1 – Good Quality Design.  10.21(b) - A proposal for up to 4 houses does not respect locally distinctive patterns of development in respect of context, scale, density, and form.   

Policy HO2 – Settlement Policy Boundary and Building in the Countryside.  This application is outside the SPB and in the countryside.  10.31(a) referencessignificant and adverse effects on the landscape, character and visual intrusion into open land that contributes to defining the form and character of the Parish.  This proposal for up to 4 buildings on the site does not accord with this policy. 

Policy HO5 – Residential Garden Land – whilst this is not residential garden land, the scale and mass of the proposal makes it sit outside Policy 10.56(c).  Our understanding also is that the proposed site is Agricultural Land, for which no application has been made for change of use. 

Furthermore, the highways issues have not been adequately addressed in that the interaction with Ball Hill Road and Knights Lane opposite – already difficult junctions – will be adversely affected by these additional driveways. 

In addition, and whilst it is recognised that each application should usually be considered on its own merits, the Committee draw your attention to Application 22/02019/PIP – now at Appeal – where the applicant there appears to be the one and the same entity as the applicant here. Both plots of land are adjacent to each other; so, given the commonality of ownership, this seems to us to be an unusual situation where perhaps both applications should be considered together.  Moreover, BDBC refused planning permission for Application 22/02019/PIP (under Appeal) for the following reasons: 

1. 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 istherefore 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 toaccept the provision a dwelling at this site.  
2. 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 locallandscape. 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 SPD 2018 and the Landscape Biodiversity and Trees SPD 2018 and East Woodhay Village Design Statement.

The above reasons for refusal remain pertinent for this revised PIP application for up to 4 dwellings.

For all these reasons and those outlined in the original objection, this application should be refused. 

 

23/00300/RES – Ball Hill Bakery, Burlyns Lane, Ball Hill.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council continue to support the principle of development of this site.  In particular, it is noted that the design appears to be in character with local styles and the removal of the garage from behind the main building is also in keeping with the local area. The design isclearly of a high quality and reflects the local vernacular. 

From this perspective the proposed design accords with the part of the Neighbourhood Plan Policy HO1 b) where it relates to the appearance of the design and materials used. 

However, the Committee is unable to support this application for the following reasons:-

It does not accord with most of the requirements of Neighbourhood Plan Policy HO1 b) 

• By reason of its height and scale it does not compliment the area and is out of keeping with and disproportionate in size when compared with neighbouring properties. 
• The second floor dormer window is particularly out of keeping with neighbouring properties. 
• The first floor balcony would harm the amenity of neighbouring properties by reason of overlooking.
• It would have an overbearing and unacceptable impact on the street scene.  By building so close to the boundaries on either side it will cause an unacceptable density, which is not in keeping with the local environment.

The Committee therefore conclude that it must object to this design, as for the reasons stated it would not sit well in the locality and would have an unacceptable and overbearing effect. These issues can be addressed by reverting to a smaller building, as originally proposed. 

 

T/00076/23/TPO – 31 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.

 

23/00298/FUL - Knights Farm, Knights Lane, Ball Hill, RG20 0NP.

The Planning Committee of East Woodhay Parish Council object to the above application because:- 

1.  It is contrary to Local Plan Policy ss6.   

2.  It is inconsistent with policies in the recently made East Woodhay Neighbourhood Plan.   

As the Local Plan may be considered to be out of date, because Basingstoke & Deane cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, the decision in this matter should bedecided on the basis of the policies in the Neighbourhood Plan, as provided in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the NPPF. 

The application is incompatible with the following policies in the Neighbourhood Plan:- 

HO1: Good Quality Design – The proposed application fails to conform to paragraph 10.21b as it does not respect the scale and density of the dwellings comprised in approved application 19/02865/FUL, into which this development is proposed to be squeezed.  This application and application 19/02865/FUL would effectively together form one courtyard styledevelopment, with the proposed property being a cramped addition. Accordingly, it is difficult not to conclude that this application is a surreptitious attempt to bypass planning regulations by dividing what should have been a single application into two separate applications. 

The proposal is also contrary to 10.20c as it is not in a suitable location in terms of access to facilities, services and public transport.  The only local facility is a pub; every other service will inevitably be accessed by car; local bus services are, to say the least, few and far between. 

Policy HO2: Settlement Policy Boundary and Building in the Countryside – Paragraph 10.31b provides that applications will only be permitted if they are consistent with Local Plan Policy ss6.  As previously stated, this application is inconsistent with ss6. 

Policy TT1: The Traffic and Parking Impact of New Development – Paragraph 12.13provides that new developments must provide off street parking and at 12.13b that parking design should be in accordance with Local Plan policies CN9 and EM10. 

This proposed development may provide two off street parking spaces, but does so at the expense of two unallocated parking spaces provided by approved application 19/02865/FUL. 

Further, the proposed application is contrary to Local Plan policy CN9 because it fails to conform to paragraph (c) and, “Provide an on-site movement layout compatible for allpotential users with appropriate parking and servicing provision”.  The layout proposed in this application results in a lack of parking and turning areas, particularly for service and delivery vehicles.  As the site is in a rural area there will be many delivery vehicles. 

The Committee also note the many times local residents have drawn to the attention of BDBC the issue of the pumping station, which clearly can no longer cope with the number of houses it serves. Is it not possible for BDBC to ensure that the situation is improved, rather than to continue to allow further new properties to be added which the pumping station is supposed to serve? 

 

T/00044/23/TPO - Thorngrove School, The Mount, Highclere, RG20 9PS.

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

T/00053/23/TPO - 12 Meadowbrook, Woolton Hil, RG20 9AN.

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

 

23/00268/HSE - Burlyns Farm, Burlyns Lane, Ball Hill, RG20 0NU.

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

 

23/00302/HSE - The Willows, Blindmans Gate, Woolton Hill, RG20 9XD.

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

 

23/00208/HSE Entre Nous, White City, Woolton Hill, RG20 9TG.

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

 

23/00147/HSE - 4 Greenlands, Woolton Hill, RG20 9TB.

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

 

23/00157/HSE - Solstice Cottage, Tile Barn, Woolton Hill, RG20 9UY.

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

 

22/03357/LDEU – Knights Farm, Knights Lane, Ball Hill, RG20 0NP.

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

 

T/00008/23/TPO - 13 Longmead, Woolton Hill, RG20 9XY.

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

 

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.