Planning applications

Reports for the last three months

By Mary Tiles
Chair, City of Winchester Trust Planning Appraisal Group

august planning applications report

During July we reviewed 57 applications, objected to four, commented on 20, made no comment on 27 and noted nine tree felling applications. The apparent increase in the number of applications reviewed is because we carried out five reviews in August rather than the usual four. We noted that no objection was raised to the loss of a total of six trees in the conservation area. We have no further general observations since this was a fairly routine set of applications.

One item which came out of a question raised at the planning committee meeting was the fact that Natural England published a document in June 2019 with advice on achieving nutrient neutrality for new development in the Solent region. This is thought likely to impact all planning applications for residential development in the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) area, including Fareham, Gosport, Havant, East Hampshire and Portsmouth. Currently, Natural England will require all large residential developments to achieve nitrate neutrality, and have produced a ‘working draft’ methodology for developers to calculate the nitrogen budget of their development and determine whether the nitrogen load is expected to increase. The question was whether Winchester had any policy on this, and it currently does not. There could be knock on effects for Winchester Town if development were limited in areas further south. Havant Borough Council has recently issued a position statement for its local area. However, since the concern arises from an EU Court of Justice ruling concerning the impact of nutrients on EU designated conservation sites (of which there are many along the Solent), the post BREXIT position is unclear to say the least. Some Councils, such as Babergh and Mid-Suffolk, are including a Habitat Regulations Assessment as part of their Local Plans.

New applications August 2019 - objections

Ref No: 19/01446/FUL
Location: 19 Bereweeke Avenue

Proposal
Retrospective application for the demolition of existing house and erection of a new 5-bedroom dwelling with loft.

Comment
We objected on the basis of inadequate information.

Ref No: 19/01584/LIS & 19/01589/AVC

Location: Theatre Royal, 21-23 Jewry Street

Proposal
New External Signage to the Theatre Royal Building 1. Painted signage to the South Elevation to Tower Street 2. Painted signage to the short return elevation on Jewry Street adjacent to the front door. 3. New light box poster frames x 4, replacing existing frames to Jewry Street elevation. 4. Redecoration and addition of uplighting to existing Theatre Royal steel lettering on Jewry Street. 5. New cafe bar sign suspended from the Jewry Street canopy.

Comment
We had no comment to make on items 2, 4 and 5 of this proposal. We do however have significant reservations about items 1 and 3. We felt that the logo for both items was over-complicated and no reason could be seen for the incomplete spelling of Winchester. We accepted the principle of signage on the Tower Street elevation and of the hanging sign but suggested the design should be reconsidered.

Ref No: 19/01618/HOU
Location: Overcombe, Petersfield Road

Proposal
Off-road parking with ramp to allow access to dwelling for a disabled person.

Comment
This proposal is for a massive structure in the front garden which would completely overshadow the front gardens and aspect of the adjoining properties. We appreciated that the slope of these properties make disabled access difficult and expressed no objection to some form of ramp to replace the two flights of steps which currently exist. We objected to the proposed parking platform on the grounds of the negative impact on adjoining properties and the risk of creating a precedent for other properties throughout the city on steeply sloping sites.

Ref No: 19/01593/HOU
Location: 12 Grange Road

Proposal
Refurbishment of existing dwelling (revision of approved 18/02060/HOU).

Comment
We objected because the application did not clearly indicate what had been changed.

Planning application updates August 2019

Ref No: 19/00815/FUL
Location: Prospect House, 15 Magdalen Hill

Proposal
Proposed development of 3x3 bed dwellings an 1x2 bed dwelling following the removal of Prospect House.

Comment
We had objected on several ground: historic interest of the building, potential damage to trees, poor fit of proposed replacement with conservation area, inadequate cycle and bin storage.

Refused. On multiple grounds including those we mentioned as well as inadequate planning for parking and absence of archeological plan. Historic environment had recommended refusal.

Ref No: 19/00318/FUL
Location: Little Spark, Sparkford Road

Proposal
Conversion of garage to living accommodation and change of use to HMO.

Comment
We acknowledged that the area is already dominated by student accommodation but objected to the overcrowding of the site and to what we felt was a conflict between this application and a condition placed on the approval of 18/01513/HOU.

Allowed. Housing raised no objections.

Ref No: 19/01226/FUL
Location: 52 Garbett Road

Proposal
Change of use from C3 to C4.

Comment
We felt that the application did not address the concerns raised by objectors about noise and loss of residential amenity that accompanies the increase is the number of occupants of a dwelling. We noted that there was no proposal to provide any bathroom facilities for the ground floor bedroom.

Refused, on grounds of inadequate parking and noise, but council willing to consider a 3-bed HMO.

Ref No: 19/01311/FUL
Location: Hurst House, Old Gardens

Proposal
Change of use of existing public highway verge to residential curtilage for Hurst House, Old Gardens.

Comment
We objected on road safety grounds, for reduction in open space and for diminishing the mature streetscape.

Refused on the grounds of loss of open space.

Ref No: 19/01341/HOU
Location: Journey's End, 15 Lynford Avenue

Proposal
Single storey side and rear extension. First floor rear extension. Extension to front & rear facing dormer windows. Retaining walls and stepped terrace in rear garden. Alterations to fenestration.

Comment
The works proposed amount to a large development which equals or even exceeds the size of the existing house. We objected because there would be substantial overbearing of neighbours, particularly for the adjoining property. The rear extension has 8 roof lights which must create the threat of light pollution. WCC did not agree.

Allowed.

Ref No: 19/01251/HOU
Location: 12 Wessex Drive

Proposal
Extension to rear of property to create enlarged kitchen and family room and conversion of loft to form 3 bedrooms, bathroom and shower room. Works involve raising roof ridge height and new dormers to front and rear of property. Replacement front door. Relocation and replacement of kitchen side window.

Comment
We objected on the grounds that the proposal is not in keeping with the scale of the local area.

Allowed. Plans were amended to carry the front dormer across the width of the roof and used a single dark material to allow the front dormer to integrate into the roofscape following the example at number 8. Conditions on maintenance of landscaping to screen the development were included.

Ref No: 19/01165/FUL & 19/01160/LIS
Location: 58 Hyde Street

Proposal
Demolition of an existing single-storey garage roof of 20th century rear extension roofs. Addition of new flat roof to rear extension. 2-storey side extension to replace garage. Glazed rear extension at ground level.

Comment
We had objected to the wrap round modern extension at the rear to improve on the various ad hoc extensions in the past as not in keeping with the stylistic context of the Hyde Street area, having a negative impact on a listed building.

Allowed with slightly amended plans.

Ref No: 19/01446/FUL
Location: 19 Bereweeke Avenue

Proposal
Retrospective application for demolition of existing house and erection of a new 5 bedroom dwelling with loft.

Comment
We had only objected on grounds of inadequate information.

Allowed.

Ref No: 19/01428/LDP
Location: 2 West End Close

Proposal
Proposed porch, single storey side and single storey rear extensions. Conversion of the existing loft, insertion of two roof-lights to the front elevation and rear dormer window extension.

Comment
We acknowledged that it is a matter for the planning authority to determine whether this proposal really is permitted development. But we were surprised that a proposal on this scale would be permitted.

Allowed.

Planning appeals August 2019

Lodged:

None notified.

Decided:

None notified.

july planning applications report

During July we reviewed 39 applications, objected to 9, commented on 16, made no comment on 14 and noted 6 tree felling applications.

New applications July 2019 - objections

Ref No 19/00318/FUL
Location Little Spark, Sparkford Road

Proposal
Conversion of garage to living accommodation and change of use to HMO.

Comment
We acknowledged that the area is already dominated by student accommodation but objected to the overcrowding of the site and to what we felt was a conflict between this application and a condition placed on the approval of 18/01513/HOU.

Ref No 19/01226/FUL
Location 52 Garbett Road

Proposal
Change of use from C3 to C4.

Comment
We felt that the application did not address the concerns raised by objectors about noise and loss of residential amenity that accompanies the increase is the number of occupants of a dwelling. We noted that there was no proposal to provide any bathroom facilities for the ground floor bedroom.

Ref No 19/01343/HOU
Location 33 Western Road

Comment
Convert existing hip end roof into gable. Box dormer to rear elevation to allow for loft conversion.

Proposal
We objected to the rather clumsy box dormer to the rear which did not seem to be subservient to the main roof. If the windows were to be of clear glass would be issues of overlooking neighbouring properties. We suggested that the proposal be scaled back to be more in keeping with others in the neighbourhood.

Ref No 19/01311/FUL
Location Hurst House, Old Gardens

Proposal
Change of use of existing public highway verge to residential curtilage for Hurst House, Old Gardens.

Comment
We objected on road safety grounds, for reduction in open space and for diminishing the mature streetscape.

Ref No 19/01341/HOU
Location Journey's End, 15 Lynford Avenue

Proposal
Single storey side and rear extension. First floor rear extension. Extension to front & rear facing dormer windows. Retaining walls and stepped terrace in rear garden. Alterations to fenestration.

Comment
The works proposed amount to a large development which equals or even exceeds the size of the existing house. We objected because there would be substantial overbearing of neighbours, particularly for the adjoining property. The rear extension has 8 roof lights which must create the threat of light pollution.

Ref No 19/01358/HOU
Location 7 Crouchers Croft

Proposal
Attic extension. Single storey rear extension. Demolition of rear conservatory.

Comment
We did not object to the single storey rear extension but to the proposed attic extension, which includes a long dormer window. This is not high but stretches round onto the adjoining part of the roof; the result being clumsy and overbearing.

Ref No 19/01251/HOU
Location 12 Wessex Drive

Proposal
Extension to rear of property to create enlarged kitchen and family room and conversion of loft to form 3 bedrooms, bathroom and shower room. Works involve raising roof ridge height and new dormers to front and rear of property. Replacement front door. Relocation and replacement of kitchen side window

Comment
We objected on the grounds that the proposal is not in keeping with the scale of the local area.

Ref No 19/01300/OUT
Location 6 Woodpeckers Drive

Proposal
Erection of up to 6 dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping.

Comment
We thought it premature to be considering the replacement of the existing property and access without any details of the condition and value of the existing dwelling or of the layout of any proposed development.

Ref No 19/01165/FUL & 19/01160/LIS
Location 58 Hyde Street

Proposal
Demolition of an existing single-storey garage roof of 20th century rear extension roofs. Addition of new flat roof to rear extension. 2-storey side extension to replace garage. Glazed rear extension at ground level.

Comment
We did not object to the concept of replacing the garage with a 2-storey extension and a wrap round modern extension at the rear to improve on the various ad hoc extensions in the past. We objected to the current proposal because it is not in keeping with the stylistic context of the Hyde Street area and would have a negative impact on a listed building. We felt that amendments to the brickwork choices, fenestration and the first floor of the rear extension could produce an acceptable scheme which would enhance this listed building and its environs.

Planning application updates July 2019

Ref No 19/00645/FUL
Location 49 Stoney Lane

Proposal
Proposed development of 4 x 3 bed semi-detached houses and 3 x 2 bed and 1 x 1 bed apartments following removal of existing dwelling.

Amendments to the original proposal were made but we maintained our objection on the grounds that it constituted overdevelopment for the plot and its neighbourhood. This is particularly relevant for the block of apartments, which has little amenity space save parking, and is overbearing upon the curtilage of no. 47. On the original application there were detailed comments from the urban design officer which seemed accurate and were supported.

Refused on grounds of being contrary to LPP1 and LPP2 policies, being contrary to SDP 'High Quality Places', negative impact on amenities or immediate neighbours, loss of trees on which there are TPOs, etc.

Ref No 19/00714/FUL
Location 2 Fiona Close

Proposal
Change of use to HMO.

We objected that this would not be in keeping with the scale of Fiona Close, a small residential close, and would have a negative impact on the amenity of local residents.

Refused. WCC agreed that the proposed conversion of a 4 bed C3 dwelling house to a 4 bed C4 HMO would cause significant harm to the amenities of the residents of Fiona Close and would add to parking pressures, since there was insufficient provision for on-site parking in line with the adopted Winchester City Council Parking Standards SPD 2009.

Ref No 19/00922/FUL
Location Hazelwood, 29 Downside Road

Proposal
Application Reference Number: 18/02454/FUL. Date of Decision: 10/01/2019. Condition Number(s): Condition 2 (Approved Plans) Amend approved plans condition to reflect proposed changes to some elevations and repositioning of dwellings within the plot.

We objected specifically to the proposal to increase the size and ridge height of Plot 3 which we thought a fairly blatant attempt to set the scene for an early application to increase the size of this dwelling to 3 or more bedrooms.

Allowed. But with restrictions on the use of garage space in Plot 2 - only to be used for parking and ancillary storage purposes and for no other use at any time of – and of the extra roof space on plot 3 - to be used for ancillary storage purposes and for no other use at any time.

Ref No 19/00826/HOU
Location Barnes Cottage, 1 Barnes Close

Proposal
Demolition of existing detached garage and erection of replacement detached garage; installation of new sliding gates.

Amended plans (which removed some if not all of our grounds for objection).

Allowed with restrictions on the bricks to be used to minimise impact on the conservation area and on the sliding gate mechanism.

Ref No 19/01334/TPC
Location 72 Middle Brook Street

Proposal
Rowan - Remove at ground level.

Allowed.

Planning appeals July 2019

Lodged:

Ref No 18/01986/FUL
Location 15 Silwood Close

Proposal
Erection of 1no. two bedroom dwelling.

Comment
We were neutral on this saying 'It is evident that every effort has been made to address the issues raised in the refusal of the previous application (17/00206/FUL). The design is modern and acceptable, although the question remains as to whether this restricted site on a rather prominent corner location is large enough to accommodate such a dwelling.' There were very many objections.

Grounds for refusal: “The proposed construction of a dwelling within this small site in a prominent location would lead to a development which appears cramped and overdeveloped in the street scene, with insufficient space on the plot to reflect the character and appearance of the area. As a result, the development on this prominent corner location would detract from the character and appearance of the area and is therefore contrary to policies DM15, DM16 and DM17 of the Local Plan Part 2.”

Decided:

None notified.


june planning applications report

During the first three weeks of June we reviewed 42 applications, objected to 4, commented on 21, and made no comment on 17, and noted 4 tree felling applications.

New applications June 2019 - objections

Ref No 19/00714/FUL
Location 2 Fiona Close

Proposal
Change of use to HMO.

Comment
This application is within the area of the Article 4 direction for Winnall which came into effect on 1 May 2018. The house seems already to be occupied as an HMO. Whilst it may be the case that HMOs do not yet reach the percentages of properties referred to in the Article 4 direction, this is not a street but a small residential close and is thus not in keeping with the scale of Fiona Close and will have a negative impact on the amenity of local residents through noise, late night activities and additional pressures on parking.

Ref No
19/00922/FUL
Location Hazelwood,  29 Downside Road

Proposal
Application Reference Number: 18/02454/FUL. Date of Decision: 10/01/2019 Condition Number(s): Condition 2 (Approved Plans).  Amend approved plans condition to reflect proposed changes to some elevations and repositioning of dwellings within the plot.

Comment
The Trust’s original concerns over the redevelopment of this back lot were when the applicant was proposing two 5 bedroom houses; we did not object to the final amended scheme.  Most  of the proposed variations to that scheme are modest but we objected to the proposal to increase the size and ridge height of Plot 3 which we thought was an attempt to set the scene for an early application to increase the size of this dwelling to 3 or more bedrooms.

Ref No 19/01002/LDP
Location 12 Brassey Road

Proposal
Loft conversion including installation of an L-shaped flat roof dormer to the rear elevation, installation of two Velux roof-lights to the front elevation, to form new habitable space.

Comment
We do not usually comment on LDP applications but strongly objected to this one which appears to be a box extension, not a dormer, which neither maintains nor enhances the character of the house and the neighbourhood. We felt design considerations needed to be rigorously applied.

Ref No 19/01211/LDP
Location 24 Cheriton Road

Proposal
Conversion of loft space to form habitable room, incorporating Flat Roof Rear Dormer & 2No Velux Roof light to the front.

Comment
We felt that even an LDP application should be accompanied by some drawings; there are no drawings available in this case.

Planning application updates June 2019

Ref No 19/00584/FUL
Location 86 Cromwell Road

Proposal
Use of existing annex and attached cabin as separate 2 bed dwelling.

Comment
Allowed but restricted to use as a dwelling within class C3(a) [which covers use by a single person or a family but excludes HMO].

We had complained about absence of contextual information, of elevations and indication of the designated use of the proposed dwelling.

Ref No 19/00618/FUL
Location Cromwell House, 15 Andover Road

Proposal
Application Reference Number: 76/00179/OLD Date of Decision: 22/07/1976 Removal of Condition Number: 9. The condition is unfairly onerous on the freeholder & is not appropriate in the context of the current planning framework & should be removed.

Comment
Allowed. With the condition “The premises comprising not less than 14,000 sq. ft of floor space for use for car parking to be created by the said employment (being office premises by virtue of Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971) shall be used for car parking and for no other purpose. Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Office Development Permit originally and the Development Plan.”

We had objected because the application does not make clear what Condition 9 is and we felt it should remain at least until a better case for its removal had been made. The officer's report makes it clear that Condition 9 says “Eight car parking spaces shall be made available for use by the occupiers of the adjoining properties at 15-23a Andover Road.”

Ref No 19/00577/FUL
Location 7-9 Gordon Avenue

Proposal
Retrospective alterations/amendments connected to the approved scheme 16/00258/FUL; - additional living area formed within the roof space serving units 4 and 5 - additional light well serving unit 2 - small window infilled serving unit 3 on the west elevation - minor landscape alterations - revised bin/cycle storage.

Comment
Allowed.

We had objected because it was clear that the alterations and amendments had been implemented without prior approval and we thought Planning Officers should investigate this together with safety issues that might have arisen.

Ref No 19/00645/FUL
Location 49 Stoney Lane

Proposal
Proposed development of 4 x 3 bed semi-detached houses and 4 x 2 bed apartments following removal of existing dwelling.

Comment
Refused. Grounds given:– (1)The proposed development would, by reason of its size, scale, layout, unsympathetic design and prominent location, result in a dense and intrusive form of development which would be out of keeping with the pattern and spatial characteristics of the surrounding area to the significant detriment of its character and appearance (2)The proposed dwellings would, by reason both of their close proximity to each other within the development site and to the neighbouring property to the east, have an overbearing and unacceptable impact on the amenities of the occupants of those properties through loss of outlook and privacy through potential overlooking (3)The proposal would result in the loss of trees, covered by a Tree Preservation Order to the detriment of the visual amenity of the surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to policies CP20 of Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 and DM23 of Winchester District local Plan Part 2.

We had objected because we felt the proposal seeks to overcrowd the site, the apartments are not well oriented, with north facing windows and very little fenestration on the south side thus making very little use of any passive solar gain. The detailed comments of the urban design officer seemed accurate and we supported these. Our objection was maintained when we reviewed the amended plans.

Ref No 19/00556/AVC
Location
Hampshire Constabulary HQ, Romsey Road
Proposal
Erection of mesh directional banner.

Comment
Application withdrawn.

We had objected that since this site is already the subject of many hoardings advertising the project, this further sign on an old wall in the Conservation Area was superfluous.

Ref No 19/00470/HOU
Location
6 Chester Road

Proposal
Proposed loft conversion including insertion of roof-lights and dormer window extension. Proposed single storey rear extension, changes to external appearance, boundary treatment and associated internal and external alterations.

Comment
Allowed after the plans were revised. We had objected to the changes proposed for the front of the house – the proposal to paint the brickwork white and to replace the white windows with dark grey aluminium ones. However, as was pointed out in the decision notice, repainting the house doesn't require planning permission.

Planning appeals June 2019

No appeals were lodged or decided in June.