Agenda item

29745/002/FUL/JonH - 155 - 159 Lovedean Lane, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 9RW

Capital Homes (Southern) Ltd

 

5 dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling (as amended by plans received 28 June 2017)

Minutes:

5 dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling (as amended by plans received 28 June 2017)

 

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and displayed an aerial photograph of the site, along with photographs of and from within the site, amended plans and a plan showing the relationship of the site to the permitted development for 40 homes to the north. 

 

He explained that the area had historically comprised a linear pattern of development, however this character was changing due to development that had occurred to the south and permitted to the north.  The original proposal for six houses had been reduced to five, which had addressed concerns regarding overshadowing and overlooking of neighbouring properties.

 

The council’s Drainage Consultant had initially objected to the application, but had retracted this objection following confirmation from the Environment Agency that the site should be considered as Flood Zone 1, rather than Flood Zone 2.  This was due to an inaccuracy with their mapping, which would be rectified.  The Drainage Strategy proposed that all surface water on the site would be attenuated in tanks and released gradually to the surface water sewer under Lovedean Lane.  These measures would apply to the existing dwellings on the site and are designed to improve the current rate of surface water run-off from the site.

 

Following his presentation, he displayed some photographs showing flooding in the area that had been provided by the local ward councillor, Cllr Schillemore.

 

The recommendation was for permission.

 

Mr Tutton spoke as the agent for the application.

 

He thanked the Chairman for allowing him to speak in favour of his clients proposal and the officers positive recommendation.

 

For over a decade, inset map 36 of the Second Review (2006) had shown this site within the Settlement Policy Boundary of Horndean, with land to the west identified as a Reserve Housing Allocation H2.  Development to the west of Lovedean Lane to a similar depth as Ashley Close would clearly not conflict with provisions of the Horndean Village Design Statement (2002) regarding development up the valley sides.  The officer’s report drew attention to Old Barn Gardens, James Copse Road and the development now being undertaken by Bargate Homes to the rear of 179-189 Lovedean Lane, permitted in September 2014, which extended way beyond the western boundary of his clients site and on up the lower part of the valley side.

 

Residents of this locality enjoyed a safe and convenient access to the ‘Central’ and Tesco supermarkets, the Lovedean local centre, Moorlands Infant and Junior Schools and the 300 bus service that followed Milton Road.  As the officers had recognised, this site was in a sustainable location, thereby giving his client’s proposal the positive presumption generated by paragraph 14 of the NPPF and Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP2.

 

This application had been with the Council since July.  The applicant had worked closely with officers to achieve a scheme that accorded with its surroundings.  One dwelling had been deleted; three dwellings at the rear of the site had been combined to resemble a converted barn and a palette of materials had been formulated to reinforce the semi-rural setting.  Drainage, flood risk, highways and ecology issues had all been addressed and settled to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities.

 

He took no issue with Cllr Schillemore’s contention that some parts of Lovedean Lane occasionally flooded, but non of her photographs related to this application site and it was apparent that some related to sites in Havant Borough.

 

The officers were right to recognise that his clients proposal accorded all the relevant provisions of the development plan; Councillors were therefore requested to accept their recommendation and grant permission.

 

Cllr Schillemore left the committee to speak as the local ward councillor.

 

Cllr Schillemore spoke as the local ward councillor and confirmed that the Havant Borough Boundary was much further south.  The principal of development on the site was not disputed and she was pleased that the semi-detached Victorian properties would be retained.

 

James Copse Road marked the boundary where the character of the area changed.  She felt that the Bargate Homes development to the north of the site had been a poor decision made at a difficult time.  The Environment Agency had made a number of interesting comments regarding JFlow, which it noted was prone to inaccuracies and acknowledged that some flood zones were inaccurate.  Her supporting photographs showed that the area was prone to flooding, although they showed an area slightly to the south.

 

It was true that the water did not come from a river, although Lovedean Lane was in a valley and carried significant water run off from the surrounding hills.  The approval of this application would only contribute to this flooding, contrary to policy CP25.  Concerns had also been raised about overlooking.

 

She felt that this application represented overdevelopment of the site.  The area was characterised by ribbon development and the development proposed was unsympathetic with no views between the dwellings.  The scale, mass, bulk and density was against policy and the Horndean Village Design Statement.

 

She felt that the application should be refused because it was contrary to Policies CP25 and CP29.  It would also result in overlooking and be in direct conflict with the Horndean Village Design Statement.

 

The committee discussed the application and felt that the main issue was uncertainty regarding flood risk.  The site was in Flood Zone 2, however the Environment Agency had confirmed that this was a mistake and that it was likely to be amended to Flood Zone 1 in mid November 2017. 

 

The committee was mindful of the warnings expressed about flooding and felt that there were unanswered questions.  It did not believe that the comments from the council’s Drainage Consultant were as comprehensive as they could have been and this, coupled to the current classification of the site being in Flood Zone 2, did not guarantee the committee enough certainty in order to make a decision.

 

Cllr Joy proposed that the application be deferred for clarification of surface water drainage specifications and further assessment of the implications on flood risk and the designation of the site as Flood Zone 1 by the Environment Agency.

 

This proposal was seconded by Cllr Cowper.

 

The committee voted on Cllr Joy’s proposal for deferral.

 

Following the vote, the proposal was declared CARRIED, 12 Councillors voting FOR deferral, no Councillors voting AGAINST deferral and 2 Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

 

Cllr Schillemore rejoined the meeting.

Supporting documents: