Agenda item

Proposal Description: Residential redevelopment of part of 72 Jacklyns Lane comprising 4 no. three bedroom semi detached houses and 1 no. three bedroom detached chalet bungalow with associated new crossover, access, parking, binstore and landscaping works. (Amended Plans).

The application was introduced. Councillors were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding several matters and in particular the updated and additional conditions.

1.    An updated drawing (Unit 5 Proposed Plans & Elevations LWP-1223-P05 Revision B) had been received.

2.    Within the report pack, under the Neighbouring Amenity section, paragraph 6 on page 34 had been updated.

3.    Paragraph 7 on page 34 the previous sentence addressing potential overlooking towards the neighbour at 3 Jacklyns Close, had been updated.

4.    As a point of clarification, an additional drawing had been received that shows site levels overlayed onto the previously received drawing Proposed Rear. Street Scene & Bin Store. The newly received version is Revision D.

5.    As a result of the above, condition 2 had been updated to show the revised drawing numbers which were set out in full within the update sheet.

6.    Condition 15 had been updated to include the restriction of additional classes of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order. In addition, the reason for the condition had been amended which was set out in full within the update sheet.

7.      Condition 5, relating to hard and soft landscaping, had been updated which was set out in full within the update sheet.

8.    An additional condition 16 would be included as follows:

The hedges as shown marked as 'hedge to be retained' in the Site Comparison Plan on drawing number LWP-1223-P02 Revision C to the front of the site shall be retained and maintained at a height of 2m, and to the northeast of the site at a height of 1.8m, or at heights as otherwise agreed in writing with the local Planning Authority, for the lifetime of the development.

If any trees, shrubs or plants die, are removed or, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, become seriously damaged or defective, others of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, in the next planting season, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

Reason: To maintain the visual amenities of the application site and the character of the area and in the interest of the neighbouring amenities, in accordance with policies DM15 and DM17.

9.    An Additional condition would be included as follows

Obscured glazing.

The hereby permitted ground floor window and roof light, both in the northeast elevation of Unit 5 and as shown on drawing LWP-1223-P05 Revision B, shall be glazed with obscure glass which achieves an obscuration level at least equivalent to Pilkington Obscure Glass Privacy Level 4, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, and the glazing shall thereafter be retained in this condition at all times.

Reason: To protect the amenity and privacy of the adjoining residential properties.

It was noted that the majority of the committee had visited the application site on 11 December 2024 to enable members to observe the site in context and to gain a better appreciation of the proposals.

During public participation, Tony Mott spoke in objection to the application, Oliver Kubicki spoke in support of the application and Councillor Marilyn Weston on behalf of New Alresford Town Council spoke against the application and answered members' questions.

Councillor Pinniger spoke as a ward member and expressed several points on behalf of residents which could be summarised as follows.

1.    She disagreed with the developer's comparison to Prospect Place, arguing it was invalid as that site was in a light industrial area.

2.    She highlighted a more relevant case in Kings Worthy (reference number 01375) that was refused due to overdevelopment, access, and vehicle turning issues.

3.    She expressed concerns about parking on Jacklyns Close, suggesting it could become a major accident hotspot, and questioned whether the Highways department had assessed the site in person.

4.    While acknowledging the need for development, she argued the current proposal constituted overdevelopment and would negatively impact neighbouring amenities.

5.    She concluded by reiterating her objection due to overdevelopment concerns.

Councillor Power spoke as a ward member and expressed several points on behalf of residents which could be summarised as follows.

1.    That the upstairs bathroom window of the Dormer bungalow (Unit 5) would overlook the gardens of 3 Jacklyns Close. Despite the obscure glass, open windows could still allow sightlines to the bedrooms.

2.    The height of the proposed development's roof would result in a loss of sky view for the garden of 3 Jacklyns Close.

3.    The bin stores for the five proposed dwellings appeared inadequate, potentially leading to 10 bins lining the verge each week.

4.    There was a discrepancy between the 15 double bedrooms and only 11 parking spaces, including a visitor space. She believed this would cause problems, unlike the situation at Prospect Place, where ample parking is available in the evening.

5.    While the application might not be overdevelopment based on land use standards, the access difficulties and impact on neighbouring dwellings made it overdevelopment in this case. She urged the committee to reject the application.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application and received advice from the Legal Officer concerning biodiversity net gain and the legal mechanisms used to ensure compliance with biodiversity net gain requirements, including Section 106 agreements, habitat management and monitoring plans.

RESOLVED

The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and the update sheet.