Venue: Conference Room 1, Beech Hurst, Weyhill Road, Andover
Contact: Sally Prior - 01264 368024
Email: sprior@testvalley.gov.uk
Items
No. |
Item |
531. |
Apologies
Minutes:
Apologies for absence
were received from Councillors Coole and Harber.
|
532. |
Public Participation
Minutes:
In accordance with the
Council’s scheme of Public Participation, the following spoke
on the applications indicated:
Agenda Item No.
|
Page No.
|
Application
|
Speaker
|
7
|
10 -
49
|
21/02943/FULLN
|
Parish Councillor
Long
(Andover Town Council)
Mr Philpott
(Objector)
and
Mr Garnett (Objector)
Councillor Matthews
(Ward Member)
|
|
533. |
Declarations of Interest
Minutes:
There were no
declarations of interest.
|
534. |
Urgent Items
Minutes:
There were no urgent
items to consider.
|
535. |
Minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2022
Minutes:
Resolved:
That
the minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2022 be confirmed and
signed as a correct record.
|
536. |
Schedule of Development Applications
Minutes:
Resolved:
That
the applications for development as set out below be determined as
indicated.
|
537. |
21/02943/FULLN PDF 556 KB
(OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE)
SITE: Land west of Finkley Farm Road, East
Anton, Andover ANDOVER TOWN (ROMANS)
CASE OFFICER: Mrs Samantha
Owen
Additional documents:
Minutes:
|
APPLICATION NO.
|
21/02943/FULLN
|
|
APPLICATION TYPE
|
FULL APPLICATION -
NORTH
|
|
REGISTERED
|
07.10.2021
|
|
APPLICANT
|
Mr Tom Mitchell
|
|
SITE
|
Land west of
Finkley Farm Road, East Anton, Andover,
ANDOVER TOWN (ROMANS)
|
|
PROPOSAL
|
Erection of 130 dwellings and a
375sqm Class E retail convenience store, including access, parking,
open space, landscaping and a sustainable urban drainage system
(SuDS)
|
|
AMENDMENTS
|
Letter received 10th
January responding to LLFA’s comments
|
|
CASE
OFFICER
|
Mrs Samantha Owen
|
|
|
|
REFUSED for the reasons:
|
|
|
1.
|
The
development has failed to demonstrate adequate visibility splays on
the internal road between plots 52 and 57 which would have an
adverse impact on the function and safety of the local highway
network and would not accord with Policy T1 of the Test Valley
Borough Revised Local Plan (2016).
|
|
|
2.
|
The
development has failed to demonstrate that the Swept Path analysis
of the internal road between plots 52 and 57 can accommodate an
11.2 metre refuse vehicle without it encroaching onto the opposite
side of the internal access road which would bring it into conflict
with other vehicles as such this would not be safe and would have
an adverse impact on the function and safety of the local highway
network and would not accord with Policy T1 of the Test Valley
Borough Revised Local Plan 2016.
|
|
|
3.
|
The
submitted Travel Plan does not support and promote the use of
sustainable transport and as such it does not accord with Policy T1
of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan 2016.
|
|
|
4.
|
There
is a shortfall in 4 visitor spaces across the Parcel for which no
adequate justification has been put forward that would allow for a
reduction in visitor spaces against the standards as set out in
Annexe G of the RLP, which is likely to result in on street parking
that would impact the operation and safety of the internal road
network and therefore does not accord with Policy T2 of the Test
Valley Borough Revised Local Plan 2016.
|
|
|
5.
|
Plots
1-12, 44-52, 67 and 68 are likely to encourage on street parking
along Dairy Road and Finkley Farm
Road. Parking on the road will hinder
the free flow of traffic along these routes resulting in an adverse
impact on the safety and character of the local highway network and
would be contrary to Policy T1 of the Test Valley Borough Revised
Local Plan 2016.
|
|
|
6.
|
The parking for
plots 113-118 is poorly designed in terms of its relationship with
the dwelling it is allocated to. Plots
28, 51, 52, 67, 94 and 95 have allocated parking that is somewhat
remote from the unit it serves. It is
not considered that parking for these plots is well designed or
appropriately locatedand
therefore does not accord with Policy T2 of the Test Valley Revised
Local Plan 2016.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.
|
Parking spaces are required to be well designed and
practical. A number of parking spaces
are constrained on one or both sides by retaining walls, in these
instances parking spaces should be 2.7 ... view
the full minutes text for item 537.
|
|