(OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE)
SITE: Land west of Finkley Farm Road, East Anton, Andover ANDOVER TOWN (ROMANS)
CASE OFFICER: Mrs Samantha Owen
Minutes:
|
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 metres wide if constrained on one side and 3 metres wide if constrained on two sides, Plots 15, 16, 17, 18, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 78, 79, 89 and 90 are impacted in this way, however the car parking spaces for these units are still measuring 2.4 metres wide. This is not considered to be well designed parking and as such is contrary to Policy T2 of the Test Valley Revised Local Plan 2016. |
|
8. |
It is considered that the proposed development does not represent high quality development as required by Policy E1. The layout relies on retaining walls and underbuilding which are an incongruous and alien feature that are considered visually intrusive. The elevation design of the Apartment Blocks, the Retail Block and the FOGS results in bland, oppressive and overbearing buildings that would fail to improve the character and quality of the area. Also the use of render as a material throughout the development presents a stark addition against the backdrop of the wider development and the landscaping. It is not considered that the development would accord with Policy E1 of the RLP or paragraph 71 of the National Design Guide. |
|
9. |
The proposed Plots 67, 92,and 123 -130 are located in close proximity to the existing trees that have been planted alongside Finkley Farm Road as such this will potentially impact the long term retention and health of these trees through requests for the trees to be pruned or felled as they mature and grow.
The proposed development is contrary to policy E2 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan (2016). |
|
10. |
The proposed layout has resulted in large areas of parking with little or no significant landscaping resulting in large areas that are dominated by hard surfacing which is detrimental to the overall landscape character of the area and does not integrate, complement or enhance the character of the Borough As such does not accord with Policies E1 and E2 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan 2016. |
|
11. |
Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to demonstrate that the proposed infiltration basin is required to be the size, depth and shape as proposed it therefore cannot be concluded that the infiltration basin would not be a visually intrusive feature within the landscape. As such this feature would not accord with Policy E2 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan 2016. |
|
12. |
The POS as proposed is made up of open space and Swales, the latter of which are undulating and at certain times of the year likely to have standing water within them, this does not address the shortfall of the specific type of POS within the Ward. In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the shortfall of specific type of POS within the Ward the proposed development fails to provide sufficient public open space required to serve the needs of the future population and no arrangements for its long term maintenance have been made. The proposal would therefore result in unnecessary additional burden being placed on existing public open space provision adversely affecting the function and quality of these facilities, to the overall detriment of the area and users of the open space. The arrangements for the long term management and maintenance of the proposed POS have also not been secured. The proposal is contrary to policies COM15 and LHW1 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan (2016), and the Infrastructure and Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (2009). |
|
13. |
In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the provision of and financial contribution towards on site new affordable housing, including their subsequent retention in perpetuity to occupation by households in housing need and ensuring that the units are dispersed throughout the development and meet local need in terms of the size, type and tenure of the units in accordance with the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document the proposal is contrary to policy COM7 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan (2016) and the Infrastructure and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2021). |
|
14. |
The layout and design of the proposed development fails to provide defensible space to vulnerable elevations of the Apartment blocks and would not allow for adequate natural surveillance of the rear parking areas leading to a greater risk of crime and anti-social behaviour The proposal is contrary to policy CS1 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan 2016. |
|
15. |
In the absence of a Legal Agreement to secure off site mitigation for nutrient neutrality the development at this time does not achieve nutrient neutrality. As such, it cannot be concluded that the proposal will not result in a likely harmful significant effect on the internationally designated nature conservation sites in the Solent, in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations and as advised within guidance from Natural England. As such, the proposal fails to comply with Policy E5 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan (2016). |
|
16. |
The proposed flats over garages and apartment blocks, plots 4-12, 69-77, 123-130, 13, 24, 53, 80 and 106 have no private amenity space for future occupiers which conflicts with Policy LHW4 of the Test Valley Revised Local Plan 2016. |
Supporting documents: