Spean - 9 Church Road East, Farnborough

This was among my prayers: a piece of land not very large, where a garden should be and a spring of ever flowing water near the house, and a bit of woodland as well as these. -- Horace (65-8 BC)

One of the roles of the planning system is to ensure that it identifies sufficient land in the right place and at the right time to provide a choice of sites which are both suitable and available for housebuilding ... However, the need ... has to be reconciled with the requirements of sustainability and, particularly, the need to conserve and enhance the quality of our environment in both town and country. -- PPG3 (housing)

One of the Government's key objectives is to create new or improve existing residential areas so they become places where people choose to live. -- PPG3 (housing)

Planning application for a block of flats and houses on a site at Spean, 9 Church Road East - planning ref 02/00820/FUL.

I wish to OBJECT to the proposal for demolition of the existing bungalow, and erection of a block of 8 flats and three 3-bedroom houses on the garden at 9 Church Road East, Farnborough.

The proposal would lead to excessive density for the site, and the density and the block of flats, would be out of character for an area of large houses with large gardens. The proposal represents over development for the site and the location.

The proposal is by Pavilion Housing. We are lucky in the road that apart from past problems, which have now been sorted, with yobs passing through on their way to the local park, and an ongoing problem of undesirable tenants at No 12 with a house let as (unlawful) multiple occupancy without planning consent, we avoid the problems of antisocial behaviour that plagues other parts of the Borough. An area of south Farnborough that is regarded as a highly desirable area in which to live. For England, the area is relatively crime free and the residents feel relatively safe. This feeling of security would vanish overnight with a Pavilion housing development opposite.

The plans are out of character with the area, both in density, and mass and bulk of the flats, and by erecting a block of flats. The flats would be close to the pavement (other properties are set back), the flats go across the front of the site, their mass and bulk (3 stories high), would dominate the street scene.

The refuse bins to be placed in front of the flats by the pavement!!!

The windows of the flats face out sideways depriving neighbours of privacy, and sunlight. The flats are very close to the boundaries of adjacent properties.

Water run off from the site, currently porous. Where would this water go? The surrounding roads already cannot cope with a heavy shower. Would the water run off into adjacent gardens? Or into cellars of nearby properties?

Insufficient parking on site (for occupants and visitors), leading to off site parking in adjacent roads.

There is a drive into the site from Canterbury Road onto the site. As a private drive to one property, it is okay, but the proposal is to turn it into a road serving several properties. Too narrow. Too dangerous for pedestrians and cars. Neighbours would be affected by traffic running down their side gardens. If the road is cambered (or paved), where would the water run-off go? Canterbury Road already cannot cope with both the traffic and student parking, it is used as a rat run, and as an infrequent bus service. Neighbouring properties have problems getting out of their drives. With the student parking I find it too dangerous to cycle along Canterbury Road. These are all well known problems to the Highways Dept, who choose to turn a blind eye. All these problem exist before the housing estate on Knellwood is built, which will make a bad situation worse. Street lighting on the access road? Light pollution for neighbouring properties.

The crass restrictions being placed on the main Farnborough Road (A325) will lead to massive congestion. Drivers seeking out alternative routes will lead to a rapidly deteriorating situation along Canterbury Road. A measure of what to expect can already be seen. In the evening, cars are queuing on Alexandra Road to get onto the A325, impatient drivers are making dangerous U-turns in the middle of Alexandra Road to cut down Albert Road through to Canterbury Road. In the mornings, it can take several minutes to get out of houses on Canterbury Road, a queue stretches back from the Clockhouse Roundabout, up along Salisbury Road, through the back streets and along Canterbury Road, past the drive from Spean.

Refuse bins halfway along the drive. A nuisance for neighbours. Are those living in the houses going to walk halfway down the drive to deposit their refuse, are the refuse collectors going to walk half way up the drive to collect the bins (cos they won't be able to get their lorry down the drive)?

Trees on site are not protected (maladministration) and are vulnerable. I was told a pack of lies by Rushmoor Tree Officer relating to these trees. He claimed trees were not worthy of saving as pollarded, that pollarded trees are never protected, that pollarding trees reduces their lifespan (pollarded trees are protected, it extends their lifespan almost indefinitely, is traditional woodland management), that trees were diseased, that trees were not safe (but have managed to survive bad gales), not only were the trees not safe but they were deemed such a hazard that it would be irresponsible not to effect their immediate removal. Apparently they were not safe due to poor workmanship on the trees which had introduced disease. Tree Officer must have thought my level of ignorance matched his own. He was asked to put these lies in writing, he refused. Grounds for disciplinary action. A formal complaint has been lodged and a written request made for this information. I am still waiting.

There appears to be a stronger correlation with the needs of a developer in deciding if a tree is worthy of protection, than the merits of the tree itself. Strange that no sooner does a site be under threat of development than the trees on the site become worthless specimens unworthy of protection or retention. A correlation and trend that has remarkable consistency across the Borough. The correlation and trend are sufficiently robust that an investigation of the tree officer is long overdue. Or is the local community simply naive in believing the role of the tree officer is to protect trees when the real role is to act as an enabler for development?

Stag beetles and bats live and feed on the site. All are protected species. The demolition work on the site may have destroyed valuable habitats. Prosecution should take place of Pavilion if that be the case. Why has the planning department, as usual, turned a blind eye? Urban foxes live on the site.

Demolition on site destroyed an Edwardian greenhouse (a greenhouse that should have been listed and protected). Demolition removed asbestos from site with no precautions taken. Grounds for prosecution. Where has demolition material been dumped?

Planning department have shown maladministration in allowing the demolition of an Edwardian greenhouse and in allowing valuable habitat to be destroyed.

Why was I told by demolition crew that demolition was taking place to build two blocks of flats? Why were the demolition crew told to keep quiet about what was planned for the site, what were Pavilion trying to hide? Why have Pavilion gone to the expense of site clearance (several workman over several days), when they have not got planning consent? Why have Pavilion paid a rumoured £800,000 for the site when they lack planning consent? Why have the planning department refused to protect the trees? Why do the trees lack protection? Why was I told by the tree officer that the trees could not be protected to stop the development going ahead (ie it had already been decided it was going ahead). Have Pavilion already been given the (unofficial) go-ahead by planning department, with the committee (as usual) to be told how to vote?

Church Road East is a very quiet road. This would change were Pavilion to get their way. We would have delinquent behaviour, noise from the flats.

The development is not far off from the flight path for Farnborough Airport. A PSZ (Public Safety Zone) has to be drawn for the number of movements and mix of aircraft for 2015. The development could well lie inside or be close by the PSZ. These are automatic grounds for refusal. The issue of ground safety in the event of a crash has been ignored.

Pavilion appear to be engaging in speculative development. Is this within their remit or an appropriate use of public funds by an organisation which pleads shortage of funds as the pathetic excuse for keeping its existing properties in an appalling state of repair? If Pavilion are short of housing, why are they willing to see Firgrove Court demolished (for a car park) losing valuable good quality brick housing close to the town centre? The views of Pavilion tenants in Firgrove Court (who have been offered a measly £1500 to move), appear to count for nothing. Why are Pavilion attempting to build student accommodation in Peabody Road? Accommodation that will lie empty at least a third of any one year. Why do Pavilion leave property empty? Why is Rushmoor failing in its obligation to identify empty housing? All of which is accommodation that could be used to meet local housing needs. Why do Pavilion maintain their property in such a poor state of repair? Why do Rushmoor fail in their statutory obligations to force Pavilion to carry out repairs? As many councillors know, they have a large case load on the failings of Pavilion as landlords. Maybe Pavilion ought to look after their existing properties, put their own house in order, before they attempt to blight the lives of others, rather than engaging in speculative property development.

From my own investigation of Pavilion I find their houses and flats to be in an appalling state of repair. Their response to requests from their tenants for repairs is to simply ignore them.

A large amount of housing lies empty in Farnborough town centre. Housing that meets PPG3 (housing) criteria for town centre housing. Housing that PPG3 (housing) requires Rushmoor to bring back into use before considering additional housing development, especially if further away from the town centre. Housing from which the few remaining tenants are being evicted and made homeless to make way for speculative unsustainable property developments, evictions aided and abetted by Rushmoor.

The development would be a breach of the Human Rights of those living next to the development - breach of right to privacy, protection of property, right to a quiet family life. Rights that Rushmoor have a duty to defend, failure to do so can be treated as a criminal act.

The report by the Architects for Pavilion is riddled with false statements. Are they writing of the same site?

Architects claim 'site ... in an area of terraced, semi-detached and detached'. Not true. There is no terraced housing. The area is one of large houses (semi and detached) with large gardens. Church Circle (at the end of Church Road East) is a Conservation Area. The only exception is Farley Court, which although split into separate flats with a communal area, in appearance represents a large house with two wings, set back from the road around an open courtyard.

The drawings submitted by the architects are not accurate either. This alone is sufficient grounds for throwing out the application.

The are many areas of the Borough where the speculative development by Pavilion would not be out of place, where the housing density would not be out of place, but not on the proposed site. In fact it would be difficult to imagine a more inappropriate site in south Farnborough.

The bungalow was not 'derelict' it was empty. It was in a habitable condition prior to ownership by Pavilion. There were various outbuildings, including an Edwardian greenhouse. These have all been destroyed by Pavilion. In doing so, they damaged neighbouring properties, removed asbestos without taking proper precautions, and may have destroyed habitats used by bats (a protected species).

Curiously, although the proposals involve the demolition of a bungalow, there is no discussion of this by the architects, even more important there is no mention of the fact that the bungalow is joined to two adjacent bungalows, nor is this shown on the drawings. Was this a deliberate attempt to keep the committee in the dark, to misinform, so that no embarrassing questions would be asked of the impact and access rights for the adjacent buildings? A question of accuracy needs to be raised? Possible grounds to reject the application?

The main bus route, is several minutes walk away, the bus service is irregular and unreliable.

It is claimed, the development respects the existing building line on Church Road East, avoids loss of privacy to adjoining properties, respects existing trees on site, meets parking requirements etc.

All these statements are false. The building (ie the 3-story block of 8 flats) is further forward than existing houses, its mass and bulk will dominate the street scene, it clearly does not match the existing street scene, the two mature trees, the two most important trees on the site close to the road, are earmarked for destruction. There is no amenity space (not even sufficient to hang washing out to dry), and what little common space there is will form a potential hot spot for antisocial behaviour and disturbance to neighbours. There is no protection of privacy for neighbours, flats are close to neighbouring properties, which the windows overlook, neighbours will be affected by the sheer bulk of the property close to their own homes, loss of privacy, loss of daylight. Neighbours' windows, which overlook the site, will in future face a brick wall or a window.

Architects claim site meets PPG3 (housing) with respect to housing density. Not true, the density is at the maximum end of permitted density and applies to a new site. This is development within an area of low density housing (large houses, large gardens), the development is overdeveloped for the area (especially with the block of flats) and neither matches the density, nor matches the type of housing, found locally. It would be difficult to imagine a more inappropriate development on the site other than a tower block.

The architects are proposing a density, in excess of 50 dwellings/hectare, that PPG3 (housing) only considers appropriate in city centres. The architects are proposing this high density in an area of low density houses - large houses, large gardens - no account is being taken of the locality.

PPG3 (housing) requires the development of a site to take account of the locality within which the development is to take place, the development should be appropriate to the existing density and character of the area. The horrendous development proposed by Pavilion does not satisfy PPG3 (housing).

The impression is given of a derelict site. This was a well looked after and much loved garden by the previous owner, a well landscaped site. His pride and joy and he must be turning in his grave at what is being done to his garden. To claim there will be no loss of open land, trees or landscaped features is a blatant lie. There has already been a loss of outbuildings, and an Edwardian greenhouse, the landscaped garden has been left to go to rack and ruin, and several mature trees are threatened with destruction. Until the owner died, the garden was one of the best kept gardens in the area. It has only become neglected since Pavilion took possession of the site. A measure of their concern for the standards that everyone else keeps in the area.

It is claimed existing trees will not be adversely affected. Not true. The two most important mature trees, in prime locations fronting the site on Church Road East, are earmarked for destruction.

Comments on parking and access are misleading. There are already existing problems on Canterbury Road. It will cause traffic to be generated on Church Road East (block of 8 flats, owners cars, visitors cars), plus overspill parking on Church Road East. This will completely change the character of Church Road East which has very little traffic.

On, or close by, are a number of residencies for the elderly. A reason to keep Church Road East traffic free.

Whilst a refuse lorry may just be able to squeeze down the drive off Canterbury Road (doubtful), the parking and traffic on Canterbury Road would make it impossible to turn into or out of the drive. How is refuse to be collected? Anyone who imagines the occupants of the houses are going to carry two wheelie bins to Canterbury Road are living in cloud cuckoo land.

The claim by the architects that this is a sensitive development has to be seen as someone's idea of a sick joke. Insensitive development is but one word that springs to mind.

This is not under-used urban land. The impression is given of a disused factory site. It is an unoccupied bungalow and formerly well looked after garden.

PPG3 (housing): 'provide sufficient housing land but give priority to the re-use of previously-developed land, bringing empty homes back into use and promoting the conversion of existing buildings within urban areas, in preference to the development of greenfield sites'.

In this case we are not dealing with 'previously developed land' but a bungalow, and until Pavilion bought the plot, a well maintained garden. It is Pavilion, who presumably are meant to meet local housing needs, who have kept the bungalow empty. It is only since Pavilion took possession that the site has taken on a derelict appearance.

The development does not enhance the environmental surroundings, it does the exact opposite.

It is not well located for public transport or the town centre. Main bus route is several minutes walk away (with an unreliable and very expensive service), the town centre at least 15 mins walk away (20 mins or more for the elderly, infirm or women with small children).

'does not overshadow adjoining properties or cause harm to their amenity'. An entirely false statement. It overshadows adjacent properties, denies daylight, loss of privacy for houses and back gardens, adjacent properties will look out onto a brick wall, in turn, gardens of adjacent properties and their back windows, and side windows are overlooked, in terms of amenity, apart from loss of privacy, will suffer noise from the development, probably rubbish and general antisocial behaviour if occupied by Pavilion tenants.

'adequately serviced without harming amenities of neighbours or creating highway hazards.' Not true. Canterbury Road already cannot cope, neighbours have problem getting in and out of their drives, traffic generation on Church Road East, off-site parking on Church Road East, neighbours adjacent to driveway through to Canterbury Road disturbed by traffic and access along this driveway, there will be problems for refuse collection due to restricted access.

The plans do not integrate the design to the locality, it will be an anomaly, an eyesore, an abomination for the locality, a major blight on the area, it does not 'retain existing mature trees of landscape merit'.

The development bears no resemblance to what already exists in the locality. It is neither sensitive to nor in empathy with existing development. The development will destroy not only the character of the area, but will also destroy the peace and quiet of the area.

The development is not sustainable as claimed by the architects. Is it carbon neutral, has there been any attempt at ecological footprinting, will the block of flats use a small CHP (quite feasible), will the buildings be low energy consumption or net generators of energy, will recycled building material be used, what LA21 input has there been, what community involvement has there been in either drawing up the plans or in the decision making process? Or in other words what merit is there to their ludicrous claim the development is sustainable? On the other hand, had the existing plot and outbuildings (incl the Edwardian greenhouse) been used as a smallholding, perfectly feasible, there would be some merit to the claim of sustainability.

I previously commented to a similar development on the site that was subsequently withdrawn by Pavilion in the face of strong objections and adverse comments. I cannot see that much has changed. As there is little difference between the two applications, my previous comments equally apply to this application (ie I wish my previous comments to be brought forward and added to these comments).

The committee should make a site visit to enable them to see for themselves the inappropriateness of this development in this neighbourhood. The visit should take in not only the site, but also the surrounding neighbourhood.

There should be an environmental survey and an environmental impact assessment carried out for the site, the latter to include the impact on the surrounding area.

PPG3 (housing) places an onus on Local Authorities to: 'promote good design in new housing developments to create attractive, high-quality living environments where people will choose to live.' The development proposed by Pavilion would do the opposite, it would despoil an area that already meets this 'mission statement'.

PPG3 (housing):

One of the Government's key objectives is to create new or improve existing residential areas so they become places where people choose to live. In particular, as well as creating communities, the challenge will be to reconcile the need for more effective use of land with improving the quality of residential areas. More emphasis needs to be put on urban design, both in development plans and in the development process, if this is to be achieved. Local planning authorities should therefore promote developments that:

• create places for people which have their own distinct identity
• are safe and attractive
• respect and enhance local character and connect well with the wider locality

and furthermore

New development cannot be viewed in isolation from its landscape and its surroundings. In considering the design and layout of new housing, local planning authorities should recognise this context having regard to any immediate neighbouring buildings, streets and spaces, local and regional building traditions and materials, and the townscape and landscape into which the development is to be set. In seeking to provide a better mix of housing types, local authorities should encourage development where differences in tenure are not apparent from the layout or design of dwellings.

Local planning authorities should plan for the whole built environment, buildings, streets and spaces.

It is difficult to imagine a development more at odds with these requirements when one takes into account the location of this site.

The proposal would be out of character in terms of design and scale with the surrounding area, and would have an extremely adverse effect on the street scene, no satisfactory provision for refuse collection, problems of access and existing traffic flow and congestion, on-street parking, prejudicial to safety and free flow of traffic on Canterbury Road, drainage, antisocial behaviour, noise. The neighbourhood would suffer as a result of this development, and what is currently seen as a desirable area in which to live, would no longer be seen as a desirable location.

The development is unsuited to the site and the locality, is strongly opposed by the local community who see it as a deterioration of the local environment, does not meet PPG3 (housing).

The development proposed by Pavilion would set a precedent that would in the long term destroy South Farnborough and its unique character as no available plot would be safe from inappropriate development.

We have already lost too much open space within the Borough. It is time for the Council to stand up and say enough is enough, to protect our environment, not aid and abet developers who in the name of greed are hell bent on destroying it.

The committee must REJECT this application.

There had previously been granted planning consent for two houses on this site. Retention of the existing bungalow, plus one or two well designed houses with reasonable size gardens, would be an appropriate development for this site, in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. The sort of tenants that Pavilion would attract, the antisocial behaviour that is the norm on Pavilion estates, would be out of place in this neighbourhood and not acceptable, as would the poor standard of care and maintenance of Pavilion properties (which would drag down the surrounding area). But it is noted, Pavilion are the current owners. It is recognised there is a shortage of suitable housing for key workers. It would be permissible, for the Council to enter into a Section 106 agreement (if minded to grant one or two houses and retention of the existing bungalow), that the site is only for the housing of key workers (doctors, nurses, police, teachers etc), and that very tight controls (zero tolerance) are maintained on antisocial behaviour (with evictions for miscreants). The Section 106 agreement should also cover standards of upkeep and maintenance, otherwise we will simply be creating another slum under the control and mismanagement of Pavilion. In the light of possible antisocial behaviour, a brick wall (topped with anti-climbing devices), for which Pavilion are responsible for maintenance, should be built around the periphery of the site, to safeguard neighbouring properties.

An alternative use of the site would be to retain the bungalow, and use the large garden as a smallholding, supplying organic produce to the local area. This would have been a sustainable alternative, if only Pavilion had not acted like cowboy developers and gone in and destroyed the outbuildings and Edwardian greenhouse.

This document

• http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/spean.htm