Spean - Planning Inquiry into Appeal by Pavilion

Development in Built Up Areas: During the plan period, further sites may come forward within the built-up areas, which have not yet been identified. Development on these sites would have to respect the character and amenities of the area. -- Rushmoor Local Plan

Low Density Housing Areas: The Council wishes to preserve the character of ... the lower density housing areas ... In considering development proposals, the Council will have regard to proposed densities and normal layout considerations, including the relationship with nearby buildings, provision of amenity space, and parking. The Council will also expect plot ratios to remain consistent with typical developments in the locality. ... generally consist of detached houses with large private gardens which are well treed and a haven for wildlife. It is these characteristics which the Council wishes to preserve. -- Rushmoor Local Plan

Two trees of prominence to the local landscape will require removal to facilitate development. -- Michael Honey, Honey Tree Specialists

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

Planning Inspectorate ref APP/P1750/A/03/1111791.

The Rushmoor planning committee rejected by a show of hands, the Pavilion planning application, ie for a block of eight flats and three terraced houses.

I wish the Planning Inspector to uphold that objection in its entirety.

To save reiteration, I draw attention to my original objection (which I understand will be forwarded by Rushmoor), which may be found on the net. I also draw attention to the comments I made on both the planning agenda placed before the committee (which was seriously misleading and one-sided) and the presentation to the committee by a planning official (which again was seriously misleading and one-sided). [Please note Rushmoor planning officials are attempting to withhold this evidence]

The arguments made by the local community against this horrendous development, which would despoil our locality, were not placed before the Rushmoor planning committee.

Pavilion Grounds of Appeal

These do not withstand detailed scrutiny and I will address each in turn.

1

It is claimed there is 'common ground between the principal parties'. Who are these parties? They appear by inference to be Pavilion and Rushmoor planning department, the views of the community, with which there is no 'common ground', appear to have been ignored.

The local community has met a brick wall of non-co-operation, from both Pavilion and Rushmoor planning department. Requests for documents, to enable an effective case to be made to the Planning Inspectorate, have been refused. Unfortunately this behaviour, bloody-minded obstructiveness and arrogant contempt for the views of the local community, are the norm for Rushmoor.

The mass and bulk and character of the property is out of character with the existing development and neighbourhood (and will have a detrimental effect upon the neighbourhood), as is the density of the development. There is a serious traffic problem, which can only be made worse by this development. The problem of surface water flow has not been addressed, as have not many other issues.

1(a)

I note that neither the Local Plan nor Planning Policy Guidelines are set in stone or have the force of statute. They are broad-brush guidelines. The first breach of the Rushmoor Local Plan was to up the weight limit for Farnborough Airport from 50 tonnes to 80 tonnes within days of the Local Plan having been approved.

None the less I would expect any development to adhere to the Local Plan and government guidelines unless there were overriding reasons not to.

The development does not accord with either Local Plan Policy H4 or national housing policy laid out in PPG3.

Local Plan Policy H4: Planning permission will normally be permitted for housing development for a range of densities, types, sizes and tenures, within the built up-areas through redevelopment of vacant, under-used or derelict sites or land and buildings. Proposals must be designed to reflect the existing character of the area, safeguard amenities of adjoining dwellings and be compatible with other policies of the plan. The Council will encourage higher density proposals on sites, in or close to, town centres or accessible by public transport.

There are a range of housing types across the Borough. This is an area of low density - large houses, large gardens - a green and pleasant, quiet area, a haven for wildlife. The area delineated in the Local Plan is incorrect as it does not accord with actual reality on the ground, and should extend southwards past Church Road East to Cambridge Road, one road to the south.

I would urge the Inspector to visit not only the site, but also the surrounding area, to see how out of character and detrimental to the area the development would be.

Over-development of this site, with high density housing and a block of 8 flats almost up to the pavement across the front of the site 3 stories high would be, by its mass and bulk, out of character with the area (and dominate the street scene), as would the high density. Nor would it safeguard the amenities of the adjoining dwellings, on the contrary, what is a peaceful and quiet road, would no longer enjoy its existing peace and quiet, adjoining properties would lose daylight and privacy.

The agenda and presentation to the Rushmoor planning committee were extremely misleading. It showed Farley Court and the proposed block of flats both at the pavement edge. What should have been shown was a perspective view as Farley Court is set back from the road. Apart from being set back from the road, it is not to compare like-with-like, as Farley Court was a high quality development with the appearance of a large house set around a courtyard.

The development thus fails to satisfy H4 as it fails to satisfy 'Proposals must be designed to reflect the existing character of the area, safeguard amenities of adjoining dwellings...'

The development is close by a Conservation Area, at the end of the street. Whilst it is not within the Conservation Area, its close proximity, and the requirement of H4 to 'be compatible with other policies of the plan', one would expect close accordance with the policies relating to Conservation Areas.

The proposed development would not meet the polices within the Local Plan for a Conservation Area.

Although not within the delineated area for low density, the area is nevertheless one of low density, therefore to 'safeguard amenities of adjoining dwellings and be compatible with other policies of the plan', one would expect close accordance with the policies relating to Low Density Areas.

The proposed development does not meet the policy H7 within the Local Plan for a Low Density Area.

Affordable/social housing should not be 'clustered in one location' (Rushmoor Local Plan H6.1) or dominate a development. This proposed development is exclusively affordable/social housing. The unwanted development on nearby Knellwood House (literally across the other side of Canterbury Road) contains no social/affordable housing, in clear breach of the Local Plan. The reason, apparently, was that is was thought to be detrimental to the development (Hilder the Builder could not maximise his return) and detrimental to the area, and the developer was allowed to make up the shortfall by increasing the percentage in another development in another part of the Borough. Again a clear breach of the Local Plan policy on Affordable Housing

Pavilion would create a social ghetto in an otherwise desirable area, which would drag down the surrounding area.

The proposed development does not meet the policy H9 within the Local Plan for Affordable Housing.

No one would dispute there is a shortage of affordable housing in the Borough, but contrary to government policy, the Council makes no attempts to identify empty and dilapidated property and bring it back into use. This is especially true for Farnborough town centre, where dilapidated, rat-infested property is being allowed to remain empty and suffer further deterioration. Pavilion and the Council are even willing to allow the demolition (for a car park) of a small estate of 30 maisonettes (social housing) clustered around a 'village green' within the town centre!

Pavilion own and control a large property base within the Borough. It is in a poor state of repair and slowly deteriorating. Pavilion ought to address the needs of their existing tenants, and bring their properties up to a decent standard, before embarking on property speculation and empire building.

The concern is that the proposed development will be of poor standard, and even if of high standard (unlikely to keep costs low), will be allowed to rapidly deteriorate (cf Pavilion properties in Aldershot), taking the area down with it, thus leading to loss of amenity for the neighbourhood.

The high density does not meet PPG3. It fails to reflect the character or density of the local area, nor does it do anything to enhance the local area. I have addressed the failure to meet PPG3 in my original objection, to which I refer, and won't rehearse those arguments here.

1(b)

The loss of trees is not acceptable. The trees were well maintained by the previous owners, and until Pavilion trashed the site, the garden was one of the best in the area, the owner's pride and joy. The trees have been pollarded, which is traditional tree management dating back to the Middle Ages.

Pavilion claim (in their tree survey): 'The proposal for development has been formulated to retain the majority of the trees on the site and in particular the boundary trees.' This statement is not true. The most important boundary trees are on the front of the site and these are earmarked for destruction for the block of flats. Even the Pavilion tree surveyor recognises these are 'Two trees of prominence to the local landscape'.

Mitigation measures proposed to safeguard the remaining trees are worthless as these in practice are rarely adhered to, and Rushmoor fail to monitor, let alone enforce. Pavilion have so far trashed the site, including destruction of an Edwardian greenhouse, removed asbestos from the site without taking proper precautions and damaged a neighbour's fence. Trees are damaged on building sites across the Borough with regular monotony. Rushmoor not only fail to monitor, when the local community carry out their monitoring function for them, they fail to enforce.

The site was home to bats. Pavilion destroyed all the outbuildings, including an Edwardian greenhouse.

Rushmoor stood idly by and let the site be cleared, even though they knew it was site clearance for development (according to Pavilion the 'appellants spent considerable time negotiating the design' of the block of flats) and planning infringements were taking place.

Turning a blind eye to planning infringements is not an anomaly in an otherwise unblemished record. I could give many other examples of a blind eye being turned to planning infringements.

That such abuses take place, and are allowed to take place, means the community can have little confidence in any constraints applied, even less in the will of the Council to monitor or enforce.

The site is home to stag beetles, which can be seen flying around in the evening during midsummer.

I have no confidence in any survey carried out by either Rushmoor or Pavilion (and note the conflict between their two 'surveys'). I therefore wish to see an independent tree and/or environmental survey carried out by the Planning Inspectorate.

It would would be advisable for the Inspector to pay a visit to the site during the spring and summer, so the trees can be seen at their best, as they are coming into leaf and in full leaf.

The proposals fail to 'provide for, or enhance habitats for wildlife' (Local Plan policies ENV14.4 & ENV15).

See my original objection for more information on trees and the environmental implications of the proposed development.

1(c)

No section 106 agreement was drawn up therefore it is difficult to see how Pavilion can be compliant or willing to comply. Suggestion for a section 106 agreements were made in my original objection, but were ignored. Indeed the agenda placed before the Rushmoor planning committee was remarkably lax in conditions laid down, especially in light of the sensitive area in which this proposed development would take place and the type of tenants Pavilion may wish to house.

There is no provision for a play area or open space. In practice what is likely to be used is the car park (already inadequate for car parking). A financial contribution to open space does not make up for the loss of open space, and the amount contributed (from past practice) is inadequate for provision elsewhere. And this begs the question where are are these provisions to be made? No ring-fencing takes place and such contributions should be seen as crude 'bribes' which go into a general council pot from which the public sees no benefit in terms of open space or recreational facilities. And it certainly would not compensate the local community affected by this development for their loss of amenity.

Where is washing to be dried? On a car park? This does not accord well with sustainable development or Local Agenda 21.

1(d)

The proposed level of parking and access arrangements are not satisfactory.

The level of parking is woefully inadequate, and the area designated conflicts with its likely use as an open play area (see 1(c)).

Will drivers want the trouble of driving through the building? And the very act of doing so is going to cause disturbance for those in the building.

Back garden parking conflicts with Local Plan policy H7 for low density areas.

The net result will be on-street parking.

The access arrangements are not satisfactory. Highways may be satisfied but if so have misled the committee.

There is already a traffic problem on Canterbury Road. Local residents have been complaining to Highways for some years, only to have their complaints ignored.

The situation is now rapidly worsening.

The unwanted development on Knellwood House will bring more traffic onto Canterbury Road. A situation implicitly recognised by Highways by their imposition of parking restrictions on Canterbury Road and revised junction layout at the junction with Albert Road and Canterbury Road.

An unwanted bus lane for non-existent buses on the main Farnborough Road (A325), reducing two lanes to one, on a road that was already approaching gridlock, is forcing traffic down quiet suburban back streets. Canterbury Road is one of these back streets now being used as a rat run. In the morning the traffic backs up from the Clock House Roundabout (on the main Farnborough Road near the station) along Canterbury Road almost back to Church Road East.

Church Road East is a quiet road with very little traffic. The proposed development would have a marked impact upon the traffic flow and noise levels along this road.

The access onto Canterbury Road from the site would be along a road which was previously a private drive to a single household. This will disturb the neighbours on either side of the access road.

The site plan shown in the Rushmoor agenda placed before the planning committee is not correct. The access drive from Canterbury Road is shown as the same width as Canterbury Road. It is not.

Fails to meet PPG3 in terms of 'proper means of access, which is safe for both drivers and pedestrians, and adequate provision for car parking.'

1(e)

There would be a material loss of privacy for the properties adjacent to the site. This would also be a breach of the Human Rights Act, with no compensating benefit to the local community, indeed the local community would suffer if this development were to go ahead.

1(f)

It is not the view of the adjoining properties that their relationship with the row of terraced houses is satisfactory.

Nor for that matter is it the view of the adjoining properties that their relationship with the block of flats is satisfactory. Indeed it is not even the view of the entire street that their relationship with the block of flats is satisfactory.

It would also appear not to be the view of the planning committee as the terraced housing was not discussed. It could be argued it was discussed indirectly when the committee commented that the proposals were over-development for the site and the high density was not in keeping with the area. Or as one committee member succinctly put it 'trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot'.

The statement in the Rushmoor agenda that the row of terraced houses is similar to the existing Spean bungalow and adjoining properties is not correct. The existing buildings (which are joined not separated as shown on drawings) are part of an old converted stable block, and bear no resemblance to the terraced row Pavilion wish to build.

2

Pavilion claim the only area where the parties are apart is the mass and bulk of their block of flats. The local community would dispute this statement as they are in disagreement with Pavilion on every aspect of their proposed development.

Pavilion claim they 'have spent considerable time negotiating the design of this building with the Council's Planning Officers and Architect's Panel'. They could spend from now until eternity on such negotiations and it would still not remove the principal objection that the mass and bulk of the building is out of character with the area, dominates the street scene and is unacceptable development for the site.

Pavilion claim these negotiation have reduced the mass and bulk of the block of flats. This claim is not true. Pavilion submitted modified plans which were merely cosmetic, eg the refuse bins, sited in front of the flats, moved from one side of the flats to the other. There were NO changes to the flats themselves. [see my comments on the Pavilion modified plans]

The mass and bulk of the flats are not only unacceptable to the adjacent property, No 25 Church Road East, they are also unacceptable to the adjacent property on the other side, Farley Court. Both sides which previously overlooked an open garden, will now look out onto a brick wall (three stories high). They may in turn be overlooked by windows - loss of privacy, Human Rights Act violation. This is not clear as Pavilion have not provided sufficient detail.

The mass and bulk of the flats is not only unacceptable to the adjacent properties, it is unacceptable to the nearby properties. The mass and bulk will dominate the street scene and be out of character with the area and have a negative impact on the character and amenity of the area.

The block of 8 flats, are across the frontage of the site and close to the pavement (further forward than the existing building line), thus emphasising even more the mass and bulk of the flats.

Pavilion claim the mass and bulk of the flats is acceptable. Acceptable to who? Pavilion yes, but to everyone else no.

Fails to meet PPG3 in terms of 'There must be adequate space between old and new buildings to avoid spoiling the amenity of neighbouring houses, for example by overshadowing.'

The siting of the block of flats will lose the mature trees at the front of the site. The local community wish to see these trees retained, as their loss would be to the detriment of the street scene and represent a serious loss of public amenity.

I would ask that the proposed siting of buildings is marked out on the ground, scaffolding is erected on the corners to show the height, and that tape is wrapped around the scaffolding at every half metre to show the mass and bulk of the buildings. This will enable the Inspector to have a better idea of how the proposal affects neighbouring properties and dominates the street scene.

Rushmoor submission

Rushmoor show various pictures of the street scene and surrounding area. What this shows is wide, open, tree-lined streets, large houses set back from the street. These houses are set in large gardens. The Victorian houses (which Rushmoor call Edwardian) have very large back gardens (the Rushmoor drawings only show part of the back gardens).

The preceding planning application for this site (which was GRANTED), would have retained the existing bungalow (which Pavilion have made uninhabitable and wish to see demolished), and added two houses. This would have been acceptable development for the site and in keeping with the area.

impact on trees

Rushmoor claim the loss of the trees is acceptable, and there would be no loss on public amenity grounds. As I write the trees are coming into leaf end of April, early May. They are magnificent and an important part of the street scene. There is no sign of die-back, or other ailments that would indicate sick and dying trees. Their loss, would be a serious loss to the public amenity and the street scene. [photos have been taken of the trees]

Even Pavilion's own tree surveyor recognises the detrimental affect the loss of trees at the front of the site will have on public amenity: 'Two trees of prominence to the local landscape will require removal to facilitate development.'

Rushmoor have submitted several pictures of the street scene, noticeable by their absence are pictures of the trees on site (one of the trees just manages to appear on the right-hand side of the second picture on page 6 of the Rushmoor submission). Why?

public open space

See comments elsewhere on the contribution towards public open space in lieu of on-site provision.

highway considerations

The highway and parking considerations are not satisfactory (see comments elsewhere).

density and mass and bulk of flats

Rushmoor, quite correctly, argue in some detail, that the mass and bulk of the flats are not acceptable, but somewhat perversely argue that the density is okay and the problem with the flats can somehow be resolved by rearranging the pieces, as though they are men on a chess-board.

The density is not okay (see comments elsewhere) and the problem is not resolved by rearranging the pieces, as the block of flats is a direct result of trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. The density may be acceptable elsewhere, as may the block of flats, but the density is not acceptable in this area of low density housing, and the block of flats is the outcome of trying to achieve this high density.

The Rushmoor officials appear to be at odds with their own committee. The committee argued strongly against the high density, as out of character with the low density locality, a position supported by PPG3 (see previous comments).

The nearest block of similar flats is on a high density estate at the bottom of The Grove. This high density estate was built on derelict industrial wasteland in the transition zone between low density south Farnborough and high density North Camp. Even on this high density estate, the block of flats are some distance apart from the houses on the estate and surrounded by a large expanse of open space.

Other considerations

A covenant on the land of 5 December 1924 (which appears to reflect an earlier covenant) states: 'Not to erect a house on the said land of less cost than £500.' The intention was clearly to protect the character of the area and prevent the erection of any inferior dwelling. If inflated to today's house prices, this would exclude the proposed Pavilion development.

There is no mention of the Human Rights Act by the principal parties who we are told share such common ground.

Conclusion

As I have demonstrated, contrary to the false claim made by Pavilion, the proposed development does not meet either the Rushmoor Local Plan or national planning policy.

In addition, the proposed development is rigorously opposed by the local community, who see it as a blot on the landscape and destroying the peace and quiet of their neighbourhood.

There are more than sufficient grounds to reject this development and I ask that the Planning Inspector upholds the Rushmoor decision to REFUSE the Pavilion planning application.

This document

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