Parish Council Objection to

Planning Application 22/00768/OUTN Access and Infrastructure on land to the rear of 11, Lambourne Close

Although this application is for access and infrastructure on land behind 11 Lambourne Close, it must be seen as a preliminary application for the erection on 9 self-build houses on that parcel of land. The Parish Council is in no doubt that if passed as an outline application, the inevitable subsequent application for the actual building of houses and other reserved matters will almost certainly go ahead as it would be practically impossible to turn down.

The Parish Council’s comments, therefore, look at the proposal not only to create access to the land but also to build 9 houses on that plot.

The Parish Council has significant objections and is very strongly AGAINST the Proposal.

Detailed Reasons for Objection

The site is outside the Thruxton Settlement boundary and the application therefore contravenes TVBC Planning Policy COM2. As stated in the TVBC Planning Department’s response to the pre-application (see letter dated 11/11/21) there are no counter-balancing arguments in favour of the application to overcome the fundamental principle of the proposal being against this critical aspect of TVBC’s Planning Policy.

The proposed development is also contrary to the Thruxton Neighbourhood Development Plan, which is a material consideration in TVBC’s review of the application. The location and the size of the proposed houses both fall outside the NDP (which calls for 2 and 3-bedroom houses within the current settlement boundary). When developing the NDP during the period 2016 to 2021, self-build houses were the least popular approach to developing additional houses among the significant number of parishioners canvassed.   

The houses proposed do not meet the criteria set out in the Village Design Statement which is a legal document approved by Test Valley Borough Council.  

The application is to build on agricultural land, considered “Protected” under current planning regulations, and so would need a change to its status to “Residential”. The Parish Council do not support such a change – in fact, we would vigorously oppose any such proposal.

There is a lack of facilities in the village - we have no shop, no pub, nor any other amenities.  Although we do have a very limited bus service (terminating in Andover), this proposal invites an additional number of cars and service vehicles on our already crowded village street. The Parish Council does not support such additional traffic flows.

While Southern Water is working hard to update the wastewater system through the village, we feel it is unlikely to be able to service these additional houses without significant additional investment, resulting in an unreasonable disruption to residents.

There is no mention of nitrogen trade-off for this proposed development.  Although we understand TVBC is working hard to develop a trade-off scheme for the Test Valley, there is no mention in their proposal of how this would be addressed.

Should the proposal be given a green light, Lambourne Way, Lambourne Close, Village Street and Stanbury Road would be subject to heavy construction traffic over a lengthy period of time, maybe as long as four years and subject to dust and noise and possible anti-social hours of work.

It was noted when the last proposal was turned down, some four years ago, that owners of adjacent land might well seek approval for developments further diminishing the gap between Thruxton and Weyhill.  Although the proposal to build on land adjacent to Stanbury Close is subject to an additional proposal, approval of this project could well put additional emphasis on the Stanbury Close proposal.

As stated earlier, this proposal contravenes TVBC Policy COM 2.  At a Public Meeting held on 21st April 2022, over 40 residents attending the meeting objected to the proposal. This number represents 8% of the Parish population and is statistically significant whilst the developer’s questionnaire returns showed less than 1%, statistically insignificant, support for the proposal.

We would also add that the so-called consultation exercise was poorly conducted and not a true representation of the village view as clearly stated in the Thruxton Neighbourhood Development Plan. There are a number of inaccuracies in the Applicant’s Planning, Design and Access Statement, not least of which are the misrepresentation of Parish Council’s opinions (para 4.4) and the involvement of the Ward Councillor Phil Lashbrook(para 4.7). We have asked for the Applicant to correct these misrepresentations but, to date, this does not appear to have been actioned.

The application for Access in itself is without merit as current access is already allowed to the field as is. The applicant should submit the full planning for the mentioned development to fully assess any additional access needs. Furthermore, additional access would be problematic given the very narrow turning into Lambourne Close.

Finally, this is at least the fourth application to build houses on this site, all of which have been rejected. This application is not supported by residents of Thruxton or the Parish Council and we believe it should follow the pattern of previous applications and be rejected.

 

 

Letter to TVBC Planning department responding to email from agent regarding 22.0768/OUTN – application for 9 self-build houses on land at the end of Lambourne Close, Thruxton.

On 4th May, Gillings Planning wrote to Thruxton Parish Council to provide answers to issues raised by residents in a Public Meeting called by the Parish Council that was held on 21st April 2022.

In the email Gillings make a number of claims with which we take issue. These are:

1. Gillings assert that planning law allows for local authority policies that do not address a topic set out in the NPPF to be considered out of date and, therefore, irrelevant. They go on to state that TVBC is not planning positively for self-build homes and that this implies that the limitations of building outside the settlement boundary can be over-ridden. We strongly dispute this interpretation and urge TVBC to be steadfast in its application of the Local Plan and, especially, policy COM 2 which would prevent this application being approved due to it being outside the current settlement boundary.
2. Gillings states that the policies within the Neighbourhood Development Plan should be ignored because under self-build “someone who could afford a 2-bedroommarket dwelling would be able to afford a 3, and possibly 4, bedroom self-build option. This completely misses the point under the NDP which is that the Parish do not need more 4 bedroom houses and that self-build was the least-favoured option when residents were polled for the NDP.
3. Gillings state that “there is demand within villages around Andover for self-build homes.”  TVBC’s response to the pre-application, dated 11th November 2021, states that “there is nothing in the current local plan which states that self-build homes should be allowed in the countryside” and we urge TVBC to maintain their opinion in this matter.
4. Gillings claim that because the land hasn’t been used for agricultural purposes for many years it should not be classified as such and that Planning Officers will not classify it as the best and most viable agricultural land. The Parish Council would not agree to a change in classification just because the land has not been farmed – it is a field that has been used for grazing or left to grass and that should not lead to any change in its classification.

In summary, the claims and assertions made by Gillings are a mixture of factually incorrect statements and poorly argued positions which the Parish Council continue to oppose and we seek TVBC Planning Department’s support in objecting to the underlying proposal.

This comment is in addition to our principal submission to TVBC Planning which was sent earlier today (6th May 2022) strongly objecting to the basis of the application and the misrepresentations therein.

Answers from agent to questions from the public meeting re proposals fro 9 self build houses on land behind 11 Lambourne Close

I write to set out what we hope will be some helpful clarifications to the queries raised at the recent public meeting held whilst I was out of the country.  I am sorry that these could not all be answered on the evening.  I had briefed my colleagues as best as I could.

I have set out the questions below in a Q&A style and I hope this note is helpful.

Why These Proposals?  - A previous planning proposal for a conventional market housing scheme for some 25 dwellings (including affordable housing) was not deemed popular in the village; and so Mr Sargeant has worked with us to develop this more sympathetic scheme.

Why Wasn’t I Consulted About The Proposals!  - We first shared our proposals with the village in July 2021; we consulted as early as we could after the lockdown rules eased and when rules allowed us to meet in the fresh air on site.  We sent an invitation to 234 addresses.  The addresses were ‘picked’ using a digital system that uses Royal Mail data; we simply draw a red line on-screen, and our provider London Letterbox printed and despatched the flyer.  We also liaised with the Parish Council and we were pleased that the consultation event was advertised in the July edition of the Parish Newsletter, which we believe is sent to all residents in the village 

What Have You Applied For?  - I can confirm that we have lodged a planning application seeking outline planning consent for the erection of nine self-build dwellings and garages, with all matters reserved except access.  This does not mean we are only seeking consent for an access.  It means we are seeking outline consent for nine dwellings and garages, and the open space in the centre of the site etc. but the only matter that is fully detailed at this stage is the road access.  This is important in my opinion because it means we are seeking a detailed position and extent of the access, and this means that any subsequent application for reserved matters will have to comply with that access design and its usage for nine dwellings.  This therefore prevents an access being re-designed in the ‘reserved matters’ stage to change the location of the access, or, extend it to the site edge, which is our confirmation of our intent to close off the cul-de-sac and not provide a link to the adjacent fields.  We felt this would be welcomed by the residents of the village.  As we are proposing nine self-build dwellings, where they will wish to work together to design their own homes, we do not know the full details, and hence, we are ‘reserving’ the design of the dwellings to a later ‘reserved matters’ application stage.

Is There Demand for Self-Build?  - Yes, TVBC’s own data confirms that there is demand for self-build dwellings in the villages around Andover.  Our Planning Statement confirms our understanding of the Council data that we collected via a Freedom of Information Request, and confirms that there is demand, and the planning application would help meet that demand.

Won’t the Houses Still be Expensive?  - No, self-build is a more affordable option.  A housing developer typically takes 30% profit on housebuilding schemes.  With self-builds, any profit in the scheme (i.e. an uplift in value from the cost of the plot of land to the finished house is retained by the plot owner.  This means that a specialist self-build mortgage can be obtained allowing a better amount of borrowing because the bank (mortgage provider) accepts that there will be more equity in the house when complete.  A family can typically afford to self-build a decent sized family home whilst they actually have a family.  As opposed to what is often the case that so many families in the UK can only afford a small home that doesn’t suit their needs.  Self-build is also more flexible, i.e. we might expect (for example) that the plot owners may opt for a car port and not a double garage – or they may simply opt to build their garage at a later stage.  Conservatories and summers houses etc. can also be added later if funds don’t permit them now.  It is important however that the plots are the right size now, so families don’t have to move to a bigger plot later and pay more stamp duty, estate agent commission, legal fees and removal costs when they move.  There are so many financial benefits to self-build plots.  We also believe that self-builders can save VAT on the construction costs too – another sizeable saving.

Will the Self-Build Project Last for Years?  - It is important to distinguish between DIY build and self-build.  We are envisaging a high-quality self-build scheme, where the nine dwellings are designed by a single professional team of architects, engineers, landscape architects and sustainability specialists etc. to design and deliver nine bespoke self-build homes for nine plot owners.  We do not propose nine DIY homes that are built by their owners over a protracted period as and when they wish, at weekends for example in and around their own jobs; or when funds permit.  We envisage all nine dwellings being built simultaneously by a single contractor team.  This is the best way for the plot owners to drive value and reduce costs.  One contractor, one site set up, one job, but with nine elements to that overall job.  Housebuilding is very complex nowadays.  Modern Building Regulations and rules regarding thermal performance, air tightness, energy reduction, green technologies and sustainability etc. mean that it is best if housebuilding is left to the professionals.  That said, we do expect the nine lucky plot purchasers to be able to customise their homes, but with one architect to oversee all nine dwellings, they will be designed to be complementary to one another, in much the same way as there are various styles on most streets; but they share common features, such as heights, roof designs, colour of materials, window patterns etc.

Will the Plot Owners Place Caravans on the Site?  - No, this is not a DIY build project, it is a self-build project.  As such, the site would be a development site, and would be secured and constructed in the usual manner.  It would not be used as a temporary home.

Is the Site Located Outside of the Settlement Boundary - Yes, it is, but planning law confirms that planning policies can be considered out of date when they do not address a topic set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  The NPPF confirms that local planning authorities should plan positively for self-build dwellings, and at the moment, TVBC is not doing so.  We have identified that there is a demand and a demand that is not being met by the local plan.  TVBC has commenced the preparation of a new local plan and so for now, the planning application proposals will need to be considered in accordance with the old (and somewhat out of date) local plan and the NPPF.  We are arguing that the NPPF takes precedence, and so the settlement boundary can be overridden if the proposals are in overall accordance with the material considerations.

Doesn’t the Neighbourhood Plan Seek Smaller Dwellings?  - Yes, it does.  That said, small dwellings are often sought because they are more affordable, and not because people only wish to live in a small dwelling.  Most of us would choose to live in a bigger dwelling if we could afford it.  Self-build dwellings are more affordable, and so in this case, someone who could afford a two-bedroom market dwelling would be able to afford a three, and possibly a four-bedroom self-build option.

What About Traffic Congestion?  - Villagers may have noticed the traffic counting devices placed in the village in March.  We felt it was important that our traffic engineers use pre-pandemic and post-pandemic data to ensure that they could model the impacts of nine large dwellings on the local highway network; hence up to date data was captured for us in March.  We are pleased to report that the nine dwellings have been shown to have a very minimal impact on traffic flows.

What About Affordable Housing?  - The self-build dwellings will not suit those on an affordable housing register who seek a built home that they can rent.  As a result, the development will not provide affordable housing on site, but we are discussing with officers ways that a financial contribution can be made towards the provision of affordable housing provided off-site by a specialist provider.

What About sewage?  - The planning application is still at early stages.  We have not yet received feedback from Southern Water on the planning application, but pre-application enquiries and our own review of the Southern Water report on capacity in the village shows that there is a solution that has been designed by Southern Water and can do two things 1.) it can provide capacity for the nine dwellings and 2.) it can help alleviate current sewer flooding in the village.  We expect that Southern Water will ask for the sewer enhancements to be paid for by the development before it can be connected to the network.

What About School Places?  - The planning application is still at early stages.  We have not yet received feedback from HCC re: school places, and we await their data on capacity and Pupil Admission Numbers (PAN).  We expect that HCC will ask for contributions towards the provision of school places.

What About Doctors?  - The planning application is still at early stages.  We have not yet received feedback from the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and we await their data on capacity.  We expect that the CCG may ask for contributions towards the provision of healthcare capacity.

What About Planning Creep?  - If outline planning permission is granted, we fully expect planning officers will apply planning conditions to the consent.  We are very happy to accept planning conditions, and in fact, we are very happy to work with officers, residents and the Parish Council to develop the reserved matters proposals.  Fundamentally, an outline consent would provide a set of parameters and any subsequent reserved matters has to comply with the outline application.  We do not except the comment that this development will somehow pave the way for a larger development.

Is the Site Agricultural Land? - No, not really.  It could be, but it hasn’t been used for agricultural purposes for many years so we expect planning officers will determine that it is not classified as the best and most viable agricultural land.

Will More Ecology Surveys be Undertaken? - Yes, a reptile survey and badger survey have been commissioned and will be carried out now in the summer season, which is the optimal time for such surveys; they could not be prepared any sooner. 

Update on Officer Comments

I am also pleased to let you know that so far, the comments from officers of the Council are as follows:

• TVBC Planning Policy – have ‘commented’ – the policy team wish to check the latest CIL data to confirm the need for self-builds and this will be a key factor.
• TVBC Landscape – have ‘commented’ – the green ‘feel’ of the scheme and buffer planted was welcomed, but there are some design matters to attend to.
• TVBC Ecology – have ‘objected’ – this is a holding objection pending additional surveys for reptiles and badgers which are in-hand.
• TVBC Housing – have raised ‘no objection’ but they are seeking a contribution for affordable housing to be provided off-site.

It is early days in the life of the planning application, but so far, we feel that there are no overriding constraints to the future development of the site, or to its future allocation in the emerging local plan for housing.

We feel it is important to recognise that officers at TVBC will be looking for sites upon which to allocate new homes via the emerging local plan, and so far, the comments from officers at the Council suggests that there are no technical considerations that would render the site unsuitable for dwellings.

Mr Sargeant would naturally prefer to see the site come forward for the nine self-build dwellings envisaged now, and we hope these clarifications demonstrate to the Parish Council that the proposals have been developed to suit the character and scale of the village and are well-considered in all respects.

I hope this note is helpful.  Please do let me know if you require any further information.

Dan Wiseman

Director

Gillings Planning

 

Details of the Parish Council objection to the proposal to build on land behind Stanbury Close are below

Test Valley Borough Council – Planning Department

Ref: 22/00033/OUTN

Thruxton Parish Council is formally and strongly against the proposals put forward by Orchard Homes to erect 26 affordable homes and construction of access on land adjacent to Stanbury Close, Thruxton (22/00033/OUTN).  This position was endorsed by all of the 80+ residents who attended a Public Meeting on 27 January and is supported by the numerous individual objections that have been lodged with TVBC.

The land in question is graded as “priority” and currently agricultural and totally outside the Village Settlement Boundary although within Thruxton Parish. The application is for a Rural Exception development of 26 affordable homes when the demand for affordable housing from within Thruxton Parish is significantly less. TVBC Policy COM 8 states that rural affordable housing will be permitted provided that “the proposal is accompanied by evidence that there is an unmet need within the parish….”. We are told by TVBC that there are 11 names from the Parish on the housing list, leading to the conclusion that this development is excessive for the requirement of the Parish.

The proposals run counter to provisions within the Neighbourhood Plan, sealed following the Referendum and now a legal document.  The Parish Council will detail these areas if TVBC would like amplification; however, several of the individual objections submitted by residents have provided detailed points where the application conflicts with the NDP and the Parish Council endorses and strongly supports these objections. Of particular concern is the impact the proposed development would have on neighbouring properties in Stanbury Close and Lambourne Close – given the topography, several houses would have large flank or rear walls dominating what are currently open views of the countryside and overshadow their property and deprive them of privacy, visual amenity and access to light.

The Council also object to the density of the proposed housing. The application is for a total of 26 units on 0.98 hectares of land; this is a far higher density of housing than anywhere within the current settlement boundary and is totally out-of-character with any reasonable conception of “a village”. If approved, the stock of housing in the village would increase by almost 10% - the Parish Council fundamentally disagree with such a significant increase and dispute the developer’s assertion that this is “proportionate in size” to the existing settlement (NPPF para 71)

Access proposed through Stanbury Close is totally insufficient to cope with the forecast number of vehicles; additional delivery, refuse and fuel supply vehicles will overwhelm the access road and put an unacceptable burden on householders living in Stanbury Close itself.  We are reminded of the chaos when a single house at the end of the Close was recently extended. The access road is totally unsuitable to take more than a handful of extra vehicles.  The current access from Stanbury Close to Stanbury Road is itself unsatisfactory and causes severe safety problems to children and parents attending the local school as there is no pavement and the road is relatively narrow. Additional flows of traffic that would inevitably arise from the development would put increased pressure on the narrow lanes through the village where speeding cars and large articulated trucks that have been mis-directed by satellite navigation systems already pose serious danger for the many cyclists and pedestrians that use the highways.

Thruxton is poorly served with any infrastructure – within the Parish there is a minimal public transport service, no shop, no public house, no school and no Post Office; the local school has few spare places and most of the local Medical Centres / GP surgeries have waiting lists. Additional housing will only exacerbate the pressures of inadequate supply of services.

The proposal contains no detail on how ground and foul water drainage will be managed. Thruxton already has a problem with run off and foul water infiltration into a damaged and overwhelmed sewerage system. In mitigation, Southern Water are investing in upgrading the sewage infrastructure but there has been no discernible effect to date from this initiative. Another 26 houses will compound the problem, increasing the existing risk and frequency of localised flooding and sewerage backup along the lower parts of the village. Southern Water are not Statutory Consultees but, given the prevailing situation, must nevertheless be consulted early on whether the proposed development is viable.

A large number of village residents have submitted very detailed objections, notably Mr. S Counsel, Brig. E. Chamberlain, Mr. D Niven, Mr. M Windsor, Mrs. Borrett and Ms. A Bryden with Mr. J Smith. The Parish Council has carefully reviewed these and would add our strong endorsement to them all.

In summary, the Parish Council have major concerns over this application and vehemently object to the application being given permission.

 

Response from Orchard Homes to questions raised at the Public Meeting held on 27th January 2022

Answers received by Parish Council 2nd February 2022

Q. The Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) was only quoted in part and should be viewed as a whole.

We are happy to amend the planning statement accordingly if you wish to represent a more detailed analysis of the NDP.

Highway comments summarised as follows:

Q. Access to the site is poor, local road and junctions are congested. Road widening and junction improvements are required.

The access is in accordance with Manual for Streets and the road network is of a conventional design with regards to widths, etc. There is no evidence of junctions being congested.

Q. The Transport Statement is selective in that it refers only to weekdays and not weekends (when local traffic is busier and residents are not at work) and refers to comparable sites that are out of the area.

Traffic is busiest on weekdays, not weekends – the school, for example, is closed on weekends. The TRICS data is robust and is comparable to the location.

Q. The site is poorly served by public transport.

Noted.

Q. There are regularly 140 cars parked outside the local school.

The site is just 650m south of the school which is a 6 – 8 minute walk. The majority of the route is either served by a footway or accessible off of the main road. It is unlikely that the development will generate any significant increase in traffic to and from the school.

Q. There are not enough car parking spaces on site and cars will park on Stanbury Close.

The development is in accordance with the TVBC parking standards and incorporates visitor parking.

Q. Stanbury Close and the access road within the site are not wide enough to accommodate refuse vehicles.

The access meets the required standard.

Q. Off-site pavements and cycle routes do not currently exist.

Some sections of the highway network have footways whilst some do not. This is a rural village and one would not expect to have footways on every road.

Q. There is a lack of infrastructure to support the scheme.

In highway terms, there is adequate infrastructure.

Q. Trucks are regularly jammed in Stanbury Close – vehicles in excess of 10t have access problems.

A refuse vehicle adequately serves Stanbury Close and that is 11.2m long

Q. There are concerns that Orchard are looking to submit an application to develop the remainder of the site. The red line site is much larger than the application site and the Orchard web-site has a plan showing how the site could be developed to provide 50 units.

Apologies for the plans on the Orchard web-site. This was an old plan that I understand you will have seen before. There are no intentions to develop the wider site at the present time. The current application seeks to provide affordable housing as per the guidelines set out in the NPPF. This does not allow for additional land to be brought forward as an exception site and any other form of development will be contrary to countryside policy.

Q. Can Orchard give details of the length of the option and an assurance, by covenant, that they will not submit applications on the remainder of the site. Will Orchard enter into a covenant stating that they will not submit any subsequent applications on the remainder of the site.

Orchard have entered into a legal agreement with landowner and have to adhere to certain obligations to him. Orchard will not enter into a restrictive covenant as suggested.

Q. The access road includes a neighbouring front garden.

The architect has looked at this point and confirms that no third-party land is required for the access. The attached document sets out the extent of the highway and the access seeks to connect direct to this. If there are still concerns on this point we are happy to speak direct with the neighbour and they are welcome to contact me direct.

The architect comments are as follows:

“We have used the full extent of the existing Stanbury Road turning / access stub junction in front of No. 7 and extended its kerb lines until it hits the site boundary. I would not expect No. 7 to own or have rights to this strip of lan and it would not be his front garden. This note cannot relate to No. 11 as his northern boundary lines through with the sub-station. The access is beyond this.”

Q. How long will the build process be? A long-term plan is required with regard to the impact of construction traffic and noise and nuisance. Will the adjacent field be used for the storage of builders materials and contractor parking?

It is intended that all construction vehicles and materials will be stored on-site. In any event, these activities will be subject to a requirement to submit a construction management plan for approval to TVBC.

The build programme is intended to be c 20 months.

Q. The proposals include a 5m buffer strip along the rear of plots 10 – 22., However, the strip tapers to no gap to the rear of No. Stanbury Close.

Orchard are currently looking to see how this can be addressed by making amendments to the rear garden of plot 10 – with the agreement of TVBC.

Q. Due to local level changes no.2 Stanbury Close will look at the flank wall of plot 10 which will have a ridge line 10m higher than the rear garden of no.2 Stanbury Close.

The concerns of the neighbour are noted. However, it is argued that no.2 will not be prejudiced by the presence of plot 10. It should also be noted that plot 10 includes a hipped roof which will help minimise impact and Orchard will undertake to keep this plot as a hipped roof.

Q. The Housing Needs Survey is wrong in that there are only 4 families that need affordable housing. The HNS is inadequate and does not adequately reflect the needs of the local community.

If parish council or the local community has information on local housing need then OH will be pleased to be advised of it. HNS was undertaken by a well-respected and established organisation. TVBC not raised any issues regarding the methodology or results.

Q. The proposal is out of character with Stanbury Close and the local area.

As an outline application the design of the proposed dwellings is reserved for a later date. The layout of the site seeks to provide a modern scheme in an efficient manner. A such, it is different to Stanbury Close but in doing so reflects modern requirements such as, for example, providing an area of open space and a more varied housing mix. However, it is argued that the layout is acceptable.

Q. The BT infrastructure is at its current limit and there are frequent electrical outages. The overhead power cables are referred to as being re-routed – how is this to be achieved?

Orchard will work with internet providers in accordance with national requirements.

Q. There are significant local drainage problems and water run-off from the site is problematic and creates localised flooding. The sewage system was installed in 1972 and is now not fit for purpose. It now cannot accommodate additional housing. There is a very poor local surface drainage system. Will Orchard compensate local residents in respect of increase run-off to their properties?

Orchard are confident that an on-site drainage solution can be provided on-site with no harm to local residents. This will have to satisfy TVBC in this regard. Orchard will not compensate local residents with regard to flooding.

Q. Orchard, as a private company with a profit motive, simply cannot make money from social housing.

Orchard have built many hundreds of affordable housing units over the years (to include numerous schemes as 100% affordable housing) and will seek to make a contracting margin that includes for overheads and preliminary costs.

Q. Whilst the local school has some capacity it is not adequate to accommodate say 50 extra children.

TVBC will make an assessment with regard to available spaces at local schools and if there is inadequate space to accommodate children from the proposed development. However, as residents for the proposed development are largely anticipated to come from the local community it is anticipated that take up of school spaces may not be as high as possible

Q. Is the site within the flight path of the local airport – or future flight paths?

The site is not within the reserved flight path as set out the TVBC local plan. This has not been raised as an issue by TVBC thus far in the process.

Q. There is no local gas supply. How will the houses obtain power – oil?

This has to be agreed. However, it should be noted that modern housing is increasingly being required to move away from direct reliance on fossil fuels such as gas and oil.

NOTICE OF APPLICATION - TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

APPLICATION NUMBER: 22/00033/OUTN

PROPOSAL:

Outline application for erection of 26 houses and construction of access

SITE:

Land Adjacent Stanbury Close, Stanbury Close, Thruxton, Hampshire

I give notice that Mr Stuart Mitchell is applying to Test Valley Borough Council for the above proposal which falls within your Parish. Details of the application can be found via the TVBC website by entering the application number above.

Any representations must be submitted in writing before 4 February 2022 so that they can be considered in the determination of the application. 

Please note that all applications are considered on their own merit and any comments made on previous applications cannot be carried forward to this new proposal.  All representations received will be open to public inspection and available for copying in accordance with the provisions of the Access to Information Act.  (NOTE: Planning Applications can now be viewed on the Council’s website.)