Reserved matters application providing details of the layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and means of access for thirty-eight dwellings (further to outline planning permission granted on appeal under application reference P/20/0506/OA and appeal reference APP/A1720/W/21/3273119) at Eyersdown Farm Quarantine Kennels 285 Botley Road Burridge SO31 1ZJ.
The Association has discussed this application and formulated the following comments in the interests of future residents and neighbours of the site.
Layout
Cala Homes has made significant efforts to accommodate the concerns expressed by local residents and by us in our comments to them following the Public Consultation. Please see Appendix 1, a copy of our comments at the time
However, this plan is significantly different to that presented at the Public Consultation.
Unfortunately, the loss of approximately 960 M2 due to Sewer Easement/Ecology Protection, an area that equates to approximately 3 average plots, has resulted in a severe decrease in plot sizes.
It is most unfortunate that Cala Homes were unaware of the easement and access requirements for maintenance of the public sewer when they purchased development rights.
The result of the reduction in available building land is that the layout now looks cramped and many compromises have been made to the detriment of the developers' aspirations for an architecturally pleasing design.
The area usable for housing on the development has reduced to 1.8 Hectares. We feel it is important to point out at this stage that the approval on appeal was for ‘up to 38 dwellings’.
In 2017, in the ‘call for sites’, FBC assessed the site as suitable for only 32 dwellings. The guideline number for this type of development set by FBC is 19 dwellings per hectare. The site is now attempting to fit in 20 dwellings per hectare. Clearly compromises must be made.
It is our suggestion that the number of dwellings should be reduced to 36. This will allow one market price house and one affordable house fewer.
We are also concerned particularly with the following aspects:
The alleyway and parking to the rear of Plots 5-9 creates an opportunity for intruders and anti-social behaviour as this area is hidden from public view.
We are pleased to see that this view is supported by the Designing Out Crime Officer in his report.
We suggest this area should be changed with the ‘security by design’ features as described in Cala Homes supporting documents (Ecolytic) so that secure rear gardens abut each other.
The sewer maintenance/ecological buffer zone on the West side of the site creates a security vulnerability for plots 26, 30, 31 & 38 on this side of the site and also the adjacent residential properties in Burridge Road.
This zone should have secure fencing all round and be accessible only for maintenance.
We suggest the 3-bar post and rail fencing is replaced by a 1.8m chain link fence.
The addition of an extra house on the Southern Boundary has meant that on Plot 20, the house is now very close to the site boundary. No other house is as close to neighbouring properties gardens
Scale
• Some houses are too large for their plots
In particular:
the rear gardens of plots 27, 33 and 35 are too small. Only a very small proportion is the required 10m length;
the West walls on houses on plots 30, 31 and 38 are inaccessible for maintenance such as keeping vegetation away. It is possible that either a reduction of the size of these houses or a small incursion into the ecological area (subject to adequate clearance for the Sewer Easement) might be used to create a narrow, securely fenced pathway.
Appearance
We feel that Cala Homes have made considerable effort to accommodate residents’ concerns with house positioning. They have designed buildings to be varied and as far as possible in keeping with local properties. The only exception being the 3 dwelling terrace of plots 24, 24, & 25.
In the original design car parking was mainly alongside dwellings on the East of the main street. This good feature of the design has been lost in the plan presented for Reserved Matters approval with several houses having parking in front.
We fully support the proposed planting plan. Best efforts should be made to implement this on the revised plan.
Landscaping
Fencing
The Boundary Fencing must be durable. The site will be wet during the winter months due to the surface water running from the rear gardens of adjacent properties and the clay soil. Wood posts will rot quickly in these conditions.
Therefore, we feel concrete posts and gravel boards are necessary.
The roots of the trees that are marked as being protected during construction will have to be avoided during erection of fencing. This will require hand digging and adjustment of the post position (shortening the run) if large roots are discovered.
Standard fence panels will be inappropriate in this situation. Arris rails and close boarding should be used as they can be adjusted in length to suit slight variations in the distance between posts.
1M high triple rail fence proposed at the entrances to the sewer maintenance/ecological buffer and also at the ends of the middle two side roads would be too easy to scale (see comment on security under Layout heading). We suggest this should be a tall chain link fence to maintain the views to the buffer and woodland beyond. It could be disguised with shrubs and bushes.
Drainage
Plot Land Drains and a Cut Off Filter Drain are shown running through the root protection zones of trees on the East and South boundaries. These should be re-routed outside the tree protection zone.
These trees will have major roots close to the surface due to the fact that they are close to the boundary and on higher ground. The arboriculture report clearly enforces the importance of these roots. They provide nutrients to the tree and remove water from the soil improving drainage. Interference with these roots will affect their health and might destabilise the trees.
We have been advised that these surface water drains should be French drains rather than perforated pipes, due to the impermeable nature of the soil. These should be stone-filled trenches lined with a semi-permeable geotextile to prevent migration of fines into the stone. Better still would be to put a perforated pipe in the bottom as well to reduce the risk of these drains overfilling on the West of the plot. It has also been recommended that measures should be put in place to prevent the new occupiers from digging up or concreting over the drains.
We are pleased to see that the plan to discharge surface water into the existing ditch on the Southwest of the site is being revised to avoid flooding the adjacent land. The plan for drainage suggests all surface water will enter the SUDS pond. This approach is more appropriate.
We wonder if the calculation of run off volumes should include the area of the gardens on the East and South sides of the site as these have no surface water drainage.
It has been suggested to us that it would be better if the discharge point and exceedance flow were moved to the confluence of the north and south branches of the watercourse where it flows westwards, and also that the developer should clean out the ditch downstream. This would of course be subject to land ownership / access being available.
There is also some confusion as to whether the SUDS pond will be lined. We feel it will not provide a positive contribution to biodiversity unless it is lined so that it retains some water at all times.
Conclusion
We have yet to see:
Street lighting details. The only mention we have found is ‘external lighting design and specification will be in accordance with the ILP’s Guidance Note for The Reduction of Obtrusive Light (2021).’;
A construction management plan.
It is possible that we have overlooked these in attempting to read the many documents so far provided in a short period. We may find it appropriate to make further comments later.
We feel these Reserved Matters should not be approved by Fareham Borough Council until the issues above have been addressed.
Appendix 1. Comments to Cala Homes following the Public Consultation
Burridge & Swanwick Residents Association
Dear Sirs,
Please find below our comments and opinions informed by conversations with local residents following the Public Consultation regarding the proposed design of the development at Eyersdown Farm, Botley Road, Fareham. Southampton.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to comment on your draft proposals for the Eyersdown Development.
As a Residents Association we are concerned with protecting the amenity for local people. We have consideration for both the existing neighbours of the site and the new residents. I feel we should compliment your team particularly on their willingness to arrange follow up meetings in order to see the site from existing neighbours’ perspective.
The change in the road layout has been well received as has your effort to increase the length of the back gardens.
We are also pleased to hear that you propose to implement the green buffer on the West boundary as recommended by the County Ecologist to protect the woodland from invasion by non-native species. This will also continue as a habitat for slow worms.
Fitting Bat boxes and Swift nesting boxes also shows concern for the wildlife in this countryside area.
During the application process we were frequently verbally reassured that many of the houses would be chalet bungalow style with frosted glass windows and high ‘Velux’ style rooflights facing the adjacent properties. This would be in keeping with the local area and reduce mutual overlooking and we feel it is particularly important to keep the roof apex heights low along the Eastern boundary of the site. Larger houses would not impose if situated where the land is lower.
It is a shame that you have marked the affordable housing all in one area of the site. Though first-time buyers may be proud of their homes and keep them in good order, rented houses can suffer from lack of maintenance particularly to the gardens. It might be better if these houses were spread around the site to encourage pride of place and responsible use.
We note your intention to install air source heating. Since this runs continuously, the external units will need careful siting as they are quite noisy and multiple units could be intrusive. Have you considered using ground source heating instead?
On the draft plan one house and the trio of town houses on the East side do not have parking immediately adjacent. As we move towards electric vehicles it is important that the charging facilities you are installing can be arranged directly from the owners’ property in the interests of economy (‘white meter’) and convenience.
The claim that 90 parking spaces are provided is misleading as in practice garages are used for garden and cycle storage etc. and do not contribute to car parking. There are no visitors’ spaces shown on the plan.
We have concerns that, due to the 2-hour restriction on parking in the adjacent FBC recreation ground and limited number of spaces available, visitors to the area who come particularly during the summer months to access the playing fields and river will use the main access road to leave their vehicles for extended periods. This is obviously difficult to discourage but hedging along the kerb sides might discourage mounting the pavement or grass. It would also be beneficial for pedestrians using the footpath and a further measure to enhance biodiversity.
The possibility of a footpath leading to the recreation ground is tempting for the benefit of residents but could well prove to be a two-way access and encourage parking as above.
Since there is no footpath proposed on the North East side of the access road chicanes and bump platforms will obviously be needed where the side roads join the main access road to protect pedestrians and discourage speeding. A crossing point will also be needed close to the entrance; this should have a footpath leading to the public footpath travelling Northwards towards the recreation ground.
We look forward to seeing your revisions in due course.
03/08 Our Comments on the Reserved Matters Application for Eyersdown Farm
This document can be downloaded here.
Burridge & Swanwick Residents Association
Ref : P/23/0915/RM
Reserved matters application providing details of the layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and means of access for thirty-eight dwellings (further to outline planning permission granted on appeal under application reference P/20/0506/OA and appeal reference APP/A1720/W/21/3273119) at Eyersdown Farm Quarantine Kennels 285 Botley Road Burridge SO31 1ZJ.
The Association has discussed this application and formulated the following comments in the interests of future residents and neighbours of the site.
Layout
Cala Homes has made significant efforts to accommodate the concerns expressed by local residents and by us in our comments to them following the Public Consultation. Please see Appendix 1, a copy of our comments at the time
However, this plan is significantly different to that presented at the Public Consultation.
Unfortunately, the loss of approximately 960 M2 due to Sewer Easement/Ecology Protection, an area that equates to approximately 3 average plots, has resulted in a severe decrease in plot sizes.
It is most unfortunate that Cala Homes were unaware of the easement and access requirements for maintenance of the public sewer when they purchased development rights.
The result of the reduction in available building land is that the layout now looks cramped and many compromises have been made to the detriment of the developers' aspirations for an architecturally pleasing design.
The area usable for housing on the development has reduced to 1.8 Hectares. We feel it is important to point out at this stage that the approval on appeal was for ‘up to 38 dwellings’.
In 2017, in the ‘call for sites’, FBC assessed the site as suitable for only 32 dwellings. The guideline number for this type of development set by FBC is 19 dwellings per hectare. The site is now attempting to fit in 20 dwellings per hectare. Clearly compromises must be made.
It is our suggestion that the number of dwellings should be reduced to 36. This will allow one market price house and one affordable house fewer.
We are also concerned particularly with the following aspects:
We are pleased to see that this view is supported by the Designing Out Crime Officer in his report.
We suggest this area should be changed with the ‘security by design’ features as described in Cala Homes supporting documents (Ecolytic) so that secure rear gardens abut each other.
This zone should have secure fencing all round and be accessible only for maintenance.
We suggest the 3-bar post and rail fencing is replaced by a 1.8m chain link fence.
Scale
• Some houses are too large for their plots
In particular:
the rear gardens of plots 27, 33 and 35 are too small. Only a very small proportion is the required 10m length;
the West walls on houses on plots 30, 31 and 38 are inaccessible for maintenance such as keeping vegetation away. It is possible that either a reduction of the size of these houses or a small incursion into the ecological area (subject to adequate clearance for the Sewer Easement) might be used to create a narrow, securely fenced pathway.
Appearance
Landscaping
Fencing
Therefore, we feel concrete posts and gravel boards are necessary.
The roots of the trees that are marked as being protected during construction will have to be avoided during erection of fencing. This will require hand digging and adjustment of the post position (shortening the run) if large roots are discovered.
Standard fence panels will be inappropriate in this situation. Arris rails and close boarding should be used as they can be adjusted in length to suit slight variations in the distance between posts.
Drainage
These trees will have major roots close to the surface due to the fact that they are close to the boundary and on higher ground. The arboriculture report clearly enforces the importance of these roots. They provide nutrients to the tree and remove water from the soil improving drainage. Interference with these roots will affect their health and might destabilise the trees.
Conclusion
We have yet to see:
It is possible that we have overlooked these in attempting to read the many documents so far provided in a short period. We may find it appropriate to make further comments later.
We feel these Reserved Matters should not be approved by Fareham Borough Council until the issues above have been addressed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix 1. Comments to Cala Homes following the Public Consultation
Burridge & Swanwick Residents Association
Dear Sirs,
Please find below our comments and opinions informed by conversations with local residents following the Public Consultation regarding the proposed design of the development at Eyersdown Farm, Botley Road, Fareham. Southampton.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to comment on your draft proposals for the Eyersdown Development.
As a Residents Association we are concerned with protecting the amenity for local people. We have consideration for both the existing neighbours of the site and the new residents. I feel we should compliment your team particularly on their willingness to arrange follow up meetings in order to see the site from existing neighbours’ perspective.
The change in the road layout has been well received as has your effort to increase the length of the back gardens.
We are also pleased to hear that you propose to implement the green buffer on the West boundary as recommended by the County Ecologist to protect the woodland from invasion by non-native species. This will also continue as a habitat for slow worms.
Fitting Bat boxes and Swift nesting boxes also shows concern for the wildlife in this countryside area.
During the application process we were frequently verbally reassured that many of the houses would be chalet bungalow style with frosted glass windows and high ‘Velux’ style rooflights facing the adjacent properties. This would be in keeping with the local area and reduce mutual overlooking and we feel it is particularly important to keep the roof apex heights low along the Eastern boundary of the site. Larger houses would not impose if situated where the land is lower.
It is a shame that you have marked the affordable housing all in one area of the site. Though first-time buyers may be proud of their homes and keep them in good order, rented houses can suffer from lack of maintenance particularly to the gardens. It might be better if these houses were spread around the site to encourage pride of place and responsible use.
We note your intention to install air source heating. Since this runs continuously, the external units will need careful siting as they are quite noisy and multiple units could be intrusive. Have you considered using ground source heating instead?
On the draft plan one house and the trio of town houses on the East side do not have parking immediately adjacent. As we move towards electric vehicles it is important that the charging facilities you are installing can be arranged directly from the owners’ property in the interests of economy (‘white meter’) and convenience.
The claim that 90 parking spaces are provided is misleading as in practice garages are used for garden and cycle storage etc. and do not contribute to car parking. There are no visitors’ spaces shown on the plan.
We have concerns that, due to the 2-hour restriction on parking in the adjacent FBC recreation ground and limited number of spaces available, visitors to the area who come particularly during the summer months to access the playing fields and river will use the main access road to leave their vehicles for extended periods. This is obviously difficult to discourage but hedging along the kerb sides might discourage mounting the pavement or grass. It would also be beneficial for pedestrians using the footpath and a further measure to enhance biodiversity.
The possibility of a footpath leading to the recreation ground is tempting for the benefit of residents but could well prove to be a two-way access and encourage parking as above.
Since there is no footpath proposed on the North East side of the access road chicanes and bump platforms will obviously be needed where the side roads join the main access road to protect pedestrians and discourage speeding. A crossing point will also be needed close to the entrance; this should have a footpath leading to the public footpath travelling Northwards towards the recreation ground.
We look forward to seeing your revisions in due course.