A NEW plan for eight houses in Romsey has had multiple objections from neighbours.
The proposal, which includes three carports and an access road, was refused by Test Valley Borough Council's southern area planning committee on July 19.
A new application has been submitted, which included alterations to the roofs as the previous plan was slammed for being overbearing.
However, many residents are still unhappy with the application.
Stephen Sherlock, from Sherlock Architecture, spoke to Romsey Town Council's planning committee on September 29, to try and gain support for the plan.
Mr Sherlock said: “Our new design has a lower sight-line which has been achieved by using flats roofs. The new scheme is now significantly below the 25 degree sight-line. We have also reduced the footprint of the plots and moved them further from the boundary.
“Contemporary planning is now being championed in many of our heritage towns and cities. The sight can not be seen from the public road, so comments about it being out of character are not relevant. I hope you will be able to support this.”
Cllr John Critchley said: “A lot of the issues remain, it's a very sight sign and for the residents, there are a number of problems. I don't mind the more modern buildings at all.”
The council decided to maintain the same objection they submitted to the previous plan.
Including the town council's objection, 18 have been submitted to Test Valley Borough Council for the new plan. One supporting comment has been submitted.
Barry Pointer, of Lower Common Road, West Wellow, said: “I am positively supportive and in favour of both the principles and details of this development.”
READ MORE: Work on house to start despite concerns from Romsey Town Council
James Barratt, of Tadfield Road, said: “I wish to lodge my objection to the plans to redevelop the land adjacent to the old Cycle World shop that is sandwiched in between the houses on Tadfield Road and Winchester Road. The eight properties proposed, particularly plots 1-3 have been shoe-horned into a narrow strip of land resulting in a contrived plan that is totally out of character with the surrounding buildings including plots 4-8 of the plan itself.
“Despite the developer attempting to try to reduce the impact of plots 1-3 on the houses in Tadfield Road by removing the roof, they have increased the plot size. In my own case, our rear garden is now completely overlooked by plot 1. This will therefore still have an overbearing impact on the amenity of our house.”
Judy Gregory, of Tadfield Road, said: “I most strongly object once again to the latest planning application. The character and nature of this development is not in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood or the town design statement. The site is overdeveloped and is far from satisfactory. The new proposals, despite being lower are still going to be clearly visible from our habitable living areas once the high hedge is removed.”
John Pursaill, of Winchester Road, said: “I appreciate the need to increase the housing stock both locally and nationally to provide high-quality housing and tackle the demand vs supply issue that results in un-affordability and support Test Valley's contributions here. That said, this application seeks to take a very small undeveloped area and fit eight residences on it. This approach seems unsustainable in the long-term and risks permanently altering Romsey's market town character.”
Sue Mullane, on behalf of the Romsey and District Society planning committee, said: “Romsey and District Society Planning Committee wishes to register objection to the proposal. This is overdevelopment of the site expressed by the cramped nature of the scheme and the impact of likely traffic generation onto the busy Winchester Road. This will be further compounded by the use and traffic generated by the adjacent building (previously occupied by Cycle World) with its permitted conversion to a residential unit and office use.”
To view the plans online, search 22/02176/FULLS on Test Valley Borough Council's planning portal.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here