EAST Hampshire planners have thrown out a revised application for a pair of semi-detached houses with covered parking and altered access to the rear of 33-39 Church Lane, Holybourne. Despite taking measures to change the proposed access so that it would not affect a group of landmark trees, members of East Hampshire District Council's North Planning committee voted unanimously to refuse the application last Thursday. The application had attracted 40 letters of objection, including one from Alton Town Council which, despite the applicant's attempts at improvement, remained opposed to the intended access arrangement because it would "significantly and adversely affect the special character and appearance of the Holybourne Conservation Area". The access problem most concerned objectors. Speaking on their behalf, resident Barry Lawrence said that villagers were "fiercely proud of Church Lane – it's sylvan scene is like an historic time capsule" which would be destroyed by the alterations. While the site lies within the Settlement Policy Boundary for Holybourne, it is also within the village conservation area. Access would be off a private drive which currently serves three properties but, to meet visibility splay requirements, it would mean the loss of three Norway spruce trees. Access had been a sticking point in previous applications last October, when the visibility splays were first too narrow and, when made wider, were vetoed because they would have had a detrimental impact on a willow tree covered by a tree protection order. To protect the willow tree the access was realigned but would still result in the loss of three Norway spruces (also protected). The loss of the trees, and part of an existing wall, would in the opinion of the residents significantly alter the semi-rural nature. Furthermore, they were concerned about additional traffic onto Church Lane. Speaking on behalf of the applicant, Ian Ellis said that this proposal had been altered to address the concerns raised in October. The new access arrangement, he said, would have less impact on the conservation area and would retain the willow tree. He suggested that the stringent sight line requirements were not justified for such a modest two-home development – they had not been imposed for a similar development in neighbouring Howards Lane. He also asked whether the sight line requirements would be relaxed if the applicant was to go for one rather than two dwellings on the site. There was a straight refusal on grounds of "inadequate access which could not be improved without damage to the Willow tree," and because the proposal would generate an "unacceptable increase in traffic using a substandard access junction with Church Lane, to the detriment of highway safety."
