AN APPLICATION for change of use of land in Basingstoke to residential site has been rejected by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council because of height of the proposed fence.

The proposal to convert the land ancillary to 28 Beech Way to a residential site was turned down at a development control meeting on Wednesday, July 7.

The application also included storage of owner’s caravan and erection of 1.7m fence and access gates.

Commenting on the application, Cllr Nick Robinson, the chairman of development control committee, said: “I think the application is very well-intentioned. But my thought is particularly [about] the fence. It is over one metre and is adjacent to a highway and that in itself is directly contravening to planning regulations.

“I think something could be done with this area. But I'm not convinced this application is right yet.”

Land owner Tania Parmenter, who told the meeting that the site is currently a dumping yard for fly-tippers, said her intention was to turn it into a rose garden with vegetable patch.

“When the land came up for auction, with the help of counsellors Angie Freeman and Ruth Cooper, we started a petition to make everyone aware of the proposed sale, and to stop it being developed on.

“We spoke to our neighbours about all contributing to purchasing the land. No one had the means to raise the money. So we re-mortgaged our house to ensure we could purchase the land to stop it being developed.

“What makes me really sad about the land is our intentions were only ever to protect this land and turn it into a rose garden with vegetable patch and parking for our caravan - nothing more, but I'm told that I have more chance of developing the land and getting permission for a fence.”

Cllr Freeman backed the application, saying: “I do feel that it is rather a shame that this course of action is necessary- we work extensively with organisations on plans until they meet the requirements, and I don’t understand why we can’t do the same for these residents.

“I realise that COVID has had an impact on face-to-face meetings but I do think that we haven’t been nearly as accommodating to these residents as we could have been to find a mutually agreeable solution.”

In their recommendation against the application, case officer Meredith Baker wrote: “The change of use of the land from open space to residential along with the enclosure of close boarded fencing and the creation of a vehicular access would encroach upon, and result in, the loss of a prominent area of open space and would result in the fragmentation of the existing green infrastructure network.

“The 1.7-metre fencing and access gate by virtue of its height, length, design, siting and appearance would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area and street scene in a prominent corner plot siting. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.”