Councillors Jane and Paul Frankum explain why they oppose planning application

A THREE-bedroom house in Popley could soon be transformed into a flat and a maisonette, if the plan is given the green light by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.

A two-bedroom maisonette and a one-bedroom flat have been proposed at the property – 104 Melrose Walk – after the planning application was submitted by applicant, Mr Benjamin Inker, on December 17.

If approved, the ground floor flat would be accessed through the front of the existing building and the two-bedroom maisonette would be accessed through a separate rear entrance.

Occupants of the two properties, if approved, will also have three car parking spaces, one within the rear garden and two outside the property on a verge directly behind the rear garden.

But two borough councillors for Popley West have expressed concern at potential problems that could be caused by the development.

In a report to the borough council’s development control committee, Councillor Jane Frankum said: “I object to this application as there is not enough room in the small back garden to accommodate one car, two green bins, two black bins, two glass collection and cycles.”

When talking about how the plan will use public space to park the other two cars planned for the site, she added: “This would result in the children who use this route to their schools – infant, junior and senior – having to walk in the road.”

Cllr Paul Frankum added: “I agree with Cllr Jane Frankum on this application and would add that when Melrose Walk was built, the design balanced the number of flats and houses and already the balance has changed and resulted in a loss of three-bedroom family homes that are much-needed in the community, and created more vehicles parking in a thoughtless and dangerous manner.”

The outcome of the application will be decided by members of the borough council at a development control committee on January 15.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:40pm Fri 10 Jan 14

jonone says...

The argument of school kids walking is extremely tenuous as the majority of footpaths in this part of town are separated from the roadways, which are already littered with cars. Two extra isn't going to make much difference.
The argument of school kids walking is extremely tenuous as the majority of footpaths in this part of town are separated from the roadways, which are already littered with cars. Two extra isn't going to make much difference. jonone
  • Score: 5

2:50pm Fri 10 Jan 14

robertspet8 says...

'Occupants of the two properties, if approved, will also have three car parking spaces, one within the rear garden and two outside the property on a verge directly behind the rear garden.'
Is the verge owned by the property owner? If not, then why do they think they can use it for parking cars? We already have too many drivers dumping their vehicles on verges and pavements. Keep pavements and verges free from traffic.
'Occupants of the two properties, if approved, will also have three car parking spaces, one within the rear garden and two outside the property on a verge directly behind the rear garden.' Is the verge owned by the property owner? If not, then why do they think they can use it for parking cars? We already have too many drivers dumping their vehicles on verges and pavements. Keep pavements and verges free from traffic. robertspet8
  • Score: 5

5:55pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Publicsense says...

Councillors are correct that there will be an increase in waste bins in the garden, however the original garden was designed to accomodate 2 cars and is proposed to accomodate only 1. Common sense says that the extra space will suffice for waste bins, and improve amenity!! The additional two spaces required for compliance will be situated on a council approved and installed vehicular crossing at the rear of the property. Original highways inspectors suggested that this new layout would actually inprove junction safety by reducing roadside parking at this site, and made acception to their normal rules on this basis. With no foopath in place it would change nothing with regard to pedestrians beyond the improvement of general junction safety. Robertspet is correct about vehicle dumping, and I can confirm that there are many non local / non native vehicles who use our quieter sidestreets as car parking, this should be clamped down on. However, to park on a piece of highway, approved and installed by the local authority, of which is solely for the access of that household and crosses no other amenity or pathway could surely be acceptable? I hope councillors will look at the real effects of devopments like this, which bring diversity and real monetary gains through compulsary contribution, and vote on the side of common sense.
Councillors are correct that there will be an increase in waste bins in the garden, however the original garden was designed to accomodate 2 cars and is proposed to accomodate only 1. Common sense says that the extra space will suffice for waste bins, and improve amenity!! The additional two spaces required for compliance will be situated on a council approved and installed vehicular crossing at the rear of the property. Original highways inspectors suggested that this new layout would actually inprove junction safety by reducing roadside parking at this site, and made acception to their normal rules on this basis. With no foopath in place it would change nothing with regard to pedestrians beyond the improvement of general junction safety. Robertspet is correct about vehicle dumping, and I can confirm that there are many non local / non native vehicles who use our quieter sidestreets as car parking, this should be clamped down on. However, to park on a piece of highway, approved and installed by the local authority, of which is solely for the access of that household and crosses no other amenity or pathway could surely be acceptable? I hope councillors will look at the real effects of devopments like this, which bring diversity and real monetary gains through compulsary contribution, and vote on the side of common sense. Publicsense
  • Score: -3

6:35pm Fri 10 Jan 14

PopleyRes says...

Basingstoke, if this is news something is wrong. It makes perfect sense (if one wanted to house more families/people) to use the available space to do so. The parking at this location is NOT an issue, rather the vehicles parked haphazardly along curbs are. School children need only to utilise the footpath of Melrose Walk along the front of these buildings. It's a lovelier tree-lined view anyway. To those who've wasted their energies opposing changes to Popley which are likely to be positive, I say, get a life.
Basingstoke, if this is news something is wrong. It makes perfect sense (if one wanted to house more families/people) to use the available space to do so. The parking at this location is NOT an issue, rather the vehicles parked haphazardly along curbs are. School children need only to utilise the footpath of Melrose Walk along the front of these buildings. It's a lovelier tree-lined view anyway. To those who've wasted their energies opposing changes to Popley which are likely to be positive, I say, get a life. PopleyRes
  • Score: 4

7:34pm Fri 10 Jan 14

jonone says...

PopleyRes wrote:
Basingstoke, if this is news something is wrong. It makes perfect sense (if one wanted to house more families/people) to use the available space to do so. The parking at this location is NOT an issue, rather the vehicles parked haphazardly along curbs are. School children need only to utilise the footpath of Melrose Walk along the front of these buildings. It's a lovelier tree-lined view anyway. To those who've wasted their energies opposing changes to Popley which are likely to be positive, I say, get a life.
Not the Gazette you need to complain to, it is your local councillors who are objecting to the development!!
[quote][p][bold]PopleyRes[/bold] wrote: Basingstoke, if this is news something is wrong. It makes perfect sense (if one wanted to house more families/people) to use the available space to do so. The parking at this location is NOT an issue, rather the vehicles parked haphazardly along curbs are. School children need only to utilise the footpath of Melrose Walk along the front of these buildings. It's a lovelier tree-lined view anyway. To those who've wasted their energies opposing changes to Popley which are likely to be positive, I say, get a life.[/p][/quote]Not the Gazette you need to complain to, it is your local councillors who are objecting to the development!! jonone
  • Score: 5

9:14pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Marina Morris says...

Local councillors in 'wish we'd have thought of it first' shenanigans. They should concentrate on the new estates being built in the area with insufficient parking which means people park on footpaths.
Local councillors in 'wish we'd have thought of it first' shenanigans. They should concentrate on the new estates being built in the area with insufficient parking which means people park on footpaths. Marina Morris
  • Score: 9

10:49am Sun 12 Jan 14

jonone says...

Marina Morris wrote:
Local councillors in 'wish we'd have thought of it first' shenanigans. They should concentrate on the new estates being built in the area with insufficient parking which means people park on footpaths.
Problem is, the Frankums are Labour, and Labour are responsible for the change in building regulations that ensured the reduction in parking allowances per house! So, their complaining about that (and they do) is total hypocrisy. Not unlike a lot of Labour griping!
[quote][p][bold]Marina Morris[/bold] wrote: Local councillors in 'wish we'd have thought of it first' shenanigans. They should concentrate on the new estates being built in the area with insufficient parking which means people park on footpaths.[/p][/quote]Problem is, the Frankums are Labour, and Labour are responsible for the change in building regulations that ensured the reduction in parking allowances per house! So, their complaining about that (and they do) is total hypocrisy. Not unlike a lot of Labour griping! jonone
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree