How to object

Copy any of these points into your own letter, along with how the scheme affects you. Address it to planning.development@havant.gov.uk and quote APP/26/00065.

The elevation drawings are titled for another project

Drawings P004 and P005, the only elevations on the file, carry the title block of a different project: “Loft Conversion And Rear Extension, 9 Gorse Hill Rd, Poole BH15 3QH”. They show external changes, including cladding, a porch and new windows, that are not in the description of development. I ask the Council to require correctly titled elevations and to re-consult neighbours on them.

The description leaves out every external change

The form describes the scheme as “All works within the property” and says no altered vehicle access is proposed (Q3 and Q6). The Design and Access Statement proposes a new boundary wall, automatic gates set back 5.5 metres, a porch, new cladding, a bin enclosure, cycle sheds and parking increased from 3 or 4 spaces to 9. The description should be corrected and the consultation re-run.

Nine self-contained rooms, not one household

Each of the nine rooms has its own en-suite, its own kitchenette, its own post box and its own parking space (Design and Access Statement pages 7, 9 and 12), and CIL Form 1 answers Yes to the creation of new dwellings. I ask the Council to assess what the plans actually show, and whether this is in truth nine dwellings rather than one HMO.

Inconsistent occupancy figures and no limit on numbers

The application relies on four different figures for existing occupancy: 9, 9.6, “12 to 16” and “2 cars each”. Every proposed room is between 14.0 and 15.7 square metres, large enough for two people under licensing standards, so nothing in the application prevents 18 residents.

No nutrient budget for the Solent sites

The “Bespoke assessment and Nitrogen Budget” is a single page with no calculation. The Council cannot conclude there will be no adverse effect on the protected Solent sites on that evidence.

Parking and highway safety have not been assessed

The Design and Access Statement says “we believe highways do not need to access the safety” (page 13), provides no visitor spaces, and admits the visibility splays Highways may require could affect tree root protection areas. I ask that Hampshire County Council Highways is consulted on the access, gates, splays and visitor parking.

The tree evidence is for a different scheme

The tree constraints report is dated November 2024 and was written for an earlier redevelopment proposal. The tree survey says there will be “No changes to parking layout or extent”, yet parking more than doubles and eight bays are placed along the protected oaks on the western boundary. I ask that the Tree Officer checks every bay and the new wall against the root protection areas.

Noise and use of the rear garden

The Design and Access Statement offers the rear garden for “relaxation and social use” by nine separate adults, alongside a 53 square metre communal room and a gym. No defined outdoor area, hours, lighting or boundary treatment is shown, and no noise assessment has been submitted. I ask the Council to assess this under Policy CS16 and to consult Environmental Health.

The application form is unreliable

The form contradicts the applicant’s own documents on pre-application advice, recycling, drainage, protected species and the date of conversion, and gives the net change in units as “20m2”. CIL Form 1 declares 26 square metres of new floorspace that appears on no drawing.

Please check the ownership certificate

The form is signed with Certificate A, stating the applicant was the sole owner 21 days before the application. Companies House records a legal charge over the site, title HP320162, created on 20 January 2026 by a limited company. I ask the Council to check the title register and confirm that the correct certificate was given.

Loss of four homes

Four self-contained two-bedroom flats would be lost from the housing stock. I ask that this is weighed under Policy CS9, and the change in character under Policy CS16.

If the council is minded to approve

I ask for conditions securing: a maximum of nine residents, one person per bedroom; no conversion of the gym, communal room or any other space into further bedrooms; retention of the communal kitchen and living space; a management plan covering use of the garden, external lighting and noise; a defined outdoor amenity area away from neighbouring gardens; retention and protection of all boundary trees and hedges; no occupation until tree protection and drainage details are approved.