Bowling pavilion and splash pad at Vigo Park, Recreation Road, Andover

“PROPOSAL 3.1 The proposals involve the construction of a pavilion building which is to have a dual use as a replacement bowling pavilion and as a community building. The pavilion building would measure approximately 33.4 metres x 13.4 metres and would include: • Main hall with associated kitchen, bar and storage area • Sports accessible toilet • Changing places facility • Public toilets and changing facility accessible from the park • Toilets to serve the pavilion…”

“The main part of the site is located immediately to the south of the existing bowling green, to the west of the tennis courts. The site includes an area of existing car park to the east of the bowling green and an area adjacent to the existing bowls pavilion, which itself is outside of the site. The site is mostly maintained as playing field, includes a path running east to west and an area of hedgerow which forms the southern boundary of the bowling green.”

“The site would be accessible by foot from existing pedestrian accesses to the recreation ground from Recreation Road, Vigo Road and Adelaide Road. The site does not have any direct, public vehicular access points. The existing car park which forms part of the site is accessed off Recreation Road.”

“HISTORY 4.1 There is no recent planning history for this site.”

“CONCLUSION 9.1 The proposals are considered acceptable in principle and subject to conditions, would not have any adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, residential amenities, trees, highway safety, ecology, water resources or community safety. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with the relevant policies of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan 2016. Permission is recommended on this basis.”

“RECOMMENDATION PERMISSION subject to conditions and notes: The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provision of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2.”

“In addition, for the need for new facilities for the bowls club, public engagement undertaken by the applicant demonstrates that there is strong support for enhanced facilities to be provided for the benefit of park users and the wider community. Those who engaged with the public consultation exercises undertaken showed support for accessible toilets, changing facilities, community space and the opportunity to purchase food.”

“To refine proposals for additional attractions to make the park a destination, and to better understand community aspirations, a programme of community engagement was undertaken in 2024. The findings of this process demonstrated clear community support for the creation of a destination-scale play space.”

“CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Ecology – Objection • Habitats on site are broadly of low ecological value and no suitability for protected species was recorded other than potential roost features for bats on a building is to be retained. A mitigation scheme will need to be conditioned to detailed proposed enhancements to be incorporated. • BNG – habitat units are to be delivered on site by planting ornamental shrubs and enhancing retained grassland.”

“Landscape – No objection subject to conditions…”

“Loss of greenspace • Proposal would result in the loss of a substantial amount of greenspace which currently provides openness, visual relief, biodiversity value. The greenspace also provides a noise buffer, discourages congregation and helps with privacy. • The removal of the greenspace would represent overdevelopment and will materially harm the character of the area while increasing disturbance for residents living in close proximity.”

“Use of grant funding • Is the splash pad the best option for using grant funding? The facility would be limited to use during the warmer months. • This is a hard water area, ongoing maintenance plumbing and health and hygiene costs are likely to be high and are not likely to be covered by the grant.”

“The motion as set out in the agenda, was proposed by Councillor Budzynski and seconded by Councillor Z Brooks. Upon being put to the vote the motion was carried.”