Agenda and minutes

Details:

2 all weather sports pitches; 3m high fence; seating area

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

1 additional letter of objection, in the same terms as set out in paragraph 10 of the report.

Comment:

Cllr Frampton disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Bransgore Parish Council which had commented on the application.   He concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(a))

Details:

Single-storey extension; outside play area; brick wall and railings; drainage

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Harris and Harrison disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Totton and Eling Town Council which had commented on the application.  They each concluded that their previous involvement with this application could create the impression that they had a predetermined view.  They consequently took no part in the debate and did not vote.  Cllr Davis was not present for the determination of this item.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(b))

Details:

Second and three-storey extensions to create 10 flats; parking

Public Participants:

Mr Tarzey – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The officer’s recommendation was amended to require the submission of further details of the spring loaded recessed plates to be installed on the Ashley Road entrance and also by revisions to the conditions.

Decision:

Head of Planning and Transportation authorised to grant planning consent subject to:

(i)       The completion of the requisite Agreement pursuant to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by 30 October 2015;

(ii)     The imposition of conditions; and

(iii)    the submission of further details of the spring loaded recessed plates proposed at the entrance to the site from Ashley Road to show the implications for the protected oak tree

Failing which, Head of Planning and Transportation authorised to refuse consent.

Conditions/

Agreements/

Negotiations:

As per report (Item 3(c)), with the following amendments:

Revise condition Nos. 5 and 6  to read as follows:

5. Prior to commencement of works (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) a scheme for the protection of trees in accordance with BS5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations’ shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Once approved, the scheme shall be implemented and at least 3 working days notice shall be given to the Local Planning Authority that it has been installed.

Information is required on the:

a)      Location of site compound and mixing areas,

b)     Routes of underground services,

c)     Tree work specification,

d)     Position of tree protective fencing/ground protection. The protective fencing shall be as specified in Chapter 6 and detailed in figures 2 or 3 of BS5837:2012 unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:          To safeguard trees and natural features which are important to the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest outside the National Park.

6. In accordance with the submitted strategic landscape details on Drawing No 947/10 Rev 1, the following additional details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:

(a)          a specification for new planting (species, size, spacing, location, tree pits, irrigation tubes, cellular systems and root barriers);

(b)          areas for hard surfacing and the materials to be used;

(c)          other means of enclosure, including the external free standing wall/grill structure which screens the undercroft parking area from Ashley Road;

(d)          a method and programme for its implementation and the means to provide for its future maintenance;

No development shall take place unless these details have been approved and all planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6c

Details:

Use as 1 residential unit (Use Class C3); associated external alterations

Public Participants:

Mr Borchert – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr E J Heron addressed the Committee to support the application.

Decision:

Refused

Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(d)

Details:

One and two-storey side extension; boundary wall; parking; ramp; barrier; landscaping; access

Public Participants:

None.

Additional Representations:

None.

Comment:

Cllrs Harris and Harrison disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Totton and Eling Town Council which had commented on the application.  As they could be considered to have a pre-determined view on the application they took no part in the consideration and did not vote.  Cllr Davis was not present for the determination of this item.

Decision:

Planning consent.

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(e)

Details:

One and two-storey side extension; boundary wall; parking; ramp; barrier; landscaping; access; form two openings to extension

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None.

Comment:

Cllrs Harris and Harrison disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Totton and Eling Town Council which had commented on the application.  As they could be considered to have a pre-determined view on the application they took no part in the consideration and did not vote.  Cllr Davis was not present for the determination of this item.

Decision:

Listed Building consent granted.

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(f))

Details:

Retention of extension to garage to form garden room; flue

Public Participants:

Mr Davey – Objector.

Additional Representations:

None.

Comment:

Cllr Armstrong disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Hythe and Dibden Parish Council which had commented on the application.  He disclosed a further interest on the grounds that the objector was also a parish councillor and known to him in that capacity.  He concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Cllrs D E Andrews and Holding both disclosed interests on the grounds that they knew the objector.  They each concluded that the degree of acquaintance was not sufficient to create any impression of bias and consequently there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

The Committee noted that the installation of an alternative style of cowl to the flue had not reduced the smoke emissions that the neighbouring property owner reported.  As that property was in the path of the prevailing westerly wind, this would not be an infrequent occurrence, consequently prejudicing that property owners’ enjoyment of their house and garden.  In addition, the Committee considered that the development was visually obtrusive when viewed from the neighbouring property.

Decision:

Refused.

Reasons:

By reason of its siting, height and design, the proposed flue is visually intrusive and given its position in relation to the prevailing westerly wind causes unacceptable smoke pollution to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining  property at 33 Heatherstone  Avenue. For this reason, the development is contrary to policies CS2 and CS5 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park

Details:

One and two-storey side extension; boundary wall; parking; ramp; barrier; landscaping; access; form two openings to extension

Public Participants:

Mr Newton – Objector.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Penson, Rostand and White disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Lymington and Pennington Town Council, which had commented on the application, with Cllrs Rostand and White both being members of their Planning Committee.  They concluded that they could be considered to have a pre-determined view and consequently abstained from voting.

Decision:

Planning consent.

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(h))

Details:

Two-storey side extension

Public Participants:

Mr Reeks – Supporter

Mr Worsfold – Applicant’s Agent.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Beck disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of New Milton Town Council which had commented on the application.  He addressed the Committee to support the application, but did not have a vote.

The Committee considered that these revised proposals overcame the Inspector’s concerns with respect to a previous scheme, relating to the scale and bulk of the addition.  Consequently the proposed extension would not be harmful to the street scene.

Decision:

Planning consent.

Conditions:

Subject to such conditions as the Head of Planning and Transportation deems appropriate.

Details:

Serpentine wall and outside seating area terrace to eastern facade; landscaping

Public Participants:

Dr McKenzie – Applicant’s representative.

Mr Walbank – Objector.

Additional Representations:

The Head of Leisure and Employment supported the refurbishment of the building.

1 additional letter of support from the Museum’s Director.

1 additional letter of support.

Comment:

Cllrs Penson, Rostand and White disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Lymington and Pennington Town Council, which had commented on the application, with Cllrs Rostand and White both being members of their Planning Committee.  Cllrs Penson and Rostand disclosed further interests on the grounds that they knew the applicant’s representative, but did not consider that the degree of acquaintance was sufficient to create the impression of bias.  Cllrs Rostand and White disclosed further interests as members of the St Barbe’s Trust. They concluded that they could be considered to have a pre-determined view and were potentially subject to bias.  They consequently abstained from voting.  It was noted that the Town Council had given a grant to the St Barbe Trust last year, but that this was a separate issue to that under consideration.

Cllr Holding disclosed an interest on the grounds that she knew the applicant’s representative.  She considered that that the degree of acquaintance was not sufficient to create an impression of bias and consequently there were no ground under common law to prevent her from taking part in the consideration or voting.

The Committee was aware that the Council’s Conservation Officers that had advised on this proposal had very different views as to its merits and the acceptability of its treatment of the main entrance in New Street.  It was therefore a subjective judgement about the aesthetics of the design.  It was noted that opinions were very divergent.  The majority of the Committee concluded that the use of a very modern, imaginative, design was exciting and aesthetically acceptable, particularly as the main façade to School Lane remained completely unaltered.

Decision:

Planning consent.

Conditions:

Subject to such conditions as the Head of Planning and Transportation deems appropriate.

Details:

Dormers in association with new first floor; roof lights; fenestration alterations; use of garage as ancillary accommodation

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(k))

Details:

Retention and alteration of approved landscaping details; raise ground level; front fence

Public Participants:

Mrs Hemsley-Gills – Applicant.

Additional Representations:

I additional letter of objection from a neighbour re-iterating previous concerns.

Comment:

Cllrs Penson, Rostand and White disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Lymington and Pennington Town Council, which had commented on the application, with Cllrs Rostand and White both being members of their Planning Committee.  They concluded that they could be considered to have a pre-determined view and consequently abstained from voting.

Decision:

Planning consent.

Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(l))

Details:

Two-storey side extension; single-storey front extension

Public Participants:

Mr Eyres – Applicant.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refuse

Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(m))

Details:

Single storey dwelling; access

Public Participants:

Mr Hardy - Applicant

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refused

Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(n))

Details:

Retention of ramp; smoking shelter; shed

Public Participants:

Cllr Beck – representing New Milton Town Council.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Beck disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of New Milton Town Council which had commented on the application.  He concluded there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from addressing the committee.  He did not have a vote.   Cllr Beck opposed the application.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(o))

Details:

Variation of Condition 6 of Planning Permission 12/98611 to allow occupation without achieving a BREEAM “excellent” standard

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Penson and White disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Lymington and Pennington Town Council, which had commented on the application, with Cllr White also being a member of their Planning Committee.  They concluded that they could be considered to have a pre-determined view and consequently abstained from voting.  Cllr Rostand was not present for the determination of this item.

Decision:

Planning consent.

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(p))

Details:

First floor side and rear extension; front porch

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning consent.

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(q))

Details:

Roof alterations and rooflights in association with new first floor; single-storey side and rear extension

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Armstrong disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Hythe and Dibden Parish Council which had commented on the application.  He concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(r))

Details:

Three-storey house; bin store; garden store; landscaping

Public Participants:

Mr Dench – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Penson, Rostand and White disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which had commented on the application, with Cllrs Rostand and White both being members of their Planning Committee. They concluded that they could be considered to have a pre-determined view and consequently abstained from voting.

Reason 1 for refusal was amended by the insertion of the words “form of development” after the word “cramped”.

Decision:

Refused

Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(s)) with reason 1 for refusal amended by the insertion of the words “form of development” after the word “cramped”.

Details:

Variation of Conditions 1, 10, 12 and 19 of Planning Permission 14/10309 to revise the working and restoration schemes at I and II Quarry, Somerley

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

Ellingham, Harbridge and Ibsley Parish Council raised the following concerns:

·        The approved restoration scheme is for agricultural use, the Parish is disappointed that the significant change with the creation of a further 7ha of Priority Habitat has not been adequately justified nor the necessity explained. Some elements of the scheme are welcomed but the Parish is disappointed that there was no opportunity to review the proposals with the applicant.

·        The Parish agree that the current 5 year aftercare condition would be unlikely to be sufficient for the proposed planting schemes to be properly established and believe that there should be provision for at least a further 5 years with a review at the end of that period. Would have liked to have been able to consider a more thorough Maintenance schedule than that submitted.

·        Detailed concerns about the planting and protection from deer browsing.

Comment:

The Committee noted that the proposal did not increase the timescales for the completion of the development but only the detail of activity on the site.

Decision:

That no objection be raised, but the Parish Council’s concerns be brought to the attention of the County Council.