Agenda and minutes

Details:

Single-storey rear extension; terrace; bike/bin store; refurbish coach house and use as B&B accommodation; access from Strides Lane; boundary wall; entrance gates; parking

Public Participants:

Mr Hayward – Applicant

Additional Representations:

Ringwood Town Council recommended permission as their previous concerns had largely been addressed. They remained concerned about the proposed access to Strides Lane.

Comment:

Cllrs Rippon-Swaine and Thierry disclosed non pecuniary interests as members of Ringwood Town Council which had commented on the application. They concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(a)).

Details:

Single-storey rear extension; terrace; bike/bin store; open front entrance; block side door; reglaze window; remove stud walls; create door into kitchen and hatch; remove front bar; refurbish coach house; rooflight; create window; staircase; stud walls; create bathroom; boundary wall; entrance gates (Application for Listed Building Consent)

Public Participants:

Mr Hayward – Applicant

Additional Representations:

Ringwood Town Council recommended permission as their previous concerns had largely been addressed. They remained concerned about the proposed access to Strides Lane.

Comment:

Cllrs Rippon-Swaine and Thierry disclosed non pecuniary interests as members of Ringwood Town Council which had commented on the application. They concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Decision:

Listed Building consent granted

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(b)).

Details:

Display 4 awning signs; wall mounted letter sign

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

The Conservation Officer raised no objection to the strip lighting proposed.

Comment:

Cllrs Rippon-Swaine and Thierry disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Ringwood Town Council which had commented on the application.  They concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Decision:

Advertisement consent granted.

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(c)).

Details:

7 houses; access; demolition of existing

Public Participants:

Mr Beavan – Applicant’s Agent

Mr MacDonald –Objector’s Agent.

Additional Representations:

The County Highways Engineer confirmed that the parking and access arrangements were acceptable, following additional comments from a local resident.

The Ecologist confirmed that Condition 7 would adequately safeguard any protected species on the site, although the site had not been identified as suitable for stag beetles, following comments from the same local resident.

Comment:

Cllr Wappet disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Fawley 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.

The officer’s recommendation was amended by updating Condition 11 to refer to a new plan.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(d)), with condition 11 amended by deleting reference to plan nos. 5015.001 and 5105.001Rev B and adding 5105.001 Rev C.

Details:

First and second floor rear extensions to create 2 flats; fenestration

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(e)).

Details:

Display 2 non-illuminated post mounted signs

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Wappet disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Fawley 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.

The officer’s recommendation was amended to allow Reason for refusal 2 to be reworded to make it clearer that the loss of protected trees would lead to a loss of local amenity.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(f)), with Reason 2 reworded to make it clearer that the loss of protected trees would cause a loss of local amenity.

Details:

35 flats in 2 blocks; carport; bin and cycle stores; parking; enhancements to public open space; landscaping

Public Participants:

Mr Phasey – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

Cllrs Britton, Penman and Cleary (Portfolio Holder for Housing and Communities) had written in support of the application.

The Highways Engineer confirmed that the car parking provision complied with policy guidelines and that there would be adequate vehicle turning space on site. The local highway network could accommodate the additional traffic generated.

Comment:

Cllrs Davis and L Harris disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Totton and Eling Town Council which had commented on the application.  They concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

The Committee was advised that the Environment Agency had not yet responded to the consultation on this application.  The recommendation was amended to Head of Planning and Transportation authorised to grant consent following the receipt of their comments.  In addition, the conditions needed to be updated to take account of amended plans.

Decision:

Head of Planning and Transportation authorised to grant planning consent.

Negotiations/

Agreements/

Conditions:

Subject to such conditions as he deems appropriate, including those set out in the report (Item 3(g)), with additional conditions to address any issues that may be raised by the Environment Agency

Details:

Display non-illuminated wall mounted sign (Application for Listed Building Consent)

Public Participants:

None

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. They concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

The Committee was advised of corrections to the planning history of the site.

Decision:

Listed Building consent granted.

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(h)).

Details:

Retention of dwelling

Public Participants:

Mr Pollard – Applicant’s Agent.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(i)).

Details:

House; access alterations; parking

Public Participants:

Ms Evans – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Bryer – Objector’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. They concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(j)).

Details:

Variation of Condition 3 of Planning permission 08/92978 to allow temporary residential accommodation whilst not in holiday use between 1 October and 31 March in any year.

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Variation of condition granted.

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(k)).

Details:

Single-storey rear extension; fenestration alterations; rooflights

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(l)).

Details:

First floor front and side extension; porch extension; fenestration alterations

Public Participants:

Miss Crockett - Applicant

Additional Representations:

1 additional letter from the applicant.

Comment:

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

Decision:

Refused.

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(m)).

Details:

House; access; parking; extension to garage; boundary wall; fence; demolition of existing

Public Participants:

Mr Paley – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Mack - 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. They concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

The officer’s recommendation was amended by updating Condition 2 to refer to amended plans

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(n)) with condition 2 amended by P1508:03 rev ? being replaced by P1508:03 rev 0 and P1508:09 rev 0 added.

Details:

Use of land for car sales and waiting for repair; demolition of existing building

Public Participants:

Mr Cotton - Objector

Additional Representations:

2 additional letters and 2 petition (total 28 signatures) objecting to the proposal, in the same terms as set out in paragraph 10 of the report.

Comment:

Cllrs Davis and L Harris disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Totton and Eling Town Council which had commented on the application. Cllrs Davis, L Harris and C Ward had each expressed firm views in respect of this application and concluded that, as they could be perceived to have a pre-determined view, there were grounds under common law to prevent them taking part in the consideration and they abstained from voting.  Cllr Davis made a statement opposing the application.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(o)).

Details:

Single-storey side and rear extension; fenestration alteration

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

1 additional letter and supporting photographs from the applicant.

Comment:

The report was corrected by the insertion of the word “not” after “to” in paragraph 14.6 line 4.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(p)).

Details:

Raise, extend and alter roof in association with first floor extension; two-storey rear extension; dormers; fenestration alterations; cladding

Public Participants:

Mr Rhoades – 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. They concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(q)).

Details:

Continued use as hand car wash and valeting facility

Public Participants:

Mr Powrie – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Davis and L Harris disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Totton and Eling Town Council which had commented on the application.  They concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Decision:

Temporary planning consent granted

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(r)).

Details:

Variation of Condition 2 of Planning Permission 13/11062 and removal of Condition 4 of Planning Permission 13/11062 to allow removal of brick pier to front elevation of garage

Public Participants:

Mrs Wyatt–Budd - Applicant

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. They concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(s)).

Details:

119 beach huts; associated works including slabs; ramps; steps; railings; temporary fencing and barriers; demolition of existing

Public Participants:

Mr Bond and Mr Westlake – Applicant’s Agents

Mr Holdsworth – Supporter

Parish Cllr Bishop – Milford on Sea Parish Council

Additional Representations:

2 additional letters of objection

Comment:

Cllr Carpenter disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Beach Hut Board which had considered this issue.  As she had expressed no view on the specific proposals now under consideration she concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent her from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Cllr Rostand disclosed a disclosable pecuniary interest as the owner of a beach hut. She took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(t)).