Agenda and minutes

Details:

Industrial Building

Public Participants:

Mr Boyce and Mr Titheridge – Applicant’s Agents.

Town Cllr Treleaven – Ringwood Town Council

Additional Representations:

Environmental Health – No objection, subject to conditions to cover air quality and noise from the development (already covered by conditions 13 and 12 respectively)

Comment:

Cllr Rippon-Swaine disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Ringwood Town 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 recommendation was amended by the submission of revised wording for condition 5, as circulated in the update prior to the meeting.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(a)), with revised wording for condition 5 as follows:

5. Details of the width, alignment, gradient and type of construction proposed for the footway/cycleway to be to an adoptable standard shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before commencement of development.  The development shall not be occupied until the proposed footway/cycleway has been constructed and made available to the public and thereafter maintained and retained in perpetuity.

Reason - As in the report.

Details:

One detached two-storey building comprising 2 flats; access; parking

Public Participants:

Town Cllr Treleaven – Ringwood Town Council.

Additional Representations:

The Applicant reaffirmed that they considered that the proposal would not be viable if an affordable housing contribution was paid.

Comment:

Cllr Rippon-Swaine disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Ringwood Town 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.

Members’ attention was drawn to recent correspondence from the Head of Planning and Transportation advising them that Government Guidance that had attempted to remove the Local Planning Authority’s ability to require contributions towards social housing to be paid for developments of fewer than 10 dwelling had been ruled unlawful.  This Council was entitled to continue to require such contributions to be paid as developers could submit evidence to demonstrate that the development would not be viable should such payment be made.  In the present case, the applicant had asserted that this development would not be viable, but this Council’s Valuer did not agree with that conclusion.

Decision:

Refused

     Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(b))

Details:

Retention of 1.8m fence

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

The Highway Authority raised no objection.

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.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions

As per report (Item 3(c))

Details:

20m monopole; 300mm dish antenna; ancillary works

This application withdrawn by the applicants by letter dated 11 August 2015.

Details:

Stud walls and doors

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Committee considered that the proposed internal partitions could be readily removed and would not cause damage to the fabric of the Listed Building.  A viable use for the building was essential if the building was to be protected in the longer term and outweighed any small degree of harm that may result from the visual effect of sub-dividing the current retail space.

Decision:

Listed Building consent granted.

Conditions:

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

Details:

Attached house; access

Public Participants:

Mr Huggett – Applicant’s Agent.

Additional Representations:

The Applicant’s Agent raised concerns that the report had not adequately represented changes that had been made to the proposal.

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:

Refused

Reasons:

As per report (Item 14(f))

Details:

Outbuilding for use as ancillary living accommodation

Public Participants:

Town Cllr Treleaven – Ringwood Town Council.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Rippon-Swaine disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Ringwood Town 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 Committee considered that an additional condition should be imposed to require the retention of the current 2m high fence, in order to continue to screen the proposed outbuilding.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 14(g)), with an additional condition to secure the retention of the 2m high boundary fence.