Agenda and minutes

Details:

Use as a café/coffee shop (Use Class A3)

Public Participants:

Mr Savage – Applicant

Miss Badger – Objector

Additional Representations:

Cllr Penson objected to the proposal.

Comment:

Cllr White disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Lymington and Pennington 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 was advised that the Environmental Health officer maintained concerns about the possibility of the proposed A3 use generating sufficient noise to represent a nuisance to the occupiers of the flat above the shop.  As this was a listed building it was possible that there may be technical challenges in achieving sufficient noise insulation without affecting the historic fabric of the building.  Accordingly the recommendation was amended to the Head of Planning and Transportation authorised to grant consent upon being satisfied with the arrangements for noise insulation, with the imposition of such conditions as he deemed appropriate.

The Committee was also advised that the storage of dustbins, although of concern locally, was not considered to be an issue for the determination of this application.

Decision:

Head of Planning and Transportation authorised to grant planning consent.

Conditions/ Agreements/ Negotiations:

Upon being satisfied with the arrangements for sound insulation between the proposed A3 use and the flat above, with the imposition of such conditions as he deems appropriate, to include those set out in the report (Item 3a)

Details:

Single-storey front extension; fenestration alterations; roof lights

Public Participants:

Mr Johnson – Applicant’s Agent

Town Cllr Hawkins – New Milton Town Council.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(b))

Details:

Two-storey extension to form dwelling

Public Participants:

Ms M Wathen – Marchwood Parish Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Frampton disclosed a common law interest on the grounds that this application included the consideration of the requirement for a financial contribution towards affordable housing in compliance with policy CS15.  As he was party to a planning appeal challenging the application of this policy to developments of fewer than 10 dwellings he concluded there was a danger that he could be perceived to be biased and consequently took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

The officer’s recommendation was amended with revised wording for condition 3, which had been circulated in the update prior to the meeting.

The Committee concluded that the additional development would have a significantly greater impact on the character and appearance of this area than the approved extension to the property through the introduction of additional parking spaces and other changes to the visible curtilage.

Decision:

Refused.

Reasons:

1. The proposed development would, as a result of the increased level of car parking, removal of fencing and associated hard surfacing, result in a form of development that would be out of character with the green, sylvan appearance of this area and give rise to a cramped form of development. As a result the proposal would be contrary to Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

2.  The proposed development would fail to make any contribution toward addressing the substantial need for affordable housing in the District. The proposal would therefore conflict with an objective of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park 2009 and with the terms of Policies CS15 and CS25 of the Core Strategy.

3.The recreational impacts of the proposed development on the New Forest Special Area of Conservation, the New Forest Special Protection Area, the New Forest Ramsar site, the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area, the Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar site, and the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation would not be adequately mitigated and the proposed development would therefore be likely to unacceptably increase recreational pressures on these sensitive European nature conservation sites, contrary to Policy DM3 of the New Forest District Local Plan Part 2: Sites and Development Management.

Details:

Detached carport

Public Participants:

Mr Sharpe - Applicant

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refused

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(d))

Details:

Retention of boundary fence

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr White disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which had commented on the application.  He concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from taking part in the consideration and voting.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(e))

Details:

House; partial demolition of existing

Public Participants:

Mr Weston – Objector

Parish Cllr Banks – Milford on Sea Parish Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Committee was advised that the report was incorrect in paragraph 14.2 in that the dwelling at no 11 Knowland Drive had been constructed as a house, not altered;  while the bungalow at 7 Knowland Drive had not been altered as stated in paragraph 14.5.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(f))

Details:

2 houses; 2 detached garages; parking; access from Keyhaven Road and Carrington Lane; demolition of existing buildings

Public Participants:

Mr Brown – Applicant’s Agent

Parish Cllr Banks – Milford on Sea Parish Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Frampton disclosed a common law interest on the grounds that this application included the consideration of the requirement for a financial contribution towards affordable housing in compliance with policy CS15. As he was party to a planning appeal challenging the application of this policy to developments of fewer than 10 dwellings he concluded there was a danger that he could be perceived to be biased and consequently took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

Decision:

Refused

Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(g))

Details:

House

Public Participants:

Mr Davis – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Frampton disclosed a common law interest on the grounds that this application included the consideration of the requirement for a financial contribution towards affordable housing in compliance with policy CS15. As he was party to a planning appeal challenging the application of this policy to developments of fewer than 10 dwellings he concluded there was a danger that he could be perceived to be biased and consequently took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

Cllr White disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which had commented on the application.  He concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from taking part in the consideration or voting.

Decision:

Refused

Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(h))

Details:

2 pairs of semi-detached houses; access; parking

Public Participants:

Mr Holmes – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Compton – Objector

Parish Cllr Banks – Milford on Sea Parish Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Frampton disclosed a common law interest on the grounds that this application included the consideration of the requirement for a financial contribution towards affordable housing in compliance with policy CS15. As he was party to a planning appeal challenging the application of this policy to developments of fewer than 10 dwellings he concluded there was a danger that he could be perceived to be biased and consequently took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

The officer’s recommendation was amended by the inclusion of a condition to maintain the open character of the eastern part of the plot.

The Committee concluded that it was essential to maintain the current openness of the eastern part of this site.  The open vista viewed to the right of the Sea Road junction with Hurst Road, when approaching along Sea Road, was an essential element of the character of this sensitive location.  The views of the promenade and café, sweeping outwards to the sea, were very important.  Similarly, the view from the promenade back towards the village was valued locally and should be protected.  Within this context the Committee considered whether this current application overcame the objections raised by the Planning Inspectors in respect of previous appeals relating to the development of this site.

Members were satisfied that the previous objection on the grounds of highway safety had been satisfactorily overcome.

Members concluded that the removal of garages from the eastern side of the development and moving the building by 1 metre was not sufficient to overcome the objection raised to the intrusion of development into the open vista of the approach along Sea Road.  A significant bulk of building would intrude into this view at 3 storey height, and be visually obvious and imposing, seriously damaging the current character of the area.  They considered that the indicative line suggested by the Inspector in respect of the most recent appeal did not fully respect the current views and a more precautionary approach was needed.  They consequently also questioned whether, in principle, it would be possible for the site to accommodate 4 dwellings of a size and spacing that would be consistent with the character of this area without intruding upon the part of the site that it was essential should remain open.  A previous appeal decision had reached this conclusion.  The current application appeared cramped and out of character, failing to respect the natural rhythm of the surrounding development.

Decision:

Refused.

Reasons:

1. The proposed development would compromise the open character of this area at the junction of Sea Road with Hurst Road as a result of the development's encroachment into the open vista, which would be exacerbated by the four dwellings proposed representing acontrived and cramped overdevelopment of the site that detracts from the openness, that is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10i