Agenda and minutes

Details:

Development of 45 affordable dwellings comprised; 1 three-storey block of 8 flats; 3 terraces of 4 houses; 1 terrace of 3 houses; 9 pairs of semi-detached houses; 4 detached houses; access; roadways and footpaths; parking; public open space; allotments; landscaping and associated works

Public Participants:

Mr O’Brien – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Noble – Objector

Mr Huggett – Objector’s Agent

Mr Tillyer - Objector

Additional Representations:

Hampshire County Council Flood and Water Management Team – no need to comment.

7 additional letters of objection, as set out in the Committee update.

1 additional letter objecting to disruption during the development period.

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.

Mr Groom, Development Control Manager, disclosed an interest in application 15/10751 on the grounds that his son worked for a company that had advised the applicant.   He had not been involved in processing this application and he left the meeting for the consideration and voting.

The Committee was advised that the S106 agreement in respect of this site had been completed and the recommendation was accordingly updated to the granting of consent.

Members were advised that Section 3 of the report should refer to Core Strategy Policy CS6 (Flood Risk).

Cllr Crisell advised the Committee that, while she supported the principle of the development, she was concerned about the impact of the sand bank and associated play area on occupiers of a neighbouring property.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(a)).

Details:

2 two-storey dwellings; detached garage; landscaping

Public Participants:

Mr Annen – Applicant’s Agent

Ms Burmester – Objector.

Additional Representations:

2 additional letters of objection, as set out in the Committee update

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

Condition 2 was updated to include reference to additional drawings.

Decision:

Head of Planning and Transportation authorised to grant planning consent.

Condition/

Agreements/

Negotiations:

As per report (Item 3(b)), with condition 2 updated to include additional plans.

Refusal reasons:

As per report (Item 3(b)).

Details:

7 detached houses; parking; landscaping; access from Brockhills Lane and Cullwood Lane

Public Participants:

Ms Evans – Applicant’s Agent

Mrs Szumski – Objector

Town Cllr Short – New Milton Town Council

County Cllr Rice – Hampshire County Council

Additional Representations:

8 additional letters of objection, in the same terms as set out in the report.

The Tree Officer considered that the majority of their concerns had been addressed, subject to conditions, with the exception of concern about future pressure on trees adjacent to the northern boundary.

Comment:

Cllrs Beck and Clarke disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of New Milton 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. They did not have a vote.

Cllr Clarke addressed the Committee to oppose the application.

The Committee considered that the conditions to be applied to any planning consent should be strengthened to ensure that the construction of the proposed turning circle at the Cullwood Lane entrance did not prejudice the retention of significant trees on adjacent land.

In response to the debate the applicant’s agent indicated that it would be possible to adjust the layout to increase the amount of car parking available on site.  The Committee considered that this would make the proposed development more acceptable.

Decision:

Head of Planning and Transportation authorised to grant planning consent

Conditions/

Agreements/

Negotiations:

As per report (Item 3(c)), with the submission of amended plans to increase the amount of car parking on site, and the revision of the conditions to ensure that the turning circle does not prejudice the retention of significant trees adjacent to the proposed turning circle at the Cullwood Lane entrance.

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(c))

Details:

Use of first and second floors as 2 flats; roof light; new soil vent pipe; bin and cycle store

Public Participants:

None

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 was advised that Note 2 for inclusion of the decision certificate should refer to Condition No 8.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(d)).

Details:

Retention of window alterations

Public Participants:

Mrs Graley – Objector

Town Cllr Ward – 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 concluded that the window to the bathroom created a perception of overlooking of the adjacent property and should consequently be both obscure glazed and fixed shut.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(e)), with condition 3 amended to read:

3. Within one month of the date of this permission, the first floor, family bathroom rooflight in the northern roofslope of the dwelling shall at all times be fitted with obscure glass and permanently fixed shut and shall be maintained as such in perpetuity unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is forthcoming.

     Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the adjoining neighbouring properties in accordance with policy CS2 of the Local Plan for the New Forest District outside the National Park (Core Strategy).

Details:

Display 4 awning signs; wall mounted letter sign

Public Participants:

Mr Priestly – Applicant’s Agent

Town Cllr Ward – 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 noted that there was uncertainty about the planning history of the site and whether consent had previously been granted for similar awnings.

Decision:

That consideration of this application be deferred to allow further investigation of the planning history of the site and the report updated if necessary.

Details:

Use as 2 dwellings; create separate front door

Public Participants:

Mr Clinkleberry – Applicant

Ms El-Cargly – Objector

Parish Cllr Warne-Holland – Hordle Parish Council

Additional Representations:

2 additional letters of objection, in the same terms as set out in the report.

Comment:

The Committee noted that an offer by the applicant to install a picket fence to protect the footpath link from vehicle movements would make the development more acceptable to the parish council.  Consequently, this amendment should be sought.

Decision:

Head of Planning and Transportation authorised to grant planning consent

Conditions/

Agreements/

Negotiations:

As per report (Item 3(g)), with the addition of securing a picket fence to protect the adjacent footpath link.

Details:

Gates; rooflight; cladding

Public Participants:

Mr Davis – Applicant’s Agent

Parish Cllr Warne-Holland – Hordle Parish Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Committee considered that the design of the gates was inappropriate in this rural location.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

The proposed timber gates due to their overall height and design would be out of character with the existing street scene in this semi-rural countryside location creating an unacceptably dominant and alien feature.  As such the development would be contrary to Policy CS2 of the Local Plan for the New Forest District outside the National Park (Core Strategy) and the Hordle Village Design Statement.

Details:

Vehicle access from Sea Road; car park alterations and extension; landscaping; create front beer garden; extend rear yard; external cladding; fenestration alterations; replacement windows; fit shutters; form gable end to roof; 4m high pole mounted lights; lighting

Public Participants:

Mr Hewitt – Applicant’s Agent

Town Cllr Craze – New Milton Town Council.

Additional Representations:

The Highways Engineer requested the imposition of an additional condition to protect a sight line.

Comment:

Cllr Beck disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of New Milton 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.  He did not have a vote.

Cllr Beck advised the Committee that he opposed the application.

The recommendation was amended by the inclusion of the additional condition requested by the Highways Engineer.

A number of members of the Committee expressed their dissatisfaction that there was no Engineer from the Highways Authority present to support the rationale behind the advice that they had given on this issue as this did not accord with the experience of local councillors.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(i)), with additional condition:

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning General Development Order 2015 nothing over 600mm in height shall be placed or permitted to remain on the land shaded green on the approved plan.

Reason:  In the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Local Plan for the New Forest District outside the National Park (Core Strategy.

Details:

Display non-illuminated signs – 3 letter signs; 2 fence mounted signs; 4 post mounted signs; 1 V post mounted sign; window graphics; illuminated signs – 2 of 4m high post mounted handing signs; 1 letter sign and birds; 20 down lights; 2 floodlights; 2 lantern lights

Public Participants:

Mr Hewitt – Applicant’s Agent.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Beck was not present for the determination of this item.

Decision:

Advertisement consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(j)).

Details:

One and two-storey front, rear and side extensions

Public Participants:

Mr Henderson – Applicant’s Agent.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refused

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(k)).

Details:

Display illuminated fascia sign; non-illuminated post mounted sign; canopy

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Penson disclosed an interest as a trustee and director of the organisation that leased the adjacent property.  He took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

Cllr Clarke disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of New Milton 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.  He did not have a vote.

Members were advised that an additional plan of the proposed canopy had been received.

The Committee concluded that the number and the size of signs, together with their illumination created a cluttered effect that was overly dominant in the street scene, to the extent that it damaged the character of the area.

Decision:

Refused.

Refusal reasons:

The canopy, illuminated fascia and non-illuminated post-mounted signs, as a result of their number, excessive bulk and size, would result in a cluttered appearance and a visually intrusive development which, together with the inappropriate and excessive illumination, would create an obtrusive feature within the street scene. As such, the development is detrimental to the character and appearance of the local area contrary to  Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest outside the National Park

   Councillors:

    Councillors:

*  P J Armstrong

*  Mrs S M Bennison

*  Mrs F Carpenter

*  A H G Davis

*  R L Frampton

*  L E Harris

*  D Harrison

*  Mrs A J Hoare

*  Mrs M D Holding

    J M Olliff-Cooper

*   A K Penson

    W S Rippon-Swaine

    Mrs A M Rostand

    Miss A Sevier

    R A Wappet

    M L White

*   Mrs P A Wyeth

   Councillors:

    Councillors:

G C Beck

S J Clarke