Agenda and minutes

Details:

House; parking; access; demolition of existing garages

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

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:

Two-storey dwelling; demolition of existing

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(b)).

Details:

Two-storey side and single-storey rear extension

Public Participants:

Mr Cron - Applicant

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr L Harris disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Totton and Eling Town Council which had commented on the application.  He disclosed a further interest on the grounds that he lived in the same road as the application site, but as he lived a significant distance away and could not see the site from his property he concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from taking part in the consideration or voting.

Decision:

Planning Consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(c)).

Details:

Single-storey side extension; rooflights; alterations to side entrance

Public Participants:

Mr Beeby - Objector

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.   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 noted that the proposed extension would be much larger and closer to the boundary than the building that it would be replacing.  The impact of the increased bulk of the building was exacerbated by this proximity and also by the use of a gable ended roof form, rather than the hipped roof and low roof pitch style that would be more consistent with the rest of the building and existing extensions.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal reasons:

The proposed extension by reason of its height and proximity to the boundary, exacerbated by its gabled roof form, would result in an unneighbourly development detrimental to the residential amenity of the neighbouring property. As such it is considered to be contrary to Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside of the National Park.

Details:

Access road to Haven Marine Park and Island Point Flats

Public Participants:

Mr Young – Applicant’s Agent

Dr Pearson – Supporter of the application

Mr Bigg – Objector

Additional Representations:

The Conservation Officer recommended refusal.  The introduction of this wide tarmac road would fail to respond positively to the setting of the designated heritage assets, the landscape qualities of the area and the setting of the National Park.

The Employment and Tourism Manager supported the application as he considered that the proposals provided the best and most workable solution for getting boats in and out of a business which was a crucial component of the local marine sector

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(e)).

Details:

11.7 high monopole; removal of existing 10m high pole; equipment cabinet (Prior Notification to carry out Telecommunications Development)

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.

In accordance with the update circulated prior to the meeting, the recommendation was amended to “Details not required to be approved”

Decision:

Details not required to be approved

Details:

1 block of 8 flats; outbuildings, pergolas; access; landscaping; demolition of existing

Public Participants:

Mr Holmes – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Minton – Objector

Mr Dempster – Objector

Mr Rigden – Objector

Town Cllr Craze – New Milton Town Council

Additional Representations:

New Milton Town Council objected to the application on the grounds of overdevelopment, that it would be out of character, contrary to Local Distinctiveness, cause overlooking, parking problems and would set a precedent.

One further letter of objection on the grounds that there were no other three storey buildings on Copse Road, the building would therefore be out of character and the objectors’ Human Rights would be compromised.

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning Consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(g)).

Details:

Rear dormer in association with new first floor; rooflights; Juliet balcony

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(h)).

Details:

First-floor rear extension

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(i)).

Details:

12.5m high monopole; remove existing 10m high monopole; equipment cabinet (Prior Notification to carry out Telecommunications Development)

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.

In accordance with the update circulated prior to the meeting, the recommendation was amended to “Details not required to be approved”

Decision:

Details not required to be approved