Agenda and minutes

Details:

Use as 1 residential unit

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Rostand disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town 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:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(a))

Details:

Variation of conditions 3 and 4 of Planning permission 13/11416 to allow revised access and landscaping details.

Public Participants:

Parish Cllr Ironside – Hordle Parish Council.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Committee noted that, while at first sight the stretch of public footpath that it was proposed should be deleted from this proposal was isolated and not part of a joined up network, it formed an essential part of a footpath link that the parish council was promoting along Hare Lane, the majority of which would be constructed on land within the parish council’s ownership.  The parish council had accordingly donated land to this developer to allow the footpath to be complete.  While issues of land ownership were not material planning considerations, the Committee was satisfied that allowing this stretch of footpath not to be provided would prejudice a proposal that would bring direct benefits for highway safety, with pedestrians no longer required to walk on the road.  They were satisfied that the original plans demonstrated that there was sufficient space for the footpath to be provided within the development, as originally shown.

Decision:

Refused.

Reasons:

The development of this site with three dwellings, in the absence of a footpath along

the frontage of the site, would be detrimental to the safety of pedestrians passing

along this part of Hare Lane. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy CS24

of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

Details:

House; detached garage; access; parking; landscaping; demolition of existing – amendments to planning permission 99534 to include the siting of detached garage and the addition of an orangery.

Public Participants:

Parish Cllr Simpson – Martin Parish Council.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Committee was advised that the S106 agreement to secure the demolition of the existing dwelling had been completed and the recommendation was accordingly updated to the granting of planning consent subject to conditions.  An additional condition was suggested to control the materials to be used.

Decision:

Planning consent.

Conditions:

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

No works shall take place on the orangery hereby approved until the samples or exact details of the facing and roofing materials to be used for the orangery to be added on the side elevation of the dwelling have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall only be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason:        To ensure an acceptable appearance of the building in accordance with policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

Details:

One and two-storey rear extension: single storey front extension.

Public Participants:

Mr Knight – Applicant’s Agent.

Additional Representations:

1 further letter of objection supporting the Parish Council’s views and raising concerns about additional traffic movements and consequent potential for vehicular accidents.

Comment:

Cllr Wappet disclosed a non-pecuniary interest on the grounds that he knew the applicant’s agent, who had also done work for Fawley Parish Council, of which he was a member.  Cllr Wappet did not consider that the degree of acquaintance was sufficient to amount to grounds under common law that would prevent him from taking part in the consideration or voting

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (item 3d))

Details:

Use of building as office.

Public Participants:

Mr Holmes – Applicant’s Agent.

Additional Representations:

The Highways Engineer raised no objection.

Comment:

Cllrs Rice and Woods 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 and to vote.

Decision:

Refused

Reasons:

1 Notwithstanding the proposal to add an additional window in place of the garage door the use of this building as an office would give rise to a substandard working environment of a poor design in an inappropriate location. As a result the proposed change of use would be contrary to policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

Details:

Two-storey side and rear extension; single storey rear extension; front porch; pitched roof over garage

Public Participants:

Mr Mitchell - Applicant

Additional Representations:

1 additional letter from the applicant’s agent responding to the issues raised by Ringwood Town Council.

Comment:

Cllrs Rippon-Swaine, Thierry and Woodifield 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(f)

Details:

Raise ridge height; two-storey front and rear extension; front and rear dormers; rooflights; single-storey side extension

Public Participants:

Miss Ritchie – Applicant’s Agent

Mrs Scarle - Objector

Additional Representations:

One letter recorded as being in support should be considered as raising no objection to the proposal

Comment:

Cllr Rostand disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town 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

Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(g)

Details:

Front dormers in association with new first floor; roof alterations; rear extension; front porch; fenestration alterations.

Public Participants:

Ms Tremain – Applicant’s Agent.

Additional Representations:

1 additional letter from the applicant, circulated directly to Members of the Committee, responding to the concerns raised in the Officer’s report.

Comment:

Cllr Rostand disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town 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.

Cllr Woodifield disclosed a non-pecuniary interest on the grounds that she was a personal acquaintance of the applicant.  She concluded that the degree of acquaintance was sufficient to create an impression of bias and accordingly took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

Decision:

Refused

Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(h))

Details:

One and two-storey side extensions; first floor rear extension; front bay window with porch canopy; first floor side bay window.

Public Participants:

Mr Hayward – Applicant’s Agent

Mrs Baroni - Objector

Additional Representations:

The Highways Authority had made no comment.

Comment:

Cllr Dart disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Totton and Eling 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.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(i))

Details:

Single-storey rear extension; porch; detached double garage with store over.

Public Participants:

Mr Marsh – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

1 additional letter of objection on the grounds that the garage would be overly dominant in the street scene.

Comment:

Cllr Rostand disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town 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.

Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(j))

Details:

Retention of single-storey extension

Public Participants:

Mr Richardson – Applicant

Dr Rothwell - Objector

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The history of the application had omitted the refusal of planning application 14/10368 on 20 May 2014.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

None, as per report (Item 3k))

Details:

Development of 47 dwellings comprised: 1 terrace of 3 houses; 12 pairs of semi-detached houses; 1 terrace of 4 bungalows; 13 detached houses; 3 detached bungalows; single and double garages; associated parking; access roads; footpaths; open space; landscaping; demolition of existing

Public Participants:

Mr Hirsh – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

Lymington and Pennington Town Council recommended refusal.

The Housing Development and Acquisitions Manager supported the application.

Highways Authority – No objection subject to conditions.

Comment:

Cllr Rostand disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town 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.

The recommendation was amended by the revision of condition 8 and an additional condition to reflect the Highways Authority’s comments.

Decision:

Head of Planning and Transportation authorised to grant planning consent subject to:

i) the completion, by 12th June 2015, of a planning obligation entered into by way of an Agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure appropriate provision towards public open space and affordable housing and to ensure the development's impact on designated European sites is adequately mitigated.

ii) the receipt of no substantive new material objections to the scheme from third parties by 22nd May 2015.

iii) the imposition of conditions.

But in the event that the Agreement is not completed by 12th June 2015, the Head

of Planning and Transportation authorised to refuse consent

Conditions/

Agreements/

Negotiations:

As per report (Item 3(l))

Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(l))