Agenda and minutes

Venue: the Council Chamber, Appletree Court, Lyndhurst

Contact: 023 8028 5588 - ask for Jan Debnam  E-mail  jan.debnam@nfdc.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

Apologies

 

Apologies were received from Cllrs Holding and Wyeth.

 

 

18.

Minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2016 as a correct record.

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED:

 

That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2016 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

 

 

19.

Declarations of Interest

To note any declarations of interest made by members in connection with an agenda item.  The nature of the interest must also be specified.

 

Members are asked to discuss any possible interests with Democratic Services prior to the meeting.

 

 

Minutes:

Cllr Bennison disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in applications 16/11098 and 16/11099 as a member of Marchwood Parish Council which had commented on the applications.

 

Cllr Davis disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in applications 16/11048, 16/11064 and 16/11130 as a member of Totton and Eling Town Council which had commented on the application.

 

Cllr Frampton disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in applications 16/10956 as a member of Bransgore Parish Council which had commented on the application.

 

Cllr Harris disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in applications 16/11048, 16/11064 and 16/11130 as a member of Totton and Eling Town Council which had commented on the applications.

 

Cllr Harrison disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 16/11064 on the grounds that his neighbour owned the property and he could therefore be perceived to be biased.

 

Cllr Hoare disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in applications 16/11098 and 16/11099 as a member of Marchwood Parish Council which had commented on the application.

 

Cllr Olliff-Cooper disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 16/11115 on the grounds that he knew the applicant and the degree of acquaintance was sufficient that he could be perceived to be biased.

 

Cllr Penson disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in applications 16/10282, 16/10130, 16/10451, 16/10452, 16/11176, 16/10943, 16/11090, 16/11091, 16/11106, 16/11107, 16/11114, 16/11115 and 16/11119 as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which had commented on the applications.  He also disclosed a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of application16/10764 as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which was an adjacent land owner and would derive a financial benefit.

 

Cllr Rippon-Swaine disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 16/11025 as a member of Ringwood Town Council which had commented on the application.  He also disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application16/11063 on the grounds that he knew the owner of the property.

 

Cllr Rostand disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in applications 16/10282, 16/10130, 16/10451, 16/10452, 16/11176, 16/10943, 16/11090, 16/11091, 16/11106, 16/11107, 16/11114, 16/11115 and 16/11119 as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which had commented on the application.  She also disclosed a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of application16/10764 as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which was an adjacent land owner and would derive a financial benefit in respect of application16/10764.

 

Cllr White disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in applications 16/10282, 16/10130, 16/10451, 16/10452 16/11176, 16/10943, 16/11090, 16/11091, 16/11106, 16/11107, 16/11114, 16/11115 and 16/11119 as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which had commented on the applications.  He disclosed a further interest in application 16/11119 on the grounds that he knew the applicant.  He also disclosed a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of application 16/10764 as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which was an adjacent land owner and would derive a financial benefit.

 

 

20.

Planning Applications for Committee Decision

To determine the applications set out below:

 

 

Minutes:

Applications 16/10130, 16/10282, 16/10451, 16/10452, 16/10869, 16/10943 16/10956, 16/11022, 16/11064, 16/11085 and 16/11134 were determined after the adjournment for lunch.

 

Application 16/11047 had been withdrawn by the applicants.

 

 

20a

12 High Street, Lymington (Application 16/10282) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Application for the Modification or Discharge of a Section 106 Obligation in respect of Planning Permission 16/10282 for Creation of 1 flat; partial demolition; extend shop; one and two storey rear extension; 1 pair semi-detached houses; landscaping

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

That the S106 Affordable Housing Obligation be discharged in full and that the Service Manager Planning and Building Control be authorised to vary the Section 106 legal agreement accordingly.

 

Minutes:

Details:

Application for the Modification or Discharge of a Section 106 Obligation in respect of Planning Permission 16/10282 for creation of 1 flat; partial demolition; extend shop; one and two storey rear extension; 1 pair semi-detached houses; landscaping

 

 

Public Participants:

None

 

 

Additional Representations:

None

 

 

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

 

 

Decision:

That the Section 106 affordable housing obligation be discharged in full and that the Service Manager Planning and Building Control be authorised to vary the Section 106 Agreement accordingly.

 

 

 

 

20b

57/59 High Street, Milford-on-Sea (Application 16/10130) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Application for the Modification or Discharge of a Section 106 Obligation in respect of Planning Permission 16/10130 for Attached house to rear; pitched roofs to existing flat roof extension; window alterations to 57a

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

That the S106 Affordable Housing Obligation be discharged in full and that the Service Manager Planning and Building Control be authorised to revoke the Section 106 legal agreement accordingly.

 

Minutes:

Details:

Application for the Modification or Discharge of a Section 106 Obligation in respect of Planning Permission 16/10130 for Attached house to rear; pitched roofs to existing flat roof extension; window alterations to 57a

 

 

Public Participants:

None

 

 

Additional Representations:

None

 

 

Comment:

None

 

 

Decision:

That the Section 106 affordable housing obligation be discharged in full and that the Service Manager Planning and Building Control be authorised to vary the Section 106 Agreement accordingly.

 

 

 

 

20c

51 High Street, Lymington (Application 16/10451) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Shopfront alterations

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Planning consent subject to conditions

 

Minutes:

Details:

Shopfront alterations

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

None

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

Lymington and Pennington Town Council now recommended that consent be granted.

 

 

 

 

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.  Cllr Rostand was not present for the determination of this application.

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Planning consent.

 

 

 

 


Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(c)).

 

 

 

 

20d

51 High Street, Lymington (Application 16/10452) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Display 2 wall-mounted signs; 1 vinyl door sign; 1 fascia sign (Application for Advertisement Consent)

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Grant Advertisement Consent

 

Minutes:

Details:

Display 2 wall-mounted signs; 1 vinyl door sign; 1 fascia sign

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

None

 

 

 

 

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. Cllr Rostand was not present for the determination of this application.

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Advertisement consent.

 

 

 

 


Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(d)).

 

 

 

20e

Land at Buckland Manor Farm, Alexandra Road, Lymington (Application 16/10764) pdf icon PDF 5 MB

Development of 87 dwellings comprised:  21 detached houses; 5 bungalows; 26 pairs of semi-detached houses; 3 terraces of 3 houses; garages; parking; landscaping; junction access; estate roads; footpaths; SANG; open space; 10 allotments

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Service Manager Planning and Building Control authorised to grant planning consent subject the completion by 30 January 2017 of an agreement pursuant to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and with the imposition of conditions

 

Minutes:

Details:

Development of 87 dwellings comprised; 21 detached houses; 5 bungalows; 26 pairs of semi-detached houses; 3 terraces of 3 houses; garages; parking; landscaping; junction access; estate roads; footpaths, SANG; open space, 10 allotments

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

Mr Hirsch – Applicant’s Agent

Mrs Vallence - Objector

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

The Urban Design Officer considered the design was acceptable subject to a condition to secure further details.

The Highways Engineer had expanded on their comments.

Natural England raised no objection.

The applicant had submitted a further Heritage Statement.

Further details of the additional representations were set out in the update published prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

Comment:

Cllrs Penson, Rostand and White disclosed disclosable pecuniary interests on the grounds that they were members of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which owned an adjacent parcel of land and would benefit should planning consent be granted. They left the meeting for the consideration and voting.

 

The officer’s recommendation was amended by revised wording for conditions 7 and 12, as circulated in the update prior to the meeting.

 

The Committee noted the concerns of the objector regarding the landscaping on the eastern boundary of the site and concluded that the Service Manager Planning and Building Control should be authorised to amend the suggested conditions should that be necessary.

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Service Manager Planning and Building Control authorised to grant planning consent subject to the completion by 30 January 2017 of the requisite S106 agreement and with the imposition of conditions.  If the Agreement has not been completed by that date, Service Manager Planning and Building Control authorised to refuse consent.

 

 

 

 


Conditions/

Agreements/

Negotiations:

As per report (Item 3(e)), as amended by the update circulated prior to the meeting and with such other amendments as the Service Manager Planning and Building Control deems appropriate.

 

 

Refusal reasons:

As per report (Item 3 (e))

 

 

 

 

 

20f

Land of 19 Hale Avenue, New Milton (Application 16/11144) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Detached house; associated parking

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Refuse

 

Minutes:

Details:

Detached house; associated parking

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

Mr Elliott – Applicant’s Agent

Mrs Fisher - Objector

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

New Milton Town Council objected as the proposal would be contrary to the local distinctiveness SPD; set a precedent; they had highway concerns; and considered there would be overlooking and lack of amenity space for both existing and proposed dwellings.

1 additional letter of objection on the grounds of loss of wildlife and loss of view.

 

 

 

 

Comment:

None

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Refused

 

 

 

 


Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(f)).

 

 

 

20g

49 Old Milton Road, New Milton (Application 16/10869) pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Use of first and second floor as 2 flats

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Planning consent subject to conditions

 

Minutes:

Details:

Use of first and second floor as 2 flats

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

None

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

None

 

 

 

 

Comment:

None

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Planning consent.

 

 

 

 


Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(g)).

 

 

 

20h

5 Bingham Drive, Lymington (Application 16/11176) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

One pair of semi-detached houses; 2 detached houses; parking; landscaping; demolition of existing

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Refuse

 

Minutes:

Details:

One pair of semi-detached houses; 2 detached houses; parking; landscaping, demolition of existing

 

 

Public Participants:

Mr Holmes – Applicant’s Agent

 

 

Additional Representations:

The Highways Authority had expanded their comments, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

 

 

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

 

 

Decision:

Refused

 

 


Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(h)).

 

 

 

20i

3 Filton Road, Lymington (Application 16/10943) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Two-storey and rear extension; single-storey rear extension; front porch; roof lights

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Planning consent subject to conditions

 

Minutes:

Details:

Two-storey and rear extension; single-storey rear extension; front porch; roof lights

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

None

 

 

 

 

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.  Cllr Rostand was not present for the determination of this application.

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Planning consent.

 

 

 

 


Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(i)).

 

 

 

20j

4 Tucks Close, Bransgore (Application 16/10956) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Single-storey front, side and rear extensions; detached garage/store; use of existing garage as living accommodation

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Refuse

 

Minutes:

Details:

Single-storey front, side and rear extensions; detached garage/store; use of existing garage as living accommodation

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

None

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

None

 

 

 

 

Comment:

Cllr Frampton disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Bransgore 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

 

 

 

 


Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(j)).

 

 

 

20k

Land south of Gore Road, New Milton (Application 16/10994) pdf icon PDF 5 MB

Development of 28 dwellings comprised:  four pairs of link detached, semi-detached houses; 2 detached houses; one pair of semi-detached houses; two terraces of 3 houses; one terrace of 4 houses; garage block with flat over; one terrace of 4 houses, 3 garages & flat over; detached garages; carports; shed/cycle stores; roads; parking; landscaping; public open space

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Service Manager Planning and Building Control authorised to grant planning consent subject to no substantive objections being received by 13 October 2016 in respect of the advertisement of amended plans; the completion by 30 December 2016 of an agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and with the imposition of conditions

 

Minutes:

Details:

Development of 28 dwellings comprised, four pairs of link detached, semi-detached houses; 2 detached houses; one pair of semi-detached houses; two terraces of 3 houses; one terrace of 4 houses; garage block with flat over; one terrace of 4 houses; 3 garages and flat over; detached garages; carports; shed/cycle stores; roads; parking; landscaping; public open space

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

Mr Holmes – Applicant’s Agent

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

New Milton Town Cllr Reid expressed concerns about drainage.

The Council’s Land Drainage Section  considered that surface water drainage had been given proper consideration and the proposals were sound.

The Highways Engineer had expanded on their comments.

Further details of these representations were set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

Comment:

None

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Service Manager Planning and Building Control authorised to grant planning consent  subject to the completion by 30 December 2016 of the requisite S106 Agreement, provided that no further substantive objections were received by the expiration of the consultation period on 13 October 2016.  If the agreement was not been completed by that time, Service Manager Planning and Building Control authorised to refuse consent.

 

 

 

 


Conditions/

Agreements/

Negotiations:

As per report (Item 3(k)).

 

 

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item (3k))

 

 

 

 

 

20l

Land adjacent to 10 Linford Close, New Milton (Application 16/11005) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Detached house

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Refuse

 

Minutes:

Details:

Detached house

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

Mr Legg - Applicant

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

1 further letter in support from the applicant.

New Milton Town Cllr Short recommended planning consent.

The Highways Engineer had expanded on their comments.

Further details of these representations were set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

Comment:

The Committee considered that the design of the proposed dwelling was acceptable and, in the light of existing overlooking of adjacent properties, the relationship with the proposed dwelling would not exacerbate the situation.

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Planning consent

 

 

 

 


Conditions:

Subject to such conditions as the Service Manager Planning and Building Control deems appropriate.

 

 

 

20m

25 Sea Road, Milford-on-Sea (Application 16/11022) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

1 detached house; 1 detached chalet bungalow; detached single garage; associated parking; landscaping; decking; demolition of existing

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Refuse

 

Minutes:

Details:

1 detached house; 1 detached chalet bungalow; detached single garage; associated parking; landscaping; decking; demolition of existing

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

None

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

Milford on Sea Parish Council maintained their objection to the proposal.

The Highways Engineer had expanded on their comments.

Further details of the representations were set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

Comment:

Mr Groom, Service Manager Planning and Building Control, disclosed an interest on the grounds that the applicant was a friend of long standing.  He left the meeting for the consideration and voting.

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Refused

 

 

 

 


Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(m).

 

 

 

20n

Land of 24 North Poulner Road, Ringwood (Application 16/11025) pdf icon PDF 3 MB

House; access alterations; parking

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Planning consent subject to conditions

 

Minutes:

Details:

House; access alterations; parking

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

Mr Cain – Applicant’s Agent

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

The Highways Engineer had expanded on their comments as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Planning consent.

 

 

 

 


Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(n)).

 

 

 

20o

Home Bakery Cottage, Lower Daggons Lane, South End, Damerham (Application 16/11047) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Two-storey and single-storey rear extensions; front porch; detached double garage

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Refuse

 

Minutes:

Details:

Two-storey and single-storey rear extensions; front porch; detached double garage

 

 

 

This application was withdrawn by the applicants by e-mail dated 10 October 2016.

 

 

 

 

20p

39 Salisbury Road, Totton (Application 16/11048) pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Block of 10 flats; cycle store; landscaping; parking; access

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Refuse

 

Minutes:

Details:

Block of 10 flats; cycle store; landscaping; parking; access

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

Mr Ward  - Applicant’s Agent

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

The Highways Engineer had expanded their comments, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

Comment:

Cllrs Davis and Harris disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Totton and Eling Town Council which had commented on the application.  As they had taken part in the debate on those views they considered that there was a danger of the perception that they had a pre-determined view and consequently took no part in the consideration.  They requested that their abstention from voting was recorded.

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Refused

 

 

 

 


Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(p)).

 

 

 

20q

Land of Harts Farm House, 327 Everton Road, Everton, Hordle (Application 16/11063) pdf icon PDF 3 MB

House; detached garage; pergola; parking; landscaping

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Refuse

 

Minutes:

Details:

House; detached garage; pergola; parking; landscaping

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

Mr Bottomley - Applicant

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

The Highways Engineer had expanded on their comments as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

Comment:

Cllr Rippon-Swaine disclosed a non-pecuniary interest on the grounds that he knew the owner of the property.  He concluded that there was a danger that there could be a perception that he was biased and took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

 

The reason for refusal had been amended as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Refused

 

 

 

 


Refusal Reasons:

By reason of its openness, greenery, trees and views onto the neighbouring historic barns, the application site acts as an important buffer between the Listed Building, known as Harts Farm House, and the surrounding suburban development.  It is considered that the proposed development and severance of the plot would be at odds with the historic use of the site and would unacceptably erode and reduce the size and distinctive quality of the curtilage of the listed building.  Moreover, by virtue of its siting, scale, footprint and domestic design, the proposed dwelling would be over dominant and out of keeping with the immediate buildings, including the historic barn that would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the Listed Building. For this reason the proposed development would be contrary to Policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy for New Forest District outside the National Park and Policy DM1 of the Local Plan Part 2 Sites and Development Management Document.

 

 

 

20r

Chuckles Day Nursery, 2 Northlands Road, Totton (Application 16/11064) pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Use as residential dwelling

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Planning consent subject to conditions

 

Minutes:

Details:

Use as residential dwelling

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

None

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

None

 

 

 

 

Comment:

Cllr Harrison disclosed a non-pecuniary interest on the grounds that his neighbour owned the property.  He concluded that there was a danger of perception of bias and left the meeting for the consideration and voting.

 

Cllrs Davis and Harris disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Totton and Eling 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 was advised that the CIL liability had been reviewed and no CIL payment was due.

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Planning consent.

 

 

 

 


Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(r)).

 

 

 

20s

Land of Little Orchard, 28 Compton Road, New Milton (Application 16/11085) pdf icon PDF 3 MB

House; alterations to existing dwelling; access alterations

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Planning consent subject to conditions

 

Minutes:

Details:

House; alterations to existing dwelling; access alterations

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

None

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

None

 

 

 

 

Comment:

None

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Planning consent.

 

 

 

 


Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(s)).

 

 

 

20t

43 Southampton Road, Lymington (Application 16/11090) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Repainting of exterior; boundary railing; shed (demolition of existing); replacement timber windows at front

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Refuse

 

Minutes:

Details:

Repainting of exterior, boundary railing; shed (demolition of existing); replacement timber windows at front

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

None

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

None

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Refused

 

 

 

 


Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(t)).

 

 

 

20u

43 Southampton Road, Lymington (Application 16/11091) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Repainting of exterior; boundary railing; shed (demolition of existing); replacement timber windows at front (Application for Listed Building Consent)

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Refuse Listed Building Consent

 

Minutes:

Details:

Repainting of exterior; boundary railing; shed (demolition of existing); replacement timber windows at front

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

None

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

None

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Listed Building Consent Refused

 

 

 

 


Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(u)).

 

 

 

20v

Land rear of 4 Kennard Road, New Milton (Application 16/11028) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Detached bungalow; parking; landscaping

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Refuse

 

Minutes:

Details:

Detached bungalow; parking; landscaping

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

Mr Whild – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Stone - Objector

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

None

 

 

 

 

Comment:

None

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Refused

 

 

 

 


Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(v)).

 

 

 

20w

8 Brackens Way, Lymington (Application 16/11106) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Removal of Condition 3 of Planning Permission 09/93569 to allow clear glazing to the first floor east elevation

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Grant Variation of Condition subject to conditions

 

Minutes:

Details:

Removal of Condition 3 of Planning Permission 09/93569 to allow clear glazing to the first floor east elevation

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

Mrs Tremain - Objector

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

None

 

 

 

 

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 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(w)).

 

 

 

20x

3 Kingsfield, Lymington (Application 16/11107) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Single-storey extension; two-storey extension; lantern rooflight; fenestration alterations

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Refuse

 

Minutes:

Details:

Single-storey extension; two-storey extension; lantern rooflight; fenestration alterations

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

Mr Kavanagh – Applicant

Mr Davies – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Pettit – Objector

Mr Adams - Objector

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

None

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Refused

 

 

 

 

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(x)).

 

 

 

20y

Copper Beech, Fox Pond Lane, Pennington, Lymington (Application 16/11114) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Single-storey rear extension; first-floor rear extension

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Planning consent subject to conditions

 

Minutes:

Details:

Single-storey rear extension; first-floor rear extension

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

Mr Russell - Applicant

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

None

 

 

 

 

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 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(y)).

 

 

 

20z

44-46 High Street, Lymington (Application 16/11115) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Illumination to shop sign (Retrospective) (Application for Advertisement Consent)

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Refuse Advertisement Consent

 

Minutes:

Details:

Illumination to shop sign

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

Mr Welker – Applicant’s representative

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

None

 

 

 

 

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

 

Cllr Olliff-Cooper disclosed a non-pecuniary interest on the grounds that he knew the applicants.  He concluded that the degree of acquaintance was sufficient to create an impression of bias and took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

 

The Committee concluded that the lighting in place was very discrete and minimally visible in the context of existing lighting in the vicinity and on a building of this scale.   In view of the previous consent for illuminated signage on this building they concluded that this proposal was acceptable.

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Advertisement consent

 

 

 

 


Conditions:

Such conditions as the Service Manager Planning and Building Control deems appropriate.

 

 

 

20aa

14 Solent Avenue, Lymington (Application 16/11119) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Single-storey rear extension; fenestration alterations; cladding

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Planning consent subject to conditions

 

Minutes:

Details:

Single-storey rear extension; fenestration alterations; cladding

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

Miss Skeete – Applicant’s Agent

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

None

 

 

 

 

Comment:

Cllrs Penson, Rostand and White disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which had commented on the application. Cllrs Rostand and Penson concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.  Cllr White disclosed a further interest on the grounds that he knew the applicants and concluded that the degree of acquaintance was sufficient to create and impression of bias.  He took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Planning consent.

 

 

 

 


Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(aa)).

 

 

 

20bb

Site of Stocklands, Calmore Drive, Calmore, Totton (Application 16/11130) pdf icon PDF 4 MB

Development of 20 dwellings; access; parking; landscaping and open space (Outline Application with details only of access)

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Service Manager Planning and Building Control authorised to grant planning consent subject to the completion by 31 December 2016 of an agreement pursuant to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the imposition of conditions.

 

Minutes:

Details:

Development of 20 dwellings; access; parking; landscaping and open space

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

None

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

The Tree Officer requested the imposition of an additional condition following receipt of an Arboricultural Method Statement.

The Highways Engineer expanded on their comments.

Further details were set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

Comment:

Cllrs Davis and Harris disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Totton and Eling Town Council which had commented on the application.  As they had taken part in the debate on those views they considered that there was a danger there was a danger they could be perceived to have a pre-determined view and consequently took no part in the consideration.  They requested that it be recorded that they did not vote. 

The Officers recommendation was amended by the addition of condition 14, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Service Manager Planning and Building Control authorised to grant Planning consent subject to the completion by 31 December 2016 of the requisite S106 Agreement

 

 

 

 


Conditions/

Agreements/

Negotiations:

As per report (Item 3(bb)), with the addition of condition 14 as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

20cc

The Colt House, Cottagers Lane, Hordle (Application 16/11134) pdf icon PDF 4 MB

1 pair of semi-detached houses; 2 detached garages; parking; access; landscaping; demolition of existing

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Planning consent subject to conditions

 

Minutes:

Details:

1 pair of semi-detached houses; 2 detached garages; parking; access; landscaping; demolition of existing

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

None

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

1 additional letter of objection from a neighbour on the grounds of loss of light/daylight.

The Highways Engineer had expanded on their comments.

Further details of these representations were set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

Comment:

None

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Planning consent.

 

 

 

 


Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(cc)).

 

 

 

20dd

Pond 1, East Road, Marchwood Industrial Park, Marchwood (Application 16/11098) pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Variation of Condition 5 of Planning Permission 12/99485 to allow landscaping in stages

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Grant Variation of Condition subject to conditions

 

 

Minutes:

Details:

Variation of Condition 5 of Planning Permission 12/99485 to allow landscaping in stages

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

Mr Turner - Applicant’s Agent

Mrs Wathen – Marchwood Parish Council.

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

Additional information had been received from the applicant, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

Comment:

Cllrs Bennison and Hoare disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Marchwood Parish 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 concluded that, while part of the proposed landscaping strip in question was affected by an access that had been granted under a lease expiring in 2020, a significant proportion of it was not so affected.  As this landscaping was extremely important to mitigate the effects of the development on the landscape and ecology of the site, and the protection of the amenities of nearby residents they did not consider that there was sufficient justification for none of this landscaping to be provided at this time.

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Refused.

 

 

 

 


Refusal reasons:

The proposed variation of condition would result in an unjustified delay in the implementation of the full extent of the landscaping proposals that were agreed in association with the approved pond infill, meaning that the landscape and ecological impact of the pond infill would not be adequately mitigated within a reasonable timescale. As such, the proposal would be contrary to policies MAR5 and DM2 of the Local Plan Part 2: Sites and Development Management

 

 

 

20ee

Pond 1, East Road, Marchwood Industrial Park, Marchwood (Application 16/11099) pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Variation of Condition 4 of Planning Permission 12/99450 to allow landscaping in stages.

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

Grant the variation of condition, subject to conditions.

 

Minutes:

Details:

Variation of Condition 4 of Planning Permission 12/99450 to allow landscaping in stages

 

 

 

 

Public Participants:

Mr Turner - Applicant’s Agent

Mrs Wathen – Marchwood Parish Council.

 

 

 

 

Additional Representations:

Additional information had been received from the applicant, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

Comment:

Cllrs Bennison and Hoare disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Marchwood Parish 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 concluded that, while part of the proposed landscaping strip in question was affected by an access that had been granted under a lease expiring in 2020, a significant proportion of it was not so affected. As this landscaping was extremely important to mitigate the effects of the development on the landscape and ecology of the site, and the protection of the amenities of nearby residents they did not consider that there was sufficient justification for none of this landscaping to be provided at this time.

 

 

 

 

 

Decision:

Refused.

 

 

 

 


Refusal reasons:

The proposed variation of condition would result in an unjustified delay in the implementation of the full extent of the landscaping proposals that were agreed in association with the approved pond infill, meaning that the landscape and ecological impact of the pond infill would not be adequately mitigated within a reasonable timescale. As such, the proposal would be contrary to policies MAR5 and DM2 of the Local Plan Part 2: Sites and Development Management

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21.

Adjournment and Resumption of Meeting

Minutes:

The Committee adjourned for lunch at 1305 and resumed at 13.40 with the following members present:

 

 

* Cllr Mrs D E Andrews (Chairman)

* Cllr Mrs C V Ward (Vice-Chairman)

 

   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

    M H Thierry

*   R A Wappet

*   M L White

    Mrs P A Wyeth

 

*Present

 

 

Officers Attending:

 

T Barnett, S Clothier, Miss J Debnam, D Groom, Mrs A Wilson   

 

 

22.

Proposed New Forest District Council Revised 1APP (Planning Application) Local Requirements pdf icon PDF 380 KB

To consider the proposed New Forest District Council Revised 1APP (Planning Application) Local Requirements prior to the requirements being published for consultation with regular planning agents, internal and external consultees and Town/Parish Councils, with a view to considering comments received prior to the adoption of the final revised List.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee reviewed their requirements under the 1 App process as required on a 3 yearly basis.  The context within which planning applications were considered had altered since the last review in 2013 with the publication of National Planning Policy Guidance in 2014 and the Council’s implementation of CIL.  Only minor changes were however needed with respect to the information required to be submitted.  The proposed requirements would be subject to a 6 week consultation period and the responses received would be reported back to the December meeting of the Committee.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the proposed revised 1 APP Local Requirements, as set out as Appendix 2 to the report, be published for consultation with regular planning agents, internal and external consultees and town/parish councils, with a view to considering comments received prior to the adoption of the final revised list.