Agenda and minutes

Details:

Proposed scheme of 18 one bedroom assisted living units and supporting communal space within the C2 Use Class with associated car parking and landscaping

Public Participants:

Mr Flood – Applicant’s representative

Ms Hague – Applicant’s representative

Additional Representations:

The Urban Design Officer maintained his concerns

Comment:

Cllrs Harrison and Rippon-Swaine disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Hampshire County Council which was the applicant and would be determining the application.

Members were advised that amended plans had been received that moved the access and altered/improved the habitat enhancement and landscaping proposals. The County Council had also confirmed that they would make a payment, as required for the mitigation of the impact of the development on internationally designated sites.

The Officer’s recommendation was amended as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Decision:

That the County Council be advised that:

(a)   while there is no objection in principle to the development of this site with the type of accommodation proposed the current scheme does not appear to be design led;  it does not relate well to the context of the site; or relate appropriately to the existing area of public open space; or make any provision for additional public open space;

(b)   In addition, having regard to the Habitats Regulations, the County Council are reminded that they are the Competent Authority in respect of ensuring that the development provides mitigation for the impact of the development on internationally designated sites;

(c)   Concerns are also expressed about the impact of car headlights shining into nearby properties as a result of the use of the access.

Details:

Application for the Modification or Discharge of a Section 106 Obligation in respect of Planning Permission 16/10150 for 2 houses; parking; landscaping; drop kerb

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Davis and L 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.

Decision:

That the S106 affordable housing obligation be discharged in full and the Service Manager Planning and Building Control be authorised to vary the Section 106 agreement accordingly.

Details:

Development of 22 dwellings comprised; 7 houses; 4 chalet bungalows; 2 pairs of semi-detached houses; 1 terrace of 3 houses; 1 terrace of 4 houses; garages; cycle stores; parking; roadways; landscaping; demolition of existing buildings

Public Participants:

Mr Nash – Applicant’s representative

Mr Emmel - Objector

Additional Representations:

The applicant had submitted further evidence on the historical arrangements for drainage on this site.

Wessex Water had confirmed that they were satisfied that foul discharges from the site were made to the public sewer.

Comment:

Cllrs Frampton and Steele disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Bransgore 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, in the case of Cllr Frampton, to vote.  Cllr Steele did not have a vote.

The Committee was advised of an amendment to the report, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.  In addition the period for the completion of the S106 Agreement was extended to 31 January 2017.

Decision:

Service Manager Planning and Building Control authorised to grant planning consent subject to the completion by 31 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(c)).

Refusal reasons:

As per report (Item 3(c)).

Details:

Development of 17 dwellings comprised; 7 pairs of semi-detached houses; 2 semi-detached dormer bungalows and a detached house; parking; allotments; landscaping; access (amended plans and description)

Public Participants:

Parish Cllr Brown – Hordle Parish Council

Additional Representations:

Hordle Parish Council maintained their objections in respect of the amended plans.

The Environment Agency raised no objection following confirmation of the arrangements for the disposal of foul drainage.

The Ecologist raised no objection subject to the imposition of a condition.

The Tree Officer asked for the imposition of additional conditions.

The Urban Design Officer supported the proposal subject to the resolution of the location of the highway drainage apparatus.

Two further letters of objection in the same terms as set out in the report and in addition raising concerns about the safety of the footpath, the access position and car parking provision.

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

Comment:

The Officer’s recommendation was amended by the imposition of additional conditions as requested by the Ecologist and Tree Officer, and the pre-requisites to the granting of consent were supplemented by the requirement to resolve the surface water drainage arrangements and the location of the highway drainage apparatus, 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 30 December 2016 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(d)), with the pre-requisites to the granting of consent to also include:

iii)  the satisfactory resolution of the surface water drainage on the site in conjunction with Hampshire County Council Flood Water Management Team.

iv)  the satisfactory resolution of the location of highway drainage apparatus.

and the following additional conditions:

13.Prior to the commencement of development the final details of biodiversity mitigation, compensation and enhancement, in respect of dormice and reptiles, shall be carried out by an appropriately qualified consultant and be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter the approved measures of mitigation and compensation shall be implemented in accordance with an approved programme of works.

     Reason:  To safeguard protected species and to ensure the Council has control over the content and delivery of biodiversity measures in accordance with Policy CS3 of the Local Plan for the New Forest District outside the National Park (Core Strategy) and Policy DM2 of the Local Plan for the New Forest District outside the National Park. (Part 2: Sites and Development Management).

14.No development, demolition or site clearance shall take place until a plan showing service routes, including the position of soakaways and location of site compound and mixing areas has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Development shall only take place in accordance with these  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25d

Details:

Greenhouse and shed (retrospective)

Public Participants:

Mr Benton Jones – Applicant

Mr Davies – Applicant’s Agent.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Rippon-Swaine disclosed an interest on the grounds that he knew the applicant.  He concluded that the degree of acquaintance was sufficient to create an impression of bias and consequently took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

The Committee noted that an horticultural use of this field in the green belt was acceptable in policy terms.  They concluded that, provided the greenhouse continued to serve the nearby Sopley Mill, and remained of a modest scale, it would not harm the green belt or Conservation area.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

Subject to such conditions as the Service Manager Planning and Building Control deems appropriate, to include that the greenhouse and shed shall be removed should they no longer be required to supply plants to Sopley Mill.

Details:

Single-storey side and rear extensions; first-floor rear extension; lantern rooflights; fire escapes

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

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

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(f)).

Details:

Rear extension; raise roof height; 3 rear dormers, 2 front dormers and rooflight in association with new first floor; fenestration alterations, porch; detached garage, raised steps on rear elevation (retrospective)

Public Participants:

Mr Larkin - Objector

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr White and Penson 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.

The Committee noted that alterations to the roof of this property had been granted consent on appeal but had not been constructed in accordance with the conditions imposed by the Inspector.  They considered whether the changes were materially harmful.

Members considered that, as built, the roof alterations were unacceptable in a number of respects.  The design of the roof and use of dark slate, in an area where the roofing material was very predominantly tile, was visually jarring and out of character with the area.  The increase in size in the dormers, the additional area of glazing and the raising of the dormers cumulatively increased the visual intrusion and overlooking of the neighbouring properties to the rear.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal reasons::

1.     The development, by reason of the increased number, overall shape and form of the dormer windows combined with the inappropriate roofing materials, in this prominent location, would be out of character with the area and as such would be contrary to Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest outside of the National Park and Chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.     The increase in the number and height of dormer windows on the rear elevation, combined with the associated increase in the area of glazing would result in real and perceived overlooking to adjoining residential properties to the detriment of their reasonable amenity. As such would be contrary to Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest outside of the National Park and Chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Details:

Use of land as residential curtilage; house; garage; barn; access; demolition of existing buildings (amended plans)

Public Participants:

Mr Baldwin – Applicant

Mr McDermott – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Service Manager Planning and Building Control authorised to grant planning consent.

Conditions/

Agreements/

Negotiations:

As per report (Item 3(h)).

Details:

Use as craft beer bar (Use Class A4)

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Officer’s recommendation was amended by revised wording for Condition 5 to meet the requirement of the Environmental Health Officer.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(i)), with revised wording for condition 5:

5. Before the use hereby approved is operated, details of measures to be undertaken to reduce sound transmission emanating from the building housing the hereby approved A4 use to an agreed level, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include an acoustic assessment of the sound insulation quality of the fabric of the building housing the hereby approved A4 Use and the existing noise level (NR Level) within the accommodation directly above when unoccupied and with windows closed, to be undertaken by an appropriately qualified consultant. The development shall only take place in accordance with the approved details.

   Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the adjoining neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

Details:

Single-storey rear extension

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(j)).

Details:

One and two-storey rear extension; detached house; parking; access from Wessex Road

Public Participants:

Miss King – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

The Highways Engineer raised no objection.

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 vote.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(k)).

Details:

Detached house; shed

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(l)).

Details:

Boundary wall; gates

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(m)).

Details:

Bungalow; parking

Public Participants:

Mr Davies – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Clark - Objector

Additional Representations:

Ringwood Town Council had amended their observations, as set out in detail in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

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:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(n)).

Details:

House

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

The Highways Engineer raised no objection, subject to the imposition of conditions.

Comment:

Cllr White and Penson 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(o)).

Details:

House; detached garage; parking; access (Outline application with details only of access)

This application was withdrawn by the applicants by e-mail dated 8 November 2016