Agenda and minutes

Details:

Retention of ground floor partition work and first floor side window, blocking up of rear door; reversal of staircase; provision of steps to kitchen and utility area (retrospective) (Listed Building Consent)

Public Participants:

Parish Cllr Harling – Breamore Parish Council

Additional Representations:

Additional letter from Breamore Parish Council confirming the grounds of their objection.

Comment:

None.

Decision:

Listed Building Consent granted

Conditions:

None, as per report (Item 3(a)).

Details:

17 sheltered apartments for the elderly, retail unit; communal facilities; access; underground car parking; bin store; landscaping; demolition of existing (amended plans and description)

Public Participants:

Mr MacFarland – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Simpson – Objector

Town Cllr Sutherland – Lymington and Pennington Town Council

Additional Representations:

Lymington and Pennington Town Council confirmed their objection.

1 further letter of objection on the same grounds as set out in the report.

The Highways Authority 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.

The officer’s recommendation was amended by revised wording for the first 3 reasons for refusal, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(b)), with the first 3 reasons for refusal amended to read:

1.    The proposed development would result in a combination of buildings that would be of an excessive size by virtue of their height, width, depth, overly large roof profiles, close proximity to the site boundaries and lack of meaningful green space in this area which would not respect local distinctiveness. The site lies within the Lymington Conservation Area close to many listed buildings and the proposals would fail to recognise this sensitive context and fail to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As a result the proposals would fail to comply with policies CS1, CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park, policy DM1 of the Local Plan Part 2 (Sites and Development Management DPD), Lymington Local Distinctiveness SPD, Lymington Conservation Area Appraisal and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the setting of adjacent heritage assets in the form of a number of grade II listed buildings, in particular buildings at nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 36 and 37 High Street, Londesborough House and the Nat West Bank High Street. These buildings would suffer direct harm to their setting from the rear and in views across to and from these buildings. As a result the development would fail to comply with policy CS3 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park, policy DM1 of the Local Plan Part 2 (Sites and Development Management DPD) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.    Notwithstanding the applicant’s commitment to make the required affordable housing contribution, in the absence of a mechanism to ensure the agreed contribution is paid, the proposed development would fail to make any contribution toward addressing the substantial need for affordable housing in the District. The proposal would therefore conflict with an objective of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29b

Details:

One two/three/four-storey block of 41 retirement flats including communal facilities; access; parking; landscaping; demolition of existing

Public Participants:

Mr McCarthy – Applicant

Town Cllr Sutherland – Lymington and Pennington Town Council

Additional Representations:

The Highways Authority 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.  Cllrs Rostand and White concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Cllr Penson disclosed a further interest on the grounds that he may be perceived to have a pre-determined view.  He left the meeting for the consideration and voting.

The Committee concluded that this development, with the limited car parking provision proposed, would only be acceptable if the residents were restricted to the stated target market of being over 60.  The officer’s recommendation was accordingly amended to authorise the Service Manager Planning and Building Control to enter into the appropriate legal agreement or impose conditions to secure this.

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)), with the additional authority to secure that the accommodation shall be for persons of 60 years or older.

Refusal reasons:

As per report (Item 3 (c))

Details:

2 detached houses; detached garage; demolition of existing buildings

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

An additional letter from the applicant on the current use of the site, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

Cllr Olliff-Cooper disclosed an interest in application 16/11151 on the grounds that he lived in the vicinity and may be perceived to be biased.

Decision:

Planning Consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3d)).

Details:

6 industrial units in three blocks, parking, landscaping

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

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

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(e)).

Details:

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

Public Participants:

Mr Swann – Applicant

Mrs Hall - Objector

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Committee concluded that the proposed alterations had an unacceptably poor design that was out of keeping with the surrounding area. There would be an unacceptable level of overlooking and an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal reasons:

1. By reason of its excessive size and harsh design, the proposed dormer would be out of keeping and visually intrusive to the detriment of the character and appearance of the existing building and local distinctiveness of the area. For this reason, the proposals are contrary to policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

2. By reason of its elevated position, the proposed dormer would result in additional harmful overlooking of properties to the rear at Island View Close and No.1 The Bywaters, to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of those properties. For this reason, the proposals are contrary to policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

Details:

Two-storey side extension; single-storey extensions; roof alterations; fenestration alterations

Public Participants:

Mr Mitchell – Applicant

Mr Pike – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(g)).

Details:

2 detached guest lodges; parking; landscaping

Public Participants:

Mr Stembridge – Applicant’s representative

Town Cllr Reid – New Milton Town Council.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Committee was aware that the application was for development within the Green Belt and that, should they be minded to grant consent, they must be satisfied that certain criteria were met.  As this was a world class hotel with an international reputation for excellence, Members were satisfied that this development could not take place on another site outside the Green Belt.  The 2 guest lodges would be concealed amongst trees within the campus of the hotel and would not therefore have any discernible effect on perceptions of the openness of the Green Belt and would not cause any other harm to Green Belt purposes.  The hotel was a significant local employer and that, together with the use of local suppliers meant that the hotel made a very significant contribution to the local economy.  In addition, both through acting as a role model for excellence in hotel accommodation in the Forest and through its direct involvement in education, through apprenticeships and relationships with local education establishments, the Committee concluded that the hotel brought other significant benefits to the local community.

While there were some concerns that there would be continuing demand for further development on this site, Members considered that the exclusivity of the accommodation offered was one of its key marketing features and was not therefore vulnerable to further intensification without the danger of degrading this important characteristic.

Decision:

Service Manager Planning and Building Control authorised to grant planning consent

Conditions/

Agreements/

Negotiations:

Subject to such agreements and conditions as he deems appropriate.

Details:

Use as 1 residential unit; fenestration alterations to ground floor rear and side elevations

Public Participants:

Mrs Kenningly – 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.  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 application had been re-advertised with the period for the receipt of comments expiring on 23 December 2016.  The recommendation was amended to authorise the Service Manager Planning and Building Control to grant consent provided no additional substantive objections were received.

Decision:

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

Conditions/

Agreements/

Negotiations:

Provided no additional substantive objections are received by 23 December 2016 and with the imposition of the conditions set out in the report (Item 3i)).

Details:

House; access; parking

Public Participants:

Mr Bradford – 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.  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 the plot was sufficient to accommodate the proposed dwelling without significant harm to the amenities of adjoining properties.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

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

Details:

Variation of Condition 2 of Planning Permission 16/10758 to vary plan numbers 8502/501 to allow attached garage and front dormer to unit 1 and remove window on south elevation, rooflight, cladding and fenestration alterations to rear of unit 2

Public Participants:

Mr Bennett – Applicant’s representative.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Grant Variation of Condition

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(k)).

Details:

Bi-fold door; alter door; double glaze window to block side door; landscape front terrace and rear garden

This application was withdrawn by the applicants by letter dates 9 December 2016.

Details:

Bi-fold door; form entrance lobby; alter door; create door and stud walls; double glazed window to block side door; stud wall to create prep area; bar alterations; landscape front terrace and rear garden (Application for Listed Building Consent)

This application was withdrawn by the applicants by letter dates 9 December 2016.

Details:

Single-storey extensions; porch; bay window extension

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

The applicant’s agent had requested that consideration of this application be deferred to allow the applicant to attend to address the Committee.

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(n)).

Details:

Single-storey extensions, porch; bay window extension (Application for Listed Building Consent)

Public Participants:

The applicant’s agent had requested that consideration of this application be deferred to allow the applicant to attend to address the Committee.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Listed Building Consent Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(o)).