Agenda and minutes

Details:

Use as 1 holiday let; retention of 1^st floor side window

Public Participants:

Mrs Harling - Objector

Additional Representations:

Additional evidence had been submitted by the Applicant’s agent in respect of the marketing of the site.

Comment:

In light of the additional evidence that had been submitted by the applicant’s agent, the officer’s recommendation was amended to deferral to allow further consultation with the Parish Council, neighbours and the Council’s Estates and Valuation team.

Decision:

That consideration of this application be deferred to allow evaluation of the additional evidence and further consultation with the Parish Council, neighbours and the Council’s Estates and Valuation team.

Details:

House and garage; clubhouse; parking; landscaping; bin stores; demolition of existing club house and flat

Public Participants:

Mrs Sampson – Martin Parish Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Committee concluded that proposed condition 12 should be strengthened to make it explicit that all elements of the proposed new Club building must be complete and available for use prior to the occupation of the new dwelling.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3b), with condition 12 amended to make it explicit that all elements of the proposed new Club building must be complete and available for use prior to the occupation of the new dwelling.

Details:

Alterations and extension to access road; gates; bund

Public Participants:

Mr Pollock - Applicant’s Representative.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr White disclosed a non-pecuniary interest on the grounds that he knew the applicant’s representative.  He concluded that the degree of acquaintance was sufficient that there could be an impression of bias.  He consequently took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

Decision:

Planning consent.

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(c)).

Details:

Access road to Haven Marine Park and Island Point flats

Public Participants:

Mr Pearson - Supporter

Additional Representations:

The Conservation Officer had submitted additional comments, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

Cllr Harrison disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the New Forest National Park Authority 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(d)).

Details:

Raising roof height and roof lights in association with new first floor; Juliet balcony; side and rear extensions; oak front porch; flue

Public Participants:

Mr Hawkins – Applicant’s Agent

Mrs Case – Objector

Town Cllr Southerland – Lymington and Pennington Town Council.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs 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 position of the proposed extension and its proximity No 28 Newbridge Way meant that it would be unduly intrusive and have a detrimental effect on the outlook from and the enjoyment of the residential amenities of that property.

Decision:

Refused.

Refusal Reasons:

By reason of its forward siting, height and close relationship with no.28 Newbridge Way, the proposed extension would have an intrusive and imposing impact to the detriment of the amenities and outlook of the occupiers of that property.  For this reason, the proposals are contrary to Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest outside the National Park.

Details:

Agricultural storage barn

Public Participants:

Mr Lloyd - Objector

Additional Representations:

None.

Comment:

The Committee considered that they had insufficient information to allow them to form an accurate assessment of the effect of this proposal, combined with other development on the site.

Decision:

That consideration of this application be deferred to allow additional information to be sought.

Details:

Two-storey and single-storey rear extension; single-storey side extension; fenestration; alterations

Public Participants:

Mr Dench – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Markby – Objector’s representative

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

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

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(g)).

Details:

Two-storey extension, retaining wall/steps, landscaping

Public Participants:

Mr O’Lone – Applicant.

Additional Representations:

1 additional letter from the applicant, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refused.

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(h)).

Details:

Two-storey extension; stud wall to create wc; remove stud wall; fireplace alterations; create door and ensuite; stud wall to create cupboard; create door into extension (Application for Listed Building Consent)

Public Participants:

Mr O’Lone - Applicant

Additional Representations:

1 additional letter from the applicant and 2 letters of support as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

None

Decision:

Listed Building consent refused.

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(i)).

Details:

Single-storey rear extension; front porch; fenestration alterations

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(j)).

Details:

Single-storey side and rear extension; rooflights

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

1 further letter of objection from a neighbour, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(k)).

Details:

Raise ridge height; two-storey rear extension; front porch; chimney; fenestration alterations

Public Participants:

Mr Cunningham - Objector

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Members concluded that the bulk of the proposed extension, together with its position forwards of the neighbouring dwelling, meant that the proposal would have an unduly detrimental effect on the residential amenities and outlook enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring property.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

The proposed first floor extension, together with the subservient two storey rear element of the existing building would result in an excessively long two storey projection which would adversely compete for dominance with the main front part of the existing dwelling, thereby detracting from the proportions of the building. This would be further exacerbated by the additional single storey rear extension which would extend the linear footprint of the building. Together, the proposed extensions would be unsympathetic to the existing dwelling and be harmful to its appearance, and the street scene and as such would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Kings Saltern Conservation Area. For this reason, the proposed development is contrary to Policies 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 Development Plan and Chap 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework

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:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Rostand and White disclosed indirect pecuniary interests as members of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which, as an adjacent land owner, could gain benefit from the granting of consent.  They left the meeting for the consideration and voting.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(m)).