Agenda and minutes

Details:

Lidl foodstore (Use Class A1); parking; associated landscaping; access works; demolition of existing

Public Participants:

Mr Mitchell – Applicant’s Representative

Rev Elvidge – Objector

Parish Cllr Parkes – Hythe and Dibden Parish Council.

Additional Representations:

Cllr McEvoy raised no objection.

12 further letters of objection and 142 additional letters of support had been received.

The Environmental Health Officer raised no objection, subject to the imposition of conditions and an informative note.

The applicant had forwarded 14 e-mails of objection and 18 in support, together with a document in support with 4773 signatures, partly dating from prior to the submission of the planning application.

The County Council had agreed a reduced Highway Contribution of £100,000.

The Highways Engineer had submitted additional comments.

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

1 additional letter of objection from Tesco, on the grounds that their retail assessment concluded that the value of trade attracted by the new store would be of the order of £10 - 15 million per annum, not £5 million as stated as in the applicant’s assessment.  This was more in keeping with this Council’s study which had concluded the diversion of trade would be £9.8 million.

Comment:

Cllrs Armstrong, Binns and Poole disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Hythe and Dibden Parish Council which had commented on the application.  Cllr Armstrong also emphasised that he had been careful not to express any view or take part in any special or public meetings held in respect of this application and had not taken any action to suggest that he had a pre-determined view.  They each 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 Armstrong, to vote.  Cllrs Binns and Poole did not have a vote.

Cllr Wappet disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as he had been a member of the working group that had initially looked at options for the future of this site.  He had not however had any involvement with the current planning application.  He concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

The officer’s recommendation was updated by the inclusion of the conditions and informative note requested by the Environmental Health Officer, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Cllrs W Andrews, Binns and Poole addressed the Committee to support the principle of the redevelopment of the site for a supermarket, but to oppose the particular design proposed.

The Committee expressed their support for the principle of redeveloping this site for a budget supermarket and welcomed the offer made at the meeting for the period allowed for free parking on the site for customers to be extended to 2 hours, to allow patrons also to visit the town centre as part of the same visit.

Members were however very concerned about the poor quality of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53a

Details:

1 block of 36 sheltered apartments; communal facilities; access; parking and landscaping

Public Participants:

Mr Cater – Applicant’s Agent

Parish Cllr Parkes – Hythe and Dibden Parish Council

Additional Representations:

The Environmental Health Officer had commented further and requested the addition of an informative note to the decision notice.

The Highways Authority had commented further.

Details of these further representations were set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

Cllrs Armstrong, Binns and Poole disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Hythe and Dibden Parish Council which had commented on the application.  They each 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 Armstrong, to vote.  Cllrs Binns and Poole did not have a vote.

Cllr Wappet disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as he had been a member of the working group that had initially looked at options for the future of this site.  He had not however had any involvement with the current planning application.  He concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

The officer’s recommendation was amended by the addition of the informative note requested by the Environmental Health Officer.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(b)), with an additional informative note:

4.         In complying with Condition No. 20 the applicant is advised that the ‘Indoor ambient noise levels for dwellings’ as stated in Table 4 on page 24 of British Standard BS8233:2014 (BS8233:2014 - Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings) is the minimum standard that must be achieved.

.

Details:

7 field shelters (retrospective)

Public Participants:

Parish Cllr Burtenshaw – Ellingham, Harbridge and Ibsley Parish Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Committee noted that this was a very open, rural landscape.  The installation of concrete bases for the field shelters would consequently be harmful to the appearance of the area and a condition should therefore be imposed to prevent this happening.  In addition, the Committee concluded that a 5 year temporary consent only should be granted to allow the site to be monitored.

Decision:

Service Manager Planning and Building Control authorised to grant planning consent for a limited period of 5 years.

Conditions/

Agreements/

Negotiations:

As per report (Item 3(c)) with the following additional conditions:

The buildings shall be removed from the site within 5 years of the date of this consent and the land restored to a condition which has first been agreed by the Local Planning Authority, unless the prior written approval to retain the structures has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the countryside in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Local Plan for the New Forest District outside the National Park (Core Strategy).

No structure hereby approved shall be sited on a permanent hardstanding or footing.

Reason:  In order to minimise the degree of permanence of the development, in light of the temporary approval and in the interests of safeguarding the character of the countryside, in accordance with Policy CS2 of the Local Plan for the New Forest District outside the National Park (Core Strategy).

Details:

Use of existing building as school; two-storey teaching and admin block; landscaping; parking

Public Participants:

Dr Horswell – Applicant’s representative.

Additional Representations:

The Highway’s Engineer had commented further, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(d)).

Details:

Create 1 flat; roof alterations including alter pitch; 2 dormers; 5 rooflights; exterior alterations; remove cladding; window alterations; garage block; parking

Public Participants:

Mr Serbatoio – Applicant

Town Cllr Craze – New Milton Town Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Further information about the planning history of the site was set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(e)).

Details:

Two-storey side and rear extensions; single-storey rear extension

Public Participants:

Mr Bradford – Applicant’s Agent

Ms Williams - Objector

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

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

Paragraph 12.1, line 6 was amended to refer to the rear of No 87, not 8 as stated.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(f)).

Details:

Variation of Condition 3 of Planning Permission 03/78794 to extend occupancy from 4 weeks to 11 months of the year

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

2 additional e-mails of objection, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(g)).

Details:

Use as 2 bungalows; single-storey extension; alterations

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(h)).

Details:

Removal of Condition 4 of Planning Permission 16/10786 to allow Permitted Development Rights

Public Participants:

Mr Robinson – Applicant

Parish Cllr Burtenshaw – Ellingham, Harbridge and Ibsley Parish Council

Additional Representations:

1 additional letter from the applicant in response to the officer’s report.

Comment:

The officer’s recommendation was changed to deferral to allow the publication of a statutory press notice.

Decision:

That consideration of this application be deferred.

Details:

Installation of 1 16m telecoms monopole; equipment cabinet; remove existing (Prior Approval Application)

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

Ringwood Town Council recommended that consent be granted.

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:

Service Manager Planning and Building Control authorised to not require any further details subject to the receipt of no new material objections to the submitted applications on the 13May 2017