Agenda and minutes

Details:

Detached bungalow; parking; access for existing dwelling

Public Participants:

Mr Wilden – Applicant’s Agent.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(a)).

Details:

Use of barn as 3 dwellings; associated alterations and partial demolition; cycle/bin store; parking; landscaping

Public Participants:

Mr Whilde – Applicant’s Agent.

Additional Representations:

A revised plan was attached to the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

Cllr Thierry disclosed a disclosable pecuniary interest on the grounds that the applicant holding company was a client.  Having left the meeting he took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

Decision:

Grant Planning Permission

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(b)).

Details:

1.83m high boundary fence; gate

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

Hampshire County Highways – raised no objection and did not require any conditions.

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:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(c)).

Details:

Two-storey infill extension; front porch alterations

Public Participants:

Mr Mullens – Applicant

Parish Cllr Crane – Damerham Parish Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Officer’s report had been amplified by additional information on the changes in floorspace to the dwelling, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Cllr E J Heron addressed the Committee to support the application.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(d)).

Details:

Single-storey rear extension; two-storey side extension

Public Participants:

Mr Winkworth - Objector

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:

Grant Planning Permission

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(e)).

Details:

Use as dwelling; single-storey extension; fenestration alterations; rooflights; flue; parking; septic tank

Public Participants:

Mr Davies – Applicant’s Agent

Parish Cllr Crane – Damerham Parish Council.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The officer’s report was amended by the inclusion of additional paragraph 14.21, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

A revised plan was circulated with the update.

Cllr E J Heron addressed the Committee to support the application.

The Committee considered that the marketing exercise that had been undertaken prior to the purchase of the property by the current applicants satisfied the policy requirement to demonstrate that there was no demand for an alternative community or business use for the building.  In addition the site’s remote location, restricted access and the lack of availability of essential infrastructure, such as broadband of a reasonable speed, meant that the site was unlikely to be attractive to such a user and an additional marketing exercise would therefore add no additional benefit.

The Committee also concluded that the proposed alterations would not be harmful to the external appearance of the building.

In applying the “tilted balance” test for the acceptability of development, as set out in paragraph 14.21 of the report, the Committee concluded that the benefits of providing an additional modest family home in the village outweighed the planning harm identified in the report.

Decision:

Grant Planning Permission

Conditions:

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

Details:

Change of use of ground floor to (C3) 3 residential flats; window alterations

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Davis, L Harris and Harrison disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Totton and Eling Town Council which had commented on the application. Cllrs Davis and L Harris concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Cllr Harrison disclosed a further common law interest on the grounds that he had referred the matter to the Committee for determination and could be perceived to be biased.  Having left the meeting he took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(g)).

Details:

First-floor side extension; front porch

Public Participants:

Miss Finch -  Applicant

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Glass and Thorne disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Fawley Parish Council which had commented on the application.  Cllr Glass concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote. As Cllr Thorne had not received essential training on planning matters she did not take part in the debate or vote.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(h)).

Details:

Use of land as garden land; relocation of boundary wall

Public Participants:

Mr Brunning - Applicant

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Rostand, 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.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(i)).

Details:

2 houses; detached garage; stable; paddocks; access; parking; 2 sewage treatment plants; 2 rainwater harvesting tanks; demolition of existing buildings and removal of hardstanding

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

The Countryside Access Support Officer (Public Rights of Way) had withdrawn their previous objection stating that a private right of access to the property might exist and that the Applicant should contact their office to agree any surface changes or repairs to the public right of way.

Hampshire County Council Highways Engineer had considered further information submitted by the applicant and raised no objection to the proposals. 

Comment:

Cllr Olliff-Cooper disclosed a disclosable pecuniary interest on the grounds that his property could be affected by the proposal.  He did not leave the meeting but took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

A revised plan was attached to the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Decision:

Planning permission granted.

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(j)).