Agenda and minutes

Details:

Continued use of building known as ‘cedars’ to provide self-contained residential accommodation for not more than 4 people and continued use of building known as ‘Northfield’ to provide self-contained residential accommodation for not more than 6 people in need of care

Public Participants:

Mr Henderson – Objector’s representative.

Additional Representations:

The Highways Engineer had submitted additional comments, as set out 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.

The Committee noted the problems being reported by the neighbour about the number of vehicles using the application site and overspill causing obstruction to her access.  They noted the photographic evidence that had been submitted and also the reports of the local ward and other councillors that suggested that the parking currently available was not sufficient to allow 5 vehicles to park, as shown on the plans.  Indeed the Highways Engineer, in his additional comments, had concluded that in reality only 4 parking spaces were available on site and that the applicant should be encouraged to provide further spaces.  The Committee concluded that there would be merit in this site providing additional car parking, more in keeping with the guidelines set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance for parking.  To prevent this intensification of use from adversely affecting the amenities of the neighbour, the Committee concluded that 6 viable parking spaces should be provided on site.

Decision:

That the Service Manager Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant consent upon the receipt of satisfactory amended plans showing the provision of 6 viable car parking spaces on site.

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(a)), together with such other conditions as may be necessary to secure the 6 viable car parking spaces.

Details:

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

Public Participants:

Mrs Harling – Objector

Parish Cllr Turner – Breamore Parish Council

Additional Representations:

Breamore Parish Council had confirmed their continuing objection.

The applicant had submitted a further letter in support of the application.

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning permission

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(b)).

Details:

Agricultural storage barn

Public Participants:

Mr Lloyd - Objector

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Committee considered that it was important that the use of the new barn was not associated with intrusive lighting.

Decision:

That the Service Manager Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission.

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(c)), with the addition of a condition to prevent the use of intrusive lighting.

Details:

Erection of a timber store/shed

Public Participants:

Mr Bennett – Applicant

Parish Cllr Stockton – Sandleheath Parish Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Committee concluded that the proposed shed was a relatively modest, temporary building and that, placed behind the boundary brick wall, it would not appear intrusive in the street scene or harm the appearance of the area.

Decision:

Planning permission

Conditions:

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

Details:

Single-storey side and rear extensions to garage

Public Participants:

Cllr Clarke – on behalf of New Milton Town Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Clarke disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of New Milton 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.  He did not have a vote.

Decision:

Planning permission

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(e)).

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:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Variation of Condition Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(f)).

Details:

Dropped kerb and access gate (part retrospective)

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning permission

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(g)).

Details:

17 sheltered apartments for the elderly; retail unit; communal facilities; access; underground car parking; bin store; landscaping; demolition of existing

Public Participants:

Mr McFarlane – Applicant’s Representative

Additional Representations:

2 additional letters of objection, 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.  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(h)).

Details:

House; access; alterations; landscaping; parking

Public Participants:

Mrs Evans – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Bryer – Objector’s Agent

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

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

Miss Debnam, Committee Administrator, disclosed an interest on the grounds that a close relative lived next door to the application site.  She left the meeting for the consideration and voting.

The Committee considered that the conditions should be amended to ensure the retention of the hedge along the boundary with No 9 Rookes Lane.

Decision:

Planning permission

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(i)), with an amended condition to ensure the retention of hedgerow along the boundary with No 9 Rookes Lane.

Details:

Mixed development of 8 dwellings and commercial comprised:  retail unit at front with flat over; attached house; carport; terrace of 4 houses; 2 detached houses; demolition of existing club

Public Participants:

Mr Moir – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

Cllr Sevier advised that the Quakers of Fordingbridge requested assurances that graves on the site would not be disturbed.

Fordingbridge Town Council expressed support in principle while having concerns about the adequacy of parking provision and the need for the pedestrian access to be retained.

The Archaeologist had commented further about the mechanism of control over the treatment of human remains.

The Highway’s Engineer had submitted additional comments.

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

Comment:

The Committee was advised that the archaeological report that had been submitted in respect of this application was in fact for another site.  The Officers therefore recommended that consideration of this application should be deferred to allow the submission of an archaeological report that supplied the requisite information, and for that information to be assessed.

Decision:

That consideration of this application be deferred to allow the submission and consideration of an archaeological report.

Details:

Display 1 non illuminated fascia sign; 1 non illuminated wall mounted avatar; 1 non illuminated wall mounted information sign; 2 non illuminated totem signs; 2 digital poster signs (Application for Advertisement Consent)

Public Participants:

Mr Mackenzie – Applicant’s Representative

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.  Cllr Penson disclosed a further, common law interest as this Council’s appointed trustee on the Applicant Trust.  Having made a statement he took no further part in the consideration and did not vote.  Cllr White disclosed a further, common law, interest on the grounds that he would be the County Council’s appointed representative on the Applicant Trust. He took no part in the consideration and did not vote.  Cllr Rostand concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent her from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

The Committee concluded that the proposed digital poster signs on the totem and the information sign would not be unduly intrusive as the illumination was adjusted to ambient conditions and the digital posters would not be in use at night.  The need for adequate publicity for this essential community asset, to ensure its financial viability, outweighed the low level of harm that would be caused.

Decision:

Advertisement consent granted for all signs

Conditions:

Standard Advertisement conditions, as per report (Item 3(k)).

Details:

Single-storey rear extension; lantern rooflight; roof alterations to front porch; garage alterations; fenestration alterations

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning Permission

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(l)).

Details:

One and two-storey rear extensions; courtyard extension; pitch roof to replace corrugated sheet

Public Participants:

Mr and Mrs Mitchell - Applicants

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Committee concluded that the design of the proposed extension was acceptable and the concerns previously expressed by an Appeal Inspector had been satisfactorily addressed.

Decision:

Planning Permission

Conditions:

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