Agenda and minutes

Details:

Application for the Modification or Discharge of a Section 106 Obligation in respect of outline Planning Permission 15/11616 for 2 bungalows; 1 two-storey dwelling; parking; access

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

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:

That the S106 affordable housing contribution be discharged in full and that the Service Manager Planning and Building Control be authorised to vary the S106 Agreement accordingly.

Conditions:

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

Details:

Application for the Modification or Discharge of a Section 106 Obligation in respect of Planning Permission 15/11725 for bungalow; access and parking

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

Lymington and Pennington Town Council recommended that consent be granted.

Comment:

Cllrs 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.

Cllr Rostand was not present for the determination of this application.

Decision:

That the S106 affordable housing contribution be discharged in full and that the Service Manager Planning and Building Control be authorised to vary the S106 Agreement accordingly.

Conditions:

None, as per report (Item 3(b))

Details:

Proposed amendments to the Section 106 Agreement to modify/discharge the Section 106 legal agreement so that no affordable housing contribution will be payable – 2 flats; access; parking; bin stores; cycle shed

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

Ringwood Town Council recommended that consent be granted.

Comment:

None

Decision:

That the Section 106 Agreement be varied in accordance with the details set out in the report.

Conditions:

None, as per report (Item 3(c))

Details:

Raise ridge height, single-storey rear extension; dormers; rooflights

Public Participants:

Mr Payne - Applicant

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, within the context of the variation in size and style of buildings in Daniells Walk, the proposal was acceptable.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

1.              The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

   Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 315-1-16, 315-2-16, 315-3-16, 315-4-16, 315-5-16, 315-6-16, 315-7-16.

   Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of the development.

Details:

One three-storey block of 8 flats; parking; landscaping; cycle rack; acoustic fencing; demolition of existing

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

An additional statement for Hampshire County Council’s Highways Engineer confirming they raised no objection, subject to the imposition of conditions.

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refused

Refusal reasons:

As per report (Item 3(e))

Details:

Development of 22 dwellings comprised: 7 houses; 4 chalet bungalows; 2 pairs of semi-detached houses; 1 terrace of 3 houses; 1 terrace of 4 houses; garages; cycle stores; parking; roadways; landscaping; demolition of existing buildings

Public Participants:

Mr Cobley – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Emmel – Objector.

Additional Representations:

Cllr Steele – objected on grounds arising from the lack of infrastructure to support the proposed development; the fear that existing flooding problems in the area would be exacerbated and that the Phase 2 development was more intensive than and out of character with Phase 1.

Cllr Lane objected as there was no mitigation for the village of Sopley; Derritt Lane did not have the capacity to take additional traffic movements; and the loss of the green gap between settlements.

One further letter of objection on the grounds that no social housing would be provided.

The County Council’s Highways Engineer submitted a further statement in support of their conclusion that there was no objection to this alternative form of development.  They reiterated their request for conditions should consent be granted.

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.

Cllr Steele 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.  He did not have a vote.

Cllr Steele addressed the Committee to oppose the application.

Members did not consider that they had sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development would not exacerbate existing problems with foul drainage disposal in the area in times of storm conditions.

Decision:

That consideration of this application be deferred for further evidence to be submitted to substantiate the advice from Wessex Water that the proposed development will not exacerbate existing problems with foul drainage in this area.

Details:

Use as hot food takeaway (Use Class A5); extraction/ventilation equipment; external alterations; shopfront; rear door; shed (amended plans and additional information)

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

Lymington and Pennington Town Council considered the amended plans overcame the Conservation Officer’s concerns, although there remained concerns about access to the rear door of the Kings Arms.

Comment:

Cllrs 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.

Cllr Rostand was not present for the determination of this application.

The Committee was advised that the description of the application had been amended to read:

“Use as hot food takeaway (Use Class A5); extraction/ventilation equipment; external alterations; creation of level access to existing shopfront; rear door; shed.”

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(g))

Details:

First floor side extension

Public Participants:

Mrs J Wilson – Applicant’s representative.

Additional Representations:

None

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(h))

Details:

Single chapel crematorium; parking; landscaping (Outline application with details only of access)

Public Participants:

Mrs Jackson – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Rayment - Objector

Additional Representations:

The County Council’s Highways Engineer raised no objection following the submission of amended plans.

Environmental Health Section (Pollution) – detailed comments and a briefing note regarding air quality.  They requested the imposition of conditions to control noise and light emissions, and also an informative note regarding air quality modelling assessment.

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (Hampshire) objected to inappropriate development in the Green Belt without sufficient justification.

New Forest National Park Authority raised concerns about potential light pollution and the impact of additional traffic and built environment on the setting of the National Park, but considered these maters might be addressed by the full/reserved matters application.

An additional petition with 255 signatures in objection.

18 further letters of objection in the same terms as set out in the report and in addition objecting to the timing of the Planning Development Control Committee meeting.

Comment:

The Committee was advised that, as this proposal was for inappropriate development in the greenbelt, as set out in the report, and the proposed floorspace exceeded 1000 square metres (1081 square metres) the application must be referred to the Secretary of State, for determination.  As a result the recommendation was revised as follows:

That the Service Manager Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning consent subject to the Secretary of State’s confirmation that he does not wish to call this in for his own determination.

Members considered carefully the evidence before them to evaluate whether there was justification, on the grounds of need, that an exception should be made to the normal presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  They were satisfied that the case had been made that an exception was justified in this instance.

Decision:

That the Service Manager Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning consent subject to the Secretary of State’s confirmation that he does not wish to call this application in for his own determination, and with the imposition of conditions.

Conditions:

As set out in the report (Item 3(i)), as amended by the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Details:

House; access; parking

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs 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.

Cllr Rostand was not present for the determination of this item.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(j))

Details:

House; parking

Public Participants:

Mr Clark - Objector

Additional Representations:

The County Council’s Highways Engineer raised no objection, subject to the imposition of conditions.

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refused

Refusal reasons:

As per report (Item 3(k))

Details:

Single-storey side and rear extension

Public Participants:

Mr Appleby - Applicant

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs 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.

Cllr Rostand was not present for the determination of this item.

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(l))

Details:

Bungalow; access; parking

Public Participants:

Mr Bryer – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

The Highways Authority raised no objection following the submission of additional plans.

Comment:

Cllrs 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.

Cllr Rostand was not present for the determination of this item.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal reasons:

As per report (Item 3(m))

Details:

House

Public Participants:

Mrs Evans – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Planning consent

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(n))

Details:

Stable block; manege

Public Participants:

Mrs Munnings – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

Cllr E J Heron had written in support of the application.

Comment:

The letter from Cllr E J Heron was submitted to the meeting.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal reasons:

As per report (Item 3(o))