Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Hopkins, Reilly, Sevier and Thorne.

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 14 April, 4 May and 5 May 2021 as correct records.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meetings held on 14 April, 4 May and 5 May 2021 be agreed as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

To note any declarations of interest made by members in connection with an agenda item.  The nature of the interest must also be specified.

Members are asked to discuss any possible interests with Democratic Services prior to the meeting.

Cllr Glass disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 21/10443 as he had been in contact with an objector of the application. He therefore concluded that there were grounds under common law not to participate in the debate or vote on the application but he was present during the consideration of this item and made a statement on the matter.

Cllr Hawkins disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in applications 21/10214 and 21/10649 as a member of the Planning Committee of New Milton Town Council which had commented on the applications. Cllr Hawkins did not participate in the debate or vote on the applications but was present during the consideration of the items.

Cllr Ring disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 18/11606 as a member of the Planning Committee of Ringwood Town Council which had commented on the application. He concluded that as he had not expressed a view or voted on the application there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Cllr Ward disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in applications 21/10214 and 21/10649 as a member of New Milton Town Council which had commented on the applications. She concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent her from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

To determine the applications set out below:

Outline planning application for the demolition of existing outbuildings and the erection of up to 143 dwellings (including 50% affordable housing), public open space, recreation mitigation land, landscaping, sustainable drainage systems (Suds) and two vehicular access points from Snails Lane and Salisbury Road (Environmental Impact Application Development and effects a Public Right of Way). All matters reserved except for means of access. (AMENDED PLANS RESUBMISSION)

RECOMMENDED:

Service Manager to Grant Subject to Conditions

Details:

Outline planning application for the demolition of existing outbuildings and the erection of up to 143 dwellings (including 50% affordable housing), public open space, recreation mitigation land, landscaping, sustainable drainage systems (Suds) and two vehicular access points from Snails Lane and Salisbury Road (Environmental Impact Application Development and effects a Public Right of Way). All matters reserved except for means of access. (AMENDED PLANS RESUBMISSION) 

Public Participants:

Helen Ball, Gladman Developments (Applicant)

Jim Spark, representing the views of Blashford Meadows Environmental Protection Group and David Orme, Chairman of Christchurch Bicycle Group (Objector)

Cllr Roly Errington, Ellingham, Harbridge & Ibsley Parish Council

Additional Representations:

Statements were read out on behalf of Cllrs Emma Lane, Forest North West Ward and Michael Thierry, Ringwood North Ward.

The case officer reported that an additional seven objections had been received since the report had been published, which included impact on the public highway, ecology and the environment.  There were also concerns in relation to the lack of infrastructure and a question regarding the surfacing on Snails Lane.  This had been included in the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

Cllr Ring disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 18/11606 as a member of the Planning Committee of Ringwood Town Council which had commented on the application. He concluded that as he had not expressed a view or voted on the application there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

The Committee in the debate raised a number of concerns on the outline application which included:

·       The principle of the development of Parcel A, located outside of the allocated site.  Members felt the proposal would result in loss of the countryside, vegetation and be harmful to the character of the area;

·       Overdevelopment of Parcel B of the Strategic site.  Members felt that the level of proposed development, being up to 143 homes in Parcel B would not result in a sustainable form of development in terms of density, form and scale.  It was also felt that it would be out of character to the rural character of the area.  Members acknowledged that the proposed number of houses on the strategic site far exceeded that proposed in the Local Plan;

·       Flooding – Members noted that surface water was currently an issue on the site and felt that the applicant had not demonstrated that the site can be developed in a way to address potential flooding, both within the site and that it could result in further flooding outside of the site, impacting on the wider community.

The Chief Planning Officer advised that should the Committee be minded to refuse the application, two additional reasons for refusal be included in relation to the failure to secure the Section 106 agreement, to deliver for example; affordable housing, air quality, monitoring contributions, etc and that the applicant had not demonstrated nitrate neutrality.

Decision:

Refuse

Conditions / Reasons:

1.          The proposed development comprising the residential area within ‘Parcel  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

1.8m to 1.9m boundary fence; 1.9m side gate and fence (next to the public Post Box); new double 1.9m driveway gates on the left hand side of the property (Retrospective)

RECOMMENDED:

Grant subject to conditions

Details:

1.8m to 1.9m boundary fence; 1.9m side gate and fence (next to the public Post Box); new double 1.9m driveway gates on the left hand side of the property (Retrospective) 

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Hawkins disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Planning Committee of New Milton Town Council which had commented on the application. Cllr Hawkins did not participate in the debate or vote on the application but was present during the consideration of the item.

Cllr Ward disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of New Milton Town Council which had commented on the application. She concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent her from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

The case officer reported that reference to policy NM13 should be deleted in pages 94 and 95 of the agenda papers.  It was also noted that the third paragraph under the design sub heading of page 95 was an officer comment and therefore not be in italics.  This had been included in the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Cllr Dunning was not present for this item.

Decision:

Grant subject to conditions

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3b)

Replacement of hedge with fence

RECOMMENDED:

Grant subject to conditions

Details:

Replacement of hedge with fence

Public Participants:

Cllr Jeremy Heron, Ringwood South Ward Cllr

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

It was noted that the majority of the proposed fence was 2 metres in height and therefore Members expressed the view that the fence would detract from the streetscene and the local distinctiveness of the area, which was contrary to the Ringwood Local Distinctiveness Supplementary Planning Document.

Cllr Dunning was not present for this item. 

Decision:

Refuse

Conditions / Reasons:

The proposed fence, by reason of its length and height, would detract from the street scene and local distinctiveness of the area.  As such it would be contrary to Policy ENV3 of the Local Plan Part One:  Planning Strategy and the Ringwood Local Distinctiveness Supplementary Planning Document.

1.9m high boundary fence (Retrospective)

RECOMMENDED:

Grant subject to conditions

Details:

1.9m high boundary fence (Retrospective)

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

A statement was read out on behalf of Jasmine Lockyer (Objector).

Comment:

The case officer reported that the report should state there were three letters of objection and that additional grounds for objection which had not been referred to in the report were that two appeal decisions in the vicinity for fencing had been dismissed and that there was no mention of the wooden building to the front which was out of keeping.  These points had been included in the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Members expressed the view that the fence was detrimental to the character and quality of the area, that it was out of keeping of the area, and had an unacceptable impact on the setting of the New Forest National Park.

Cllrs Davis and Dunning were not present for this item.

Decision:

Refuse

Conditions / Reasons:

The proposed fence as erected is considered to be visually harmful to the character and appearance of this part of Bransgore, which lies in a sensitive semi-rural location adjacent to the New Forest National Park. The fence as erected creates a harsh discordant urbanising element and is considered to be contrary to New Forest Local Plan Policy ENV3 which requires development to contribute positively to local distinctiveness and which should enhance the character and identity of the locality and be appropriate and sympathetic to the environment and context of the site. In addition the location of the fence close to the New Forest National Park has an unacceptable impact on the special qualities and purposes of the National Park and its setting contrary to New Forest Local Plan Policy STR2.

Garage in rear of garden (Retrospective)

RECOMMENDED:

Grant subject to conditions

Details:

Garage in rear of garden (Retrospective)

Public Participants:

Cllr Glass, Holbury & North Blackfield Ward Cllr

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Glass disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as he had been in contact with an objector of the application. He therefore concluded that there were grounds under common law not to participate in the debate or vote on the application but he was present during the consideration of this item and made a statement on the matter.

The case officer clarified that first paragraph of section 9 of the officer report should refer to seven letters of support rather than six.  This had been included in the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Members noted that a concern had been raised that the garage would be used for commercial purposes.  It was acknowledged that this would require planning permission.  In response to a member question the case officer confirmed that an information note could be included with any planning permission to remind the applicant that the garage could only be used personal use and that if it was used for commercial purposes it would require planning permission. 

Cllrs Davis, Dunning and Holding were not present for this item.

Decision:

Grant subject to conditions

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3e) and the information note set out below:

The applicant is reminded that the garage hereby approved shall only be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling, and for no commercial use such as a car repair workshop without a further grant of planning permission.

Variation of condition 2 & 4 of planning permission 19/11409 to allow raised decking area in rear garden of plots 1 and 2 to cover open drainage channel, with amended details of fencing along common boundary with Orchard Grove

RECOMMENDED:

Grant the variation of condition

Details:

Variation of condition 2 & 4 of planning permission 19/11409 to allow raised decking area in rear garden of plots 1 and 2 to cover open drainage channel, with amended details of fencing along common boundary with Orchard Grove

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

Since the report had been published, New Milton Town Council had recommended refusal due to overlooking, particularly to the neighbour at 39 Orchard Road contrary to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.  This had been included in the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

Cllr Hawkins disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Planning Committee of New Milton Town Council which had commented on the application. Cllr Hawkins did not participate in the debate or vote on the application but was present during the consideration of the item.

Cllr Ward disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of New Milton Town Council which had commented on the application. She concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent her from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Cllrs Davis, Dunning and Holding were not present for this item.

Decision:

Grant the variation of condition

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3f)