Items
No. |
Item |
|
Apologies
Apologies for absence were received from Cllr
Holding.
|
8. |
Minutes
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on
13 June 2018 as a correct record.
Minutes:
RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 13
June 2018 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.
|
9. |
Declarations of Interest
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.
Minutes:
Cllr Armstrong disclosed a non-pecuniary
interest in applications 18/10050, 18/10594 and 17/11646 as a
member of Hythe and Dibden Parish Council which had commented on
the applications.
Cllr Penson disclosed a non-pecuniary interest
in application 18/10571 as a member of Lymington and Pennington
Town Council which had commented on the application.
Cllr Rostand disclosed a non-pecuniary
interest in application 18/10571 as a member of Lymington and
Pennington Town Council which had commented on the application.
Cllr White disclosed a non-pecuniary interest
in application 18/10571 as a member of Lymington and Pennington
Town Council which had commented on the application.
|
10. |
Planning Applications for Committee Decision
To determine the applications set out
below:
|
10a |
Land north of School Lane, Milford-on-Sea (Application 17/10606) PDF 3 MB
Development of 42 dwellings comprised: 17
detached houses; 8 semi-detached houses; 11 terraced houses; 6
flats; garages; parking; landscaping; estate roads; junction
access; footpaths; open space, play area; 5 allotments;
cycleway
RECOMMENDED:
Service Manager Planning Development Control
authorised to grant permission subject to conditions
Minutes:
Details:
|
Development of 42 dwellings
comprised: 17 detached houses; 8 semi-detached houses; 11 terraced
houses; 6 flats; garages; parking; landscaping; estate roads;
junction access; footpaths; open space; play area; 5 allotments;
cycleway
|
|
|
Public Participants:
|
Mr
Holmes – Applicant’s Agent
Parish
Cllr Banks – Milford on Sea Parish Council.
|
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
19
further letters of objection, which raised further concerns at
crime, the isolated street layout, lack of shops and impact on
tourism.
1
letter that commented on the application.
Southern Water would prefer a combined foul and surface water
drainage condition due to the need to assess both networks at the
same time.
Natural
England raised no objection subject to appropriate mitigation being
secured.
The
applicant had circulated additional information directly to members
of the Committee.
|
|
|
Comment:
|
Members
were advised of additional information that should be taken into
account in the consideration of this application, together with
consequent additional and amended conditions, as set out in the
update circulated prior to the meeting.
Members
noted that the application site had been released from the Green
Belt, under policy MOS1, as an exception site. The basis for the release of the land had been
specifically to address identified local needs for affordable
housing and low cost market housing, with a target minimum of 70%
affordable housing, the rest being low cost market housing,
together with other community benefits.
This viewpoint had been confirmed by the Inspector when considering
Policies CS12 and CS15 of the Local Plan Part 1and subsequently by
a different Inspector considering Policy MOS1 within Part 2 of the
Council’s Local Plan. The
Committee considered that, as the land had been released from the
Green Belt for a specific purpose, and the proposed scheme did not
meet that specific purpose, it should be refused.
The
Committee did not accept that the provision of starter homes for
first time buyers complied with the definition of affordable
housing. The proposed development
therefore offered only 6 flats for rent and 6 dwellings for shared
ownership, which was considerably less than the 70% mentioned in
the site specific policy and did not meet the requirements in terms
of satisfying the local housing need for affordable and low cost
market housing that had led to the allocation of the site in the
first place.
For
these reasons the proposal should be refused as it was a wholly
non-compliant scheme in policy terms on this important edge of
settlement site.
|
|
|
Decision:
|
Refused
|
|
|
Refusal reasons:
|
The proportion of affordable
housing proposed falls significantly below that specified in Policy
CS15 of the Local Plan Part 1 (Core Strategy 2009) and Policy MOS1
of the Local Plan Part 2 (Sites and Development Management Plan
2014). Additionally the remainder is
not wholly low cost market housing as required by Policy
CS15. The site was only released from
the Green Belt and allocated for housing on the basis that its
development would meet local housing needs which would not
otherwise be provided for and this alone provided the exceptional
circumstances ...
view the full minutes text for item 10a
|
|
10b |
Former Police Station, Jones Lane, Hythe (Application 18/10050) PDF 2 MB
Part 3- part 4- storey block of 35 retirement
flats; communal facilities; refuse and buggy stores; sub station; parking; landscaping; demolition of
existing buildings (amended plans, heritage statement and
streetscape)
RECOMMENDED:
Refuse
Minutes:
Details:
|
Part 3- part 4-storey block of
35 retirement flats; communal facilities; refuse and buggy stores;
sub- station; parking; landscaping; demolition of existing
buildings (amended plans; heritage statement and
streetscape)
|
|
|
|
|
Public Participants:
|
Miss
Fulgoni – Applicant’s
Agent
Mr Cox
- Objector
|
|
|
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
3
further letters of support
1
further letter of objection
The
Police and Crime Commissioner had confirmed that the police station
was surplus to requirements and alternative provision had been made
with Hampshire Fire and Rescue in Hardley.
The
University of Southampton NHS Foundation Trust had requested a
commuted payment to pay for additional service to meet patient
demand in the local hospital.
Further
details were set out in the update circulated prior to the
meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
The
Committee was advised of additional information that should be
taken into account when determining this application, as set out in
the update circulated prior to the meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
Decision:
|
Refused
|
|
|
|
|
Refusal
Reasons:
|
As per
report (Item 3(b)).
|
|
10c |
Olive Cottage, Park Lane, Marchwood (Application 18/10595) PDF 824 KB
Two-storey rear extension; single-storey rear
extension; front porch; flue
RECOMMENDED:
Grant permission subject to conditions
Minutes:
Details:
|
Two-storey rear extension;
single-storey rear extension; front porch; flue
|
|
|
Public Participants:
|
None
|
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
None
|
|
|
Comment:
|
None
|
|
|
Decision:
|
Permission
|
|
|
Conditions:
|
As per
report (Item 3(c)).
|
|
|
|
|
10d |
21 Kennard Road, New Milton (Application 18/10198) PDF 1 MB
1 block of 9 flats and 1 maisonette; cycle and
bin store; parking
RECOMMENDED:
Grant permission subject to conditions
Minutes:
Details:
|
1 block of 9 flats and 1
maisonette; cycle and bin store; parking
|
|
|
Public Participants:
|
None
|
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
1
letter asking for additional information about parking
provision.
The
Highway Authority confirmed they raised no objection, subject to
the imposition of the conditions set out in the report.
|
|
|
Comment:
|
The
Committee was advised of additional information that should be
taken into account in the consideration of this application, as set
out in the update circulated prior to the meeting. As a consequence, the officer’s
recommendation was amended to authorise the Service Manager
Planning Development Control to grant permission, subject to no
objection being received from Natural England by 19 July
2018.
|
|
|
Decision:
|
Service
Manager Planning Development Control authorised to grant
permission.
|
|
|
Conditions/
Agreements/
Negotiations:
|
Subject
to:
(i)
No objections being received from Natural England by
19 July 2018; and
(ii) The imposition of the conditions set out in the report (Item 3
(d))
|
|
|
|
|
10e |
Land at Avery Lodge, Long Lane, Marchwood (Application 18/10311) PDF 1 MB
House; associated parking
RECOMMENDED:
Grant permission subject to conditions
Minutes:
Details:
|
House; associated
parking
|
|
|
Public Participants:
|
Mr
Davies – Applicant’s Agent
Mrs
Bell – Objector
Mr
Rolph - Objector
|
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
1
additional letter from a neighbour.
|
|
|
Comment:
|
The
Committee was advised of additional information that should be
taken into account in the consideration of this application, as set
out in the update circulated prior to the meeting. As a consequence, the officer’s
recommendation was amended to authorise the Service Manager
Planning Development Control to grant permission, subject to no
objection being received from Natural England by 19 July
2018.
The
Committee noted the close proximity of the proposed new dwelling to
both the existing and neighbouring properties and considered it
would be prudent to remove permitted development rights.
|
|
|
Decision:
|
Service
Manager Planning Development Control authorised to grant
permission.
|
|
|
Conditions/
Agreements/
Negotiations:
|
Subject
to:
(i)
No objections being received from Natural England by
19 July 2018; and
(ii) The imposition of the conditions set out in the report (Item 3
(e)), together with an additional condition to remove permitted
development rights from the new property.
|
|
|
|
|
10f |
23-25 High Street, Fordingbridge (Application 18/10331) PDF 1 MB
Use first floor as 2 flats; first-floor rear
extension; roof terrace; Juliet balcony; window alterations;
rooflights
RECOMMENDED:
Grant permission subject to conditions
Minutes:
Details:
|
Use first floor as 2 flats;
first-floor rear extension; roof terrace; Juliet balcony; window
alterations; rooflights
|
|
|
Public Participants:
|
Mr
Avient - Applicant’s
Agent
|
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
None
|
|
|
Comment:
|
The
Committee was advised of additional information that should be
taken into account in the consideration of this application, as set
out in the update circulated prior to the meeting. As a consequence, the officer’s
recommendation was amended to authorise the Service Manager
Planning Development Control to grant permission, subject to no
objection being received from Natural England by 19 July
2018.
|
|
|
Decision:
|
Service
Manager Planning Development Control authorised to grant
permission.
|
|
|
Conditions/
Agreements/
Negotiations:
|
Subject
to:
(i)
No objections being received from Natural England by
19 July 2018; and
(ii) The imposition of the conditions set out in the report (Item 3
(f)).
|
|
|
|
|
10g |
Outwick Farm, Outwick, Breamore (Application 18/10366) PDF 701 KB
Single-storey rear extension
RECOMMENDED:
Grant permission subject to conditions
Minutes:
Details:
|
Single-storey rear
extension
|
|
|
Public Participants:
|
None
|
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
The
Ecologist raised no objection, subject to the imposition of the
conditions set out in the report.
|
|
|
Comment:
|
The
Committee was advised that the additional floorspace proposed,
without the inclusion of the attached outbuilding, was
9.47%.
|
|
|
Decision:
|
Permission
|
|
|
Conditions:
|
As per
report (Item 3(g)).
|
|
|
|
|
10h |
Ship Inn, 68 High Street, Fordingbridge (Application 18/10433) PDF 1 MB
Kitchen intake and extract ducting
(retrospective)
RECOMMENDED:
Grant permission subject to conditions
Minutes:
Details:
|
Kitchen intake and extract
ducting (retrospective)
|
|
|
Public Participants:
|
Mr
Cooper – Applicant’s Agent
|
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
None
|
|
|
Comment:
|
The
officer’s recommendation was amended by updating Condition 1,
as set out in the update circulated prior to the
meeting.
|
|
|
Decision:
|
Permission
|
|
|
Conditions:
|
As per
report (Item 3(h)), with condition 1 updated as set out in the
update circulated prior to the meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
10i |
12 St Georges Crescent, Fordingbridge (Application 18/10481) PDF 954 KB
1 pair of semi-detached bungalows; parking;
demolish existing
RECOMMENDED:
Refuse
Minutes:
Details:
|
1 pair semi-detached bungalows;
parking; demolish existing
|
|
|
Public Participants:
|
None
|
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
1
additional letter, together with an amended plan, from the
applicant’s agent, as set out in the update circulated prior
to the meeting.
|
|
|
Comment:
|
The
Committee was advised of additional information that should be
taken into account in considering this application, as set out in
the update circulated prior to the meeting.
Members
were advised of a typographical correction in the reason for
refusal, as set out in the update circulated prior to the
meeting.
|
|
|
Decision:
|
Refused
|
|
|
Refusal Reasons:
|
As per
report (Item 3(i)), but amended to
refer to “….overly intensive and cramped form of
development….”
|
|
|
|
|
10j |
7 Viney Road, Lymington (Application 18/10571) PDF 839 KB
House; detached garage/store; demolition of
existing
RECOMMENDED:
Grant permission subject to conditions
Minutes:
Details:
|
House; detached garage/store;
demolition of existing
|
|
|
Public Participants:
|
Miss
Slade - Applicant’s Agent
|
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
The
applicant had submitted amended plans clarifying distances between
dwellings in Viney Road and correcting
the roof plan of the proposed outbuilding.
|
|
|
Comment:
|
Cllrs
Penson and White disclosed on-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 of amendments to the proposed conditions, as
set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.
|
|
|
Decision:
|
Permission
|
|
|
Conditions:
|
As per
report (Item 3(j)), with conditions 2 and 7 amended as set out in
the update circulated prior to the meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
10k |
61 South Street, Hythe (Application 18/10594) PDF 1 MB
Single-storey and first-floor rear extensions
(part retrospective)
RECOMMENDED:
Refuse
Minutes:
Details:
|
Single-storey and first-floor
rear extensions (part retrospective)
|
|
|
Public Participants:
|
Mr
Lawrence – Applicant’s Agent
|
|
|
Additional Representations:
|
The
applicant’s agent had sent photographs directly to members of
the Committee.
|
|
|
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.
The
Committee was advised that section 2 of the report should refer to
the Hythe Conservation area, not Hyde as stated.
|
|
|
Decision:
|
Refused
|
|
|
Refusal Reasons:
|
As per
report (Item 3(k)).
|
|
|
|
|
11. |
2 South Street, Hythe (Application 17/11646) PDF 71 KB
To consider whether evidence should be
submitted to support a reason for refusal in respect of the
non-payment of affordable housing contributions at a forthcoming
planning appeal.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
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.
Members recalled that on 14 March 2018 they
had refused this application, for the erection of a block of 43
retirement apartments, communal facilities, access, parking and
landscaping (Minute 38 (b) refers). The refusal had been on the
grounds of the inappropriate scale and design of the building; and
also that no contribution had been secured towards the cost of
providing affordable housing. At that
time a reduced level of financial contribution, on viability
grounds, had been agreed with the applicant, but as it had not been
secured by a S106 agreement, the reason for refusal
remained. The application was the
subject of an appeal that would be heard in January 2019.
The applicant had subsequently submitted a
revised viability report to the effect that increased costs
associated with the construction and also increased contributions
to this Council for other purposes, meant that the scheme could no
longer support any contribution towards affordable
housing. The District Valuer had been
consulted and had agreed that the scheme would not be viable if a
social housing contribution was paid.
On this basis the officers were recommending that no evidence
should be submitted to the forthcoming planning appeal to maintain
the Council’s objection to the lack of an affordable housing
contribution.
The Council would continue to defend its
refusal on the grounds of the inappropriate scale and design of the
building.
RESOLVED:
That no evidence be submitted at the
forthcoming appeal in support of the second reason for refusal for
planning application 17/11646 in relation to affordable housing
contributions.
|