Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence was received from Cllr Dunning.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2019 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2019 be agreed as a correct record 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 Corbridge disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 19/10437 as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which had commented on the application.

Cllrs Crisell, Davis and Kangarani disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 19/10545 as members of Totton and Eling Town Council which had commented on the application.

Cllr Hawkins disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 19/10618 as a member of the Planning Committee to New Milton Town Council.

Cllr Ring disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 19/10744 as a member of the Planning Committee of Ringwood Town Council.

Cllr C Ward disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 19/10618 as a member of New Milton Town Council which had commented on the application.

To determine the applications set out below:

Development of 8 dwellings comprised 2 terraces of 3 houses; 1 detached house; Use of outbuilding as dwelling & associated one & two-storey extensions; parking; demolition of existing dwellings

RECOMMENDED:

Refuse

Details:

Development of 8 dwellings comprised 2 terraces of 3 houses; 1 detached house; Use of outbuilding as dwelling & associated one & two-storey extensions; parking; demolition of existing dwellings

Public Participants:

Jerry Davies (Agent)

Cllr Mike Jackson (Fordingbridge Town Council)

Additional Representations:

Additional letter of support from the owner of 1 Provost Street, as per update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

Members expressed concern that the proposed development would create an overdeveloped and congested form of development.  It was noted that the site was in a Conservation Area and that the built form would be visible in views from the Recreation Ground.  The proposed design of the buildings did not pick up on the local context and would not enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, in particular, Members felt that the proposed development would be out of context with the character if the area which is typified by linear terraces of modest sized dwellings.

Cllr Hawkins was unable to vote on this application as he had been absent for part of the consideration of this item.

Cllr Kangarani was not present for this item.

Decision:

Chief Planning Officer authorised to refuse permission

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3a) and the amended reason 1. for refusal set out below:

The proposed development fails to pick up on the local context which is typified by linear terraces of modest sized dwellings and would not enhance urban design or quality of the character and appearance of the conservation area, by virtue of the number, bulk, size and appearance of the buildings, coupled with the rise in site levels from the street, which would result in the development to the rear of the plot becoming dominant. The site would be overdeveloped, dominated by standard suburban buildings, access, parking and turning head details with little in the way of landscaping. Furthermore the poor boundary treatment proposed for Plots 4-8 would erode the quality of the Landscape Feature to the rear of the site. Consequently the proposed development would fail to take the opportunity to enhance local distinctiveness and would cause harm to the character and appearance of Fordingbridge Conservation Area, contrary to the provisions of Policies CS2, CS3 and Saved Policy DW-E12 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park (2009), Policy DM1 of the Local Plan Part 2 (Sites and Development Management DPD) 2014, Paragraph 192 of the NPPF, Fordingbridge Conservation Area Appraisal, Fordingbridge Town Design Statement and Policies 11 (Saved Policy DM1) and 13 of the NFDC Local Plan Review 2016-2036 Part 1: Planning Strategy Submission Document (June 2018).

Roof alterations in association with new first-floor; single-storey side & rear extension; extend front porch; pitched roof to garage

RECOMMENDED:

Grant subject to conditions

Details:

Roof alterations in association with new first-floor; single-storey side & rear extension; extend front porch; pitched roof to garage

Public Participants:

Cllr David Hawkins (Objector)

Additional Representations:

A further letter of objection had been received, as per 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 vote on the application but was present during the consideration of this item.  He also spoke as a public participant.

Cllr C 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.

Decision:

Grant subject to conditions

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3b)

Three-storey extension; extend side dormers; balcony; rooflights; garage/store

RECOMMENDED:

Refuse

Details:

Three-storey extension; extend side dormers; balcony; rooflights; garage/store

Public Participants:

None.

Additional Representations:

Further email from the applicant’s planning consultant had been circulated to members, as per update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

The Case Officer reported some typographical errors in the report, as per update noted circulated prior to the meeting.

Decision:

Refuse

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3c)

First & second floor extension to create 8 flats on first & second floors; landscaping/communal area; cycle and bin stores

RECOMMENDED:

Grant subject to conditions

Details:

Three-storey extension; extend side dormers; balcony; rooflights; garage/store

Public Participants:

None.

Additional Representations:

Additional letters of representation had been received from Totton Town Council, HCC Highway Engineer and NFDC Environmental Health following further consultation on amended plans, as per update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

Cllrs Crisell, David and Kangarani disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as members of Totton and Eling 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.

In his presentation the case officer confirmed the communal space should be read as 50 square metres not 89 as stated on page 54 of the report.

Members expressed concern regarding the potential for disruption to the business units during the construction phase of the development.  The Case Officer reported that the landlord of the business units was also the owner of the building, and therefore it was unlikely that the businesses would suffer, however, it was noted that a condition could be added to the permission relating to the construction of the development to ensure that the businesses were protected.

The Committee raised concerns in relation to waste management of the site.  It was noted that a comment from the Waste Management team had said that 1110lt bins could not be used, and that black and clear recycling sacks would been used instead.  It was questioned whether this would apply to the existing commercial units, one of which served food, which could give rise to problems with vermin.  It was noted that the condition 3. could be amended to address this issue.

Decision:

Chief Planning Officer authorised to grant permission.

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3d) with an additional condition regarding a Construction Management Plan and an amended condition 3.

Single-storey side extension

RECOMMENDED:

Grant subject to conditions

Details:

Single-storey side extension

Public Participants:

None.

Additional Representations:

None.

Comment:

Cllr Ring disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Planning Committee of Ringwood Town Council which had commented on the application.  Cllr Ring did not vote on the application but was present during the consideration of the item.

Decision:

Grant subject to conditions

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3e)

Variation of condition2 of 17/10532 to allow revised plans PE.02 Rev H, PL.01 Rev E & PP.01 Rev D to allow first-floor side extension; timber cladding; fenestration alterations; window alterations to ancillary building

RECOMMENDED:

Grant the variation of condition.

Details:

Variation of condition 2 of 17/10532 to allow revised plans PE.02 Rev H, PL.01 Rev E & PP.01 Rev D to allow first-floor side extension; timber cladding; fenestration alterations; window alterations to ancillary building

Public Participants:

Deborah Slade on behalf of Elcock Associates (Agent)

Ian King (Objector)

Additional Representations:

An additional letter of representation had been written to members from the neighbour and a further letter received from the applicant, as per update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

Cllr Corbridge disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town Council.  She concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent her from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Members expressed concern regarding the proposals for the roof light in bedroom 4 and the rear elevation window in bedroom 4.  The Planning Committee noted that a Planning Inspector had considered these issues in an appeal in February 2019 which had been dismissed.  The Inspector felt that there was an issue regarding overlooking to the living conditions of the occupiers of Bay Tree Cottage, however it was felt that this could be overcome with conditions.  It was proposed in the report to address the concerns in proposed conditions 5. and 6. whereby a fin or louvre would need to be fitted to the rear elevation window in bedroom 4 and the roof light serving bedroom 4 would need to be fitted with obscure glass and be fixed to prevent opening.  The Committee however was of the view that the privacy issues could not be addressed through the imposition of conditions.

Cllr Kangarani was unable to vote on this application as he had been absent for part of the consideration of this item.

Decision:

Refuse

Conditions / Reasons:

The proposed obscure glazing and fixing shut of the roof light to bedroom 4, together with the lack of details of the proposed fin to the rear window of this bedroom, are not sufficient to mitigate against the harm to the residential amenities of the occupants of Bay Tree House.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS2 of the New Forest District Council Core Strategy.

Single-storey extension

RECOMMENDED:

Refuse

Details:

Single-storey extension

Public Participants:

Mr Bartlett (Applicant)

Additional Representations:

The applicant had circulated comments supporting his applications to members of the Committee, as per update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

A correction was made to paragraph 11.6, as per update note.

The Committee expressed concern about the proposed extension and felt that the relocation of the external door and the removal of part of the rear wall would result in a loss of part of the historic fabric of the building and therefore included within the reason for refusal.

Decision:

Refuse

Conditions / Reasons:

The amended reason for refusal is set out below:

The relocation of the external door would result in the loss of its context, and coupled with the removal of part of the rear wall would result in a loss of significance to the Listed Building. As such, this development would be contrary to Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park, DM1 of the Local Plan Part 2: Sites and Development Management Plan the National Planning Policy Framework.

Single-storey extension; roof light; demolition of existing rendered single storey rear extension (Application for Listed Building Consent)

RECOMMENDED:

Refuse

Details:

Single-storey extension; roof light; demolition of existing rendered single storey rear extension (Application for Listed Building Consent)

Public Participants:

Mr Bartlett (Applicant)

Additional Representations:

The applicant had circulated comments supporting his applications to members of the Committee, as per update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

The Case Officer reported some amendments to the report, as per the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

The Committee expressed concern about the proposed extension and felt that the relocation of the external door and the removal of part of the rear wall would result in a loss of part of the historic fabric of the building and therefore included within the reason for refusal.

Decision:

Refuse Listed Building consent

Conditions / Reasons:

The amended reason for refusal is set out below:

The proposed development would result in the loss of the existing rooflight, which by virtue of its age forms part of the historic fabric of the Listed Building.  Furthermore, the relocation of the rear external door would result in the loss of its context and removal of part of the rear wall would result in a loss of significance to the Listed Building.  There is no justification for the loss of the rooflight or the relocation of the door, and these changes would result in less than substantial harm to the character and significance of the Listed Building.  This development would be contrary to Policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park, DM1 of the Local Plan Part 2: Sites and Development Management Plan, and Chaps 12 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

First-floor rear extension

RECOMMENDED:

Refuse

Details:

First-floor rear extension

Public Participants:

Mr Bartlett (Applicant)

Additional Representations:

The applicant had circulated comments supporting his applications to members of the Committee, as per update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

The Case Officer reported an amendment to paragraph 11.12, as per the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Members noted that an ecology report had not been provided which would evaluate the risks to any protected species and provide mitigation against these risks.  Members therefore felt that the application should be deferred so that an ecology report could be provided.

Decision:

Defer

Conditions / Reasons:

In order for an Ecology report to be provided by the applicant.

First-floor rear extension; create opening through first floor gable wall (Application for Listed Building Consent)

RECOMMENDED:

Refuse

Details:

First-floor rear extension; create opening through first floor gable wall (Application for Listed Building Consent)

Public Participants:

None.

Additional Representations:

The applicant had circulated comments supporting his applications to members of the Committee, as per update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

The Case Officer reported some amendment to paragraph 11.11, as per the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

As the previous application (19/10339) had been deferred on the basis that an ecology report should be provided by the applicant it was agreed that this application should also be deferred.

Decision:

Defer

Conditions / Reasons:

In order for an Ecology report to be provided by the applicant.