Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs R Clark, Corbridge, Davis, Duke and Sevier.

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 Crisell disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 17/11770 as she had previously been a Ward Councillor for Furzedown & Hardley and had spoken on behalf of one of the objectors of the original application.  She concluded that there could be a perception of bias and therefore did not speak or vote on this application.  She remained present during the consideration of this item.

Cllr Hawkins disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 19/11249 as a member of the Planning Committee of New Milton Town Council.  He concluded that as he had not 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 Ring disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 19/11369 as a member of the Planning Committee of Ringwood Town Council.  He also declared a common law interest and therefore did not participate in the debate or vote on this item.  He remained present during the consideration of this item.

Cllr Wade disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in applications 17/11770, 19/11520, 20/100008 as a member of the Planning Committee of Hythe and Dibden Parish Council which had commented on the applications.  He concluded that as he had not voted on the applications 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 application 19/11249 as a member of New Milton 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.

To determine the applications set out below:

Convert first-storey to residential use; add two additional storeys to create six residential apartments; Improvements to front and rear elevations; Improvements to rear service yard including demolition of existing cold store and rebuild to form new cold store, bicycle and bin store with associated planting

RECOMMENDED:

Delegated authority to Chief Planning Officer to be Authorised to Grant Permission subject to the completion of  a S.106 Agreement and conditions

Details:

Convert first-storey to residential use; add two additional storeys to create six residential apartments; Improvements to front and rear elevations; Improvements to rear service yard including demolition of existing cold store and rebuild to form new cold store, bicycle and bin store with associated planting

Public Participants:

Alan Davis, Chapman Lily Planning Ltd (Agent)

Cllr Ring

Additional Representations:

Three additional representations had been received from Ringwood Town Council, Building Control and Ringwood Society.  This had been included in the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

Cllr Ring disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Planning Committee of Ringwood Town Council.  He also declared a common law interest and therefore did not participate in the debate or vote on this item.  He remained present during the consideration of this item.

Decision:

Delegated Authority be given to the Chief Planning Officer to GRANT PERMISSION subject to:

i)      The completion within 6 months of the date of this resolution, of a planning obligation entered into by way of a Section 106 Agreement to secure appropriate habitat mitigation measures: and

ii)     The imposition of conditions.

Conditions / Reasons:

As set out in the report (Item 2b)

Variation of condition 21 of Planning Permission 15/10751 to allow revised drainage proposal (retrospective)

RECOMMENDED:

Grant the variation of condition

Details:

Variation of condition 21 of Planning Permission 15/10751 to allow revised drainage proposal (retrospective)

Public Participants:

Mr Daniel Wiseman, Gillings Planning on behalf of Vivid Housing Limited (Applicant)

Mr Armstrong (Objector)

Mr Penny (Objector)

Mr Frank Tillyer (Objector)

Cllr Mark Clark (Ward Councillor)

Additional Representations:

2 further representations had been received from local residents, who had previously made representations.  This had been included in the update note circulated prior to the meeting.  The Case Officer also reported that two further letters had been received from one of the objectors, Mr Penny and a representation from Mr Wiseman of Gillings Planning who had been appointed to independently review the proposal.  Mr Penny’s representation had been circulated to members of the Planning Committee and it detailed the discussions which had taken place with the developer since October.  The letter from Gillings Planning had been received very late and therefore as the Planning Committee would not have had the opportunity to read this, it was read out at the meeting.  This letter provided an assessment of the development in planning terms, which included a site visit and an independent assessment by geo-environmental engineers.

Comment:

Cllr Crisell disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as she had previously been a Ward Councillor for Furzedown & Hardley and had spoken on behalf of one of the objectors of the original application.  She concluded that there could be a perception of bias and therefore did not speak or vote on this application.  She remained present during the consideration of this item.

Cllr Wade disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Planning Committee of Hythe and Dibden Parish Council which had commented on the application.  He concluded that as he had not voted on the application there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Jim Peters of Such Salinger Peters, the consultant appointed by the District Council to review the drainage scheme answered technical questions from the Committee.

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

Decision:

Grant the proposed Variation of Condition subject to conditions as set out in the report to the Planning Committee in October 2019.

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 2a)

Single storey side and rear extensions; roof lantern; porch; fenestration alterations

RECOMMENDED:

Grant subject to conditions

Details:

Single storey side and rear extensions; roof lantern; porch; fenestration alterations

Public Participants:

Amy Wheeler (Applicant)

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Wade disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Planning Committee of Hythe and Dibden Parish Council which had commented on the application.  He concluded that as he had not voted on the application there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Decision:

Grant subject to conditions

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 2c)

Single-storey rear extension (prior approval application)

RECOMMENDED:

Prior approval not required

Details:

Single-storey rear extension (prior approval application)

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Wade disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Planning Committee of Hythe and Dibden Parish Council which had commented on the application.  He concluded that as he had not 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 Case Officer reported a change to the recommendation to approval of the Prior Approval application.

Decision:

That Prior Approval be approved

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 2d) and update note.

Single chapel crematorium; parking; landscaping (Details of appearance, landscaping, layout & scale, development granted by Outline Permission 16/10780)

RECOMMENDED:

Grant subject to conditions

Details:

Single chapel crematorium; parking; landscaping (Details of appearance, landscaping, layout & scale, development granted by Outline Permission 16/10780)

Public Participants:

Ian Jewson, Walsingham Planning (Agent)

Alan Watson on behalf of The New Milton Residents Association (Supporting)

Additional Representations:

A further representation had been received from a resident of Doe Copse Way.  The issues raised concerned air quality and highway matters.  These had been responded to by Environmental Health, Ecology and HCC highways. The details were included in the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

The Case Officer also reported a further representation from the Tree Officer who had confirmed that there was no objection.

Comment:

Cllr Hawkins disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Planning Committee of New Milton Town Council.  He concluded that as he had not 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 as a member of New Milton 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.

The Case Officer reported that Conditions 2 and 7 had been amended, these were included in the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Decision:

Grant subject to conditions

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 2e) and amended conditions 2 and 7

Siting of caravan for an agricultural worker (retrospective)

RECOMMENDED:

Refuse

Details:

Siting of caravan for an agricultural worker (retrospective)

Public Participants:

None.

Additional Representations:

An additional comment had been made in relation to the building work certification which had been issued.  This was included in the update note, circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

An email was read out from Ellingham, Harbridge and Ibsley Parish Council as they were unable to attend the meeting. 

The Case Officer reported an amendment to the first reason for refusal to include the fact there it was the intention to develop the agricultural business, a need for the dwelling and that the business had been planned on a sound financial basis within the decision.

Decision:

Refuse

Conditions / Reasons:

1.    The evidence before the Council in respect of a firm intention and ability to develop the agricultural business, the functional need for the dwelling and that the business has been planned on a sound financial basis, has failed to demonstrate an essential need for a rural working to live permanently at their place of work in the countryside.  The development is therefore inappropriate residential development within the open countryside, contrary to Planning Policies DM20 and DM21 of the Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document, Planning, Policy CS10 of the New Forest District outside the National Park Core Strategy (October 2009), and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

2.    By reason of its temporary appearance, for which an essential need has not been demonstrated, the siting and design of the mobile home is visually incongruous and inappropriate in its setting to the detriment of this sensitive rural location lying within the countryside, contrary to Policies CS2, CS3 and CS10 of the Core Strategy New Forest District outside the National Park, Policies 2, 13 and 14 of the Emerging Local Plan Review (2016-2036) and Policy DM20 of the Local Plan Part 2 Sites and Development Management Development Plan Document.

Car port

RECOMMENDED:

Grant subject to conditions

Details:

Car port

Public Participants:

Mr Etherington (Applicant)

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

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

Decision:

Grant subject to conditions

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 2g)

The Committee noted the appeal decision for the Club House, New Forest Water Park in Fordingbridge.  The Planning Inspectorate had dismissed the appeal against the District Council’s decision to refuse to grant planning permission.  The Inspectorate had also refused the award of costs appeal against New Forest District Council.