Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Crisell, Holding, Hopkins, Sevier and Thierry.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2020 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2020 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 Clark disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 20/10656 as a member of Hythe and Dibden Parish 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 Corbridge and Dunning disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in applications 20/10481, 20/10601, 20/10724 as members of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which had commented on these applications. They concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent them from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Cllrs Davis and Kangarani disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 20/10695 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.  (NOTE:  This item was not considered by the Planning Committee at this meeting. The meeting concluded at the end of item 3b)

Cllr Glass disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 20/10663 as a member of the Planning Committee of Fawley Parish Council which had commented on the application.  He concluded that as he had not expressed a view on the application there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote. 

Cllr Thorne disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 20/10663 as a member of Fawley Parish 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.

Cllr Wade disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 20/10656 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 expressed a view on the application there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.  Cllr Wade also reported that he was a member of Hampshire County Council, responsible for children’s services.  He concluded there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote. 

To determine the applications set out below:

Demolition of existing residential property; redevelopment of land to provide 4 residential units; associated parking; landscaping

RECOMMENDED:

Chief Planning Officer authorised to grant permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and conditions.

Details:

Demolition of existing residential property; redevelopment of land to provide 4 residential units; associated parking; landscaping

NOTE:  This item was not considered by the Planning Committee at this meeting. The meeting concluded at the end of item 3b.

Construction of two houses with associated parking, access and landscaping (existing house to be retained) Alternative scheme to planning permission ref 19/10787

RECOMMENDED:

Chief Planning Officer authorised to grant permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement or a unilateral undertaking and conditions.

Details:

Construction of two houses with associated parking, access and landscaping (existing house to be retained) Alternative scheme to planning permission ref 19/10787

Public Participants:

Jen Chown (Objector)

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Case Officer reported that amended plans had been received as a result of the discovery of drainage easements to the south west corner of the site and that these needed to be reviewed prior to the Planning Committee considering the application, this had been included in the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Decision:

This application was withdrawn by the Chief Planning Officer.

Conditions / Reasons:

As set out above.

Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 44 sheltered apartments for the elderly with associated access, mobility scooter store, refuse bin store, landscaping and 34 parking spaces

RECOMMENDED:

Refuse

Details:

Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 44 sheltered apartments for the elderly with associated access, mobility scooter store, refuse bin store, landscaping and 34 parking spaces

Public Participants:

Kate Holden, Pegasus Planning Group (Agent)

Don McKenzie, Lymington Society (Objector)

Cllr Ash-Vie, Lymington and Pennington Town Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Corbridge and Dunning disclosed a non-pecuniary interest 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 Case Officer reported that an amended shadow Habitat Regulations Assessment had been received from the agent on 7 October 2020, this had been included in the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

Decision:

Refuse

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3c)

Change of use of C3 dwelling to letting rooms in association with the adjacent 8 Highfield Bed & Breakfast accommodation

RECOMMENDED:

Chief Planning Officer to authorised to grant permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and conditions.

Details:

Change of use of C3 dwelling to letting rooms in association with the adjacent 8 Highfield Bed & Breakfast accommodation

Public Participants:

Bob Hull, Bob Hull Planning (Agent)

Mrs Puddifoot (Objector)

Cllr Ash-Vie, Lymington and Pennington Town Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Corbridge and Dunning disclosed a non-pecuniary interest 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 Case Officer reported that six car parking spaces were proposed at this property with two in a tandem parking formation and could be difficult to manage.  A letter had been received from the applicant which stated that a revised plan could be submitted with a revised parking arrangement with five car parking spaces at 1 Melbury Close and the sixth place within the site of 8 Highfield Road.  The recommendation to the Committee was therefore proposed to be amended to require the submission of a revised plan to show an amended car parking arrangement.

The Chairman used her casting vote in relation to this application.

Decision:

Chief Planning Officer be authorised to grant permission subject to:

(i)            The submission of a revised plan to show amended car parking arrangements, with five spaces at 1 Melbury Close and one at 8 Highfield Road;

(ii)           the completion of a Section 106 agreement;

(iii)          conditions.

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3d) and the submission of a revised car parking plan

Variation of conditions 3 (approved plan numbers),5 (landscaping),7 (ecology) & 8 (parking layout) of 18/10541 to allow amended plans reflecting the relocation and increase in size of the SINC area, provide additional car parking

RECOMMENDED:

Grant the variation of conditions

Details:

Variation of conditions 3 (approved plan numbers),5 (landscaping), 7 (ecology) & 8 (parking layout) of 18/10541 to allow amended plans reflecting the relocation and increase in size of the SINC area, provide additional car parking

Public Participants:

Mark Robinson, Simpson Hilder Associates (Agent)

Cllr Moore, Boldre Parish Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Dunning, Hawkins, Reilly and Wade were not present for this item.  Cllr Davis was not present for the duration of this item due to a lost connection with the Skype meeting.  Cllr Davis did not vote in respect of this item.

Decision:

Grant the variation of conditions

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3e)

Change of use of the building from a dwelling house to care home for up to four residents

RECOMMENDED:

Grant subject to conditions

Details:

Change of use of the building from a dwelling house to care home for up to four residents

Public Participants:

Matt Holmes, Spruce Town Planning Ltd (Agent)

Cheryl Kirsten (Supporter)

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Clark disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Hythe and Dibden Parish 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.

Cllr Wade disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 20/10656 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 expressed a view on the application there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.  Cllr Wade also reported that he was a member of Hampshire County Council, responsible for children’s services.  He concluded there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote. 

The Case Officer explained the broad range of uses included within the C2 use.  The Committee noted that it would be possible to restrict the use of the property to a “care home” with the inclusion of an additional condition and this was supported.

Cllrs Dunning was not present for this item.  Cllr Reilly was absent for part of this item and did not vote in respect of this item.

Decision:

Grant subject to conditions

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3f) and additional condition set out below:

The use hereby permitted shall be limited to that of a care home for up to four residents only and for no other use within use class C2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended)

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.

Boundary fencing to site (retrospective)

RECOMMENDED:

Refuse

Details:

Boundary fencing to site (retrospective)

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

A statement was read out on behalf of Mr Stephen Ferguson (Applicant).

Comment:

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

Cllr Thorne disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Fawley Parish 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.

Members of the Committee expressed the view that the fence was necessary in order to protect the amenity of the resident of the property.  It was felt that the fence was not an incongruous feature within the streetscene and therefore should be approved.  It was noted that a planning condition could require the fence to be painted in a dark green in colour, to be more in-keeping with the surrounding area.

Decision:

Grant subject to the conditions

Conditions / Reasons:

The Committee felt that the fence was necessary to protect the residential amenity at the property.  They felt it was not out of keeping within the streetscene and therefore should be approved with a condition to require the fence to be painted a dark green colour, set out below:

1.            Within three months of the date of this permission the fence the subject of this application shall be repainted/stained in a dark green colour the exact shade and details of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority within one month of the date of this permission. The fence as repainted shall be retained in the approved colour in perpetuity.

            Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the local area in accordance with policy ENV3 of the Local Plan 2016-2036

Demolition of the existing building and construction of a commercial unit (Use class A1, A2 or B1(a)) and 7 apartments (Outline application with details of access, appearance, layout & scale)

RECOMMENDED:

Chief Planning Officer to authorised to grant permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and conditions.

Details:

Demolition of the existing building and construction of a commercial unit (Use class A1, A2 or B1(a)) and 7 apartments (Outline application with details of access, appearance, layout & scale)

Comment:

Cllrs Davis 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.

NOTE:  This item was not considered by the Planning Committee at this meeting. The meeting concluded at the end of item 3b.

Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 20/10335 to allow amended plans to allow a double garage and enlargement to the kitchen

RECOMMENDED:

Chief Planning Officer to authorised to grant permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and conditions.

Details:

Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 20/10335 to allow amended plans to allow a double garage and enlargement to the kitchen

Public Participants:

Deborah Slade (on behalf of the applicant)

Cllr Ash-Vie, Lymington and Pennington Town Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Corbridge and Dunning disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in 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 noted that a window was shown on a side elevation plans which did not form part of the application.  This had been included in error and was confirmed at the meeting by the agent.  It was suggested that the recommendation be amended to include the submission of a revised plan with the window removed.

Decision:

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

i)              An amended plan being submitted to show the removal of a window on the side elevation;

ii)             The prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure the necessary habitat mitigation measures; and

iii)           The imposition of conditions

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3i) and the submission of an amended side elevation plan