Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Crisell, Hartmann, Hawkins, Sleep and Wade.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2024 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2024 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 Woods disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in application 24/10651, for transparency purposes as a Ward Cllr for Fordingbridge, Godshill & Hyde. He reported that he had not been involved in the application and therefore 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:

Construction of temporary access road, bridge and associated works, in connection with the construction of Phase 1 of Land west of Whitsbury Road (Application 21/10052) This application is subject to an Environmental Assessment

RECOMMENDED:

Grant subject to conditions

Details:

Construction of temporary access road, bridge and associated works, in connection with the construction of Phase 1 of Land west of Whitsbury Road (Application 21/10052) This application is subject to an Environmental Assessment

Public Participants:

Suzanne Bangert, Technical Director, tor&co (Agent)

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Woods disclosed a non-pecuniary interest, for transparency purposes as a Ward Cllr for Fordingbridge, Godshill & Hyde. He reported that he had not been involved in the application and therefore concluded there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

The Case Officer reported that a further response had been received from Fordingbridge Town Council relating to the amended Construction Traffic Management Plan and other matters.  The Town Council had recommended that the application be refused.  A further response had been received from the District Council’s Environmental Protection team requiring a Dust Management plan for approval prior to the commencement of the development.  In addition to this, the case officer reported that conditions 2, 3 and 8 had been amended.  This had been included in the update note circulated prior to the meeting.

The Case Officer in his presentation referred to the matter of flood risk and surface water assessment, detailed in pages 14 and 15 of the agenda pack that needed to be corrected.  The report referred to the potential for flooding of the temporary access road itself where it passes through the floodplain of Sweatfords Water. Reference should however be made to the Flood Risk Assessment which stated:

“The temporary access road crosses the functional floodplain of Sweatfords Water. The proposed bridge and the access road have been set above the 1% annual probability event peak flood level, (including a 40% allowance for climate change), of 30.8m AOD established for the permanent bridge (consented under application 21/10052) with a freeboard of 300mm to be provided to the soffit level of the temporary vehicle bridge. As such, safe access and egress has been provided during all fluvial flood events up to and including this event.”

The Flood Risk Assessment also stated that the risk to the proposed development from various sources of flooding was low or negligible.

The applicant’s engineers WSP had confirmed that the case officer’s comment in the report was incorrect with the above quote setting out the design measures incorporated into the scheme to accommodate potential flood risk and ensure safe access and egress from the road is accommodated.

Decision:

Grant subject to conditions

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3a) and update notes

Change of use from financial services (Use Class E(c)i) to the provision of education (Use Class F1); rooflights; balustrade to terrace; fenestration alterations

RECOMMENDED:

Grant subject to conditions

Details:

Change of use from financial services (Use Class E(c)i) to the provision of education (Use Class F1); rooflights; balustrade to terrace; fenestration alterations

Public Participants:

Mark Bloodworth, UKG Ltd (Applicant)

Cllr Mary DeBoos, Ringwood Town Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Case Officer reported that amended plans had been submitted by the applicant the day before the meeting.  The plans no longer proposed roof light windows to the rear of the property and they provided additional details on the roof light to the front of the property and balustrading to the rear.  Given the lateness of the submission, officers had not had the time to assess the amended plans.  The Committee were advised that the officer recommendation remained the same, however if they wished an assessment to be carried out, it would be possible to delegate authority to the Service Manager Development Management. 

Decision:

Grant subject to conditions

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3b)

Conversion of single dwelling into two dwellings; associated external alterations (retrospective)

RECOMMENDED:

Delegated Authority be given to the Service Manager Development Management to GRANT PERMISSION subject to:

i)              the completion of a planning obligation entered into by way of a Section 106 Agreement or unilateral undertaking to secure those matters set out in the 'Developer Contributions' section of the report; and

ii)             the imposition of the conditions set out in the report.

Details:

Conversion of single dwelling into two dwellings; associated external alterations (retrospective)

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

The Case Officer reported that an additional representation had been received from Cllr Alan Alvey, Ward Member, supporting the comments from local residents regarding the impact the development would have on the highway.

Comment:

Members noted that the development proposed two car parking spaces and therefore it did not confirm to the Parking Standards SPD, which required 4.5 spaces of allocated parking or 3.3 spaces of unallocated parking on site.  Members expressed concern about the inadequate provision of parking and the impact this could have on the surrounding area. 

The committee felt that an amended plan should be submitted with an alternative layout to show additional parking, with a minimum of three car parking spaces and the changes to landscaping and that this could be secured with an additional condition.

Decision:

Delegated Authority be given to the Service Manager Development Management to GRANT PERMISSION subject to:

i)                 The completion of a planning obligation entered into by way of a Section 106 Agreement or unilateral undertaking to secure those matters set out in the ‘Developer Contributions’ section of the report; and

ii)                The imposition of the conditions set out in the report; and

iii)              Notwithstanding the submitted plans; an additional condition (the detailed drafting of which will be finalised by officers) to provide an amended plan for approval detailing an alternative layout at the front of the property to secure a minimum of three car parking spaces on the site prior to the second dwelling being occupied

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3c) and additional condition as per (iii) above.

Use of existing holiday let as dwelling

RECOMMENDED:

Grant subject to conditions

Details:

Use of existing holiday let as dwelling

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Grant subject to conditions

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3d)

Proposed access off Becton Lane; creation of driveway and fencing

RECOMMENDED:

Grant subject to conditions

Details:

Proposed access off Becton Lane; creation of driveway and fencing

Public Participants:

Mr Howells, Darryl Howells Planning Consultancy (Agent)

Cllr Robert Maynard, New Milton Town Council

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Case Officer reported an amendment to the description of the development to remove the words “…and fencing” as this had been removed from the plans dated 2 October 2024. 

Decision:

Grant subject to conditions

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3e) and verbal update

Extension of living accommodation to replace x2no. bays of existing car port; rooflights and fenestration alterations

RECOMMENDED:

Refuse

Details:

Extension of living accommodation to replace x2no. bays of existing car port; rooflights and fenestration alterations

Public Participants:

Jason Rickwood (Applicant)

James Rodgers (Supporter)

Cllr John Haywood, Ward Cllr for Ringwood North and Ellingham Ward

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

The Case Officer reported a typographical error in section 3 of the report which should refer to the first floor opening being infilled rather than unfilled.  This had been included in the update note circulated prior to the meeting. 

Members noted that the building was a curtilage listed building and the recommended reason for refusal.  However, it was felt that on balance the enclosure of the cart bays would help retain the integrity of building and the  cart bays without significant detrimental harm to the significance of the building.

Decision:

Delegate Authority to the Service Manager Development Management to GRANT PERMISSION subject to the imposition of conditions considered suitable.

Conditions / Reasons:

As detailed above.

Extension of living accommodation to replace x2no. bays of existing car port; rooflights and fenestration alterations; internal alterations (Application for listed building consent)

RECOMMENDED:

Refuse listed building consent

Details:

Extension of living accommodation to replace x2no. bays of existing car port; rooflights and fenestration alterations; internal alterations (Application for listed building consent)

Public Participants:

Jason Rickwood (Applicant)

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Members noted as with the previous application there was a typographical error in section 3 of the report where the first floor opening should read infilled rather than unfilled.

In light of the decision on the previous application, 24/10078 for the same building, members expressed the view that the application proposed a sensitive alteration to the building and would help to preserve the character and appearance of the curtilage listed building.  Members felt that authority should be delegated to officers to attach appropriate conditions to the listed building consent in order to preserve the historic character of the building.

Decision:

Delegate Authority to the Service Manager Development Management to grant listed building consent subject to the imposition of any conditions considered suitable.

Conditions / Reasons:

As detailed above.

Construction of 1.5 Storey building to create home office and home gym facilities

RECOMMENDED:

Refuse

Details:

Construction of 1.5 Storey building to create home office and home gym facilities

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refuse

Conditions / Reasons:

As per report (Item 3h)