Agenda and minutes

Details:

Roof alterations in association with extension to two existing flats; creation of first-floor roof terrace; replace conservatory with single-storey front extension; fenestration alterations

Public Participants:

Mr Glenister - Objector

Additional Representations:

4 additional letters of objection, on the grounds set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

Cllr Beck disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of New Milton Town 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.  He did not have a vote.

Cllr Beck addressed the Committee to oppose the application.

The Committee considered that the proposed cycle and bin stores would have a detrimental effect on the amenities of the occupiers of the surrounding flats, and of the area in general, through their appearance and their position within the limited open green space on the site.  The loss of part of the hedgerow along the road frontage would further exacerbate this harm.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal reasons:

The proposed bin and cycle store and associated works would be of an obtrusive appearance and result in overdevelopment of this part of what is generally a restricted site.  The enclosures would also adversely affect the residential and visual amenities of occupants of flats within The Dome and the neighbouring flats at Shoreacre by reason of loss of outlook and their stark appearance in close proximity to these properties.  The loss of a section of the hedge to provide access to the new facilities would further exacerbate this harm. As a result the development would fail to comply with policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park.

Details:

Three-storey block of 10 flats; bin store and cycle store; parking; demolition of existing

Public Participants:

Mr Annen – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Hull – Objector’s Agent

Town Cllr Hawkins – New Milton Town Council.

Additional Representations:

The applicant had submitted additional ecological and drainage information.

The Ecologist raised no objection subject to the imposition of conditions to secure mitigation and enhancement.

A letter from the project manager for Creek House, to the west of the site, pointing out differences between the proposal and the Creek House scheme.

Further details of these representations were set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

The Committee was advised of additional information that should be included in the report, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(b)).

Details:

Display 1 non-illuminated hanging sign (Application for Advertisement Consent)

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr White disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town 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 an amendment to the report, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

The Committee considered that, although the proposed sign was small, it would be inappropriate to use non-traditional materials, such as the vinyl lettering proposed, on a Grade II Listed Building in the Lymington Conservation Area.

Decision:

Advertisement consent refused.

Refusal reasons:

It is considered that the proposed sign by virtue of the application thereon of vinyl letters rather than as a traditional hand painted sign would be detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of the Lymington Conservation Area.  The proposal is considered to be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS2 and CS3, Local Plan Part 2 policy DM1 and the advice set out in the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

Details:

Display 1 non-illuminated hanging sign (Application for Listed Building Consent)

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr White disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town 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 an amendment to the report, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

The Committee considered that, although the proposed sign was small, it would be inappropriate to use non-traditional materials, such as the vinyl lettering proposed, on a Grade II Listed Building in the Lymington Conservation Area.

Decision:

Listed Building consent refused.

Refusal reasons:

It is considered that the proposed sign by virtue of the application thereon of vinyl letters rather than as a traditional hand painted sign would be detrimental to the character and appearance of this Grade II* Listed Building. The proposal is considered to be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS2 and CS3, Local Plan Part 2 policy DM1 and the advice set out in the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.

Details:

2 blocks of 4 flats and amenity area

Public Participants:

Mr Ray – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Richardson - Objector

Additional Representations:

Amended plans had been received and subsequently advertised for consultation, dated 6 August 2018.  Further details were set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Comment:

Cllrs Crisell, Davis and L Harris disclosed non-pecuniary interests 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.

The Committee was advised on amendments to the report, in part as a consequence of the submission of amended plans, including a slight change to the recommendation, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Some members expressed concern that they were being asked to determine the application based on significantly amended plans that had only just been received and brought to their attention.  They were advised however that all the key issues addressed in the amended plans were considered, in detail, in the report as originally circulated.  Should any of the neighbours or consultees raise any additional material considerations in response to the consultation on the amended plans then the application would be brought back to the Committee for further consideration.  The amended plans addressed many of the concerns that had been received in response to the original plans and the Committee had the key information before them on these issues and could therefore form a view.

Members requested that this matter be determined by a recorded vote.   In respect of the motion that the Service Manager Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant consent, as set in the update circulated prior to the meeting, Members voted as follows:

In favour of the motion -  Cllrs Armstrong, Bennison, Olliff-Cooper, Sevier, C Ward and White.

Opposed to the motion – Cllrs Carpenter, Frampton, L Harris, Holding, Hopkins and White

Abstentions:  Cllrs Crisell, Davis and Thorne

With 6 members voting in favour of the motion and 6 against, the Chairman used his casting vote in support of the motion.

Decision:

That the Service Manager Planning Development Control authorised to grant permission

Agreements/

Negotiations/

Conditions:

Subject to:

i)      No new material objections being received by the 27 August 2018 in relation to the amended plans that have not already been considered by the Committee; and

ii)     The imposition of the conditions as set out in the report, as amended in the update circulated prior to the meeting, and as may updated further by the Service Manager, at his discretion.

Details:

Single-storey extension to existing outbuilding for use as residential annex

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Glass and Thorne disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Fawley Parish 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.

Decision:

Planning permission

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(f)).

Details:

House

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

Natural England raised no objection and agreed with the conclusions of the appropriate assessment.

Comment:

Cllrs Glass and Thorne disclosed non-pecuniary interests as members of Fawley Parish 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.

Decision:

Planning permission

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(g)).

Details:

First-floor extension

Public Participants:

Mr Arnold – Applicant

Mrs Robinson – Objector

Town Cllr Hawkins – New Milton Town Council.

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refuse

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(h)).

Details:

Use as residential dwelling; rear extension; dormer window; parking

Public Participants:

Parish Cllr Stockton – Sandleheath Parish Council

Additional Representations:

1 additional letter as set out in detail in the update circulated prior to the meeting

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(i)).