Agenda and minutes

Details:

Three-storey 54 bed care home; landscaping; parking; demolition of existing

Public Participants:

Mr Brockbank – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

3 further letters of objections, in the same terms as set out in paragraph 10 of the report.

The applicant had requested that consideration of the application be deferred to allow changes to be negotiated that would meet the operational requirements of the end user.

Comment:

The officer’s recommendation was amended to defer the application to allow changes to be negotiated that would meet the operational requirements of the end user, and in recognition that there was an identified need for care home places in the District.

Decision:

That consideration of this application be deferred for negotiations.

Details:

Development of 7 dwellings comprised 1 detached house; 3 pairs of semi-detached houses; car port; bin stores; bike stores; parking; landscaping; demolition of existing

Public Participants:

Mr Christian – Applicant’s Agent

Mr Marlow - Objector

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Crisell, Davis, L Harris and Harrison 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.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(b)).

Details:

8 dwellings comprised 1 pair of semi-detached houses; 6 detached houses; parking (Outline application with details only of access, layout and scale)

Public Participants:

Mr Annen – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

Two further letters of objection in the same terms as set out in paragraph 10 of the report.

Comment:

Cllr Frampton disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Bransgore Parish Council which had commented on the application.  He disclosed a further disclosable pecuniary interest on the grounds that he owned neighbouring land.   Having left the meeting he took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

Decision:

Grant planning permission.

Conditions:

As per report (Item 3(c)).

Details:

Glazed shelter (variation of condition 1 of planning permission 16/11076 to allow the continued use until 30 October 2020) (retrospective)

Public Participants:

Mr French – Applicant’s Representative

Additional Representations:

1 additional letter of support

Comment:

The Committee noted that the structure that had been granted temporary consent was still in good condition.  It was recognised that the structure provided essential storage to support services that were valued in the local community and that transparent materials were necessary in order to be light weight and to deter anti-social behaviour, which was an acknowledged problem in this area.  On this basis the Committee concluded that a further temporary consent should be granted.

Decision:

That temporary consent be granted until 30 October 2020.

Conditions:

Such conditions as the Service Manager Planning and Building Control deems appropriate.

Details:

Single storey rear extension; porch

Public Participants:

Mrs Simmons - Applicant

Additional Representations:

1 additional letter from the applicant’s agent, which had been circulated to all members of the Committee.

Letter of Support from Damerham Parish Council, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.

Letter of support from Cllr E J Heron, which was submitted to the meeting.

Comment:

None

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(e)).

Details:

Two-storey rear extension; single-storey front extension; roof alterations to existing single storey front elevation

Public Participants:

Mr Hawkins – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Penson and White a disclosed 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.

Decision:

Refused

Refusal Reasons:

As per report (Item 3(f)).

Details:

Development of 12 houses comprised: 2 terraces of 3 houses; 1 terrace of 2 houses; 4 detached houses; access; landscaping; parking; demolition of existing buildings

Public Participants:

Mr Whild – Applicant’s Agent

Additional Representations:

Hampshire County Council’s Flood and Water Management Team had requested further information and clarification.

The Conservation Officer was happy with revisions to the roof pitch on pots 8-10 but maintained his concerns about the layout of the central courtyard.

Comment:

Cllrs Penson and White disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as members of Lymington and Pennington Town Council which had commented on the application.  Cllr Penson concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.  Cllr White disclosed a further interest on the grounds that he knew the applicant well. As he could be perceived to be biased he left the meeting and took no part in the consideration and voting.

Cllr Olliff-Cooper disclosed a personal interest on the grounds that he knew the applicant well. As he could be perceived to be biased he left the meeting and took no part in the consideration and voting.

The officer’s recommendation was amended to the Service Manager Planning and Building Control authorised to grant permission subject to:

i)     The receipt of no new material objections to the submitted       amended plans before 25 January 2018

ii)    The provision of a satisfactory layout for the central courtyard

iii)  The imposition of the conditions set out in the report and any further conditions that the Service Manager Planning and Building Control deems appropriate. 

The Committee was advised that the Flood and Water Management Team’s concerns could be addressed by an additional condition and informative note, as set out in the update circulated prior to the meeting.  In addition, the Conservation Officer’s concerns would be addressed by the submission of amended plans for the layout of the courtyard.

Decision:

Service Manager Planning and Building Control authorised to grant permission

Conditions/

Agreements/

Negotiations:

Subject to:

(i)    The receipt of no new material objections to the submitted amended plans before 25 January 2018

(ii)   The provision of a satisfactory layout for the central courtyard

(iii) The imposition of the conditions set out in the report and any further conditions that the Service Manager Planning and Building Control deems appropriate

Details:

Outbuilding

Public Participants:

Mr Latimore – Objector

Mr King - Objector

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllrs Penson and White 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 Committee noted that consent had been granted for an outbuilding in the rear garden of this property but considered that the increased size now proposed represented an overdevelopment of the site.  In addition, there would be an unacceptable loss of the oasis of green garden area to the rear of the properties that would be out of character with this garden setting.

Decision:

Refused.

Refusal Reasons:

The proposed outbuilding by reason of its size, height and location would be an overdevelopment of the site, out of character within its garden setting and contrary to Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the New Forest District outside the National Park and the Lymington Local Distinctiveness Supplementary Planning Document

Details:

Use of land as Natural Green Space (SANG)

Public Participants:

None

Additional Representations:

None

Comment:

Cllr Frampton disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Bransgore Parish 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.

Decision:

RECOMMENDED:

That authorisation be given to enter the Inter-Authority Agreement in accordance with the details set out Report Item 3 (i) to the Planning Committee.