Agenda and minutes

To receive any disclosure of interests from Members and Officers in matters to be discussed.

Note: Councillors are reminded of their obligations to declare disclosable pecuniary interests, personal and/or prejudicial interests, and on Predetermination or Bias in accordance with legislation and the Council’s Code of Conduct.

If you require advice, please contact the appropriate Democratic Services Officer, prior to the meeting.

Councillor Gordon Smith declared that in respect of item 9 (Totford Saw Mill – case number 19/01509/FUL) he had referred the application to Committee and had predetermined the application and stepped down from the committee for this item and spoke as a Ward Member and he took no part in the discussion or vote thereon.

Councillor Rutter declared a personal (but not prejudicial) interest in respect of Item 7 (5 Boyne Rise, Kings Worthy – case no 20/00018/FUL) as she was a Ward Councillor but she had not pre-determined the application itself and she took part in the discussion and voted thereon.

To give consideration to the approval of alternative arrangements for appointments to bodies set up by the Committee or the making or terminating of such appointments.

There was no action to report under this item. 

of the previous meeting held on 18 March 2020

            In respect of the minutes of the a previous meeting of the committee held on 18 February 2020 the meeting had considered item 10 (referring to the use of land as residential garden, land to rear of 5 Hillside, Kitnocks Hill, Curdridge). It was noted that the minute had stated that Bob Tutton (agent) spoke in support of the application and answered Member’s questions thereon.  For the record, Mr Tutton had asked that it be clarified in the minutes that he did not answer questions from Members as none were asked of him.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 March 2020 be approved and adopted.

The committee agreed to receive the Update Sheet as an addendum to Report PDC1160.

A copy of each planning application decision is available to view on the council’s website under the respective planning application.

Item 7: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 3 no. houses.  2 no.3 Bedroom Houses, 1no. 4 Bedroom House

5 Boyne Rise Kings Worthy

Case number:  20/00018/FUL

The Service Lead - Built Environment referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out a change to the wording of Condition 16 relating to the side window in the master bedroom (labelled on the first floor plan 1714_210_C) in the south and north (side) elevation of plot 1 to be obscure glazing to avoid overlooking and also an additional condition 20 to remove permitted development rights.

During public participation, Terry Foley and Councillor Ian Gordon (Kings Worthy Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and Jeremy Tyrell (Agent) and John Hearn spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.  Due to technical reasons in the virtual meeting, Jeremy Tyrell joined the meeting but was unable to speak to the Committee and John Hearn covered all the issues raised.

At the conclusion of debate, the committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and the Update Sheet.

Item 8: Proposed Erection of 7 Detached and Semi Detached Dwellings with Carports, Parking and Landscaping following demolition of existing bungalow and garage.

The Spinney, Lady Bettys Drive, Whiteley

Case number: 18/02835/FUL

The Service Lead - Built Environment referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out a revised figure for the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership (revised to £4,223) and the contribution amount had been updated in line with inflation in the rest of the report.  The Update Sheet also reported on the outcome of an assessment on the neighbouring amenity of properties on Mollison Rise.

During public participation, Ken Askew spoke in objection to the application and Bryan Jezeph (agent) spoke in support and answered Members’ questions thereon.

During public participation, Councillor Achwal spoke on this item as Ward

Member.

In summary, Councillor Achwal highlighted the local objections, the poor condition of the private access road, the additional traffic generation concerns, restricted access for refuse collection, safe access to schools with no footpaths being provided which would also encourage use of private cars and the lack of need for additional housing as 3,500 dwellings would be constructed in the North of Whiteley development.  A site visit was requested to assess the application by Councillor Achwal (following debate the request for a site visit was not supported by the committee).

At the conclusion of debate, the committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and the Update Sheet.

Item 9: Construction of single dwelling with associated landscaping and parking, following demolition and removal of existing buildings and structures

Totford Saw Mill Totford Lane Northington Alresford

Case number: 19/01509/FUL

The Service Lead Built Environment referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out in the section headed ‘Other Matters’ that the applicants had indicated they would develop the site for themselves and the scheme would be a self build.  Whilst it was acknowledged that the proposal would be a self-build plot, this did not exempt sites from being compliant with planning policy, and therefore Policy MTRA 4 would still apply which did not permit new dwellings within the countryside.

During public participation Andy Partridge (agent) spoke in support answered Members’ questions thereon.

During public participation, Councillor Gordon-Smith spoke on this item as Ward Member.

In summary, Councillor Gordon-Smith stated that planning policies needed to be thought out and evolve to recognise cases for turning rural buildings into residences. Class B2 buildings in industrial use did not make good neighbours.   Flexibility was required as the neglected site was not suitable for industry.  The application was determined on viability issues.  Replacement buildings had been turned down and an alternative use for tourism was economically unviable.  The Estates report was noncommittal in terms of viability and the landscape report suggested that a domestic building could be considered with an appropriate landscape scheme.  The Parish Council did not object to the application.

At the conclusion of debate, the committee agreed to refuse permission for the reasons and informatives set out in the Report and the Update Sheet.

            RESOLVED:

                        That the decisions taken on the Planning Applications in relation    to those applications outside the area of the South Downs National Park be agreed as set out in the decision relating to each item.

The virtual meeting commenced at 9.30am, adjourned between 11.40 pm and 12.00pm and concluded at 13.10pm.

         Chair