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.

There were no disclosure of interests made at the meeting.

Minutes of the previous meetings held on 20 September 2021 and 29 September 2021.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meetings held on 20 September 2021 and on 29 September 2021 be approved and adopted.

The committee agreed to receive the Update Sheet as an addendum to report PDC1193.

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

The committee considered the following items:

Proposal Description: Regulation 3 planning application for the erection of car park to provide 287 park & ride car parking spaces including 800m2 of photovoltaic panels, 16 Electric Vehicle (EV) charging bays, with associated access, turning and landscape proposals; and retrospective permission for i) formation of piling mat; ii) foundations and iii) partial construction of structure.

The Service Lead – Legal reminded Members that the ongoing Judicial Review should not be a factor in their determination of this application, they must determine the application before them today, it would be unlawful not to and that their decision must be based on the material planning considerations.

The application was introduced, and the committee were referred to the update sheet which included the following updates:

• Members were advised that since the publication of the addendum report a further 71 letters of objection, (from 58 households) had been received. These letters did not raise any material planning considerations not already covered in the reports and had been made available to members on the Council’s website.

• Slide 49 of the committee presentation document contained a superseded version of drawing VTX-STL-XX-ZZ-DR-A-XXXX-0301. This had been corrected to include the revised version (submitted 1st October 2021) - revision PL02.

• A further letter from Harrison Grant solicitors (representing Dr Michael Heard) had been submitted outside of the period in which additional representations were invited. This was addressed to members of the committee and was available to view on the Council’s website.

• A correction was required to the addendum report on page 22 concerning how the height of the building was expressed on the elevation plans. In the 5th paragraph under the heading 'Design/layout,' the applicant had confirmed that the North West corner of the building was 9.25m above internal ground floor formation level, which equates to 48.20 m above ordnance datum (AOD).

Officers from the council’s Planning, Natural Environment and Environmental Health teams addressed the committee.

The Chairperson advised that the time limit for contributions from supporters and objectors would be increased to 6 minutes per group but that no one person could speak for more than 3 minutes. During public participation, Patrick Davies and Dr Michael Heard spoke in objection to the application, Andrew Fraser Urquhart QC, Catherine Bartlett (Agent) and Andy Hickman (on behalf of the applicant) spoke in support of the application and answered members’ questions.

Councillor Radcliffe spoke as a ward member and expressed several points on behalf of residents. He explained that residents had questioned the accuracy of the council’s assessment of the impact that the car park would have regarding noise and light affecting residents, wildlife, and the wider environment. He also advised that residents doubted that the potential benefit of fewer vehicles in the city centre would be achieved until a reduction in car parking spaces in the city centre was achieved. He also questioned whether there was the demand for additional park and ride spaces as there appeared to be capacity within the existing sites and some uncertainty of future  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The following items will not be considered before 2.00pm:

(Depending on the Committee’s progress, some of the morning’s items may overrun into the afternoon session.  Nevertheless, the following items will not be considered before 2.00pm).

Proposal Description: Removal/variation of conditions 3,4,5 in relation to application Appeal A Ref: APP/Y9507/C/19/3237773 and Appeal B Ref:APP/Y9507/W/19/3232344 (Additional information submitted 05.10.21- guttering details).

The application was introduced. During public participation, Juliet Howland spoke in objection to the application and answered members’ questions.

Councillor Steve Cramoysan spoke as a ward member against the application. In summary, Councillor Cramoysan reminded the committee of the recent planning history for this site, advised of the tensions in the area due to the ongoing dispute and clarified the impact that the removal of these conditions would have upon the privacy of the neighbours. Councillor Cramoysan also referred to the dark sky policy of the South Downs National Park and urged the committee to reject the application to remove conditions 3, 4 and 5.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED

The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Proposal Description: Conversion of the existing structure, The Old Goat Shed to an independent 4-bedroom dwelling with small western extension for utility and access door, with associated fencing and hedging.

The application was introduced. During public participation, Lucy Darby spoke in support of the application and answered members’ questions.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED

The committee agreed to refuse permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Proposal Description: Erection of 1no. residential dwelling with associated

landscaping, and parking within the curtilage of Culduthel, Links Road.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which stated that there were changes to the proposed boundary treatment on the eastern boundary with Culduthel House from a 1.8m high close boarded fence to a chain and link fence and hedge which would be reflected in the landscaping and boundary conditions (7 and 8).

During public participation, Dr Oliver Wethered spoke in objection to the application and Jim Beaven (Agent) spoke in support of the application and answered members’ questions.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED

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 with an addition to condition 12 that the appropriateness of swift boxes be considered.

Proposal Description: Construction of a first-floor extension to the existing equestrian shop.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which stated that an additional comment had been received on 18 October 2021 from Councillor Lumby in his capacity as a Hampshire County Councillor. Councillor Lumby’s comments had been presented in full on the update sheet for the committee’s ease of reference. In response to Councillor Lumby’s comments, officers considered that the majority of the unauthorised works and uses were outside of the red line plan and therefore should not be considered as part of this application. Notwithstanding this, the cumulative impact on the site had been considered within the officer report. Officers considered that a deferral of the application pending the outcome of the enforcement investigation across the wider site was not reasonable as the application must be considered on its own merits.

In addition, officers advised that on page 244 of the agenda pack, under the heading of “Relevant Planning History” that application, 19/01832/FUL had been withdrawn. On page 249 of the agenda pack, under the heading of "Conditions" the plan "W20-020 102” should be recorded as “W20-020 102 Rev A”.

During public participation, Ms Harvey spoke in objection to the application, Caroline Gould (Agent) spoke in support of the application and Councillor Francesca Byrne, Shedfield Parish Council spoke against the application and answered members questions

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED:

The committee agreed to refuse permission for the following

reason: that it was contrary to local plan policy DM16 – “Site Design Criteria”, that due to the scale and form of the proposal it would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and the associated infrastructure.

Proposal Description: Confirmation of TPO 2300 Land at Gravel Pit Copse, Wickham.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which stated that new information had been received and that Gravel Pit Copse was not classified as a semi ancient woodland but was classified as a semi-natural woodland. 

During public participation, Kevin Cloud spoke in objection to the application. The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED:

That Tree Preservation Order 2300 be confirmed as set out in the report