Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Williams be appointed Vice-Chairperson for 2024/25.

To record the names of apologies given and Deputy Members who are attending the meeting in place of appointed Members.

Apologies were noted as above.

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 Williams advised that regarding agenda item 9 (Humphrey Farms Ltd, Hazeley Road, Twyford, Hampshire, SO21 1QA. Case Reference: SDNP/23/01689/FUL) he was acquainted with two people who worked at the adjacent site to the application but had had no discussions regarding the application itself, therefore he took part in the consideration of this item and voted thereon. He also advised that agenda item number 13 (15 Princes Close Bishops Waltham, SO32 1RL . Case Reference: 23/02432/OUT) was within his ward and that he was a Parish Councillor for Bishops Waltham, however, he had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, therefore he took part in the consideration of this item and voted thereon.

Councillor Langford Smith advised that she had a disclosable interest in item number 14 (Broadview Cottage Kidmore Lane Denmead Waterlooville Hampshire. Case Reference: 23/02685/FUL), She advised that the application was within her ward, that she was also a Parish Councillor for Denmead and had voted on that item whilst a member of the planning committee at Denmead Parish Council. She would leave the room for that item and take no part in the determination of the application.

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 17 April 2024.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 17 April 2024 be approved and adopted.

The Committee agreed to accept the Update sheet as an addendum to the report.

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: Proposed 2.5-storey extension to existing dwellinghouse with internal refurbishments, new dormer windows, and portico.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding the distances between the neighbouring properties as follows:

• The southern boundary was approximately 14.8 metres away, with the nearest dwelling approximately 29 metres away.
• The northern boundary was approximately 25.3 metres away, with the nearest dwelling approximately 33.1 metres away.
• The distance from the South Downs National Park was approximately 1.3 km

During public participation, Philip Kenning spoke in objection to the application. 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.

Proposal Description: Retrospective Application for Children's Play Equipment.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding several matters including;

An additional drawing (2191 D01) was submitted by the applicant on 17/05/2024.

An Amendment to condition 6 to read as follows:

6. The addition of 0.5m horizontal or vertical trellis as outlined in drawing No. 2191 D01 will be positioned along the full length of the play area along the west boundary elevation within land controlled by the applicant, to be erected at a height at the top of the existing closed boarded fencing and shall be retained permanently as such unless prior written consent is obtained from the Local Planning Authority to any variation.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity and landscape character.

During public participation, Donna Smits spoke in objection to the application, Joel Czopor and Andrew Burgess spoke in support of the application and Brendan Gibbs (Parish Clerk) spoke on behalf of Tichborne Parish Council who had adopted a neutral position regarding the application. Members of the committee asked questions of the speakers.

Councillor Pett spoke as a ward member and expressed several points on behalf of residents which could be summarised as follows.

1.    He noted the presence of 11 thriving pubs in his ward, with only the Tichborne Arms having a children's playground.

2.    He emphasized that the playground, currently under retrospective application, had been operational for over a year without proper planning consent.

3.    He referred to an article that playgrounds can increase footfall and repeat custom in pubs. However, he did not agree with the officers' report regarding policy SD43, and community infrastructure, arguing that a pub playground did not qualify as such.

4.    He referenced policy SD7, which aimed to conserve and enhance relative tranquillity, stating that the playground negatively impacted the tranquillity of Tichborne and nearby residents.

5.    He argued that the playground did not preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area as required by policy SD15 and mentioned that the pub's noise policy, in place since 2022, was ineffective in controlling the noise from the playground.

6.    He highlighted the negative impact of the playground on the residents' environment and amenity, contrasting the support for the application from customers with the objections from affected villagers.

7.    He concluded that the harm caused by the playground could not be effectively mitigated and urged the committee to refuse the retrospective application, citing non-compliance with the South Downs Local Plan and the recent amendment of the 1949 National Parks Act. 

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application and received further advice from the Senior Planning & Litigation Lawyer regarding the serving of a breach of condition notice if required.

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.

Proposal Description:(AMENDED PLANS AND INFORMATION) Demolition of existing buildings (including the large feed mill, associated support buildings, and commercial buildings); and the sites redevelopment with new commercial buildings; cafe & social hub; parking, access and circulation; biodiversity net gain area; landscaping; and associated works.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding two additional conditions that had been added to the decision notice:

No. 29. A detailed plan showing details of footpaths  and cycleways through the site, connections to the external rights of way and times that it will be accessible shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the final phase of development. Those pathways shall remain open for the general public to use for the lifetime of the permission hereby approved.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.

No. 30. Prior to the occupation of the first phase of development hereby permitted, details of the design of the proposed bicycle stores shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bicycle stores shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and thereby retained unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory standard of development.

A verbal update was also given by the Officer purporting to a further condition and slight amendment to condition 29.

31. The light industrial and office buildings shall be used for class E(g) and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class E of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2005 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any other statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order).

Reason: To ensure the use of the building does not have a harmful environmental effect and in the interests of amenity.

During public participation, Richard Osborn, Andrew Uwins, and David Wiseman spoke in support of the application and Councillor Corcoran spoke on behalf of Twyford Parish Council who proposed that the decision be deferred. Members of the committee asked questions of the speakers.

Councillor Cook spoke as a ward member and expressed several points on behalf of residents which could be summarised as follows.

1.    She noted that the application involved the demolition of existing buildings, including a large feed mill and several commercial units, and the construction of new commercial buildings, a café and social hub, and a biodiversity net gain area.

2.    Concerns had been raised about the proximity of units three and four to residential areas. Despite some adjustments, the buildings had not been moved sufficiently away, and there was a call for these to be office buildings rather than commercial businesses to reduce the impact on the residents.

3.    She questioned the necessity of the proposed operating hours, particularly why the hub needed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

This item was withdrawn.

Please note: At the discretion of the Chair, the order in which the Planning and Enforcement Appeals Report is considered on the agenda may change depending on the progress made on the day of the meeting.

The Service Lead Built Environment provided the committee with a detailed summary of the 9 planning appeal decisions for the period 1 January to 31 March 2024 and the Senior Planning & Litigation Lawyer updated the committee regarding the public inquiries conducted during this period.

RESOLVED:

          That the summary of planning appeal decisions received from 1 January to 31 March 2024 be noted.

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: The proposal is for a 3-bedroom house within the garden of 15 Princes Close (Amended Plans).

The application was introduced and during public participation, Gordon Campbell spoke in objection to the application, and Craig Tickner spoke in support of the application and answered members' questions.

Councillor Latham spoke as a ward member and expressed several points on behalf of residents which could be summarised as follows.

1.    He had concerns on the grounds of overdevelopment, adverse effects on neighbouring properties, and parking issues.

2.    He felt that the application breached policies DM16 of Local Plan Part 2 and CP13 of Local Plan Part 1, as the plans did not recognise the site's constraints nor respond positively to the local context in terms of design, scale, and layout.

3.    He pointed out that the proposed building's scale was not in keeping with the surrounding detached houses, and the structure would overshadow and dominate these properties, contravening DM17 of Local Plan Part 2.

4.    The location of the application, at the junction of Princes Close and Elizabeth Way on a bend, posed additional parking challenges. Elizabeth Way was a busy road leading to Priory Park Recreation Ground, where existing overflow parking issues would be exacerbated by the new development.

5.    The proposal's parking situation contravened policy DM18 of Local Plan Part 2, as access on a bend would not provide safe entry and exit, impacting the safety of other road users including pedestrians and cyclists.

6.    He also felt that the application contravened the principles of the Bishops Waltham Design Statement, specifically:

·       Buildings should not dominate their surroundings (5.1),

·       Dormer windows should not dominate the character of a building (10.3),

·       Houses should respect the locality's character (12.0).

7.    While he supported infilling to provide needed housing, particularly for younger people in Bishops Waltham, he believed this particular application represented overdevelopment and posed more harm than benefit to the area.

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: It is proposed to use the converted garage as a fully independent dwelling house including the creation of separate curtilage, enlargement of patio doors, change garage door to feature window, extend roof canopy front and rear, change roof lights in front elevation to dormers and add porch.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding the following matters.

Further clarification regarding the method of proposed driveway construction had been submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the WCC Tree Officer who had advised that this did not sufficiently address concerns about impacts upon trees.Following this, a further document was submitted by the applicant providing an analysis of completed dwellings in the Denmead Settlement.

During public participation, Phillip Harrison spoke in support of the application and Councillor Andreoli on behalf of Denmead Parish Council spoke against the application.

RESOLVED

The committee agreed to refuse permission for the reasons set out in the report and the update sheet.