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.

In respect of Item 14 (8 Stoney Lane, Winchester) Councillor Berry advised that she had predetermined the application and sat apart from the Committee during the determination of this application.

Minutes of the meeting held on 16 August 2018 and the minutes of the Planning (Viewing)

Sub Committee held on 5 September 2018.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 16 August 2018 and the Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee held on 5 September 2018 be approved and adopted.

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

The Committee agreed to receive the Update Sheet as an addendum to Report PDC1116.

Case number: 18/00254/REM

Item 7:  Reserved Matters application pursuant to 15/00053/OUT for the erection of 125 dwellings including appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out updates required to Condition 2 (which listed the plans and documents that would be approved if consent was granted). Some of the plan numbers were incorrect and some documents which were referred to in other conditions were also listed in the Update Sheet for completeness.  Further updates were included with regard to phasing, variations to Condition 5 (SAP and BRE details); Condition 8 (landscaping) and Condition 6 (parking).  An additional condition was also included relating to protection of trees and hedgerows on the south eastern edge.

During public participation, Robert Shields, Bishops Waltham Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and James Iles, Agent, spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

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 and also subject to a variation of the Section 106 Agreement  to ensure that the wildlife corridor was first offered to Bishops Waltham Parish Council to manage, and if not it would be managed by the Management Company (as detailed in the existing Section106 agreement ) as part of the public open space. It was agreed that officers would consult with Ward Members and Bishops Waltham Parish Council over the terms of the s106 variation.

Case number: 18/01144/REM

Item 8:  Application for reserved matters planning permission for the erection of 66 dwellings, with associated access via Tangier Lane, associated parking provision, landscaping and public open space pursuant to planning permission 16/01327/OUT (THIS APPLICATION MAY AFFECT THE SETTING OF A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY)

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out the addition of the following documents to Condition 2: Drainage Strategy Plan ref: 171590/SK02-P2 and External Level Strategy ref: 171590/SK03-P2.  In addition, an email had been received from an affordable housing provider confirming that the provider was interested in the scheme as it was currently designed and that they were comfortable with the tenure mix and distribution; there was no problem with the parking courts as they were a standard feature where parking was not individually assigned and that the provider was satisfied with the location of the affordable units and their parking.

During public participation, Robert Shields, Bishops Waltham Parish Council, commented on conditions 3, 4 and 11 of the application and Mark Cooke, Agent, spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

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, subject to authority being delegated to the Head of Development Management to revise the wording of Condition 3 (details and samples of the external surfaces – variation in colour of brick elevations to be clarified), Condition 4 (hard and soft landscaping – detail of landscaping on southern border to be clarified) and Condition 11 (access point within the development to Bishops Waltham Footpath 43 – clarification of Footpath 43’s relationship with the new footpath and cycleway).

Case number: 18/01503/HOU

Item 9:  Proposed Single Storey Rear Extension

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out an additional public comment received with concern raised regarding the adjacent garden path as shown in attached photographs.  The Head of Development Management also clarified that the proposal’s projection should state 4.1 metres and not 6.3 metres as set out in the Report.

During public participation, Paula Turner, and Robert Shields, Bishops Waltham Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and Simon Eatwell, applicant, spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

The Committee agreed to defer the decision to a meeting of the Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee to be held on Tuesday 9 October 2018 to commence at 11:00am.  The Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee would visit the site before the meeting in order to assess the impact of the proposed single storey rear extension on neighbouring properties.

Case number: 18/01662/FUL

Item 10:  Change of use from civil engineering contractor's yard and engineering workshop to a mixed use comprising 2.no workshops (Use Class B1c) and 1.no office (Use Class B1a); alterations to existing building; associated parking and landscaping.

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out drainage comments that the site was at high risk of surface water flooding. The proposals were for a change of use therefore the change in impermeable area was negligible. The foul and surface water connections were to remain the same. It was unclear whether there would be any increase in foul flows, and whether the site did connect to the foul sewer. If there was a private sewage treatment plant and flows were expected to increase, the suitability of the plant should be investigated.  Further information had also been received about the acoustic report which demonstrated that potential noise levels from the workshops would be acceptable if the windows and doors of the units were open. There was therefore no requirement for Condition 10 and this would be removed.  The Head of Development Management also clarified that the authorised use should state B2 and not B8 as set out in the Highways/Parking section of the Report.

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.

Case number: 18/00164/FUL

Item 11:  Application Reference Number: DRD.1163/16 Date of Decision: 30/01/1973 Variation of Condition 2 to allow the siting of two additional caravans.

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out two letters from Denmead Residents Association drawing attention to the lack of parking and condition of the access road.  The new parking spaces were located in an area already used either as a drop off point or for the storage of bins on collection day and the loss of view and use of the open recreational area.  The entrance to Dando Road was blocked by buses when they stopped.  Drainage to the access road was completely blocked and water built up on it and insufficient lighting on the road.  There were two further letters from one household attaching photos of the road and various hazards.

During public participation, Kevin Andreoli, Denmead Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

During public participation, Councillor Brook spoke on this item as a Ward Member.

In summary, Councillor Brook stated that the lack of objections to the application was misleading and that the site had a difficult access route for refuse and emergency vehicles (which had been a reason for refusal in 1980).  There was a lack of green space in Denmead, due to development that had taken place since the 1980s, and there would be a loss of really valuable amenity space which was used by the residents.  Due to the unsafe access and loss of public open space the application should be refused.

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.

Case number: 18/01507/HOU

Item 13:  Proposed one and two storey rear extension

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out an update to Condition 3 with amended drawing: - Plans and Elevations as Proposed (Visual Impact), Drawing PA18-123:03 amended August 2018.  This amended drawing superseded Plans and Elevations as Proposed, Drawing PA18-123:03 dated April 2018.

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.

Case number: 18/01636/FUL

Item 14:  Demolition of No.8 Stoney Lane and erection of seven residential dwellings, with associated access, parking and landscaping.

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which stated that the pond referred to in the ecology section of the report was in the garden of No 5 Stoney Lane.

During public participation, Mrs C L Hamer, Simon Hutton and Malcolm Roger spoke in objection to the application and Chris Rees, agent, spoke in supportand answered Members’ questions thereon.

During public participation, Councillor Weir spoke on this item as a Ward Member.

In summary, Councillor Weir declared a personal (but not prejudicial) interest as she lived in neighbouring Woodstock Court, but her property did not adjoin the application site.  She continued that the proposal was out of character with the area and had a density of 30 dwellings per hectare.  The three bedroomed properties could be readily converted to four bedrooms, and also the two bedroomed into three bedrooms by internal reconfiguration, which circumnavigated policy CP2, and if the number of bedrooms was altered this could impact on parking provision as the parking criteria would not be met.  Three properties were greater than 1,400 square feet and had little amenity space.  The style of development in the area was informal 20^th and 21^st century, and not the formal, classical style that was proposed.  The front property would also be three metres forward of the adjacent next dwelling.  The proposals were contrary to policies CP2, CP3, DM4, DM8, DM13, DM17 and DM18 and should be refused to allow the developer to provide a more sympathetic and sustainable development.

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 subject to the removal of Permitted Development Rights for dwelling-houses in Classes A, B and C for the reason that extension of the houses could lead to a requirement for a greater number of car parking spaces.

Case number: 18/01304/HOU

Item 15:  Proposed Garage

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out the addition of Condition 7 relating to the use of the studio: Condition 7. The studio hereby permitted shall only be used as ancillary accommodation incidental to the use of York House and at no time shall be let separately or used as a separate unit of accommodation to York House. Reason: To accord with the terms of the application and to prevent the creation of inappropriate units of accommodation, possibly leading to over intensive use of the site.

During public participation, Anthony Lewis and Ken Staunton and also Tim Hunt, Compton and Shawford Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

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.

Case number: 18/01683/HOU

Item 16:  Loft conversion with dormer to the rear elevation and velux windows to the front elevation

During public participation, Ian Gordon, Kings Worthy Parish Council spoke in support of the recommendation to refuse the application, and Andrew Mant spoke in support of the application (and against the recommendation to refuse the application) and answered Members’ questions thereon.

The Planning and Information Solicitor advised that careful consideration would be given to the wording of the condition for the removal of Permitted Development Rights relating to the property when considering the taking of enforcement action. Furthermore officers would have to consider the expediency of any future enforcement action.

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

Case number: 18/01325/HOU

Item 17:  Single Storey Front Extension, Single Storey side extension, 1st Floor rear extension. (AMENDED PLANS).

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out that the proposal section within the Report should read:  The application has been submitted for a single storey front extension, single storey side extension, first floor rear extension and garden room. The materials to be used in the extensions are proposed to match the host dwelling.

During public participation, Anne Young and Fenella Jarvis, Badger Farm Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and Andy Salter (agent) spoke in support and answered Members’ questions thereon.

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.

Case number: 18/01832/LIS

Item 18:  Replace existing roof lantern.

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

RESOLVED:

1.             That the decisions taken on the Development Control 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, subject to the following:

(i)              That in respect of item 7 (Albany Farm, Bishops Waltham), permission be granted for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and the Update Sheet and also subject to  a variation of the existing Section 106 Agreement  to ensure that the wildlife corridor was first offered to Bishops Waltham Parish Council to manage, and if not it would be managed  by the Management Company (as detailed in the existing Section106 agreement ) as part of the public open space. It was agreed that officers would consult with Ward Members and Bishops Waltham Parish Council over the terms of the s106 variation.

(ii)             That in respect of item 8, (Land to The East of Tangier Lane, Bishops Waltham), permission be granted for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and the Update Sheet subject to authority being delegated to the Head of Development Management to revise the wording of Condition 3 (details and samples of the external surfaces – variation in colour of brick elevations to be clarified), Condition 4 (hard and soft landscaping – detail of landscaping on southern border to be clarified) and Condition 11 (access point within the development to Bishops Waltham Footpath 43 – clarification of Footpath 43’s relationship with the new footpath and cycleway).

(iii)            That in respect of item 9 (The Nook, Bank Street Bishops Waltham), the decision be deferred to a meeting of the Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee to be held on Tuesday 9 October 2018 to commence at 11:00am.  The Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee would visit the site before the meeting in order to assess the impact of the proposed single storey rear extension on neighbouring properties.

(iv)            That in respect of item 14 (8 Stoney Lane Winchester), permission be granted for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report subject to the removal of Permitted Development Rights for dwellinghouses in Classes A, B and C for the reason that extension of the houses could lead to a requirement for a greater number of car parking spaces.

The meeting commenced at 9.30am and adjourned between 12.35pm and 2.00pm and concluded at 4.50pm.

Chairman