Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Thursday, 22nd June, 2017 6.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Penns Place, Petersfield, GU31 4EX. View directions

Contact: James Harris  Democratic Services Assistant - 01730 234098

Items
No. Item

11.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillors A Joy, R Mocatta and S Schillemore.

 

12.

Confirmation of Minutes

Please note that it is helpful if Councillors could give advance notice, to Democratic Services, of any questions they wish to raise in respect of the Minutes.

 

Minutes of the meeting held on 1 June 2017, circulated under separate cover.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 June 2017 were confirmed as a correct record and signed.

13.

Chairman's Announcements

Minutes:

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

14.

Declarations of Interest

Councillors are reminded of their responsibility to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest which they may have in any item of business on the agenda no later than when that item is reached.  Unless dispensation has been granted, you may not participate in any discussion of, or vote on, or discharge any function related to any matter in which you have a pecuniary interest as defined by regulations made by the Secretary of State under the Localism Act 2011.  You must withdraw from the room or chamber when the meeting discusses and votes on the matter.

Minutes:

Councillor(s)

Item Number(s)

Nature of Interest

Details of Interest

Cllr F Cowper

 

 

 

30936/007 – Wield Yard, Yew Tree Lane, Wield, Alresford,

SO24 9AJ.

Perception of bias

 

 

Cllr Cowper had previously had discussions about the future of the winery with the owners.

 

15.

Acceptance of Supplementary Matters pdf icon PDF 48 KB

Minutes:

Councillors noted the supplementary papers which included information received since the agenda had been published. These were reported verbally at the meeting and are attached as Annex A to these minutes.

16.

Future Items pdf icon PDF 45 KB

Minutes:

At its previous meeting, the committee had agreed to visit the following site:

 

·           20583/030 - Headley Park Hotel, Picketts Hill, Headley, Bordon,

GU35 8TE

 

The committee did not agree to any further site visits.

17.

Report of the Head of Planning

Minutes:

The report of the Head of Planning was considered and it was RESOLVED that:

 

Application No., Site and Description

 

Resolution:

30936/007/FUL

 

Wield Yard, Yew Tree Lane, Wield, Alresford, SO24 9AJ

 

Building to provide storage and processing space ancillary to existing winery (as amended by plans received 10 April 2017)

 

Permission subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix A

 

56832/001/HSE

 

41 Bulls Copse Lane, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 9RA

 

Retention of boundary wall (as amended by plans received 12.06.17 omitting proposed vehicular gates)

 

Permission subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix A

 

SDNP/17/00383/FUL

 

Great Oak (Premier Inn), Winchester Road, Petersfield, GU32 3BL

 

Two storey annexe to hotel, car parking and air conditioning compound (amended plans and details received on 16/05/2017).

 

Permission subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix A

 

Cllr Cowper left the meeting in accordance with his previous declaration of interest.

 

18.

PART 1 - East Hampshire District Council - Applications and related planning matters to be determined or considered by the Council as the local planning authority pdf icon PDF 112 KB

19.

SECTION 1 - APPLICATIONS REPORTED IN DETAIL

20.

30936/007/FUL/JonH - Wield Yard, Yew Tree Lane, Wield, Alresford, SO24 9AJ pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Hattingley Valley Wines

 

Building to provide storage and processing space ancillary to existing winery (as amended by plans received 10 April 2017.

Minutes:

Building to provide storage and processing space ancillary to existing winery (as amended by plans received 10 April 2017)

 

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the item and gave a background to the history of the site and the winery.  The winery had been granted planning permission in 2009 and since then wine production had increased. It was explained that the applicant required the building at Wield Yard to negate the need for their current off site storage and that it was estimated that the proposal would result in a reduction of approximately 323 vehicle movements associated with off-site storage.

 

He displayed an aerial photograph of the site, along with photographs of and from within the site and the street scene.  Photographs from an adjacent  footpath were also shown, which illustrated that the site was well screened and that there would only be a glimpsed view of the roof of the proposed building from the north-west. 

 

In addition he showed elevations and a floor plan of the proposed building, along with elevations for the original proposal.  The revised application was for a building 33% smaller than that initially sought and the height comparable with the existing winery buildings.

 

The recommendation was for approval.

 

Mrs Catherine Simon spoke on behalf of objectors to the application.

 

Local residents strongly objected to the application.  The winery was no longer a small local business, it had grown into a large international business that supported 19 other businesses and exported to 14 countries. 

 

The proposal would have an adverse impact on the area by virtue of noise, disturbance, light pollution and visual impact.  The proposed building would be out of character and result in the loss of agricultural land, contrary to policies CP19, CP20 and CP21.  No survey into the loss of habitat had been undertaken.

 

With regard to transport, Government transport policy did not support industrial premises in unsustainable locations.  The movement of large vehicles would also have an adverse affect on the area and present safety concerns for pedestrians, particularly children, due to the lack of footpaths on the narrow country lanes.  A Bus Stop for the local school buses was nearby and children, narrow lanes and HGV’s did not mix well.

 

Cllr Alwin Hutchinson, spoke on behalf of Wield Parish Council.

 

The village of Wield consisted of Upper and Lower Wield, about ¾ mile apart.  His brief report outlined an updated overall village response to this revised planning application which had been based on analysis of comments submitted to EHDC between late April and early May.  Every resident had previously been provided with the key points of the revised plan and had been invited to respond.  The parish council noted that whilst the results of this analysis were not clinically precise, neither were they based on a local pub straw poll.  They assisted in making any village-wide observations more objective.

 

Overall, response to the revised application had been limited, with only about one quarter of all residents responding one way or another, although  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

21.

56832/001/HSE/RV - 41 Bulls Copse Lane, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 9RA pdf icon PDF 920 KB

Retention of boundary wall (as amended by plans received 12.06.17 omitting proposed vehicular gates)

Minutes:

Retention of boundary wall (as amended by plans received 12.06.17 omitting proposed vehicular gates)

 

The Planning Officer introduced the item and explained that the wall had been completed in the early part of 2014.  She displayed an aerial photograph of the site, along with photographs of the previous and current walls, the street scene and elevation plans. 

 

The recommendation was for approval.

 

Mr Matthew Spalding spoke as the applicant. 

 

He and his family felt strongly that their planning application for the retention of their front boundary wall should be permitted.

 

With regard to privacy, their main garden was at the front of the property immediately behind this boundary wall and being a 1970’s property, the two front downstairs windows were each 12 feet wide, so privacy from the street was very important to their recreational and internal living.

 

The boundary wall improved their property and was a vast improvement to the original crumbling wall that needed replacing.  The replacement wall was of a similar height to the original and had no impact on neighbouring properties.  This had been verified by neighbours comments and opinions, both to them and the Planning Department.  Some of the positive comments received had been from residents who had lived on the street for more than 25 years.

 

The wall was appropriate to the character of the area and this had been a consideration whilst designing it.  The street was very varied with no house or boundary the same and in fact even in this same street there were front boundary walls that exceeded 1m in height and, in their opinion, were less pleasing to the eye, which hadn’t had to seek planning permission.  He felt that the wall has improved the look of their property from the street and was aesthetically pleasing, whilst still providing open views into the property.

 

He therefore hoped that the committee agreed with his views and permitted the application.

 

Cllr Evans opened the debate as the ward councillor.  He had requested that this item be considered by the committee because fences greater than one metre required planning permission.  Whilst officers had on balance deemed this application to be acceptable, he disagreed and stated that applications such as this had routinely be refused.  The granting of planning permission for this application could set a precedent and result in the area developing an urban street scene, with two metre tall fences on either side of the road. 

 

Other similar applications in the area had been amended to afford open views, or refused.  No similar applications had been approved. The previous wall had included decorative concrete blocks that allowed views into and out of the property.  When asked, the applicant had refused to substitute the fence panels in the new wall with trellis.

 

The wall did not comply with Policy CP29 or the Horndean Village Design Statement, which stated that boundary treatments should be in keeping with the area.  Cllr Evans did not know of anywhere in Horndean where two metre tall walls  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

22.

PART 2 - South Downs National Park - Applications and related planning matters to be determined or considered by the Council on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority

23.

SECTION 1 - APPLICATIONS REPORTED IN DETAIL

24.

SDNP/17/00383/FUL - Great Oak (Premier Inn), Winchester Road, Petersfield, Hampshire, GU32 3BU pdf icon PDF 373 KB

Premier Inn Hotels Limited

 

Two storey annexe to hotel, car parking and air conditioning compound (amended plans and details received on 16/05/2017).

Minutes:

Two storey annexe to hotel, car parking and air conditioning compound (amended plans and details received on 16/05/2017).

 

The Development Management Team Leader introduced the item and displayed an aerial photograph of the site, along with photographs of and from within the site.  Elevations of the proposed extension were also shown and the proposed new access to Buckmore Studios highlighted.  This would include a barrier for users of the business park in order to prevent access onto Beckham Lane. 

 

The item had been included on the agenda as a departure from policy because part of the site encroached onto land designated as employment land.  However, officers had concluded that the identified need to expand the existing hotel, coupled with the generation of ten jobs and the benefit of increased tourism negated the loss of a small section of employment land.

 

The recommendation was for approval.

 

The committee was very supportive of the application, although raised a concern regarding disabled access to the proposed upper car park.  The safety of pedestrians crossing the road to McDonald’s and the lack of any electric vehicle charging points were also raised.

 

In reply, the Development Management Team Leader explained that a disabled access ramp would require considerable redesigning of the car park and that disabled car parking spaces already existed near to the entrance of the premises.  A condition to add a disabled access to the proposed upper car park would therefore be unreasonable.  With regard to the other issues raised, a pedestrian crossing to McDonald’s was outside of the application area and electric vehicle charging points had not been included within the application for consideration.

 

The committee voted on the officer’s recommendation for permission, as amended by the supplementary matters sheet

 

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 14 Councillors voting FOR permission, no Councillors voting AGAINST permission and no Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.