Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Thursday, 2nd February, 2017 6.00 pm

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

Contact: Lisa Papps  Democratic Services Assistant - 01730 234073

Items
No. Item

157.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies from Councillors K Carter, F Cowper, A Joy and R Saunders.

158.

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 December 2016 and 22 December 2016, circulated under separate cover.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meetings held on 1 December 2016 and 22 December 2016 were confirmed as a correct record and signed.

159.

Chairman's Announcements

Minutes:

There were no Chairman’s Announcements.

160.

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:

There were no declarations of interest.

161.

Acceptance of Supplementary Matters pdf icon PDF 59 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.

162.

Future Items pdf icon PDF 50 KB

Minutes:

The committee agreed to visit the following sites:

 

·                     55406/002 – Land Rear of, 191-211 Lovedean Lane, Horndean, Waterlooville;

·                     20533/059 – Forest Lodge Garden Centre, Farnham Road, Holt Pound, Farnham, GU10 4LD;

·                     56027/001 – Land West of Brambles, Willis Lane, Four Marks, Alton; and

·                     21763/004 – 119 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, GU34 5AH.

163.

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:

 

55258/004/RES

 

Land north of, Boyneswood Lane, Medstead, Alton

 

Reserved matters application pursuant to permission 55258/001 for residential development comprising 51 dwellings (Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale to be considered) (as amended by plans received 05/12/2016, 14/12/2016, 16/12/2016, 21/12/2016 03/02/2017)

 

Approved subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A.

36384/037/HSE

 

120 White Dirt Lane, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 0TW

 

Retention of detached residential annexe

 

Refused for the reason as set out in Appendix B.

30289/010/RES

 

Sunnyhill, Stoney Bottom, Grayshott, Hindhead, GU26 6HW

 

Reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 30289/009 for detached dwelling (corrected application form received 24/1/2017 and amended by plan received 02/02/2017)

 

Approved subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A.

SDNP/16/04073/FUL

 

Land Northeast of Edgewood Court

Hill Brow Road, Liss, Hampshire

 

Detached single storey dwelling with associated vehicular and pedestrian access, landscaping and servicing

 

Approved subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A.

SDNP/16/05619/ADV

 

Crew Clothing, 11 The Square,

Petersfield, Hampshire, GU32 3HJ

 

Replace existing signage (still in Consent period) with new signage to reflect new brand guidelines (as amended by Access Statement received 12/12/2016 and plan received 15/12/2016 to show colour example, retain existing detailing and hanging bracket and cladding to right hand side pillar and 10/01/2017 to show all architrave to be retained)

 

Approved subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A.

SDNP/16/05518/LIS

 

Crew Clothing, 11 The Square,

Petersfield, Hampshire, GU32 3HJ

 

Listed building consent - new signage and re-decoration of shop front (as amended by Access Statement received 12/12/2016 and plan received 15/12/2016 to show colour example, retain existing detailing and hanging bracket and cladding to right hand side pillar and 10/01/2017 to show all architrave to be retained)

 

Approved subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A.

 

164.

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 97 KB

Additional documents:

165.

SECTION 1 - APPLICATIONS REPORTED IN DETAIL

166.

55258/004/RES/NU - Land north of, Boyneswood Lane, Medstead, Alton pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Bargate Homes Ltd

 

Reserved matters application pursuant to permission 55258/001 for residential development comprising 51 dwellings (Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale to be considered) (as amended by plans received 05/12/2016, 14/12/2016, 16/12/2016 and 21/12/2016)

Minutes:

Reserved matters application pursuant to permission 55258/001 for residential development comprising 51 dwellings (Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale to be considered) (as amended by plans received 05/12/2016, 14/12/2016, 16/12/2016 and 21/12/2016)

 

The Development Management Team Leader introduced the item and displayed various images including an aerial photograph of the site, site allocation plan, proposed streetscenes, proposed elevations and the landscape scheme where the open space could be seen.

 

He drew the committee’s attention to the supplementary matters which contained updated comments from the County Highway Authority.

 

The principle of development had been established following the grant of outline permission at appeal in 2014, along with access to the site from Beechlands Road.

 

The layout of the site had evolved during reserved matters to better reflect the semi-rural area.  Surrounding the site was an established tree belt which was to be retained along with a woodland belt to the north and an area of open space.  There would be more spacious plots to the north of the site and properties along the southern boundary would have low level ridges.  Bungalows would be situated in the top right corner of the site as they would be near properties in Bluebell Gardens, however, there would be a tree belt between them.

 

In terms of scale, the most publicly visible boundary was the bridleway where the height and bulk of the proposed dwellings had been reduced.

 

The development would comprise a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced buildings and would range from bungalows to two storey dwellings with a relatively traditional form of appearance along with a mixture of materials proposed and surface treatment.  Officers felt the high quality appearance would be sympathetic to the semi-rural feel of South Medstead and had been designed to retain the natural features, with any trees having to be removed given the support of the tree officer.

 

There would be an area of open space to the right and a Local Area of Play, along with a green buffer strip to cushion the site from neighbouring dwellings.

 

Drainage plans had been assessed for the surface and foul water drainage by Thames Water and EHDC’s drainage consultant and no objections had been raised.  A comprehensive list of conditions had been imposed by the appeal inspector which included no occupation of any of the dwellings until the drainage details had been completed.

 

Dr Pixton addressed the committee on behalf of objectors to the application.

 

Objectors accepted that permission had been granted for 51 dwellings on this site, however the detail plans submitted were poorly thought through, illogical and represented a missed opportunity to maintain rather than degrade the local environment.  The Developers plans showed a marked lack of imagination and a blatant disregard for commitments made at the outline

stage, therefore this application should be refused and returned for a rethink.

 

He gave some examples.  Firstly, green buffers.  At outline stage, the developer committed to provide green buffers on all boundaries of the site, wildlife corridors, enhance existing hedgerows and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 166.

167.

36384/037/HSE/SAW - 120 White Dirt Lane, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 0TW pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Mr Saunders

 

Retention of detached residential annexe

Minutes:

Retention of detached residential annexe

 

The Development Management Team Leader introduced the item and displayed various images including an aerial photograph of the site, block plan, the approved floor plans as allowed on appeal and plans of the ground floor and first floor as constructed.

 

The application sought to retain an annexe which had not been built in accordance with the approved plans.  The annexe was an activity centre for adults with learning disabilities residing at 120 White Dirt Lane, with facilities for carers on the first floor.  The footprint of the ground floor as constructed remained as approved with minor amendments to the internal layout.

 

The building as constructed contained some additional first floor accommodation and the height of the building had been increased by 1m to the eaves and 0.6m to the ridge changing from a 1.5 storey scale building to a full 2 storey building.

 

A 2 storey dwelling had been allowed on appeal to the south of the annexe which, when constructed, would be of substantial scale and restrict views of the annexe when viewed from White Dirt Lane.  It was also noted that a landscaping plan had been agreed, as required by the appeal inspector in connection with earthworks undertaken along the frontage, which when established would reduce the visual impact of the annexe and included a low wall along the frontage and a Yew hedge along White Dirt Lane.  Therefore, the increase in height combined with the screening would mitigate the visual impact from the streetscene.

 

Cllr Tickell addressed the committee on behalf of Horndean Parish Council.

 

Horndean Parish Council objected to this application and those objections still stood.  They were detailed in the committee report. 

 

This was a retrospective application that arose because the building had not been built in accordance with the approved plans to the planning permission granted on appeal in 2010.  The permission was for the construction of an outbuilding to be used as an activity centre for persons with learning disabilities ancillary to the use of the main dwelling.  Importantly, those plans were substituted by the Inspector on the Appeal.

 

The building having been built in the Local Gap on a site prominent across the area was in a sensitive location given protection in the Joint Core Strategy.  As built, the increased height changed it from a 1.5 storey building to a 2 storey building, very prominent in the locality and out of character with the wider landscape.  The applicant could have applied for planning permission to build as it has been built.  They chose not to do so. The parish council requested that the applicant should be obliged to correct the unauthorised works so that the building conformed with the approved plans.

 

Lastly, if planning permission was granted, then there should be a condition additional to those suggested by the case officer that the ground floor could not be converted to habitable accommodation.  Further, all conditions should be contained in a legal agreement.

 

Cllr Schillemore, the local ward  ...  view the full minutes text for item 167.

168.

30289/010/RES/NP - Sunnyhill, Stoney Bottom, Grayshott, Hindhead, GU26 6HW pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Mr Soutter

 

Reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 30289/009 for detached dwelling (corrected application form received 24/1/2017)

Minutes:

Reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 30289/009 for detached dwelling

 

The Development Management Team Leader introduced the item and displayed various images including an aerial photograph of the site, block plan, proposed floor plans and a perspective plan for illustrative purposes only.

 

He drew the committee’s attention to the supplementary matters which contained a further consultee comment and an amendment to condition 2.

 

The principle of development had been established with the granting of outline permission where the means of access and the footprint of the dwelling had been approved as part of that application.  There was only the external appearance, scale and landscaping to consider through this application for approval of reserved matters.  Officers had concluded that the proposal was acceptable as its design and scale it would be in keeping with the area.  The two dormer windows at the front would serve bedrooms and would be 22m from the nearest dwelling.  The window on the front gable which served a landing would be slightly closer at 19.5m however, this front to front separation distance was sufficient.  The parking arrangements were also considered satisfactory.

 

Mr Cross addressed the committee on behalf of objectors to the application.

 

They had several points of objection to the scale, appearance and landscaping:

 

1.         Scale:

 

·                     The committee report described this dwelling as a chalet bungalow, which was misleading.  The previous refusal of the reserved matters application had mainly been based on the bulk and mass of the planned dwelling.  This proposal was still for a full two storey house at least as large in bulk.  In fact the ridge height was even higher by half a metre.  In no way would this be a chalet bungalow. 

 

·                     Although the shape had been changed from the previous application, the design looked contrived, optimising floorspace from the approved footprint, rather than assimilating into the plot and landscape.  The roof was substantial – it had eight mainly dormer windows within it, including two large triangular windows, one facing west overlooking Orchard House opposite and the other east towards Hill House. 

 

2.         Appearance and Landscaping:

 

·                     The site would be completely open and highly visible, because of the need to remove all hedging to provide visibility splays.  The hedging made an important contribution to the character of the bridleway and landscape setting.  This proposal would represent a marked and detrimental change to this – and from the original outline permission, which specifically mentioned “the very high mature laurel hedge” to be retained for screening. 

 

·                     The result would be a stark and brutal appearance, and objectors totally disagreed with the Committee report’s statement that “the dwelling would not adversely affect the street-scene or character of the area.”

 

In conclusion, once again this represented overdevelopment on a confined sloping site.  It was not significantly different, in terms of its scale and dominating presence in the landscape, compared with the previous reserved matters application, which was refused by 10 votes to 2.  He therefore urged consistency and for the Committee to also refuse  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168.

169.

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 pdf icon PDF 107 KB

170.

SECTION 2 - OTHER MATTERS

171.

SDNP/16/04073/FUL - Land North East of Edgewood Court, Hill Brow Road, Liss, Hampshire pdf icon PDF 6 MB

Mr Steve Causer

 

Detached single storey dwelling with associated vehicular and pedestrian access, landscaping and servicing

Minutes:

Detached single storey dwelling with associated vehicular and pedestrian access, landscaping and servicing

 

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the item and displayed an aerial photograph of the site along with a proposed ground floor plan and artists impressions.

 

He drew the committee’s attention to the supplementary matters where a late representation had been received from a neighbour.

 

The proposal was for a single storey dwelling of a contemporary design with a series of pitched green roofs and would have access off of Hill Side Road.  The site was located within the Liss Neighbourhood Plan area which was currently at submission stage. 

 

The site was also within the settlement policy boundary (SPB) and Special Housing Area of Hill Brow which was subject to saved Policy H9 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.  This policy allowed for replacement dwellings on a 1:1 basis.  Whilst this development would constitute an infill which was contrary to Policy H9, page 70 of the officer’s report listed recent appeal decisions and infill could not be discounted, but each application considered on its own merits.  Therefore, it would be unacceptable to refuse the application unless harm could be identified.

 

In terms of the impact on neighbouring amenities, there were sufficient distances to neighbouring properties and there had been no objections from tree officers, the county ecologist nor objections in terms of flooding or drainage.

 

Cllr Hargreaves addressed the committee on behalf of Liss Parish Council.

 

·                     Policy H9 provided protection for the area and Hill Brow was set within a wooded landscape;

·                     Over the years, there had been enormous pressure for development which this policy had prevented;

·                     The report did not refer to Liss Village Design Statement which should be taken in to account as it mentioned the importance of retaining tree cover;

·                     It was wrong to give minimal weight to Liss Neighbourhood Plan; and

·                     The report failed to recognise that Hill Brow was not a sustainable location for development.

 

Mr Neame, the agent, addressed the committee.

 

·                     The proposal was for a high quality family home which would be a sensitive, unique and innovative design.  It would also be environmentally sustainable to minimise the carbon footprint;

·                     The proposed development would not give rise to any unacceptable harm and measures could be secured through conditions; and

·                     The proposal respected key policy objectives and complied with the requirements of Policies CP1, CP2 and CP10.

 

Cllr Kendall, a local ward councillor, addressed the committee.

 

·                     Hill Brow was a heavily wooded area and that landscape was very important for Liss;

·                     Policy H9 was an important policy in many areas of East Hampshire which promoted low density housing as a means of maintaining high density landscape.  If you increased the density by infilling, this would decrease the landscape and assumed infilling would automatically have an adverse effect;

·                     The emerging Liss Neighbourhood Plan had not been given significant weight in the officer’s report nor the emerging SDNPA policies.  The neighbourhood plan had been through two public consultations and would go through  ...  view the full minutes text for item 171.

172.

SDNP/16/05619/ADV - Crew Clothing, 11 The Square, Petersfield, Hampshire, GU32 3HJ pdf icon PDF 458 KB

Crew Clothing Co

 

Replace existing signage (still in Consent period) with new signage to reflect new brand guidelines (as amended by Access Statement received 12/12/2016 and plan received 15/12/2016 to show colour example, retain existing detailing and hanging bracket and cladding to right hand side pillar and 10/01/2017 to show all architrave to be retained)

Minutes:

Replace existing signage (still in Consent period) with new signage to reflect new brand guidelines (as amended by Access  Statement received 12/12/2016 and plan received 15/12/2016 to show colour example, retain existing detailing and hanging bracket and cladding to right hand side pillar and 10/01/2017 to show all architrave to be retained)

 

The Development Management Team Leader introduced this item and the associated listed building consent together (SDNP/16/05518/LIS) and displayed a block plan, an image of the proposed shopfront along with photographs of the existing shopfront and various other shopfronts around Petersfield Square as a comparison to show the variety of styles of advertisements.

 

It was a Grade II listed building and there were to be no changes to the physical  shopfront, the existing doors and windows would remain.  The only changes would be the colour of the paintwork and the hanging sign would be slightly larger on the existing bracket.  Individual aluminium powder coated letters would be projected 10mm from the building.

 

Concern had been raised with regard to the use of corporate colours however, dark colours were not unusual for the town.  Looking at other shopfronts around The Square, individual letters and aluminium hanging signs were not out of keeping.

 

Cllr Abdey, the local ward councillor, addressed the committee.

 

·                     Strong objections had been received by the Petersfield Society and they were grateful that the Planning Committee were looking at this application;

·                     Petersfield Town Council’s Planning Committee had unanimously objected to the original application and were still voicing strong objections to the amended application;

·                     It was subjective as to whether the colour was in keeping;

·                     He did not believe that Crew Clothing had exhausted all opportunities and had not been as sympathetic to the area as they could be.  The proposal was purely due to their corporate rebranding;

·                     It was a dramatic departure from what was currently there; and

·                     He was keen to hear the views of members of the Planning Committee.

 

The committee felt that it was difficult to argue when some of the other shopfronts around The Square used similar dark colours.  The proposed change to signage was also as part of a corporate rebrand.

 

The committee voted on the officer’s recommendation for approval.

 

Following the vote, the application was declared CARRIED, 12 Councillors voting FOR approval, no Councillors voting AGAINST approval and no Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

173.

SDNP/16/05518/LIS - Crew Clothing, 11 The Square, Petersfield, Hampshire, GU32 3HJ pdf icon PDF 462 KB

Crew Clothing Co

 

Replace existing signage (still in Consent period) with new signage to reflect new brand guidelines (as amended by Access Statement received 12/12/2016 and plan received 15/12/2016 to show colour example, retain existing detailing and hanging bracket and cladding to right hand side pillar and 10/01/2017 to show all architrave to be retained)

Minutes:

Listed building consent – new signage and re-decoration of shop front (as amended by Access Statement received 12/12/2016 and plan received 15/12/2016 to show colour example, retain existing detailing and hanging bracket and cladding to right hand side pillar and 10/01/2017 to show all architrave to be retained)

 

The Development Management Manager introduced this application along with application SDNP/16/05619/ADV, the detail of which can be found in minute 173.

 

The committee voted on the officer’s recommendation for approval.

 

Following the vote, the application was declared CARRIED, 12 Councillors voting FOR approval, no Councillors voting AGAINST approval and no Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

174.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

RECOMMENDED that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following item as:

 

a)            It is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during that item there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as specified in paragraph 7 of Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Local Government Act 1972; and

b)            In all circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following item as:

 

a)            it was likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, or the nature of the proceedings, that it members of the public were present during that item there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as specified in paragraph 7 of Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Local Government Act 1972; and

b)            In all circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

175.

PART 3 - Exempt Matters for Decision

176.

EXEMPT REPORT

(NOT FOR PUBLICATION) by virtue of paragraph 7 of Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

Paragraph 7 – Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.

Minutes:

The Planning and Compliance Manager introduced the item.

 

She drew the committee’s attention to the exempt supplementary papers where there was a change to her recommendation, along with a further representation from a local resident.

 

The committee fully supported the officer’s recommendation and thanked the Planning and Compliance Manager and her team for their hard work.

 

The committee voted on the officer’s amended recommendation as per the update in the exempt supplementary matters.

 

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 12 Councillors voting FOR the recommendation, no Councillors voting AGAINST the recommendation and no Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.