Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Thursday, 2nd March, 2017 6.00 pm

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

Contact: James Harris  Democratic Services Officer - 01730 234098

Items
No. Item

177.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillors N Drew, A Joy, D Orme and S Schillemore.

178.

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 2 February 2017, circulated under separate cover.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meetings held on 2 February 2017  were confirmed as a correct record and signed.

179.

Chairman's Announcements

Minutes:

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

180.

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

Cllr A Glass

Cllr D Phillips

Cllr I Thomas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cllr D Ashcroft

SDNP/16/05813/OUT – Section 1 – item (i) – Land at the rear of 34-56 Rival Moor Road, Petersfield, Hampshire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SDNP/16/04875/FUL – Priory Farm, Priory Lane, Selborne, Alton, Hampshire, GU34 3BU

Perception of bias

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perception of bias

The application had been submitted by East Hampshire District Council and these Councillors were members of East Hampshire District Council’s Cabinet

 

 

Cllr Ashcroft was a neighbouring land owner.

 

 

 

181.

Acceptance of Supplementary Matters pdf icon PDF 66 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.

182.

Future Items pdf icon PDF 46 KB

Minutes:

The committee agreed to visit the following site:

 

·           SDNP/17/00059 Brewers Farm, Brewers Lane, West Tisted, Alresford, SO24 0HQ

183.

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:

SDNP/16/05813/OUT

 

Land at the rear of 34 – 56 Rival Moor Road, Petersfield

 

Outline application for the erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking (Access and Layout to be considered, matters of Scale, Appearance and Landscaping are reserved) (amended plans and additional information received on 02/02/2017).

 

Approved subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A.

SDNP/16/05580/FUL

 

Lynton, Hatch Lane, Liss

 

Four detached two storey dwellings with associated access and landscaping (additional details received 5/1/2017)

 

Approved subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A.

SDNP/16/04875/FUL

 

Priory Farm, Priory Lane, Selborne, Alton, Hampshire, GU34 3BU

 

Agricultural pole barn

 

Approved subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A.

 

Cllrs F Cowper, A Glass, D Phillips and I Thomas left the meeting.

 

Cllr A Williams, Vice-Chairman, took the Chair.

184.

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 117 KB

185.

SECTION 1 - APPLICATIONS REPORTED IN DETAIL

186.

SDNP/16/05813/OUT - Land at the rear of 34-56, Rival Moor Road, Petersfield, Hampshire pdf icon PDF 873 KB

Mark Barr

 

Outline application for the erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking (Access and Layout to be considered, matters of Scale, Appearance and Landscaping are reserved) (amended plans and additional information received on 02/02/2017).

Minutes:

Outline application for the erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking (Access and Layout to be considered, matters of Scale, Appearance and Landscaping are reserved) (amended plans and additional information received on 02/02/2017)

 

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the item and explained that this outline application was to consider the principle of development, access and layout.  He displayed an aerial photograph of the site, along with photographs of and from within the site, including the proposed access.  Plans showing the proposed layout and the trees on the site were also displayed and the location of the two trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order were highlighted. 

 

He referred the committee to the supplementary matters sheet, which contained a further letter of objection from a third party and an additional informative note with a revised condition following the comments of the County Ecologist on the Reptile Mitigation Strategy that had been received.

 

There were no highways’ objections and the parking standard met Policy HP8 of the Petersfield Neighbourhood Plan.  Officers considered that the proposal would be complimentary to existing dwellings and the recommendation was therefore for outline approval.

 

The committee noted the extant planning permissions which had been previously granted for the site, the Reptile Mitigation Strategy that had been received and the measures that would be taken if reptiles were found.  The committee also highlighted the overgrown nature of the site and that rubbish had been dumped on it.  In respect of Petersfield Town Council’s objection on the loss of a play area, the committee noted that the site was not a designated play area and felt that the condition of the site made it an unsuitable area for children to play.

 

The committee AGREED the officer’s recommendation for outline permission, as amended by the supplementary matters.

 

Councillors F Cowper, A Glass, D Phillips and I Thomas returned to the room.

 

Cllr I Thomas resumed the Chair.

187.

SDNP/16/05580/FUL - Lynton, Hatch Lane, Liss, GU33 7NH pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Cove Construction Ltd

 

Four detached two storey dwellings with associated access and landscaping (additional details received 5/1/2017)

Minutes:

Four detached two storey dwellings with associated access and landscaping (additional details received 5/1/2017)

 

The Planning Management Manager introduced the item and displayed an aerial photograph of the site, along with photographs of the site, street scene, neighbouring properties and the dwellings at Tawny Croft that had been allowed on appeal.  The proposed site layout was also shown, accompanied by elevations of the proposed properties and an artist’s impression of the street scene.  The site was within the Settlement Policy Boundary for Liss as contained within the Local Plan and the emerging Liss Neighbourhood Plan.

 

The proposed layout of three dwellings fronting and accessing onto Highfield Gardens and one accessing onto Hatch Lane was explained to have been designed to meet Hampshire Highways requirements.  The existing access on to Hatch Lane was substandard, therefore only a one for one replacement dwelling using the access could be supported by Hampshire Highways.

 

The Planning Management Manager referred the committee to the supplementary matters sheet which contained a further letter of objection.  The officer’s recommendation was for approval.

 

Mr Morton spoke on behalf of objectors to the application.

 

He spoke on behalf of over 20 residents of Highfield Gardens.  Whilst they welcomed development on Lyntons and recognised that the plot could support four houses, they objected to the proposed layout. 

 

Policy CP12 stated that certain streets were developed at low density providing substantial homes on large plots, with mature trees. Their special character should be protected.........”

 

The density would not be in keeping with the character and appearance set by the original 1970’s properties.  The cramped overdevelopment proposed would contrast sharply with the original well-spaced houses, at 11.25 per hectare and would impact adversely on the street scene.  The overall layout might be 14.8 per hectare; however, the three properties on Highfield Gardens would be closer to 20. Gaps between them would be half those of the original houses.

 

The proposed dwellings were not comparable in scale, mass or architectural format to the original properties.  Single garages and tandem parking on thin drives would be out of keeping with the existing street scene, where there were double garages with large drives, taking six or seven vehicles within the curtilage. 

 

It would be less cramped and more balanced with two on Highfield Gardens and two on Hatch Lane.  Objectors could not comprehend why Cove had not proposed a scheme similar to their Oct 14 layout, where four houses each had attached double garages, plus two extra parking spaces.  Garage and parking provision would be inadequate.  Shuttling vehicles to release a blocked one was impractical; more cars would be parked on the road. 

 

The Highway Authority “.... discourages this type of parking.........”   Bin collection could already be difficult, especially at the congested turning hammerhead. 

 

The recent cramped development on Tawny Croft showed this very clearly.  The photographs that he had forwarded to the committee showed an empty road before, compared with up to eight parked vehicles now.  This major deterioration of the street  ...  view the full minutes text for item 187.

188.

SDNP/16/04875/FUL - Priory Farm, Priory Lane, Selborne, Alton, Hampshire, GU34 3BU pdf icon PDF 220 KB

Mr Edward Roger-Smith

 

Agricultural pole barn

Minutes:

Agricultural Pole Barn.

 

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the item and displayed a map of the site, which outlined the flood zones and the scheduled ancient monument.  A block plan and photographs of the partially constructed barn were also shown.  The officer’s recommendation was for approval.

 

Whilst the siting of the barn 15 metres away from Heather Cottage was questioned, the committee noted that no objections had been received.

 

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

 

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 9 Councillors voting FOR permission, no Councillors voting AGAINST permission and 1 Councillor ABSTAINING from voting.