Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Thursday, 10th May, 2018 6.00 pm

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

Contact: James Harris  Democratic Services Officer - 01730 234098

Items
No. Item

140.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillors K Budden, N Drew, R Mocatta and S Pond.

141.

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 12 April 2018, circulated under separate cover.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2018 were agreed and signed as a correct record, with the following amendment:

 

Minute 125 - Apologies for Absence – Cllr Matthews to be removed from the list of apologies, as at the time he was not eligible to sit on the committee.

142.

Chairman's Announcements

Minutes:

There were no chairman’s announcements.

143.

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.

144.

Acceptance of Supplementary Matters pdf icon PDF 46 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.

145.

Future Items pdf icon PDF 42 KB

Minutes:

The committee agreed to visit the following site should the application come to committee for consideration:

 

·         25380/018 – Coomers, Oakhanger.

146.

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:

25320/003/FUL

 

Pendaren, Boundary Road, Grayshott, Hindhead, GU26 6TX

 

Three 5 bed dwellings and two detached garages together with one new access following demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings (as amended by plans received 6 March 2018).

 

 

Refused for reasons set out in Appendix B

 

57485/002/FUL

 

48 Kingswood Firs, Grayshott, Hindhead, GU26 6ES

 

Two storey replacement dwelling with integral garage following demolition of existing two storey dwelling house, garage and side wing (AS AMENDED BY PLANS RECEIVED 05/12/2017, 06/02/2018 and 25/04/2018).

 

 

Permission subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix A

 

SDNP/18/01350/HOUS

 

Greenhill House, Froxfield

 

Single storey side extension

 

 

Permission subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix A

 

 

 

147.

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

148.

SECTION 1 - APPLICATIONS REPORTED IN DETAIL pdf icon PDF 94 KB

Additional documents:

149.

25320/003/FUL/JonH - Pendaren, Boundary Road, Grayshott, Hindhead, GU26 6TX pdf icon PDF 45 KB

Manyfield Ltd

 

Three 5 bed dwellings and two detached garages together with one new access following demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings (as amended by plans received 6 March 2018).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Three 5 bed dwellings and two detached garages together with one new access following demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings (as amended by plans received 6 March 2018).

 

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and displayed a variety of photographs of the existing dwelling, grounds and access, along with site plans and elevations of the three proposed dwellings.  Whilst there was some regret to the loss of the existing dwelling, it was not considered to be of sufficient architectural merit to be retained.  He outlined the planning history of the site and explained that two semi-detached properties had been granted permission on the site in 2006.

 

Concerns regarding density had been raised, but the scheme would realise a density of 9dph, whereas Boundary Road was 15dph and The Avenue to the west was 26dph.  Officers therefore considered that the proposal was appropriate, the character in keeping and there were no concerns regarding parking or increased traffic.

 

The committee was addressed by the following deputees:

 

(1)   Mrs Tarento spoke on behalf of objectors to the application.

 

As set out in Appendix 1 attached to these minutes.

 

(2)   Cllr Hedger spoke on behalf of Grayshott Parish Council.

 

As set out in Appendix 2 attached to these minutes.

 

(3)   Mrs Barnett spoke as the agent for the application.

 

As set out in Appendix 3 attached to these minutes.

 

The Chairman invited Cllr Cowper to open the debate as the local councillor.

 

Cllr Cowper highlighted a few key planning considerations that he believed should be considered:

 

Traffic.  Boundary Road had no right of way for vehicular traffic and the only legal use for vehicles was for access.  No response had been received from the Rights of Way Officer in respect of the increased traffic movements that the proposal would generate.  This consultee response was required in order to consider this material consideration.

 

Density.  The density of Boundary Road was not 15dph, nor was it near the 9dph of the proposed development.  The proposed density of development would be a major change to the character of Boundary Road.  Comparison with The Avenue was spurious, as The Avenue was an adopted highway of a very different character.

 

Appearance. The design of the proposed properties did not conform to that emphasised in the Grayshott Village Design Statement.  He believed that the result would therefore be damaging to the character of the area.

 

Impact on the occupiers of Morlancourt.  The proposal would result in a two-storey brick wall, four metres from Morlancourt.  He believed that this would have an overbearing impact on the residents of Morlancourt, against Policy CP29.

 

The committee debated the application, raising concerns about the lack of comment from the Rights of Way Officer, increased vehicle movements, housing density, the character of the area, the condition of Boundary Road and the loss of amenity to neighbouring residents.

 

In response to questions it was confirmed that the Rights of Way Officer had been given the regular 28 days to respond, plus  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

150.

57485/002/FUL/DaH - 48 Kingswood Firs, Grayshott, Hindhead, GU26 6ES pdf icon PDF 70 KB

Winston Heights Property Developers

 

Two storey replacement dwelling with integral garage following demolition of existing two storey dwelling house, garage and side wing (AS AMENDED BY PLANS RECEIVED 05/12/2017, 06/02/2018 and 25/04/2018).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Two storey replacement dwelling with integral garage following demolition of existing two storey dwelling house, garage and side wing (as amended by plans received 05/12/2017, 06/02/2018 and 25/04/2018)

 

The Planning Officer introduced the application and displayed a variety of photographs and plans of the existing dwelling and grounds, along with site plans and elevations of the proposed replacement dwelling. Kingswood Firs was covered by Policy H9 and there were trees subject of Tree Preservation Orders to the front and side that would be retained.

 

There had been no objection from the Arboricultural Officer and officers judged that there would be no unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

 

The committee was addressed by the following deputees:

 

(1)   Mr Campbell Clause spoke on behalf of objectors to the application.

 

As set out in Appendix 4 attached to these minutes.

 

(2)   Cllr Hedger spoke on behalf of Grayshott Parish Council.

 

As set out in Appendix 5 attached to these minutes.

 

(3)   Mr Dames spoke as the agent for the application.

 

Mr Dames explained that the architect had worked with officers at EHDC and that the draft proposals had been circulated and amended following consultation with the residents of neighbouring properties.  He did not believe that the scale of the proposed dwelling would be out of keeping with other properties in Kingswood Firs and confirmed that the height would be similar to existing properties in the adjacent cul-de-sac. 

 

The Chairman invited Cllr Cowper to open the debate as the local councillor.

 

Cllr Cowper explained that Kingswood Firs was a highly desirable road and acknowledged that the current property was in a poor state of repair.  The redevelopment of the site gave the opportunity for a huge improvement, but he felt that the proposal submitted pushed the boundaries a little too far.

 

He was concerned about the loss of amenity to the occupiers of No.47 due to overlooking, caused by the proposed position of the dwelling close to the boundary and coupled with its height.

 

The positioning of the proposed dwelling close to the boundary with No.47, the 8.1m ridge height and the overall scale of the proposed dwelling in relation to its plot would also be out of keeping with the character of Kingswood Firs. 

 

The committee debated the application, acknowledging the varied mix of housing types and styles in Kingswood Firs.  A number of councillors believed that the design of the proposed property would be an improvement over the existing property and more in character with the area. Whilst it was appreciated that the replacement dwelling would be larger and taller, the committee believed that the proposal was acceptable.

 

Cllr Cowper proposed refusal because the proposal would have an unacceptable impact to the amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring property due to overlooking, contrary to Policy CP27.

 

Cllr Joy seconded the proposal.

 

The committee voted on the proposal for refusal.

 

Following the vote, the proposal was declared LOST, 3 Councillors voting FOR refusal, 10 Councillors voting AGAINST refusal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

151.

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

152.

SECTION 1 - APPLICATIONS REPORTED IN DETAIL pdf icon PDF 81 KB

153.

SDNP/18/01350/HOUS - Greenhill House, Stoner Hill Road, Froxfield, Petersfield pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Mr Nicholas Drew

 

Single storey side extension

Minutes:

Single storey side extension.

 

The Planning Development Manager introduced the application and outlined the planning history of the property, along with the details of Policy SD31 of the revised South Downs National Park Local Plan that had recently been submitted to the Secretary of State.  This policy was more restrictive than Policy H16 and would only allow a 30% extension over the size of a property as it had of been on 18 December 2002.  Whilst the approval of this application would result in an increase in 106% over the original property size, it would only realise a 17% increase in the property size as it had been on 18 December 2002.

 

She displayed a number of photographs of the site, along with a block plan and elevations of the proposed extension.

 

The committee voted on the recommendation for approval.

 

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