Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Thursday, 9th October, 2014 6.00 pm

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

Contact: Lisa Papps  Democratic Services Assistant - 01730 234073

Items
No. Item

117.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies from Councillors P Burridge, N Drew, J Gray, J Onslow, D Orme and S Schillemore.

118.

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 18 September 2014 and 24 September 2014, circulated under separate cover.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meetings held on 18 September 2014 and 24 September 2014 were not agreed as they had only recently been published.

119.

Chairman's Announcements

Minutes:

The Chairman announced:

 

(i)         The location of the fire exits and requested that everyone evacuated by one of the fire exits and assembled in the car park, where a roll call would be taken;

 

(ii)        To ensure all members of the public could hear the proceedings of the meeting, a portable loop system was available;

 

(iii)       Asked that all present switched off their mobile phones to prevent interference with the microphones; and

 

(iv)       Asked that those making representations used the microphone when speaking.

 

Cllr Cowper joined the meeting.

120.

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.

121.

Acceptance of Supplementary Matters pdf icon PDF 59 KB

Additional documents:

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.

122.

Future Items pdf icon PDF 26 KB

Minutes:

The committee agreed to visit the following sites:

 

5525/001 – Land South West of Highmead House, Old Odiham Road, Shalden, Alton; and

 

27202/029 – Applegarth Farm, Headley Road, Grayshott, Hindhead, GU26 6JL.

123.

Report of the Service Manager Planning Development

Minutes:

The Report of the Service Manager Planning Development, PS.435/2014 was considered and it was RESOLVED that:

 

Application No., Site and Description:

 

Resolution:

55358/FUL

 

Land at Winchester Road (Adjoining 173), Winchester Road, Four Marks, Alton

 

136 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED WORKS, ACCESS, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE (AS AMENDED BY PLANS RECEIVED 20/06/2014).

 

Refused for the reasons set out in Appendix B

50313/FUL

 

Land north of Towngate Farm House, Wield Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5LY

 

Four detached dwellings

 

Permission subject to the proviso and conditions set out in Appendix A

55233/FUL

 

Land West of Bay Tree Cottage, Main Road, Bentley, Farnham

 

Change of use of land and the erection of 5 new dwellings (additional information received 29 August 2014 and 9 October 2014)

 

Refused for the reasons set out in Appendix B.

36472/001/OUT

 

Thedden Grange, Wivelrod Road, Bentworth, Alton, GU34 4AU

 

OUTLINE - 6 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS (WITH SOME MATTERS RESERVED)

 

Refused for the reasons set out in Appendix B.

32440/004/FUL

 

New Palace Cinema, Normandy Street, Alton, GU34 1DE

 

Partial demolition to the rear of The Palace Cinema, Alton, and erection of 4 x 2 bedroom flats and associated parking.

 

 

 

Permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A

31232/004/FUL

 

Ian Allan Travel, 19 Market Street, Alton, GU34 1HA

 

Change of use from shop (Class A1) to Cafe (Class A3)

 

Permission subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix A

 

124.

Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended) - Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 - Development Applications

125.

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 101 KB

Additional documents:

126.

SECTION 1 - APPLICATIONS REPORTED IN DETAIL

127.

55358/FUL/NU - Land at Winchester Road (adjoining 173), Winchester Road, Four Marks, Alton pdf icon PDF 2 MB

David Wilson Homes

 

136 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED WORKS, ACCESS, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE (AS AMENDED BY PLANS RECEIVED 20/06/2014).

Minutes:

136 residential dwellings with associated works, access, parking, landscaping and open space (as amended by plans received 20/06/2014).

 

The Development Management Team Leader introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site, location plan, proposed site layout, proposed elevations and the proposed affordable housing along with photographs of and from within the site.

 

He drew the committee’s attention to the supplementary matters sheets which included letters from the applicant and The Barn Lane Action Group.  There was also an update on Friars Oak Farm confirming that it had not been called in by the Secretary of State.

 

This application was a departure from the Local Plan and was being considered under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Interim Housing Policy Statement (IHPS).  EHDC did not have a five year land supply and the NPPF stated that if a local authority could not demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, relevant policies for the supply of housing could not be considered up to date.  The IHPS had been introduced to address this and to speed up the delivery of housing within the district.  It allowed appropriate development on land outside but adjoining the Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB).

 

The lack of a five year land supply carried significant weight.  However, the spatial strategy in EHDC’s Joint Core Strategy (JCS) had identified a requirement for 175 new homes in Four Marks/South Medstead.  Rather than this being a ceiling figure, the committee had to consider whether more homes would be appropriate.  There was already permission for 191 new homes in Four Marks/South Medstead, this additional 136 would mean a 87% supply above the figure in the JCS.

 

Officers had concluded that the provision of this many houses so early on in the life of the JCS would not be sustainable for this settlement.

 

The officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

 

The determining issues for consideration:

 

·                    Development plan and material considerations;

·                    Principle of development;

·                    Deliverability;

·                    Mix and type of housing;

·                    Impact on the character of the area;

·                    Access, movement and highway safety;

·                    Impact on neighbourhood amenity;

·                    Drainage, flood risk and foul water;

·                    Impact on trees and ecology;

·                    Sustainable construction and energy efficiency;

·                    Infrastructure and developer contributions; and

·                    Response to parish/town council comments.

 

Mrs Denise Cottam addressed the committee on behalf of objectors to the application.

 

The developers would claim that this was the most popular site for development.  This was despite nearly 300 objections showing that in reality it was one of the most unpopular of recent applications. 

 

The Local Interim Planning Statement (LIPS) survey, which objectors believed was seriously flawed, gave Barn Lane as a preferred site for development.  At the time of the vote, it was one of only two sites capable of fulfilling the necessary housing quota with a single sticker vote.  The other big site, Friars Oak, came second.

 

At the west end of Four Marks, there were a number of very large developments both completed and proposed.  This application would combine these with a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

128.

50313/FUL/JonH - Land North of Towngate Farm House, Wield Road, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5LY pdf icon PDF 568 KB

Crayfern Homes Ltd

 

FOUR DETACHED DWELLINGS

Minutes:

Four detached dwellings.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site, proposed landscape plan, elevations, proposed streetscene and the previously dismissed site plan.

 

There was a linear nature of development along Wield Road.  Plots 1 and 4 would be two bedroom bungalows and the two plots in the middle would be four bedroom houses.  The variety of designs reflected the character of the area.  This proposal would retain the hedgerow and utilise the existing entrance.

 

A previous application for an access road on this site had been refused by the Council and dismissed at appeal, however there were now different policies and criteria in place.

 

The Planning Officer drew the committee’s attention to the supplementary matters sheets where there was a correction to the time limit condition.  There were also further consultee comments, further representations and some additional conditions.

 

The determining issues for consideration were:

 

·                    Principle of development;

·                    Impact on the landscape and character and appearance of the area;

·                    Design;

·                    Highways;

·                    Impact on amenity of adjoining property;

·                    Ecology;

·                    Impact on local amenities;

·                    Energy conservation; and

·                    Developer contributions.

 

Mr Neil Thomson addressed the committee on behalf of objectors to the application.

 

·                    With the previous application to put in a road utilising the same access the Inspector had said that it would change the character;

·                    The planning system sought to protect the countryside;

·                    Pedestrian access was inadequate;

·                    Facilities were limited, the road was narrow and unlit and there was no room on the highway for a virtual footpath;

·                    Through the Local Interim Planning Statement (LIPS) survey, not one person thought that it was the right place to build; and

·                    This was a greenfield site and should not be considered.

 

Cllr Peter Fenwick addressed the committee on behalf of Medstead Parish Council.

 

This site was outside the Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) and at the beginning of the open countryside.  Development of an access road was refused by the Planning Authority in 2007.  This decision was upheld by the Planning Inspector on appeal when he described the location as “the sensitive edge of Medstead”.  How much more intrusive to the sensitive edge could four houses be?

 

Also in 2008 the protection of the “sensitive edges” of the village was further reaffirmed by another Planning Inspector’s adjudication when the authority’s decision to refuse permission for a development on Roe Downs Road was upheld.  Additionally, a policy of not building cul-de-sacs on the village boundaries was supported.

 

Planning Officers may try to dismiss these precedents quoting paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  The parish council suggested that paragraph 49 was not applicable as it did not relate to Planning Inspectorate decisions and there was now, they believed, a five year housing land supply in East Hampshire.  The officer had not advised when the data was last updated.

 

Paragraph 32 of the NPPF required “safe and suitable access for all people”. CP31 placed a high priority on meeting the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 128.

129.

55233/FUL/NP - Land West of Bay Tree Cottage, Main Road, Bentley, Farnham pdf icon PDF 730 KB

Linden Homes Ltd

 

CHANGE OF USE OF LAND AND THE ERECTION OF 5 NEW DWELLINGS (ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 29 AUGUST 2014)

Minutes:

Change of use of land and the erection of 5 new dwellings (additional information received 29 August 2014).

 

The Development Management Manager introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site, proposed site plan and the proposed streetscene.

 

The site was between two fairly new properties on the west side.  The linear nature of the area would be reflected in the proposed dwellings.  Two of the dwellings would be affordable housing, the remaining three would be market housing.

 

The dwellings would be two storey.  Bay Tree Cottage to the east of the site was a much older property and whilst it was two storey, it had a Georgian appearance which meant that it looked smaller in stature.

 

Concern had been raised about the loss of view.  The Bentley Village Design Statement had identified five important viewpoints, this being one of the five they sought to protect

 

She drew the committee’s attention to the supplementary matters sheets where there was an update regarding a Landscape and Visual Assessment.  Further consultee comments had also been received along with further representations.

 

The determining issues for consideration were:

 

·                    Development plan and material considerations;

·                    Principle of development;

·                    Deliverability;

·                    Affordable housing;

·                    Access and highway issues;

·                    Impact on neighbouring properties;

·                    Impact on surrounding area;

·                    Trees and ecology;

·                    Drainage;

·                    Energy conservation;

·                    Archaeology; and

·                    Developers contributions.

 

Mr David Darrah addressed the committee on behalf of objectors to the application.

As a community they were surprised and disappointed by the officer’s recommendation to approve this planning application. 

The general consensus from the people who lived in the village, was that this development would have a significant adverse impact on the streetscene, landscape and long established rural character of Bentley.

When the plans were studied carefully it was clear that the height of these houses would completely dwarf the attractive 18th century period cottage immediately to their east.

They were inappropriately out of scale, and made no effort whatsoever to compliment or respect the local vernacular.

More importantly their height would completely obliterate the view from the much used village recreation ground to the South Downs National Park (SDNP).  An outstanding aspect over Alice Holt Forest and one of the most loved and enduring features of the village and one which should be retained for the benefit of present and future generations of Bentley residents.

The Inspector’s report after the opening of the bypass in 1995 recommended that no further development should take place between the old main road and the new A31.

So the siting of the development on a greenfield site, on the south side of the old main road, outside the settlement boundary, historically used for agricultural grazing purposes and with the adjacent field still used for grazing nursery cattle, would seem to be ill considered.

In addition to this it was opposite a dangerous and already over busy junction on the old main road.

The overspill parking on to the road, which would be necessary for these houses because of the poorly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

130.

36472/001/OUT/JM - Thedden Grange, Wivelrod Road, Bentworth, Alton, GU34 4AU pdf icon PDF 637 KB

TGRA Ltd

 

OUTLINE - 6 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS (WITH SOME MATTERS RESERVED)

Minutes:

Outline – 6 new residential units (with some matters reserved).

 

The Service Manager Planning Development introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site, location plan, and proposed block plan.

 

In 1975, a group of families had purchased the property and converted the main house and some outbuilding elements into seven residential dwellings.  The proposal was for a group of relatively small dwellings and this was a unique situation in the way the property was occupied and managed over the years and he could understand why the owners may want to make provision for those in their retirement years.  Extensions to the main building would be difficult without harming the character and this was essentially a proposal for six new dwellings in the countryside.  He could understand the community aims behind it, however, the difficulty was tying it to the property and what need there would be for it in the future.

 

The Development Management Manager had received a letter of comment from Thedden Grange Residents Association.  They had said that the site was not located in open countryside but in an isolated estate.  No Section 106 had been agreed and they felt that it was unreasonable as it had never been asked for.

 

The determining issues for consideration were:

 

·                    Principle of the proposed development;

·                    Siting and impact on the landscape and character and appearance of the area;

·                    Affordable housing provision;

·                    Vehicular access, parking and drainage arrangements;

·                    Impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents;

·                    Impact on biodiversity and trees; and

·                    Financial contributions.

 

The Chairman said that he had spoken to Cllr Burridge who had requested that this application be included on the agenda.  Whislt Cllr Burridge agreed with the planning policy reasons in principle, he believed that this particular group of dwellings and residents and what they had achieved was worth supporting.

 

Mr Peskett, the applicant, addressed the committee.

 

·                    It had been described as a multiple scale granny annex which overlooked the immense amount of design analysis;

·                    This was a unique community;

·                    An enormous amount of time, money and energy had gone in to it;

·                    They wanted to be able to take charge of their collective destiny; and

·                    It was enabling development but not for sale on the open market, it was a form of co-housing.

 

The committee had differing opinions on the sustainability of the development and whether it would set a precedent.  Some members felt that it was a unique situation which would enable people to look after each other within their social circumstances.  Others felt uncomfortable with the application as there were no policy reasons to support it.

 

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

 

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 10 Councillors voting FOR refusal, no Councillors voting AGAINST refusal and 3 Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

 

Cllr Saunders left the meeting.

 

131.

32440/004/FUL/GAC - New Palace Cinema, Normandy Street, Alton, GU34 1DE pdf icon PDF 598 KB

Mr Jeyasingam

 

PARTIAL DEMOLITION TO THE REAR OF THE PALACE CINEMA, ALTON, AND ERECTION OF 4 X 2 BEDROOM FLATS AND ASSOCIATED PARKING.

Minutes:

Partial demolition to the rear of The Palace Cinema, Alton, and erection of 4 x 2 bedroom flats and associated parking.

 

The Development Management Manager introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site, proposed elevations, site sections and proposed ground floor plan.

 

The proposal would see the removal of the bingo hall which had a less economic use.  It had been marketed for some time without success and the proposal was now for four, two bedroom flats.  There would be a clean break in the building with parking underneath.  Access to the site would be via an unmade private track.

 

The Development Management Manager drew the committee’s attention to the Supplementary Matters sheet.  At the time of publication of the agenda, there had been issues with parking underneath which had now been adjusted.  HCC were now satisfied that there was adequate parking, however, they had maintained an objection as they felt that visibility was obscured at the junction of the access with the private track.  The Development Management Manager said that given all of the other uses and outbuildings that the access track served, this proposal would not add to that, it was also a private track and not a highway.

 

The determining issues for consideration:

 

·                    Principle of development;

·                    Residential amenity;

·                    Parking and highways;

·                    Open space provision, environmental improvements and integrated transport measures; and

·                    Energy conservation.

 

Mr Raj Jeyasingam, the applicant, addressed the committee.

 

·                    He had come from a bingo background.  In the past they used to be open seven evenings a week and would have 500 people attending for the bingo.  They now opened three evenings a week and only 42 people had attended last week.  This was an abysmal figure and last year the bingo had made a loss of £28,000;

·                    His passion had now moved to the cinema and last year he had digitalised the two screens;

·                    The cinema gave 12-18 year olds somewhere to go; and

·                    This proposal would help the cinema keep going although he could not guarantee that it would be a cinema forever.

 

Cllr Nicholas Branch, the local councillor, addressed the committee.

 

No objector was available to speak and therefore he spoke on behalf of the 12 objectors, as well as for himself as Ward Councillor.

 

This application was in two parts – a change of use for which there was no objection, and indeed supported; and the specific development of four apartments, each with two double bedrooms, which he and objectors regarded as an insensitive overdevelopment in a very cramped space leading to parking problems.

 

As could be seen from the site plan, the area behind the cinema was part of a cul-de-sac mews which contained a few homes, plus garages and parking spaces for some 20 vehicles.  The cul-de-sac connected with Victoria Road without a proper visibility splay.  It was not used by customers of the cinema or bingo hall, because there were no spare parking places.

 

The track running through the cul-de-sac was un-adopted, rough and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

132.

31232/004/FUL/MW - Ian Allan Travel, 19 Market Street, Alton, GU34 1HA pdf icon PDF 249 KB

Mr Ormond

 

CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP (CLASS A1) TO CAFE (CLASS A3)

Minutes:

Change of use from shop (Class A1) to Café (Class A3).

 

The Development Management Manager introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site and proposed floor plan.

 

There were still concerns regarding odour control and a separate condition may be required.

 

The determining issues for consideration were:

 

·                     Principle of development;

·                     Impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties; and

·                     Impact on the character of the area and highways implications.

 

Cllr Nicholas Branch, the local councillor, said that he was puzzled as to why this application had come to committee.

 

The Service Manager Planning Development said that it was because condition 2 was slightly unusual and the committee would not have seen it before.

 

The committee agreed the officer’s recommendation.

 

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

 

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