Agenda and minutes

To appoint the nominated Chairman for the meeting.

RESOLVED that Cllr Lance Quantrill would be Chairman for the meeting.

To receive and record apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr John Perry and Cllr Paul Buckley.

To approve the minutes of the Development Management Committee held on  

It was RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 18 August 2016 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no matters arising.

To receive the minutes of the Site Viewing Working Party held on

The committee received the minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2016.

To receive and record declarations of interests from members present in respect of the various matters on the agenda for this meeting.

There were no declarations of interest relating to matters on the agenda.

The Chairman to report the outcome of meetings attended or other information arising since the last meeting of the Committee.

The Chairman advised there was nothing to report at the time.

The Committee are invited to consider any matters they wish to recommend for site viewing or deferment.

There were no items considered for Site Viewing or deferment.

To receive requests to make a deputation to Committee.

(1)  Mr Anthony Walker (objector) – APP/16/00568 – 117 Elm Grove, Hayling Island, PO11 9ED

(2)  Mr Robert Woodward (objector) – APP/16/00568 – 117 Elm Grove, Hayling Island, PO11 9ED

(3)  Mr Gian Bendinelli (applicant’s agent) – APP/16/00568 – 117 Elm Grove, Hayling Island, PO11 9ED

(4)  Cllr Leah Turner (Ward Councillor) – APP/16/00568 – 117 Elm Grove, Hayling Island, PO11 9ED

(5)  Cllr Michael Wilson (Ward Councillor) – APP/16/00568 – 117 Elm Grove, Hayling Island, PO11 9ED

(6)  Cllr David Guest (Ward Councillor) – APP/16/00933 – Hall Place Cottage, South Street, Havant.

Proposal:             Erection of 33No. retirement apartments (Category II type) with communal facilities and car parking accessed from St Marys Road.

Associated papers:

http://tinyurl.com/zs8akbs

(The site was viewed by the Site Viewing Working Party)

The Committee considered the written report and recommendation from the Head of Planning Services to grant permission.

The Committee received supplementary information, circulated prior to the meeting which:

(1)  Detailed the consultation responses from the Arboricultural Officer and Landscape Officer

(2)  Detailed an update to the planning considerations regarding the S106 agreement and number of parking spaces within the proposal.

(3)  Gave responses to the questions raised by the Site Viewing Working Party held on the 13 October.

The Committee was addressed by the following deputees:

(1)  Mr Walker, who objected to the proposal for the following reasons:

a.    The proposal breached policy DM2 of the Core Strategy as it had not been demonstrated through an active marketing process that the premises was no longer viable for its authorised use.

b.    The proposal would have a significant detrimental impact upon neighbouring parking

c.    A 3 storey building would be too high in scale and design and would set a precedent for additional 3 storey developments in the area

d.    The proposal cause congestion and would put additional pressure on infrastructure, particularly vehicular access to Hayling Island with regard to emergency services.

e.    The area would benefit from developments that would incorporate shops, amenities and parking; residential developments were an inappropriate use of the site.

(2)  Mr Woodward, who objected to the proposal for the following reasons:

f.     Increase in housing in the area would add strain to the infrastructure, particularly highways

g.    The proposal was unsustainable in the long term

h.    The proposal would have a detrimental impact upon small businesses in the area.

(3)  Mr Bendinelli, on behalf of the applicant, supported the proposal for the following reasons:

i.      This new type of proposal would add interest and variety to the area.

j.      The design would allow for the most efficient use of space, maximising housing whilst minimising impact on the street scene.

k.    The proposal would help Havant Borough Council deliver sheltered housing to the residents of the Borough.

l.      Due to the absence of a 5 year housing land supply, policy DM2 of the core strategy would be considered outdated and therefore not apply to the proposal.

m.   The parking provisions detailed in the proposal were well above that which would be deemed acceptable by the highways authority and the planning inspectorate.

n.    The loss of community use is unsubstantiated as the application for the premises to be listed as an Asset of Community Value had been turned down, and therefore a change of use to residential is acceptable.

(4)  Cllr L Turner who objected to the proposal for the following reasons:

o.    The proposal breached Policy CS9 of the core strategy as it did not provide 30-40% of affordable housing. It therefore could be refused under R11 of the model reasons for refusal.

p.    £21,000 of local housing contribution was much lower that what should be expected and a small contribution raised concerns over the developer’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Proposal:             Fell 1No. Holm Oak (T1), subject to TPO 1973.

Additional documents:

http://tinyurl.com/jfz7l65

(The site was viewed by the Site Viewing Working Party)

The committee received the report from the Head of Neighbourhood Support and recommendation to grant permission.

The Committee was addressed by the following deputee:

(1)  Cllr D Guest who objected to the application for the following reasons.

a.    The tree provides interest and variation to the street scene

b.    The tree would contribute more community asset than the adjacent wall

c.    The tree was healthy; not dead dying or diseased.

d.    All options to retain the tree had not been investigated.

In response to questions raised by the committee, officers advised that:

·         It could not be confirmed that the tree was safe

·         Refusing consent would make the Council liable for damages and costs if the tree were to fall.

·         Reducing the tree in size had been considered but was not a viable option.

·         The tree would not be felled until an agreement had been signed by the applicant stating that another similar tree would be planted after the event.

The Committee discussed the application in detail together with the views raised by the deputy and agreed that although the tree was an impressive feature of the street scene, a foreseeable risk had been illustrated. The conditions of the application also meant the tree would be replaced. It was therefore

RESOLVED that the Head of Neighbourhood Support be authorised to grant consent for application APP/16/00933 subject to the following condition:

(1)  The tree felling for which consent is hereby granted shall not commence until a detailed scheme and specification for replacement tree planting on an adjacent part of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such specification shall include details of the species and size of such replacement planting.

To Nominate a Chairman for the next meeting of the Development Management Committee in accordance with the rota.

The Committee considered the nomination of Chairman for the next meeting of the Development Management Committee. It was

RESOLVED that Cllr Clare Satchwell be nominated as Chairman for the next meeting of the Development Management Committee.