Agenda and minutes

To receive and record apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

To approve the minutes of the Development Management Committee held on  17 March 2016.

The Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 17 March 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 21 April 2016.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Site Viewing Working Party held on 21 April 2016 were received.

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.

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

The Chairman advised that this would be the last meeting of the Development Management Committee of the municipal year 2015/16. The Chairman thanked the members of the committee and the officers for their continued hard work and support at meetings.

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

There were no matters to be considered for site viewing and deferment.

To receive requests to make a deputation to Committee.

(1)  Mr Ray Stewart (objector) – Application APP/15/01355 – Tamarisk, Ferry Road, Hayling Island, PO11 0DG

(2)   Councillor A Lenaghan (Ward Councillor) – Application APP/15/01355 – Tamarisk, Ferry Road, Hayling Island, PO11 0DG

Proposal:          Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling with associated landscaping and improvements to sea-defences.

Additional Documents:

http://tinyurl.com/zwenxt9

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

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling with associated landscaping and improvements to sea-defences.

The Committee considered the written reports and recommendations of the Head of Planning Services to grant permission.

The Committee was addressed by the following deputees:

(1) Mr Ray Stewart who objected to the proposal for the following reasons:

a.   Although Mr Stewart did not object to the principle of development, the proposed height and bulk of the proposal would reduce all light to the ground floor of the adjacent dwelling.

b.   Pre-application advice provided to the applicant had not been adhered to

c.   The design of the proposal would set the main living area on the first floor and therefore have a significant detrimental impact on the privacy of the adjacent dwelling by means of overlooking.

d.   Prior to planning permission being given for its redevelopment, the Deck House site had also been refused permission due to the impact a previous design proposal would have had on the visual amenities of properties to the west. This had set a precedent for refusal.

e.   The proposal would breach the 45 degree angle guidelines as set out in the Havant Borough Council design guidelines

f.    The proposal outlined no increase in population. The existing dwelling on the site housed 1 individual. The proposal would provide 4-5 bedrooms and increase population of the dwelling.

g.   The proposal was of significant bulk, height and impact to the street scene.

(2) Councillor A Lenaghan objected to the application for the following reasons:

h.   The principle of development was not in dispute, however the Council had a duty of care to take into consideration the impact on neighbouring properties.

i.    The proposal would eliminate all natural light into the Deck House.

j.    The proposal would have significant detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the Deck House.

k.   The applicant and the agent had not involved the owners of neighbouring properties in the design process of the proposal.

l.    The proposal was unsympathetic to the street scene.

m.  The design, height and substantial bulk of the proposal breached the GIA guidelines that new or redevelopments should be generally in line with existing developments.

n.   The design of the proposal would detrimentally impact the living conditions of neighbouring properties, inducing loss of light, privacy and noise siting reason for refusal R133.

The Committee discussed the application together with the views raised by the deputees. Members raised concerns over the size and bulk of the proposal and the significant detrimental impact it would have on the living conditions of the neighbouring dwelling. Specific attention was drawn to the impact the proposal would have on the amenity, light and privacy of the Deck House due to the bulk of the design and overlooking.

Although some members expressed a view that the impact on the light and privacy to the neighbouring property was not significant enough for refusal, the majority of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.