Agenda and minutes

To receive and record apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Hughes and Perry

To approve the minutes of the Development Management Committee held on  29 June 2017

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 29 June 2017 were approved 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 20 July 2017

The minutes from the Site Viewing working party, tabled in supplementary information, 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 pecuniary 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 that a Development Consultation forum was scheduled to take place on 22nd August regarding the BaE site in Waterlooville and members of the Development Management Committee should make every effort to attend. It was also advised that notes from the most recent training session would be circulated by officers.

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

There were none.

To receive requests to make a deputation to Committee.

The following deputation requests were noted by the Committee:

1)    Ms.Zarina Jobbins – (APP/17/00388) 128-130 Sea Front, Hayling Island

2)    Cllr Leah Turner – (APP/17/00388) 128-130 Sea Front, Hayling Island

3)    Mr Buckingham – (APP17/17/00352) Former Site of 1 Hawthorne Grove, Hayling Island

4)    Cllr J Perry - (APP17/17/00352) Former Site of 1 Hawthorne Grove, Hayling Island

5)    Dr Sam Cope – (APP/17/00342) Foreshore at South Hayling Island.

Proposal:             2No. 2 bed maisonette flats above existing block of 4No. dwellings, new lift enclosure to the rear, bin and cycle stores and 2No.car ports

Associated Documents:

https://tinyurl.com/yb4jv6xo

The Committee considered the written report, in addition to supplementary information, and recommendation from the Head of Planning Services to grant permission.

The Committee was addressed by the following deputees:

1)    Ms.Zarina Jobbins who objected to the proposal for the following reasons:

a.    The proposal would limit the already minimal amount of light available to her property to an unacceptable extent.

b.    The distances given in the officer’s report between the properties was inaccurate and misleading – the properties were much closer than reported.

c.    The proposal was unacceptable by way of its dominating and oppressive design.

d.    The design of the proposal was out of character with the rest of the area.

e.    The proposal was described as a 3 storey building, however it should be regarded as a 4 storey building.

f.     The health and wellbeing of local residents would be significantly detrimentally affected by the proposal.

In response to questions raised by the committee Ms Jobbins advised why she had disputed the measurements quotes in the officers report and how she had achieved her own measurements.

2)    Cllr Leah Turner, who objected to the proposal for the following reasons:

g.    The neighbouring properties located in the Sanderlings were already significantly detrimentally affected by other large buildings in the area. The proposal would only cause greater impact on these properties.

h.    Previous applications submitted to the Council had been refused due to their height and bulk and this new proposal did not appear much different.

i.      The proposal should be refused, quoting model reasons for refusal R26, R27 & R28. The significant loss of light to properties in the Sanderlings was unacceptable.

j.      Whilst the proposal had been reported to have an acceptable separation distance to existing dwellings, the perception of being overlooked was still prevalent and should be considered.

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

·         A firm of chartered architects had taken measurements of the area and the reporting officer was satisfied that appropriately qualified professionals had drawn the plans.

·         The distances quotes in the officers report were from the north elevation

·         All windows on the lift enclosure and top floor were obscure glazed and non-opening

·         Officers were satisfied that the impact the proposal would have on light was acceptable with regard to existing neighbouring dwellings.

The Committee discussed the application in detail together with views raised by the deputees. During the course of debate the following points were raised:

·         The north elevation would be in-keeping with the street scene and would have a positive impact on the street scene.

·         The impact on light was minimal and was acceptable in planning terms.

·         The design of the proposal had sought to mitigate any unnecessary impact by use of a mansard style roof, decreasing the impact and dominance of the building.

Members debated the application and whilst some felt the impact on light was too significant the majority of the Committee felt it was acceptable in planning terms and it was therefore

RESOLVED that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Proposal:             Non material amendment of Condition No.16 of Planning Permission APP/12/00966 relating to previously submitted layout for site access raised table location to be regularised with as-built construction.

Associated Documents:

https://tinyurl.com/ycavjl9p

The Committee considered the written report, in addition to supplementary information, and recommendation for the Head of Planning Services to grant permission. The Committee was addressed by the following deputees:

1)    Mr Buckingham, speaking on behalf of Ms Liz Tester, who objected to the proposal for the following reasons:

a.    The proposal would regularise the disruptive nature of the speed ramp, having a negative impact on quality of life

b.    The speed ramp had caused demonstrable harm to the neighbouring property by way of vibration, noise, speed, danger and damage to the building.

2)    Cllr Perry who objected to the proposal for the following reasons:

c.     set out in Appendix A

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

·         Council Officers would investigate the discharge of conditions for planning consent.

·         The location and design of the ramp was due to protection of a nearby Root Protection Zone and to assist in traffic calming measures.

The Committee discussed the application in detail together with views raised by the deputees. The Committee discussed the location of the speed ramp and local buildings and the potential impact it had on neighbouring properties. Throughout debate members agreed that the ramp was acceptable in planning terms and found no reasons for refusal. It was therefore

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning Services be authorised to grant permission for application APP/17/00352 subject to the following condition:

Proposal:             Continuation with Beach Management Activities on the South Coast of Hayling Island (Ferry Inn to Hayling Island Sailing Club) by recycling beach material to protect Eastoke from flooding.

Associated Documents:

https://tinyurl.com/yaaxzkne

The Committee considered the written report, in addition to supplementary information, and recommendation from the Head of Planning Services to grant permission.

The Committee was addressed by the following deputee:

1)    Dr Sam Cope who supported the proposal for the following reasons:

Set out in Appendix B

In response to questions from the committee, Dr Cope advised:

·         There would be no damage to local points of interest such as Winner Bank.

·         The process was relatively short lasting between 2-4 weeks.

·         Any local concerns would be carefully managed and there would be minimal impact on residents and access to the beach.

The Committee discussed the application in detail together with views raised by the deputee. Through the course of the debate members agreed that the proposal would make a positive contribution to the Hayling Island Sea Front and was in the best interests of members of the public as it would maintain safety and help to reduce risks of flooding. It was therefore

RESOLVED that

To consider the Appointment of Chairman for the next meeting of the Development Management Committee.

RESOLVED that Cllr Hughes be appointed as Chairman for the next meeting of the Development Management Committee.