Agenda and minutes

To receive and record apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Buckley, Keast and Bowerman.

To approve the minutes of the Development Management Committee held on  

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting held on 18 May 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

The Minutes of the Site Viewing Working Party, held on the 22 June, were received.

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

Cllr Satchwell and Cllr Quantrill advised they had been nominated to the Chichester Harbour Conservancy, which were a consultee for one of the matters agenda. It was advised that this was not a pecuniary 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:

·         Cllr Bowerman would no longer be a full member of the Committee and would act as a Standing Deputy. Cllr Lloyd had been appointed as a full member of the Committee.

·         All members of the Development Management Committee and Standing Deputies had been appointed to the Local Plan Panel. The first meeting was to be held on the 3 July.

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

No matters were considered for Site Viewing or Deferment.

To receive requests to make a deputation to Committee.

The following deputation requests were noted by the committee:

1)          Hon Ald Gibb-Gray - (APP/16/00774) – Land North of Havant Road

2)          Mr A Norton - (APP/16/00774) – Land North of Havant Road

3)          Mrs A Wright - (APP/16/00774) – Land North of Havant Road

4)          Cllr R Bolton - (APP/16/00774) – Land North of Havant Road

5)          Cllr L Bowerman - (APP/16/00774) – Land North of Havant Road

6)          Cllr R Cresswell - (APP/16/00774) – Land North of Havant Road

7)          Mr R Hitchcock – (APP/16/01234 – Stables adjacent to Hollybank Cottage

8)          Mr C Ashe – (APP/16/01234 – Stables adjacent to Hollybank Cottage

9)          Cllr R Bolton– (APP/16/01234 – Stables adjacent to Hollybank Cottage

10)       Cllr L Bowerman – (APP/16/01234 – Stables adjacent to Hollybank Cottage

11)       Cllr R Cresswell – (APP/16/01234 – Stables adjacent to Hollybank Cottage

12)       Mr T Peters – APP/17/00347 – Aura House, New Road

Proposal:       Erection of 161 dwellings with associated parking, access, landscaping, and surface water drainage, pumping station, sub station and signalised junction onto Havant Road

Associated documents:

https://tinyurl.com/y6u6btzr   

(The Application Site was Viewed by the Site Viewing Working Party)

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

The Committee was addressed by the following deputees:

1)    Honorary Alderman Gibb-Gray, who objected to the proposal for the following reasons:

a.    The proposal was premature as the site was not included in the Local Plan Allocations and should await adoption of the new Local Plan 2036.

b.    There are other, more suitable, identified sites that would be a better fit for the proposal

c.    The proposal seeks to develop a greenfield site, which should be avoided. The proposal should instead seek to develop more urban areas and brownfield sites.

d.    The level of affordable housing contributions in the proposal was 30% and this should be higher

e.    The proposal would have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the local area, with specific negative impacts on the immediate neighbouring residents

f.     The proposal was an over intensive use of the site and the potential increase in traffic could create a significant danger to the neighbouring roads, specifically Selangor avenue.

2)    Mr A Norton, who objected to the proposal for the following reasons:

g.    he Council’s lack of a 5 year housing land supply should not dictate that policies are out of date. The proposal is in breach of policy CS17.

h.    The site should be deemed a wildlife corridor and planning permission should be refused if these cannot be mitigated or avoided.

i.      The officers report had highlighted drainage issues with the site.

j.      The officer’s report did not take into account that the noise impact assessment cited was conducted over 5 years prior.

k.    The traffic prediction created by the modelling forecast did not appear to be justified or realistic.

l.      The construction of the proposal posed significant issues and risks to the neighbouring residents due to a significant increase large heavy vehicles.

3)    Mrs Wright, who supported the proposal for the following reasons:

m.   The application was subject to a rigorous consultation forum which had taken into account the views of the public and planning officers. The proposal sought to mitigate the concerns that had been raised and as such had been reduced from 192 dwellings to 161.

n.    The proposal made contributions to affordable housing in the amount of 48 affordable homes.

o.    The proposal was sympathetic to the local area, taking into account the impact on greenery, by including large open spaces and play stays.

p.    Although not included in the adopted local plan, the principle of development was still supported by the Local Plan 2016 and reinforced a plan lead planning system.

q.    a consultation process had been followed and the proposal would include a robust traffic control system.

r.     The Council’s policies regarding car parking had been met, with 353 spaces being designated for parking. This was well over the parking allocation for a proposal of its size.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Proposal:             Change of use from private equestrian yard to a mixed use comprising private equestrian yard and single pitch, private gypsy and traveller site (including amenity block and one touring caravan pitch).

Associated Documents:

https://tinyurl.com/yaufftaz   

(The Application 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 was addressed by the following deputees:

(1)  Mr R Hitchcock who objected to the application or the following reasons:

a.    The National Planning Policy framework dictates that Local Planning Authorities should avoid granting planning permission for dwellings situated outside the developed area and the proposal south to add to the urbanisation of the local area

b.    Access to the site it situated down a narrow road and an increase in traffic that the proposal would cause would be dangerous for local residents

c.    The proposal would cause a loss of visual amenity to local residents and would cause a detrimental impact on the character of the area.

In response to questions raised by the Committee it was advised that:

·         Cemetery Lane was between 1 and 1.5 miles from the application site.

(2)  Mr C Ashe who objected to the proposal for the following reasons:

d.    The site has been partially developed unlawfully and no enforcement action to prevent additional development had been taken by Havant Borough Council.

e.    Observations of the activities of the applicants had posed some concerns regarding the ruling of Hampshire County Council Gypsy Liaison Officer.

(3)  Cllr R Bolton, who objected to the proposal for the following reasons:

f.     The application posed significant concerns regarding environmental and community matters.

g.    The application sought for use of both a static caravan and a touring caravan which should be deemed 2 pitches which was an over intensive use of the site.

h.    The reasons set out in the officers report at points 7.23-7.28 giving reasons to grant permission do not stand up to scrutiny

i.      The Senior Landscape Architect quoted in the officer report outlines that the development would unacceptably increase the foot print for the site

(4)  Cllr Bowerman, speaking on behalf on Cllr Cresswell, who objected to the proposal for the following reasons:
see appendix 2

(5)   Cllr Bowerman who objected to the application for the following reasons:
see appendix 3

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

·         The number of pitches available in neighbouring Local Authorities was irrelevant. Havant Borough Council had an identified need for gypsy and traveller pitches

·         The applicants own the site

·         The difference between touring caravans, static caravans and mobile homes.

·         The definition of a resident dependent

·         Enforcement action is discretionary and taken on balance regarding each individual breach or offence

The members discussed the application in detail together with the views raised by the deputees. Members discussed the character of the local area and the impact the proposal would have to the amenity of the site.

Whilst some members of the committee felt that the application was reasonable and would not have any significant detrimental impact, the majority of the committee felt that it represented demonstrable harm. The Committee discussed how the proposal was not inline with Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Proposal:                         Proposed 2 storey under croft office extension.

Associated Documents:

https://tinyurl.com/y7ucw9t8

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

The Committee was addressed by the following deputee:

(1)  Mr Tom Peters, who supported the proposal for the following reasons:

a.    While the site has a number of constraints the design of the proposal seeks to make the best and most efficient use of space.

b.    The design is in keeping and sympathetic to the local area and street scene. The materials used in the proposal reflect similar designs in the local area

c.    The Highways authority had raised no concern over the development or the increase in parking spaces provided

d.    The proposal would block a view from the substation and train line to the rear of the site and therefore make a positive contribution to the street scene

e.    The economic development team supported the proposal as it would contribute to jobs in the local area, specifically those for young people who may find it difficult to find employment in their immediate local area

f.     The proposal was supported by a robust business case which is in line with the Havant Borough Council Corporate Strategy

g.    The proposal had gathered no objections from members of the public and would cause no adverse effects to neighbouring properties

In response to questions raised by the Committee, officers advised that a full list of changes from the previous application could be found detailed in the report.

The committee discussed the application in detail together with the views raised by the deputee.

Members discussed that the proposal was highly sustainable, with good transport links and was an underdeveloped site. It was also discussed that the proposal would support the economic regeneration for the area and that jobs in the Borough should be encouraged.  The majority of the committee considered  that the proposal was an over intensive use of the site and the bulk of the design would be an incongruous feature to the street scene and was unsympathetic to the local area. It was therefore

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning be authorised to REFUSE PERMISSION for application APP/17/00347 for the following reason:

The proposed Office Extension would by reason of its prominent siting, design, size, height, mass and bulk have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area, detract from the appearance of the existing main building and represent an overdevelopment of this shallow and constricted site. The proposal would therefore conflict with policy CS16 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011, the Havant Borough Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

RESOLVED that Cllr Paul Buckley be appointed as Chairman for the next meeting.