Venue: Hurstwood Room, Public Service Plaza, Civic Centre Road, Havant, Hampshire PO9 2AX
Contact: Mark Gregory Democratic Services Officer
Apologies for Absence
To receive and record apologies for absence.
There were no apologies for absence.
To approve the minutes of the Development Management Committee held on 31 October 2019.
The Minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 31 October 2019 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
To receive the minutes of the Site Viewing Working Party held on 14 November 2019.
The Minutes of the meeting of the Site Viewing Working Party held on 14 November 2019 were agreed as a correct record.
Declarations of Interest
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 interests.
The Chairman to report the outcome of meetings attended or other information arising since the last meeting of the Committee.
The Chairman reminded members of the Committee that the meeting scheduled to be held on 12 December 2019 had been cancelled due to the General Election.
The Chairman advised that the provisional dates for future meetings in December were:
(a) 16 December 2019; and
(b) 19 December 2019.
Matters to be Considered for Site Viewing and Deferment
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.
APP/19/00837 and APP/19/00834 - 59 and 61 Langstone Road, Havant
(This site was viewed by the Site Viewing Working Party)
Proposal: Replacement of cottage, privy Style storage building, installation of gates in front wall and repointing of front wall.
Proposal: Listed Building Consent for replacement cottage, privy style storage building and repointing of front wall
The Committee considered the written reports and recommendations of the Head of Planning. The presentation submitted to the Committee by the case officer included the additional information requested by the Site Viewing Working Party.
The Committee received supplementary information, circulated prior to the meeting, which clarified that a Community Infrastructure Levy did not apply in this case as there was no additional floorspace proposed.
The Committee was advised at the meeting that the site plan had been revised since the agenda was published and that Page 67, condition 2, should now read
“Site Plan: Proposed – Drawing No.19008 120 E”
The Committee received the following deputations from Mr Critchley and Miss Roberts, the applicant’s agents. Mr Critchley, the applicant’s architect, reminded the Committee that the issue of how the existing properties were damaged was not a material consideration and that these buildings were never publicly owned or on public land nor of special interest. He further advised that these buildings should not be viewed as a public museum. Miss Roberts and Mr Critchley supported the applications as follows:
(i) the proposal was not a restoration of the existing cottages so would need to meet meet modern Building Regulations and construction standards;
(ii) the proposal had been the result of discussions with the Conservation Officer and planning officers;
(iii) the proposal was sympathetic to the style of the existing cottages; and
(iv) the proposal was supported by Hampshire Building Preservation Trust.
(v) The existing buildings were not intrinsicly important: the significance of the existing cottages were their setting and landscape value. Although the proposal would change the appearance of the existing cottages, they would not have a detrimental impact on the area as acknowledged by the Chichester Harbour Board and the Conservation Officer;
(ii) the proposed replacement was within the same footprint of the existing cottages and of a similar height;
(iii) it was not possible to rebuild the existing cottages;
(iv) the proposal was sustainable and provided a more habitable dwelling.
With regard to an enforcement notices issued by the Council requiring the reinstatement of the existing cottages, Mr Critchley sought clarification that these notices would be withdrawn, if these applications were agreed by the Committee. Mr Critchley was advised that there was no intention to withdraw the notices in the event of the applications being approved by the Committee. However, the Council, if it wished, could enable parts of the notice to be waived. The Chairman reminded Members of the Committee that these enforcement notices were not a matter for consideration by the Committee.
In response to question by a member of the Committee, Mr Critchley gave details of his and Miss Roberts roles as agents ... view the full minutes text for item 43.