Agenda and draft minutes

Extraordinary, Development Management Committee - Thursday, 23rd January, 2020 5.00 pm

Venue: Hurstwood Room, Public Service Plaza, Civic Centre Road, Havant, Hampshire PO9 2AX

Contact: Mark Gregory  Democratic Services Officer

No. Item


Apologies for Absence

To receive and record apologies for absence.


Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mrs Shimbart.


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 relating to matters on the agenda.


Chairman's Report

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


The Chairman reminded the members that the next meeting of this Committee would be held on 27 January 2020.



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/19/00427 - Land at Lower Road, Havant pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Proposal:           Development of 50 new dwellings together with access, landscaping and open space.


Additional Information



Additional documents:


(The site was viewed by the Site Viewing Working Party on 5 December 2019)


Proposal: Development of 50 new dwellings together with access, landscaping and open space.


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


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


(1)         updated the calculated sizes of the open space, the developable area, and the density of the development;


(2)         amended the site description under page 8, paragraph 1.5 of the submitted report;


(3)         updated the number of representations and gave a summary of those representations received since the report was published;


(4)          amended condition 2 of the report: and


(5)          recommended a conditional removing the permitted development rights for plots 1,10,11, 22, and 28.


The Committee noted that the information set out in the supplementary information did not affect the conclusions and recommendations of the submitted report.  The Committee was advised that the cards received in support of the application referred to in the supplementary information had not been received by the Council in response to the statutory consultation but were forwarded to the Council by the applicants.             


The Committee was addressed by the following deputees:


(a)          Mr Tate, on behalf of the Bedhampton Heritage Alliance and local residents, who objected to the application for the following reasons:


              1.           there was a lack of supplementary evidence to support the application;


              2.           the heritage statement did not adequately address the impact on the area’s heritage assets and its conclusions were unsupported;


              3.           the proposals fell short of a sustainable development;


              4.           the transport assessment was inaccurate, inconsistent and flawed;


              5.           the traffic likely to be generated by this proposal would exacerbate the existing traffic problems in the area and cause undue interference with the safety and convenience of vehicles and pedestrians;     


              6.           the development would destroy the historic Narrow Marsh Lane, which ran across the application site;


              7.           the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the tranquillity of the area and deter visitors;


              8.           the development would have a detrimental impact on the nearby heritage assets (including The Elms listed building), the Conservation Area, the ecology of the area and existing wildlife habitats;


              9.           the principle of the development of this site should be determined at the forthcoming Local Plan Enquiry before an application for development of the site is considered; and


              10.         the proposal would harm the character of Bedhampton.


(b)          Mr Beck, on behalf of the applicant, who supported the officer’s report and made the following additional comments:


              1.           the proposal had been submitted after extensive public consultation and amended to address concerns raised during this consultation period and at the pre-application stage;


              2.           38 representations supported the application;


              3.           the statutory consultees had not objected to the proposal; and


              4.           the applicants had agreed to make contributions under a Section 106 Agreement in addition to the Community Infrastructure Levy.


(c)          County Councillor Fairhurst, who objected to the proposal for the following reasons:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.