Agenda and draft minutes

To receive and record apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Lloyd and Satchwell.

To approve the minutes of the Development Management Committee held on  21 November 2019.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 21 November 2019 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive the minutes of the Site Viewing Working Party held on 5 December 2019 and 6 January 2020.

(The minutes of the meeting to be held on 6 January to follow)

The Minutes of the meetings of the Site Viewing Working Party held on 5 December 2019 and 6 January 2020 were received.

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

The Chairman reminded the Committee that Councillor Satchwell had declared at previous meetings a conflict of interest in applications APP/19/00279 and APP/19/00803, which was why she was not in the Chair for this meeting.

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

The Chairman advised members of the following meetings to be held in January 2020:

(a)             Site Viewing Working Party – 16 January 2020 -12.30 pm;

(b)             Development Management Committee – 23 January 2020 -5.00 pm (provisional); and

(c)             Development Management Committee – 27 January 2020 – 5.00 pm.

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.

Proposal: Addition of first floor to create 2 No. bed flats.

(Viewed by Site Viewing Working Party on 5 December 2019)

Additional Information

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

Proposal: Addition of first floor to create 2No. two bed flats.

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

A street scene from Creek Road requested by the Site Viewing Working Party held on 5 December 2019 was circulated prior to the meeting. The Committee was advised that the applicant’s agent stated that it had not been possible to do a similar “street scene” to Guillemot Place as that would necessitate access onto a private road, which he did not have permission to do.

The Committee was addressed by the following deputees:

(a)          Mr Meech, who objected to the application for the following reasons:

              (i)           the proposed development by reason of its height would be detrimental to the visual outlook and amenities to the occupiers of 58 Creek Road;

              (ii)          although there were two storey buildings on the western side of the Creek Road, a precedent had been set requiring properties on the eastern side of the road to be single storey;

              (iii)         the proposed additional parking would exacerbate the existing parking problems in the area;

              (iv)         the proposal would adversely affect the light available to the bedroom on the southern side of 58 Creek Road. It was acknowledged that this room also had a window on the western side of the property. However, the window on the southern side was the main source of light for this room; and

              (v)          the proposal would adversely affect the light available to the utility room on the southern side of 58 Creek Road          

(b)          Mrs Bentley, who on behalf of the occupier of 4 Kittiwake Row, objected to the proposal for the following reasons

              (i)           although the shop had a right of access to the rear parking area, it had not been established whether this right extended to the potential occupiers of the proposed additional flats. The proposal included bin storage in this area, and this would add to general wear and tear;

              (ii)          structural work had already started;

              (iii)         The proposal included elements that overhung property outside the applicant’s control;

              (iv)         The proposal would remove parking currently provided for the shop, which would lead to more on-street parking to the detriment of road users;

              (v)          90% had objected to the proposal; and

              (vi)         The proposal would have detrimental impact of the visual outlook and privacy of the occupiers of adjoining residential properties.

              In response to questions from Members of the Committee, Mrs Bentley:

              (1)         clarified that 90% of the representations received objected to the proposal; and

              (2)         the parking bays allocated to occupiers and visitors of Kittiwake Row were used.

(c)          Mr Oliver, on behalf of the applicant, supported the application on the following grounds:

              (i)           the shop was a valued local asset and the proposal would enable it to continue;

              (ii)          the proposal was in accordance with government guidance and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Proposal: Removal of Condition Nos 1 and 2 of planning permission APP/18/0116 relating to Cypress Leylandii planting.

Additional Information

 (The site was viewed by the Site Viewing Working Party on 6 January 2020)

Proposal:       Removal of Condition Nos 1 and 2 of planning permission APP/18/0116 relating to Cypress Leylandii planting.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following deputees:

a)               Ms O’Leary, who, with reference to the history of the problems that have arisen over the siting of the telecommunications mast, advised that although she had no objection in principle to the mast, the current lack of tree screening had a detrimental impact on her visual outlook and amenities and devalued her property; and

b)               Councillor Satchwell who supported Ms O’Leary and, with reference to the history of the discussions between, the Council, the applicant, Southern Water, residents and herself, recommended the Committee to refuse the application and to authorise enforcement action.

In response to a question raised by a member of the Committee about the health and safety aspects of the mast, Councillor Satchwell advised that the residents did not object to the principle of a mast being sited nearby.

In response to concerns raised during the debate and questions about the current siting and planning history of the mast, the Committee was reminded that the current position of the mast had been approved by the Council and that the Committee was required to solely address the applicant’s request for the removal of Condition Nos 1 and 2 of Planning Permission APP/18/0116.

The Committee discussed this application in detail and considered that the height of the mast, its prominence and proximity to neighbouring properties was such that effective screening was required to protect the amenities of these properties. It was therefore

RESOLVED that planning application APP/19/00803 be refused for the following reason:

The development, without the provision of effective screening, due to its height, prominence  and proximity to neighbouring properties, results in an overbearing structure to the detriment to the amenities of those properties, contrary to Policy CS16 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework.