Agenda and draft minutes

To receive and record apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Howard and Lowe.

To receive the minutes of the Site Viewing Working Party held on 16 January 2020.

The minutes of the Site Viewing Working party held on 16 January 2020 were received by the Committee.

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.

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

The Chairman advised the members of the Committee that there would be a number of extraordinary meetings over the next few months to deal with major applications.

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:           Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a replacement 1No. 3 bed detached dwelling including a balcony to the front elevation and a single storey to the rear.

Additional Information

(The site was viewed by the Site Viewing Working Party)

Proposal:       Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a replacement 1No 3 bed detached dwelling including a balcony to the front elevation and a single storey to the rear.

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

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

(1)         included a statement and drawings submitted by Councillor Bowerman;

(2)         a written deputation (including drawings) by Ms Prentice and Mr Fox;

(3)         gave responses to the questions raised by the Site Viewing Working Party held on the 13 October;

(4)          included details of an additional representation received since the agenda was published;

(5)          corrected some typographical errors in the report; and

(6)          included information requested by the Site Viewing Working Party.

The Committee received the following deputations:

a)               Mr Andrews, Mr Fox and Ms Prentice were invited to give their deputations and answer questions from Members of the Committee table; the deputations from Mr Fox and Ms Prentice were submitted in written form. Mr Fox addressed the Committee and objected to the proposal for the following reasons:

              1            the proposal would not enhance the area and was therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework;

              2            although the application claimed to seek the demolition and replacement of the existing three bed dwelling with another three bed property, the plans showed a second lounge on the first floor, which would be more likely used as a fourth bedroom. Therefore, the proposal should qualify for Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy contribution;

              3            the height of the proposed replacement building could, in some places, result in water running off onto adjoining properties, and in particular 9 Western Parade. A flood risk assessment, as recommended in the report, was necessary for this development;

              4            The proposed front balcony would allow direct overlooking into the master bedroom of 11 Western Parade to the detriment of the occupiers of this property; and

              5            the proposal would result in development of a two storey height across the whole width of the plot, creating a terracing effect in the street scene to the detriment of the visual amenities and spatial characteristics of the street scene.

              In response to questions raised by members of the Committee:

              (i)           the evidence to support the need for a flood assessment was set out in the consultee response submitted by Planning Policy.

                            (the Chairman pointed out the submission from the Planning Policy Team was their comments on the application; the Environment Agency had submitted no comments on this application)

              (ii)          The works to 9 and 11 Western Parade did not involve raising the levels of these properties. Therefore, a flood assessment was not required.

b)           Mr Potter, on behalf of the applicants, supported the officer’s report and made the following additional comments in support of the application:

              (i)           this was a similar proposal to the rebuild of 9 Western Parade, which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.