Agenda and minutes

An apology of absence was received from Councillor R H Price, JP.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 18 July 2018.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 18 July 2018 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

There were no Chairman’s announcements made at this meeting.

To receive any declarations of interest from members in accordance with Standing Orders and the Council’s Code of Conduct.

In accordance with Standing Orders and the Council’s Code of Conduct the following declarations of interest were made at this meeting:

Councillor I Bastable declared a pecuniary interest in item 8 (2) – Land to the East of 246 Botley Road as he lives next to the application site. He left the room at the start of the meeting and took no part in the discussion or vote on this item.

Councillor T M Cartwright declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 8 (3) – Land to the South of Sovereign Crescent in that he has previously expressed his views on this item. He left the room at the start of this item and took no part in the discussion or vote to avoid any pre-determination issues.

Councillor M J Ford, JP declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 8 (3) – Land to the South of Sovereign Crescent as he has discussed this application with residents where he has discussed his opinion. He left the room at the start of this item and took no part in the discussion or vote to avoid any pre-determination issues.

To receive any deputations of which notice has been lodged.

The Committee received a deputation from the following in respect of the applications indicated and were thanked accordingly.

To consider a report by the Director of Planning and Regulation on the Council’s current Five Year Housing Land Supply Position.

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Planning and Regulation on the Council’s Five Year Housing Land Supply position.

RESOLVED that the Committee note:-

(i)            the content of the report and the current 5-Year Housing Land Supply position;

(ii)          that the 5-Year Housing Land Supply position set out in the attached report (which will be updated regularly as appropriate) is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications for residential development; and

(iii)         that the Government will be considering adjustments to the new standard method used to calculate Local Housing Need, following publication of the new household growth projections in September 2018.

To consider a report by the Director of Planning and Regulation on how proposals for residential development should be considered in the context of this Council’s current 5 year housing land supply position.

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Planning and Regulation on how proposals for residential development should be considered in the context of the Council’s current 5-Year Housing Land Supply position.

RESOLVED that the Committee note the content of the report.

To consider a report by the Director of Planning and Development on development control matters, including information regarding new planning appeals and decisions.

The Committee noted a report by the Director of Planning and Regulation on the development management matter applications and miscellaneous matters including the information on Planning Appeals.

The Committee received the deputations referred to in Minute 5 above.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor S D Woodward addressed the Committee on this item.

Upon being proposed and seconded the Officer Recommendation to refuse planning permission was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for Refusal

The development would be contrary to Policies CS2, CS4, CS5, CS6, CS9, CS14, CS17, CS18, CS20 and CS21 of the Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy 2011 and Policies DSP6, DSP13, DSP14, DSP15 and DSP40 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies Plan; and is unacceptable in that:

(a)  The provision of dwellings in this location would be contrary to adopted local plan policies which seek to prevent additional residential development in the countryside which does not require a countryside location. Furthermore, the development would not be sustainably located adjacent to or well integrated with neighbouring settlements;

(b)  The density of the proposed development would fail to response positively to and be respectful of the key characteristics of the area, particularly its predominantly undeveloped nature, which would be out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the area;

(c)  Had it not been for the overriding reasons for refusal the Council would have sought to secure the on-site provision of affordable housing at a level in accordance with the requirements of the local plan;

(d)  In the absence of a legal agreement to secure such, the proposal would fail to provide satisfactory mitigation of the ‘in combination’ effects that the proposed increase in residential units on the site would cause through increased recreational disturbance on the Solent Coastal Special Protection Areas;

(e)  In the absence of a legal agreement securing provision of open space and facilities and their associated management and maintenance, the recreational needs of residents of the proposed development would not be met;

(f)   In the absence of a legal agreement to secure such, the proposal fails to mitigate against the adverse effects of the development on Swanwick Lakes Nature Reserve; and

(g)  In the absence of a legal agreement securing the provision of funding towards Education facilities, the educational needs of residents of the proposed development would not be met.

Note for information:

Had it not been for the overriding reasons for refusal to the proposal, the Local Planning Authority would have sought to address points c) – g) above by inviting the applicant to enter into a legal agreement with Fareham Borough Council under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

The Committee received the deputations referred to in Minutes 5 above.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor S D Woodward addressed the Committee on this item.

Councillor I Bastable declared a pecuniary interest in this item as he lives next to the application site. He left the room at the start of the meeting and took no part in the discussion or vote on this item.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which contained the following information: -

Additional Third Party Comment:

A further third party comment has been received by Hampshire Swifts, supporting the recommendations of the ecologists on the application to incorporate ‘swift bricks’ in the development. They would however like to see them incorporated into all the proposed properties.

Amendment to the third paragraph on page 57 of the Committee Report to state:

In balancing the objectives of adopted policy which seeks to restrict development within the countryside alongside the shortage in housing supply, the proposal would deliver an eight dwelling contribution towards the 5-year housing land supply shortage in the Borough. Whilst only a relatively small contribution, the layout and density of the proposal accords with the prevailing low density character of the surrounding properties, for which a greater number would be likely to be considered out of keeping. There is a clear conflict with the development plan policy CS14 as this development is in the countryside. Ordinarily, Officers would have found this to be the principal policy such that the scheme would be refused. However, in light of the above considerations, and where the scheme accords with the requirements of policy DSP40, Officers consider more weight should be given to this policy than CS14 such that, on balance, when considered against the development plan as a whole, the scheme should be approved.

A motion to refuse planning permission was proposed and seconded, and was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 6 in favour; 0 against; 2 abstention)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for Refusal:

The development would be contrary to Policies CS14 and CS17 of the Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy 2011 and Policies CSp6, DSP15 and DSP40 of the Adopted Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies Plan and is unacceptable in that:

a)    the introduction of 8 dwellings in this countryside location would fail to respond positively to and be respectful of the key characteristics of the area, particularly its predominantly undeveloped nature. Notwithstanding the Council’s 5-year housing land supply position, the provision of this small number of dwellings in this location, would not outweigh the harm which would be caused to the character of the area;

b)    in the absence of a legal agreement to secure such, the proposal would fail to provide satisfactory mitigation of the ‘in combination’ effects that the proposed increase in residential units on the site would cause through increased recreational disturbance on the Solent Coastal Special Protection Areas; and

c)    in the absence of a legal agreement to secure such, the proposal would fail to secure open space provision and associated maintenance to ensure the appropriate level of green buffer is retained between settlements.

The Committee received the deputations referred to in Minute 5 above.

Councillor T M Cartwright declared a non-pecuniary interest in this in that he has previously expressed his views on this item. He left the room at the start of this item and took no part in the discussion or vote to avoid any pre-determination issues.

Councillor M J Ford, JP declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he has discussed this application with residents where he has discussed his opinion. He left the room at the start of this item and took no part in the discussion or vote to avoid any pre-determination issues.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which contained the following information:-

The Officer recommendation is revised so that condition 12 now reads:

“12) None of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until a plan of the position, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected to all boundaries has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved boundary treatment in relation to the dwelling being occupied has been fully implemented. It shall thereafter be retained at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

If boundary hedge planting is proposed details shall be provided of planting sizes, planting distances, density, and numbers and provisions for future maintenance. Any plants which, within a period of five years from first planting, are removed, die or, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced, within the next available planting season, with others of the same species, size and number as originally approved.

REASON: To protect the privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, to prevent overlooking, and to ensure that the development harmonises well with its surroundings.”

The revision to the wording enables occupation of individual units provided the boundary treatment across the entire site to be in place beforehand.

Condition 13 is revised to correct a typographical error and now reads:

13) No dwelling hereby approved shall be first occupied until the approved parking and turning areas (where appropriate) for that property have been constructed in accordance with the approved details made available for use. These areas shall thereafter be kept available for the parking and turning of vehicles at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority following the submission of a planning application for that purpose.

REASON: In the interest of highway safety.”

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report and the amended conditions 12 and 13 in the update report, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 3 in favour; 2 against; 2 abstention)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report and the amended conditions 12 and 13 in the Update Report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

The Committee received the deputation referred to in Minute 5 above.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which contained the following information:-

Consultation Response from HCC Ecology:

A consultation response from Hampshire County Ecology has been received, raising no objection to the proposal subject to the following conditions and informative, which will be added to the decision:

-       Prior to commencement, a badger survey of the site shall be carried out by an experienced ecologist to ensure that no new setts have been formed. In the event that a sett is discovered, a Method Statement for its protection or closure under a Natural England licence shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure the protection of badgers under the Protection of Badger Act 1992.

-       If areas of suitable reptile habitat (e.g.  hedge banks along the boundaries and mound in the south-east) are to be affected by the proposed works, prior to commencement, a Reptile Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall subsequently proceed in accordance with any such approved details.

REASON: To avoid impacts to protected species in accordance with Policy DSP13 of the Fareham Local Plan Part 2.

-       Prior to the commencement, a Landscape and Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to include appropriate detailed proposals for the enhancement of the site in the form of provision of bat and bird boxes. The Strategy should also include measures in the form of tree and wildflower meadow planting along the eastern, southern and south-western boundaries of the site to act as a buffer between the application site and the boundary treelines.

REASON: To enhance biodiversity in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

INFORMATIVE:

Birds nests, when occupied or being built, receive legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It is highly advisable to undertake clearance of potential bird nesting habitat (such as outbuildings, trees, scrub etc). outside the bird nesting season, which is generally seen as extending from March to the end of September, although may extend longer depending on local conditions. If there is no alternative to doing the work during this period then a thorough, examination of the affected areas must be carried out before clearance starts. If occupied nests are present then work must stop in that area, a suitable (approximately 5m) stand-off maintained, and clearance can only recommence once the nest becomes unoccupied of its own accord.

A motion was proposed to grant planning permission as per the officer recommendation but was not seconded and therefore the motion was declared lost.

A motion to refuse planning permission was proposed and seconded, and was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 7 in favour; 2 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for Refusal:

The development would be contrary to Policies CS14, CS17, CS19 an CS22 of the Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy 2011 and Policies DSP2, DSP15 and DSP47 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies Plan and in the absence of any objectively assessed need for such a use in this location, it is unacceptable in that:

a)    By virtue of the noise and disturbance generated by the use of the site, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbours;

b)    The development would harm the landscape character and appearance of the countryside and fail to respect or respond positively to the key characteristics of the surrounding area;

c)    The development would adversely affect the integrity of the strategic gap and the physical and visual separation of settlements; and

d)    In the absence of a legal agreement to secure such, the proposal would fail to provide satisfactory mitigation of the ‘in combination’ effects that the proposed increase in residential units on the site would cause through increased recreational disturbance on the Solent Coastal Special Protection Areas.

The Committee received the deputations referred to in Minute 5 above.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which contained the following information:-

Consultation Response from HHC Ecology:

A consultation response from Hampshire County Ecology has been received, raising no objection to the proposal subject to the following conditions and informative, which will be added to the decision:

-       Prior to commencement, a badger survey of the site shall be carried out by an experienced ecologist to ensure that no new setts have been formed. In the event that a sett is discovered, a Method Statement for its protection or closure under a Natural England licence shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure the protection of badgers under the Protection of Badger Act 1992.

-       If areas of suitable reptile habitat (e.g. hedge banks along the boundaries and mound in the south-east) are to be affected by the proposed works, prior to the commencement, a Reptile Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall subsequently proceed in accordance with any such approved details.

REASON: To avoid impacts to protected species in accordance with Policy DSP13 of the Fareham Local Plan Part 2.

-       Prior to the commencement, a Landscape and Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to include appropriate detailed proposals for the enhancement of the site in the form of provision of bat and bird boxes. The Strategy should also include measures in the form of tree and wildflower meadow planting along the eastern, southern and south-western boundaries of the site to act as a buffer between the application site and the boundary treelines.

REASON: To enhance biodiversity in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework and the Natural Environmentl and Rural Communities Act 2006.

INFORMATIVE:

Birds nests, when occupied or being built, receive legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It is highly advisable to undertake clearance of potential bird nesting habitat (such as outbuildings, trees, scrubs etc.) outside the bird nesting season, which is generally seen as extending from March to the end of September, although may extend longer depending on local conditions. If there is no alternative to doing the work during this period then a thorough, examination of the affected areas must be carried out before clearance starts. If occupied nests are present then work must stop in that area, a suitable (approximately 5m) stand-off maintained, and clearance can only recommence once the nest becomes unoccupied of its own accord.

Amendment to the fourth paragraph on page 106 of the Committee Report to state:

In balancing the objectives of adopted policy which seeks to restrict development within the countryside alongside the shortage in housing supply, the proposal would deliver three eco-dwellings, a small contribution to the 5-year housing land supply shortage in the Borough. Whilst only a relatively small contribution, the layout and density of the proposal accords with the prevailing low density character of the surrounding properties, for which a greater number would be likely to be considered out of keeping. There is a clear conflict with the development plan policy CS14 as this development is in the countryside. Ordinarily, Officers would have found this to be the principal policy such that the scheme would be refused. However, in light of the above considerations, and where the scheme accords with the requirements of policy DSP40, Officers consider more weight should be given to this policy than CS14 such that, on balance, when considered against the development plan as a whole, the scheme should be approved.

A motion to refuse planning permission was proposed and seconded, and voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 8 in favour; 1 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for Refusal:

The development would be contrary to Policies CS14, CS17 and CS22 of the Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy 2011 and Policies DSP6, DSP15 and DSP40 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2: Development Sited and Policies Plan and is unacceptable in that:

a)    the provision of dwellings in this location would be contrary to adopted local plan policies which seek to prevent residential development in the countryside which does not require a countryside location. Further, the development would not be sustainably located adjacent to or well integrated with the neighbouring settlement;

b)    the development would harm the landscape character and appearance of the countryside and fail to respect or respond positively to the key characteristics of the surrounding area;

c)    the development would adversely affect the integrity of the strategic gap and the physical and visual separation of settlements; and

d)    in the absence of a legal agreement to secure such, the proposal would fail to provide satisfactory mitigation of the ‘in combination’ effects that the proposed increase in residential units on the site would cause through increased recreational disturbance on the Solent Coastal Special Protection Areas.

The Committee received the deputations referred to in Minute 5 above.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which contained the following information:-

Conditions 2 & 3 of the recommendation are revised as follows:

2) No customers shall be present at the site outside of the following times:

Mondays 0900 – 1600;

Tuesdays 0900 – 1800;

Wednesdays 0900 – 1600;

Thursdays 0900 – 1800;

Fridays 0900 – 1600;

Saturdays 0900 – 1600.

REASON: In order to protect the amenities of the area and the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties.

3) There shall be a maximum of 25 customers in total between the hours of 0900 – 1600 on any given day between Monday to Saturday. In addition, there shall be a maximum of 10 customers in total between the hours of 1600 – 1800 on any given day on a Tuesday or a Thursday.

REASON: In order to protect the amenities of the area and the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report and the amended conditions 2 and 3 in the Update Report, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 7 in favour; 0 against; 2 abstention)

RESOLVED that subject to, the conditions in the report and the amended conditions 2 and 3 in the Update Report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

The Committee received the deputation referred to in Minute 5 above.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which contained the following information:-

This application has been called to Committee by Councillor Martin due to concerns over the neighbour impact to number 12 regarding loss of light.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

The Committee received the deputation referred to in Minute 5 above.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to refuse consent was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against; 1 abstention)

RESOLVED that CONSENT be REFUSED.

Reason for Refusal:

No evidence has been submitted to suggest the oak trees are unsafe or otherwise unhealthy.

The Local Planning Authority considers the oak trees to be healthy, of good shape and appearance, and of high amenity value. The proposed felling of the oak trees would be harmful to the visual amenities and the character of the area.

The Committee received the deputation referred to in Minute 5 above.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to refuse consent was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that CONSENT be REFUSED.

Reasons for Refusal:

No evidence has been submitted to suggest the oak tree is unsafe or otherwise unhealthy.

The Local Planning Authority considers the oak tree to be healthy, of good shape and appearance, and of high amenity value in this prominent location. The proposed felling of the oak tree would be harmful to the visual amenities and the character of the area.

Councillor Davies was not present for this item and therefore took no part in the discussion or vote on this item.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant consent to fell two oak trees, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 7 in favour; 0 against; 1 abstention)

RESOLVED that CONSENT be granted to fell two oak trees.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation that:

(i)            No objection is raised in principle by Fareham Borough Council to the development proposed north of Ravenswood House Hospital;

(ii)          Fareham Borough Council seeks assurances from the Highway Authorities/Winchester City Council that the development north of Ravenswood House Hospital would not impact upon the quantum of development which could be constructed at Welborne before the Junction 10 works are required to be completed.

(iii)         A financial contribution should be made towards the delivery of infrastructure at Welborne.

Was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting:9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that:

(i)            No objection is raised in principle by Fareham Borough Council to the development proposed north of Ravenswood House Hospital;

(ii)          Fareham Borough Council seeks assurances from the Highway Authorities/Winchester City Council that the development north of Ravenswood House Hospital would not impact upon the quantum of development which could be constructed at Welborne before the Junction 10 works are required to be completed.

(iii)         A financial contribution should be made towards the delivery of infrastructure at Welborne.

Councillor Davies was not present for this item, and therefore took no part in the discussions or decision on this item.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to raise no objection to the felling of one lime tree, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that NO OBJECTION be raised to the felling of one lime tree.

The Update Report was tabled at the meeting and considered with the relevant agenda item.

The Committee noted the information in the report.