Agenda and minutes

An apology of absence was received from Councillor J E Butts.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Special Planning Committee meeting held on 23 January 2017 and the Planning Committee meeting held on 25 January 2017.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Special Planning Committee meeting held on 23 January 2017 and the Planning Committee meeting held on 25 January 2017 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

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 Councillors declared an interest in the applications referred to:-

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 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 information on Planning Appeals. An Update Report was tabled at the meeting.

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

CONSULTATIONS

Planning Strategy –

The area at Fulcrum 6 forms part of the designated employment area known as Solent 2, as designated by Policy S.14 in the Winchester District Local Plan Review 2006, but saved through the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 Joint Core Strategy 2013.

Land has already been developed in this area for employment uses, with the adjoining sites at Fulcrum 1, 2, 4 and 5 (to the south and east of the application site) having already been developed for employment use. In addition, land to the immediate west of the application site is a designated employment allocation, Solent 2, within the Fareham Local Plan Part 2.

As the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 recognises, the employment floorspace requirements within Winchester district are substantial and are largely based on existing commitments at Solent Business park (comprised of Solent 1 and Solent 2). Ad such the application site forms an important part of the District’s, and the South Hampshire sub-region’s employment land supply which should be retained. Furthermore, the Council would not want future housing on this site causing a constraint against future employment uses coming forward on the Solent 2 allocated site in Fareham Borough.

RECOMMEND

RAISE OBJECTION

a)    The proposed development would result in the loss of land allocated for economic development uses and would therefore have an unacceptable adverse impact on the supply of employment land within the South Hampshire sub-region;

b)    The proposed development would constrain the future development of the adjacent land within Fareham Borough for economic development uses and would therefore have an unacceptable adverse impact on the supply of employment land within the Borough and the South Hampshire sub-region.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to Raise Objection, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that Fareham Borough Council RAISE OBJECTION, in regards to the following reasons:

a)    The proposed development would result in the loss of land allocated for economic development uses and would therefore have an unacceptable adverse impact on the supply of employment land within the South Hampshire sub-region;

b)    The proposed development would constrain the future development of the adjacent land within Fareham Borough for economic development uses and would therefore have an unacceptable adverse impact on the supply of employment land within the Borough and the South Hampshire sub-region.

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

The comments of the Council’s Highway Engineer:

This proposal is to erect a discount food store on the south side of the Rookery Avenue/Solent Way roundabout within Winchester City Council’s area. Access is proposed from an existing bellmouth junction off Solent Way and a satisfactory total of 120 car parking spaces is proposed.

A Transport Assessment has been carried out from which it is calculated that peek hour traffic demand is expected, at worse, to be not significantly more than the allocated, business/employment use. When transferred/pass-by factors are taken into account, the actual ‘new’ traffic anticipated, that would affect this Borough’s roads is expected to be minimal. Consequently no highway objection is raised to this application.

Members will note the update relating to the report, N/17/0001. The site subject of this application also forms part of the designated employment area known as Solent 2 within the Winchester District Local Plan. The proposed use would generate employment and the site is on the edge of the allocation where it would not cause a constraint against future employment uses coming forward on the wider employment area.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Winchester City Council be advised that Fareham Borough Council RAISE NO OBJECTION to the application as currently proposed.

The Committee agreed that it was not opposed to the application but asked Officers to advise Winchester City Council, that from experience of the newly opened Lidl store in Portchester, if they are minded to grant permission and the proposal in Whiteley warrants any off site highway works, it is suggested they are carried out before the store opens. The delay in the completion of the highway improvements at the Portchester store have resulted in traffic congestion on the neighbouring roads at certain times. Furthermore, it is clear that at certain times the 120 space car park is not sufficient to serve the number of customers visiting the store.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to Raise No Objection, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that NO OBJECTION be RAISED.

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:- the table demonstrating the five year land supply position is appended to this update report (Appendix 1).

The applicant has submitted a Dormouse Mitigation Strategy and Reptile Mitigation Strategy. The County Ecologist has advised that, although the documents provide useful additional information, there are still outstanding ecological issues which have not been fully addressed and therefore the recommendation that further information is require has not changed. For that reason the case officer’s recommendation and suggested reasons for refusal set out in the main report remain unchanged.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer’s 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, CS14, CS17 & CS18 of the Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy 2011 and Polices DSP6, DSP13, DSP15 & DSP50 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies Plan and is unacceptable in that:

(a)  the proposal represents development outside the defined urban settlement boundary for which there is no justification or overriding need and would adversely affect its landscape character, appearance and function;

(b)  the site is not capable of accommodating 22 dwellings without resulting in an unacceptable, cramped layout which would be harmful to the appearance and character of the area and the living conditions of future residents;

(c)  the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed means of access into the site can be implemented to the satisfaction of the highway authority without harming trees located on adjacent land;

(d)  the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would not harm protected species and their associated habitats, adjacent designated sites and sites of nature conservation value or result in the fragmentation of the biodiversity network;

(e)  in the absence of a financial contribution or 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 Protection Areas;

(f)   had it not been for the overriding reasons for refusal the Council would have sought the means to secure a financial contribution towards amending the existing traffic regulation order (TRO) on Rookery Avenue in order to ensure the safe means of access into the site;

(g)  had it not been for the overriding reasons for refusal the Council would have sought to secure the transfer if the land edged in blue on the submitted location plan to the Council’s ownership in order to safeguard the land required for the remaining section of Rookery Avenue linking to the Whiteley Area Distributor Road to Botley Road;

(h)  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.

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 e – h of the above by the applicant entering into legal agreement with Fareham Borough Council.

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

Councillor T M Cartwright declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as one of the deputees is known to him.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which contained the following information:- A Construction Environmental Management Strategy (CEMS) has been received. Amend condition 11 as follows;

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Environmental Management Strategy (CEMS). The specified areas shall be made available for their respective purposes and protective fencing shall be erected as shown prior to the commencement of development and shall be retained for the duration of the construction period unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Wheel washing facilities are indicated on the SEMS at the entrance to the site. Delete condition 8.

Amend condition 2 to include CEMS and additional landscaping plan/revised planting schedule;

-       Construction Environmental Management Strategy (Site Set-Up) – drwg No 4000C

-       Planting Plan Sheet 8: Areas 17 and 18

-       Plant Schedule 8 February 2017

Amend condition 6 to include Planting Plan Sheet 8 and amend date of Plant Schedule.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to:-

(a)  The conditions in the report (so far as they remain unamended by the following points below);

(b)  The amended conditions in the Update Report (so far as they remain unamended by the following points below);

(c)  Condition 3 to be amended to state that the brick material used in construction must be a multi blend red brick, to ensure that the property is in keeping with the local area;

(d)  The replacement of Condition 6 with a condition stating that no building works shall take place above damp proof course level until a revised landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

The Committee resolved that the details submitted by the applicant pursuant to Condition 6 would be determined by the Planning Committee and would not be delegated to Officers.

(e)  An additional condition stating that there shall be no burning of materials from site clearance or construction on site;

(f)   An additional condition stating that, notwithstanding Class E of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 no alterations or extensions shall be carried out to the garage buildings hereby permitted.

Was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to:-

(a)  The conditions in the report (so far as they remain unamended by the following points below);

(b)  The amended conditions in the Update Report (so far as they remain unamended by the following points below);

(c)  Condition 3 to be amended to state that the brick material used in construction must be a multi-blend red brick, to ensure that the property is in keeping with the local area;

(d)  The replacement of Condition 6 with a condition stating that no building works shall take place above damp proof course level until a revised landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

Approval of detail(s) submitted pursuant to condition 6 shall be determined by the Planning Committee and not Delegated to Officers.

(e)  An additional condition stating that there shall be no burning of materials from site clearance or construction on site;

(f)   An additional condition stating that, notwithstanding Class E of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 no alterations or extensions shall be carried out to the garage buildings hereby permitted.

PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

Councillors T M Cartwright declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he is the Chairman of the Daedalus Working Group and the Daedalus Anniversary Working Group.

Councillor M J Ford, JP declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he is a member of the Daedalus Working Group and the Daedalus Anniversary Working Group.

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.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report, and an additional condition requiring the extension to be used only as part of the main house or for incidental or ancillary use to the residential use of the main dwelling, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that subject to, the conditions in the report and an additional condition requiring the extension to be used only as part of the main house or for incidental or ancillary use to the residential use of the main dwelling, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

The Committee noted the information in the report.

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

To consider the confirmation of the following Tree Preservation Order(s), which have been made by officers under delegated powers and to which no formal objections have been received.

Fareham Borough Tree Preservation order No. 729 (2016) – Glen Acres and land South of Inwood House, Holly Hill Lane, Sarisbury.

Order served on 17 November 2016 for which there were no objections. It is recommended that Fareham Tree Preservation Order No. 729 be confirmed as made and served.

TPO 729 replaces TPO 708 – Glen Acres, Holly Hill Lane, Sarisbury made on 27 May 2016. It is recommended that Fareham Tree Preservation Order No.708 is not confirmed.

The confirmation of TPO 729 completes the review of Holly Hill Lane and is recommended that FTPO 2015, FTPO 217, FTPO 227, HTPO189 and HTPO197 are revoked as all trees worthy of protection have been included in new Orders.

The Committee considered the confirmation of the following Fareham Tree Preservation Order(s), which had been made under delegated powers and to which no formal objection had been received.

Fareham Borough Tree Preservation Order No. 729 (2016) – Glen Acres and land South of Inwood House, Holly Hill Lane, Sarisbury.

Order served on 17 November 2016 for which there were no objections.

RESOLVED that Fareham TPO 729 is confirmed as made and served.

The confirmation of TPO 729 completes the review of Holly Hill Lane and is recommended that FTPO 215, FTPO 217, FTPO 227, HTPO 189 and HTPO 197 are revoked as all trees worthy of protection have been included in new Orders.

To consider a report by the Director of Planning and Regulation regarding Tree Preservation Order No’s 730 and 733.

Tree Preservation Order No 730, to which there were objections received is proposed to be revoked, and will be replaced with Tree Preservation Order No 733 to which there have been no objections.

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Planning and Regulation regarding Tree Preservation Order No 730, to which there were objections received, and Tree Preservation Order No 733, to which no objections have been received.

RESOLVED that:-

(a)  Tree Preservation Order 733 is confirmed as made and served; and

(b)  Tree Preservation Order 730 is revoked.