Agenda and minutes

An apology of absence was received from Councillor M J Ford, JP.

The Chairman welcomed students from Cams Hill and Wicor Primary School to the 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, Councillor R H Price, JP declared a personal non-pecuniary interest in Minute 5 – Planning Application P/15/0260/OA – Land North of Cranleigh Road / West of Wicor Primary School Portchester.

To receive any deputations of which notice has been lodged.

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

PLANNING APPLICATION  P/15/0260/OA – LAND NORTH OF CRANLEIGH ROAD/WEST OF WICOR PRIMARY SCHOOL PORTCHESTER FAREHAM.

Outline planning permission with all matters reserved (expect for access), for residential development for up to 120 dwellings, together with a new vehicle access from Cranleigh Road, public open space including a locally equipped are of play (LEAP), pedestrian links to public open space, surface water drainage and landscaping.

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Planning and Regulation on Planning Application P/15/0260/OA – Land North of Cranleigh Road / West of Wicor Primary School Portchester.

The Committee received the deputations referred to in Minute 4 above.

At the Invitation of the Chairman Councillors; Miss Bell, Fazackarley and Norris addressed the Committee on this item.

Councillor R H Price declared a personal non-pecuniary interest in this item as he lives near to the proposed site. He remained in the room and took part in the discussion and vote.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which contained the following information:- One further objection received raising the same concerns as set out in the Committee report.

For Members information below is the Council’s 5 Year Land Supply table.

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, CS11, CS14, CS16, CS17, CS18, CS20 and CS21 of the Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy 2011 and DSP6, DSP13 and DSP15 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Polices 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. The erection of up to 120 dwellings and their associated infrastructure upon this site would result in the loss this open, undeveloped area of land which would be harmful to the character of area;

(b) the proposal would result in the loss of Grade 1 and Grade 2 agricultural land;

(c) 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 Special Protection Areas;

(d) in the absence of a legal agreement securing a ‘Travel Plan’, the proposed development would not make the necessary provision to ensure ‘reduce and manage measures’ are in place to assist in reducing the dependency on the use of the private motorcar;

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

(f) had it not been for the overriding reasons for refusal the Council would have sought an Ecological Construction Management Plan and Ecological Management Plan to ensure that all protected species are taken into account during and after construction. These would include alternative provision for habitats and future management and maintenance arrangements.

(g) had it not been for the overriding reasons for refusal the Council would have sought details of the SuDS strategy including the mechanism for securing its long-term maintenance.

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 – e of the above by the applicant entering into legal agreements with Fareham Borough Council and Hampshire County Council.

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