Agenda and minutes

An apology of absence was received from Councillor F Birkett.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 20 February 2019.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 20 February 2019 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.

There were declarations of interest made at this meeting.

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 Regeneration on a update on the Council’s 5 Year Housing Land Supply Position.

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Planning and Regeneration which provided an update 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; and

 (ii).        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.

To consider a report by the Director of Planning and Regeneration 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 T Woodward, addressed the Committee on this item.

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

Two further comments have been received raising the following additional issues:

·         The traffic information is spurious and bias;

·         HGV’s have been witnessed waiting in New Road and on Swanwick Lane from 0600;

·         Does Swanwick Lane have a weight limit relating to the railway and motorway bridge;

·         Limited evidence has been provided;

·         There is no reason to believe conditions will be adhered to and the application should be refused;

·         Why should residents subsidise the business activities?

One comment has been received in response to the Officer report and traffic movement date:

·         The report does not assess the impact of the site at its future full capacity on both traffic, noise, pollution and other environmental effects;

·         Applicant’s data has not been validated; the views of local residents should be taken into account; resident’s data far exceeds that submitted by the applicant;

·         The report does not include and address all objections raised. For example, storing wood inside a wooden building is a fire risk;

·         Policy consideration is limited; the proposal fails DSP9;

·         Delivery and use of metalwork has never had planning permission and should be permitted;

·         No account is taken on ongoing and long-standing non-compliance with planning conditions; it is unlikely the applicant will comply with the suggested conditions;

·         If permitted further conditions should be imposed: all restrictive conditions relating to the rest of the site, traffic movements should be limited, shaded area in north east corner should be physically separated, power tools to be used only inside a secondary structure, no retail supply nor direct trade supply outside the Borderland group, no lights on site after 5pm or before 8am, whether inside or outside buildings, no use of surrounding land or buildings, acoustic boarding over the gable end of both north and south elevations, sound over the insulated roof, adequate fire suppression and erection of traffic signage in New Road.

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

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for Refusal:

The development is contrary to Policies DSP2 & DSP9 of the adopted Fareham Borough Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies and is unacceptable in that the use of the glasshouse building has allowed the use of the adjoining land to the north to expand and intensify outside of the defined urban settlement boundary by increasing its storage and manufacturing capacity. This increase has had a material effect, both on its own and cumulatively, on the number of lorry and HGV movements using New Road, a private street, causing increased noise and vibration harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring residents.

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

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, CS6, CS14 CS17 and CS20 of the Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy 2011 and Policies DSP1, DSP2, DSP3, DSP6, DSP13, DSP15 and DSP40 of the Adopted Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies Plan, and is unacceptable in that:

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

    ii.        The introduction of dwellings in this location would fail to respond positively to and be respectful of the key characteristics of the area, particularly its predominantly undeveloped, backland location, which would be out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the area;

   iii.        The access arrangements and layout of the proposed development would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the living conditions of the existing occupiers as a result of noise and pollution disturbance due to the proximity of and increased activity in relation to existing habitable rooms in the surrounding residential properties;

   iv.        The development would result in an unacceptable impact from overlooking and lack of privacy for future occupiers due to the proximity of neighbouring first floor windows;

    v.        Insufficient information has been provided to adequately demonstrate that no harm would be caused to features of ecological importance on and surrounding the site and protected species; and

   vi.        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 and Southampton Waters Special Protection Area and the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to grant consent, 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, CONSENT be granted.

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

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

(Voting: 8 in favour; 1 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

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: 8 in favour; 1 against)

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

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

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

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

The Officer recommendation is revised to insert the following wording into draft Condition 7:

“The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP.”

A motion was proposed and seconded to refuse the application, and was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 6 in favour; 3 against)

Following the vote, it became apparent from members’ discussions that there had been some confusion with regard to the reasons for refusal upon which the voted had been based.

A second motion to refuse the application was proposed and seconded, and was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 5 in favour; 3 against)

Councillor P J Davies left the room after the first vote on the application and was not present for the discussions that followed the first vote or for the second vote.

RESOLVED that the PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for Refusal

The development would be contrary to Policies CS5 of the adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy 2011 and Policy DSP40 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies Plan and is unacceptable in that:

(a)  The proposal would result in a material increase in pedestrian movements along Down End Road across the road bridge over the railway line. The works to the bridge as shown on drawing no. ITB12212-GA-003 Rev B (titled “virtual footway proposal”) and the works to the bridge as shown on drawing no. ITB12212-GA-004 Rev B (titled “reduced width formal footway”) would provide inadequate footway provision to ensure the safety of pedestrians using the bridge and other highway users. The works to the bridge as shown on drawing no. ITB12212-GA-011 Rev B (titled “priority shuttle working”) would result in unacceptable harm to the safety and convenience of users of the highway.

(b)  The application site is not sustainably located in terms of access to local services and facilities.

Councillor P J Davies had left the meeting before the consideration of this item and therefore took no part in the discussions or vote on this item.

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

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation for part consent and part refusal was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, PART CONSENT/PART REFUSE be granted as follows:

CONSENT:

Three Norway maple trees and three horse chestnut trees – Crown lift to 3 metres above ground level. (subject to the conditions in the report).

REFUSE:

One willow & one Norway maple trees – Fell to ground level.

Three Norway maple and three horse chestnut trees – Crown thin by 20%.

Reason for Refusal

On the basis of the submitted arboricultural evidence, the Local Planning Authority considers that the felling of these two trees is not justified, and that the crown thinning represents poor arboricultural practice contrary to the British standards BS3998: Tree Work – Recommendations. The proposed works would therefore be harmful to the visual amenity of the area and the thinning works would further be harmful to the health of the trees.

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 Tree Preservation Order No. 757 2019 – 6 Ilex Crescent, Locks Heath.

Order served on 11 January 2019 for which no objections have been received. It is recommended that Fareham Tree Preservation Order No. 757 be confirmed as made and served. Should confirmed of this order be approved, it is proposed to revoke Fareham Tree Preservation Order No. 756 which covers the same tree.

Fareham Tree Preservation Order No. 758 2019 – Land North of Addison Road, Park Gate.

Order served on 25 January 2019 which covers fourteen individual trees and for which no objections have been received. It is recommended that Fareham Tree Preservation Order No. 758 be confirmed as made and served.

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

Fareham Tree Preservation Order No. 757 2019 – 6 Ilex Crescent, Locks Heath.

Order served on 11 January 2019 for which there were no objections.

RESOLVED that the Fareham TPO 757 is confirmed as made and served.

Note for Information:

Following the confirmation of TPO 757, it was agreed that Fareham TPO 756, which covers the same tree, be revoked.

Fareham Tree Preservation Order 758 2019 – Land North of Addison Road, Park Gate.

Order served on 25 January 2019 for which there were no objections.

RESOLVED that Fareham TPO 758 be confirmed as made and served.