Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor’s K D Evans and Mrs K Mandry.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 24 April 2019.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 24 April 2019 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 Councillors declared the following interest on the items identified.

Councillor T M Cartwright declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 6 (1) – Land Adjacent to 125 Greenaway Lane, Warsash as he had previously expressed his opinion on this application. He left the room after making a representation as Ward Councillor and took no part in the discussion or vote on this item in order to avoid any pre-determination issues.

Councillor R H Price declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 6 (1) – land Adjacent to 125 Greenaway Lane as the deputee is known to him.

Councillor T M Cartwright declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 6 (2) – Warsash Maritime Academy, Newtown Road as he is a member of the Management Committee for Warsash Sea Cadets who use this facility.

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 development control matters, including information regarding new planning appeals and decisions.

The Committee noted a report by the Director of Planning and Regeneration on development control matters, including information regarding new appeals and decisions.

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

Councillor T M Cartwright declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he has previously expressed his opinion on this application. He left the room after making a representation as Ward Councillor and he took no part in the discussion or vote on this item in order to avoid any pre-determination issues.

Councillor R H Price declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as the deputee is known to him.

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

Further comments from Hampshire County Council Highways received:

·         Larger vehicles passing on Greenaway Lane – Tracking has been undertaken by the applicant, shown in drawing numbers ITB13162-GA-012 Rev A, ITB13162-GA-021 and ITB13162-GA-018. These drawings show a 7.5t box van, super large refuse and estate car, the most regular users of the lane, safely routing along Greenaway Lane. To further back up the tracking drawings, two 7-day, 24 hour AYC surveys were undertaken on Greenaway Lane. A validation exercise was carried out for this data by cross referencing video footage against the ATC results to ensure the results corroborated with each other. The survey work confirmed that there was a limited number of LGV movements and very limited HGV movements during the survey period. The chance of interaction between a larger vehicle and family car is therefore low and one that can be accommodated within the current confines of the carriageway. The Highway Authority have secured funding as part of the application to close the existing access to Greenaway Lane, should permission be granted for planning reference P/18/0107/OA, which will further reduce the number of larger vehicles routing via Greenaway Lane to the Vero site to the east.

·         Greenaway Lane/Brook Lane junction visibility – Visibility at the Greenaway Lane/Brook Lane has been based upon measured speeds on Brook Lane. 85^th percentile speeds of 36.7 mph requires the visibility splays to be demonstrated to 57m. To achieve visibility splays of 2.4m x 57m, vegetation that is overhanging into the highway needs to be removed – this is a matter that is within the Highway Authority’s control, is being pursued and will be resolved prior to the commencement of any development.

·         Preference for access to the south, through the Land & Partners development – The new vehicular access onto Greenaway Lane has been reviewed and is considered acceptable by the Highway Authority to accommodate the proposed level of development. However, it is understood that as part of the wider master planning for the Warsash Cluster, Fareham Borough Council want to maintain Greenaway Lane as a ‘green corridor’, therefore providing permanent access through the Land & Partners development site to the south. Provision of this link should be investigated further during reserved matters applications for both of the sites.

·         Further clarity regarding the impact of the additional traffic on Greenaway Lane and the cumulative impact of development within Warsash Village and local roads – Within the Transport Assessment, key junctions in the local area have been assessed with the full 800 dwelling allocation for the Warsash Cluster in the previous emerging local plan; the application on Greenaway Lane featured within the 800 dwelling scenario. The modelling work undertaken identified the following junctions to be operating close to or at capacity in the future years scenarios (following the addition of development traffic): Brook Lane/Barnes Lane, A27/Barnes Lane, A27/Brook Lane/Station Road roundabout. To mitigate against the impact of development implementation, return the junctions to within operational capacity. Proportional contributions  are being secured from each application within the cluster to fund the identified improvement schemes.

A further third party comment has been received from ‘Save Warsash and the

Western wards’, which includes traffic survey and photographs. This has been added to the website.

A motion was proposed and seconded, that had members had the opportunity to determine this application, planning permission would have been refused for the following reasons:

  (i).        the reasons set out in the officers report;

 (ii).        that Greenaway Lane is an inappropriate access for the proposed site due to:

a.    the change in the character of the area that it would cause; and

b.    the width of the highway up to the junction not being suitable for the increased traffic that the development will create.

And was voted on and LOST.

(Voting: 3 in favour; 5 against)

A motion was proposed and seconded that, had members had the opportunity

to determine this application, planning permission would have been refused for

 the reasons set out in the officer’s report only and was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, had members had the opportunity to determine this

Application, PLANNING PERMISSION would have been REFUSED for the

following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal

The application is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Core

Strategy Policy CS4, Green Infrastructure, Biodiversity and Geological

Conservation, Policy DSP14 Nature Conservation of Local Plan Part 2 and

Policy DSP40 (v) and is unacceptable in that:

  (i).        The proposal would have likely significant effects upon European Protected Sites in combination with other developments due to the adverse effects of increased waste water;

 (ii).        There is uncertainly in respect of the impact of increased emissions from traffic associated with this development in combination with other developments upon designated European Protected Sites;

(iii).        The Planning Inspectorate should further be advised that had the impacts upon the European sites been satisfactorily mitigated and had planning permission been granted, the Local Planning Authority would have first sought a Section 106 planning obligation to secure the following:

a)    Provision and transfer of the areas of open space to Fareham Borough Council, including associated financial contributions for its future maintenance;

b)    A financial contribution towards the delivery of a play area and associated maintenance;

c)    A financial contribution towards the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership (SRMP);

d)    40% of the proposed units as om-site affordable housing including the Local Housing Affordability cap; the type, size, mix and tenure to be agreed to the satisfaction of officers;

e)    Vehicular, pedestrian and cycle connectivity access to adjoining land for contribution towards the maintenance and associated lighting of the pedestrian and cycle link;

f)     A downgrade of the proposed Greenaway Lane access if an alternative access route to the south of the site can be secured subject to there being sufficient specification and capacity and agreement of the Highway Authority;

g)    A financial contribution towards education provision;

h)    A financial contribution towards highway impacts at the following junctions’ A27/Barnes Lane Barnes Lane/Brook Lane, A27/Station Road roundabout;

i)     A Travel Plan and related monitoring cost and bond; and

j)     A sustainable travel contribution to be used towards offsite improvements.

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:-

Officers note that there is an error in the wording and formatting of paragraph 8.31 of the main report. That paragraph in its entirety is revised to read as follows:

8.31 This report assesses the proposed development against the policies of the adopted local plan. Officers have found the proposal to comply with the principal policy relating to development of educational facilities outside of the defined urban settlement boundaries (Policy DSP10) as well as other local plan policies which have similar effect.

The proposal would have very limited material harm which overall would not unacceptably affect the character or appearance of the countryside, would have no unacceptable implications in terms of flood risk or surface water drainage, makes adequate parking provision and does not result in significant loss of trees. Protected species, their habitat and adjacent designated sites would not be adversely affected and the amenity of neighbours nor materially harmed. The scheme achieves BREEAM ‘very good’ standard instead of ‘excellent’ but this is considered acceptable given the justification provided by the applicant.

The applicant has submitted revised drawings to satisfy point c) of the Officer recommendation and has asked that Members delegate to Officers the ability to make minor revisions to the suggested conditions in the report.

The Office recommendation at paragraph 9.1 of the main report is revised accordingly to read as follows:

9.1     GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to:

a)    Further consultation response from the Environment Agency raising no objection to revised proposal and the imposition of any additional planning conditions Officers consider necessary in light of that response;

b)    Further consultation response from Hampshire County council flood and water management team raising no objection to the revised proposal and the imposition of any additional planning conditions Officers consider necessary in light of that response;

c)    Delegate to the Head of Development Management to make any minor modifications to the proposed conditions arising out of detailed negotiations with the applicant;

d)    The proposed conditions listed a paragraph 9.1 of the main report and the following additional condition:

a)    PP-07299370_Plan 10077316-DEA-ST-ZZ-DR-A-3601 East and North Planning Elevations – Warsash Maritime Academy

b)    PP-07299370_Plan 10077315-DEA-ST-ZZ-DR-A-3611 South and West Planning Elevations – Warsash Maritime Academy

c)    Site Elevations –  East – 10077315-DEA-SW-DR-A-3510 Rev P04 – received 11^th July 2019

d)    Site Elevations - North – 10077315-DEA-SW-XX-DR-A-3500 Rev P04 – received 11^th July 2019

e)    Site Elevations – South – 10077315-DEA-SW-XX-DR-A-3520 Rev P04 – received 11^th July 2019

f)      Site Elevations – West – 10077315-DEA-SW-XX-DR-A-3520 Rev P04 – received 11^th July 2019

g)    PP-07299370_Plan 10077315-DEA-ST-00-DR-A-1251 Ground Floor GA Planning Plan – Warsash Maritime Academy

h)    PP-07299370_Plan 10077315-DEA-ST-01-DR-A-2152 First Floor GA Planning Plan – Warsash Maritime Academy

i)      PP-07299370_Plan 10077315-DEA-ST-01-DR-2153 First Floor GA Planning Plan – Warsash Maritime Academy

j)      PP-07299370_Plan 10077315-DEA-ST-02-DR-A-2154 Roof GA Planning Plan – Warsash Maritime Academy

k)    PP-07299370_Plan 10077315-DEA-ST-02-DR-A-2155 Roof GA Planning Plan – Warsash Maritime Academy

l)      PP-07299370_Plan – 10077315-S1 DEA-ST-DR-A-2150 Ground Floor GA Planning Plan – Warsash Maritime Academy

m)  Site Plan – Proposed – 10077315-DEA-SW-XX-DR-A-1501 REV P03 – received 11^th July 2019

n)    PP-07299370_Location Plan – Planning Application – Warsash Maritime Academy Warsash

o)    PP-07299370_ECOLOGY – Bat Survey and Great Crested Newt eDNA Report – Warsash Maritime Academy Warsash

p)    PP-07299370-ECOLOGY – Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancements – Warsash Maritime Academy

q)    PP-07299370_ECOLOGY – Great Crested Newt Survey Justification Statement – Warsash Maritime Academy

r)     PP-07299370_ECOLOGY – Invasion Non-Native Species Site Assessment and Management Plan – Warsash Maritime Academy

s)    PP-07299370_ECOLOGY – Landscape and Ecology Management Plan – Warsash Maritime Academy

t)      PP-07299370_ECOLOGY – Preliminary Ecology Appraisal – Warsash Maritime Academy

u)    PP-07299370_ECOLOGY – Reptile Mitigation Strategy – Warsash Maritime Academy

v)    ECOLOGY – Supplementary Ecological Information – EcoSupport – Warsash Maritime Academy

w)   PP-07299370_Tree Plan for Council – Lower Site 12277 – BT6 – Warsash Maritime Academy Warsash

x)    Arboricultural Impact Assessment incl Tree Protection Plan – Warsash Maritime Academy

y)    Manual for Managing Trees on Development Sites – Warsash Maritime Academy

z)    Tree Survey – Warsash Maritime Academy

REASON: To avoid any doubt over what has been permitted.

Councillor T M Cartwright declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 6 (2) – Warsash Maritime Academy, Newtown Road as he is a member of the Management Committee for Warsash Sea Cadets who use this facility.

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

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report and update 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 planning permission, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED

Reasons for Refusal

1).  The tarmac surfacing material is considered inappropriate for this informal rustic rural setting, failing to preserve and substantially harming the historic significance of the setting of the Grade I Listed Barn and the Titchfield Abbey Conservation Area contrary to Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy and Policy DSP5 of the Local Plan Part 2.

2).  The decision is made in accordance with the following plans:

Site location plan – F/362/ID/001

Block plan – F/362/ID/002

Following the decision to refuse planning permission, Members requested that officers commence formal enforcement action as soon as possible.

The Committee noted the information in the report.

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