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 13 October 2021.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 13 October 2021 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 Councillor Miss J Bull declared a personal interest in items 6(3) – Land to the South of Funtley Road, and 6(4) – Land South of Funtley Road as the land owner is known to her.

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 Planning and Regeneration on the development control matters, including information regarding new appeals and decisions.

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: -

Updated Transport Statement

The applicant’s Transport Statement was updated to amend an inconsistency in the figures and confirms that the proposed unit would result in 19 additional members of staff which is anticipated to result in 16 staff driving to work.

Updated Representation

An updated representation was submitted raising the following issues:

·       During our 16 years as tenants there has never been an employer of 15 staff since the re-development of Eastlands in 2004

·       There hasn’t been a designated Trade Counter in Eastlands since 2016. Passing Trade is negligible / to zero due to the location.

·       The designated Car Park holds approx. 38 / 40 spaces on very rare occasions this would be full this would include visitors / boat owners leaving.

·       Vehicles within the parking area and Trade vehicles belonging to business based within the yard.

·       The businesses at the Boatyard had intermittent starting times ranging 6.30am through to 9.30am and 4pm through to 7pm.

·       Andean Sign did provide services for small / medium commercial vehicles  alongside its significant marine related trade.

·       Andean Sign did work in HGV type vehicles, however it is incorrect to state that a number of HGV’s were on site at any given time.

·       The Transport Statement makes no reference to sub-contractors’ vehicle numbers.

Updated Consultee Response from Hampshire County Council Highways

The highways response was based on an independent analysis undertaken by HCC of the anticipated trip generation with reference to the TRICS database not on the anticipated figures provided by the applicant with their Transport Statement. HCC Highways therefore raise ‘no objection’ to the proposed building.

Agent’s Response to the Objection

·       Public information available from Companies House confirms that Logistical Building Services (Electrical) Limited of Unit 4 employed 20 people in 2020 and 21 people in 2019.

·       Unit’s 5 (Key Blades and Fixings), 7 (Covec) and 13 (BBMS) all had trade counters. These counters were of a specialist nature and therefore didn’t rely on ‘passing trade’.

·       The industrial area car park at Eastlands Boatyard has 37 marked spaces. This was regularly 80-90% full even during the height of lockdown in 2020. An aerial photo provided taken on the 29^th June 2020 during lockdown shows 6 large commercial vehicles parked within the site which were clients of Andean Signs.

·       Pascoe International operates a flexible working policy therefore staff arrivals and departures would be staggered.

·       The Transport Statement includes reference to sub-contractors’ vehicles.

·       The proposed redevelopment would result in a decrease in traffic to and from the site compared to the previous use of the site by multiple businesses.

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, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting; 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

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

The Committee also received a written statement on behalf of Councillors Mrs P M Bryant and Mrs L Clubley which was read out by the Committee Officer.

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

Reference is made in the Officer report to local bus service (route no. 20) having been rerouted so it does not pass through Funtley village.

Officers at Hampshire County Council (HCC) have confirmed that the reason for the bus service being routed in the first place was due to Mayles Lane (between Funtley and Knowle) being a private road and payment being required to the landowner to use the road. Prior to 2020 no fee was payable.

The Passenger Transport team at HCC has been able to secure funding for the 2021/2022 budget year. As a result the no. 20 bus has reverted to its normal route passing through Funtley. This update to the service was announced by First Bus through its Twitter account on 7^th October 2021 and the information on the bus company website now confirms this arrangement.

According to the published timetable, the no. 20 bus service operates Monday to Friday approximately every 70 minutes between Wickham and Fareham. The service starts at 0725 hours (from Wickham) and 0920 (from Fareham) until early evening (last bus arrives in Wickham at 1757 hours and in Fareham at 1729 hours). The buses start later and finish earlier on Saturdays and do not run at all on Sundays.

HCC have confirmed that funding for the 2022/23 financial year is currently being investigated.

Councillor Miss J Bull declared a personal interest in this item as the landowner is known to her.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation that, subject to final comments being received from the highway authority (Hampshire County Council) and authority being delegated to the Head of Development Management to include any additional submissions to the Planning Inspector considered appropriate taking into account those comments, and had members been able to determine the planning application they would have resolved to refuse permission, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 7 in favour; 2 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to final comments being received from the highway authority (Hampshire County Council) and authority being delegated to the Head of Development Management to include any additional submissions to the Planning Inspector considered appropriate taking into account those comments, and had members been able to determine the planning application, they would have resolved to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION.

Reasons for Refusal

The development would be contrary to Policies CS2, CS4, CS5, CS6, CS14, CS16, CS17, CS18, CS20 and CS21 of the Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy 2011 and Polices DSP6, DSP13, DSP15 & DSP40 of the Adopted Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies Plan, paragraphs 130 and 174 of the NPPF and is unacceptable in that:

a)    The proposed development is not sensitively designed to reflect the character of the neighbouring settlement of Funtley and fails to respond positively to ad be respectful of the key characteristics of the area harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside;

b)    The proposal would not be sustainably located;

c)     The proposal would have likely adverse effects on the integrity of European Protected Sites in combination with other developments due to the additional generation of nutrients entering the water environment and lack of appropriately secured mitigation;

d)    In the absence of a legal agreement to secure such, the proposal fails to appropriately secure mitigation of the likely adverse effects on the integrity of European Protected Sites which, in combination with other developments, would arise due to the impacts of recreational disturbance;

e)    In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the provision of open space and facilities and contributions toward the 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 make on-site provision of affordable housing at a level in accordance with the requirements of the local plan;

g)    In the absence of a legal agreement to secure contributions to education, the needs of residents of the proposed development would not be met;

h)    In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the submission and implementation of a full Travel Plan, payment of the Travel Plan approval and monitoring fees and the provision of a surety mechanism to ensure implementation of the Travel Plan, the proposed development would not make the necessary provision to ensure measures are in place to assist in reducing the dependency on the use of the private motorcar.

Notes 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) – i) 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 Officer read out a statement on behalf of Councillors Mrs P Bryant and Mrs L Clubley.

Councillor Miss J Bull declared a personal interest in this item as the landowner is known to her.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation that, had members been able to determine the planning application they would have resolved to grant planning permission, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, had members been able to determine the planning application, they would have GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION, subject to the conditions in the report.

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

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: 7 in favour; 2 against)

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

The Committee noted the information in the report.

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