Agenda and minutes

Apologies of absence were received from Councillors M J Ford, JP, S Ingram and Mrs S M Walker.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 15 June 2022.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 15 June 2022 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 N J Walker declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in item 6(2) – Turret House, Hospital Lane in that he is the landowner. He left the room at the start of the item and was not present for the debate or vote on the application.

Councillors I Bastable, Miss J Bull, D G Foot, Mrs C L A Hockley, P Nother and S Dugan declared a Personal Interest in Item 6(2) – Turret House, Hospital Lane as the Landowner, Councillor N J Walker, is known to them.

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 the development control matters.

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

Five Year Housing Land Supply Position (as at 1^st Jul 2022)

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: -

1.     Members will be aware of the updated Five Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) position published on this same Update report. The current position is that the Council is able to demonstrate a 5.01 year supply of land for housing.

2.     At the time of publishing the main report on the application for land south of 79 Greenaway Lane, Officers accepted that the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites (paragraph 8.2). the report considers the various planning matters and accordingly, in the absence of a five year housing land supply, applies Policy DSP40 which is engaged as a result (paragraphs 8.27-8.60). Those parts of the report no longer apply if the Council can demonstrate a 5YHLS.

3.     Members’ attention is drawn to part H) of the report (paragraph 8.72) of the main report which was written to provide an alternative conclusion in the event that the Council was able to demonstrate a 5YHLS. It concludes that in the event that the Council achieves a 5YHLS, the Officer recommendation would remain to grant planning permission notwithstanding the fact that Policy DSP40 is no longer engaged. The recommendation therefore remains that planning permission is granted.

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

(i)              Delegation being given to the Head of Development management in consultation with the Solicitor to the Council to complete a s106 agreement to secure:

a)    A financial contribution to secure satisfactory mitigation of the ‘in combination’ effects that the increase in residential units on the site would cause through increased recreational disturbance on the Solent Coastal Special Protection Areas;

b)    A financial equivalent to the value of 40% of on-site affordable housing towards off-site provision;

c)     Pedestrian and Cycle Connectivity to the east and west;

d)    The creation and retention of ecology buffers on the site prior to occupation of any dwelling;

e)    The creation of a management company to monitor and manage the ecology buffers for the lifetime of the development;

f)      The creation of a management company to monitor and manage the wildflower meadow for the lifetime of the development (in the event that the land is not offered to the Council for adoption;

g)    Mechanism for securing appropriate funding of the management company for the life time of the development;

h)    Mechanism for ensuring collection and enforcement of the funding stream provided in f) above to fund the monitoring and management of the communal areas of the development for the lifetime of the development; and

i)       Commuted sums towards management of the open space and any trees within the open space in the event that the public spaces are adopted by the Council; and

(ii)             The conditions in the report.

Was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 7 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to: -

(i)              Delegation be given to the Head of Development Management, in consultation with the Solicitor to the Council to complete a s106 agreement to secure:

(a)  A financial contribution to secure satisfactory mitigation of the ‘in combination’ effects that the increase in residential units on the site would cause through increased recreational disturbance on the Solent Coastal Special Protection Areas;

(b)  A financial contribution equivalent to the value of 40% of on-site affordable housing towards off-site provision;

(c)   Pedestrian and Cycle Connectivity to the east and west;

(d)  The creation and retention of ecology buffers on the site prior to occupation of any dwelling;

(e)  The creation of a management company to monitor and manage the ecology buffers for the lifetime of the development;

(f)    The creation of a management company to monitor and manage the wildflower meadow for the lifetime of the development (in the event that the land is not offered to the Council for adoption);

(g)  Mechanism for securing appropriate funding of the management company for the lifetime of the development;

(h)  Mechanism for ensuring collection and enforcement of the funding stream provided in f) above to fund the monitoring and management of the communal areas of the development for the lifetime of the development; and

(i)    Commuted sums towards management of the open space and any trees within the open space in the event that the public spaces are adopted by the Council; and

(ii)             The conditions in the report.

PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

Councillor N J Walker (Chairman) declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in this item as he is the Landowner. He left the room for this item and took no part in the debate and vote on the application. The Vice-Chairman, Councillor Bastable took over as Chairman for the remainder of the meeting.

Councillors I Bastable, Miss J Bull, D G Foot, Mrs C L A Hockley, P Nother and S Dugan all declared a Personal Interest in this item as the landowner (Councillor Walker) is known to them.

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

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

1.     Members will be aware of the updated Five Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) position published on this same Update report. The current position is that the Council is able to demonstrate a 5.01 year of supply of land for housing.

2.     At the time of publishing the main report on the application at Turret House, Officers accepted that the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites (paragraph 8.8). The report considers the various planning matters and accordingly, in the absence of a five year housing land supply, applies Policy DSP40 which is engaged as a result (paragraphs 8.88 – 8.102 & 8.111). Those parts of the report no longer apply if the Council can demonstrate a 5YHLS.

3.     Members’ attention is drawn to paragraph 8.114 of the main report which was written to provide an alternative conclusion in the event that the Council was able to demonstrate a 5YHLS. It concludes that, notwithstanding the fact that Policy DSP40 is no longer engaged, the proposed development conflicts with other adopted local plan policies meaning that proposals do not accord with the development plan. Furthermore, there are clear reasons for refusing the development having applied the policies of the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance. The recommendation remains that planning permission be refused.

4.     Paragraph 8.65 of the report should be updated to state the ‘Council is currently able to demonstrate a housing land supply of 5.01 years which will deliver 3,252 homes over the five year period from the 1^st July 2022 to the 30^th June 2027’.

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

(Voting: 4 in favour; 2 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for Refusal

The development is contrary to Policies CS2, CS4, CS6, CS14, CS15 & CS17 of the Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy 2011, Policies DSP5, DSP6, DSP13, DSP15 & DSP40 of the Adopted Local Plan Part 2: Development Site and Policies Plan and paragraphs 162 & 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework and is unacceptable in that:

i.                 The provision of a dwelling in this location would be contrary to adopted Local Plan policies which seek to prevent additional residential development in the countryside;

ii.                The proposed dwelling fails to respond positively to and be respectful of the key characteristics of the area and would be harmful to the landscape character, appearance and functions of the countryside;

iii.              The proposal fails to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding;

iv.              The proposed dwelling would intrude into the area of open land west of Hospital Lane resulting in less than substantial harm to the significance of the setting of the Grade I Listed Schedule Ancient Monument Portchester Castle and the Portchester Castle Street Conservation Area; and

v.               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 additional generation of nutrients entering the water environment and recreational disturbance.

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