Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies of absence.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 13 November 2024.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 13 November 2024 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.

There were no 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 application indicated and were thanked accordingly.

The Committee noted the content of the written deputations that had been published on the Council’s website prior to the meeting.

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, including information on new planning appeals and decisions.

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

Condition 29 has been amended to include second floor windows and would read as follows;

The first-floor and second-floor windows, which would serve a bathroom, a stairwell and cinema room, proposed to be inserted into the north and south elevations of plots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 14 and the east and west elevations of plots 8, 9, 10 and 11 shall be:

a)    Obscure-glazed; and

b)    Of a non-opening design and construction to a height of 1.7 metres above internal finished floor level;

and shall thereafter be retained in that condition at all times.

REASON: To prevent overlooking and to protect the privacy of the occupiers of the adjacent properties.

Members discussed the application at length and, whilst they acknowledged that the site is identified within the Local Plan for development, they raised concerns with the proposal to fell a protected oak tree on the site, adjacent 77 Church Road. Members requested that officers enter into further discussions with the applicant to seek changes to layout of the site to enable the retention of the oak tree subject to a tree preservation order.

A motion to defer consideration of the application to enable Officers to enter into further discussions with the applicant to seek amendments to the layout to enable the retention of the oak tree adjacent 77 Church Road was proposed and seconded and was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 7 in favour; 2 against)

RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED to enable Officer to enter into further discussions with the applicant to seek amendments to the layout to enable the retention of the oak tree adjacent 77 Church Road.

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

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to grant consent to fell 1 lime and 1 oak tree was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 7 in favour; 2 against)

RESOLVED that CONSENT be GRANTED to fell 1 lime and 1 oak tree.

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

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant consent to fell two oak trees, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 7 in favour; 2 against)

RESOLVED that CONSENT be GRANTED to fell two oak trees.

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

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to fell two oak trees, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 7 in favour; 2 against)

RESOLVED that the CONSENt be GRANTED to fell two oak trees.

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

The Committee to be made aware that the owner of 27 Heath Lawns is the Titchfield ward member – Cllr Hockley. Mrs Hockley is not the applicant.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to grant consent to fell one oak tree, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 7 in favour; 2 against)

RESOLVED that CONSENT be GRANTED to feel one oak tree.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to reduce the crown of one oak tree: Hortlink 212 pruning by way of 30% linear reduction equating to 75% of total crown volume was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that CONSENT be GRANTED to Hortlink 212 pruning by way of 30% linear reduction equating to 75% of total crown volume.

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

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

(Voting: 8 in favour; 1 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for Refusal:

The development would be contrary to Policies HE1, HE2, HE3, NE3 and NE4 of the Fareham Local Plan 2037 and is unacceptable in that:

i)             The design and quantum of development would fail to have regard to the rural character of Fishers Hill and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Titchfield Abbey Conservation Area and the setting of Catisfield Conservation Area and the nearby Grade II Listed Buildings.

ii)            The proposal would have likely adverse effects on the integrity of the protected Habitat Sites in combination with other developments due to the additional generation of nutrients entering the water environment and the lack of appropriately secured mitigation.

iii)           The site lies within 5.6km of The Solent Waters Protection Areas. The proposal fails to provide appropriate mitigation against the impact of increased recreational disturbance created from the provision of additional residential accommodation within this area.

iv)           The site is within 13.8km of the New Forest Special Protection Area. The proposal fails to provide appropriate mitigation against the impact of increased recreational disturbance created from the provision of additional residential accommodation with this area.

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

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to: -

(i)            GRANT planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report.

Then

(ii)          DELEGATE AUTHORITY to the Head of Planning to make any necessary modification, deletion or addition to the proposed conditions.

Was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 8 in favour; 1 against)

RESOLVED that: -

(i)            PLANNING PERMISSION be granted, subject to the conditions in the report.

Then

(ii)          AUTHORITY BE DELEGATED to the Head of Planning to make any necessary modification, deletion or addition to the proposed conditions.

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: -

New paragraph inserted after 8.28 regarding Section 106 Agreement:

Section 106 Agreement

8.29    Planning permission for the development granted under P/19/0870/FP is subject to a section 106 agreement which secures:

a)    Financial contributions to provide for 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 and Southampton Water and Portsmouth Special Protection Areas;

b)    Securing off-site translocation of reptiles

c)    Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for parking restriction works to junction of site with Rookery Avenue and Shetland Rise

d)    The delivery of 40% of the permitted dwellings as a mixture of 12 on-site affordable houses and an off-site financial contribution equivalent to 0.8 of a unit.

8.30    As a variation of condition application has the legal effect of creating a new standalone planning permission, the section 106 agreement will need to be varied to ensure that it applies to both the original permission and (if granted) this variation of condition application. This can be done by way of a deed of variation between the Council and the landowner.

(Summary paragraphs 8.29-8.30 renumbered to 8.31-8.32)

Amendments to recommendation:

Subject to:

i)             The applicant/owner entering into a deed of variation to the section 106 agreement secured under planning permission P/19/0870/FP to ensure that the same planning obligations apply to this variation of condition permission.

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 declared LOST.

(Voting: 2 in favour; 7 against)

A further 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 would be contrary to Policies D2, HP5, NE1 and TIN2 of the adopted Fareham Local Plan 2037, and is unacceptable in that:

i)             the amended design of the acoustic fencing would result in future occupants of the development being unacceptably adversely impacted as a result of increased noise levels within parts of the public amenity space along the southern part of the site and increased noise levels within the private amenity areas serving some of the permitted houses within the southern part of the development.

ii)            in the absence of a legal agreement to secure such, the development proposal would fail to secure a provision of affordable housing at a level in accordance with the requirements of the Local Plan.

iii)           in the absence of a legal agreement to secure such, the development proposal would fail to secure appropriate highway improvements to the site’s junction on Rookery Avenue with Shetland Rise.

iv)           in the absence of a legal agreement to secure such, the development proposal would fail to secure the ongoing management and maintenance of suitable habitat for reptiles that have been removed from the site.

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: -

Paragraph 8.13 states that the current property contains four bedrooms, and the proposal will increase the total of bedrooms within the property to five. This is incorrect and the current property has three bedrooms and therefore the total increase in bedrooms will be two.

The parking requirements for a five-bed property is three spaces. Officers are satisfied that three car parking spaces can be provided within the site and therefore no highway concerns are raised.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to: -

(i)            GRANT planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report.

Then

(ii)          DELEGATE authority to the Head of Planning to make any necessary modification, deletion or addition to the proposed conditions.

Was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 7 in favour; 2 against)

RESOLVED that: -

(i)            PLANNING PERMISSION be granted, subject to the conditions in the report.

Then

(ii)          AUTHOIRTY BE DELEGATED to the Head of Planning to make any necessary modification, deletion or addition to the proposed conditions.

The Committee noted the information in the report.

The Update Report was circulated prior to the meeting and considered alongside the relevant agenda items.

A report by the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Planning and Regeneration on Planning Performance Monitoring Update and Action Plan.

RESOLVED that the Committee note the contents of the report.