Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor B Bayford.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 26 March 2014.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 26 March 2014 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 A Mandry declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 13 P/14/0147/CU – Part of Unit B 41-45 Stubbington Green Fareham (see minute 6(13) below).

To receive any deputations of which notice has been lodged.

The Committee received deputations from the following in respect of the applications indicated and were thanked accordingly.

To consider a report by the Director of Planning and Development on development control matters, including information regarding new planning appeals and decisions.

The Committee noted a report by the Director of Planning and Development on development control applications and miscellaneous matters, including information on Planning Appeals.  An Update Report was tabled at the meeting.

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

A motion was proposed and seconded to approve the officer recommendation to grant temporary planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report, as amended to delete the requirement that the container be removed outside of the season, provided it remains suitably screened with hedgerow.  The motion was voted on and CARRIED

(Voting: 7 in favour; 0 against; 2 abstentions)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, as amended to delete the requirement that the container be removed outside of the season, provided it remains suitably screened with hedgerow, TEMPORARY PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THREE YEARS be granted.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the condition in the report was voted on and CARRIED

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

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

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

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:-  The site address for the cedar is 2 Jesmond Grove not 269 Warsash Road. The applicant is Mr Jordan of 269 Warsash Road.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the officer recommendation.  Upon being put to the vote the motion was LOST (Voting: 3 for refusal; 6 against refusal).

A further motion was proposed and seconded that the application receive consent.  Upon being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED

(Voting: 6 in favour; 3 against)

RESOLVED that CONSENT be granted to fell one blue atlas cedar protected by Tree Preservation Order No 557.

Reason: Members considered that the proximity of the tree to the house had an impact upon the applicant and their property which outweighed any harm arising from the loss of the tree.

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

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following informationPlease note that the reference to estimated potential repairs will cost £15,000 not £1500.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to grant consent, subject to the conditions in the report, was voted on and CARRIED

(Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against; 1 abstention)

RESOLVED that subject to the conditions in the report, CONSENT be granted

for the felling of one oak tree protected by Tree Preservation Order No 436,

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

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to approve, subject to the condition in the report, Reserved Matters, relating to appearance, landscaping and scale following outline approval P/13/0161/OA,  was voted on and CARRIED

(Voting: 8 in favour;0 against)  (N.B. Councillor Price was not present in the meeting when this matter was considered)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, Reserved Matters relating to appearance, landscaping and scale following outline approval P/13/0161/OA was APPROVED.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to approve, subject to the condition in the report, Reserved Matters, relating to appearance, landscaping and scale following outline approval P/13/0947/OA, was voted on and CARRIED

(Voting: 8 in favour; 1 abstention)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, Reserved Matters relating to appearance, landscaping and scale following outline approval P/13/0947/OA be APPROVED

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information: References to P/07/0880/LB, P/07/0880/DP/A and P/07/0880/DP/B in the History section of the report are to be deleted.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant permission for a change of use, 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 PERMISSION for CHANGE OF USE be granted.

.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information: References to P/07/0880/LB, P/07/0880/DP/A and P/07/0880/DP/B in the History section of the report are to be deleted.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant listed building consent, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that LISTED BUILDING CONSENT be granted.

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

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information: The applicant has submitted further information in support of the application which include a Design and Access Statement, Ecological Report and Tree Report. These documents were submitted with the application but do not appear to have arrived with the Council from the Planning Portal. These are important documents and whilst the case made does not alter the recommendation, nonetheless Members should be aware of the main points raised in considering the case for the application. The salient points are:

-That the Inspector who dismissed the previous appeal at the site considered the ex-orchard to be suitable for redevelopment on a limited scale;

-The site is currently disused and maintained as a paddock;

- English Heritage previously indicated that a reduced development could be accommodated; the costs of providing services mitigates against a single dwelling;

- The Existing Dwelling has too much ground to be maintained; the proposed development would generate funds for the future maintenance of the Listed Building;

- English Heritage have previously stated that the grounds are not worthy of inclusion in the Historic Parks and Gardens Register;

- The author of the history and gazetteer for the Listed Building has confirmed that its setting would not be adversely affected by the development of the ex-orchard;

- The development would form a buffer to the proposed development on the Fareham College Site;

- The design, scale and quality of the proposed dwellings would reflect the setting of the Listed Building and are in keeping with surrounding development;

- The proposed layout maintains distance to the Listed Building;

- The dwellings will be sustainable and meet the requirements for Code 4;

The development would lead to less than substantial harm to the setting of the grade II* listed building where the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including securing its optimal use; the listed building is costly to maintain and the development will secure private funding for its future maintenance;

The following are further comments from consultees in light of the additional information:

English Heritage - Thank you for sending through the Design and Access Statement for the proposed two new dwellings at Blackbrook Grove. I have read the document and would like to comment on a few of the points made.

On page 2 of the Design and Access Statement (D&A) there is the suggestion that the development site 'does not form an essential part of the setting to the house'. English Heritage has published guidance on the issue of setting: The Setting of Heritage Assets. Within this document is a definition of setting:

'Setting is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced. All heritage assets have a setting, irrespective of the form in which they survive and whether they are designated or not. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance, or may be neutral'. (p.5)

The former orchard area is an integral part of the garden to Blackbrook Grove and it was created to serve the house. Although the orchard area is diminished in character there can be no doubt that it is part of the setting of the house.

The D&A suggests that this development is needed to fund the upkeep of the listed house and its garden (see page 3) and goes onto say that funding the maintenance of the house etc through generating funds via the development would be a 'public benefit' (p.8). While I do not doubt that it is expensive to repair and maintain a large house and garden I cannot see evidence that this is currently a difficulty (the house is well maintained and the garden well cared for and is a credit to the owners). If this proposed development is considered to be contrary to normal planning policy, but that it might be justified on the grounds that it could fund the repair of Blackbrook Grove then this should be considered as a case for 'enabling development'.

Enabling development is an effective solution in special circumstances. However, there are criteria set out by English Heritage which must be satisfied. One is that the development "...will not materially harm the heritage values of the place or its setting", and another is that the development is necessary to 'resolve the problems arising from the inherent needs of the place, rather than the circumstances of the present owner, or the purchase price paid' (Enabling Development and the Conservation of Significant Places p.5). I have already submitted comments which conclude that in my view the proposal would be harmful to the setting of the listed house. To prove the second point the applicant would have to demonstrate that they have been through a market testing exercise (i.e. that there is not an alternative owner with the necessary funds to maintain the house and garden). In addition, if the development is seriously proposed as a means to provide a public benefit then this benefit must be secured through a legal agreement which would ensure that the profits of the development are reinvested in the repairs and maintenance of the listed building. There is no suggestion in the application that this is being proposed.

In my view there is no public benefit in this proposal and that any difficulty in funding ongoing repairs could be resolved through finding a new owner.

The D&A notes that the garden is not on the national Register of Parks and Gardens (p.3). This is correct. However, the garden is on the local Hampshire register and is therefore considered to be a 'non designated heritage asset' and is therefore afforded protection through the National Planning Policy Framework: 'In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.' (para.135).

The D&A suggests that because extensive development is proposed to the south of this site within the college grounds this somehow justifies a low density development within the grounds of Blackbrook Grove and this would be a 'buffer zone' (p.3). Any consideration of development within the college grounds would also have to take into account the setting of the listed house. In any case I am not sure that any development has been agreed and therefore this cannot be a relevant issue. Whether this bigger development goes ahead or not taking into account the setting of Blackbrook Grove remains a material planning consideration and would be, in itself, an effective 'buffer'.

These comments are in addition to those previously sent in relation to this proposed development

Director of Planning and Development (Conservation) - I have the following additional comments having read the design access statement

The design and access statement implies that the development is required to generate funds for maintenance to ensure the upkeep of Blackbrook Grove for the future. In planning terms this would be 'enabling development'. Enabling development is development that would otherwise be unacceptable in policy terms but which might be justified in special circumstances on the grounds that it is necessary to secure the future of a heritage asset. It can be used where 'conservation deficit' exists. Conservation deficit occurs where the cost of maintenance, major repair or conversion that is necessary to secure the future of an asset is greater than its resulting value to its owner or in the property market. Enabling development must be related to the viability of the historic asset and not to the circumstances of the owner. If a case for enabling development were to be put forward evidence to demonstrate that the criteria set out in the English Heritage guidance are met would need to be provided ('Enabling Development and the Conservation of Significant Places', 2001), including a comprehensive financial and marketing assessment. There is no evidence that Blackbrook Grove suffers from a conservation deficit, it appears to be in good repair and is not included on the English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register.

Director of Planning and Development (Ecology) - An amended report (June 2013 – updated February 2014) has been submitted. Some further information has been provided, however there are still points that require clarification as the ecological impact is unclear. It is suggested that the reason for refusal be amended to reflect the fact that the insufficient information relates to more than just protected species.

The ecological report acknowledges that measures will be required to address the Solent 5.6 km disturbance impact. However if the applicant is unwilling to enter into an agreement then this reason for refusal should remain. Suggest omission of the reference to an Appropriate Assessement as this is to be undertaken by the Planning Authority.

The outstanding issues are:

- What is the impact on the orchard habitat and how will this be mitigated?

- How will the boundaries be protected operationally?

- Which trees are to be removed?

- What is the impact upon the ditch along the southern boundary? (plans show this being culverted).

These are not necessarily issues that cannot be overcome, if the necessary information is provided

Further third party representations have been received:

2 representations object to the development on the following grounds:-

- Impact on foraging for bats;

- Objection to large 'trophy' houses when need is for everyday homes;

- Impact of more people on brent goose habitat;

- Impact of extra traffic on Redlands Lane/Avenue junction;

- Out of keeping with the rest of the site of the listed building;

- Designs are out of keeping;

- Access close to bus stops;

- Impact on wiildlife.

1 representation supports the application for the following reasons:

- This unique house will be protected from inappropriate development by this low density proposal;

- The development will not affect the adjacent woodland.

Fareham Society objects -

- Dwellings should be low profile and sympathetic to the listed building setting and estate;

- Proposed dwellings are unsympathetic in design;

- The approach to the site should be soft but it is unclear from the plans what screening will line the drive.

AMENDED REASONS FOR REFUSAL:

The proposed development would be contrary to the guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, to Policies CS6 and CS17 of the Fareham Borough Core Strategy, Policies DG4,C18 and HE10 of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and Policies DSP2, DSP6, DSP13 and DSP15 of the draft Fareham Borough Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies and is otherwise unacceptable in that:-

(i) by reason of the form of layout and the bulk and design of the proposed dwellings, the development would be harmful to the setting of this important Grade II* Listed Building;

(ii) the development would result in additional dwellings and therefore additional recreational pressure upon the nationally and internationally designated nature conservation sites including the Portsmouth Harbour Site Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) and RAMSAR site. The Ecological Report attached to the Planning Application acknowledges that measures will be required to address this issue but in the absence of specific mitigation measures being secured it is considered that the proposed development would result in significant harm to the nature conservation interests of these important sites.

(iii) insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the ecological impacts are known and can be adequately mitigated

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission as per the Update Report was voted on and CARRIED

(Voting: 9 for refusal; 0 against refusal)

RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED.

Reasons for Refusal:  The proposed development would be contrary to the guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, to Policies CS6 and CS17 of the Fareham Borough Core Strategy, Policies DG4,C18 and HE10 of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and Policies DSP2, DSP6, DSP13 and DSP15 of the draft Fareham Borough Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies and is otherwise unacceptable in that:-

(i) by reason of the form of layout and the bulk and design of the proposed dwellings, the development would be harmful to the setting of this important Grade II* Listed Building;

(ii) the development would result in additional dwellings and therefore additional recreational pressure upon the nationally and internationally designated nature conservation sites including the Portsmouth Harbour Site Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) and RAMSAR site. The Ecological Report attached to the Planning Application acknowledges that measures will be required to address this issue but in the absence of specific mitigation measures being secured it is considered that the proposed development would result in significant harm to the nature conservation interests of these important sites.

(iii) insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the ecological impacts are known and can be adequately mitigated.

Policies:  National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); Planning Practice Guidance.

Approved Fareham Borough Core Strategy: CS15 - Sustainable Development and Climate Change; CS16 - Natural Resources and Renewable Energy; CS17 - High Quality Design; CS2 - Housing Provision; CS20 - Infrastructure and Development Contributions; CS5 - Transport Strategy and Infrastructure

CS6 - The Development Strategy; CS7 - Development in Fareham.Development Sites and Policies: DSP13 - Nature Conservation; DSP15 - Recreational Disturbance on the Solent Special Protection Areas; DSP2 – Design; DSP6 - Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment. Fareham Borough Local Plan Review:  C18 - Protected Species; DG4 - Site Characteristics

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation that prior approval not required was voted on and CARRIED

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that PRIOR APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED.

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:-

(i)        the completion of a Planning Obligation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to the satisfaction of the Head of the Southampton and Fareham Legal Services Partnership to secure a financial contribution towards off site ecological mitigation measures by 31 July 2014; and

(ii)       the conditions in the report

was voted on and CARRIED

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that subject to:- 

(i)        the completion of a Planning Obligation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to the satisfaction of the Head of the Southampton and Fareham Legal Services Partnership to secure a financial contribution towards off site ecological mitigation measures by 31 July 2014; and

(ii)       the conditions in the report

PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

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

Councillor A Mandry declare a non-pecuniary interest in this matter on the grounds that one of the deputees is known to him.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor Forrest addressed the Committee regarding this application.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to grant planning permission for a change of use, 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 for CHANGE OF USE be granted.

The Committee received the deputations 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: 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 that prior approval not required report was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that PRIOR APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED.

The Committee noted the information contained in the report.

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

To consider a report by the Director of Planning and Development regarding proposed continued use of Hampshire County Council Non-Residential Parking Standards as the basis for guidance on developments in the Borough until such time as new parking standards can be issued.

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Planning and Development regarding the proposed continued use of Hampshire County Council Non-Residential Parking Standards as the basis for guidance on developments in the Borough until such time as new parking standards can be issued

RESOLVED that until new parking standards can be issued, the continued use of Hampshire County Council Non-Residential Parking Standards as the basis for guidance on developments in the Borough, be approved.

To consider the confirmation of the following Fareham Tree Preservation Order(s), which have been made by officers under delegated powers and to which no formal objections have been received.

(a)       Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 687 (2014) - Fareham Borough Council Land north of Wallisdean Avenue and Wallisdean Junior School

Order made on 24 February 2014 covering 11 individual trees and one group covering 28 trees.

It is recommended that that Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 687 be confirmed as made and served.

(b)      Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 688 (2014) - Fareham Borough Council Land West of Westley Grove

Order made on 24 February 2014 covering 8 individual trees, one group covering 3 trees and one woodland.

It is recommended that that Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 688 be confirmed as made and served.

(c)       Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 690 (2014) - Fareham Borough Council Land at Fareham College Campus

Order made on 24 February 2014 covering 25 individual trees and 11 groups covering 205 trees.

It is recommended that Fareham Tree Preservation Order No.690 be confirmed with the following modification – the removal of  all 5 trees in G3 and the removal of 4 trees in G4.  The loss of the aforementioned trees was agreed on site with Tree Officers to facilitate the temporary construction of access.  Suitable replacements will be replanted as part of the landscaping scheme.

The Committee considered the confirmation of the following Fareham Tree Preservation Order(s), which had been made by officers under delegated powers and to which no formal objections had been received.

Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 687 (2014) - Fareham Borough Council Land north of Wallisdean Avenue and Wallisdean Junior School

Order made on 24 February 2014 covering 11 individual trees and one group covering 28 trees.

RESOLVED that Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 687 be confirmed as made and served

Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 688 (2014) - Fareham Borough Council Land West of Westley Grove

Order made on 24 February 2014 covering 8 individual trees, one group covering 3 trees and one woodland.

RESOLVED that Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 688 be confirmed as made and served.

Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 690 (2014) - Fareham Borough Council Land at Fareham College Campus

Order made on 24 February 2014 covering 25 individual trees and 11 groups covering 205 trees.

RESOLVED that Fareham Tree Preservation Order No.690 be confirmed with the following modification – the removal of all 5 trees in G3 and the removal of 4 trees in G4.

The Committee was advised that the loss of the aforementioned trees was agreed on site with Tree Officers to facilitate the temporary construction of access. Suitable replacements will be replanted as part of the landscaping scheme.