Agenda and minutes

An apology of absence was received from Councillor R H Price, JP.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 27 August 2014.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 27 August 2014 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

The Chairman announced that in accordance with the recently set legislation, members of the public and press are able to audio and video record all meetings held in public by Fareham Borough Council.

The Chairman confirmed that there had been no requests to film any part of the meeting, but informed members of the public and press that should this wish to do so, they must respect the wishes of other members of the public present who do not wish to be filmed.

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 Cartwright declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 6 (11) – Land at Hook Park Road, Warsash.

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 matter applications and miscellaneous matters, including information on Planning Appeals. An Update Report was tabled at the meeting.

The Committee were informed that there was an error in the title of the planning application which stated erection of a two bed detached dwelling with associated parking, which should actually read erection of a one bed detached dwelling with associated parking.

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 8 in favour; and 1 against)

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

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

The Committee was referred to the Update Report which provided the following information;- Further information on the viability assessment for both P/14/0638/FP )Parcel B Peters Road) and P/14/0639/FP (Parcel C Peters Road following on this agenda).

In assessing the viability of the site, the applicant has in the first instance looked establish the Threshold Land Value of the site. This is a widely accepted approach in the development industry for establishing land values.

The Threshold Land Value is calculated by working out the Gross Development Value of the proposals being brought forward, and on the basis that the scheme is fully planning policy compliant (i.e. 40% affordable housing is being provided). The Gross Development Value of the scheme is calculated as being £6.13m. The Council’s independent advisers believe the Gross Development Value of £6.13m represents a reasonable assumption.

The Threshold Land Value is then calculated as being 15% of the Gross Development Value. This results in a Threshold Land Value of £920,000 for the two parcels of land. The 15% Threshold Land Value is directly comparable to the approach agreed for the larger Peters Road site.

Once the Threshold Land Value was established, a Residual Land Valuation was then undertaken.

The Residual Land Valuation assessment was based on a fully planning policy compliant scheme (for example 40% of affordable housing, all financial/ CIL contributions paid). The residual Land Valuation factors in all development costs, including build costs, the cost of borrowing finance etc. Developer profit was 20% of Gross Development Value for the market units and 6% of Gross Development Value for the affordable units. The profit level is considered reasonable and consistent with normal market expectations. It also follows the position modelled in nearby developments, in the Council’s CIL evidence base.

The costs, revenues and profit margins used within the Residual Land Valuation have been independently assessed on behalf of the Council, and are considered to be reasonable assumptions.

When a Residual Land Valuation was undertaken with the planning proposals containing 40% affordable housing, it produced a land value of £700,000, this being considerably below the Threshold Land Value of £920,000. This demonstrated that the proposals were not viable if affordable housing was provided at a level of 40%.

The applicant undertook a number of further Residual Land Valuations with the level of affordable housing provision being gradually reduced, in turn increasing the viability of the scheme. Following this exercise, the applicant has demonstrated that the provision of 6 affordable housing units (which represents affordable housing provision at 22.2%) would result in a scheme which has marginal viability. This affordable housing offer, in percentage terms, is in excess of the offer agreed by this Council on the wider Peters Road site.

Housing colleagues have been closely involved in the discussions on the affordable housing provision for this site. Whilst the provision of affordable housing is below 40%, the 3, two bed units have been enlarged slightly to make them 2 bed 4 person units, and a ground floor unit is to be made large enough to be used as a wheelchair accessible home for someone with a physical disability. Furthermore all of the units coming forward as affordable housing would be available for social rent.

Having carefully assessed the viability work, Officers believe the affordable housing offer put forward is acceptable in the circumstances of this particular development.

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

(i)            the submission of a reptile mitigation strategy;

(ii)          the applicant/owner entering into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms agreed by the Solicitor to the Council to secure:

-       Contribution towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation project;

-       Provision of affordable housing; and

-       Suspended contributions and economic viability.

 was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting 9 in favour; and 0 against)

RESOLVED that subject to:-

(i)            the submission of a reptile mitigation strategy;

(ii)          the applicant/owner entering into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms agreed by the Solicitor to the Council to secure:

-       Contribution towards the Solent Disturbance Migitiation project;

-       Provision of affordable housing; and

-       Suspended contributions and economic viability; and

(iii)         the conditions in the report

PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

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

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

(i)            the submission of a reptile mitigation strategy;

(ii)          the applicant/owner entering into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms agreed by the Solicitor to the Council to secure:

-       Contribution towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation project;

-       Provision of affordable housing;

-       Suspended contributions and economic viability;

-       Retention of and laying out of open space and buffer, including its future maintenance

(iii)         the conditions in the report

was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that subject to:-

(i)            the submission of a reptile mitigation strategy;

(ii)          the applicant/owner entering into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on terms agreed by the Solicitor to the Council to secure:

-       Contribution towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation project;

-       Provision of affordable housing;

-       Suspended contributions and economic viability;

-       Retention of and laying out of open space and buffer, including its future maintenance

(iii)         the conditions in the report

PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

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

The Committee was referred to the Update Report which provided the following information:- The immediate neighbour is not able to attend the Planning Committee and has asked if Members attention could be drawn to the concerns raised in the representation submitted.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to confirmation first being received from the applicant that the surface material would be permeable to allow water to soak into the ground, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting 9 in favour; and 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to confirmation first being received from the applicant that the surface material would be permeable to allow water to soak into the ground, 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 and 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 and 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the 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 and 0 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for refusal:

(i)            The development is contrary to the saved policy H14 of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review, policy CS17 of the Fareham Borough Core Strategy and advice in the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 53 and 58. By virtue of the detailed design of the proposed dwelling and its siting in proximity to number 296 Botley Road plus the narrowness of the plot as a result of the development will adversely affect the character of the street scene and create a cramped and discordant element in this part of the Borough.

(ii)          In the absence of a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project, the proposed development fails to mitigate its impact and would, in combination with the other developments, increase the recreational pressure and habitat disturbance to the Solent Coastal Protection Areas. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy CS4 (Green Infrastructure, Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) of the adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy, Policy DSP14 (Recreational Disturbance on the Solent Special Protection Areas) of the emerging Local Plan part 2: Development Sites and Polices and paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

(Voting 9 in favour and 0 against)

RESOLVED that 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 and 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 and 0 against)

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

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

Councillor Cartwright declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item on the grounds that the applicant is known to him.

The Committee was referred to the Update Report which provided the following information:- 2 further letters of objection have been received from 1 and 2 Hook Farm Cottages plus a petition with 65 signatures. The matters for objection are those summarised already in the agenda plus the following additional points;

-       Officers previously accepted that the use may potentially be detrimental to existing users nearby. The request is to double the hours so this will double the impact

-       Parking was not provided for the use previously permitted so the conditions have already been breached

-       The proposed hawthorn hedge will not screen the retained container in the winter and I ask that this matter be re-considered again.

A motion was proposed and seconded that the application be refused. Upon being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED.

(Voting 7 in favour and 2 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for Refusal:

Overuse of the site, harmful to the surrounding area and the additional traffic on the road.

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

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

(Voting 9 in favour and 0 against)

RESOLVED that 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:- A further two letters have been received from 19 Locks Heath Park Road, 49 Summerfields, raising the same matters as those summarised in the agenda plus the following additional comments:

-       The two houses look out of keeping with the two storey houses in the road.

-       It would be interesting to know why the developer did not have these rooflights in the original application.

-       Given that the second floor is not proposed as bedrooms, I don’t see why they need rooflights at all?

-       The windows would overlook the gardens.

-       The additional parking is simply made to fit.

-       This follows a recently withdrawn scheme for a minor amendment. I don’t know how this can be considered minor.

-       I have been notified if the changes but the works have already been completed so how is it possible for anyones comments to be taken into account. One property has been occupied for four weeks now that this has been built by stealth.

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

(Voting 9 in favour and 0 against)

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

A motion was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred. The motion was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting 9 in favour and 0 against)

RESOLVED that the application be deferred.

Reason for decision: To allow for further investigations to be carried out in order to obtain more evidence of the cause of the subsidence.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- The Description of the development proposed has been updated to read as follows: Single storey rear extension and insertion of four new windows in eastern elevation and two new windows and one door in western elevation of existing building.

Following discussions between Officers and the planning agent, amended drawings have been submitted showing the following:

-       the windows proposed to be inserted into the western elevation of the existing building to be obsure glazed and fixed shut up to a height of 1.7 metres above internal finished floor level.

-       the French doors proposed to be inserted into the western elevation of the existing building changed to a single door.

The effect on the parking and access arrangements at the frontage of the site have been reassessed by Officers following further discussion with the Council’s highway officer. It is recommended that conditions be imposed firstly to limit the number of residents at the care home to six and also to ensure that parking on the site is laid out in accordance with a parking plan to be submitted by the applicant. The existing accesses to the site should be marked IN and OUT in relation to the western and eastern accesses respectively.

Recommendation:

Subject to the receipt of plans showing:

-       a satisfactory parking layout within the frontage of the site for at least five vehicles;

-       means of displaying signage to indicate where parking spaces are provided;

-       means of displaying signage to indicate IN/OUT accesses from/onto Kiln Road;

PERMISSION:

Development to commence within three years;

Development to be undertaken in accordance with approved drawings;

Obscure glaze and fixed shut to a height of 1.7 metres above internal finished floor level: ensuite bathroom windows in extension, shower room, laundry room and office windows in eastern elevation of existing building and quiet room and kitchen/dining room windows in western elevation of existing building;

No more than six residents;

Parking space and turning space to made available in accordance with approved plans and retained thereafter;

Signage in relation to parking spaces IN/OUT accesses to be displayed in accordance with approved plans.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the amended recommendation above, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting 9 in favour and 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the amended planning permission set out in the update report and 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 and 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 and 0 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION 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, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting 9 in favour and 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 and 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 and 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, subject to a condition stating that the radio mast be retracted to its lowest position when not in use, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting 9 in favour and 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the condition that the radio mast be retracted to its lowest position when not in use, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

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

A motion was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.  Upon being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED.

(Voting 9 in favour and 0 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for Refusal:

The proposed development is contrary to Policy CS17 of the adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy and Policies DSP2, DSP4 of the emerging Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Polices and is unacceptable in that: by virtue of its height, width, bulk and design the proposed extensions would:

i)             represent an unneighbourly form of development, detrimental to the outlook available from the adjoining properties and their respective gardens and amenities currently enjoyed by their occupants;

ii)            result in an unsympathetic additions to this dwelling, detrimental to the appearance of the dwelling and visual amenities of the street scene.

The Committee noted the information contained in the report.

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

To consider the following reports regarding confirmation of Fareham Tree Preservation Orders to which objections have been received.

The Committee considered the confirmation of the following Tree Preservation Orders to which objections had been received.

To consider a report by the Director of Planning and Development regarding confirmation of Tree Preservation Order No 693 to which objection (in respect of a provisional order made in June 2014) has been received.

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Planning and Development regarding confirmation of Tree Preservation Order No 693 to which an objection had been received.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to confirm and made as served, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting 9 in favour and 0 against)

RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order No 683 be confirmed as made and served.