Agenda and minutes

An apology of absence was received from Councillor K D Evans.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 22 October 2014.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 22 October 2014 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

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 the following members declared an interest in the applications referred to:-

To consider a report by the Director of Finance and Resources on the revised revenue budget for 2014/15 and the base budget for 2015/16.

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Finance and Resources which set out the overall level of revenue spending on the Committee’s services and approval for the revised revenue budget for 2014/15 and the base budget for 2015/16.

Councillor Price expressed concern over approval of the base budget for 2015/16 as this will not be fully known until the Council meeting on 11 December 2014. He requested that a further report come back to the Committee after the Council meeting in December.

RESOLVED that:-

(a)  the revised budget for 2014/15 be approved;

(b)  the 5% increase for pre-application advice for 2015/16 be approved;

(c)  the base budget, subject to present figures be approved; and

(d)  a further report be presented at the January 2015 meeting with the revised figures following the December Council meeting.

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.

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.

The Committee received the deputations referred to in minute 6 above.

The Committee was referred to the Update report which provided the following information:- 1 further letter of objection has been received raising similar issues to those already summarised in the report.

A petition of 26 signatures has been received objecting on the grounds that the proposed buildings would be misaligned, incongruous and ugly and there severely detrimental to the visual quality of the neighbourhood.

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; 1 against)

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

Upon being proposed and seconded to approve the officer recommendation that provided the applicant agrees to pay the Council’s legal costs for the Deed of Variation, the applicant enters into a Deed of Variation on terms drafted by the Solicitor to the Council to remove the requirement to transfer to the Council, the open land adjacent to 2 Stillmeadows (Plot 1) from the Legal Agreement, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, provided the applicant agrees to the Councils legal costs for the Dead of Variation, the Committee authorises the Solicitor of the Council to enter into a Deed of Variation on behalf of the Council removing the requirement to transfer to the Council, the open land adjacent to 2 Stillmeadows (Plot 1) from the Legal Agreement.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to authorise the Solicitor to the Council to enter into a Deed of Release and a new section 106 planning obligation on behalf of the Council with the owners of Chalet 69 Solent Breezes, subject to the applicants’ agreement to pat the Council’s legal costs for the Deed of Release was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the applicants’ agreement to pay the Council’s legal costs for the Deed of Release, the Solicitor to the Council be authorised to enter into a Deed of Release and a new section 106 planning obligation on behalf of the Council with the owners of Chalet 69 Solent Breezes.

The Committee received the deputation referred to in minute 6 above.

At the Invitation of the Chairman, Councillor Mrs K K Trott addressed the Committee on this item as the Ward Councillor.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant the application to fell three oak trees protected by Tree Preservation Order 601 was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting 8 in favour; 1 abstention)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, the application to fell three oak trees protected by Tree Preservation Order 601 be GRANTED.

The Committee received the deputations referred to in minute 6 above.

Councillor Mrs Hockley declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest in this item as she lives in this road.

The Committee was referred to the Update Report which provided the following information;- In the section considering the impact on neighbouring properties the impact the proposed wall on no. 3 is considered. This is a typing error and should read: ‘The proposed wall along part of the rear (north boundary) would be visible from within no. 5’s garden’.

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

(Voting: 8 in favour; 1 abstention)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for Refusal:

The development proposed is contrary to the provisions of policies CS17 of the adopted Fareham Borough Council Core Strategy 2011 by reason of the height, position and hard appearance of the boundary treatment on the Heath Lawns frontage. The boundary treatment would create an undue sense of enclosure to the street and appear unsympathetic with the open planned nature of Heath Lawns and, therefore, have a harmful impact on the character of the area.

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 Committees attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- The applicant has now made the financial contribution towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor Mrs Trott addressed the Committee on this item.

Upon proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to 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.

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 deputation referred to in minute 6 above.

Councillor A Mandry declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as the applicant is known to him and his mother in law resides in one of the applicant’s nursing homes. He left the room for the remainder of this item and did not take part in the vote.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor T G Knight addressed the Committee on this item as the Ward Councillor.

Councillor T G Knight declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as the applicant is known to him, and he lives near to the application site.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- Comments have been received from the Director of Planning & Development (Ecology):

The revised ecology report allows the same conclusions to be reached as previously overall.

The report has been slightly amended to reflect the changes to the proposals. Although the Methodology for removal of the existing concrete slipway has not been set out it can be seen from the plans that this additional area of works sits fully within the identified working area to be reptile fenced, outside of which no works will occur (apart from the temporary working area also shown on the plans) – as such all impacts will be contained as it is understood that machinery and materials will not encroach outside of this area.

It is understood that the additional area of slipway removal extends only to the promenade and not beyond (onto the shingle beach and vegetated shingle habitat). This will overall (relative to the previous proposals) result in net gain of restored SINC habitat once the compensation works have been carried out, without impacting the adjacent vegetated shingle habitat.

In light of the advice received from the Council’s ecologist, it is considered that the ecological effects of the development could be satisfactorily mitigated as set out in the submitted mitigation strategy. The proposal therefore is held to accord with Policy DSP13 of the emerging Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies.

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.

Reason for Refusal:

The development would be contrary to Policies CS14 & CS17 of the adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy in that, by virtue of its scale, siting and design the proposed boat shed would be harmful to the landscape character and appearance of this countryside and coastline function.

The Committee received the deputation referred to in item 6 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.

The Committee received the deputations referred to in minute 6 above.

The Committee were informed that there was an error in the report on page 73, where it states the neighbour bungalow has three windows in the south elevation, this should actually read four windows in the south elevation.

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.

The Committee received the deputation referred to in minute 6 above.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- The applicant has made the necessary contribution towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972.

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

(Voting 5 in favour; 4 against)

RESOLVED that OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for Refusal:

The proposal is contrary to policy CS17 of the Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy in that:

(i)            the creation of two dwellings, represents overdevelopment of the site which would harm the character of the area;

(ii)          the proposal would result in additional vehicle movements which would generate noise close to the habitable room windows within 16 Maria Grove, to the detriment of the occupiers of that property.

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.

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 695 to which an objection (in respect of a provisional order made in August 2014) has been received.

The Committee received the deputations referred to in minute 6 above.

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Planning and Development regarding confirmation of Tree Preservation Order No 695 to which an objection (in respect of a provisional order made in August 2014) had been received.

A motion was proposed and seconded that Tree Preservation Order No 695 be confirmed as made and served. Upon being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED.

(Voting: 7 in favour; 1 against and 1 abstention)

RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order No 695 be confirmed as made and served.

To consider a report by the Director of Planning and Development regarding confirmation of Tree Preservation Order No 698 to which an objection (in respect of a provisional order made in August 2014) has been received.

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Planning and Development regarding confirmation of Tree Preservation Order No 698 to which an objection (in respect of a provisional order made in August 2014) had been received.

A motion was proposed and seconded that Tree Preservation Order No 698 be confirmed as made and served. Upon being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED.

(Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

(N.B. Councillor Davies had left the meeting when this matter was considered)

RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order No 698 be confirmed as made and served.