Agenda and minutes

An apology of absence was received from Councillor P J Davies.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 24 September 2014.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 24 September 2014 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

The Chairman reminded Members that due to the recently set legislation, members of the public and press are permitted to film meetings of the Council that are held in public. He also stated that anyone wishing to film parts of the meeting must respect members of the public who do not wish to be filmed.

He also informed members that would be a small change to a procedure to the meeting, whereby Officers would present the application prior to the deputations being made. This would allow the deputees the opportunity to pick up on any points that they have missed previously.

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 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 received the deputation referred to in minute 5 above.

The Committee was referred to the Update Report which provided the following information;- Revised drawings have been received showing changes to the proposed parking layout. The revised parking layout would provide sufficient parking and turning space for cars to leave the site in a forward gear. It is considered therefore that the recommended reason for refusal iv) given in the main body of the report has been successfully addressed. A revised recommendation with this reason for refusal removed is set out in full below:

RECOMMENDATION:

The proposed development would be contrary to Polices CS4, CS5 & CS17 of the adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy and Polices DSP2 & DSP15 of the emerging Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Polices and would be unacceptable in that;

i) the proposed studio apartment would constitute a form of accommodation out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area and harmful to its established character;

ii) the proposed studio apartment would fail to provide adequate internal space to meet the requirements of future occupiers of that unit;

iii) the development would fail to provide adequate external amenity space to meet the requirements of future occupiers;

iv) in the absence of a financial contribution, the proposal would fail to provide satisfactory mitigation of the ‘in combination’ effects that the proposed net increase in residential units on the site would cause through increased recreational disturbance on the Solent Coastal Special Protection Areas.

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

(Voting 9 in favour and 0 agaisnt)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reason for Refusal:

The proposed development would be contrary to Polices CS4, CS5 & CS17 of the adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy and Polices DSP2 & DSP15 of the emerging Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Polices and would be unacceptable in that;

i) the proposed studio apartment would constitute a firm of accommodation out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area and harmful to its established character;

ii) the proposed studio apartment would fail to provide adequate internal space to meet the requirements of future occupiers of that unit;

iii) the development would fail to provide adequate external amenity space to meet the requirements of future occupiers;

iv) in the absence of a financial contribution, the proposal would fail to provide satisfactory mitigation of the ‘in combination’ effects that the proposed net increase in residential units on the site would cause through increased recreational disturbance on the Solent Coastal Special Protection Areas.

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

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- One further letter of representation has been received (from 14 Church Road) since the drafting of the main agenda report. This letter raises issues that are summarised in the agenda with the additional point as follows:

- Can we not look into the flooding implications of this on this wonderful environment? Where does the water go?

FLOODING:

The site is, for the purpose of the Environment Agency (EA) Flooding Risk Mapping, within flood zone 1, which is the area of lowest risk and applies to all land not in zones 2 & 3. The NPPF advises that the development should be steered to areas with the lowest probability of flood risk; such as the sites within zone 1. Additionally the EA standing advice on this type of development in this flood risk zone states “…For developments (other than changes of use) less than 1 hectare in Flood Zone 1, the main flood risk issue to consider is usually the management of surface water run-off. Drainage from new development must not increase flood risk either on-site or elsewhere. Government policy strongly encourages a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) approach to achieve these objectives.”

In response to the additional representation, the application sets out that foul sewage is to be disposed of via a connection to the mains sewer. Surface water run-off is proposed to be dealt with by on site soakaway. The detailed design of the soakaway including the porosity and capability of the ground will be addressed through the building regulations but a soakaway is considered to be an appropriate means of addressing surface water run-off in this case.

AMENITY:

Since the drafting of the main agenda, it is considered appropriate, in the interests of neighbouring amenity, to withdraw by planning condition permitted development rights under Part 1, Class A (The enlargement, improvement or other alteration to a dwellinghouse), Class B (The enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof), Class C (Any other alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse) and Class E (Development within he curtilage of a dwellinghouse).

SOLENT DISTURBANCE MITIGATION PROJECT (SDMP):

The required financial contribution has been received by the Council such that this element of the proposal is now considered to be acceptable. The recommendation is amended accordingly:

AMENDED RECOMMENDATION:

PERMISSION as per the conditions in the main agenda plus an additional condition to withdraw permitted development for part 1, Classes A-C and E.

Members were verbally informed that an additional condition for the approval of hard surfacing materials would be added to those already stated in the main agenda report and the update report.

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:

Overdevelopment of the site resulting in a cramped development to the detriment of the character of the area.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- One additional letter of objection has been received from The Brook. The following is a summary of the points raised:

- Concern that the building work will create drainage issues if he existing drainage is not improved.

- Loss of privacy to the neighbouring property due to overlooking of the rear garden.

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 and 0 against)

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

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- The Development Contribution relating to the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project has been paid. The recommendation is therefore for Permission subject to conditions with no proviso.

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 and 0 against)

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

The Committee received the deputation s 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’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which contained the following information:- For Members information this is an officer application.

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, subject to the conditions in the report, 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 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 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 696 (2014) – Fareham Borough Council Old Common, Old Common Gardens, Downland Close and Locks Road Warsash

Order made on 25 July 2014 covering 28 individual trees for which no objections were received.

It is recommended that Fareham Tree preservation Order No 696 be confirmed as made and served.

(b)  Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 697 (2014) – Harvey Crescent, Newbury Place and Primrose Way, Warsash

Order made on 25 July 2014 covering 7 individual trees for which no objections were received.

It is recommended that Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 697 be confirmed as made and served.

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 696 (2014) – Fareham Borough Council Old Common, Old Common Gardens, Downland Close and Locks Road Warsash.

Order made on 25 July 2014 covering 28 individual trees for which no objections were received.

RESOLVED that Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 696 be confirmed as made and served.

Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 697 (2014) – Harvey Crescent, Newbury Place and Primrose Way, Warsash.

Order made on 25 July 2014 covering 7 individual trees for which no objection were received.

RESOLVED that Fareham Tree Preservation Order No 697 be confirmed as made and served.