Agenda and minutes

Apologies of absence were received from Councillors B Bayford and P J Davies.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 24 June 2015.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 24 June 2015 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.

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 applications indicated and were thanked accordingly.

To consider a report by the Director of Finance and Resources on the actual planning revenue expenditure for 2014-15.

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Finance and Resources on the actual Planning revenue expenditure for 2014/15.

RESOLVED that the Committee notes the content of the report.

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 the development control matter 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.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which contained the following information:- Correspondence has been received from Burridge and Swanwick Residents Association advising that they have sent two objections directly to Winchester City Council in relation to the proposed development.

They advise that many of their concerns have been covered by the committee report however they have asked for the following points to be considered:

1. We fully support your requirement for a ban on all construction traffic but are still unclear as to how this will be applied and be successful especially in the early phases of development.

2. We feel very strongly about the low grade of roads through the development. We expect Whietely Way to be the main expressway route from the north through to the M27, not an estate road. We expect that if this is achievable that Botley Road can then be downgraded in the future and if necessary be the subject of traffic calming measures.

3. We have objected to the design of the northerly junction of Whiteley Way onto Botley Road. This junction should make the Whiteley Way route a priority with the Botley Road being a turn off, thereby encouraging traffic to use Whiteley Way as the main thoroughway.

4. Any plan to remove or significantly decrease bicycle traffic from Botley Road will remove a major risk of a serious accident.

A motion was proposed and seconded that the Committee OBJECT to the application on the grounds listed in the report, as varied and added to by the following:

i) Whiteley Way should be delivered in year 1 of the development rather than year 6 as proposed: delays in providing these connecting roads will result in increased levels of traffic using junction 9 and Yew Tree Drive, increasing the impact upon residents living closer to the latter road;

ii) Fareham Borough Council should be given the opportunity to comment upon Hampshire County Council (Highways) final comments when submitted:

iii) comment (iii) of the report be reworded to state ‘buildings that adjoin Fareham must be no more than 2-2.5 storeys high’; and

iv) comment (iv) of the report be revised to say ‘Fareham Borough Council is concerned there is no employment allocation within the proposed development and the development removes the existing employment opportunities at Bury Farm. This Council would wish to see the existing businesses currently sited at Bury Far, retained in their current location with the route of Bluebell Way realigned. If this is not achievable an alternative employment site of a similar scale should be provided close to the existing site.

RESOLVED that the Committee OBJECT to the proposed application on the grounds listed in the report, as varied and added to by the following;

i) Whiteley Way should be delivered in year 1 of the development rather than year 6 as proposed; delays in providing these connecting roads will result in increased levels of traffic using junction 9 and Yew Tree Drive, increasing the impact upon residents living closer to the latter road;

ii) Fareham Borough Council should be given the opportunity to comment upon Hampshire County Council (Highways) final comments when submitted;

iii) comment (iii) of the report be reworded to state ‘buildings that adjoin Fareham must be no more than 2-2.5 storeys high’; and

iv) comment (iv) of the report be revised to say ‘Fareham Borough Council is concerned there is no employment allocation within the proposed development and the development removes the existing employment opportunities at Bury Farm. This Council would wish to see the existing businesses currently sited at Bury Farm retained in their current location with the route of Bluebell Way realigned. If this is not achievable an alternative employment site of a similar scale should be provided close to the existing site.

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

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

Members of the Committee raised concerns over the adverse effect of the proposed rear extension on the light to and outlook from the neighbouring property at 41 Funtley Hill. Members noted that the distance between the two storey extension and windows in the southern elevation of no. 41 did not meet the minimum recommended distance given in the Council’s approved Extension Design Guide and did not consider that there were any material planning considerations which outweighed the provisions of the development plan.

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

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for Refusal:

The rear extension is contrary to Policy DSP3 of the adopted Fareham Borough Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies and the approved Extension Design Guide in that the proposed rear extension would have an adverse impact on the light to and outlook from the neighbouring property 41 Funtley Hill.

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 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 in the report.

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