Councillors: D Ashcroft, R Ayer, K Carter, D Evans, A Glass, A Joy, D Phillips, S Pond and A Williams (Vice-Chairman)

Transcription

1 1 Planning Committee ( ) EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL At a meeting of the Planning Committee held on 16 June 2016 Present Councillor: I Thomas (Chairman) Councillors: D Ashcroft, R Ayer, K Carter, D Evans, A Glass, A Joy, D Phillips, S Pond and A Williams (Vice-Chairman) 12. Apologies for Absence Apologies from Councillors F Cowper, N Drew, C Louisson, D Orme and S Schillemore. 13. Confirmation of Minutes The minutes of the Extraordinary meeting held on 11 May 2016 and the meeting held on 19 May 2016 were confirmed as a correct record and signed. 14. Chairman's Announcements The Chairman announced that the following items had been withdrawn from the agenda: 20107/091 and 55541/005 Froyle Park, Ryebridge Lane, Upper Froyle, Alton, GU34 4LA; 26296/004 Trees, 73 Kingswood Firs, Grayshott, Hindhead, GU26 6ER; and SDNP/16/01649 Lupton House, Stoner Hill Road, Froxfield 15. Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest. 16. Acceptance of Supplementary Matters Councillors noted the supplementary papers which included information received since the agenda had been published. These were reported verbally at the meeting and are attached as Annex A to these minutes. 17. Future Items The committee agreed to visit the following site, should the officer be minded to grant permission: Land Rear of, 131 Winchester Road, Four Marks, Alton

2 2 Planning Committee ( ) 18. Report of the Head of Planning The Report of the Head of Planning was considered and it was RESOLVED that: Application No.; Site and Description Resolution: 20107/091/VOC Froyle Park, Ryebridge Lane, Upper Froyle, Alton, GU34 4LA The item was withdrawn from the agenda whilst the council considers legal issues raised by third parties. Variation of condition 23 of 20107/061 to "Low frequency music levels shall comply with the external noise targets of 44db Leq 63hz 5 mins and 45db Leq 125hz 5 mins and 39db LAeq 5 mins overall, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority." 55541/005/FUL Froyle Park, Ryebridge Lane, Upper Froyle, Alton, GU34 4LA The item was withdrawn from the agenda whilst the council considers legal issues raised by third parties. Construction of car park 26296/004/HSE Trees, 73 Kingswood Firs, Grayshott, Hindhead, GU26 6ER Side extension to chalet bungalow including rooms in the roof to form annexe (amended drawings received 4/5/2016) (amended description 10/5/2016) 25634/001/HSE Highfield, 32 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, GU34 5AH This application was withdrawn from the Planning Committee agenda for 16th June The withdrawal has been made under Standing Order 12.1 ". The Chief Executive may, in consultation with the Monitoring Officer and the Chairman withdraw an item from the agenda for legal reasons." The legal reason in this instance is in order to ensure fairness for all parties. Permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A. Conversion of a garage to provide habitable space to include work to the roof on the front elevation. The creation of a porch, and the erection of single storey rear extension. (Amended red line)

3 3 Planning Committee ( ) 24771/007/HSE Allsun, Husseys Lane, Lower Froyle, Alton, GU34 4LX Permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A. Ground floor and first floor rear extensions following demolition of ancillary store [amended proposal] SDNP/15/06448/FUL Oak Tree Farm, Blacknest Road, Binsted, GU34 4PT Subject to the proviso and the conditions set out in Appendix A Change of use of existing agricultural barn and associated yard to B1 light industrial use. Amended plan received SDNP/16/00270/FUL 112 Station Road, Liss, GU33 7AQ Agreed subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A Single storey detached dwelling SDNP/15/04977/FUL The Workshop, Gracious Street, Selborne, GU34 3JB Agreed subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A Dwelling following demolition of existing agricultural barns and sheds SDNP/16/01840/CND 112 Station Road, Liss, GU33 7AQ Agreed subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A Variation of condition 12 of SDNP29764/007/FUL to allow the substitution of plans as a result of the applicants accommodation requirements SDNP/16/02506/PA3R Manor Farm, North Lane, Clanfield, PO8 0RN Agreed subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A Prior notification - Change of use of part

4 4 Planning Committee ( ) of agricultural barn to A1 retail use SDNP/16/01649/FUL Lupton House, Stoner Hill Road, Froxfield Petersfield, GU32 1DY Retention of entrance track (as amended by plans and Design and Access Statement received 31/05/ two native trees, hedging around access area and staining to gates) This application was withdrawn from the Planning Committee agenda for 16th June The withdrawal has been made under Standing Order 12.1 ". The Chief Executive may, in consultation with the Monitoring Officer and the Chairman withdraw an item from the agenda for legal reasons." The legal reason in this instance is in order to ensure fairness for all parties. 19. Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended) - Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order Development Applications 20. PART 1 - East Hampshire District Council - Applications and related planning matters to be determined or considered by the Council as the local planning authority 21. SECTION 1 - APPLICATIONS REPORTED IN DETAIL 22. ITEM WITHDRAWN /091/VOC/JonH - Froyle Park, Ryebridge Lane, Upper Froyle, Alton, GU34 4LA - Variation of condition 23 of 20107/061 to Low frequency music levels shall comply with the external noise targets of 44db Leq 63hz 5 mins and 45db Leq 125hz 5 mins and 39db LAeq 5 mins overall, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This item had been withdrawn from the agenda. 23. ITEM WITHDRAWN /005/FUL/JonH - Froyle Park, Ryebridge Lane, Upper Froyle, Alton, GU34 4LA - Construction of car park. This item had been withdrawn from the agenda. 24. ITEM WITHDRAWN /004/HSE/NP - Trees, 73 Kingswood Firs, Grayshott, Hindhead, GU26 6ER - Side extension to chalet bungalow including rooms in the roof to form annexe (amended drawings received 4/5/2016) (amended description 10/5/2016) This item had been withdrawn from the agenda /001/HSE/LGi - Highfield, 32 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, GU34 5AH - Conversion of a garage to provide habitable space to include work to the roof on the front elevation. The creation of a porch, and the erection of single storey rear extension. (Amended red line)

5 5 Planning Committee ( ) The Principal Planning Officer introduced the item and displayed various images including an aerial photograph of the application site, existing and proposed block plan and elevations and photographs showing neighbouring properties with extensions. The site was within the settlement policy boundary (SPB) and subject to the Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan. Whilst it was acknowledged that the proposal would result in some loss of light, officers concluded that it was acceptable and would not detract from the character and appearance of the area and would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. It would also not impact on highway safety and complied with EHDC s parking standards. Mr Monk introduced himself as a next door neighbour to the applicant and spoke on behalf of objectors to the application. He was a member of the Chartered Institute of Building and a Construction Project Manager. The objections to the proposal had been based on the negative impact on outlook and amenity, as well as quality of design. In this respect, the proposal was not compliant with national or local planning policy. The Four Marks Village Design Statement set particular importance to spaciousness around and between houses, not filling the plot and ensuring sufficient room for maintenance of both dwellings. The proposal did not meet these requirements. With respect to poor design, the bulk of the extension would be skewed towards No.30 and along the boundary line, creating a narrow inaccessible space which could not be maintained, allowing debris to build up and potentially breach the damp proof course. The large rear extension would be of flat roof construction, notorious for defects and maintenance issues and not in accordance with planning policy. The parapet eaves detail on the North elevation would encourage rain water to run down the brickwork leading to mould and moss growth, unsightly staining and reduced durability. The design also did not meet the duty imposed on designers under the Construction Design Management regulations, which sought to minimize risk during construction and maintenance, in this case working at height. It would not allow sufficient space between the boundary and extension wall for access or scaffolding to be constructed. By moving the proposed structure at least 900mm off the boundary and reducing its depth, which was possible given the plot size and width, many of the problems outlined would have been mitigated and make the design more acceptable.

6 6 Planning Committee ( ) He requested that the following conditions be considered, should approval be granted: 1. Removal of future permitted development rights; 2. No vents or flues on the elevation adjacent to the boundary wall; and 3. The window to be of obscure glass, with no openers. He summarised by stating that the proposal was of poor design and would cause negative impact on outlook and loss of amenity due to its height and proximity to the boundary, a reason for refusal initially held by the case officers during the first consultation process. He urged that the application be refused. Cllr Foster addressed the committee on behalf of Four Marks Parish Council. The Four Marks Parish Council Planning Committee had reviewed this application at their early April 2016 meeting, and on balance, agreed to a No Objection comment. However, after the applicants decision to submit a revised allegedly corrected site plan in mid-may 2016, it reviewed the application details again at its June 2016 Planning meeting. At the time there were a growing number of resident objections, which made this a contentious application for their community. Members of Four Marks Parish Council s Planning Committee visited the neighbouring property at number 30 at the householder s invitation in late May 2016, to see the boundary proximity and indicative size of the proposed extension. The parish council had received no communications from the applicant or their agent until 12:15 today, nor did the applicant or the agent attend any Full Parish Council or Planning Committee meetings in April, May or June 2016 to speak in the Public section, or listen to their two reviews. The immediate built space had a character of larger houses designed to sit within their individual plots, creating space between the neighbouring properties. With this proposed extension up to the boundary, particularly with the length and height being suggested, the parish council believed it would have a significant negative impact on the immediate neighbours. Four Marks Parish Council objected to the proposed rear extension s scale, and un-necessary boundary positioning, which would be detrimental to the immediate neighbours. They acknowledged the case officer s comprehensive report, and careful review of all the key considerations, but disagreed with her recommendation. On balance, their Planning Committee s final interpretation was that the extension should be refused as it would: 1. be positioned too close to the boundary; 2. be overbearing and unsympathetic at twice the height of the current boundary fence; 3. not keep a sense of spaciousness around the dwelling; 4. not have sufficient room to allow safe maintenance of the extended dwelling; and

7 7 Planning Committee ( ) 5. have a negative impact on the neighbour s amenity, changing their outlook significantly and decreasing their privacy. The parish council requested that the application be refused under Local Plan Policy CP27, the Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan and Four Marks Village Design Statement (page 16). Ms Dames, the agent, addressed the committee. The planning tests which fell to be considered in the determination of this application were as follows: 1. Whether the extension was acceptable in principle; 2. Whether the proposals were acceptable with regard to detailed design; and 3. Whether the proposals were acceptable with regard to the residential amenity of adjacent properties. The proposals had been assessed against the relevant tests, and the officer s report clearly set out the basis of their recommendation for approval. Notwithstanding this, she wished to make the following points: Adopted policy and in particular Policy CP29, required development proposals to be of a high quality appearance and respect an area s particular characteristics. It set out that development should be sympathetic in terms of scale, height and massing and its relationship to adjacent buildings. The proposals had been designed to respond to the design of the existing dwelling and those adjacent. In this regard, the photograph shown by officers taken from the rear garden of number 32, illustrated the depth of the extensions at numbers 34 and 36. Of note was the fact that the extension at number 36 was two storey and located approximately 30-40cm from its boundary with number 34. The design and siting of the proposed scheme reflected those adjacent, was in keeping with the existing dwelling, and would not appear overly dominant in the streetscene. Adopted policy and in particular Policy CP27, required development to not have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. The committee had heard the case for objection from number 30, and whilst the applicants and herself of course sympathised, she also pointed out that the basis for their objection was inaccurate and unfounded. Put simply, there would be no significant and detrimental impact on their residential amenity as a result of the proposals. Whilst the occupants of number 30 clearly did not support the design, the increase in floorspace did not automatically result in a detrimental impact on residential amenity, particularly with regard to overshadowing, loss of light or

8 8 Planning Committee ( ) overlooking. These were all matters that were so often stated by objectors, and all concerns they understood, but an objection made on this basis, must be supported by fact, and the objector must be able to demonstrate that there would be significant and detrimental impact on their residential amenity. Her letter dated 18 April 2016 clearly addressed the matters set out in the objection letters, however, she wanted to make the following points: There would be no loss of light resulting in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of number 30 as a result of the proposals; Loss of view was not a material planning consideration; The proposal would not over-sail the boundary; Maintenance was not a material planning consideration. Notwithstanding this, maintenance of the brick wall and roof area was possible; and The proposed window on the boundary wall was a utility room window, shown on the northern elevation. Cllr Brooks Jackson, a local Ward Councillor, addressed the committee. The applicant s agent had suggested in correspondence sent to members of the Planning Committee that she had been involved in interactions with Four Marks Parish Council this was not true and Cllr Brooks Jackson was not a member of Four Marks Parish Council; The community had worked together to produce a Village Design Statement and the Four Marks Parish Plan; She asked the committee to take strong consideration to the points already raised; It was not the principle of development that was being objected to, but the scale and impact; and She asked that if the committee were minded to approve the application, they give consideration to the conditions requested by Mr Monk. The Chairman wanted to point out that the agent had written a letter stating that she too had been involved in interactions with Four Marks Parish Council and had drafted a letter to state that the parish council objected to the application. This was untrue and she was not a member of the parish council. She had visited number 30 and in the interest of fairness, had also visited number 32. However, she had not offered an opinion and wanted to listen to the debate. The Solicitor confirmed that this did not disqualify the Chairman from voting and taking part in the debate on the application. Whilst some members of the committee felt that the proposal would be overbearing, unsympathetic to neighbours and unduly cramped, on balance, it was not felt that it would be so detrimental as to warrant a reason for refusal. The committee voted on the officer s recommendation for permission. Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 7 Councillors voting FOR permission, 2 Councillors voting AGAINST permission and 1 Councillor ABSTAINING from voting.

9 9 Planning Committee ( ) /007/HSE/LTu - Allsun, Husseys Lane, Lower Froyle, Alton, GU34 4LX - Ground floor and first floor rear extensions following demolition of ancillary store (amended proposal) The Planning Officer introduced the item and displayed various images including an aerial photograph of the site and proposed block plan and elevations. The site was located in a rural area outside the Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) and was within the Lower Froyle Conservation Area. As it was outside of the SPB, it was subject to Policy H16 which restricted the size of extensions to 50% of their original floor area. This proposal would equate to a 54% increase, which was considered to be a relatively small breach. In terms of the impact of the proposal on the character of the area, it would be largely concealed from the public domain. With regard to the impact on neighbouring properties and loss of light and outlook, Braemore which was next door to the proposal, had a ground floor window located close to the boundary. Whilst this would be overshadowed by the extension, the window had obscured glazing. Officers concluded that the angles involved would not cause an unacceptable loss of light to the first floor landing window. The Conservation Officer was satisfied that it would not have an impact on the special character of the Conservation Area. Mr Clark addressed the committee on behalf of objectors. The property Allsun was located in the Lower Froyle Conservation Area and was one of a pair of semi-detached houses built in the 1930 s as farm workers cottages. There were three listed buildings nearby and the residents and owners of these had commented about the proposal having a negative impact on the setting of these historic buildings, contrary to Policy HE In size, the proposal exceeded the 50% that would be allowable under Planning Policy H16; 2. In style the proposal would be out of keeping with the property according to the EHDC Conservation Officer s comment; and 3. The overshadowing of the neighbouring property would be excessive and so should not be permitted under JCS Planning Policy CP27 (and paragraph 17 of the NPPF). He appreciated that in planning terms this application to extend a single dwelling was modest, but the impact on his neighbouring half of this semidetached house would be huge. The proposed two storey extension would only be 1.2m from the boundary and would have a ridge height of over 6m. The extensions would stretch for 8.2m beyond the rear of the original house.

10 10 Planning Committee ( ) JCS Policy CP27 stated that Development will not be permitted if it would cause excessive overshadowing. This proposal was excessive. Their view to the south would be wall and roof instead of sky and trees. Their kitchen window currently received direct sunlight during all months, including December. If the proposal went ahead, the centre of this window would be shaded at midday for approximately five months of the year. How important was daylight? Mr Clark s wife suffered from a medical condition called Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD). It helped her condition in the winter months to get morning daylight through their kitchen window. When the applicant had purchased Allsun in 2005, it already had four bedrooms and two extensions. They then converted a bedroom into an ensuite bathroom and were now asking for a fourth bedroom plus a garden room. Finally, the applicant could have proposed a smaller extension that would have met the 50% policy but instead chose to ask for more, why? All the neighbours had objected to this application so he urged the committee to take into account the concerns of local people who would be directly affected by this application and to recommend refusal. Mr Bainbridge, the applicant, addressed the committee. He wished to note the concerns raised with the planning proposal to the Planning Committee and to recognise the recommendations made by the planning department. As part of the amended proposal, he had listened to the feedback from all of his neighbours and had consulted with the planning department. Therefore, this had led to the original design proposal being adjusted to both comply with the planning policies and to meet the points raised through the representations from his neighbours. Cllr Watts, the local Ward Councillor, addressed the committee. She asked that it consider the impact of the extension on the next door neighbour and those in the Conservation Area; Photos from the neighbouring property did not do it justice; Unusually, all of the neighbours were objecting; The two properties had very small footprints and were subservient to the listed buildings; The property already had considerable extensions to it; The committee should carefully consider the height and bulk of the proposal on the boundary; and In general, she would applaud those coming into the village and renovating properties but felt the committee should consider whether it was a little too much for the area.

11 11 Planning Committee ( ) Concerns were raised regarding overshadowing to the neighbouring property caused by what some members of the committee considered to be a large extension on a small cottage which had already been extended. In response to a question raised as to whether a sun movement and shadow plot could be produced in order to determine the application, the Development Management Manager confirmed that it was not easy and would take a lot of work but could be modelled. Cllr Joy proposed that the application be deferred in order to request further information, in particular, the elevation of the sun because of the sheer height of the ridge line, and sought clarity on the sweep of the sun during various times of the day and year. Cllr Ashcroft seconded the proposal. The committee voted on the proposal to defer the application. Following the vote, the proposal was declared LOST, 4 Councillors voting FOR deferral, 5 Councillors voting AGAINST deferral and 1 Councillor ABSTAINING from voting. The Chairman invited Cllr Watts to speak for a further minute. Cllr Watts felt that on listening to the debate, there had been a sense of confusion and concern. She believed that the committee needed to visit the site. As the local councillor had spoken again, the same opportunity was afforded to the other public speakers. Mr Clark, the objector, felt that the overshadowing of the kitchen window had not been addressed by officers. He also questioned the 54% which he believed to be inaccurate. The committee voted on the officer s recommendation for permission. Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 5 Councillors voting FOR permission, 4 Councillors voting AGAINST permission and 1 Councillor ABSTAINING from voting. 27. PART 2 - South Downs National Park - Applications and related planning matters to be determined or considered by the Council on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority 28. SECTION 1 - APPLICATIONS REPORTED IN DETAIL 29. SDNP/15/06448/FUL - Oak Tree Farm, Blacknest Road, Binsted - Change of use of existing agricultural barn and associated yard to B1 light industrial use. Amended plan received

12 12 Planning Committee ( ) Cllr Carter, the local councillor, left the committee in order to address it from the ward councillors table. The Development Management Manager introduced the item and displayed various images including an aerial photograph of the site, the previously permitted equestrian site plan, proposed site plan, floor plan and landscaping scheme. Parking would be to the rear which was much more secluded. Concern had been raised relating to visibility looking north where the land rises, but the County Highways Authority did not feel that it was a significant issue and were satisfied with the access arrangements. In the southerly direction, visibility was very good. In terms of character, the barn already existed so there would be no significant change. With regard to impact on the South Downs National Park (SDNP), officers had struggled walking the area to see where the barn would be readily visible The Landscape Officer had originally raised concerns regarding the proposal which had resulted in additional planting. The Development Management Manager drew the committee s attention to the supplementary matters. These said that the applicant had submitted two further documents. There had also been a further representation received raising concerns regarding accidents. The recommendation had been changed to include a unilateral undertaking and finally, condition 3 had been amended. Mr Salisbury addressed the committee on behalf of objectors to the application. There were a significant number of barns that were redundant; The landscaping mentioned was entirely out of character; There was no condition within the application to prevent ad-hoc parking; There was still spare capacity on the existing industrial estate next door; and There had been two accidents nearby within the last four months. Mrs Hodder, the Clerk to Binsted Parish Council, addressed the committee. She was representing their response to this application, which was a unanimous objection. That response, as the committee would have seen in the SDNP committee report, objected on the grounds that: a) The application risked overspill of the industrial site into adjacent agricultural land; b) Whilst Highways had submitted no objection, consideration had not been taken into account of the access highways safety history and use as a local rat run where speeding was commonplace. This, they heard, had caused another fatality recently. The parish council believed the site

13 13 Planning Committee ( ) lines needed to be recalculated to take into account that there would be a sizeable safety impact of vehicles entering and leaving the site on a regular basis; c) The impact of noise from machinery during the working day; d) Whilst it was noted that the applicant was stating the internal configuration of their existing premises was not as efficient for working, that existing site within the parish was deemed equal/bigger working/storage space with vehicle movements which did not encumber other road users, therefore, this was not an application fostering new employment in the parish; e) That the second barn was not to be used as ancillary working facility; f) The applicant s statement that the site had already adopted a B1 classification, the parish council viewed as incorrect. The previous owner had been granted B1 for equestrian use and that this was only for the owner, not the barn, nor to be transferable, so as to protect the site from industrialisation which was this application s purpose; and g) The site was outside of the designated area for commercial use and as such, it was a greenfield site within the National Park protected by the SDNP policy to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. As the committee may have heard many times before, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirmed that National Parks had the highest status of protection and that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty. If there was a conflict between purposes, conservation took precedence. This, the parish council believed should take precedence over the EHDC Local Plan policies stated in the committee report and not the other way round. Lastly, if planning permission was minded to be granted, then the parish council asked that all the conditions in the committee report are put into effect. Mr Goodall, the agent, addressed the committee: This was a policy compliant application; He wondered why there was so much local opposition, there had been no neighbour issues and no complaints at their current site elsewhere in Binsted; The best and only suitable road link was through the village. There would be limited commercial large traffic and lorries. The new site avoided narrow lanes, there would be less traffic and no intensification of use; It would be further from residential properties, the nearest neighbour would be over 100m away; and

14 14 Planning Committee ( ) B1 use was appropriate in a residential area and could co-exist alongside housing. Cllr Carter, the local Ward Councillor, addressed the committee. His ward of Binsted and Bentley was the largest in East Hampshire and the most rural. The ward covered around 40 square miles yet had just 1150 houses. It also included the whole of Alice Holt Forest with its unspoilt landscape and ancient woodland. It was a truly rural area and inappropriate for industrial development. The application site was located within the SDNP outside the SPB in an area of mostly unspoilt landscape adjacent to the Blacknest Road. The boundary of Alice Holt Forest ran parallel to the eastern side of Blacknest Road at a distance of just 200 yards or less in places. On the opposite, western side of Blacknest Road where the application site was located, lay a valley running from Holybourne almost to the A325 main road. This valley was an exceptional landscape which also provided passage up to the Binsted Ridges with spectacular views including the application site and Telegraph House. The parish of Binsted contained 43 miles of mostly interlinked footpaths, Alice Holt Forest and a landscape that should be allowed to remain unspoilt by further industrial development. Preserving the countryside within National Parks was given great weight and conservation always took precedence. The Landscape Officer s report on page 81 of the report indicated how difficult it would be to completely screen the site. There was a difference in visual presentation between rural countryside and industrial development, even light industrial use. It was strongly stressed that all planning applications should be judged on their individual merits. Precedence had not part in the process and was not a planning issue. Whilst the application site was close to an existing industrial estate, it was, however, highly unlikely that a planning permission for that site would be granted today. The original planning consent, an accident of history, was granted many years ago by the planning regime in force at that time. Further, there was a question regarding current status of the application site. An application for change to equestrian use was submitted but seemed to disappear during the break up of the land owner s marriage and the land subsequently being offered for sale. The existing industrial site and the planning history of the application site should not influence this application which should be considered in isolation on its individual merits. The Highways Officer had highlighted the fact that some splays and sightlines were compromised whilst at the same time, registering no objection. His ex colleague, County Cllr Marge Harvey, once suggested that Highways

15 15 Planning Committee ( ) comments were not instructions, they were recommendations. He agreed with her on this point. The Highways report was a cause of concern considering that the road was narrow and subject to fast moving traffic. There may be a 40mph limit in place but this provided little indication of the real speed of traffic. Further, the site entrance was located close to a staggered road junction with very poor site lines and visibility. This junction had a significant accident history including visits by the Air Ambulance on many occasions. Unfortunately, the Police record only accidents categorised as Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI). Therefore, there was little recorded evidence of these other incidents. However, in the last three to four weeks, there had been two fatal accidents just a few hundred yards from the junction and close to the application site entrance. This highlighted the dangerous aspect of the road. If members were minded to approve this application, he requested that there was a condition attached requiring the provision of full, uncompromised splays and sight lines. He had read the report and believed that the recommendation for approval should be challenged. He agreed, it was finely balanced, but in his opinion, the final balance should be to recommend refusal on grounds that the application was an unwarranted and unnecessary industrialisation and the urbanisation of the countryside outside the SPB and within the SDNP. The site should remain agricultural or equestrian. He requested that members refused the application. The committee noted that the barn would have the addition of windows and roof lights and were therefore concerned about light pollution in Winter months and at night. However, the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the SDNP or landscape and would bring a building back in to use, providing employment in the area. It was agreed that condition 7 should be amended to read Details of any internal and external lighting to be installed at the site Condition 11 amended to prevent parking at the front of the site and a new condition limiting use to Class B1. The committee voted on the officer s recommendation for approval subject to the amendments in the supplementary matters and also the amendments to conditions 7 and 11, plus the new condition. Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 8 Councillors voting FOR approval, no Councillors voting AGAINST approval and 1 Councillor ABSTAINING from voting. Cllr Carter re-joined the committee.

16 16 Planning Committee ( ) 30. SDNP/16/00270/FUL Station Road, Liss, Hampshire - Single storey detached dwelling The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report and explained that the committee had previously resolved to permit this application subject to the completion of a S106 agreement. However, no legal agreement had been signed within the agreed timeframe and since this time, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had now reinstated the Planning Policy Guidance text confirming that affordable housing and tariff-style contributions should not be sought from sites containing less than six dwellings in the National Park. Therefore, this application no longer required a legal agreement. The committee voted on the officer s recommendation that the resolution be amended to allow permission to be granted without a S106 agreement in relation to the payment of developers contributions towards infrastructure and affordable housing. Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 10 Councillors voting FOR the officer s recommendation, no Councillors voting AGAINST the officer s recommendation and no Councillors ABSTAINING from voting. 31. SDNP/16/01840/CND Station Road, Liss, GU33 7AQ - Variation of condition 12 of SDNP/29764/007/FUL to allow the substitution of plans as a result of the applicants accommodation requirements The Principal Planning Officer introduced the item and explained that this application was for the variation of approved drawing numbers of the extant permission 29764/007. The committee voted on the officer s recommendation for approval. Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 10 Councillors voting FOR permission, no Councillors voting AGAINST permission and no Councillors ABSTAINING from voting. 32. SDNP/15/04977/FUL - The Workshop, Gracious Street, Selborne - Dwelling following demolition of existing agricultural barns and sheds The Development Management Manager introduced the report and explained that the committee had previously resolved to permit this application subject to the completion of a S106 agreement. However, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had now reinstated the Planning Policy Guidance text confirming that affordable housing and tariff-style contributions should not be sought from sites containing less than six dwellings in the National Park. Therefore, this application no longer required a legal agreement. The committee voted on the officer s recommendation that the resolution be amended to allow permission to be granted without a S106 agreement in

17 17 Planning Committee ( ) relation to the payment of developers contributions towards infrastructure and affordable housing. Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 10 Councillors voting FOR the officer s recommendation, no Councillors voting AGAINST the officer s recommendation and no Councillors ABSTAINING from voting. 33. SDNP/16/02506/PA3R - Manor Farm, North Lane, Clanfield, Waterlooville, PO8 0RN - Prior notification Change of use of part of agricultural barn to A1 retail use The Development Management Manager introduced the report and advised that the applicant was a District Councillor. She explained that part of the site fell within the South Downs National Park and the other part within East Hampshire. The application made to EHDC had already been determined and prior approval granted before the District Councillor had been elected. The committee voted on the officer s recommendation for prior approval not required. Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 10 Councillors voting FOR the officer s recommendation, no Councillors voting AGAINST the officer s recommendation and no Councillors ABSTAINING from voting. 34. ITEM WITHDRAWN - SDNP/16/01649/FUL - Lupton House, Stoner Hill Road, Froxfield - Retention of entrance track (as amended by plans and Design and Access Statement received 31/05/2016 two native trees, hedging around access area and staining to gates) This item had been withdrawn from the agenda. The meeting commenced at 6.00 pm and concluded at 8.36 pm Chairman

18 16 June 2016 Planning Committee Annex A Supplementary Matters to be considered as part of Planning Officer's Report on Planning Applications /002/FUL Land south of Scope House, High Street, Bordon REPLACEMENT ITEM 2 POSSIBLE FUTURE ITEM FOR COMMITTEE / SITE VISIT Reference Description and Address /002 An 8 bed Residential Care Home (Class C2) with associated support accommodation and dedicated Activity Centre, together with 10 separate Independent Living Units. Land south of Scope House, High Street, Bordon This application has only just recently been submitted and consultations and notifications are under way. It is too early to make any decision as to how this application will be determined. S1 Item /001/HSE Highfield, 32 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, GU34 5AH FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS One additional letter of representation (support) has been received, with the following summarised comments: the extension at 34 Lymington Bottom is also flat roof (3.7m high) and sits only 40 cm's away from the boundary; number 36 have also extended to the side of their property with a double storey extension close to the boundary (approx cm s away from the boundary); and number 30 have also extended to a double storey extension to the back, a side extension and a front garage extension which sits over 13 meters in front of number 32's front door.

19 Part 2 S1 Item 1 SDNP/15/06448/FUL Oak Tree Farm, Blacknest Road, Binsted FURTHER INFORMATION The applicant has supplied two further documents in support of the application under consideration: a letter to Members explaining the perceived merits of the application and a copy of the letter written to the Parish Council in response to their representation. The letter to Members explains that the applicants currently operate from a nearby site in Binsted close to residential properties without complaint since However the site is served by narrow roads not suited to commercial traffic. By contrast, the proposed site is stated to be better suited in highways terms and the building is much further from residential properties than the current situation at Malms Farm. The proposal is to reuse an existing building bringing positive economic benefit for local enterprise and proposes less built form than the previous consent for equestrian use on site, with subsequently less visual impact. The letter to the Parish Council from the Planning Agent expresses regret that he was not given opportunity to attend the extraordinary meeting where the application was discussed and responds to the points made in the Parish Council s representation. FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS One additional letter of objection received raising concerns about highway safety given recent accidents on this busy C classed road; visibility is restricted to north by contour of road; adjacent industrial estate is 25% vacant. CHANGES TO RECOMMENDATION Subject to receipt of a satisfactory legal obligation by 14 July 2016 preventing any further implementation of permission SDNP/13/05753/FUL, then the Head of Planning be authorised to grant APPROVAL subject to the conditions set out in the main agenda. However, in the event that a satisfactory legal obligation is not received by 14 July 2016, then permission will be refused under the adopted scheme of delegation. AMENDED CONDITION 3 Prior to the first occupation of the building that the change of use hereby permitted relates, the landscape scheme as shown on Drawing No PP-300 shall be implemented in full and retained thereafter. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of the visual amenity of the area

20 Part 2 S1 Item 5 SDNP/16/02506/PA3R Manor Farm, North Lane, Clanfield CORRECTION Corrected location plan showing access to Chalton Lane: - FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS Two representations have been received. Issues raised are: a) concerns about road safety in Chalton Lane and North Lane and at the junction of these with South Lane and East Meon Road; b) suggests that a new access be put in via Petersfield Road; c) considers that the Highway Authority has failed to independently consider the suitability of North Lane for customers to access the site; d) inadequate parking; e) concerned that if more of the barn were to be used, the 500 sq m maximum would be exceeded [Note: if this were the case then the proposal would not be permitted development and the applicant would be advised of this in the decision]; f) queries whether the required visibility an be achieved at the North Lane entrance to the site; g) accuracy of submitted traffic survey information queried; h) concern about the impact of additional traffic on the surfacing of North Lane;

21 i) concern about adequacy of drainage to service the rug cleaning business; j) impact on residents in terms of noise and disturbance; k) concern that other retail use could move in if the applicant s business moves out; l) impact on the operation of the existing farm; m) due to the number of public objections received on the original prior notification application to EHDC, considers that application should be considered as a full planning application.

22 Part 1 EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE Applications determined by the Council as the Local Planning Authority APPENDIX A PS.471/ June 2016 PROPOSAL LOCATION: REFERENCE NO: Conversion of a garage to provide habitable space to include work to the roof on the front elevation. The creation of a porch, and the erection of single storey rear extension. (Amended red line) Highfield, 32 Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, Alton, GU34 5AH 25634/001/HSE/LGi 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this planning permission. Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act The external materials to be used shall match, as closely as possible, in type, colour, and texture those of the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason - To ensure that a harmonious visual relationship is achieved between the new and the existing developments. 3 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars: Application Form A001 - Site Location Plan A002-A - Existing Site Block Plan (Amended) A003-C - Proposed Site Block Plan (Amended) A004-A - Existing Floor Plans (Amended) A005-A - Existing Roof Plan (Amended) A006-A - Existing Elevations (Amended) A007-D - Proposed Floor Plans (Amended) A008-D - Proposed Roof Plan (Amended)

23 A009-D - Proposed Elevations (Amended) Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development Informative Notes to Applicant: 1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by: offering a pre-application advice service, updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and, by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter. In this instance the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit. PROPOSAL LOCATION: REFERENCE NO: Ground floor and first floor rear extensions following demolition of ancillary store [amended proposal] Allsun, Husseys Lane, Lower Froyle, Alton, GU34 4LX 24771/007/HSE/LTu 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this planning permission. Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act The external materials to be used shall match, as closely as possible, in type, colour, and texture those of the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason - To ensure that a harmonious visual relationship is achieved between the new and the existing developments. 3 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars: Application Form Design & Access Statement Location Plan Block Plan M526/14/003 Existing Floor Plans, Elevations & Section M526/16/004 J Proposed Floor Plans, Elevations & Section (Amended received 25/05/2016)

24 Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development Informative Notes to Applicant: 1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by: offering a pre-application advice service, updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and, by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter. In this instance the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit.

25 Part 2 EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE Applications determined by the Council on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority APPENDIX A PS.471/ June 2016 PROPOSAL LOCATION: REFERENCE NO: Change of use of existing agricultural barn and associated yard to B1 light industrial use. Amended plan received Oak Tree Farm, Blacknest Road, Binsted SDNP/15/06448/FUL Subject to receipt of a satisfactory legal obligation by 14 July 2016 preventing any further implementation of permission SDNP/13/05753/FUL, then the Head of Planning be authorised to grant APPROVAL subject to the conditions set out in the main agenda. However, in the event that a satisfactory legal obligation is not received by 14 July 2016, then permission will be refused under the adopted scheme of delegation. 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: Plan Type Reference Version Date on Plan Status Plans - Planting Plan 1287 PP Approved and Block Plan Application Form Approved Application form Application Documents Approved Design and access statement OS Extract - Location #238/ Approved plan Plans - Proposed floor #238/ Approved plans Plans - Proposed #238/ Approved elevations Application Documents - Baseline assessment checklist Approved Reasons- For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

26 02. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason - To comply with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)./ To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act Prior to the first occupation of the building that the change of use hereby permitted relates, the landscape scheme as shown on Drawing No PP-300 shall be implemented in full and retained thereafter. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of the visual amenity of the area 04. No development shall start on site until the existing vehicular access has been provided with visibility splays of 2.4m x metres to the north-west and 2.4 metres x 120 metres to the south east. The lines of sight splays shown on the approved plans shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 1 metre in height above the adjacent carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained thereafter. Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety. 05. Before use of the development is commenced provision for car parking, vehicle turning and cycle parking shall have been made within the site in accordance with the approved plans and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the approved development. 06. The premises shall not be used outside the hours of; 0700 to 1900 Monday to Friday, 0800 to 1300 Saturday No working on Sunday, Public or Bank holidays. Reason - To ensure that the amenities of the (area/adjacent property) are not detrimentally affected by the use of the site outside reasonable working times. 07. Details of any internal and external lighting to be installed at the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the building. The lighting shall be installed, maintained and operated in accordance with the approved details unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to a variation. Reason - To protect the amenity of nearby residential occupiers Note: When submitting details for approval, it is requested that a report from a competent Lighting Professional is provided, confirming that the external lighting installation meets the Obtrusive Light Limitations for Exterior Lighting Installations for Environmental Zone E1 (National Parks) as set out in the "Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light GN01:2011" issued by the Institute of Lighting Professionals 08. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved details of all foul water drainage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for drainage. 09. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved details of all surface water drainage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details should include provision for all surface water drainage from parking areas and areas of hardstanding and a scheme to prevent surface water running onto the adjacent highway.