Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

·       Cllr George Jeans

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 14 December 2017 were presented.

Resolved

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

There were none.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to speak either in favour or against an application or any other item on this agenda are asked to register by phone, email or in person no later than 2.50pm on the day of the meeting.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. The Chairman will allow up to 3 speakers in favour and up to 3 speakers against an application and up to 3 speakers on any other item on this agenda. Each speaker will be given up to 3 minutes and invited to speak immediately prior to the item being considered.

Members of the public will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

Questions

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution which excludes, in particular, questions on non-determined planning applications.

Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such questions in writing to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on (4 clear working days, e.g. Wednesday of week before a Wednesday meeting) in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on (2 clear working days, eg Friday of week before a Wednesday meeting). Please contact the officer named on the front of this agenda for further advice. Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent.

Details of any questions received will be circulated to Committee members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate.

The committee received details of the appeal decisions as detailed in the agenda.

Resolved

To note the update for the period 01/12/2017 to 21/12/2017.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Retrospective application for grass planted bunds in south western corner of the site

Public Participation

Peter Claydon (CPRE) spoke in objection of the application.

David Hogan spoke in objection to the application.

Geoff Lownds spoke in objection to the application.

Tony Allen (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Elaine Hartford spoke in objection, on behalf of Alderbury Parish Council

Cllr Gill Sowerby spoke in objection, on behalf of Grimstead Parish Council

The Senior Planning Officer, Matthew Legge, introduced the report which recommended that the retrospective application for a grass planted bunds in the south-western corner of the site at Nightwood Farm, West Grimstead be approved subject to conditions.

It was noted that at the rear of the site was an ancient woodland. The reason for the creation of the bund given by the applicant had been due to the placement of waste materials arising from restoration work on the existing agricultural buildings on the site. These materials included asbestos from the roof panel and soil from the ground in-between the buildings.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, it was clarified that whilst the Environmental Health Officer had provided a written response, it was not known whether they had actually attended the site. The soil report had indicated that the asbestos was a fibre kind from the roofing materials.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

The red boundary shown on the report was questioned as incorrect and misleading.

The resident in the adjacent site ran a holiday let and had concerns surrounding the health and safety of the asbestos in the bund and the associated contamination of the watercourse and the impact of the development on the ancient woodland, with substantial harm already caused by the removal of some trees.

The Forestry Commission had previously written to the Officer to state there had been trees felled on the site.

It was felt that the asbestos had been illegally dumped on the site in a criminal manner and remained a health hazard to residents for years to come, and the approval of this application would encourage further hazardous waste disposal by others.

Soil and Air tests had been carried out, the associated report stated there was no risk, if the bund had a capping of fresh soil across the top.

The applicant had agreed to replant some trees to replace those that had been felled. 

Representatives from Alderbury and Grimstead Parish Councils, which were both affected by this development, spoke in objection to the application.

The Unitary Division Member Cllr Britton moved the motion of refusal, this was seconded by Cllr Devine.

Cllr Richard Britton then spoke in objection to the application, noting the resentment and anger of the residents and parishes.

To access the site with a HGV, you either had to violate the 7.5t limit in Alderbury or navigate winding roads.

For months, the Enforcement Officers sought a retrospective application for a turning circle, eventually it was felt that no application was required as it followed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 250.

Erection of one two storey dwelling; associated access, turning, parking, landscaping and private amenity space

Public Participation

Michael Fowler (Architect) spoke in support of the application.

Simon Hunt (applicant) spoke in support of the application.

Bob Edwards (Heritage consultant) spoke in support of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer, Georgina Wright, introduced the report which recommended that the application for the erection of one two storey dwelling; associated access, turning, parking, landscaping and private amenity space be refused.

A site visit had taken place earlier in the day.

It was noted that the revised report contained the following amendments:

• A Heritage Statement has been received since the earlier committee report was written (Section 5 of the attached report)
• The Conservation Officer provided additional comments as a result of this heritage statement (Section 7 of the attached report)
• The Highway Authority provided additional comments as a result of the revised access arrangements/amended plans (Section 7 of the attached report)
• The Drainage officer had provided additional comments as a result of the amended plans (Section 7 of the attached report)
• The Environment Agency provided comments (Section 7 of the attached report)
• An additional appeal reference was added to the housing land supply commentary in Section 9.1 of the attached report
• Additional commentary has been added to section 9.2 of the attached report to reflect the Conservation Officer’s comments and submitted Heritage Statement
• The commentary in section 9.4 of the attached report has changed to reflect the Highway Authority comments
• The second reason for refusal has been altered to reflect the Conservation Officer’s comments

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. There were none.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

Enormous effort to discuss the proposals with the local residents and the parish council had taken place, and no objections had been received. The parish council was behind the proposed development 100%.

The Unitary Division Member Cllr John Smale moved the motion of approval against Officer’s recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

Cllr Smale then spoke in support of the application, noting that he was also a member of the parish council.

The definition of infill was a building between two existing buildings. This was the case with this application.

There had formerly been a cottage stood here in the garden where the greenhouse was. The problem in using the same space to build the new dwelling was that now, this area was a flood zone. This was why the development has been moved back to avoid the flooding.

Highways, the Environment Agency and Wessex Water had not objected and the Parish council was 100% behind this project.

There would always be sustainability issues in small villages, in a rural location, people were able to overcome this with the use of a vehicle.

A debate followed where they key issues raised included, that Highways had objected on sustainability. In planning terms, this location was unsustainable.

The ground beyond the walled garden rose sharply, so the proposed house would be higher compared to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 251.

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency 

There were no urgent items