Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from, Cllr Stewart Dobson, Cllr Nick Fogg MBE and Cllr Paul Oatway.

Cllr Oatway was substituted by Cllr Jerry Kunkler.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2018 were presented for consideration, and it was:

Resolved:

To approve and sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2018.

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

Councillor Richard Gamble declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 18/04942/FUL as in his previous role as Portfolio Holder for Education and Skills he had met and worked with the Diocesan Board of Education and the applicant. He declared he would consider the application on its merits with an open mind as he debated and voted on the item.

Councillor Richard Gamble also declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 18/04151/FUL due to his current role as Portfolio Holder for Heritage, Arts and Tourism, as there were heritage considerations regarding the application.  He declared he would consider the application on its merits with an open mind as he debated and voted on the item.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no announcements.

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 Thursday 30 August 2018in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm onMonday 3 September 2018. 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.

The rules on public participation were noted.

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

The report on completed and pending appeals was presented for consideration.

Resolved:

To note the updates.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The following planning applications were considered.

Proposed redevelopment of the existing Old Southbroom School Buildings to provide 6 new residential dwellings comprising 1  Studio; 4 two bedroom flats; and 1 two bedroom town house, with associated external works, to include conversion of the existing redundant WC block into bike and bin storage (Resubmission of 17/09283/FUL).

Public Participation:

Mrs Elizabeth Denbury, resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Darren Saunders, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Mr Darren Saunders had also submitted formal questions to the Committee. These were answered by the Chairman. The questions and responses can be seen in  supplement 2. There were no supplementary questions asked.

Mr Lawrence Nash, resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Peter Kent, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The majority of objections raised concerned the number of parking spaces proposed as part of the application. It was stated that there were serious parking pressures in the local area and that if approved the application would seriously exacerbate this situation, due to the under-provision of parking in connection with the scheme.

Jonathan James, Senior Conservation/Planning Officer presented a report which recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, for the proposed redevelopment of the existing Old Southbroom School Buildings to provide 6 new residential dwellings comprising 1 Studio; 4 two bedroom flats; and 1 two bedroom town house, with associated external works, to include conversion of the existing redundant WC block into bike and bin storage (Resubmission of 17/09283/FUL).

Key details were stated to include the following:

The existing buildings on the site are Grade II listed, therefore a counterpart listed building application was submitted, which was undetermined. The application was a resubmission of 17/09283/FUL, which was withdrawn due to concerns about the number of units proposed. The number of units had been reduced from 7 to 6 in the revised application. It was proposed that each unit would have 1 parking space, so there would be 6 parking spaces in total.

The key details regarding the application were stated to include the impact on highway safety, car parking provision and heritage impacts. The total number of parking spaces to be provided did not meet with parking standards, however as the site was not a new build, but rather a change of use of a listed building, a relaxation in parking standards was deemed acceptable. In the proposed scheme, some of the parked cars would need to reverse out of the site which was not considered ideal. However it was stated that cars currently using the site were doing this already, so there would be no change in that regard. The public benefits of the proposal, in securing the future of the historic buildings, were deemed to outweigh the less than substantial harm caused to the heritage asset as a consequence of the change of use to residential. The re-development of the site would also provide an important contribution to housing stock in the local area.

Attention was drawn to a new plan which had been submitted by the applicant, which was summarised by the officer. The new plan illustrated how an extra parking space could be provided, taking the overall number of spaces to 7. However, as the agent did not wish it to form part of the application, it could not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

Conversion and extension of outbuildings and stables to form 3 dwellings.

Public Participation:

Ms Ann Rudland spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Chris Hewlett spoke in objection to the application.

Ms Annie Griffiths spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Aaron Smith, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Dominic Hughes of Chute Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr David Pike of Chute Forest Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Objections included concerns regarding the increased number of car journeys the development would cause, car parking issues, lack of requirement for this type of housing, whether the proposal would comprise infill development, effect on heritage assets (including the adjacent grade II listed Lowerhouse Farm, the curtilage listed stable block and the Conservation Area); and impact on the AONB.  

Karen Guest, Development Management Team Leader, presented a report which recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, for the proposed conversion and extension of the outbuildings on the site to create three new dwellings, including off road parking.

Photos and plans of the site and proposal were shown, including elevation drawings. Windows and doors would largely be inserted in existing openings, apart from some new roof lights. The elevations fronting the road would look the same apart from the new roof lights.

Key issues were stated to include the following; that the site was in the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and was in a Conservation Area; there was a grade II listed building adjacent and the stable block was considered to be curtilage listed. The principle of development was considered to be acceptable as the proposal was small scale, involving conversion and extension; and there were residential properties on either side. The property was Grade ll listed, however the proposal was felt to be sensitive to the character of the buildings and not deemed to cause harm to the designated heritage assets. Two parking spaces were to be provided per dwelling which reflected the adopted parking standards.

Attention was drawn to late correspondence, consisting of 12 objections to the proposal. These were summarised by the officer and included: overdevelopment of the site; visual impact; inappropriate ecology report; impact on the AONB; drainage; it not being infill development; and parking.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on whether all the bedrooms in the proposal were double bedrooms. The officer confirmed that they were.

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

The unitary division member, councillor Ian Blair-Pilling then spoke in objection to the application.

In response to public statements the officer confirmed that the stable block was considered to be a curtilage listed building.

A debate followed, whereby the key issues raised included; the lack of need for housing of this type in the area, affordable housing was needed which the proposed properties were not. Heritage concerns were also raised, including the size of the extension for Plot 2, which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

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.