Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

There were none.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th September 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 20 September 2018 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 Thursday 8^th November 2018, 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 Monday 12 November 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 Committee noted the rules on public participation.

Questions had been submitted in advance of the meeting and had been circulated as part of the agenda pack. The response to the questions were also published online as a supplement and copies were available at the meeting.

Questions and responses:

Submitted by Dr Claydon, were in relation to application 17/10079/FUL: Nightwood Farm, Lucewood Lane, West Grimstead, SP5 3RN, considered by Committee on 10 January 2018:

Q1. The responses given to my submitted questions on 20^th September were factually incorrect, misleading and showed a contempt for the due processes required of the LPA in regard to Nightwood Farm. Has the LPA reviewed what they said in the two replies?

Response: The LPA is satisfied with its responses and does not intend to review them.

Q2 Since I was given reassurances at the Planning Meeting of 20^th September in regard to the total failure of the LPA to manage the instruction of the Southern Area Planning Committee of the 10^th January nor to reject the application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for Nightwood Farm registered 21^st June  I would request a clarification and an update in what is happening for the benefit of  the whole Planning Committee.

Response: After the application was refused the LPA liaised with the Environment Agency who were considering what action to take under their legislation.  On 21 February the Environment Agency informed the LPA that they did not intend to take any action.  On 1 June the LPA’s Enforcement Team served a requisition for information, the first stage in enforcement proceedings but on 31 May the certificate of lawfulness application was received and enforcement action was held in abeyance pending consideration of this application.  The CLE remains undetermined and legal advice is expected to be received by 20 November

Q3 What was the legal advice that was given to the LPA in regard to Nightwood Farm and what I consider to have been the incorrectly validated application for the Certificate of Lawfulness.?

Response: The Council is still waiting for the legal advice.  However, we do point out that Legal Privilege is a recognised exemption under both the Freedom of Information Act and the Environment Information Regulations and upon receipt of any such advice consideration as to whether such advice can or should be released or not can then be made.

Dr Claydon was then permitted to ask supplementary questions. He addressed the Committee with the following:

Supplementary question 1

The reply that the LPA has no intention of reviewing their reply to my September question is worrying because that reply showed that there is little appreciation by the LPA of the difference between a routine planning application and an application for a certificate of lawfulness. I am not aware, as the original response seems to be addressing, of it ever being suggested that the validation should have been refused because the site or development is contentious.

Q - Why have the LPA ignored  ...  view the full minutes text for item 330.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period of 07/09/2018 to 02/11/2018.

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

Resolved

That the report on Appeals and Updates for the period of 07/09/2018 to 02/11/2018 be noted.

Cllr Devine asked the Officer how long appeals were currently taking. The Planning Team Leader noted that it varied by case, however once someone appealed, the matter then went to the inspectorate in Bristol, and was then out of the hands of the LPA. On average appeals were taking five to six months, and even up to 12 months in some cases.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

External and internal alterations/refurbishments of the historic Grade II listed part of a 24 bed residential care home. Together with the demolition of the recent (non historically significant) extensions to the rear, and construction of a Care Quality Commission (CQC) compliant replacement extension, increasing capacity to 30 bed. Demolition of two ancillary buildings and

associated landscape works and alterations to access (resubmission of 17/11250/FUL).

Public Participation

Stuart Jamieson spoke in objection to the application.

Richard Fuller spoke in objection to the application.

Matthew Airey (Wessex Care) spoke in support of the application.

Mark Bugden (Project Manager) spoke in support of the application.

Matthew Holmes (Planning Consultant) spoke in support of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer, Becky Jones presented the application for external and internal alterations/refurbishments of the historic Grade II listed part of a 24 bed residential care home. Together with the demolition of the recent (non historically significant) extensions to the rear, and construction of a Care Quality Commission (CQC) compliant replacement extension, increasing capacity to 30 bed. Demolition of two ancillary buildings and associated landscape works and alterations to access (resubmission of 17/11250/FUL).

Previous application 17/11250/FUL which had been refused, was currently at appeal. 

It was noted that by 2026 there would be a shortage of 246 bed spaces in the area.

The differences with this application compared to the previous included a row of pleached trees, a screen on upper terrace, stacked bay windows, the distance from the wall had increased, materials had been changed and simplified. The glazed extension had been shortened and now has glazed glass. There were landscaping and gardening proposals and the inclusion of a cycle building and a smoking area with this scheme. Parking remained the same.

The application was recommended for refusal.

Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that appendix 1 to the report included the full list of amendments.

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

The Division Member Cllr Sven Hocking then spoke in support of the application, noting that he had a different opinion to the Conservation and Heritage Officer, in that he agreed the front of the building did have a great amount of character, however the rest of the building which was behind did not, adding that the part the public see would not look any different.

The impact the new build would have on the rest of the local area needs to be weighed up against the benefits. This scheme included better landscaping, and screening of the buildings from Westbourne close.

I sympathise with residents; the previous proposals would have seen a large structure much close to their property but I hope most of the concerns had been addressed. It would be better to have this provision on the site than somewhere out of town.

The positives of a much-improved facility outweigh the negatives.

Cllr Hocking then moved the motion of approval, this was seconded by Cllr Devine.

A debate then followed, where they key issues raised included that the development would result in six additional well needed beds for specific types of care, which would be of great use to the community.

There was a balance to consider, between the harm to the listed building and the impact on the surrounding residents, against the benefits that an improved facility  ...  view the full minutes text for item 333.

Retention and alterations to an existing agricultural building and the retention of a stable block and tack room in connection with the use of land for equine and agricultural purposes (resubmission of 17/04844/FUL).

Public Participation

Zena Church (applicant) spoke in support of the application.

Alan Breckon (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Rosie Wilkinson spoke on behalf of Grimstead Parish Council.

The Planning Officer, Joe Richardson presented the application for retention and alterations to an existing agricultural building and the retention of a stable block and tack room in connection with the use of land for equine and agricultural purposes (resubmission of 17/04844/FUL).

The previous application which had been refused, sought to amend the design, and that included a groomsman’s quarter within the barn.

This application seeks to amend that issue with the removal of the groom’s quarter. The site also had a stable block and a tack room.

Other details included in this proposal included the removal of the French windows and replace with a shutter door. The casement windows would be retained and include shutters to give more of a barn appearance. The barn would also be timber clad and have a new roof.

The site was set back from the public highway.  There was an existing mobile home on the site, which would be removed.

The use of the barn would remain for agricultural and equestrian use.

The application was recommended for approval.

Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that current ongoing enforcement action had been suspended pending the consideration of this application. If the application was approved the applicant would in due course be permitted to apply for a variation.

The upper floor area within the barn was for general agricultural use.

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

The applicant had previously acted on bad advice of a former agent, and now sought to make improvements to reinstate a more barn like appearance to the building. The requirement of a toilet and seating area was for the comfort of her family members. The applicant did not intend to live on the site, and intended to retain the agricultural use for livestock.

Grimstead Parish Council spoke to object to the application, noting that the current barn did not reflect the original planning permission, in that it had  windows and French doors and did not blend in with the surrounding area. The PC consider the building to be more akin to an inhabitable dwelling than a barn.

The Division Member Cllr Chris Devine then spoke in objection to the application, noting a ref to another similar previous development in the local area, called Windrush, which was next to the application site, further down the road. He informed the Committee that Windrush had originally put in for an office and a tack room in a barn, then four years later they put in for a Certificate of Lawfulness and now they were living there. The size of the barn in this application was enormous, it also had a second floor, and was nothing like the original design.

This site was also in a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 334.

Retrospective planning permission for replacement gate.

Cllr Jeans left the meeting at 5.15pm, he did not take part in debate or vote on this application.

Public Participation

Rita Pope (Applicant) spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer, Hayley Clark then presented the application for retrospective planning permission for a replacement gate.

Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, there were no questions.

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

The applicant noted that since owning the cottage in 2016, they had renovated it to a high standard. The gates had been designed to ensure the cottage was always visible. The PC had not objected, and the application had been supported by Highways. The sliding mechanism was felt to have been the best option.

The Division Member Cllr Mike Hewitt then spoke in support of application, noting that the gate was of a unique style. The previous gate had opened onto the road which was now illegal. The PC had no objections and a lot of the PC Cllrs pass this property frequently and were aware of the gate. The gate did not go against the Neighbourhood Plan, and was a safe option for the family and other users. 

Cllr Hewitt then moved the motion of approval, against Officer recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr John Smale.

A debate then followed, where they key issues raised included that the cottage was an important 17^th century building, and to put a structure of this design was inappropriate and not in keeping with the surroundings.

When a cottage of this period, in a conservation area is taken on, respect for the restrictions and requirements of such a grade II listed building need to be accepted.

The original style of wooden gate should be reinstated.

The Committee then voted on the motion of approval.

The motion was not carried.

Cllr Dalton then moved the motion of refusal in line with Officer’s report and recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Devine.

Resolved

That application 18/08496/FUL be refused, as per the Officer’s recommendation, for the following reasons:

The gate is of a metal barred design, along the lines of railings found on grand country estates, with slabs of timber fixed to it.  The timbers, while unique, make for a much more visible structure.  The sliding nature of the gate is wholly uncharacteristic for the thatched cottage, the visibly modern technology intruding into all public views of the property, while its location forward of the front elevation serves to emphasis its unusual nature.  The NPPF allows for the consideration of some harm to the setting of a listed building where public benefits have been identified that would outweigh that harm; in this situation, the gate provides no such benefits and so the test in para 196 of the NPPF is not met.  Further, it is considered that the works fail to preserve the setting of the listed building, contrary to policies CP57 & CP58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 335.

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