Minutes - Planning Committee

This page was last updated on Thursday, October 30, 2008

• Back to the previous page

• Planning Committee Minutes - (PDF file 30 kb)

Present:                    

Councillors: Peter Warrener [Acting Chairman]
Dawn Marie Cox
Ian Gordon
Neil Pidduck
Rosemary Sign
Denis Welstead

                
Clerk: Colin Arnett

Public: 3

P/08/84 Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence had been received from Cllr James

P/08/85 Public Question Time

The following prospective applicants gave presentations to the Committee and answer questions from members;

• Mr T White on the proposed development at 117 Springvale Road
• Mrs S Radburn on a retrospective application for Hillrise Lovedon Lane
  
  

P/08/86 Minutes of the Meeting held on the 24 September 2008

The minutes were agreed as a true record of the meeting and were signed by Cllr Warrener.

P/08/87 Matters Arising from the Meeting of the 24 September 2008

• P/08/78 155 Springvale Road - The clerk had circulated the latest emails received; however the current status is still unclear. The clerk was asked to write to WCC to establish the latest position. Action – the clerk
  
  
• P/08/78 Abbots Worthy Bus Stops – Cllr Cox reported that County Councillor Jackie Porter was liaising with HCC to have the middle set of bus stops removed.
  
  
• P/08/82 ID Badges – Cllr Cox reported that she had arranged for “Snappers Photography” to take photographs for the badges at the next PC meeting. She asked the clerk to send the PC Logo to them to be incorporated within the badge. Action – the clerk
  
  
• P/08/82 House Numbering – Cllr Welstead reported that he is to undertake a pilot survey of one street in the summer. Action – Cllr Welstead
  
  

P/08/88 Planning Applications received since the last meeting

Case Reference	Address	Comment
08/02199/FUL	Old Kings School Martyr Worthy Road Construction of glazed rear extension	No Comment
08/02218/FUL	14 Fryers Close Conversion of detached garage	Comment Only

Members have concerns over the loss of a parking space

Case Reference	Address	Comment
08/02225/FUL	Eversley Cottage, St Marys Close Single & two storey extensions	No Comment

 

Members trust that water harvesting and permeable hard standing will be included within the specification

Case Reference	Address	Comment
08/02347/OUT	Land at Tudor Way, 128-134 Springvale Rd Redevelopment of 62 dwellings	Comment Only/ Object

 

It is noted that this is an ‘Outline’ application and that approval is only being sought for the Access. However, as the details submitted relate to the proposed development overall, we comment on these matters also.

 

Access

For the previous application, the Parish Council expressed its concerns over the impact the additional traffic generated by the development would have on the local road network. We note that, in her Decision Letter, the Inspector for the consequent appeal concluded that there would be sufficient capacity to cope without prejudice to highway safety. We accept that conclusion but are pleased that the impact would be lessened as the number of dwellings proposed has been reduced from 74 to 62. We comment further on the proposed reduction later.

However, the Decision Letter states that ‘it is not clear, from the information provided, exactly how the visibility splays sought by the County Council were calculated’. It is considered matter that this matter should be re-examined by the County Council in order that appropriate sight lines can be properly determined, and achieved within the land in the control of the applicant.

 

Living Conditions

Included in the Inspector’s grounds for refusal, was the unacceptably overbearing effect the development would have on a number of the adjacent existing properties. It is noted that this application now shows a layout for 62 dwellings. By reducing from 74, the applicant has been able to reduce the undesirable effects described. However, please see further comments below on the number of dwellings.

 

Character and Appearance

Included in the Inspector’s grounds for refusal, was that the development for 74 dwellings would have a seriously harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. By reducing to 62 the blocky effect has been reduced and has allowed more landscaping. This would appear to be an improvement but we have concerns about the suitability of the indicative house designs. It is recognised that any Full Application could show different and more acceptable designs. We are therefore obliged to reserve our position in this respect.

 

Car Parking Provision

It is noted that 93 parking spaces are proposed for 62 dwellings. This we regard as inadequate as it is likely to lead to unsightly and potentially unsafe parking on the main infrastructure road. In reality the number of parking spaces as adopted by residents will be less than 93 because the majority of those with garages are likely to use them for alternative uses. We therefore object to the number of spaces provided.

 

Pedestrian/Cycleway through the Development

It is understood that Secured by Design recognises that, the more permeability through the site, the higher the likelihood of crime as it gives criminals a reason for being there. This layout should therefore be reconsidered. We note that the access to the proposed recreation area crosses land currently owned by Milford Homes.

 

Number of Dwellings

It is noted that the application refers to approximately 62 dwellings and that the documents include a layout in ‘Evolution’ that gives an indication as to how 66 dwellings could be accommodated on the site. We would object to any higher number than 62 and consider that if permission were to be granted there should be a condition imposed that would restrict the number to 62.

 

Our reasons for considering that 62 is the acceptable maximum are that

· it will offer scope for achieving a layout and landscape provision that would allow the development to be acceptable in its context

· it should reduce the traffic impact on the local network to a preferred level

· it would offer scope for mitigating the overbearing impact on adjacent existing properties

· it would offer scope for improvements to the current parking provision

· it would tally with the density being argued as acceptable by Winchester City Council at the appeal

P/08/89 Planning Decisions advised since the 24 September 2008

P/08/89 Planning Decisions advised since the 24 September 2008

P/08/90 Clerk’s Notices

• E-Planning – notification from HALC had indicated that WCC had decided not to provide equipment [laptop computers, projectors etc.] to PC’s to facilitate the introduction of E-Planning. Members asked the clerk to write to WCC expressing their disappointment. Action – the clerk
  
  
• Local Hubs Discussion – Cllr Warrener agreed to attend this meeting on the 6 November 2008.
  
  
• Pre-application Advice – Charging – the clerk had circulated details of the guidance notes from WCC which are being introduced on from the 1 October 2008.
  
  
• Pre-Application Consultation by Developers – the clerk had circulated a letter from WCC’s Head of Planning.        

P/08/91 Chairman’s Notices   
                                                                                           

• Illuminated Speed Signs – Cllr Cox circulated maps of the parish for members to indicate where they wished to see these signs if funding was agreed.

P/08/92 Date of next meeting

The next meeting was arranged for 7.30 pm on the 26 November 2008.

The meeting closed at 9.50 pm

Signed…………………………………

Date…………………………………….

• Top of page

• Headbourne Worthy Parish Council Homepage
• Kings Worthy Parish Council Homepage

• Hampshire County Council
• Winchester City Council