Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber

Contact: Celia Wood Email: committeeservices@hart.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

39.

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING pdf icon PDF 364 KB

The Minutes of the meeting held on 9 December 2020 to be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting of 9 December 2020 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

40.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

To receive any apologies for absence from Members*.

 

*Note: Members are asked to email Committee Services in advance of the meeting as soon as they become aware they will be absent.

Minutes:

Apologies had been received from Councillor Kennett, substituted by Councillor Dorn.

41.

CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

Minutes:

The Chairman advised Members that site visit restrictions will continue

during the current Covid-19 lockdown. The Planning Team will work with

planning applicants to find alternative methods to assess sites and to keep the

planning process going.

42.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

To declare disclosable pecuniary, and any other, interests*.

 

*Note: Members are asked to email Committee Services in advance of the meeting as soon as they become aware they may have an interest to declare.

Minutes:

None declared.

43.

OBJECTION TO ORD/20/00007 “THE MILDMAY COURT TREE PRESERVATION ORDER, 2020" pdf icon PDF 1 MB

The Committee is asked to consider one email of objection which relates to this Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The TPO protects a lime and a horse chestnut located in rear gardens of properties in Mildmay Court.

Minutes:

Members considered an objection which related to the Mildmay Court Tree

Preservation Order (TPO).

 

Members sought clarification on the following:

 

·         The justification for a tree preservation order (TPO) for these trees and

·         the reason for the initial request.

·         The benefit of having extra protection for the trees in the future.

·         Whether work can continue without hinderance to keep the trees

·         healthy with a TPO in place.

 

DECISION

 

That TPO ORD/20/00007 be confirmed.

 

Ms Sarah Golley spoke against the Tree Preservation Order

 

 

44.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To accept updates via the Addendum and to consider the planning report/schedule from the Head of Place as attached.

 

Item No: 101 - 20/01539/FUL 

 

28 Finns Business Park, Bowenhurst Lane, Crondall Farnham GU10 5HP  

 

Retention of a replacement dwelling (retrospective).

 

Minutes:

Members accepted updates via the Addendum and considered the planning report from the Head of Place.

 

 

Item no:  101 - 20/01539/FUL - 28 Finns Business Park, Bowenhurst Lane, Crondall, Farnham GU10 5HP

 

The Committee was asked to consider retrospective planning permission for

the construction of a new dwelling on the application site.

 

Members discussed:

 

·         The need to look carefully at the background of this application and the possible consequences of refusing planning permission for the current occupants.

·         Would permission have been granted if the Council had been approached in the first instance.

·         Whether the proposed dwelling would have a likely adverse effect on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) given that prior to its demolition there was a converted building that had secured the appropriate mitigation.

·         The visual impact of the new building compared to the previous building.

·         The internal levels if the building in relation to the potential surface water flooding issue.

·         Whether the building would be appropriate accommodation for the future.

·         The impact on the surrounding business park which is a designated Locally Important Employment Site (LIES) if this application was approved.

·         Whether the site was suitable in terms of the environment (eg noise) and whether it was a sustainable location.

·         That the demolition of the building extinguished any fall-back position.

·         That it was not appropriate to grant a personal permission.

 

Members debated:

 

·         That the Planning Committee did not have the delegated powers to grant planning permission as the proposal represented a Departure to the Development Plan.

·         That the proposal was a material Departure to the Development Plan as it was contrary to policies SS1 and ED3 of the Plan. It was the view of the Planning Committee that whilst this was a Departure to the Development Plan that the fact that there was previously a dwelling was material and that this weighed in favour of approving an exception to Policy.

·         The need to understand the Policy implications of rejecting this Application.

·         The perceived risk to the property from surface water flooding in the area.

·         Environmental Health Officer’s report in relation to noise complaints in that location.

·         Whether by granting this Application could this set a precedent for future applications.

·         It was the view of the Committee that although the demolition of the original building extinguished the approved residential use of the site and any fall-back position, the fact that there was a previous dwelling at the site that had secured appropriate mitigation against the impact on the TBHSPA meant that this dwelling would not have a likely adverse effect on the TBHSPA.

 

After a vote, Members were against refusing the application.

 

The Chairman proposed an alternative Recommendation to refer to Full Council to grant planning permission subject to:

 

·         The Application being advertised as a Departure and no further issues being raised subject to the Secretary of State referral.

 

·         The Recommendation is subject to conditions to be drafted by the Chairman of the Planning Committee and the Planning Ward Councillor and subject to the Applicant satisfying  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.