Agenda item

Erection of a detached 5-bedroom dwelling.

DECISION – GRANT, subject to conditions and informatives on the Agenda report.

Members questioned whether a separate vote was required for Recommendation B. The Chairman confirmed that Recommendation B only comes into force if the requirements of Recommendation A are not met.

Members undertook a second vote and unanimously voted for Recommendation B.

The Chairman highlighted that due to a communication error a public speaker had not managed to register to speak in time however he would allow an additional speaker, Nicola Lyddon, to speak in objection.

The Principal Planner summarised the application as the erection of a detached 5-bedroom dwelling. She apologised that the public representation summaries and Consultee summaries had not been included in the Agenda report and confirmed that they were included in the Addendum and had been visible on the Council’s website since the date of receipt. She stated that the body of the report does however address the Representation summaries and that these had been taken into account when formulating the report.

Members reiterated that the Officers had taken the public comments and consultee comments into account within their assessment and this was confirmed.

Members considered the application and asked the following questions:

·                The definition of SAMM payments. The Development Management & Building Control Manager confirmed this was the monies paid to Hampshire County Council in relation to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area; Strategic Access Management and Monitoring was the full title for the SAMM acronym.

·                The accuracy of the scale of the street scene plan and how this was created. The separation distances between the properties on the plans were also discussed and Members were satisfied with the Development Management & Building Control Manager’s response that they are as accurate as possible however these are indicative plans.

·                The proposed in-line parking spaces and whether a dropped kerb was required. Officers confirmed that dropped kerb applications were matters for the Local Highway Authority.

·                How many storeys the proposed development was, and this was defined as two storeys with accommodation in the roof. 

·                Where the properties referenced in public speaking were located.

·                The existence of other 5-bedroom homes and family homes in the immediate area.

The Chairman highlighted that there were no Ward Members present at the meeting and that there was no official site visit requested however Members may have undertaken their own unofficial visits.

Members debated: 

·                The impact that the proposed dwelling could have on neighbour amenity.

·                The size and design of the proposed dwelling and whether it would be in keeping with the street scene or over-development.

·                Members asked the agent to consider the design and the quality of materials that may be used.

·                The proposed in-line parking spaces, which were defined as being in line with the Council’s standards. 

·                How energy efficient this proposed dwelling may be.

·                The windows on the western side of the proposed dwelling which would be obscured.

The Development Management & Building Control Manager confirmed that Building Regulations addressed the issue of energy efficiency, the regulations had been updated in June 2022.

Members undertook a recorded vote on Recommendation A, which was:

That subject to the receipt of SANG and SAMM payments within 7 calendar days of the date of the Planning Committee meeting, planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions 1-9 and informatives 1-2 on the Agenda report. 

This vote was unanimous, and Grant was carried.

DECISION – GRANT, subject to conditions and informatives on the Agenda report.

Members questioned whether a separate vote was required for Recommendation B. The Chairman confirmed that Recommendation B only comes into force if the requirements of Recommendation A are not met.

Members undertook a second vote and unanimously voted for Recommendation B.

Notes:

No site visit took place. 

Nicola Lyddon spoke against the application.

Robyn Milliner spoke for the application.