1 Not for Publication East Hampshire District Council

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held on 18 July 2013 in the Council Chamber, Penns Place, Petersfield, GU31 4EX.

Present:

Councillor A Glass (Chairman)

Councillors R Ayer, P Burridge, N Drew, *C Graham, M Harvey, T Muldoon, D Newberry, S Schillemore, G Shepherd and A Williams.

Councillor *R Harris as reserve for Councillor D Ashcroft.

* Minutes 37 to 47 (ii).

37 Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor D Ashcroft.

38 Confirmation of Minutes

The minutes of the last meeting held on 27 June 2013 were confirmed as a correct record and signed.

39 Chairman’s Announcements

The Chairman announced:

(i) The location of the fire exits and requested that everyone evacuated by one of the fire exits and assembled in the car park, where a roll call would be taken;

(ii) To ensure all members of the public could hear the proceedings of the meeting, a portable loop system was available;

(iii) Asked that all present switched off their mobile phones to prevent interference with the microphones;

(iv) Asked that those making representations used the microphone when speaking; and

(v) Section 1, Part 2, Item (iii) – The Cottage, Cockshott Lane, Froxfield, Petersfield, GU32 1BB had been withdrawn from the agenda.

1 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

40 Declarations of Interest

Councillor(s) Item Number Nature of Details of Interest Interest Cllr Anthony Williams Part 1 – Section 1 – Perception Cllr Williams was a item (i) – Heatherley of bias member of Headley Wood Natural Burial Parish Council which Site, Headley Road, had consulted on the Grayshott, Hindhead. application. He was present at the meeting when the application was discussed, but he did not take part in the vote.

Cllr Nick Drew Part 2 – Section 1 – Perception Cllr Drew had attended item (i) – Brickyards of bias a number of meetings Industrial Estate, with Steep Marsh Rockpits Lane, Steep Community Group and Marsh, Petersfield, Steep Parish Council Hampshire, GU32 2BN. regarding this application.

41 Acceptance of Supplementary Matters

Councillors noted the supplementary papers which included information received since the agenda had been published. These were reported verbally at the meeting and are attached as Annex A to these minutes.

42 Future Items

The Committee agreed to visit the following sites, provided that they were to be brought before the Planning Committee:

38294 - 211 Lovedean Lane, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 9RT.

20209/007 – Ropley Lime Quarry, Soames Lane, Ropley, Alresford, SO24 0ER.

43 Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended) – Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 – Development Applications

Report of the Service Manager Planning Development, PS.405/2013 was considered and it was RESOLVED that:

2 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

Application No., Site and Description: Resolution:

52600/001/RENU Permission subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A. Heatherley Wood Natural Burial Site, Headley Road, Grayshott, Hindhead

RENEWAL OF EXTANT PLANNING PERMISSION 52600 - CHANGE OF USE OF SITE TO NATURAL BURIAL GROUND, INCLUDING NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO HIGHWAY, NEW PARKING AREAS, SINGLE STOREY RECEPTION AREA, STABLES/GARAGE/STORE SHED AND PROVISION OF BURIAL AREAS (PLANS AVAILABLE TO VIEW ON 52600)

50647/012/FUL Permission subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A. land rear of 28 - 32 Queens Crescent, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 9ND

TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING

31084/008/FUL Permission subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A. 19 Forest Road, Whitehill, Bordon, GU35 0BJ

SIX BED RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME (AS AMENDED BY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 11/6/2013, 13/06/2013)

54778/001/FUL Permission subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A. 35 The Spinney, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 9PN

ATTACHED DWELLING

SDNP/13/01966/FUL Permission subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A. Brickyards Industrial Estate, Rockpits Lane, Steep Marsh, Petersfield, GU32

3 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

2BN

Three Industrial units - amendment to previously approved scheme (SDNP/12/00513/FUL)

SDNP/13/01583/FUL Permission subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A. 6 Herne Road, Petersfield, GU31 4DP

Detached dwelling with associated parking - Site is to the West of 6 Herne Road.

SDNP/13/02191/FUL Delegated

The Cottage, Cockshott Lane, Froxfield, Petersfield, GU32 1BB

Change of use of land to residential with retention of outbuilding and solar panels (amended block and location plans received 1/7/2013)

SDNP/13/01805/FUL Permission subject to conditions as set out in Appendix A. Quarry Farm, Empshott Green, Empshott, Liss, Hampshire, GU336HU

Creation of hardstanding

SDNP/13/02195/FUL Refused for the reasons as set out in Appendix B. Church Farm, Goleigh Farm Lane, Selborne, Alton, GU32 1BS

Change of use of cottage and barn, erection of one yurt to be used as a residential training facility. Retention of single storey addition to rear of cottage

4 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

44 PART 1 – East Hampshire District Council – Applications and related planning matters to be determined or considered by the Council as the local planning authority.

45 SECTION 1 – APPLICATIONS REPORTED IN DETAIL

(i) 52600/001 – Heatherley Wood Natural Burial Site, Headley Road, Grayshott, Hindhead – Renewal of extant planning permission 52600/001 – change of use of site to natural burial ground, including new vehicular access onto highway, new parking areas, single storey reception area, stables/garage/store shed and provision of burial areas (plans available to view on 52600)

The Service Manager Planning Development introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site along with photographs from within the site. It was for renewal of the permission granted back in 2010. The site was fairly well screened and proposed two buildings towards the front of the site and a parking area. There was no material change to the application, it was in the local gap and would not cause any harm to the gap as the built form was limited.

The determining issues for consideration were:

 Policy considerations;  Impact upon the Local Gap;  Contamination; and  Highway implications.

The officer’s recommendation was for permission.

The committee felt that the proposal was an exceptionally good use of the site and supported the officer’s recommendation.

The committee voted on the proposal subject to the supplementary matters sheet.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 11 Councillors voting FOR permission, no Councillors voting AGAINST permission and 1 Councillor ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED, as set out in Part 1, Appendix A of these minutes.

(ii) 50647/012 – Land rear of 28–32 Queens Crescent, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 9ND – Two detached dwellings with associated parking.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site along with the proposed site layout, elevations and streetscene.

5 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

She drew the committee’s attention to the supplementary matters sheet. There was a correction to the report, comments had been received from the County Ecologist with no objection and there was a change to the recommendation.

The character of St Ann’s Road was predominantly bungalows, whereas Queens Crescent consisted more of two storey dwellings. The eaves height for the proposed two new dwellings had been brought down to single storey.

There was concern that the site was cramped in relation to the neighbours, however, additional land had been acquired through part of the rear garden of 32 Queens Crescent.

The Highway Authority were satisfied that there was adequate parking.

The determining issues for consideration were:

 Principle of development;  Appeal decisions;  Impact on character of the area;  Impact on the amenities of adjoining occupiers;  Highway considerations;  Public open space, transportation and environmental improvement contributions; and  Other issues.

The officer’s recommendation was for permission.

Mr Trevor Cousins addressed the committee on behalf of objectors.

The dwellings were located in St Ann’s Road and not Queen’s Crescent. Therefore how the houses looked in Queen’s Crescent, had no relevance on this application.

With regard to the eaves, the new build should follow the same as those in St Ann’s Road to achieve continuity of the other dwellings in that road.

The proposed dwelling plans put them out of alignment to the other dwellings on the left hand side of St Ann’s Road.

This would have a significant affect on St Ann’s Road, irrespective of the proposed off road parking. It could not cope now and it would only get worse. Objectors’ greatest concern was the emergency services. How would they cope? The answer to that question was that they would not be able to cope and lives and property would be at risk.

There would be no hedgerows left. In the plans, objectors believed that the hedgerows had been taken away to facilitate the two double car spaces and two gateways. Also, the plans showed no hedgerow running down the side of 1 St

6 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

Ann’s Road and the left hand side of the proposed dwellings. There was a big mistake made on the new build on the corner of Queens Crescent & St Ann’s Road. The hedgerow there was replaced by fence panels, which was originally passed, with the hedgerow to remain and was omitted from the plans. These hedgerows had been there for at least 60 years. They played a big part in providing habitat for all forms of wildlife. No wonder wildlife was dwindling; we keep taking away their habitat. On that note objectors wanted the remaining hedgerow that was left to remain as it stood, to provide a habitat for the wildlife. Not only to benefit their children, but their children’s children.

The new dwelling would overlook 10 Princess Gardens and with the incline going down to no. 10, it would affect the privacy of the residents at that property by seeing into the lounge, kitchen, patio and garden. Would you tolerate this?

To conclude, this proposed development had been rejected on numerous occasions, by East Hampshire District Council and by higher authorities outside the county. Even though the plans had been tweaked to try and get the plans through.

Mr Jeffrey Wakefield, the agent, addressed the committee.

He represented the applicant Heather Hodgkinson.

Heather was a child of Horndean, born to Dolly and Samy Samson on the 18 July 1948 at their family bungalow, address at the time 28 Drill Hall Road, now Queens Crescent and went to the local schools, churches and played in the recreation ground at the end of St Ann’s Road.

Her parents Samy and Dolly had lived in the bungalow since 1947 and were heavily involved with the village life until their deaths. The survivor Dolly had died in 2006.

Samy had always said to his daughter Heather, “this land where the bungalow stands is right for development and see to it that this should happen”.

This had partly happened with the then dilapidated bungalow being demolished and the part of the land where the bungalow stood had been sold to a local builder who had built a very attractive family house, designed by his architect, and is enjoyed by the occupants and neighbours alike, and within keeping with the rest of the properties in the road.

Acquiring a further garden area behind number 30 Queens Crescent enabled the architect to plan to have enough space to build two detached chalet bungalows with plenty of garden space, even taking into account the three parking spaces and bike sheds which some of the surrounding properties did not enjoy.

The proposed development at the rear of 28, 30 and 32 Queens Crescent in St Ann’s Road was in a quiet cul-de-sac with only local traffic using the roadway. In any event they had provided for three parking spaces and a bike shed for each dwelling. The

7 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

architect had also worked very hard to ensure that, in this second application, all the objections made to the first application from the Council, Highways and local residents had been met. He considered that like the detached house built in Queens Crescent, this development would enhance St Ann’s Road, not only for the betterment of new owners, but also the surrounding neighbours.

He asked that the committee consider favourably this development and not only to fulfil Dolly and Samy’s legacy, but to improve the well being of the surrounding properties and occupants.

Cllr Lynn Evans, the Ward Councillor, addressed the committee.

 The character and appearance related to St Ann’s Road, not Queens Crescent or Princess Gardens. Although efforts had been made, it still remained the case that the ridge heights were too high. The spacious character and appearance had been compromised;  The parking was only adequate for the occupation of the dwellings, there was no visitor parking or provision for vehicles to exit in a forward gear; and  If the committee were minded to grant permission, Cllr Evans asked that the whole of condition 4 be included to retain boundary hedging as the hedge was part of the character of that road.

In response to a question the Senior Planning Officer highlighted the differences between this and the previous application. The previous reason for refusal related to the height of the eaves and ridge being over dominant. The eaves height had now been reduced and the two dwellings were set slightly further back.

The committee regretted the loss of the hedgerow although it was confirmed by the Principal Planning Officer that this could be removed at any time. Some members of the committee felt that the height was out of keeping with other properties in the road.

The committee voted on the proposal subject to the supplementary matters sheet and with a minor amendment to the boundary treatment condition to include reference to retaining or replacing the existing boundary hedgerow.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 7 Councillors voting FOR permission, 4 Councillors voting AGAINST permission and 1 Councillor ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED, as set out in Part 1, Appendix A of these minutes.

(iii) 31084/008 – 19 Forest Road, Whitehill, Bordon, GU35 0BJ – Six bed residential care home (as amended by additional information received 11/06/2013, 13/06/2013).

8 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site along with site plan and elevations.

She drew the committee’s attention to the supplementary matters sheet as there was a correction to the report, there were five parking spaces proposed not six.

This was an application to replace a dwelling, which had now been demolished, with another dwelling. There would be six people with learning disabilities living together in the property with an element of care provided. Policy supported this type of use and the area already had mixed styles of housing, so it would not be out of character. The building had been designed to avoid unacceptable impacts on the occupiers of neighbouring property.

The determining issues for consideration were:

 Principle of development;  Design and impact on the character of the area;  Impact on neighbour amenities;  Parking and highways safety;  Use of renewable energy;  Developers contributions; and  Other issues.

The officer’s recommendation was for permission.

Mr Morgan addressed the committee on behalf of objectors.

 It would affect the whole road and access to the Forest Centre due to increased traffic;  There would be five parking spaces, one of those was a disabled bay which left four spaces; and  It was a multiple occupancy dwelling so there would be at least eight people there 24/7.

Town Cllr Sally Pond addressed the committee on behalf of Whitehill Town Council.

The residents of Forest Road were most concerned about this application and had expressed their view that it was undesirable at this location. The Planning Committee of Whitehill Town Council totally supported this view.

Forest Road in Bordon was already extremely congested with cars parked along the road at different times of the day, which caused real problems for the smooth moving of traffic. It was also a road much used by children on their way to the different schools, often accompanied by their mothers with buggies.

9 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

This application had been seen by Whitehill Town Council twice in recent months and she reiterated the view of the Committee which could be seen in the report.

Whitehill Town Council objected as the application had poor vehicular access and visibility, poor access for emergency vehicles, was an inappropriate change of use, with insufficient information contrary to policy. It also did not comply with draft Town Design Statement and was detrimental to the streetscene.

She concluded by saying that Whitehill Town Council was strongly opposed to the application as the site was inappropriate for this type of building.

Ms Vanessa Reid, the applicant, addressed the committee.

 They had submitted the application due to demand;  Bordon was an ideal location as it was a local community setting offering shopping, doctors, schools, clubs and there was a nice park down the road;  It was difficult to try and find the right locations for people to integrate which they had done successfully in other places where there had been no impact on the neighbours; and  They would employ local people to work there and would have a staff force of 14.

Cllr Zoya Faddy, the Ward Councillor, addressed the committee.

 Concerned as it was well known what a tight squeeze Forest Road was;  A lot of the residents who lived there did not have any parking and therefore parked on the roads;  Welcomed the idea of a care home but was this the right site;  The site was near to the shops but when walking, the roads were very dangerous and heavy delivery lorries mounted the pavement to get around parked cars;  She was concerned about the effect on neighbours amenities;  The bulk of the building looked bigger than the previous application;  There were highway safety and parking issues;  On page 46 of the report, paragraph 5, it referred to the use of renewable energy. As the eco-town would be coming, she felt that a condition should be added that the property be built to code 4; and  It was an assumption that staff would be local but that could not be guaranteed, they may come from Headley and have to travel by car.

The Service Manager Planning Development said that although the building was higher than a bungalow, Forest Road was characterised by a mix of building types. There would be no windows overlooking the bungalow next door.

The Chairman offered Cllr Faddy and the public speakers an additional minute to sum up.

10 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

Cllr Zoya Faddy welcomed the Councillors comments.

Mr Morgan, an objector, said that the previous property on that site which had been demolished was a bungalow. The rear of the property was extremely wet due to an underground river and the water table was extremely high. A bungalow was being constructed to the rear of this site and works had halted due to drainage problems, therefore he was concerned that this proposal would heighten the water table and cause problems from flooding.

Town Cllr Pond said that there had been mention of staff possibly parking in the Forest Centre car park if they could not park on the driveway of the property. She wanted to make people aware that the Lidl car park was private and for those using Lidl only, it was not a public car park.

Ms Reid, the applicant, said that there would be three staff on duty at a time not starting their shifts at peak times. The company operated a policy and procedure whereby they were environmentally friendly and car shared.

The committee had differing opinions regarding the bulk of the property, parking and highway implications. It was highlighted that the highway authority had not objected to the proposal and that had it been a five or six bedroom house anywhere else, you would only require three parking spaces.

Cllr Burridge proposed that a condition be added to withdraw permitted development rights.

This was seconded by Cllr Drew.

In response to concerns, the Service Manager Planning Development confirmed that a condition regarding use of renewable energy in the development would be added.

The committee voted on the proposal subject to the two additional conditions being added which related to permitted development rights being removed and also the use of renewable energy in the development.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 7 Councillors voting FOR permission, 1 Councillor voting AGAINST permission and 4 Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED, as set out in Part 1, Appendix A of these minutes.

(iv) 54778/001 – 35 The Spinney, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 9PN – Attached dwelling.

11 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site along with a proposed layout plan, proposed elevations and photographs from within The Spinney.

The Spinney was a residential cul-de-sac with a mixture of properties, the majority being two storeys. The property was on a corner plot and required the sub-division of the plot. There was currently extant permission for a two storey side extension to 35 The Spinney and this application contained only slight variations. The Highways Officer confirmed that the application met the standard parking requirement.

The determining issues for consideration were:

 Principle of development;  Design and appearance;  Impact on amenities of neighbouring properties;  Access and parking;  Flood risk;  Energy conservation; and  Public open space, transport and environmental improvements.

The officer’s recommendation was for permission.

Mr Brian Mulcock addressed the committee on behalf of objectors.

The original planning application for 35 The Spinney was for a five bedroomed house with no extra parking. This new application proposed a separate dwelling with two additional parking places both with access on to The Spinney as shown in the developer’s plan. For vehicles to exit, they would need to cross a blind bend into the road, where vision was already severely obscured. Objectors felt that this was unnecessarily dangerous and totally unacceptable, especially as the bend was immediately opposite a public footpath used twice daily by children on their way to and from school.

The Highways Officer’s comments would appear to support these additional parking places by allowing a change in the visibility requirement to 2.4 m x 14 m. This was based on their estimation of vehicle speed along The Spinney to be between 10 and 12 mph. Objectors did not know how Hampshire County Highways arrived at these speeds but believed this calculation to be unrealistic, erroneous and dangerously under estimated. The Spinney has a 30 mph speed limit and the usual speed of traffic was far nearer 20 mph and often exceeded this. Therefore, in the objectors’ opinion, their sight line calculation was quite incorrect.

Photographs submitted to the committee and the developer’s agent showed typical daily on road parking in The Spinney, especially in the area of no. 35. The Highway code (Article 217) stated that vehicles should not park on a bend. However, as could be seen from the photos, this was frequently ignored. The on

12 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

road parking shown in the photographs was not exceptional but a regular occurrence and on many occasions passing traffic had to mount the pavement to get through. If development was allowed, the parking problem would be compounded and safety further compromised.

Policy T9, section A, of the “Local Plan Second Review”, stated “planning permission for development requiring a new or improved access will be permitted provided that it would not cause danger or inconvenience on a public highway”. Therefore, on the grounds of safety, objectors felt that this planning application should not be allowed.

Should the committee fail to uphold their objection then serious consideration should be given to ensure that the developers were required to: 1. Provide secure access for emergency vehicles and refuse collection. 2. Restrict the number of contractors vehicles allowed at any one time of the day and limit the area where vehicles can be parked. 3. Restrict the days and times of the week that work can take place.

Mr Jonathan McDermott, the agent, addressed the committee.

 There was sufficient parking on the site;  The open frontage would be preserved in line with the adjoining house.

Cllr David Evans, the Ward Councillor, addressed the committee.

 The Spinney was a cul-de-sac and the properties were mostly grouped in terraces;  Some, not all, had integral garages and used their driveways for cars. Car ownership had risen and therefore roadside parking was common and cars here were parked on bends. The proposed development would mean the cars would have to exit onto the highway on a bend. This went against policy T9 as it would cause danger and inconvenience to a public highway;  The report stated that the sight lines were adequate. In actuality, the road had many parked cars; and  The highway authority conclusion was flawed as it was based on faulty assumptions. Cllr Evans realised that in order to reject the highways advice it required evidence. The photographs presented by the Senior Planning Officer were ample evidence and therefore, he felt that the application should be refused.

Councillors expressed concerns that this was not the same as the previous application as it was for a new dwelling rather than an extension, and questioned whether it would constitute overdevelopment of the site.

The Senior Planning Officer said that in terms of overdevelopment, there was adequate amenity space for the sub-division. It would have a staggered building line and would sit back on a wider point of the plot.

13 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

The committee voted on the proposal.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 7 Councillors voting FOR permission, 3 Councillors voting AGAINST permission and 2 Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that subject to receipt of a satisfactory unilateral undertaking by 22 July 2013 to secure the financial contributions towards off-site provision of public open space, Environmental Improvements and alternative transport measures, then the Services Manager Planning Development be authorised to grant PERMISSION, as set out in Part 1, Appendix A of these minutes.

46 PART 2 – South Downs National Park – Applications and related planning matters to be determined or considered by the Council on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority.

47 SECTION 1 – APPLICATIONS REPORTED IN DETAIL

(i) SDNP/13/01966/FUL – Brickyards Industrial Estate, Rockpits Lane, Steep Marsh, Petersfield, Hampshire, GU32 2BN – Three industrial units – amendment to previously approved scheme (SDNP/12/00513/FUL).

The Service Manager Planning Development introduced the report and displayed photographs of the site, together with a layout plan.

The site consisted of four former chicken sheds and planning permission had already been granted for an additional building along the southern boundary to create three further industrial units.

Work had commenced and what was constructed did not accord with the planning permission granted. The key consideration was the differences between what had been granted and what had been constructed and the table on page 67 of the agenda set out the changes in dimensions.

The committee had to consider whether there were any material changes that were so different to what had been permitted that it was now unacceptable.

The determining issues for consideration were:

 Principle of the development;  Design;  Impact on neighbouring properties;  Impact on the South Downs National Park;  Nature conservation and trees;  Parking; and  Traffic generation.

14 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

The officer’s recommendation was for approval.

Parish Cllr Nick Hurst addressed the committee on behalf of Steep Parish Council.

Size - documented plans stated a difference of 35cm in height. This referred to the increase in ridge height. However, the difference on plan was 47cm at the gutter line, and it was this which caused the visual impact. It had been reported that the new plans referred to the height from the finished floor level. This was not relevant. The important measure was the height from the existing ground level. The building, if finished in its current form, would entirely dominate the site and was completely out of scale with the original converted poultry houses.

Traffic - the survey data submitted with this application was the same, applicant's commissioned, flawed data as used in support of the previous permitted application. As stated then, and I repeat now, this survey measured traffic flows on the south side of the site only, albeit in both directions. The survey carried out by HCC Highways recently was also fatally flawed as it was carried out over school half term, included a bank holiday, and when one of the roads into the hamlet was closed. Hampshire County Council had agreed to another survey during a normal working week. As it stood, therefore, there was no data to support the dropping of the previous objection on traffic grounds. It was not suggested that the Brickyard site was responsible for all, or even a majority, of the heavy traffic through the hamlet of Steep Marsh. The point made by residents is that the infrastructure could not bear any more load - regardless of its source or destination. The officer's report stated that the additional traffic generated would not cause additional harm to the environment. At what level did the authority deem that additional harm will be caused?

Visibility - it had been claimed that the structure could not be seen from any dwelling. It could be seen from at least five homes in Steep Marsh. It was also visible from a public footpath on the hangars near the 'Poet's Stone' memorial to Edward Thomas. This beautiful point in the Hampshire Hangars was, understandably, one of the tourist highlights of the National Park. The additional height, and its orientation made this structure much more prominent than the lower level buildings on the site.

Drainage - there was no drainage plan submitted with this application. However, it was noted that a condition was proposed to address this. One inch of rainfall on this roof would generate 300 cubic feet of water.

Landscaping - in its current position, and especially given the additional height, there was no room for landscaping as required by the previous permission. This application should not be permitted to proceed until this shortcoming is addressed. The proposed condition here is also noted.

Steep Parish Council believed that this application should not proceed in its current form.

15 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

Mr Marcus Neal, the applicant, addressed the committee.

The new building which was about halfway through construction was an entirely metal building. It was assembled using standard sound and heat insulating panels which were bolted to the main framing which was of course erected first.

Slightly naively, he instructed the builders to erect the main frame to the nearest panel size rather than cutting down the end panels in size. As the building stood alone and was far from any other building, he thought it would not be an issue. Whilst he realised this was not a planning matter, he thought that the committee should know how this came about. It was not done for his financial gain, it was done for simplicity.

Those councillors who were able to visit the site would have seen that this single storey building was scarcely visible from anywhere and fitted in well with the other buildings on site. It was also at the opposite end of the site to where the footpath passed through.

With such a marginal difference in size, there would of course be no increase in traffic movement, nor would there be any environmental impact whatsoever. In fact, had he applied for permission for the building as it was now in the first place, he would have undoubtedly been granted it. The difference between the size of the building as it was originally granted, and how it was now, was so very slight it was only discernible with a tape measure.

He had small businesses wanting to move into these new units and hoped that the committee would pass it to allow him to get the job done.

Cllr Drew, the local councillor, addressed the committee.

 The building was now taller, wider and the design was slightly different. It was also closer to the property next door;  There were highway issues. Local residents had made very clear that these were small country lanes;  If the committee were minded to permit the application, he asked that there should be a condition for a full fence to be provided prior to the bank; and  It should also be made very clear that there were three units in this development and to not offer the opportunity for it to be combined into one unit.

In response to a query raised regarding guidance from the government saying that buildings of a certain use could be converted into housing, the Service Manager Planning Development said that under certain circumstances this would apply. It would normally be offices that could then be converted into housing. This could not be done from the use that was being proposed but it could be changed from B1 use to office use and then from office use to residential use so for that reason a condition could be added. He also felt it appropriate to add a further condition that

16 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

the units could not be combined into one unit without the consent of the planning authority.

Some Councillors had attended the site visit which had proven that the difference was very small. They had looked at the site from all possible viewpoints and felt that it was insignificant. The committee felt that the building in essence was not much bigger and that it was a genuine mistake. The key was that had this application have been before the committee in the first place, would they have given it permission then.

The committee voted on the proposal subject to two further conditions being added that it could only be used for B1 use and that it must remain as three units.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 9 Councillors voting FOR permission, 1 Councillor voting AGAINST permission and 2 Councillors ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that permission be APPROVED, as set out in Part 2, Appendix A of these minutes.

The committee adjourned at 9.05pm.

The committee reconvened at 9.12pm.

(ii) SDNP/13/01583/FUL – 6 Herne Road, Petersfield, Hampshire, GU31 4DP – Detached dwelling with associated parking – site is to the West of 6 Herne Road.

The Service Manager Planning Development introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site along with block plan, elevations, and floor plans. He also displayed photographs from within the site and a photograph of an artist’s impression of what might be seen from the road, which would be the garage element.

There had been a sequence of planning application, a history of refusals and appeal decisions. Two cases had been refused and dismissed on appeal and the latest appeal decision could be seen in the supplementary matters.

The key issue was the impact on the character and appearance of the area. This was a further attempt to produce a scheme which addressed the issues raised in the previous reasons for refusal and the Inspector’s decision.

The Service Manager Planning Development concluded that the new property would be significantly reduced in scale. The principle had always been acceptable, it was the detail of the scheme, the site coverage and relationship of the building to the site boundaries which needed to be considered. It now addressed concerns by the committee plus the two Inspectors’ concerns.

17 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

The determining issues for consideration were:

 Principle of development;  Relevance of previous appeal decisions;  Impacts upon character and visual amenity;  Effects upon biodiversity;  Impacts to existing development;  Impacts to the local road network and highway safety;  Effects upon the South Downs National Park;  Developer contributions; and  Other considerations.

The officer’s recommendation was for approval.

Mr Ian Ellis addressed the committee on behalf of objectors.

He was representing the owners and residents of between 9 – 13 neighbouring properties in respect of the five applications for a backland development at this site. His clients had all consistently and strongly objected to this backland development. The previous South Planning Committee and two appeal Inspectors had agreed that the development of this site was wrong. This fifth application was simply an exercise in architectural camouflage in that it hid a dwelling in the style of an ancillary building.

The officer report and recommendation was based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the first Inspector’s appeal decision. The Inspector did not conclude that backland development was acceptable in principle, he observed that the addition of a building, not a dwelling, to the rear of the street frontage would not be out of keeping. That was not the same thing. The first Inspector found against the form of the building and its relationship between buildings and the area between them and lack of spatial quality.

The second Inspector concurred with his colleague on the issue of spatial quality and the character and went on to conclude that the dimensional constraints of the site, particularly in its comparative narrow width meant that development of the site would be an uncharacteristic and visually harmful form of development in conflict with policies GS2 and HE1. This was given greater significance by the NPA consultation over extending the Petersfield Conservation Area up to this site’s eastern boundary.

The physical constraints of the site were exactly the same as before. All that had changed was that a smaller building had been substituted for the previous over blown dwellings. Reducing the width of the house by 1m either side did not materially change the relationship and spatial qualities between buildings; this proposal did not overcome the Planning Authority and the appeal Inspectors’ fundamental point that the development of this site was contrived and uncharacteristic.

18 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

This part of Petersfield was an area of generously proportioned and mature gardens with trees providing a welcoming contrast to the denser form of development of the Herne Farm Estate. The site was not part of the Herne Farm estate. The latter was not the pattern book for this contrived backland plot.

In terms of the front elevation design, this was perfectly acceptable for an ancillary residential curtilage building in the same was that a hay stack on agricultural land would be. But dwellings masquerading as hay stacks were unacceptable development and so should a dwelling masquerading as an ancillary building.

There was no support in the National Planning Policy Framework for this form of development. The proposal remained totally misconceived and utterly inappropriate with severe adverse consequences for the local environment and should be refused planning permission.

Mr David Nash, the agent, addressed the committee.

 There had been significant changes in local and national planning context since the appeal decisions;  There was a shortage of housing in the district;  It would be recycling a vacant plot of land;  The new property had been scaled down considerably. There was more than 40% reduction in the site; and  The Town Council had raised no objection.

Cllr Bob Ayer, the local member, addressed the committee.

 He had been involved with this site since the appeal in 2009;  He had questioned the positioning of the first development well forward on the site and had been advised that it fitted the curvature of Herne Road. Local opinion was that it had been placed in anticipation for the subsequent backland development;  Was uncomfortable with the officer’s conclusion in paragraph 9; and  This was not part of the Herne estate, it was an old and valued part of Petersfield.

The committee had mixed opinions as to how similar this was to the previously refused application. The Service Manager Planning Development said that policy had not changed significantly since the previous decisions. It was the detail of the scheme that was key, not the principle. Officers had supported the previous proposals as they could not see how you could identify the specific harm to the character of the area. This application addressed the issues of footprint, site coverage and distances from boundaries.

In response to a question raised, the Service Manager Planning Development said that there were no conditions to prevent the garage being converted into liveable accommodation so would add one to prevent that from happening.

19 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

It was felt that the Inspector’s report was open to interpretation but on balance, the committee felt that officers had formed the right conclusion.

The committee voted on the proposal subject to a condition being added that the garage was not to be converted into liveable accommodation.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 7 Councillors voting FOR permission, 4 Councillors voting AGAINST permission and 1 Councillor ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that outline permission be GRANTED, as set out in Part 2, Appendix A of these minutes.

Cllr Graham and Cllr Harris left the meeting.

(iii) SDNP/13/02191/FUL – The Cottage, Cockshott Lane, Froxfield, Petersfield, GU32 1BB – Change of use of land to residential with retention of outbuilding and solar panels (amended block and location plans received 01/07/2013).

This application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

(iv) SDNP/13/01805/FUL – Quarry Farm, Empshott Green, Empshott, Liss, GU33 6HU – Creation of hardstanding.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report and displayed an aerial photograph of the site along with a site plan and photographs of the site. The site had a mixed agricultural and equestrian use. This application was in relation to the equestrian use and the hardstanding was to enable the storage of manure.

The determining issues for consideration were:

 Principle of development;  Impact on the character of the area and the South Downs National Park; and  Highway issues.

The officer’s recommendation was for approval.

The committee voted on the proposal.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 9 Councillors voting FOR permission, no Councillors voting AGAINST permission and 1 Councillor ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED, as set out in Part 2, Appendix A of these minutes.

20 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

(v) SDNP/13/02195/FUL – Church Farm, Manor Farm Lane, Priors Dean, Petersfield, Alton, Hampshire, GU32 1BS – Change of use of cottage and barn, erection of one yurt to be used as a residential training facility. Retention of single storey addition to rear of cottage.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report. It was an isolated, rural site and the main house was a Grade 2 listed building. This application was to retain the yurt which was already up and use the barn and other outbuilding as a training facility for up to 20 young people during the summer months. It was proposed that they would not be travelling to the site themselves but being picked up from Petersfield railway station.

Very strong objections had been received from highways as they felt that it was not a suitable location for any additional traffic. The Senior Planning Officer said that access was very difficult down long and winding lanes.

The determining issues for consideration were:

 Principle of proposal;  Impact on the character of the area and South Downs National Park landscape and on the listed buildings;  Impact on neighbours’ amenity; and  Highways safety.

The officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

Cllr Drew, the local councillor, addressed the committee.

 Agreed with the officer’s recommendation of refusal;  Thought that the reason for refusal should not be primarily highways; and  They were in desperate need of more barn storage in the area, not less.

The committee felt that the application was lacking details of a business plan and the local councillor confirmed that the site was incredibly cut off.

The committee voted on the proposal.

Following the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED, 9 Councillors voting FOR refusal, no Councillors voting AGAINST refusal and 1 Councillor ABSTAINING from voting.

It was therefore RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED, as set out in Part 2, Appendix B of these minutes.

………………….. Chairman

The meeting commenced at 6.30pm and concluded at 10.23pm

21 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

Annex A

18 July 2013 Planning Committee

Supplementary Matters to be considered as part of Planning Officer's Report on Planning Applications.

S1 Item 01 Heatherley Wood Natural Burial Site, Headley Road, Grayshott, Hindhead 52600/001/RENU

CORRECTIONS

On page 18 under number 4. Highways Implications, it is stated that the Highway Authority has requested additional information relating to the proposed access point. That comment related to the previous application, for which renewal is now being sought, and the required details have been agreed with Hampshire County Council. Condition 12 is therefore recommended to be altered as shown below. The implementation of the works has been agreed with Hampshire County Council through a Section 278 agreement.

CHANGES TO RECOMMENDATION

Condition 12: Prior to the commencement of the use of the development, the detailed scheme of works in relation to the access and sightlines which were approved in accordance with Planning Permission reference 52600 (Access construction details as per drawing nos. EH01-S278-01C, EH01-S278-02, EH01- S278-03, EH01-S278-05C and EH01-S278-06.) shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interest of highway safety.

S1 Item 02 land rear of 28 - 32 Queens Crescent, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 9ND 50647/012/FUL

CORRECTIONS

There is an error in the report at the top of page 34 under 3. Impact on character of the area, the first sentence should read 'The current proposal is for a pair of detached chalet bungalows...'

FURTHER CONSULTEE COMMENTS

Further comments have been received from the County Ecologist, as follows, following concerns being raised that there may be slow worms present on the site:

22 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

'In summary, I consider that on balance there are unlikely to be any significant ecological constraints at this site. The Design & Access Statement states that ‘there appear to be no nature conservation issues’, although statements such as this should be backed up by submitted evidence. From a review of aerial photography it would appear that the application site is fairly small and isolated by residential dwellings and roads and is therefore unlikely to support any significant populations of protected species. Whilst I am content that there are unlikely to be any ecological issues arising, it is not unknown to encounter protected species unexpectedly on such small application sites and therefore, should any such species be encountered during development works, it is for the applicant to demonstrate how any animals can be protected from harm or undue disturbance.'

CHANGES TO RECOMMENDATION

Condition 9 can be removed because the consultation awaited from the County Ecologist has been received and no further conditions are required.

It is recommended that the following note to the applicant be added to any permission that is granted:

The applicant is advised that if any protected species is found on the site during the course of the development hereby permitted, it must be demonstrated to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority how the animals will be protected from harm or undue disturbance.

S1 Item 03 19 Forest Road, Whitehill, Bordon, GU35 0BJ 31084/008/FUL

CORRECTIONS

Page 42. Paragraph three should state that five parking spaces are proposed.

It has been requested that further information be provided by officers with regard to the numbers of staff that the applicant has indicated will be on site at different times (with regard to impact on parking requirements).

It is stated in the application that 40% of the organisation's current employees live within the postcode area that Forest Road falls under, so this site is seen as a good location for the recruitment of local people to work on the site. There is therefore considered to be a high possibility that local staff who could walk or cycle to work could be employed.

23 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

There would be 3 staff on duty during the day with visits from a manager. In the evening and overnight there would be 2 staff on duty. There would be two 12-hour shifts of 7:00am to 7:00pm and 7:00pm to 7:00am. The parking proposed on the site of 5 spaces would cater for the requirements of the proposed use, including the parking of a minibus for the use of residents.

S1 Item 01 Brickyards Industrial Estate, Rockpits Lane, Steep Marsh, Petersfield SDNP/13/01966/FUL

FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS

One further representation received from owner of neighbouring land concerned that boundary planting could not be implemented as land to the south of the building lies outside of the applicant’s ownership. They also raise concern that the Council’s Landscape Officer has not commented on the application.

S1 Item 02 6 Herne Road, Petersfield, Hampshire, GU31 4DP SDNP/13/01583/FUL

FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS

A further response has been received in support of the application from the applicant raising the following points:

 In the report, especially from objectors that this plot is constantly being described as too small and narrow for a dwelling, but this is simply not the case  A number of objectors appear to have duplicated their objections  As stated in the report, the area of the plot including the driveway is 0.05 ha. We have shown the area excluding the driveway at 0.045ha, to show the buildable plot area and as you can see this is still larger than many adjacent plots  Curtin & Co, who are specialists in community engagement, are acting for the applicant and have circulated this table to all members who will be familiar with it at Committee.

Officer Note: A table is attached which highlights plot sizes for surrounding developments which members will have seen. As noted in our report the size of the plot is only one facet and while there are a number of small plots they are not in most cases related to detached plots.

24 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

S1 Item 03 The Cottage, Cockshott Lane, Froxfield, Petersfield, GU32 1BB SDNP/13/02191/FUL

This application has been withdrawn from the Committee and will be determined under officers delegated powers.

25 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

Part 1

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE

Applications determined by the Council as the Local Planning Authority

APPENDIX A

PS.405/2013 18 July 2013

PROPOSAL RENEWAL OF EXTANT PLANNING PERMISSION 52600 - CHANGE OF USE OF SITE TO NATURAL BURIAL GROUND, INCLUDING NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO HIGHWAY, NEW PARKING AREAS, SINGLE STOREY RECEPTION AREA, STABLES/GARAGE/STORE SHED AND PROVISION OF BURIAL AREAS (PLANS AVAILABLE TO VIEW ON 52600) LOCATION: Heatherley Wood Natural Burial Site, Headley Road, Grayshott, Hindhead REFERENCE 52600/001/RENU/NP NO:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this planning permission. Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

2 All development shall be stopped immediately in the event that contamination not previously identified is found to be present on the development site and details of the contamination shall be reported immediately in writing to the Planning Authority.

Development shall not re-start on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority:- (a) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site.

(b) a written report of the findings which include, a description of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential

26 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of contamination found on site and (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority)

and before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

The above site works, details and certification submitted shall be in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

3 No development shall start on site until details of a scheme for foul and surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details should include provision for all surface water drainage from parking areas and areas of hardstanding. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before of any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for drainage. Note: The applicant is requested to contact the Council's Environmental Services Works Operations Section as soon as possible regarding the above condition.

27 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

4 Notwithstanding any indication of materials that may have been given in the application or in the absence of such information, no development shall start on site until samples / details including manufacturers details of all the materials to be used for external facing and roofing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that the materials used in the construction of the approved development harmonise with the surroundings.

5 No development shall start on site until a fully detailed landscape and planting scheme for the site, including detailing of a buffer zone to the adjacent properties has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with the recommendations of the appropriate British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice. These works shall be carried out in the first planting season after practical completion or first occupation of the development, whichever is earlier, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to enable proper consideration to be given to the impact of the proposed development on existing trees.

6 No development shall start on site until a detailed boundary treatment plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of the positions, design, materials/species of the boundary treatments to be erected/planted. The approved details shall be fully implemented before the use of the development is commenced and/or any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the area and to safeguard the privacy and amenities of the residents of the locality.

7 No development shall start on site until the access, including the footway and/or verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of 2.4 metres by 215 metres provided in accordance with the approved plans. The lines of sight splays shown on the approved plans shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 1 metre in height above the adjacent carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so thereafter. Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety.

28 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

8 Before use of the development is commenced provision for the turning, loading, unloading and the parking of vehicles shall have been made within the site in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

9 Before use of the development is commenced, provision for parking shall have been made within the site in accordance with the approved plans and shall be retained solely for parking purposes thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the approved development.

10 Any gates provided shall be set back a minimum distance of 20m from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

11 No development shall start on site until details of a scheme to prevent surface water from the site discharging on to the adjacent highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for surface water drainage and avoid discharge of water onto the public highway.

12 Prior to the commencement of the use of the development, the detailed scheme of works in relation to the access and sightlines which were approved in accordance with Planning Permission reference 52600 (Access construction details as per drawing nos. EH01-S278-01C, EH01- S278-02, EH01-S278-03, EH01-S278-05C and EH01-S278-06.) shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interest of highway safety.

13 No development shall start on site, including demolition, until protective fencing has been erected around all trees, shrubs and other natural features at the site frontage with Headley Road and shall be retained for the duration of the works and shall be in accordance with the recommendations of BS5837:2005 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. No unauthorised access or placement of goods, fuels or chemicals, soil or other materials shall take place inside the fenced area. No burning of materials shall take place where it could cause damage to any tree or tree group to be retained on the site or on land adjoining. No soil levels within the root protection area of the trees/hedgerows to be retained shall be raised or lowered. Reason - To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be

29 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability.

14 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Application Form (received 08 April 2013)

Plans and Documents Approved under 52600: Design & access statement Environmental site assessment by RSK Letter from Environment Agency dated 23/06/2010 Assessing the groundwater pollution potential of cemetery developments booklet Appendix 4 - Environment Agency groundwater and SPZ maps Borehole record 8 no. photographs Location plan 1:2500 HWBG/10/002 - Plan 2 - key plan HWBG/10/103 - Plan 3 - detailed planting area 2 HWBG/10/104 - Plan 4 - detailed planting areas 1, 3 and 5 HWBG/10/005 - Plan 5 - grass maintenance Planting area plan showing gridlines/fencelines HW/2010/001 - Floor layout reception building HW/2010/002 - Elevations reception building HW/2010/003 - Stable and store-shed layout and elevations HW/2010/004 - General site view (south-west elevation) HW/2010/005 - Roof layout reception building and cart-shed/stable HW/2010/101 - Site layout proposals HW/2010/102A - Site layout plan (frontage) Bowleswood Farm 250m buffer 1km buffer centred on Bowleswood Farm Site survey Bowleswood Farm

Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development

Informative Notes to Applicant:

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. EHDC work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;

(a) offering a pre-application advice service,

(b) updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,

30 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

In this instance the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required. ———————————————————————————————————— ——— PROPOSAL TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING LOCATION: land rear of 28 - 32 Queens Crescent, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 9ND REFERENCE 50647/012/FUL/NP NO:

2 Notwithstanding any indication of materials that may have been given in the application or in the absence of such information, no development shall start on site until samples / details including manufacturers details of all the materials to be used for external facing and roofing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that the materials used in the construction of the approved development harmonise with the surroundings.

3 No development shall start on site until plans of the site showing details of the existing and proposed ground levels, proposed finished floor levels, levels of any paths, drives, garages and parking areas and the proposed completed height of the development and any retaining walls have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The details shall clearly identify the relationship of the proposed ground levels and proposed completed height with adjacent buildings. The development thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that a satisfactory relationship results between the new development and adjacent buildings and public areas.

4 No development shall start on site until details of a scheme to prevent surface water from the site discharging on to the adjacent highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter.

31 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

Reason - To ensure adequate provision for surface water drainage and avoid discharge of water onto the public highway.

5 No development shall start on site until a detailed boundary treatment plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of the positions, design, materials/species of the boundary treatments to be erected/planted. This should include the retention of the existing hedgerows on the site's boundaries, where possible, or its replacement with a similar species if necessary. The approved details shall be fully implemented before the use of the development is commenced and/or any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the area and to safeguard the privacy and amenities of the residents of the locality.

6 No development shall start on site until the access, including the footway and/or verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of 2.4 metres by 43 metres provided in accordance with the approved plans. The lines of sight splays shown on the approved plans shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 1metre in height above the adjacent carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so thereafter. Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety.

7 Before use of the development is commenced the existing access(es) from the site to St Ann's Road shall be permanently stopped up and effectively closed with the footway provided or verge reinstated, in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

8 Before use of the development is commenced provision for parking shall have been made within the site in accordance with the approved plans and shall be retained solely for parking purposes thereafter. Parking spaces shall not be used for the storage of boats, trailers or caravans. Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the approved development.

9 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars:

Application Form Design and Access Statement Drg No. 201 - Site Location Plan 1:500 Drg No. 202 - Proposed Site Layout Plan 1:100 Drg No. 203 - Proposed Plans, Elevations and Section 1:50

32 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

Drg No. 204 - Street Elevations 1:100 Drg No. 205 - Comparative Floor Plans and Street Elevations 1:100

Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development

Informative Notes to Applicant:

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. EHDC works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;

(d) offering a pre-application advice service,

(e) updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,

(f) by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter. In this instance (g) was provided with pre-application advice, the application was acceptable as submitted and no further assistance was required. ———————————————————————————————————— ——— PROPOSAL SIX BED RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME (AS AMENDED BY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 11/6/2013, 13/06/2013) LOCATION: 19 Forest Road, Whitehill, Bordon, GU35 0BJ REFERENCE 31084/008/FUL/NP NO:

33 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

approved development harmonise with the surroundings.

5 No development shall start on site until details of a scheme for foul and surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details should include provision for all surface water drainage from parking areas and areas of hardstanding. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for drainage. Note: The applicant is requested to contact the Council's Drainage Consultant as soon as possible regarding the above condition.

7 No development shall start on site until the access, including the footway and/or verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of 2.4 metres by 43 metres provided in accordance with the approved plans. The lines of sight splays shown on the approved plans shall be kept free

34 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

of any obstruction exceeding 1metre in height above the adjacent carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so thereafter. Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety.

8 Before use of the development is commenced the existing access from the site to Forest Road shall be permanently stopped up and effectively closed with the footway provided or verge reinstated, in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

9 Before use of the development is commenced provision for the turning, loading, unloading and the parking of vehicles shall have been made within the site in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained thereafter. The parking spaces shall be retained for the parking of vehicles and not used for the storage of boats, caravans and trailers. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

10 No development shall start on site until plans and particulars showing details of the provisions of bin/cycle storage within the site have been submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the use of the development is commenced and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision within the site.

11 Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development falling within Classes A to E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall be carried out without the prior consent of the Planning Authority, through submission of a formal planning application Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the effect of any future proposals on the character and amenity of the locality.

12 Before any part of the development is first occupied a verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing, to the Planning Authority, confirming that the built development hereby permitted incorporates measures that provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirement from on-site renewable sources, or, provided that first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority before development starts on site, an alternative means of achieving an equivalent energy saving. The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to provide the required energy savings.

35 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

The energy saving works set out in the above report shall thereafter be maintained so that the required energy saving is sustained at the certified level for the lifetime of the development.

(Note:- The carbon savings which result from these measures are required to be above and beyond any savings provided by measures incorporated into the development to comply with Part L Building Regulations). Reason - To ensure that the development incorporates necessary mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change.

13 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars:

Application form Supporting Letter dated 27 March 2013 Design and Access Statement Drg no. 6438.PG1B - plans and elevations Drg no. 6438.PG2 - site survey Drg no. 6438.PG4 - site plan showing revised sight lines, levels and parking Letter dated 11 June 2013 Letter dated 14 June 2013

Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development

Informative Notes to Applicant:

(h) offering a pre-application advice service,

(i) updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,

(j) by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter.

In this instance the applicant: (k) was provided with pre-application advice, the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit.

36 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

PROPOSAL ATTACHED DWELLING LOCATION: 35 The Spinney, Horndean, Waterlooville, PO8 9PN REFERENCE 54778/001/FUL/PDR NO:

Subject to receipt of a satisfactory unilateral undertaking by 22 July 2013 to secure the financial contributions towards off-site provision of public open space, Environmental Improvements and alternative transport measures, then the Services Manager Planning Development be authorised to grant PERMISSION subject to the following conditions.

However, in the event that a satisfactory unilateral undertaking is not received by 22 July 2013 to secure the financial contributions then permission will be refused under the adopted scheme of delegation.

2 Before any part of the development is first occupied a verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing, to the Planning Authority, confirming that the built development hereby permitted incorporates measures that provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirement from on-site renewable sources, or, provided that first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority before development starts on site, an alternative means of achieving an equivalent energy saving. The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to provide the required energy savings. The energy saving works set out in the above report shall thereafter be maintained so that the required energy saving is sustained at the certified level for the lifetime of the development.

3 Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development falling within

37 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

Classes (A, B, C, D or E) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall be carried out without the prior consent of the Planning Authority, through submission of a formal planning application

Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the effect of any future proposals on the character and amenity of the locality.

5 No development shall start on site until the access, including the footway and/or verge crossing shall be constructed and lines of sight of 2.4 metres by 14 metres provided in accordance with the approved plans. The lines of sight splays shown on the approved plans shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 1 metre in height above the adjacent carriageway and shall be subsequently maintained so thereafter. Reason - To provide satisfactory access and in the interests of highway safety.

6 Before use of the development is commenced the existing accesses from the site to The Spinney shall be permanently stopped up and effectively closed with the footway provided or verge reinstated, in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

7 The parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall only be used for parking purposes and not for the storage of boats, caravans, and trailers. Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the approved development.

8 All development shall be stopped immediately in the event that contamination not previously identified is found to be present on the development site and details of the contamination shall be reported immediately in writing to the Planning Authority.

38 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

(b) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of contamination found on site and (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) (c) a detailed remediation scheme designed to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment. The scheme should include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan outlining details of the data to be collected in order to demonstrate the completion of the remediation works and any arrangements for the continued monitoring of identified pollutant linkages;

9 External facing materials shall match as closely as possible those on 35 The Spinney. Reason - In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

10 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars:

Application form Design and Access Statement 1:1250 location plan 1:500 block plan

39 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

Drg no. 220113 - floor plans and elevations

Reason - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development

Informative Notes to Applicant:

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) takes a positive and proactive approach and works with applicants/agents on development proposals in a manner focused on solutions by:

(l) offering a pre-application advice service,

(m)updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions, and,

(n) by adhering to the requirements of the Planning Charter.

In this instance the applicant was updated of any issues after the initial site visit.

2 The applicant is advised that there is a fee for the discharge of conditions relating to this application. A single fee will apply to each batch of conditions submitted for discharge at the same time. The information to discharge a condition will not be accepted by the Council without the appropriate fee. The schedule of fees can be found on the Council's website.

40 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

Part 2

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE

Applications determined by the Council on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority

APPENDIX A

PS.405/2013 18 July 2013

PROPOSAL Three Industrial units - amendment to previously approved scheme (SDNP/12/00513/FUL) LOCATION: Brickyards Industrial Estate, Rockpits Lane, Steep Marsh, Petersfield, GU32 2BN REFERENCE SDNP/13/01966/FUL NO:

01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)./ To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

02. Notwithstanding any indication of materials which may have been given in the application or in the absence of such information, within one month of the date of this permission, samples / details including manufacturers details of all the materials to be used for external facing and roofing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that the materials used in the construction of the approved development harmonise with the surroundings.

03. Within one month of the date of this permission, details of any surface water drainage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details should include provision for all surface water drainage from parking areas and areas of hardstanding. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason -To ensure adequate provision for drainage.

41 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

04. Within one month of the date of this permission, a fully detailed landscape and planting scheme for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with the recommendations of the appropriate British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice. These works shall be carried out in the first planting season after practical completion or first occupation of the development, whichever is earlier, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to enable proper consideration to be given to the impact of the proposed development on existing trees.

05. Within one month of the date of this permission, a landscape/open space management plan, including a maintenance schedule indicating proposals for the long-term management of landscape areas, other than small, privately-owned, domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The landscape/open space shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that due regard is paid to the continuing enhancement and maintenance of amenity afforded by landscape features of communal, public, nature conservation or historical significance.

06. The premises shall not be used outside the hours of 07:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday, 07:00 to 13:00 Saturday and at no times on Sunday, Public or Bank holidays. Reason - To ensure that the amenities of the (area/adjacent property) are not detrimentally affected by the use of the site outside reasonable working times

07. All development shall be stopped immediately in the event that contamination not previously identified is found to be present on the development site and details of the contamination shall be reported immediately in writing to the Planning Authority. Development shall not re-start on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority:- (a) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. (b) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as unnecessary in the written report, an

42 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

appraisal of remediation options and proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of contamination found on site, and (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority)

(c) a detailed remediation scheme designed to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment. The scheme should include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan outlining details of the data to be collected in order to demonstrate the completion of the remediation works and any arrangements for the continued monitoring of identified pollutant linkages; and before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The above site works, details and certification submitted shall be in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'. Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

08. Before use of the development is commenced provision for the turning, loading, unloading and the parking of vehicles shall have been made within the site in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

09. Before use of the development is commenced provision for parking shall have been made within the site in accordance with the approved plans and shall be retained for parking purposes thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the approved development.

10. Notwithstanding the changes of use permitted within Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2005 (as amended), the development hereby permitted shall be used for purposes within Class B.1 (c) of the Town and Country (Use Classes) Order, 1987 only, and for no other purpose. Reason - In order to maintain control over future use of the premises in the interests of the general amenity of the area and because the car parking provision of the site is insufficient to meet the needs associated with other B.1

43 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

uses which if implemented could be detrimental to the interests of highway safety.

11. The development shall be implemented as three units as shown on the approved plans and the units shall not be amalgamated or combined to create a larger unit without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure that parking and traffic generation implications of a larger unit size are properly addressed.

12. Approved Plans

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans listed below under the heading "Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application". Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Informative:

01. The applicant is advised that there is a fee for the discharge of conditions relating to this application. A single fee will apply to each batch of conditions submitted for discharge at the same time. The information to discharge a condition will not be accepted by the Council without the appropriate fee. The schedule of fees can be found on the Council's website.

02. In reaching this decision the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive way, in line with the NPPF.

PROPOSAL Detached dwelling with associated parking - Site is to the West of 6 Herne Road. LOCATION: 6 Herne Road, Petersfield, GU31 4DP SDNP/13/01583/FUL REFERENCE NO:

02. Notwithstanding any indication of materials that may have been given in the application or in the absence of such information, no development shall start on site until samples / details including manufacturers details of all the materials to be used for external facing and roofing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

44 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

Reason - To ensure that the materials used in the construction of the approved development harmonise with the surroundings.

03. No development shall start on site until plans of the site showing details of the existing and proposed ground levels, proposed finished floor levels, levels of any paths, drives, garages and parking areas and the proposed completed height of the development and any retaining walls have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The details shall clearly identify the relationship of the proposed ground levels and proposed completed height with adjacent buildings. The development thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason - To ensure that a satisfactory relationship results between the new development and adjacent buildings and public areas.

04. Before use of the development is commenced provision for the turning, loading, unloading and the parking of vehicles shall have been made within the site in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

05. Before use of the development starts provision for parking shall have been made within the site in accordance with the approved plans and shall be retained solely for parking purposes thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the approved development.

06. The parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall only be used for parking purposes and not for the storage of boats, caravans, and trailers. Reason - To ensure adequate on-site car parking provision for the approved development.

07. Notwithstanding any information shown of the approved plans any gates provided shall be set back a distance of 4.5m from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway. Reason - In the interests of highway safety.

08. No development shall start on site until plans and particulars showing details of the provisions of bin/cycle storage within the site have been submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the use of the development is commenced and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision within the site.

09. No development shall start on site until a fully detailed landscape and planting scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the

45 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

approved details and in accordance with the recommendations of the appropriate British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice. These works shall be carried out in the first planting season after practical completion or first occupation of the development, whichever is earlier, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

10. All works hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement submitted with the application and hereby approved. Reason - To ensure that the trees on and around the site are adequately protected from damage to their health and /or amenity value.

11. Before any part of the development is first occupied a verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in writing, to the Planning Authority, confirming that the built development hereby permitted incorporates measures that provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirement from on-site renewable sources, or, provided that first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority before development starts on site, an alternative means of achieving an equivalent energy saving. The developer shall nominate a competent person for the purpose of assessing and providing the above required report and certificate to confirm that the completed works incorporate such measures as to provide the required energy savings.

The energy saving works set out in the above report shall thereafter be maintained so that the required energy saving is sustained at the certified level for the lifetime of the development. (Note:- The carbon savings which result from these measures are required to be above and beyond any savings provided by measures incorporated into the development to comply with Part L Building Regulations). Reason - To ensure that the development incorporates necessary mitigation and adaptation measures with regard to climate change.

12. No development shall start on site until details of a scheme to prevent surface water from the site discharging on to the adjacent highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is occupied and shall be retained thereafter. Reason - To ensure adequate provision for surface water drainage and avoid discharge of water onto the public highway.

46 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

13. No development shall start on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority :-

(a) a desk top study report, documenting all the previous and existing land uses both on and adjacent to the site and including a conceptual site model and preliminary risk assessment. The report should be completed by a competent person and produced in accordance with national guidance, as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report No.11 and BS10175:2001; and unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority:-

(b) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site;

(c) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of contamination found on site; and unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority:-

(d) a detailed remediation scheme designed to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment. The scheme should include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and a verification plan outlining details of the data to be collected in order to demonstrate the completion of the remediation works and any arrangements for the continued monitoring of identified pollutant linkages. Site works and details submitted shall be in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person. The above reports and site works should be undertaken in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'. Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

14. Before any part of the development is occupied or used (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation works carried out and a completion certificate confirming that the approved remediation scheme has been implemented in full shall both have been submitted to and approved in

47 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

writing by the Planning Authority. The verification report and completion certificate shall be submitted in accordance with the approved scheme and undertaken by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'. Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

15. All development shall be stopped immediately in the event that contamination not previously identified is found to be present on the development site and details of the contamination shall be reported immediately in writing to the Planning Authority.

Development shall not re-start on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority:-

(a) a scheme outlining a site investigation and risk assessments designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. (b) a written report of the findings which includes, a description of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, an assessment of all potential risks to known receptors, an update of the conceptual site model (devised in the desktop study), identification of all pollutant linkages and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and identified as unnecessary in the written report, an appraisal of remediation options and proposal of the preferred option(s) identified as appropriate for the type of contamination found on site and (unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority)

48 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'. Reason - To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy P7 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review.

16. Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development falling within Classes A, B, C, or E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall be carried out without the prior consent of the Planning Authority, through submission of a formal planning application Reason - In order that the Planning Authority can properly consider the effect of any future proposals on the character and amenity of the locality.

17. The integral garage hereby permitted shall be used for the parking of private motor vehicles and ancillary domestic storage only and shall not be converted or adapted for use as additional living accommodation without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority. Reason - To maintain the appropriate level of accommodation on the site and to ensure adequate provision is maintained for the parking of vehicles clear of the highway.

18. Approved Plans

Informatives:

02. The calculation of predicted energy requirement for the development should include space heating, hot water heating, cooking, and lighting, cold and hot appliances and wet appliances. Other energy consumption associated with the development such as street lighting and utilities must also be included. In some cases, where proven low carbon fuel is used to provide energy for the above, calculations can include the renewable energy contribution (kWh/yr) based on CO2 savings (kg CO2 /yr)

49 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

To calculate the predicted CO2 emissions from each dwelling, SAP 2005 is a suitable method to be adopted, and one which is used by the Building Regulations, it also provides a good level of design flexibility. The predicted energy consumption using SAP methodology must be increased by about 9% to allow for hot appliances, cold appliances and wet appliances and cooking, which are not considered by SAP 2005. It is recommended that an Authorised SAP Assessor is used to prepare the calculations but this is not necessary in every case.

For further practical information regarding the 10% renewable rule, see the Energy Saving trust guidance booklet (CE190) www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/housingbuildings/CE190%20- %2010%20per%20cent%20guide.pdf Other guidance can be found in BREEAM: ecohomes document, visit www.Ecohomes.org

For SAP 5005 visit the BRE web site. You may contact us if you have any queries regarding the calculation methods, we can also offer a competitive calculation service from within this council by qualified energy assessors if you are having difficulty meeting this requirement.

03. Please note that there is a Section 106 Agreement that applies to this permission.

04. In reaching this decision the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive way, in line with the NPPF.

PROPOSAL Detached dwelling with associated parking - Site is to the West of 6 Herne Road. LOCATION: Quarry Farm, Empshott Green, Empshott, Liss

SDNP/13/01805/FUL REFERENCE NO:

02. Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application, no additional access shall be constructed unless agreed otherwise in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

50 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

Reason - In the interests of the amenities of the area and highway safety and having due regard to policies C5 and T9 of the East Hampshire Local Plan: Second Review 2006.

03. Approved Plans

Informative:

01. In reaching this decision the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive way, in line with the NPPF.

51 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013

Part 2

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE

Applications determined by the Council on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority

APPENDIX B

PS.405/2013 18 July 2013

PROPOSAL Change of use of cottage and barn, erection of one yurt to be used as a residential training facility. Retention of single storey addition to rear of cottage LOCATION: Church Farm, Manor Farm Lane, Priors Dean, Petersfield REFERENCE SDNP/13/02195/FUL NO:

01. The roads leading to and from the site are of inadequate capacity, width and alignment to accommodate safely the additional traffic which this proposal would generate, contrary to local plan policies GS1, C14 and T3.

02. From the information provided it cannot be shown that the development can be accommodated in a manner that will not cause increases in danger and inconvenience to highway users, or harm to the character of the site and its surroundings, contrary to Local Plan policies GS1, C14, T3 and GS3. ———————————————————————————————————— ———

52 Planning Committee Minutes – 18.07.2013