Eastleigh Borough Council Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath Local Area Committee Meeting

There was no public participation on this occasion.

There were no declarations of interest in relation to items of business on the agenda.

RESOLVED -

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 January 2022 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Item 11 (Financial Report) and 12 (Local Area Action Plan) were taken before Item 5 (Chair’s Announcements) on the agenda.

The Chair mentioned that new fencing was due to be completed at The Planney in Bishopstoke, and thanked the Community Development Officer and community payback team for their work to open up the area and allow improved flora and fauna growth.

The Chair stated she was sad to see what was happening in the Ukraine and thanked everyone in the Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath areas for standing with the people of the Ukraine, and offered the thoughts and support of the Committee.

Councillor Parker-Jones moved the following Motion, which included an amendment to the wording, which was seconded by Councillor Tidridge:

This committee actively promotes and champions the establishment of a local nature reserve on land being purchased at Stoke Park Farm. To ensure the site provides a diverse range of habitats, that nitrates and other environmentally harmful impacts from its previous use are eliminated and that it remains a special place for wildlife, nature and the people of Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath and indeed all across the Borough in perpetuity.

RESOLVED –

That the motion, as amended, be approved and recommended to Cabinet.

(NOTE: Two people submitted written statements in support of the Motion, citing reasons, including but not limited to, migration networks for insects, mammals and slow-moving plants, reconnection of woodland areas, wildlife preservation, opportunities for children to connect with nature, accessibility to residents via the bridleways and footpaths, engagement with local residents, protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, benefits of the ecosystem, halting the decline in biodiversity, and improved habitat and hedgerows. Three people spoke in support of the Motion citing reasons, including but not limited to, an increased request for more land and greenspace, enhanced wildlife corridors, and the preservation of land from unsustainable development.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a short presentation on guidelines that had to be taken into account when determining planning applications; in particular the aspects that could, and could not, be taken into account. This was set against the broader policy framework.

The Committee considered the report of the Executive Head of Planning and Economy (Agenda item 8) concerning removal of condition 6 (permanent dwelling for agricultural worker) of planning permission Z/29632/005/00 for erection of agricultural workers dwelling (X/21/92081).

There were no updates.

RESOLVED -

That permission be GRANTED subject to recommended conditions and addition of the following informative wording:

Whilst planning permission has been granted for the removal of the agricultural tie, the Applicant (or subsequent owner) is reminded that the application site falls within the designated countryside and therefore any future development that requires planning permission would be subject to the necessary national and local planning policy requirements including the countryside restraint policies of the current Local Plan. It should be noted that this decision does not prejudice any future application.

(NOTE: The applicant’s planning agent spoke in support of the application.)

The Committee considered the report of the Executive Head of Planning and Economy (Agenda item 9) concerning an application for the Erection of 8no. dwellings with parking, landscaping and associated works (amended description).  (Ref: F/21/90322).

The Committee requested an item be added to the next agenda regarding how the Committee’s decisions were impacting on the climate and environment.

RESOLVED -

That permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.  The proposed development would lead to an unacceptable impact of the living environment for future occupiers of the proposed dwellings and adjoining residential properties. Specifically, it has not been demonstrated that the mechanical measures proposed to minimise external noise to the rear elevations of the buildings would result in an acceptable living environment particularly in relation to the potential for undue overheating in these rooms. In addition, the proximity of the development to adjoining residential properties would lead to adverse overlooking and loss of privacy. The development is therefore contrary to saved policies 31.ES and 59.BE of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011, policy DM1 of the Emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016-203 and the adopted Quality Spaces SPD (key design principle 11).

2.  The proposals would lead to a cramped form of development due to the number of properties spaced close together, which is not reflective of the rural edge location and would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The development is contrary to saved policy 59.BE of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011, policy DM1 of the Emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016-2036 and the adopted Quality Spaces SPD (key design principle 3).

3.  The proposed development does not provide safe and convenient access to the highway for all highway users through the lack of footway along the frontage of the site, leading to highway safety concerns through the competing demands of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles utilising the highway space. The development is therefore contrary to saved policies 59.BE and 102.T of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011 and policy DM13 of the Emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016-2036.

4.  The application fails to provide the required mitigation to offset the impacts of the development upon the European protected Solent Complex (SPA, SAC and Ramsar sites) from additional nitrogen loading generated by the population increase and additional sewage resulting from the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Saved Policy 25.NC of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2001-2011, Policy DM11 of the Emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016-2036, the provisions of the NPPF and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

(NOTES: One person spoke in objection to the application citing concerns, including but not limited to, a “squashed in” development, the loss of privacy and amenity, the lack of 22 metres, as stated in the guidance, between one of the plots and Oakfields, the noise report being taken during the pandemic in August 2020 when traffic movement was unrealistic, the quality of the housing provided in the application, and the knotweed being left behind the border hedges.

The applicant’s planning agent spoke in support of the application.)

The Committee considered the report of the Executive Head of Planning and Economy (Agenda item 10) concerning demolition of all existing buildings on site and erection of 35 residential dwellings with vehicular access from Allington Lane and associated infrastructure, hard and soft landscaping, open space and drainage (F/21/91132).

The Committee were updated that:

·  Updated drainage plans had now been received – no significant change to proposals but includes updated levels details.

·  Condition 1 (approved plans) and 13 (drainage details) as set in agenda, to be updated with revised plan numbers.

Updates to conditions:

·  Condition 13 - revised 3-month timescale for submission of additional drainage details.

·  Condition 26 omitted (parking management – no longer needed as fully allocated provision proposed).

·  A revised list of conditions was circulated to members 7/3/22.

·  New condition 29:  County Archaeologist has responded advising further condition for archaeological evaluation as described in the submitted WSI and the recording of any archaeological remains identified by the archaeological evaluation (final wording tbc).

Consultation responses from HCC Childrens’ Services, NE (on AA), landscape officer (on latest amendments) outstanding and further conditions/planning obligations may need to be added.

The Committee also required amendments to Condition 17 (landscaping) to enable further landscaping plans with larger tree specimens and Condition 27 (bird nesting season restrictions) to enable EBC ecologist agreement prior to works commencing.

RESOLVED -

That permission beGRANTED subject to:

i)  the receipt and consideration of outstanding consultation responses from Hampshire County Council (HCC) Children’s Services, the Council’s Landscape Officer, and Natural England;

ii)  any necessary updates to conditions and reasons; and

iii)  the applicant entering into a legal agreement to secure the required planning obligations and affordable housing

To Delegate back to the Executive Head of Planning and Economy in conjunction with the Chair and Vice Chair of Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath Local Area Committee to PERMIT subject to conditions.

(NOTE: One written statement was received in objection to the application citing concerns, including but not limited to, overdevelopment of the site, proximity to current houses boundaries, overlooking, damage to current trees and wildlife. Two people spoke in objection to the application citing concerns, including but not limited to, the number of homes being proposed on the site, extra pressure on local schools, further entrance/exit onto Allington Lane – which was already busy, impact on wildlife, impact on drainage system, impact on the environment, lack of safety for children, lack of diversity of the landscape, lack of play facilities, lack of support for climate change, loss of trees and woodland, loss of greenspace, lack of drainage areas, and the impact on health and well-being of residents.

The applicant’s planning agent spoke in support of the application.)

Item 11 (Financial Report) and 12 (Local Area Action Plan) were taken before item 5 (Chair’s Announcements) on the agenda.

The Committee received a report by the Local Area Manager (agenda item 11) relating to expenditure from the Committee’s developer contributions:

RESOLVED –

That the Committee approved the following recommendation:

(1)  £270,000 was allocated from developer contributions for the Lapstone Playing Fields development in Fair Oak.

Item 11 (Financial Report) and 12 (Local Area Action Plan) were taken before Item 5 (Chair’s Announcements) on the agenda.

The Local Area Action Plan for 2022/2023 (Agenda item 12) was outlined by the Local Area Manager.

Councillor Broomfield raised concerns that it appeared that the Horton Heath Development Forum had become dormant.

The Local Area Manager agreed to check with the One Horton Heath team and let the Committee know the outcome.

RESOLVED –

That the Committee approved the Local Area Action Plan 2022/2023 for Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath.