Eastleigh Borough Council Bursledon, Hamble-le-Rice and Hound Local Area Committee Meeting

There was no public participation on this occasion.

Councillor O’Sullivan declared a personal interest in Item 8 on the Agenda as a near neighbour to the application is a friend, she still felt able to take part in the debate and vote.

Councillor Holes asked whether there was an update on the motions that were raised at the meeting on 5 September 2024.

The Chair confirmed that there was no update.

Councillor Holes informed the Bursledon, Hamble-Le-Rice and Hound Local Area Committee that a petition on the safety of the Lowford crossing was being presented to Hampshire County Council at their full council meeting on 28 November 2024.

RESOLVED –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2024 be approved as correct.

There were no Chair’s announcements on this occasion.

Consideration was given to the report of the Local Area Manager (Agenda Item 6) that contained recommendations for expenditure from the Committee’s developer contributions, and the proposed fees and charges for 2024/25.

Councillor Holes thanked the Local Area Manager for the updates on projects and reiterated that it would be good if they could be communicated to the public outside of the Local Area Committee meeting.

The Chair stated she had been delighted to see theStan’s Netley book, and had requested that a copy be donated to the local library so it could be appreciated by more people.

RESOLVED –

That the Committee:

(1)  Approved the allocation of £4,500 from developer contributions to make improvements to the Hamble Rail Trail;

(2)  Noted the reallocation of £20,000 from Public Art developers’ contributions to the proposed walking and wheeling festival art and performance events on the Hambel Rail trail;

(3)  Approved the spend of £455 from the bins capital account to install a dual waste bin on Beech Gardens; and

(4)  Noted the achievements in the local area supported by the Local Area Committee, highlighted in Appendix 1.

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

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management (Agenda Item 8) concerning an application for construction of residential care community at land adjoining 4 Brookfield, Providence Hill, Bursledon, comprising a 69-bed care home (Use Class C2) and 5 x 2-bedroom close care cottages (Use Class C3 age restricted), with associated access, internal access road, parking, landscaping and infrastructure. (Ref :F/24/97312).

The Committee was updated on Agenda Items 8 and 9 (Planning Application Updates Paper Supplementary Agenda).

There was lengthy debate where the Committee raised concerns about the following points:

·  Whether the air quality report had taken into account the Government’s recent decision to abandon plans to improve junction 8 of the M27 due to funding issues;

·  Parking availability for the development and the effect the parking shortfall may have on local roads;

·  Traffic congestion and the lack of objection from Hampshire Highways despite concerns raised;

·  Bulk, height, design, and general size of the development and its impact on neighbours;

·  Road crossing safety;

·  Access safety;

·  Lack of public transport; and

·  Lack of consultation with local GP and dental services.

Councillors also queried whether consultation responses had been received before or after a decision had been made on the proposed junction 8 highway improvements. 

RESOLVED –

That permission be delegated back to the Planning Manager, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair, to REFUSE on the reasons as follows: 

Reason for refusal 1 – amenity impact:

The proposed care home, due to its excessive height and bulk and close proximity to the rear garden boundaries of Nos.1-4 Brookfield, would represent a visually dominant, overbearing and intrusive form of development when viewed from the adjacent rear gardens, resulting in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the existing residents.  The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DM1 of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016-2036). 

Reason for refusal 2 – parking

The proposed development would have insufficient on-site parking and would result in the loss of existing parking for adjacent residents, which would result in increased pressure for parking on Providence Hill, leading to increased highway safety risks from obstructions caused by unauthorised parking.  The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DM13 of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016-2036). 

Reason for refusal 3 – impact on health services

Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that a care home of the proposed scale would not place undue pressure on healthcare services in the local area.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy S10 of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016-2036).

Reason for refusal 4 – access

Due to the speed and volume of traffic on Providence Hill, the increased level of vehicles entering and leaving the site from the proposed new access for such a large scale development, would pose increased risk to highway safety on the local highway network, contrary to Policy DM13 of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016-2036). 

Reason for refusal 5 – developers’ contributions

In the absence of developers’ contributions towards public art, community infrastructure, public open space, sustainable transport and a traffic regulation order, the development would not make provision for the infrastructure improvements necessitated by the proposed development.  The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DM38 of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016-2036). 

Reason for refusal 6 – protected sites

In the absence of mitigation, the development would fail to offset its impacts on the European protected sites from nutrient loading and recreational pressure.  The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DM11 of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2016-2036) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. 

(NOTES:Councillor O’Sullivan declared a personal interest in Item 8 on the Agenda as a near neighbour to the application is a friend, she still felt able to take part in the debate and vote.

Six people spoke in objection to the application, citing concerns that included but were not limited to:

·  Parking;

·  Increased congestion in the area;

·  Poor public transport links;

·  Demand on local GP services;

·  Building size and design;

·  Lack of outdoor space in comparison to size of building;

·  Effects on local wildlife and conservation areas;

·  Losing feeding grounds for wildlife;

·  Loss of privacy;

·  Misleading pictures used in application and lack of images taken from gardens;

·  Highway safety;

·  Proximity of building to neighbouring gardens;

·  Emergency services access;

·  Increased pollution;

·  Boundary disputes;

·  Increased noise;

·  Overdevelopment of the local area;

·  Effect of planning application on Goslings Turnings’ properties; and

·  An increase to maintenance costs for the footpaths in Goslings Turning.

The applicant and the agent to the applicant spoke in support of the application.)

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management (Agenda Item 9) concerning an application for conversion of Methodist church hall to 3no. 2 bedroom dwellings, with associated parking, integral garage, amenity space, elevational alterations including insertion of roof lights and provision of raised decked areas. (Ref: F/24/98083).

The Committee was updated on Agenda Items 8 and 9 (Planning Application Updates Paper Supplementary Agenda).

Councillor Holes requested that wording be sent to the applicant encouraging them to finalise any civil matters outstanding on the site, and asked for an informative to go onto the decision notice about it being the responsibility of the developer to ensure the legal rights are in place to allow the future residents to access the car parking spaces.

The Planning Officer agreed to put an informative on the decision notice.

RESOLVED –

That permission be PERMITTED in line with officer recommendation, conditions as outlined in the report, and additional informative.

(NOTE:One person spoke in objection to the application, citing concerns that included but were not limited to, parking and displacement of current available spaces.)

The Planning Manager reported:-

(a)  that the following appeals had been lodged:

Hound Corner Fruit Farm, Hamble Lane, Netley Abbey, SO31 5FT

Appealed against the Council’s refusal of planning permission for proposed new entrance to site (amendment to approved application H/23/95895). (H/24/97283).

This was a delegated decision.

21 Bowers Drive, Bursledon, SO31 8LZ

Appealed against the Council’s refusal of planning permission for garage conversion into habitable accommodation. (F/24/97606).

This was a delegated decision.

Hacketts, High Street, Bursledon, SO31 8DL

Appealed against the Council’s refusal of planning permission for second-floor extension and new roof, with external alterations. (H/24/97673).

This was a delegated decision.

Land to the South of Peewit Hill, Bursledon, SO31 8BL

Appealed against the Council’s refusal of planning permission for erection of 2no. semi-detached 3-bed dwellings, with associated access, parking and landscaping. (F/24/96970).

This was a delegated decision.

(b)  that the following appeals had been approved:

The Deck House, The Green, Green Lane, Hamble-Le-Rice, SO31 4GB

Appealed against the Council’s refusal to grant consent to undertake work to a tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order. (T/22/92212).

This was a delegated decision.

(c)  that the following appeals had been dismissed:

The Old Fairground, Bursledon Road, SO19 ONL

Appealed against the Council’s refusal of planning permission for the construction of a 3 bedroom detached house with associated parking and landscaping to replace an existing 3 bedroom mobile home. (F/23/95867).

This was a delegated decision.

13 Satchell Lane, Hamble-Le-Rice, SO31 4HF

Appealed against the Council’s refusal of planning permission for part single, part two storey front and rear extensions, removal of existing roof and erection of new loft floor along with internal remodelling and improved parking area. (H/24/97499).

This was a delegated decision and costs were refused.

RESOLVED –

That the report be noted.