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

There was no public participation on this occasion.

Councillor Couldrey declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 10 of the Agenda as the applicant works for the Fair Oak and Horton Heath Parish Council and he is a serving parish councillor.

Councillor Broomfield declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 10 of the Agenda as the applicant works for the Fair Oak and Horton Heath Parish Council and he is a serving parish councillor.

RESOLVED -

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 July 2024 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

The Chair was pleased to see the opening of the new wicket at Lapstone Cricket Club in August.

The Chair had attended Bishopstoke Carnival in September, where she had been invited to pull the raffle. She informed the Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath  Local Area Committee that the date for next year’s carnival had been set for 21 June 2025.

The Chair attended the Armistice Service and laid a wreath on behalf of Eastleigh Borough Council at Bishopstoke’s temporary memorial site, closed graveyard.

The Chair was disappointed with the current traffic chaos in the area and had written to Hampshire County Council regarding the closure of two significant routes at the same time. She had also requested that Fir Tree Lane be kept open for pedestrians and cyclists if safe to do so.

The Chair informed people that there was a flooding tool kit available on Hampshire County Council’s website to help identify responsible authorities.

The Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath Local Area Committee had attended a presentation given by Hampshire County Council on Eastleigh’s walking and cycling strategy, which would be going out to consultation shortly.

The Chair passed on the Committees’ thoughts to the families, and anyone effected, by the events that had recently taken place in the area, and informed people that the police had held two community engagement events in Fair Oak, and two further drop in sessions had been made available - Spring Lane by the shops in Bishopstoke at 10 -10:45am, and Meadowsweet Way, Horton Heath, outside the community centre from 11 -11:45am, both on Sunday 8 December.

The Chair reminded people that Bishopstoke Players pantomime, Hercules, was taking place from 23 – 25 January 2025, and she hoped that it would be well supported.

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Local Area Manager (Agenda Item 6) that contained recommendations for expenditure from the Committee’s budget and developer contributions.

The Chair was pleased and relieved that the bus stop was finally being repaired, as the Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath Local Area Committee had been requesting it to be done since it was first damaged.

RESOLVED –

That the Committee approved the allocation of £5,378.68 in Developers Contributions to fund repairs to the bus shelter on Spring Lane in Bishopstoke.

The Senior 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 Head of Development Management (Agenda Item 8) concerning an application for 2no. Groups of Sycamore (G1 & G2) - Crown lift to 4m above ground level along westerly canopy aspects to allow clear access to rear gardens of Plots 5-9. Understorey plants to the eastern boundary of the site will be coppiced to ground level to allow installation of approved boundary demarcation under the retained line of Sycamore.

1no. Oak (T2) - Crown lift to 4m above ground level & have its southern canopy aspect pruned back by 3m to create a 2m separation between the tree & the building line of Plot 5. Understorey plants in this area will be pruned back to allow the approved boundary demarcation & hard surfacing to be installed to the north of Plot 5. (Ref: T/24/97710).

There were no updates.

There was lengthy debate where the Committee raised concerns about the effect of the crowning on the visual impact of the area, the impact on wildlife and ecology of the area, whether the suggested crowing measurements were justified, and that crowning to four meters would be too much.

RESOLVED -

That the Committee:

REFUSED CONSENT for the following: 2no. Groups of Sycamore (G1 & G2) - Crown lift to 4m above ground level along westerly canopy aspects to allow clear access to rear gardens of Plots 5-9. Understorey plants to the eastern boundary of the site will be coppiced to ground level to allow installation of approved boundary demarcation under the retained line of Sycamore.

1no. Oak (T2) - Crown lift to 4m above ground level & have its southern canopy aspect pruned back by 3m to create a 2m separation between the tree & the building line of Plot 5. Understorey plants in this area will be pruned back to allow the approved boundary demarcation and hard surfacing to be installed to the north of Plot 5.

For the following reasons: The extent of the proposed crown lift to the 2no. Groups of Sycamore (G1 & G2) and 1no. Oak (T2) is considered unjustified and will be of detriment to the health and appearance of the trees. The works would thus result in an adverse impact upon the visual amenity, ecology and wildlife, and screening of the surrounding area.

GRANTED CONSENT to: 2no. Groups of Sycamore (G1 & G2) - Crown lift to 3m above ground level along westerly canopy aspects to allow clear access to rear gardens of Plots 5-9. Understorey plants to the eastern boundary of the site will be coppiced to ground level to allow installation of approved boundary demarcation under the retained line of Sycamore.

1no. Oak (T2) - Crown lift to 3m above ground level and have its southern canopy aspect pruned back by 3m to create a 2m separation between the tree & the building line of Plot 5. Understorey plants in this area will be pruned back to allow the approved boundary demarcation & hard surfacing to be installed to the north of Plot 5.

Subject to the following conditions and informatives:

The tree works hereby consented shall be completed within 2 years of the date of this permission and shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and to British Standard for Tree Work BS3998:2010. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to safeguard the health and amenity of the trees.

Note to Applicant: It is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions attached to this permission, the proposed tree works are acceptable because their removal is required to preserve the character of the Conservation Area, and are in accordance with the policies and proposals of the development plan and after due regard to all other relevant material considerations the local planning authority is of the opinion that permission should be granted.

Note to applicant: All works hereby consented should be carried out by a suitably qualified and insured tree surgeon. A copy of the decision notice should be given to the Tree Surgeon.

Note to applicant: Please be advised that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 protect ALL wild birds, their nests (whether in use or being built) and eggs and other wild animals including bats and their roosts in or adjacent to trees

Note to applicant: The granting of consent does not give the applicant or their agent a legal right to enter land without the owner’s permission.

Note to applicant: Advice regarding overhead utilities should be sought with the relevant service provider prior to commencing works.

Note to applicant: Please follow current recommended Bio-security measures - Further advice can be found at https://www.trees.org.uk/News-Blog/News/Biosecurity-in-Arboriculture-and-Urban-Forestry-Po

(NOTE: One person spoke in objection to the application citing concerns that included, but were not limited to, the risk of damage to the health of the protected trees, destruction on habitats for rare species of wildlife, insects and mammals, displacement of wildlife, increase in antisocial behaviour in the area, loss of natural screening, the need to protect and retain trees wherever possible, loss of amenity, and the destruction of the environment.

The agent spoke in support of the application.)

The planning application for removal of condition 2 (agricultural tie) from planning permission Z/24178/006/00 for the retention of house for occupation by persons engaged in horse breeding and agriculture at James Mead Farm, Winchester Road, Fair Oak, SO50 HD (Ref: X/24/97156) was withdrawn by the applicant after the agenda was published.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Development Management (Agenda Item 10) concerning an application forthe conversion of existing building into 2no. 2-bedroom apartments, with addition of first floor extension and roof terrace, elevational alterations, and insertion of 1no. rooflight and 2no. dormers to front roof slope. (Ref: F/24/97288).

There were no updates.

RESOLVED -

That the Committee GRANTED permission, as set out in the Agenda.

(NOTE: Councillor Couldrey declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 10 of the Agenda as the applicant works for the Fair Oak and Horton Heath Parish Council and he is a serving parish councillor.

Councillor Broomfield declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 10 of the Agenda as the applicant works for the Fair Oak and Horton Heath Parish Council and he is a serving parish councillor.

One member of the public spoke in objection of the application and one statement was read out on behalf of a member of the public. The objections cited concerns, that included but were not limited to, the proposed change of use, impact on design and heritage, negative amenity impact, parking, increased traffic, accessibility of the proposal, risk of precedent, loss of community assets, impact of building work and delivery of materials to the site, loss of privacy, erection of scaffolding, and obstruction to traffic view.

Two members of the public and the agent spoke in support of the application.)

The Planning Manager reported:-

(a)  that the following appeals had been lodged:-

3 Pembers Farm Avenue, Fair Oak, SO50 7QL

Appealed against the Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for agricultural access from Pembers Farm Avenue. (Ref: PN/23/96630).

This was a Local Area Committee decision.

(b)  that the following appeals had been allowed:-

9 Yew Tree Close, Fair Oak, Hampshire, SO50 7GP

Appealed against the Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for the erection of an aluminium framed carport. (Ref: H/24/96688).

This was a delegated decision.

Cockpit Farm Barn, Knowle Lane, Horton Heath, SO50 7DZ

Appealed against the Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for construction of six (6) dwellings, including landscaping, parking and associated works following demolition and site preparation. (Ref: F/23/94713).

This was a Local Area Committee decision.

(c)  that the following appeals had been dismissed:-

Land adjacent to the Brigadier Gerard, Botley Road, Horton Heath, SO50 7DQ

Appealed against the Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for construction of 4 no. three bedroom semi-detached dwellings with associated amenity space, parking, landscaping, ecological buffer and new access from Botley Road without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref F/19/86328, dated 8 January 2020. (Ref: X/23/96591).

This was a Local Area Committee decision.

Brighstone, Botley Road, Horton Heath, SO50 7DT

Appealed against the Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for construction of five dwellings, landscaping, parking and associated works following demolition of existing dwelling, site clearance and preparation. (Ref: F/23/95549).

This was a Local Area Committee decision.

RESOLVED -

That the report be noted.