Hart Borough Council Development Management Committee Meeting

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2023 were proposed by Councillor Quarterman and seconded by Councillor Oliver and approved and signed as a correct record.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Blewett and Butcher.

Councillor Forster attended the meeting as a substitute for Councillor Butcher.

No declarations of interest were made at this point in the meeting.

Note: 

Later in the meeting, Councillor Forster declared a non-prejudicial interest during discussion on Planning Application 22/01987/AMCON (land to the north of London Road, Hook) for the reason of being a Hampshire County Councillor.

The Chairman welcomed Mark Berry, Development Management & Building Control Manager, to his first meeting of the Committee.  

The planning reports from the Executive Director – Place were considered and the updates via the Addendum report were accepted.

NOTE:  During discussion on this item, Cllr Forster declared a non-prejudicial  interest in respect of his position as a Hampshire County Councillor (Executive Member for Education).

The Planning Team Leader summarised that the application was for a variation of Condition 2 attached to Planning Permission 17/01123/REM dated 1 November 2017 to allow the replacement of the hoggin path with a boardwalk path.  This application had been made under Section 73a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with a condition subject to which planning permission had been granted.  The planning permission had granted permission for residential development subject to conditions.  Condition 2 required the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.  The approved plans had showed a proposed hoggin path crossing an area of open space.  The developer had installed a boardwalk instead of the hoggin path.  The application sought to retain the boardwalk.  Taking into account the number of objections that had been received and the officer’s recommendation for approval, the Executive Director – Place had requested that this application should be brought to the Committee.

Members questioned the Planning Team Leader on:

·       who had the responsibility for maintaining the boardwalk;

·       whether the boardwalk met Hampshire County Council’s standards for a cycleway or shared cycleway/footpath;

·       the distance between passing places on the boardwalk;

·       accessibility issues concerning the boardwalk;

·       whether discussions had taken place between the developer and the Council when it had become apparent that the hoggin path would be under water during part of the year; and

·       lighting for the boardwalk.

Members questioned the speaker in support of the planning application on:

·       how the developer had missed the fact that the hoggin path had been proposed in an area prone to flooding;

·       whether the construction of the development had exacerbated the flooding issue;

·       whether any discussion had taken place with the planning authority before the construction of the boardwalk;

·       what other options had been considered when it had become apparent that the area had flooding issues;

·       why the handrail for the boardwalk had only been fitted for part of the boardwalk;

·       consultation with the Environment Agency on the proposed change from hoggin path to a boardwalk;

·       ecology issues in connection with the boardwalk;

·       had the boardwalk been the cheapest option for the developer;

·       why the Council and residents had not been consulted before progressing the change of path; and

·       the unsuitability of the boardwalk for cyclists.

During discussion on the application, Members debated:

·       safety issues for people with visual impairments using the boardwalk;

·       accessibility issues;

·       whether adequate consideration had been given to alternative options for the path to find an adequate solution for a footpath in an area prone to flooding; and

·       the need for the path to be suitable for being a connection to the village of Hook for the community on the new housing areas and not just a recreational path and the consequential volume of pedestrians.

As a result of the debate on the application, it was proposed by Councillor Quarterman and seconded by Councillor Worlock that the application be deferred to allow time for officers, the Chairman and the Ward Councillors to explore with the developer what alternative options there might be for the path to make it accessible, safe and useable by all to ensure connectivity between the two new housing developments and the village of Hook.  County Councillor Glen would also be invited to join these discussions.

It was also proposed that, if significant progress had not been made within three months, the application would be refused under delegated powers.  

Members voted unanimously to defer the application for the reasons set out above.

Notes:

Speaking

AGAINST the application:  Ms Deborah Bennett

FOR the application: Ms Estelle Hutchinson, David Wilson Homes Southern (Applicant)

The Planning Consultant summarised applications 22/02182/FUL and 22/02183/LBC which were for the change of use of Minley Manor and ancillary land and buildings from C2A to a hotel, restaurant and wedding venue use; erection of an extension to the Manor following demolition of existing structures; erection of an extension to the orangery; extension and alteration of former swimming pool buildings; extension, alteration and change of use of stable buildings to form eight hotel suites; demolition of garages adjacent to stables; demolition of garages adjacent to Arch Cottage and erection of seven hotel suites; erection of an extension to the officers annexe;  erection of a spa building, swimming pool and function suite in the North Walled Garden; erection of a forestry building; creation of a new parking area;  alterations to the internal road layout; alterations to Kennel Cottage; erection of new entrance lodge, walls and gates; and, alterations to the vehicular access onto the A327 at Minley Manor, Minley Road, Blackwater, Camberley, Hampshire GU17 9JT. 

The Planning Consultant drew the Committee’s attention to the amendment to Recommendation A on 22/02182/FUL and various conditions (in respect of 22/02182/FUL) and the amendments to conditions in respect of 22/02183/LBC, all as set out in the Addendum and the further requirement for referral to the Secretary of State in relation to the Habitats Regulations Assessment. 

Recommendation A on 22/02182/FUL to be amended to read:

“Subject to the applicant first entering into a Section 106 agreement/undertaking in respect of planning obligations detailed below (and any Section 278 agreement so required) with delegated authority to the Executive Director – Place in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee, to make or approve changes to the planning obligations and planning conditions (for the avoidance of doubt including additions, amendments and deletions) as she/he sees fit, resolve to refer to the Secretary of State for 21 days, following which (if not called-in) PERMIT, subject to planning conditions listed at the end of the report.”

Members questioned the Planning Consultant on:

·       the proposed referral of the application to the Secretary of State;

·       matters relating to trees and landscaping and in particular the primary objection of the Council’s Arboriculture Officer;

·       a travel plan;

·       parking spaces; and

·       pedestrian access.

Members questioned the speaker on:

·       a travel plan for the hotel and spa and how this would be monitored and audited; and

·       landscape plan for the site.

During discussion it was suggested that the Travel Plan should cover both visitors and staff and that the £3,000 per year to be given to Hampshire County Council to monitor the Travel Plan should commence from first occupation of the hotel.  It was further suggested that the £3,000 per year should be index-linked.   It was stated that there needed to be an amendment to the Heads of Terms regarding the Travel Plan for the hotel and spa and that would be enforcement of non-compliance with the Travel Plan. 

The recommendations in respect of Planning Application 22/02182/FUL were proposed by Councillor Quarterman; seconded by Councillor Kennett and Members voted unanimously For Recommendations A and B (as amended in the Addendum) as further amended at the meeting, as set out below:

Recommendation A

Subject to the applicant first entering into a Section 106 agreement / undertaking in respect of planning obligations detailed below (and any Section 278 agreement so required), with delegated authority to the Executive Director – Place, in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee, to make or approve changes to the planning obligations and planning conditions (for the avoidance of doubt, including additions, amendments and deletions) as she/he sees fit, resolve to  refer to the Secretary of State for 21 days, following which (if not called-in) PERMIT, subject to planning conditions listed in the Addendum and the following:

Section 106 obligations:

·       SAMM financial payment equivalent to 10 no. dwellings;

·       Annual Heritage Open Day(s);

·       Travel Plan covering both visitors and staff (to include requirement for shuttle bus);

·       Travel Plan monitoring fees of £1,500 for the initial monitoring fee and £3,000 per annum for 5 years (£15,000) from the date of first occupation of the hotel;

·       Enforcement terms to secure compliance with the Travel Plan;

·       S278 highway works to secure the northern access junction works, pedestrian refuge, ghost lane and visibility splays; and

·       All payment to be index-lined to inflation.

Recommendation B

In the event that the Section 106 agreement is not completed within six months of the date of the Committee resolution (or longer period may be agreed by the Executive Director – Place) permission be REFUSED under delegated powers for reasons stated at the end of the report.

The recommendation in respect of Planning Application 22/02183/LBC was proposed by Councillor Quarterman; seconded by Councillor Worlock and Members voted unanimously For the Recommendation (as amended in the Addendum)

Recommendation

To GRANT, subject to the conditions, as amended in the Addendum.

Notes:

Speaking

FOR the application:  Mr James Hutchison, Corbil Planning.

The Development Management & Building Control Manager gave an update on appeals for the period June – December 2023.  It was noted that 16 appeals had been allowed, 32 dismissed and 3 withdrawn or no further action required.  This represented a 68.6% success rate for the Council. 

The Development Management & Building Control Manager also gave further details on the following appeals:

·            Zenith House, Rye Close, Fleet (allowed);

·            The Bell Public House, The Bury, Odiham (dismissed);

·            Silverlea, Cove Road, Fleet (allowed);

·            Land on south-west side of Dunleys Hill, Odiham (dismissed);

·            Rye Logistics, Fleet (allowed); and

·            Payne’s Cottage, Hartley Wintney (enforcement appeal - dismissed).

The Committee noted the Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2024.