Hart Borough Council Development Management Committee Meeting

The minutes of 16 October 2024 were proposed  by Cllr Worlock and seconded by Cllr Oliver and confirmed and signed as a correct record of the proceedings.

Apologies for absence had been received from Cllrs Quarterman and Wildsmith.

Cllr Bailey attended the meeting as a substitute for Cllr Quarterman.

Cllr Worlock declared a non-prejudiciial interest in planning applications 23/02094/FUL and 23/02095/FUL (land east of Hook Road, North Warnborough) for the reason that she was a Trustee of Robert Mays School and the potential connection with the Section 106 contributions to education. 

The Chair referred to the Addendum report and that the agenda item on planning application 24/00699/FUL (1 Beacon Hill Road, Ewshot) had been removed from the Committee agenda at the applicant’s request. The application is likely to be considered at a future Development Management Committee.

The Committee was advised that the agenda items on planning applications 23/02094/FUL and 23/02095/FUL (land east of Hook Road, North Warnborough) would be taken together in respect of presentations, public speaking and debate, however there would be a separate vote on each planning application.

The development management report from the Executive Director – Place was considered and the updates via the addendum report were accepted by the Committee.

As advised by the Chair earlier in the meeting, the two planning applications for land to the east of Hook Road, North Warnborough (23/02094/FUL and 23/02095/FUL) formed part of the same site allocated in the Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan and would be taken together in respect of officer presentations, public speaking and the Committee’s debate. A separate vote would be taken on each planning application.

Planning Applications 23/02094/FUL and 23/02095 – Land east of Hook Road, North Warnborough

The Senior Planner summarised application nos. 23/02094/FUL (for the erection of 13 dwellings with associated access, parking, affordable housing, public open space, SUDs and landscaping) and 23/02095/FUL (for the erection of 9 dwellings with associated access, parking, affordable housing, public open space, SUDs and landscaping).

As set out in the Addendum report, following the publication of the agenda, Officers had continued to work with the applicant to clarify the matters which would be secured as developer contributions.  As a result, the applicant had now agreed to a package of measures to be secured by two separate Section 106 legal agreements (as set out in the Addendum). The precise split of the terms between the two legal agreements would be determined at the detailed drafting stage.

The Senior Planner also advised the Committee of two additional compliance conditions (Condition 20 (North) and Condition 20 (South)) in relation to protected species for both sites.

Members questioned the Senior Planner on:

·        why the two applications had not been submitted as one application

·        whether there was a legal mechanism to link the two separate Section 106 legal agreements to ensure all the measures were brought to fruition in their entirety

·        whether the parking concerns previously voiced by Odiham Parish Council had been resolved and whether they complied with the Cycle and Car Parking Supplementary Planning Document

·        whether the open space to the north of the stream would be protected as public open space

·        whether mitigation measures had been made for potential flooding from the canal onto the site

·        clarification of the actual figure for the education element of the Section 106 legal agreement, as set out in the Addendum report.

In response, the Committee was advised that:

·        both planning applications had to be determined as submitted by the applicant, however, when officers had looked at the planning issues and the cumulative impacts these had been considered as one site

·        the revised recommendation for the planning applications included delegated authority to the Executive Director – Place to consider the precise split of measures in the Section 106 legal agreements to ensure that the units were delivered at both sites.  This would also include elements of affordable homes, education, Parish Council financial contributions, Basingstoke Canal financial contributions, indexation and an administration and monitoring charge

·        there was no legal mechanism to link the two Section 106 legal agreements

·        the submitted flood risk assessment identified the different classifications of the site regarding surface water risk. Most of the site was at a very low risk with a 1:1,000 years flood risk event.  There was some, although not all, land further to the north of the site which was in a higher risk category. The flood risk assessment had confirmed that surface water calculations had been reviewed by the Lead Flood Authority and showed that the Flood Mitigation Strategy could provide the storage requirements for storm events up to and including the 1:100 year plus 40% climate change event and covered the risk with regard to the more at-risk areas of the site

·        the plans submitted with the planning applications accorded with the Council’s Cycle and Car Parking Supplementary Planning Document

·        the education element of the Section 106 legal agreements should secure a financial contribution of £130,768 (and not £110,768 as shown in the Addendum report)

There were no questions for the public speaker from the Parish Council.

Members questioned the public speaker against the planning application regarding the extent, exact location and source of recent flooding on the site in question.

Members questioned the public speaker representing the applicant on:

·         the number of dwellings that had originally been identified in the Neighbourhood Plan for the site

·         flood risk modelling

During debate:

·         Members welcomed the revised Section 106 contributions

·         it was suggested that a phased payment approach should be taken to protect the Council’s position, including a payment bond and penalty clauses for late payment

·         it was requested that an additional planning condition should be included to require a management company to be responsible for the maintenance of the ditches on site

·         it was proposed that officers should work with the Ward Councillor on the Committee and members of the Parish Council in drafting of the Section 106 legal agreements at a stage in the process which would allow practical input.

The Committee agreed the updated package of measures to be secured by two separate section 106 legal agreements are set out below:

Affordable homes:

Provision of 40% of the 22 homes as affordable homes which equates to 8.8 dwellings.

A financial contribution equivalent to 0.8 of a dwelling; the off-site contribution for the 0.8 unit: £189,537.

On site provision of 5 homes as affordable housing for rent at social rent levels, and 3 homes as shared ownership.

Education:

A financial contribution to Hampshire County Council for education £130,768

Parish Council:

A financial contribution to Parish leisure: £88,000

A financial contribution for the provision of gateway highways signage: £4,000

Basingstoke Canal:

A financial contribution of £20,354

Public Open Space:

Designation of the public open space shown on the approved plans as such in perpetuity

Management Company:

Formation of a management company to secure:

• delivery and maintenance of public open space in perpetuity, and
• delivery and maintenance and SUDs/drainage in perpetuity.
•  

Administration and monitoring charge:

Hart District Council applies a 5% administration and monitoring charge is applied to all financial contributions.

Indexation:

All financial contributions will be index linked 

(a)      Planning Application 23/02094/FUL - Land east of Hook Road, North Warnborough

Subject to:

·        the planning conditions listed in the Committee report

·        the modifications listed in the Addendum report

·        the two additional planning conditions on endangered species in the update presentation by the Senior Planning Officer

·        clarity and confirmation of the education contribution

·        an additional planning condition to secure the maintenance of ditches on the site

·        an additional condition regarding the retention and management of public open space on site

·        a commitment by officers to work with the Ward Councillor on the Committee and the Parish Council in the formative stage of drafting the Section 106 legal agreements

the recommendations (as amended) were proposed by the Chairman (Cllr Cockarill) and seconded by Cllr Worlock and agreed unanimously.

The Committee Resolved:

Resolution A:

The Development Management Committee delegated power to the Executive Director – Place to Grant planning permission, subject to:

• the applicant first entering into a section 106 legal agreement to secure the measures detailed in the Addendum as agreed to be amended by the Development Management Committee, the precise split of the planning obligations between the two sites to be agreed by the Executive Director - Place, and
• the planning conditions listed in the Committee report as agreed to be amended by the Development Management Committee.

Resolution B:

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

(b)      Planning Application 23/02095/FUL – Land east of Hook Road, North Warnborough

Subject to:

·        the planning conditions listed in the Committee report

·        the modifications listed in the Addendum report

·        the two additional planning conditions on endangered species in the update presentation by the Senior Planning Officer

·        clarity and confirmation of the education contribution

·        an additional planning condition to secure the maintenance of ditchwork on the site

·        an additional condition regarding the retention and management of public open space on site

·        a commitment by officers to work with the Ward Councillor on the Committee and the Parish Council in the formative stage of drafting the Section 106 legal agreements

the recommendations (as amended) were proposed by the Chairman (Cllr Cockarill) and seconded by Cllr Worlock and agreed unanimously.

The Committee Resolved:

Resolution A:

The Development Management Committee delegated power to the Executive Director – Place to Grant planning permission, subject to:

• the applicant first entering into a section 106 legal agreement to secure the measures detailed in the Addendum as agreed to be amended by the Development Management Committee, the precise split of the planning obligations between the two sites to be agreed by the Executive Director - Place, and
• the planning conditions listed in the Committee report as agreed to be amended by the Development Management Committee.

Resolution B:

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

Note:

Speaking

On behalf of ODIHAM PARISH COUNCIL: Cllr Pam Verdon

AGAINST the application: Mr Ryan Jacobs

FOR the application: Mr Steven Brown (Agent) on behalf of T A Fisher

This item had been withdrawn from the agenda at the applicant’s request.

The Senior Tree Officer summarised the proposed modifications to Tree Preservation Order (TPO) ORD-24/00004 at 135 Aldershot Road, Fleet. Details were also given of objections and other representations received and the response to these objections and reasons justifying the confirmation of the TPO with modifications.

Members questioned the Senior Tree Officer on:

·        whether the dotted lines shown on the TPO plan represented the limits of what land could be developed; and

·        whether the trees listed were all of a reasonable size or if the list included any trees at scrub level.

The Committee was advised that:

·        a TPO did not prevent development, however it was part of the determination of a planning application to consider any relevant TPOs and to work out what the impact of a planning application would be.

·        The trees listed in the TPO included all sizes as a TPO would cover current and future trees.

The revised recommendation as set out in the Addendum report) was proposed by the Chairman (Cllr Cockarill) and seconded by Cllr Radley. The recommendation was agreed unanimously.

The Committee Resolved:

That the Tree Preservation Order ORD-24/00004 be Confirmed with modifications to only include trees in two Group designations G1 and G2, as shown and listed on the Modified Order plan and schedule.

The Business Development Manager summarised the report which proposed the adoption of a Local List of Validation Requirements for planning applications to be the subject of a consultation exercise with stakeholders (including developers and planning agents), following a comprehensive review by officers. The report set out the main changes to the Local List of Validation Requirements. A public consultation exercise would be carried out over a seven-week period to commence at the end of November and would continue into early January 2025.  Consultation would take place with statutory and non-statutory consultees, including Parish and Town Councils.

The Committee was advised that it was also proposed to add the following wording to both the General and Householder Lists (as set out in the Addendum report):

“All new single air-source heat pumps within a defined settlement must have a completed MCS Calculation.

All new multiple air-source heat pumps within a defined settlement must have a BS 4142:2014-compliant Noise Impact Assessment.”

Members raised the following issues:

·        prescribed information requirements which were not relevant to the planning application

·        prescribed information requirements relating to very old Tree Preservation Orders, where the trees no longer existed

·        why the Foul Sewage/Surface Water and Utilities Assessment had been removed

·        the use of metric units and a scale bar and coloured in drawings

·        the possible inclusion of a contaminated land assessment

·        the possible inclusion of a scaled drawing in the parking statement/plan

·        a tree survey (Conservation Areas) should only apply to trees meeting Conservation Area threshold (7.5cm diameter at 1.5m height) and exclude overgrown bushes or, alternatively, use the British Standard

·        the need for the inclusion of a climate mitigation statement to demonstrate the proposal’s compliance with the Declaration of a Climate Emergency

In response, the Committee was advised that:

·        information on Foul Sewage/Surface Water and Utilities Assessment was not necessary at the point of application submission

·       “Plans – General Notes” would be amended to read “a recognised metric scale and scale bar”

·        the current standard for trees in terms of impact assessment was due to be revised (Conservation Area), however it was accepted that the British Standard could be used

·         a climate mitigation statement could be added to apply to all new homes with the detail delegated to officers to agree. 

With the addition of the Committee’s points outlined above and the wording set out in the Addendum report, the recommendations were proposed by the Chairman (Cllr Cockarill) and seconded by Cllr Worlock and agreed unanimously.

The Committee Resolved to:

Agree that the Local Validation List, as set out in Appendices A and B to the Committee report and amended in the Addendum and at the meeting, be Approved for public consultation, and

Delegate power to the Executive Director – Place, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy & Development Management and the Chair of the Development Management Committee, to confirm their adoption following the expiry of the consultation period. If in their judgement the content of the Local List needed to be changed in the light of the consultation, they may use their discretion to decide whether to refer the matter back for further consideration by the Committee.