Hart Borough Council Development Management Committee Meeting

Subject to the addition of Cllr Jones to the list of those who voted against the Officers’ recommendation in Minute no. 49 (1) Application 24/00467/FUL – Penn Croft Winery, Croft Lane, Crondall), the minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Apologies for absence had been received from Cllrs Delaney, Quarterman and Southern.

Cllr Delaney was substituted at the meeting by Cllr Jones.  Cllr Southern was substituted by Cllr Highley.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chairman invited the Executive Director – Place to make an announcement.

In November 2024 the Committee had agreed a revised Local Validation List for public consultation, and delegated authority 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 its adoption following the expiry of the consultation period.

The team had reviewed the consultation responses and would be making a few minor updates. It was expected that the revised Local Validation List would be adopted under delegated powers the following week.

The Chairman welcomed other Members who were not Members of the Committee who had joined to listen to the discussion on the item.

The Executive Director – Place introduced the report. In December 2024 the Government introduced a new methodology for calculating local housing need. The effect of this was to move the Council from having a very good five-year housing land supply to one where on 1 May 2025 the Council would not have a five-year land supply.

The effect of this is that on 1 May 2025 the Local Plan policies relating to housing supply would be considered ‘out of date’. This would trigger the presumption in favour of sustainable development, often called the ‘tilted balance’.

Each planning application for new homes would be evaluated based on its individual merits, considering the strong presumption in favour of delivering new homes. All reports presented to this Committee would outline the factors involved in this evaluation, allowing the Committee to make informed decisions.

Whilst the Local Plan policies relating to housing supply would remain ‘up to date’ until 30 April 2025, it was considered prudent to apply the ‘tilted balance’ from now onwards because any decisions made from now onwards could be appealed and, by the time a decision was made on appeal, the tilted balance would apply.

Applications currently at appeal would not be affected provided the Planning Inspectorate decided those applications before 1 May 2025.

The Executive Director advised Members of a correction to the Committee report. In paragraph 4 of the five-year land requirement under the previous methodology at 1 April 2025 should read 986 instead of the 1,386 shown in the report.

Members raised questions about:

• Whether there would be any additional guidance on how to make the weighting of the tilted balance and what might be considered as ‘significantly and demonstrably’ (paragraph 11d of the NPPF),

• Under the subject of local government reorganisation, clarification was sought regarding planning policies adopted by predecessor authorities remaining part of the development plan for their area upon reorganisation, until they were replaced by adopted successor authority policies or until the fifth anniversary of reorganisation.

Members were advised:

•  where the relevant policies are out of date the presumption of sustainable development means applications should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes,

• the terms significantly and demonstrably refer to adverse impacts of granting permission, not the benefit from the granting of permission for new homes. Each application will be considered on its own merits, and it would not be possible to provide general guidance on how to apply weight in this situation. However, this will be done on individual applications.

• a New Hart Local Plan would set the development strategy for Hart district and create a legacy for whatever came in future, and

• legal opinion would be sought the transitional arrangement for Neighbourhood Plans which were made less than five years ago.

The Committee resolved that the report be noted.

24/01868/FODI – Blue House Farm, Bottle Lane, Mattingly, Hook

The Senior Planner summarised the application for the diversion of a footpath in relation to a development for which planning permission had been granted under 22/03030/FUL.

A question was raised regarding the issues raised by the Parish Council in response to the planning application. The Senior Planner confirmed that these would be picked up as part of the consultation process.

The recommendation was proposed by Cllr Oliver and seconded by Cllr Makepeace-Browne and agreed unanimously.

The Committee resolved that:

(i)             Approval be given to proceed with the proposal to make a Public Path Diversion Order to divert Public Footpath 10

(ii)            approval for the Order to be sent out for consultation,

(iii)          subject to no objections being received (or if objections were received, those objections had been resolved), approval be given to confirmation of the Order to be advertised to formally complete this part of the process

(iv)          should an objection be received and not resolved, approval be delegated to the Executive Director – Place to refer it to the Planning Inspectorate for a decision.