Hart Borough Council Development Management Committee Meeting

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 2025 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Proposed by: Cllr Cockarill; seconded by Cllr Quarterman; unanimously agreed by those present at the February meeting.

Apologies for absence had been received from Cllrs Delaney, Makepeace-Browne and Oliver.

Cllr Makepeace-Browne was substituted by Cllr Clarke and Cllr Oliver was substituted by Cllr Davies.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair had no announcements to make at this meeting.

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

67.1    Application No. 23/02591/FUL – Land at White Hill, Well, Hook

The Senior Planner summarised the application and drew the Committee’s attention to updates set out in the addendum paper and gave a verbal update on some additional corrections to the report.

Members questioned the Senior Planner in connection with:

·        the time of year the photographs from the presentation were taken

·        public rights of way

·        what the legends on the site plan meant

·        whether the National Grid had been consulted

·        business rates

·        agricultural land classification

·        what proportion of the site would be under solar panels and potential for continued agricultural use

·       the community fund proposed by the applicant

·       what would happen to the land after the 40-year term when the solar farm would cease to exist, should permission be granted

Mr Jim Goodbourn addressed the Committee on behalf of Long Sutton and Well Parish Council. Members questioned Mr Goodbourn for clarification on the concerns he had raised in relation to mental health, wellbeing and quality of life impacts.

Mr Ian Howard, Chair of Save Our Landscape, addressed the Committee speaking against the planning application. Members questioned Mr Howard concerning the negative impacts referred to in his address, including on heritage assets, visual and noise impacts.

Ms Liz Alexander addressed the Committee on behalf of Fleet Solar Ltd speaking in support of the application. Members raised questions to Ms Alexander concerning:

·        the percentage of the total solar power requirements for the South-East that would be provided by the solar farm

·        the efficiency and output of the proposed solar panels

·        whether the procurement of more efficient solar panels would mean that a smaller footprint would be required in future.

Members discussed:

·        the impact of the agricultural land not being farmed for 40 years

·        whether alternative sites had been considered for the solar farm including in a sequential test manner

·        less than substantial harm identified by the conservation officer

·        the glint and glare from the solar panels and potential effect on the residents of Long Sutton

·        cumulative impacts of the proposal together with previously approved solar farms Chosley Farm and Bunkers Hill

·        paragraphs of the NPPF 2024 relating to positive strategies for energy, including identifying suitable areas for renewable

·        the biodiversity impact

·        the climate change emergency declared by Hart Council and whether the benefits outweighed the negative impact of a solar farm

·        whether a bond could be secured to require insurance payments to be captured for restoration of the land following decomissioning

The recommendation (as updated by the addendum paper) was moved by the Chair and seconded by Cllr Quarterman.

During the debate, an amendment to the recommendation was proposed by Cllr Dorn and seconded by Cllr Southern – that a bond to cover costs of the restoration of the land to agricultural grade land at the end of the 40 year term should be secured via a Section 106 agreement.

A recorded vote was taken:

For:  Cllrs Dorn and Southern (2)

Against:  Cllrs Brown, Cockarill, Clarke, Davies, Quarterman, Radley, Wildsmith and Worlock (8)

Abstained: (0).

The proposed amendment was not agreed.

The original recommendation set out in the main agenda report (as updated by the addendum paper) was then put to the meeting.  A recorded vote was taken:

For: Cllrs Brown, Cockarill, Quarterman, Wildsmith (4)

Against:  Cllrs Dorn, Southern, Radley, Worlock (4)

Abstained: Cllrs Clarke, Davies (2)

The Chair had the casting vote and voted for the recommendation. 

Decision:

The Development Management Committee resolved that, subject to the conditions listed in the agenda report and addendum paper, planning permission be granted.

Cllr Southern asked Officers to investigate the appropriateness of securing bonds in future on applications, the Development Management & Building Control Manager clarified whether this was in relation to solar farm proposals only and it was decided this was in relation to all planning application types. 

Cllr Wildsmith left the meeting at 8.56 pm.

The meeting was adjourned at 8.56 pm for a period of five minutes.

67.2    Application No. 24/01799/FUL - 38 Rounton Road, Church Crookham, Fleet

The Senior Planner summarised the application and drew the Committee’s attention to the updates set out in the addendum paper.

Members questioned the Senior Planner in connection with:

·           a previously refused planning application for the site

·           the outcome of the planning appeal for the refuse scheme, which was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in terms of impacts on the frontage

·           landscaping and boundary treatments

·           parking

Ms M Slade addressed the Committee, speaking against the planning application. 

Mr T Thorpe addressed the Committee in support of the planning application.

Members discussed:

·         whether the concerns of the Planning Inspector had been addressed

·         the size and treatment of the frontage of the proposed dwellings

·         the existing character of the road

·         the proposed car parking at the dwellings

The recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the planning conditions listed at the end of the Committee report and as amended in the addendum paper, was proposed by the Chair (Cllr Cockarill) and seconded by Cllr Quarterman.  A recorded vote was taken:

For:  Cllrs Brown, Cockarill, Quarterman, Worlock (4)

Against: Cllrs Dorn, Clarke, Davies, Southern, Radley (5)

Abstained: (0)

The recommendation moved to grant planning permission was not carried.

It was then moved by Cllr Radley and seconded by Cllr Clarke that the application be refused for the following reason:

“The proposed development, by virtue of the broken frontages serving multiple vehicular accesses and parking areas, would result in the loss of the existing verdant frontage. The proposal would therefore fail to positively contribute to the overall appearance of the area and would instead result in a harmful impact on the street scene, eroding the character and appearance of the local area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032, Policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 Saved Policies and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).”

A recorded vote was taken:

For:  Cllrs Cockarill, Dorn, Clarke, Davies, Southern, Radley (6)

Against: (0)

Abstained:  Cllrs Brown, Quarterman, Worlock (3)    

Decision:

The Development Management Committee resolved that planning permission be refused for the reason that:

The proposed development, by virtue of the broken frontages serving multiple vehicular accesses and parking areas, would result in the loss of the existing verdant frontage. The proposal would therefore fail to positively contribute to the overall appearance of the area and would instead result in a harmful impact on the street scene, eroding the character and appearance of the local area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032, Policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 Saved Policies and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).

67.3    Application No. 24/02178/FUL – 16 London Road, Blackwater

The Senior Planner summarised the application and drew the Committee’s attention to updates set out in the addendum paper.

The recommendation was proposed by Cllr Cockarill and seconded by Cllr Clarke and agreed unanimously.

Decision:

Recommendation A

The Committee resolved that, subject to the applicant first entering into a Section 106 agreement/undertaking in respect of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area mitigation, authority be delegated to the Executive Director – Place to grant planning permission subject to the planning conditions listed in the committee report.

Recommendation B

In the event that the Section 106 agreement was not completed within six months of the date of the Committee resolution (or longer period as may be agreed by the Executive Director – Place), authority be delegated to the Executive Director – Place to refuseplanning permission for the reason set out in the committee report.

The Executive Director – Place referred to consideration by the Committee of planning application 24/00699/FUL (1 Beacon Hill Road, Ewshot) on 19 February 2025 when planning permission had been granted for the erection of a two-storey self-build detached dwelling (4 bedrooms) with associated landscaping and parking, including the formation of a new access. 

Since the Committee meeting, it had come to light that, due to an administrative error, not all of the public representations received in respect of the application were reported in the calculated totals within the Committee report.   The Committee was advised that, whilst the total number of objections and support had not been correctly reported in the Committee report, the concerns that had been raised by public representations had all been taken into account and had been addressed either in the Committee report, public speaking, questions to Officers or within the debate. 

The recommendation was moved by Cllr Cockarill and seconded by Cllr Radley.

A vote was taken by show of hands:

For: Cllrs Brown, Cockarill, Quarterman, Southern, Radley, Worlock (6)

Against:  Cllr Dorn (1)

Abstained:  Cllrs Clarke, Davies (2)

Decision: 

The Development Management Committee resolved that, following consideration of the additional representations, the decision to grant permission be ratified.