Havant Borough Council
Councillors:
36
Wards:
17
Committees:
35
Meetings (2025):
86
Meetings (2024):
96
Meeting
Planning Committee - Havant
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 26th September 2024
5:30 PM
Thursday, 26th September 2024
5:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 26th September 2024
9:30 PM
Thursday, 26th September 2024
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
26 Sep 2024
26 Sep 2024
Location:
Hurstwood Room, Public Service Plaza, Civic Centre Road, Havant, Hampshire PO9 2AX
Hurstwood Room, Public Service Plaza, Civic Centre Road, Havant, Hampshire PO9 2AX
Meeting Attendees
Vice-Chairman
Vice Chairman of Planning Committee
Chairman
Cabinet Lead for Planning and Environment and Chairman of Planning Committee
Committee Member
Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Committee Member
Secretary
Democratic Services Officer
Lauren Maidens
Expected
Standing Deputy
Armed Forces Champion
Committee Member
Chairman of Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Lead for Climate Emergency, Environment & Water Quality (Climate Change Champion)
Secretary
Democratic Services Officer
Mark Gregory
Expected
Secretary
Democratic Services Officer
Ernest Lam
Expected
Committee Member
Deputy Mayor of the Council and Vice Chairman of Licensing Committee
Deputee
Cabinet Lead for Regeneration & Communities
Agenda
1
Apologies for Absence
To receive and record any apologies for absence.
Minutes
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Diamond and Lloyd.
2
Minutes
To approve the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 03 September 2024 and the minutes of the Site Viewing Working Party held on 19 September 2024.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes of Previous Meeting 17 Sep 2024
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 19/09/2024 Site Viewing Working Party 17 Sep 2024
Minutes
RESOLVED that the minutes of the Site Viewing Working Party held on 19 September 2024, and the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 03 September 2024 be approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following changes:
1. “there was to be no ground manipulation on land.” be added after “Experts had felt that some minor ground manipulation would be valuable, whereby islands and channels around the island could be created.”
2. All Reference to “Mr Viney” in the minutes be corrected and read “Ms Viney”.
1. “there was to be no ground manipulation on land.” be added after “Experts had felt that some minor ground manipulation would be valuable, whereby islands and channels around the island could be created.”
2. All Reference to “Mr Viney” in the minutes be corrected and read “Ms Viney”.
3
Declarations of Interests
To receive and record any declarations of interests from Members present.
Minutes
There were no declarations of interests relating to matters on the agenda.
4
Matters to be Considered for Deferment or Site Viewing
To consider matters for deferment or site viewing.
Minutes
There were no matters to be considered for site viewing and deferment.
5
APP/24/00121 - Langstone Lodge, 1 Langstone High Street, Havant, PO9 1RY
Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a replacement dwelling, designed to match the extended form of dwelling as approved in 2022.
Additional Documents
Additional Documents
Attachments:
- Document APP 24 00121 Langstone Lodge Committee report - Final 17 Sep 2024
- Document APPENDIX A - Location Plan 17 Sep 2024
- Document APPENDIX B - Existing Site Plan 17 Sep 2024
- Document APPENDIX C - Site Plan Approved by APP-21-01322 17 Sep 2024
- Document APPENDIX D - Proposed Site Plan 17 Sep 2024
- Document APPENDIX E - Comparison Ground Floor Plans 17 Sep 2024
- Document APPENDIX F - Comparison First Floor Plans 17 Sep 2024
- Document APPENDIX G - Comparison Second Floor Plans 17 Sep 2024
- Document APPENDIX H - Comparison South East Elevations 17 Sep 2024
- Document APPENDIX I - Comparison South West Elevations 17 Sep 2024
- Document APPENDIX J - Comparison North East Elevations 17 Sep 2024
- Document APPENDIX K - Comparison North West Elevations 17 Sep 2024
- Document Statement from Ms Griffiths 17 Sep 2024
- Document Statement from the applicant 17 Sep 2024
- Document Statement from the applicant's agent 17 Sep 2024
- Document ADDENDUM re third party comments for LL for 26 09 24 17 Sep 2024
- Document Addendum update Langstone Lodge for 26 09 24 Updated 17 Sep 2024
- Document Updated Refusal Reasons - verbal update 17 Sep 2024
Minutes
(The site was viewed by the Site Viewing Working Party)
Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a replacement dwelling, designed to match the extended form of dwelling as approved in 2022.
The Committee considered the written report and recommendation from the Head of Planning to refuse permission.
The Committee received supplementary information, circulated prior to the
meeting, which included:
1. Written statements submitted by the Langstone Village Association, the applicant and the applicant’s agent.
2. A corrigendum on the minutes of the last Planning Committee meeting.
3. Minutes of the Site Viewing Working Party held on 19 September 2024.
4. Two addendum papers, which included community involvement updates and updates on statutory and non-statutory consultations.
5. An update paper on updated reasons for refusal.
The Committee was addressed by:
1. Ms Furdyna, on behalf of the Langstone Village Association, who reiterated the issues as set out in the written statement.
In response to the question from members of the Committee, Ms Furdyna confirmed that she has been living in Langstone.
2. Mr Denton, the applicant, who reiterated the issues as set out in the written statement.
In response to questions from members of the Committee, Mr Denton stated that:
a. Full quality surveying reports were completed to verify both the costs of demolishing, and the refurbishment of the building in the site.
b. His intention would not be to demolish the building and not rebuild it. His intention would be to turn the building into his family home.
3. Mr Tutton, the applicant’s agent, who reiterated the issues as set out in the written statement.
In response to the question from members of the Committee, Mr Tutton has stated that he considered the house as not having any designation under local protection laws.
The officers commented on the issues raised by public speakers and in the written submissions as follows:
· There had been no statutory requirement to produce a local list.
· A heritage asset could be anything identified by the Local Planning Authority.
· Langstone Lodge would be a non designated heritage asset.
· Financial information about the application had only been submitted on Tuesday on the week of this Committee. Such information remains yet to be verified, and was not a part of the formal viability assessment.
In response to questions from members of the Committee, officers stated that:
a. Permitted development for the application dwelling would be restricted as it would be located in a conservation area.
b. The history significance of the building contributed to Langstone Lodge’s important status as a non designated heritage asset
c. They believed there had been no consultations made to Historic England due to the scale of the proposal and the fact that the building had not been listed.
d. A third-party was required to verify the structural reports submitted by the applicant as the Council’s planning team did not have any in-house technical experts.
e. The application would be for a complete demolition of the dwelling.
f. Ecological impacts would also have to be considered regardless of the outcome of any heritage discussions.
g. The demolition and refurbish costs provided by the applicants and his agents were not verified by the Council’s planning team.
h. Ecological reasons for refusal of the application were primarily about the bats located in the site.
i. The past planning permission for the extensions included a condition which would require the presence of an ecologist to check on the bats during works on the site.
j. Langstone Lodge would be classified as a Non designated heritage asset.
k. Paragraph 6.16 and 6.17 of the report outlined that planning authority has limited powers to ensure that Langstone Lodge would be rebuilt.
l. A planning condition to rebuild the Lodge would be considered unreasonable.
m. The Council could serve a section 215 notice on the owner of the site if the site were untidy or poorly maintained.
n. Very little weight should be attached to the financial estimates submitted by the applicant as the numbers were unsubstantiated.
o. Members of the Committee should not speculate what may or may not happen at the appeal stage when considering the application.
The Committee discussed the application in detail together with the views raised by deputees.
The Committee considered the potential harm that demolition of the building would bring to the conservation area, the lack of an ecological report, the applicant’s suggestion to rebuild the building, the current condition of the building, the history of the building, the financial estimates submitted by the applicant and its lack of third-party verification.
RESOLVED that application APP/24/00121 be refused for the following reasons:
1
Langstone Lodge is a non-designated heritage asset significant locally for its historic associations and as a notable example of a large Victorian villa, complete with its setting of large landscaped grounds, that makes a valuable contribution to the Langstone Conservation Area. Based on the submitted documents, clear and convincing justification for the proposed demolition of Langstone Lodge has not been provided , and its demolition would result in substantial harm to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset. This would not protect, conserve or enhance the locally significant historic asset and is considered contrary to policy CS11 of the of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011, policy DM20 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Allocations) 2014, and paragraphs 206 and 209 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2
Langstone Lodge and its setting make a positive contribution to Langstone Conservation Area, and its demolition and replacement with a modern facsimile with less articulation, set 0.5m higher, would result in some limited harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. This would not preserve the character of the Conservation Area which would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area, for which there is no public benefit. Based on the submitted documents, clear and convincing justification for the proposed demolition of Langstone Lodge has not been provided , and the proposed development would not protect, conserve or enhance the Conservation Area and is considered contrary to policy CS11 of the of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011, policy DM20 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Allocations) 2014, and paragraphs 206 and 208 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
3
No ecological information has been submitted and in the absence of up-to-date ecological information it has not been adequately demonstrated that the site does not provide suitable habitat for protected species. The proposed development, including demolition of the existing dwelling, could result in significant harm to biodiversity and wildlife habitats, which is contrary to paragraph 186 of the NPPF and policy CS11 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011.
Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a replacement dwelling, designed to match the extended form of dwelling as approved in 2022.
The Committee considered the written report and recommendation from the Head of Planning to refuse permission.
The Committee received supplementary information, circulated prior to the
meeting, which included:
1. Written statements submitted by the Langstone Village Association, the applicant and the applicant’s agent.
2. A corrigendum on the minutes of the last Planning Committee meeting.
3. Minutes of the Site Viewing Working Party held on 19 September 2024.
4. Two addendum papers, which included community involvement updates and updates on statutory and non-statutory consultations.
5. An update paper on updated reasons for refusal.
The Committee was addressed by:
1. Ms Furdyna, on behalf of the Langstone Village Association, who reiterated the issues as set out in the written statement.
In response to the question from members of the Committee, Ms Furdyna confirmed that she has been living in Langstone.
2. Mr Denton, the applicant, who reiterated the issues as set out in the written statement.
In response to questions from members of the Committee, Mr Denton stated that:
a. Full quality surveying reports were completed to verify both the costs of demolishing, and the refurbishment of the building in the site.
b. His intention would not be to demolish the building and not rebuild it. His intention would be to turn the building into his family home.
3. Mr Tutton, the applicant’s agent, who reiterated the issues as set out in the written statement.
In response to the question from members of the Committee, Mr Tutton has stated that he considered the house as not having any designation under local protection laws.
The officers commented on the issues raised by public speakers and in the written submissions as follows:
· There had been no statutory requirement to produce a local list.
· A heritage asset could be anything identified by the Local Planning Authority.
· Langstone Lodge would be a non designated heritage asset.
· Financial information about the application had only been submitted on Tuesday on the week of this Committee. Such information remains yet to be verified, and was not a part of the formal viability assessment.
In response to questions from members of the Committee, officers stated that:
a. Permitted development for the application dwelling would be restricted as it would be located in a conservation area.
b. The history significance of the building contributed to Langstone Lodge’s important status as a non designated heritage asset
c. They believed there had been no consultations made to Historic England due to the scale of the proposal and the fact that the building had not been listed.
d. A third-party was required to verify the structural reports submitted by the applicant as the Council’s planning team did not have any in-house technical experts.
e. The application would be for a complete demolition of the dwelling.
f. Ecological impacts would also have to be considered regardless of the outcome of any heritage discussions.
g. The demolition and refurbish costs provided by the applicants and his agents were not verified by the Council’s planning team.
h. Ecological reasons for refusal of the application were primarily about the bats located in the site.
i. The past planning permission for the extensions included a condition which would require the presence of an ecologist to check on the bats during works on the site.
j. Langstone Lodge would be classified as a Non designated heritage asset.
k. Paragraph 6.16 and 6.17 of the report outlined that planning authority has limited powers to ensure that Langstone Lodge would be rebuilt.
l. A planning condition to rebuild the Lodge would be considered unreasonable.
m. The Council could serve a section 215 notice on the owner of the site if the site were untidy or poorly maintained.
n. Very little weight should be attached to the financial estimates submitted by the applicant as the numbers were unsubstantiated.
o. Members of the Committee should not speculate what may or may not happen at the appeal stage when considering the application.
The Committee discussed the application in detail together with the views raised by deputees.
The Committee considered the potential harm that demolition of the building would bring to the conservation area, the lack of an ecological report, the applicant’s suggestion to rebuild the building, the current condition of the building, the history of the building, the financial estimates submitted by the applicant and its lack of third-party verification.
RESOLVED that application APP/24/00121 be refused for the following reasons:
1
Langstone Lodge is a non-designated heritage asset significant locally for its historic associations and as a notable example of a large Victorian villa, complete with its setting of large landscaped grounds, that makes a valuable contribution to the Langstone Conservation Area. Based on the submitted documents, clear and convincing justification for the proposed demolition of Langstone Lodge has not been provided , and its demolition would result in substantial harm to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset. This would not protect, conserve or enhance the locally significant historic asset and is considered contrary to policy CS11 of the of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011, policy DM20 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Allocations) 2014, and paragraphs 206 and 209 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2
Langstone Lodge and its setting make a positive contribution to Langstone Conservation Area, and its demolition and replacement with a modern facsimile with less articulation, set 0.5m higher, would result in some limited harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. This would not preserve the character of the Conservation Area which would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area, for which there is no public benefit. Based on the submitted documents, clear and convincing justification for the proposed demolition of Langstone Lodge has not been provided , and the proposed development would not protect, conserve or enhance the Conservation Area and is considered contrary to policy CS11 of the of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011, policy DM20 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Allocations) 2014, and paragraphs 206 and 208 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
3
No ecological information has been submitted and in the absence of up-to-date ecological information it has not been adequately demonstrated that the site does not provide suitable habitat for protected species. The proposed development, including demolition of the existing dwelling, could result in significant harm to biodiversity and wildlife habitats, which is contrary to paragraph 186 of the NPPF and policy CS11 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011.
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in