Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Virtual Meeting - Zoom Webinar. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services Team 

Media

Items
No. Item

77/20

Apologies for absence and substitutions

Minutes:

There were no apologies for absence

 

78/20

Declarations of interest

Minutes:

Councillor Harvey declared that he was involved in meetings over a year ago professionally over a nitrates issue discussed but it had nothing to do with Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council at the time but he wanted it on record for the purposes of being open and transparent.

 

Councillor McCormick requested that application number 20/02615/FUL be brought to the Development Control Committee but he confirmed he did not have a pre-determined position.

 

Councillor Harvey declared an interest in agenda item 6 - Request to Vary Section 106 Agreement in relation to Land at Chapel Hill, Kingsclere Road, Basingstoke as he had spoken as a visiting Councillor when it had previously been on the agenda for the Committee held on the 12th August 2020.  Councillor Harvey stood down from the Committee for this item.

 

79/20

Urgent matters

To consider any items of business, other than those shown on this agenda and which, by reason of special circumstances to be stated at the meeting, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.

 

80/20

Minutes of the meeting held on the 13th January 2021 pdf icon PDF 569 KB

The Chair will move that the minutes of the meeting held on the 13th January 2021 be signed as a correct record. The only part of the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.

Minutes:

The Chair confirmed that the minutes of the meetings held on the 13th January 2021 were confirmed by the Committee as a correct record.

 

81/20

Applications for planning permission and public participation thereon pdf icon PDF 352 KB

This report details the planning applications to the Committee for consideration and decision.

 

Contact Officer:  Planning and Development Manager

 

Wards Affected:  Brighton Hill North, Burghclere, Highclere and St Mary Bourne, Kempshott, Overton, Laverstoke And Steventon, Pamber and Silchester

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

1. Application –20/02375/OUT: Outline planning application with all matters reserved except access for 75 dwellings, open space, allotments, landscaping and access via Sheep Fair Lane. Site: Land Adjacent Pond Close Pond Close Overton Hampshire

 

The Committee considered the report set out on pages 69 to 129 of the agenda together with the further material set out on the addendum sheet and other matters discussed at the meeting.

 

The Committee discussed the application and raised a number of concerns.

 

Members discussed contamination on the site and believed that the conditions in the report were inadequate to deal with the potential issue.  It was also felt that the

Contamination Desktop Study provided with the application was not satisfactory in determining the condition of the land and would like to have seen bore holes and the soil analysed.

 

Some Members said that there was insufficient information supplied with the application such as contamination, sewage, surface water drainage and an archaeological assessment.  They expressed their disappointment that such important matters would be dealt with by conditions and discussed whether they should defer the application.

 

Concern was expressed with the access to the site and the standard of the non-adopted road.

 

Members considered the current position with the 5 year land supply and took into consideration Basingstoke and Deane’s local plan and Overton’s Neighbourhood Plan in their deliberations and concluded that it was an unsuitable site.

 

On the whole the Committee agreed with the Landscape Officer’s objection to the proposal that it was a large development with a site area of 9.4 ha which would result in the loss of a significant area of countryside that forms an important

part of the setting of Overton and would lead to adverse impacts on both landscape character and visual amenity of the area.

 

RESOLVED that:  the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

Reasons for Refusal

 

1          By virtue of its location and size, the proposed development would result in the loss of an area of undeveloped countryside that would significantly impact on the setting of the Village of Overton, adversely impacting on the local landscape character and scenic quality. The proposed development would not successfully integrate with surrounding development resulting in significant and adverse impacts on the visual quality of the area. It is not considered that this harm could be adequately mitigated against. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. The harm identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme contrary to paragraph 11d ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019).

 

2          In the absence of any suitable legal agreement, or justification for the absence of a legal agreement, the proposed development does not make adequate provision for community and infrastructure contributions in relation to affordable housing; equipped play areas; allotments; delivery of on-site open space and kickabout space and accessible natural green space; landscape  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81/20

82/20

Request to Vary Section 106 Agreement in relation to management of Public Open Space Above White Building Car Park and Removal of Landscape Strip on Kingsclere Road Frontage from Public Open Space provision and Payment in Lieu - 19/01132/VLA - Land at Chapel Hill, Kingsclere Road, Basingstoke pdf icon PDF 575 KB

Members to consider the request to vary a Section 106 Agreement.

 

Contract Officer:  Planning and Development Manager

 

Minutes:

The Planning and Development Manager introduced the report and provided Members with a summary of the planning application number 19/01132/VLA and the reason it was on the agenda for consideration.

 

He confirmed that request to vary a Section 106 Agreement was considered by the Development Control Committee at its meeting on 12th August 2020.  At the meeting the Committee expressed its concern over the proposal to remove the open space on the roof of the White Building car park from the transfer to the Council and for the area instead to be managed by a private management company due to the potential for additional maintenance costs that may be incurred falling on residents.

Members were content with the recommendation for the removal of the thin strip of landscape verge at the front of the site bounding Kingsclere Road from the previously approved public open space provision (and thus from the public open space transfer since this area was now required by Hampshire County Council Highway Authority and had been dedicated as highway within the Section 278 Highways Agreement) and to make a financial contribution towards off-site public open space in lieu.

 

Following this, the description of the proposed variation had been amended to include legal mechanisms to allow the Council's ongoing maintenance and management of the Public Open Space above the roof of the White Building, whilst still proposing the removal of the landscape strip from the Kingsclere Road frontage, with a financial contribution to off-site public open space in lieu. 

 

The amended clauses within the Deed of Variation effectively gave a

covenant to grant the Council a right of access to maintain the open space above the White Building underground car park at the Council’s expense in perpetuity (without taking on any liability for the carpark) rather than the Council taking a transfer of the land.

The revised wording now proposed within the Deed of Variation responds

positively to the concerns raised by Members of the Development Control Committee at its meeting on 12th August 2020.  It was therefore recommended that the request to vary the terms of the original Section 106 Agreement secured under the outline permission (14/00865/OUT) and subsequent Deed of Variation in relation to the White Building (17/02279/FUL), be approved.

 

The Committee discussed the report and congratulated the officers for their work in finding a solution.

 

RESOLVED that:  The applicant be invited to enter into a Deed of Variation (in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and Policies CN6 and EM5 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029) between the applicant and the Borough and County Councils to secure:

·          Secure legal mechanisms to allow the Council’s ongoing maintenance and management of the Public Open Space above the roof of the White Building car park;

 

·         Remove a thin strip of landscape verge at the front of the site bounding Kingsclere Road from the previously approved public open space provision (and thus from the public open space transfer since this area is now  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82/20

83/20

Land at the Junction of Roman Road and Worting Road, Basingstoke Enforcement report - EC/18/00374/UOD2 pdf icon PDF 962 KB

This report is to seek approval to undertake direct action to secure removal of an unauthorised advertisement and ancillary paraphernalia erected on a parcel of land known as Land at the Junction of Roman Road and Worting Road, Basingstoke. 

 

Contact Officer:  Planning and Development Manager

 

Minutes:

The Planning and Development Manager introduced the report which sought approval to undertake direct action to secure removal of an unauthorised advertisement and ancillary paraphernalia erected on a parcel of land known as Land at the Junction of Roman Road and Worting Road, Basingstoke.  The council constitution did not provide delegation to officers for the taking of direct action.

 

The report provided Members with an overview of the planning and enforcement history which has sought to resolve a breach of the Advertisement Regulations.  

 

He confirmed that the application for Advertisement Consent was refused on 11 January 2019, ref: 18/03151/ADV and no appeals had been lodged.

Following the refusal of the application, council officers had engaged in various discussions with the applicant in order to secure the voluntary removal of the unauthorised signage and associated paraphernalia.  No attempts had been made, by the applicant or advertiser, to comply with the council’s request.          

 

As no attempts had been made to voluntarily remove the signage, it was proposed that direct action should be taken to secure its removal.   

 

RESOLVED:  Members of the Development Control Committee APPROVED the following:

To grant authority to take direct action, to secure the removal of the unauthorised signage and ancillary paraphernalia.

                                                                                                                                               

Meeting ended 22:20

 

                                   

 

 

 

Chairman