|
Home page Parish Council Parish Diary Organisations Newsletters History |
|
Minutes of the PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE meeting held on May 17th 2010 at Pavilion, Vaggs Lane. Present:- Cllr. Ken Wells, Cllr. Roy Bowring, Cllr. Angela Meads, Cllr. Alex Pepper, Cllr. Peter Smith & Cllr. Reg Wareham Also in attendance: Mrs Susan Whitcher – Clerk, Mrs Sandy Smith – Minutes Secretary, 18 members of the public, a member of the press & Cllrs. Terry and Hayes. The Council Chairman took the chair and requested nominations for Chair of Planning and Environment 1. Election of Chairman Cllr. Bowring proposed Cllr. Wells and was seconded by Cllr Smith. In the absence of any other nominations Cllr Wells was elected unanimously and took the chair. 2. Election of Vice-Chairman Cllr. Smith proposed Cllr. Bowring and was seconded by Cllr Wareham. In the absence of any other nominations Cllr Bowring was elected unanimously. 3. Apologies for absence None 4. Declarations of interest: None 5. Minutes of the meetings held on 19th April 2010 The minutes were confirmed. 6. Planning Applications / TPOs / etc.
NFDC 95469 – the meeting was closed and 2 members of the public spoke against the proposal. The meeting was then re-opened. Response 2 - We recommend REFUSAL for the following reasons listed below, but would accept the decision reached by the Planning Officers under their delegated powers. We see this as an unneighbourly development and we fully support the comments made by the Planning Officer. 95545 – the meeting was closed and 2 members of the public spoke against the proposal. The meeting was re-opened. Response 4 - We recommend refusal for the following reasons. 1. The amenities of the neighbour to the proposal in 19 Shepherds Way will be seriously impacted due to the close location of plot 1 where19 Shepherds Way has major rooms with windows which will now face a tall brick wall. 2. It is considered that 2 dwellings on the plot could be better accommodated giving greater attention to the layout. 3. Furthermore we believe the location of a tree on the plot of 19 Shepherds Way has not been accurately proscribed which may affect a greater area requiring root protection in the area of the proposed garage and parking bay. 95388 - Response 1 - We recommend PERMISSION, for the reasons listed below, but would accept the decision reached by the Planning Officers under their delegated powers. We are happy to accept the revised lay-out and building format. 95397 - Response 1 - We recommend PERMISSION, for the reasons listed below, but would accept the decision reached by the Planning Officers under their delegated powers. We are happy with the proposal but would recommend a condition of non-commercial use is invoked to limit additional traffic movements onto a very narrow highway. 95401 – The meeting was closed and 5 members of the public spoke against the proposal. The meeting was re-opened Response 2 - We recommend REFUSAL for the following reasons listed below, but would accept the decision reached by the Planning Officers under their delegated powers. 1. This proposal is intrusive in the Green Belt 2. Access is via narrow lanes not constructed with high density development in mind. 3. We have information that rare birds of prey are nesting in boundary trees. 4. This high density proposal is out of context with the rural location. NFDC Trees TPO 10/0149 – This was agreed by a 4:2 majority. Response 1 – We recommend permission for the reasons listed below but would accept the decision reached by the Arboricultural officers under their delegated powers. 1. As a new chalet has been erected directly upon a root system where the oak tree has spread we would wish to be assured that no damage has been caused to this root system by the structure, otherwise we support the pruning of this tree. 2. As owners of the tree we would require to be fully informed of any planned tree works prior to commencement. TPO 10/0156 - Response 1 – We recommend permission for the reasons listed below but would accept the decision reached by the Arboricultural officers under their delegated powers. 1. Provided the work is carried out for safety reasons and the health of the tree. TPO 10/0164 - Response 1 – We recommend permission for the reasons listed below but would accept the decision reached by the Arboricultural officers under their delegated powers. 1. We support this as it will benefit the health of the tree. Item 12 was brought forward to allow Cllr. Smith to comment and be questioned on his report by interested parties. Report on the council sponsored public meeting for the New Forest Villages Housing Association Ltd proposed development at Bashley/Tiptoe. April 22nd 2010. Hordle Parish council hosted the meeting to allow members of the public the opportunity to hear at first hand the proposals from New Forest Villages Housing Association Ltd and to be able to ask questions regarding the development. I chaired the meeting which was well attended and introduced the Chairman of NFVH sub-committee that was working on this project. Their Chairman outlined who the Association was and that they currently own or manage some 50 properties. The current proposal was for 6 or 8 units which would be for rent only. The association’s architect then showed through a power-point presentation of the proposed development including illustrations of how the site would look from the road and other views. Members of the public were then able to ask questions of the NFVH team. There seemed to be concern over the motives of the vendors of the land especially the possible pre-allocation of some units for the vendors use. It was strongly denied by the chair of NFVH that they would agree to any pre-allocation other than through the use of the NFDC housing list. The housing list did not accurately give details of truly ‘local’ people and the association were currently working with the NPA/NFDC to better define those who were within the Wooten, Bashley and Tiptoe (Hordle PC only) NPA area. This lack of specific details had led to some variance in the numbers of possible ‘local’ people/families. The suitability of the site was questioned by several members of the public including the existing high water table and possible drainage issues. The architect stated that they may need to install a sewage plant but that they were unaware of a flooding risk. The lack of amenities was pointed out by members of the public including the lack of public transport. A member of the public stated that as a new comer to Tiptoe, they had been unable to place a child at Tiptoe school. The Chair of NFVH was aware of only one year class that was currently full with the others having capacity for more children. NFVH were asked to confirm the proposed cost of the land, this was declined . Questions were raised over how land was selected and how its suitability was decided. Members of the audience claimed to know of various landowner who had land which they thought could be suitable, but that they had not been approached. The Rural Exception Sites report was not available at the meeting (it is now available) but it was suggested that the whole procedure should be more open. A member of the public raised the issue that Hordle Parish Council had already responded to NFVH that they felt the site was unsuitable and this was confirmed. The fact that a previous proposal had been put forward by another housing association, which was then withdrawn, raised questions as to why a similar proposal was now being discussed. When the question of what happens next was raised, members of the public seemed to agree that they should form some form of action group. It was confirmed that if the proposed application goes ahead, then the next public opportunity for comment would be at New Milton Town Council’s planning committee meeting and then at the NPA planning committee when the decision will be made. No question or comment was made during the meeting in support of the proposal although everyone who wished to raise a point had been given the opportunity. NFVH had agreed that copies of their presentation would be made available and 9 members of the public requested emailed copies from the council. Cllr. Hayes suggested researching which families in Tiptoe were in need of affordable housing. The meeting was closed to allow members of the public to question Cllr. Smith. The Chairman informed the meeting that any land for exception sites should be put through the Clerk but a member of the public commented that the most effective channel was through “Call for sites” put in the local development framework. There was discussion on the policy for allocation of housing to families and a local survey was suggested. It was also suggested that a method to assess housing requirement could be considered by the VDS working party. 7. Update on proposed cycle ways – Hordle & Everton. After discussing safety concerns over the route on existing roadways (the majority) it was agreed that to give it our full support we would wish to be assured of the measures NFDC proposed to take on safe cycling. 8. To consider and agree working parties After discussion it was agreed to re-convene the Ashley Lane working party and the Chairman would update them on the progress so far. 9. Correspondence / Clerks Report 9.1. Correspondence 9.1. i. Letter of support regarding Wootton Affordable Housing scheme. 9.1.ii.Mr. & Mrs Saunders - offer of help re Ashley Lane traffic calming./pedestrian crossing. 9.2. Clerk’s report 9.2.i. SID data from Everton Road – available in the office. 9.2.ii. Updated Traffic order - speed reductions to 30 mph for roads in Sway/Hordle area. 9.2.iii. Responses regarding ecological concerns over the use of salt for gritting. – recommend sites to Clerk. 9.2.iv. Request for comments on transport proposals in Hordle & Everton and Milford.(NFDC) – need to clarify with safety proposals for EvertonRd/Woodcock Lane/Hordle Lane junction any comments to Clerk. 9.2.v. Costings for road signs for Everton(Everton Road) and Tiptoe(Vaggs Lane) - £1,000. 9.2.vi. Lorries using Farmers Walk – HCC recommend Everton Nursery advise delivery lorries to approach from the A337. 9.2.vii. Contacted Stuart Cox re water on the highway at Hare Lane and damage sustained to highway at Hare Lane/Lavender Road junction. 10. Chairman’s Report. The Chairman requested the Clerk to thank Highways for the work on Lavender Road but to clarify the position re delayed, proposed work and closure of Vaggs Lane. He reported on the options of the meeting with Hampshire highways and Milford which also included County Cllr. Rice, Cllrs. Wells, Smith and the Clerk. The preferred option was for traffic lights and Milford will discuss this in their council. The Chairman also raised the parish footpath survey and Cllr. Pepper has offered to survey the paths in the parish. She will check the details on their definitive statements to ensure these are being adhered to. There was some discussion on the cuts- through from estates as to who should assume responsibility but this was not resolved. The Clerk was requested to contact HCC over the poor state of Muddy Lane, Cllr. Pepper will report on its condition. 11. Planning Decisions of NPA and NFDC
12. Councillors Reports 12.1. Cllr. Meads reported the dumping of clay spoil on a track adjacent to Apple Court Nursery and she had been informed that it was her responsibility to clear it. 12.2. Cllr. Pepper suggested assessing the needs within the parish for affordable housing. 12.3. Cllr. Wareham observed that the round-about proposal had very little merit. 12.4. Cllr. Bowring thanked the Clerk for contacting Stuart Cox re the water running onto Hare Lane 13. Public session: 13.1. A member of the public reminded the committee that information re the local need for affordable housing had been ascertained from the Vision Questionnaire and it was very low. 13.2. Cllr. Terry thanked the committee for listening to the concerns of the Vicarage Lane residents re app 95401. He asked the Clerk if there had been any information re the Hordle Lane /Everton Road crossroad or the 3G mast. The Clerk informed him there had been none. 14. To confirm the next meeting on Monday 21st June, 2010 Confirmed
The meeting closed at 10.20pm
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||