Agenda item

The application was for the erection of 6 no. dwellings in the form of 2 no. two storey terraced buildings (comprising 3 no. 2 bed and 3 no. 3 beds), associated parking and landscaping following demolition of the existing buildings on site (Existing dwelling of Shanklin to be retained).

This application would normally have been determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation. However, it had been reported to the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Councillor Pat Tedder, on the grounds that the application addressed the previous reasons for refusal. 

The Committee were advised of the following updates on the application:

“UPDATE

Para 7.6.4 should read has ‘a planning condition could be added’.

Para 7.6.5 should read as ‘The Highway Authority therefore considers that the proposal would be unlikely to have a material impact on highway safety, subject to planning conditions that could be added to any granted consent’.

The agent has addressed an email to Members on 18 March 2021 raising the following matters:

-       the revised scheme would be consistent with the Neighbourhood Plan’s car parking standards and housing mix requirements [Officer comment: see section 7.6 for highway matters. Policy No WNP1.2 of the WNP supports planning applications for new developments which provide a mix of housing sizes and types, in particular 2 and 3 bed dwellings, so the proposal would accord with this];

-       the revised scheme would provide improved garden space [Officer comment: see para 7.5.3];

-       the proposal would see a reduction in hardstanding across the site [Officer comment: see section 7.3];

-       the proposal would comprise soft-landscaping [Officer comment: such plan could be secured by planning condition, in the event of an approval];

-       the proposal would be constructed using a package of energy efficiency measures [Officer comment: see paras 7.11.1 and 7.11.2];

-       the proposal’s design and its impact on the character of the area, including conservation area [Officer comment: see section 7.4];

-       Very Special Circumstances associated with the proposal [Officer comment: see section 7.11].”

As the application had triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr Christopher Clark and Mr Jeremy Russell-Lowe spoke in objection to the application. Mr Thomas Rumble, the agent, spoke in favour of the application.

RESOLVED that application 20/1114 be refused for the reasons in the officer’s report.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

                     I.        Councillor Edward Hawkins declared that all members had received written correspondence from the agent to the application;

                    II.        Councillor Emma McGrath knew the owner of Matthews Corner as he was a customer of her shop; however she came into the meeting with an open mind;

                  III.        Councillor Victoria Wheeler had spoken to Windlesham Society representatives, as well as the applicant in respect of the application, but came into the meeting with an open mind;

                  IV.        Councillor Morgan Rise had been contacted by residents in respect of the application, but did not comment on the content of the application, directed them to the Planning Case Officer and came into the meeting open-minded;

                   V.        Councillor Pat Tedder was a trustee of the charity which rented land on the application site.

Note 2

A roll call vote was conducted on the application and the voting was as follows:

Voting in favour of the officer recommendation to refuse the application:

Councillors Peter Barnett, Colin Dougan, Shaun Garrett, Edward Hawkins, David Lewis, Emma-Jane McGrath, Charlotte Morley, Robin Perry, Darryl Ratiram, Victoria Wheeler, Helen Whitcroft and Valerie White.

Voting against the officer recommendation:

Councillor Cliff Betton, Morgan Rise and Graham Tapper.