9 April 2013
ELLINGHAM, HARBRIDGE & IBSLEY PARISH COUNCIL
Minutes of the meeting held in Ellingham Church Hall on Tuesday 9 April 2013.
Cllr Spark – Chairman
Natasha Mackenzie – clerk
Members of the public (7)
1. Apologies – none.
2. Disclosures of interest
Cllr Spark disclosed of a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 8: Appeal Red Shoot Camping Park as he knows the applicants.
Cllr Lane disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 6: NFDC 13/10255 Blashford Manor as she knows the applicants.
3. Minutes of the last meeting (12 March 2013)
The minutes of the last Planning Committee meeting on 12 March 2013 were approved and signed as correct. Proposed by Cllr Stokes, seconded by Cllr Shand. All in favour (7). Cllr Burtenshaw was not present at this meeting so she did not vote.
4. Matters arising.
12/29P – Ellingham Quarry HCC & NFDC 11/98107. Fay Eames advised deed of variation being negotiated for s.106 with Tarmac with restoration date of 31-12-16. The permissive path will be created in the final stages of the restoration.
12/95P – TPOs within parish. Two sets of plans for TPO 1094. The tree team have advised Clerk both TPOs have been incorrectly issued with same number, and they will be reviewed in due course when resources are available. Clerk chased a response on 8-4-12.
12/113P – Projector & Screen at Ellingham Church Hall. Cllr Errington has met with Terry Mason to discuss the need for black out blinds and the projector screen to be sited in front of the large landscape window. Terry will revert with a cost indication, and Cllr Errington has suggested the the Parish Council contribute to the cost.
12/175P Adlams Plantation. Clerk has sent request for this wood to be TPO’d. Liz Beckett advised she has liaised with Rosemary Box and this wood is within a s.106 stating the wood needs to be managed for a period of 80 years by systematic thinning and removal of Turkey oaks. When it is finalised, Liz will review the s.106 and advise the clerk her opinion. Clerk chased a response on 8-4-12.
12/204P Dragon’s teeth Moyles Court ford area. The work has been completed!
13/20P QU/13/0008 Horseshoe Cottage, Rockford – unauthorised development; retrospective planning application on agenda.
13/24P T&PC’s ‘Right to reply’ at NPA meetings. The Clerk circulated Steve Avery’s response on 11 March – it is being proposed for Town & Parish Councils to have 1 minute Right to Reply but no change to current unlimited time for initial presentations. It will go before the NPA’s meeting on 28 March for approval. Awaiting update from NPA.
The Parish Council’s proposal to display a ‘no parking’ sign on Moyles Court ford gate with landowner Mr Smith’s permission, however Mr Smith has responded that he doesn’t think it would help. Cost of sign approx £20.
Consultation on the NPA draft Local Enforcement Plan – on agenda.
NPA 13/98209 Land at Mockbeggar, Moyles Court, Rockford – application for Certificate of Lawful Development for existing use of land for agricultural purposes.
Cllr Spark updated the members of the Planning Committee, clarifying it is a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) application, not a conventional planning application. He apologies for the delay in the Parish Council’s response to the NPA; this was due to clarification being sought on planning issues. Cllr Spark proposed for the Parish Council’s formal response on this LDC application to be as follows:-
“If the NPA are minded to grant the LDC, the Parish Council understand that the use of land for grazing of horses does constitute a lawful agricultural use, as applied for in this application 13/98209.”
Cllr Burtenshaw enquired if it would be possible to ask the NPA when they are determining their application, what number of horses they recommend would be acceptable as ‘grazing’ within the defined agricultural use of the land.
The formal response proposed by Cllr Spark, seconded by Cllr Richardson, 7 in favour, 1 abstention. Clerk to make response to NPA.
5. Public Forum – none.
6. Development control and TPO applications.
Please note: the applications are recorded in the order that they were discussed, not as per the agenda.
NPA 13/98216 Moyles Court School, Rockford – replacement outbuilding; demolition of existing outbuilding; boundary wall repairs. Cllr Errington detailed the location of the proposed structure, which is to house a new bio mass boiler which uses wood chips to heat water for heating.
Cllr Spark declared a non-pecuniary interest as his daughter attends the school.
Cllr Errington showed where it is proposed to be sited on an aerial plan and photos of the current site and structures. The existing outbuilding (height 2.5m) will be replaced with a timber clad outbuilding (height 4m); two oil tanks to remain. The proposed structure would be close to a wall (height approx 1.1m) which is listed by association with the main house. The proposed outbuilding needs to be 4m high to accommodate the large storage volume required for the wood chip store and the accumulation tank (height 3.5m) which stores the heated water; it requires no foundations as it is built on reinforced slabs.
A member of the public raised concerns on; close proximity of new outbuilding to the listed wall; not being consulted as the adjoining landowner; the potential fire risk; and whether a flue is required, as it is not shown on the drawing or within the application. The architect responded that the adjoining landowner would be consulted at a later date under the Party Wall etc Act 1996 as part of the building regulations, and he apologised on behalf of the School that the landowner had not been directly advised of the planning application. The architect then confirmed that the flue height is 2m above the roof height and would be supported by two metal structural stays, which would result in the total height of the flue being 6m.
The potential of emissions affecting neighbouring properties and the visual impact were discussed, in addition to any potential impact on the listed wall.
Cllr Richardson proposed option 5, which is to accept the decision reached by the NPA’s officers under their delegated powers with the following comments:-
The Parish Council was concerned that the application lacked sufficient information to make a proper recommendation. There was no flue for the biomass boiler on the drawings and we were advised by the applicants architect that this would extend, with support stays, to 6m above ground thus protruding 2m above the building. In addition it is 300mm in diameter and would be visually significant.
In addition there was no direct scaled comparison of the existing shed with the proposed building but it is apparent that the new building would be forward of the listed wall.
The Parish Council has concerns on:-
• the visual impact of the structure is significantly more massive compared to the existing and adjoining properties, the 6m height of the flue (not included within the drawings or application) and the consequence of emissions;
• any impact on the adjacent listed wall.
Seconded by Cllr Stokes, all in favour (8).
NPA 13/98289 Little Patch, 5 New Road, Mockbeggar – detached outbuilding. Cllr Shand explained the location of the property and showed photos of it and the two nearby footpaths. The proposal is for demolition of the existing garage and creation of a new outbuilding. The outbuilding would be situated just over 1m from the property’s boundary and one of the footpaths is approx. 4m the other side of this boundary. The applicant detailed that advice was taken from the NPA and the new outbuilding is situated outside the root protection zone. The materials to be used will match the existing property; black timber-clad and slate roof and approx. 7m x 4m.
Cllr Burtenshaw proposed to recommend permission under option 3, with the following reasons; the proposed outbuilding fits well into the existing landscape and is not intrusive on the plot; EHI PC would request the applicant take steps to help attenuate the potential light pollution with installation of blinds.
Seconded by Cllr Shand, all in favour (8).
NPA 13/98299 Horseshoe Cottage, Rockford – retention of boundary wall & fencing. Cllr Richardson explained the location and showed photos of the property before and after the works carried out to the front boundary; it was previously a picket fence, and now the new red brick pillar and picket fence structure is significantly higher than the original gate and appears to be built in front of the previous boundary, resulting in it encroaching on the verge.
The applicant apologised as he was unaware of the need for planning permission; he wanted to protect his grandchildren from the fast road and livestock hanging over the fence.
It was discussed at length and agreed that rather than the whole structure be taken down, the Parish Council would be happy with some modifications to the wall, such as a reduction in the pillar height and removal/toning down of the urban white pillar caps. It was noted that the wall does match the style of the house. Advice was also given to the applicant on reducing light pollution.
Cllr Richardson proposed to recommend refusal under option 2 with delegated powers to the NPA for the following reasons:-
The Parish Council felt the wall is not in keeping with its’ rural forest environment, however would accept measures to improve its’ visual impact:-
• the capping stones on the pillars to be more muted in colour, ie not white;
• the height of the pillars to be reduced to make it commensurate with its’ neighbouring properties and the original fence it replaces.
Seconded by Cllr Shand, 7 in favour, 1 abstention. Motion carried.
NPA 13/98320 Alice Lisle Inn, Rockford – replacement lobby (demolition of existing lobby) & NPA 13/98321 Alice Lisle Inn, Rockford – replacement lobby (application for Listed Building Consent) These applications will be discussed together.
Cllr Lane explained the location of the building and detailed where the proposed works are to be carried out; replacing the lobby at the back of the building near the toilets. The plans were examined and concerns were raised over the proposed addition of the large ‘L’ shaped pergola extending from the new lobby and round the building over the outdoor seating area. It was agreed that such a structure would put the listed building totally out of balance and could create a potential for the structure to be infilled in the future.
Cllr Spark proposed to recommend refusal under option 4, for the following reasons:-
• the proposed pergola would exacerbate the imbalance with the listed building;
• the Parish Council are concerned the pergola could be infilled in the future.
Seconded by Cllr Errington, all in favour (8).
As Cllr Lane needed to leave the meeting early, agenda item 9 was brought forward by the Chairman.
NPA Draft Local Enforcement Plan – response by Cllr Lane) response deadline 12 April).
Cllr Lane advised she felt the Plan very clearly sets out what the enforcement team will be able to so, and she feels no further comment is required by EHI PC. Cllr Errington had also looked at the Plan, and requested permission for him to send some minor comments to the NPA. Proposed by Cllr Lane, seconded by Cllr Spark, all in favour (8).
Cllrs Burtenshaw and Lane left the meeting at 9.10pm.
Continuation of agenda item 6. Development and Control and TPO applications:
NFDC 13/10255 Blashford Manor, Salisbury Road, Blashford – Use of former barns as 4 holiday lets (Use Class C1); bin & cycle store; assoc. parking; widen existing access. Cllr Errington explained the location and showed the area to be converted to holiday lets on the aerial plans. In the previous application, car parking was proposed on agricultural land, however in this application the parking will be brought internally within the piggeries/stables.
When reviewing the widening of the access proposals, it was noted that this area was not shown on the site plan (actually, not bounded by a red line, which delineates the area(s) for development). Cllr Errington explained there are currently two entrances to the A338; it is proposed for the southern entry to be infilled and the northern entry to be widening to accommodate ‘in and ‘out’ traffic movements.
The proposed holiday lets accommodation is identical to the previous application, on an existing footprint and materials are to be reused wherever possible. It would result in a relatively low impact building.
Concerns were raised on the potential promotion of stabling of visitors’ horses (in existing stables) alongside the holiday lets business, as exiting onto the very busy A338 on the inside of a bend could be extremely dangerous, either on foot or with slow horse boxes on an unfamiliar road. All agreed that Hampshire Highways need to be thoroughly consulted.
Cllr Spark proposed to recommend permission under option 1 with the following comments:-
• The Parish Council has serious concerns in relation to the access onto the main road (A338), and would request that Hampshire Highways are fully consulted for their endorsement;
• These proposals are an improvement to the previous application;
• The Parish Council would recommend enquiries to be made in relation to what landscape proposals are put forward by the applicant.
Seconded by Cllr Richardson, 5 in favour, 1 abstention.
NPA 13/98258 McDonald’s Restaurant Ltd – illuminated & non-illuminated signage. Cllr Richardson explained the location and showed the proposals of two signs to be mounted on the south-facing roof of the building, which would be visible only from the entrance to the site; an illuminated ‘M’ and an illuminated ‘McDonalds’. Concern was raised about why there are no details of the times they would be illuminated. It was noted that the site in situated within the New Forest National Park and the environmental zone is classified as E1-intrinsically dark skies.
Cllr Spark proposed to recommend refusal under option 4, for the following reasons; illumination of the signs considered unnecessary; no details of the intensity level of illumination and times of illumination. Seconded by Cllr Shand, 5 in favour, 1 against.
‘Information received subsequent to the meeting suggests that the advised 600 cd/sq.m. generated light output from these signs is excessive. Regardless of site screening, a figure of 100 cd/sq.m. would be more appropriate in this sensitive location, a light output that would still create sufficient conspicuity to adequately advertise the corporate branding.’
NPA 13/98259 McDonald’s Restaurant Ltd – various illuminated & non-illuminated signage associated with drive-through. Cllr Richardson explained the location and showed the proposals of the Department of Transport traffic and other drive-thru related signs proposed around the site. Concerns were raised about the number of signs and questioned whether all are necessary. Many of the signs are of a large size and illuminated, but there are no details of the intensity level of illumination and times they would be illuminated. As with 13/95258, it was noted that the site in situated within the New Forest National Park and the environmental zone is classified as E1-intrinsically dark skies.
Cllr Spark proposed to recommend refusal under option 4, for the following reasons; the level of signage is considered excessive; illumination of many signs is considered unnecessary; no details are included of the intensity level of illumination and times they would be illuminated. Seconded by Cllr Stokes, 5 in favour, 1 against.
NPA 13/98270 McDonald’s Restaurant Ltd – change of use from A3 to A3/A5 (rest.&takeaway) ; refurbishment of restaurant; installation of drive-thru lane & associated works; installation of customer order display & canopy. Cllr Richardson explained the location and showed the proposals of the other drive-thru around the site, using existing tarmac except behind the property where a new tarmac would have to be laid to create the drive-thru close to the boundary onto the National Park.
This was extensively discussed and the following concerns were raised:-
• The substantial increase in traffic to/from the site that the drive-thru would create.
This is estimated by the agent at 100 cars per hour, or an additional 200 vehicle movements/hr. This confined area, including the neighbouring Shell filling station, is accessible from a very busy trunk road (A31) and to traffic using the road to/from Burley. The area already has traffic safety issues due to the extent of parking on the verges of the slip road around the Shell station (HGVs on rest periods and Shell staff(?));
• The increased number of visitors to this area.
It is highly likely this will exacerbate the extent of verge parking, resulting in poorer sight-lines for cars entering/leaving the site and garage, as well as for through traffic on the slip road;
• Sight-line to the west for vehicles exiting the site.
Drivers’ visibility to the west is very limited by the Shell station’s totem near to the edge of the highway, which severely impacts the safety on exiting the site;
• The impact on the root areas of the tree line on the northern boundary due to the proposed roadway at the rear of the building;
• The potential for takeaways to be consumed away from the site in nearby Forestry Commission car parks and in transit on surrounding B/C roads and the A31.
This would likely result in litter being disposed of where it could harm livestock and be a cause a considerable public nuisance;
• Details of trading hours of the restaurant and take-away not being included in the application.
Cllr Spark recommended refusal under option 4 for the following reasons:-
The Parish Council feel very strongly that this application raises serious issues about:
• the impact of the increase in traffic levels and congestion in the area (advised at up to 200 vehicle movements/hr);
• the narrow visibility splays and relatively narrow width of the site entrance, particularly its suitability for articulated and other large truck deliveries;
• traffic safety for vehicles exiting the site due to very limited sight line to the west caused by the position of the Shell service station totem;
• traffic safety arising from the current level of verge parking in the vicinity, and being exacerbated by the increase in visitors to site and McDonald’s staff parking – The Parish Council would like the current parking practice to be investigated by Highways and any other necessary agencies to advise land ownership, and whether it is appropriate and safe;
• the likelihood of drive-thru customers consuming meals in nearby Forestry Commission car parks or in transit on surrounding B/C roads and A31 – This will very probably generate additional litter problems, as well as a hazard to greedy New Forest stock! Although a litter control regime is described (section 4 Planning Statement) the Parish Council would like a comprehensive litter pick/inspection scheme of the site and surrounding areas to be conditioned if possible;
• the impact on the root-hair systems of the trees on the north of site – Despite the extensive protection and mitigation measures advised, it is thought that re-profiling of the ground for the proposed road behind the building will be required; it would have been helpful to have had north/south sections along the proposed roadway area;
• whether there is sufficient tree screening around the site;
• the extent of lighting in the car park and circulation areas – 10 no. indicative 6m columns with 11 no. luminaires were identified on the proposed Site Plan, but without descriptions of fittings or lux outputs. It is important that these be specified in order to assess the impact of the scheme and, taken together with the other external lighting proposals, their potential combined contribution to light pollution in this area;
• the trading hours – The Application form advises ‘not known’ (Section 20), while the Planning / D&A Statements refer to 24hr operation at other sites as being common. This issue also impacts on the above consideration.
Seconded by Cllr Webster, all in favour (6).
7. Decisions received from NFDC & NPA (circulated prior to agenda approved):
NPA 13/98200 Three Springs, 5 New Road, Mockbeggar – granted stc
8. Appeals & Enforcement (circulated prior to agenda approved):
Appeal: NPA 12/97697 Red Shoot Camping Park, Linwood – change of use of building to create 1 unit of holiday accommodation.
As Cllr Spark had declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item, he asked Cllr Errington to chair this agenda item.
Cllr Errington outlined for the Planning Committee the planning application and EHI PC’s response (meeting on 14 August 2012), highlighting concerns that permitting a self-catering holiday unit might inadvertently create an independent dwelling in planning terms. He detailed there are approx. 10 Forestry Commission and 10 private camping and caravanning sites within the New Forest, and they are intended to be low-key sites with little or no infrastructure. Also, it is not known whether an Unilateral Undertaking, volunteered by the applicant to condition the use of the building, can be overturned, if so it could result in a new dwelling being created within the New Forest.
It was discussed and agreed by all that the previous comments submitted following 14 August 2012 will remain as EHI PC’s response.
Cllr Spark took back the role of Chairman.
Enforcement: Forest Corner/Korna, Mockbeggar – complaint received concerning decking. Details of the potential breach to be forwarded to all members. Clerk to do.
9. Consultations: brought forward and discussed under minute number 13/49P.
10. Discuss and consider application for bridge across ditch on EHI owned verge at Cross Lanes
With the applicant’s agreement, this item has been deferred to 14 May 2013. Clerk to put on the agenda for 14 May 2013.
11. Discuss NFDC’s conditions on licensing application Shell Forest Edge A31 Eastbound
The Clerk outlined the next steps, which are for this licensing application to be heard by a licensing panel and EHI PC would need someone to attend to present the Parish Council’s representations. It was agreed for the Clerk to seek advice on why our concerns of 24 hour licensing are not considered an issue. Clerk to action.
Note: following the meeting notification was received from the Licensing Panel advising 2 of our 4 poinys raised objecting to the license were irrelevant. So with the Chair & Vice Chair’s agreement, the Clerk advised that the Parish Council has withdrawn their comments.
The Clerk had been notified of a consultation on the NPA draft Landscape Action Plan and Landscape Character Assessment consultation, which requires a response by 13 May (circ.8Apr13). Cllr Stokes volunteered to look at this consultation and circulate a proposed response.
New Forest Community Routes. Cllr Richardson volunteered to look at a project to record routes within the parish on maps.
13. Other Business
Cllr Webster raised concerns where trees are showing signs of ringbarking the trees are not fenced to protect them from stock. Clerk to liaise with the owner.
There had been email correspondence between the members in relation to a field being advertised to be sold as four pony paddocks on Snails Lane. It was noted that according to the estate agent, two parcels had already been sold.
Cllr Lane had circulated her report on the Planning training she recently attended; she encouraged other members to consider attending the course as it was very insightful.
Meeting closed at 10.52pm.
The next Planning Committee meeting will be held on
Tuesday 14th May 2013 at 7.30pm in Ellingham Church Hall.