►
Description
If there is buffering on the YouTube stream, the webcast can be viewed through the council's website https://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/webcast
A
A
Good
evening,
everybody
Welcome
to
development
control
brexit
is
located
at
the
rear
of
the
room,
go
down
the
stairs
and
bar
phones
or
turn
them
to
silent.
Thank
you,
Elaine,
who
everyone
is.
My
name
is
councilor
Nick,
Robinson
and
I'm
chairman
of
right
and
left
our
officers
who
will
be
presenting
the
applications
and
providing
advice.
She
will
be
considering
the
published
papers
examining
and
guidance
at
the
appropriate
time.
I
will
invarely
and
keep
points
made
to
the
aptly
auditing
has
finished
all
committee
members
to
avoid
repetition
and
to
everyone
remains
polite
and
professional.
A
C
With
tonight,
item
and
fair
technical
details,
consent
for
the
erection
of
two
dwellings,
confirmed
that
Natural
England
have
reviewed
the
appropriate
assessment
document
and
have
no
objection
to
it,
and
that
is
in
respect
of
the
evolution
from
a
legal
agreement
with
on-site
resolution
to
a
condition
linking
the
mitigation
to
East
that
that
meets
all
of
the
requirements
under
an
appropriate
assessment
and
can
be
agreed.
Thank
you,
chairman.
A
Thank
you,
Craig
I
would
like
to
point
out
on
this
that
the
only
as
Greg
has
said.
The
only
thing
reason
this
is
here
is
because
the
nitrates
issue.
So
when
we
go
to
questions
and
when
we
go
to
debate,
there
is
no
point
in
asking
questions
on
anything
else
other
than
the
nitrates
issue,
because
the
application
is
effectively
tonight.
A
D
We
first
spoke
at
the
PIP
stage,
and
the
council
has
expressed
frustration
that
felt
compelled
to
approve
due
to
process
and
failure
of
The
Five-Year
Plan.
It
was
at
the
TDC
stage
where
the
local
knowledge
demonstrated
to
quote
the
counselor.
The
water
cannot
flow
uphill
and
you
rejected
the
application.
D
The
local
knowledge,
which
I
firmly
believe
should
be
the
heart
of
all
planning
decisions,
was
not
heard
further
up
the
appeal
process
and
you
felt
compelled
to
approve
after
your
rejection,
was
overturned
when
I.
First
looked
at
this
amendment
to
the
plan
I
thought
about,
as
you
did,
it
was
a
simple
clarification
of
a
nitrate
solution.
D
I
remind
the
councilors
that
Dave
who
lives
number
seven
who's
lived
in
St
Michael's
clothes
for
20
years
has
said
that
during
his
time
in
the
close,
the
council
had
to
clear
the
main
sewage
once
or
twice
a
decade.
Last
year
they
had
to
clear
it
three
times
less
than
a
single
year.
Raw
surge
bubbling
up
through
the
garage
well
I
put
first
point
to
the
councils.
D
The
current
nitrate
plan
number
0.8
no
longer
has
a
bio
bubble.
Sbr
treatment
plant
as
our
station
direct
connection
to
the
main
sewage
for
nitrate
credits,
I'd,
ask
councilors
to
think
about.
Tell
us
to
review
the
impact
of
this
change
should
have
that
you've
approved
in
the
past.
In
the
context,
the
local
knowledge
that
you
now
have
Natural
England
can
only
comment
on
the
offset
schema,
not
on
the
impact.
It
will
undoubtedly
have
on
an
overstretch
of
sewage
system.
D
A
D
Might
have
been
thinking
that
it
simply
approved
the
nitrate
agreement,
I
hope
I've
shown
you
have
more
agency
in
that
and
there's
wider
consideration
considerations
to
weigh
up
by
proposing
the
use
of
nitrate
credits.
This
application
has
far
reaching
impact
Upon
Our
40
year
old
infrastructure
within
some
St
Michael's
close,
it
has
changed
the
overall
planning
consent.
In
my
opinion,
thank
you
councilors
for
taking
the
time
to
listen
to
my
concerns
and
concerns
the
community.
A
E
Thank
you
Chad
good
evening.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
address
you
this
evening.
As
Mr
Chapman
has
indicated,
permission
and
principle
was
granted
in
October
of
2019
for
a
minimum
of
two
a
maximum
of
four
dwellings.
The
PIP
application
agreed
the
principle
of
residential
land
use
in
this
location,
and
an
appeal
was
allowed
in
May
2021
granting
TDC
technical
details,
consent
for
for
two
dwellings
on
site
with
held
drainage.
This
remains
Extant
on
the
12th
of
January.
E
Members
of
this
committee
result
drop
TDC
for
this
application
on
the
basis,
and
the
proposal
would
be
well
related
to
the
surrounding
development,
with
no
significant
impacts
on
the
landscape
character.
It
was
agreed
that
this
is
a
sustainable
form
of
development
which
would
preserve
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
adjacent
North
Waltham
Conservation
Area,
and
that
the
development
would
not
cause
any
adverse
impact
on
the
highway
safety
or
increased
flood
risk.
E
E
The
application,
as
Mr
Chapman
has
indicated,
is
brought
back
to
committee
solely
due
to
a
change
in
the
nitrate
mitigation
in
January
2022
members
resolved
to
Grant
the
application
on
the
basis
that
nitrate
would
be
on
land
within
the
applicant's
ownership.
However,
as
members
may
be
aware,
this
Council
now
has
a
strategic
nitrate
mitigation
scheme
in
place,
which
enables
applicants
in
basic
circadine
to
purchase
credits
from
eastleigh.
E
This
game,
together
with
the
agreement
between
the
two
councils,
has
been
endorsed
by
Natural
England.
It's
preferable
to
the
applicant
to
purchase
credits
to
mitigate
the
impact
Downstream
as
part
of
a
strategic
scheme.
In
my
opinion,
the
off-site
Strategic
scheme
is
likely
to
be
more
effective
in
the
long
term
at
addressing
the
issues
of
green
algae
in
the
solvent
condition.
21.
It
requires
essentially
that
no
development
takes
place
until
confirmation
has
been
submitted,
that
the
nitrate
credits
from
eastleigh
have
been
secured.
E
Once
officers
have
agreed
that
20
condition
21
is
satisfied,
then
the
intention
is
to
discharge
the
remaining
conditions
and
sort
of
commence
development
on
site,
with
effort
trust
that
members
will
be
agreeable
to
this
change
in
nitrary
mitigation
and
resolve
again
to
approve
the
TDC
just
to
reiterate
that
this
is
a
procedural
alteration
to
the
scheme
and
compared
to
that
which
members
found
acceptable
earlier
in
this
year.
Thank
you
and
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
F
You
chip
so
I
wonder
whether
we
just
to
help
members
consider
this
that
could
we
have
explained
to
us
this
strategic
scheme
that
the
borough
has
entered
into
as
as
to
when
we
did
this,
what
it
is
and
therefore
what
the
Eastern
Borough
Council
scheme
is.
Thus,
are
we
here
tonight
to
decide
whether
the
original
nitrate
mitigation
on
the
previous
application
versus
the
new
system
or
or
is,
is
that
decision
gone
because
we
only
have
entered
into
a
credit
for
everything,
a
credit
scheme
for
everything
we
will
do
in
the
future?
C
Now
I'll,
try
and
clarify
that
by
the
easterly
Borough
Council
scheme
is
land
that
primarily
they
have
in
country.
Parks
has
previously
been
managed
for
agricultural
purposes,
but
instead
of
being
managed
for
agricultural
purposes,
it
will
be
managed
or
taken
out
of
agricultural
production
and
managed
for
such
uses
as
Wildflower
Meadows,
thereby
reducing
the
amount
of
nitrogen
that
goes
into
the
soil
and
they've
got
a
large
amount
of
area.
So
they
can
break
that
down
and
divide
it
into
individual
credits.
C
That
principle
is
agreed
with
natural
England
and
as
a
council,
we
have
signed
up
to
that
overarching.
We've
signed
up
to
that
with
an
overarching
legal
agreement
between
us
and
eastleigh
as
well
to
agree.
The
principle
of
that
is
an
acceptable
way
for
it
as
an
acceptable
response.
The
long
and
short
of
it
is
it
takes
nitrate
out
of
the
ground
and
the
developers
can
buy
credits
from
Eastbay.
F
Sorry,
just
just
to
follow
up
so
therefore,
have
we,
as
this
committee,
the
power
to
say
no,
we
don't
want
the
credit
scheme
to
be
used
in
this
case.
We
want
the
original
scheme
by
refusing
the
application,
or
is
that
decision
taken
away
from
us
by
an
agreement
that
I
have
to
say
I'm,
not
aware
of
until
what
I'm
now
reading.
C
C
You
chair
I'm,
not
a
full-time
member
of
this
committee,
as
you
know,
so
there
may
be
some
ignorance
built
into
my
question
for
which
I
apologize
in
advance.
One
of
the
speakers
mentioned
that
there
was
a
change
to
the
scheme
in
that
originally
the
sewage
was
was
going
to
be
in
the
Standalone
system,
and
it's
now
attached
to
the
main
it
now
attached
to
the
main
series
system.
Is
that
a
change
that
has
happened
since
this
last
went
to
committee,
or
is
that
something
that
the
committee
has
already
known
about
and
already
approved?
C
That
change
is
as
a
result
of
the
amended
proposal.
The
committee
report
before
you
has
retained
the
original
condition,
which
requires
the
development
to
drain
to
a
bio
bubble,
plant
a
condition
15
on
page
44..
If
that
is
members,
the
members
retain
the
preferred
position
of
training
to
a
bio
bubble
which
does
take
additional
nitrates
out
of
the
system.
Then
I
would
suggest
that
the
word
notwithstanding
the
submitted
details
is
in
submitted
in
front
of
that
condition.
H
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
just
want
to
I
just
want
to
ask
a
question
on
on
the
last
statement.
Okay,
you
said
that
obviously
this
application
is
is
up
for
approval
connecting
to
the
the
national
or
the
local
sewage
current
system
in
there,
but
you
said
that
if
we
refuse
it
and
go
back
to
the
original,
it
will
take
out
more
nitrates.
Can
you
then
explain
why
the
credit
system
is
more
acceptable
in
this
particular
case,
rather
than
going
for
the
actual
bio
bubble,
which
would
remove
more
nitrates?
H
C
C
As
a
result
of
the
officer
assessment,
the
bio
bubble
drainage,
so
the
proposal
is
and
was
for
that
there
is
no
proposal
on
the
table
from
officers
for
Maine's
sewage
drainage,
although
that
is
what
the
applicant's
proposal
was
and
us
saying
if
members
are
minded
in
in
retrospect
to
include
the
biobubble,
then
the
in
session
of
notwithstanding
the
submitted
details,
I
would
suggest
is
added
to
condition
15.
in
terms
of
the
appropriateness
of
the
eastleigh
scheme
or
the
106
scheme
that
tied
it
to
the
land.
C
Advices
both
there,
except
we
had
previous
resolution
that
the
previous
scheme
would
be
acceptable
and
would
take
an
appropriate
amount
of
nitrates
out
of
the
land
and
its
officers
advised
that
the
easterly
scheme
will
also
do
that
and
can
also
be
accepted.
There's
no
officer,
there's
the
officer
advises,
there's
no
reason
for
a
refusal
for
taking
the
easterly
scheme
and
securing
it
through
condition.
Thank
you,
chair.
K
Thank
you
chair.
Just
a
brief
point
of
clarification.
The
gentleman
who
spoke
in
favor
mentions
condition
21
at
the
bottom
of
page
66.
We
have
condition
20
and
then
at
the
top
of
page
67.
It
goes
straight
to
the
informatives.
Can
I
just
make
sure
that
the
condition
that
he
spoke
about
is
actually
included
somewhere
and
he's
just
presumably
got
the
number
wrong,
because
it's
also
not
on
the
update
paper.
So.
C
Thank
you
chair.
If
you
turn
to
page
46
that
contains
the
condition,
21
and
I
think
the
condition
that
you're,
referring
to
later
in
the
order
paper,
is
that
that
is
under
appendix
a
which
was
the
12th
of
January
2022
development
control
committee.
So
the
condition
21
on
page
46
is
the
current
one.
Thank
you
chair
foreign.
H
Thank
you
Jack
again,
I
just
want
to
go
back
to
the
point
of
the
the
nitrates.
Okay.
This
committee
was
informed
okay
of
by
by
officers
literally
a
couple
minutes
ago
that
the
bio
bubble
would
would
would
take
out
more
nitrates
okay
than
than
the
easily
stream
scheme.
Okay.
So
so
why
are
we
going
for
the
easily
scheme
and
not
the
buyer
bubble?
Okay,
which
would
take
out
more
nitrates,
I'm
confused
there.
L
Just
to
be
clear
to
you,
bearing
around
the
conversation
we've
just
had,
if
we're
going
to
do
anything
with
this
I
would
want
that
condition.
Enforcing
and
improving,
as
the
officers
say,
to
secure
the
bailable,
regardless
of
anything
else
so
yeah.
Let's,
let's
make
sure
that
we've
got
that
absolutely
tacked
on.
F
A
F
F
F
I
F
F
So
I
can't
see
a
planning
reason
for
accepting
it
or
rejecting
it.
It
is
a
purely
decision
of
which
process
you
want.
The
reason
I
would
go
for
the
existing
one
is
it's
planting
of
trees
and
I?
Think
that
also
has
a
ecological
benefit
on
the
site,
so
I
I
how
that
fits
in
with
a
policy.
The
biodiversity
would
be
enhanced
if
we
went
for
left
it
things
as
they
are
and
refused
this
application.
G
A
Thank
you,
I
see
no
hands
up,
so
I
will
propose.
We
accept
this
motion
with
the
enforcement
of
the
bio
bubble.
Not
my
cons.
Only
real
concern
on
this
isn't
where
the
biodiversity
game
and
loss
is
and
where
the
mitigation
is
whether
it's
here
in
Hampshire
or
there
in
Hampshire,
doesn't
really
concern
me,
it's
being
provided.
A
A
The
other
issue
that
was
raised
was
this.
Opening
this
up
to
further
housing
on
this
site
and
I
think
we're
all
aware
that
that
will
probably
come,
but
we
can't
pre-judge
planning
applications
that
we
haven't
got
so
as
I
say:
I,
move
acceptance,
subject
to
reinforcement
of
condition
15
that
the
bio
bubble
is
provided
is
for
a
second
up.
A
I
B
C
Thank
you
chairman.
If
I
could
confirm
that
that
application
is
approved,
subject
to
the
amendment,
to
condition
15
to
reaffirm
that
the
proposal
is
for
connection
to
the
bio
bubble
and
not
Mains
drainage
in
they're,
taking
away
the
proposal
for
main
strainage.
That
was
part
of
the
revised
nitrate
proposal.
Thank
you.
Jen.
M
M
B
My
difference
of
opinion
I'm
on
the
reasons
for
approval
number
three,
the
reasons
for
approval
here
say:
the
development
would
not
cause
an
adverse
impact
on
highway
safety
and
adequate
parking
would
be
provided.
So,
therefore,
it
complies
with
policy.
Cn9
I
think
the
opposite.
It
will
most
definitely
have
an
adverse
impact
on
highway
safety.
When
we
went
to
the
site
visit
on
Friday,
it
was
quite
clear
that
there
are
already
quite
a
number
of
cars
in
there.
B
It's
visible
along
Kenilworth
Road,
where
cars
are
parked
on
the
verges
and
on
the
roads,
it's
to
to
add
an
additional
between
four
and
eight
cars.
If
you
have
two
cut,
if
you
have
a
couple
in
each
room,
four
cars
to
eight
cars
that
it's
not
going
to
sustain
it,
the
only
parking
that
is
there
is
that
small
area
that
the
viewing
panel
saw
on
Friday.
It
cannot
cope
with
that
many
cars
and
an
influx.
B
It's
also
that
I'm
also
like
to
object
on
the
fact
that
every
other
house,
in
that
little
square
there
is
a
family
home
to
to
put
in
a
a
house
of
multiple
occupancy
there.
It's
not
in
keeping
with
the
area
like
I
say
it
will
add
so
much
pressure
to
the
parking
which
Kenilworth
road
is
arguably
the
worst
Road
in
winklebury
for
parking
issues,
there's
very,
very
limited
parking
and
to
stick
HMO
in
there
really.
In
my
opinion,
it
will
cause
an
impact.
It
will
have
issues
for
emergency
service.
A
L
F
M
C
I
could
just
add
to
that
chairman
councilor
Tomlin
is
quite
correct
in
terms
of
meeting
the
tests
for
enforcement
that
that
condition
wouldn't
be
able
to
be
enforceable
by
our
Enforcement
Officers,
given
that
four
spaces
could
be
available
at
any
point
ashamed
by
the
Perkins
survey
anywhere
on
the
highway.
So
I
would
suggest
that
that
condition
if
members
of
monitor
recommend
approval
can
be
removed,
given
the
availability
of
parking
within
the
vicinity.
Thank
you.
Jim.
M
K
L
Beyond
that
they're
looking
to
park
on
the
highway
on
a
bend
on
Kenilworth
road,
which
I
know
and
many
members
will
know
very
well
I'm
sure,
unless
these
hmos,
in
my
opinion,
can
actually
satisfy
the
SPD
and
satisfy
the
policy
which
states
that
they
have
to
account
and
actually
consume
their
own
smoke.
When
it
comes
to
parking,
then
we
Face
the
difficulty
of
creating
more
problems
in
these
communities
and
in
these
locations
and
I
know
that
well
from
my
own
Ward,
let
alone
from
winkleberry.
L
So
my
immediate
starting
point
in
considering
the
application
is
not
just
the
fact
there
are
four
cars
that's
allocated
as
per
the
space,
but
also
the
reality
of
operating
HMO
with
Thor
potential
households
in
it.
It
ain't
just
going
to
be
forecast.
It's
going
to
be
a
lot
more
than
that
and
they
write
the
hfl
I
know
of
in
Basingstoke.
That
doesn't
do
that,
particularly
if
you
have
a
couple
living
in
one
of
those
bedrooms.
It
could
well
be
two
cars
now.
Admittedly,
our
policy
standards
doesn't
account
for
that.
L
That
is
unallocated,
but
it
is
safe
and
in
the
context
of
the
community,
it
is
appropriate
to
be
honest
with
you
that
aside
em10
and
the
character
of
the
community
is
worth
considering
in
the
sense
that
this
community
does
not
have
an
overspill
of
hmos.
It
is
family
housing,
and
thus
the
creation
of
a
HMO
would
change
the
character
of
this
particular
community,
and
that
is
a
weaker
argument.
I
accept,
but
it
is
one
nonetheless.
L
So
at
the
moment,
I'm
okay,
I,
am
concerned
about
the
parking
I
do
not
believe
the
paid
for
Consultants
of
the
applicant
in
the
way
they've
gone
about
it,
and
in
that
sense,
I
would
like
to
have
seen
something
more
objective.
I
also
know
the
applicant
isn't
even
here
this
evening
to
defend
their
application,
so
we're
left
to
try
to
understand
the
situation
without
their
assistance.
Thank
you
to
our
officers
for
the
work
they
do
in
that
regard,
because
they're,
the
only
ones
we
can
rely
on
tonight.
L
N
That.
I
am
also
naturally
worried
about
the
parking.
The
fact
that
we
have
had
a
we
can't
have
parking
free-for-alls
within
this
Borough.
It
leads
to
violence.
It
leads
to
Neighborhood
disputes
and
leads
to
a
sense
that
we're
not
all
in
it
together
and
I.
Think
the
the
reality
that
we
are
fighting
with
hmos
is
that
people
feel
feel
reticent
to
challenge
any
of
those
individuals,
because
they're
not
going
to
be
there
for
a
long
time
and
therefore
I
I,
although
I
accept
the
reasons
for
refusal,
seem
robust.
N
F
Tomlin,
thank
you
chair.
Well,
adding
on
this.
It's
noted
in
the
report
that
bedroom
four
is
under
size,
not
just
one
of
them's
very
close
to
it,
but
bedroom
four
is
is
undersized,
so
I
would
add
that
the
the
reason
for
approval
number
one
is
in
question
as
in
it
doesn't
meet
our
designers
sustainability,
supplementally
planning
document.
Thus
the
M10
kicks
in
as
well
as
delivering
high
quality
development
in
that
respect.
H
You
I
just
want
to
put
you
know
in
into
the
public
domain
that
I
have
to
say
I.
Think
I've
approve
almost
of
everything
that
councilor
obvious
and
Council
ratican
has
said.
So
you
know
just
to
keep
things
brief.
Okay,
I,
don't
want
to
repeat
anything
but
I'm
struggling
to
see
an
approval
for
this.
This
application.
A
L
You
I
would
personally
propose
refusal
on
the
grounds
of
the
reversal
of
approval
three
and
two
I
think
the
issue
of
the
M10
and
Immunity
is
one
to
bear
in
mind
on
the
character
of
the
area
and
three
relate
specifically
to
the
parking
and
impact
on
highway.
Safety
and
I
have
concern
about
that.
So
I
would
go
on
three
accepting
the
two
is
also
one
of
them.
C
Chair
if
I
could
just
did,
was
it
reason
for
approval.
One
and
three
turned
to
read
since
refusal,
rather
than
two
talks
about
external
appearance
of
the
property,
and
there
aren't
any
changes
to
the
external
appearance.
One
is
because,
obviously
there
was
councilor
Tomlin
mentioned
number
one
and
the
inadequacy
of
the
inside
space
and
then
in
terms
of
reason,
for
approval
three.
Turning
that
into
reverse
from
debate.
C
I've
listened
to
and
from
what
you've
just
said
in
terms
of
em10
I
would
suggest
in
terms
of
if
members
are
money
to
vote.
That
way
in
terms
of
reversing
the
that
reason
for
approval
to
turn
into
reason
for
refusal
that
there
is
also
reference
to
character
and
Immunity,
and
also
policy
em10,
our
parking
SPD
and
the
design
of
sustainability,
SPD.
L
A
C
Thank
you,
Jeff
I
could
just
confirm
that
application
is
refused
for
reasons
of
insufficient
living
space,
the
impact
as
a
result
of
insufficient
parking
within
the
vicinity
with
the
additions
to
what
was
reason
for
approval
three
turn
to
reason
for
refusal,
adding
eem
policy
M10
to
cn9
and
also
the
parking
SPD
and
the
design
and
sustainability
SPD,
and
also
the
impacts
upon
privacy
and
Immunity
again,
the
reverse
of
reason
for
approval
for
inter-reason
profusal.
Thank
you,
chair.
C
O
N
Councilor
ratigan,
thank
you.
It
was
thank
you
for
your
talking
to
me
earlier.
It
is
brought
to
committee
by
myself,
although
I'm
not
predetermined
on
it.
We
always
have
to
make
your
referral
to
the
DC
committee
on
the
basis
of
what
the
officers
written
in
and
therefore
it's
difficult,
not
to
seem
that
you're
already
swayed
one
way
or
another,
but
I
can
assure
you
having
spoken
to
a
number
of
neighbors
and
taking
on
their
views.
I
can
genuinely
say
that
I'm
not
predetermined
on
this.
Thank
you.
A
P
Thank
you
very
much.
My
name
is
Clive
musset
I'm,
chair
of
Kings,
clear,
Parish,
Council
and
speak
to
you
in
that
capacity.
Thank
you
for
the
speaking
slot.
So
the
application
from
Kings,
clear,
Parish
council's
perspective
is
straightforward
and
the
application
requires
another
driveway
in
a
sensitive,
protected
area.
Despite
a
widened
one
already
having
been
approved
in
applications
in
2015
and
2017
and
I
quote
from
those
to
accommodate
two
dwellings
and
Landscaping,
and
also
in
2017
shared
access
for
both
properties,
horsebrook
and
the
neighboring
property
henlow
are
within
the
conservation
area.
P
The
neighborhood
plan,
which
is
a
democratically
determined
adopted
policy
of
both
the
parish
and
the
Borough
Council,
include
policies
to
protect
that
Conservation
Area.
The
various
reports
from
your
Council
officers
set
out
the
planning
objections.
In
our
opinion
perfectly
correctly,
and
the
parish
council's
position
hasn't
changed
in
over
a
year.
The
parish
council
set
out
its
last
objection
last
year,
as
appropriately
consulted
as
I
say,
a
position
that
remains
unchanged
in
a
relatively
short
period
of
time.
An
important
Street
Scene
within
our
Conservation
area
has
been
allowed
to
degrade
and
urbanize.
A
P
P
Q
Q
We
probably
thought
it
was
a
good
idea
at
the
time,
but
the
reason,
the
reason
being
is
right
on
the
junction
and
there's
been
numerous
near
Knox.
My
neighbors
had
a
knock
already
because
you
come
out
with
cars
coming
from
simmington
hard
on
the
left-hand
side.
If
that's
the
problem,
it's
not
a
problem
on
the
right.
It's
the
cars
coming
from
the
left.
They
take.
You
know
their
comfort
zone
and
take
the
corner
off
that's
so
we
do
access
generally
from
the
top.
Q
What
else
was
we
foreign?
Yes,
regarding
the
vision
effects
like
we've
can't
live,
we
are
going
to
shrink
that
driveway
back
to
half
the
size.
It
was
kind
of
pointless.
The
reason
we've
not
finished
it
because
we've
been
trying
to
get
a
second
entrance
now
for
the
last
I
don't
know
year
and
a
half
I,
don't
think
on
the
road
going
up.
It's
going
to
cause
any
visual
effects
because,
like
I,
said
I'm
going
to
shrink
the
original
one,
probably
half
the
size,
the
new
one's
not
going
to
be
it's
big.
Q
A
H
Thanks
Jack
good
evening,
Mr
Costello.
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
in
and
speaking
to
the
committee
and
I
just
I'm,
seeking
a
bit
of
clarification
about
what
you
you
were
talking
about,
because
I'm
confused
either
the
the
existing
site
entrance
is
either
safe
or
it's
not
safe,
okay,
so
so
just
hold
on
okay,
so
I
I.
And
if
it's
not
safe.
Okay,
why
aren't
you
reconstituting
the
the
bank?
H
H
Q
H
H
C
C
It
would
be
unreasonable
to
require
that
the
whole
of
the
hedger
along
the
frontage
was
taken
out
and
replaced
because
it's
not
related
to
the
development.
What
could
be
required
is
that
the
section
of
Hedgerow
that
is
removed,
if
you
down
to
page
93
it
refers
to
removing
existing
hedge
in
respect
to
where
the
visibility
displays
are
and
planting
behind
the
visibility
space.
So
there
could
be
a
condition
imposed
that
requires
where
hedge
row
is
taking
out
and
replanted
that
replanting
work
is
Native.
Petra.
A
R
I
I
have
the
advantage
I
suppose
in
that
I
use
this
road
considerably.
It
is,
in
fact
The
Unofficial
bypass
for
basing
Stoke
to
the
south
side
of
Newbury
to
avoid
the
a339.
So
it's
considerable
amount
of
traffic
I'm,
not
convinced
that
another
entrance
would
do
anything
for
safety,
because
the
way
the
traffic
works
is
you'll,
see
traffic
coming
downhill
being
the
this
Lane
on
the
right,
as
opposed
to
the
entrance
here
on
the
left
and
that
the
traffic
coming
up
the
hill.
R
A
H
You
basically
I
was
quite
happy
to
to
Second
the
motion.
The
officer
approval,
I,
just
think.
If,
if
we
actually
look
at
this
okay
I
know
that
it
it
looks
relatively
safe,
but
if
the
junction,
the
current
existing
Junction
is,
is
unsafe.
Okay,
then,
then,
why
are
we
keeping
it
open,
okay
and
and
if
we
move
the
the
existing
or
the
Ingress
or
regress
okay,
50
meters
or
so
down
the
actual
path
or
down
the
road
there?
H
Okay,
then
effectively,
what
we're
doing
is
scrubbing
out
more
okay
of
the
Hedge
and
and
reducing
the
the
hedging
for
its
is
for
displays.
So
you
know
we're
almost
giving
cart
Branch
for
the
for
the
whole
thing
to
be
grubbed
out,
okay
and
it
won't
be
respecting
the,
in
my
opinion,
the
the
character
of
of
Bear
Hill.
Thank
you.
A
N
Thank
you,
chair,
I'm,
sorry
to
to
to
stop
the
proceedings
so
quickly.
If
we
look,
if
we
look
at
what
the
officer
has
has
used
for
his
reasons
for
refusal,
it
is
causing
harm
to
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
conservation
era.
Now
that
would
be
subjective
frankly,
and
it's
even
more
subjective,
if
I'm,
if
I'm
honest,
because
the
officer
involved
unfortunately
has
done
all
of
this
on
Northern
Ireland
and
has
not
had
the
benefit
of,
as
we
have
at
least
a
view
on
on
the
on
the
site.
N
N
The
fact
that
there
are
this
Bank
hides
two,
not
very
pretty
houses,
in
my
view,
unlike
our
our
MP,
who
thought
they
were
gorgeous
until
they
realized
he
couldn't
get
votes
out
of
them,
because
they
were
from
Holland
and
they're
an
unlikely
to
vote
in
the
Parliamentary
election.
But
that's
that
said
he
did
try
his
best
I
have
to
say
it
is
about
the
safety
issues
and
is,
is
another
cut
in
there,
so
substantive
that
it
causes
substantial
harm.
N
K
Voted
that
would
improve
the
safety
of
that
Junction,
because
I
think
that
would
help
a
lot
of
the
councilors
here
make
the
decision.
I
know
we
have
a
different
motion
on
the
table,
though.
So,
if
members
are
minded
we
could,
we
could
refuse
the
motion,
that's
on
the
table
and
potentially
move
to
deferral,
if
officers
and
and
and
and
believe,
that's
possible.
A
H
A
A
C
M
Thank
you
chairman,
so
this
is
an
application
before
planning
permission
at
nine,
the
close
kill,
Lane
Kiln,
Lane
monk
Sherborne
The
Proposal
is
for
the
erection
of
one
single
story,
dwelling
with
no
access
parking
and
private
Garden
to
be
provided.
There
is
no
updates
in
the
preparation
of
the
agenda
and
the
application
is
recommended
for
approvals
subject
to
conditions
located
at
the
end
of
the
report
on
pages
110
to
113
of
the
agenda.
Thank
you.
A
S
S
I
did
not
actually
receive
a
formal
notification
of
this
application,
which
I
believe
was
not
oversight
and
actually
my
neighbor
had
to
kill.
My
house
also
didn't
receive
that
application,
and
she
also
objected
to
this.
This
proposal-
she's
not
here
to
come
here
tonight.
Firstly,
I'd
like
to
say
that
I
think
there's
been
no
material.
Change
to
the
previously
refused
application
made
I
think
was
back
in
2016..
S
I'm
gonna
start
with
the
access
to
the
new
property.
The
updated
application
is
a
bit
misleading
because
it
it
states
that
it
has
permission
for
the
new
access
points
on
to
kill
Lane.
However,
it
doesn't
actually
have
permission
yet.
It
may
only
get
permission
if
a
number
of
criteria
and
safety
conditions
are
met
and
meeting
these
conditions
for
the
access
will
have
an
impact
on
The
Pedestrian
use
of
this
stretch
of
road
which,
as
a
which
is
a
very
popular
walking
route
in
the
village,
and
it
connects
two
well
used
in
historic
footpaths.
S
But
the
bottom
line
of
this
application
is
that
it's
not
in
keeping
with
the
appearance
and
the
density
of
the
surrounding
area
for
appearance.
The
plot
in
question
sits
on
land
around
five
or
six
feet.
I'd
say
a
higher
than
The
Gardens
of
both
my
house
and
kill
house
so
effectively.
The
ground
floor
of
the
new
property
would
Overlook
these
Gardens
and
therefore
have
an
impact
on
the
conservation
area.
It
said
that
sits
next
to
I
believe
the
height
distance
difference
wasn't
actually
mentioned
in
the
application
and
then
but
for
density.
S
The
plot
in
question
has
been
created
by
halving
the
size
of
the
back
Gardens
of
number.
Eight
and
number
nine
are
close.
This
leaves
the
back
guards
of
these
two
properties,
approximately
equal
to
the
footprint
of
the
actual
dwelling
itself,
and
the
garden
of
the
new
property
has
a
garden
of
a
similar,
tiny
proportions.
S
I
was
looking
at
the
Conservation
Area
map
of
the
village.
It
shows
all
the
boundaries
in
the
of
the
houses
in
the
village,
and
this
is
this
proposal
is
not
in
keeping
with
mostly
other
houses
in
the
closest
itself
that
it
sits
in,
and
certainly
not
in
keeping
with
a
typical
Hampshire
Village,
like
monk
Sherborne.
S
T
Yeah
good
evening,
chair
as
you've
just
heard
with
this
application,
there
are
actually
a
number
of
differences
between
the
previous
scheme
and
the
new
one.
The
footprint
has
been
reduced.
There
was
a
detached
garage,
that's
been
removed
from
the
new
scheme
and
and
that
will
link
together,
obviously
reduces
the
overall
built
form
on
that
site.
I've
also
just
heard
there
in
terms
of
the
extend
permission
in
terms
of
the
lawful
development
certificates.
T
I'm,
not
aware
of
the
any
conditions
with
regards
to
the
access,
so
I
believe
that
there
are
no
conditions
on
that,
but
we'll
confirm
that
at
some
point
in
terms
of
what
can
actually
be
done
there.
Obviously,
the
lawful
development
certificates
are
in
place,
so
that
is
the
full
back
position,
whether
the
objective
that
you've
just
had
actually
received
letters.
In
terms
of
that,
from
a
lawful
point
of
view,
you
wouldn't
do
because
it's
in
terms
of
law,
it's
not
our
neighbor
consultation
in
terms
of
the
current
application.
T
Again,
obviously,
I,
don't
don't
work
for
the
LPA.
So
I
can't
comment
in
terms
of
whether
he's
actually
received
letters
or
not,
but
what
I
will
say
is
obviously
the
site
notices
are
put
up,
which
are
there
to
inform
the
the
local
area
in
terms
of
what's
actually
been
going
on
again
in
terms
of
the
officer's
report.
Again,
it's
a
good
report
that
covers
all
the
main
points.
T
Those
surrounding
properties,
in
terms
of
talking
about
the
sizes
of
the
gardens
and
the
bits
that
are
there
in
the
blue,
drawing
that
was
just
on
the
screen,
they're
all
Bungalows
and
the
gardens
were
deemed
by
the
officers
to
be
suitable
under
the
spds.
So
therefore
it
does
meet
the
the
requirements.
T
Lastly,
there
was
a
paragraph
11
in
ppf
in
terms
of
the
benefits.
Did
that
outweigh
the
the
harm
identified
were
given
that,
in
terms
of
the
officer's
point
of
view,
there
are
no
Harms
in
terms
of
identified.
Therefore,
I'd
ask
you
just
approve
this
application
I'm
in
line
with
you,
know
the
mppf
and
the
local
plan.
Lastly,
I
just
like
to
say
obviously,
I
agree
to
the
suggestive
planning
conditions
all
right.
Thank
you.
U
U
The
site,
kilton
Lane
has
a
history
within
monk
Sherman
and
he's
known
both
to
myself
and
my
predecessor,
having
previously
been
dismissed
by
our
planning
department
and
rejected
that
appeal
before
the
planning
inspector
at
six
years.
Previously,
the
application
was
rejected
due
to
the
effect
of
the
proposed
development
on
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
area
policy.
Ss6E
of
our
local
plan
is
quite
clear.
U
Small
scale
development
proposals
for
new
housing
outside
of
settlement
policy
boundaries
will
only
be
permitted
where
it
can
be
demonstrated
that
admitted
local
need,
as
agreed
in
consultation
with
the
parish
Town
Council,
the
parish
council's
response
to
any
consultation
is
noted
on
page
97
of
the
pack
before
you.
The
recommendation
is
for
the
application
to
be
refused
our
planning
officer
himself,
even
reports
that
the
proposed
development
fails,
ss1
and
ss6
of
our
local
plan.
U
The
national
planning
policy
Frameworks
annexed
two
grocery
defines
the
setting
of
a
Heritage
area
as
the
surroundings
in
which
a
Heritage
asset
is
experienced.
This
extent
is
not
fixed
and
may
change
as
the
asset
and
its
surroundings
evolve.
Elements
of
a
setting
may
make
a
positive
or
negative
contribution
to
the
significance
of
an
asset
and
may
affect
the
ability
to
appreciate
that
significance
or
may
be
neutral.
U
The
application
site
is
cited
on
the
boundary
of
the
monk
Sherman
Conservation
Area
and,
if
allowed
to
go
ahead,
would
have
a
negative
impact
on
character,
setting
and
Views
into
this
Conservation
Area
from
this
historical
route
that
you
can
see
in
front
of
you
there.
The
harm
to
this
Heritage
asset
from
the
proposed
development
would
override
the
presumption
in
favor
of
sustainable
development
as
perfect
Note
7
of
paragraph
11
of
the
mpps
paragraph
170
of
the
mppf
is
quite
clear.
U
Decisions
should
contribute
to
and
enhance
the
natural
and
local
environment
by
protecting
and
enhancing
valued
Landscapes.
You
have
one
minute
remaining.
If
granted,
this
development
would
only
result
in
degradation
of
the
scenic
quality
of
this
historically
significant
and
Rural
setting.
There
are
simple
factors
which
come
into
play
here
from
the
guidelines
to
landscape
and
visual
impact
assessment.
The
questions
you
need
to
ask
yourself
is
the
landscape
associated
with
particular
people
such
as
artists
or
writers,
or
events
in
history
that
contribute
to
perceptions
of
the
area.
U
We've
already
answered
that
religious
or
not,
it
does
have
significance
to
the
the
the
the
these
chapters
Scenic
quality.
To
what
extent
does
landscape
appeal
to
the
senses
primarily
but
not
limited
to
the
visual
senses?
You
can
see
that
yourself
clearly
there
and
then
finally
conservation
interests,
other
ecology,
Heritage
geological
or
archaeological
features,
which
are
of
particular
interest.
U
H
Thank
you,
chair,
Council
marketer.
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
in
speaking
to
the
committee.
Okay,
point
of
clarification,
really,
okay,
you
mentioned
a
planning
appeal,
okay,
regarding
that,
and
could
you
please
just
elucidate
very
quickly
and
and
why
that
appeal
was
different
to
this
application.
A
H
A
M
Okay,
so
the
so
there's
several
differences
between
this
and
the
dismissed
appeal
in
2016.
By
the
time
it
was
appealed
and
the
appeal
decision
came
out.
So
first
of
all
is
the
site
measurements.
So
the
dismissed
appeal,
the
site
area,
was
approximately
450
square
meters.
The
current
Site
Area
is
now
510,
so
the
site
area
has
increased.
M
In
addition,
in
addition
to
that,
the
built
footprint
of
the
dismissed
appeal
was
110
square
meters,
whereas
now
the
built
footprint
is
now
85
so
as
cumulatively,
is
significantly
reduced
and
increased
the
spaciousness
of
the
site
to
that
that
was
dismissed
at
Hill,
oh,
and
also
we
had
a
five-year
housing
land
Supply
at
that
point,
which
we
don't
at
the
moment.
Thank
you.
K
Thank
you,
chair,
I'm,
hoping
officers
can
give
me
some
figures
specifically
relating
to
a
point
raised
by
Mr
Perkins
earlier.
He
said
that
the
size
of
the
gardens
for
number,
eight
and
number
nine
had
been
essentially
halved
and
that
the
remaining
space
for
the
garden
for
this
new
application
is
also
smaller
than
that
of
properties
in
the
surrounding
areas,
like
the
previous
picture
might
display
what
I'm
talking
about
best
yeah
that
one
looking
at
that
it
looks
like
the
garden
remaining
for
number.
K
Eight
is
maybe
1.2
times
the
footprint
of
the
house,
which
I
don't
know.
We
probably
have
minimum
figures,
but
that
seems
like
quite
a
small
garden
in
relation
to
the
size
of
the
property
I'm
wondering
if
you
have
specific
dimensions
for
the
size
of
the
Garden
area,
for
the
proposed
development
and
for
and
or
for
number
eight
and
number
nine
just
to
give
us
an
idea
of
of
how
much
amenity
space
future
residents
of
those
various
properties
might
be
able
to
enjoy.
F
Thank
you,
chair
missions.
Maybe
I'm
missing
something,
but
can
we
or
should
we
be
adding
a
condition
about
materials
and
what
what
the
actual
color
of
the
building
it's?
Actually
it's
sensitive
to
the
location
should
we
grow.
Our
permission
also
note
condition:
13
is
removal
of
permitted
development
rights.
M
There
is
a
condition
on
there
it's
later
on,
where
on,
unlike
on
normal
reports,
so
it's
actually
condition
seven,
so
no
development
of
past
damper,
of
course,
should
take
place
until
colors
of
external
materials
yeah
it's
later
than
our
other
ones,
normally
and
then
in
response
to
councilor
Howard
sorrow.
The
garden
for
number.
Eight
is
9.8
meters
in
depth,
so
just
under
the
10
meters,
which
wouldn't
substantiate
refusal,
and
it's
8.5
meters
in
width.
So
that's
totaling,
almost
80
square
meters,
so
it
meets
a
SPD
foreign.
A
I
A
N
Thank
you,
chair
I
was
fortunate
enough
to
go
on
the
viewing
panel
and
I
have
to
say
it's.
It
was
it
looked
to
me,
though.
I
understand
the
concerns
of
the
conservation
area.
It
did
look
to
me
as
though
it
was
going
to
be
well
screened
from
the
from
Kiln
house,
and
it
seemed
in
keeping
with
the
smaller
housing
that
are
around
and
meets
our
cn3
requirement
to
have
smaller
homes
and,
of
course
it
is
a
bungalow.
N
Let's
just
be
honest,
there
are
not
enough
bungalows
in
this
Borough
and
and
to
say
in
my
view
that
this
house
is
not
as
substantive
or
the
gardens,
not
a
substantive
as
the
rest
of
the
community.
So
it
smacks
a
little
bit
of
housing,
apartheid
frankly,
and
people
need
to
have
a
a
choice
of
of
provision
of
their
homes
and
I
think
smaller
housing,
perhaps
because
the
because
people
are
are
getting
old
in
the
houses
and
won't
move.
N
A
G
M
A
A
C
Thank
you
chairman.
There
is
a
short
written
update
that
is
to
correct
that
there
were
two
condition
17s
in
the
officer
reports
and
therefore
the
last
condition
17
should
be
changed
to
condition
18,
but
in
actual
fact
that
was
already
picked
up
in
your
printed
agenda.
So
it
should
be
correct
in
the
printed
agendas
before
you.
C
There
is
also
a
very
short
verbal
update
that
there's
one
further
objection
received
in
writing
that
raises
objections
in
respect
of
the
highway
movements
associated
with
the
proposed
development,
and
that
is
assessed
within
the
order
paper
and
the
objections
already
received
and
the
response
to
those
within
the
order
paper.
Thank
you.
Jim.
A
V
On
behalf
of
the
Residence
at
Sherborne,
Road
I
shall
detail
some
of
our
concerns.
All
of
the
properties
in
the
reload
rely
on
septic
tanks
or
waste
drainage.
The
neighborhood
plan
advised
that
the
impact
on
the
environment
and
water
quality
and
the
ability
of
infrastructure
and
water
supply
to
cope
should
be
considered
for
new
housing
developments.
It
also
advised
that
the
ssj
treatment
works
was
close
to
the
capacity
and
was
not
suitable
for
modernization.
The
developer
has
not
been
clear
on
how
foul
surge
will
be
disposed
of.
V
The
impact
on
the
quality
of
drinking
water
for
existing
properties
that
have
a
borehole
has
not
been
considered.
There
is
also
no
evidence
from
the
developer
to
show
the
impact
the
additional
soakaways
would
have
on
the
aquifer,
which
also
supplies
the
hospital
chinum
Lane
already
frequently,
floods
from
surface
water
runoff
in
this
area
causing
a
hazard.
There
are
no
footpath
cycle,
Lanes
or
bus
routes
linking
us
to
the
nearest
settlements.
Chino
Lane
is
a
busy
60
mile
per
hour
road
with
lots
of
bands
making
unsafe
to
walk
along.
There
is
also
no
Street
lighting.
V
The
nearest
bus
stop
is
0.6
miles
away,
shot
one
mile
and
schools
over
half
a
mile
away.
The
road
is
only
safely
accessible
via
vehicle
and
therefore
breaches
the
core
principles
of
the
national
planning
policy.
Regarding
the
promotion
of
public
transport,
the
site
should
therefore
be
classed
as
remote
and
away
from
local
amenities.
Provision
of
parking
spaces
is
a
serious
concern,
as
only
an
average
of
two
off-road
spaces
are
provided
for
each
property.
This
does
not
Bank
provision
for
any
visit
to
parking,
meaning
they
will
park
on
the
road.
V
The
Basingstoke
Indian
parking
supplementary
planning
document
recommends
a
carriageway
width
of
at
least
five
meters
should
be
provided
to
allow
one
service
vehicle
to
pass
parked
Vehicles
shot
bomb.
Road
has
an
average
width
of
4.6
meters.
There
are
no
passing
points,
and
so
two
average
sized
cars
have
difficulty
passing
each
other.
Chapel
Road
is
the
emergency
access
gate
for
Everest
College
access
for
emergency
vehicles,
hdvs
delivering
to
Bob,
Berry,
fencing
carer
visits
for
our
elderly
neighbor
and
residents
will
be
impacted
by
Vehicles
parked
on
the
road.
V
Ssj
residents
have
frequently
reported
Miss
refuse
collections
in
roads
where
access
has
been
blocked.
Every
property
in
the
road
relies
upon
the
internet
for
work
study
when
the
case
of
our
bedbound
neighbor
for
their
connections
to
the
outside
world.
The
service
provisioning
to
this
road
is
already
severely
substandard.
We
get
seven
megabits
and
have
no
access
to
a
suitable
Fiber
service.
The
national
average
is
20
megabits.
Additional
housing
would
only
increase
the
contention
ratio
and
diminish
the
service
further.
J
My
wife
and
I
have
lived
in
Basingstoke
all
our
lives.
We
moved
into
Sherman
Road
because
after
decades
are
saving
and
months
of
looking
for
a
house,
we
look
for
something
we
could
stay
for
the
rest
of
our
lives.
We
chose
this
house
because
of
the
location
a
place
for
the
whole
family
to
visit,
stay
and
enjoy
this
development.
If
approved,
will
destroy
that
dream,
it
will
destroy
our
family
life
there
and
the
dreams
of
our
children.
J
So
please
don't
approve
this
Sheldon
said
John
has
put
a
lot
of
effort
and
Resident
consultation
time
into
creating
a
local
plan.
In
accordance
with
your
planning
process,
you
have
one
minute
remaining
one
that
supports
basis.
Housing
needs
and
we've
exceeded.
Our
quota
building
in
the
Strategic
Gap
is
not
part
of
that
plan.
Our
plan
maintains
the
Integrity
of
the
village.
The
Gap
is
so
important
to
our
small
village
community.
We
have
no
Street
lighting.
J
We
have
no
footpaths,
no
public
transport,
no
connections
to
waste
water
disposal,
but
that's
the
way
we
like
it,
but
what
we
do
have
is
foxes
and
Badgers
and
pheasants
and
deer.
They
all
come
into
our
garden.
It's
manner
of
life
in
in
the
street.
Our
children
and
grandchildren
love
these
experiences
as
they
don't
get
that
anywhere
else
in
the
town
that
they
live.
J
A
A
W
You
chair
good
evening
members
as
I
hope.
You
agree.
This
is
a
very
sympathetic
proposal
comprising
only
three
small
Bungalows.
This
is
a
very
in
demand,
type
of
accommodation
given
the
Asian
population,
but
the
type
of
dwelling
that
you
you'll
be
aware
is,
is
all
too
regularly
not
not
constructed
these
days.
As
such,
the
proposal
contributes
to
quite
an
obvious
housing
need,
particularly
for
a
village
such
as
this.
It
is
clear
that
the
pros
would
be
acceptable
in
terms
of
design,
amenity
and
highways
implications.
W
The
proposed
Bungalows
would
clearly
not
materially
affect
any
residents
directly.
It
should
be
noted
that
this
used
to
actually
be
the
main
road
that
it's
located
on,
but
it's
since
been
closed
off
and
is
now
a
very
quiet
dead
end
in
terms
of
material
planning
considerations,
the
main
consideration
isn't
is
clearly
the
designation
of
the
Strategic
Gap.
The
purpose
of
this
designation
is
to
prevent
the
coalescence
of
the
village
and
Basingstoke
you'll.
Be
aware
that
policy
M2
is
the
most
relevant
and
it's
important
to
note.
This
policy
does
not
preclude
development
outright.
W
It
actually
allows
for
development
provides
that
it
would
not
diminish
the
separation
between
the
settlements.
In
this
respect,
it's
crucial
to
appreciate
that
these
three
dwellings
would
info
a
gap
within
an
established
row
of
houses.
This
is
clearly
illustrated
by
the
figure
ground,
drawing
within
section
9
of
the
submitted
planning,
design
and
access
statement.
It's
beyond
doubt
in
my
view
that
these
three
Bungalows
would
not
materially
alter
the
Strategic
Gap
and
certainly
would
not
compromise
it's
it's
wide
at
The
Wider
per
person.
It's
wider
structural
strategic
integrity,
as
members
will
be
aware.
W
The
counts
do
not
have
five
yards
in
land
Supply
and
in
these
circumstances,
the
neighborhood
plan
policies
must
respectfully
also
be
considered
out
of
date
with
regard
to
housing.
In
short,
the
Paris
Council
need
to
consider
providing
alternative
sites
to
deliver
more
housing
for
the
village.
At
this
point
was
clarified
by
Ward
councilor
Tristan
Robinson.
When
I
attended
the
parish
council
meeting.
W
So
it
follows
there
really
that
given
additional
housing
need
is
now
required,
it
would
surely
be
very
high
on
the
list
of
an
alternative
site.
I
must
also
highlight
that
at
that
meeting,
both
parish,
councilors
and
some
members
of
the
public
voiced
their
preference
to
deliver
a
smaller
number
of
houses
on
a
larger
number
of
sites,
rather
than
delivering
one
larger
site
for
many
houses.
In
this
respect,
the
objection
from
the
parish
was
slightly
contradictory
at
the
meeting
and
a
little
bit
confusing.
W
I
believe
this
could
not
be
a
more
sensitive
proposal
in
terms
of
Housing
Development
due
to
the
Topography
of
the
landscape,
the
retained
hedgerows
and
the
new
hedge
planting.
These
Bungalows
will
not
be
readily
visible
from
the
public
Highway
nor
any
Vantage
points
regardless.
They
would
fit
quite
neatly
in
line
with
the
existing
homes
and
would
not
appear
overly
noticeable
or
unexpected
in
any
way
along
either
Highway.
W
The
development
would
result
in
over
60
000
pounds
worth
of
seal
payments.
Of
these,
the
parish
council
will
be
entitled
to
25.
Of
course,
the
money
can
of
course
be
spent
by
the
council
or
the
Paris
Council
to
contribute
towards
any
desired
improvements.
This
could,
for
instance,
include
a
provision
of
fiber
optic
Broadband,
which
is
clearly
a
key
desire
for
the
residents
and
the
parish.
Council.
I
should
note
that
the
owner,
who
who
lives
there,
has
no
problem
with
Internet
connection.
W
Realistically,
three
more
households,
I,
don't
believe,
would
maturely
change
that,
but
nonetheless
there
is
some
funds
there.
Finally,
given
the
nature
of
the
site,
we
have
an
ideal
opportunity
to
buy
homes
using
solar,
PB
and
ground
Source
heat
pumps,
given
the
size
of
the
land
coupled
with
water,
efficient
systems,
I
believe
this
would
be
a
sustainable
and
future-proof
development
that
does
not
rely
on
fossil
fuels.
W
A
U
Thank
you.
Can
you
flick
through
to
start
the
photos
again?
Please.
Thank
you
good
evening
again.
Councilors
and
chair.
Hilltop
itself
is
an
area
outside
the
settlement,
boundary
of
shop
and
St
John
and
is
physically
isolated
from
the
facilities
within
the
village
by
a
distance
of
over
a
kilometer
having
no
footpaths
or
safe
pedestrian
access.
U
This
proposal
would
introduce
an
inappropriate
development
which
is
urban
and
character
into
predominantly
rural
Countryside
location
policy.
Ss6
of
our
local
plan
is
quite
clear.
Development
proposals
for
new
housing
outside
of
settlement
policy
boundaries
will
only
be
permitted
where
they
do
not
result
in
an
isolated
form
of
development,
and
even
then
it
must
be
demonstrated
that
would
meet
a
local
need
as
a
grid
in
consultation
with
a
parish
Town
Council
as
paragraph
4.77,
page
66,
of
our
local
plan.
U
Well,
you
have
the
parish
council's
response
on
page
119,
120
of
the
pack
in
front
of
you.
The
parish
council
objects
to
this
planning
application.
Furthermore,
the
proposed
development
is
within
the
Strategic
Gap,
preventing
coalescence
between
Basingstoke
and
the
village
of
shop
and
St
John.
The
photos
that
you
see
if
somebody
conflict
through
to
the
photos,
please
aren't
that
strategic
Gap
if
I
may
remain
councilors
of
what
our
local
plan
says
about
the
Strategic
Gap.
The
council
and
local
community
attach
great
importance
to
the
function
of
these
areas
as
a
means
of
maintaining
individual
settlement.
U
U
A
row
of
properties,
including
hard
surface
drivers
drives
and
parking
areas
close
board
defense
boundaries,
as
well
as
a
built
form,
would
have
an
urbanizing
impact
to
the
detriment
of
the
surrounding
landscape
character.
The
Sherman
St
John
neighborhood
plan
was
made
by
business
looking
dins
December
2019,
meaning
all
policies
continue
to
afford
full
weight
policy.
Ssj2
of
that
plan
confirms
that
new
homes
will
only
be
permitted
where
they
can
serve
the
rural
character
of
the
parish.
Again,
our
refer
committee
back
to
our
local
plan.
U
A
key
approach
of
the
local
plan
is
for
local
communities
to
manage
their
environment
through
the
provision
of
neighborhood
plans
and
orders,
including
Community
right
to
build
orders.
Neighborhood
plans
were
proposed
will
set
out
where
housing
will
be
developed,
in
addition
to
other
forms
of
development
to
meet
local
needs.
U
If
we
want
to
talk
numbers
out
of
the
1654
votes,
only
four
votes
were
received
for
Hilltop
as
their
choice
remaining
any
development
on
Hilltop
will
not
be
popular
with
residents.
I
had
the
pleasure
of
coming
in
this
evening
to
be
met
by
my
residents
outside
outside
the
council
and
protesting
against
us.
U
X
C
Yeah
we
we
don't
have
the
map
available
on
screen
for
you,
it's
to
prevent
the
coer
lessons
between
share
bones
and
John
and
Basingstoke
and
I
think
they're.
It
is
in
it.
That's
the
the
relevant
consideration,
it
does
trigger
the
policy,
but
in
terms
of
the
policy
consideration,
it's
whether
the
proposed
development
would
result
in
the
coalescence
of
the
two
settlements
and
its
officers
viewed
that
it
does
not
because
it
infills
a
gap
between
existing
developments,
as
opposed
to
being
within
open
Countryside.
K
H
Thank
you,
chair
I'd,
just
like
to
understand.
One
of
the
the
issues
that
comes
up
in
the
food
and
drainage
area
is
a
potential
contamination
of
the
chalk
aquifer.
How
close
is
the
chalk,
agrifa
and
I'm
sorry
I
may
have
missed
this.
Are
there
conditions
in
the
report?
Okay,
for
this
application,
that
would
would
help
contain
any
potential
contamination.
Thank
you.
C
In
terms
of
the
extent
of
the
below
ground
aquifer,
I
don't
have
the
distance
that
it
is
to
it
exactly
in
terms
of
conditions
to
prevent
the
contamination
of
below
ground
condition.
18
is
a
condition
in
respect
of
foul
sewage.
It
doesn't
extend
to
surface
water
drainage,
but
it
could
be
added
to
to
extend
surface
water
drainage.
Should
members
so
desire.
C
The
condition
18
sets
out
the
expectations
in
terms
of
foul
drainage,
the
there's
a
hierarchy
that
is
expected
with
all
development
proposals
which
set
out
by
the
government
and
that's
the
proposal,
should
first
seek
to
connect
to
Mains
drainage
or,
where
that's
not
feasible,
taking
into
account
costs
and
practicality.
The
Proposal
can
then
be
instead
to
package
search
treatment
plan,
which
is
a
packaged
plant
that
treats
the
water
and
discharges
it
to
an
acceptable
level.
C
H
Frost,
thank
you
Jeff.
That
was
second
question.
Please
I
would
just
like
to
I'm
looking
at
the
rules,
reasons
for
approval
rule
number
two:
okay,
you've
stated
to
the
committee
that
the
the
actual
fund
development
is
within
the
Strategic
Gap.
Okay,
so
I'm
I'm
struggling
to
understand
I
want
clarification
on
why
you
say
it
would
not
physically
erode
the
Gap
and
yet
to
the
committee.
You
said
that
it
will.
Thank
you.
The.
C
Paula
step
the
Strategic
Gap
policy
doesn't
restrict
all
development
within
the
Strategic
Gap.
It's
not
doesn't
cram
moratorium
on
development
full
stop
it.
We
must
consider
whether
proposals
physically
erode
the
gap
between
cheblance
and
John
and
and
the
settlement
of
basing
Stoke
and
its
officers
advice
that,
as
this
is
an
infield
plot
between
two
existing
developments
that
it
wouldn't
physically
erode
that
Gap.
Thank
you.
Jim.
K
Thank
you
chair.
This
might
have
been
a
question
best
directed
to
one
of
the
previous
speakers,
but
hopefully
you
can
provide
some
information.
It's
mentioned
in
one
of
the
objections.
There's
no
paths
along
here,
you've
somebody's
mentioned
it's
a
dead
end,
Lane,
there's
I,
think
five
houses
along
this
road
currently
in
terms
of
impact
on
people's
appreciation
of
the
area
who's
going
along
this
road
on
a
regular
basis.
C
C
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
in
short,
it
does
as
we
don't
have
a
current
five-year
supply
of
housing.
Any
policies
within
the
development
plan,
so
whether
that
be
the
local
plan
or
neighborhood
plans
that
relate
to
the
supply
of
housing
must
be
considered
out
of
date
and
therefore
the
Tilted
balance
within
the
mppf
does
apply.
L
There
was
that
sense
of
very
isolation
to
that
development
because
it
isn't
connected
anyway,
as
it's
been
described
to
the
actual
Village
itself.
In
many
ways
you
could
describe
it
as
almost
being
north
of
properly
in
that
re-argument
and
I'm
sure
the
residents
don't
consider
that,
but
the
context
of
it
that's
how
it
appears.
L
Therefore,
these
three
units
would
be
three
new
accesses
because
there
is
no
further
access,
for
example,
up
that
road.
There's
nothing
else,
that's
accessed
off
that
road,
but
the
existing
properties.
You
are
encroaching
into
the
countryside,
you
are
driving
towards
Germans
and
jump.
There's
no
other
way.
You
could
describe
it
other
than
being
into
the
Strategic
Gap.
So
I
get
that.
We've
got
an
issue
that
the
Strategic
Gap
policy
says.
L
You
don't
have
to
say
that
nothing
else
can
be
built
in
the
Strategic
Gap,
but
at
the
same
time
being
sat
on
the
meetings
that
developed
the
policy
in
the
first
place.
What
was
the
point
of
the
policy
if
it
wasn't
to
stop
development
in
the
Strategic
yeah,
so
I
get
it,
and
in
that
sense
we've
got
to
decide
the
balance
haven't
we
does
this
development
actually
cause
that
much
harm?
N
Thank
you
chair
as
somebody
who's
going
to
be
supporting
the
Ashford,
Hill
and
Hadley
neighborhood
plan
at
next
week's
council
meeting.
I
think
it
is
important
that
we
realize
that
residents
have
taken
the
time
the
trouble
and
the
effort
involved
in
preparing
a
neighborhood
plan
to
to
get
it
to
the
best
state
they
can
and
although,
as
was
seen
in
the
last
application,
I
am
basically
in
favor
of
of
bungalows
in
the
housing
mix.
I
cannot
in
all
good
conscience,
support
this.
N
This
to
me,
is
a
neighborhood
Urban
creep
into
a
strategic
Gap,
and
where
do
we?
Where
do
we
stop
it?
Where
is
the
Full
Stop
in
Sherman,
John
I
think
we
need
to
sometimes
take
a
breather
understand
what
we
need
to
do
and
respect
the
the
wishes
of
a
neighborhood
plan
and
because
under
ss6
we
would
like
to
see
Brownfield
sites,
though
previously
developed
land.
There
must
be
opportunities
within
sherwinson
John
to
take
those
chances
first
and
not
to
concrete
over
Greenfield
sites.
N
So
I
I
do
not
believe
that
the
reasons
for
approval
can
be
supported
and
I
am
happy
to
move
refuge.
Refusal
upon
the
erosion
of
the
Strategic
Gap,
the
the
design,
is
not
appropriate
or
sympathetic
to
the
to
the
context
of
the
countryside
that
it
is
and
the
lane
that
it's
on
and
therefore
I
I
can't
support
it.
Thank
you.
A
K
Thank
you
jet
I,
firmly
disagree
with
what
councilor
Javier
said:
I,
don't
think
it
sets
any
new
precedent.
I
think
it's
infilling
a
gap
like
the
officers
pointed
out
between
two
existing
properties,
so
I
I
don't
feel
like
it
is
actually
an
encroachment
into
an
area.
Even
if
it
were,
we
take
each
application
on
its
own
merits
and
even
though
we
might
be
uncomfortable
that
it
appears
to
be
encroaching,
future
applications
would
be
looked
at
for
their
own
encroachment
criteria
as
it
were
within
to
within
to
the
area.
K
H
Thank
you
very
much.
Yeah
I
think
Council,
Harvey
and
counciloratican
have
hallucinated
very,
very
clearly
the
reasons
for
refusalem
and
I've
and
I
support
that
motion.
However,
I
I
just
want
to
put
it
on
record
that
I
think
building
near
an
aquifer.
Okay,
the
chalk
aquifer,
even
though
we
can
strengthen
the
the
condition
18.
Okay,
I
I,
just
think
is-
is
a
bit
Rich.
Once
the
aquifers
are
contaminated.
That's
it
it's
game
over
okay.
We
then
have
a
great
deal
of
difficulty,
removing
the
the
contamination.
X
I'd
just
like
to
agree
with
councilor
Harvey
I
think
this
is
a
deterioration
of
a
gap
within
the
Strategic
Gap
and
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
as
well
the
neighboring
property
as
a
well.
If,
if
it
went
to
a
septic
tank
or
even
a
packaged
equipment,
they
have
a
design
life
of
20
years,
I
guess
they
need
regular
maintenance.
X
F
You
chair:
well,
yes,
I'm
in
complete
Alliance
there
with
councilor
ratigan
regards
the
neighborhood
plans.
I
mean
they
are
pretty
essential
and
there's
been
a
lot
of
work
going
into
it,
but
I'm
reading
here
in
the
submissions
from
the
parish
council
that
it
said
when
the
neighborhood
plan
was
being
drafted,
there
were
lots
of
sites
being
put
forward,
so
I'm
not
familiar
with
it
exactly,
but
it
implies
they
did
put
sites
forward
in
their
neighborhood
and
then
in
our
update
paper.
F
There's
an
interesting
little
thing
about
the
emerging
neighborhood
plan
for
Eastwood
High
and
a
bit
at
the
bottom.
It
says
their
neighborhood
plan
does
not
include
any
site
allocations
and
therefore,
when
adopted,
would
not
trigger
paragraph
14,
the
mppf,
which
affords
protection
against
utility
balance.
Well.
So,
therefore,
by
what
I
read
is
because
this
has
got
allocation
itch,
is
giving
protection
against
fertility
balance
or
there's
some
conflict
of
the
information
that
I'm
reading
so
I'm,
just
adding
to
the
debate
that
I
think
the
neighborhood
plan
should
be
upheld
and
the
green
councilor
Atkins
argument.
C
C
The
neighbor
plan
for
Sherborn
Saint
John
did
include
an
allocation
you're
quite
right,
but
the
protection
afforded
under
paragraph
14
of
the
mppf-
that's
referred
to
only
exists
for
the
first
two
years
of
a
neighborhood
plan
and
the
Chevron
Saint
John
neighborhood
plan
became
live
in
2017
and
therefore
it
doesn't
benefit
from
that
protection
awarded
by
paragraph
14
of
the
mppf.
Thank
you,
Jeff.
A
A
These
are
not
going
to
be
intrusive
in
the
landscape
and
they
are,
whilst
they
are
within
the
Strategic
Gap
I,
don't
believe
they
significantly
erode
it
if
they
were
out
on
a
limb
on
their
own
I'd,
be
wouldn't
be
saying
this,
but
they're
not
out
on
a
limb.
There
are
other
properties,
Beyond
Beyond
them,
so
it
is
an
infill
site
and
the
value
or
the
protection
afforded
by
the
Strategic
Gap
is
sadly
lessened
by
lack
of
a
five-year
housing,
land
Supply.
A
C
Thank
you
chairman.
If
I
can
confirm,
the
application
is
refused
by
virtue
of
the
impact
that
the
proposed
development
would
have
on
the
gap
between
Chevron
Saint,
John
and
Basingstoke
settlements,
contribute
policy,
SS
J2
of
the
neighborhood
plan
and
policy
em2
of
the
local
plan,
and
that
the
proposed
development
would
not
be
of
a
appropriate
design
and
wouldn't
relate
to
surrounding
development
in
a
sympathetic
manner
impacting
harmfully
on
the
countryside.
According
to
the
National
planning
policy
framework
policy,
em-10
of
the
local
plan
and
policy
ssj2
of
the
Chevron
Saint
John
neighborhood
plan.
M
Thank
you
chairman,
so
this
is
an
application
for
the
erection
of
one
detached
Cottage
following
demolition
of
the
existing
garage.
Other
existing
garage
on
the
plot
are
the
demolition.
Works
includes
other
structures
associated
with
the
garage
use
which
we'll
seize,
leaving
only
the
shop
with
Associated
office
and
attached
dwelling
that
fronts
older,
Marston
road
to
remain
the
parking
for
the
new
dwelling
would
be
served
by
an
existing
parking
Court,
which
will
be
reconfigured
to
provide
two
dedicated
spaces
for
the
dwelling.
M
There
are
a
couple
of
updates
on
pages
five
to
ten
of
the
agenda.
These
largely
cover
the
conditions
added
to
the
application
as
a
result
of
the
environmental
health
officers.
Comments
such
as
contaminated
land
assessments,
soil
sampling
and
a
scheme
for
dust
suppression,
condition.
12
has
also
been
changed
to
include
the
removal
of
Class
A,
a
underpermitted
development
rights,
which
is
adding
additional
story
extensions.
M
The
update
also
confirms
that
the
use
of
the
buildings
to
remain
would
be
a
shop
together
with
office
and
a
dwelling,
as
already
stated,
it
also
confirms
that
six
parking
spaces
would
remain
for
these
units
in
the
reconfigured
parking
space.
An
additional
comment
was
received
largely
these
largely
were
already
covered
in
the
office's
report,
but
it
did
include
it
did
add
the
point
about
parking
which
I've
just
clarified
and
also
concerned
the
damage
to
neighboring
foundations,
which
is
a
civil
matter
and
not
a
material
planning
consideration.
M
A
O
U
U
The
arguments
are,
are
similar
to
Hilltop
really
and
the
fact
that
the
application
site
again
sits
within
the
Strategic
Gap
and
I
just
want
to
address
some
points
that
were
made
about
the
Strategic
Gap
and
especially
the
the
point
about
infilling
I
want
to
thank
the
councilors
for
observing
the
importance
of
the
Strategic
Gap
and
and
at
what
point
does
infilling
stretch
on
to
actually
building
out
I.
Think
it's
quite
hard
to
make
a
distinction
between
the
two,
so
I
just
want
to
make
that
point.
U
The
application
site
is
is
cited
on
the
boundary
of
the
Sherman
St
John
Conservation
Area
residents
have
impressed
the
point
point.
If
they're
allowed
to
go
ahead,
it
would
have
a
negative
impact
on
character.
Setting
views
into
this
Conservation
Area
I,
know
the
site
in
question,
and
it
leads
up
to
a
rate
of
way
that
is
heavily
used
by
residents
out
walking
their
dogs.
U
The
vehicle
access
opposite
Dixon
site
is
a
particular
concern
to
Residents,
and
they
see
this
being
a
huge
impact
on
access.
You
can
see
up
there
and
they're
asking
whether
consider
considering
has
there
been
no
allowance
for
parking
made
within
the
application
and
what
impact
will
this
have
in
an
already
congested?
U
Much
for
the
the
the
the
grounds
that
were
made
for
Hilltop
I
asked
committee
members
to
respect
the
spirit
of
a
strategic
Gap,
respect
the
wishes
of
our
residents
and
the
neighborhood
plan.
Whilst
being
made
in
2017
had
a
site
allocation
of
15
homes
for
Sherman,
St,
John,
Sherman,
St
John
actually
built
20
homes
off
that,
so
they
over
developed
for
Earth
as
part
of
that
neighborhood
plan.
F
Thank
you.
This
was
definitely
a
site
that
benefited
from
a
viewing
panel.
The
bottom
line,
from
my
point
of
view,
is
I,
think
it's
quite
a
modest
house
and
it's
removing
and
tidying
up
an
area
as
you've.
Seen
in
these
photos,
which
I
would
say,
would
make
access
actually
easier,
given
the
modest
size
of
the
house,
so
I
have
no
problem
in.
C
I
was
just
going
to
address
the
point
about
the
the
Strategic
Gap
I
think
in
in
the
previous
application.
I
think
there
was
some
debate
as
to
whether
it
was
info
whether
it
was
respecting
the
the
the
the
the
the
ethos
and
the
spirit
of
the
Strategic
Gap
I.
Think
in
this
case
it's
more
difficult
to
make
that
argument
because
of
the
the
nature
of
the
existing
site,
so
I
think
like
councilor,
Tom,
Tomlin
I'm
minded
to
to
agree
with
the
officer
recommendation
on
this.
N
Thank
you,
chair
I
mean
this
is
a
typical
ss6,
previously
developed
land
frankly,
and
we
should
have
no
objections
to
I
think
this
would
improve
the
site.
It
was
a
mess,
let's
just
be
honest
about
it
and
as
for
the
vehicle
access.
Well,
there's
a
number
of
houses
down
that
lane
and
they
can
have
as
many
cars
as
they
want
for
the
children
and
visitors.
So
I
am
happy
to
Second
Council
tomlin's
movement.
A
M
C
C
C
A
K
C
Thank
you
chairman.
The
the
previous
application
was
very
similar
to
the
current
proposal.
It
was
a
application
that
was
refused
in
2013
and
I
can
give
you
a
brief
summary
of
the
main
differences
between
the
position
in
2013
and
that
position
now
so
first,
obviously,
is
the
passing
of
the
nine
years
and
the
degradation
of
the
site
as
well.
It's
also
been
a
significant
change
in
policy
at
national
and
local
level,
so
there
is
the
adoption
of
a
new
local
plan
and
two
versions
of
the
nppf
as
well.
C
the
there
have
been
there's
another
approval
recently
by
this
committee
as
well,
which
is
about
115
meters
to
the
South
West,
which
reached
a
similar
conclusions
to
the
conclusion
here
in
terms
of
the
impact
and
ultimately
approving
that
and
then
into
2013
as
well.
The
skin
didn't
benefit
from
any
comments
from
historic
environment
team,
so
I
didn't
have
any
expert
advice
from
the
historic
environment
team.
However,
this
current
application
has
had
that
assessment
from
them
with
them,
providing
no
objection.
So
quite
a
few
changes
from
the
position
in
2013
to
the
current
position.
Thank
you.
A
C
M
M
There
is
an
update
on
pages
10
to
11
of
the
update
paper,
acknowledging
that
the
independent
examiner
for
the
emerging
Eastwood
hay
neighborhood
plan
has
recommended
that
it
meets
the
basic
conditions
and
should
be
moved
to
a
referendum
as
it's
not
yet
adopted.
The
weight
of
it
is
not
full
weight,
as
it
is
not
yet
part
of
the
development
plan.
The
local
plan
Remains
the
most
relevant
development
document
for
the
area.
M
A
Y
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
The
location
lies
outside
the
settlement
policy
boundary
and
is
within
an
area
of
outstanding
natural
beauty.
These
alone
are
clear
reasons
for
refusal,
moreover,
was
the
term
sustainable
is
used,
often
in
the
planning
statement.
The
sustainability
of
future
Generations
required
by
the
national
policy
planning
framework
don't
appear
to
me
to
be
included.
Y
Given
this
refusal,
it
would
seem
anomalous
and
perplexing
to
now
approve
two
dwellings
over
the
road
outside
the
settlement
policy
boundary
in
an
area
of
outstanding
natural
beauty.
The
land's
agricultural
use
for
growing
grasses,
which
are
of
an
amazing
variety
and
for
grazing
horses,
is
the
best
and
most
sustainable
use
of
this
location.
For
all
these
clear
reasons,
I
asked
the
committee
to
refuse
this
application.
Z
Into
what
Mr
Emily
has
said,
I
have
tried
very
hard
to
understand
the
mppf
policy
document.
If
you
look
at
the
document,
you've
got
in
front
of
you
page
189
says
the
proposal
does
meet
those
requirements
on
page
191.
It
says
it
does
not
reach
those
requirements.
So
I
am
I
am
confused.
There
is
a
letter
of
objection
from
Mr
Johnson
that
goes
into
a
great
deal
of
detail,
citing
paragraph
numbers,
subsections
Etc,
which,
when
I
read
in
isolation,
not
being
a
planning
officer
myself,
makes
perfect
sense
as
to
why
this
application
should
be
rejected.
Z
If
one
talks
at
the
consultant,
you
have
one
minute
remaining.
Okay,
if
one
looks
at
the
consultant's
report,
the
landscape
report
does
indeed
put
out
a
a
series
of
points
which
lead
it
to
conclude
that
it
should
be
objected
to,
but
they
do
reference
a
site
that
was
applied
or
was
approved
and
I
looked
at
that
site
and
it's
in
Hollington
Lane
now
Hollington
Lane
can't
be
any
further
away
from
Station
Road.
If
you
could
possibly
get
there
and
still
be
in
the
confines
of
Wharton
Hills
I.
Don't
think
that
is.
That
is
relevant.
Z
The
last
thing,
I'd
like
to
say,
is
that
Mr
Simon
bound
was
on
BBC
South
today,
not
more
than
a
month
ago
saying
that
this
this
Borough
Council
has
had
more
development
than
than
it's
lead
to,
and
it's
time
to
put
the
brakes
on
his
words
in
order
for
the
infrastructure
to
to
catch
up.
That
is
also
true
of
Wharton
Hill.
Z
In
fact,
it's
the
suicide
to
wind
up,
please.
This
is
associated
infrastructure.
That
is
the
most
important
because
Thames
water
have
been
fine.
Tens
of
thousands
of
pounds
for
leaking
sewage
into
the
local
water
supply
it
one
such
question
two
years
ago
ended
with
the
chase
being
closed
for
18
months,
while
contaminations
was
cleared
up.
Thank
you
for
listening.
A
A
AA
Thank
you,
chairman
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
Mark
Pettit
I
preparing
some
business
planning
application
behalf
of
the
applicant.
The
application
is
recommended
for
approval,
and
we
fully
support
this
recommendation.
As
outlined
in
the
committee
report.
This
application
is
seeking
permission
and
principle
for
up
to
two
dwellings
on
Lantern
north
of
slade
Hill
in
the
settlement
of
Wootton
Hill.
The
design
components
of
the
scheme,
such
as
the
scale
appearance
layout
of
the
houses,
are
matters
that
would
be
considered
at
technical
detail,
consent
stage
as
our
matters,
such
as
ecology
and
drainage.
AA
The
scope
of
this
current
application
is
therefore
limited
to
the
location,
the
use
and
the
amount
of
development
also
site
Falls
within
the
open
Countryside.
It's
a
stone's
throw
away
from
the
settlement
party
boundary
for
Woodson
Hill
and
the
council
accept
that
they
cannot
currently
demonstrate
five-year
supply
of
housing
land.
This
means
that
those
development
plan
policies
that
relate
to
housing
delivery,
such
as
ss6,
are
out
of
date,
so
just
because
the
sites
such
as
this
one
is
outside
the
settlement
policy,
boundary
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
the
principal
of
residential
development
is
unacceptable.
AA
So
having
regards
to
the
presumption
in
favor
of
sustainable
development,
there
are
no
policies
in
the
framework
that
provide
a
clear
reason
for
refusing
permission
principle.
In
this
instance,
the
site
does
not
fall
within
a
conservation
area
and
it's
a
generous
distance
away
from
the
nearest
listed
building.
Furthermore,
it
sits
within
flood
zone
one
where
the
risk
of
flooding
is
very
low
with
regards
to
landscape
designations,
whilst
the
application
site
does
fall
within
the
Aon
B,
two
dwellings
would
represent
a
very
small
expansion
to
the
built
environment
of
Wharton
Hill.
AA
Furthermore,
it's
noteworthy
that
the
council's
landscape
team
acknowledged
that
it
would
be
difficult
to
refuse
this
application
on
landscape
grounds.
Given
the
recent
planning
appeals
in
the
wooden
Hill
area,
it's
also
worth
noting
that
neither
highways
environmental,
health
or
ecology
have
raised
any
objection
to
the
proposals
in
terms
of
whether
the
site
is
isolated
or
not.
We
agree
wholeheartedly
with
the
planning
officer's
position.
AA
This
is
clearly
not
a
site
that
is
physically
remote,
being
well
related
to
the
built-up
area
of
Waterton
Hill,
with
residential
development,
seen
immediately
to
the
South
and
West
Slade
Hill
cottage,
which
stands
directly
opposite
the
site
outside
the
S
assessment
policy.
Boundary
was
the
subject
of
an
application
for
a
single
dwelling
back
in
2020.
In
that
instance,
the
council
was
satisfied
that
the
site
was
not
isolated
and
the
parish
council
had
no
intrinsic
objection
to
the
site
being
developed.
AA
AA
Thank
you
in
this
respect,
the
proposed
development
would
make
a
small
but
worthwhile
measurable
contribution
to
the
to
the
situation
on
a
site
that
is
not
within
a
conservation
area
or
a
flood
risk
Zone
and
where
there
are
realistic
alternatives
to
using
a
private
car.
Furthermore,
as
the
proposed
dwellings
would
not
be
isolated,
the
location
of
Holier
caused
by
the
national
planning
policy
framework
that
seeks
to
promote
sustainable
development
in
rural
areas
by
encouraging
homes
to
be
located
where
it
will
enhance
or
maintain
the
Vitality
of
rural
communities,
a
technical
detail,
consent
stage.
AA
Every
effort
will
be
made
to
ensure
that
the
new
houses
are
sensitively
designed,
make
a
positive
contribution
to
the
village
and
do
not
compromise
the
character
and
appearance
of
this
part
of
the
parish.
In
short,
the
proposals
do
not
fall
down
against
the
presumption,
as
the
adverse
impacts
do
not
significantly
and
demonstrably
outweigh
the
benefits.
We
therefore
respectfully
request
that
that
permission
permission
in
principle
be
granted
accordingly,
in
line
with
your
officer's
recommendation.
Thank
you.
R
Thank
you
yeah
on
page
189.1,
it
says
basically,
this
this
decision
is
based
upon
the
lack
of
five-year
land
Supply,
but
I
mean
I've
got
one
email
and
the
principal
landscape
and
planning
officer
of
the
north
Wessex
Downs
aonb
has
made
it
very
clear
that
The
Five-Year
land
Supply
issue
does
not
apply
to
the
aonb.
So
can
I
ask
who
who
is
right
on
that
one?
Are
we
right
or
are
they
right.
C
Paragraph
11
of
the
nppf
advice
is
that
we
can
only
refuse
applications
if
their
the
impacts
of
sensitive
areas
provides
a
clear
reason
for
refusing
the
application,
and
in
this
instance
it's
the
advice
that
the
proposal
isn't
of
harm
to
the
aom
B.
So
it
doesn't
provide
a
clear
reason
for
refusing
the
application.
H
M
K
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
suspect,
I,
know
the
answer,
but
within
aomb
definitions
is
there
any
provision
given
towards
biodiversity,
because
we've
heard
some
evidence
from
one
of
the
speakers
tonight
about
amber
category
species
of
birds
that
are
located
within
proximity
of
this
site,
so
I'm
wondering
if
potentially,
we
can
move
for
refusal
based
on
risk
to
those
species
as
they
contribute
towards
the
lnb.
But.
M
This
is
a
application
for
permission
and
principles,
so
the
biodiversity
officer
has
confirmed
no
objections
subject
to
technical
details,
consent
at
that
stage
when
it's
further
investigated,
the
grounds
for
refusal
could
be
drawn
then,
but
at
this
stage
there's
no
grounds
well,
there's
no
reason
given
from
our
professional
expert
in-house
that
that
there
would
be
a
vast
mind
of
justification
to
reviews
on
that
basis
in
terms
of
location,
land
use
and
scale
of
development.
Thank
you.
A
A
L
You
chair,
picking
up
the
colleagues,
have
just
left
off
page
193
says
on
the
landscape
of
his
opinion
that
he
objects
they
object
because
it's
noted-
and
this
is
where
it
really
winds
you
up
about
the
current
planning
system.
It's
noted
that
it
could
be
difficult
to
refuse
the
paper
application,
given
the
recent
planning
appeals
in
the
Walton
Hill
area,
despite
the
proposed
development,
creating
an
impact
on
the
landscape
character
of
this
area,
changing
the
real
world
campus
cat
landscape
character
to
one
of
domestic
influence.
L
So
we
have
a
clear
landscape
statement
and
it's
because
of
the
situation
that
there's
a
rollover
now.
Does
it
damage
the
landscape?
Yes,
is
there
harm?
Yes?
Is
it
the
a1b?
Yes,
the
air
would
be
officer.
It's
been
clear
on
that
themselves.
Do
we
respect
the
a1b
officer
and
not
as
an
important
part
of
the
decision?
L
I
think
that
we
need
to
weigh
up
I
am
particularly
angry
tonight
to
learn
that
the
executive
of
the
council
has
rolled
over
on
this
nitrates
issue
to
basically
allowing
credits
to
be
bought
by
Developers
in
eastleigh,
when
what
we
actually
want
is
local
solutions
to
nitrate
issues.
Not
that
they
can
go
off
and
buy
an
offset
somewhere
else
in
Hampshire,
now
I
get
that
and
that's
an
executive
decision
that
they've
made
it
and
now
we're
saddled
with
that
decision.
So
I
understand
that.
L
That's
aside,
if
I've
understood
it
correctly
this
evening,
then
that's
going
to
be
corrected
on
the
basis
of
the
landscape
issue.
I
just
think.
If
we
don't
protect
the
aomb,
then
what
are
we
not
here
to
do?
We
have
to
protect
the
aomb
and
on
this
occasion,
I
think
it
does
cross
the
line,
because
there
is
a
landscape
issue
and
it's
a
pit.
So
in
principle,
is
the
issue
once
we
cross
this
line,
we're
saying
development
can
happen
on
this
site.
It
then
goes
into
the
technical
debate.
L
That's
why
I
hate
Pips
anyway,
but
if
you're
in
this
situation,
where,
if
we
accept
the
principle
of
development,
we
can't
then
undo
that
no
matter
how
much
damage
is
then
done
to
the
landscape
of
the
the
aom,
B
itself.
So
in
principle,
do
I
object
to
this
as
a
as
damage
to
the
aom,
B
I
do
what
I
say:
there's
harm
and
I
would
move
the
reviews
on
that
basis.
A
H
Thank
you
chair
again,
I'm
I'm,
I,
suppose
I'm
I'm,
finding
myself
having
to
agree
with
councilor
Harvey.
Yet
again:
okay,
I
hate
these
Pips
okay,
because
I
think
the
the
barrier
to
to
approve
is
so
low
on
them.
Okay,
the
fact
is
that
in
this
particular
report,
we've
got
one
reason
for
approval
and
that's
the
we
don't
have
a
five-year
run:
spy
okay,
I
I
find
it
quite
objectional
that
that
we're
having
to
make
a
decision
and
potentially
approve
a
pip
going
forward.
H
Only
to
then
not
be
able
to
you
know
unapprove
it
when
we
come
to
the
actual
technical
details
because
effectively
once
we've
approved
this
tonight,
okay,
the
technical
details
and
the
design
comes
forward,
and
we
then
can't
unapprove
it.
We
it's
very,
very
difficult
to
refuse
it
so
I
I
really
struggle
with
this
and
I
struggle
generally
with
with
pips
myself.
I
really
don't
know
which
motion
to
support.
H
A
and
every
building
has
that
goes
in
the
has
a
landscape
issue
somewhere.
The
question
isn't
whether
it
has
a
landscape
issue.
Question
is
whether
that
landscape
issue
is
detrimental
enough
to
Warrant
refusal,
and
it's
interesting.
The
word.
That's
actually
here,
creating
an
impact
impact
on
landscape
character,
but
that's
you
know
could
go
either
way
and
then
it
goes
on
so
changing
the
rural
landscape
from
one
to
a
domestic
influence.
That,
to
my
mind,
is
where
it
becomes
unacceptable.
A
K
A
N
You
councilor
ratigan.
Thank
you
in
basic
terms.
I
have
no
objection
to
some
development
in
in
an
eon,
B
and
I.
Think
sometimes
it
helps
helps
areas
and
and
maintains
the
vibrancy
of
the
rural
communities.
In
this
case
it
does
not
I
the
it's.
The
change
of
character,
I
think
is
the
is
the
issue
at
hand
here
and
as
I've
stated
throughout
this
meeting.
N
A
A
G
A
Okay
and
we
need
to
move
into
private
session,
so
I
need
a
proposal
for
that.
Thank
you,
councilor
Harvey
could
I
have
a
second
a
place,
counselor
Frost.
Thank
you
right.
I've
got
to
read
this
out
that,
pursuant
to
section
100
brackets
a
brackets
four
of
the
Local
Government
Act
1972,
the
public
be
excluded
from
the
remainder
of
the
meeting
on
the
ground
that
the
public
interest
in
maintaining
the
exemption
outweighs
the
public
interest
in
disclosing
it,
and
therefore
that
exempt
information
is
likely
to
be
disclosed,
as
defined
in
the
appropriate
paragraph
of
schedule.