SELBORNE PARISH COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SELBORNEPARISH COUNCIL held on WEDNESDAY 23rd November 2016AT 8.00PMin SELBORNE VILLAGE HALL.
______
ATTENDANCE
In Attendance / Apologies / AbsentCllr D Ashcroft /
Cllr Mrs S Bennett /
Cllr Miss J Clay /
Cllr G Earney /
Cllr Mrs M Irwin-Brown /
Cllr Mrs M Palmer– Vice Chairman /
Cllr Dr L Ravenscroft- Chairman /
Cllr M Smith /
Mrs K Ross - Locum Clerk /
16/153 / To receive and accept apologies for absence
Apologies were received and accepted from Cllrs Earney, Mrs Irwin-Brown and Mrs Bennett.
16/154 / To receive and note any declarations of interest relevant to the agenda.
Cllr Smith declared an interest in item 16/158 SDNP/16/04875/FUL
Cllr Mrs Palmer declared a preference not to participate in item 16/158
Cllr Ashcroft declared an interest in item 16/165
16/155 / The Chairman to sign as a correct record the minutes of the Parish Council meeting held on 26th October 2016
The Chairman signed as a correct record the minutes of the Parish Council meeting held on 26th October 2016
16/156 / To open the meeting to members of the public
A member spoke on his concerns on 16/158 The Queens Hotel High Street Selborne
There were 22 members of the public in attendance who attended to discuss Traffic issues within the area.
The update from the Traffic working group can be found as Appendix A
John Liddle spoke on item 16/159
16/157 / To note Chairman’s Announcements
There were no Announcements
16/158 / Planning
To consider the following planning applications:
App Ref / Address / Description
SDNP/16/05264/FUL / Unit 1, Brockbridge Farm Bradshott Lane Blackmoor Liss Hampshire / Retention and continued use of part of a redundant dairy complex to commercial use comprising B8 storage and distribution use
The Parish Council has concerns over the cumulative traffic volumes created on this site
Cllr Smith left the room at 8.28pm
SDNP/16/04875/FUL / Priory Farm Priory Lane / Agricultural pole barn
The Parish Council has no objection to this application
Cllr Smith returned at 8.33pm
SDNP/16/05447/HOUS / Sunnycroft High Street Selborne / Two storey side extension
The Parish Council commented that it
‘believes the design is acceptable and materials are in keeping. However, taken within the 1987 rear extension of a living room and bedroom above, the proposed extension may exceed the percentage allowed for extensions and the officers are asked to check whether this is the case or not .
SDNP/16/05403/FUL / The Queens Hotel High Street Selborne / Change of use from public house (Use Class A4) to 6 residential units (Use Class C3) (five X 2 bed apartments and one X 3 bed dwelling), with demolition of single-storey structures
The Parish council objects to this application. The letter of objection can be found as
Appendix B
56577/001 / Heathfield House, Oakhanger Road, Shortheath Common / Prior notification of single storey development extending 8 metres beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling, incorporating an eaves height of 3.375 metres and a maximum height of 3.995 metres
The Parish Council noted this application
34186/004 / 1 Plantation Way, Whitehill,
Bordon, GU35 9HD / Silver Birch - Reduce crown by 3/4 metres
leaving a finished crown height of 4
metres and a finished crown spread
(radius) of 2.5 metres and crown thin by
30 %
The Parish Council has no objection
56999 / 46 St Andrews Road, Whitehill, Bordon / Lawful Development Certificate for a proposed development - Single storey side extension
The Parish Council noted this application
16/159 / To consider the Selborne Village Design Statement
It was
RESOLVED
that the Parish Council gave approval for the Selborne Village Design Statement to go out for public consultation. Proposed by Cllr Mrs Palmer and seconded by
Cllr Miss Clay. All members voted unanimously
16/160 / To receive the monthly finance report
The monthly Finance report was NOTED. This can be found as Appendix C
16/161 / To approve the monthly expenditure
The payments as listed in Appendix D were approved for payment
16/162 / To consider the draft budget and precept request
The Budget as listed in AppendixEwas discussed and it was agreed that the Budget would be approved at the January 2017 meeting
16/163 / To consider repair or replacement of the Speed watch Equipment
It was
RESOLVED
that one speed watch unit is purchased to replace the currentequipment from traffic technologies at a cost of £2394 inc VAT. Proposed by Cllr Miss Clay and seconded by Cllr Mrs Palmer. All members voted unanimously to accept this resolution.
16/164 / To discuss St Thomas Day Bread
It was
RESOLVED
that the Parish Council would underwrite the cost of the bread. Proposed by Cllr Ashcroft and seconded by Cllr Miss Clay. All members accepted this resolution unanimously.
It was agreed that the Parish Council would release a press statement regarding this matter
16/165 / To discuss correspondence received
The objections letters for the Queens Hotel were NOTED
The letters were NOTED – Cllr Ashcroft will be meeting with HCC with regard to the traffic issues raised
16/166 / To consider responding to the Hampshire County Council – Consultation on revisions to the Hampshire draft of Community Involvement Consultation (planning)
It was agreed that the Parish Council would not comment on this consultation
16/167 / To agree the date of the next meeting
The date of the next meeting was agreed as 18th January 2017
16/168 / To receive a report from the District Councillor
The verbal report was NOTED
16/169 / To pass a resolution in accordance with the public bodies (admissions to meetings) Act 1960 to exclude the public and press for discussions regarding confidential matters
This was agreed
There being no other business the meeting closed at 10.10pm
Appendix A
Report from Traffic Working Group for SPC meeting 23rd November 2016
The traffic consultations held in September were very successful with over 100 responses to the Atkins proposals via on line and the 2 events held in Selborne and Oakhanger.
The responses have been analysed by the TWG and the combined information from all feedback is appended to this report. The figures show the numbers of respondents that liked, or did not like each proposal and there is also a comments sheet.Each event and the survey monkey were analysed separately and those figures are also available if anyone wishes to see them.
Selborne School and Selborne High Street proposals had strong support, and the Blackmoor projects had good support. Oakhanger was very much more divided. The majority did not like either project, although it should be noted that on consideration of the comments some of the “dislikes” were simply that it did not go far enough to address issues through the whole village.
The TWG met with representatives of HCC on 15th November and went through the comments
Some comments have been taken on board e.g. no lighting at Selborne School, others for further consideration by HCC e.g. extend the 30mph at Blackmoor junctions, and others dismissed e.g. not possible to have speed bumps or raised platforms in Priority 1 gritting routes as in Selborne and Oakhanger.
Oakhanger is the priority of the 3 villages because of the proximity to Bordon. As residents were not in support though, the proposals need to be re-worked. HCC will need to fund and then provide a further feasibility study for the village, taking into consideration the comments raised by residents. This will take some time to complete. There is no funding identified yet for any actual implementation and it is not yet known when the funding will become available. The TWG will continue to work with HCC on this project.
Selborne Traffic Consultation September 2016 / Combined - all resultsProposal / I like / I do not like / No opinion
1 Selborne School / 72 / 6 / 30
2 Selborne High St / 60 / 9 / 29
3 Blackmoor School / 20 / 1 / 57
Governors of School / 1
4 Blackmoor junction / 18 / 5 / 54
Governors of School / 1
5 Oakhanger centre / 24 / 32 / 35
6 Oakhanger Red Lion / 23 / 29 / 35
Total forms at events and on line / 117
no name, null and void = 4
Selborne Traffic combined comments from events and on line September 2016
1 Selborne School
12 x No need for lighting as school hours are in daylight / would breach dark skies policy
4 x First step towards improvement Doesn’t address danger of crossing road near Honey Lane
3 x Traffic lights as well Suggest flashing speed signs from Alton approach
2 x only solution is to close Ham Barn roundabout
2x Concern over maintenance and overgrowing of low level planting
2 x Want average cameras at either end of village
Part of a solution, not the whole
Should be a priority over any other proposals
Anything which calms traffic is to be applauded
School crossing needs to be safer and more obvious
Zebra crossing please
Lollipop person essential to reinstate
Visual effect of surfacing and alignment could have good effect
Need for light up speed sign for telling you your speed
Block paving should be extended the Alton side of the crossing
Need quiet road surface, not block paving
Suggest speed humps on either side of the block paving area
Paved section of road should continue beyond to Goslings Croft to protect residents
Pinch point should be other side of entrance to Gosling Croft
Need for more school signs
Would cause standing traffic on High Street and damage to walls
Air pollution not addressed
2 Selborne High Street
10 x Widen pavements throughout village from Ketchers
7 x Widen pavements at Honey Lane end of village
3 x Pavements should be smooth surface and not cobbles
2 x Widen pavement should continue past Maltbys
2 x Bollards needed on pavement to prevent driving /parking on the pavement
2 x Like but not enough / adequate
2 x Need average cameras at either end of village
2 x Need higher kerbs to stop vehicles driving /parking on pavement
Widen pavement opposite Maltbys (wing mirrors clip arm)
Widen pavement from shop to Honey Lane
Unhappy that southern section of the High Street has been ignored
Include paving / traffic speed reduction at Gracious Street junction and by Village hall
Needs traffic slowing by Galley Hill junction and Ketchers
Speed humps either side of Honey Lane
Only solution is to close Ham Barn roundabout
Need proper kerb edging between Elim Lodge and shop
Add speed warning signs
Signs needed at either end of B3006 to show narrowness of road
Traffic volume reduction is required by advertising Stoner Hill route, A3 slip to join Stoner Hill Rd
flashing speed signs
No cobbles pavements please
Contrast needed between road surface and pavement surface
Need for second informal crossing point with carriageway restricted to 3m by Arms/Maltbys
Need for additional priority pinch point
30mph should start outside south of village
Priority should be given to those entering the village not leaving it
Increase drainage capacity by Adams Lane footpath
Low noise surfacing please
May increase air pollution from standing traffic
Air pollution not addressed
3 Blackmoor School
Governors of school currently considering changes to front entrance to school – it is essential that we keep in contact to ensure joined up approach
Changes not essential as parking is manageable at present
Who will clear litter out of the shrubs?
Preferred the HB design as more likely to have an impact
Comments from Governors meeting Blackmoor School 9/11/16:
They like it but –
They are considering internal works which may affect access road so need to liaise
Prefer fencing to low level planting
Can pathway to Blackmoor be cleared as overgrown, and make it into pavement all along with kerb
Blackmoor side parking areas very muddy, can they be tarmacked or hoggin?
Street lighting Blackmoor side of gateway
4 Blackmoor junctions
Build out should be further away for the bend
Can there be “stop” sign at Drift Road
Difficulty of large vehicles negotiating obstacles
Why change priority of junction
Signage to be kept to minimum and as small as possible
Comments from Governors meeting Blackmoor School 9/11/16:
They like it but suggest-
Can 30mph be extended further up Sotherington Lane to encompass pinch points and the junction?
Can they have 7.5t limit on Drift Road past school?
5 Oakhanger centre
12 x No provision for the Narrows with no pavement and major safety issues
11 x Does not go far enough to reduce speed through whole village
6 x Speed bumps needed
5 x Prefer HB designs / HB designs would have greater impact
4 x Need single lane/kerb build out by Holly Cottage where there is no footpath
3 x Need cattlegrids / animals to stop traffic coming in
3 x Needs 20mph
3 x Position of pinch point is poor owing to visibility
3 x Needs speed cameras
3 x Needs traffic lights where pinch points are
3 x May cause congestion in pinch points but speeding either side eg the Narrows
2 x Won’t slow traffic
2 x School bus stops in the road by shelter which may exacerbate problem
2 x Access for lorries from Coombers could cause damage to grass / needs to considered
2 x Cars may drive on grass verges
Incline of road has not been considered
Needs width restrictors or traffic calming bollards like Greatham to the north end of the village
Appendix B
Letter of objection for the Queens Hotel, High Street Selborne
SELBORNE PARISH COUNCIL
PO Box 324,
Alton,
GU34 9HT
Mrs Nicky Powis
Planning Officer
EHDC
5 December 2016
Dear Mrs Powis,
Planning application ref. no. SDNP/16/05403/FUL
The Queens Hotel, High Street, Selborne, GU34 3JJ
Change of use from public house (Use Class A4) to 6 residential units (Use Class C3) (five x 2-bed apartments and one x 3-bed dwelling), with demolition of single-storey structures
In response to the above planning application, Selborne Parish Council OBJECTS to the application for reasons as follows:
Firstly, the Parish Council regards the potential loss of an important local amenity as deeply regrettable. The Queens is of unique importance to the village. Until very recently it was a pub with a large reception room and a large restaurant that was much used. It provided the only hotel accommodation for visitors to the village which is a major tourist attraction within the National Park. The efforts by the developer to market the Queens as a going concern seem to have been driven by a desire to tick that particular box simply in order that a planning permission to convert the building to residential use might be pursued and obtained, rather than by a genuine desire to see that the local amenity of the Queens as a hotel and public house should be retained.
Pre-application advice in 2015 had stressed the importance of the public house to the village and stated that every effort should be made to sustain its future. According to the applicants’ Marketing Strategy, on 27 January 2016 Savills were instructed to re-market the property on behalf of Derek Warwick. Within less than three months, in April 2016, pre-application advice was requested for Change of Use from Public House A4 to A1 Use (for a bakery), at the same time mentioning the possible formation of flats above. This would appear not to indicate an effort to sustain the future of the building as a public house.
The rooms and bars had only recently been renovated to a very high standard, but the developer had gutted the building by July, even whilst the Queens was still on the market. Savills website advertises it with illustrations of the interior, as it was until early summer 2016, as a ‘Freehold Public House’ although also as a ‘Conversion/Development Opportunity’.
It has been drawn to our attention that would-be buyers approached Savills with realistic offers but were thwarted. It would appear that they were only offered the opportunity to purchase the building without the car park. This would have promised an unviable future and so the potential sales were not pursued. The implications of offering the building alone, without the car park, demonstrates that the owners and agent are not treating the site as a planning unit. The present use of the site as a public house applies to the whole site, including the car park, and any change of use should equally treat the site as a planning unit.
Secondly, the applicants’ case does not stand up in policy terms. They claim that the proposal is sustainable development, stating that:
“The NPPF aims for decision-taking to be approached in a positive way, to foster delivery of sustainable development. The sustainable redevelopment of The Queens, to provide six residential dwellings in a sustainable location, is supported by the thrust of the NPPF and its objective to boost the supply of housing, support good design and protect heritage assets.”
They cite paragraph 14 of the NPPF in justification of the proposal, and quote it in full, nearly, as follows:
Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that for decision taking, achieving sustainable development means:
- Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and
- Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless:
Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or
Specific policies in this Framework indicated development should be restricted
Crucially, however, they fail to include, mention or heed Footnote 9 here, which follows the word ‘restricted’ in the NPPF. Had they done so, they would have realised that the presumption in favour of ‘sustainable development’ does not apply in this case because, as a result of footnote 9 of the NPPF, the restrictions within the National Park prevent the application of paragraph 14. So the applicants’ case in respect of the presumption falls. In any event, the presumption cannot apply because the proposal does not meet each of the limbs of the sustainable development definition.
Furthermore, JCS Policy CP11 applies restrictions on the size of replacement dwellings and extensions and requires that within the National Park housing provision will be focused on the tenure, type and mix needed to serve communities in the Park. The 2010 Government Circular guidance requires that all new residential development is focused on the provision of affordable housing. The proposed conversion of the hotel and the barn for market housing does not comply with this requirement and it would need to be shown why the proposal should be allowed in the face of that contravention.