One detached dwelling at Land adjacent Hill View, Ringwood Road, Sopley

Earlier planning decisions

Outline permission established access, layout and scale, while an earlier appeal found limited village infilling and dismissed the case only on habitats grounds.

“4PLANNING HISTORY ·24/10173 (Outline) – Access, layout and scale approved for a single dwelling – Granted (July 2024). The outline decision accepted the appeal reasoning on Green Belt and design, secured recreational and air-quality mitigation, and established a Grampian condition route for phosphate neutrality. ·20/11361 – Erection of a self-build three-bedroom chalet bungalow (farmhouse style) – Refused (09/02/2021); Appeal dismissed solely on Habitats Regulations grounds.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission, finding the proposal acceptable in the planning balance with mitigation for habitats, ecology, highways, design and neighbouring amenity.

“Quality SPD. The ASHP relocation reduces potential noise effects and will be controlled by condition. Recreational mitigation and air-quality monitoring to be secured via legal agreement and project-specific phosphate neutrality will be secured via Grampian condition prior to occupation Overall planning balance. The proposal does not accord with DM20 in pure policy terms; that conflict carries moderate adverse weight.”

“On that basis, the proposal is acceptable when the Development Plan is read as a whole and having regard to material considerations. RECOMMENDATION Delegated Authority be given to the Service Manager Development Management to GRANT PERMISSIONsubject to: i) the prior completion, of a planning obligation entered into by way of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the following: • New Forest recreational mitigation (infrastructure and non-infrastructure), and • Air-quality…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant and an objector addressed the committee, while the ward councillor remained to speak and vote after declaring a non-pecuniary interest.

What members discussed

Members examined overshadowing concerns and asked for the submitted shadow plans to be displayed during the meeting.

“Concern was raised by a Committee Member with regard to the issue of overshadowing which had been raised by the objector. It was requested by the Committee Member that the shadow plans within the application submission be displayed to the Planning Committee as they were absent from the Case Officer presentation. The requested shadow plan was displayed.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission because the dwelling’s siting, bulk and scale would cause unacceptable overshadowing and the required habitat-mitigation agreement was incomplete.

“Whilst Members had regard to the officer recommendation, it was proposed that the application be refused as it was contrary to Policy ENV3. This was by virtue of the siting, bulk and scale of the proposal which would cause overshadowing to the garden area of Hill View to the detriment of the amenity of this neighbouring property.”

“By virtue of its siting, scale and massing, the design of the proposed dwelling would give rise to an unacceptable degree of overshadowing to the garden area of the adjoining dwelling, Hill View to the detriment of the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers.”

Minutes