Applications: Saltmarsh & The Oysters, Station Rd.

HIRA Committee member Margaret Hulls made the following notes as she watched Havant's Planning Committee discuss the above critical building applications. Our conclusion: this may be good news for the island but we await the appeals from the applicants. As Margaret notes: the meeting Minutes should be available on HBC's website.

Report:

At Anne’s request I followed the above Planning Committee Meeting on-line.  

The OYSTERS APPLICATION APP/21/01350 (Land north of the Oysters development, Station Road).

The Planning Officer made a presentation using slides showing the site from all angles  and a suggested plan of the 29 dwellings.  

These were the main considerations to be considered:

• Principle of development and off-side tidal risk

• Design and landscape

• Impact on residential amenities

• Impact of ecology and nature conservation sites

• Impact on highways

• Drainage and flood risk

• Other considerations

The Officer’s recommendation was to REFUSE permission on the following grounds:

The density of 29 dwellings was not suitable for the site due to points raised above. The loss of the area for reptiles (close to drainage brook); unsuitable provision for a larger drainage facility if it was required; width of roads on such a small site; access road to the site was adequate; car parking provision; some 3 storey buildings; flood risk at Langstone in future years.

The issue was then open to debate from the Councillors.   The problem of moving mitigation for Brent Geese from place to place to suit developers was brought up.  The legal agreement made on the first Oyster development has not been honoured and this continues with further developments.  Alternate sites are given but are not suitable for the geese who do not use them. The drainage of surplus water from the site would only apply within the site boundaries and not outside.  Water could be draining across to West Lane from the previous devt due to farmers no longer maintaining the drainage ditches which were on their land. This is not the developer’s responsibility.  Others points were made agreeing with the list above.

The above was discussed and was unanimously REFUSED permission.

SALTMARSH LANE (land south of) APP/21/01351

The same 7 points listed above apply here.

Again the Planning Officer went through the Application using the same slides.  This was for 60 houses.

• The access road would have to be upgraded  

• There is a house on either side close to the suggested road  

• The land on part of the site would have to be raised by 1 metre  

• Again flood risk especially as the harbour is eroding and not protected and future flooding at Langstone

• Compact design of site

• Bad position for pond and protected oak tree/children’s area close to road and pond (drainage ponds cannot be fenced in now)

• Mitigation site problem 

The Planning Officer REFUSED permission.

The Councillors then debated the above and again unanimously REFUSED permission.

For interest only I watched an Application to develop an old Barclays Bank in Waterlooville to a house of multiple occupation of 15 single rooms, a large kitchen and living rooms.  It is situated by Asda’s car park and by a bus stop.  A well known company develops such sites for the use of young professionals and monitors the dwellings closely and residents have an app and 24 contact with their landlord. The building is visited weekly for cleaning and regular fire checks.  A representative spoke about this devt and answered questions.  This was unanimously GRANTED permission by all concerned.

Note:  I took some photos of the sites and have them should any of you be interested - I do not know how to incorporate them into an e-mail.  Also I think the Meeting is available on the Havant BC site.

Margaret Hulls