The Chairman announced that Derik Brooks, founder and president of Eastleigh Football Club, had recently passed away.  Derik was made a Citizen of Honour by the Borough of Eastleigh in 2009. A Minute’s silence was held in memory of Derik Brooks.

The Chairman reported on the following items:

Proposed No Waiting Restriction on Bournemouth Road, Eastleigh
The Chairman advised that a ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions had been proposed along Bournemouth Road on both sides between the roundabout junction with Chestnut Avenue and the borough boundary with Southampton. 

The restriction had been requested for safety reasons by the Police, and the passenger transport companies who operated along this route. The parking that occurred over the verges and footpaths was creating a risk to pedestrians and damaging the verges. The proposed order was advertised; four letters/emails of support for the proposals had been received and no objections. The Lead Specialist was able to give consent for the Order to be made and therefore this would now be further advertised and implemented.

Swan Centre / Wells Place - Free evening parking

The Council had embarked on a comprehensive review of parking charges and how to improve the customer experience, for example through the use of new technology. One of the early findings was the need to help support the leisure offer in the town centre, in the face of new competition in Whiteley and West Quay. The Chairman was very pleased that Cabinet had made a quick decision to provide free parking after 6pm in the Swan Centre and Wells Place Car Parks in the run up to Christmas and until further notice.

Whilst it was too early to provide detailed results, The Swan Centre was reporting that there had been a positive impact on leisure related footfall in January 2018, compared with January 2017. An updated report would be provided later in the year.

Air quality

The Chairman had hoped to bring the regular updated report on Air Quality to this Committee; however the member of staff funded by this Committee who prepared these reports had secured promotion with another authority. Due to a shortage of qualified staff, the Council had not yet been able to recruit a new replacement. Recruitment was being continued and it was hoped that this post would be filled very soon.

The Chairman advised that he had been able to secure a commitment from the Lead Environment Specialist that the current team would bring a report to the March Committee meeting. This would provide an update on the current Air Quality Strategy and the proposal for a new Air Quality Action Plan. 

Brookwood Cemetery and the Woodside Avenue development

The Chairman was aware of concerns from residents about the impact of the Woodside housing development on the Brookwood Cemetery and in particular, the visual impact of the new housing.

The approved landscaping plan included a substantial mixed native species hedge to screen the new homes from the Cemetery and also provided the required biodiversity mitigation. This extended along the northern boundary to screen the more distant views from the cemetery and allotments. There was talk of the planting being carried out in the summer but this would not normally be allowed; he confirmed that the hedge would be planted during March 2018, as this was the best time to ensure the new trees established well. 

In addition to the hedge, the approved plans included a 1.8 metre closed boarded fence at the boundary of the eight houses nearest to the Cemetery.  The remaining majority of the cemetery boundary was shared with the allotments and it was clear when allotment holders were consulted that they did not want high boundary treatments or a hedge which would have caused shadowing and/or dry conditions.  

An additional sacrificial leylandii type fast-growing hedge could be planted near the new houses however this had been discounted as it would prevent the newly planted indigenous hedge from getting established (due to shadow and dry soil).  A high fence would also shade out the hedge and slow its early growth down.

M&S Food Hall pedestrian access  

The Chair was aware of discussions for improved pedestrian safety and access across the Lidl and Marks and Spencer car parks and felt it was important to provide some background. The issue could be broken down into two main areas, firstly access across both Lidl and Marks and Spencer car parks. There was a designated safe route for pedestrians agreed with the County Council (as the Highway Authority) which ran across the front of the Lidl Store entrance and on to the footpath around the outside of the Lidl car park, to a dropped kerb across the access road, and on toward the stored entrance. Whilst this may not closely align with the shortest desire line, it did provide a safe route that minimised conflict with cars. Therefore, with regard to planning, the development had delivered all that was required of it.

However, the Store Manager of Marks and Spencer had been consulted to see if there was any room for improvement and they had agreed to look into this further. A similar approach would be made with the Lidl Store Manager.

Secondly, access from the train station via the footpath under the Bishopstoke Road railway bridge. Local Councillors had recognised the need to improve this route for several years. As a result, planners had asked for section 106 contributions from the Marks and Spencer development to fund a range of improvements. A design was prepared by the County Council to provide a wider path to improve sight lines, resurfacing in places, improved lighting and better signage. This would also seek to improve the scrubby areas currently maintained by Network Rail. £164,000 had been secured from the development and discussions were taking place with the County Highway Engineers to establish the overall cost of the scheme and likely timeline.

1)  Simon Payne addressed the Committee regarding the Air Quality update. This had not been presented to the Committee since January 2017 and it was agreed that this was to be presented every 6 months. Since of the launch of the Council’s new website, the Air Quality Action Plan was unavailable online. The data on diffusion tubes was last updated on 27 November 2017 and he questioned where the data was for the last two months. In January 2017, it was agreed at a meeting of this Committee that a working group would be established which involved the Air Quality action plan, however there has not been any evidence of this working group and he asked when an update would be provided on their progress. Mr Payne also referred to Source Apportionment and asked if this had been carried out, as if it was unknown where the issues were coming from, how could this be resolved?

2)  Following attendance at Committee last October whereby he asked a question regarding Interserve, Ted White asked the Committee again who was responsible for the cost of maintenance of the new lesure centre complex, in particular the swimming pool which experts in the field say could be very expensive to maintain. He asked whether this would be the tax payers of Eastleigh, Places for People or Interserve, who were in debt to the tune of £518,000,000 and the Government were worried enough to monitor the company’s financial situation. Mr White said that if the government are worried, then he felt that his question warranted a definitive answer.

3)  Phil Baker noted the recent article in the Southern Daily Echo in which two Eastleigh residents had severe medical conditions and were appealing for help to get married and wondered if the Council could do anything to assist.

In addition, Mr Baker addressed the Committee regarding the current Stoneham housing development. He noted the housing crisis whereby a high number of people were struggling to obtain housing provision and was unimpressed that on the Stoneham development only 35% of affordable housing had been allocated. He felt that there should be more social and affordable housing to reduce the crisis. The main problem was reports that developers were then being able to back out of providing this proportion due to viability assessments being completed and it no longer being sustainable and viable for the provision. Mr Baker asked if the public would be updated and notified if developers started to change the allocation.

The Chairman advised that written responses would be provided.

Councillor Steve Sollitt requested that future written responses sent to residents be attached to the following set of minutes so that these could be shared with the Committee. It was agreed that this would be completed.

To consider the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2017.

RESOLVED -

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2017 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Councillor Tina Campbell declared a Non Pecuniary Interest in agenda item 8, Planning Application - Blenheim Road, Eastleigh, because her property is close to the application site.

Development Management staff gave a short presentation on guidelines that had to be taken into account when determining planning applications; in particular the issues that could, and could not, be taken into account.  This was set against the broader policy framework.

Full application for open storage use with ancillary offices, storage buildings and vehicle wash facility, and associated access, parking, drainage and landscaping. (F/17/81397)

The Committee considered the report of the Lead Specialist for Housing and Development (formerly the Head of Development Management) (Agenda item 7) concerning a full application for open storage use with ancillary offices, storage buildings and vehicle wash facility, and associated access, parking, drainage and landscaping. (Ref: F/17/81397)

The Committee was advised of the following updates;

Nature Conservation Interests and Drainage

Paragraphs 52 and 106 of the committee report highlighted that the comments of the Council’s appointed Ecologist on the proposals were still awaited. These comments had now been received with no objections being raised. 

The Council’s Ecologist was satisfied that the scope of the surveys undertaken and the methodological approach adopted was satisfactory and that a robust assessment of the likely effects of the scheme had been provided. The proposals outlined acceptable mitigation measures for reptiles and other protected species, as well as measures to prevent pollution impacts on the River Itchen. The loss of woodland resulting from the development would be compensated for through proposed additional woodland planting which would provide a net increase in woodland within the site. In addition, an area of lowland meadow would be created and further biodiversity benefits would also be provided in the form of bat boxes on buildings and trees as well as the provision of sedum roofs on new office buildings. Monitoring and review of the retained and newly created habitats within the site were also proposed within the submitted information. 

It was necessary to secure final details and the implementation of these ecological measures and, as such, the following additional or updated conditions were recommended.

Updated conditions

There was an update to Condition 4 in relation to construction and demolition work and Condition 9 regarding a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan.

Additional conditions

There were two additional conditions in relation to badger and invasive species surveys being undertaken prior to the commencement of the development.

Hours of Access and Egress by HGVs

Condition 22 restricted the hours during which heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) could enter or exit the development site. Following further discussions with the applicant concerning their current operations, these hours had been revised to reduce the Monday – Friday evening end hour from 2200 to 2100 and to allow for access and egress by HGVs on Sundays and for a longer period than originally set out on Saturdays. After due consideration and taking account of the levels of movements associated with the development and the location of the site, it was considered that the revised hours were acceptable and would not result in an undue level of disturbance for the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties. 

Updated Recommendation

Following the receipt of the comments of the Council’s appointed Ecologist and no material objection having been raised subject to conditions, the recommendation was updated as follows: 

PERMIT subject to the securing of the required Transport developer contributions.

Councillor Thomas moved that the application be deferred due to additional information needed in relation to the number of staff on site and the traffic movements, tree replacement, out of hours use, potential for invasive species on site, the status of condition 15 regarding the previously granted planning permission for the Energy Recovery Centre and whether a buffer was required to the waste treatment works following the response from Southern Water.

Councillor Steve Sollitt seconded this and the amended recommendation was voted on.

RESOLVED -

That the application be DEFERRED for additional information to be provided.

(NOTES: (a) A member of the public spoke in objection to the application citing concerns including the planning permission already approved by Hampshire County Council, the removal of the Solar Farm, the vehicle movements and impact on local residents; (b) the application and agent spoke in the support of the application; and (c) a recorded vote was requested, the result of which was as follows:

FOR: Councillors: Bain, Balaam, M Sollitt, S Sollitt and Thomas

AGAINST: Councillors: Bicknell, Campbell, Mann and Irish

FOR: 5; AGAINST: 4)

Full application for conversion of existing play area into additional car parking area and community garden. (F/17/81683)

The Committee considered the report of the Lead Specialist for Housing and Development (formerly Head of Development Management) (Agenda item 8) concerning a full application for conversion of existing play area into additional car parking area and community garden. (Ref: F/17/81683)

The Committee was advised that the additional parking area would be part of the current Resident’s Parking Scheme.

RESOLVED -

That permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.

(NOTE: Councillor Campbell declared an interest and left the room for the item.)

The Legal Services Manager to report:-

(a)  that the following appeal has been lodged:-

74 Devon Drive, Eastleigh - Appeal against the Council’s refusal of planning application for Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension (Ref: F/17/80443)

This was a Delegated Decision.

(b)  that the following appeal has been allowed:-

Land to the rear of 120-128 Pitmore Road, Eastleigh – Appeal against the Council’s refusal of planning application for construction of 2no. three bed and 6no. four bed dwellings with associated garages, car parking and new access from Pitmore Road following demolition of existing dwelling (Ref: F/16/79112)

This was an ELAC decision.

(c)  that the following appeals have been dismissed:-

Rivendale House, 38-40 Leigh Road, Eastleigh – Appeal against the Council’s refusal of planning application for the creation of 3 no. flats within the roof space following the conversion of existing office space (B1a) on the ground and first floor to residential dwellings under permitted development with associated parking, cycle storage, bin storage and landscaping (Ref: F/17/79817)

This was a delegated decision.

74 Devon Drive, Eastleigh - Appeal against the Council’s refusal of planning application for Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension (Ref: F/17/80443)

This was a Delegated Decision.

The Legal Services Manager reported:-

(a)  that the following appeal had been lodged:-

74 Devon Drive, Eastleigh - Appeal against the Council’s refusal of planning application for Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension (Ref: F/17/80443)

This was a Delegated Decision.

(b)  that the following appeal had been allowed:-

Land to the rear of 120-128 Pitmore Road, Eastleigh – Appeal against the Council’s refusal of planning application for construction of 2no. three bed and 6no. four bed dwellings with associated garages, car parking and new access from Pitmore Road following demolition of existing dwelling (Ref: F/16/79112)

This was an ELAC decision.

(c)  that the following appeals had been dismissed:-

Rivendale House, 38-40 Leigh Road, Eastleigh – Appeal against the Council’s refusal of planning application for the creation of 3 no. flats within the roof space following the conversion of existing office space (B1a) on the ground and first floor to residential dwellings under permitted development with associated parking, cycle storage, bin storage and landscaping (Ref: F/17/79817)

This was a Delegated Decision.

74 Devon Drive, Eastleigh - Appeal against the Council’s refusal of planning application for Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension (Ref: F/17/80443)

This was a Delegated Decision.

RESOLVED -

That the report be noted.

Consideration was given to a report of the Local Area Manager (Agenda item 10) that contained recommendations for expenditure from the Committee’s capital and revenue budget.

The Local Area Manager clarified the charges in Appendix F, for Bishopstoke Road Car Park, and advised that the Saturday Charges should include one and a half hours free parking and from March 2018, charges apply from 8am to 12pm.

RESOLVED –

(1)  That the Fees and Charges for Eastleigh Local Area, as set out in Appendices A to E with effect from 1 April 2018 be approved;

(2)   That the changes to parking charges and hours as set out in Appendix F, for Bishopstoke Road Car Park and Dutton Lane Car Park, subject to Cabinet approval within the Budget Report, be approved; and

(3)   That no increase is made to other car parking charges, subject to Cabinet approval within the Budget Report.

(NOTE: It was requested that Appendices A to E for recommendation one be considered individually and that there was a recorded vote for each appendix, the result of which was as follows;

Appendix A

FOR: Councillors: Bain, Balaam, Bicknell, Campbell, Mann, Irish, M Sollitt, S Sollitt and Thomas

FOR: 9; AGAINST: 0

Appendix B

FOR: Councillors: Bain, Balaam, Bicknell, Campbell, Mann, Irish, M Sollitt, S Sollitt and Thomas

FOR: 9; AGAINST: 0

Appendix C

FOR: Councillors: Bicknell, Campbell, Mann and Irish.
 

AGAINST: Councillor: Balaam

ABSTAIN: Councillors: Bain, M Sollitt, S Sollitt and Thomas

FOR: 4; AGAINST: 1; ABTAIN: 4

Appendix D

FOR: Councillors: Bain, Balaam, Bicknell, Campbell, Mann, Irish, M Sollitt, S Sollitt and Thomas

FOR: 9; AGAINST: 0

Appendix E

FOR: Councillors: Bain, Balaam, Bicknell, Campbell, Mann, Irish, M Sollitt, S Sollitt and Thomas

FOR: 9; AGAINST: 0)

RESOLVED –

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 July 2017 be noted.

Councillor Steve Sollitt asked whether an updated could be provided that financial impact of cuts within the County would not impact upon the museum and if this was to be the case, that the Committee were made aware of this.

Councillor Thomas also raised that 100 years of the RAF would be celebrated this year and it would be positive to see this celebrated within the museum.

The Chairman noted the requests and advised that they would be raised at the next meeting of Eastleigh Museum Joint Management Committee.

RESOLVED –

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2017 be noted.

Consideration was given to the following motions:

(a)   Swan Centre Parking submitted by Councillor Steve Sollitt:

“That this committee welcomes the decision of Council to scrap parking fees between 6pm and 8pm for parking in the Swan Centre car parks. However this committee is concerned about the process followed and in particular the lack of any internal discussion by members of this committee on the issue and the financial cost of such a move before the announcement. Therefore the committee agrees that, in the future; if a decision needs to be made without first being presented to a meeting of this committee, to ensure a good democratic and transparent process, a representative of all political groups on this committee should be informed and invited to comment.”

Following advice from the Legal Officer, an amendment was made to the motion.

RESOLVED –

 
That the amended motion be adopted as below:

“That this committee welcomes the decision of Council to scrap parking fees between 6pm and 8pm for parking in the Swan Centre car parks. However this committee is concerned about the process followed and in particular the lack of any internal discussion by members of this committee on the issue and the financial cost of such a move before the announcement. Therefore the committee agrees that:

(1)  The Monitoring Officer be asked to consider in his review of the Constitution whether provision should be included for consultation with the LAC in respect of any key decision of the Council or any matters of urgency affecting the LAC to ensure good democratic and transparent process; and

(2)  The Chair be asked to give consideration to notifying the leader of the opposition in respect of any Key Decision to ensure a good democratic and transparent process.”

(b)   Brookwood Cemetery submitted by Councillor Steve Sollitt:

“That this committee recognises the importance of people being able to mourn loved ones and pay their respects with as much dignity and respect as possible within Brookwood Cemetery.

Committee further notes that the development of 94 properties off Woodside Avenue is progressing and part of this site will directly overlook the cemetery.

In light of public concern, committee requests that the need for a “privacy barrier" (such as fast-growing trees growing elsewhere along the perimeters of the cemetery) is investigated and that this work is undertaken by the council, as land owner as soon as possible and not left until the development is completed.”

RESOLVED –

That the motion be adopted.

(NOTE: A member of the public spoke on the motion.)

(c)  Air Quality submitted by Councillor Thomas:

“That this committee calls for the Environmental Health Officers to attend the next meeting and provide a report of practical actions that can be implemented immediately to reduce the level of pm10s in the town area.”

RESOLVED –

That the motion be adopted.

(d)   Road Safety submitted by Councillor Thomas:

“That this committee calls on Hampshire County Council to urgently investigate solutions to the difficulties that residents of Barton Road and Dutton Lane experience in exiting their roads safely AND implement a safe crossing at the north end of Woodside.”

RESOLVED –

That the motion be adopted.

(e)   Wildlife Habitat - submitted by Councillor Thomas:
 

“That this committee requests officers to confirm whether or not there are Barbastelle bats in the woods in the vicinity of Pitmore Road following the confusion around the recent appeal on the planning application in the area.”

RESOLVED –

That the motion be adopted.

Consideration was given to a report of the Local Area Manager (Agenda item 14) that contained recommendations for expenditure from the Committee’s capital and revenue budget.

RESOLVED -

(1)  That the allocation of £96,296.37 from the revenue budget for improved lighting for the Swan Centre Car Park be approved; and

(2)  That the allocation of up to £12,000 from developers’ contributions for the enhancement of the Eastleigh War Memorial be approved.

To consider passing a resolution under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 in respect of the following item of business on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

The Schedule 12A categories have been amended and are now subject to the public interest test, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  This came into effect on 1March 2006.

It is considered that the following item is exempt from disclosure and that the public interest in not disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

RESOLVED -

(1) That, in pursuance of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they are likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act; and

(2)  That, in pursuance of the public interest test, the public interest in disclosing the information contained in the following item of business was outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption.

RESOLVED –

That the recommendation as set out in the report be APPROVED.