Agenda item

Erect a mixed use development comprising of retirement living apartments, general market apartments, commercial units falling within class e (a), (c), (f) and (g subsection i), a café/drive through, EV charging station, public park and square (revised plans and information submitted June 2025).

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans, aerial photographs and submitted drawings, the Case Officer identified the site within the Eastern Area in relation to Parley Cross, outlining the surrounding context, key views and the belt of mature trees along the western boundary. The site formed part of the Eastern Road allocation at West Parley under Policy FWP6, with Policy FWP5 supporting retail improvements. Outline permission had previously been granted, with subsequent amendments through reserved matters, including the Lidl supermarket.

The proposal comprised retirement living apartments, a café with drive-thru, EV charging and public open space, supported by illustrative material and details of materials. The application had been advertised in 2024 and 2025. Statutory consultees raised no objections overall, although West Parley Parish Council objected. The site lay within the urban area and was not allocated employment land. While retail floorspace would be lost, officers considered the benefits, including meeting strong demand for retirement housing and contributing to housing supply, outweighed the harm. The scheme was considered sustainable and compliant with the development plan, including Policies LN3 and LN6, and was supported by a reviewed viability assessment.

The apartment mix exceeded national space standards and was deemed appropriate. The Highway Authority raised no objection, confirming the development would be safe and accessible. Parking provision, including 36 spaces for the retirement units with the inclusion of 3 disabled bays, mobility scooter storage, and parking for the café and drive-thru, was considered policy compliant. The design responded to local context, with revisions improving articulation and creating a varied skyline. The contemporary appearance, landscaping, native planting, open space provision and biodiversity enhancements, including biodiversity net gain, were considered acceptable. The site lay mainly within Flood Zone 1, drainage arrangements were satisfactory, and noise mitigation would be secured by condition.

Heathland mitigation contributions would be secured due to the site’s proximity to the New Forest, with an adjacent SANG available. Airport safeguarding requirements would be addressed by condition. The recommendation was to delegate authority to grant planning permission subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement and conditions, or to refuse permission if the agreement was not completed by 18 August 2026 or such extended time as agreed.

The officer’s recommendation was to delegate authority to the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manager East to either:

A)   GRANT planning permission following completion of a S106 Planning Obligation agreement and subject to conditions

     OR

B)   Refuse permission if the S106 agreement is not completed by 18 August 2026 or such extended time as agreed by the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manager East

Public Participation

Mr G Monkcom, a resident of West Parley, addressed the Committee and confirmed that his original objection to the application remained. He raised a number of concerns, including the lack of need for a drive-through café and his objection to the drive-through element, stating that consuming coffee while driving could constitute a criminal offence. He highlighted the area’s ageing population and emphasised the importance of prioritising a health centre for local elderly residents, noting the limited existing provision. Mr Monkcom also expressed environmental concerns, referring to frequent rainfall and the potential for development on Green Belt land to displace surface water, as well as wider issues relating to climate change and sewage discharges into rivers. He urged the Council to undertake a site visit, including consideration of the SANG, and requested that the planning application be reconsidered.

Members questions and comments

• Noted the viability statement in the conditions, recognising the absence of affordable housing, and queried which aspects of the development would be at risk if the scheme was not viable and how viability could be achieved.
• Raised concerns regarding the consequences of reduced profit.
• Queried how cars would access the retail shops.
• Asked whether residents would have access to the roof.
• Questioned why no zebra crossing was provided to the Lidl supermarket.
• Observed that the design did not connect with the surrounding area and appeared isolating.
• Referenced slide 67 and sought clarification on when obligations needed to be paid to secure the legal agreement.
• Noted parish council objection regarding the design not being appealing.
• Queried whether both buildings were fitted with PV panels.
• Raised concerns about potential loss of retail provision.
• Noted that parking for retail shops was in an unsuitable location.
• Commented that insufficient justification had been provided from a retail perspective regarding the suitability of the scheme.
• Expressed disappointment at the elevations, noting that ground-floor flats could have included shops to improve attractiveness.
• Highlighted a discrepancy in tree heights and requested clarification regarding screening.
• Queried whether a monetary contribution had been provided.
• Questioned the relevance of amenity space for residents with limited mobility.
• Requested confirmation that the surface water assessment had been revised according to current Environment Agency provisions.
• Queried whether there were ponds within the green space.
• Raised biodiversity concerns, including whether car parking areas could incorporate green roofs and that more could have been done to enhance biodiversity on site.
• Sought clarification regarding pre-commencement conditions.
• Asked about potential pedestrian access from the Lidl site to the development.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to delegate authority to the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manager East to either:

C)   GRANT planning permission following completion of a S106 Planning Obligation agreement and subject to conditions

     OR

D)   Refuse permission if the S106 agreement is not completed by 18 August 2026 or such extended time as agreed by the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manager East

GRANT as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Barry Goringe, and seconded by Cllr Beryl Ezzard, subject to conditions set out in the officer report.

Decision: To grant  subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement fas set out in Section 16 of the officer’s report.