The East Hampshire District Council Planning Committee met on 26 June 2024 and considered three planning applications. Decisions were issued on all three applications.

The Golden Pot Public House, New Odiham Road, Shalden

The committee considered an application for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage and associated works following demolition of The Golden Pot Public House.

This was recommended for approval by planning officers subject to conditions.

This application is before the committee at the request of Councillor Ferris, local ward member, who considers that the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of a community asset, contrary to Policy INF1 of the Joint Core Strategy and Policy DM8 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan.

Having regard to the above and the representations received, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable subject to the imposition of conditions.

The meeting heard from three speakers, including Mr Matthew Clayton of MT Planning, the applicant's agent. Mr Clayton spoke in support of the application. He told the meeting that there was no demonstrable need for the public house, which had been marketed for two years, and that the business was not viable.

The committee voted to approve the application.

Land to the north of 233 Catherington Lane, Horndean

The committee considered an application for the erection of 9 no. dwellings (2 no. detached, 7 no. semi-detached).

This application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions, in line with the views of the Parish Council and the Case Officer's report.

There were no speakers on this item.

The committee voted to approve the application.

4 Stoner Hill Cottages and Honeysuckle Cottage, Stoner Hill, Petersfield

This application, to determine an application for a lawful development certificate for a proposed use of land for the stationing of 2 no. caravans for residential purposes for a temporary period exceeding 4 years, was refused.

The committee heard from a speaker in support of the application.

I do sympathise with the applicant, but if you look at the photos and read the report it’s very clear this has been going on for quite a while. I’m just wondering whether the four years is actually relevant. I think I’m going to struggle with this one… because we’re here to uphold the law and if people are getting around the law and we don’t do anything about it, it doesn’t set a very good precedent, does it?

The committee voted to refuse the application.