EAST Hampshire District Council (EHDC) has confirmed that consideration of the two applications submitted by Froyle Park Ltd – for a new car park and variation in noise conditions – was not due to be considered at its planning meeting this week.
The applications in question are for the construction of a 62-space, on-site car park to replace the existing overspill site, and a variation in condition to low-frequency music levels, which has changed with the construction of nearby housing.
As reported in last week’s article, Froyle Parish Council has sought legal advice in response to complaints raised by residents of disturbance caused as a direct result of Froyle Park being used as a wedding venue.
As a result of this advice, it is now contesting both applications, arguing that the use of the Grade II Listed building as a wedding venue does not comply with the terms of the original planning permission and that these applications are “predicated and entirely contingent” on that use.
“We have received Froyle Parish Council’s legal submission and thank the council for its work in preparing it. Our own legal team is now assessing the issue and we will not be able to respond fully until the legal position is known.
“We are aware of the issues surrounding Froyle Park and it is important that we take the time to make sure the correct decisions are reached.
“The two applications submitted for Froyle Park are not due to be considered at the planning committee meeting on May 19,” the statement read.
By contrast, acting on behalf of Froyle Park Ltd (part of the Nicholas James Group), David Jobbins, of Southampton-based agent Luken Beck, said that as an experienced chartered town planner, he believed Froyle Park Ltd was “acting entirely within the terms of the planning agreement”.
* The Herald would also like to point out that the final quote in last week’s article, concerning the use of the overflow car park and sacrificing the parkland setting to facilitate a new on-site parking area was mistakenly attributed to Mr Jobbins and should have been attributed to ‘concerned residents’.