17 06 2003

A MEETING OF THE REGULATORY BOARD

WAS HELD ON 17 JUNE 2003

The Mayor (Councillor Mrs Binfield) (ex-officio) (P), Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Cully) (ex-officio) (P), Councillors Mrs Angus (P), Carr (P), Clinton (P), Elshaw (P), Farr (P), Gill (P), Searle (P) Smith (P), Train (P) and Taylor (P)

35. MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Regulatory Board held on 20 May 2003 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.

36. DEPUTATIONS

It was reported that deputations had been received relating to planning applications K.16250 – 50 Manor Way, Lee-on-the-Solent, K.16248 – 71,73 &73a Stoke Road, Gosport and K.12255/2 – Land Adjoining No 2. Battery, Stokes Bay Road, Gosport.

37. REVIEW OF PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE LICENCE

Consideration was given to a report of the Regulatory Services Manager (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix "A"). Members were informed that clarification was needed in respect of the licensing of "people carriers" to accommodate six passengers. A recent case was presented to the Board about one such instance where, due to lack of information, a licence had only been granted for the individual to carry five passengers. Problems had arisen regarding the safety of the passengers who would not know how to use the "tip up" mechanism to exit from the back seats. During a demonstration prior to the meeting, Members had been shown how the problem of "tip up" seats could be avoided. This required one of the middle-row seats being removed from the vehicle. This would still enable six passengers to hire the vehicle. These vehicles were designed to carry seven people but not when sold as taxis. The Board emphasised that the Council's first concern was safety for passengers.

Members raised concern about how the licences would be enforced. Members were informed that it was proposed that when each vehicle came in for renewal of its licence, enforcement could be made then.

RESOLVED: That –

i. The application for a licence to carry six passengers in a Peugeot 807 be approved on condition that a chair from the middle row of the vehicle be removed; and

ii. The Board confirm the Council's Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle License conditions.

38. APPLICATION FOR A HIGH STREET TRADING CONSENT,

GOSPORT HIGH STREET

Consideration was given to a report of the Regulatory Services Manager (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix "B").

RESOLVED: That –

i. The application for a High Street Trading Consent, Gosport High Street, to operate a flower stall on Monday, Wednesday and Friday be approved; and

ii. That (with the exception of existing concerns) the annual fee for street trading consents be £700 for food traders and £500 for non food traders, reduced to £200 in each case where trading is for a seasonal period of less than 6 months or where trading is for less than 5 days per week.

39. REVIEW OF HACKNEY CARRIAGE FARE TARIFF

Consideration was given to a joint report of the Regulatory Services Manager and the Financial Services Manager (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix "C").

Members were informed that an increase of 3.29% had been identified by the agreed formula as the percentage increase in Hackney Carriage fare tariffs for 2003/4 in the Borough. It was reported that the formula had so far proved to be very successful in reflecting typical costs and that no complaints had been received. Members were also informed that a request had been received from the taxi firms for automatic time locking of all taximeters. The change to the taximeters could be achieved when they were recalibrated for changes to the tariff.

RESOLVED: That –

i. The proposed increases in taxi fare tariffs, as set out in the joint report of the Regulatory Services Manager and Financial Services Manager be approved; and

ii. That the Council adopt the implementation of time locking taximeters in all its Hackney Carriages.

40. IMPLEMENTATION OF A PENALTY POINTS SYSTEM FOR THE

HACKNEY AND PRIVATE HIRE TRADE IN GOSPORT

Consideration was given to a report of the Regulatory Services Manager (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix "D").

Members were informed that, under the current legislation, any breaches in the regulating conditions on Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Drivers could only be enforced by a summons to the Magistrates Court, which made the system unwieldy and expensive to administer. The proposed points system identified a number of breaches of conditions and the number of points to be invoked should the breach be proven. Members were informed that the trade had been widely consulted on several occasions and generally welcomed the adoption of the system as a more transparent and fairer mechanism of enforcement. It was reported that a driver who proved to be in breach of the conditions would hold the points on his licence for a 12 month period.

Questions were raised about the time period that the points would remain with a driver and the Board were informed that the points system was intended as a short sharp reminder and indicator of problems. It was felt that a longer time period would be innocuous to the drivers. Members also voiced concerns about how the conditions would be policed. Members were informed that policing could be done following the current guidelines but that informants from members of the public would also have the opportunity to report offenders. Concerns were also raised about the length of time drivers and operatives would have to appeal to points being imposed. Members were informed that 21 days would be the time limit for appeals, thereby avoiding time delay in the enforcement. Members also asked about other authorities that were using similar systems and were informed that other Councils had found the points system very useful in promoting responsible behaviour from all concerned.

RESOLVED: That the adoption of the penalty points system and associated changes to the existing Council Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle conditions introduced in the above report be endorsed and recommended to the Policy and Organisation Board for approval.

41. REPORTS OF THE REGULATORY SERVICES MANAGER

The Regulatory Services Manager submitted a report on applications received for planning consent setting out the recommendations in each case (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix "E").

RESOLVED: That decisions be taken on each application for planning consent as detailed below:

42. K.11154/4 – ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION,

BRICK BOUNDARY WALL (1.8 METRES HIGH), TIMBER GATE

AND TIMBER SHED (as amended by plans received 23.04.03

and amplified by letters dated 07.05.03 and 12.05.03)

43 MARINE PARADE WEST, LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT

RESOLVED: That planning application K.11154/4 – 43 Marine Parade West, Lee-on-the-Solent be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager.

43. K.16224 – ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY DETACHED DWELLING AND DOUBLE GARAGE (ACCESS FROM TESTCOMBE ROAD) (as amplified and amended by letter dated 21.03.03 and by plans received 25.03.03)

LAND TO REAR OF 5 ANGLESEY ROAD, GOSPORT

(Councillor Carr declared a personal interest with regard to the above application in view of his acquaintance with the applicant, left the meeting prior to its consideration and did not take part in the discussion or voting thereon.)

RESOLVED: That planning application K.16224 – Land to Rear of 5 Anglesey Road, Gosport be refused for the reasons set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager.

44. K.16250 – ERECTION OF TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION

50 MANOR WAY, LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT

Mr Land, was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the objectors. Mr Land made the following points:

· That he was speaking on behalf of Mr Bakeman, a neighbour to the proposed building;

· That the proposed building would obstruct and block out light from two of Mr Bakeman's windows;

· That the applicant had not consulted with his neighbours in drawing up the plans.

It was proposed and seconded that a site visit should take place to clarify the matter of obstruction of light.

RESOLVED: That planning application K.16250 – 50 Manor Way, Lee-on-the-Solent, be deferred pending a site visit to be held prior to the next meeting of the Regulatory Board.

45. K.16248 – CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOPS AND TAKEAWAY

(CLASS A3) AND RESTAURANT (CLASS A3), RETENTION OF

SHOPFRONT, INSTALLATION OF NEW SHOP FRONT AND

VENTILATION/ EXTRACTION SYSTEM (CONSERVATION AREA)

(as amplified by letter dated 16.04.03 and amended by plans

received 03.06.03)

71, 73 &73a STOKE ROAD, GOSPORT

(Councillor Searle declared an interest with regard to the above application in view of its location to his own business, left the meeting prior to its consideration and did not take part in the discussion or voting thereon.)

(Councillor Farr in the Chair.)

Mr Lewis was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the objectors. Mr Lewis made the following points:

· That the proposed development would be detrimental to Stoke Road;

· That there were residents who lived above and behind the site whose quality of life would be destroyed through, for example, noise pollution and fire risks;

· That building insurance would increase dramatically and the value of their property would fall;

· The developers current site was infested with rats and the same would happen here;

· There would be an increase in acts of vandalism;

· The proposed storage area for the bins to the proposed site was actually a communal garden shared by the leaseholders. It would be unreasonable to expect them to share their gardens with waste and, in all likelihood, rats;

· That noise and smell pollution would be created from the extraction fans, that more noise would be created by trade for the site and that there would be an increase in "yobbish" behaviour, vandalism and litter.

Councillor Mrs Cully, as a member of Gosport Borough Council, was permitted to address to the Board. Councillor Mrs Cully made the following points:

· That access to the site would be limited, both for staff and deliveries. That would create an increase in traffic in a congested area and be a risk to families and people living in the vicinity;

· The plans included a 60 cover restaurant, but no car parking facilities. That meant that resident car parking would be used, which was unacceptable, especially considering the extra levels of noise that extra traffic would create;

· That Stokes Road needs more shops and not more food outlets;

· That building work has already begun and local residents had already suffered with water and electricity being turned off without notification or apology.

Members raised concern about the noise and pollution of the extraction fans and flues and were informed that modern devices were silent and odour free, but that this was a matter for Environmental Health and would be looked at as and when the site had its health inspection. Concern was also raised about the positioning of flues, the opening hours and that building work had already begun on the site. Members were informed that care would be taken to place the flues and extraction fans in sympathetic locations, and that conditions would be imposed to limit the opening hours. Members were also informed that if building work began without planning permission being granted the applicant took a chance should permission be refused that enforcement action would be taken by the Local Planning Authority to require unauthorised works to be removed

Following discussion, the Board felt that planning permission should not be granted.

RESOLVED: That planning application K.16248 – 71, 73 & 73a Stoke Road, Gosport be refused on the following grounds;

i. The site is located within a Conservation Area and a Primary Shopping Area. The proposal in combination with other A3 uses in this part of Stoke Road would be detrimental to the character of the area by reason of excessive noise and disturbance during the evening and by reason of the loss of a further two retail units and the resultant dead frontage during the day. As such the development is contrary to policies BE1, BE9 and S2(i) of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.

ii. Having regard to the layout of the site and relationship with adjoining properties the proposal would be detrimental to residential amenity by reason of noise, disturbance, loss of privacy, smells and accumulation of kitchen waste and therefore contrary to policies BE1 and S2(i) of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.

iii. Having regard to the restricted means of access and its shared use by vehicles and pedestrians the proposal does not provide a safe and convenient environment for occupiers of adjacent residents to access their properties contrary to policy T6(i) of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.

46. K.16300 – ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY BUILDING TO PROVIDE SURESTART COMMUNITY CENTRE, CAR PARKING PROVISION AND PLAYGROUND

SISKIN JUNIOR SCHOOL, NIMROD DRIVE, GOSPORT

RESOLVED: That planning application K.16300 – Siskin Junior School, Nimrod Drive, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager.

47. K.12255/2 – ERECTION OF SINGLE/TWO STOREY CATERING

FACILITY WITH FIRST FLOOR BALCONY, COVERED SEATING

AREA AND LANDSCAPING

LAND ADJOINING NO. 2 BATTERY, STOKES BAY ROAD, GOSPORT

Members were informed that a total of 22 letters of objection had been received to the proposal. It was reported that the issues raised reflected those already identified in the report. Members were also informed that a further 14 letters of support had been received.

Dr Wright, on behalf of the Friends of Stokes Bay Association, was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the objectors. Dr Wright made the following points:

· That he had recently been elected as the Chairman of the Friends of Stokes Bay Association, whose objectives were to preserve the Stokes Bay area for present and future generations;

· That Stokes Bay was currently unusual in being largely undeveloped, and as such, efforts should be made to preserve, protect and enhance the area, as stated in Section 5 of the Gosport Borough Council Local Plan;

· The proposed building would be higher than any presently situated on the seafront and consequently would not fit in and would be detrimental to the seafront and the area;

· The outlook and view of No. 2 Battery would be severely affected and this would effect the future development of this site;

· Stokes Bay was a rare example of a large unspoilt recreational area in an urban setting and should be protected and preserved;

· The proposed building would set a precedent along the seafront making it impossible to refuse future applications for similar proposals in similar areas;

· That, as outlined in the conditions of the report, the area was a Strategic Gap and the application should not be permitted for any reason whatsoever.

Mr Clark was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the applicant. Mr Clark handed the Officers an additional 300 signatures to be added to the petition already received. Mr Clark made the following points:

That the mobile catering van currently operating on the site was run by local people who cared about the area and he commented that there had been no adverse effects from the mobile catering van on the site;
The building would not be a café but would be a Leisure Facility and café, with showers, changing rooms and function rooms;
The application encompassed all these facilities with one submission rather than returning to the Board at separate dates and tripling the work levels for Officers and Members;
That the provision for a Leisure Facility in the area was well established, past permissions had been granted in 1986 for a diving and sailboard school, and in 1988 for a watersports/catering facility;
Following the Local Plan Review, permission was allowed within a Strategic Gap so long as it was of suitable economic development. Moreover, permission should be granted if the proposal helps the diversification of the economy (6.11), recreational activities (8.5) and was appropriate (R.os.1);
That building within a Strategic Gap was prohibited to prevent urban sprawl, but could be permitted if leisure related;
English Nature had no concerns that the site would have a detrimental impact on the S.S.S.I. (Site of Special Scientific Interest) at the rear of the area;
Negotiations were currently ongoing with the Environment Agency with regard to the floodplain, but that confirmation that the proposal was acceptable to the Environmental Agency in this matter was expected shortly;
That there had been massive public support, including the petition of approximately 1,200 signatures.

Members asked for clarification regarding the flood risk and asked why there was nothing in the report. It was reported to Members that the Environment Agency had yet to contact the Council to inform them that they were satisfied. Until such confirmation was received, there was no alternative but to uphold their initial fundamental objection regarding the proposed development on a floodplain. A suggestion was made by Members that the item should be deferred to hear the final verdict of the Environment Agency.

Members also questioned why previous applications on the site had been given permission and were informed that as the time limit on these applications had lapsed they were not relevant to this application, but that the difference had been the use of the building. Members were also informed that these previous applications had been consequently superseded by policies from the 1995 Gosport Borough Council Local Plan. Moreover, Officers considered the current building to be a café with an ancillary leisure element, rather than a leisure element with an ancillary café as had been the case in the past. Members were informed that this would change the category Class of the building to Class A3 and therefore make it unacceptable within a Strategic Gap.

Concern was raised by Members that a precedent would be set if the application was granted and that it was important to justify the Boards decision using the Local Plan. However, it was also felt that the proposed site would be of benefit to the Borough as a whole, providing enjoyment and better opportunities to enjoy Gosport's seafront.

A proposal was made and seconded to defer the item until further information was received from the Environmental Agency. The proposal was not supported.

A vote was taken on the officers recommendation as set out in the report, the outcome of which was not to agree to refuse the application.

RESOLVED: That the recommendation in the report of Regulatory Services Manager for planning application K.12255/2 – Land Adjoining No. 2 Battery, Stokes Bay Road, Gosport be not agreed and therefore the planning application was approved.

48. K.14800/9 – ERECTION OF TWO STOREY OFFICE BUILDING (CLASS B1), SECURITY OFFICE, FOUL PUMPING STATION AND ACCESS ROAD (as amplified by plans received 13.05.03)

156 FAREHAM ROAD, GOSPORT

RESOLVED: That planning application K.14800/9 – 156 Fareham Road, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager.

49. K.16299 – ERECTION OF A TERRACE OF 5no. BUNGALOWS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS (REAR OF CONIFER GROVE) (as amplified by letters dated 14.04.03 and 21.05.03)

LAND ADJACENT TO 9 VIAN CLOSE, GOSPORT

Concern was made by Members regarding the lack of provision on the site for appropriate electric chair shelters and charging facilities. Members requested that Officers write to the applicant and ask that in future sites these facilities be considered.

RESOLVED: That planning application K.16299 – Land Adjacent to 9 Vian Close, Gosport be approved subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning act 1990 relating to the age of occupancy and to the payment of a commuted sum towards the provision and/or improvement of outdoor playing space and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager.

50. K.6791/2 – ERECTION OF DETACHED HOUSE WITH ATTACHED DOUBLE GARAGE (as amplified by letter dated 23.05.03 and by plans received 27.05.03)

54 PORTSMOUTH ROAD, LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT

RESOLVED: That planning application K.6791/2 – 54 Portsmouth Road, Lee-on-the-Solent be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager.

51. K.16340 – DETAILS PURSUANT TO K.15500 – CONVERSION OF EXISTING SINGLE STOREY BUILDING TO OFFICES AND WORKSHOPS AT NORTH MEADOW (LISTED BUILDING IN CONSERVATION AREA) (as amplified by plan received 06.06.03 and amplified by letter dated 05.06.03)

ROYAL CLARENCE YARD, WEEVIL LANE, GOSPORT

RESOLVED: That planning application K.16340 – Royal Clarence Yard, Weevil Lane, Gosport be granted pursuant (in part) to additional conditions 2e and 2m attached to Outline Planning Consent references K.15500 relating to this element of the development only and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager.

52. K.16340/1 – LISTED BUILDING APPLICATION – CONVERSION OF EXISTING SINGLE STOREY BUILDING TO OFFICES AND WORKSHOPS AT NORTH MEADOW (CONSERVATION AREA) (as amplified by plan received 06.06.03 and amplified by letter dated 05.06.03)

ROYAL CLARENCE YARD, WEEVIL LANE, GOSPORT

RESOLVED: That Listed Building Consent K.16340/1 – Royal Clarence Yard, Weevil Lane, Gosport be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager.

53. K.16350 – ERECTION OF DETACHED GARAGE AND 1.8 METRE HIGH BOUNDARY WALLS

21 LESTER ROAD, GOSPORT

RESOLVED: That planning application K.16350 – 21 Lester Road, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager.

54. K.16313 – REGULATION 3 – ERECTION OF 1.45 METRE HIGH CLOSE BOARDED BOUNDARY FENCE (LISTED BUILDINGS IN CONSERVATION AREA)

176/178 ROWNER LANE, GOSPORT

RESOLVED: That planning application K.16313 – 176/178 Rowner Lane, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager.

55. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the undernoted item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Act.

56. HISTORIC BUILDINGS GRANT, BRAMLEY HOUSE, CRESCENT ROAD

Consideration was given to a report from the Director of Development and Environment (a copy of which is inserted in the Minute Book as Appendix "F") which advised the Board about a proposed offer of grant aid under Section 57 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to Bramley House, Crescent Road.

RESOLVED: That a grant of up to £2,5000 (or 15% of the total cost of works, whichever is the lesser sum) be offered towards the repairs to Bramley House.

CHAIRMAN