06 07 2004

A MEETING OF THE REGULATORY BOARD

WAS HELD ON 6 JULY 2004

The Mayor (Councillor Edwards) (ex-officio); Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Hook) (ex-officio); Councillor Allen (P), Mrs Binfield (P), Carr (P), Clinton (P), Farr (P), Foster (P), Gill, Smith (P), Taylor (P), and Train (P).

3	APOLOGIES FOR NON-ATTENDANCE

An apology for inability to attend the meeting was submitted on behalf of Councillor Gill.

4	DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Carr advised the Board that he had had personal contact with the applicant for planning application K4604/6 – 16 Kings Road, Lee-on-the-Solent 20 years ago but since that time he had had no social, business or other contact and therefore he did not consider that this amounted to a personal interest.

Councillor Mrs Binfield declared a personal interest in K6677/6 – Nobes Hall, Nobes Avenue, Gosport, left the room and did not take part in the discussion or voting thereon.

5	MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Regulatory Board held on 25 May 2004 and 1 July 2004 be approved subject to it being noted that Councillor Train was present at the meeting held on 25 May 2004.

6	DEPUTATIONS

It was reported that deputations had been received on planning applications K.4604/6, K.5972/5, K.5658/4 and K.5658/6.

7	PUBLIC QUESTIONS

No public questions had been received for this meeting.

PART II

8	REPORTS OF THE REGULATORY SERVICES MANAGER

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

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


9	K.4604/6 – CHANGE OF USE FROM GUESTHOUSE TO HOSTEL (7 LETTING ROOMS) AND CAR PARKING PROVISION (as amended by letter received 22.06.04 and plans received 24.06.04) 16 Kings Road Lee-on-the-Solent Hampshire PO13 9NU

(NB: Councillor Carr advised the Board that he had had personal contact with the applicant for planning application K4604/6 – 16 Kings Road, Lee-on-the-Solent 20 years ago but since that time he had had no social, business or other contact and therefore he did not consider that this amounted to a personal interest.)

Members were informed that 77 letters of objection had been received and the case officer clarified that some of these letters had been copied to Members and some had been sent only to Members who forwarded them to the officers. A petition containing 170 signatures had been received.

Members noted the following amendments to the report: · Page 3, paragraph 3 should read 'To the east is the blank gable end of no. 5 Nottingham Place,…'. · Page 3, paragraph 3 should read 'To the south is no. 14a Kings Road…' · The case officer clarified what was meant by 'raised patio'. The case officer clarified the issues relating to the proposal and the current authorised use of the property.

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Folwell was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the objectors. Mr Folwell made the following points: · Plans were insufficient in that they did not show details of how the accommodation would be laid out and in particular the kitchen and bathroom accommodation. · The level of objection had not been properly recorded. · Why was the impact on house prices given such an emphasis when only 5 objectors had referred to this? · The 'comings and goings' would be different from a guesthouse · The use of the rooms would be intensified · There were risks with houses in multiple occupation. Mr Folwell felt the application should be refused because of: · Character and appearance · Residential amenities · Poorly presented plans · No consultation with Housing Services · The property had been used as a private house not a guesthouse.

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mrs Roast, representing Lee-on-the-Solent Residents' Association, was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the objectors. Mrs Roast made the following points: · Over intensive use of the property · Appendix 'B' of the Gosport Borough Local Plan referred to 20m² of the garden space · Proper weight had not been given to crime · When used as a guesthouse access to facilities would be controlled · The proposal was contrary to RH7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and to residential amenities and an unacceptable change to the pattern of development.

Mr Tutton was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the applicant. Mr Tutton described the property and referred particularly to the waiting restrictions on the road outside. Mr Tutton referred to the Leisure Services Manager's comments, Government guidance PPG3 and policies in support of this proposal in the Gosport Borough Local Plan. He considered the two relevant tests of Policy RH7 had been satisfied in that the subdivision would not be detrimental to amenities or result in an unacceptable change. The number of rooms had been reduced from 11 to 7 as a result of local concerns. In response to questioning Mr Tutton said that a management scheme had not yet been prepared.

Councillor Burgess was permitted to address the Board on behalf of residents in the local area because Councillor Taylor and Councillor Carr were unable to represent residents. He referred to glaring errors in the report: · 1 Nottingham Place should be 5 Nottingham Place · 14 Kings Road should be 14a Kings Road · Petition with 160 signatures was omitted · Patio was not at ground level. In view of the above, Councillor Burgess recommended deferring consideration of the application until these issues had been resolved.

In response to questioning the case officer confirmed that the number of bathrooms or kitchens and the number of people accommodated in terms of overcrowding was not a planning issue but that the number of 'comings and goings' was a planning issue and had to be considered in the context of the current authorised use as a guesthouse with 7 bedrooms. It was also confirmed that a management plan when submitted could be brought to the Board for consideration and that in the event of the management plan not being approved the proposed Condition 5 would prevent the use operating in the absence of an approved management plan.

A motion to defer this application pending the receipt of a Management Plan was withdrawn.

RESOLVED: That planning application K4604/6 – 16 Kings Road, Lee-on-the-Solent be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager for the following reason:

i.	That having regard to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and all other material considerations, the use of the property as a hostel with 7 letting rooms will not result in a lack of tourist accommodation and will provide a variety of residential accommodation to meet the housing needs of the Borough. The implementation of a management plan submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority will mitigate any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and on the amenities of adjacent residents. As such the development complies with PPG3 and Policies BE1, T6 and H9 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/T11, R/H7 and R/CF10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

10	K.5972/5 – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING PUBLIC HOUSE AND ERECTION OF 13no. DWELLING UNITS, CAR PARKING AND AMENDED ACCESS (as amended by letter dated and plans received 23.06.04) The Dolphin 178 Clayhall Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 2AJ

The case officer reported that the number of letters of objection had increased from 12 to 13 and that a further amended plan had been received on 5 July 2004. The case officer explained the nature of the amendment which was the introduction of an oriel window into the first floor front elevation of the southernmost dwelling in Block A. This amendment had been introduced following discussions between the agent and Mr Marsh, the owner of the adjacent property 2a Fort Road.

A late deputation had been received from Mr Marsh. In accordance with Standing Order 6.3.5 the Chairman proposed a motion that Mr Marsh be allowed to speak. The Board accepted the motion, Mr Marsh then distributed supporting papers to the Board members and made the following comments: Mr Marsh was concerned that the development did not take account of his conservatory in terms of the Gosport Borough Local Plan separation distances. He also believed that his conservatory should be considered as a habitable room. He had discussed the overlooking/privacy issue with the agent and requested that the Board impose a covenant or condition to ensure the oriel window be retained. He was not against the development of the site but, in an ideal world, he would like the building to be moved at least 4m away from his rear boundary.

The case officer confirmed that the conservatory was not considered a habitable room for Development Control purposes and the separation distances between the rear elevation of 2a Fort Road did comply with Appendix B of the Gosport Borough Local Plan. The case officer also confirmed that an additional condition of planning permission, if granted, could require the retention of the oriel window and obscure glazing.

Mr Talbot, the landlord of the Dolphin and owner of the site, was invited to address the Board. Mr Talbot distributed his accountant's figures, stated that he had been the landlord for over 20 years and that in recent years trade had dropped particularly in the winter time.

Mr Jezeph, on behalf of the applicant, was invited to address the Board. Mr Jezeph commented on the following issues: · The proposed 2 storey building with rooms in the roof provided for skylights to limit visibility · Separation distance issues had been satisfied · An oriel window with obscure glazing had been provided for to avoid overlooking 2a Fort Road · Traffic movements would be similar to those generated by the Dolphin Public House. · Parking, density and size of units were in line with the Gosport Borough Local Plan.

Councillors were assured that if planning permission was granted the additional condition would include the maintenance of the oriel window with obscure glazing and that separation distances between the dwellings were satisfactory.

RESOLVED: That planning application K.5972/5 – The Dolphin, 178 Clayhall Road, Gosport be approved subject to the developer entering into a planning obligation under Section 106, as approved by the Council, relating to the payment of a commuted sum towards the provision and/or improvement of outdoor playing space, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager, and subject to the following additional condition:

Additional Condition: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order), the oriel window, including the fixed frame and obscure glazing, to be installed in the first floor, front elevation of the southernmost dwelling in Block 'A' hereby approved, shall be implemented and thereafter retained in that condition, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason – In order to protect the amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property and to comply with Policy BE1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.

i.	Reason for approval: That having regard to the provisions of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and all other material considerations, it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of the character and visual amenities of the area and would not be significantly harmful to the amenities of existing or prospective occupiers or traffic/parking conditions in the locality. As such, the development complies with Policies BE1, H5, T6 and RL10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/OS7 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.


11	K.5658/4 – OUTLINE APPLICATION – ERECTION OF 3no. DETACHED DWELLINGS AND DOUBLE GARAGE AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED ROAD (as amplified by letter dated 16.06.04) 137 Privett Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 3SP

Members were informed that an application for 10 dwellings had been refused by the Board in April 2004. Subsequently two applications for different forms of development had been submitted. Each had to be considered on its merits and were not 'either/or' alternatives.

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Samphier was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the objectors. Mr Samphier made the following points: · The bungalow could, in the future, be demolished which may allow for further dwellings on the site · The 2m high brick wall would not provide enough privacy · There would be conflict at this junction, the narrowest part of Privett Road and Privett Place · The 3 proposed dwellings were 'squeezed' into one end of this site · Parking spaces were not shown for the existing bungalow · Lack of detail in relation to the re-location and fencing of a badger sett · Requested a site visit by Regulatory Board

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Tutton was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the applicant. Mr Tutton described the property and made the following points: · The east facing windows to 139 Privett Road were obscured and a 2m high boundary wall was proposed · The proposed development would accord with the development of the area and the location was accessible · There would be less than 32 vehicle movements per day

In response to questions Mr Tutton confirmed that, under licence, the badger sett would be retained and fenced off from the proposed dwellings.

Members debated the number of vehicular movements generated by the seven parking spaces and what impact these would have on residential amenities and highway safety having regard to the high number of entrances on to this part of Privett Road and emergency vehicles travelling in a westerly direction.

RESOLVED: That outline planning application K.5658/4 – 137 Privett Road, Gosport be approved subject to the developer entering into a planning obligation under Section 106, as approved by the Council, relating 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 for the following reason:


i.	That having regard to the provisions of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and all other material considerations, the development is acceptable in this location and will not result in a significant loss of residential amenity. The lower density is warranted because of concerns over highway safety and noise, fumes and disturbance from the use of the access. Adequate provision has been made for open space and badger mitigation measures. As such the proposal complies with Policies BE1, H5, T6, T8 and RL10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/H4, T/T2, R/T3, R/T10, R/T11, R/OS7 and R/OS12 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

12	K.5658/6 – OUTLINE APPLICATION – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUNGALOW, ERECTION OF 2no. FLATS AND 10no. DWELLINGS FOR THE ACTIVE ELDERLY AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED ROAD (as amended by plans received 16.06.04 and amplified by letter received 16.06.04) 137 Privett Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 3SP

Members were informed by the case officer that individuals over the age of 55 years were considered to be 'active elderly' and that 11 parking spaces were proposed, this being half the number for the development refused in April 2004.

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Samphier was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the objectors. Mr Samphier made the following points: · He had concerns relating to noise, fumes and disturbance and the 2m high garden wall was not sufficient to eliminate these · Safety at the junction from the site on to Privett Road was a concern in view of the large number of vehicles using this road · He was concerned over whether adequate distance had been allowed between the proposed dwellings and existing properties

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Tutton was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the applicant. Mr Tutton made the following points: · The east facing windows to 139 Privett Road were obscured and a 2m high boundary wall was proposed · The proposed development would accord with the development of the area and the location was accessible · There would be less than 18 vehicle movements per day and one in the evening peak therefore highway safety would not be impaired.

Members expressed concern at the likely number of traffic movements generated by the development as there were 11 parking spaces and the impact this number of traffic movements would have on the amenities of residents and highway safety.


RESOLVED: That outline planning application K.5658/6 – 137 Privett Road, Gosport be refused for the following reasons:

i.	The use of the proposed access to the site will result in an unacceptable increase in traffic passing in close proximity to 135a and 139 Privett Road and for a further 20 metres along the total length of their rear gardens. This would be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining residents by reason of noise, fumes and disturbance and result in a substandard living environment. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies BE1, H5 and T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.