A MEETING OF THE REGULATORY BOARD
WAS HELD ON 7 SEPTEMBER 2004
The Mayor (Councillor Edwards)(ex-officio), Chairman of Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Hook)(ex-officio), Councillors Allen (P), Mrs Binfield (P), Carr (P), Clinton (P), Farr (P), Foster (P), Gill (P), Smith (P), Taylor (P) and Train (P).
39 APOLOGIES
Apologies for inability to attend the meeting had been received from The Mayor, Councillor Edwards and Chairman of Policy and Organisation Board, Councillor Hook.
40 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
41 MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Regulatory Board meeting held on 3 August 2004 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.
42 DEPUTATIONS
It was reported that a late deputation had been received on planning application K.5658/7.
43 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
No public questions had been received.
PART II
44 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:
45 K5658/7 - OUTLINE APPLICATION - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUNGALOW, ERECTION OF 3no. DETACHED DWELLINGS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED ROAD (as amplified by letter dated 10.08.04)
137 Privett Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 3SP
Members were informed that amended plans had been received on 03.09.04 with provision for only 4 parking spaces. The receipt of these plans had been preceded by a letter dated 02.09.04 from Mr Tutton, the applicant’s consultant.
In his letter Mr Tutton referred to the resolution of Regulatory Board on 06.07.04 to grant planning permission for 3 dwellings at the southern end of the garden of the existing bungalow (ref K.5658/4) and concluded that the Regulatory Board acknowledged the traffic generated by three additional dwellings would not be detrimental to highway safety or the amenities of the occupiers of 135a or 139 Privett Road.
Therefore as the parking for the existing bungalow and the parking for the three dwellings to replace it was the same (four spaces) the recommendation should be revised otherwise the Council would not be able to provide evidence to support the reasons for refusal in the event of an appeal and an award of costs would be likely for unreasonable behaviour.
The officer informed Members that residential trip generation was usually calculated on the number and type of dwellings, not the number of parking spaces and that there would be an increase in the number of trips generated by this proposal over and above those generated by the existing bungalow and approved scheme K.5658/4. As such the recommendation in the report was entirely consistent with previous decisions made by the Regulatory Board.
It appeared to the officer that the applicants accepted the recommendation for the scheme, as originally submitted, to be correct by their attempt to show a reduction in traffic generation by reducing the amount of parking available.
However, the applicants had failed to support their assumption with any data that reducing parking would reduce traffic. Moreover, in the absence of any other measures to restrict car usage there was the potential for cars to park on the access road so that two cars would no longer be able to pass which may result in vehicles reversing out into Privett Road to the detriment of highway safety.
The officer recommended that the application, as amended by letter received on 02.09.04 and plans received on 03.09.04, be refused for the reasons set out in the report.
A late deputation had been received from Mr Samphier. In accordance with Standing Order 6.3.5 the Chairman proposed a motion that Mr Samphier be allowed to speak. The Board accepted the motion and Mr Samphier made the following comments:
• He had been re-assured by the recommendation for refusal.
• The total number of parking spaces proposed for this application in addition to those allowed under approved scheme K.5658/4 was too many for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.
• There was concern about the number of vehicles travelling to and from schools with a popular crossing for children walking to and from school very close by.
• The Head of Traffic Management had confirmed that the area was heavily trafficked.
• The access road on to Privett Road was restricted.
Mr Tutton, on behalf of the applicant, was invited to address the Board. Mr Tutton made the following comments:
• Two factual errors had been made in the report on page 6:
• Paragraph 1: The ‘net gain’ figure of 11 dwellings
• Paragraph 5: The figure of three additional dwellings.
• There was a local shopping area nearby and Privett Road was on local bus routes
• The parking spaces had been reduced from six to four thus minimising traffic generation
• Mr Tutton maintained that this proposal would not cause danger or disturbance to 135a or 139 Privett Road considering planning permission had been granted for three dwellings on the southern area of the site
• Mr Tutton discussed the density of the proposed development in relation to Planning Policy Guidance 3
• Mr Tutton suggested that officers explain why four dwellings were acceptable and six dwellings were detrimental to the area
• The proposal would not be harmful to the amenities of local residents
• Mr Tutton felt it would be difficult for the Council to produce evidence to support a refusal and that an award of costs would be likely in the event of an appeal.
In conclusion Mr Tutton requested that the recommendation be revised.
The Chairman asked the officer to clarify the factual errors. The officer stated that these were typing errors and confirmed that the application had been considered as two additional dwellings. Moreover the applicant was aware that the application had been considered on this basis as the letter sent to the applicant requesting a contribution to open space provision had referred to two additional dwellings.
Councillor Jacobs addressed the Board as Ward Councillor. Councillor Jacobs was concerned about the impact this proposal would have on the occupiers of 135a and 139 Privett Road. He referred to the narrow entrance and extra vehicles entering Privett Road at this point. The occupiers of 135a and 139 Privett Road would be faced with additional pollution, noise, fumes and disturbance.
Councillor Gill, as a Member of the Board and Ward Councillor, considered it was not logical to assume that reducing parking spaces would reduce traffic generation. He referred to his own experience when a car, travelling in an easterly direction, was turning right along Privett Road with the consequence that traffic queues built up very quickly past Ladram Road and approaching Queens Parade.
Councillor Gill felt the most important aspect was the very restricted access to the site, that road safety was also of concern and it was important that consideration be given to the amenities around the site and not just the density of development.
In response to a Member’s question the officer confirmed that any number of applications on the same site could be considered at one time.
Members stated that they objected to the application for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.
RESOLVED: That outline planning application K5658/7 – 137 Privett Road, Gosport, Hampshire be refused for the following reasons:
i. That 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.
ii. That the proposed development by reason of the creation of a crossroad junction at this point of the highway would be detrimental to highway safety and as such contrary to Policies T6(i) and T7(iii) of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/T2(iii) of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
46 K7375/13 - ERECTION OF EXTERNAL PREFABRICATED SPRAY BOOTH BUILDING
Pooles (Fareham) Ltd Camp Road Gosport Hampshire PO13 0XU
In response to Members’ questions officers were unable to confirm the type of paint to be used in the spray booth because this issue and that of the provision of safety precautions would rest with Environmental Health Services to determine.
RESOLVED: That planning application K7375/13 – Pooles (Fareham) Ltd, Camp Road, Gosport, Hampshire 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 the provisions of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and all other material considerations the development as proposed by reason of its design and siting will not have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties or street scene. As such the proposal complies with Policies BE1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1 and R/EMP5 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review (Revised Deposit).
47 K11610/11 - ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSIONS AND REVISED CAR PARK LAYOUT (as amended by plans received 24.08.04)
Lee-on-the-Solent Community Centre 51 Twyford Drive Lee-on-the-Solent Hampshire PO13 8JU
Members were informed that the date amended plans had been received should read 26.08.04, not 24.08.04 as stated in the report.
Members were in favour of this proposal and felt that Lee-on-the-Solent Community Centre served the community well with more people using the facilities and consequently there had been an increase in membership.
RESOLVED: That planning application K11610/11 – Lee-on-the-Solent Community Centre, 51 Twyford Drive, Lee-on-the-Solent, Hampshire 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 the provisions of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and all other material considerations, the development as proposed is acceptable in this location. It will not be harmful to the amenities of adjoining residents or traffic and parking conditions in the locality. As such the development complies with Policies BE1, BE3, CF2 and T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/DP7, R/CF1, and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
48 K16620 - CONSTRUCTION OF CAR PARK. LANDSCAPED AREA AND BOUNDARY FENCING (FOR USE BY THE LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION) (as amended by plans received 24.08.04)
Land To The East Of Twyford Drive Lee-on-the-Solent Hampshire
Members were informed that the date amended plans had been received should read 26.08.04, not 24.08.04 as stated in the report.
In response to a Member’s question the officer confirmed that to protect residential amenity railings would be provided in front of the existing fence to the eastern boundary of the car park with a landscaping between the fence and the railings to give a more substantial barrier and that the eastern bay of the car park had been moved away from this boundary.
RESOLVED: That planning application K16620 – Land To The East Of Twyford Drive, Lee-on-the-Solent, Hampshire be approved subject to Section 106 Agreement relating to the payment of a sum towards the making and implementation of a Traffic Regulation Order 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 as proposed is acceptable in this location. It will not be harmful to the amenities of adjoining residents or traffic and parking conditions in the locality. As such the development complies with Policies BE1, BE2, CF2 and T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/DP6, R/CF1, R/CF4 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
49 ANY OTHER ITEMS
K.16248 – CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOPS AND TAKEAWAY TO TAKEAWAY (CLASS a3) AND RESTAURANT (CLASS A3), RETENTION OF SHOPFRONT, INSTALLATION OF NEW SHOP FRONT AND VENTILATION/EXTRACTION SYSTEM (CONSERVATION AREA)
71, 73, 73a Stoke Road
The Chairman referred to a claim for costs received for £4884.36 relating to the appeal against refusal of this application.
Discussion took place in which Members considered the circumstances surrounding the decision made at Regulatory Board on 17 June 2003 and the pressure experienced at that meeting.
The Borough Solicitor emphasised the importance for Members to be able to support reasons for refusal with evidence, particularly when referring to technical data, not just planning policies.
The meeting commenced at 6.00pm and concluded at 6.37pm.
CHAIRMAN
|
|
