[Skip to content]

Gosport Borough Council
Gosport Borough Council - Living Gosport Borough Council Gosport Borough Council Gosport Borough Council| Gosport Borough Council - Enjoying Gosport Borough Council Gosport Borough Council Gosport Borough Council - Working| Gosport Borough Council - Community Gosport Borough Council Gosport Borough Council Gosport Borough Council - Environment
.

13 04 2004

 
A MEETING OF THE REGULATORY BOARD
 
WAS HELD ON 13 APRIL 2004
 
The Mayor (Councillor Mrs Binfield) (ex-officio), Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Cully) (ex-officio), Councillor Allen (P), Mrs Angus, Carr (P), Clinton (P), Mrs Elshaw (P), Farr (P), M Russell (P), Searle (P), Taylor (P) and Train (P).
 
(It was reported that in accordance with Standing Orders, Councillors Carter, Hayward and P Russell had been nominated to replace Councillors Clinton, Taylor and Mrs Angus respectively for the meeting.)
 
 
233.
APOLOGIES
 
Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were submitted on behalf of Councillors Mrs Angus, Clinton and Taylor.
 
234.
MINUTES
 
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Regulatory Board held on 16 March 2004 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.
 
235.
DEPUTATIONS
 
It was reported that deputations had been received on planning applications K.5658/3, K.4085/3 and K.16461/1-2.
 
PART II
 
236.
K.15900/1 – ERECTION OF 109 FLATS IN 3 BLOCKS, RETAIL UNIT, ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND ACCESS (as amended by plans received 10.10.03 and 14.10.03 and information received 30.09.03, 13.09.03 and 14.10.03)
FORMER SCHAT HARDING SITE, MUMBY ROAD, GOSPORT
 
(NB. Councillor Carter declared a non-prejudicial interest in the item and did not take part in the voting thereon.)
 
Members were informed that at the Regulatory Board meeting held on the 4 November 2003 it was resolved to grant planning permission for the development subject to a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The details of the legal agreement have not yet been finalised and therefore the decision had not yet been issued. It was reported that there were proposed minor amendments to the approved plans and suggested amendments to one of the conditions to reflect that further details had been submitted.
 
Members were also informed that the site had now changed hands and the new developers had proposed alterations to the Section 106 Agreement which would have the effect of limiting public access to the waterfront if the path was not adopted within 10 years. Members confirmed that the public access path and permitted access path should be made available in perpetuity irrespective of whether the paths were adopted.
 
RESOLVED: That the amended plans and conditions be approved.
 
237.
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 "B").
 
RESOLVED: That decisions be taken on each application for planning consent as detailed below.
 
238.
K.5658/3 – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUNGALOW, ERECTION OF 10 no. TWO STOREY DWELLINGS AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED ROAD (as amended by letters dated 12.02.04, 26.03.04 and amended by Ecological Evaluation Report and plans received 19.03.04)
137 PRIVETT ROAD, GOSPORT
 
Members were informed that amended plans had been received 02.04.04 and that an Acoustic Report and Air Quality Assessment had been received 07.04.04.
 
Officers confirmed that Environmental Services had considered the Acoustic Report and Air Quality Assessment, that it was accepted the consultants used were qualified and that the data presented was accurate but open to interpretation. Officers considered that the reasons for refusal were still applicable.
 
In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Paston was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the objectors. Mr Paston made the following points:
 
  • That he endorsed the Officers reason to refuse but felt that the report should go further;
  • The increase of properties on this site would lead to serious road safety issues, especially at the Privett Road and Privett Place junction;
  • The parking spaces allocated were insufficient and would lead to parking problems, which in turn would make the roads less safe for residents and pedestrians;
  • There would also be a loss in privacy and sunlight to the neighbours, contravening policy R/DP1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
 
In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Mullholland was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the objectors. Mr Mullholland made the following points:
 
  • As a local resident for 18 years he had serious concerns over the level of new traffic the site would generate;
  • That he was also concerned that there were no plans to cater for the pressures the site would impose on public services and the A32.
 
In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Tutton was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the applicants. Mr Tutton made the following points:
 
  • The proposed site was close to local shops and bus routes and therefore in an accessible location;
  • That the existing density of the site was very low and not in accordance with Government guidelines, the proposal sought to address this;
  • That there were no overlooking windows from 135A and no habitable windows from 139's side elevations;
  • Officers had been met with and consulted throughout and that no concerns had been raised concerning access to the site;
  • The proposal met the design, density and character of the area;
  • In light of the Acoustic Report and Air Quality Assessment the Officers recommendation to refuse planning permission was unreasonable.
 
Clarification was sought over what the density would be if the access way was not included. Mr Tutton replied that he was unable to present that information but that any reduction in the size of the development site would alter the density figure significantly. The Chairman confirmed that while Officers made recommendations, it was the responsibility of the Regulatory Board to make the final decision.
 
In accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Jacobs as Ward Councillor was permitted to address the Board. Councillor Jacobs made the following points:
 
  • That he had collected a petition of 120 signatures opposed to the development;
  • The addition of another entry point onto Privett Road was unsafe.
 
In accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Gill as Ward Councillor was permitted to address the Board. Councillor Gill made the following points:
 
  • That the proposal was contrary to Gosport Borough Local Plan Policies H5 and TF1, 4 and 5 in that the proposal would not improve safety, improve access or help to calm traffic;
  • The site would be accessed by a single carriageway, which would cause confusion on Privett Road;
  • It did not meet the requirements outlined in Gosport Borough Local Plan Policies T6(i) and T7(iii) as the new access would certainly cause a demonstrable reduction in road safety conditions.
 
Members expressed concern about Highway Safety and it was proposed and seconded that an additional recommendation for refusal relating to Highway Safety Grounds be made.
 
RESOLVED: That planning application K.5658/3 – 137 Privett Road, Gosport be refused for the following reasons:
 
  1. 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.
 
  1. 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 Policy R/T2(iii) of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
 
239.
K.16580 – ERECTION OF 4 STOREY BLOCK COMPRISING 3 GROUND FLOOR OFFICE UNITS (CLASS A2) AND 12 RESIDENTIAL FLATS (CONSERVATION AREA) (as amplified by letter dated 15.03.04) and amended by plans received 25.03.04 and 29.03.04)
FERRY GARAGE, MUMBY ROAD, GOSPORT
 
RESOLVED: That planning application K.16580 – Ferry Garage, Mumby Road, Gosport be approved subject to the developer entering into a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, 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:
 
  1. Having regard to the provisions of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and all other material considerations, the proposal is acceptable in this location in land use and design terms, it will enhance the character and appearance of the High Street Conservation Area, not be harmful to the amenities of existing and prospective occupiers, or parking provision. As such the development complies with Policies BE1, BE9, S2, S5, T6, T7, T8, IMP3 and RL10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/BH1, R/S2, R/S3, R/S7, R/T2, R/T11 and R/OS7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
 
240.
K.13994/7 – COUNTY MATTER – ERECTION OF TWO STOREY INDUSTRIAL BUILDING (2 CLASS B1 UNITS AND WASTE TRANSFER STATION) AND REFURBISHMENT OF EXISTING BUILDING
SITE 20, QUAY LANE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GOSPORT
 
Members were informed that there had been several letters received from the public expressing concern over the proposed development. The following concerns were raised:
 
  • Impact on visitors to the shoreline;
  • Noise/disturbance to residents of Priory Lane;
  • Impact on marine life and water quality as a result of pollution;
  • Operational hours were unreasonable for residential area;
  • Noise, dust and litter issues not addressed;
  • Over development of area/insufficient space for business proposed;
  • Vandalism;
  • Fly tipping;
  • Local issue, not a Hampshire County Council issue;
  • Painting of double yellow lines on Priory Road – related to application;
  • No consultation carried out by Hampshire County Council;
  • Extra traffic movements generated on A32;
  • Restriction of access to existing businesses.
 
Members were informed that the relevant planning authority in the instance was Hampshire County Council, and that Gosport Borough Council was merely being consulted on this matter.
 
Members raised concern over the issues raised above, and also about the consultation process in general. It was reported that individuals living next to the site had not been consulted, and those that had been consulted had received letters containing misleading and confusing information.
 
It was requested by Members that Hampshire County Council be made aware of the level of objection that had been received by Gosport Borough Council and asked not to delegate the decision. Members also requested that their concerns over the consultation process be brought to Hampshire County Council's attention, and that in future more information be provided by the County.
 
RESOLVED: That objection be raised to planning application K.13994/7 – Site 20, Quay Lane Industrial Estate, Gosport for the following reason:
 
  1. That the site is located in a prominent position on the coast adjacent to Portsmouth Harbour.  The building is of a stark industrial design and to be constructed of materials inappropriate in this sensitive location.  Moreover, the close proximity of the two storey side elevation to the foreshore will leave insufficient land to provide landscaping to soften the harsh appearance of the building.  As such the development does not comply with policies BE1, BE2 and CH9 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/EMP5, and R/CH1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review; and
 
  1. No information has been submitted regarding the measures to be taken to control noise or minimise dust. In the absence of such measures the development is likely to cause nuisance to occupiers of other properties in the vicinity contrary to Policies BE1 and EMP4 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/EMP5, R/EMP6, R/ENV6 and R/ENV8 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
 
241.
K.4085/3 – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING, ERECTION OF THREE STOREY BUILDING CONTAINING 5 FLATS, BIN STORE, CAR PARKING PROVISION AND BOUNDARY WALL (as amplified and amended by letter dated 26.03.04)
69 MARINE PARADE EAST, LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT
 
Members were informed that three additional letters of objection had been received and one letter of observation. The additional points raised by these letters of objection were:
 
  • Side separation distances between the proposed dwelling and the neighbouring properties was too small;
  • The proposal was out of character with the other buildings along the seafront;
  • The traffic sight line would be adversely affected for vehicles exiting Queen's Road on to Marine Parade East.
 
Members were also informed that the letter of observation stated the proposal was appropriate and showed due care and attention to the concerns of the neighbours.
 
Members were informed that the property was in keeping with the design guidance provided in the Marine Parade Area of Special Character document and that the Conservation Officer had deemed it wholly appropriate, reflecting the character of the Victorian buildings within the area. The Head of Highway Management had responded that although the existing highway line of sight at the junction of Queens Road and Marine Parade East was not to standard, the application site did not provide an opportunity for improvement. The development would not cause demonstrable harm in terms of highway safety as Queens Road, to the north, provided an alternative route for traffic to and from the site.
 
In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Weymes, on behalf of the applicants was permitted to address the Board. Mr Weymes made the following points:
 
  • Care had been taken to ensure the property complied with all the building regulations and guidance provided by the Council;
  • The only problem they could see was over the corner turret which stood six inches above the permitted height and had been reduced as much as possible to have a minimal effect on the character of the building.
 
Members raised concern over the possibility of a precedent being set by the turret rising six inches above the maximum height defined within the revised policy but felt that the architectural prominence of the corner turret meant it should be allowed. Members also raised concern over the sight line onto Marine Parade East, but acknowledged detrimental harm could not be demonstrated.
 
RESOLVED: That planning application K.4085/3 – 69 Marine Parade East, Lee-on-the-Solent be approved subject to the developer entering into a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, 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:
 
  1. 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 in design terms and will not be detrimental to the character and visual amenities of the area or the amenities of existing and prospective residents. As such the development complies with Policies BE1, H5, T6 and RL10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/T11 and R/OS7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review and the Marine Parade Area of Special Character Interim Policy Statement and Supplementary Planning Guidance.
 
242.
K.16461/1 – ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING ROOF, INCLUDING GABLE BUILD UP AND ERECTION OF TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION
12 BURNEY ROAD, GOSPORT
 
(NB. Councillor Hayward declared an interest in the above item, left the room and did not take part in the discussion or voting thereon.)
 
Members were reminded that application K.16461 considered by the Regulatory Board in February had included both a gable build up/2 storey extension and a single storey extension to cover a swimming pool. The application had been refused because Members were concerned that the height and length of the single storey extension would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupier of the adjoining residential property. The applicant had now submitted two applications for these two elements. This application was just for the gable build up/two storey extension.
 
In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Goadsby, on behalf of the objectors was permitted to address the Board. Mr Goadsby made the following points:
 
  • That it was misleading of the applicant to have divided the application into two applications;
  • That the proposed gable extension and rear two storey extension would adversely the light and privacy of neighbouring properties;
  • The real problem was the swimming pool.
 
Mr Knott, the applicant's agent, was invited to address the Board but was not present to make representation.
 
In accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Gill, as Ward Councillor was permitted to address the Board. Councillor Gill made the following points:
 
  • That the two storey gable extension had not been considered at the Regulatory Board in February and that Members must take care to address this issue;
  • That he was not opposed to development in the Privett area, but that this application could be seen to be out of character.
 
RESOLVED: That planning application K.16461/2 – 12 Burney Road, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager for the following reason:
 
  • That having rega, rd 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 not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, or the amenities of neighbouring residents due to the orientation of the properties. The design of the roof extension reflects the characteristics of similar properties in the immediate area. As such the proposal complies with Policies BE1 and BE3 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1 and R/DP7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
      •  
      243.
      K.16461/2 – ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING ROOF, INCLUDING GABLE BUILD UP AND ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION
      12 BURNEY ROAD, GOSPORT
       
      (NB. Councillor Hayward declared an interest in the above item, left the room and did not take part in the discussion or voting thereon.)
       
      Members were reminded that application K.16461 considered by the Regulatory Board in February had included this proposal. The height of the swimming pool had been reduced to address Members' concerns.
       
      In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Goadsby on behalf of the objectors was permitted to address the Board. Mr Goadsby made the following points:
       
      • Two applications made the issue very confusing;
      • The swimming pool was totally out of character of the neighbourhood;
      • It would exclude light to the garden of 10 Burney Road.
       
      Mr Knott, the applicant's agent, was invited to address the Board but was not present to make representation.
       
      In accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor gill as Ward Councillor was permitted to address the Board. Councillor Gill made the following points:
       
      • The proposed wall along the property of 10 Burney Road would appear like a factory wall;
      • This was an area of small bungalows, and this monstrosity would be wholly inappropriate in this neighbourhood;
      • That it contravened Policies BE1 i, ii and v of the Gosport Borough Local Plan;
      • That it would be totally out of character and place, distorting the building line of the bungalows.
       
      Members expressed concern that the proposed development was inappropriate by reason of its excessive length, height and proximity to the boundary with 10 Burney Road and would be detrimental to the residential amenities of that property, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.
       
      RESOLVED: That planning application K.16461/2 – 12 Burney Road, Gosport be refused for the following reason:
       
      The proposed single storey rear extension, by reason of its excessive length, height and proximity to the boundary with 10 Burney Road, would be detrimental to the residential amenities of that property, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.
       
      244.
      K.15650/9 – DETAILS PURSUANT TO K.15650/2 – ERECTION OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SERVICING (PLOTS C1+C2 – PHASE II)
      LAND ADJOINING FRATER GATE, FAREHAM ROAD, GOSPORT
       
      RESOLVED: That the detailed plans and particulars pursuant to Additional Condition 01 (in part) attached to Outline Consent reference K.15650/2, relating to this defined phase of the development only of planning application K.15650/9 – Land Adjoining Frater Gate, Fareham Road, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager for the following reason:
       
      1. That having regard to the provisions of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and all other material considerations, the proposal is acceptable in this location and as such it complies with Policies BE1, BE2, EMP1, EMP4 and NC2 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/DP6, R/T2, R/T3, R/EMP1, R/EMP7 and R/OS12 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
       
      245.
      K.14810/1 – ERECTION OF 13 LOCK-UP GARAGES (as amended by fax received 29.03.04)
      LAND REAR OF 1-9 THE REDAN, GOSPORT
       
      RESOLVED: That planning application K.14810/1 – Land Rear of 1-9 The Redan, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager for the following reason:
       
      1. 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 access.  As such the proposal complies with Policies BE1 and T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
       
      246.
      K.14418/4 – CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR FROM COMMUNITY USE TO OFFICES (CLASS B1(A)) (LISTED BUILDING IN CONSERVATION AREA)
      84 NORTH STREET, GOSPORT
       
      RESOLVED: That planning application K.14418/4 – 84 North Street, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager for the following reason:
       
      1. That having regard to the provisions of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and all other material considerations this use is appropriate in this location and will not harm the Listed Building or be detrimental to neighbouring uses. Furthermore the character and appearance of the Conservation Area will be preserved. As such the proposal complies with Policies BE1, BE9, BE12, BE13, CF1 and T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/BH1, R/BH3, R/CF2 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
       
      247.
      K.14418/5 – LISTED BUILDING APPLICATION – CONSERVATION OF INTERNAL PARTITIONS AT GROUND FLOOR LEVEL (CONSERVATION AREA)
      84 NORTH STREET, GOSPORT
       
      RESOLVED: That listed building application K.14418/5 – 84 North Street, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager for the following reason:
       
      1. That having regard to the provisions of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and all other material considerations this use is appropriate in this location and will not harm the Listed Building or be detrimental to neighbouring uses. Furthermore the character and appearance of the Conservation Area will be preserved. As such the proposal complies with Policies BE1, BE9, BE12, BE13, CF1 and T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/BH1, R/BH3, R/CF2 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
       
      248.
      K.16586 – CHANGE OF USE FROM DWELLING TO OFFICES FOR COMMUNITY USE
      17 GRIFFIN WALK, GOSPORT
       
      RESOLVED: That planning application K.16586 – 17 Griffin Walk, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager for the following reason:
       
      1. 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 and will not be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining residents and as such complies with Policies BE1, CF2 and H12 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/CF1 and R/H6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
       
      249.
      K.8250/24 – CONSTRUCTION OF EXTENSION TO EXISTING CAR PARK, SERVICE ROAD ALTERATIONS, ERECTION OF COVERED TROLLEY BAYS AND LANDSCAPING (as amended by plans received 28.01.04)
      ASDA SUPERSTORES LTD, DOCK ROAD, GOSPORT
       
      RESOLVED: That K.8250/24 – ASDA Superstores Ltd, Dock Road, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager for the following reason:
       
      1. 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 and as such complies with Policies BE1, BE2 and T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/DP6 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
       
      250.
      K.16578 – RETENTION OF 3 no. POLYTUNNELS
      88 THE AVENUE, GOSPORT
       
      RESOLVED: That planning application K.16578 – 88 The Avenue, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager for the following reason:
       
      1. 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 and as such complies with Policies BE1 and BE3 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1 and R/DP7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
       
      251.
      K.10108/3 – ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY FRONT EXTENSION
      11 KIMPTON CLOSE, LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT
       
      RESOLVED: That planning application K.10108/3 – 11 Kimpton Close, Lee-on-the-Solent be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager for the following reason:
       
      1. 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 and as such complies with Policies BE1 and BE3 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1 and R/DP7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
       
      252.
      PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED WORKS, LAND AT PRIDDY'S HARD, GOSPORT – REQUEST FOR A SCREENING OPINION UNDER REGULATION 5(1) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 1999
       
      (NB. Councillors M Russell and Searle declared an interest in the above item, left the room and did not take part in the discussion or voting thereon.)
       
      (Councillor Farr in the Chair.)
       
      Members were informed that a screening request as to whether the proposed development was an Environmental Impact Assessment development had been made on 07.04.04 and there was a statutory requirement to determine the proposal within three weeks from the date of request. It was reported that this period expires before the next available meeting of the Regulatory Board.
       
      RESOLVED: That the Council as Local Planning Authority adopts the Screening Opinion set out below:
       
      1. That having regard to the number of dwellings, the area of the application site, the existing land use, the location of the development in close proximity to a Scheduled Ancient Monument and Listed Buildings and within Priddy's Hard Heritage Area and adjacent to Portsmouth Harbour, a major part of which is an SSSI, a Special Protection Area under the Habitats Directive (92/43) and a Ramsar Site, the development is EIA development.