14 12 2004

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

 

 

 

 

Apologies for inability to attend the meeting had been received from Councillors Carr, Edwards and Hook.

 

 

 

 

Councillor Taylor declared a personal interest in K16401/2 as he had discussed the application with Residentsby virtue of being Ward Councillor and in K15501/9 by virtue of living nearby.

 

 

Councillor Smith declared personal and pecuniary interests in K15501/9 virtue of discussing sponsorship of events in the Borough with the applicant.

 

 

Both Members left the room and did not take part in the discussion or voting thereon.

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the Regulatory Board meeting held on 2 November 2004 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

 

It was reported that deputations had been received on planning applications K16765 and K16401/2.

 

 

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Regulatory Services Manager (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix ‘A’).  The report set out the background to the Best Value Performance Indicators relating to speed of determining planning applications and Development Control performance against government and local targets.

 

 

The report reviewed the performance of the Development Control section over the last quarter in respect of the time taken to determine applications within the context of the number of applications received and determined and the fees received.

 

In response to Members’ questions regarding the Planning Delivery Grant officers advised that in view of the number of factors involved it was not possible to estimate the size of the grant for next year at this time.

 

Members felt it would be helpful in future reports that the performance of previous quarters be shown for comparison.

 

RESOLVED:  That Development Control performance 01.07.04 to 30.09.04 be noted.

 

 

 

 

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’).

 

 

As Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 had now come into force this would replace all references to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Members were informed that an informal site visit had taken place that afternoon which Councillors Allen, Clinton, Davis, Farr, Foster, Smith and Taylor, Head of Development Control and a representative from Crofton Conservatories had attended. The site visit had enabled Members to obtain greater information from the application and accompanying documents.  The Members also visited number 91 to assess the impact on the neighbouring property.

 

 

The officer clarified that the dwarf wall to the conservatory was shown as 0.9m in height and the conservatory was sited 150mm from the 1.2 metre high existing boundary wall on the submitted plans. 

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Spencer was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the objectors and raised concern over the 8.35m long glazed area of the conservatory facing south directly into the garden of number 91 which would create a ‘tunnel’ effect.  He felt the proposal would result in a reduction of the dining room window opening area, loss of light to kitchen window, loss of privacy, enclosure of the rear garden and be detrimental to the enjoyment of garden space and that noise pollution could be an issue.

 

The applicant, Mr Churcher, addressed the Board and stated that the reason for the application was to improve living conditions, that he was conscious of the need to do a professional job and to the correct standards.  It was not his intention to encroach on the neighbours and he wished for an amicable agreement.

 

In response to Members’ questions regarding noise insulation and light leakage the applicant confirmed the conservatory was proposed to be used as a utility room and living accommodation.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K16765 – 89 Whitworth Road, Gosport 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 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and all other material considerations, the development as proposed by reason of its location, design and orientation, would not have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties or the visual amenities of the area.  As such, the proposal complies with Policies BE1 and BE3 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1 and R/DP7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review (Revised Deposit).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The case officer confirmed that the report description had been amended by a letter from the applicant dated 26 November 2004 to make the amended affordable housing offer as referred to in paragraph 7.  Further amended drawings had been received on 7 December 2004 amending car parking access, turning and cycle parking arrangements.  In response to public advertisement one extra letter of objection had been received bringing that total to 36 letters, no new issues had been raised.

 

The officer explained that an amended text for the Reason for Refusal was proposed to delete reference to surrounding residential properties, copies were distributed at the meeting.

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mrs Roast, on behalf of the Lee-on-the-Solent Residents’ Association was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the objectors and distributed copies of her deputation and letter of objection.  She referred to the Marine Parade Area of Special Character and felt the development failed to adhere to the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review in that a substantial part was too close to the pavement edge and the front elevation showed four storeys.  Not enough separation space had been allowed between the proposed new building and that of houses at the rear in the High Street reducing privacy, increasing shadowing and limiting outlook.  Access on to Marine Parade East was unacceptable because of the close proximity of Cambridge Road and an opportunity should be taken to widen the rear access way.

 

 

Councillor Carter, Ward Councillor, addressed the Board on behalf of residents and others who were concerned and asked that an amended recommendation to refuse be considered.  He had received letters from GMX Communications on behalf of the applicant that made no mention of Marine Parade Planning Special Guidance and suggested the relevant policies should have been considered and that the mass and design of the proposal were out of character with the sea front and Seaview Court should not be considered a precedent.

 

The Borough Solicitor reported that the agent for the applicant had been given the opportunity to make representations but had declined.

 

 

An appeal relating to a previous planning application for this site was due to be heard in January 2005 and if the current application was refused the Applicant was proposing to request a substitution of the two schemes.  The offer of a contribution towards the provision of affordable housing and open space was acceptable but in order to secure the contributions it would be necessary to enter planning obligations to be placed before the Inspector at the forthcoming inquiry.  It was requested that authority be delegated to the Borough Solicitor to negotiate and enter into planning obligations to secure contributions to affordable housing and open space in accordance with policy.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K16401/2 – 38-42 Marine Parade East, Lee-on-the-Solent be refused for the following amended reason:

 

 

i

1. That the proposal, by reason of the siting, height and mass of the building, and its location within the Marine Parade Area of Special Character, would be out of character within that area and detrimental to the visual amenities of the Marine Parade frontage, contrary to Policies BE1 and BE7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1 and R/DP10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review;

 

and that

ii

That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to negotiate and enter into planning obligations to be submitted to the Inspector at the forthcoming appeal to secure a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing and open space provision in accordance with Policies H7 and RL10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies RH5 and ROS7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K8489/1 – 21 Park Road, Gosport 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 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and all other material considerations, the use, as proposed, by reason of the number of children to be minded and the location, will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the area, the amenities of neighbouring properties or highway conditions in the locality.  As such, the proposal complies with Policies BE1, H12 and T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/H6, R/T2, R/T10 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

It was reported that the Head of Traffic Management had confirmed that the amended drawings now satisfied the technical highway requirements and the Environment Agency had responded requesting two additional conditions relating to a ground contamination study and surface water drainage scheme be included within the recommendation.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K16800 – Land in Area of James Road, Gosport be approved subject to Section 106 agreement 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 and subject to the following new conditions:

 

 

Additional Condition 8:  No development shall take place until the developer has carried out adequate investigation to assess the degree of contamination on the site and to determine its water pollution potential.  The method and extent of the investigation shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before any work commences.  Details of measures to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water, including provisions for monitoring shall then be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.  The approved scheme of mitigation works shall be completed in full, before the development is first brought into use.

Reason:  To prevent pollution of the water environment and to comply with Policies BE1 and IMP3 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.

 

Additional Condition 9:  No development above ground level shall take place until a scheme for the provision and implementation of surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved scheme drainage scheme shall be completed in full, before the development is first brought into use.

Reason:  To prevent pollution of the water environment and to comply with Policies BE1 and IMP3 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.

 

 

 

i

That having regard to the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and all other material considerations, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of impact on 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,  H7, T6 and  RL10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/H5, R/T11 and R/OS7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K16573/1 – 31 Richmond Road, Lee-on-the-Solent be approved subject to Section 106 agreement 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 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and all other material considerations, the development as proposed by reason of its design, siting and orientation, will not have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties or street scene.  As such, the proposal 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.

 

 

 

 

 

Members were advised that the Head of Housing Strategic Services had no objections and    that the requirement for an external fire escape could be dealt with as a minor alteration.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K6631/2 – 2 Stoke Gardens, Gosport 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 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and all other material considerations, the use of the property as Bed and Breakfast accommodation with 6 letting rooms will assist in providing a variety of residential accommodation to meet the housing needs of the Borough.  The implementation of an appropriate management plan will mitigate any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, the amenities of adjacent residents and traffic conditions in the locality.  As such the development complies with Policies BE1, T6 and H10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/T11 and  R/H6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

The case officer explained that five letters of objection had been received relating to the equipment being placed too close to private housing, potential health dangers, detrimental visual impact, adverse affect on Daedalus Conservation Area, trees needing to be felled and suggested siting of equipment near control tower/Coastguard/Hovercraft hangars.

 

Councillor Carter addressed the Board as Ward Councillor and referred to the report for the existing Vodafone mast (K16180) relating to the sharing of masts, the potential health hazard of three masts placed relatively close together and the issue of trees being felled.

 

 

The case officer confirmed that the structure of the existing Vodafone mast was incapable of accepting the additional equipment.  It was confirmed that an ICNIRP compliance certificate had been received and further confirmation of compliance in respect of a proposed third mast, the subject of item 97 below, had been received confirming the combined systems were well within international safety levels.  The officer confirmed the sycamore tree of approximately 5 metres in height was in poor condition and not worthy of a Tree Preservation Order and it was understood from Defence Estates that only short term leases for the siting of masts were being considered.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K16797 – HMS Daedalus, 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 the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and all other material considerations, the development as proposed is acceptable in this location and as such complies with Policies BE1 and CF8 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1 and R/ENV9 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

The officer confirmed that all the issues associated with item 96 above (K16797) were the same with the exception that there was no tree on this site.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K16810 – HMS Daedalus, 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 the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and all other material considerations, the development as proposed is acceptable in this location and as such complies with Policies BE1 and CF8 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1 and R/ENV9 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

In response to a Member’s question relating concern over times of use it was confirmed there were no residential properties adjacent to the site.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K16781 – 6 Portland Buildings, Stoke Road, Gosport 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 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and all other material considerations, it is considered that the proposed use would not be harmful to the retail function of the Stoke Road Principal Shopping Centre, the character of the Conservation Area, the amenities of existing residential and commercial occupiers, or parking provision in the locality. The proposal would also enhance the appearance of the Stoke Road Conservation Area. As such, the development complies with Policies BE1, S2, T6 and BE9 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/S3, R/S5, R/T11, R/BH1 and R/ENV6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K11371/3 – 2 Heston Walk, Gosport 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 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and all other material considerations, the development 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.

 

 

 

 

 

Members were advised that two letters of representation had been received dated 7 and 6 December 2004 relating to potential noise and light pollution and therefore two additional conditions were proposed relating to loudspeaker announcements or amplified or other music and floodlighting or any other form of lighting.  Copies of the suggested additional conditions were distributed to Board Members.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K16812 – Tennis Courts, Stokes Bay Road, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager for the following reason and subject to the following new conditions:

 

 

Reason:  In order to protect the amenities of the area and nearby residents and to comply with Policies BE1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1 and R/ENV6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

Additional Condition 6:  No floodlighting or any other form of lighting shall be installed on the site without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:  In order to protect the amenities of the area and nearby residents and to comply with Policies BE1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1 and R/ENV7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

i

That having regard to the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and all other material considerations, the development as proposed is acceptable in this location. It will not be harmful to the amenities of nearby residents or traffic and parking conditions in the locality. As such the development complies with Policies BE1, CY3, CH9, RL6 and T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/CH1, R/OS1, R/OS3, R/OS4, R/ENV1, R/T2 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

The officer confirmed the fee remained unpaid therefore the report was withdrawn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The officer confirmed that an email had been received from the agents confirming that the Section 106 agreement would cover staff and children.  The access to the site from Mumby Road fell outside the red line of the site so it was proposed to delete Condition 8 in the report relating to stopping up the existing access to the site from Mumby Road.

 

 

The Borough Solicitor advised the Board that the Council’s practice was to require Section 106 Agreements to be executed by the applicant before the date of the Regulatory Board meeting.  In this case the Section 106 Agreement was fundamental to parking and manoeuvring and an amendment was proposed to provide for the agreement to be completed to the Borough Solicitor’s satisfaction by 5 January 2005 and that if the Section 106 Agreement was not completed by 5 January 2004 the Regulatory Services Manager be authorised to issue a decision notice refusing the application.

 

 

In response to Members’ questions the officer confirmed that there would be a pedestrian gate on to Mumby Road, that the owner of the land was Berkeley Homes and any issues relating to the OFSTED licence were not the responsibility of the Local Planning Authority.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K15501/9 – The Guardhouse and Thrift Shop, Mumby Road, Gosport be approved subject to the Section 106 Agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the Borough Solicitor by 5 January 2005 subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager for the following reason and subject to the deletion of Condition 8.

 

 

i

That having regard to the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and all other material considerations the use as proposed will provide a community facility and employment within a mixed use development in an accessible location, preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the Listed Building, and will not have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of occupiers of adjacent residential properties, other users of the highway or on highway safety.  As such the proposal complies with Policies BE1, BE9, BE13, T6, CF2 and EMP2 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/DP4, R/BH1, R/BH4, R/T2, R/T10 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

If the above Section 106 Agreement is not completed by that date the Regulatory Services Manager be authorised to issue a planning notice refusing planning permission for the following reason:

 

 

 

In the absence of measures to restrict parking in Weevil Lane and within adjacent residential areas the development will be detrimental to highway safety and residential amenity and therefore contrary to policies BE1 and T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/T10 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Members were informed that following a hearing held on 30 November 2004 the Inspector had allowed the appeal against the refusal of application K.5658/3 (for 10 dwellings) and awarded costs against the Council.  The appeal against K.5658/7 (for 3 dwellings) had been dismissed as the housing density was too low.

 

The Borough Solicitor reminded the Board reasons for refusal had to be substantiated by evidence.  This was particularly important where officers had not raised any objection on technical grounds.

 

 

 

 

The Chairman wished Board Members a very Happy Christmas and thanked them for their continued support.