[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
.

16 03 2004

 
A MEETING OF THE REGULATORY BOARD
 
WAS HELD ON 16 MARCH 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), P Russell (P), Searle (P), Taylor (P) and Train (P).
 
(It was reported that in accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor P Russell had been nominated to replace Councillor Mrs Angus for the meeting.)
 
216.
APOLOGY
 
An apology for inability to attend the meeting was submitted on behalf of Councillor Mrs Angus.
 
217.
MINUTES
 
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Regulatory Board held on 17 February 2004 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.
 
218.
DEPUTATIONS
 
It was reported that deputations had been received on Item 219 – Land Between Lees Lane and Station Road, Gosport, Item 220 – Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham, Portsmouth and planning applications K.7113/7-6, K.16523 and K.7692/4. Members were informed that the deputation on planning application K.7692/4 was a late deputation, and following Standing Orders, permission was granted by the Board for the deputation to go ahead.
 
PART II
 
219.
SUBMISSION OF DETAILS IN PARTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION 9, 10 AND 11 OF THE SOUTH RAPID TRANSIT ORDER 2001 (TREE SURVEY AND LANDSCAPING)
LAND BETWEEN LEES LANE AND STATION ROAD, GOSPORT
 
(NB. Councillor M Russell declared an interest in respect of recommendation 'iv' of the report and did not take part in the voting thereon.)
 
Consideration was given to a report of the Regulatory Services Manager (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix "A" and "Ai"). Members were informed that an informal site visit had taken place that afternoon, which Councillors Allen, Carr, Clinton, Mrs Elshaw, Farr, M Russell, Searle and Taylor had attended. The site visit had enabled Members to obtain greater information from the application and accompanying documents. The Hampshire County Council arboriculture officer, had also explained the condition of the trees to be felled.
 
The boundary of the garden of 29 Station Road, where the trees ran along the LRT corridor, was explained to Members.
 
Members were informed that the report summarised the details submitted relating to the trees proposed to be felled within the LRT corridor between Lees Lane and Station Road and the landscape proposals between Station Road and Cambridge Road and assessed the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the area and residential amenity.
 
In accordance with Standing Orders, the Borough Solicitor read a written statement from Mr Adkins making the following points:
 
  • It was impossible to judge the scale of the environmental impact the LRT would have on Gosport;
  • Local residents had not been consulted about this proposal;
  • The "Environmental Statement" produced by the Transit Scheme had not been made available publicly;
  • What level of landscaping would be completed? The landscaping proposed was incomplete;
  • Different alternatives should be looked at for laying the gas pipeline;
  • How will the gas pipeline be paid for?
 
Members were informed that the issues surrounding the placing of the pipeline and the LRT in general were not relevant to this application.
 
In accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Chegwyn, as Ward Councillor, was permitted to address the Board. Councillor Chegwyn made the following points:
 
·         That Members should ignore whether the LRT was going to go ahead or not, and instead judge the application on its merits;
·         That the trees in the area were of huge importance to all, and that no-one wanted to lose any;
·         That he hoped the application would be refused.
 
Members were advised that officers had been informed by the applicant that it was necessary to lay the new gas pipeline before the autumn, as it would not be able to last another winter. However, if Transco replaced the pipeline in its current location now, it would have to be relocated when the LRT was constructed as it would be beneath the line of the tracks.
 
It was proposed and seconded that recommendations (ii) and (iv) of the report be amended in order to recommend that the details submitted in each case be not approved. The motion was supported.
 
RESOLVED: That –
 
  1. the details submitted pursuant to condition 9 of the SHRT Order 2001 in respect of the land between Harding Road and Station Road are not approved;
 
  1. the details submitted pursuant to condition 9 of the SHRT Order 2001 in respect of the land between Harding Road and Lees Lane are not approved;
 
      iii.            the details submitted pursuant to condition 11 of the SHRT Order in respect of land between Station Road and Harding Road are not approved; and
      iv.            the details submitted pursuant to condition 11 of the SHRT Order in respect of land between Harding Road and Cambridge Road are not approved.
 
220.
CONSULTATIONS BY PORTSMOUTH CITY COUNCIL IN RESPECT OF AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS (DESIGN, EXTERNAL APPEARANCE SITING AND LANDSCAPING) PURSUANT TO OUTLINE CONSENT A*36713/AC (PCC ref. A*36713/AE); AN APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION FOR NEW MORTUARY/PATHOLOGY AND REHABILITATION BUILDINGS AND CONVERSION AND EXTENSION OF EXISTING MORTUARY BUILDING TO PROVIDE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH UNIT (PCC ref. A*11277/BU); AND AN APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION FOR NEW MORTUARY AND PATHOLOGY BUILDING WITH PLANT ROOM AND HELIPAD ABOVE (PCC ref. A*11277/BV.)
QUEEN ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL, COSHAM, PORTSMOUTH
 
Consideration was given to a report of the Regulatory Services Manager (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix "B"). Members were informed that the report summarised the proposals in three applications submitted to Portsmouth City Council relating to the redevelopment of Queen Alexandra Hospital. Previous applications for the same development had been withdrawn as a result of concerns raised by Portsmouth City Council over the design. The new applications included a proposal for a helipad. Members were informed that their concerns over the traffic impact of the proposed development raised in respect of the previous applications were still relevant.
 
In accordance with Standing Orders Councillor Edgar, speaking on behalf of the Save Haslar Task Force, was permitted to address the Board. Councillor Edgar made the following points:
 
  • The revised design was an improvement and should be welcomed;
  • However, there were still serious concerns about the traffic impact, as it was based on data collected more than 3 or 4 years ago;
  • There could be as many as 5,810 traffic movements a day.
 
Members raised concerns over the level of traffic the re-development proposals would generate.
 
RESOLVED: That –
 
         i.            no objection is raised to Planning Application reference A*36713/AE; and
 
       ii.            objection be raised to Planning Applications A*11277/Bu and BV for pathology/ mortuary and rehabilitation buildings and conversion of existing mortuary to Occupational Health Unit.
 
221.
K.15966 – ERECTION OF 3no. THREE STOREY TOWN HOUSES AND 2NO. FLATS (AS AMENDED BY PLANS RECEIVED 19.03.03 AND AMPLIFIED BY LETTER DATED 26.01.03)
26 – 30 BROADSANDS DRIVE, GOSPORT
 
Consideration was given to a report of the Regulatory Services Manager (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix "C"). Members were informed that the report outlined suggested amendments to the description of the development and conditions to reflect that works had commenced on the development, and considered a number of minor amendments to the submitted drawings.
 
RESOLVED: That the amended description and conditions, and revised drawings, be approved.
 
222.
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 "D").
 
RESOLVED: That decisions be taken on each application for planning consent as detailed below.
 
223.
K.7113/7 – CONSERVATION AREA APPLICATION – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING
20 MANOR WAY, LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT
 
In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Patterson, on behalf of the Business Association, addressed the Board. Mr Patterson made the following points:
 
  • There was a risk that the Lee-on-the-Solent seafront was going to be overdeveloped;
  • That the Conservation Area and Heritage Area in regeneration were important and must be protected;
  • The existing building was not beyond repair and there was no justification in pulling 20 Manor Way down;
  • 20 Manor Way was an attractive building, that drew visitors and the demolition of the building would be detrimental to the area.
 
In accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Carter as Ward Councillor was permitted to address the Board. Councillor Carter made the following points:
 
  • That at the Urban Summit held in Birmingham in 2002, Lee-on-the-Solent had been referred to and used as an example of an area where its special character should be reinforced;
  • This building, along with neighbouring buildings formed the heart of Lee-on-the-Solent's "special character" and that demolishing it would set an unwanted precedent;
  • This could be refused purely on the grounds that it was in a Conservation Area.
 
Members expressed concern that allowing the application to go ahead would be detrimental to the seafront and set an unwelcome precedent.
 
RESOLVED: That conservation area application K.7113/7 – 20 Manor Way, Lee-on-the-Solent be refused for the following reason:
 
         i.            The building contributes significantly to the character and appearance of the Pier Street Conservation Area, and its demolition would be detrimental to the appearance of the locality and the Conservation Area as a whole. It is of both historic and architectural interest and capable of reasonably beneficial use, and the proposed replacement is noticeably poorer in detail and design. Therefore its demolition would be contrary to Policies BE1 and BE10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan, the Pier Street Conservation Area Action Plan and Policies R/DP1 and R/BH2 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
 
224.
K.7113/6 – ERECTION OF A THREE STOREY BLOCK OF 9no. FLATS, ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND CLOSURE OF EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED ROAD (CONSERVATION AREA) (as amplified by letter dated 04.02.04)
20 MANOR WAY, LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT
 
RESOLVED: That planning application K.7113/6 – 20 Manor Way, Lee-on-the-Solent be refused for the following reasons:
 
         i.            The proposed development by reason of its excessive building mass, design and external appearance would be out of character with the surrounding development and detract from the visual amenities of the area. It does not therefore preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Pier Street Conservation Area and is therefore unacceptable in this sensitive location contrary to Policies BE1 and BE9 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan, the Pier Street Conservation Area Action Plan and Policies R/DP1 and R/BH1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
 
       ii.            The proposed development by reason of its excessive building mass and scale would be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining residents contrary to Policies BE1, BE9 and H5 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan, the Pier Street Conservation Area Action Plan and Policies R/DP1 and R/BH1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
 
      iii.            The proposed alterations to the front boundary wall, which forms an important visual element in the street scene, would be detrimental to the appearance of the Pier Street Conservation Area contrary to Policy BE9 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policy R/BH1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
 
225.
K.5175/4 – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CLUB AND FLAT AND ERECTION OF THREE AND FOUR STOREY BLOCK OF 9no. FLATS AND CAR PARKING PROVISION (ACCESS FROM FERROL ROAD) (as amended by letter dated 17.02.04)
34 FORTON ROAD, GOSPORT
 
RESOLVED: That planning application K.5175/4 – 34 Forton 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:
 
         i.            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 improve 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, BE2, H5, T6, CF1 and RL10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/DP3, R/DP6, R/H4, RCF2, R/OS7, R/T11 and R/ENV5 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
 
226.
K.16523 – OUTLINE APPLICATION – ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING AND GARAGE (as amplified by letter dated 27.01.04)
LAND TO REAR OF 31 MONCKTON ROAD, GOSPORT
 
In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Cowan, the applicant, was permitted to address the Board. Mr Cowan made the following points:
 
  • They have a large rear garden, along the boundary of which there is a public footpath, so consequently there would no impact and loss of privacy to neighbouring dwellings;
  • Would appreciate Members taking the time to make a site visit to consider the proposal.
 
Members considered the impact the property would have on the adjoinin, g residents and the construction of a similar property on Monckton Road. Members were informe, d that this structure had been built in the 1960's and was an exception to the general charact, er of the area.
 
RESOLVED: That outline application K.16523 – Land to rear of 31 Monckton Road, Gosport be refused for the following reasons:
 
  1. The proposed development by reason of its siting and means of access, is out of keeping with the established pattern of residential development in the locality and would therefore be detrimental to the character of the area and prejudicial to the amenities of existing and prospective residents, 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.            The use of the proposed access to the site, by virtue of its close proximity to 31 and 31a Monckton Road, would be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining residents 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.
 
227.
K.16550 – ERECTION OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDING (CLASS B2) WITH ASSOCIATED TWO STOREY OFFICE BUILDING AND EXTERNAL WORKS (PLOT 1) (as amended by letter dated 06.02.04 and plan received 10.02.04)
154 FAREHAM ROAD, GOSPORT
 
RESOLVED: That planning application K.16550 – 154 Fareham Road, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager for the following reason:
 
         i.            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 terms of the siting, design and external appearance of the building and associated works and as such complies with Policies BE1, BE2, EMP1, EMP4, T5, T6, CH1 and NC1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.
 
228.
K.7692/4 – ERECTION OF THREE STOREY BLOCK OF 4no. FLATS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING (FRONTING JAMAICA PLACE) (CONSERVATION AREA) (as amplified by letter dated 11.03.04)
LAND AT REAR OF 65 STOKE ROAD, GOSPORT
 
(NB. Councillor 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 for this item.)
 
Members were informed that letters had been received from the objector following discussion with the applicant stating that, if the balcony were screened or amended, their objections would be withdrawn. Members were informed that amended plans had not yet been received. It was also reported that the applicant was willing to sign a Section 106 Agreement, as confirmed in a letter dated 11.03.04. Members were informed that this meant the 3rd reason for refusal contained in the report was no longer relevant.
 
In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Mackley, the applicant, was permitted to address the Board. Mr Mackley made the following points:
 
  • That he considered the scale and design of the plans to be acceptable;
  • That he confirmed he was willing to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to resolve the issue of the open space contributions;
  • He had referred to Government Guidelines PPG3, and considered the application made best use of a brown-field site.
 
Officers confirmed that, not withstanding any improvements to the scheme that had been put forward since the publication of the officers' report, the remaining concerns were significant enough not to change the recommendation.
 
Members considered the character and appearance of the proposal and felt that as the application stood it would neither preserve nor enhance the Conservation Area.
 
RESOLVED: That planning application K.7692/4 – Land at rear of 65 Stoke Road, Gosport be refused for the following reasons:
 
         i.            The proposed development by reason of its scale and design would be out of character with the surrounding development and detract from the visual amenities of the area.  It does not therefore preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Stoke Road Conservation Area and as such is contrary to Policies BE1 and BE9 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1 and R/BH1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review; and
 
       ii.            The proposed development by reason of its excessive building mass and design and inadequate provision for the storage of refuse would be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining residents contrary to Policies BE1 and H5 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policy R/DP1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
 
229.
K.15438/8 – DETAILS PURSUANT TO K.15438/2 – ERECTION OF 10no. HOUSES ASSOCIATED PARKING AND ACCESS ROAD (CONSERVATION AREA) (as amended by letters dated 25.02.04 and 01.03.04 and by plans received 26.02.04 and 01.03.04)
LAND ADJOINING 15 ST THOMAS'S ROAD, GOSPORT
 
N.B. Councillor Allen declared an interest in this item, left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.
 
Members were informed that the description of the application should be amended to read as follows:
 
As amended by letters dated 25.02.04 and 01.03.04 and by plans received 26.02.04 and 01.03.04 and further details received 12.03.04.
 
It was reported that the further details related to the materials to be used.
 
RESOLVED: That planning application K.15438/8 – Land adjoining 15 St Thomas's Road, Gosport be approved pursuant to Additional Conditions 1 (a) layout, (e) siting, (f) design and external appearance, (h) parking, (i) boundary treatment, (k) refuse, (l) open space and (n) noise attenuation of outline planning permission K.15438/2 dated 08.11.00, 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.            Having regard to the provisions of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and all other material considerations, the development by reason of its design, materials and layout, will not have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties and will enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area.   As such the proposal complies with Policies BE1, BE9, H5, RL10 and T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/BH1, R/T11, R/OS7, R/H2 and R/H4 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
 
230.
K.6934/11 – ERECTION OF FIRST FLOOR DAYROOM EXTENSION, SINGLE STOREY GROUND FLOOR EXTENSION (FIVE BEDROOMS) AND INCREASE IN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS FROM 34 TO 38 (as amplified by letter dated 29.01.04 and amended by plans received 30.01.04)
LANGDALE NURSING HOME, 11 THE AVENUE, GOSPORT
 
(NB. Councillor Taylor declared an interest in the above item and did not take part in the discussion thereon.)
 
RESOLVED: That planning application K.6934/11 – Langdale Nursing Home, 11 The Avenue, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager for the following reason:
 
         i.            Having regard to the provisions of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and all other material considerations, there will be no impact on the appearance of the street scene or a significant impact on residential amenities of adjacent properties in terms of loss of light, overlooking or outlook in view of the location and orientation of the extensions. The proposed accommodation for residents will be acceptable in terms of the amenities provided. The protected Cedar tree will not be adversely affected by the proposal. As such the development is acceptable and complies with Policies BE1, BE3, BE6, H10 and T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/DP7, R/DP8, R/H7, R/H8 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
 
231.
K.16557 – REGULATION 3 – ERECTION OF CCTV SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ON 6m HIGH POLE
CARISBROOKE SHOPPING CENTRE, CARISBROOKE ROAD, GOSPORT
 
RESOLVED: That planning application K.16557 – Carisbrooke Shopping Centre, Carisbrooke Road, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Regulatory Services Manager for the following reason:
 
         i.            Having regard to the provisions of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and all other material considerations, the development as proposed is acceptable in terms of siting, design and its effect on visual amenity in this location and as such complies with Policy BE1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.
 
232.
K.14409/1 – REGULATION 3 – ERECTION OF 1.8m BOW TOP RAILINGS IN PLACE OF EXISTING WALL, REMOVAL OF CONCRETE HARDSTAND TO PROVIDE GRASSED AREA
LAND REAR OF BURNEY HOUSE, SOUTH STREET, GOSPORT
 
RESOLVED: That planning application K.14409/1 – Land rear of Burney House, South 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 Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and all other material considerations, the proposed development is acceptable in terms of its impact on the visual amenities of the area and as such complies with Policies BE1 and RL5 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1 and R/OS4 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
 
 
 
 
 
CHAIRMAN
 
(The meeting closed at 7.22pm)