13 12 2005

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

 

 

It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Hayward had been nominated to replace Councillor Allen and Councillor Chegwyn had been nominated to replace Councillor Carr for this meeting.

 

 

 

 

Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were received from Councillors Allen, Burgess and Carr.

 

 

 

 

Councillor Clinton declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Items 6/1 and 6/2 (K15660/27 and K15660/28 St George Barracks (South), Mumby Road).  Councillor Edwards declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 6/4 (K6785/6 Boton’s Kebabs, 93 Palmyra Road).  Councillor Smith declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 6/5 (K16420/2 32 Forton Road).  Councillor Farr declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Items 6/8 and 6/9 (K7136/57 & K7136/56 St Vincent College).

 

 

 

 

With reference to planning application K16401/4 – 38-42 Marine Parade East  Lee on the Solent, it was noted that a satisfactory 106 Agreement had been completed by the required date of 23 November 2005 and, therefore, planning permission had been issued.

 

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the Regulatory Board meeting held on 8 November be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

 

It was reported that a deputation had been received on GPD Part 24 Consultation K17035.  Councillor Cully, Ward Councillor, had also requested permission to address the Board on this item.

 

 

 

 

It was reported that no public questions had been received.

 

 

 

 

The Development 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:

 

 

 

St George Barracks (South)  Mumby Road  Gosport     

 

 

Note:  Councillor Clinton declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item, left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

 

 

Members were informed that one letter of support for the Live/Work Units had been received.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K15660/27 – St George Barracks (South)  Mumby Road  Gosport  Hampshire be approved subject to Section 106 agreement relating to affordable housing, outdoor playing space, transport infrastructure and Home Office Support Suite and office facilities within Martin Snape House and also subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development 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 proposal maximises the employment use of the site, has a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would not have an adverse effect on the character or appearance of the Listed Building, or the visual amenities of the area, or the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings or the amenities of existing or prospective occupiers, or traffic/parking conditions in the locality. Refuse storage and cycle storage facilities are to be provided and the necessary archaeological works undertaken. The proposal also makes satisfactory provision for outdoor playing space and affordable housing. As such the development complies with Policies BE1, BE2, BE9, BE11, BE12, BE13, BE15, H4, H5, H6, H7, T5, T6, RL10, CF2, EMP1 and EMP5 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/DP3, R/DP4, R/DP6, R/BH1, R/BH3, R/BH7, R/H3, R/H4, R/H5, R/EMP2, R/EMP7, R/OS7, R/ENV6, R/T2, R/T3, R/T4, R/T10, R/T11, R/CF6, R/CF1 and R/CF3 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

Note:  Councillor Clinton declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item, left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That Listed Building application K15660/28 – St George Barracks (South) Mumby Road  Gosport  Hampshire be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development 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 proposed alterations to the Barrack Block will not be detrimental to the historic character of the Listed Building and, as such, comply with Policies BE11 and BE12 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policy R/BH3 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

Hanson Premix Concrete Depot  Fareham Road  Gosport  Hants   PO13 0AQ 

 

The Board were advised that English Nature had expressed the view that the environmental survey carried out was basic but adequate and they had no objection to the installation provided that any works carried out in the proximity of any badger set received the appropriate licence.

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Symes was invited to address the Board and he thanked them for giving him this opportunity.  Concerns put forward by him included the proximity of the airfield and the potential interference with aircraft movements from radio waves and the position of the proposed mast, which would also require a flashing red light on top; the proximity of local schools and the fact that letters seeking their opinions had been sent at the beginning of the school holidays; the existing trees would not screen the mast because of its proposed siting and there were no preservation orders on these deciduous trees; the future development of Hanson and the long term future of the Fleetlands site were not known;  if permission was given for one mast, then others may also be allowed at a future date.

 

 

In answer to a Member’s question, Mr Symes confirmed that he and his neighbours only knew of the proposal from notices put up in the vicinity and that no direct contact had been made with residents.

 

 

Replying on behalf of the applicant, Mr Wellman of Savills, confirmed that the proximity of the airfield was not a planning matter but one that would be considered by OFCOM and the MOD.  Mobile phone masts existed at many commercial airports without causing a hazard to aircraft. 

 

 

Mr Wellman confirmed that the residential area to the west of the A32, although providing a better coverage for Vodafone, had not been considered a suitable area to site a mast in view of the narrow pavements and proximity to houses and that the views of local residents had been considered in coming to the decision that the Hanson site was the most appropriate.  He further confirmed that any application to share the mast by another operator would be considered on its merits at the time.

 

 

Members were informed that local schools were outside the required consultation distance of 500 metres but had been consulted nonetheless and a response had been received from one school. In answer to Members’ concerns over recent research indicating that the fall out zone from mobile phone masts was outside the 500-metre area, it was confirmed that Health and Safety was not an issue as an ICNIRP certificate had been provided.

 

 

Councillor Cully expressed his concern to Mr Wellman that Ward Councillors were asked for their views on the proposed mast when they were unable to respond due to conflict of interest.  The applicants had then claimed to residents that the Ward Councillors had no objection.  Mr Wellman explained that Government Guidelines stipulate that Ward Councillors should be consulted on mobile phone mast applications.

 

 

In addressing the Board, Councillor Cully thanked them for allowing him to put forward his views.  He expressed concern at the proliferation of mobile phone masts and considered that this was an inappropriate site as it was within a mainly residential area.  The mast would be visible some 9 feet above the silos and the surrounding trees, harming the visual impact of the area and the environment.  He considered that, should permission be given, there was a risk of further applications for masts on the site, as had happened in other areas of the Borough and urged the Board to turn down this application.

 

 

Members discussed the concerns raised by the local residents, the environmental impact and the potential proliferation of masts on the site.

 

 

The Borough Solicitor advised the Board that they must make a decision based on the information before them and on planning criteria.  They were being asked to consider the siting and appearance of the mast and the impact on the character of the area.  Without appropriate evidence to support any reasons for refusal, on any appeal they were at risk of an award of costs against them.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That GPD Part 24 Consultation K17035 – Hanson Premix Concrete Depot  Fareham Road  Gosport  Hampshire be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development 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, R/ENV9 and R/OS12 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

Botan's Kebabs   93 Palmyra Road  Gosport  Hampshire  PO12 4EE 

 

 

Note:  Councillor Edwards declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item, left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

 

 

An amended set of conditions was circulated to the Board that incorporated the conditions of planning permission K6785/2.

 

 

In response to Members questions the officers explained that the planning application had been made following the extension of the hours of opening of another A3 use in the vicinity.   Members asked why this application was before the Regulatory Board and not the Licensing Board.  They were advised that planning permission was required because the hours of opening were restricted by a planning condition but that a premises licence was also required.  At the request of members the officers confirmed that a letter would be sent to the applicant with the Decision Notice advising that a premises licence was also required.

 

 

Members discussed issues of late night noise, litter and vandalism but agreed these were not relevant planning issues giving grounds for refusal but could be addressed by the Licensing Board in its deliberations.

 

 

Councillor Farr wished it to be recorded that he abstained from voting on this recommendation.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That Temporary Planning Consent application K6785/6 – Boton’s Kebabs  93 Palmyra Road  Gosport  Hampshire be approved subject to the amended conditions circulated, 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, permitting the increase in opening hours for a temporary period will enable the impact on the amenities of nearby residences to be monitored and reviwed to ensure the proposal complies with Policies BE1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

Note:  Councillor Smith declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item, left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

 

 

The planning history of this site was clarified and Members were informed that 2 further letters of objection had been received citing issues of commercial competition and the problem of leaving existing shop premises empty, questioning the need for further shops and the proximity to the oil depot.

 

 

Members were advised that a Section 106 Agreement had yet to be completed and asked that the Recommendation be amended to grant the Development Services Manager delegated powers to refuse planning permission if the Agreement was not completed by 22 December 2005.

 

 

Members considered the density of the scheme in relation to the car parking and scale and massing of the building.

 

 

Members also considered the lack of designated parking for shop customers but were advised that the Head of Traffic Management had considered this issue and concluded the impact on highway safety could be resolved by making a Traffic Regulation Order.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That Outline Consent application K16420/2 – 32 Forton Road  Gosport  Hampshire be approved subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 obligation by 22 December 2005 relating to provision of:-

 

1.                  affordable housing

2.                  outdoor playing space

3.                  a traffic regulation order 

 

If a satisfactory Section 106 obligation had not been received by this date, delegated authority was granted to the Development Services Manager to refuse outline consent for reasons of unsatisfactory provision of those matters specified above.

 

Outline consent was also subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development Services Manager, for the following reason:

 

 

i

Having regard to the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and all other material considerations, the proposal would support the retail function of the Forton Road Neighbourhood Shopping Centre and would not be harmful to the character or visual amenities of the area, or the amenities of existing or prospective occupiers, or traffic/parking conditions in the locality. The development also makes adequate provision for outdoor playing space and affordable housing.  As such, the development complies with Policies BE1, BE2, S2, S3, H5, H7, H12, T5, T6 and  RL10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/DP3, R/DP6, R/S2, R/H4, R/H5, R/OS7, R/T2, R/T3, R/T10, R/T11, R/CF6, R/ENV5 and R/ENV6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

In answer to a Member’s question concerning access to the proposed development from the back road, it was confirmed that access and siting had been approved under outline consent K16950.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K16950/1 – Land Adjacent to 31 Lyndhurst Road  Gosport  Hampshire be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development 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 of an acceptable design and will not have any significant detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining and prospective residents or in terms of highway safety. As such the proposal 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.

 

 

 

 

 

Members were informed that 5 further letters of objection had been received, citing loss of privacy, spoiling of neighbourhood, danger to traffic of additional drop kerbs, loss of views to woodland, that it was a money making scheme and that contractors’ vans would spoil the verges.  The first 3 points only were planning considerations.

 

 

Members were advised that an additional condition had been drafted in order to address concerns over the line of sight for traffic on Rowallan Avenue and this was circulated to the Board.

 

 

Members expressed deep concerns over the impact of two additional entrance/exits on this corner of Rowallan Avenue.  Members had knowledge of traffic accidents in the area and the fact that traffic calming measures had been introduced nearby and they were concerned that accident statistics may not have been considered in the response from the Head of Traffic Management.  Members were of the opinion that they had insufficient evidence in order to reach a conclusion on this item.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That Outline Consent application K17054 – 3 Rowallan Avenue  Gosport  Hampshire be deferred in order that officers could undertake further investigation into traffic management issues.

 

 

 

 

 

Note:  Councill, or Farr declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item, left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

 

 

It was reported that one letter of objection had been received citing light spillage from the site.

 

 

Members were informed that, following preparation of the report of the Development Services Manager, a consultation response had been received from the Corporate Manager, Street Lighting at Hampshire County Council, who advised that the Lux levels exceeded those within the Institute of Lighting Engineers Publication Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution.  Therefore, the recommendation to the Board was to refuse permission.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K7136/57 – St Vincent College  Forton Road  Gosport  Hampshire be refused for the following reason:

 

 

i

The degree of illumination from the existing floodlighting columns within the adjoining properties is excessive and is significantly detrimental to the residential amenity of the adjoining occupiers.  As such the retention is contrary to Policies BE1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1 and R/ENV7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

Note:  Councillor Farr declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item, left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

 

 

Members were informed that the applicants were seeking permanent premises as their present lease expires in 2010.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That Temporary Planning Consent application K7136/56 – St Vincent College Mill Lane  Gosport  Hampshire be approved subject to the condition set out in the report of the Development 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 and design and temporary nature, would not have a detrimental impact on the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings, or the visual amenities of the area, or traffic/parking conditions in the locality, or the nature conservation interests of Forton Lake, and would not impede the flow of floodwater or reduce the capacity of the floodplain to store waters or increase the number of people or properties at risk of flooding.  As such, the proposal complies with Policies BE1, BE11, T6 and NC1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/BH3, R/T10, RT11, R/OS9, R/OS10 and R/ENV1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K10578/1 – 68 Privett Road  Gosport  Hampshire be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development 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, it is of an appropriate design and will not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining residents. As such it complies with Policies BE1, BE3 and T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/DP7 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K14566/1 – 11 Priory Road  Gosport  Hampshire be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development 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 and position will not have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring properties or street scene.  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.

 

 

 

 

 

After discussion, Members requested that the wording of condition 4 be amended to read, “Not more than 6 residents receiving care shall be accommodated …….” to clarify the fact that staff would also be resident in the building.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K9845/4 – 22 Brockhurst Road  Gosport  Hampshire be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development Services Manager including amended condition 4, 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 will not have any detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining and prospective residents or in terms of highway safety. As such the proposal complies with Policies BE1, H10 and T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/H7 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

A consultation response had been received from Fareham Borough Council, their concerns being centred on the access route and the height of open storage materials, both of which points were covered in the conditions to the report of the Development Services Manager.

 

 

RESOLVED: That Temporary Planning Consent application K15520/6 – HMS Daedalus  Lee on the Solent  Hampshire be approved until the Expiry Date of 31 December 2010, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development 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 terms of its setting in the Conservation Area and in part outside of the Urban Area Boundary and the effect on the surrounding residential area and as such complies with Policies BE1, BE9, CY1 and T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/BH1, R/OS1 and (a), R/ENV6 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

Jackie Spenser Bridge  Little Anglesey Road  Gosport  Hampshire   

 

 

This item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

An amended set of conditions was circulated to the Board that included those contained in the original planning consent.  A typographical error in condition 8 was noted and amended to reflect the fact that condition 8 refers to condition 7 above and not 11 as stated.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K15900/4 – Former Schat-Harding Site  Mumby Road  Gosport  Hampshire be approved subject to the condition set out in the report of the Development Services Manager including amended condition 8, for the following reason:

 

 

i

That having regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 and all other material considerations the phasing of the car parking provision will have no impact on the amenities of the area or highway safety and as such 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.

 

 

 

 

i

82 Village Road Appeal Decision

 

 

 

This was an application for the removal of a condition requiring the gable build up of 2 halves of a semi detached pair to be carried out concurrently, which was refused under delegated powers on 13.5.05.  The condition had been imposed to ensure the appearance remained symmetrical in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 

 

 

 

The decision was appealed and considered by the written representations procedure.  The inspector considered the elevated position and the fact that the site was opposite a junction. He concluded that a gable build up on only one half of the pair when all the others on that side of the road had retained hipped form would unbalance the pair and harm the symmetry of the properties and rhythm of the street scene.   Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal.

 

 

 

 

 

The Chairman thanked the Board for their hard work over the previous year and wished everyone a very happy Christmas and New Year.