19 07 2005

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

 

 

It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Carter had been nominated to replace Councillor Mrs Champion for this meeting.

 

 

 

 

Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were received from Councillor Mrs Champion, Councillor Burgess and Councillor Hook.

 

 

 

 

Councillors Carter and Taylor declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 6 (K16713/1 – Royal Clarence Yard, Gosport).  Councillor Farr declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 7/05 (K4895/4 – 151 Privett Road, Gosport).  Councillors Davis, Farr and Train declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 7/06 (K7898/14 – Northcott Close, Bury Hall Lane, Gosport).

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the Regulatory Board meeting held on 21 June 2005 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record subject to an amendment to the Additional Condition of paragraph 42, K6939/2 – 178 Brockhurst Road, Gosport, to reflect the fact that the lower half between the window cill and central horizontal glazing bar of the four windows on the first floor of the east elevation facing Beryl Avenue be glazed with obscure glass and retained in that condition.

 

 

 

 

It was reported that deputations had been received on planning applications K16713/1, K16926, K16945, K16950 and K4895/4.

 

 

51

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

 

 

No public questions had been received.

PART II

 

 

 

 

Note:  Councillor Carter and Councillor Taylor declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.  Councillor Allen took the Chair for the duration of this item.

 

The Borough Solicitor informed Members that an objection had been received from a Statutory Consultee.  Therefore, it would be necessary for officers to have further consultations with the Applicant and the Statutory Consultee before bringing this item before the Board.  Members were further informed that, because a previous application concerning this development was to be the subject of a Planning Appeal and a pre-inquiry meeting was to be held in the near future, it would be necessary to bring this item before the Board as soon as possible.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That consideration of Application K16713/1 be deferred to an Extraordinary meeting of the Regulatory Board to be held on Tuesday, 26 July 2005.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Land To Rear Of 12 Station Road  Gosport  Hampshire     

 

 

Members were informed that an informal site visit had taken place that afternoon which had been attended by Councillors Taylor, Allen, Carr, Carter, Clinton, Davis, Foster, Smith and Train and Mr Ayles of Latimer and Ayles.  The site visit had enabled Members to obtain greater information concerning the application and accompanying documents.

 

 

Members were informed that a further letter of objection had been received from Mr Skraga citing the presence of badgers on the proposed development site.  Mr Brian Masterson, an acknowledged local badger expert, surveyed the site last week.  He confirmed that there is a badger set in the nearby allotment area but that no badger set or foraging runs were present on site.  It was reported that English Nature had confirmed that no licence would be necessary for development on this site.

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Skraga was permitted to address the Board.  Concerns put forward by him included the disruption that would be caused during the construction period and the subsequent danger to pedestrians, including schoolchildren on their way to Brune Park School; opinions relating to the visual impact of the site at present were subjective and local residents do not consider the site to be an eyesore in its present state, whereas the proposed building would be a featureless edifice that would block the light; the development would create further parking problems in an area that already suffered considerable problems, including difficulties of access for emergency vehicles.

 

 

Mr Ayles of Latimer and Ayles Partnership addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant.  He stated that the report before the Board set out the scale of the building within the surrounding area and referred to the development density of buildings within the vicinity.  He considered that the proposed building would have a positive impact, creating affordable homes suitable for this area. 

 

 

Members discussed the valuable insight into this proposal gained from the site visit.  They expressed the opinion that this proposal was out of keeping with the surrounding area and were concerned to note issues relating to access caused by existing parking problems.

 

 

RESOLVED: That planning application K16926 – Land to rear of 12 Station Road  Gosport    Hampshire be refused for the following reason:

 

 

i

The proposed building is not in keeping with the surrounding development by reason of its unusual design, scale and massing and therefore will constitute an incongruous feature detrimental to the appearance and character of the area contrary to Policies BE1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

It was confirmed that a further letter of objection had been received but no new issues had been raised in this letter.

 

 

Amended plans had been received showing the cycle store nearer to the building, paths moved to be adjacent to the car parking spaces and the rear boundary fence set back to widen the service road.

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mrs Sadler was permitted to address the Board.  Concerns raised by Mrs Sadler included the overshadowing of the conservatory of No 25 High Street by a nine metres high wall; the extension of the building line to the rear of the existing property by 4.5 metres; the increase in housing density in the area; the development not being on a main transport link; the replacement of the existing garden with car parking and cycle storage areas; the lack of lifts in the proposed development making it unsuitable for elderly residents and the lack of work in the area for younger residents.  Mrs Sadler also expressed the opinion that it was vandalism to replace an attractive period residence and garden with a block of flats that would be detrimental to the character of the area.  She considered that this would give rise to more applications for development of this nature, further undermining the character of Lee on the Solent.  Mrs Sadler requested that the Board make a site visit.

 

 

Mr Dudley of Daniells Harrison addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant.  He reiterated information contained in the report and confirmed that, in his opinion, the development would not cause a significant loss of light to the adjoining property.  He acknowledged that some disruption would be caused by the construction work but that landscaping would be carried out following the completion of the building.

 

 

In answer to Members’ further questions on the issue of light, the officer confirmed that the wall which extended beyond the existing rear building line was set some distance back from the conservatory of the adjoining property and was not detrimental in terms of light and outlook.

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K16945 – 21 High Street Lee on the Solent    Hampshire 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 and siting, it 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/H4, R/DP7, R/OS7 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mrs Keat was permitted to address the Board.  She stated that the number of letters of objection reflected the view of local residents of all ages that the area had reached saturation point in terms of development.  Parking problems already exist in the area, leading to difficulties of access for emergency vehicles. 

 

 

Mr Ayles of Latimer and Ayles Partnership addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant.  He confirmed that plans for this development were drawn up in consultation with officers and that the density of the proposed development was similar to that of the surrounding area; the design incorporated integral garages and off road parking for one car per house and would not, therefore, significantly impact on parking problems in the surrounding roads; the consultation process had not produced objections on highways grounds; the site contained no trees of significance or the presence of particular wildlife species and any loss of wildlife habitat was compensated for by the trees in the nearby cemetery.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That in view of the contentious nature of the proposal, planning application K16950 – 31 Lyndhurst Road  Gosport  Hampshire be deferred for a site visit to enable Members to gather more information in order to make a decision.

 

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K1381/3 – 309 Forton Road  Gosport  Hampshire 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 is acceptable in this location. It will ensure the retention of a Local List building and its architectural character and will not have any significant detrimental impact on the amenities of the area, adjoining and prospective residents or highway safety. As such the proposal complies with Policies BE1, BE3, BE14, H5, T6 and RL10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/DP7, R/BH5, R/T11 and R/OS7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

Note: Councillor Far 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 a report had been received from the acoustic consultants acting for the applicant.  The noise had been reduced to below the level constituting a statutory nuisance.  However, in view of concerns of local residents regarding remaining noise issues, the officer requested that further consideration of this item be deferred pending negotiation with the applicant to secure additional mitigation measures.

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K4895/4 – 151 Privett Road Gosport be deferred to allow for further negotiation between the Applicant and Officers.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

RESOLVED:  That Temporary Consent application K7898/14 – Northcott Close  Bury Hall Lane  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 siting of the portacabin is acceptable in this location, it will not be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area or the amenities of adjoining residents. As such the proposal complies with Policy BE1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policy R/DP1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There were none.