A MEETING OF THE REGULATORY BOARD
WAS HELD ON 26 JULY 2005
The Mayor (Councillor Burgess)(ex-officio) (P), Chairman of Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Hook)(ex-officio), Councillors Allen (P), Carr (P), Mrs Champion (P), Clinton, Davis, Farr (P), Foster (P), Smith, Taylor and Train (P).
It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Cully had been nominated to replace Councillor Davis and Councillor Langdon had been nominated to replace Councillor Clinton for this meeting.
61 APOLOGIES
Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were received from Councillors Clinton, Davis, Hook, Smith and Taylor.
62 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
63 DEPUTATIONS
It was reported that a deputation had been received on planning application K16713/1.
64 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
No public questions had been received.
PART II
65 K16713/1 –(accompanied by an Environmental Statement) – MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, 516 SQUARE METRES OF OFFICES/WORKSHOPS (CLASS B1), 931 SQUARE METRES OF RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS PUBLIC HOUSES, CAFES, RESTAURANTS (CLASSES A1, A2, A3, A4 AND A5) 682 SQUARE METRES OF CINEMA (CLASS D2) MILLENNIUM PROMENADE AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE (INCLUDING ACCESS, CAR PARKING, LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE AND FLOOD DEFENCES) (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREA)
Royal Clarence Yard, Gosport.
The Officer informed the Board of the following updates and amendments to the application.
Defence Estates had rescinded their objection to the application. Safeguarding Zone maps were to be revised to exclude this site.
Gosport Society, in response to amended plans, supported the amended design but their objection to overdevelopment and imbalance between residential and business use still stood.
A letter had been received from one of the original objectors in response to amended plans stating that objections 1-8 of their original letter still stood; granite sets were unsuitable; NM7 and D3 elevations were too modern; cycle stores may not be sufficiently robust and used to store household goods and were of an inappropriate design; floor plans of police lodge and B3 did not show demolitions.
A revised Waste Management Strategy was received on 18.07.05 to try to resolve the issue of mixing commercial and residential waste by omitting the use of a compactor from the scheme. The Head of Contracts had advised there was still insufficient capacity and reason for refusal 5 had been amended accordingly.
An addendum to the Car Parking Management Plan was submitted on 22 July in response to a request from officers for clarification and to resolve discrepancies between the CPMP and landscape drawings. There were 615 spaces on the east side of Weevil Lane. With an 80% assumed take up by residential permit holders and freed spaces from residents commuting, there was an estimated availability of 793 spaces which met the maximum parking standards for the mix of uses proposed. Details of the types of barriers to be installed were submitted today and are, in principle, acceptable.
The applicant had now agreed to contribute £350,175 towards the provision of outdoor playing space within the borough but without a Section 106 agreement the provision had not been made and this remains a reason for refusal.
The following amended Plans had been received:
• coloured version of landscape masterplan received on 18.07.05 to resolve discrepancy between new landscape drawings received on 10.06.07 and original landscape masterplan
• floor plan of waste/cycle storage building received on 19.07.05 and elevational and roof plans and site plan received on 26.07.05 to tie up with revised waste management strategy.
A Draft Construction Dust Management Plan was received on 18.07.2005-07-25
Head of Building Control objection to fire access had been resolved by the submission of an amended site plan received on 21.07.05.
A Glossy Brochure ‘Completing the Vision’ was submitted on 18.07.05. The majority of the works described had been completed under the Outline Consent and related ‘Details Pursuant’ applications.
In accordance with standing orders, Mr Sitch was permitted to address the Board. He considered that following negotiations, objections to the application had been reduced.
The applicants were willing to enter into a 106 Agreement and had agreed the sum of £350,175 for the provision or improvement of outdoor playing space. Talks had been held with officers concerning the provision of refuse storage facilities, including the appointment of a management company to oversee the running of the development. English Heritage had raised no objection to the development and had expressed the opinion that the appearance of the site would be enhanced.
With regard to the provision of employment within the development, the outline permission was for a mixed development and he did not believe the Local Plan indicated a minimum figure for such a development. The number of jobs to be created within the site was 520, giving a ratio of houses to jobs of 1:0.75.
Were planning permission to be granted by the Board, the applicants offered to provide 30% affordable housing. The applicants had undertaken a viability study and considered 24% affordable housing was appropriate on this site but an increased offer had been made to expedite an early decision to avoid the delay and cost of an appeal.
In answer to questions from Members Mr Sitch confirmed that this offer was conditional on the Board resolving to grant permission. Mr Sitch was unable to advise Members how many jobs would result from full implementation of the Outline Scheme or explain the way in which the physical provision of 615 parking spaces resulted in the availability of 793 parking spaces.
In response to Members questions officers explained how the recycling of parking spaces allowed for sufficient spaces to meet the maximum standards and that unless an objection was raised on the grounds of highway safety, provision could be below the maximum.
Officers confirmed that the refuse storage provision on site was not adequate to allow for the two-weekly re-cycling collection system. It was further confirmed that taking into account the commuted sum offered and the public squares to be provided on site, there was no issue with open space provision.
The Chairman advised the Board that an approach had been made to the bus service provider.
Members commented that, the outline proposals for the site had received the initial support of the community but the application before the Board constituted an imbalance between the provision of housing and employment generation floor space and the infrastructure could not cope with the additional number of houses proposed.
RESOLVED: That having had regard to the particulars of the application, the submitted plans and the information contained within the Environmental Statement the application be Refused for the following reasons:
i. The site is allocated for mixed use development in the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review (Revised Deposit Version). In view of the negative labour market account prevailing in the Borough of Gosport as a whole and the consequent degree in out-commuting there is a need for a higher proportion of employment generating uses to residential uses in order to provide a more sustainable pattern of development. The proposal will result in an imbalance between these elements of the scheme which does not maximise the economic potential of the area or make the best use of the available land and communications infrastructure. As such it conflicts with national and regional guidance contained within PPS1, PPG4, PPG13 and RPG 9, Policies UB1, UB2, UB3, H5, H6(iv), C4 and EC1 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996-2011 Review, EMP1 and EMP5 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP4, R/EMP2 and R/EMP7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review (Revised Deposit Version).
ii. Whilst measures have been agreed in principle to reduce reliance on the private car, in the absence of a mechanism to deliver these measures the proposal involves development that cannot be reconciled with national planning policy guidance in PPG13 in that it fails to make the best possible use of opportunities to reduce reliance on the private car. The failure to utilise alternative means of transport to the private car would result in an unacceptable increase in the number and length of car journeys to the detriment of the environment and the locality. The proposal therefore conflicts with the Strategy of the Hampshire County Structure Plan particularly Policies UB3, T1, T2, T3, T4 T5, E3 and H5 and Policies, T5, T6 and T8 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/T2 and R/T10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review (Revised Deposit Version).
iii. In accordance with national government advice within PPG 3, Policies H8 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review), H7 of the Gosport Local Plan and R/H5 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review (Revised Deposit Version) require the provision of 40% affordable housing on residential developments over 15 dwellings or sites exceeding 0.5 hectares in area. No such provision has been made. In the absence of this provision the proposal is contrary to both national guidance and these Policies in the Development Plan.
iv. Policies UB1(iii), UB2. R1 and R2 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 Review, RL10 of the Gosport Local Plan and R/OS7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review require the provision of open space on residential developments where there will be a net gain in dwelling units. Inadequate provision for sports facilities, children’s play space and informal open space has been made within the scheme. In the absence of this provision the proposal is contrary to both national guidance and these Policies in the Development Plan.
v. The proposed refuse storage facilities are inadequate. Failure to provide adequate refuse storage facilities will have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the Listed Buildings and the amenities of the area and the occupiers of the properties within the site. As such the development is contrary to Policies UB3, E15 and E16 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 Review, BE1, BE9 and BE11 of the Gosport Local Plan and R/DP1, R/BH1 and R/BH3 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.
66 ANY OTHER ITEMS
There were none.
The meeting commenced at 6.00pm and concluded at 6.32pm.
CHAIRMAN
|
|
