20 06 2006

The Mayor (Councillor Mrs Cully)(ex-officio), Chairman of Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Hook)(ex-officio), Councillors Allen, Chegwyn (P), Clinton (P), Farr (P), Foster (P), Hicks (P), Smith (P), Taylor (P), Train (P) and Ward (P).

 

 

It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, notice had been received that Councillor Carter would replace Councillor Allen for this meeting.

 

 

 

 

Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were received from the Mayor (Councillor Mrs Cully) and Councillor Allen.

 

 

 

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the Regulatory Board meeting held on 23 May 2006 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record, subject to the following wording being included in the Resolution.

 

 

Minute 13 - K15438/14 - ERECTION OF 22NO. APARTMENTS AND ASSOCIATED PARKING AND ACCESS ROAD (CONSERVATION AREA) (as amended by letters dated 20.04.06 and 25.04.06 and plans received 20.04.06) Land Adjoining 15 St Thomas's Road Gosport 

 

 

Further to Item 13 The Board authorised the Borough Solicitor to enter into a Section 106 Agreement relating to the payment of a commuted sum towards the provision and or improvement of outdoor playing space and the provision of affordable housing so that these would not be issues in the event of an appeal against the refusal of planning application.

 

 

 

 

It was reported that deputations had been received on applications:

K15105/2  -   19 Spithead Avenue

K17154     -   166-170 Portsmouth Road

K3851/5    -   1 Prince Alfred Street

K17160     -    Land Rear of 121-127 Stoke Road

K16857/1  -   18 Gilkicker Road

 

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

 

 

Members were informed that an informal site visit had taken place that afternoon and that both 19 Spithead Avenue and 10 Lind Grove had been visited to assess the potential impact of the proposed extension. In the course of the site visit Members were told by Ms Wright that an additional letter of objection had been sent to the Planning Department. Officers confirmed that no additional letters had been received.

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Ms Wright (10 Lind Grove) made a deputation to the Board. Issues raised by Ms Wright included concern over the separation distance between her property and the extension, which was 1m less than Gosport Local Plan Guidelines suggested; the possibility of overshadowing and loss of privacy; that the foliage between the properties was not evergreen and therefore sparse in Winter; and also concern that the foundations would not be adequate to support a second-storey.

 

 

Officers advised Members that suitability of the foundations was a matter for the Head of Building Control.

 

 

Mrs Jackson, the applicant, addressed the Board. She felt that there would only be a minimal loss of light to Ms Wright’s property and that between the properties were planted young trees, many of which being of an evergreen variety.

 

 

Members considered that there would be a minimal loss of light to the garden of 10 Lind Grove but concern was expressed that there would be a loss of privacy and outlook. Councillor Smith proposed, seconded by Councillor Chegwyn, that the application should be refused on the grounds of a significant loss of privacy and outlook, which would be contrary to Policy R/DP7 (ii), particularly paragraph 3.64, of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review. A vote was taken and the proposal was lost.

 

 

RESOLVED: That planning application K15105/2 – 19 Spithead Avenue, Gosport, Hampshire be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development Services Manager, for the following reasons:

 

 

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 siting, design and orientation, will not have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring properties or street scene.  As such the proposal complies with Policies R/DP1 and R/DP7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

Members were informed that the applicant had withdrawn the above application prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

Members were informed that a further letter of objection had been received which raised no new issues, and that the Head of Contracts had advised that refuse storage and collection facilities were satisfactory.

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Shore (50 Raynes Road) made a deputation to the Board. Mr Shore raised the following concerns: loss of the neighbourhood Post-Office; the lack of available car-parking space and subsequent use of Portsmouth Road to park cars; that no provision had been made for people with disabilities; the tight angle at the junction between the car park and Raynes Road; the possibility that bad smells would emanate from the refuse store; the apparent increase in height of the development and subsequent loss of light in Raynes Road; the use of the Section 106 agreement to justify planning approval; and loss of wildlife.

 

 

Members were advised that the issues covered by Mr Shore had been addressed in the report of the Development Services Manager. Members were also advised that there had been no previous suggestion that endangered species inhabited the site and therefore English Nature had not been asked to respond. The site was not thought to constitute a suitable environment for the animals mentioned by Mr Shore. With regard to the provision of disabled access to the proposed development, Members noted that the proposed shops would have level-access on the ground floor at the front and a disabled ramp at the rear of the property.

 

 

Mr Weymes, a representative of G&P Homes and Projects, was invited to address the Board. He referred to the improved appearance of the proposed development and the positive effect that a mixed commercial and residential use development would have on the area. He considered that the proposal was in accordance with the Local Plan.  He believed that the Post Office was due to close with the retirement of the Post Master and that as both units would be available for let the Post Office could be retained in this location if there was an interest in doing so. He stated that the creation of 8 flats was an efficient use of space, that each flat would have 1 car-parking space, that there was provision for a communal garden and that the separation distance would be in excess of 28m.

 

 

Officers clarified that the roof ridge of 166 Portsmouth Road appeared higher as the property sloped towards 177 Portsmouth Road, but that it would be the same height as the building it abutted, 164 Portsmouth Road.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K17154 – 166-170 Portsmouth Road  Lee-On-The-Solent  Hampshire be approved subject to a 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 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 is acceptable in this location in land use and design terms and will not be harmful to the amenities of existing and prospective occupiers.  As such the development complies with Policies R/DP1, R/T11, R/S4, R/S6, R/S7 and R/OS8 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

The Board was advised that an amended plan had been received on 20.06.06 which indicated a pair of double doors at the rear of the development to allow for rear servicing of the commercial unit.

 

 

Members expressed their support for the application but commented on the architectural quality of the building with particular reference to the sash window which should be retained.  Officers advised that any change to the window would be controlled by condition 4 of the recommendation and noted Members’ concerns.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K6069/6 – 116 High Street  Gosport  Hampshire be approved subject to a 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 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 will enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and will not have any detrimental impact on the amenities of the area, adjoining and prospective residents or highway safety. As such the proposal complies with Policies R/DP1, R/BH1, R/S7, R/H4, R/T11 and R/OS8 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

Members welcomed the provision of enhanced health facilities for the area.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K17094 – Land at Rowner Road Gosport be approved subject to a Section 106 Agreement relating to the payment of a contribution towards the provision of 2 bus shelters, the implementation of a Traffic Regulation Order and a link to the existing cycle path and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development 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 proposal is acceptable in this location and complies with Policies R/CF4, R/DP1, R/T2, R/T3, R/T10, R/T11, R/ENV2 and R/ENV5 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

Members were advised that a response had been received from the Head of Contracts raising no objection to the proposal.

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Jeffs (3 Prince Alfred Street) made a deputation to the Board. Mr Jeffs spoke of his concern that he would be sharing a party wall with 3 dwellings, each with both upstairs and downstairs toilets. He also maintained that whilst the site had been commercial premises, 2 men had travelled to work daily rather than 5 as had been quoted in the report of the Development Services Manager.

 

 

Mr Harvey, representing Sandi Hayes Developments Ltd, was invited to address the Board. Mr Harvey firstly stated that the application would fall into the low cost housing bracket. He referred Members to the provision for secure bike storage, as it was considered appropriate that buyers of these flats may not own cars. He also restated that 5 staff travelled to work by car when used the commercial premises were in use and there were on average 9 van deliveries each day.

 

 

Members were advised that the party wall and noise insulation were not planning issues. Members considered that a site visit would assist them in assessing issues of density and availability of car-parking.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K3851/5 – 1 Prince Alfred Street Gosport be deferred for a site visit.

 

 

 

 

 

Members were informed that a further letter of objection had been received in which no new issues were raised.

 

 

RESOLVED: That planning application K17152 – 1 Bay Road  Gosport be approved subject to a 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 Development Services Manager, for the following reasons:

 

 

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 any detrimental impact on the amenities of the area, adjoining and prospective residents or highway safety. As such the proposal complies with Policies R/DP1, R/DP7, R/H4, R/H7, R/S8, R/T11 and R/OS8 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

Members noted that in the ‘Relevant Policies’ section of the report, Policies R/ENV6 (Noise Pollution) and R/ENV8 (Air Quality) should read R/ENV10 and R/ENV12, respectively.

 

 

Members were notified that a further letter of objection had been received in which the following points were made: that the development would obstruct access onto the fire escape; that the new bin store was considered inadequate; adequacy of drainage; and the smell from the takeaway-food shop.

 

 

Officers advised Members that an alternative route of escape would be provided at the side of the development, confirmed that condition 7 of the recommendation required the submission of a scheme for the storage and removal of refuse to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before the development was first brought into use and advised that the adequacy of the drainage was a matter for Building Regulations. With regard to the potential of smell nuisance it was confirmed that  a new ventilation system would be provided to deal with air extraction.

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Hart (119a Stoke Road) addressed the Board as an objector and raised the following issues: loss of light to 119a Stoke Road; the overbearing design of the development; loss of privacy and security; that the refuse store would be a short distance from the kitchen of 119a Stoke Road; that the development would block air bricks in 119a Stoke Road; and that loading and unloading for nearby shops would have to be conducted on Stoke Road or Shaftsbury Road, constituting a danger to pedestrians. Mr Hart also asked that Members conduct a site visit in order to assess these issues.  Mr hart also stated that the applicant had demolished part of the old wall fronting Shaftesbury Road and had blocked up a window in the rear elevation of the building and installed a new window in the side.

 

 

Mr McPherson, on behalf of the applicant Ravenswood Developments Ltd, was invited to address the Board. Mr McPherson advised the Board that he had worked closely with Council officers in developing this proposal and he considered it to be an improvement to the area. With regard to the issue of privacy, Mr McPherson drew Members attention to the 1.8 metre high wall, as detailed in condition 13.

 

 

Members suggested that a site visit would assist in enabling them to examine issues raised, with special attention to refuse storage, pedestrian safety and loss of light. Officers confirmed that the demolition of the wall and works to alter the fenestration of th, e, existing building would be inve, , stigated.

 

 

RESOLVED: That planning application K17160 – Land Rear Of 121-127 Stoke Road Gosport be deferred for a site visit.

 

 

 

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Clarke (20 Gilkicker Road) made a deputation to the Board. Mr Clarke believed the fence panels to be inconsistent with the brick walls found elsewhere on the estate and that they limited the availability of parking. He also referred Members to the original Deeds to the property in which it was stated that, “no building or erection of any type whatsoever shall be erected in the front garden of the land”. Mr Clarke also considered that the Georgian style lamp was not a simple ornamental feature as stated in the description in the report of the Development Services manager and that black electrical tape should be attached to the south face of the lamp, rather than a painted black strip. 

 

 

Members were advised that there was no planning reason to require a brick wall rather than fence panels, and that contents of Deeds were not a material consideration. Councillor Chegwyn proposed, seconded by Councillor Smith, that the application should be refused on the grounds that it would have an adverse effect on the amenities of surrounding properties which was contrary to Policies R/DP5 and R/DP6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review. A vote was taken and the proposal was lost.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K16857/1 –18 Gilkicker Road  Gosport 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 is acceptable in this location. It is not detrimental to the appearance of this 'open plan' street scene, highway safety or the amenities of nearby residents. As such the development complies with Policies R/DP1, R/T2, R/T11 and R/ENV11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

79 Western Way  Gosport  Hampshire  PO12 2NF           

 

 

Members were informed that on line 8 of paragraph 2, page 39, rather than a “three metre high wall covered with vegetation” the report should read, a “three metre high screen comprised of the wall and vegetation.”

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K8762/14 – 79 Western Way Gosport 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 a well designed sympathetic extension that has no detrimental impact on the Local List building, the visual amenities of the area, adjoining and prospective residents or highway safety.

As such the proposal complies with Policies R/DP1, R/DP7, R/DP8, R/BH5, R/H8 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

Burnhams Walk  Gosport  PO12 1HS  

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K17151 – Burnhams Walk Gosport 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 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and all other material considerations the proposed development is acceptable in this location. It is of an appropriate design, does not have any detrimental impact on the setting of the adjacent Listed Building and will enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As such the development complies with Policies R/DP1, R/DP6, R/BH1 and R/BH3 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.