A MEETING OF THE REGULATORY BOARD
WAS HELD ON 6 NOVEMBER 2001
The Mayor (ex-officio); Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Edgar) (ex-officio) (P); Councillors Mrs Angus (P), Bartlett (P), Mrs Binfield (P), Edwards (P), Farr (P), Gill (P), Hayward (Chairman) (P), Langdon (P), Taylor (P) and Train (P).
It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, Councillors Bartlett and Train had been appointed to the Regulatory Board in the place of Councillors Gibson and Mrs Searle respectively.
1. APOLOGY
An apology for inability to attend the meeting was submitted on behalf of The Mayor.
2. MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee and Plans Sub-Committee held on 4 October and 9 October 2001 respectively be approved and signed by the Chairman as true and correct records.
3. DEPUTATION
The Sub-Committee was informed that, in accordance with Standing Order 3.4, a deputation had been received in respect of planning application K.15490 relating to Priddy's Hard, Gosport.
PART II
4. PROBITY IN REGULATORY MATTERS - CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COUNCILLORS AND OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE REGULATORY PROCESS
Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Development and Environment (a copy of which is inserted in the Minute Book as Appendix "A") in connection with the adoption of a Code of Conduct for Councillors and Officers involved in the Regulatory Process.
It was reported that the Planning and Transportation Committee, at its meeting on 10 September, had approved a similar Code of Conduct. The new democratic arrangements brought all regulatory matters within the responsibility of the Regulatory Board and it was, therefore, appropriate to extend the scope of that Code to encompass all regulatory functions, particularly licensing. The original Code was restricted to matters relating to planning applications prior to a report to the Committee or Sub-Committee. The new Code (attached as Appendix 1 to the report) included details of the Board procedure involved in dealing with planning and licensing matters.
RESOLVED: That the Code of Conduct for Councillors and Officers involved in the Regulatory Process be adopted with immediate effect.
5. THE EFFECT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT ON THE DECISION-MAKING AND PROCEDURES OF THE REGULATORY BOARD
The Board considered a report of the Borough Secretary (a copy of which is inserted in the Minute Book as Appendix "B") in connection with the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 and European Convention on Human Rights 1950 on the processes and decisions of the Regulatory Board.
The Borough Secretary reported that the Human Rights Act came into effect in October 2000. The three most important Articles as far as local authorities were concerned were -
Article 6 - Right to a Fair Trial
Article 8 - Right to Respect for Private and Family Life
Article 1 of the First Protocol - Protection of Property
The full text of these Articles was attached as an Appendix to the report; however, it should be borne in mind that the Board and the Authority in general should comply with other Articles of the Convention (particularly Article 3 - Prohibition of Torture and Article 14 - Prohibition of Discrimination may be of relevance).
The Act did not change the basic principles on which a decision should be made. In the case of planning applications only planning reasons were relevant in deciding whether or not it should be granted whilst in the case of licensing applications, only the terms of the particular legislation and legal principles surrounding it should be applied. In both cases valid objections by the local community could be relevant and any appeal procedure by a disgruntled applicant remained the same. However, in the case of a refusal, the applicant may have a separate additional route to the County Court to claim a remedy from the Council if it was felt that the Council had acted contrary to the applicants' human rights. Uniquely, whereas before objectors had no rights, an objector if they believed the Council's granting of the application had effected their rights, may also apply to the Court. Accordingly, it was necessary in both the process which was undertaken and the final decision being made that there was transparent consideration of the applicants' and objectors' human rights.
RESOLVED: That the Human Rights Act 1998 and European Convention on Human Rights 1950 be applied in determining future decisions.
6. SITE VISITS IN RESPECT OF LICENCE APPLICATIONS
Consideration was given to a report of the Leisure and Health Services Manager relating to circumstances in which a site visit would be made in respect of an application for a public entertainment licence or other premises licence which may have an impact on local residents.
The Leisure and Health Services Manager reported that the Head of Environmental Health (Commercial) had delegated authority to determine licence applications where there were no objections. Such applications were within Council policy and all appropriate conditions were complied with. Only the Board had authority to refuse or revoke a licence. The Licensing Sub-Committee had recently undertaken site visits to premises where they were required to determine the application and these had proved very helpful in assisting Members to understand the issues relating to those applications.
It was appropriate for the Board to undertake site visits in respect of certain licence applications for which the following options were available -
1. Site visits were organised in respect of all applications where there were objections or where the Board was to be asked to consider revoking an existing licence.
2. Site visits were organised to those premises deemed appropriate by the Head of Environmental Health (Commercial) in consultation with the Chairman of the Board.
3. The Board be asked to consider which premises it wished to visit at the meeting prior to that at which those applications would be determined.
It was felt that Option 2 represented the least bureaucratic approach but recognised that the Board might still wish to have a site visit when it heard the application and prior to making a decision.
Having considered this matter, it was -
RESOLVED: That -
(i) where a report concerning a licence application was to be made to a future meeting of the Board and there were objections from local residents concerning potential nuisance, the Head of Environmental Health (Commercial) may, in consultation with the Chairman, arrange a site meeting; and
(ii) notwithstanding any decision made under (i), the Board may on hearing an application for a licence, decide to hold a site visit prior to determining the application.
7. PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT LICENCE APPLICATION - WHEATSHEAF PUBLIC HOUSE, BROCKHURST ROAD
The Leisure and Health Services Manager reported that an application had been received for a public entertainment licence at the Wheatsheaf Public House, Brockhurst Road. Three objections had been received from local residents concerned about possible disturbance from these premises. The nature of the objections indicated that a site visit might be useful to Members in determining this application which would be the subject of a report to the Board on 4 December 2001.
RESOLVED: That the Head of Environmental Health (Commercial) be authorised to arrange a site visit to the Wheatsheaf Public House, Brockhurst Road.
8. HACKNEY CARRIAGE VEHICLE (WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE) LICENCES
Consideration was given to a report of the Corporate Services Manager (a copy of which is inserted in the Minute Book as Appendix "C") in connection with the mechanism to issue new Hackney Carriage Vehicle (Wheelchair Accessible) Licences.
The Corporate Services Manager reported that the Licensing Sub-Committee, at its meeting on 4 October 2001, had supported the annual public advertisement of an additional Hackney Carriage Vehicle (Wheelchair Accessible) Licence in view of the inconsistency in queuing times and taxi numbers in the hour between 1.45 and 2.45 am on Saturday and Sunday mornings from January to September 2001.
A Public Advert was accordingly placed and 11 applications were received, together with Business Plans. As 11 applications had been received, it was considered appropriate for the Borough Secretary, in consultation with three Board Members (1:1:1), to identify those applicants who should receive a licence.
RESOLVED: That approval be given to the granting of new Hackney Carriage Vehicle (Wheelchair Accessible) Licences to individuals identified by the Borough Secretary in consultation with three Board Members (1:1:1).
9. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING CONSENT
[Councillor Langdon requested that his objection to the decision in respect of planning application K.15839 relating to 1 Elmore Avenue, Lee-on-the-Solent be recorded.]
The Director of Development and Environment submitted a report on applications received for planning consent setting out recommendations in each case.
RESOLVED: That decisions be taken on each application for planning consent, as set out in Appendix "D" hereto.
10. K.15490 - DETAILS PURSUANT TO K.14026 - CONSTRUCTION OF CYCLEWAYS/FOOTPATHS AND LAYING OUT AND LANDSCAPING OF OPEN SPACE AND NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS - PRIDDY'S HARD, GREEN LANE, HARDWAY, GOSPORT
Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Development and Environment in connection with planning application K.15490 relating to the construction of cycleways/footpaths and laying out and landscaping of open space and nature conservation areas at Priddy's Hard, Green Lane, Hardway, Gosport.
The Director of Development and Environment reported that the current application had originally been submitted some months previously and had been the subject of negotiation. Amended plans had been received on 31 October which took into account some of the objections. The cycleway which would link Grove Road to the coast had been included as part of the Development Brief and in the outline proposals.
Following public advertisement of the application, seven letters and one petition containing 11 signatures of objection had been received. In addition there had been two letters of observation and one letter of support. The objections raised related to -
· the proposals must be sufficient to deter vandalism
· loss of light and danger to foundations due to proximity of planting
· potential disturbance to wildlife
· loss of grazing rights
· footpath/cycleway should be re-routed along Forton Creek foreshore
· the proposals had been incorrectly publicised
It was reported that the residents of Grafton Close were concerned that the level of planting between the cycleway and the rear boundaries was excessive and would create a security hazard. The police had supported that view and, as a result, the developer had agreed to the planting of low level defensive shrubs.
With regard to the likely effect on the Urban Farm, the developer had been contacted in respect of the alleged loss of grazing rights and had responded that these did not exist. The Urban Farm had an informal agreement to use the land until such time as it was required for other purposes. In addition, it would not be possible to re-route the cycleway along Forton Creek as this was part of the Nature Conservation Management Area from which the public were to be excluded.
In accordance with Standing Order 3.4, Mrs S Hitchman of 17 Lapwing Close, Gosport, was permitted to address the Board on behalf of those residents who objected to the proposal. Mrs Hitchman made the following comments -
· The Urban Farm had a legal document showing grazing rights. It was believed that once the Nature Reserve was established, the Farm would have access to graze their animals twice a year on a controlled basis.
· The proposed path would cause disturbance to the animals and wildlife and destroy the existing meadows.
· The path could be re-routed along the front of the boundary with Green Lane, past Admiralty Close, through Orwell Close and meet up with the proposed path. There was an area of shrub land at the front of the property which could be utilised and this would remove the disturbance and destruction to the water meadows.
· No notification had been received in writing and the Urban Farm had a legal lease on the area for grazing.
· Members and officers were invited to visit the site to clarify the position.
Consideration was given to the request for a site visit. However, Members were reminded that the current proposal was part of the outline planning permission, the Development Brief and the Nature Conservation Management Plan approved by the Council.
Having considered this matter at length, it was -
RESOLVED: That approval be given to planning application K.15490 pursuant to Additional Conditions 01 (c) (h) (j) and (n) attached to Outline Planning Consent K.14026 and subject to the following condition -
Details of the design and location of the lighting columns and management signs for the cycleways and footpaths shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences, and thereafter erected and installed before the cycleways and footpaths are available for public use.
Reason - Such details have yet to be submitted and to comply with policy T6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.
11. CONDITION AND APPEARANCE OF LAND ADJACENT TO 32b GROVE ROAD, GOSPORT
The Director of Development and Environment reported that last year planning permission was sought for the erection of two semi-detached houses with car parking on the landscaped area of land adjacent to 32b Grove Road, Gosport. The application was refused for the following reason -
The proposal would result in the loss of a landscaped open space which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality, contrary to Policies RL9 and BE1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.
The subsequent planning appeal was dismissed by the Secretary of State.
Complaints were received in June this year that a fence erected around the boundary of the site had fallen down in places and was dangerous and also that the land was becoming overgrown. The landowner was requested to remove the unauthorised fence and to tidy and maintain the land in order to avoid the Borough Council considering formal action. The owner had neither responded to correspondence nor tidied the site although the fence had been repaired and reinstated on a number of occasions despite the request for its removal.
Members were informed that under circumstances such as those prevailing, and where the Local Planning Authority was concerned that the amenity of the surrounding land was being adversely affected by the condition of a particular site, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provided a remedy. Section 215 empowered the Borough Council to serve a Notice requiring the proper maintenance of the land. Such a Notice must specify the steps required to remedy the condition of the land and provide a time limit within which those steps must be implemented. Failure to comply with the Notice was an offence, subject only to an appeal to the Magistrate's Court.
The Planning Office was continuing to receive complaints in respect of the matter and was satisfied that the land was sufficiently detrimental to the visual and residential amenities of the area to warrant service of a formal Section 215 Notice.
RESOLVED: That authority be given to serve a Section 215 Notice to secure the proper maintenance of the land and removal of the unauthorised fence at 32B Grove Road, Gosport, and that -
(a) the steps required to be taken to comply with the requirements of the Section 215 Notice be as follows -
(i) the uprooting of all overgrown vegetation and removal of all resultant matter from the site (none of the resultant debris shall be burned on the site);
(ii) the removal of all tipped materials and any other rubbish from the site;
(iii) the removal of the unauthorised wooden boundary fence from the site;
(iv) the mowing of the grass to between 15-25mm, not less than 13 times a year, and proper maintenance of the site thereafter to retain it in a clean and tidy condition; and
(b) the period for compliance be 28 days.
CHAIRMAN
|
|
