A MEETING OF THE REGULATORY BOARD
WAS HELD ON 9 APRIL 2002
The Mayor (ex-officio); Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Edgar) (ex-officio) (P); Councillors Mrs Angus (P), Mrs Binfield (P), Edwards (P), Farr (P), Gibson (P), Gill (P), Hayward (Chairman) (P), Langdon (P), Mrs Searle (P) and Taylor (P)
42. APOLOGY
An apology for inability to attend the meeting was submitted on behalf of The Mayor.
43. MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Regulatory Board held on 12 March 2002 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.
PART II
44. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING CONSENT
(NOTE: Councillor Hayward declared an interest in planning application K.7985/25 relating to INM Alverstoke, Crescent Road, Gosport; Councillors Mrs Searle and Taylor declared an interest in respect of planning application K.8398/4 relating to 66 San Diego Road, Gosport; and Councillor Edgar declared an interest in respect of planning application K.5340/7 relating to 268 Forton Road, Gosport. All left the meeting prior to consideration of the respective applications.)
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 "A" hereto.
45. K.8398/4 - CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP (CLASS A1) TO GROUND FLOOR FLAT AND ALTERATIONS TO FRONT ELEVATION - 66 SAN DIEGO ROAD, GOSPORT
The Director of Development and Environment reported that 66 San Diego Road, Gosport, was a vacant shop with an unoccupied flat above. The current proposal was to convert the shop into a flat thus creating one building with two flats. The Plans Sub-Committee had previously refused a similar application on the following grounds -
· The property was within a local shopping area
· Conversion to flats would be out of keeping with the area
· The design was incompatible with the character of the area
The applicant had appealed against the decision. The Inspector dismissed the appeal but did not agree that the loss of the shop would be detrimental to the viability of the area but supported the decision on the remaining two factors. If converted to a residential use, the physical appearance would be incongruous with the shopping parade and, therefore, would not be acceptable from a visual point of view.
The current proposal was a resubmission of the same principle with a re-designed frontage.
In accordance with Standing Order 3.4, Mr H White, the applicant, was permitted to address the Board. Mr White made the following comments -
· Mr White was extremely concerned about the recommendation to refuse his application as the appeal had been lost with regard to the alternations to the front elevation.
· The current application was with a redesigned frontage retaining the best parts and, unless the shop frontage remained untouched, it was not possible to make further improvements.
· The shop had been vacant for a long time, was subject to vandalism and was an eyesore.
· The matter had already been delivered for 12 months as a result of the previous appeal and now he would be faced with a further delay and another costly appeal.
· The property was clearly not required as a commercial premises and he could not see a way forward but would ask the Members to visit the site before making a decision.
During consideration of this matter Members questioned whether there was likely to be any design which would be acceptable. It was reported that any residential appearance would be incongruous and, in addition, any conversion to flats would create a requirement for car parking.
Having considered the matter at length, it was -
RESOLVED: That planning application K.8398/4 relating to the change of use from shop (Class A1) to ground floor flat and alterations to front elevation at 66 San Diego Road, Gosport, be refused for the following reasons -
1. The proposed conversion of the property into flats would be out of keeping with the character of the adjoining residential area contrary to Policies BE1 and H9 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.
2. The proposed residential frontage, by reason of its design and external appearance, is out of keeping with the existing building and the adjoining commercial units, and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of this prominent location, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.
46. REQUIREMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN RESPECT OF PLANNING APPLICATION K.8594/4 - ERECTION OF 34 NO SHELTERED FLATS, COMMUNAL FACILITIES AND CAR PARKING - 49/51 HIGH STREET, LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT
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 "B") which considered whether a contribution towards affordable housing should be sought in respect of the development at 49/51 High Street, Lee-on-the-Solent.
It was reported that this application had been considered by the Board at its meeting on 12 March 2002 when the application was refused. One of the reasons for refusal was that the application made no provision for affordable housing.
The Board was not fully able to consider the issue of affordable housing as the applicant had submitted further supporting information after publication of the report and officers had not had sufficient time to assess the documentation. It was therefore agreed that a further report be brought to the present meeting of the Board so that the planning application, and its appealed duplicate, could be further considered in terms of affordable housing.
The Director of Development and Environment reported that the adopted Gosport Borough Local Plan set out in Policy H7 that on housing development proposals on a substantial scale the Council would require a suitable contribution towards meeting the housing needs of the Borough. In assessing whether a contribution from a particular site was appropriate, the policy stated that the Council would have regard to all material considerations and in particular listed three criteria.
Since the adoption of the Local Plan in 1995 the Government had published further guidance on the provision of affordable housing. Circular 6/98 'Planning and Affordable Housing' was published in 1998 and PPG3: Housing reaffirming that Circular 6/98 was still the relevant Government Guidance, was published in 2000.
Circular 6/98 sets out a test against which the suitability of sites for affordable housing can be assessed. The following criteria should be taken into account:
i) site size, suitability and the economics of provision:
· it will be inappropriate to seek any affordable housing on some sites. In practice the policy should only be applied to suitable sites, namely: housing developments of 25 or more dwellings or residential sites of 1 Hectare or more, irrespective of the number of dwellings;
· the proximity of local services and facilities and access to public transport;
· whether there will be particular costs associated with development of the site; and
· whether the provision of affordable housing would prejudice the realisation of other planning objectives that need to be given priority in development of the site.
ii) the need to achieve a successful housing development.
Paragraph 2 in the Circular made it clear that the definition of housing covered all new housing developments and included special needs housing which was not affordable, such as that for the elderly. This was recently confirmed in a letter to the Borough Council (dated 11 December 2001) from the Government Office for the South East.
Members were informed that the applicant accepted that sheltered housing developments should not be exempt from providing affordable housing per se. However, the applicant considered that the site at 49/51 High Street, Lee-on-the-Solent, was not of substantial scale in that it was not capable of accommodating a reasonable mix of housing types and sizes. It was claimed that although the proposed development exceeded the threshold set in Circular 6/98 (25 dwellings), the site area only covered 0.12Ha and was too small to be considered suitable for affordable housing. It was claimed that the notional density of that form of housing was higher than that for conventional housing and that the threshold of 25 dwellings was not therefore appropriate. It was also claimed that the configuration of the site would preclude the successful development of a mix of housing.
With regard to particular costs the applicant stated that there was a long history of industrial use and that there would be costs arising from demolition and decontamination. Also, by the very nature of sheltered accommodation, there were higher costs. The applicant also stated that it would not be possible to achieve a successful housing development if affordable housing was sought on the site. It was pointed out that mix tenure schemes could lead to management problems, as the priorities of a Housing Association may be different from that of a private management company. The site was not large enough to accommodate separate facilities for affordable sheltered housing and market sheltered housing.
It was clear from Government guidance that the provision of affordable housing was an important factor in determining planning applications for housing developments. In most instances sheltered accommodation was provided in the form of flatted accommodation and therefore would be developed at a higher density than general family accommodation. Indeed, whilst the Circular specifically mentioned affordable housing for the elderly, it did not say that a development such as the one proposed should be treated any differently and it would therefore be reasonable to assume that the threshold of 25 dwellings would apply.
The Housing Services Manager had advised that the provision of a mix tenure scheme on the site might not be suitable in any event but that a financial contribution should be sought towards the provision of the element of affordable housing elsewhere in the Borough in line with Circular 6/98.
Having considered the matter, it was -
RESOLVED: That the reason for refusal relating to affordable housing be confirmed in regard to planning application K.8594/4 and the Council's case relating to the appealed duplicate application K.8594/5 be prepared on that basis.
47. FIVE POST LANE - TRAFFIC ISSUES
The Board gave consideration to a report of the Director of Development and Environment (a copy of which is inserted in the Minute Book as Appendix "C") setting out the results of recent investigations into traffic issues at Five Post Lane, Gosport.
It was reported that since 1995 there had been concerns regarding traffic movements in the service road at the rear of 19-41 Grove Road which was a typical narrow rear access road without footways, providing pedestrian and vehicle access to a number of properties. The issue was first raised with the Ward Councillor by parents concerned about possible conflict with vehicles when their children used the route to St John's School. There were also concerns that some vehicles were rat running and travelling at excessive speeds outside of school muster times.
The Borough Council had been asked on several occasions over a number of years to provide traffic calming measures or to implement a Traffic Regulation Order to close the road at one end or the other to prohibit through traffic. The most recent investigation was in response to a petition containing 99 signatures submitted by parents of pupils at St John's School requesting traffic calming in Five Post Lane.
Traffic and pedestrian movements had been monitored at school times which had established that there had been no significant changes since previous investigations. Analysis of accident data showed no reported personal injury accidents in Five Post Lane over the previous three years and, during that period, there had been no accidents reported in Felix Road and only one reported in Freemantle Road which had occurred outside school times.
In January a letter was sent to local residents and the school explaining the history of complaints and investigations and asking for opinions on a possible road closure. 114 letters were delivered which had resulted in 17 responses - 13 against a closure and 4 in favour. Many of the objectors to the possible closure were concerned that the redistribution of traffic to adjoining roads and the additional traffic movements that would arise outside the school which could themselves conflict with children.
Having considered this matter, it was -
RESOLVED: That no traffic control measures be implemented or further investigations undertaken unless there was a significant change of circumstances.
[In accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Edwards requested that his objection to the resolution be recorded.]
48. VOTE OF THANKS
The Board wished to place on record its thanks to the Chairman and Officers for their support during the 2001/2002 Municipal Year.
CHAIRMAN
|
|
