14 02 2006

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

 

 

 

 

Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were received from the Mayor, Councillor Burgess and Councillor Carr.

 

 

 

 

Councillor Farr declared an interest in Item 7/01 (K17061 – Land to rear of 24 Cameron Close, Gosport).  Councillor Train declared an interest in Item 7/3 (K16926/2 – Land to rear of 12 Station Road, Gosport).  Councillor Gill declared an interest in Item 7/04 (K17074 – Ambleside Court, Crescent Road, Gosport). 

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the Regulatory Board meeting held on 17 January 2006 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

 

It was reported that deputations had been received on applications K17061, Land to rear of 24 Cameron Close, Gosport; K16926/2, Land to rear of 12 Station Road, Gosport; K17074, Ambleside Court, Crescent Road, Gosport; and K2301/2, 98 Portsmouth Road, Lee on the Solent. Councillor Mrs Wright, Ward Councillor, had requested permission to address the Board on item K17061 and Councillor Carter, Ward Councillor, had requested permission to address the Board on item K2301/2.

 

 

 

 

No public questions had been received.

 

 

 

 

Members considered the report of the Development Services Manager (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix ‘A’) setting out the background to the Best Value Performance Indicators relating to speed of determining planning and other applications; performance against other government and local targets in relation to applications and appeals; and performance in resolving complaints relating to possible breaches of planning control.

 

 

Members were advised that a penalty had been introduced in the form of an abatement in the Planning Delivery Grant awarded to Local Planning Authorities who had a higher than national average of decisions to refuse planning applications overturned at appeal.  On average only 5% of applications were refused in Gosport, leading to a low number of appeals lodged.  Therefore, decisions to refuse planning permission must be based on sound planning reasons if considerable financial penalties were to be avoided.

 

 

RESOLVED:   That Development Control Performance 01.10.05 – 31.12.05 be noted by the Board.

 

 

 

 

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 ‘B’).

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Note:  Councillor Farr 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 an informal site visit had taken place that afternoon which had been attended by Councillors Clinton, Davis, Foster, Taylor and Train.  The site was viewed from Mr Doyle’s garden at 24 Cameron Close and he informed Members that he had, until recently, kept chickens in his own garden.  Mr Doyle advised members that he believed a near neighbour also kept chickens.  Members also viewed the site from the bottom of the embankment by the subway and by means of a ladder in the garden of 20 Keyes Road.

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Vick addressed the Board.  He advised Members that the land had been very overgrown when he purchased it and that he had cleared it and erected a fence for security.  His intention was only to use the land to provide produce for his own consumption and not for business use.  He appreciated concerns that the proposed steps might attract undesirable behaviour but he had taken out an insurance policy against any liability.  With regard to concerns over bird flu, this virus applied to all birds and not just chickens.  He proposed keeping his chickens in the shed to reduce the chance of infection from wild birds.

 

 

In answer to a Member’s question, Mr Vick confirmed that he would not be providing employment through his proposed use of the land. 

 

 

Councillor Mrs Wright addressed the Board and thanked Members for allowing her to speak.   She referred to the views put forward by Councillor Wright at the previous meeting of the Board and also to the site visit.  Councillor Mrs Wright had received a letter and petition from 12 local residents expressing concern at the proposed use of the land and she had also been advised that the nearby existing steps down the embankment might be closed due to the vandalism and anti-social behaviour in their vicinity. 

 

 

Councillor Mrs Wright referred to complaints to the Environmental Health Department from residents in the area where Mr Vick presently keeps chickens.  In reply, Members were informed that, on investigation by Officers from Environmental Health, it had been decided that the complaints were not justified and, therefore, in reply to consultation relating to this application, Environmental Health had indicated they had no objection to the proposals.

 

 

In reply to Members’ questions, it was confirmed that there were no parking restrictions in Cameron Close or Montgomery Road and in view of maximum standards, parking was not a planning consideration.

 

 

Members requested confirmation of the planning issues for consideration and were advised that they should consider whether the proposed buildings and steps would lead to loss of amenity and would allow activity to take place that would otherwise not occur.

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K17061 – Land to rear of Cameron Close  Gosport   Hampshire be refused for the following reason:

 

 

i.

That the proposed development, by reason of the introduction of access steps leading to the top of the embankment, has the potential to move the antisocial behaviour that takes place at the bottom of the embankment to the top where it will be in closer proximity to the residential properties of Cameron Close and Keyes Road to the detriment of the amenities of occupiers of those properties contrary to Policies BE1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

Members were advised that 5 letters of objection had been received as noted in the Minutes of the meeting of 13 December 2005 and apologies were given that this had not been included in the report.  There was also an error in paragraph 8 to the report and Members were advised that a total of 6 accidents had occurred on St Nicholas Avenue, between Brune Lane and Grange Lane.

 

 

It was confirmed that this application had been deferred for further consultation on traffic management issues in the vicinity of the proposed development and for information on traffic accidents relating to Rowallan Avenue.  The report now indicated that none of the accidents in the vicinity were attributed to prevailing traffic conditions or other safety issues in the proximity of the application site.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K17054 – 3 Rowallan Avenue  Gosport  Hampshire be approved subject to Section 106 Agreement relating to the payment of a commuted sum towards the provision of outdoor playing space and a traffic regulation order 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 and will not have any significant detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining and prospective residents or in terms of highway safety.  As such, the proposal complies with Policies BE1, H5, T6 and RL10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, RT11 and R/OS7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Members were advised that a further letter of objection had been received citing concern over the position of the proposed garage.  It was confirmed that amendments to the original proposed positioning of the garage had been sought on grounds of highway safety and the current proposal was acceptable.

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mr Norman was invited to address the Board.  The issues raised by Mr Norman included the proximity of the front door of the proposed property to the road and the subsequent limited view of traffic approaching from the south; the visual impact of the proposal from the east and west; the angle of the proposed garage to others in the vicinity; the fact that the residents of 12 Station Road would have had access to the existing garage were it not for the construction of a conservatory; the number of objections from local residents to the proposal; and the existence of badgers on the site.

 

 

Members were advised that there was no badger set on the land but badgers may visit it from a nearby set.  Members were further advised that the proposed garage was for a single car but was of sufficient width to aid manoeuvring.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K16926/2 – Land to rear of 12 Station 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 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 significant detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the area, adjoining and prospective residents or highway safety. As such the proposal complies with Policies BE1, BE6, H5, T6 and RL10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/DP8, R/H4, R/T11 and R/OS7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

Note:  Councillor Gill declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item, left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

 

 

Members were advised that a further 22 letter of objection, plus supplementary letters, had been received. 

 

 

At the request of the Chairman, the Board agreed to the late application from Mr Streatfeild-James to make a deputation.  The issues raised by him included criticism of the alternate site survey; the questionable need for additional antenna; the dismissed appeals against the installation of masts on the Anglesey Hotel; the lack of information on power and magnetic fields; and the delay in obtaining information requested from the Council. 

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Dr Brook, Company Secretary of the Residents’ Association of Ambleside Court, addressed the Board.   He advised that the applicants had not informed the residents of the proposed installation.  Other issues raised by Dr Brook included issues contained in the Stewart Report on the safety of mast installations; the potential harm to children being greater than that to adults; the loss of amenity of the roof area to residents; and the antenna would be adjacent to the accommodation area of the building.

 

 

Mr Wellman addressed the Board on behalf of the applicants.  He distributed copies of photographs of the proposed site and a copy of the Search Area/Sites Location Map (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book at Appendix ‘C’).  He confirmed that alternative sites had been thoroughly investigated but the proposed site was the preferred option.  He pointed out that the Gosport Society had no objection to the proposal.

 

 

Mr Wellman advised Members that the roofline of the building would not be affected, the control box and cables on the roof only provided power and would not be visible from the ground and the antenna pointed away from the building.

 

 

Officers confirmed to Members that a planning authority had the power to ask a telecommunications company to look at alternate sites for equipment and that this criteria had been satisfied.  The proposed installation had also received an ICNIRP Certificate indicating compliance with health and safety regulations and therefore issues of power levels and radiation were not matters for consideration by the Board.

 

 

Members were advised that the planning appeal against refusal to allow the installation of equipment on the Anglesey Hotel was dismissed because the proposal was to erect masts on the roof of a listed building and ancillary equipment was visible from public areas.  Therefore, that application differed materially from the current application, which was for antenna below the roofline of a building that was not listed.

 

 

In view of the delay in enabling objectors to obtain information, Members considered that a decision on this proposal should be deferred.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K17074 – Ambleside Court  Crescent Road  Gosport  Hampshire be deferred to allow for further consultation.

 

 

 

The Bus Station  South Street  Gosport  Hampshire  PO12 1EP 

 

 

Members were advised that the Crime Prevention Officer had expressed the view that a coin-operated facility would deter inappropriate use;the Environment Agency had no objection; and the applicant had confirmed that there wasf a water saving device within the design to comply with Policy R/ENV10. 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application 14504/3 – The Bus Station  South Street  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 S38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and all other material consideration the development is acceptable in principle and complies with Policies S1 and EMP2 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/S1, R/S5, R/EMP2 and R/DP4 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.  The building is of an appropriate size and scale for this location and meets the requirements of Policies BE1 and CH9 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1 and R/CH1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

Quay Lane Boatyard Quay Lane  Gosport  Hants  PO12 4LJ 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K13399/7 – Quay Lane Boatyard  Quay Lane  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 proposal is acceptable in terms of its setting outside of the Urban Area Boundary and will not be detrimental to landward or seaward views, or the visual amenities of the area, or the wider character and appearance of the coast, or the interests of nature conservation.  As such, the development complies with Policies BE1, CH1, CH7, CH9 and NC1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/OS1, R/CH1, R/CH5, R/OS9 and R/OS10  of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

Solent Service Station   Fareham Road  Gosport  Hants   

 

 

Members were informed that the standing objection from the Environment Agency in relation to ground water had been withdrawn following consideration of a report received by them on 27 January 2006.  Therefore, an amended recommendation and co, nditions (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book at Appendix ‘D, 217;) were circulated to Members for consideration.

 

 

Members considered the potential for noise pollution from use of the car wash and were of the opinion that the hours of use should be restricted.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K11292/8 – Solent Service Station  Fareham Road  Gosport  Hampshire be approved subject to the amended conditions set out in the report of the Development Services Manager and subject to an additional condition set out below, 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 proposal is acceptable in design terms and will not be harmful to the vitality and viability of local shopping centres or the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.  As such the development complies with Policies BE1 and BE4 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/S2, R/S9, R/ENV5 and R/ENV6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

Additional Condition

The car wash facility shall not be operated or otherwise used between the hours of 10:00 pm and 07:00 am.

 

Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings during the night time period and to comply with Policy BE1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1 and R/ENV6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

Gosport Marina   Mumby Road Gosport Hampshire   

 

 

Members were advised that a response had been received from the Environment Agency raising no objection to this proposal.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K13789/20 – Gosport Marina  Mumby Road  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 proposal is acceptable in terms of its setting outside of the Urban Area Boundary and will not be detrimental to landward or seaward views, or the visual amenities of the area, or the wider character and appearance of the coast, or the interests of nature conservation.  As such, the development complies with Policies BE1, CH1, CH7, CH9 and NC1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1, R/OS1, R/CH1, R/CH5, R/OS9 and R/OS10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

Alver Meadow Grange Road  Gosport  Hants   

 

 

Councillors welcomed this proposal and the facilities it would provide for young people in the Borough.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K17075 – Alver Meadow  Grange Road  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 proposal is acceptable in this location in land use and environmental terms and will not have a detrimental affect on the amenities of the surrounding area.  As such the development complies with Policies BE1, T6, CY1, CY3, RL1, RL7 and RL8 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/T2, R/OS1 and R/OS5 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

104 Grove Road  Gosport  Hampshire  PO12 4JN   

 

 

RESOLVED: That no objection be raised to planning application K2361/1 – 104 Grove Road  Gosport  Hampshire.

 

 

 

 

 

Members were advised that an amended plan had been received on 1 February 2006 indicating a change to the design of the louvre vent in accordance with requirements from Environmental Health.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K17081 – Unit A  Twyford Drive  Lee on the Solent  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 proposal is acceptable in design terms and will not be harmful to the amenities of existing and prospective occupiers.  As such the development complies with Policies BE1 and BE4 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1, R/S9 and R/ENV6 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

98 Portsmouth Road  Lee-On-The-Solent  Hampshire  PO13 9AF    

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Mrs Jennings was invited to address the Board.  Issues raised by Mrs Jennings included concern at the proposed raising of the roof, which would cut the light from her property; the proximity of the two properties would make the construction of scaffolding dangerous; the proposed loft conversion actually amounted to the construction of a third storey; the proposed extension forward of the original building line would lead to loss of privacy and light; the proposed garage would cause loss of light to her greenhouse; and the proposals amounted to over development.

 

 

Councillor Carter, Ward Councillor, addressed the Board.  He advised the Board that he knew Portsmouth Road well and the properties enjoyed panoramic views.  Conversions had taken place to more diverse properties in the road but numbers 96 and 98 were very close together.  The west facing windows of number 96 were already overshadowed by number 98.  The proposed balcony would overlook numbers 96 and 100 and the elevation and build mass would be out of proportion on this site.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K2301/2 – 98 Portsmouth Road  Lee on the Solent  Hampshire be refused for the following reasons:

 

 

i

The balcony at first floor will overlook the bay window at the front of the adjacent properties and the windows at the side of no 96 and impair the light available to and outlook from the widows on the front of no. 100. Moreover, by raising the roof and extending it forward to a gable there will be a large building mass immediately adjacent to the windows on the side elevation of no 96 which will significantly impair the outlook of that property and reduce the light to the rooms the windows serve.  As such the proposal is contrary to Policies BE1 and BE3 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and R/DP1 and R/DP7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

54-68 St Vincent Road  Gosport  PO12 4QN     

 

 

Members welcomed this proposal as complaints of damp in this building had been received from residents.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K17078 – 54-68 St Vincent Road  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 is of an acceptable design and will improve the appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area. As such, the proposal complies with Policies BE1 and BE3 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and Policies R/DP1 and R/DP7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

i.

Royal Clarence Yard Appeal

Members were advised that the decision to allow the appeal had been finely balanced and the Inspector had indicated that the First Secretary of State might consider dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the proposed development was not economically sustainable. However, the Inspector considered that the development as proposed would still result in a better ratio of jobs to houses than other areas of the Borough and would deliver additional affordable housing.  He also considered the provision of a cinema was appropriate on this site but that this and the other commercial uses would not affect the viability of the Town Centre.   He further recommended that land still retained by the MOD should be allocated for commercial uses if it was released in the future.  No award of costs was made against the Council, which was another indication that the result was finely balanced.

 

 

 

The Borough Solicitor advised that the Council were invited to enter into a Deed of Variation for the cinema site and she requested the Board to grant her authority to enter into such Deeds of Variation as necessary to give effect to the terms of the planning permission. 

 

 

 

RESOLVED: That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to enter into such Deeds of Variation as necessary to give effect to the terms of the planning permission granted on appeal for the Royal Clarence Yard Site.