23 05 2006

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

 

 

It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, notice had been received that Councillors Mrs Champion, Hook and Carter would replace Councillors Allen, Foster and Ward respectively for this meeting.

 

 

 

 

Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were received from Councillors Allen, Foster and Ward.

 

 

 

 

Councillor Smith declared an interest in Item 8/05 (K16420/4 – 32 Forton Road) and in Item 8/11 (K17144 – Royal Clarence Yard, Weevil Lane)

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the Regulatory Board meetings held on 18 April 2006 and 18 May 2006 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

 

It was reported that deputations had been received on applications K15438/14, Land Adjoining 15 St Thomas’s Road; and K15105/2, 19 Spithead Avenue. Councillor Langdon, Hardway Ward Councillor, had requested permission to address the Board on Item K15438/14, Land Adjoining 15 St Thomas’s Road; and Councillor Carr, Christchurch Ward Councillor, had requested permission to address the Board on Item K16420/4, 32 Forton Road.

 

 

 

 

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’) which sets 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.

 

 

RESOLVED:   That Development Control Performance 01/01/06 – 31/03/06 be noted by the Board.

 

 

 

 

The Board considered the report (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix ‘B’) requesting that they approve the recommendation to offer an Historic Buildings Grant of £1042.67 towards works of repair to the historic fabric at 12 Peel Road, Gosport, which is situated within the Peel Road Conservation Area.

 

 

RESOLVED: That the Board approves an offer of £1042.68 (or 10% of the final cost, whichever is the lesser sum) towards eligible works on the basis that it fulfils the criteria for Historic Buildings Grant assistance, and the works are in accordance with Policy R/BH1 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

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 ‘C’).

 

 

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

 

 

 

Land Adjoining 15 St Thomas's Road  Gosport  

 

 

It was reported that an additional 18 letters had been received in response to amended plans, the content of which was summarised and a letter and e-mail from Councillor Langdon was read to the Board.  It was also confirmed to Members that additional footpath links were to be provided at the East and West of the site.

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, David Sekules addressed the Board   He raised the following issues: loss of view, impact on character of the Conservation Area, traffic congestion, excessive density, overlooking from windows, and inadequate car-parking provisions. Mr Sekules stated that most residents accepted the previous proposal to build 10 houses but claimed that what was already an unacceptable application to build 22 flats had been made worse by the amended plans submitted to Council in April.

 

 

Richard Tear, an agent of Alan Maclean Associates and representative of CCM Homes, was invited to address the Board. Mr Tear referred to the need to provide adequate affordable housing utilising Brownfield land. He stated that this application proposed a development of similar scale to the one approved in March 2004, with only minor alterations to the physical perception from the public realm. He said there would not be any negative effect on the character and appearance of the area and added that there was no sustainable objection on grounds of unreasonable residential amenity. Mr Tear referred to the report of the Head of Traffic Management which raised no objection, and added that there were no highway grounds for refusal.

 

 

In answer to a Member’s question, Mr Tear used the ‘TRICS’ data system for traffic analysis to justify a statement that there would be only a minor increase in traffic. With regard to the residential density being outside Local Plan parameters, Mr Tear considered that Policy R/H4 made provision for exceptions and that this represented one of those cases.

 

 

Councillor Langdon was invited to address the Board as Ward Councillor for Hardway. He explained that sustainability was a cause for concern, quoting Local Plan Strategies SS1, promoting sustainable development; and SS2, regarding the importance of reducing the need to travel,  and cross-cutting strategy CC1 of the emerging South-East Plan . In respect of the built heritage, Cllr Langdon considered that the development contravened policies R/BH1 and R/DP1 of the Local Plan as the design did not preserve or enhance the appearance of the conservation area. With regard to the density of the development, at 89 dph (density per hectare) this would be in excess of the parameters of 30 to 50 dph set out in Policy R/H4 of the Local Plan. Other issues raised by Cllr Langdon included the lack of Open Space, the effect on visual amenity, noise, and the effect on car-parking in the area.

 

In response to questions from Member’s, officers explained the relationship of the proposal to the surrounding development with particular reference to the character and appearance of the conservation area, the provision to be made for Open Space, the potential for overlooking in the context of the earlier scheme, the relationship of density to accessibility in terms of sustainability, and the consideration of the proposed access and parking arrangements in relation to highway safety.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K15438/14 – Land Adjoining 15 St Thomas’s Road Gosport be refused for the following reasons:

 

 

i.

That the proposal by reason of its high density in this location constitutes an unsustainable form of development which is likely to result in greater reliance on the private car. As such it is contrary to Strategic Statements SS1 and SS2 and Policy R/H4 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review

 

 

 

 

 

1-4 Oaklands Office Park  Aerodrome Road  Gosport  Hants  PO13 OGY   

 

 

The Chairman indicated that the proposal would create between 40 and 50 jobs in the area which was welcomed by the Members.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K17106 – 1-4 Oaklands Office Park, Aerodrome Road, Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development Services  Manager, for the following reasons:

 

 

i.

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 terms and will not be harmful to the economic vitality and viability of Frater Gate and the Borough of Gosport.  As such the development complies with Policies R/DP1, R/EMP1, R/EMP3, R/EMP7, R/T2, RT11 and R/CF1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

Land To The Rear Of   9 Grove Avenue  Gosport 

 

Members were assured that the Tree Preservation Order referred to in Principle Issues, Paragraph 2, had since been made on 22 May 2006.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K15577/1 – Land To The Rear Of 9 Grove Avenue  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 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, by reason of its design, siting and orientation, would not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of existing or prospective occupiers, or the character or appearance of the area, or traffic or parking conditions in the locality, or the interests of nature conservation.  As such, the proposal complies with Policies R/DP1, R/DP6, R/T11, R/H1, R/H4, R/OS8 and R/OS13 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

The Wheatsheaf   225 Brockhurst Road  Gosport  Hampshire  PO12 3AZ

 

 

Members were informed that an extra letter of objection had been received and that no new issues had been raised by this letter. Officers also clarified that the fence referred to in Condition 3 would in fact be erected between points “A” – “A” – “A”  - “A”  not “A” –“A” as  written.

 

 

Members considered that the wording of Condition 2 required clarity regarding the use of doors onto the decking.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K4332/3 – The Wheatsheaf   225 Brockhurst Road  Gosport be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development Services Manager and subject to an amended condition 2, 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 will not harm the character or setting of this Local List building or have any detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining users. As such the proposal complies with Policies R/DP1 R/BH5 and R/ENV10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

Amended Condition 2

 

The new windows to the lobby and dining room shall not be open during the hours of 20.00 and 10.00 and the new doors to the lobby and dining room shall not be opened other than when in use as a means of access and egress to the decked area between the  hours of 20.00 and 10.00

 

 

 

32 Forton Road  Gosport  Hampshire  PO12 4TH  

 

 

Note: Councillor Smith declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this Item, left the room at 7.41pm and took no further part in the discussion or voting thereon.

 

 

Officers confirmed that amended plans had been received on 11 May 2006 showing the proposed access points to the moped and refuse storage areas. Members noted that the planning permission referred to as K.16420/4 in Condition 11, should read K.16420/2.

 

 

Cllr Carr addressed the Board as Ward Councillor for Christchurch and drew Members attention to a previous refused application in Forton Road dated 14 September 2004. Officers explained to Members that this proposal would have resulted in several adjacent Takeaway food shops resulting in ‘dead frontage’. The application would have also resulted in an intimidating and unacceptable environment for residents living above the takeaways. Members were also advised that the current application was outside of the defined shopping centre and therefore different Local Plan Policies were applicable. 

 

 

Members were informed that 22 car parking spaces were available at the rear of the site, and that there was a local car-park that would support any increase in vehicular activity.

 

 

RESOLVED: That planning application K16420/4 – 32 Forton Road Gosport 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 would not harm the retail function of the Forton Road Neighbourhood Shopping Centre or the character or visual amenities of the area, or the amenities of existing or prospective occupiers, or traffic/parking conditions in the locality. The development also makes adequate provision for outdoor playing space and affordable housing.  As such, the development complies with Policies R/DP1, R/DP3, R/DP6, R/S2, R/H4, R/H5, R/OS8, R/T2, R/T3, R/T10, R/T11, R/CF6, R/ENV5, and R/ENV10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

Members were advised that a consultation response had been received from Southern Water which stated they had no objection but requested a condition to protect the sewer system.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K14504/4 – The Bus Station South Street Gosport  be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development Services Manager and the additional condition as set out below, 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 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 R/DP1 and R/CH1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

Additional Condition 2.

 

Before development commences details of the measures to be taken to protect the public sewers shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.  The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason – To ensure there is no damage to the public sewers and to comply with policies R/ENV3 and R/ENV4 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Members were informed that an 18-signature petition had been received in which 3 issues had been raised, which were as follows; Firstly, the extension was larger than the previous one for this site, approved 19 January 2006, which would cause a further erosion of on-site parking facilities; Objectors then claimed that the prospective increase in the total number of residents was unclear in the description; It was also claimed that because Gosport Borough Council had refused permission to extend from 9 to 15 residents in 1989, they should ‘stick by their guns’ on this application.

 

 

Officers advised that the 2.5 m² increase in the footprint size of the proposed extension was a minor adjustment that was designed to satisfy Social Services requirements and did not erode parking provision. In response to the second issue, officers drew attention to description on the report which did indicate the proposed intention to increase the number of residents from 15 to 16 residents. Finally, Members were advised that the decision to refuse permission in 1989 had been overturned on appeal and that the current application must be determined on it merits and in the light of the prevailing planning policies.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K14303/7 –10 Britten , Road Lee-on-the-Solent  Hampshire 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 and will not have any detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining residents or in terms of highway safety. As such the proposal complies with Policies R/DP1, R/DP7, R/H7 and R/T11 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

 Members were advised that in Principal Issues, paragraph 2, rather than ‘Lessland Road’ it should have read ‘Leesland Road’.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K16295/3 –Light Machine Repairs Norman Road  Gosport  Hants 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 detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining and prospective residents or highway safety. As such the proposal complies with Policies R/DP1, R/H4, R/T11 and R/OS8 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

Land Adjacent To 6 Prideaux Brune Avenue Gosport  

 

 

It was reported to Members that two letters of objection had been received which raised the following issues: Concern that the site was too small; the dwelling was of an unacceptable design and would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring dwellings and set a precedent; drainage and possible insurance issues; one less car parking space than had been previously proposed; the outbuildings should be ‘made good’; loss of privacy; loss of light; parking problems in the locality and a possible increase in accidents.

 

 

Members noted that in line 3 of condition 5, rather than “in accordance with a approved scheme,” it should read, “in accordance with the approved scheme.”

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K13583/3  – 6 Prideaux Brune 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 is acceptable in this location.  It is of an appropriate design and will not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents or highway safety and makes satisfactory provision for outdoor playing space.  As such, the proposal complies with Policies R/DP1, R/H4, R/T11 and R/OS8 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

Members were advised that the comment of the Cemetery and Arboricultural Officer in the Consultations section should have read ‘No Impact on Trees’ rather than ‘Impact on Trees’. It was agreed by the Board that an additional condition would be necessary to ensure that the construction of the front boundary wall would have respect to the roots of the adjacent tree.

 

 

RESOLVED: That planning application K7318/2  – 23 Court Road  Lee-On-The-Solent Gosport  Hampshire be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Development Services Manager and subject to an additional condition set out below, 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.  The proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the street scene or the amenities of neighbouring residents.  As such, the proposal complies with Policies R/DP1 and R/DP7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

Additional Condition

Details of the construction of the wall, including the design of the foundations and method of excavation, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before any works for the front boundary wall are commenced. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason – In the interests of amenity and the protection of the adjacent tree, and to comply with Policies R/DP1 and R/DP8 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

Royal Clarence Yard  Weevil Lane  Gosport  PO12 1AX    

 

 

Note: Councillor Smith declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this Item, left the room at 8.19pm and took no further part in the discussion or voting thereon.

 

 

Members were informed that a response had been received from the Gosport Society stating that they had no objection.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K17144  – Royal Clarence Yard  Weevil Lane  Gosport  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 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and all other material considerations, the development is sympathetic to the historic form and character of the Ceremonial Gate, Police Lodge and former Engineers' Quarters and Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent’s houses and as such enhances the Listed Buildings and conservation area setting in compliance with Policies R/BH1 and R/BH3 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.

 

 

 

 

 

Members were advised that the obscured glass windows referred to in line 4 of paragraph 2 of the site and the Proposal, were to be installed in the North and South elevations rather than the West and East as was documented and in the circumstances proposed condition 3 was unnecessary.

 

 

In accordance with Standing Orders, Ms Wright was invited to address the Board. Ms Wright showed concern that the extension would be 1m closer to 10 Lind Road than Local Plan Guidelines allowed for. Concern was also expressed that there would be a significant loss of light to the garden and conservatory, and that the upper windows would overlook the property.

 

 

Members considered that a site visit would assist in helping them to reach a proper understanding of the proposed application.

 

 

RESOLVED: That planning application K15105/2 –19 Spithead Avenue Gosport Hampshire be deferred for a site visit to enable Members to gather more information to enable them to make a decision.

 

 

 

4 Beech Grove  Gosport  Hampshire  PO12 2EJ     

 

 

Members were informed that line 4 of ‘Site and Proposal’ paragraph 2 should read ‘2 windows’ rather than ‘3 windows’. Members were advised that 3 letters of objection had been received.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application K17100  – 4 Beech Grove  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 amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties or the street scene.  As such the proposal complies with Policies R/DP1 and R/DP7 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review

 

 

 

 

There were no further items for discussion.