A MEETING OF THE REGULATORY BOARD
WAS HELD ON 9 JULY 2002
Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Cully) (ex-officio) (P); Councillors Mrs Angus (P), Carr (P), Edwards (P), Farr (P), Gill (P), Hayward (P), Langdon (P), Searle (P), Smith (P) and Train (P)
24. MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Regulatory Board held on 18 June 2002 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.
25. DEPUTATIONS
It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Order 3.5, deputations had been received relating to Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Driver Assessment; and planning applications K.13088/5 - Fine Cars, 178/180 Portsmouth Road, Lee-on-the-Solent; K.16057 -1 Wych Lane, Gosport; K.15556/3 - 31 Fort Road, Gosport; K.15064/1 - 11 Ashburton Road, Gosport and K.8398/6 - 66 San Diego Road, Gosport.
PART II
26. HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVER ASSESSMENT
A report was considered from the Director of Development and Environment (a copy of which is inserted in the Minute Book as Appendix "A") advising the Board on present and proposed future methods of testing the driving skills of Hackney Carriage and Private Hire vehicle drivers.
It was reported that the Council was required to licence both types of drivers, provided that they were considered to be "fit and proper". Whilst there were no specific tests to judge this in the legislation, the following measures were undertaken:
· Examination of a current driving licence
· A request for two independent referees
· Production of photographic identification
· Confirmation of the applicants address
· A criminal records check via the Criminal Records Bureau
· A medical certificate
· A driving test
Currently officers who had passed the Institute of Advanced Motorists were deemed to have the relevant skills to undertake the driving test; however, at the present time there was only one member of staff available to do this on a regular basis. The Council charged £35 for the test in addition to the licence fee.
The DSA (Driving Standards Agency) had developed a skills test specifically designed to examine the standards of new applicants. There was also an additional module covering safety in transporting wheelchairs. Considering that it was established Council policy to give licences only to vehicles that provided wheelchair access, a recognised skill in the safe transportation of wheelchair bound persons was to be encouraged.
The tests would be carried out by DSA examiners based locally, and were the recommendations approved, a delay of at least three months in the implementation of the procedure would be anticipated to allow the DSA to install a test centre in Gosport and train the necessary staff.
The introduction of driver assessment by the DSA would be at no cost to the Council although there would be a drop in revenue when compared to the current system. The fees to be paid by the applicant would be higher than the present in-house fee by a maximum of £32.47, however, additional expense would be incurred by the applicant if the initial test was failed. On the other hand, once successful, drivers were issued with a nationally recognised certificate, and consequently, new applicants who had already taken the test, would not need to be retested.
In accordance with Standing Order 3.5, Mr Pritchard from Streamline was permitted to address the Board in opposition to the proposals. Mr Pritchard made the following points -
· There was a shortage of drivers both nationally and locally despite an active advertising campaign.
· A lot of the problems in recruitment were due to the initial outlay applicants were required to make and an increase in charges would only exacerbate the problem.
· There was currently a good relationship existing with the Borough Council which should be retained.
In accordance with Standing Order 3.5, Miss Kim Regan from Amber Roadmaster Cars was permitted to address the Board in opposition to the recommendations. Miss Regan made the following points -
· It was inappropriate to target new drivers when many of the problems relating to safety issues were with the established drivers.
· Why change a system that worked well with only one failure under Gosport Borough Council testing?
· The tests would be unrealistic as they would not recreate the correct circumstances as people did not drive in their tests as they would normally.
· The time delay and the proposed increase would make it hard to find additional drivers and for the unemployed to take up this type of employment.
Members questioned the proposed timescale for the introduction of the proposals and were informed that it would be at least three months before the system could be introduced, depending upon the setting up of a Test Centre in Gosport. It was therefore proposed, and subsequently agreed, that if the recommendations were approved, no change would be implemented until a Test Centre was established in Gosport.
It was pointed out that the Regulatory Board had the powers to make the decision as no change of policy was being recommended. Recommendation 4 did not, therefore, apply.
Members were of the opinion that safety was of paramount important and, therefore, having considered the matter at length, it was -
RESOLVED: That -
(i) the Council continue to assess taxi and private hire vehicle drivers prior to issuing their initial licence;
(ii) the Council introduce taxi and private hire driver assessments undertaken by the Driving Standards Agency, the changes to be implemented once a Test Centre had been established in Gosport; and
(iii) the Council ceased to impose a fee for Hackney Carriage and Private Hire vehicle driver testing when the new testing procedure was introduced.
27. GROVE ROAD PROHIBITION OF WAITING AT ANY TIME
[Councillor Langdon declared an interest in the matter and left the meeting prior to its consideration]
Consideration was given to a report from the Director of Development and Environment (a copy of which is inserted in the Minute Book as Appendix "B") setting out a proposal to implement a Traffic Regulation Order to prohibit waiting at any time on Grove Road in the vicinity of the proposed signal controlled junction with the Priddy's Hard Access Road, in the interests of maintaining traffic flow and safety.
RESOLVED: That a Traffic Regulation Order be made to prohibit waiting at any time on both sides of Grove Road from a point outside 139 Grove Road in a northerly direction to a point outside 147 Grove Road.
28. TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER PROGRAMME 2002/2003
Consideration was given to a report from the Director of Development and Environment (a copy of which is inserted in the Minute Book as Appendix "C") recommending for approval a programme of Traffic Regulation Orders for 2002/2003. Two minor amendments to the appendices were identified, namely -
· Appendix B, Ref No 202 was raised by Resident and Councillor Mrs Cully
· Appendix B, Ref No 299, remarks should refer to Kings Street Junction, not Kings Road Junction.
RESOLVED: That -
(i) the proposed Traffic Regulation Orders in Appendix "A" be fully investigated and implemented where appropriate; and
(ii) the Traffic Regulation Orders in Appendix B be progressed should further funding become available or other schemes fail to proceed.
29. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING CONSENT
The Director of Development and Environment submitted a report on applications received for planning consent setting out the recommendations in each case.
RESOLVED: That decisions be taken on each application for planning consent as detailed below and as set out in Appendix "A" hereto.
30. K.13088/5 - ERECTION OF EXTERNAL ACCESS RAMP TO EXISTING FLAT ROOF CAR STORAGE AREA - 178/180 PORTSMOUTH ROAD, LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT
Consideration was given to planning application K.13088/5 relating to the erection of an external access ramp to the existing flat roof car storage area at 178/180 Portsmouth Road, Lee-on-the-Solent. The proposal was for a metalled access ramp rising 3.6m and extending 16m along the edge of the existing buildings.
It was reported that following public advertisement, nine letters and a petition containing 174 signatures had been received objecting to the proposal. The objections relating to over intensification and property values were not planning issues. Reference to loss of privacy related to use of the ramp by members of the public which was not the intention.
It was further reported that use of the roof for car storage was lawful. This was a retrospective application and any planning issues could only relate to the environmental impact.
In accordance with Standing Order 3.7, Councillor Burgess, as Ward Councillor, was permitted to address the Board. Councillor Burgess made the following points -
· The current application, which was the latest in a line of applications from Fine Cars, formed part of an application that had previously been refused.
· The ramp had been built and as such was a breach of planning law and a deliberate act at the expense of Lee residents.
· A Planning Contravention Notice had been served without result.
· The parking issues were relevant to site which was borne out by the number of residents who had objected to the application. Since the roof had been used for storage parking problems had worsened.
In accordance with Standing Order 3.5, Mr Bowden was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the applicant. Mr Bowden made the following comments -
· The current application related to the ramp and not the storage of vehicles on the roof which was a lawful use for which a certificate had been issued last year.
· The ramp was intended to facilitate access to the roof and that a ramp which was considered to be the most sensible and efficient method.
· The Planning Contravention Notice had been responded to and the Planning Officers had confirmed that all issues had been dealt with.
Members questioned the procedure regarding retrospective applications and were informed that it was not illegal for a retrospective application to be submitted.
In accordance with Standing Order 3.5, Miss Morrish was permitted to address the Board on behalf of those residents who objected to the proposal. Miss Moorish made the following points -
· Despite the current application, the ramp existed and would continue to be used regardless of the decision taken.
· The ramp had a startling visual impact.
· The ramp, if not used, would have to be replaced by a crane which for economic reasons would only be hired/used once or twice a week. The ramp was therefore the nosier, busier and less friendlier solution.
· Pedestrian access to the roof via the ramp would be available and, therefore, in time the roof would be used as sales space.
· The proposal would result in an intensification of use and loss of privacy and the residents were therefore requesting that it be refused.
Members questioned the safety of the ramp and were informed that the ramp was set back within the site by a considerable distance. The Health and Safety Executive had carried out an inspection and regarded it as safe.
Having considered the matter, it was -
RESOLVED: That the application for the erection of an external access ramp to existing flat roof car storage area of 178/180 Portsmouth Road, Lee-on-the-Solent, be approved subject to the condition set out in the report of the Director of Development and Environment.
31. K. 16057 - ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY - 1 WYCH LANE, GOSPORT
Consideration was given to planning application K.16057 relating to the erection of a conservatory at 1 Wych Lane, Gosport.
Members were informed that work had already commenced at the site as the applicants believed that the development could take place under 'Permitted Development' rules. However, on visiting the site the planning officer confirmed that the proposed building exceeded the permitted 50m³ due to a miscalculation by the builder.
Three letters of objection had been received in respect of the proposal. With the exception of loss of light, loss of outlook and the structure being out of character with the surroundings, the remainder of the objections raised were not planning considerations. With regard to loss of light, Members were informed that this was a standard single storey extension to the rear of the property. The objector lived to the south west of the property and therefore loss of light was not a material planning factor. Insofar as loss of outlook was concerned, the applicants' kitchen and kitchen door were immediately adjacent to the boundary and flank wall. Permitted Development would have allowed the development to take place had ½m been drawn in from the end, therefore, loss of outlook was not relevant in this case. The structure was similar to other conservatories in an urban environment and was not out of character with the surroundings.
In accordance with Standing Order 3.5, Mr Feltham of 3 Wych Lane, Gosport, was permitted to address the Board in opposition to the proposal. Mr Feltham had the following comments to make -
· Planning law had been contravened as he had not been given the required 1 months notice.
· The footings and building encroached upon his land. The builder had requested access to his garden to remove the footings underground.
· The building was oversized.
· His fence had been removed and garden used to lay bricks.
· The owners of the terraced properties were responsible for the sewers if any reparation required.
· This was an unlawful building which would have been built without permission had he not raised awareness of the construction.
In accordance with Standing Order 3.5, Mr Doncaster, representing the applicants, was permitted to address the Board. Mr Doncaster made the following points -
· The applicants had discussed the finish of the brickwork with Mr Feltham prior to commencement of the work.
· The building was constructed wholly on land owned by the applicants. Some slight overspill had occurred and permission to resolve the issue had been sought and refused.
· That the size of the structure had been misjudged due to an unintentional error with the floor depth and it was not the intention to try and erect the building without permission.
Having considered the matter, it was -
RESOLVED: That the planning application K.16057 in respect of the erection of a conservatory at 1 Wych Lane, Gosport, be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Director of Development and Environment.
32. K.15556/3 CONVERSION OF EXISTING WORKSHOP INTO GRANNY ANNEXE - 31 FORT ROAD, GOSPORT
The Director of Development and Environment reported that planning application K.15556/3 was for the development of an existing workshop into a granny annexe at 31 Fort Road, Gosport.
Following public advertisement of the proposal, two letters of objection had been received which raised the following issues -
· The application for four dwellings had been refined and dismissed at appeal.
· The approved plans indicated two workshops.
· The 'granny annexe' was a loophole to get 4 properties on the site.
· The dwellings being built were cramped on the site.
· Likely parking problems.
· Plans did not show all existing windows.
· Damage to the existing boundary hedge had occurred to the adjoining car park.
· Existing trees were not being protected.
In response to the objections, Members were informed that the original application had been for three dwellings with a workshop provided for two of them. The only window proposed was a high level obscure glazed bathroom window. The recommendation was to grant permission for the granny annexe subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement which prevented the formation of a separate dwelling.
In accordance with Standing Order 3.5, Mrs B Wallace of 27 Fort Road, and Mrs Davis of 25 Fort Road, Gosport, were permitted to address the Board in opposition to the proposal. Mrs Wallace made the following comments -
· She had purchased her house for its garden and privacy which would be lost by the building of the Granny Annexe.
· She had originally appealed against the application for four houses on the site as she considered two to be adequate. Permission was granted for three houses and she was of the opinion that this was merely an attempt to obtain the fourth dwelling.
· If approved, there would be additional cars parked outside.
Mrs Davis made the following points -
· The extra building would cause additional parking problems.
· Concerned that the granny annexe could be converted into a fourth house.
· Concerned about the demolition of a hedgerow and questioned what action had been taken to have the hedgerow reinstated.
In accordance with Standing Order 3.7, Councillor Hook, as Ward Councillor, was permitted to address the Board. Councillor Hook stated -
· Four properties were originally proposed and rejected due to parking, access and over development. The current proposal was merely a way to achieve the fourth dwelling.
· A Section 106 Agreement could be bought out of.
· A granny annexe would normally be attached to a property and would not be a separate building.
· The question of the trees and hedgerows should be investigated.
In accordance with Standing Order 3.5, Mr Adams, representing the applicants was permitted to respond to the comments made and stated -
· A row of fir trees and sycamores screened No 27 Fort Road from the development.
· The proposed application was more attractive than the current permission.
· The proposal removed the side windows leaving only a bathroom window.
· The neighbour would not be overlooked and there was no reason for any noise intrusion from the workshop.
Members questioned whether the Granny Annexe would be able to have its own private driveway and were informed that it would be impossible as the building was landlocked and it was proposed that the side boundary be reinstated.
Having considered the matter, it was -
RESOLVED: That planning application K.15556/3 relating to the conversion of an existing workshop into a Granny Annexe at 31 Fort Road, Gosport, be approved subject to -
(i) the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement preventing the formation of a separate dwelling; and
(ii) the conditions set out in the report of the Director of Development and Environment.
[In accordance with Standing Order 6.7.12, Councillors Carr, Edwards, Gill and Smith requested that their opposition to the resolution be recorded.]
33. K.16050 - ERECTION OF TWO STOREY DOCTORS SURGERY, SINGLE STOREY PHARMACY AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING - LAND OFF WHITES PLACE CAR PARK, FORTON ROAD, GOSPORT
Consideration was given to planning application K.16050 relating to the erection of a two storey doctors surgery, single storey pharmacy and associated car parking on land off Whites Place Car Park, Forton Road, Gosport.
Members were informed that, following public advertisement of the proposal, one letter of objection had been received raising a number of issues none of which were relevant to the application.
Access to the premises would be from Forton Road through Whites Place Car Park and 43 parking spaces would be provided on site, 26 for the public and 17 for staff. Four disabled persons spaces would be provided as part of the total.
RESOLVED: That planning application K.16050 relating to the erection of a two storey doctors surgery, single storey pharmacy and associated car parking on land off Whites Place Car Park, Forton Road, Gosport, be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Director of Development and Environment.
34. K.13789/16 - SITING OF MARQUEE FOR TEMPORARY CAFÉ USE AND PORTAKABINS FOR TEMPORARY OFFICE/STORAGE ACCOMMODATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY CAR PARK - GOSPORT MARINA, MUMBY ROAD, GOSPORT
[Councillor Smith declared an interest in this item and left the meeting prior to its consideration.]
The Director of Development and Environment reported that planning application K.13789/16 related to the siting of a marquee for temporary café use and portakabins for temporary office/storage accommodation and construction of temporary car park at Gosport Marina, Mumby Road, Gosport .
Following public advertisement of the proposal, one letter of objection had been received raising concerns that the area to the west of the Quarterdeck was not intended as a car park and dust and noise was currently associated with its use. In addition, were the refreshment marquee to be used for events with music, the structure would not contain the noise. Members were informed that Environmental Health had seen the marquee and were satisfied with the structure. In the event that there was to be music, a licence would be required.
Members expressed concern about the use of portakabins and it was agreed that a letter be sent to the applicants to the effect that the temporary consent was until July 2004 and it was expected that the permanent structure be completed by that date.
RESOLVED: That temporary consent for a limited period expiring 31 July 2004 in respect of the siting of a marquee for temporary café use and portakabins for temporary office/storage accommodation and construction of temporary car park at Gosport Marina, Mumby Road, Gosport, be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Director of Development and Environment.
35. K.14265/2 - ERECTION OF TWO STOREY DETACHED DWELLING - LAND AT CAROLINE PLACE, GOSPORT
Consideration was given to planning application K.14265/2 relating to the erection of a two storey detached dwelling on land at Caroline Place, Gosport.
RESOLVED: That planning application K.14265/2 for the erection of a two storey detached dwelling on land at Caroline Place, Gosport, be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Director of Development and Environment.
36. K.15064/1 - ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING HOUSE (CONSERVATION AREA) - LAND ADJACENT TO 11 ASHBURTON ROAD, GOSPORT
[Councillor Hayward declared an interest in this item and left the meeting prior to its consideration.]
Consideration was given to planning application K.15064/1 relating to the erection of a detached dwelling house on land adjacent to 11 Ashburton Road, Gosport, which was located in a Conservation Area.
It was reported that 4 letters of objection had been received to the original scheme and 12 letters of objection in respect of the amended scheme. The objections related to -
· The property was too large for the plot in terms of width and height.
· It would not enhance or preserve the character of the Conservation Area.
· Indicative street scene plans did not show adjoining windows.
· Building should be moved further forward.
· Overlooking of adjoining properties and associated loss of privacy
· Loss of light
· Loss of trees
· Incompatible in design terms with 2 storey properties on that side of the road.
· The property did not have a garage which would encourage on street parking.
· Views to the property should be screened from 17 Ashburton Road.
· No access should be allowed from the rear, seaward boundary.
· Approval would make it difficult to refuse future proposals for light flatted development in the area.
Members were informed that the scale of the building was not out of keeping with other properties in the road and was appropriate in terms of design. The Conservation Officer had raised no objection to the proposal in terms of the scale or design. The proposal included five windows which would be secondary obscure glazed. Provision had been made for three parking spaces and, insofar as the rear access was concerned, the land was privately owned and therefore it would be impossible to gain access from the rear.
In accordance with Standing Order 3.5, Mrs Pathak of 11 Ashburton Road, Gosport, was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the local residents who had objected to the proposal. Mrs Pathak made the following points -
· There would be no objection to a reasonable sized house on the site.
· The site was in a Conservation Area.
· Believed that the current plans were not of an appropriate form, scale, height or external appearance and did not conform with the Gosport Borough Local Plan.
· The proposed building would be 10.75 metres tall, which was 40% higher than adjoining properties.
· The house would be set so far back from the road that it would overshadow their gardens.
· The modern design of the house was in conflict with the remainder of the street scene, and should try to reflect the character and heritage better.
· The shape and style of windows at the back of the house would encroach on her privacy, as would the raised 1 metre high walkway at the rear of the house.
· The picture designed by the architect was inaccurate and misleading.
Members questioned the discrepancies in the measurements provided by Mrs Pathak and expressed concerns regarding the computer generated photograph which appeared to be misleading.
In accordance with Standing Order 3.5, Mr G Merritt was permitted to address the Board on behalf of the applicant. Mr Merritt made the following points -
· The photograph was misleading as a tree had been removed to show the house better, and the windows that the tree obstructed were not put in afterwards due to a time constraint.
· The picture was accurate in every other regard.
· The plans had been in place for over two years and the occupants of No 11 Ashburton Road had changed since the original plans were submitted.
In order to clarify the situation it was proposed, and subsequently agreed, that a site visit be held prior to the next meeting of the Regulatory Board.
RESOLVED: That planning application K. 15064/1 relating to land adjacent to 11 Ashburton Road, Gosport, be deferred pending a site visit to be prior to the next meeting of the Regulatory Board.
37. K.8398/6 - CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP (CLASS A1) TO GROUND FLOOR FLAT - 66 SAN DIEGO ROAD, GOSPORT
The Director of Development and Environment reported that applications in respect of 66 San Diego Road had been submitted for consideration on numerous occasions. The applications related to -
K.8398/2 - Change of use from flat and a shop to two flats - planning permission refused and applicant appealed which was dismissed.
K.8398/4 - Change of use to flat and alterations to the front elevation - refused.
K.8398/5 - Change of use of ground floor to flat but without alterations to front elevation - refused.
K.8298/4 and K.8398/5 had both been directed by the applicant to appeal. The current planning application K.8398/6 was identical in every respect to K.8398/5 which had been refused on 22 May. The reason for refusal then was the same reason being recommended for refusal on the current application.
There was no change in the planning application and there had been no change to the planning circumstances or planning policy by the Borough Council.
In accordance with Standing Order 3.5, Mr White, the applicant, was permitted to address the Board in support of his application. Mr White made the following comments -
· Mr White considered that there was only one outstanding objection to the proposal, namely, the setting of a precedent.
· He would not be splitting the property into two as that had already been done. The flat above was independently owned and he had no control over it.
· The building was registered as two separate properties and if the ground floor conversion were to be allowed it would not set a precedent.
· The proposal was similar to the conversion of shops to flats on Forton Road.
· The property in San Diego Road had been vacant for 5 years.
· At the present time off road car parking was not required to be provided; however the proposal would provide two additional car parking spaces.
· Each application should be considered on its merit.
It was confirmed that the building had originally been built as a shop with associated accommodation above.
Members questioned the reasons for the Inspector's dismissal of the appeal and were informed that the Inspector had determined that the introduction of a residential unit into the property would not breach the viability of the shopping parade and was, therefore, not an appropriate reason for refusal. However, the condition relating to the character of the area was relevant and, therefore, subsequent refusals had been on those grounds.
Members also raised the issue of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and questioned the feasibility of amending the shopping area at San Diego Road as had been done in other areas of the Borough. The Revised Gosport Borough Local Plan was still in its draft stage and it was therefore necessary to make the decision based on the existing Local Plan.
Having considered the matter, it was -
RESOLVED: That planning application K.8398/6 relating to the change of use from a shop (Class A1) to ground floor flat at 66 San Diego Road, Gosport, be refused for the following reason -
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.
[In accordance with Standing Order 6.7.12, Councillors Carr, Edwards, Gill and Smith requested that their opposition to the resolution be recorded.]
38. K.4104/5 - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICES TO SINGLE DWELLING - 4 SPRING GARDEN LANE, GOSPORT
Consideration was given to planning application K.4104/5 relating to the change of use from offices to single dwelling at 4 Spring Garden Lane, Gosport.
RESOLVED: That planning application K.4104/5 relating to the change of use from offices to single dwelling at 4 Spring Garden Lane, Gosport, be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Director of Development and Environment.
39. K.16047 - ERECTION OF TWO STOREY BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE GARAGE AND RESIDENTIAL DETACHED GARAGE AND RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION - 141 BRIDGEMARY ROAD, GOSPORT
Consideration was given to planning application K.16047 relating to the erection of a two storey building to accommodate garage and residential detached garage and residential accommodation at 141 Bridgemary Road, Gosport.
The proposal was for the demolition of the existing garage to be replaced by a two storey building comprising a living room, bedroom, bathroom and kitchen.
Following public advertisement of the proposal eight letters of objection had been received raising the following issues -
1. The structure would look out of character
2. Cramped layout
3. Overlooking and loss of privacy
4. Possible drainage problems
5. Possible damage to adjacent garage
6. Existing parking problems in area - proposal would make existing situation worse
7. Level of car related activity at the property/warehouse business
8. Two storey building not suitable as a granny annexe.
9. Requested a site visit
10. Setting a precedent
Members were informed that only items 1-3 and 9 were relevant to the planning application. It was not the type of development one would expect to find in a bungalowed area and it was therefore recommended for refusal.
RESOLVED: That planning application K.16047 relating to the erection of a two storey building to accommodate garage and residential detached garage and residential accommodation at 141 Bridgemary Road, Gosport, be refused for the reasons set out in the report of the Director of Development Environment.
40. K.16052 - ERECTION OF FRONT AND SIDE EXTENSIONS AND REAR CONSERVATORY - 7 ALBEMARLE AVENUE, GOSPORT
Consideration was given to planning application K.16052 relating to the erection of front and side extensions and rear conservatory at 7 Albemarle Avenue, Gosport.
One letter of objection had been received to the proposal which raised concerns regarding loss of light to the adjoining conservatory, the extension would be close to the boundary and digging may cause damage to the adjoining garden wall.
It was reported that the application was for an acceptable extension and it was, therefore -
RESOLVED: That planning application K.16052 relating to the erection of front and side extensions and rear conservatory at 7 Albemarle Avenue, Gosport, be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Director of Development and Environment.
41. K.7136/50 - ERECTION OF 8 NO 15 METRE HIGH FLOODLIGHTING COLUMNS, PERIMETER FENCING AND REPLACEMENT ARTIFICIAL TURF PITCH AND CAR PARKING - ST VINCENT COLLEGE, MILL LANE, GOSPORT
The Director of Development and Environment reported that amended plans relating to planning application K.7136/50 had been received on 3 July. The proposal was to remove the existing surface and replace with artificial turf. The existing 15m lighting columns would also be removed and replaced with modern columns with modern lanterns. An illumination study had been carried.
Following public advertisement of the proposal five letters of objection had been received. The original proposal was to lay out 10 car spaces; however, four of the objections related to these car spaces and, therefore, six spaces had been deleted from the proposal. The remaining objection related to further intensification of noise disturbance.
Members highlighted residents' concerns regarding the public using the route as a shortcut to St Vincent and questioned whether it was possible to heighten the fence. This aspect was not a planning consideration, however, it was agreed that officers should write to St Vincent with a request that this problem be resolved in the interests of public relations and with a request that the new pitch be placed on the same site as the current pitch.
RESOLVED: That planning application K.7136/50 relating to the erection of 8 No 15 metre high floodlighting columns, perimeter fencing and replacement artificial turf pitch and car parking at St Vincent College, Mill Lane, Gosport, be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Director of Development and Environment.
42. K.13101/2 - ERECTION OF REAR DORMER WINDOW - 35 VALE GROVE, GOSPORT
(Councillors Mrs Angus, Farr, Searle and Train declared an interest in this item and left the meeting prior to its consideration.)
[Councillor Hayward in the Chair]
Consideration was given to planning application K.13101/2 relating to the erection of a rear dormer window at 35 Vale Grove, Gosport.
RESOLVED: That planning application K.13101/2 relating to the erection of a rear dormer window at 35 Vale Grove, Gosport, be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Director of Development and Environment.
CHAIRMAN
