Agenda and minutes

These had been received from Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson who was represented by Councillor Hugh Mason as his standing deputy.

Councillor Frank Jonas had been advised by the City Solicitor that he had a pecuniary interest in the item relating to land adjacent to Fratton Park (planning application item 6).

Councillor Ken Ellcome would be appearing as a deputation as the Cabinet Member for Traffic & Transportation  on the item relating to land adjacent to Fratton Park (planning application item 6) and he wished to declare he was a season ticket holder for Portsmouth Football Club.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 18 June and 9 July 2014 are attached.

RECOMMENDED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 18 June and 9 July 2014 are agreed as correct records to be signed by the Chair accordingly.

There was one correction to minute No 73 in that the name of the former Conservative councillor was Mr Hey.  Subject to this correction the minutes were approved as correct records.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 18 June and 9 July 2014 be agreed and signed by the chair as correct records.

Planning Applications

There were no updates.

Planning Applications

The chair asked that the order of items to be considered be varied due to the high number of residents attending for the item relating to land adjacent to Fratton Park therefore this item was taken first.  It was also agreed that the amount of time for each deputation on this item be extended to allow them to have enough time to clearly express their views.

Construction of a retail store (use class A1) of up to 10,475sqm gea, petrol filling station (sui generis) with an associated kiosk up to 86sqm gea, canopy and jet wash, new access/egress arrangements, car parking including replacement stadium car parking, service yard, highway and footpath works, landscaping, and other associated works (after demolition of existing structures) 

Councillor Frank Jonas withdrew from the room due to his declaration of interest.

The City Development Manager's supplementary matters report explained that following detailed exchanges and provision of additional information by the applicant's transport consultants on a range of highways and transport issues, the conclusions of the highways authority are that a package of off-site highways and transport improvements could mitigate the impacts of the development and no highways objection is raised.

Condition 26 is proposed to be substituted with the following: "Before any service yard area is brought into use the acoustic fencing shall have been constructed to a height of 4.5m above finished floor level, with a surface mass of at least 10 kg/m2, and shall be continuous (without holes or gaps) along the alignments marked 'C' on approved drawing no.3505-PL-048RevA; and the acoustic fencing shall thereafter be retained in such condition."

An additional representation objecting to this application was received on the 06/08/2014. This raised objection on the grounds that there are already a number of Tesco stores in the area.

In relation to sustainable construction, to give a greater degree of certainty to delivery, an amended condition was now recommended to address what the scheme can presently achieve which falls just short of BREEAM "excellent" by a narrow margin, rather than what it could achieve.  It is acknowledged that this would not be fully compliant with policy PCS15.  Conditions 17&18 were proposed to be substituted by: "Before any part of the development is occupied, written documentary evidence shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority proving that the development has achieved a minimum score of 69 in the Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), including two credits in issue ENE 04 and two credits in issue TRA 03, which will be in the form of a post-construction assessment which has been prepared by a licensed BREEAM assessor and the certificate which has been issued by BRE Global, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority."

The applicant had provided additional information pursuant to the request for a condition by the Environment Agency.  The EA confirm that this Hydrogeological Risk Assessment (HRA) information meets their requirements and request amending of condition 10, for works to be carried out in accordance with the submitted HRA.

The following deputations were heard:

Mr Bentley, objecting, whose points included

·         The concern of the impact on the small businesses which would suffer in the local area and he felt it was these independent providers that were providing locally sourced products rather than the large supermarkets and there would be a loss of the diversity of shops within the local area such as butchers and fishmongers which had already been lost in the Albert Road area and he felt this would be replicated in Winter Road and the Milton area generally.

Mrs Burkinshaw, attending to represent Milton Neighbourhood Forum, whose points included

·         Concern regarding air pollution and increase of noise.

·         She felt this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Change of use from dwelling house (class c3) to purposes falling within class c4 (house in multiple occupation) or class c3 (dwelling house)

A deputation was made by Mrs Nancarrow objecting to the proposal whose concerns included

·         She was already suffering from the behaviour caused by residents from another house in multiple occupation nearby which had been the subject of call-outs by the police and Environmental Health (noise abatement) officers.

·         The application property was directly behind and there was an alleyway alongside her property which had previously had a gate and she was concerned that this would be the subject of further anti-social behaviour.

Members' Questions

Members asked questions regarding the possible requirement for a gate and it was reported that this could not be a condition (for reasons explained earlier in the meeting) however this could be looked at by the council whose Community Safety department had previously run an alley-gating scheme to see if this would be suitable to combat anti-social behaviour in the area.

Members' Comments

Members hoped that the possibility of a gate could be considered for the alleyway and asked that the complainant make contact with the council regarding any anti-social problems experienced in the area as they felt that the application itself was worthy of support.

RESOLVED that conditional permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the City Development Manager's report.

Change of use from public conveniences to cafe/takeaway (class a3/a5); external alterations to include installation of new doors and windows and extract flue to roof

The City Development Manager's supplementary matters report clarified that whilst the committee report had suggested that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Donna Jones this was an unfortunate misunderstanding and Councillor Jones had not requested that the application be referred for determination.  A deputation was made by Miss Hannon objecting as a resident of the adjacent Chandos Rise whose points included:

·         Residents already suffered noise and pollution from customers and deliveries to the local shops and currently this was quieter from 7.00 pm and they were concerned that this would lead to more anti-social behaviour in the evenings.

·         The openings were too early and too late.

·         There was no parking for those using the café.

Members' Questions

Members queried the level of notification that had taken place to local residents regarding the application and it was confirmed that there had been two site notices, one of which was in Paradise Street and one in Buckingham Street and there had been a re?consultation when there had been a change in the description of the application, so the statutory duty had been met.  Questions were also asked about the extraction system being used and the siting of refuse storage on site.

Members' Comments

Members commented on the loss of the toilet provision.  Members stressed the importance of the enforcement of the condition regarding the hours of operation and they asked that local residents inform the Planning Department of any breaches.

RESOLVED that conditional permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the City Development Manager's report.

Change of use from dwelling house (class C3) to purposes falling within class C4 (house in multiple occupation) or class C3 (dwelling house)

Ms Rattue within her deputation objecting to the proposal included the following points:

·         She chose this as a desirable location to relocate to, however she was concerned regarding the deterioration of Waverley Road.

·         She listed the houses in multiple occupation within Waverley Road, Welch Road, Herbert Road, Gains Road and three in Allens Road but she felt there were others that had not been recorded for the report.

·         There was a loft room at the property that was being used as a bedroom without approval. 

·         The HMOs were changing the nature of the neighbourhood and there was more anti-social behaviour locally associated with this plus there the impact of extra parking, rubbish and noise within the street.

A deputation was then made by Mr Edwards, also a resident of Allens Road objecting.  His concerns included:

·         Waverley Road was now a ghetto of HMOs with boarded up houses and people sitting outside drinking.

·         There were five not four HMOs in Allens Road.  He pointed out that 60 Waverley Road was a property accessed by Allens Road which should make it six.

·         There were 43 houses in Allens Road and so there would be more than 10% HMOs within it if this went through.  There would be an impact on the amenity of local residents who enjoyed a community spirit which was not enhanced by unrelated adults living together and students who did not wish to join in community events.

·         He was also concerned regarding the safety at No 21 with the loft bedroom conversion.

Councillor Michael Andrewes (also representing Councillors Hall and Winnington as ward councillors) voiced the residents' concerns; he felt it would be worth re-checking the number of HMOs within the area and asked that there be a deferral to allow this.  He asked that the committee take account of the amenity of the residents and the problems with parking which was already difficult. 

Councillor Luke Stubbs appeared as a ward councillor; he reiterated the problems with properties in Waverley Grove being sub-divided into flats and he felt that there was an overuse of properties in the area with an impact on residential amenity.  As the Cabinet Member for Planning, Regeneration & Economic Development he would give consideration to reviewing the policy used to assess HMO numbers.  He was also concerned regarding the additional litter.

Members' Questions

In response to the debate regarding how the number of HMOs were calculated it was clarified that the 50 metre radius was taken from the mid-front of application property for the circle to be drawn.  In this case the area covered included properties in other roads.  It was also clarified that a refusal could not be defended on the basis of how members might suppose the occupants of a property would behave as there were instances where HMOs were well-managed and the residents were well-behaved.  Questions were raised regarding the loft conversion and it was clarified there could be a conversion without specific reference n  planning application; however there would be controls through  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Change of use from dwelling house (class C3) to purposes falling within class C4 (house in multiple occupation) or class C3 (dwelling house)

Members' Questions

Members questioned the layout of and number of adults who would occupy the property.

Members' Comments

It was noted that these were small houses for sub-division and there were concerns regarding the convenience, comfort and safety of residents of the premises when the proposed alterations had been completed.

RESOLVED that permission be refused for the following reasons:

This proposal would result in the overintensive use of the property detrimental to the residential amenities of future occupiers of the development and contrary to policy PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan.

Change of use of first floor and part ground floor to form two self-contained flats; external alterations to include blocking-up of ground floor windows and installation of bin stores, bicycle stores and condenser units

The City Development Manager's supplementary matters report set out that one further letter of representation had been received from a local resident objecting on the grounds that the removal of the window frames and the blocking up of the openings, which has been carried out without the benefit of planning permission, will severely damage the appearance of the Locally Listed Building.

It also reported on amended drawings - the applicant has provided amended drawings to address some of the concerns identified within the Committee Report and raised within representations. This includes:

A reduction in the number of condenser units proposed within the rear yard from three to two, and a change in their specification. This amendment has been considered by the City Council's Environmental Health Team who confirm that the change would represent an approximate reduction in noise levels of 10 dB (A) when compared to the proposal as originally submitted. However, notwithstanding the slight reduction in noise levels, there would still be a requirement for the applicant to install acoustic screening or housing to protect the amenity of the adjoining occupiers. This could be required through the inclusion of a suitably worded planning condition should permission be granted.

Removal of the forecourt onto the Maurice Road frontage and the repositioning of refuse and bicycle storage facilities to the rear of the building. A new access is also proposed from Shirley Avenue into the rear garden of the ground floor flat to improve access and convenience for the bicycle storage facilities. An access through the rear yard of a commercial unit would not be encouraged in most situations. However, having regard to benefits of removing visual clutter and preserving the appearance of the main elevations of this Locally Listed building, this arrangement is considered to be acceptable in these circumstances.

Solent Special Protection Areas mitigation

Since the committee report was written, the applicant has provided a contribution through agreement under Section S111 of the Local Government Act as mitigation for the potential impact of the proposal on the Portsmouth Harbour and the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas (SPAs). The requirement for a payment to secure mitigation would be both directly related to the development and be fairly and reasonably related in scale to the development. On that basis the applicant has addressed the second reason for refusal.

Heritage Statement

The applicant has provided a heritage statement in which it is suggested that the removal of the windows and blocking up of their openings would benefit from the provisions of Part 2, Class A of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). These provisions relate to the erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence wall or other means of enclosure.

It is the view of the Local Planning Authority that the external alterations would materially affect the external appearance of the building and could not be carried out as permitted development.

The recommendation remains as refusal for a single reason 1)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Councillor Gray, as Chair, wished to raise the issue of changing the time of the Planning Committee meetings in the spirit of openness and transparency he felt that a 2.00 pm start was difficult for residents to attend if they needed to take time off work.  Therefore he would like these to be moved to a 5.00 pm start for a six month trial period, to start from the September meeting and this was agreed by the committee.