Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Chris Attwell and Councillor Lee Hunt who was represented by standing deputy Councillor Hugh Mason. 

Item 8: 197 Havant Road, Portsmouth, PO6 1EE - 20/00437/PLAREG

Councillor Fuller did not have a personal or prejudicial interest but declared that he is a manager for a residential care home in Havant Road.  

RECOMMENDED that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 9 September 2020 be approved as a correct record to be signed by the Chair.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 9 September 2020 be approved as a correct record.

Planning Applications

The Head of Development Management gave the following updates:

There were six HMO planning enforcement appeals pending with the Planning Inspectorate. Officers have internally engaged a principal planning consultant and externally engaged a planning lawyer, to provide specialist advice to ensure a robust defence to these appeals.    

There was one new appeal received for a HMO in Fawcett Road. 

Five appeal decisions had also been received from the Planning Inspectorate.  Two were householder applications which were dismissed.  Two were decisions for HMOS which were dismissed.  One was a householder application which was allowed at appeal for 44 Hellyer Road in Southsea.  

Construction of extension on (upper) terrace with the addition of two casement windows to the southern elevation.

Storytime Nursery School, Kersey House, PO5 3HF - 19/00640/HOU

The Planning Officer presented the report for both the planning and listed building applications and drew attention to the Supplementary Matters which reported that:

Subsequent to the publication of the main Committee report, it is considered the following, further policy analysis will assist:

Given the nature of the host building, being Grade II Listed, due consideration must be given to the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act, as well as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Local Plan.  The application is supported by a Heritage Statement.  Paragraph 193 of the NPPF states: 'When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be)'.

The main report addresses heritage matters.  The proposals consist of a relatively minor extension to an existing first floor, rear external terrace, and two new windows on a side elevation (albeit visible from the neighbouring property and from the public realm).  The report concludes that the relatively minor proposals would not result in an adverse impact upon the host property.  Nor would they have an adverse impact upon the setting of the adjacent listed building (Crescent House), or the Conservation Area.  With no harm identified, the paragraphs following NPPF paragraph 193 are not engaged.

As well as heritage matters, I would also like to address another set of public comments/objections made (in addition to those reported thus far in the main report), which are summarised as:

'No objection in principle to the extension, but concerned about privacy, as well as damage to a glass roof caused by items being dropped from above.  Whilst we recognise that these risks currently exist, we feel their likelihood will be greater due to the reduced area of the patio and increased usage due to the amenity offered by the extension.  We have discussed our concerns with the Applicants, it was felt that a glass partition to head height on the wall at the end of their patio would considerably reduce the risk of items falling, and afford additional privacy without impacting light levels.  Providing such an amendment can be incorporated into the plans we have no objection to the proposed extension'.

The proposed extension on the first floor terrace would reduce the amount of external space on the terrace by about a third.  But otherwise, the functionality and use of the terrace, and its relationship with the neighbouring properties, would I believe remain broadly unchanged and therefore the proposals are not considered to result in a changed or adverse impact upon the neighbouring amenities, for privacy or safety.  As such, I do not consider it reasonable to impose the sort of screen requested by one set of neighbours, as requested above.

In addition, it is considered prudent to further elaborate on the objection and deputation already set out in the main published report, received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

Construction of single storey rear extension.

The Planning Officer presented the report and drew attention to the Supplementary Matters which reported that:

Concerns have been raised by the neighbouring resident to the north (No.54 South Road) towards the impact of the proposed extension upon the amount of sunlight/daylight that the rear conservatory would receive. This is considered within the Committee Report, but as a fuller analysis the officers would offer the following comments:

By my estimations, at the December solstice, the sun would cast shadow from the proposed extension to the neighbour's conservatory to the north at no. 54 from approximately 11am.  Within approximately two hours, the sun would have moved round to the south-west and so would shine past the proposed extension and on to the neighbour's conservatory (if the sun is still high enough, and if indeed it is actually sunny).  The existing boundary fence would cast a reasonably long shadow in the winter, on sunny days.

Important points to consider: sunny days are not so frequent in the winter (one internet source states that 62% of the days in December are overcast).  As explained above, the period of shadow cast would be not be very long.  Away from the winter solstice, the sun is higher, and so less and less shadow will extend above the garden fence, until none at all in the summer months.  By the end of February, until the end of October, the lowest angle of the sun is greater than the angle of the proposed roof, and shadow would not be cast above the boundary fence.

While there would be some shadow cast, it would be on sunny days only, and only in the winter.  The neighbours' overall amenity is formed of far more than just sunlight and shadow.  Daylight comes from the whole sky and would be very little affected by the proposal - the neighbours' amenity would be preserved.  The neighbours' principal outlook is west down their own garden, which is ample (26m long by 9m wide) and verdant - their amenity would be preserved.  I note they have venetian blinds and frosted glazing to the south elevation of their conservatory.

I conclude that while the extension is not small in projection (5m), it would nevertheless have a limited and acceptable effect on sunlight, and very limited effect on daylight and outlook.

Officer recommendation unchanged.

Further written deputations were read out as part of the officer presentation from:

·         Mr John Bohea - neighbour objecting to the application (including photographs circulated to the committee)

·         Mr Steve Cameron - Applicant

Deputations are not included in the minutes but can be viewed on the livestream on the following link https://livestream.com/accounts/14063785/planning-07oct2020/videos/211839879

Members' Questions

In response to questions from members, officers explained that:

·         Following concerns raised in the neighbour objection on the separation distances, the planning officer had double checked the measurements on the submitted plans.  The approximate distance between the two properties is 3m from the proposed extension and neighbours property.  In terms of discrepancies on the amount of sunlight, these  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

Application for Certificate of Lawful development for the existing use as a House of Multiple Occupation (Class C4).

The Planning Officer presented the report.

Members' Questions

There were no questions

Members' Comments

This was a simple legal matter and there were no concerns.  

RESOLVED to grant a certificate of lawful development for the Existing Use - House of Multiple Occupation.

Retrospective application for construction of an outbuilding to the rear of the property.

The Planning Officer presented the report and drew attention to the Supplementary Matters which reported that:

Subsequent to the publication of the main Committee report, it is considered that an additional condition would secure the use of the outbuilding, as being purely incidental to the residential use of the main dwelling.  That condition is as follows:

'The outbuilding hereby permitted shall be used/occupied solely as incidental and in conjunction with the residential use of the main dwelling known as 197 Havant Road, Portsmouth, and by a person related to such a person in ownership of the dwelling known as 197 Havant Road, Portsmouth. It shall not be separately used, occupied or let for any non-incidental use.

Reason: The site is unsuitable for an independent residential unit or any non-incidental use because separation of the curtilage of 197 Havant Road, Portsmouth, enabling use of this building hereby permitted as a single dwelling house or any non-incidental use, would have an adverse impact on the character of the locality. Use as a separate dwelling or any non-incidental use would also fail to provide adequate levels of amenities for its occupants and occupiers of the main dwelling and neighbouring residential dwellings, in accordance with PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan (2012).'

The application is recommended for conditional permission.

Members' Questions

In response to a question from members, the Planning Officer explained

·         This needed planning permission due to the proximity to the boundaries. 

Had the proposal been set 2m from each boundary it would have been permitted development. 

·         The application had been considered on its own merits, regardless of whether it is a retrospective application.

·         The proposed additional condition to secure the use of the outbuilding, as being purely incidental to the residential use of the main dwelling, was read out to members from the supplementary matters list.  Members agreed that this condition should be added.  

Members' Comments

Members could understand why neighbours had objected and made the point that retrospective applications were not acceptable; people should take the time to get advice from the planning authority prior to starting development. The houses on Havant Road are spacious and this was not particularly uncharacteristic to the area. 

RESOLVED to grant conditional planning permission (retrospective) as set out in the report and SMAT.