Agenda and draft minutes

Agenda Item 14.

Councillor Ellcome declared a non-pecuniary interest as this reconfiguration comes under his responsibility as Cabinet Member for Traffic and Transportation.

Councillor Sanders declared a non-pecuniary interest as he was a member of the Cabinet which considered the plans.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gerald Vernon-Jackson.

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 23 April 2014 are attached.

RECOMMENDED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 23 April 2014 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the chair.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 23 April 2014 were agreed and should be signed by the chair as a correct record. 

There were no updates. 

Purpose.

To advise the committee of the outcome of the appeal which was allowed.

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.

RESOLVED that the report be noted. 

Purpose.

To advise the committee of the outcome of the appeals which were allowed.

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.

RESOLVED that the report be noted. 

Purpose.

To advise the committee of the outcome of the appeal which was dismissed.

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.

Planning applications

RESOLVED that the report be noted. 

Retrospective planning application for use as a house in multiple occupation (sui generis) for up to 8 persons.

Retrospective planning application for use as a house in multiple occupation (sui generis) for up to eight persons.

The City Development Manager reported in the supplementary matters list that one of the alleged HMOs referred to by an objector originally discounted as being outside the 50m radius is in fact within it.   It is not known whether this property is a HMO, however if it were the proportion of HMOs would remain below the 10% threshold set out in the SPD.

A deputation was heard from Ms Gallien objecting to the application, who included the following points in her representations:

·         She was also speaking on behalf of Simon Davis, resident at flat no.3.

·         There are already 8 HMOs within an 80m radius.

·         This area has one of the highest density of housing in Portsmouth.

·         Will have an impact on services.

·         Noise is already at an unacceptable level.

·         Parking after 6pm spreads into other roads.  She cannot park in her own street.

·         She offered the planning department the opportunity to live in her flat for one week to gain an understanding of the issues.

A deputation was also heard from Councillor Andrewes objecting to the application, who included the following points in his representation:

·         A balance of housing types is required.  Allowing more than 10% to be HMOs would change the nature of the street. 

·         It is very difficult to know the exact number of HMOs in the area. 

·         The number stated in the report is inaccurate as it does not take into account of all the buildings that are within a 50m radius.

·         He calculates that there are 8 of the 75 buildings are HMOs, which is a higher proportion than permitted in the SPD. 

·         The parking in this area is terrible. 

·         HMOs generate more noise than other types of houses.

A deputation was also heard from Councillor Hugh Mason, objecting to the application, who included the following points in his representations:

·         The information in the report regarding the types of housing in the area is incomplete.

·         Some houses are being used as HMOs but are not registered.

·         According to a map with a scale 1:10,000, which was circulated, number 16 should be included.  

·           24 Taswell Road had planning permission in 1987 for 5 flatlets and 1 bedsit with full facilities, so fitted the criteria for an HMO.  In 1997 an application was refused for 1 bedsitting room and 5 flatlets.  It seems that this has not changed since then. 

·           35 Wimbledon Road comprises 3 flats but there are 7 doorbells.

·           It is important to look at the whole picture and take into account shared access and facilities etc. 

·           He calculates that there are 8 of the 76 properties within this area are HMOs, which is a higher proportion than is permitted in the SPD.

Members' questions

In response to a question from a member of the committee, the case officer explained that the information used to calculate the number of properties within a 50m radius was the best  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

Installation of new windows to front elevation (resubmission of 13/00600/FUL)

Installation of new windows to front elevation (resubmission of 13/00600/FUL).

This application was brought to the committee at the request of former Councillor Peter Eddis.

The City Development Manager reported in the supplementary matters list that since the report was published, condition 3 has been added stating: 'The windows hereby permitted shall be to a specification of 4/20/4 or any alternative specification with the same or increased noise attenuation capabilities that may be submitted to and approved in writing by the Lithe Planning Authority'.  The reason for this condition is: 'In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with policy PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan.'

The submitted Noise Assessment has been amended to reflect the comments made by the City Council's Public Protection team.

Two further objections have been received since the committee report was published.  These raise objection on the grounds as summarised in the report.  An additional deputation request for Councillor Andrewes has been received.

A deputation was heard from Ms Ross-Richards, objecting to the application, who included the following points in her representations:

·         She cannot open her windows because of the noise.

·         Drunken people could mistake the opening windows for a door.

·         The behaviour of the clientele particularly on Friday and Saturday nights is unacceptable and includes inappropriate language, urination in public and fighting.

·         The residents felt ignored by the committee.

·         The licensee should keep control of their clientele.

A deputation was also heard from Mr Thackery, the applicant who included the following points in his representation:

·         The previous application submitted last year was refused because of concern that the proposed fully opening windows would lead to an increase in noise.

·         There are outside tables and chairs.

·         The door is kept open.

·         The windows in this application are of better quality and stronger glass, which makes it a bit more upmarket.

·         He is aware of problems regarding clientele. 

·         There will be more of a food offer.

A deputation was also heard from Councillor Hugh Mason objecting to the application who included the following points in his representation:

·           This is not a music venue, but the clientele can be very noisy, so noise attenuation is important. 

·           More could be done to make the front of the premises fit in better with the street scene e.g. the proposed window does not have the same number of small panes as the other window and does not have the same curves.

A deputation was also heard from Councillor Michael Andrewes objecting to the application who included the following points in his representation:

·           The residential area that is very close suffers from the night time economy.

·           The opening windows will mean that there will be noise nuisance.

·           This application is not appropriate for a conservation area.

Members' questions

Members sought clarification on the design, possible noise disturbance, previous complaints about noise and the rest of the street scene.

 
Members' comments

Members discussed design in the setting of the conservation area andnoise impact.

RESOLVED that conditional permission be granted subject to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Construction of 2 semi-detached dwelling houses after demolition of existing building (amended scheme 14/00136/FUL).

Construction of 2 semi-detached dwelling houses after demolition of existing building (amended scheme 14/00136/FUL)

The City Development Manager reported in the supplementary matters list that additional representations have been received from the occupiers of two neighbouring properties raising the following objections:

 i.     Loss of the existing building which makes a positive contribution to the conservation area.

ii.     Overdevelopment of the site.

iii.     Loss of light.

iv.     Increased pressure on utilities.

v.     Increased demand for parking.

vi.     Impact on neighbouring garage business and

vii.     Noise and disturbance from building works.

Following the adoption of the Solent Protection Areas SPD alternative means of securing mitigation have been introduced.  As a result the recommendation has been amended to reflect this.

A deputation was heard from Mrs Candy objecting to the application, who included the following points in her representation:

·          The development would lead to overshadowing, overlooking, loss of light and privacy.

·         Her house, where she has lived for 26 years, is 17/18m from the opposite windows. 

·         The building is a unique feature of the conservation area.

·         Every effort must be made to retain the external features as much as possible.

·         Residents' concerns have been ignored.  Human Rights Article 1 states that people have the right to peaceful enjoyment of possession (including home).  Article 8 protects their right to privacy and family life.  It is immoral to rob residents of their rights to enjoy their homes.

·         Planning legislation applies that these can only be breached if there was a benefit to the community. 

·         This development would exacerbate existing parking problems.

A deputation was heard from Ms Davies objecting to the application who included the following points in her representation:

·         Modern houses do not belong in a conservation area particularly this poorly thought out one.

·         The proposed design is not sympathetic.

·         Light and privacy for the neighbours would be impeded.

·         It is too close to her property and others'.

·         She asked whether precautions would be taken to ensure the safety of residents in case asbestos is discovered.

·         She expressed surprise that local councillors who are meant to work for residents are considering this application.

A deputation was heard from Mr Lympany objecting to the application who included the following points in his representation:

·         He felt that it was an odd proposal in that a church hall would be developed into two semi-detached houses.

·         Ward councillors represent local residents and they do not want this development.

·         He had started a petition objecting to the development which had only one signature (his own) but had not submitted it to the planning department in advance of this meeting.

The Legal Adviser explained that human rights are taken into account within the procedures of the Council in accordance with the law relating to administration of the planning system.  She further explained that the petition could not be considered at the Planning Committee. 

A deputation was heard from Mr Oliver, the applicant's agent who explained that in response to suggestions from a previous  committee in regard to an earlier application,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Outline application for mixed use development comprising up to 163 dwellings in 2, 3 and 4 storey buildings and one 10 storey building with associated landscaping areas and parking; a flood defence barrier; and construction of up to 18094m² of floor space in buildings for use class B1, B2 and/or B8 purposes, following the demolition of existing buildings with accesses from Hamilton Road (principle of access to be considered) (resubmission of 12/00998/OUT).

Outline application for mixed use development comprising up to 163 dwellings in two, three and four storey buildings and one 10 storey building with associated landscaping areas and parking; a flood defence barrier; and construction of up to 18094SQM of floor space in buildings for use class B1, B and/ or B8 purposes, following the demolition of existing buildings with accesses from Hamilton Road (principle of access to be considered) (resubmission of 12/00998/OUT).

The City Development Manager reported in the supplementary matters list that in condition 21 the values of 'X' are 4, 9 and 2 respectively.

In condition 22 after '…Sustainable Homes,' insert ' including 9 credits from issue Ene 1, 2 credits from issue Ene 7, 1 credit from Hea 3 and 2 credits from issue Ene 8,'

In conditions 23 and 24 the values of 'X' are 'excellent'.

A deputation was heard from Mr Beck, the applicant's agent who included the following points in his representation:

·         The principle for redevelopment was accepted in 2001. 

·         More than 1,000 organisations and residents were invited to the public exhibition where all the concerns were addressed. 

·         No objections had been submitted from the statutory consultees.  

·         English Heritage has no objections. 

·         The key to its success is the creation and delivery of the flood defence scheme.  The seawall around the site would safeguard the site and encourage new investment next door.  More than 750 residents and two industries would benefit from the protection. 

A deputation was heard from Mr Boys, on behalf of the applicant who included the following points in his representation:

·         He circulated plans of the site to the committee which include buildings, housing and offices.

·         He had waited 5 years, 9 months and 6 days to talk to the committee today.

·         He is passionate about the development and the regeneration that this will bring to the area.

·         The area flooded several times this winter.  If the tidal surge were to coincide with the spring tide, there would be 1m of water over the whole site and the neighbouring site.  The £4m spending on flood defences will unlock funding from government. 

·         The development will increase employment

·         The proposed 163 new homes will contribute to the council's targets for new homes.

Members' Questions.

Members sought clarification regarding the flood defence funding, tree planting, investment in public transport in Paulsgrove, provision of affordable, family homes and employing the local workforce.

RESOLVED that:

1. Delegated authority was granted to the City Development Manager to grant conditional outline permission subject to:

a) The prior completion of a section 106 agreement with principal terms as outlined in the report and such additional items as the City Development Manager considers reasonable and necessary having regard to material considerations at the time the permission is issued.

b) The prior completion of an agreement under the Local Government Acts (with triggers for the release of funds as necessary) to secure a funding contribution of £3.1m; and confirmation of Grant in Aid funding from the Environment Agency  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Reconfiguration of 'The Hard' transport interchange to include the construction of new terminal building and shelter following demolition of existing terminal building and concessions, altered access and site layout, relocation and alterations to railway station entrance and associated landscaping.

Reconfiguration of The Had transport interchange to include the construction of new terminal building and shelter following demolition of existing terminal building and concessions, altered access and site layout, relocation and alterations to railway station entrance and associated landscaping.

The City Development Manager reported in the supplementary matters list that in addition to those previously reported (6), three further letters of representation have been received from local residents/ users of the existing interchange.  Two of these representations are generally supportive of the proposal, although a number of concerns are identified.  The third representation is in objection to the proposal.  The areas of concern can be summarised as follows:

a)    Insufficient parking for private cars dropping/ collecting passengers

b)    Inadequate public conveniences within The Hard area.

c)    Taxi rank located too far from Portsmouth Harbour Railway Station

d)    Shared surface (pedestrian/ bicycles) creates a hazard for the visually impaired

e)    Better links should be created into Gunwharf Quays via the Portsmouth Harbour Railway Station.

These issues are addressed in turn below:

a)    The current interchange includes two small areas dedicated to private vehicle pick up/drop off which can accommodate a similar number of vehicles which is considered to be appropriate.  This area would also benefit from the inclusion of a small shelter to protect passengers during inclement weather.

b)    It is accepted that the proposal would result in a net reduction in public conveniences within the interchange area itself.  However, it should be noted that those proposed within the main terminal would all be fully accessible, of a significantly greater standard and would be available whenever the terminal is open.  These facilities would be supplemented by additional provisions within the improved waiting facilities at Portsmouth Harbour Station.

c)    It is accepted that the proposed taxi rank would be located further from the station entrance.  This could cause some inconvenience to passengers, particularly those with disabilities.  However, it should be noted that the proposed interchange has been designed to find the most efficient and safe layout, removing conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles wherever possible.  Re-grading of the site would also allow for level access between the private and taxi drop off points and the platforms within Portsmouth Harbour Railway Station.  Overall, it is considered that the significant improvements in safety, legibility and accessibility would enhance the pedestrian environment, particularly for those with an impairment. The main terminal building would also offer opportunities for shelter and/ or seating en route to and from pick up / drop off points.

d)    The main route between Portsmouth Harbour Station and The Hard to the north of the main terminal building will be a shared surface.  A change in surface materials/ finish will clearly define these areas.  This is considered to be acceptable approach in highway safety terms.

e)    This issue is addressed within the main committee report.

Formal comments have also been received from First Hampshire & Dorset Limited (First), one of the principal operators form the transport interchange.  'First' recognise that the physical  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Change of use from house in multiple occupation (class C4) to house in multiple occupation (sui generis) to include construction of dormer window to rear roof slope and roof lights to front roof slope.

Change of use from house in multiple occupation (class C4) to house in multiple occupation (sui generis) to include construction of dormer window to rear roof slope and roof lights to front roof slope.

The City Development Manager reported in the supplementary matters list that an additional objection had been received from the occupier of a neighbouring property on the grounds of increased noise and disturbance and increased pressure for parking.

The City Development Manager introduced the report.

Members' Questions.

No questions were raised.

Members' Comments.

No comments were made.

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

Change of use of vacant land to form a freight transport depot and parking area (sui generis use), siting of 2 single storey modular buildings and installation of 15 no 5m high lighting columns.

Change of use of vacant land to form a freight transport depot and parking area (sui generis use), siting of 2 single storey modular buildings and installation of 15 5m high lighting columns.

The City Development Manager introduced the report.

Members' Questions.

Members sought clarification regarding loss of amenity and land, access and consultation with users of the football pitches.

Members' Comments.

No comments were made.

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