Agenda and minutes

These had been received from Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson (who was represented by Standing Deputy Councillor Darren Sanders), Councillor Lee Mason and Councillor Ken Ellcome.

Councillor David Fuller declared that he worked next door to 93 Havant Road (application 4) so felt this was prejudicial so would leave the room for this item. For Cornwall Road car park (application 5) he would not be taking part during the discussion and would withdraw as he felt unable to keep an open mind on this application.

Councillor Darren Sanders declared that he had spoken to both the developer and opponents of 93 Havant Road (application 4) regarding the previous application, and he had a friend who worked for McCarthy & Stone but he had not discussed this with him and this was not a pecuniary or prejudicial interest.

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Planning Committee held on 3 September are attached for approval.

RECOMMENDED that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 3 September 2014 are approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 3 September be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

There were no updates on previous planning applications that were not covered by separate items on the agenda.

The purpose of the City Development Manager's report is to request Members consider the applicants request to modify the legal agreement attached to planning application 13/00005/FUL in relation to the tenure of the affordable housing provision.

RECOMMENDATION: To approve modification of the legal agreement to vary the tenure of the affordable housing to affordable rent from low cost shared ownership.

RESOLVED: the modification of the legal agreement to vary the tenure of the affordable housing to affordable rent from low cost shared ownership was approved.

The City Development Manager wishes to advise the Committee of the outcome of the appeal that was allowed (there is no separate report).

RECOMMENDED: That the report is noted.

Background: A planning application was considered at the Planning Committee meeting of the 29th January 2014.  The application sought planning permission for the construction of three dormer windows to the rear roof slope, each 2.2m wide and 1.05m to the eaves of a hipped roof with an overall height of 2.5m; a pair of dormer windows to the front roof slope of similar dimensions; and the construction of a side/front extension to enlarge the integral garage.  

The application was recommended for conditional permission. This recommendation was overturned and the application refused with the reasons for refusal relating to impact on residents of Craneswater Mews by virtue of overlooking and a loss of privacy.

The Inspector noted that Craneswater Mews, together with development on the west side of Craneswater Park forms a high density residential complex with one of its main features being the mutual overlooking between dwellings.   Furthermore, the proposed dormers would overlook the open plan front curtilages of the dwellings in Craneswater Mews where there is already little or no privacy, as the area is used to gain access to the individual properties. The proposed bedroom windows would for the most part not overlook the much more private rear courtyards and gardens of houses in the Mews. 

The Inspector carefully noted concerns of a number of local residents but concluded that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions for the occupiers of the properties in Craneswater Mews as regards privacy.

The Inspector was also of the view that, in terms of scale and appearance, the roof alterations are of appropriate proportions and design to preserve the appearance of the townscape of the Craneswater and Eastern Parade Conservation Area.

Subject to the imposition of the following conditions the Inspector upheld the appeal and granted permission.

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of

three years from the date of this Decision;

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance

with the following approved plan: Drawing No. 2013/02/A;

3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of

the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing

building.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The City Development Manager wishes to advise the Committee of the outcome of the appeals, which were dismissed.  (There is no separate report.)

RECOMMENDED that the report is noted.

Background:  A planning application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 8th January 2014. The application, for the continued use of part of the dwelling for dog boarding (day time boarding (day care) and overnight boarding), was recommended by Officers for refusal. This recommendation was agreed and authorisation was given to take formal enforcement action to secure the cessation of the unauthorised use. The reason for refusal and for taking enforcement action related to the use of the property for dog boarding giving rise to an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance to the detriment of the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The Inspector concluded "that the continued use of the premises for a dog boarding business would give rise to significant concerns that the living conditions of occupiers of nearby residential properties would be harmed with regard to noise and disturbance". The Inspector noted "the employment generated by the business use and the service provided to local people in need of animal care" but agreed with the Council that "this does not outweigh the harm to the living condition of occupiers of nearby properties by reason of noise and disturbance".

As part of their appeal against the Enforcement Notice, the appellant argued that the one month compliance period was too short to find alternative premises. The Inspector considered the competing private interest of the business to secure alternative premises against the public interest of bringing harm to the living conditions of occupiers of nearby residential properties to an end without unnecessary delay and concluded that a period of two months would strike an appropriate balance. The appeals were dismissed with the Notice varied to extend the compliance period from one month to two months.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The purpose of the report by the City Development Manager is to inform the Planning Committee of the proposed charges for monitoring S106 Legal Agreements.

RECOMMENDED that the Planning Committee notes the proposed charging scheme.

Planning Applications

Report by the City Development Manager attached.

RESOLVED: the Planning Committee noted and approved the proposed charging scheme.

The City Development Manager's Supplementary Matters List reported that Condition 2 as set on the agenda does not include the submitted drawings which should be added, and therefore wished to amend Condition 2 to include the following drawings: 1401/E/01; 1401/P/10; 1401/P/12 Rev.A; 1401/P/14; 1401/P/20 Rev.A.

A deputation was due to be made by Mr McDermott, on behalf of the applicant, in support of the application, but as there were no deputations of objection he withdrew his request to speak.

Members' Questions & Comments

Members asked about the parking provision with one space being provided by the off street garage for this constrained site.  An explanation was given of the special nature implications and the SPA mitigation of this to help protect wildlife in the wider PUSH and Chichester area.  The provision of a roof terrace for the amenity space was also queried and it was reported that the balustrading would help minimise overlooking.   It was asked if applications for parking permits for occupiers of the development could be prevented - the Senior Solicitor (Planning) explained that recent case law resolved that there could not be restrictions placed on future occupiers to prevent them making applications for parking permits in the usual way.

RESOLVED conditional permission was granted, subject to the conditions outlined in the City Development Manager's report, as updated in the Supplementary Matters List (amending condition 2).

The City Development Manager's Supplementary Matters List reported that the applicant has submitted the following comments in support of their application:

'There are only 2 HMOs registered in Allens road number 1 and 16. The house in question is not a student property neither is it for DSS or LHA, it is for working professionals who hold positions at various companies that contribute immensely to Portsmouth's economy. A house of young professionals is not detrimental to street. Comments regarding "students party all night" are incorrect and misinformed. Regarding the parking issue we ensured that the housemates did not all drive and will continue that policy.'

A further submission from the applicant in support of their application was attached as an appendix to the Supplementary Matters List which set out their proposed management arrangements for the property.

Further representations have also been received from the occupiers of a number of properties in Allens Road suggesting the wording of the SPD should be amended. This matter is being looked at by Councillors and Officers as a separate issue to the planning application.

This item had been deferred from the committee meeting held on 6 August to allow further identification of any HMO properties.

A deputation was made by Mr Edwards of Allens Road, objecting to the proposal, whose points included:

·         He was grateful to the committee for their previous deferral so that other HMOs could be investigated, and whilst these had not been discovered within the 50m radius approval would mean 6 HMOs in Allens Road, which was near the higher concentration of HMO properties in Waverley Road

·         This would be against the council's own policy to retain "mixed and balanced communities" as there would be an imbalance within this short road towards HMOs and it would drive families out of the area.

·         He asked that in future smaller roads such as this could have a separate criteria to retain the community spirit.

Councillor Matthew Winnington appeared as a ward councillor objecting to the proposal whose points included:

·         He felt the current HMO policy was in need of review as had been previously suggested via the Planning, Regeneration & Economic Development (PRED) portfolio, as the 50m radius did not work for roads like this.

·         He referred to the recent Planning Inspector's decision for 34 Playfair Road where PCC's HMO policy had been disregarded in connection with an appeal.

·         The committee should look at the whole area and turn down this application as it is inappropriate for the area, and if the application was agreed he suggested that further applications on HMOs should not be decided on until there was a full review of the policy.

Councillor Luke Stubbs, Cabinet Member for Planning, Regeneration & Economic Development's points included:

·         The review of the HMO policy had not been undertaken by the previous Administration and he was already being lobbied by landlords who wanted more HMOs in larger roads.

·         There was a need for clear rules so that these were not ambiguous when considered by Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

The City Development Manager's Supplementary Matters List reported that an amended plan had been received (10_DRAY_S02 Revision B) which removes all advertising from the hoarding fronting Carmarthen Avenue and adds a trim along the top edge to disguise the stepped look of the proposed hoardings.

The City Development Manager's Supplementary Matters List had attached to it the objections from Councillor Ellcome who felt that the developers had not worked closely with the local residents and had erected the hoarding at the site without consent and whilst he recognised the need for the site to be fenced off  to ensure safety he asked that members ensure the conditions set out by the City Development Manager are adhered to.

The City Development Manager's recommendation included a condition requiring the hoardings to be removed no later than 3 years from the date of consent or from the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner.

Members' Questions

In response to a question it was reiterated that the adverts would not now be appearing on Carmarthen Avenue.

Members Comment

Members requested an informative be added to ask that the conditions were adhered to ensure the removal of the hoardings within the required timescale.

RESOLVED that conditional consent be granted, subject to the condition set out in the City Development Manager's report.

(Councillor Fuller was not present for this item for which he had earlier made a declaration of interest.)

The City Development Manager's Supplementary Matters List had attached to it the objections from Councillor Ellcome who felt that the developers had not worked closely with the local residents and had erected the hoarding at the site without consent and whilst he recognised the need for the site to be fenced off to ensure safety he asked that members ensure the conditions set out by the City Development Manager are adhered to. 

A deputation was made by Mr Geddes, the applicant's agent, in support of the application, and he explained the timescale required for the building, marketing and selling of the apartments: for an anticipated 58 week construction period, sales would be taking place from mid-November 2015; it was usual for 1 retirement unit a month to be sold, so with these processes it could take up to four and a half years to complete.

The City Development Manager's recommendation included a condition for the hoardings to be removed no later than 3 years from the date of consent or from the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner.

Members Comment

Members requested an informative be added to ask that the conditions were adhered to ensure the removal of the hoardings within the required timescale.

RESOLVED that conditional consent be granted, subject to the condition set out in the City Development Manager's report.

The City Development Manager's Supplementary Matters List reported that an objection has been received from a local resident on the grounds that the proposed change of use would be of no benefit to the area and would result in an increased demand for parking and increase pollution to the detriment of the area.

A deputation was made by Mr Ashmore, a local resident objecting to the proposal, whose points included:

·         This was not in keeping with the area

·         This would encourage a creep of commercial use and it could become a mini-industrial site whereas there are vacant units nearby that would be more suitable

·         There were concerns by residents of noise and environmental pollution

·         There would be demand for parking by those working there

·         This would affect property prices and not bring economic benefit to the local area

Councillor Stubbs spoke as Cabinet Member for Planning, Regeneration & Economic Development to support the application for the land leased by the City Council and which would bring economic benefit to the council, which needed to generate income.

Members' Questions

The parking for workers at the nearby industrial units was queried and it was asked if the condition would be robust enough to restrict activity to car sales only and not allow repairs of vehicles; it was reported that the parking needs of other businesses were not relevant to this application and that repairs work would require a separate planning application as this application was restricted to sales.

There were no further comments.

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