Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence have been received from the chair of the committee, Councillor Aiden Gray. The meeting will be chaired by the vice-chair, Councillor Jonas.

Apologies for absence were received from the chair of the committee, Councillor Aiden Gray and Councilor Les Stevens.

Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Lee Mason who was stuck in traffic.

Councillor David Fuller declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 1 - Site of Savoy Buildings & Savoy Court, South Parade, Southsea - in that his fellow Liberal Democrat colleague Councillor Will Purvis, whom he knows very well, has been involved with this planning application in his capacity as an employee of McCarthy and Stone, the applicants. Councillors Gerald Vernon-Jackson and Sandra Stockdale also declared personal and prejudicial interests for the same reason as stated above. They agreed to leave the room during discussion of this item.

Councillor David Fuller also declared an interest in item 2 - Park Lodge, 28 Clarkes Road, Portsmouth - in that he had been approached by the applicants but had advised them to speak with the planning officers.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 November 2014 are attached.

RECOMMENDED that the minutes of the meeting held on 26 November 2014 be agreed as a correct record, to be signed by the chair accordingly.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 26 November 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Planning Applications

There were no updates from the City Development Manager.

The chair, Councillor Frank Jonas, changed the order of business so as to allow the application relating to the site adjacent to the Portsmouth Outdoor Centre to be taken second.

Construction of part seven, part five storey building comprising 31 retirement living apartments (Class C3), 66 assisted living (Extra care) apartments (Class C2) with communal facilities, ground floor retail unit (Class A1) and associated car parking and landscaping.

Councillors Gerald Vernon-Jackson, Sandra Stockdale and David Fuller left the room during discussion of this item following their earlier declaration of interest.

The City Development Manager introduced the report and reported in the supplementary matters list that two further objections had been received from residents on the grounds that retirement flats would be too expensive for local residents and a Co-op is unimaginative and detrimental to the area. One objector suggested that the site should be redeveloped to provide a visitor/tourist attraction to provide jobs and encourage investment in the Pier. The other objector suggested that the retail shop should be relocated to the side or rear of the site and not be sited on the seafront.

As referred to in the committee report discussions have been on-going with the applicant on the level of affordable housing contribution which could be borne by the proposed development without it becoming financially unviable. Following the review of the applicant's latest submission, a potential underestimation of sales values and an overestimation of other contributions was identified. The applicant has accepted this and as a result an additional £170,000 has been offered towards affordable housing. Together with the previous additional contributions the applicant is now offering a total affordable housing contribution of £267,779.45 together with other Section 106 contributions totalling £20,332.00. These contributions are accepted as being the most that could be achieved on the site with recommendation I being updated accordingly.

The City Development Manager also reported that following the publication of the committee report the applicant had requested that the timing of any review mechanism of financial viability be amended to be triggered 24 months from the date of any permission, and not 24 months from the date of any permission. The applicant suggested that the initially recommended trigger would not allow for any potential hurdles or delays that may be incurred in completing the S106 agreement and the subsequent issuing of a permission. Furthermore the applicant advised that the 24 month timescale is very tight on a scheme of this size. The applicant accepts that a review mechanism should be in place to ensure the timely implementation of any permission and not to place inappropriate burdens on a developer. It is considered that the applicants request is reasonable and it is recommended that the trigger for a review be amended.

Recommendation I in the committee report omits a necessary reference to the implementation of the travel plan and also includes a typographical error.

The planning permission which was granted on appeal for redevelopment of the Savoy Buildings site was accompanied by a unilateral legal undertaking securing planning obligations which became binding when the permission was implemented. There is a remaining obligation to provide affordable housing on site. If the development to which the current application relates were to be implemented, the remaining obligation of the previous legal undertaking would no longer serve a planning purpose, because the provision for affordable housing will be off-site with a developer contribution. Accordingly it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 143.

Installation of 3m high mesh fencing, 6no. 15m high floodlighting columns, 3no. portacabins, 2no. spectator stands, kiosk and dugouts, provision of additional parking facilities and emergency access; and environmental improvements to provide replacement habitat.

Councillor Lee Mason, who was late to the meeting and Councillors Gerald Vernon-Jackson, Sandra Stockdale and David Fuller were in attendance for the remainder of the meeting.

The City Development Manager introduced the report and reported in the supplementary matters list that an objection had been received on behalf of Tudor Sailing Club in respect of : a) safety due to additional traffic on the adjoining access roads: b) Insufficient parking facilities with the potential for users parking within spaces allocated to the sailing club. Whilst the representation from the sailing club refers to "their" access road, it is noted that the access road is owned by the City Council and is intended to serve all of the facilities within the area including the sports pitches, the Portsmouth Outdoor Centre and the Sailing Club. As mentioned within the committee report it is considered that the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding highway network. The Sailing Club incorporate signage within their parking areas to deter non-members from using them.

The Contaminated Land Team (CLT) commented that the site on which the development works are proposed is part of the Great Salterns Estate - marshy land raised by refuse disposal in 20^th century up to 1960. A site investigation report is held by the CLT for land to the north of the proposed development which identified elevated concentrations of certain heavy metals within the top metre of made ground present. As such the potential for similar contamination to be present on this site cannot be discounted. Therefore, conditions relating to land contamination are requested.

The Langstone Harbour Board commented that although they raise objection, they do have strong concerns in respect of the potential loss of more than a football pitch sized area of supporting feeding habitat for Brent Geese. On that basis, support is expressed for the condition proposed by Natural England (NE) relating to the monitoring of bird behaviour during the winter following the erection of the fence. A condition relating to the impact of the floodlighting is also suggested to ensure that they would have no adverse effect on navigation within the Harbour.

The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust commented that the Trust is generally satisfied with the level of ecological survey work that has been carried out at the site in relation to this application, and the conclusions that have been drawn from that survey work. The mitigation proposals with regard to impacts on the designated sites would appear to be appropriate and deliverable and the Wildlife Trust welcomes the inclusion of the conditions recommended by NE. However, concerns are raised in respect of the effectiveness of the Brent Goose refuge area given its proximity to the coastal path and the potential impact of future coastal defence works.

It should be noted that NE has suggested the inclusion of three conditions. Whilst two relating to the timings of works and the provision of the enhancement (Brent Goose Refuge) area have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 144.

Construction of part 2/-part single-storey extension to form new dwelling at first floor level and extension to the existing nursery at ground floor to include installation of new boundary railings (after demolition of existing public conveniences).

The City Development Manager introduced the report and reported that in the supplementary matters list that a contribution towards mitigation measures in connection with the Solent Special Protection Areas SPD and the required S.111 forms had been completed and received since the report had been published.

Deputations were heard from Mrs Burnett, the applicant and Mr Manns, the agent, who included the following points in their representations:

·         Have been operating for 8years and to my knowledge never had any noise complaints.

·         Presently have 22 children in the current premises and will have up to 42 overall if permission is granted.

·         Children are from 3months to 3years and in the new build will be up to 8years old.

·         We are open all year round although some children are term time only.

·         Parents drop off and pick up at staggered times and we are open from 7.30am - 6pm.

·         Parents are told not to park on the double yellow lines or in front of the garages at drop off and pick up.

·         80% of the parents walk to the nursery.

·         The majority of the children are funded and live close to the nursery.

·         Want to continue to work with our neighbours.

·         We also work well with the local Police as we are so close to Kingston Park and often see incidents occur.

·         The size of the new build has been reduced.

·         The design is in keeping with the adjacent building.

·         Have changed the internal layout and have tried to put the children's area furthest away from the nearest residential property and are proposing sound barriers.

·         Can put in all the necessary noise specifications with it being a new build.

·         Suitable management plans have been submitted.

Members' questions

Members sought clarification on whether any noise complaints had been received, the loss of trees and whether there was any overlooking or loss of privacy for nearby residential properties.

In response to questions from members regarding the loss of trees, the City Development Manager explained that there would be a loss of 3 trees which the arboricultural officer had inspected but were deemed to be not of a high standard. Therefore on balance losing three poor trees against providing facilities for children to enable parents to go to work within the local community was acceptable, particularly as the trees would be replaced.

Members' comments

Members were concerned about the loss of three fairly substantial trees, even though they accepted that they were not of a high quality and would be replaced with new younger trees. However, members were also very supportive of providing much needed childcare facilities within Fratton.

It was at this point in the proceedings that Mrs Burnett, the applicant, confirmed to members that the three trees were not on the land which she was purchasing and that they were actually situated within the Kingston Park.

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

Installation of sales cabin for a temporary period of 6 months starting January 2015.

This application was considered by the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Alistair Thompson.

The City Development Manager introduced the report and reported in the supplementary matters list that the applicant had submitted a Sales Cabin Parking Strategy which was attached for members' information.

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

·         This is a new landmark building which is already sending out a positive message to local residents.

·         The sales cabin is modern and subtle and means that we can sell some units off plan.

·         This will allow us to bring in some finance sooner to enable us to build in the city.

·         All our contractors are told to park in the two public car parks nearby as opposed to the residential roads to the rear of the site, as will visitors to the sales cabin.

·         The siting of the sales cabin will have little or no impact on local residents.

Member's questions

Members asked how temporary the permission was to be for.

In response to this question, the City Development Manager explained that the applicant had applied for a six month period starting January 2015 but suggested that this be amended to one year so as to prevent the applicant having to re-apply later next year for an extension.

Members' comments

Members were all in support of a temporary one year permission.

RESOLVED that conditional temporary permission, for one year starting from January 2015, be granted subject to the conditions outlined within the City Development Managers report.