Agenda and minutes

Councillor David Fuller had sent his apologies for absence.

Councillors Gerald Vernon-Jackson and Sandra Stockdale would withdraw from the room for the Site of the Savoy Buildings item as their colleague Councillor Purvis works for McCarthy and Stone who are the applicant, so felt this was a code of conduct rather than pecuniary interest.  Councillor Les Stevens received legal advice and decided that he would not have an interest as he had not known of Councillor Purvis' employment and had not discussed this application with him so would consider the application on its merits.

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 17 December will follow.

RECOMMENDED that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 17 December 2014 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 17 December 2014 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the chair of that meeting.

There were no updates at this meeting.

The attached report by the City Development Manager is to advise the Committee of the outcome of the appeal that was allowed.

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.

Planning Applications

It was asked if costs had been awarded on this appeal decision to allow the development; the City Development Manager confirmed that costs had not been awarded.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Councillors Gerald Vernon-Jackson and Sandra Stockdale withdrew from the room for the consideration of this item in accordance with their earlier declaration of interest.  The City Development Manager's Supplementary Matters List reported that eight further representations had been received raising the following objections:-

·         design not in keeping and too tall;

·         no need for convenience store operated by a national chain;

·         elderly persons accommodation will not contribute positively to the area;

·         site should be developed for a hotel or tourist attraction;

·         likely impact on future operations of South Parade Pier;

·         vehicular access should be from Alhambra Road;

·         inadequate parking provision.

The City Development Manager gave a formal presentation of this application mindful that not all of the Members had been at the previous meeting at which the application had been deferred.  The City Development Manager reported a small amendment to Recommendation 1 regarding the viability review to read " a review of the financial viability if the development has not reached shell and core within 24 months of the planning permission being granted, with a commensurate increase being made to the financial contribution towards affordable housing if the viability is found to have improved".

A deputation was made by Mr Pead objecting to the application.  His points included:

·         Questioning the validity of the extant permission and the associated land contamination concerns relating to the underground tanks at the site;

·         There had been changes to the planning policies since the 2007 permission for Savoy Court so the Core Strategy and Seafront Plan should be considered as well as the Tall Buildings Policy for this seven storey building;

·         The impact on the Royal Beach Hotel and the conservation area:

·         The unsuitablility of incorporating the retail element on the seafront with a loading bay.

In his deputation Mr Halloran objected to the proposal on behalf of the Portsmouth Society, which felt that the design was not good enough for Portsmouth on such a prestigious site.  His other points included:

·         There had not been significant changes to the design and the applicant had not listened to what had be said at the previous occasion;

·         The previous comments regarding the design where the design review panels had not been listened to regarding the need for a clearer break in the middle of the frontage

·         The Portsmouth Society had offered to meet with the architects and had received no response. 

A deputation was then made by Mr Child on behalf of the applicant whose points included:

·         The scheme had evolved and had taken account of the site with a thorough access statement

·         The applicant had responded to the criticism of the design panels and he felt that the officers had given a balanced recommendation

·         The scheme did include a break in the middle of the frontage. 

·         Their changes had been subtle and the Portsmouth Society had wanted fundamental changes, the applicants felt that their changes had been appropriate for the site and the design should be compared with the extant permission. 

·         The scheme establishes a residential value  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Councillor Stockdale rejoined the meeting.  The City Development Manager's Supplementary Matters List reported one further letter of representation from Mr McGovern who had hoped to make a deputation and was travelling from Dorset but did not attend.  His objection on behalf of The Old Brewhouse Residents Ltd (Management company for Harbour Ridge) re-iterating concerns previously raised and reported. This representation stated:-

i)     Inadequate  Mechanical and Electrical  (M& E) provisions for increased occupancy

ii)    Insufficient means of disposal of household refuse. (Fly Tipping is already the norm)         

iii)   Inadequate supply of potable and fresh water supply

iv)   Inadequate means of foul water disposal (current system is already the subject of frequent flooding)

v)    Requirement of Fire Alarm and Fire protection system in compliance with HMO’s

vi)   Upgrade of lift service to meet Disabled Persons needs

vii)  No facilities for Parking (existing On Street parking is already oversubscribed)

viii)Any sub-let or part with the possession of part with the possession of a part of or part only of the Property as distinguished from the entirety thereof would be in contravention of the Terms of the Lease.

ix)   Refusal of our present insurers and other recognised insurers to offer Buildings insurance for HMOs

       Rendering the building uninsurable (The incidence of death related to fire in HMOs is reported as 8 times higher than residential properties. 

x)    Increased occupancy would naturally cause increased noise affecting the quality of life expected from existing residents. We already have frequent complaints from noise transmissions which are the subject of numerous complaints to the City Council we would not wish to exacerbate this situation.

xi)   The corridors of the building are “Blind” and have no natural or mechanical ventilation Odours from Household  refuse are a constant complaint,  any increase in occupancy would exacerbate this situation.

xii)   Noise levels would naturally increase to the discomfort of other residents.

xiii)The overall environmental affect would be un-sustainable.

xiv)The sub division of the existing Lounge would leave insufficient space for communal activities such as eating, relaxing entertaining etc. etc.

xv)  The current facilities for drying washing airing linen could not meet the increased demand and would inevitably result in an overflow onto the balconies in contravention of City By-Laws.

The Committee Report refers (under 'Principle of HMO use' pg.30) to uncertainties surrounding the lawful use of three properties (45b, 46c and 57 Queen Street) that have been included within the HMO 'Count' data.

However, it highlights that even if these properties were found to be in lawful use as HMOs the number of HMOs as a percentage would remain below the 10% threshold if permission was granted.

Following further investigations, it has been established that, on the balance of probabilities, the three properties identified are not in lawful use as HMOs and have been included within the HMO 'Count' data in error. Therefore, the number of HMOs within the surrounding area would be 4.94% rising to 6.17% (5/81) if permission was granted, below the 10% threshold set out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The City Development Manager's Supplementary Matters List reported one further letter of representation in support of the proposal which had been received from Paulsgrove Ward Member, Councillor John Ferrett whose comments read:-

"I would be grateful if this written deputation could be placed before the Planning Committee at their meeting on 14 January 2015. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the meeting in person. I have spoken to residents about the problems encountered with inconsiderate parking at Cadgwith Place, Port Solent. I have also observed the haphazard and random nature of parking on numerous visits to this area. It is clear from my visits and observations that some structure and order to the parking area must be provided, both to ensure there is adequate access and egress from the square, but also to minimise disputes over parking. I believe the proposal that has been put forward deals with the parking and traffic problems that have been encountered in this area and would, therefore, urge the committee to support the officer's recommendation".

The deputation was made by Mr Critchley the applicant's agent who circulated photographs showing the intensity of parking at the site.  His points included:

·         This is unusual open space within Port Solent

·         The rest of the site had neat integral parking and this open space had led to illegal parking causing inconvenience to residents especially at weekends with yachting parties and commercial vehicles being left over the weekend.

·         Since 2009 the residents had tried to control the parking there which needed a formal solution.

·         The application had been made by the Residents' Group for associated landscaping and this still allowed access for refuse collection.

Members' Questions

Councillor Ellcome as the Cabinet Member for Traffic & Transport asked why an application had been made whereas usually schemes on public adopted highway went through Traffic Regulation Orders.  He was concerned that future maintenance would be part of the PFI arrangements with Colas.  The Head of Transport & Environment's representative confirmed that the future maintenance had been discussed with Colas who did not require a commuted sum as there were minimal implications for them and members asked that this agreement to be formalised.

Members Comments

Members were unsure whether the formal parking would deter all the inconsiderate parking as the residents hoped. However it was felt that the scheme would be an improvement to the current situation.

(As Councillor Vernon-Jackson returned to the meeting during this item he did not take part in the discussion or voting.)

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