Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor David Fuller.

There were no declarations of members interests.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2015 are attached.

(TAKE IN MINUTES)

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 11 February 2015 were agreed and should be signed by the chair as a correct record. 

Planning applications

Councillor Ellcome asked officers for an update on the Roko Health & Fitness Club application that had been deferred at the last meeting, as he had received emails from residents asking for an update.  The City Development Manager advised that an internal meeting was due to take place to discuss the land ownership issues.  The City Development Manager had met with Portsmouth Football Club to discuss issues associated with restricting access to the site by the public.  Officers had been advised by Portsmouth Football Club that they would meet with the objectors to the application to reach an agreement. 

There were no further updates. 

The City Development Manager introduced the report and reported that the applicant had submitted a written statement in support of their application which was circulated to Members by e-mail today. Amended plans have also been received relocating the refuse store as suggested by the Highway Engineer.

Comments have been received from the Highway Engineer confirming a car free development would be acceptable in this location and suggesting that the location of the refuse store be relocated to allow collection from Cavendish Road rather than from Victoria Road South. Condition 2 had been updated to reflect the amended plans. Following a recent judicial decision of the High Court a project management fee could form part of the requirements of a planning obligation only in limited factual circumstances, which did not appear to apply in this case; therefore the project management fee had been removed from the recommendation.

A deputation was made by Ms Hannaby, objecting to the proposal whose points included:

·         Ms Hannaby agreed that something needs to be done with the property and would support the property being converted into a family home.

·         Major concerns about parking and potential for 15 additional cars in the area as there is no more capacity for further cars.

·         No car parking surveys have been completed.

·         8% of students commute to university by car.

·         numerous surrounding student properties where many of the student residents have cars or motorcycles.

·         University of Portsmouth Estates figures indicate that the student population is projected to decrease by 41% by 2020, therefore why are more student halls of residence required?

·         There are numerous new build halls of residence planned which would be a better environment for students.

·         Adding further students to an area where there are already numerous student houses does not create a balanced and mixed community.

A deputation was made by Mr Parsons, legal counsel for the applicant whose points included:

·         He had submitted a written submission in advance of the meeting detailing why local residents should not be concerned about this application.

·         If the property did not change to student halls of residence, it could become residential flats, which he felt the impact and consequences of this would be worse for neighbouring residents.

·         The external building would not be changed.

·         Misconception about car use; B2B properties would ensure the terms of let for the students would mean they would not be permitted to keep a car at the address.

·         Students are not necessarily noisier than other residents.  If there were noise complaints these would be easier to police than if other residents lived in the property and these would be swiftly dealt with.

A deputation was made by Councillor Michael Andrewes, ward councillor objecting to the application, whose points included:

·         B2B properties run similar student halls of residence in Elm Grove and he was unsure whether this example had been a positive experience.

·         Application is unsuitable for area and it does not preserve or enhance the conservation area. Better suited closer to the university.

·         Will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Please note that this application has subsequently been withdrawn from the agenda and will be considered at a future meeting.

This planning application was withdrawn from the agenda and was not considered at this meeting.

The City Development Manager reported that the applicant has submitted a drawing showing how an additional 10 on-street parking spaces could be provided in Cross and Prince George Streets.

Comments have also been received from the Landscape Group generally supporting the proposed landscaping scheme and suggesting improvements. The applicant has submitted an amended landscaping scheme to reflect the comments which the Landscape Group have agreed.

Amended plans have also been received amending the layout of the proposed disabled persons units to be provided as part of the affordable housing. These drawings have been prepared following discussions with the applicants architects and the Council's Housing team and Occupational Therapists. To allow further amendments if required delegated authority is sought to amend or add conditions if required.

Following this officers recommended an additional recommendation:

Recommendation 3: that delegated authority be granted to the City Development Manager to update or amend planning conditions to include references to amended plans. The monitoring fee within recommendation 1 should also be removed from the recommendation.

The following condition (and an associated informative) be added to secure the provision of the on-street parking:

25) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the additional on-street parking spaces shown on Drawing No. Cross-PHP-Potions Rev.B (dated 6/3/15) have been provided.

Reason: To secure the provision of additional off-site parking to mitigate the potential highway impacts of the development, in accordance with policies PCS17 and PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan.

Informative: The applicant is advised that the requirements of Condition 21 can only be secured through the completion of a legal agreement pursuant to Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 between the developer and the City Council as Local Highway Authority.

A deputation was heard from Mr Monaghan objecting to the application whose points included:

·        One of the proposed entrances to the site is opposite the children's playground which is unacceptable and dangerous. Entrance should be kept in Cross Street and the second entrance is not necessary.

·        2.5 metre wall at the back of his property around the perimeter of the site and this is proposed to be reduced to 2 metres - unclear why this needs to be changed.

·        Proposal includes planting trees up against his boundary wall and the fallout of the trees will go into his garden.

·        Proposed four storey building will cause a lack a lack of privacy for his property.

·        This is overdevelopment on a massive scale.

A deputation was heard from Mrs Ford, objecting to the application whose points included:

·         Mrs Ford realises that the site needs to be developed but feels that the proposed development will create a sense of enclosure and a loss of privacy.

·         She showed the committee some photos showing views from various windows in her property and due to the close proximity of the properties in the Admiralty Quarter development she already needs to keep her some of her blinds at shut as people can see into the rooms. This development would mean all rooms in her  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.