This is a default template, your custom branding appears to be missing.
The custom branding should be at https://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/global/moderngov/pcc/pcc_template if you cannot load this page please contact your IT.

Technical Error: Error: The underlying connection was closed: The connection was closed unexpectedly.

Agenda and draft minutes

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Virtual Remote Meeting. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services 023 9283 4870  Email: Democratic@portsmouthcc.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

21.

Apologies

Minutes:

Councillor Chris Attwell sent his apologies.  Councillor Hugh Mason deputised for him.

 

The Chair informed the committee that Portsmouth City Council is the applicant for Item no. 1 on the agenda, which is the planning application for the Tipner Interchange M275 Junction 1 off slip from Junction 12, M27 Portsmouth. The applicant has decided to withdraw this Item from the agenda to enable them to carry out a briefing with members on the application and to further consider the details.

 

22.

Declaration of Members' Interests

Minutes:

No interests were declared.

23.

Update on previous applications.

 

Planning Applications

The planning application report was published on 23 February.

Minutes:

The Head of Development Management reported that the council had received notification of an appeal submission for 36, Pains Road, Southsea - a change of use from a C4 HMO to a Sui Generis premises for more than six people.

 

1, St John's Road, Portsmouth.  This an appeal for non-determination for the building of a first floor extension and dormer windows to the rear.  Officers marked it for refusal and referred it to the Secretary of State. 

 

The planning enforcement inquiry on 6 nos. appeal has concluded. It is hoped that the PINS decisions for the enforcement notices will be received shortly.

 

24.

20/00457/OUT Tipner Interchange M275 Junction 1 off slip from Junction 12, M27 Portsmouth pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Outline application for the construction of a multi-storey transport interchange (up to 34.8 m aod) incorporating a park and ride facility for up to 2,650 cars and 50 bicycles; taxi rank; car and bicycle rental facility; public conveniences; landscaping; ancillary offices and units within use classes A1, A2, A3, D1 and D2, with access from junction 1 on the M275 (principles of access to be considered). The proposal constitutes EIA development.

 

NOTE: Portsmouth City Council is the applicant for Item no. 1 on the agenda, which is the planning application for the Tipner Interchange M275 Junction 1 off slip from Junction 12, M27 Portsmouth. The applicant has decided to withdraw this Item from the agenda to enable the applicant to carry out a briefing with members on the application and to further consider the details of the application.

Minutes:

This application had been withdrawn by the applicant.

 

25.

20/01483/FUL The Registry, St Michael's Road, Portsmouth

Change of use from student halls of residence (class C1) to interim accommodation for the homeless (sui generis).

 

Minutes:

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and drew attention to the Supplementary Matters document which reported that:

 

Additional Consultation Response:

 

Crime Prevention Design Advisor

Broad support, conditional upon residents being at the appropriate stage of their recovery to reside within this style of accommodation, the provision of effective onsite support for the residents at all times and the fitting of appropriate physical security measures.

 

Reviewing the information held by Hampshire Constabulary for the period 20/9/20 to 6/1/21, there were 45 reports of incidents relating to the premises.

City centre location with nearby open spaces. Our concerns centre on the possible problems from residents both within the accommodation and within the local area. Hampshire Constabulary recognises the need for accommodation for the homeless to assist with their journey back to a more normal lifestyle. Effective management / support of the residents is key to reducing the opportunities for crime and disorder.

To provide for the safety and security of residents and visitors, the external doors should be fitted with an electronic door access system. The system should provide for fob access for residents and staff and audio and visual access for visitors.  If entry is gained into the building it is possible to access all parts of the building, this increases the vulnerability of the building to crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB). To reduce that vulnerability, a CCTV system should be installed within the building, to provide images of the external doors, stairwells, lifts, other common access ways, the office and communal facilities, and basement.

 

Planning Officer's comment: The response relating to the 45 reports of incidents cannot categorically be claimed that the incidents were resultant from occupants of the premises.  The applicant has provided the Council with a copy of their Management Plan. There is an entrance intercom on the front door, and to each occupier's room, and an individual key to each occupier's room.  This plan together with the CCTV provisions which are controlled by condition, are considered sufficient measures to ensure the safety and security of the premises.

 

Further Representation

The University of Portsmouth has submitted an objection.  A summary of the comments raised are as follows:

(i)   The university is supportive of the need for a solution to homelessness in the city and supported the use during the pandemic, but it was never envisaged that this would become a permanent location.  This objection is not to be perceived as ‘anti-homeless’ but to identify and raise concerns about the impact the use of this specific building and its management has had on the users of the City Centre Campus.  The University is set to return to business as usual from early / mid-March. There is clearly a change in planning circumstances in the near future with more people interacting with the local area than what was experienced when the change of use first happened and since the temporary permission was granted.

(ii)There have been a number of incidents that occurred involving university students and staff,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

26.

20/01482FUL - 155-157 Elm Grove Southsea

Change of use from student halls of residence (class C1) to interim accommodation for the homeless (sui generis).

 

Minutes:

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.

 

It was noted that the deputation which Councillor Sanders had given at the start of the previous application also covered this application.

 

 

Members' Questions

In response to questions from members, Councillor Sanders explained that tailored support is provided to residents and is broken into three categories: one for residents who require the lowest level of support; two for those who need a little more and three for those whose needs are complex.

 

Members' Comments 

Members noted that despite having reservations when this project had been proposed, the residents opposite the premises have not reported any problems.

 

Kingsway House which is situated nearby can offer additional help and support for the tenants.

 

Resolved to grant conditional planning permission as set out in the officer's committee report.

 

27.

20/01484/FUL - Kingsway House, 130 Elm Grove Southsea

Change of use from student halls of residence (class C1) to interim accommodation for the homeless (sui generis).

 

Minutes:

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.

 

The Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the Supplementary Matters which reported that an additional consultation response had been received from Natural England.  They had no objection to the application.

 

It was noted that the deputation which Councillor Sanders had given at the start of the other applications also covered this one.


Members' Questions

In response to questions from members, Councillor Sanders explained that the support given to residents was tailed to their individual needs and included assistance with job hunting, mental health and increasing self-confidence.  He added that funding for mental health support is available from Public Health England.

 

Members' Comments

There were no comments from members.

 

Resolved to grant conditional planning permission as set out in the officer's committee report and the Supplementary Matters report.

 

 

28.

20/00470/HOU - 12 Blake Road, Drayton and Farlington, Portsmouth

Construction of front extension, following demolition of existing front porch. Construction of part two-storey, part single storey rear extension, following demolition of existing extension, addition of raised decking, including external alterations (amended plans and description)

 

Minutes:

The Planning Officer presented the report and drew attention to the Supplementary Matters which reported that:

 

Since the publication of the committee report, a neighbour has notified the Local Planning Authority (LPA) of some statements and dimensions in the report they consider to be inaccurate.  In-the-round, the LPA consider that the Committee report is fair in its content, and need only comment on the following three specific points:

 

The neighbour considers the following statement in Paragraph 5.15 of the report to be incorrect: 'a two-storey rear extension…. 19/00129/HOU at no.14, the dimensions of this extension are not dissimilar to those of the proposed extension'.  The approved two-storey extension at no. 14 projected 2.2m from the rear elevation and was 3.5m wide. The current application's two-storey extension would project 4m from the rear elevation, and be approx. 4.4m wide.

 

The neighbour also notes that his objection reference to planning application 16/00824/HOU at 6 Blake Road has not been raised in the Committee report, the LPA will take this opportunity to rectify the omission, and with apologies.  The neighbour considers the rear terrace at no. 6 to be equally pertinent to the current application.  That terrace was approx. 4.7m deep, and was refused planning permission.  The current application's terrace is 1.3m/1.6m deep (please see below).

 

Lastly, the neighbour measures the proposed terrace as 1.6m deep, while the Committee report states it is 1.3m deep.  The terrace does indeed measure 1.6m deep from wall to edge of the first step, but the Applicant has explained that a safety balustrade would be necessary, set-in approximately 0.3m from the edge of the first step.  In any event, in my opinion the difference of 0.3m is not material in its effect on amenity, and the Planning Inspector would consider any necessary conditions on such details were the appeal to be allowed.

 

The recommendations remained unchanged.

 

Two written deputations from Malcolm Cook and Tom Pasterfield were read out which were against granting of the application and were read out to the committee.  A written deputation from the applicant was also read out.  Deputations are not included in the minutes but can be viewed on the livestream on the following link Planning Committee 9 March 2021 on Livestream.

 

Members' Questions

In response to questions from members, the officer explained that:

 

The proposed extension would project 5m from the rear elevation which is the same as the extension at number 10.  The owners at number 14 have planning permission for an extension of the same length. 

 

There is a large raised terrace at number 6 which comprises raised decking.  An extension is a built structure and therefore the planning considerations would be different.  However the potential impact on neighbouring amenities would be assessed in both cases.

 

Members' Comments

It was noted that many householders on this slope build these type of extensions to take advantage of the view.

 

As there is already an extension of the same size at number 14, members felt that there was no reason  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.