Agenda and draft minutes

Planning Committee - Tuesday, 27th April, 2021 2.00 pm

Venue: Virtual Remote Meeting. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services 023 9283 4870  Email:

Webcast: View the webcast

No. Item




Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Matthew Atkins.



Declaration of Members' Interests


There were no declarations of interest.



Minutes from the previous meeting - 30 March 2021 pdf icon PDF 805 KB

The minutes for the meeting held on 30 March were published on 15 April 2021.


RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 30 March 2021 be approved as a correct record.



Update on previous applications.





Planning Applications.


The Head of Development Management advised that the council had received an advert consent appeal for an illuminated digital LED screen at the junction of Derby Road and Stamshaw Road. It has also received appeals against prior approval: two were for householders and four were full applications. Members requested him to email them details of the decisions for one appeal that had been allowed and one that had been dismissed.



18/02093/FUL - 17 Merton Road. pdf icon PDF 549 KB

Conversion of existing sui generis HMO and flat to form 1no. one-bedroom, 3no. two-bedroom and 1no. three-bedroom residential units; to include construction of rear single storey extension and the provision of cycle and refuse storage (amended description).



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


Submission from the Applicant

The Applicant sent an email yesterday to 'Planning and Committee Officers', noting the application is too large for a single family and that smaller and more affordable flats will bring more benefits for 'the sociality'.


Paragraph 6.3, last line: the word 'permission' should be 'presumption'.

Mitigation of effects on the Special Protection Areas

Nitrates: The Officer Report notes that Natural England's response to an Appropriate Assessment is awaited, and that remains the case. As such, the level of mitigation is not yet settled, it is likely to be low or indeed it could be zero, given the existing lawful use of the property. Rather than delay decision yet further to another Committee meeting, it is proposed to defer the decision on the final outcome of this matter for the Assistant Director's authority.

Recreational Bird Disturbance: Recommendation  I requires mitigation to be secured via the legal agreement, but the Bird Aware payment has in fact already been made, so this element should be deleted from the Recommendation.

Both the above are addressed in the amended Recommendation in the adjacent column.


A Planning Officer has visited the application area on three recent evenings (8-9pm), to ascertain actual on-street parking availability (Tuesday 20th April, Sunday 25th, Monday 26th).

The site is within Parking Permit Zone MD, with permits necessary between 4.30 - 6.30pm. Merton Road and Nelson Road have been assessed as they intersect.

The western half of Merton Road has had 9 - 12 spaces available.

The western half of Nelson Road has had 16 - 24 spaces available.

The eastern half of Merton Road has had 3 - 12 spaces available.

The eastern half of Nelson Road has had 1 space available.

Given the good level of available on-street parking near the application site, there is no proposal to change the Recommendation to support the application.


RECOMMENDATION I - That delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth to Grant Conditional Permission subject to either (a) satisfactory completion of a Legal Agreement to secure the following:

- SPA nitrate mitigation

Or (b) Agreement from Natural England that no nitrate mitigation is required.

RECOMMENDATION II - That delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth to add/amend conditions where necessary, and;

RECOMMENDATION III - Subject to Recommendation I,that delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth to refuse planning permission if a Legal Agreement has not been satisfactorily completed within three months of the date of this resolution.


Members' Questions

There were no questions from members.

Members' Comments

Members felt the building did not look very well maintained and that the proposal would improve it. Keeping the front wall is more beneficial than removing it to provide parking spaces.


RESOLVED to grant conditional planning permission as set out in the Officer's Committee report and SMAT.



21/00037/FUL - Hovercraft Terminal, Southsea

Construction of two storey modular building for provision of temporary office space.



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



One email received from the Southsea Clarence Esplanade Pier Company Ltd, requesting to make a deputation to the planning committee.

Highway Engineer comments:

This site forms a part of a transport interchange. It is well served by a high frequency bus service and is adjacent to both the Esplanade and Clarence Pier off street public car parks. However in the medium term the availability of public parking in close proximity to the site will be significantly reduced to facilitate the construction of the sea defence works when the Clarence Pier car park will be closed. During that period it is anticipated that the demand for parking will exceed the space available although this has been accepted as a necessary impact to allow the improvement of the sea defences.

The temporary accommodation proposed is only intended to operate for a 5-7 year period after which it would revert to the existing arrangement. During that period it would accommodate between 6 and 10 full time members of staff relocated from the existing offices at Merlin Quay. It is explained that 4 to 6 staff would routinely be in attendance at the office.

Whilst I am satisfied that the addition trip generation would be unlikely to have a material impact on the operation of the local highway network, no additional or alternative parking provision is proposed to accommodate the likely staff parking demand. This will arise when there is limited if any opportunity to accommodate that off site within a reasonable walking distance given the likely parking displacement during the closure of the Clarence Pier car park.

The Transport Statement seeks to establish the accessibility of the site by active modes of travel although in so doing it draws from the outdated IHT guidance ‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’ which suggests that maximum walking distances to school of up to 2000m are acceptable. This significantly overstates the accessibility of the site when compared with the current CIHT guidance ‘Planning for Walking’ which recommends 800m walking districts.’ As a consequence this section of the TS should be given little weight.

In summary this proposal would increase the demand for on-street parking during the period when the demand for parking will exceed the capacity available. This will make it more inconvenient for people to find a place to park and result in vehicles driving around the area hunting for a parking space with the consequent implications for air quality / pollution which you should give due weight to in your determination of the application.

The Officer's report already addresses these matters.


Written deputations were read out as part of the officer presentation from:

·         Jill Norman, Southsea Clarence Esplanade Pier Co Ltd

·         Griffon Hoverwork, agent


Deputations are not included in the minutes but can be viewed on the livestream on the following link


Members' Questions

In response to questions from members, officers explained that:

·         It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.


21/00001 - James Callaghan Drive

Application for prior approval (Part 20, Class ZA) relating to the demoltion of existing buildings and construction of 3 storey building to provide 18no. two bedroom flats and 9no. three bedroom flats.



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


Change to the wording of recommendation:

From Prior approval not required

To Prior approval required and granted

Further consideration of pedestrian and cyclists' safety on James Callaghan Drive:

·         Manual for Streets suggests people would be willing to walk 800m to access services and facilities,that meet their daily needs. The application site is in excess of 2 miles' walk from the nearest facilities, which exceeds planning guidelines. This suggests residents of the proposed development would be unlikely to access the site by foot.

·         Also, consideration is given to the number or proportion of residents likely to access the site on foot or cycle. A key starting point is the level of occupation of existing and proposed developments, which are approximately 147 employees and approximately 65 residents respectively. It is reasonable to conclude that there is unlikely to be any significant increase in high safety implications given these numbers and how occupiers would seek to exit and access the site via James Callaghan Drive.

·         The site is not connected to or near [including to south of the site] any Public Right of Way.

·         The level of vehicular trips generated by the proposed development (as stated in the report) is unlikely be higher than the existing, thus unlikely to result in highway safety issue in itself. The Local Highway Authority has no data of on incidents as a result of exit and egress from the existing approved site access or occupiers of the site along the section of James Callaghan Drive. Data provided is in respect of incidents in the entire stretch of James Callaghan Drive which is as follows:

  • over the last 5 years (2016-2020) there have been 5 incidents on this stretch of road (not including the junctions at either end) which involved 10 vehicles and resulted in 3 serious injury casualties and 3 slight injury casualties (all of which required hospital attention);

o   The LHA does not have records of near misses or incidents which did not result in personal injury.

·         The data indicates that on average in the last 5 years, one serious incident took place on the entire stretch of the road. Therefore, officers conclude that James Callaghan Drive is not a dangerous road for pedestrians or cyclists and the safety of the residents of the proposed development wishing to enter or leave the site on foot or cycle would not be put at risk.


In light of all the information set out above, the recommendation of the Local Planning Authority remains unchanged.


Peter Hayward, Island Highways & Transport consultants, was also present for this item.


Members' Questions

In response to questions from members, officers explained that:

·         There are parts of the road that have lay-bys which were shown on the plan. There is not capacity for a cycle lane or pedestrian footpath on James Callaghan Drive. The question is whether this provision would be proportionate to the development and the Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.