Agenda item

Change of use of first floor and part ground floor to form two self-contained flats; external alterations to include blocking-up of ground floor windows and installation of bin stores, bicycle stores and condenser units

The City Development Manager's supplementary matters report set out that one further letter of representation had been received from a local resident objecting on the grounds that the removal of the window frames and the blocking up of the openings, which has been carried out without the benefit of planning permission, will severely damage the appearance of the Locally Listed Building.

It also reported on amended drawings - the applicant has provided amended drawings to address some of the concerns identified within the Committee Report and raised within representations. This includes:

A reduction in the number of condenser units proposed within the rear yard from three to two, and a change in their specification. This amendment has been considered by the City Council's Environmental Health Team who confirm that the change would represent an approximate reduction in noise levels of 10 dB (A) when compared to the proposal as originally submitted. However, notwithstanding the slight reduction in noise levels, there would still be a requirement for the applicant to install acoustic screening or housing to protect the amenity of the adjoining occupiers. This could be required through the inclusion of a suitably worded planning condition should permission be granted.

Removal of the forecourt onto the Maurice Road frontage and the repositioning of refuse and bicycle storage facilities to the rear of the building. A new access is also proposed from Shirley Avenue into the rear garden of the ground floor flat to improve access and convenience for the bicycle storage facilities. An access through the rear yard of a commercial unit would not be encouraged in most situations. However, having regard to benefits of removing visual clutter and preserving the appearance of the main elevations of this Locally Listed building, this arrangement is considered to be acceptable in these circumstances.

Solent Special Protection Areas mitigation

Since the committee report was written, the applicant has provided a contribution through agreement under Section S111 of the Local Government Act as mitigation for the potential impact of the proposal on the Portsmouth Harbour and the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas (SPAs). The requirement for a payment to secure mitigation would be both directly related to the development and be fairly and reasonably related in scale to the development. On that basis the applicant has addressed the second reason for refusal.

Heritage Statement

The applicant has provided a heritage statement in which it is suggested that the removal of the windows and blocking up of their openings would benefit from the provisions of Part 2, Class A of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). These provisions relate to the erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence wall or other means of enclosure.

It is the view of the Local Planning Authority that the external alterations would materially affect the external appearance of the building and could not be carried out as permitted development.

The recommendation remains as refusal for a single reason 1) as set out in the report deleting reason 2).

A deputation was made by Mr Wilson objecting to the proposal whose points included:

·         The main concern of him and his neighbours who he represented, Mr and Mrs Cox, was the siting of the condenser units and the noise that they would make by these which would damage the health of the neighbours' son due to his serious medical condition.

·         There was no regard for the heritage of the building with the vandalism of it and the removal of windows.

A deputation was then made by Mr Bevan, the agent in support of the application whose points included:

·         The change of use was seen as acceptable and the highways impact had been made no worse by the application.

·         The issues for siting of bins had been resolved and relocated to the front.

·         There had been significant discussions regarding the condenser units which had been changed to two quieter units.

·         He viewed the windows as 'minor alterations' under the permitted development order which would not require approval.

A deputation was then made by ward Councillor Ben Dowling who reiterated the residents' concerns regarding the condenser unit and the windows of this locally listed building and asked that if the committee were minded to approve the application there should be mitigation of the condenser units by enclosure.

The written representation of Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson was circulated to members of the committee and read out by the chair, in which he  asked for the refusal with an additional reason for refusal of the loss of amenities for local residents, or if the application was approved for there to be further screening of the condenser units.

Members' Questions

In response to the issue of the permitted development, the City Development Manager explained that officers believed that the windows did require planning permission, because of their material effect on the exterior of the building, and did not feel that the proposal was acceptable for the locally listed building.  With regard to the condenser units and the amenities for the adjoining residents, these could be mitigated through the use of conditions if requested.  Members asked questions regarding the level of noise that would be emitted and how this could mitigated.  The committee's legal adviser also clarified that the alterations to the windows was not alterations to "a means of enclosure" under the permitted development order.

RESOLVED that the application be refused for reason 1) as set out within the City Development Manager's report.