Agenda item

Retrospective permission for conversion of existing workshop to form dwelling house; external alterations to include construction of new roof, installation of new windows and doors, cycle and refuse stores and relocation of entrance gates (Resubmission of 14/00101/FUL).

(TAKE IN REPORT BY THE CITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER)

Councillor Hugh Mason withdrew from the room due to his declaration of interest.

The City Development Manager's supplementary matters report explained that a contribution towards mitigation measures in connection with the Solent Special Protection Areas SPD and the required S.111 forms have been completed and received since the report was published.

A revised ownership certificate has also been received clarifying the additional owner of the application site (who resides at the same address as the applicant) together with confirmation that Notice of the application was served on this person in July 2014.

In light of receipt of the contribution in connection with the Solent Special Protection Areas SPD the recommendation is now one of Conditional Permission.

The following deputations were heard:
Miss Eastwood of Goodwood Road, objecting to the proposal, whose points included:

·         Impact on the rear elevation of her property, 28 Goodwood Road.

·         Loss of privacy, the window of the new property's bedrooms will look directly into her garden.

·         Driveway is on a sharp bend and manoeuvring into and out of the site will be dangerous.

·         Goodwood Road is two way for cyclists therefore the Highway comments in the report are incorrect.

·         Moving to residential use will mean there is the potential for noise 24/7 and not just during business hours.

·         The applicant has disregarded planning procedures as they started work before obtaining planning permission.

·         Concern that cycle store is using the outside wall of No. 28.

Mr Ward, of Allcot Road, objecting to the proposal, whose points included:

·         Visual intrusion into No.28 Goodwood Road.

·         The porch has already been built.

·         No documentation to prove that the land is not contaminated.

·         Rubbish has been dumped by the outside wall of No.28.

·         No consultation with neighbours by applicant.

Mr Ayles, the Applicants Agent who advised that he had worked with officers to overcome any issues raised by the objectors.

In response to points raised by Mr Ward about the porch and land contamination, the City Development Manager advised that the porch had now been built.  Extensive discussions had taken place between the applicant and the contaminated land team and the contaminated land team had said they were happy with the development and had not recommended any conditions be added.

Members' Questions

The officers were asked to explain further the issue of privacy which had been mentioned in the deputations.  Officers described the layout of the property and showed photographs taken from bedroom 2.  The other two windows facing No. 28 Goodwood Road would be obscured glazed as one is a bathroom and one an en suite.  With regard to whether the Council's policies required there to be a specified distance between properties, officers advised there were only guidelines in place for new build developments.  The City Development Manager advised that whilst is was useful for members to understand the distances between the properties, members should not give this too much regard particularly as the site is in a densely populated part of the city.  She advised that members should consider whether the development is acceptable with regard to the character of the area and whether the change of use to residential is acceptable.

With regard to the highways comments being flawed, officers confirmed that the road is two way for cyclists. A question was asked about what advice the Planning Department had given the applicant about proceeding with works without obtaining planning permission. The City Development Manager advised that officers had advised the applicant to cease works and that carrying out further works would be at their own risk, however members were advised to disregard that this permission was sought retrospectively.

Members' comments

Members were concerned with the access to the property and felt that reversing from the driveway onto the blind corner was too dangerous and contrary to PCS23. It was also felt that the change of use to a residential dwelling would cause a loss of amenity.

RESOLVED that the planning application be refused for the following reasons:

1.    In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed parking and access arrangements are unacceptable and would result in vehicles reversing onto and across the highway in a manner that would be likely to cause a conflict of traffic movements along Goodwood Road resulting in additional hazard and inconvenience all users of the highway and to the detriment of highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies PCS17 and PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan.

2.    In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed residential use would, by reason of an increased level of overlooking, increased activity in the evening and at weekends, odour and nuisance from the siting of the proposed refuse storage facilities and potential increased fear of crime and anti-social behaviour to the occupiers of number 28 Goodwood Road, have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan.