Agenda item

Councillors Gerald Vernon-Jackson and Sandra Stockdale withdrew from the room for the consideration of this item in accordance with their earlier declaration of interest.  The City Development Manager's Supplementary Matters List reported that eight further representations had been received raising the following objections:-

·         design not in keeping and too tall;

·         no need for convenience store operated by a national chain;

·         elderly persons accommodation will not contribute positively to the area;

·         site should be developed for a hotel or tourist attraction;

·         likely impact on future operations of South Parade Pier;

·         vehicular access should be from Alhambra Road;

·         inadequate parking provision.

The City Development Manager gave a formal presentation of this application mindful that not all of the Members had been at the previous meeting at which the application had been deferred.  The City Development Manager reported a small amendment to Recommendation 1 regarding the viability review to read " a review of the financial viability if the development has not reached shell and core within 24 months of the planning permission being granted, with a commensurate increase being made to the financial contribution towards affordable housing if the viability is found to have improved".

A deputation was made by Mr Pead objecting to the application.  His points included:

·         Questioning the validity of the extant permission and the associated land contamination concerns relating to the underground tanks at the site;

·         There had been changes to the planning policies since the 2007 permission for Savoy Court so the Core Strategy and Seafront Plan should be considered as well as the Tall Buildings Policy for this seven storey building;

·         The impact on the Royal Beach Hotel and the conservation area:

·         The unsuitablility of incorporating the retail element on the seafront with a loading bay.

In his deputation Mr Halloran objected to the proposal on behalf of the Portsmouth Society, which felt that the design was not good enough for Portsmouth on such a prestigious site.  His other points included:

·         There had not been significant changes to the design and the applicant had not listened to what had be said at the previous occasion;

·         The previous comments regarding the design where the design review panels had not been listened to regarding the need for a clearer break in the middle of the frontage

·         The Portsmouth Society had offered to meet with the architects and had received no response. 

A deputation was then made by Mr Child on behalf of the applicant whose points included:

·         The scheme had evolved and had taken account of the site with a thorough access statement

·         The applicant had responded to the criticism of the design panels and he felt that the officers had given a balanced recommendation

·         The scheme did include a break in the middle of the frontage. 

·         Their changes had been subtle and the Portsmouth Society had wanted fundamental changes, the applicants felt that their changes had been appropriate for the site and the design should be compared with the extant permission. 

·         The scheme establishes a residential value of the land

·         McCarthy & Stone were willing to explore the option of the retail element, but other uses may not be viable;

·         There would be a significant benefit to the city with the scheme, to pay for improvements at Southsea Common and if this received permission the scheme would move quickly to improve the site.

Councillor Lee Hunt wished to comment on the application and his points reflected the planning policies in place and the aspiration to make Portsmouth a premier waterfront city.  His points included:

·         his concerns were about the design not the use of the site, quoting from the Portsmouth Plan regarding developments at the seafront which should show respect for the natural environment

·         the need for a higher architectural quality and enhancing the architectural heritage of the city in a conservation area and stressing the importance of this site as a major tourist destination

·         This was on the edge of the seafront master plan area so the design should enhance the seafront which was not the case with this application which he felt was bland in between the Edwardian villas.

Councillor Matthew Winnington then spoke as a ward councillor and he represented the views forwarded to him both for and against the application which was summarised:

·         It was out of keeping with the area, with the parking access in the wrong place which would cause problems accessing the retail element.

·         The design was 'bland and monolithic' and there should be a sensitivity to development in a conservation area.

·         The design should reflect what was there and a convenience store is not appropriate to the site.

·         Another resident had commented on the poor design.

·         Some residents felt that this should be a non-residential use and that this shouldn't be just developed because it was an empty site and it did not enhance the area which had been promised at the public meeting

·         other residents had felt that it should enhance the area of the seafront.

There had also been some positive comments including:

·         Some residents liked the design and felt it enhanced the seafront

·         Some local residents had welcomed the convenience store at this location and felt that it was a better design than the extant permission. 

Councillor Winnington felt this was an important site and the effect on the Royal Beach Hotel (which was raising objections) should be considered and the impact on the conservation area; what was agreed for this site would be there for decades.

In response to the points made by the deputations the City Development Manager responded that the officers' view was that there had been a technical commencement of the previous permission although that had related to part of the site and the other part related to conversion of the building which had been burnt down so could not be implemented.  With regard to the subsequent policies that had come into place Members should be mindful of the conservation area setting and there are current policies within the Portsmouth Plan and the Seafront Master Plan which would be relevant to their consideration.

Members' Questions

It was asked regarding whether there could be a better development for this site and officers advised that Members had to consider what was before them at this meeting and design is a subjective issue as seen in the fact that some residents had supported and some had objected to it.  It was asked why the comments from the design panels had not been re-sought regarding the changes to the scheme to see if their previous concerns had been satisfied.  The City Development Manager responded that there had been subtle changes which had represented an improvement to the scheme. 

Members' Comments

Members' concerns included the delivery arrangements and parking outside the retail element but were mainly concerning the design scheme at this sensitive site on the seafront.  Members wished it to be noted that they had received unprecedented pressure to give consideration to the financial contribution associated with the scheme, and had received a lot of contact from the applicant which they felt was wrong.  The committee members also felt that it was unfortunate that there had not been more effort by the applicant to revise the scheme following its deferral as requested by the committee at the previous meeting.

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