Minutes:
(Councillor Sanders had made an earlier declaration of interest and withdrew from the room for this item.)
The City Development Manager reported that the report (page 13 regarding representations) should be amended to reflect that the three ward councillors had not objected but had asked for this to be determined by the committee.
Also the Supplementary Matters List reported three additional representations have been received objecting to the proposal on the grounds of:
"1. Council has given little consideration to the location of the massage parlour located opposite a school which is completely inappropriate;
2. Impact on established residents;
3. Applicant has visited properties uninvited and council has advised to contact police as they are funded to deal with these issues;
4. Can authority divorce itself from the impact such process can have on people (public comments);
5. Council has stated that assumptions cited in objections are not proven re evidence which shows that massage parlours are notoriously known for conducting business (supported by national evidence) which is not in line with their designated intent but council accepted applicants view that the transport and parking will not be affected;
6. Issues which have an evidence base have not been given the same considerations as issues (use of Fratton Train Station and bus routes) as issues that have not got an evidence base and the additional demand for car parking and pressures this will place on existing occupiers;
7. Council has accepted a best case scenario not worse case or middle ground;
8. Decisions have been made on assumptions;
9. Opening hours not acceptable to current residents or Prior School and will result in noise and disturbance to residents;
10. Objections from Priory School have been dismissed by Council;
11. Question validity and objectivity of the assessment and grant of planning permission;
12. Request Chief Executive to confirm who is responsible for decision making, the independent scrutiny of decisions and process by which the equity of the decision making can be challenged or assured;
13. Register comments as formal complaint and investigate accordingly;
14. Under FOI request similar cases providing assurances and evidence, fairness and robustness of decisions and full evidence of impact analysis;
15. Support requested in raising profile of objection and ensuring the council had followed due process in granting the application, ensuring equal consideration to all concerns raised and that the application is not progressed based on the strength of evidence of risk;
16. Concerned such an application can be granted against the strength of objection and evidence presented to the council;
17. Ask recipient of this email to object to this for the safety of residents and pupils;
18. LPA has a duty in respect of section 66 of the Town and County Planning Act for architectural preservation and any building within the site of a grade II listed building. The presence of a massage salon painted red does not fit with the architectural presentations within a grade II residency;
19. No evidence to suggest there is a need for such services and impact on human rights, privacy and residential amenity; and,
20. Massage salon not in keeping with ethos of road."
The following deputations were made, which are summarised:
i) Mr P Ball, objected as a local resident whose points included:
· There were parking problems already in the area and there was no evidence that public transport would be used by those visiting the premises
· The design was not suitable when near a Grade II listed building
· Residential amenity of residents and nature of the road
· Location unsuitable opposite the school and safety of children concerns
· Querying the nature of the service, qualifications of staff and if there was a need for medical massages
· Site notices had been removed
ii) Mr A Lewis spoke as the applicant in support of his application, whose points included:
· The general tone of the objections were not appropriate to the application
· The listed building referred to had PVC window frames
· The application had the support of officers as outlined in the report
Members' Questions
It was asked if the applicant had requested a site visit and it was reported that this request had not been received by the City Development Manager. In response to questions regarding the use, it was reported the Local Planning Authority could not consider or control potential behaviour within the premises but should consider the land use. How the business would be advertised was raised; there may be the need for advertising consent. The consultation period, consultees and use of site notices were also examined.
Members' Comments
Members did not believe that this was the appropriate location for the business opposite a large school and it was out of keeping with the surrounding area, which was mainly residential. The members had hoped to hear more from the applicant regarding how the business would be run and advertised.
RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reason:
In the absence of more detailed understanding of the nature of the business, the use of the ground floor as a massage parlour would be likely to have a significant impact on neighbouring residential properties and Priory School in terms of increased noise and disturbance, comings and goings, the visual appearance of the development that would therefore represent an inappropriate land use in this location. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the principles of good design and the protection of residential amenity as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework and PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan.