Agenda and draft minutes

Regulatory Board
Wednesday, 26th February, 2020 6.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber

Contact: Lisa Young  Email: lisa.young@gosport.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

46.

Apologies for non-attendance

Minutes:

There were none.

47.

Declarations of Interest

All Members are required to disclose, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter, any disclosable pecuniary interest or personal interest in any item(s) being considered at this meeting.

Minutes:

There were none.

48.

Minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2020 pdf icon PDF 119 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 15th January 2020 be signed as a true and correct record.

49.

Deputations - Standing Order 3.4

(NOTE: The Board is required to receive a deputation(s) on a matter which is before the meeting of the Board provided that notice of the intended deputation and its object shall have been received by the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on Monday 24th  February 2020.  The total time for deputations in favour and against a proposal shall not exceed 10 minutes).

Minutes:

There were none.

50.

Public Questions - Standing Order 3.5

NOTE: The Board is required to allow a total of 15 minutes for questions from Members of the public on matters within the terms of reference of the Board provided that notice of such Question(s) shall have been submitted to the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on Monday 24th February 2020).

Minutes:

There were none.

51.

Fareham Local Plan 2036: Supplement pdf icon PDF 5 MB

To consider and approve a response to the Fareham Local Plan (FLP) 2036: Supplement consultation which has been prepared by Fareham Borough Council (FBC).

Minutes:

Consideration was given to the report of the Manager of Planning Policy requesting consideration and approval of a response to the Fareham Local Plan (FLP) 2036: Supplement consultation which has been prepared by Fareham Borough Council (FBC)

 

The Manager of Planning Policy updated the Board that following further consideration it was recommended that two additional recommendations were included in the report.

 

These recommendations related to procedural matters concerning the consultation arrangements for the Fareham Local Plan and concerns regarding their obligations under the ‘Duty to Cooperate’.

 

Both matters were covered in the report but it was considered that it would be appropriate to include two explicit recommendations on these matters.

 

The proposed additional recommendation were as follows

 

Recommendation to be inserted between the 4th and 5th bullet point to read:

 

That this Council objects that the HA2 allocation was not subject to a second consultation as part of this Supplement given the problems that arose with the initial consultation in 2017 on the Draft Fareham Local Plan relating to the access arrangements to the site, particularly in relation to Tukes Avenue.

 

 

Recommendation to be inserted between the 5th and 6th bullet point to read:

 

That this Council expresses its concerns that Fareham Borough Council may not be fulfilling its duty to cooperate because it is not considering the outcome of the joint Partnership for South Hampshire work on Strategic Development Opportunity Areas as part of the sub-regional Statement of Common Ground which will assess the most appropriate locations for development in the sub region.

 

A Member welcomed that there was reference to drainage and advised that they were happy to see that in the report, recent events had seen levels of flooding increase after rainfall and welcomed the protection of ditches.

 

Members congratulated Planning Officers on the report and recognised that despite Fareham Borough Council advising that the previous plan had been torn up, in practice it hadn’t been, and as a result it was now believed to be moving forward, reflected by them issuing a supplementary document.

 

It was felt that this identified a flaw in the process and that is was extremely important to ensure that Gosport borough Council’s objection was heard, along with that of the residents and that the strategic  gap  was not encroached on. In addition it was felt that the Stubbington bypass and Newgate Lane improvements intending to help the Borough were being strangled by development

 

The Board felt that the proposal was not acceptable as it would disrupt efforts to help people and businesses with improved road layouts and that it was important to be consistent with the Council’s objection.

 

It was felt that it was important to show that when the plan was called in by inspector, the Council showed clear and constantly that they did not think the proposal was acceptable.

 

It was felt that there were contradictions in the local plan with intent going forward diminish the Strategic Gap, strangle the economy in Gosport and affect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

52.

Consultation from Fareham Borough Council

P/19/1260/OA - cross boundary outline application, with all matters reserved except for access, for the construction of up to 99 residential dwellings, landscaping, open space and associated works, with access from Brookers Lane (Gosport Borough Council to only determine part of the application relating to part access in Gosport Borough)

Land East of Newgate Lane East, Fareham
pdf icon PDF 112 KB

An Outline planning application has been submitted to Fareham Borough Council (FBC) and to Gosport Borough Council (GBC) by Bargate Homes Ltd for a development of up to 99 dwellings.

 

As neighbouring authority GBC has been consulted on the elements of proposals within Fareham by FBC. It should be noted that the elements of the planning application that relates to land in Gosport Borough (reference 19/00516/OUT) remain under consideration and will be referred to a future meeting of the Regulatory Board for determination.

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report of the Development Manager and Manager of Planning Policy detailing that an Outline planning application had been submitted to Fareham Borough Council (FBC) and to Gosport Borough Council (GBC) by Bargate Homes Ltd for a development of up to 99 dwellings.

 

As neighbouring authority GBC had been consulted on the elements of proposals within Fareham by FBC and that it should be noted that the elements of the planning application that relates to land in Gosport Borough (reference 19/00516/OUT) remain under consideration and will be referred to a future meeting of the Regulatory Board for determination.

 

The Development Manager updated the Board that Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of the report make reference to two other applications submitted to FBC for residential development on adjacent land. These two applications are both subject to Directions that prevent FBC from issuing a planning permission without special further authorisation from the National Casework Unit within MHCLG. It is Officer’s intention to alert the NCU to submission of the current application as it raises similar cross-boundary issues.

 

The final sentence in paragraph 2.36 makes reference to there being “outstanding concerns regarding the impact of traffic on the adjoining Gosport residential areas and the capacity of local community facilities to accommodate this development”. Following further consideration of this issue it is recommended that these points be expanded upon as a further points of objection.

 

Therefore it was recommended that the final sentence of paragraph 2.36 be deleted and replaced with the following additional paragraphs.

 

 

 2.37      The proposed development would, given its location and proposed means of access, be likely to result in increased demand on local community facilities within Gosport Borough that may not have the capacity to meet the increased demand from up to 99 additional households. In the absence of satisfactory evidence to the contrary, the proposal has the potential to have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of properties in Peel Common and Bridgemary.

 

2.38       The proposal would result in increased levels of traffic and vehicle movements associated with the development on the existing highway network within Gosport Borough that operate at or around their maximum capacity. In the absence of satisfactory evidence to the contrary, any additional vehicle movements would be detrimental to the safety and convenience of highway users of roads in adjoining Gosport residential areas.

 

 

Members welcomed the report and acknowledged this would be the start of many requests for comment on such applications.

 

The Board acknowledged that in due course, Gosport Borough Council would be asked to make a decision on the access which was intended to be from Gosport. Members were advised that this would be presented to the first available Board. It was acknowledged that the applicant had asked to submit additional highway related information and that it was prudent to allow them to do so.

 

Members were pleased that it was intended to make the National Casework Unit aware of the latest application. It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

53.

Report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration pdf icon PDF 138 KB

Schedule of planning applications with recommendations.

(grey sheets pages 1-13)

 

Minutes:

The Head of Planning and Regeneration submitted a report on applications received for planning permission setting out their recommendations.

 

RESOLVED:  That a decision be taken on each application for planning permission as detailed below.

 

19/00508/VOC - REMOVAL OF CONDITION 8 (VEHICLE NUMBERS LIMITATION) AND VARIATION OF CONDITION 9 (TO ALLOW VEHICLES UP TO 5M IN HEIGHT) OF PLANNING PERMISSION 14/00348/FULL (as amplified by plan received 31.01.20)

 

Celtrucks  Aerodrome Road  Gosport  Hampshire   

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration requesting that consideration be given to application 19/00508/VOC, Variation of Condition.

 

In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that the proposed removal of conditions was not deemed to have an impact on highway safety.

 

 

 

A Member advised that objectors had stated that the applicant had not undertaken their obligations to maintain the area through landscaping and that the site continued to be an eyesore. The Board was advised that the maintenance of the landscaping was not conditioned as it would be difficult to enforce. Offciers had been to the site and had confirmed that the applicant had undertaken the work they agreed to.

 

Members expressed disappointment that the continuation of maintenance could not be enforced.

 

In answer to a Member’s question the Board was advised that there was no definitive answer as to why the original height limit was imposed. Members were advised that changes to vehicles to make them more environmentally friendly had caused them to increase in height.

 

In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that it would not be reasonable to apply a condition on the application regarding the installation of screening as it would be subject to challenge.

 

RESOLVED: That variation of condition 19/00508/VOC be approved subject to the conditions in the report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration.

 

19/00490/FULL - ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND FRONT EXTENSIONS, INCORPORATING GARAGE (AMENDED SCHEME TO 18/00332/FULL) (as amended by drawings received 28.01.2020)

26 Gomer Lane  Gosport  Hampshire  PO12 2SA   

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration requesting that consideration be given to planning application 19/00490/FULL.

 

Member’s questioned whether the proposal was out of character as the property was adjacent to a block of flats that potentially distorted the elevation.

 

The Planning Officer advised that Gomer Lane was distinct in character in that the properties had open frontage with properties set back from the road and that the flats were set back from the main carriageway.

 

In the long view of the street the proposal would be intrusive and unacceptable. Members acknowledged that a garage had been on site and that the applicant had chosen to knock it down to replace it with an extension.

Members felt it was important to support the planning officer and hold the line of design on the road as the proposal was intrusive, would create a visual impairment and was out of design and character.

 

 

 

RESOLVED: That application 19/00490/FULL be refused for the following reason.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

54.

Any other items

Minutes:

There were none.