Agenda and minutes

Regulatory Board - Wednesday, 13th January, 2021 6.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber

Contact: Lisa Young  Email:

Link: Click here to access live meeting

No. Item


Apologies for non-attendance


An apology for  non attendance was received from Councillor Batty.


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.



Councillor Herridge declared a personal interest in agenda item 1, remained in the room but took no part in the discussion or voting.


Councilor Earle declared a personal interest in agenda item 4, remained in the room and took no part in the discussion or voting.


Councillor Bateman advised that he was the Council’s representative on the Coastal Partnership but that it would not affect his judgement of the application.


Councillor Kelly advised that her relatives lived opposite the site of item 1, but would remain in the room and take park in the discussion and voting.


Minutes of the meeting held on 2 December 2020 pdf icon PDF 200 KB

To follow


RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 December 2020 be signed as a true and correct record, subject to the minor amendment identified.


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, 11 January 2021.  The total time for deputations in favour and against a proposal shall not exceed 10 minutes).


Deputations were received on item 3 and 4 of the grey pages.


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, 11 January 2021).



There were none.


Report of the Development Manager pdf icon PDF 230 KB

Schedule of planning applications with recommendations.

(grey sheets pages 1-27/1)




113 Whitworth Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 3NL


A Member sought clarification from the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer whether the rules had recently changed in that if a Member had acknowledged prior to the meeting whether or not they were in favour or against the proposed, they should declare and interest in the item and not take part for their own safety. The Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer confirmed he was not aware of any change in the rules whereby if a Member had predetermined the matter or it could be strongly suggested that they had predetermined it would cause a problem with the safety of any decision the Board made.


A Member suggested that a in a recent leaflet to drop to local residents it clearly stated that Cllr Herridge had detailed his position on the matter, and that previously Councillors had been taken to the Local Government Ombudsman and found to have predetermined the matter, even though it was a representation of residents feelings on the matter.


Councillor Herridge declared an interest and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.


A Member asked for further information about the way in which the existing building would be utilised in the conversion and was advised that the northern building that backed on to Lavinia Road would be retained and converted into dwelling houses. The Board was advised that they would be reclad and reroofed in a suitable material.


The buildings on Whitworth Close would be retained as would other buildings on the site. In addition the building on the corner of Whitworth Road and Close would be retained as part of the conversion.


A Member questioned the poor provision of cycle provision, and suggested that this could be added as a reason for refusal, if the application was refused as it failed to promote the use of alternative transport use to private cars, and would therefore fail under policy LP23.


The Board was advised by the Planning Officer that whilst the quantum of cycle parking provision on site was below that required by the parking SPD, Officer’s considered there to be enough room to provide it on site.  Therefore, if other matters had not led to the recommendation for refusal, a condition could be imposed to ensure cycle parking standards were met as this would not be a robust enough reason to refuse the application alone.


Members felt the application was trying to shoehorn a development in, and that the parking provision was poor, undersize and would add to already existing parking problems in the area.


The Board commented that the parking provision was particularly difficult already, with a school in close proximity and felt that the proposal was overdeveloped and that it was a greedy application and that the developer should acknowledge that car sizes have increased and reflect this in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.


Any Other Items



Members were advised that following the deferral of the Dorrien Road application at the last meeting, the escalation of the pandemic had meant that a site visit in person cannot carried out at the current time.


It was confirmed that the proposal was now for the Planning Officer to attend the application site and the neighbouring property and provide a live stream for elected Members to view.


Members were advised of an update on the planning application at Welbourne. The Council had been reconsulted on the application as there was an amendment to the proposal for Junction 10 as an all direction junction. The applicant was now requesting an additional £20million as a result of lost funding and the knock on would be viability of affordable housing and as a result may need to be reduced on a phase bases, in that they may be more viable in later phases.


The Council intends to reaffirm support to Fareham, but reiterate concern that the density in places was low, and that it was recommended this increase where it was possible. The Development Manager requested permission to respond to this effect under delegated powers.


It was an application for Fareham Borough Council to consider and was previously approved subject to a legal agreement, this needed to be revisited as a result of the significant changed 


There was no proposal to reduce the numbers of properties, but the level of affordable. Members recognised the improvements to Junctions 10 would benefit residents of Gosport.


Members were advised that appeal decisions had been received for sites in Lee-on-the- Solent, both of which were dismissed. These were off the High Street and in Marine Parade East.