Agenda and minutes

An apology for non attendance was received from Councillor Mrs Batty.

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.

There were none.

To follow

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 January 2021 be signed as a true and correct record.

(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 22^nd February 2021. The total time for deputations in favour and against a proposal shall not exceed 10 minutes)

Deputations were received on agenda item 6, item 1 of the grey sheets.

(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 22^nd February 2021)

There were none.

Schedule of planning applications with recommendations. Grey sheets 1-5/1

20/00343/FULL - RETENTION OF INFILL PANEL AND DOOR TO SIDE AND INCREASE IN HEIGHT OF BOUNDARY WALL TO 2.15M HIGH WITHIN REAR GARDEN

27 Dorrien Road  Gosport  Hampshire  PO12 4RA   

Consideration was given to a report of the Development Manager requesting that consideration be given to planning application 20/00343/FULL.

Members had undertaken a virtual site visit from both the applicants and the neighbour’s property.

A deputation from Miss Matthias, was read out by the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer

The Development Manager advised the Board that land ownership matters were not material planning considerations and as such could not be given significant weight by Members in their decision making and that Members’ should only consider the planning merits of the proposal in design and amenity terms.

In answer to Member’s question the Board was advised that the right to light was a private matter, however light in terms of outlook could form part of the amenity considerations, but it was highlighted that of the windows highlighted in the deputation one was relatively small in the flank elevation of the neighbouring property, facing in the gap between the two properties and was north facing. The other window in the rear elevation highlighted served a bathroom.

A deputation from the applicants, Mr and Mrs French was read out by the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer

The Development Manager reiterated that many of the issues raised were not material planning consideration and should be disregarded.

In answer to a Member’s question it was clarified that the wall was constructed din 2020 as was the infill panel. The wall, at is current height did not require planning permission, as it was permitted development. It was on the line of a previous boundary treatment, believed to be a 1.8 metre fence.

The Board was advised it was believed the infill panel was sought to prevent fumes from the neighbouring vent, it was believed that the increase to the wall was to allow the applicant to add additional height to the wall without cutting the blocks and to reduce the wall to less than 2 metres Mr French would be required to cut 30 blocks down to size.

It was understood that Miss Matthias was the owner of the neighbouring property.

In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that the height of the wall differed on each neighbour’s side, as at the property number 25, the ground stood between 5 and 10cm lower.

The Board was advised that the height of a structure was measured from the natural ground level on which the structure sat. There were no signs of artificial ground raising or levelling and Dorrien Road had a natural slope to it accounting for the slight difference in height and in this instance an average of the two heights would be taken.

It was confirmed to the Board that the average height was 1.85 metres and the applicant sought permission to increase the wall to 2.15 metres. An increase up to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

There were two appeal related matters, a MIB has been sent to Members regarding Hanger Homes proposal at Daedlus.. The Inspector dismissed the appeal and in doing so upheld three of the four substantive reasons for refusal. The reason related to car parking was not upheld as the Council was unable to provide evidence in support of its position due to the pandemic causing an unrepresentative situation with parking at the existing Control Tower car park.

There had been an application for a cross boundary an access road off Brookers Lane to serve a proposed housing development in Fareham Borough.

Notice of an appeal against this Council’s refusal and had been received and it was understood that an appeal on the grounds of non-determination had been made for the Fareham application. The Planning Inspectorate has indicated that they will link the two appeals such that they will be considered together. The appeal procedure has not been finalised although it is anticipated it may be by way of an informal hearing. Conformation of this from the Planning Inspectorate together with the start letter which will set the timetable for the appeal process and triggers the initial publicity would be sent in due course. In the interim discussions will be held with colleagues at Fareham to establish what position they will be taking. Members would be updated in due course when more information is received from the Planning Inspectorate.