Agenda and minutes

The Chairman noted that due to Covid considerations there were only 7 Members in attendance.

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 Casey declared a personal interest in item 3 of the Development Managers report as he believed his house was shown in the deputation.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 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 19^th July 2021 The total time for deputations in favour and against shall not exceed 10 minutes)

Deputations were received on agenda item 7

21/00204/VOC – Fleetlands Motoring Centre

21/00294/FULL – 20 Atkinson Close

(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 questions (s) shall have been submitted to the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon 19 July 2021)

There were none

To consider and approve a response to the Fareham Local Plan 2037: Revised Publication Plan (Regulation 19) (FLP2037) consultation which has been produced by Fareham Borough Council (FBC).

Consideration was given to a report by the Manager of Planning Policy asking the Board to consider and approve a response to the Fareham Local  Plan 2037: Revised Publication Plan (Regulation 19) (FLP2037) consultation which has been produced by Fareham Borough Council.(FBC)

The Manager of Planning Policy provided the following update on his report.

This is the fifth consultation on the Fareham Local Plan and the second formal (Regulation 19) consultation.

The report re-iterates those areas we previously supported including the employment policies and that the site east of Newgate Lane East is no longer a housing allocation.

The report also re-iterates our objections to the wording of a number of housing policies and includes a new objection relating to the proposed housing allocation East of Crofton Cemetery, Stubbington and South of Longfield Avenue, Fareham.  This objections relate to the need for a combined transport assessment to ensure that there will be no significant impact on the local road network.

Members wished to congratulate the manager of Planning Policy for an excellent report.

It was agreed to take the recommendation as one vote.

RESOLVED:

That the Board agreed that this Council makes the following representations (as expanded upon within sections 3-8 of this Report) to Fareham Borough Council (FBC):

·         That this Council supports that land east of Newgate Lane East is designated within the  Strategic Gap as shown on the latest Policies Map;

·         That this Council supports that the land east of Newgate Lane East (formerly known as HA2) is no longer identified as a housing allocation in the FLP2037;

·         That this Council submits a holding objection relating to the East of Crofton Cemetery and South of Longfield Avenue allocations until such time that a transport assessment which includes the cumulative impact of development in the FLP2037 and the emerging Gosport Borough Local Plan 2038 (GBLP2038) concludes that there is no detrimental impact on the effectiveness of the road infrastructure serving the Gosport Peninsula including the Stubbington Bypass and Newgate Lane East.  This work would form part of the Statement of Common Ground between the two local planning authorities;

·         That this Council, whilst supporting the overall intention of Policy DS1: Development in the Countryside, considers that amendments are required for reasons set out in the Report (paragraphs 5.7-5.26).

·         That this Council objects to the detailed wording  of the following policies  or parts of policies as detailed in paragraphs 5.7-5.26  of this report:

-       Policy HP4

-       Policy HP6

·         That this Council supports the employment allocations at Daedalus (Policies E1, E2 and E3).

·         That this Council supports the following policies:

-       Policy E5 which protects employment sites including a number on the Gosport Peninsula;

-       Policy E6 on boatyards which aims to protect important marine sites for employment purposes;

-       Policy E7 which aims to safeguard the Solent Airport at Daedalus;

-       Policy TIN2 which aims to ensure development does not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and the residual cumulative impact on the road network is not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Schedule of planning applications with recommendations. Grey sheets.

The Development Manager submitted a report on applications received for planning approval setting out the recommendations.

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

21/00294/FULL

RETENTION OF AND FURTHER WORKS FOR THE ERECTION OF REAR DORMER WINDOW (CONSERVATION AREA) (as amplified by letter dated 29.06.21 and plans received 01.07.21)

20 Atkinson Close Gosport Hampshire PO12 2BZ

Consideration was given to a report of the Development Manager detailing planning application 21/00294/FULL

Officers provided an update to this application advising Members that an amended plan had been received to correctly show the as-built situation. This amends two key dimensions referred to in paragraph 3 of the site and proposals section of the report. These are: the width of the dormer window  reduced from 7.1m to 6.3m and, as a result the separation to the side elevations is increased to approximately 1.8m. The recommendation remains unchanged.

Mr. Quinn was invited to address the Board. Mr Quinn provided a pictorial handout as part of his deputation.

 Firstly, I am sorry that I am here speaking to you today because it was never my intention to breach planning rules. That is why I hired a professional architect who told me that the work did not require a planning application as it fell within permitted development rights. The first time I found out that we needed planning permission was when Mr Flynn, the planning enforcement officer knocked on my door. This is also the first time that I even became aware of the Conservation Area. By this time, most of the building work had been completed and the outer shape of the dormer was already in place. The moment I found out, I halted all the work and had a planning application submitted.

During the build our house suffered considerable internal damage while the roof was open due to the heavy winds and rain in late May. All of our upstairs ceilings have severe water damage, a bedroom and bathroom ceiling collapsed, floors and carpets have been damaged, all the insulation was water logged and has been removed and our electrics are still not fully working, and there was even water damage to the ceilings downstairs.

We are disappointed that the recommendation is to refuse the planning application. Whilst our dormer will look a little different from the others, such variations are common in similar developments; and identical style dormers to ours can be found all over the Conservation Area. I went out of my way to insist our building firm used materials that are sympathetic to the rest of the modern housing estate. This is not heritage architecture, but a 1990s housing estate.

I serve in the Armed Forces, my wife is a teacher at a Gosport school and my children attend a Gosport school. My current posting which is permanently based away from here, holds me at very high readiness to deploy anywhere in the world for crisis response. All the time. I have had to drive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

There was none