Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for non attendance.

There were none.

To receive declarations of interests.

Councillor Mrs Hook advised that she had a personal interest in item 2, as her husband was an unpaid director of the Thorngate Trust and that she would be leaving the room and take no part in the discussion or voting.

(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 Friday 29  October 2021 The total time for deputations in favour and against shall not exceed 10 minutes)

Deputations were received on the following grey sheet items:

Item 1 – 20/00473/ OUT – Gosport Marina

Item 2 – 21/00143/FULL – Land adjacent to Grove Road and Sealark Road.

(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 Friday 29 October 2021)

There were none

Reports of the Development Manager.

20/00473/OUT  HYBRID PLANNING APPLICATION COMPRISING FULL APPLICATION FOR (I) PART DEMOLITION, EXTENSION AND REFURBISHMENT OF STS DEFENCE BUILDING; (II) DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CAFE AND MARINA TRADE CENTRE AND ERECTION OF A TWO STOREY MARINA FACILITIES BUILDING; (III) RELOCATED BOAT STORAGE DRY STACK; (IV) RECONFIGURATION OF EXISTING CAR PARK, HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPING AND BOUNDARY TREATMENTS; AND (V) OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR UP TO 70 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING (WITH ALL MATTERS OTHER THAN ACCESS RESERVED) (as amended by plans and documents received 13 May 2021 and additional amendments and documentation received 23 August 2021)

Gosport Marina Mumby Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 1AH

The Planning Officer advised that there was an update in that following discussions with the applicant in order to agree pre commencement conditions as required by National Planning Guidance, changes to the conditions had been recommended. These changes accommodate the applicants anticipated phasing of works and remove a duplicated condition.

Mr Cardy was invited to address the Board.

He advised that wanted to tell the Board of the impact the proposal would have on the residents of the Quarterdeck and was representing them.

He advised the Board that the Quarterdeck was located on the Marina site, but was freehold and that the existing Boathouse café was well used by residents. Many of the residents had boats and were welcoming of the development of the Marina.

The main objection was to the proposal of a three storey building that was too close to the Quarterdeck and that the design drawings only showed the applicants perception of the view of the proposed building, and not the proposal in relation to the existing Quarterdeck building.

He advised the Board that the proposed replacement for the Boathouse was three times the size and therefore had the potential for three times as many customers on site, meaning it would be busier and there would be an increase in demand on car parking spaces.

He advised the Board that if the proposal had been in a more traditional residential area, the proposal would need to be located 21m away from the existing property and would not be so high and suggested that the proposed facility be moved further away along the east west shoreline to illuminate the close proximity to the Quarterdeck.

Mr Cardy advised the Board that the applicant had made incorrect statements on their application a number of times and that this could be seen as the application had been corrected upon resubmission and that the applicant had not discussed the proposal with residents. Errors included compass direction and the incorrect labelling of local water and felt that these showed that the applicant did not understand the site.

He advised the Board that mistakes made in the construction of Charles House, both at initial construction in 2000 and the additional storeys in 2002 that had led to a cramped residential property had not been learnt from and that the proposal did not need to be located in such close proximity to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

There were none.