Agenda and minutes

An apology for non attendance was received from Councillor Scard.

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.  

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2022 be signed as a true and correct record

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on the 7 December 2022 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 6 February 2023.  The total time for deputations in favour and against a proposal shall not exceed 10 minutes).

Deputations were received on the following items.

20/00362/FULL – 22 Chester Crescent

22/00415/FULL – Land at Fareham Business Park

22/00410/FULL – Land adjacent to 8 Penn Way

22/00451/FULL – 66 Portsmouth Road

22/00489/FULL – 5 Elgar 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 Question(s) shall have been submitted to the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on 6 February 2023).

There were none.

To consider the reports of the Development Manager

Consideration was given to the reports of the Development Manager.

22/00362/FULL –ERECTION OF TWO-STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION ALTERATIONS TO

EXISTING LOFT AND DORMER WINDOWS, FRONT FACING BALCONY AND

DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE GARAGE

20 Chester Crescent Lee-On-The-Solent Hampshire PO13 9BH

Consideration was given to the report of the Development Manager detailing application 22/00362/FULL.

The Board was advised that the application was deferred for a site visit which had taken place on the Monday proceeding the meeting.

The Board was advised that the application was for a 2 storey side and rear extension and that the existing garage would be replaced. The Board was advised that 2 previous applications had been submitted, one approved and a subsequent one refused that was the subject on an appeal dismissed by the planning inspector on the basis of design, the amenity impact  deemed to be acceptable. The application presented increased the bulk, to a greater size than currently permitted, but less than the application that had been refused.

Rachel Lundy was invited to address the Board she presented the Board with a report that looked at the issues raised, and objections made by the planning inspector as to why the previous appeal was dismissed.

She advised the Board that there had been 6 issues raised, 5 of which had been upheld.

The width of the building was bulky and dominant and the new proposal although under the previous side across 2 floors was wider across the first floor to compensate. This proposal was wider, not smaller than that proposed and refused previously.

The second point was the extended roof width, the scale and the massing, as detailed in the report of the Surveyor the proposed roofline was wider and the planning officer had not commented on the width, which was wider.

The third point was the dormer and this had been addressed.

The fourth point was the building’s second storey was close to the common boundary and with the increased proposal it should be more empathetic but wasn’t and that the proposal was greater than the one the planning inspector had dismissed.

The proposals had made the first and second floor closer than the previous application and

The fifth issue is the windows facing number 22, the report advises that if an appropriate boundary was in place they were acceptable, however, there was not appropriate boundary in place and that comment should be made on this not being present.

It was acknowledged that the window was seen as secondary, however, the increase in bulk would reduce the light further and the difference in this had not been addressed.

In summary the Board was advised that of the 6 issues identified by the planning inspector, one had been addressed, one had not been addressed at all and four had worsened. The proposed scheme was different to the rejected scheme and the scheme with approval and the proposed scheme was 85% larger than the existing property which was already the larger.

The planning officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

The Board was advised that in December an application had been approved for Storm Athletic. Part of that application had included an assurance from the applicant that they would seek permission for a drop kerb as per the conditions of the application, this had been submitted at the 11^th hour. The work now needed to be undertaken.

Members expressed disappointment that the application was delaying the implementation until as late as possible.