Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors  M J Ford, JP and Mrs K K  K Trott.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meetings of the Planning Committee held on 24 September 2013.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2013 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meetings of the Planning Committee held on 11 September 2013.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 11 September 2013 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

There were no Chairman’s announcements made at this meeting.

To receive any declarations of interest from members in accordance with Standing Orders and the Council’s Code of Conduct.

In accordance with Standing Orders and the Council’s Code of Conduct the following declarations of interest were made:-

Application P/13/0691/FP - Swanwick Marina, Bridge Road Swanwick - Councillor Evans and Councillor Cartwright both declared a non-pecuniary interest (minute 6(3) refers)

Application P/13/0730/OA - 2, Crofton Lane, Fareham - Councillor Forrest declared a non-pecuniary interest (minute 6(17 refers).

To receive any deputations of which notice has been lodged.

The Committee received deputations from the following in respect of the applications indicated and the deputees were thanked accordingly:-

To consider a report by the Director of Planning and Environment on development control matters, including information regarding new planning appeals and decisions.

The Committee noted a report by the Director of Planning and Environment on development control applications and miscellaneous matters (copy of report circulated with the agenda).  An Update Report was tabled at the meeting.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

The Committee was referred to the Update Report which provided the following information:- A plan has been submitted showing one parking space on site. Suggested condition: Parking space to be laid out before the extensions hereby approved are first brought into use.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to:-

(i)        the conditions in the report, and

(ii)       a condition requiring the on-site parking space to be laid out before the proposed extensions are first brought into use

was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting:9 in favour;0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to:-

(i)        the conditions in the report, and

(ii)       a condition requiring the on-site parking space to be laid out before the proposed extensions are first brought into use

PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

The Committee was referred to the update report which provided the following information:- The River Hamble Board granted Harbour works consent for the proposed development on 27 September 2013.

Councillor Evans declared a non-pecuniary interest in this application on the grounds that he is Chairman of the River Hamble Harbour Board.  Councillor Cartwright also declared a non-pecuniary interest on the grounds that he is a member of the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the condition in the report, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the condition in the report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant consent to crown raise oak to 6 metres above ground level by removing small diameter branches <75mm, tip reduce remaining upper branch work to north of crown by 2 metres to suitable growth points – maximum diameter of live pruning wounds <75mm to tree protected by Tree Preservation Order 607, subject to the conditions in the report, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting:9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, CONSENT be granted.

The Committee received the deputations referred to in minute 5 above.

It was reported that the plan attached to the report was incorrect and did not show the correct boundary of the application site which extended into Coleridge Close

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission subject to:-

(i)        all glass front door panels including proposed glass panels on either side of the front door to be of frosted glass; and

(ii)       the conditions in the report

was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting:9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to:-

(i)        all glass front door panels including proposed glass panels on either side of the front door to be of frosted glass; and

(ii)       the conditions in the report

PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour;0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

The Committee was referred to the Update Report which provided the following information:- An amended plan has been received showing three car parking spaces on the frontage and correcting the errors relating to boundary and neighbouring property positioning.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the report was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the report was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

The Committee received the deputation referred to in minute 5 above.

The Committee was referred to the Update Report which provided the following information:-Informative to applicant: It is advised that a minimum of one week's notice should be given in writing to the occupants of adjacent properties of the upcoming occurrence of an event at the nursery including the date and timing.

A motion was proposed and seconded, as follows:-

Proposal (A) – to grant  temporary permission for a period of 12 months for the  variation of condition 7 of P/12/1017/VC, to allow an increase in the number of children permitted in the rear garden at any one time in association with the day nursery from 12 to 18; and

Proposal (B) -  subject to the conditions in the report, including the informative to the applicant referred to in the Update Report, permission be granted for the variation of planning conditions 4 (Opening Hours) and 7 (Limited use of Garden) of P/12/1017/VC to allow social events to be held at the nursery for up to 5 times per year with unrestricted access to the garden.

The motion was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that the application be determined as follows:-

Proposal (A) – TEMPORARY PLANNING PERMISSION be granted for a period of 12 months for a variation of condition 7 of P/12/1017/VC, to allow an increase in the number of children permitted in the rear garden at any one time in association with the day nursery from 12 to 18;

Proposal (B) - PLANNING PERMISSION be granted, subject to the conditions in the report, for the variation of planning conditions 4 (Opening Hours) and 7 (Limited use of Garden) of P/12/1017/VC to allow social events to be held at the nursery for up to 5 times per year with unrestricted access to the garden.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report, for the removal of condition 4 of planning reference P/13/0187/VC, to allow cooking at the premises after 30 September 2013, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted for the removal of condition 4 of planning reference P/13/0187/VC, to allow cooking at the premises after 30 September 2013.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

The Committee received the deputation referred to in minute 5 above.

The Committee was referred to the Update Report which provided the following information:-For point of clarification this details pursuant application relates to bollard lighting only. The additional lighting mentioned in the second paragraph on page 83 of the officers report refers to the advertisement lighting.

A correction to the wording in the second paragraph on page 83 of the report was noted at the meeting.  The Committee was advised that all under eaves lighting has now been removed apart from that which would light the advertisements

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to approve details of the external lighting scheme submitted in pursuant to condition 6 (External Lighting – Bollard lighting) of P/09/0892/FP, reduced as amended by plans and details received on 23 September 2013, was CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 for; 0 against).

RESOLVED that the details of the external lighting scheme submitted in pursuant to condition 6 (External Lighting – Bollard lighting) of P/09/0892/FP, as amended by plans and details received on 23 September 2013, be APPROVED.

The Committee received the deputations referred to in minute 5 above.

The Committee was referred to the update report which provided the following information: Members are advised that the amended plans received on the 25th September 2013 were readvertised and the expiry date for any further comments is the 9th October 2013. An update will be provided if any additional material planning considerations are received.  The comments of the Director of Planning & Environment (Conservation) -  Further to my previous comments I have the following additional comments concerning the amended proposals submitted. I remain of the view that the pole sign (J) that is proposed to the east end of the car park, close to the entrance to Cams Hall Estate and the gate lodges, is inappropriate. In this location it is isolated from the pub building, prominent in important views, and harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the Cams Hall and its estate buildings. Its impact is significantly increased owing to its proposed location on top of the earth bund, this will add over 2.5 m to its 3.5m height in relation to the pavement; at over 6m this is taller than the ridge of the gate lodges. Portchester Road also gradually rises from the roundabout to the estate entrance which increases the height of the sign in relation to the new pub building.  In my view this sign is not acceptable in this location and should be relocated to the west to relate closely to the new pub building it is intended to advertise. Further comments received from The Fareham Society: The Society is pleased that most of its concerns and objections to the scale and amount of advertising signage and illumination proposed have been addressed; However, the Society considers that the height and positioning of the pole mounted sign is unacceptable. It would be the same height as the adjacent lodges and be positioned away from the group of pub buildings; The advertising associated with the pub should be adequate and low key and not impinge on the setting of the parkland and the long views of Cams Hall and The Creek.  One further comment has been received advising that the Cams Mill is in a light sensitive area and every effort should be made to respect the site and planning restrictions as detailed by the Council

A motion was proposed and seconded, that the application be determined as follows:-

(a)          With regard to the proposed freestanding pole sign (J), currently  shown as facing the A27, close to the entrance to Cams Hall Estate and the gate lodges, the Head of Development Management and Trees be delegated authority to:-

1.            negotiate with the applicant for submission of an amended plan to show the proposed freestanding pole sign (J) relocated to an agreed area in the north eastern corner of the service yard within the development site; and

2.            in the event the applicant is not willing to submit an amended plan to show relocation of this freestanding sign to the agreed location within the development site, to refuse this element of the application.

(b)          The remaining proposed six signs on the building illuminated by floodlights attached to the building and the proposed amended freestanding car park entrance sign be granted consent.

The motion was voted on and CARRIED. (Voting: 7 in favour; 1 against; 1 abstention).

RESOLVED that:-

(a)          the Head of Development Management and Trees be delegated authority to:-

1.               negotiate with the applicant for submission of an amended plan to show the proposed freestanding sign relocated to an agreed area in the north eastern corner of the service yard within the development site; and

2.               in the event the applicant is not willing to submit an amended plan to show relocation of the freestanding sign to the agreed location within the development site, this element of the application be REFUSED ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT.

(b)          The remaining proposed six signs on the building illuminated by floodlights attached to the building and the proposed amended freestanding car park entrance sign be GRANTED ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT

Reasons for the decision The proposed location of the free standing sign (J) at the entrance to the Cams Hall Estate is considered inappropriate and   harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the Cams Hall and its estate.

Policies Fareham Borough Local Plan Review; DG7 – Signs and Advertisements.

The Committee was referred to the Update Report which provided the following information:- Recommendation: APPROVE

It was proposed and seconded to grant planning permission for the minor amendment to P/12/0984/FP regarding the removal of the 45 degree return on the north flank wall to a 90 degree return squaring off the extension. The proposal was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 7 in favour; 2 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be granted for the minor amendment to P/12/0984/FP.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the condition in the report, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the condition in the report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting:9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

Councillor Forrest declared a non-pecuniary interest in this application on the grounds that he has already publicly expressed his views on the matter.  He further declared that he would leave the room during consideration of the application taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.  Councillor Forrest then left the meeting room.

The Committee received the deputation referred to in minute 5 above.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant outline planning permission subject to :-

(i)                    receipt of comments from Natural England; and

(ii)                  the conditions in the report

was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 8 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to:-

(i)                    receipt of comments from Natural England; and

(ii)                  the conditions in the report

OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the comments of the Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services (Environmental Health), was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the comments of the Director of Regulatory and Democratic Services (Environmental Health), PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant prior approval was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting:9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that PRIOR APPROVAL be granted.

The Committee was referred to the update report which provided the following information: The following additional consultee comments have been received:

Director of Planning & Environment (Highways): There are concerns over the detail contained in the Transport Assessment (TA) relating to the use of the Paulsgrove Ward as the basis for the estimated trip distribution given that the socioeconomic profile of residents living on the site and the attraction to Portchester, rather than Portsmouth, may differ from that of existing residents in the Ward. Ward data is often used to predict travel mode and distribution although, in the case of this site, it would be more appropriate to combine this with Portchester East ward data, given the position of the site almost on the boundary between the two wards. This would better predict the likely impacts to ensure that the supporting information is precise and accurate enough to inform the Local Planning Authority's decision. There is also an absence of accident data provided in the TA for the section of A27 East Street, west of Portsdown and thus no indication of an intrinsic highway safety problem along this section, including the Castle Trading Estate signalised junction. In essence, therefore, the assessment has largely concentrated on the impact upon Portsmouth with no real account being taken of the attractions of Portchester or Fareham etc. to the west. 

With regard to the effect on the immediate surrounding highway network to the west of the site, the TA predicts a 16% increase in inbound vehicles into the Trading Estate in the morning peak and an 11% increase in outbound vehicles in the afternoon peak. Having taken these increases into account, it is considered that the existing signalised junction layout with the Trading Estate Road and East Street will still be capable of dealing with the increased flows. The Trading Estate Road provides the most direct route for not only motorists but also pedestrians and cyclists travelling between the southern half of the site and Portchester, including the nearest railway station and, further westwards, Fareham. Given the anticipated increase in vehicle movements, an associated increase in cycle journeys and pedestrians is also likely to occur and given the poor condition of the pavements along the Trading Estate Road and the lack of cycle lane provision to link up with that

on the A27, it is considered that highway improvements should be sought in this regard to improve sustainable transport links.

It is recommended that a holding highway objection should be raised to the  application until a more comprehensive transport assessment is completed and measures have been secured to improve accessibility to the west of the site.

Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership:

We have had the opportunity to review the revised Flood Risk Assessment for the above site following our holding objection response of 24 October 2012 to the previously submitted outline application 12/00998/OUT. We can confirm that the we are now in a position to support the proposal subject to a number of conditions that we propose to the PCC planning team around scheme delivery. We consider that the proposal and associated onsite flood defences in combination with the financial contribution towards a wider scheme offer a real opportunity to improve the flood and coastal erosion risk management assets and standard of protection that they offer to people and property within the locality. We can also confirm that the coastal defence proposals are in line with the recommendation of Hold The Line - Improve, from the Portchester Castle to Emsworth Draft Coastal Flood and Erosion Risk Management Strategy. This Coastal Strategy has also now been approved and adopted by both Portsmouth City Council and Fareham Borough Council. Through securing of contributions from this development it will also be possible to deliver a standard of protection over and above that proposed in the Coastal Strategy.

The flood defence work identified as being needed by the Portchester to Emsworth Flood & Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy to reduce the risk of flooding to the existing community between Paulsgrove and Portchester Castle would not currently score highly enough for it to become a national priority and secure Flood Defence Grant in Aid funding in whole. A significant external financial contribution is therefore considered necessary to increase the score to a level which would secure FDGiA. Without this contribution the coastal defence scheme is unlikely to go

ahead.

The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) proposes a package of measures to manage risk to an acceptable level. The most significant of these is the construction of an on-site tidal flood defence wall, and a financial contribution towards the off-site tidal flood defences that are required to address flood flow routes originating from outside the site boundary. Further measures are proposed to manage the residual risk of tidal flooding, and to manage the risk of flooding from other sources.

The off-site flood defences are likely to be delivered either by the Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership or the Environment Agency as a 'lead' authority. We have worked in partnership with the Environment Agency and used the best available information to determine the amount of central government Flood Defence Grant in Aid for which this scheme is likely to be eligible. The contribution offered by the developer equates to the best estimate of the sum of money that would be needed to supplement and secure the proportion of FDGiA available, and meet the full cost of the off-site flood defence scheme across 100 years.

It should be noted, however that competition for the limited amount of available FDGiA varies from year to year and there cannot therefore be certain over funding for the off-site scheme in any given year. We are, however, confident that the proposed contribution would offer a good likelihood of enabling the off-site scheme to be delivered. It should be noted that the off-site flood defence scheme is to be delivered in 2 phases. The level of necessary contribution has been calculated based on the assumption that a proportion of the contribution will be held to accrue at a standard rate, to be sufficient in value to unlock the required FDGiA when the second phase of work is required. This will therefore need to be administered by the relevant Authority. If a contribution and funding can be secured, the scheme will reduce the risk of flooding to 410 existing homes and bring nearly £84million of benefits. As approximately 80% of the homes that will benefit from an improved standard of protection lie within Fareham Borough, the community in Fareham will enjoy nearly £67million of the total £84million benefits. The remaining benefits are found in Portsmouth.

Benefits are counted against a number of 'outcome measures', included within this are properties protected and the costs of them not flooding. In this instance it is purely coincidence that there is an £8.4m cost and £84m in benefits.

Director of Planning & Environment (Ecology):

The application is supported by various ecological information contained within the ES. I would recommend that Portsmouth City's attention is drawn to the previous comments of their ecologist, and any comments which are made in respect of this new submission. It would appear that various concerns raised previously are still not addressed by this application and therefore remain outstanding. For example, the ecological assessment does not appear to fully address impacts to the Solent European designated sites, and assess the full extent of the proposals including the flood defence works. There also appear to be outstanding protected species issues. The ES states (12.86) that the scheme will contribute to upgrades to the flood defences around Portsmouth Harbour which will be implemented by the Environment Agency, and that the full details of the flood defences will be presented in an Environmental Management Plan. As far as I am aware this EMP has not yet been provided but would appear to contain information required for the determination of this application. The proposal still appears potentially to rely partially on the EA's Medmerry habitat creation project in West Sussex as mitigation, which Portsmouth's ecologist raised concerns about in the previous application.

Fareham's interests:

We previously highlighted that it had been identified there would be a permanent minor adverse effect on nearby SINCs through the increase in recreational use. Castle Shore SINC and Urchins Copse SINC both lie outside of the development boundary and within the borough of Fareham. Our previous concern related to the fact that whilst the application suggested that footpath improvements would encourage visitors to walk around the edge of the Castle Shore park, there was no evidence to support this and detailed information (including relating to flood defences) was not provided. My concern is that there is still a lack of details about the proposed works and the impacts of those, inconsistency regarding what is actually proposed as part of this scheme, and finally lack of demonstration of how the works and associated funding will be secured through this application.

The current application (ES Non-technical summary, paragraph 97) mentions the upgrade of the footpath which leads from the site to the [Castle Shore] SINC. I have been unable to locate any details of this. Similarly it mentions a path associated with the new flood defences which will encourage visitors to walk around the edge of the park, away from more sensitive areas. I have not been able to locate details of this, and would highlight to Portsmouth City that the impact of this proposed path will need to be assessed with regards to impacts upon the European designated sites. My understanding is that the previously proposed footpath upgrades within the Castle Shore Park and surrounding areas are no longer planned, presumably due to the applicant having no control over the relevant land. The timing of provision of a new footpath alongside the SINC, relative to progression of development, appears not to have been set out. 

However, the ES (section 12.129) states that although only minor adverse impacts are predicted on Castle Shore Park and Urchins Copse SINCs, a contribution will be made to Hampshire County Council to undertake measures to manage the additional visitors and associated impacts. Prior to the first inhabitant moving into the site, an information board will be installed at the northern entrance to Castle Shore Park (which will describe the interest features of the parts and of Portsmouth Harbour and to encourage people to keep to the footpaths, avoid disturbing waterbirds and keep their dogs on a leash). It is stated that annual funding would be provided for fifteen years for vegetation management. The funding would cover the costs of reseeding areas of the park that become degraded with grasses more tolerant of trampling. Similarly funding would be provided to control the encroachment of scrub into the more diverse grassland habitats. To combat the problems created by an increase in domestic dogs, two new dog waste bins will be provided along the main paths and funding would be provided for these to be emptied on a regular basis for 15 years.

These measures sound reasonable, and Hampshire County Council Countryside team, as owners and managers of the site, are best placed to comment on the proposed measures and their likely success in mitigating anticipated impacts. However, it is noted that at Appendix E6 of the ES it is stated that it has been agreed that upgrading the permissive path, path 114, providing dog bins and interpretation boards in the park should be sufficient to offset the impacts of the scheme on the [Castle Shore] SINC and that the paths, bins and boards would need to be maintained for 15 years. This differs from what is set out in the main body of the ES and as such it remains unclear as to what works are actually proposed. This is surprising considering we provided detailed feedback previously on what information would be required. Further to this, the email correspondence from HCC Countryside contained within Appendix E6 suggests various other measures, including relating to other Countryside sites within Fareham Borough, should be provided. It is unclear whether these form part of the proposals. 

Ultimately, measures will be required associated with at least the Castle Shore Park SINC, in order to mitigate for the anticipated impacts. Prior to determination of any application it will be necessary for the applicant to make clear what these proposals include, how the works will be carried out (taking into account any mitigation required for those works themselves, e.g. timing, methodology), and that the amount of funding secured through a S106 is sufficient to deliver those measures. My understanding is that a S106 will need to be prepared prior to determination of this application.

Officer comments:

In light of the above response from the Council's Ecologist, Officers consider that the previous objection has not been satisfactorily addressed in relation to the matter raised concerning the impact of the development on nearby protected habitats and species. An additional point of objection should therefore be included and the revised Officer recommendation is set out in full below for members consideration.

Recommendation:

Fareham Borough Council objects to the proposed development on the grounds that:

a) it would, by virtue of the inclusion of a ten storey tall building on the site, detract from the townscape character of Portchester and would be harmful to both the setting of Portchester Castle and the character and appearance of the Castle Street conservation area;

b) insufficient detail has been provided to demonstrate that the increase in vehicular movements to and from the site as a result of the development would not have unacceptable adverse implications on the wider strategic highway network;

c) in the absence of improvements to pedestrian and cycle links between the site and Portchester centre the development would have an unacceptable impact on the safety and convenience of users of the highway network and would fail to contribute towards the provision of sustainable transport options;

d) the development would fail to protect and enhance nearby designated protected habitats and species.

Fareham Borough Council requests that Portsmouth City Council formally reconsult this authority if any further information is received in respect of points a) to d) above.

The agent has submitted a letter on behalf of his client making some key observations relating to the committee report: The last two grounds for rejection have been put forward to Members without the advice of the Director of Planning and Environment (Highways). Discussions have taken place between the applicant, Hampshire County Council and Portsmouth City Highways and it is agreed there will be no adverse impact on the strategic highway network. Furthermore, there are no safety issues as there is no impediment for anyone wishing to walk or cycle along the length of the A27.  The scheme is the submission of an amended scheme following discussions in several cases with officers of Fareham and in all cases with officers of Portsmouth City Council;  It is unnecessary to repeat parts of the report which are factually correct but suffice to say the first reason for objecting is no doubt a typing error as the body of the report recognises that the previously designed twelve storey building has been reduced to just ten. It is a matter of judgement but having discussed the matter with officers at Portsmouth and accepting that English Heritage raised noobjections to the twelve storey structure, it is considered that a ten storey building makes a positive contribution to the regeneration of the area and, in combination with the mixed form of commercial, industrial and residential development the scheme raises the quality of this entire area, creating the type of employment opportunities that the City requires and perhaps most important of all provides flood defences to a much wider area around Portchester and the harbour area which currently does not exist and for which otherwise there is no funding;

In summary, the applicant has taken on board the comments from both Fareham BC's planning Committee and officers at the City Council in respect of the now withdrawn application. The result of this new proposal will attract enormous economic and social benefits to the local community including new housing, major flood defence works and a range of employment opportunities

A motion was proposed and seconded to approve the officer recommendation, as detailed in the Update Report, to object to the proposed development on the following grounds:-

(a) (a) it would, by virtue of the inclusion of a ten storey tall building on the site, detract from the townscape character of Portchester and would be harmful to both the setting of Portchester Castle and the character and appearance of the Castle Street conservation area;

(b) insufficient detail has been provided to demonstrate that the increase in vehicular movements to and from the site as a result of the development would not have unacceptable adverse implications on the wider strategic highway network; and

(c) in the absence of improvements to pedestrian and cycle links between the site and Portchester centre the development would have an unacceptable impact on the safety and convenience of users of the highway network and would fail to contribute towards the provision of sustainable transport options; and

d) the development would fail to protect and enhance nearby designated protected habitats and species

was voted on and CARRIED

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against).

RESOLVED that:-

(i)        The Council's response to the consultation by Portsmouth City Council on outline planning application N/13/0011, be as follows:-

 (a)    it would, by virtue of the inclusion of ten storey tall building on the site, detract from the townscape character of Portchester and would be harmful to both the setting of Portchester Castle and the character and appearance of the Castle Street conservation area;

(b)     insufficient detail has been provided to demonstrate that the increase in vehicular movements to and from the site as a result of the development would not have unacceptable adverse implications on the wider strategic highway network;

(c)     in the absence of improvements to pedestrian and cycle links between the site and Portchester centre the development would have an unacceptable impact on the safety and convenience of users of the highway network and would fail to contribute towards the provision of sustainable transport options; and

d)      the development would fail to protect and enhance nearby designated protected habitats and species.

(ii)             Portsmouth City Council be requested to formally reconsult this authority if any further information is received in respect of points (a) to (d) above.

The Committee noted the information in the report.

The Update Report was tabled at the meeting and considered with the relevant agenda items.