Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies of absence.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 28 January 2015.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 28 January 2015 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

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 members declared an interest in the applications referred to:-

To receive any deputations of which notice has been lodged.

The Committee received a deputation from the following in respect of the applications indicated and were thanked accordingly.

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

The Committee noted a report by the Director of Planning and Development on development control matter applications and miscellaneous matters, including information on Planning Appeals. An Update report was tabled at the meeting.

Councillor’s Cartwright and Evans declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as the applicant is known to them.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a deed of variation under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the completion of a deed of variation under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act linking the original legal agreements and unilateral undertaking to the current planning permission and the conditions set out in the report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

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

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the applicant first completing an agreement to provide a financial contribution to address the impact of the development upon the Solent SPA habitats, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 8 in favour; 1 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the conditions in the report and the applicant first completing an agreement to provide a financial contribution to address the impact of the development upon the Solent SPA habitats, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which provided the following information:- Amended drawings have been submitted showing solar photovoltaic panels to be added to the front south-western roof plane of the new house. The panels would be fitted so as to be flush with the roof covering and would not appear prominent or unsightly.

The officer recommendation remains as set out in the main report to Committee.

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 Cartwright declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he is the Chairman of the Working Group for this project.

Councillors Swanbrow, Bayford and Price, JP declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as they are all members of the working group for this project.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor C J Wood and T G Knight addressed the Committee on this item.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation to approve the reserve matters was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that the reserved matter application be APPROVED.

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 Officer reported one update to the Committee, that subsequent to the drafting of the report, the objection from no. 1 Gilcrest had been withdrawn.

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 deputations referred to in minute 5 above.

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: 8 in favour; 1 against)

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

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

Councillors Cartwright and Evans declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as one of the deputes is known to them.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the update report which provided the following information:- One further letter of objection has been received raising the following additional concerns;

- there are often major delays on the access road caused by large goods lorries

- there will be an increase in vehicle movements by boat owners and large goods vehicles transporting boats

- the site has become heavily developed and further development would constitute over development of a constricted site.

- there must be concern at the considerable expansion of dry stack facilities at marinas on the river

- it makes no sense to treat each of these applications individually

Councillor Price requested that the Committee request that the Planning and Development PDR Committee look into the feasibility of carrying out a traffic survey to investigate vehicle movement along the lane, to identify if an increase of traffic occurs as a result of the additional dry stack.

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

(Voting: 7 in favour; 2 against)

RESOLVED that:-

(a) subject to the conditions in the report PLANNING PERMISSION be granted; and

(b) the Committee recommends to the Planning and Development PDR Panel that they look into the feasibility of carrying out a traffic survey to investigate vehicle movement along Crableck Lane.

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

Councillor Price, JP declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he is a County Council Member.

Council Davies declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he is a member of the Fareham & Gosport Bus Panel.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the update report which provided the following information:- Further comments have been received from a resident of Lipizzaner Fields as follows:

Due process was not followed in that no noise monitoring was completed as part of the trial prior to the opening of the bus gate. Officers should remind the Committee that the application should be refused until a proper before and after noise assessment can be completed.

If opening, then mitigation measures should be implemented such as an acoustic barrier between Yew Tree Drive and Lipizzaner Fields;

There is considerable road noise from vehicles tyres due to the rough surface of the road;

The noise levels which are above the guidelines should not be ignored;

It was intended that Yew Tree Drive should be a through route, but only after Whiteley Way was opening and then only if Rookery Avenue was also opened. As these roads are not open it is carrying approximately 300% more traffic than it was intended to carry;

Due process should be followed or additional mitigation measures should be taken to reduce the noise.

Hampshire County Council have shared the full Noise and Air Quality Monitoring Report undertaken by their consultants dated December 2014. Officers have reviewed this document with the Council’s Environmental Health Officers.

In light of the conclusions of that report officers consider it is appropriate to impose a condition requiring Hampshire County Council to investigate the need for noise mitigation measures in relation to five properties, 7 – 17 Lipizzaner Fields. Within 3 months of the date of the planning permission the applicant shall carry out further investigations in respect to noise mitigation and submit the findings of those investigations to this Council for approval. Should the investigation highlight the need for any additional noise mitigation measures they should be carried out within 6 months of the date of the planning permission.  A survey was also undertaken within the garden of 152 Botley Road; as with Lipizzaner Fields noise levels were high both day and night. The occupier of 151 Botley Road, on the opposite side of the roundabout has raised concern relating to the increase in noise levels within the garden. This property has distinct differences to the properties in Lipizzaner Fields. It is situated adjacent to Botley Road, an already busy road, with no HGV restrictions and its rear garden is sited behind the property. Officers conclude there is no need for mitigation to this property.

Members requested additional conditions be placed on the planning permission securing details of highway measures/works in Swanwick Lane to reduce traffic speeds and to discourage its use to through traffic to and from Whiteley and works to the junction of Swanwick Lane with the A27 Bridge Road to help reduce the queuing traffic, both to be implemented by 31 December 2015 and details of a scheme of air quality monitoring at the junction of Swanwick Lane with A27 Bridge Road.

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

(Voting: 8 in favour; 1 against)

RESOLVED that subject to:-

(a)   the conditions in the report; and

(b)   the condition as outlined in the Update as follows:

·         Within 3 months of the planning permission the applicant shall carry out further investigations in relation to 7 – 17 Lipizzaner Fields in respect of noise mitigati9on and submit the findings of those investigations in writing to this Council; should the investigation highlight the need for additional noise mitigation measures these should be carried out within 6 months of the date of the planning permission; and

(c) additional conditions securing:

·         details of highway measures/works in Swanwick Lane to reduce traffic speeds and to discourage its use to through traffic to and from Whiteley and works to the junction of Swanwick Lane with the A27 Bridge Road to help reduce the queuing traffic, both to be implemented by 31 December 2015;

·          and details of a scheme of air quality monitoring at the junction of Swanwick Lane with A27 Bridge Road.

PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor Mrs Trott addressed the Panel on this item.

A motion was proposed and seconded that the application be refused. Upon being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be REFUSED.

Reasons for refusal:

The proposed development is contrary to Policies CS5 abs CS17 of the adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy and Appendix 6 of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review and is unacceptable in that:

      i.        The arrangement of the proposed parking for 225 Gosport Road would result in additional vehicle movements in close proximity to the Gosport Rd/Geoffrey Crescent junction which would adversely affect the safety and operation of the local road network.

    ii.        The proposed dwelling would, by virtue of its siting and design, give rise to an unsympathetic form of development and would not respond positively to visual amenities of the street scene or the character of the area.

   iii.        The proposal makes inadequate provision for private external amenity space for both the existing and proposed dwellings to meet the requirements of future and existing occupants to the detriment of residential amenity.

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

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which contained the following information:- The applicant has provided a tree protection method statement. The Council’s Principal Tree Officer has confirmed that the information is sufficient to ensure the safe and health retention of the oak.

A material schedule has been provided stipulating the type of brick roof tiles, hardsurfacing and rainwater goods be used. The materials are considered appropriate and of sufficiently high quality and appearance.

A revised site plan has been submitted revising the boundary of the rear garden to be retained for 69 Highlands Road. The changes are minimal and the rear garden is still considered to be of a sufficient size to serve the needs of the occupants of the dwelling.

A site section drawing has been provided by the applicant clarifying the internal finished floor height of the dwelling. At the rear of the dwelling the floor height would be approximately 0.25 – 0.35 metres higher than the existing garden level in that same position. The house would not be raised out of the ground excessively and there would be no harmful effect on neighbours’ privacy or outlook as a result.

The Officer recommendation is that planning permission could be granted subject to the conditions relating to the use of the stated external materials.

PERMISSION: Time period for implementation; In accordance with approved drawings and documents; Materials; Dwelling to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4; Boundary treatment erected before occupation of dwelling; Parking and turning areas to be provided before occupation of dwelling and retained thereafter; No alterations to car port involving enclosure/adding of doors; Remove permitted development rights for outbuildings, extensions to the dwelling or alterations to the roof including insertion of any windows above ground floor level; Tree protection measures; Vehicular access widened to 5 metres along first 10 metres before occupation of dwelling; Cycle/bin storage provided before occupation of dwelling; Surface water drainage measures; No burning on site; Construction hours.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to an additional condition that removing permitted development rights so that no impermeable hard surfacing could be laid without further planning permission being granted, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 8 in favour; 1 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the addition of the condition removing permitted development rights relating to impermeable hard surfacing, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

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

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which contained the following information:- As a point of clarification, the separation distance from the building to the nearest residential dwellings (due south of the site) is actually in excess of 100m and not the 40m expressed in the main agenda.

A note to the applicant is to be added to the recommendation highlighting that fibreglass moulding and the use of materials such as resin would not comply with the permitted B1c use for the building and would be tantamount to a General Industrial (Use Class B2) use that would need a planning permission.

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

(Voting: 8 in favour; 1 against)

RESOLVED that PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

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

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which contained the following information:- An application for development at the adjacent property (no.17) has been submitted. The application is for an increase in the ridge height together with the addition of dormer windows to the front and rear. The proposed development does not have any implications for the consideration of this application.

Page 82 of the report was corrected by the Officer to note that the proposal resulted in a decrease on the number of bedrooms in the property from five to four.

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.

Councillor Mandry declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he sits on the Daedalus Strategy Group.

Councillor Cartwright declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he is the Chairman of the Members Working Group for the Daedalus Innovation Centre.

Councillor Ford, JP declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he is a member of the Members Working Group for the Daedalus Innovation Centre.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report which contained the following information:-

REPRESENTATIONS:

Since the drafting of the agenda a further sixty six letters of objection have been received. These additional representations repeat the same issues as those summarised in the main agenda plus:

- Comment that the amended plans bringing the northbound carriageway closer to the Crofton Avenue houses will make the impact greater.

- Officers have also had sight of an exchange between the Ross House Residents Association and the Applicant confirming that the re-alignment of the road now more accurately reflects the details shown on the previously agreed plan between the parties.

HIGHWAYS:

Further to the commentary in the main agenda, further clarification is now provided with regard to the control measures for the junction.

The Junction and connecting spine road would provide the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the planned regeneration of the Waterfront area of the Enterprise Zone.

The outline planning permission s106 sets out that the land owner will not be permitted to open the Ross House Access until it has installed an automatic traffic counter approved by the County Council at the vehicular entrance and exit to and from the Land at the Ross House Access.

The Ross House Access is subject to a traffic cap of 200 two-way vehicle movements during the AM peak hour (8am-9am).

Following the installation of the automatic traffic counter under the terns if the outline s106 agreement, the land owner appointed Framework Travel Plan Co-ordinator will monitor the results of the traffic counter and the results will be included within the Annual Monitoring Report.

In the event that the Framework Travel Plan Co-ordinator records that the cap has been exceeded over a calendar month then he/she will notify the land owner. If this notification precedes the submission of an application for Reserved Matters on one of the further phases in the Waterfront part of the Enterprise Zone then any such application will be required to show in a Supplemental Transport Assessment for the Reserved Matters Application for that Phase a methodology (if appropriate and reasonable) by which the traffic will be managed to enable traffic movement to return to a level within the cap for the junction.

The outline permission s106 agreement places a requirement on the land owner to ensure that the role of the Framework Travel Plan Co-ordinator is retained for 9 years after the first occupation of the first unit on the individual development site which is subject to the final Reserved Matters Approval for an individual development site.

The outline permission s106 agreement also includes a “Delivery and Servicing Plan” (Appendix 3) which incorporates a Freight Access Strategy. The Strategy clearly identifies Newgate Lane as the primary access for delivery/servicing vehicles. A freight direction signing strategy has been developed and will be introduced that routes large vehicles via the peninsula’s key strategic route, the A32, down Newgate Lane and then onwards to Broom Way and Gosport Road accesses.

The Plan places on the Ross House Access a maximum flow cap for large goods vehicles of 2 for an average AM and PM peak hour.

The Plan identifies Enforcement procedures the land owner will follow if monitoring indicates that the cap is being exceeded. If these measures are unsuccessful in achieving the reductions in goods vehicles required then more severe interventions will need to be considered such as:

- Introduction of physical traffic management measures (e.g. width restrictions) within the site;

- Introduction of Traffic Regulation Orders that ban Heavy Commercial Vehicle movements in particular sections of the highway; and

- Applying a development cap across the site that restricts new development until remedial measures have been successful.

- Altering the Ross House Access Traffic Signal phasing.

The measures secured as part of the outline s106 agreement are recommended to be secured again for this application.

RECOMMEDATION:

Additional conditions are recommended in addition to those already set out in the main agenda:

5) The visibility splays indicated on the approved drawing at the junction of Stubbington Lane with Crofton Avenue shall be provided and the visibility splay envelopes cleared of any object over 0.6m high and dedicated for highway purposes; 6) Hours of work.

At the Invitation of the Chairman, Councillors Wood and Knight addressed the Committee on this item.

Upon being proposed and seconded the officer recommendation to complete the required s106 agreement as per the recommendation and then grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report and update report, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that, subject to the prior completion of a s106 agreement and the conditions in the report and update report, PLANNING PERMISSION be granted.

Upon being proposed and seconded, the officer recommendation for No Objection being raised, was voted on and CARRIED.

(Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)

RESOLVED that Gosport Borough Council  be advised that NO OBJECTION is raised to the spine road application subject to any relevant matters previously secured in the Section 106 agreement being secured for the current proposal.

The Committee noted the information in the report.

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