Gosport Borough Council
Councillors:
28
Wards:
14
Committees:
10
Meetings (2025):
47
Meetings (2024):
47
Meeting
Regulatory Board - Gosport
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 24th July 2024
6:00 PM
Wednesday, 24th July 2024
6:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 24th July 2024
10:00 PM
Wednesday, 24th July 2024
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
24 Jul 2024
24 Jul 2024
Location:
Council Chamber
Council Chamber
Meeting Attendees
Council Staff
Head of Planning and Regeneration and Assistant to the Chief Executive
Debbie Gore
Not required
Agenda
1
Apologies for non-attendance
To receive apologies for non attendance.
Minutes
An apology for inability to attend the meeting was received from Councillor Chegwyn.
2
Declarations of Interest
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.
Minutes
There were none.
3
Minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2024
To sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2024.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 05/06/2024 Regulatory Board 16 Jul 2024
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2024 be signed as a true and correct record.
4
Deputations - Standing Order 3.4
(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 22 July 2024. The total time for deputations in favour and against a proposal shall not exceed 10 minutes).
Minutes
A deputation was received on item 24/00014/FULL – Land adjacent 90 Green Crescent
5
Public Questions - Standing Order 3.5
(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 Monday 22 July 2024).
Minutes
There were none.
6
Report of the Development Manager
To consider the report of the Development Manager.
Attachments:
- Document Final RB Agenda 24.07.2024 16 Jul 2024
- Document land adj 90 Green Crescent 16 Jul 2024
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Development Manager.
24/00014/FULL - ERECTION OF 2NO. DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL WORKS AND ACCESS (ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL TO PLANNING PERMISSION 19/00235/FULL) (as amended by plans received 28.03.24 and 01.07.24)
Land Adjacent 90 Green Crescent Gosport Hampshire PO13 0DS
Consideration was given to a report of the Development Manager.
24/00014/FULL - ERECTION OF 2NO. DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL WORKS AND ACCESS (ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL TO PLANNING PERMISSION 19/00235/FULL) (as amended by plans received 28.03.24 and 01.07.24)
Land Adjacent 90 Green Crescent Gosport Hampshire PO13 0DS
The Board was advised that an additional representation had been received,
The issues raised were
· Highway safety of pedestrians, as proposals breach technical guidance requirements and parking supplementary planning document.
· Slow speeds do not eliminate collisions or potential fatalities.
· wall at number 90 obscures the view of both drivers and pedestrians until they are only inches apart
· understand the responsibility for this decision to approve this access lays solely with Gosport Borough Council.
In addition, the recommendation indicated that it was subject to mitigation for the impacts on the water environment (nitrates), but after the ‘and’ it should also include mitigation for recreational disturbance, which whilst dealt with under the previous permission needs to be secured, as noted in paragraph 7 of the report.
The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions and securing of mitigation.
A deputation was received from Mr Batten, advising the Board the following.
I have no objection to houses being built but please look at Point A on the diagram to help explain my safety concerns. The splay lines demonstrate no forward visibility upon exit at Point B the blind spot. Pedestrians approaching from the south are in danger - they cannot be seen! Highways have acknowledged this fact in correspondence that the high wall at no 90 impacts on visibility, but have never visited site to fully assess safety. Currently vehicles reverse slowly, at an angle so it marginally aids inter-visibility. Forward exit changes this arrangement, with driver’s positions now so very close to the wall they are unable to predict hazards.
Pedestrians, especially a child will not be seen running out they are unsighted – the danger is obvious here! Citing low speed and volume as mitigation doesn’t withstand scrutiny if a driver has no forward visibility there is no guarantee they will stop in time! The existing situation is flawed our brick wall has been demolished once. Why increase risk by adding extra vehicles? This current situation could never be described as safe, its simply being managed by two neighbours with numerous near misses over the years. There are plenty of low speed fatal accidents on driveways due to visibility issues. Is it prudent to make a bad situation worse when visibility is compromised? Should we continue to rely on good luck to keep pedestrians safe? The width available for the driveway is so narrow the vehicle tracking appears to collide with the safety barrier. Can this safety feature be built leaving adequate width on the path for disabled access its very doubtful? Drivers have only inches to spare making this access both inconvenient and unusable for larger vehicles, parking overspill will inevitably occur in Green Crescent. Making this proposal non-compliant with LP23.
Can the board consider why safety measures are not being implemented at Point B the blind spot - this is a pedestrian route. A safety barrier has been deemed essential at Point C to protect and steer pedestrians from danger. The scenarios are identical lack of visibility due to site constraints. If a serious incident occurred the council could be leaving themselves open to litigation approving an application with known risk. Changes to the current situation cannot be considered minor, forward exit alters the driver position to such an extent it is far more visually restrictive. This application therefore needs to judged on its own merits. Gosport Council as approving authority have sole responsibility for safety and have been fully informed of the danger. Is it advisable to grant approval with known visibility restrictions? Beyond any reasonable doubt this contravenes your local plans and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document supports this – Access to driveways should not be bordered by boundary treatments which restrict inter-visibility. Making this proposal non-compliant to LP23.
I would also like to bring to the board’s attention that a previous planning application in 2017, approved by this board closed the access from Green Crescent it was deemed unsuitable. Access from the rear service road was required we had no objection to this. Residential housing currently utilises this for parking. Why can this not be used as a safer option for two properties to access a drive?
Members acknowledged the highway concerns, but noted that they had already been approved in a previous application.
In answer to a Member’s question the Board was advised that the service road to the rear of Green Crescent was not appropriate for primary access to housing and that prior designation for access was only for garages.
In answer to a Member’s question the Board was advised that the lamppost was to be relocated, Members questioned whether the access could be made straighter as a result but it was felt this could make traffic quicker exiting the site.
It was not believed that Hampshire County Council had visited the site.
The Board was advised that any costs in relation to the amendment of the kerb would be the responsibility of the applicant.
The Board was advised that any mirrors installed would need to be considered by application as they risk dazzling drivers.
It was felt that the inclusion of a post, or a sloped wall at number 88 could help the situation.
RESOLVED: That application 24/00014/FULL be approved subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager and securing of mitigation.
24/00014/FULL - ERECTION OF 2NO. DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL WORKS AND ACCESS (ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL TO PLANNING PERMISSION 19/00235/FULL) (as amended by plans received 28.03.24 and 01.07.24)
Land Adjacent 90 Green Crescent Gosport Hampshire PO13 0DS
Consideration was given to a report of the Development Manager.
24/00014/FULL - ERECTION OF 2NO. DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL WORKS AND ACCESS (ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL TO PLANNING PERMISSION 19/00235/FULL) (as amended by plans received 28.03.24 and 01.07.24)
Land Adjacent 90 Green Crescent Gosport Hampshire PO13 0DS
The Board was advised that an additional representation had been received,
The issues raised were
· Highway safety of pedestrians, as proposals breach technical guidance requirements and parking supplementary planning document.
· Slow speeds do not eliminate collisions or potential fatalities.
· wall at number 90 obscures the view of both drivers and pedestrians until they are only inches apart
· understand the responsibility for this decision to approve this access lays solely with Gosport Borough Council.
In addition, the recommendation indicated that it was subject to mitigation for the impacts on the water environment (nitrates), but after the ‘and’ it should also include mitigation for recreational disturbance, which whilst dealt with under the previous permission needs to be secured, as noted in paragraph 7 of the report.
The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions and securing of mitigation.
A deputation was received from Mr Batten, advising the Board the following.
I have no objection to houses being built but please look at Point A on the diagram to help explain my safety concerns. The splay lines demonstrate no forward visibility upon exit at Point B the blind spot. Pedestrians approaching from the south are in danger - they cannot be seen! Highways have acknowledged this fact in correspondence that the high wall at no 90 impacts on visibility, but have never visited site to fully assess safety. Currently vehicles reverse slowly, at an angle so it marginally aids inter-visibility. Forward exit changes this arrangement, with driver’s positions now so very close to the wall they are unable to predict hazards.
Pedestrians, especially a child will not be seen running out they are unsighted – the danger is obvious here! Citing low speed and volume as mitigation doesn’t withstand scrutiny if a driver has no forward visibility there is no guarantee they will stop in time! The existing situation is flawed our brick wall has been demolished once. Why increase risk by adding extra vehicles? This current situation could never be described as safe, its simply being managed by two neighbours with numerous near misses over the years. There are plenty of low speed fatal accidents on driveways due to visibility issues. Is it prudent to make a bad situation worse when visibility is compromised? Should we continue to rely on good luck to keep pedestrians safe? The width available for the driveway is so narrow the vehicle tracking appears to collide with the safety barrier. Can this safety feature be built leaving adequate width on the path for disabled access its very doubtful? Drivers have only inches to spare making this access both inconvenient and unusable for larger vehicles, parking overspill will inevitably occur in Green Crescent. Making this proposal non-compliant with LP23.
Can the board consider why safety measures are not being implemented at Point B the blind spot - this is a pedestrian route. A safety barrier has been deemed essential at Point C to protect and steer pedestrians from danger. The scenarios are identical lack of visibility due to site constraints. If a serious incident occurred the council could be leaving themselves open to litigation approving an application with known risk. Changes to the current situation cannot be considered minor, forward exit alters the driver position to such an extent it is far more visually restrictive. This application therefore needs to judged on its own merits. Gosport Council as approving authority have sole responsibility for safety and have been fully informed of the danger. Is it advisable to grant approval with known visibility restrictions? Beyond any reasonable doubt this contravenes your local plans and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document supports this – Access to driveways should not be bordered by boundary treatments which restrict inter-visibility. Making this proposal non-compliant to LP23.
I would also like to bring to the board’s attention that a previous planning application in 2017, approved by this board closed the access from Green Crescent it was deemed unsuitable. Access from the rear service road was required we had no objection to this. Residential housing currently utilises this for parking. Why can this not be used as a safer option for two properties to access a drive?
Members acknowledged the highway concerns, but noted that they had already been approved in a previous application.
In answer to a Member’s question the Board was advised that the service road to the rear of Green Crescent was not appropriate for primary access to housing and that prior designation for access was only for garages.
In answer to a Member’s question the Board was advised that the lamppost was to be relocated, Members questioned whether the access could be made straighter as a result but it was felt this could make traffic quicker exiting the site.
It was not believed that Hampshire County Council had visited the site.
The Board was advised that any costs in relation to the amendment of the kerb would be the responsibility of the applicant.
The Board was advised that any mirrors installed would need to be considered by application as they risk dazzling drivers.
It was felt that the inclusion of a post, or a sloped wall at number 88 could help the situation.
RESOLVED: That application 24/00014/FULL be approved subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager and securing of mitigation.
7
Any Other Items
Attachments:
- Document Report 16 Jul 2024
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Environmental Health detailing a request from Hackney Carriage Proprietors seeking an increase in fares.
The Board was advised that a request had been received from the trade in the form of a petition, and that there had been 21 others had replied to the consultation. All but one supported the increase of 30p on the pull off charge, and a request to change the + 50% charge to start at 23:30.
Members recognised that costs had increased since the last increase two years ago and that it seemed a reasonable request. The Board were undecided as to whether it was felt bringing the 50% increase charge forward was acceptable but recognised this would impact those aiming for the last ferry.
Members were advised that all vehicles would be calibrated to the same charge but less could be charged.
RESOLVED: That there be an
a) Increase of 20-30pence at the end of a fare. (The reality is that this would be achieved by +30 pence on the pull off charge). and a
b) Change the start +50% charging period time from midnight to 23:30.
The Board was advised that a request had been received from the trade in the form of a petition, and that there had been 21 others had replied to the consultation. All but one supported the increase of 30p on the pull off charge, and a request to change the + 50% charge to start at 23:30.
Members recognised that costs had increased since the last increase two years ago and that it seemed a reasonable request. The Board were undecided as to whether it was felt bringing the 50% increase charge forward was acceptable but recognised this would impact those aiming for the last ferry.
Members were advised that all vehicles would be calibrated to the same charge but less could be charged.
RESOLVED: That there be an
a) Increase of 20-30pence at the end of a fare. (The reality is that this would be achieved by +30 pence on the pull off charge). and a
b) Change the start +50% charging period time from midnight to 23:30.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in