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, 19th March 2025
6:00 PM
Wednesday, 19th March 2025
6:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 19th March 2025
10:00 PM
Wednesday, 19th March 2025
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
19 Mar 2025
19 Mar 2025
Location:
Council Chamber
Council Chamber
Meeting Attendees
Council Staff
Head of Planning and Regeneration and Assistant to the Chief Executive
Debbie Gore
Copy docmts only
Agenda
1
Apologies for non-attendance
Minutes
An apology for non attendance was received from Councillor Casey
2
Declarations of Interest
Minutes
3
Minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2025
To sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2025
Attachments:
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 29/01/2025 Regulatory Board 11 Mar 2025
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 29th January 2025 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 17 March 2025. The total time for deputations in favour and against a proposal shall not exceed 10 minutes).
Minutes
Deputations were received on the following items
24/00210/FULL – 2a Hartington Road
24/00373/FULL – 219 Brockhurst Road
24/00210/FULL – 2a Hartington Road
24/00373/FULL – 219 Brockhurst Road
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 17 March 2025).
Minutes
There were none.
6
Local Enforcement plan
Attachments:
- Document 6.Main agenda item re Enforcment Plan 11 Mar 2025
- Document 6. Final draft Local Enforcement Plan for RB 11 Mar 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Development Manager detailingthe background to, and rationale for, the preparation and adoption of a Local Enforcement Plan for the Borough of Gosport.
Members recognised that this was the formalisation of the procedures already in place.
RESOLVED: That the Board approves the Local Enforcement Plan (the draft Plan) for adoption and use.
Members recognised that this was the formalisation of the procedures already in place.
RESOLVED: That the Board approves the Local Enforcement Plan (the draft Plan) for adoption and use.
7
Report of the Development Manager
Attachments:
- Document Combined 11 Mar 2025
Minutes
24/00210/FULL - USE OF SITE FOR DISPLAY AND SALE OF VEHICLES (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION) (As amplified by information received 14.01.2025)
2A Hartington Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 3AG
The Board was updated that there was a minor update to correct the wording to Condition 3(c), changing the recommended delivery hours of 09:00-18:00 on Saturdays to 09:00-17:00
Gary Turrell was invited to address the Board. He advised that he had been a resident for 4 years and that the application site had previously been very peaceful and used to be a valet location by Fine Cars.
Whilst the application stated that there was to be light use, the site currently was repairing category N and category S insurance vehicles, the workers had confirmed this. There were deliveries of vehicles and parts at all times of the date, as late as 9pm which were disruptive and there had been body spraying, disc cutting, fumes that had spread into gardens. Additionally noise from revving of engines was disturbing in such a way that gardens could not be used, and this had not ceased despite the applicant being asked to do so.
The Board was advised that this activity was of no benefit to cars unless MOT testing was being undertaken and it wasn’t. The noise was very upsetting to residents including many of which that were elderly.
In addition, a sign had been bolted to the adjacent house without permission and the residents of the property felt intimidated by the applicant.
The site was not big enough for the proposed use, there was 5 employees on site which meant parking would naturally spill on to the road causing parking issues for residents. There was a continuous stream of parking that was dangerous and on double yellow lines. Tickets were issued and then the cars would return the following day and receive more tickets. Pavements and drives were being blocked with a complete disregard to safety. Deliveries of parts were taking place as early as 6am and as late as 11pm, and the vehicles used were not suitable for a small residential road. There was already overspill from Cambridge Road which had time limited residential parking.
Previously the site had been used as a valet workshop for a local garage and had caused no issues.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that there was no impact from Cawte and Elms as they managed their work on site. The application presented was a clear change of use as they would be displaying cars on the forecourt in a principally residential area, generating trips to the site from customers.
It was observed that the site used to be a residential property and had been renumbered to 2a. A Member asked if the residents had kept a diary of the issues as there had been no logged complaints, the ward Councillors advised that they had received complaints about the site.
Jonathan McDermott was invited to address the Board he thanked the officer’s for their report and endorse the recommendation. He advised that there had been permission for light industrial use on the site since 1973.
It was acknowledged that car sales had taken place without planning permission but that the application was for a use compatible with the residential site.
There were a number of conditions that had been agreed as part of the application that could be enforced should they be breached. They were hard rules subject to regulatory control.
He advised that he had no excuse or defence for the applicant’s behaviour in operating the site without planning permission and not in line with the proposed conditions but hoped that approval would draw a line under it, as the conditions would be enforceable.
Members questioned the continued unacceptance of the proposed rules, and questioned which parking spaces were to be utilised by staff. Concern was expressed that the spaces highlighted would lead to constant movement onto the road as there was no clear access.
A number of Members advised that they had visited the site, and monitored the online presence of the applicant, and that on the day of the meeting the cars being advertised for sale had increased from 9 to 10 when the conditions of the application stated that no more than five cars would be sold at any one time and questioned whether there was offsite storage for additional cars.
In addition the controls listed that the workshop activity would be ancillary, and questioned what this was defined as. It would seem appropriate that small repairs would be undertaken, but not larger and more complex repairs such as spraying doors and welding or major mechanical repairs.
The Board also noted that the website of the applicant stated that appointments were to be pre booked only, but that it did not appear that this was in force.
Members welcomed that Mr McDermott as the agent for the proposal was not seeking to defend the applicant for the activities on site to date, or the accompanying behaviour.
The Board was advised that the site had never been granted official permission and had been in use as some form of light industrial since at least 1973 but that it was likely that damage in the war had led to a change of use before the current planning system came into force. The sales on site currently were unauthorised.
A Member questioned where any warranty work would be undertaken and it was confirmed that this was an external contract. Concern was expressed that this would not be the case if there were quick fixes and that the applicant had previously undertaken repairs in the street.
Councillor Hylands was invited to address the Board as ward Councillor he advised that it was important to recognise that the previous use for valeting had caused no issues and that noise nuisance was as a result of the new use.
The application had been received stating that the permission was required to create a car dealership, however, there had been use like this for some time.
A retrospective application had been received that included a site management plan, however, the plan was for activity use less than the site was currently being utilised for.
The application had been delayed for consideration as a result of being called in and observations had been made in the interim of body work being undertaken, parking infringements. It was reiterated that the cars for sale were in excess of the numbers in the management plan as well as persistent parking on double yellow lines. The movement of cars would create a disruption, and the fumes and spraying already created an issue. The owners had not created a good impression, nor had they sought to comply with the site management plan put forward as part of the proposal.
It was felt that the proposal breached policy LP23 and LP10 of the local plan as the proposal and existing use was not harmless. Concern was expressed that in warmer weather the doors would be open, meaning noise and fumes would travel and there would be a breach of the management plan and reiterated the current nuisance vehicles from the site presented. It was acknowledged that breaches of these were for enforcement and not planning, however it was felt that as the applicants had shown no regard for the neighbours today it was inevitable the management plan would be breached.
Councillor Finn was invited to address the Board as Ward Councillor. He reiterated the points made by Councillor Hylands and that the site was unsuitable causing disruption to the residents and reiterated the application should be refuse.
He advised the Board that he had coordinated a 72 signature petition and that lots of local residents were concerned about the proposal.
In answer to a Member’s question the Board was advised that the erection of signage on the property was a private legal matter but that advertisement consent maybe required. The applicant should seek the land owners consent before erecting signage on their property.
Members were advised that there had been one previous planning application for the site, a single storey extension and that there was no historic permissions.
It was requested that the number of residents that were objecting through the petition and the appropriate use of the site be considered when making the decision. Previously the site had been used for light use and the current use was not that. The proposal was for use Monday to Saturday and this would leave no peace for the neighbours. Appointments would generate additional traffic and it was clear the work being undertaken on the site was above what was proposed.
Members reiterated concern that the current commercial use had outgrown the site and that its use was disruptive and damaging to the local area.
Members reiterated their concerns under LP23 at the use of the site was not appropriate. There was significant concern about the manoeuvring of vehicles on and off the site and the disturbance that the use of the site would cause.
The Board felt that there was a significant number of breaches of the proposed management plan and that this showed the applicant’s lack of respect to the neighbourhood.
The Members felt there would be a loss of amenity from the car sales and that this was an unsuitable development for the area.
Members felt there was not enough parking on site to run car sales and accommodate the staff. There would be parts and vehicles arriving at all hours and the preparation required on vehicles would cause major disruption.
Members reiterated that there was currently double the number of vehicles permitted in the management plan for sale on the company’s website and that it was odd that it was a retrospective application as the applicant was currently operating beyond what they had applied for permission for.
It was reiterated that the proposal breached LP23 – 4 of the supplementary planning document as there was not adequate provision for parking or manoeuvring on the site without disturbing residents and causing parking issues in the road.
Members also felt that the proposal was contrary to LP10 – 2K as there would be harm to the local amenity as a result of the activity on site.
It was also felt that LP46.3 could be considered as there would be an adverse impact through noise from the site.
The applicant was acting in an inconsiderate way and causing a nuisance to the neighbourhood and the presence of a 72 person petition also showed the impact of the proposals in the surrounding area.
Members reiterated the disruption the parking issues would cause and requested that the proposal be refused as there was not adequate provision for parking or access.
It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused for the following reason. It was contrary to policy LP23, point 4 and the parking SPD as there was inadequate parking on site and the movements from it would cause harm to the amenity of the local area.
In addition the proposal was contrary to LP10 -2.K.2 for the noise and smell it would create and LP46.3.
It also went against the Supplementary Planning document for parking at point 2.2 as the parking provision was not appropriate.
RESOLVED: That planning application 24/00210/FULL be refused for the following reason: The proposal would represent an over intensive use of the site that would fail to provide adequate provision for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles and give rise to unacceptable levels of noise and smells harmful to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties contrary to: Policies LP10: 2 k) ii); LP23: 4 & 7; and LP46: 3 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011- 2029 and the Parking SPD.
24/00373/FULL - INSTALLATION OF JET WASH FACILITY WITH ASSOCIATED BARRIER, DRAINAGE AND RELOCATION OF PETROL STATION TANK VENTS (as amended by additional information received 6.1.25)
219 Brockhurst Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 3AZ
Consideration was given to a report of the Development Manager detailing the application.
Jackie Ford was invited to address the Board as the agent for the application. She advised that she welcomed the Officer’s recommendation and that the application be approved. The jet wash would be set back from the highway and required minor alterations to the existing site. The cleaning material used would be biodegradable and did not have harmful chemicals.
A noise assessment had been undertaken and the acoustic level was acceptable but all action on site was subject to condition and enforcement, there would also be additional signage to mitigate any disruption. Highways had no objection to the proposal and the proposal was well thought out and suitable for the site.
A Member expressed concern about the tracking of vehicles on the site and questioned if it would be better for them to reverse in, they were advised that the proposals were suitable for the site.
It was confirmed that the location of the proposal was the south west of the site, bordering a residential property and the allotments.
A Member queried if the noise assessment had requested a roof for the proposal and it was confirmed this wasn’t required, the three sided construction was adequate.
Councillor Finn was invited to address the Board as Ward Councillor and advised that he had concerns around the level of noise the and the blockage to the A32 suggesting that the proposal should only open 11am – 8pm to avoid stacking on the A32 at rush hour. It was also felt there should be a delayed opening until 11am on Sunday, closing at 6pm.
Members felt that this was an appropriate site for such use and that the proposal was acceptable for the location.
Members debated the proposed opening hours. It was proposed and seconded that the timings be restricted to 8am until 6pm Monday to Saturday and 10am until 4pm on Sunday to offer some protection to amenity for the neighbouring resident.
This was unanimously agreed.
RESOLVED: That application 24/00373/FULL be granted subject to the amended hours of operation 8am to 6pm Monday to Saturday and 10am to 4pm on Sundays and Public holidays.
2A Hartington Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 3AG
The Board was updated that there was a minor update to correct the wording to Condition 3(c), changing the recommended delivery hours of 09:00-18:00 on Saturdays to 09:00-17:00
Gary Turrell was invited to address the Board. He advised that he had been a resident for 4 years and that the application site had previously been very peaceful and used to be a valet location by Fine Cars.
Whilst the application stated that there was to be light use, the site currently was repairing category N and category S insurance vehicles, the workers had confirmed this. There were deliveries of vehicles and parts at all times of the date, as late as 9pm which were disruptive and there had been body spraying, disc cutting, fumes that had spread into gardens. Additionally noise from revving of engines was disturbing in such a way that gardens could not be used, and this had not ceased despite the applicant being asked to do so.
The Board was advised that this activity was of no benefit to cars unless MOT testing was being undertaken and it wasn’t. The noise was very upsetting to residents including many of which that were elderly.
In addition, a sign had been bolted to the adjacent house without permission and the residents of the property felt intimidated by the applicant.
The site was not big enough for the proposed use, there was 5 employees on site which meant parking would naturally spill on to the road causing parking issues for residents. There was a continuous stream of parking that was dangerous and on double yellow lines. Tickets were issued and then the cars would return the following day and receive more tickets. Pavements and drives were being blocked with a complete disregard to safety. Deliveries of parts were taking place as early as 6am and as late as 11pm, and the vehicles used were not suitable for a small residential road. There was already overspill from Cambridge Road which had time limited residential parking.
Previously the site had been used as a valet workshop for a local garage and had caused no issues.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that there was no impact from Cawte and Elms as they managed their work on site. The application presented was a clear change of use as they would be displaying cars on the forecourt in a principally residential area, generating trips to the site from customers.
It was observed that the site used to be a residential property and had been renumbered to 2a. A Member asked if the residents had kept a diary of the issues as there had been no logged complaints, the ward Councillors advised that they had received complaints about the site.
Jonathan McDermott was invited to address the Board he thanked the officer’s for their report and endorse the recommendation. He advised that there had been permission for light industrial use on the site since 1973.
It was acknowledged that car sales had taken place without planning permission but that the application was for a use compatible with the residential site.
There were a number of conditions that had been agreed as part of the application that could be enforced should they be breached. They were hard rules subject to regulatory control.
He advised that he had no excuse or defence for the applicant’s behaviour in operating the site without planning permission and not in line with the proposed conditions but hoped that approval would draw a line under it, as the conditions would be enforceable.
Members questioned the continued unacceptance of the proposed rules, and questioned which parking spaces were to be utilised by staff. Concern was expressed that the spaces highlighted would lead to constant movement onto the road as there was no clear access.
A number of Members advised that they had visited the site, and monitored the online presence of the applicant, and that on the day of the meeting the cars being advertised for sale had increased from 9 to 10 when the conditions of the application stated that no more than five cars would be sold at any one time and questioned whether there was offsite storage for additional cars.
In addition the controls listed that the workshop activity would be ancillary, and questioned what this was defined as. It would seem appropriate that small repairs would be undertaken, but not larger and more complex repairs such as spraying doors and welding or major mechanical repairs.
The Board also noted that the website of the applicant stated that appointments were to be pre booked only, but that it did not appear that this was in force.
Members welcomed that Mr McDermott as the agent for the proposal was not seeking to defend the applicant for the activities on site to date, or the accompanying behaviour.
The Board was advised that the site had never been granted official permission and had been in use as some form of light industrial since at least 1973 but that it was likely that damage in the war had led to a change of use before the current planning system came into force. The sales on site currently were unauthorised.
A Member questioned where any warranty work would be undertaken and it was confirmed that this was an external contract. Concern was expressed that this would not be the case if there were quick fixes and that the applicant had previously undertaken repairs in the street.
Councillor Hylands was invited to address the Board as ward Councillor he advised that it was important to recognise that the previous use for valeting had caused no issues and that noise nuisance was as a result of the new use.
The application had been received stating that the permission was required to create a car dealership, however, there had been use like this for some time.
A retrospective application had been received that included a site management plan, however, the plan was for activity use less than the site was currently being utilised for.
The application had been delayed for consideration as a result of being called in and observations had been made in the interim of body work being undertaken, parking infringements. It was reiterated that the cars for sale were in excess of the numbers in the management plan as well as persistent parking on double yellow lines. The movement of cars would create a disruption, and the fumes and spraying already created an issue. The owners had not created a good impression, nor had they sought to comply with the site management plan put forward as part of the proposal.
It was felt that the proposal breached policy LP23 and LP10 of the local plan as the proposal and existing use was not harmless. Concern was expressed that in warmer weather the doors would be open, meaning noise and fumes would travel and there would be a breach of the management plan and reiterated the current nuisance vehicles from the site presented. It was acknowledged that breaches of these were for enforcement and not planning, however it was felt that as the applicants had shown no regard for the neighbours today it was inevitable the management plan would be breached.
Councillor Finn was invited to address the Board as Ward Councillor. He reiterated the points made by Councillor Hylands and that the site was unsuitable causing disruption to the residents and reiterated the application should be refuse.
He advised the Board that he had coordinated a 72 signature petition and that lots of local residents were concerned about the proposal.
In answer to a Member’s question the Board was advised that the erection of signage on the property was a private legal matter but that advertisement consent maybe required. The applicant should seek the land owners consent before erecting signage on their property.
Members were advised that there had been one previous planning application for the site, a single storey extension and that there was no historic permissions.
It was requested that the number of residents that were objecting through the petition and the appropriate use of the site be considered when making the decision. Previously the site had been used for light use and the current use was not that. The proposal was for use Monday to Saturday and this would leave no peace for the neighbours. Appointments would generate additional traffic and it was clear the work being undertaken on the site was above what was proposed.
Members reiterated concern that the current commercial use had outgrown the site and that its use was disruptive and damaging to the local area.
Members reiterated their concerns under LP23 at the use of the site was not appropriate. There was significant concern about the manoeuvring of vehicles on and off the site and the disturbance that the use of the site would cause.
The Board felt that there was a significant number of breaches of the proposed management plan and that this showed the applicant’s lack of respect to the neighbourhood.
The Members felt there would be a loss of amenity from the car sales and that this was an unsuitable development for the area.
Members felt there was not enough parking on site to run car sales and accommodate the staff. There would be parts and vehicles arriving at all hours and the preparation required on vehicles would cause major disruption.
Members reiterated that there was currently double the number of vehicles permitted in the management plan for sale on the company’s website and that it was odd that it was a retrospective application as the applicant was currently operating beyond what they had applied for permission for.
It was reiterated that the proposal breached LP23 – 4 of the supplementary planning document as there was not adequate provision for parking or manoeuvring on the site without disturbing residents and causing parking issues in the road.
Members also felt that the proposal was contrary to LP10 – 2K as there would be harm to the local amenity as a result of the activity on site.
It was also felt that LP46.3 could be considered as there would be an adverse impact through noise from the site.
The applicant was acting in an inconsiderate way and causing a nuisance to the neighbourhood and the presence of a 72 person petition also showed the impact of the proposals in the surrounding area.
Members reiterated the disruption the parking issues would cause and requested that the proposal be refused as there was not adequate provision for parking or access.
It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused for the following reason. It was contrary to policy LP23, point 4 and the parking SPD as there was inadequate parking on site and the movements from it would cause harm to the amenity of the local area.
In addition the proposal was contrary to LP10 -2.K.2 for the noise and smell it would create and LP46.3.
It also went against the Supplementary Planning document for parking at point 2.2 as the parking provision was not appropriate.
RESOLVED: That planning application 24/00210/FULL be refused for the following reason: The proposal would represent an over intensive use of the site that would fail to provide adequate provision for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles and give rise to unacceptable levels of noise and smells harmful to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties contrary to: Policies LP10: 2 k) ii); LP23: 4 & 7; and LP46: 3 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011- 2029 and the Parking SPD.
24/00373/FULL - INSTALLATION OF JET WASH FACILITY WITH ASSOCIATED BARRIER, DRAINAGE AND RELOCATION OF PETROL STATION TANK VENTS (as amended by additional information received 6.1.25)
219 Brockhurst Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 3AZ
Consideration was given to a report of the Development Manager detailing the application.
Jackie Ford was invited to address the Board as the agent for the application. She advised that she welcomed the Officer’s recommendation and that the application be approved. The jet wash would be set back from the highway and required minor alterations to the existing site. The cleaning material used would be biodegradable and did not have harmful chemicals.
A noise assessment had been undertaken and the acoustic level was acceptable but all action on site was subject to condition and enforcement, there would also be additional signage to mitigate any disruption. Highways had no objection to the proposal and the proposal was well thought out and suitable for the site.
A Member expressed concern about the tracking of vehicles on the site and questioned if it would be better for them to reverse in, they were advised that the proposals were suitable for the site.
It was confirmed that the location of the proposal was the south west of the site, bordering a residential property and the allotments.
A Member queried if the noise assessment had requested a roof for the proposal and it was confirmed this wasn’t required, the three sided construction was adequate.
Councillor Finn was invited to address the Board as Ward Councillor and advised that he had concerns around the level of noise the and the blockage to the A32 suggesting that the proposal should only open 11am – 8pm to avoid stacking on the A32 at rush hour. It was also felt there should be a delayed opening until 11am on Sunday, closing at 6pm.
Members felt that this was an appropriate site for such use and that the proposal was acceptable for the location.
Members debated the proposed opening hours. It was proposed and seconded that the timings be restricted to 8am until 6pm Monday to Saturday and 10am until 4pm on Sunday to offer some protection to amenity for the neighbouring resident.
This was unanimously agreed.
RESOLVED: That application 24/00373/FULL be granted subject to the amended hours of operation 8am to 6pm Monday to Saturday and 10am to 4pm on Sundays and Public holidays.
8
Any Other Items
Minutes
The Board was advised that a report would be taken to the next Board proposing that the Licensing guidance be formally adopted.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in