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, 30th April 2025
6:00 PM
Wednesday, 30th April 2025
6:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 30th April 2025
10:00 PM
Wednesday, 30th April 2025
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
30 Apr 2025
30 Apr 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
To receive apologies from Members for their inability to attend the meeting.
Minutes
There were none.
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
Councillor K Bradley declared an interest in 14 Russell Close, left the room and took no part in the voting or the discussion thereon.
3
Minutes of the meeting held on 19 March 2025
To sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 19 March 2025.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 19/03/2025 Regulatory Board 22 Apr 2025
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting on 19th March 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 28 April 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
24/00107/FULL – 32-38 Stoke Road
25/00033/FULL – 14 Russell Close
25/00050/FULL – 17 The Avenue
24/00107/FULL – 32-38 Stoke Road
25/00033/FULL – 14 Russell Close
25/00050/FULL – 17 The Avenue
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 28 April 2025).
Minutes
There were no Public Questions.
6
Regulatory Board Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Decision Making Guidance
This report sets out to formally present to the Board several guidance documents which the Board should have regard to when making Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing decisions when sitting on the Licensing Sub-Board. The documents in question are as follows:
· IOL Suitability Guidance document
· The Department for Transport’s Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards
· Local Government Association Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Councillors’ Handbook
· IOL Suitability Guidance document
· The Department for Transport’s Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards
· Local Government Association Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Councillors’ Handbook
Attachments:
- Document Taxi and Private Hire Report 22 Apr 2025
- Document Appendix A - Guidance on Suitability October 2024 22 Apr 2025
- Document Appendix B - Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards - GOV.UK 22 Apr 2025
- Document Appendix C - Councillor Handbook_ Taxi and PHV Licensing _ Local Government Association 22 Apr 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Environmental Health detailing setting out to formally present to the Board several guidance documents which the Board should have regard to when making Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing decisions when sitting on the Licensing Sub-Board. The documents in question are as follows:
· IOL Suitability Guidance document
· The Department for Transport’s Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards
· Local Government Association Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Councillors’ Handbook
Members welcomed the adoption of the guidance.
RESOLVED:
That the Board agrees to have regard to the following documents when sitting on relevant Licensing Sub-Boards:
i) IOL Suitability Guidance
ii) Department for Transport’s Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards
iii) Local Government Association Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Councillors’ Handbook
· IOL Suitability Guidance document
· The Department for Transport’s Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards
· Local Government Association Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Councillors’ Handbook
Members welcomed the adoption of the guidance.
RESOLVED:
That the Board agrees to have regard to the following documents when sitting on relevant Licensing Sub-Boards:
i) IOL Suitability Guidance
ii) Department for Transport’s Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards
iii) Local Government Association Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Councillors’ Handbook
7
Report of the Development Manager
To consider the reports of the Development Manager.
Attachments:
- Document Combined 22 Apr 2025
Minutes
The reports of the Development Manager were considered.
24/00107/FULL - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICES (CLASS E) AND 18-BEDROOM 18-PERSON HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (SUI GENERIS) (CONSERVATION AREA)
32 - 38 Stoke Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 1JG
The Board was updated that recommendation in respect of this application.
As printed on the agenda papers the recommendation is for approval of the application subject to the receipt of no objection from Natural England in respect of the LPA’s Habitat Regulation Assessment. Natural England’s comments in respect of the HRA have now been received, and they raise no objection. As such the recommendation is now simply for the approval of the application.
Sian Moore was invited to address the Board. She advised that she represented the congregation of the neighbouring Methodist Church and advised that their principle concern was the inhumane size and condition of the proposed development. They were shocked at the proposed size of the developments, with units without bathrooms and a lack of privacy. There was no outdoor space, or places to park and there would be two kitchens covering 9 people each which would encourage bad eating habits and poor diets as well as increased waste.
The laundry facility was poor and accessible only by the downstairs kitchen. It would also lead to mould as items like bedsheets and towels would be dried in bedrooms. It was also felt that the bin store would have inadequate access and did not make provision for food waste. With the design of the building it would make it accessible to foxes and rats.
Concern was also expressed that the proposal presented a fire risk and that it there was no mention of the development being connected to the mains, leading to the need for a septic tank.
It was felt the level of development was not acceptable as there had already been development at the Royal Arms which had not delivered the ground floor café and employment promised which had led to overdevelopment.
It was felt that if the site if not viable as offices, should be utilised and split into smaller retail units with flats above and felt the proposal was not the best use of the site.
Ian Knight was invited to address the Board. He advised that he was the agent and designer for the proposal and that he noted that the comments were mostly concerning the parking and that there was no requirement for parking as it was a HMO and highly accessible and that the proposed sizes were fully compliant. The spaces very compliant, humane and vastly exceed the minimum required with most of the rooms.
The Board was advised that the proposal was for 18 rooms, and that they could not be occupied as double rooms as a HMO. The laundry facilities proposed was above what was required and was not accessed by the kitchen and was using new technology. The proposal was also fully compliant with fire regulations and that the alarm system was above what was required and the best available.
The waste would be collected by a private company and would be emptied weekly over and above the local authority collection of fortnightly.
The Board was advised that there would be less people in the building than under its previous use as offices and it was confirmed there would be a connection to the main sewer.
The property had been marketed commercially for over a year with no interest, the building did not lend itself to a commercial development and the old 80’s style offices made this prohibitive. Building development in Gosport sat on a knife edge as to what was financially viable and the proposal was policy compliant. All of the rooms were oversized, some 3 times larger and tenancy agreements on them were for 3 months as they were targeted at more transient workers.
The Board was advised that stays of partners were limited to 19 per annum and that tenancies could be ended quickly for breaches, including over occupancy.
These type of developments traditionally worked at 75% occupancy and were generally self-policing, breaches of licence tending to be reported quickly.
A Member felt that there would be greater occupancy as previous use as the office use was only 9am until 5pm. Concern was also reiterated about the lack of parking on site. It was confirmed that there was bicycle parking provision.
A Member question if there would be a visitors log but it was confirmed that there would be CCTV and the ability to monitor sound.
The Board was advised that a management company would be responsible for the building and that they would deal with any issues swiftly.
Members sought clarification on the laundry and were advised that it would comprise of 4 washers and 4 dryers as well as drying space outside. It had a higher ratio of space than most student blocks and was designed to avoid damp.
Each of the kitchens would have two sinks and two hobs as well as additional cooking points such as air fryers and microwaves equalling one per resident.
The air pump system that would be installed was economical and would ventilate humidity, reusing this to create heat and power. The washer dryer units would be better maintained that most residential units in order to be compliant. Most of the units had their own toilets and it was reiterated that the units far exceeded minimum standards.
Councillor Meenaghan was invited to address the Board. She advised that she was speaking as a ward Councillor and objected to the proposals as she had serious concerns. She felt the lack of parking provision would exacerbate the existing parking issues in the area that was already heavily congested. It was believed that the proposal was aimed at carers, who would by the nature of their work require a car to visit their clients.
It was felt the proposal was an overdevelopment and that the proposal was utilising valuable commercial space in an area where empty premises were minimal. It was felt schemes such as commercial units with flats should be explored.
It would be impossible to police over occupancy or sharing or subletting and concluded that the proposal did not support healthy and sustainable living conditions and was incompatible and unsuitable for the location.
It was noted that there had not been any highway comments. The Board was advised that as the proposal did not have parking provision there was no need for the Highway Authority to comment. Members asked whether the Highway Authority could be consulted and were advised that the authority would advise that they were not required to comment as there was no new access onto an adopted Highway.
Concern was expressed that nitrate mitigation had only been offset against one person living in each unit and that if there were additional residents it would cause more issue.
The Board was advised the premises would be licenses and that a number of the issues identified were not planning considerations but would be dealt with by building control.
Members welcomed the deputations and recognised that the amendment to regulations had seen the utilisation of vacant spaces above shops in the high street and recognised the need for low cost accommodation and recognised that this would encourage people to shop local. Members felt it disappointing that Highways would not consult as there was no parking spaces, but would have if there had been 1 space. Members were advised that as no new access to the highway or alterations to an existing was proposed HCC Highways would not have commented in any case.
Members felt the road was busy with buses and lorries getting stuck regularly. In addition there was no parking in surrounding roads like Oak and Holly Street. When the properties were built there had not been a demand for parking on the sites, but most residents now had cars. There was simply nowhere to park in the vicinity with a small amount of time restricted parking on street. Jamaica Place was already utilised and saturated as overspill parking and the proposal was for the loss of office space that would be to the detriment of the residents. There was also no visitor parking on site.
The Board was advised that there were other double figured HMO’s in the vicinity that also had no parking. It was felt that the planning rules detracted from allowing the Board to make a common sense decision as the proposal was entirely unsuitable.
A Member highlighted that they felt that the traffic and parking issues would be exacerbated by the increased movements in and out of the site as the tenancies were short.
Members advised that they had compared to proposals to prison cell minimum sizes and that these were significantly larger, but that local shop keepers had concern that they could not park in the proximity of their premises. Whilst it was recognised that LP23 did not require spaces, it was felt this was unacceptable.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that there had been a 17 bed HMO approved in the High Street without parking. Members acknowledged this, but also acknowledged there was more available parking.
Members reiterated that they felt that some provision should be made for commercial ground floor and that the proposal was unacceptable.
It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused as it was contrary to LP23 and did not meet the SPD 3.0, 3.1m 3.2 as there was no provision for visitor spaces and there would be harm as a result.
Members reiterated that they felt the level of units was too many.
RESOLVED: That application 24/00107/FULL be refused as the proposal would, by reason of its lack of any car parking, result in harm to the amenities of existing and future residents together with the occupiers and users of commercial premises contrary to Policy LP23(7) of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 and the aims and objectives of the Parking SPD 2014..
25/00033/FULL
ERECTION OF TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND FRONT PORCH
14 Russell Close Lee-On-The-Solent Hampshire PO13 9HS
Councillor K Bradley left the room and took no further part in the discussion or voting thereon.
The Board was advised that a site visit had taken place for Members of the Board and had visited the site from the application site and 3 other properties.
Jane Tucker was invited to address the Board she advised that she had lived in the property for 23 years and that she had established amenity in and was secluded from the applicant. The proposal had 5 windows that would look directly into her property.
She advised that the proposal for the large bathroom was unacceptable and that would compromise her privacy and was contrary to the NPPF of creating low density environments that avoided overcrowding. She advised that the proposal would impact her health and wellbeing and that the proposal needed more consideration and thought.
Heather Crascell was invited to address the Board. She advised that she had moved in to the bungalow 10 years ago and had spent significant amounts of money future proofing it as from the work she had undertaken as a nurse for 40 years she would likely end up a wheelchair user. The proposal would damage her health further and impacted on her privacy significantly. Trees had been felled to accommodate the proposal and so there was now a view directly into her living room. The trees that had been felled had provided a protected wall of privacy and preserved protection of the bungalow.
The Board were presented with photos of the proposal with projections of the development showing the impact the proposal would have on her property, including the impact of any future balcony.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that the balcony would require planning permission.
The Board was also advised that the glass would be obscured in the en-suite and the proximity to the neighbouring properties was also clarified and was above what was required.
Kim Wills was invited to address the Board. She thanked the planning officer for their work and their recommendation. She advised that she was happy to comply with the conditions imposed to protect privacy and that she had been gutted to remove the trees in question, but had to as they were causing root damage to drains costing significant amounts of money. They would be replaced with new border trees which would help privacy.
Obscure glazing was being used and from some of the windows they were unable to see into neighbouring properties. She reassured the Board that she was not planning to install a balcony.
Members reflected on the site visit in which they had viewed the proposal site from neighbouring gardens and felt that the garage would protect the neighbours from overlooking.
It was acknowledged that additional planting would be undertaken and that the applicant had made public that they would not be installing a balcony, and that it would require planning permission to install one.
Members were advised that the planting of trees could not be conditioned.
Members felt that the proposed conditions were acceptable, that the separation distance far exceed the requirements and that overlooking was minimal.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00033/FULL be approved subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
25/00050/FULL
INSERTION OF VELUX ROOF WINDOW INTO ROOF OF EXTENSION APPROVED UNDER REFERENCE 16/00436/FULL (RETROSPECTIVE)
17 The Avenue Gosport Hampshire PO12 2JS
Mr Quigley was invited to address the Board. He advised that he had lived in 18 Mound Close for 14 years and objected to the retrospective proposal as it had impacted on his privacy and amenity and caused an unacceptable obtrusion.
The key points were that it breached his privacy as it was a platform that provided direct, prolonged and intentional overlooking into a residential amenity contrary to LP1- designed to protect neighbours from overlooking. Developments should be high quality and respect the impact on residential areas
The window provides the residents of 17 The Avenue with prolonged access into the garden of 18 Mound Close and the application was retrospective and as a result unauthorised and contrary to enforcement plan. Sets a dangerous precedent.
Mr Canning was invited to address the Board. He advised that he was the applicant and had purchased the house in 2016 submitting a planning application regarding the derelict garage building and had rebuilt it, as well as building a side and rear 2 storey extension which included a small shower room under permitted development.
As progress was made it was discovered that significant repairs need to be undertaken to the roof, using handmade materials and the option became available for the instillation of the window as presented, rather than the proposed. Outside of this the extension as permitted was constructed.
Once enforcement had been in contact regarding the breach planning permission was then sought. Previously with support of the objector, silver birch trees that would block the window from sight had been removed, which had enhanced the light to Mr Quigley’s garden.
The Board was advised that the photos provided showing the overlooking were significantly zoomed in, and that distances far exceed what was required. It was also advised that the sun prevented any clear view in to the conservatory, either as a result of reflection or directly shining to the rear of 17 The Avenue.
It was confirmed that only one person at a time could be stood in the window and that it would only be opened up for light and that currently the loft was not a habitable room. If this was amended it would be a building control matter.
The Board was advised that if the application was refused, and required to be amended, it could then be reinstated under permitted development. The Board was advised that there was a railing system in place for safety.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that the proposal did not breach LP10 and the separation far exceed what was required.
Members concluded that there was no harm from the window.
RESOVLED:
That application 25/00050/FULL be approved subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
25/00051/FULL ERECTION OF DETACHED PART SINGLE/PART TWO STOREY BUILDING TO FORM 5NO. ONE BEDROOM FLATS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, CYCLE AND BIN STORAGE (RESUBMISSION OF PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00516/FULL) (as amplified by information received 12.03.25)
Land Adjacent 189 Forton Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 3HB
The Board was advised that there were 2 updates on the application.
In addition to the one objection reported, a petition of objection has been received relating to insufficient parking and associated highway impacts, containing 39 signatures from 26 addresses.
Since the report was published the applicant had secured an allocation of credits addressing the issue of nitrates mitigation, the reason for which the previous appeal was dismissed. Given this, condition 6 of the recommendation is no longer required and the remainder of the conditions should be renumbered accordingly.
A Member sought clarification that there was no longer a nitrate issue and this was confirmed. The Board was advised that the Planning Inspectorate had not considered the reason for refusal around parking to be upheld.
The Board was advised that the inspector had not considered that this would be an issue but conceded in the report that this could change depending on the time of day. They also highlighted free parking in nearby Whites Place.
Members advised that this was time limited parking.
Members acknowledged that there was significant opposition to the proposal in the neighbouring area and that narrow alleyways made it hard to manoeuvre cars at the best of times and that this proposal would make things worse.
Members acknowledged that the application was identical to what had been considered before without amendment and advised that they still objected to the principle of the development and felt that 5 flats was too many as there was inadequate parking, with no alternative available. There was not enough parking in the local roads for those already in residence.
Members advised that the significant difference in the application was the addition of a 39 person and 26 property petition, objecting to the proposal, which had increased since the previous application. In addition to this, the property at 189 had installed a window adjacent to the proposal.
The application had previously been refused and nothing had been amended. It was acknowledged that the site needed some improvement as there constantly fly tipping.
Members felt the proposal was being driven by money and that previous development at the Barley Mow had shown how lack of parking impacted on the local area.
The Board was advised that Alma Street already struggled with approximately 17 spaces for 29 properties, felt that there was a risk to highway safety.
Members felt that it was common sense to reject the proposal and hoped that the planning inspector would agree.
It was confirmed that the Planning Inspector would visit the site if an appeal was lodged.
Members felt that the proposed parking spaces were too small and did not leave room for doors to open, and reiterated concern that there was no visitor parking.
Members were advised that the refuse store and access was identical to the previous application, where the Head of Streetscene had raised no concerns and the Inspector had considered at appeal. Measures including a raised kerb to the parking space were proposed to assist with manoeuvring bins and further details would be secured by condition.
Members also felt that the introduction of the Governments additional recycling and food waste bins meant that there was not enough space in the refuse area, this would lead to a parking space being used for overspill and in turn there would not be enough parking. Members felt that they owed it to their residents to object to the proposal and that common sense also said to reject it.
Members felt the lack parking spaces as a result of the additional waste requirements meant that there would be insufficient parking for the development and that it was common sense to reject the proposal.
Members felt that the inspector would not have seen the area at its worse and were confident that the application should be refused on the grounds identified.
It was concluded that the development was unacceptable on the basis that there was not enough suitable parking, and that there was not sufficient space for waste disposal and that this would cause harm to the local area.
It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused
RESOLVED: The proposal makes inadequate provision for the future storage requirements for waste and recyclable materials which would result in overspill to other open areas of the site, including parking spaces and the amenity area, which along with its failure to make provision for adequate visitor parking would lead to an increased pressure for parking in an area with limited capacity, to the detriment of the amenities of existing residents contrary to Policies LP23(7) and LP40(4) of the Gosport Local Plan 2011-2029 and the aims and objectives of the Parking SPD.
25/00063/GR3
CHANGE OF USE TO PUBLIC OPEN SPACE WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING WORKS (amended drawings received 11.04.2025)
Bus Station South Street Gosport Hampshire PO12 1EP
The Board was advised that there was three updates
1. The Council’s Ecologist had raised no objection to the updated Biodiversity Net Gain Metric submitted by the applicant;
2. One further letter of support had been received;
3. Following a response of ‘No Objection’ from Natural England in respect of the Local Planning Authority’s Habitats Regulations Assessment, the Recommendation had changed from that indicated within the report to ‘Grant Permission’.
It was acknowledged that the application was being made by Gosport Borough Council. It was reiterated that Members must consider the merits of the proposal before them, and that alternative potential uses of the site that could be considered by the applicant were not material to this particular application.
Members felt they would like an outline plan of the whole area but accepted this was not a material planning consideration.
Members felt that the time space area was underutilised and reiterated the desire to utilise the area and the proposed location to the benefit of the public but not to cause an inconvenience to neighbours.
Members recognised that this would allow for the park to be utilised as soon as possible and enjoy the summer. It was acknowledged that the significant restaurant construction would follow at a later date.
It was noted that there was disappointment that a cycle route had not been provided. Members also recognised that the proposal was an improvement to the derelict bus station.
Members hoped that musical entertainment would be appropriate for the area and that events would be available for all.
Members sought assurances on the safety of the area to avoid unsavoury behavior and hoped the security provided for the High Street could be extended.
It was accepted that this was the first phase of a wider development for the site.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00063/GR3 be approved subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
24/00107/FULL - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICES (CLASS E) AND 18-BEDROOM 18-PERSON HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (SUI GENERIS) (CONSERVATION AREA)
32 - 38 Stoke Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 1JG
The Board was updated that recommendation in respect of this application.
As printed on the agenda papers the recommendation is for approval of the application subject to the receipt of no objection from Natural England in respect of the LPA’s Habitat Regulation Assessment. Natural England’s comments in respect of the HRA have now been received, and they raise no objection. As such the recommendation is now simply for the approval of the application.
Sian Moore was invited to address the Board. She advised that she represented the congregation of the neighbouring Methodist Church and advised that their principle concern was the inhumane size and condition of the proposed development. They were shocked at the proposed size of the developments, with units without bathrooms and a lack of privacy. There was no outdoor space, or places to park and there would be two kitchens covering 9 people each which would encourage bad eating habits and poor diets as well as increased waste.
The laundry facility was poor and accessible only by the downstairs kitchen. It would also lead to mould as items like bedsheets and towels would be dried in bedrooms. It was also felt that the bin store would have inadequate access and did not make provision for food waste. With the design of the building it would make it accessible to foxes and rats.
Concern was also expressed that the proposal presented a fire risk and that it there was no mention of the development being connected to the mains, leading to the need for a septic tank.
It was felt the level of development was not acceptable as there had already been development at the Royal Arms which had not delivered the ground floor café and employment promised which had led to overdevelopment.
It was felt that if the site if not viable as offices, should be utilised and split into smaller retail units with flats above and felt the proposal was not the best use of the site.
Ian Knight was invited to address the Board. He advised that he was the agent and designer for the proposal and that he noted that the comments were mostly concerning the parking and that there was no requirement for parking as it was a HMO and highly accessible and that the proposed sizes were fully compliant. The spaces very compliant, humane and vastly exceed the minimum required with most of the rooms.
The Board was advised that the proposal was for 18 rooms, and that they could not be occupied as double rooms as a HMO. The laundry facilities proposed was above what was required and was not accessed by the kitchen and was using new technology. The proposal was also fully compliant with fire regulations and that the alarm system was above what was required and the best available.
The waste would be collected by a private company and would be emptied weekly over and above the local authority collection of fortnightly.
The Board was advised that there would be less people in the building than under its previous use as offices and it was confirmed there would be a connection to the main sewer.
The property had been marketed commercially for over a year with no interest, the building did not lend itself to a commercial development and the old 80’s style offices made this prohibitive. Building development in Gosport sat on a knife edge as to what was financially viable and the proposal was policy compliant. All of the rooms were oversized, some 3 times larger and tenancy agreements on them were for 3 months as they were targeted at more transient workers.
The Board was advised that stays of partners were limited to 19 per annum and that tenancies could be ended quickly for breaches, including over occupancy.
These type of developments traditionally worked at 75% occupancy and were generally self-policing, breaches of licence tending to be reported quickly.
A Member felt that there would be greater occupancy as previous use as the office use was only 9am until 5pm. Concern was also reiterated about the lack of parking on site. It was confirmed that there was bicycle parking provision.
A Member question if there would be a visitors log but it was confirmed that there would be CCTV and the ability to monitor sound.
The Board was advised that a management company would be responsible for the building and that they would deal with any issues swiftly.
Members sought clarification on the laundry and were advised that it would comprise of 4 washers and 4 dryers as well as drying space outside. It had a higher ratio of space than most student blocks and was designed to avoid damp.
Each of the kitchens would have two sinks and two hobs as well as additional cooking points such as air fryers and microwaves equalling one per resident.
The air pump system that would be installed was economical and would ventilate humidity, reusing this to create heat and power. The washer dryer units would be better maintained that most residential units in order to be compliant. Most of the units had their own toilets and it was reiterated that the units far exceeded minimum standards.
Councillor Meenaghan was invited to address the Board. She advised that she was speaking as a ward Councillor and objected to the proposals as she had serious concerns. She felt the lack of parking provision would exacerbate the existing parking issues in the area that was already heavily congested. It was believed that the proposal was aimed at carers, who would by the nature of their work require a car to visit their clients.
It was felt the proposal was an overdevelopment and that the proposal was utilising valuable commercial space in an area where empty premises were minimal. It was felt schemes such as commercial units with flats should be explored.
It would be impossible to police over occupancy or sharing or subletting and concluded that the proposal did not support healthy and sustainable living conditions and was incompatible and unsuitable for the location.
It was noted that there had not been any highway comments. The Board was advised that as the proposal did not have parking provision there was no need for the Highway Authority to comment. Members asked whether the Highway Authority could be consulted and were advised that the authority would advise that they were not required to comment as there was no new access onto an adopted Highway.
Concern was expressed that nitrate mitigation had only been offset against one person living in each unit and that if there were additional residents it would cause more issue.
The Board was advised the premises would be licenses and that a number of the issues identified were not planning considerations but would be dealt with by building control.
Members welcomed the deputations and recognised that the amendment to regulations had seen the utilisation of vacant spaces above shops in the high street and recognised the need for low cost accommodation and recognised that this would encourage people to shop local. Members felt it disappointing that Highways would not consult as there was no parking spaces, but would have if there had been 1 space. Members were advised that as no new access to the highway or alterations to an existing was proposed HCC Highways would not have commented in any case.
Members felt the road was busy with buses and lorries getting stuck regularly. In addition there was no parking in surrounding roads like Oak and Holly Street. When the properties were built there had not been a demand for parking on the sites, but most residents now had cars. There was simply nowhere to park in the vicinity with a small amount of time restricted parking on street. Jamaica Place was already utilised and saturated as overspill parking and the proposal was for the loss of office space that would be to the detriment of the residents. There was also no visitor parking on site.
The Board was advised that there were other double figured HMO’s in the vicinity that also had no parking. It was felt that the planning rules detracted from allowing the Board to make a common sense decision as the proposal was entirely unsuitable.
A Member highlighted that they felt that the traffic and parking issues would be exacerbated by the increased movements in and out of the site as the tenancies were short.
Members advised that they had compared to proposals to prison cell minimum sizes and that these were significantly larger, but that local shop keepers had concern that they could not park in the proximity of their premises. Whilst it was recognised that LP23 did not require spaces, it was felt this was unacceptable.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that there had been a 17 bed HMO approved in the High Street without parking. Members acknowledged this, but also acknowledged there was more available parking.
Members reiterated that they felt that some provision should be made for commercial ground floor and that the proposal was unacceptable.
It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused as it was contrary to LP23 and did not meet the SPD 3.0, 3.1m 3.2 as there was no provision for visitor spaces and there would be harm as a result.
Members reiterated that they felt the level of units was too many.
RESOLVED: That application 24/00107/FULL be refused as the proposal would, by reason of its lack of any car parking, result in harm to the amenities of existing and future residents together with the occupiers and users of commercial premises contrary to Policy LP23(7) of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 and the aims and objectives of the Parking SPD 2014..
25/00033/FULL
ERECTION OF TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND FRONT PORCH
14 Russell Close Lee-On-The-Solent Hampshire PO13 9HS
Councillor K Bradley left the room and took no further part in the discussion or voting thereon.
The Board was advised that a site visit had taken place for Members of the Board and had visited the site from the application site and 3 other properties.
Jane Tucker was invited to address the Board she advised that she had lived in the property for 23 years and that she had established amenity in and was secluded from the applicant. The proposal had 5 windows that would look directly into her property.
She advised that the proposal for the large bathroom was unacceptable and that would compromise her privacy and was contrary to the NPPF of creating low density environments that avoided overcrowding. She advised that the proposal would impact her health and wellbeing and that the proposal needed more consideration and thought.
Heather Crascell was invited to address the Board. She advised that she had moved in to the bungalow 10 years ago and had spent significant amounts of money future proofing it as from the work she had undertaken as a nurse for 40 years she would likely end up a wheelchair user. The proposal would damage her health further and impacted on her privacy significantly. Trees had been felled to accommodate the proposal and so there was now a view directly into her living room. The trees that had been felled had provided a protected wall of privacy and preserved protection of the bungalow.
The Board were presented with photos of the proposal with projections of the development showing the impact the proposal would have on her property, including the impact of any future balcony.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that the balcony would require planning permission.
The Board was also advised that the glass would be obscured in the en-suite and the proximity to the neighbouring properties was also clarified and was above what was required.
Kim Wills was invited to address the Board. She thanked the planning officer for their work and their recommendation. She advised that she was happy to comply with the conditions imposed to protect privacy and that she had been gutted to remove the trees in question, but had to as they were causing root damage to drains costing significant amounts of money. They would be replaced with new border trees which would help privacy.
Obscure glazing was being used and from some of the windows they were unable to see into neighbouring properties. She reassured the Board that she was not planning to install a balcony.
Members reflected on the site visit in which they had viewed the proposal site from neighbouring gardens and felt that the garage would protect the neighbours from overlooking.
It was acknowledged that additional planting would be undertaken and that the applicant had made public that they would not be installing a balcony, and that it would require planning permission to install one.
Members were advised that the planting of trees could not be conditioned.
Members felt that the proposed conditions were acceptable, that the separation distance far exceed the requirements and that overlooking was minimal.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00033/FULL be approved subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
25/00050/FULL
INSERTION OF VELUX ROOF WINDOW INTO ROOF OF EXTENSION APPROVED UNDER REFERENCE 16/00436/FULL (RETROSPECTIVE)
17 The Avenue Gosport Hampshire PO12 2JS
Mr Quigley was invited to address the Board. He advised that he had lived in 18 Mound Close for 14 years and objected to the retrospective proposal as it had impacted on his privacy and amenity and caused an unacceptable obtrusion.
The key points were that it breached his privacy as it was a platform that provided direct, prolonged and intentional overlooking into a residential amenity contrary to LP1- designed to protect neighbours from overlooking. Developments should be high quality and respect the impact on residential areas
The window provides the residents of 17 The Avenue with prolonged access into the garden of 18 Mound Close and the application was retrospective and as a result unauthorised and contrary to enforcement plan. Sets a dangerous precedent.
Mr Canning was invited to address the Board. He advised that he was the applicant and had purchased the house in 2016 submitting a planning application regarding the derelict garage building and had rebuilt it, as well as building a side and rear 2 storey extension which included a small shower room under permitted development.
As progress was made it was discovered that significant repairs need to be undertaken to the roof, using handmade materials and the option became available for the instillation of the window as presented, rather than the proposed. Outside of this the extension as permitted was constructed.
Once enforcement had been in contact regarding the breach planning permission was then sought. Previously with support of the objector, silver birch trees that would block the window from sight had been removed, which had enhanced the light to Mr Quigley’s garden.
The Board was advised that the photos provided showing the overlooking were significantly zoomed in, and that distances far exceed what was required. It was also advised that the sun prevented any clear view in to the conservatory, either as a result of reflection or directly shining to the rear of 17 The Avenue.
It was confirmed that only one person at a time could be stood in the window and that it would only be opened up for light and that currently the loft was not a habitable room. If this was amended it would be a building control matter.
The Board was advised that if the application was refused, and required to be amended, it could then be reinstated under permitted development. The Board was advised that there was a railing system in place for safety.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that the proposal did not breach LP10 and the separation far exceed what was required.
Members concluded that there was no harm from the window.
RESOVLED:
That application 25/00050/FULL be approved subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
25/00051/FULL ERECTION OF DETACHED PART SINGLE/PART TWO STOREY BUILDING TO FORM 5NO. ONE BEDROOM FLATS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, CYCLE AND BIN STORAGE (RESUBMISSION OF PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00516/FULL) (as amplified by information received 12.03.25)
Land Adjacent 189 Forton Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 3HB
The Board was advised that there were 2 updates on the application.
In addition to the one objection reported, a petition of objection has been received relating to insufficient parking and associated highway impacts, containing 39 signatures from 26 addresses.
Since the report was published the applicant had secured an allocation of credits addressing the issue of nitrates mitigation, the reason for which the previous appeal was dismissed. Given this, condition 6 of the recommendation is no longer required and the remainder of the conditions should be renumbered accordingly.
A Member sought clarification that there was no longer a nitrate issue and this was confirmed. The Board was advised that the Planning Inspectorate had not considered the reason for refusal around parking to be upheld.
The Board was advised that the inspector had not considered that this would be an issue but conceded in the report that this could change depending on the time of day. They also highlighted free parking in nearby Whites Place.
Members advised that this was time limited parking.
Members acknowledged that there was significant opposition to the proposal in the neighbouring area and that narrow alleyways made it hard to manoeuvre cars at the best of times and that this proposal would make things worse.
Members acknowledged that the application was identical to what had been considered before without amendment and advised that they still objected to the principle of the development and felt that 5 flats was too many as there was inadequate parking, with no alternative available. There was not enough parking in the local roads for those already in residence.
Members advised that the significant difference in the application was the addition of a 39 person and 26 property petition, objecting to the proposal, which had increased since the previous application. In addition to this, the property at 189 had installed a window adjacent to the proposal.
The application had previously been refused and nothing had been amended. It was acknowledged that the site needed some improvement as there constantly fly tipping.
Members felt the proposal was being driven by money and that previous development at the Barley Mow had shown how lack of parking impacted on the local area.
The Board was advised that Alma Street already struggled with approximately 17 spaces for 29 properties, felt that there was a risk to highway safety.
Members felt that it was common sense to reject the proposal and hoped that the planning inspector would agree.
It was confirmed that the Planning Inspector would visit the site if an appeal was lodged.
Members felt that the proposed parking spaces were too small and did not leave room for doors to open, and reiterated concern that there was no visitor parking.
Members were advised that the refuse store and access was identical to the previous application, where the Head of Streetscene had raised no concerns and the Inspector had considered at appeal. Measures including a raised kerb to the parking space were proposed to assist with manoeuvring bins and further details would be secured by condition.
Members also felt that the introduction of the Governments additional recycling and food waste bins meant that there was not enough space in the refuse area, this would lead to a parking space being used for overspill and in turn there would not be enough parking. Members felt that they owed it to their residents to object to the proposal and that common sense also said to reject it.
Members felt the lack parking spaces as a result of the additional waste requirements meant that there would be insufficient parking for the development and that it was common sense to reject the proposal.
Members felt that the inspector would not have seen the area at its worse and were confident that the application should be refused on the grounds identified.
It was concluded that the development was unacceptable on the basis that there was not enough suitable parking, and that there was not sufficient space for waste disposal and that this would cause harm to the local area.
It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused
RESOLVED: The proposal makes inadequate provision for the future storage requirements for waste and recyclable materials which would result in overspill to other open areas of the site, including parking spaces and the amenity area, which along with its failure to make provision for adequate visitor parking would lead to an increased pressure for parking in an area with limited capacity, to the detriment of the amenities of existing residents contrary to Policies LP23(7) and LP40(4) of the Gosport Local Plan 2011-2029 and the aims and objectives of the Parking SPD.
25/00063/GR3
CHANGE OF USE TO PUBLIC OPEN SPACE WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING WORKS (amended drawings received 11.04.2025)
Bus Station South Street Gosport Hampshire PO12 1EP
The Board was advised that there was three updates
1. The Council’s Ecologist had raised no objection to the updated Biodiversity Net Gain Metric submitted by the applicant;
2. One further letter of support had been received;
3. Following a response of ‘No Objection’ from Natural England in respect of the Local Planning Authority’s Habitats Regulations Assessment, the Recommendation had changed from that indicated within the report to ‘Grant Permission’.
It was acknowledged that the application was being made by Gosport Borough Council. It was reiterated that Members must consider the merits of the proposal before them, and that alternative potential uses of the site that could be considered by the applicant were not material to this particular application.
Members felt they would like an outline plan of the whole area but accepted this was not a material planning consideration.
Members felt that the time space area was underutilised and reiterated the desire to utilise the area and the proposed location to the benefit of the public but not to cause an inconvenience to neighbours.
Members recognised that this would allow for the park to be utilised as soon as possible and enjoy the summer. It was acknowledged that the significant restaurant construction would follow at a later date.
It was noted that there was disappointment that a cycle route had not been provided. Members also recognised that the proposal was an improvement to the derelict bus station.
Members hoped that musical entertainment would be appropriate for the area and that events would be available for all.
Members sought assurances on the safety of the area to avoid unsavoury behavior and hoped the security provided for the High Street could be extended.
It was accepted that this was the first phase of a wider development for the site.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00063/GR3 be approved subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
8
Any Other Items
Minutes
Members sought clarification if the notification letters could omit the details of those Councillors that were on the Regulatory Board to avoid any conflict.
They were advised that this could be looked into and that the rules on Councillor engagement were perhaps not as strict as perceived.
They were advised that this could be looked into and that the rules on Councillor engagement were perhaps not as strict as perceived.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in