Gosport Borough Council
Councillors:
28
Wards:
14
Committees:
10
Meetings (2025):
50
Meetings (2024):
47
Meeting
Regulatory Board - Gosport
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 23rd July 2025
6:00 PM
Wednesday, 23rd July 2025
6:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 23rd July 2025
10:00 PM
Wednesday, 23rd July 2025
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
23 Jul 2025
23 Jul 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 and 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 4 June 2025
To confirm as a true and correct records the minutes of the Board held on the 4 June 2025.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes , 04/06/2025 Regulatory Board 15 Jul 2025
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 4 June 2026 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 21 July 2025. The total time for deputations in favour and against a proposal shall not exceed 10 minutes).
Minutes
Deputations were received on item
25/0039/FULL – 17 Staplers Reach
25/00125/VOC – 219 Brockhurst Road
25/0039/FULL – 17 Staplers Reach
25/00125/VOC – 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 21 July 2025).
Minutes
There were none.
6
Report of the Development Manager
To consider the report of the Development Manager.
Attachments:
- Document Combined Report 15 Jul 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to the report of the Development Manager.
25/00039/FULL - RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION AND USE OF OUTBUILDING AS AN ANNEXE (AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED 10.06.2025) 17 Staplers Reach Gosport Hampshire PO13 0EY
Kay Davies was invited to address the Board. She advised that she wanted to address the Board to raise awareness of the size and position of the extension at number 17 and the impact it was having on them as residents of number 15.
Prior to the erection of the building, there had been a garage on site and that garage had been slightly visible above the fence line. The new building was significantly larger, with a greater visual impact on the neighbours particularly with a breeze block wall.
An application had not been made in advance of the construction of the building and this would have been welcome to discuss concerns as two thirds of the garden now had the visual impact of the building.
The Board was advised that the report of the planning officer identified that the building was unsightly and had a significant impact on the neighbouring properties and that remedial work was required to make it acceptable.
Mrs Davies advised that she would welcome improvement to the outlook and a discussion with the applicant as to what was acceptable.
She also sought clarification as to what the advised dates were within the report of the Planning Officer.
It was confirmed that the proposed improvements would need to be detailed within 3 months, and that they would need to be completed within 6 months.
The Board was advised that there was a visual impact from the front door and that proximity had increased dog barking from the application site.
Mr Houghton was invited to address the Board. He advised that the building had been constructed to support his mother in law who had been widowed at a young age to help her retain her independence at a time of extreme grief.
There had not been an intention to cause distress, but support a family member with an unexpected life event.
The project had been undertaken by family friends who had assured them that planning permission was not required and advised that no concerns had been made at the time of construction and that the issues raised four years later were confusing and distressing.
It was also advised that an inspector had visited the house who had suggested that a planning application was not required.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that the builder had used breeze blocks and that there was no specific reason for this, the builders were trusted family friends and it had been assumed that this was ok and that they would consider any improvements to make it better and bring to an end the distress being caused.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that when the Planning Enforcement Officer had attended, the construction had not been completed and looked to be within the height of permitted development. When the construction was completed, it was 30cm above the height of permitted development, but also that it’s usage as a permanent residence meant that it would need planning permission regardless of the height, as permanent residences did not qualify as permitted development.
The Board was advised that additional procedures would be put in place to avoid confusion in future with regards to whether or not an application fell under permitted development.
It was reiterated that the proposal failed to meet the permitted development in two areas, the first being that it was 2.8m in height, the limit was 2.5m and that it was used as residential accommodation. Had the proposal been for a use such as a gym, and it had been under 2.5m it could have been considered as permitted development.
It was confirmed to Members that the proposal was not the footprint shown on the location plan.
A Member questioned that the report stated that the proposal was both acceptable in terms of scale and design, but also unsightly and unneighbourly
The Planning officer advised that these were both correct, as the unneighbourly and unsightly elements could be addressed with the improvements required.
It was recognised that there was no right to a view, but acknowledged that the appearance of the wall currently was unsightly and could be improved and the structure gave a less than favourable outlook.
In answer to a Members question, permitted development was not allowed to be greater than 50% of the garden, but this included all garden space, such as side access and front gardens.
Members expressed regret that the requirement for planning permission was not identified at the point the property had been previously visited.
Members recognised that errors had been made with the construction height but it was reiterated that the fact that the property was lived in permanently meant that there were two reasons that planning permission was required.
Members expressed a desire for the applicant to liaise with the neighbour on a suitable material to cover the exposed wall. Members were also advised that if there was a change of use to a short term let such as an Air B and B there would need to be an additional planning application for a change of use.
Members discussed whether the application was acceptable under Policy LP10 or whether it was, as described in the report, overbearing and unsightly. It was acknowledged that the breeze blocks were unsightly and overbearing and that the visual amenity were impacted. Members regonised that the height exceeded permitted development and that the application was retrospective.
Members recognised that a refusal of the application could potentially require the demolition of the building when it was potentially acceptable. Some Members felt that the extra 30cm was acceptable, and didn’t overbear and that with the correct improvement to the visual outlook the application was acceptable.
Members reiterated the desire for the improvements to be a joint discussion between the applicants and the neighbours.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00039/FULL be approved, subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
25/00125/VOC VARIATION OF CONDITION 5 (HOURS OF OPERATION) TO EXTEND OPERATION OF THE JETWASH FACILITY BETWEEN 18:00-20:00 MONDAY TO SATURDAY AND 09:00- 10:00 & 16:00-20:00 ON SUNDAYS AND BANK HOLIDAYS 219 Brockhurst Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 3AZ
The Board was advised that there were no updates.
Jackie Ford was invited to address the Board. The Board was advised that the application had previously been presented to the Board and that the current agreed hours were 08:00-18:00 Monday to Saturday and 10:00-16:00 on Sunday and bank holiday.
The application was for 08:00-20:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00-20:00 on Sunday and bank holidays. The recommendation was that the times of 08:00-20:00 Monday to Saturday, and 09:00-18:00 on Sundays and bank holidays be approved.
The site was due to open in the next fortnight and a noise impact assessment had been undertaken for any potential concerns. There had been no representations made against the additional application.
Members were reminded that a roof had been considered by was not appropriate as it would create additional issues with splashback.
Members expressed concern that the amenity of the neighbours would be consistently impacted on and that it was considered inappropriate for them to be subjected to the disturbance on a greater scale.
Members were advised that they had the option to approve any amendments on a temporary basis should they wish to. Members suggested that a 12 month period might be appropriate for a temporary condition, after which the operational hours would revert back to those approved and a new application would need to be made for any further amendments. Members felt that this would cover all four seasons and as a result see the impact of the proposal across a whole year.
A Member reiterated that they were unhappy with the proposed amendments and proposed that the application be refused and this was seconded,
A second amendment was proposed that the hours be extended on weekdays, but not on Sunday and on bank holidays, this was seconded.
A third amendment was proposed that the application as presented be approved, but that there be a temporary consent granted.
Members debated the proposals and a vote was taken on each and it was agreed that temporary consent be granted.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00125/VOC be granted temporary permission subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager, for the hours identified in condition five of the report, for the period until 1st August 2026. After this date, the hours will revert to those agreed in condition 5 of planning permission 24/00373/FULL.
25/00039/FULL - RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION AND USE OF OUTBUILDING AS AN ANNEXE (AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED 10.06.2025) 17 Staplers Reach Gosport Hampshire PO13 0EY
Kay Davies was invited to address the Board. She advised that she wanted to address the Board to raise awareness of the size and position of the extension at number 17 and the impact it was having on them as residents of number 15.
Prior to the erection of the building, there had been a garage on site and that garage had been slightly visible above the fence line. The new building was significantly larger, with a greater visual impact on the neighbours particularly with a breeze block wall.
An application had not been made in advance of the construction of the building and this would have been welcome to discuss concerns as two thirds of the garden now had the visual impact of the building.
The Board was advised that the report of the planning officer identified that the building was unsightly and had a significant impact on the neighbouring properties and that remedial work was required to make it acceptable.
Mrs Davies advised that she would welcome improvement to the outlook and a discussion with the applicant as to what was acceptable.
She also sought clarification as to what the advised dates were within the report of the Planning Officer.
It was confirmed that the proposed improvements would need to be detailed within 3 months, and that they would need to be completed within 6 months.
The Board was advised that there was a visual impact from the front door and that proximity had increased dog barking from the application site.
Mr Houghton was invited to address the Board. He advised that the building had been constructed to support his mother in law who had been widowed at a young age to help her retain her independence at a time of extreme grief.
There had not been an intention to cause distress, but support a family member with an unexpected life event.
The project had been undertaken by family friends who had assured them that planning permission was not required and advised that no concerns had been made at the time of construction and that the issues raised four years later were confusing and distressing.
It was also advised that an inspector had visited the house who had suggested that a planning application was not required.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that the builder had used breeze blocks and that there was no specific reason for this, the builders were trusted family friends and it had been assumed that this was ok and that they would consider any improvements to make it better and bring to an end the distress being caused.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that when the Planning Enforcement Officer had attended, the construction had not been completed and looked to be within the height of permitted development. When the construction was completed, it was 30cm above the height of permitted development, but also that it’s usage as a permanent residence meant that it would need planning permission regardless of the height, as permanent residences did not qualify as permitted development.
The Board was advised that additional procedures would be put in place to avoid confusion in future with regards to whether or not an application fell under permitted development.
It was reiterated that the proposal failed to meet the permitted development in two areas, the first being that it was 2.8m in height, the limit was 2.5m and that it was used as residential accommodation. Had the proposal been for a use such as a gym, and it had been under 2.5m it could have been considered as permitted development.
It was confirmed to Members that the proposal was not the footprint shown on the location plan.
A Member questioned that the report stated that the proposal was both acceptable in terms of scale and design, but also unsightly and unneighbourly
The Planning officer advised that these were both correct, as the unneighbourly and unsightly elements could be addressed with the improvements required.
It was recognised that there was no right to a view, but acknowledged that the appearance of the wall currently was unsightly and could be improved and the structure gave a less than favourable outlook.
In answer to a Members question, permitted development was not allowed to be greater than 50% of the garden, but this included all garden space, such as side access and front gardens.
Members expressed regret that the requirement for planning permission was not identified at the point the property had been previously visited.
Members recognised that errors had been made with the construction height but it was reiterated that the fact that the property was lived in permanently meant that there were two reasons that planning permission was required.
Members expressed a desire for the applicant to liaise with the neighbour on a suitable material to cover the exposed wall. Members were also advised that if there was a change of use to a short term let such as an Air B and B there would need to be an additional planning application for a change of use.
Members discussed whether the application was acceptable under Policy LP10 or whether it was, as described in the report, overbearing and unsightly. It was acknowledged that the breeze blocks were unsightly and overbearing and that the visual amenity were impacted. Members regonised that the height exceeded permitted development and that the application was retrospective.
Members recognised that a refusal of the application could potentially require the demolition of the building when it was potentially acceptable. Some Members felt that the extra 30cm was acceptable, and didn’t overbear and that with the correct improvement to the visual outlook the application was acceptable.
Members reiterated the desire for the improvements to be a joint discussion between the applicants and the neighbours.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00039/FULL be approved, subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
25/00125/VOC VARIATION OF CONDITION 5 (HOURS OF OPERATION) TO EXTEND OPERATION OF THE JETWASH FACILITY BETWEEN 18:00-20:00 MONDAY TO SATURDAY AND 09:00- 10:00 & 16:00-20:00 ON SUNDAYS AND BANK HOLIDAYS 219 Brockhurst Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 3AZ
The Board was advised that there were no updates.
Jackie Ford was invited to address the Board. The Board was advised that the application had previously been presented to the Board and that the current agreed hours were 08:00-18:00 Monday to Saturday and 10:00-16:00 on Sunday and bank holiday.
The application was for 08:00-20:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00-20:00 on Sunday and bank holidays. The recommendation was that the times of 08:00-20:00 Monday to Saturday, and 09:00-18:00 on Sundays and bank holidays be approved.
The site was due to open in the next fortnight and a noise impact assessment had been undertaken for any potential concerns. There had been no representations made against the additional application.
Members were reminded that a roof had been considered by was not appropriate as it would create additional issues with splashback.
Members expressed concern that the amenity of the neighbours would be consistently impacted on and that it was considered inappropriate for them to be subjected to the disturbance on a greater scale.
Members were advised that they had the option to approve any amendments on a temporary basis should they wish to. Members suggested that a 12 month period might be appropriate for a temporary condition, after which the operational hours would revert back to those approved and a new application would need to be made for any further amendments. Members felt that this would cover all four seasons and as a result see the impact of the proposal across a whole year.
A Member reiterated that they were unhappy with the proposed amendments and proposed that the application be refused and this was seconded,
A second amendment was proposed that the hours be extended on weekdays, but not on Sunday and on bank holidays, this was seconded.
A third amendment was proposed that the application as presented be approved, but that there be a temporary consent granted.
Members debated the proposals and a vote was taken on each and it was agreed that temporary consent be granted.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00125/VOC be granted temporary permission subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager, for the hours identified in condition five of the report, for the period until 1st August 2026. After this date, the hours will revert to those agreed in condition 5 of planning permission 24/00373/FULL.
7
Any Other Items
Minutes
There were none.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in