Regulatory Board Agenda : 23rd July 2019
GOSPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL – REGULATORY BOARD
23rd July 2019
ITEMS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Copies of drawings and accompanying planning applications referred to in this schedule will be made available for inspection by Members from 5.00 pm immediately prior to the meeting. Unless otherwise advised, these plans will be displayed in the room in which the Regulatory Board is to be held.
2. The number of objections and representations indicated in the schedule are correct at the time the recommendations were formulated. Should any representations be made after this date, these will be notified to the Regulatory Board during the officer presentation.
3. Copies of all representations received from the public will be made available for inspection by Members in the same way as drawings will be made available, referred to in Note 1 above.
4. An index of planning applications within this schedule can be found overleaf, together with a summary of each recommendation.
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 1 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019
INDEX
Item Page Appl. No. Address Recommendation No
01. 3-18 17/00599/FULL Priddys Hard Heritage Way Refuse Gosport Hampshire PO12 4LE
02. 19- 19/00129/FULL 4 Avenue Road Gosport Refuse 22/1 Hampshire PO12 1LA
03. 23-28 19/00189/FULL 18 Clyde Road Gosport Refuse Hampshire PO12 3DN
04. 29- 19/00231/FULL 47 Linden Grove Gosport Grant Permission 30/1 Hampshire PO12 2ED subject to Conditions
05. 31- 19/00172/FULL 138-140 High Street Gosport Grant Permission 36/1 Hampshire PO12 1EA subject to Conditions
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 2 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019
ITEM NUMBER: 01. APPLICATION NUMBER: 17/00599/FULL APPLICANT: Messrs Peter Goodship & David Craddock PNBPT & Elite Homes Heritage Way Ltd DATE REGISTERED: 17.04.2018
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING: (I) ERECTION OF 17 THREE-STOREY TERRACED DWELLINGS IN SOUTHERN DEMI-BASTION, (II) DEMOLITION OF FORMER COOK HOUSE AND ERECTION OF 4 THREE-STOREY TERRACED DWELLINGS, (III) DEMOLITION OF QUICK FIRE SHELL PAINTING ROOM AND ERECTION OF 1 THREE- STOREY DETACHED DWELLING, (IV) ERECTION OF THREE DETACHED DWELLINGS IN RAMPARTS, (V) CHANGE OF USE OF FORMER SHELL PAINTING ROOM TO FORM 4 DWELLINGS, (V) CHANGE OF USE OF E MAGAZINE TO CRAFT BREWERY (CLASS B1), (VI) CHANGE OF USE OF FORMER PROOF HOUSE TO STORE (CLASS B8), (VII) CHANGE OF USE OF FORMER SHELL STORE (BUILDING Q) TO FORM 1 UNIT OF HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION (CLASS C3), (VIII) CHANGE OF USE OF CASE STORE EXHIBITION AND CONFERENCE CENTRE (BUILDING M) TO FORM RESTAURANT/PUB (CLASS A3/A4), (IX) CHANGE OF USE OF FORMER SHIFTING HOUSE (BUILDING U) TO FORM 1 UNIT OF HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION (CLASS C3), AND (X) CHANGE OF USE OF FORMER MINES AND COUNTERMEASURES STORE (BUILDING P) TO COASTAL FORCES MUSEUM (CLASS D1) (LISTED BUILDINGS IN CONSERVATION AREA AND SCHEDULED MONUMENT) (as amended by plans received 10.05.18, 02.04.19 and 03.05.19, additional ecological information received 21.05.18 and 30.05.18, additional transport information received 29.05.18, additional flooding information received 01.06.18 and 08.05.19, additional supporting information received 12.04.19 & 09.05.19 and as amplified by emails received 17.5.18) Priddys Hard Heritage Way Gosport Hampshire PO12 4LE
The Site and the proposal
1. The application site is located within Priddy's Hard which was formerly the site of a Royal Ordnance Yard whose purpose was to arm the ships of the Royal Navy. Priddy's Hard was first developed following the construction of the ramparts around 1760, when this isolated and defensible site became the location for a large gunpowder magazine for the Royal Navy. This magazine soon expanded into ancillary stores and rooms for the manipulation of explosives, in addition to a Camber quay, offices and accommodation. By the mid-19th Century the facility had further expanded to include a laboratory complex and associated cottages and by the end of the 19th Century the facilities had expanded further with numerous stores and four separate magazines. By World War One the facility had also developed beyond the ramparts and subsequently continued to expand at Bedenham. The site remained in use by the Royal Navy until the 1980's and was used to arm the fleet during the Falkland's War.
2. Priddy's Hard retains many listed buildings, including a Grade I and three Grade II* Listed Buildings, in addition to a large Scheduled Ancient Monument. The whole site, including the ramparts, is within the Priddy's Hard Conservation Area. Priddy's Hard is arguably the most important historic ordnance complex in England and retains a wide range of historic buildings spanning over two centuries of use: all purpose-built to provide ordnance to the Royal Navy.
3. The ramparts are a designated Scheduled Ancient Monument. Within the boundary of the monument there is evidence for a number of phases of development both with respect to the ramparts, but also with buildings that have appeared over the last 150 years. Understanding the relative significance of the layers of historic earthworks and structures that survive within the area of the ramparts is essential in evaluating the impact of the current proposal.
4. The first phase of the ramparts originated around 1760 when two demi-bastions were constructed facing westward, set between, and linked, by linear defences. The ramparts were formed from raised earth banks accessed by earth ramps onto a terre-plein (the level area where cannon and
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 3 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 troops were deployed to fire over the defences). A dry moat and a small glacis (a gently sloping earthwork beyond the ramparts) were formed to the immediate west of the ramparts, and an entrance to the site was via a tunnel towards the northern end of the defences. The historic evidence indicates that these initial defences were soon neglected but were hastily repaired on news of an imminent invasion scare in 1779. The number of gun positions in the 18th Century suggests some degree of remodelling within the early history of the ramparts but the first significant upgrade took place c1846. At this date the ramparts received extensive re-working, a caponiere (firing position facing at right angles to the ramparts) and fire step were added at the northern and southern ends; the dry moat was clay-lined and turned into a wet moat; the gun positions were moved; a sally port was inserted and the entrance was reformed. The central portion of the moat was simplified by linking the moat west of the north and south demi-bastions with a shortened connecting moat between the two, and infilling the area to its east. New ramps for artillery also seem to have been added within the demi-bastions.
5. By 1880 further changes occurred by which time new gun positions had been constructed, the tunnel entrance modified once more, and ready use magazines and shell recesses appeared. Within the southern (left) demi-bastion four shell recesses and two expense powder magazines also appear to have been added as part of either the 1846 remodelling or within the decades thereafter. By the late 19th Century, however, the purpose and function of the ramparts had long been abandoned and the military began to populate the area with buildings associated with the manufacture or storage of naval munitions. The northern demi-bastion was completely filled by E Magazine, which also resulted in the loss of the artillery ramps to its terre-plein. At the southern end of the defences buildings associated with the Shell Filling Rooms also appeared in phases. Most significantly, around the turn of the 19th to 20th Century, a series of laboratory buildings and associated concrete traverse walls and railed platform resulted in extensive modifications to the southern half of the ramparts. This included cutting the profile of the ramparts back and lowering the height of the southern demi-bastion and the defences to its south; buildings a series of concrete traverse walls cutting into the same area; remodelling most of the glacis to the south of the demi- bastion; inserting new earth traverses around new buildings in this same area (including the Paint Store); and largely backfilling the moat to facilitate the construction of the concrete platforms for the rails running through a significant portion of the moated area. Further changes included the demolition of the northern tunnelled entrance to the site; widening of the access road; the demolition of most of the southern caponiere; the removal of various shell recesses and stores; and the addition of further buildings through the first half of the 20th Century.
6. The result is a complex series of layers of earthworks and buildings. The best surviving portion of the ramparts is undoubtedly the outer face of the northern demi-bastion. This demi-bastion did not experience the significant remodelling of the southern demi-bastion and additionally retains its wet moat (at least in part). Apart from the loss of the entrance tunnel, the most severe change has occurred to the southern demi-bastion and the land to its south where it can be particularly difficult to appreciate the context of the original earthworks.
7. To the south-west of the site is the recently completed Shell Filling Rooms development, to the north is an area of grassed open space forming the cordon sanitaire outside the defences beyond which is a modern residential development, to the east is the remainder of the Heritage Area which includes a number of other historic buildings and the residential development competed by Crest Nicholson and to the south is the Millennium bridge providing cycle and footpath access to the Town Centre via Royal Clarence Yard. The site is located adjacent to Portsmouth Harbour which is designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA), a Ramsar Site and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The harbour is of international importance to brent geese and wading birds with noteworthy flora. Parts of site are located within Flood Zones 2 and 3.
8. This proposal relates to a number of existing buildings and separate parcels of land all within the wider Priddy's Hard Heritage Area and accessed via Heritage Way and the existing highway network. The wider area also includes a number of houses and flats built in the first decade of this century, and the Explosion Museum located principally within the Grade I Listed former Grand Magazine and adjoining buildings.
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 4 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 9. This application was considered by the Regulatory Board in June 2018 where it was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to, if required, a referral to the Secretary of State if the Environment Agency did not withdraw their objection on flooding grounds, the completion of a legal agreement to secure various planning obligations and a comprehensive suite of planning conditions.
10. Following the resolution by the Board, a number of amendments have been made to the proposals in addition to the submission of additional flood related information. These can be summarised as follows:
- the demolition of the Quick Fire Shell Filling Room and the erection of one three-storey detached dwelling instead of two semi-detached dwellings; - the change of use of E Magazine to a craft brewery instead of a distillery (Class B1); - the change of use of the former proof house to a store (Class B8) instead of offices for a distillery (Class B1); - the change of use of the former Shell Store (Building Q) to form one unit of holiday accommodation (Class C3) instead of a store for a distillery (Class B8); - the change of use of the Case Store exhibition and conference centre (Building M) to a restaurant/pub (Class A3/A4) instead of a partial change of use to form a unit of holiday accommodation (Class C3); and, - full planning being sought for the erection of three detached dwellings in the southern part of the ramparts instead of Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved).
11. The proposal for the erection of a single storey building to form a unit of holiday accommodation (Class C3) adjacent to the former shifting house has been deleted from the application.
12. The other elements of the proposal for which full planning permission is being sought remain unchanged. These are as follows:
- the erection of 17 three-storey terraced dwellings in the southern demi-bastion; - the demolition of the former cook house and the erection of 4 three-storey terraced dwellings; - the change of use of the former Shell Painting Room to form 4 dwellings; - the change of use of the former Shifting House (Building U) to form a unit of holiday accommodation (Class C3); and, - the change of use of the former Mines and Countermines Store (Building P) to a coastal forces museum (Class D1).
13. The proposals relate to a number of key listed buildings which would be brought into use as a result of the application including: E Magazine (Grade II*); the Mines and Counter Mines Store (Grade II); C Magazine (Grade II*); Shell Store (Grade II); Shifting House (Grade II); the Shell Painting Room (Grade II); Expense Magazine (Grade II); the Case Store and Conference Rooms and Rolling Way (Grade II). The former Proof House, although not listed in its own right, is historically significant and would also be brought into use. Two historic buildings, the heavily altered Quick Fire Shell Filling Room and the remains of the Cook House (which has been delisted) are proposed to be demolished.
14. The 17 proposed dwellings within the southern demi-bastion would be aligned roughly north- south in three parallel rows. Those to the east are located to align with the existing buildings to their north and south, but to a more modest scale, with the remaining buildings set within the demi- bastion to minimise closing views to the defences from within the area. The new build follows a balanced neo-classical style in design and proportioning which complements the character of some of the historic buildings on the site. The proposals include the use of a mottled red brick and slate roof to ensure the buildings relate well to their wider context.
15. The short terrace, proposed to replace the former cook house, follows the general design indicated for the southern demi-bastion, with the exception of its east elevation which would include a connecting row of dormers on its third floor to ensure the lower two-thirds of the elevation balances with the building to its north. The south elevation also includes a single vertical window
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 5 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 where the development would be adjacent to the bend in the access road to the former Shell Filling Rooms.
16. The Grade II Listed Shell Painting Room dates to c.1900 and is built with a metal frame interspersed with red brick panels. At the upper level is a continuous run of timber windows beneath a hipped slate roof. Internally the space is open plan with no features of interest. A blast wall had at some point been inserted behind what appear to be later southern doors. The proposal to convert the building into four residential units would result in the eastern and northern elevations remaining unaltered, a modest change to the southern elevation to enable access via a new flight of steps; and alterations along the western façade that are design to complement the rhythm of the existing design whilst facilitating new entrances to each unit. At a lower level proposed new doors would be faced in timber, and some upper sections of window would be dropped to enable access to a small balcony area above a new bin/bike store.
17. As part of the proposals for the former Shell Painting Room the earth traverse, to its west, would be lowered to provide an area of parking and landscaping and open up views to the Creek. The lowering of this traverse would revert the form of the landscape nearer to its appearance prior to c.1900.
18. The Quick Fire Shell Filling Room dates from c.1887-9 and was heavily altered in the 20th Century when its original pitched slate roof was removed and replaced with a flat roof. It formed part of the wider Shell Filling complex which included the former Shell Filling Rooms and the Expense Magazine (Grade II Listed), to the south-west. The landscape to the south and south-west of the building was completely changed with the raising of brick and earth traverses, the addition of railed access for narrow gauge trains, and insertion of above ground pipes: all associated with the shell production process.
19. The revised proposals would result in the replacement of the existing building with a single three storey red-brick dwelling in broadly the same location as the existing Quick Fire Shell Filling Room, together with the retention of a large part of the earth traverse that surrounds the existing building. The proposal also includes the reuse of the adjacent Expense Magazine as an ancillary outbuilding to the proposed dwellings. The contemporary design is intended to complement the recently built red-brick dwellings on the site of the former Shell Filling Rooms to the south-west, whilst being cut away on their upper-western side to lessen their mass and replicate the pitch of the traverse banks and ramparts.
20. The large E Magazine (Grade II* Listed) was built c1878 and was remodelled within a few years of completion when the tunnels to its east were blocked and a new railed link formed near the south-eastern corner of the building. It served initially as a Powder Magazine and subsequently as a Cordite Magazine. A viewing point was added to the roof c.1939. A section of the interior floor and timber structure has been lost in the southern of the two interior chambers following historic fire damage. E Magazine has been vacant for a considerable time and is at increasing risk of deterioration. The amended proposal is to convert the interior for use as craft brewery. This would involve virtually no alteration to the internal north range, but to facilitate the installation of machinery the missing section of the southern range floor would not be replaced and the existing internal depth would be utilised for brewing equipment.
21. To enable machinery to be inserted into the building a section located towards the south-east corner of the south elevation would be opened up. Opposite this new entrance a small yard would be created by removing earth forming part of the current traverse and inserting timber doors through two sections of the brick wall constructed around this traverse. Externally the plans indicate an extensive amount of repair and restoration works with a few modest additions: new steel doors; a fire curtain and ramp between the yard and magazine, and discretely located external plant. As part of the works two of the tunnels would be reopened within the traverse to the east.
22. The Proof House (also known as Building 335) was first built between 1897 and 1900. It was reconstructed in 1921 after an explosion and largely dates from that period. It is built in red brick with a pitched roof and has a lean-to single storey southern extension and a veranda on its north
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 6 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 side. The proposed works comprise the restoration of the Proof House and the reconstruction of the veranda following good conservation practice and with minimal alteration.
23. The Grade II Shell Store (Building Q) was built around 1879 and was substantially enlarged in 1892. It is built in red brick with a pitched slate roof and retains small windows at its upper level. Built as a secure store it is now proposed to be used as a holiday let. Externally the proposals would involve minimal alterations to the building other than the insertion of two windows and the removal of security bars over windows.
24. A Covered Rolling Way was built connecting the Grand Magazine complex to the Laboratory complex sometime after 1865. Three Case Stores were later added to its south: two built c.1881 and one around 1901. The southernmost Case Store was rebuilt in 1938 with a flat roof. These buildings are Grade II Listed and are currently in use as museum offices and as a small exhibition/conference centre. The proposals include the demolition of southernmost building (dating from 1938) together with the conversion of the northern (existing offices) and middle case store (the exhibition/conference centre) to form a restaurant/pub.
25. The former Shifting House (subsequently known as the Royal Laboratory Examining Room), is Grade II Listed and dates to 1847/8, and was possibly rebuilt in brick at a later date. Built in red brick with a hipped slate roof the only internal details of note relate to the existing timber roof structure. The proposed conversion to a holiday let would involve some internal subdivision with partition walls inserted to ensure the roof structure is unharmed and remains exposed. The eastern double-doors and door on the south elevation are proposed to have a new glazed door inserted behind each.
26. The former Mines and Countermines Store was constructed in 1899-1900 at a time when mining engineering had become a significant new branch of the military to enhance the defences of Spithead and provide support to the Royal Navy. Built in red brick with a pitched roof the buildings comprise one large open plan store with a small attached store at its south-eastern corner. The proposals include the insertion of new doors at the southern end of the main building to facilitate access for large historic coastal forces vessels to be placed on permanent display. Internally, only a small connecting door and a small pod for a toilet are proposed as part of its conversion to a Coastal Forces museum.
27. The ramparts were altered around 1900 with the insertion of many laboratory buildings and a raised concrete platform for a narrow gauge train. The proposed three-storey dwellings, for which full planning permission is now sought, would be in the location of three of these former buildings and set between the existing concrete and earth traverse walls. These three units would be partially screened from the east by existing buildings. The proposed design is very similar to those dwellings recently constructed to the south-west, between the brick traverse walls of the former Shell Filling Rooms.
25. The application is accompanied by details of the provision of car parking to serve the various elements of the proposal that would, in part, reuse existing spaces that are in the control of the Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust who own those parts of the Priddy's Hard Heritage Area that do not form part of the residential development built by Crest Nicholson. Overall the proposals demonstrate that parking, including for future residents, staff and visitors, for the various element of the proposal would be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Parking SPD.
26. The application is supported by a range of documentation including Design and Access Statements, Heritage Statements, Transport Statement, Ecological information and Flood Risk Assessments that have been amplified and augmented through the life of the application.
Relevant Planning History
Priddys Hard
98/26230/GD - Outline - erection of up to 700 residential units - permitted 24.02.1998
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 7 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 99/00336/FULL - construction of extensions & refurbishment of existing buildings, together with car parking facilities to provide museum - permitted 08.12.1999 04/00613/FULL - mixed use development consisting of 198 residential units with associated roads, parking and landscaping and the change of use of existing buildings and land to leisure, commercial and community uses and open space - permitted 21.03.2005 17/00600/LBA - Listed Building application - (i) internal and external alterations to E magazine to facilitate conversion to distillery, (ii) internal and external alterations to former shell store (building Q) to facilitate conversion to store for distillery, (iii) internal and external alterations to C magazine, (iv) internal and external alterations to case store exhibition and conference centre (building M) to facilitate conversion to holiday accommodation, (v) internal and external alterations to former shifting house (building U) to facilitate conversion to holiday accommodation, (vi) internal and external alterations to former mines and countermeasures store (building P) to facilitate conversion to museum - consented 22.06.2018
Former Shell Filling Rooms
05/00306/FULL - conversion of existing buildings to form 5no. dwellings and erection of 4 new dwellings with associated landscaping, parking, flood defences and access road - permitted 22.08.2005 07/00020/FULL - demolition of 6 shell filling rooms and associated structures and construction of 9 dwellings with associated access, landscaping, parking and ancillary structures - permitted 24.04.2007 14/00495/FULL - removal of existing concrete slabs, repair works to existing traverse walls, alterations to sea wall and erection of 2 no. two bedroom dwellings and 7 no. three bedroom dwellings with associated landscaping and car parking - permitted 24.07.2015 16/00325/FULL - erection of a detached, two storey, three bed dwelling with two covered parking spaces - permitted 09.11.2016
Relevant Policies
Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011 – 2029: LP1 Sustainable Development LP2 Infrastructure LP3 Spatial Strategy LP9A Allocations outside of Regeneration Areas: Mixed Use site LP10 Design LP11 Designated Heritage Assets including Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Registered Historic Parks & Gardens LP12 Designated Heritage Assets: Conservation Areas LP18 Tourism LP22 Accessibility to New Development LP23 Layout of Sites and Parking LP24 Housing LP32 Community, Cultural and Built Leisure Facilities LP41 Green Infrastructure LP42 International and Nationally Important Habitats LP44 Protecting Species and Other Features of Nature Conservation Importance LP45 Flood Risk and Coastal Erosion LP47 Contamination and Unstable Land
Supplementary Planning Documents: Gosport Borough Council Design Guidance: Supplementary Planning Document: February 2014 Gosport Borough Council Parking: Supplementary Planning Document: February 2014 Solent Special Protection Areas Gosport Bird Disturbance Mitigation Protocol 2014
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), July 2018
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 8 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019
Particular obligations fall upon the Local Planning Authority in determining any application which might affect a listed building or its setting or a Conservation Area. Section 66 of The Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 (as amended) places a duty on the authority to have "special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses". Section 72 of the same act requires that the authority pay: "special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area".
Consultations
Portsmouth LPA No response received.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation No objection.
Environment Agency (Hants & IOW) Withdraw previous objection subject to imposition of conditions and S106 to secure provision of flood defences.
Historic England Priddy's Hard is an outstanding ensemble of heritage assets. It is suffering considerably from disuse and its regeneration potential has for many years been frustrated by a wide range of environmental constraints and challenging local market conditions. This scheme would be a major step towards securing a beneficial future for the whole site, including its many redundant listed buildings and scheduled ancient monument. We think this would be a significant public benefit. These applications would nonetheless entail a high level of harm to the significance of the scheduled earthwork defences at Priddy's Hard. They are also contrary to your Council's local plan, which allocates these defences for public open space, not residential development. However, we recognise that there are exceptional circumstances in this case which mean that some form of enabling development (i.e. development that is contrary to policy but justified to secure important heritage benefits) may be necessary if conservation of the site's many heritage assets, including its defences, is to be secured in the medium to long term. The present proposal incorporates grant aid from various sources. This funding minimises the amount of enabling development (and harm) that is necessary to secure that conservation. Although the harm associated with this development remains high, we would not object in this case if your Council determines that this scheme represents the least harmful means of securing the considerable public benefit of the site's long- term conservation, and that these benefits
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 9 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 outweigh the disbenefits of departing from your local plan policies.
Joint Committee Of The National Amenity No response received. Societies
Natural England Original response: No objection subject to mitigation measures set out in the Appropriate Assessment being secured. Supplementary response: Raise issue of nutrient neutrality in contact of recent Court decisions and advise that the Appropriate Assessment previously completed should be updated to take account of this issue.
Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds No response received.
The Gosport Society Support proposals in principle. No objection to proposals for works to Listed Buildings outside of Ramparts area. Continue to object to proposals for new build development on the Scheduled Ancient Monument. Raise concern about scale of development on Cookhouse site. Object to lack of detail about provision of public access to Ramparts and waterfront. Suggest more detail about bin storage areas are needed and that provision for car parking should include facilities for electric car charging.
Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership Original response: Object on grounds that submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Flood Risk Statement do not sufficiently outline how flood risk will be mitigated, do not demonstrate that the development will not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. No response received in respect of amended flooding information.
Crime Prevention & Design No objection. Highlights opportunities to reduce crime and recommends incorporation of crime prevention measures.
Hampshire Fire And Rescue Service No objection.
HCC Ecology No objection subject to ecological mitigation measures being secured.
Local Highway Authority No objection to overall level of development and trip generation. No objection to road layout. Request submission of further information to demonstrate proposed shared surfaces are safe, adequate visibility can be provided and vehicles can turn. Request financial contribution towards off-site
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 10 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 cycleway improvements.
HCC Local Lead Flood Authority Initial objection on grounds of inadequate Flood Risk Assessment and drainage details. Request further drainage details be provided. Update to be provided.
HCC Landscape Planning & Heritage No response received.
Queen's Harbour Master No response received.
Building Control No response received.
Economic Prosperity Welcome and supports continued redevelopment of Priddy's Hard Heritage Area. Provision of new museum and distillery as tourist attractions as well as holiday accommodation will enhance Priddy's Hard as a tourist/visitor destination and add to the Boroughs overall tourism/visitor offer. Proposals will also create new job opportunities for residents.
Environmental Health No objection subject to conditions relating to contaminated land.
Housing Services Strategic No response received.
Streetscene Parks & Horticulture No objection.
Streetscene Waste & Cleansing No objection.
Response to Public Advertisement
15 letters of objection. Issues raised:- - impact on heritage assets; - impact on wildlife; - loss of habitat; - loss of open space - public opposition to development in ramparts - graveled roads inappropriate; - existing roads narrow and unsuitable for more traffic; - inadequate parking; - loss of parking; - exacerbation of existing drainage issues; - distillery out of character; - potential for fumes from distillery; - disruption caused by construction; - loss of privacy; - loss of light; - no mention of land contamination; - concern about use of modern/inappropriate materials; - increased demand on existing health and education facilities; - potential for fire/explosion at distillery; - modern design inappropriate in Ramparts area; - no benefit to existing residents; - consultation period should be extended to allow for amount of application to be considered;
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 11 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 - loss of sea view; - loss of property value.
1 letter in support has been received that also raises concerns about lack of cycle parking and waterside access.
A petition with 91 signatures has been received objecting to development in the Ramparts area on heritage and ecological grounds.
1 letter of objection to amended proposals: Issues raised: - existing roads narrow and unsuitable for more traffic.
Principal Issues
1. The application has been publicised in accordance with the Council's Statement of Community Involvement. The loss of view from an existing property and the loss of property value are not material planning considerations. The main issues are therefore whether the principle of the development is acceptable and whether the amended proposals remain acceptable in design, heritage, amenity, highways, ecological and flooding terms.
2. Policy LP9A of the Local Plan relates to most of the Priddy's Hard Heritage Area and allocates the wider site for a mix of uses including residential (up to 100 dwellings), commercial, community and leisure. The current application is the first phase of wider proposals to complete the redevelopment of the former armaments facility and deliver the repair, refurbishment and reuse of all of the vacant Listed Buildings and the opening up of the ramparts to the public. The mix of uses proposed accords with Policy LP9A in this respect and includes a mix of uses that would expand the tourism potential of the site.
3. The ramparts are allocated in the Local Plan as Open Space with the intention of providing a publicly accessible park. The proposed residential development within the Ramparts area would conflict with this aspiration; however regard must be had to the existence of the current and historic presence of buildings on the sites of all of the proposed dwellings. The current proposals would not prejudice the delivery of a publicly accessible park on the remainder of the Ramparts which would be unaffected by the current proposals and which it is intended to deliver as part of a future phase of development. Overall, although there is harm through the extent of the development in the Ramparts, the proposals are considered acceptable in principle and in accordance with Policy LP9A of the Local Plan.
4. The proposals include development within the boundary of the Scheduled Monument (SAM) and therefore will require a separate Consent from Historic England in order for those elements to be carried out. Nevertheless the designation of the SAM and the impact of the proposals upon it is a matter to be considered as part of this planning application.
5. It is accepted that some harm to the wider setting of the Ramparts would result from the proposed construction of the dwelling on the site of the former Quick Fire Shell Filling rooms. However, this harm has to be balanced with the extensive benefits brought about by the reuse of many listed buildings and the improved landscaping in the context of this largely damaged area of the Ramparts. This landscape could be managed and improved as a result of the current proposals.
6. The proposed lowering of the traverse adjacent to the former Shell Painting Room would improve the setting of the Ramparts and revert the form of the landscape to nearer its appearance prior to c.1900 at which date significant alterations were carried out as the armaments facility expanded. Given the history of the site and its alteration over time, it would be considered appropriate to impose a planning condition to secure an archaeological investigation alongside the development.
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 12 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 7. Although the proposals would result in harm to the setting of the Ramparts, some of the proposed changes could be viewed as positive enhancement in that they would effectively undo 20th Century alterations and lead to the restoration of the historic form of part of the landscape west of the southern end of the Ramparts. The level of harm is less than substantial and must be weighed against any wider public benefits of the overall scheme.
8. The proposals would result in the repair, restoration and reuse of a number of important listed buildings including E Magazine (Grade II*); the Mines and Counter Mines Store (Grade II); C Magazine (Grade II*); Shell Store (Grade II); Shifting House (Grade II); the Paint Store (Grade II); Expense Magazine (Grade II). These buildings are currently unused or in limited use. The proposed uses are all considered appropriate and compatible with the listed status of the buildings. The associated external alterations to the buildings are all considered acceptable such that they would not harm the special architectural and historic interest of the buildings. The proposals therefore comply with Policy LP11 of the Local Plan.
9. The character of the Priddy's Hard Conservation Area is predominately focused on the complex of historic buildings associated with the former armaments facility, however the existing newer residential development also makes a positive contribution. The proposed works to the listed buildings to bring them into active use would constitute an enhancement to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The scale, siting and detailing of the proposed new build elements would complement the more modern residential development that forms the existing built environment and whilst some harm to the setting of the Ramparts may result, on balance the benefits of the wider scheme are considered to outweigh the harm. The submission and approval of external facing materials and architectural details could be secured by the imposition of suitably worded planning conditions. The proposals would, on balance, harm the character and appearance of part of the Conservation Area within the context of the Ramparts, but would help secure the future use of key heritage assets, and therefore complies with Policy LP11 and LP12 of the Local Plan with regard to the impact on heritage assets and their setting, and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
10. The proposed new build dwellings that would front Heritage Way and Searle Drive would be sited over 20 metres from the facing buildings on the opposite side of the existing road network (Whiston House, Issac House and Rutherford House) that are three and four storeys in height. The separation between the existing and proposed blocks are comparable to, and in some cases are greater than, those between existing buildings in the Heritage Area. The separation distances between the existing and proposed buildings are considered acceptable such that there would be no significant harm to the residential amenities of existing occupiers.
11. The separation distances between the new build dwellings within the demi-bastion are below the guidelines set out in the Design SPD, however the relationship and orientation of the dwellings are considered to provide an appropriate standard of amenity for future occupiers. Given the limited depth of the gardens proposed within the demi-bastion, it would be appropriate to remove permitted development rights for extensions to ensure that adequate external amenity space were retained for future occupiers. It must be recognised that this part of the site is constrained by the surrounding Scheduled Monument and the need to allow a degree of separation to safeguard its setting. This limits how the proposed level of new development (which is required to support the restoration of the listed buildings) can be accommodated within the demi-bastion.
12. The new dwellings proposed within and adjacent to the Ramparts would be carefully designed and oriented to maximise the opportunities for light and outlook given the surrounding earthwork structures. In this respect they would be similar to those dwellings built within the brick traverses of the former Shell Filling Rooms that have in effect a single aspect at the open end of the traverse. Given the heritage constraints of their location, the standard of amenity that would be provided for future occupiers is considered acceptable.
13. The proposed non-residential elements of the proposal are all considered acceptable such that they would not give rise to a level of activity or pollution that would adversely affect the occupiers of other neighbouring buildings. The proposed brewery has the potential to make use of plant and
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 13 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 equipment that may emit noise or odours. However, this could be addressed through the imposition of a suitably worded planning condition. Whilst the proposed use of the Case Store exhibition and conference centre (Building M) as a restaurant/pub has the potential to create noise and odours, this could be controlled through the imposition of suitably worded planning conditions to limit the operating hours of the pub and to secure the installation of appropriate noise and odour mitigation measures. Overall it is considered that the development as whole is acceptable in amenity terms and complies with Policy LP10 of the Local Plan.
14. The overall level of traffic that the development and mix of uses would be likely to generate can be accommodated without detrimentally impacting on the highway network. The proposals comply with Policy LP22 of the Local Plan in this regard. Concern has been raised about the use of shared surfaces, whether adequate visibility can be provided and whether vehicles can turn. It is considered that these issues could be addressed through the imposition of suitably worded planning conditions and that appropriate provision can be achieved and secured. Subject to such conditions the proposals would comply with Policies LP22 and LP23 of the Local Plan in this regard.
15. The proposal would make use of a number of existing parking spaces located throughout the Heritage Area that are currently not used or are used on an informal basis but are under the control of the land owner. Taken together with additional parking spaces that would be created as part of the proposals, the application demonstrates that sufficient parking can be provided to serve the likely day-to-day demands of future occupiers and which would comply with the levels of parking identified in the Parking SPD. The provision, details (including surfacing) and management of the car parking areas could be secured through the imposition of suitably worded planning conditions. Adequate pedestrian and cycle links would be provided to serve all elements of the proposal via the existing highway network. The proposed brewery could be serviced by larger vehicles that may not be able to park off road. In recognition of the potential impact this may have on the free flow of traffic along Heritage Way, it is considered necessary and reasonable to secure funding towards a Traffic Regulation Order to prohibit loading on Heritage Way, which in the area around E Magazine is currently unrestricted.
16. It is recognised that the existing museum car park has a limited capacity some of which would now be shared with other uses. The applicant advises that additional capacity can be provided as and when required (i.e. when events are being held) on the grassed cordon sanitaire which is within their control. The occasional use of the cordon sanitaire to provide a facility for overflow car parking is considered necessary to protect the amenities of existing and future occupiers and to safeguard highway safety and could be secured through a legal agreement.
17. The submitted details indicate provision being made for the parking of cycles and the storage of waste, however no substantive details have been provided. Nevertheless it is considered that the site is capable of providing these facilities in an acceptable manner. A planning condition could be imposed to secure the provision of long and short stay cycle parking. A further planning condition could be imposed to secure the provision of suitable facilities for the storage and collection of waste from both the residential and commercial elements of the proposal.
18. Parts of the site are known to be at risk from flooding such that the introduction of new residential units has the potential to increase the risk to both life and property. The submission of additional information in relation to flood defences has resulted in objections that had been received from consultees being withdrawn. The principle of new residential development in an area at risk of flooding is, in this instance, considered acceptable as the proposed dwellings are needed as an enabling development to contribute towards the costs of the restoration of a number of Listed Buildings and measures can be put in place to protect the new development from flooding. The delivery of flood protection measures could be secured by a legal agreement and by the imposition of suitably worded planning conditions.
19. The proposed holidays lets would, due to their proximity to the harbour be at a greater risk of flooding and as such their use should be restricted by the imposition of a suitably worded planning condition to prevent them being used as permanent dwellings. Details of ground and floor levels and the preparation of a flood warning and evacuation plan can all be secured through the
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 14 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 imposition of suitably worded planning conditions. Subject to flood prevention and mitigation measures being provided the proposal would comply with Policies LP9A and LP45 of the Local Plan.
20. In recognition of the ecologically sensitive location of the site and its proximity to sites known to host protected species the application is accompanied by a range of supporting ecological information, which has been augmented by additional survey and other details. Prior to its consideration by the Regulatory Board in June 2018 the Council had undertaken an Appropriate Assessment which concluded that mitigation measures could be implemented that would avoid adverse effects on the integrity of Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site, and prevent harm to the special interests of the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Natural England at that time confirmed that they agreed with conclusions of the Appropriate Assessment and raised no objection to the proposals subject to the identified mitigation being secured.
21. Natural England, in response to a reconsultation on the amendments to the proposals have raised concerns that new dwellings are causing increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus input to the water environment in the Solent with evidence that these nutrients are causing eutrophication at European and internationally designated habitat sites and that additional mitigation measures will be required to offset any increases in nitrogen discharges that would result from the proposals. Natural England advise that proposals for new residential development should achieve nitrogen neutrality to avoid harm to these sites. The applicant has been unable to demonstrate the development would be nitrogen neutral or that suitable mitigation could be provided to offset any increased nutrient output associated with the use of the proposed new dwellings. As a result the Council can no longer conclude that the proposals would avoid adverse effects on the integrity of Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site, and prevent harm to the special interests of the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The proposals must therefore be considered as conflicting with the conflict with Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and contrary to Policy LP42 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029.
22. The Habitats Regulations set out that competent authorities cannot approve projects without first having ascertained that they will not have an "adverse effect on the integrity of a European site" (AEoI). However, the Habitats Directive provides a derogation which would allow a plan or project to be approved in limited circumstances even though it would or may have an AEoI of a European site. This requires a project to meet the following three sequential tests: - There must be no feasible alternative solutions to the plan or project which are less damaging to the affected European site(s); - There must be "imperative reasons of overriding public interest" (IROPI) for the plan or project to proceed; and, - All necessary compensatory measures must be secured to ensure that the overall coherence of the network of European sites is protected.
23. Having regard to the first of the tests, it would need to be considered whether there are any other alternative uses that could support the restoration and reuse of the Listed Buildings on the site that would not involve new residential development. In terms of the second test it must be noted that IROPI can normally only relate to human health, public safety, or beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment. The third test requires that if harm to one site is to be allowed (because there are no alternatives and IROPI can be shown) all necessary compensatory measures should be secured to ensure the overall coherence of the network of European sites as a whole is protected.
24. Based on the information available at the time of writing, it appears clear that the IROPI tests could not be met in this case and as such this approach could not be used as a basis for the approval of this application. Therefore in the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary that would demonstrate that the tests needed to allow a development that would have an adverse effect on the integrity of Portsmouth Harbour and Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Areas (SPAs) could be met, the proposals should not be permitted under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 15 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019
25. The proposal would introduce new dwellings which are likely to result in increased recreational activity on the coast and a consequential impact on the protected species for which the Portsmouth Harbour SPA, the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and the Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA are designated. To address this impact, a contribution towards appropriate mitigation, in accordance with the Gosport Bird Disturbance Mitigation Protocol, is required. The applicant has indicated a willingness to provide mitigation in accordance with the Protocol such that the proposal would comply with Policies LP42 and LP44 of the Local Plan. Subject to a legal agreement to secure the delivery of the mitigation this aspect of the proposal would accord with Policies LP42 and LP44 of the Local Plan.
26. In accordance with Policy LP24 of the Local Plan, the applicant would normally be required to enter into a planning obligation to secure the provision of affordable housing on site. This would equate to 12 dwellings being made available on the affordable housing market. In this instance the applicants submission indicates that the proposed new build residential development is in effect a form of enabling development that would bridge the 'conservation deficit' associated with the costs of bring the listed buildings back into use measured against their value once restored. The applicant has provided evidence demonstrating that the funds that would be raised by the sale of the land for the new build elements are essential to deliver the restoration of the Listed Buildings. In these circumstances the non-provision of affordable housing could be considered acceptable and the non- compliance with Policy LP24 is justified. Nevertheless a legal agreement would be required to ensure the delivery of the restoration of the Listed Buildings in a timely manner and to ensure that the new build residential development is not implemented in isolation.
27. Due to the previous use of the land there is potential for contamination to be present on the site. However, this need not prevent the proposal being implemented successfully. Planning conditions could be imposed to secure the investigation and if necessary remediation of any contamination, the proposal would therefore accord with Policy LP47 of the Local Plan.
28. This proposal would deliver the repair, restoration and reuse of a number of important heritage assets, however it would also result in some harm to the ramparts both as a Scheduled Monument and as an area of designated Open Space. This harm would result from the residential development that the applicant submits is necessary to deliver the repair, restoration and reuse of the Listed Buildings. The information provided by the applicant demonstrates that the residential development is required to bridge the conservation deficit and that there is no less harmful way that this could be achieved without potentially prejudicing the delivery of the repair, restoration and reuse of the remaining Listed Buildings through a future phase of development within the wider Heritage Area.
29. It should also be recognised that the delivery of the current proposal has the potential to lead to a significantly increased prospect that the long-term future of the remaining Listed Buildings in the Heritage Area will be secured by a future phase of development.
30. The proposal is considered acceptable in design, Listed Building, amenity, transport and flooding terms. The harm associated with the proposed residential development in the Ramparts is, in this instance, considered to be outweighed by the wider public benefits associated with securing the future of the Listed Buildings and a publicly accessible route through the southern part of the Ramparts. However, in the absence of any substantive evidence in respect of the tests needed to allow a development that would have an adverse effect on the integrity of Portsmouth Harbour and Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Areas (SPAs) the proposals should not be permitted under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
Equalities Impact Assessment: No Implications
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse
For the following reason:-
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 16 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019
1. The proposal fails to demonstrate the development would be nitrogen neutral and/or would provide mitigation to off-set any increased nutrient discharge associated with the proposal and would therefore cause unacceptable harm to European and Internationally designated habitat sites which would be detrimental to the protected and other species for which these areas are designated. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies LP42 and LP44 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 17 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template
Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019
ITEM NUMBER: 02. APPLICATION NUMBER: 19/00129/FULL APPLICANT: Trevor Lazenbury Winlaz Property Ltd DATE REGISTERED: 25.03.2019
CHANGE OF USE FROM DWELLING (CLASS C3) TO A 7 BED (10 PERSON) HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (SUI GENERIS) 4 Avenue Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 1LA
The Site and the proposal
1. The site is located on the east side of Avenue Road and comprises a red brick, semi-detached property with front and rear gardens. It has a two-storey projecting bay window on the front elevation with a gable roof and window providing light to the roofspace. The accommodation of the existing property is over three floors and includes four bedrooms. The property has a low brick wall to the front boundary, approximately 0.5m high. There is an existing unmade pathway adjacent to the southern elevation of number 2 Avenue Road which has a locked gate providing access to the rear gardens of both number 2 and number 4.
2. The surrounding area is primarily residential, albeit there are commercial properties along Stoke Road to the south, along with Christ Church. Avenue Road, comprises a variety of properties styles primarily within two-storey houses. There are flats close to the site, both within Avenue Chambers and 3 Avenue Road. Cray House also comprises commercial uses and flats accessed from Stoke Road and flats accessed from Avenue Road. Number 2 is the other half of this pair of semi- detached properties and to the south. It has a 1.8m fence and gate around its rear garden preventing unauthorised access from the path shared with the application property. Number 6 has a single storey lean-to attached to the northern elevation of the application property.
3. The proposals are for the conversion of the existing property into a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for up to 10 persons. There are no external alterations proposed to facilitate this change of use and the internal alterations, some of which have commenced, do not require planning permission. Notwithstanding this, the proposals would create 7 separate bedrooms, with two on the ground floor, 3 on the first floor and two within the roofspace. The ceiling within the first floor room at the rear has been lowered to provide additional head height for the room above. Each bedroom would be provided with an en-suite. A communal kitchen/dining/lounge would be provided at ground floor level with a door to the garden. A cycle store is proposed within the rear garden. Bin storage is identified within the front garden behind the existing low boundary wall. No parking is proposed on the site, nor would any be possible. There are existing double yellow lines and 'H' bar markings adjacent to and opposite Cray House at the junction with Stoke Road.
Relevant Planning History
Nil
Relevant Policies
Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011 – 2029: LP1 Sustainable Development LP3 Spatial Strategy LP10 Design LP23 Layout of Sites and Parking LP24 Housing
Supplementary Planning Documents: Gosport Borough Council Parking: Supplementary Planning Document: February 2014
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), July 2018
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 19 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019
Consultations
Streetscene Waste & Cleansing Adequate storage space shown for required bins. Bins will be in public sight. Bins will require placing out, kerb-side to facilitate collection.
Environmental Health A Licence for a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for this property would be required from the Environmental Health Service.
Building Control No response received.
Hampshire Fire And Rescue Service Fire safety provisions should be in accordance with the Building Regulations.
Response to Public Advertisement
11 letters of objection and 1 petition containing 26 signatures from 25 addresses (6 of which have also sent in individual letters of objection) Issues raised: - lack of parking with possibility of 10 cars, plus visitors, not in accordance with the Council's Parking SPD - will result in cars parking on double yellow lines which is a highway safety issue - there isn't room in this property for 7 bedrooms - impact on quality of life, including increased noise and disturbance, along path and from this bedsit arrangement as the houses were not designed for this type of living - increase in internal and external water, waste and infrastructure could result in blockages and failures - development not in the interest of local residents and given the shortage of family homes and the council waiting list for these properties this is a missed opportunity - out of town developer looking to make a profit and is this development in anyone else's interest - should this go ahead is likely to be occupied by people there due to social economic pressure rather than personal choices, with too many people crammed into this house - inadequate space at front for the required number of bins - request a 6 foot fence is put up on the rear boundary as the difference in height between levels means that there would be an impact on safety/privacy - issues with Japanese knotweed on the property which is making its way into neighbours and concerned this will not be managed properly if the proposals go ahead - could be used as a hostel or halfway house - population of Avenue Road with HMO's, and flats is already too dense and the proposals will exacerbate this - rear access to number 4 is via a pedestrian pathway through number 2 and was given anticipating a family unit rather than multiple unrelated individuals and the giving of keys to numerous people would be a security risk - works have already started internally despite the form indicating that this is not the case - the works have already impacted on neighbour, with burning rubbish, risk to family members from falling debris and damage to property
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 20 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019
Principal Issues
1. The developer's reasons for proposing this type of development and the social backgrounds of possible occupiers are not matters that can be considered as part of the planning application. The likely impacts on the capacity of the drainage system from the additional bathrooms would be a matter for the Building Regulations and the Water Company. The application seeks permission for a HMO and the provision of a hostel would require planning permission in its own right. Matters such as burning rubbish, other health and safety issues and the management of Japanese Knotweed would be dealt with under alternative legislation to the Planning Act and cannot be considered in the determination of this application. The main issues are, therefore, whether the principle of a change of use is acceptable in this location, whether there would be a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, or whether there would be a harmful impact on the local highways network.
2. The application site is located within the Urban Area Boundary, as defined by the Gosport Bough Local Plan 2011-2029, where the principle of residential development is acceptable, subject to compliance with other policies in the Local Plan. The occupation of the property by up to 6 persons, living as a family, but not necessarily related would not result in a change of use requiring planning permission. The principle of a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) in this primarily residential location would, therefore be acceptable. The property is also of sufficient size to accommodate the number of bedrooms proposed, as identified on the plans.
3. The lawful use of the application property is as a four bedroom house and the level of activity within the building and associated with its occupation as a HMO, including the additional bathrooms, would be similar to that of a large family occupying the property. As noted above the property could also be occupied by up to 6 individuals as a HMO without planning permission. Given the existing lawful use and the fall back of a HMO for 6 people, the possible noise and disturbance associated with the occupation of the property as a 7 bedroom HMO, would not result in a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. As there would be no external alterations, or changes to garden levels the development would not result in any increase in harm from overlooking, loss of light, or outlook and it would not be possible to secure improvements to the boundary treatment as part of this application. The existing footpath to the rear of the properties is separated from the garden with number 2 and would preserve the security of this property. Any rights of way across the land would be a private legal matter. As such, the proposal would accord with policy LP10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 in this respect.
4. The application property does not provide any off-street car parking, nor is there an opportunity to do so. The existing property is a four bedroom house and the adopted Parking SPD indicates this would generate a requirement for 3 off-street spaces. It is acknowledged that the existing property has a shortfall in off-street parking provision which would need to be accommodated on-street. The proposal would increase the number of bedrooms within the property by three and the number of adults occupying the property to 10, which gives rise to the potential for extra vehicles. Whilst there will be circumstances where a larger house would be occupied by a number of related adults, or HMO's where 6 unrelated adults could occupy the property, there will be very few circumstances where a property of this size is occupied by 10 adults, all of whom have the potential to own a car. Given the proposed increase in the number of adult occupants would be 40% over a permitted HMO and would be greater than its lawful use, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the proposals would generate an additional parking requirement that would have to be accommodated on-street.
5. The Parking SPD does not have a category for HMO's but confirms that where no Design and Access Statement, or Transport Assessment is required to comply with the guidance, other information justifying the parking proposals shall be provided in support of planning applications. The applicant has not provided specific evidence regarding the likely parking generated by the proposals, or that there is existing capacity within the on-street parking, other than highlighting that there is space within the public car parks on Jamaica Place and on-street parking within Stoke Road. The parking SPD makes it clear that public car parks are provided to support the viability
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 21 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 and vitality of the retail centres and for convenient access to leisure facilities, and services and should not be relied upon to provide long stay parking, or to remain available in the long term. Similarly given the time limited restriction on Stoke Road (1 hour between 8am and 6pm Monday - Saturday), it would not be appropriate to rely on this on-street parking for use by occupiers of permanent residential accommodation.
6. In this instance Council Officers have carried out two parking surveys which have highlighted that there is no spare capacity within the surrounding roads and that numerous vehicles are being parked on double yellow lines, further highlighting availability of on-street parking as an issue locally. In the absence of any evidence from the applicant to demonstrate that there is additional capacity, in the existing highway network, to accommodate the additional parking requirements of the development, it is considered that likely additional demand would result in harmful overspill parking in the local road network, to the detriment of the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, highway and pedestrian safety. The proposals are, therefore, contrary to Policies LP10 and LP23 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan, 2011 - 2029 and the Gosport Borough Council Parking: Supplementary Planning Document.
7. The submitted plans indicate the provision of refuse and cycle storage areas. The cycle storage is identified in the rear garden and whilst in principle this is acceptable to encourage the alternative use of a car, access to the rear garden is restricted by the width and 90 degree bend in the shared footpath. The applicant has indicated that there is a right of way over a wider footpath than exists and they could take legal steps to secure this, however, there is no guarantee that this will be achieved. As such it may be necessary for bikes to be taken through the property which whilst not ideal does appear to still be possible.
8. The refuse storage is shown on the submitted plans as being within the front garden behind the low wall. Whilst it is common for houses to have their bins in the front gardens, this would normally be limited to one recycling and one refuse. Given the number of occupiers, the applicant has shown eight bins to be provided. Whilst the actual number required is likely to be less, it is considered that the provision of this number of bins within the front garden would be harmful to the visual appearance of the area. The applicant has indicated that the refuse storage could also be accommodated in the rear garden, however, this would require the bins to be moved from the rear to the front for collection and given this would require the use of the unmade shared footpath such manoeuvring would be difficult. In this instance it is highly likely that the bins would be stored in the front garden in any event. The proposals would, therefore, have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area contrary to Policy LP10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.
Equalities Impact Assessment: No Implications
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse
For the following reason(s):-
1. The proposal fails to make adequate provision for the off-street parking of vehicles to meet the likely additional demand which would result in harmful overspill parking in the local road network to the detriment of the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, highway and pedestrian safety, contrary to Policies LP10 and LP23 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan, 2011 - 2029 and the Gosport Borough Council Parking: Supplementary Planning Document.
2. The proposals by reason of the prominent location of the refuse storage facilities within the front garden would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the area contrary to Policy LP10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029.
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 22 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019
ITEM NUMBER: 03. APPLICATION NUMBER: 19/00189/FULL APPLICANT: Mr Jim Mackman Arthur Peach Builders (Breeze Construction Ltd) DATE REGISTERED: 29.04.2019
ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY DETACHED DWELLINGHOUSE (AMENDED SCHEME TO 18/00410/FULL) 18 Clyde Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 3DN
The Site and the proposal
1. The site is located on the east side of Clyde Road, a cul de sac, and comprises land forming the garden of number 18 which is a semi-detached bungalow. The land has been physically separated from number 18 by a 1-1.8m high panel fence. The application site is open and relatively flat and is bordered by a concrete panel fence 1.5-1.8m high on its northwest boundary and a similar height close board fence and gated to the Clyde Road frontage. The land is roughly triangular, albeit the turning circle gives a curved frontage to Clyde Road. Its southern boundary is approximately 18m deep and the northwest boundary 4m. There is an existing dropped kerb to the land accessed from the turning head. A shed has been erected within the land and some piles of builders waste were evident. The existing dwelling has a window and its main pedestrian door on the side elevation facing north, towards the site, and a projecting bay window on the front elevation. The front garden of number 18 which is approximately 4.5m deep has been hard surfaced, but no dropped kerb exists.
2. The surrounding area is primarily semi-detached bungalows that have a consistent appearance with gable roofs, projecting bay windows and pedestrian and vehicular accesses to the side. To the north and northwest of the site is the existing shared cycleway running from Gosport to Fareham, along the former railway line. A pedestrian footpath runs along part of the northwest boundary linking Clyde Road and the cycleway. The turning circle is situated adjacent to the western boundary.
A previous application (Reference 18/00410/FULL) for a two bedroom dwelling on the site was refused planning permission for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development would, by reason of its siting, layout and appearance, result in a cramped and unsympathetic overdevelopment of the site, out of keeping with the overriding character of the area and detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality. The proposals are, therefore, in conflict with Policies LP10 and LP24 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan, 2011 - 2029, the Gosport Borough Council Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (February 2014) and the NPPF.
2. The proposal fails to provide adequate off-street parking provision within the site clear of the highway resulting in the likelihood of vehicles parking on the public highway to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to Policy LP23 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Gosport Borough Council Parking: Supplementary Planning Document.
3. These proposals are for an amended scheme following the refusal. The proposed bungalow would be a one bedroom property accessed from the front (west) with a parking area for one car accessed from the turning circle within Clyde Road. The house has been designed with gable roofs with a projection to the rear and a bay window to the front. Flat roof elements are added to the north and northeast boundaries to follow the general shape of the site, and the diagonal northeast boundary. The front elevation includes a 1.2m deep recess with a supporting pillar to allow sufficient depth for the parking space. The house would have a height of 4.4m. It would be sited 1m from the southern boundary, 1m from the northeast boundary and a minimum of 2.2m from Clyde Road, due to the turning circle. No windows are proposed on the south elevation, however, the front door would be provided on this elevation, adjacent to the entrance to number 18. Patio doors are proposed on the northwest elevation with an obscure glazed window on the northeast. The bay
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 23 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 window and a further window would be provided facing onto Clyde Road. A triangular garden area is proposed in the southeast corner of the property which would be 1m deep at its narrowest and 5m at its deepest points, and would include the refuse and cycle storage. A further garden area is proposed on the northwest adjacent to the footpath and cycleway and partially in front of the house, with its boundaries following the angled northeast boundary and curved turning circle. The existing property would retain a rear garden approximately 11m deep at its deepest and 4m at its shallowest due to the angle of the northeast boundary.
Relevant Planning History
18/00410/FULL - erection of single storey detached dwellinghouse - refused 18.12.18
Relevant Policies
Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011 – 2029: LP1 Sustainable Development LP3 Spatial Strategy LP10 Design LP23 Layout of Sites and Parking LP24 Housing LP39 Water Resources LP42 International and Nationally Important Habitats LP44 Protecting Species and Other Features of Nature Conservation Importance
Supplementary Planning Documents: Gosport Borough Council Design Guidance: Supplementary Planning Document: February 2014 Gosport Borough Council Parking: Supplementary Planning Document: February 2014 Solent Special Protection Areas Gosport Bird Disturbance Mitigation Protocol April 2018
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), July 2018
Consultations
Streetscene Waste & Cleansing No objection. Adequate bin storage provided.
Environmental Health No objection to previous application.
Hampshire Fire And Rescue Service No objection. Development should accord with the Building Regulations.
Local Highway Authority No objection. A condition should be imposed requiring the provision of parking for the existing and proposed dwellings to be provided before works commence. This will help prevent obstruction of the turning head during construction.
Building Control No response received.
Response to Public Advertisement
4 letters of objection Issues raised: - inappropriate to erect a building in such a small area - planning has been rejected once - impacts on the privacy of 18 Clyde Road - lack of parking will exacerbate existing problems and result in parking in the turning head
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 24 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 - the road markings need to be re-painted in the turning head - contractors will obstruct the road whilst works are undertaken as this has happened during other works
Principal Issues
1. The repainting of the road markings within the turning head would be a matter for the Local Highway Authority. The site is located within the Urban Area Boundary where the principle of residential development is acceptable, subject to compliance with other planning policies and guidance. The main issues in this case are whether the proposals overcome the previous reasons for refusal, its impact on the visual amenity of the locality, the amenities of adjoining and prospective occupiers, that adequate car parking, cycle and refuse storage arrangements are provided and impacts on protected species and habitats.
2. The changes to the proposals from the previous refusal have improved the separation to the boundary with number 18, where a footpath would now be provided. The reduction in bedroom numbers also results in a slightly reduced footprint. However, given the constraints of the site, the separation distances to the other boundaries are largely unchanged, with those to the northeast actually reduced. Although the property proposed is now a one bedroom dwelling the layout still appears cramped and out of keeping with the surrounding properties and does not reflect the proportions of the adjacent dwellings. The proposal would, therefore, appear out of context with its surroundings and represent an overdevelopment of the site.
3. The proposed bungalow's design and appearance has improved with the introduction of the bay window and alterations to the proposed roof. However, the design now includes a recess on the front elevation with a roof canopy in order to achieve adequate depth of a parking space. This is not considered to be a positive deign feature within the context of the area, and overall the buildings design does not respect the overriding character of the area. The need to provide a recessed element to accommodate this parking space further highlights the cramped nature of the site.
4. The Design SPD indicates that a garden length of 10.5m should provide adequate amenity space for a property. Whilst the existing dwelling would be provided with an acceptable level of amenity space, although reduced due to the angle of the boundary, the proposed dwelling would have two small areas of space, that are considered to only provide a limited level of amenity given their more cramped position and shape. Furthermore, as shown on the plans part of the garden has been given over to provide the required long stay cycle spaces, within a secure structure, which decreases the usable area further. This further emphasises the fact that these proposals are an overdevelopment of the site. The proposals, do not address reason for refusal 1 and by reason of their design, layout and proximity to boundaries represent an undesirable form of overdevelopment that is out of keeping with the area and detrimental to the character of the locality, contrary to the aims and objectives of Policies LP10 and LP24 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 and the NPPF which encourages high quality design.
5. Given the proposed siting and orientation of the building, the existing dwelling at number 18 would be the only property affected by the proposals, in terms of light, outlook and privacy. The character of the area includes side windows and doors that are in close proximity to the neighbours. The provision of the door to the side elevation is in keeping with the local area and is not considered that this proximity would be harmful to the amenities of the occupiers of the existing dwelling. No other windows are proposed in the south elevation and the other windows would not cause any unacceptable overlooking of neighbouring properties. Given the siting, scale and design of the property, it would have an acceptable relationship with number 18 and would not have a harmful impact in terms of loss of light, or outlook. The proposals are, therefore, in accordance with Policy LP10 in this respect.
6. Whilst it is inevitable that there would be some inconvenience during any development with contractor parking, this would be for a short period and is not considered to be harmful in the context of the development as a whole. The proposals result in the loss of the former garden and parking area of number 18. Off road vehicular parking is, therefore, indicated for both the existing
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 25 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 and proposed dwelling and each driveway is shown accommodating one car. The car parking space for the proposed dwelling is considered acceptable, albeit the pillar would offer some restricted access to the space. With regard to the existing dwelling, given the proposals would result in the loss of its off street parking area it would be necessary to provide two parking spaces for its use. The one space indicated for the existing dwelling is, at its longest, only 4.7m in length and less for the open area in front of the bay window. These spaces are not considered to be of adequate size to accommodate vehicles at the required dimensions, as set out in the parking SPD, nor is their adequate space for them to be provided elsewhere. Cycle parking is identified on the proposed plan and would be appropriate and could be secured by planning condition, if the application was acceptable in all other respects. In conclusion the proposals would result in the loss of the existing dwelling's parking and do not provide adequate space to accommodate the proposed and displaced parking without obstructing the existing footpaths, or the turning circle which would, result in a detrimental impact on parking availability locally to the detriment of highway safety. The proposals are, therefore, contrary to Policy LP23 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029.
7. The proposal will introduce additional dwellings which is likely to result in increased recreational activity on the coast and a consequential impact on the protected species for which the Portsmouth Harbour SPA, the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and the Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA are designated. To address this impact, a contribution towards appropriate mitigation, in accordance with the Gosport Bird Disturbance Mitigation Protocol, is required and this has been paid. There is no evidence that the site supports notable or endangered species and none are a threat as a result of the development.
8. Natural England have raised concerns that new dwellings are causing increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus input to the water environment in the Solent with evidence that these nutrients are causing eutrophication at European and internationally designated habitat sites and additional mitigation measures will be required to offset any increases in nitrogen discharges that would result from the proposals. Natural England advise that proposals for new residential development should achieve nitrogen neutrality to avoid harm to these sites. In the absence of supporting information from the applicant in an ecological appraisal to demonstrate the development would be nitrogen neutral or would provide suitable mitigation, the development is unacceptable and would cause harm to European and internationally designated protected sites. The proposal would be contrary to Policy LP42 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029.
Equalities Impact Assessment: No Implications
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse
For the following reason(s):-
1. The proposed development would, by reason of its siting, layout and appearance, result in a cramped and unsympathetic overdevelopment of the site, out of keeping with the overriding character of the area and detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality. The proposals are, therefore, in conflict with Policies LP10 and LP24 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan, 2011 - 2029, the Gosport Borough Council Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (February 2014) and the NPPF.
2. The proposal fails to provide adequate off-street parking provision for the existing property clear of the highway resulting in the likelihood of vehicles parking on the public highway to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to Policy LP23 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 and the Gosport Borough Council Parking: Supplementary Planning Document.
3. The proposal fails to demonstrate the development would be nitrogen neutral and/or would provide mitigation to off-set any increased nutrient discharge associated with the proposal and would therefore cause unacceptable harm to European and Internationally designated habitat sites which would be detrimental to the protected and other species for which these areas are designated. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies LP42 and LP44 of the Gosport Borough
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 26 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 Local Plan 2011-2029, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 27 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template
Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019
ITEM NUMBER: 04. APPLICATION NUMBER: 19/00231/FULL APPLICANT: Mr Gary Jackson DATE REGISTERED: 20.05.2019
ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE / REAR EXTENSION 47 Linden Grove Gosport Hampshire PO12 2ED
The Site and the proposal
1. The application site is located on the southern side of Linden Grove. The property is a two storey detached dwellinghouse finished in pebble dash. At the front of the property is a small garden and driveway which is enclosed by a small wall. At the rear of the property is a small conservatory which backs onto a garden which is approximately 18m long and slopes down to the rear. The two adjacent properties to the east and west of the property are both two storey dwellings of similar size and style to the application property. Number 45 which is to the east of the property is built up against the shared boundary fence and approximately 1m away from the proposal, there are two windows at ground floor level on the western elevation of the property which one of which is obscure glazed and the other serves a sun room. Number 49 is situated on the western side of the site and is sited approximately 5m away from the common boundary with the application site. This property has ground floor windows, serving a kitchen, in its flank elevation that would face towards the proposed extension.
2. The proposal is for a single storey side and rear extension. It would be 'L' shaped and wrapped around the rear and eastern side of the property. It would have an overall depth of 11.6m of which 4.7m would project from the rear of the existing dwelling, an overall width of 10.9m of which 4m would project from the side of the existing dwelling and have a maximum height of 4.5m with a flat roof and parapet with 4 roof lights. There would be windows on the front elevation and doors and steps on the rear elevation. The existing property and proposed extension are proposed to be finished in white render.
Relevant Planning History
18/00086/FULL - erection of single storey side extension (amended by plans received 26.03.18) - permitted 30.04.18
Relevant Policies
Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011 – 2029: LP10 Design LP47 Contamination and Unstable Land
Supplementary Planning Documents: Gosport Borough Council Design Guidance: Supplementary Planning Document: February 2014
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), July 2018
Consultations
Environmental Health No objection, subject to contamination condition.
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 29 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019
Response to Public Advertisement
2 letters of objection Issues raised:- - height would exceed first floor of number 45 Linden Grove - loss of light to window in western elevation of 45 Linden Grove - out of character in design terms - loss of light to southeast corner of number 49 Linden Grove - overbearing
Principal Issues
1. The main issues for consideration are the appropriateness of the design of the proposal, its impact on the appearance of the locality and any effect on the residential amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties.
2. The proposed extension has a simple design and would be finished in appropriate materials. It would be in keeping with the design of the existing property and the neighbouring dwellings. It is not considered to be out of character with the surrounding residential area. The proposal is therefore considered appropriate in design terms in this location and would comply with Policy LP10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 in this regard.
3. The overall height and depth of the proposed extension, taken together with its siting is such that when related to neighbouring properties it would not harm the amenity of the occupiers. Whilst there would be a degree of loss of light and increased overshadowing of adjacent properties, this would not be so significant as to justify a refusal on amenity grounds. The windows on the western side elevation of number 45 Linden Grove are secondary windows to the property and any loss of light to those windows would be minor due to the orientation of the property. Similarly the windows in the eastern side elevation of number 45 Linden Grove are secondary one with the primary aspect being to the south. Whilst the proposal would give rise to an increased sense of enclosure when viewed from neighbouring properties, it would not be unduly overbearing or give rise to a significant loss of outlook. The proposal does not include any windows in the side elevations of the extension and the doors in the rear elevation look onto the application property's enclosed rear garden. The windows on the western elevation of number 45 Linden Grove are secondary windows to the property and any loss of light to those windows would be minor due to the orientation of the property. The proposal is considered acceptable in amenity terms and complies with Policy LP10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-202 in this regard.
4. It is noted that there is potential that the site may be contaminated; however it is considered that due to the previous developed nature of the site any risk would be low. To ensure that no harm to human health occurs should contamination be found, a suitably worded condition can be imposed. Subject to such a condition, the proposal would comply with Policy LP47 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029.
Equalities Impact Assessment: No Implications
RECOMMENDATION: Grant Permission
Subject to the following condition(s):-
1. The development hereby permitted must be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted. Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended).
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 30 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Proposed FF Plan, Proposed GF Plan, Proposed Elevations, Reason - To ensure that the development is completed satisfactorily in all respects and to comply with Policy LP10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029.
3. Should contamination be encountered during the construction of the development hereby permitted, no further development or site clearance shall be carried out until an investigation and risk assessment of the identified material has been undertaken and details of the findings along with a remediation strategy, if required, detailing how this unsuspected contamination is to be dealt with has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall therefore proceed in accordance with any agreed remediation strategy.
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 31 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template
Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019
ITEM NUMBER: 05. APPLICATION NUMBER: 19/00172/FULL APPLICANT: J P Developments Ltd DATE REGISTERED: 31.05.2019
ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION TO SHOP, INCLUDING SEPARATE STORAGE USE (CLASS B8) (CONSERVATION AREA) 138-140 High Street Gosport Hampshire PO12 1EA
The Site and the proposal
1. The site is located on the south side of High Street and comprises a two-storey building with a vacant retail use at ground floor and offices at first floor. To the rear of the building is an open area where a substantial single storey extension, now demolished, was sited. That building extended up to the rear boundary with Thorngate Way, and was constructed from corrugated sheeting and had a pitched roof with a ridge height of approximately 7.4m. There are first floor windows on the rear elevation of the two storey-building. The site is within the Principal Centre, as designated within the Local Plan, and is also located within the High Street Conservation Area.
2. The surrounding area comprises predominantly commercial properties with some residential at first floor level and the block of flats (Oyster House) directly to the east. The four storey Town Hall building is situated directly to the west which has a blank elevation on its ground, first and second floors facing onto the site, with windows at third and fourth floor levels. To the rear (south) of the site, on the opposite side of Thorngate Way, are the former Police Station and its vehicular access. Oyster Court has an undercroft along part of the site boundary at ground floor level and one first floor window, approximately half way along the boundary, facing onto the application site.
3. The proposals relate to the ground floor only and are for a new extension to the shop and the provision of an area of storage, which is indicated as being for the landlord's use. The proposed extension would project up to the back edge of the footpath on Thorngate Way and extend to the side boundaries. The building would have a flat roof, at 3.7m high and 6.5m in depth, adjacent to the two-storey building, a pitched roof with a ridge at 5.6m high for a depth of 12m and a further 3.7m high flat roof for a depth of 1.8m adjacent to Thorngate Way. The rear elevation would include three pedestrian access doors and a window at ground floor. The materials would include brick to Thorngate Way with architectural features such as brick feature courses and string courses and the roof and part of the Thorngate Way elevation are proposed to be clad with corrugated cement fibre roofing system.
Relevant Planning History
18/00198/FULL - Installation of new shopfront (Conservation Area) - permitted 03.07.18
18/00199/ADVT - Erection and display of 1 non illuminated hanging sign and 1 non illuminated fascia sign (Conservation Area) - consented 03.07.18
Relevant Policies
Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011 – 2029: LP1 Sustainable Development LP3 Spatial Strategy LP4 The Gosport Waterfront and Town Centre LP10 Design LP12 Designated Heritage Assets: Conservation Areas LP27 Principal, District and Neighbourhood Centres LP28 Uses in Centres
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 33 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019 Supplementary Planning Documents: Gosport Borough Council Design Guidance: Supplementary Planning Document: February 2014 Gosport Borough Council Waterfront and Town Centre: Supplementary Planning Document: March 2018
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), July 2018
Particular obligations fall upon the Local Planning Authority in determining any application which might affect a Conservation Area. Section 72 of The Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 (as amended) requires that the authority pay: "special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area".
Consultations
Environmental Health No objection.
HCC Landscape Planning & Heritage No objection, subject to conditions. The conditions should relate to the provision of a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI), archaeological mitigation in accordance with the WSI and a report post fieldwork completion.
The Gosport Society Object. It is regrettable that the existing building has been demolished ahead of a permission being issued. The proposed rear facade is of mediocre design (i.e. does not enhance) and proposes a temporary corrugated walling and roofing system. Clarification as to this is needed and details of all materials should be submitted for approval as a condition.
The opportunity on this site to respond to the Conservation Area Appraisal which identifies the site comprising buildings where the height could be improved (to 3 stories), or which would benefit from improvement to the facade, has not been taken up.
The Gosport Society would support an application that demonstrates a measurable and significant enhancement to the Conservation Area in the immediate site context and ensures that the foundations and superstructure are designed to accommodate a minimum of three storeys in order to achieve medium/longer term aspirations of the Council.
Response to Public Advertisement
Nil
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 34 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019
Principal Issues
1. Whilst the extension to the rear was demolished prior to this planning application being submitted, given the extent of the works it was not considered that planning permission was required for the partial demolition of the building in this instance. It would not be possible to require the foundations and superstructure to accommodate a larger building for possible future proposals, as part of this application. The proposals would replace an existing extension of similar footprint, albeit already demolished, and service arrangements and associated impacts would, therefore, remain unaltered. The main issues in this instance are whether the proposals would be appropriate additions and uses for the building and within the High Street, would preserve, or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, or would have a detrimental impact on the occupiers of adjoining properties.
2. The property is an existing authorised retail use within the Town Centre and an extension to facilitate improvements to the shop within the Principal Centre is considered acceptable. The proposed storage facility for the landlord is 42sqm and this equates to less than 18% of the overall retail floorspace. Given that the only access would be from Thorngate Way, a rear service road, and its size would mean that it is not be possible to create a viable storage and distribution business, this use is considered acceptable in this instance and would not prejudice the operation of the retail unit which retains its separate accesses.
3. The proposed extension would be smaller in scale than the demolished extension and could be constructed of higher quality materials, given the previous extensions appearance. The proposed plans indicate a corrugated cladding to part of the Thorngate Way elevation which is not considered to be of sufficient quality, however, a condition requiring details of the materials, notwithstanding the submitted information would allow a higher quality cladding material to be sought. The other architectural features are considered to add visual interest. Whilst the aspiration for a taller building to be constructed on this site is noted, this application must be determined on its merits and overall the proposals are considered acceptable in this rear location. The legislation requires proposals to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and not solely to enhance. In this instance they would at least be preserved given the appearance of the demolished structure and its negative impact on the character and appearance. The application is accompanied by an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment which concludes that it is likely that further investigations would be required, a view supported by the County Archaeologist. Conditions would be imposed to secure this further work. Subject to these conditions the proposals would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with Policies LP10 and LP12 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.
4. The proposals would have a lower overall height than the previous extension and given the footprint, would offer improved relationships to both the offices and adjacent residential properties. The plans include an area of flat roof which whilst not indicated as a balcony area, could offer the potential for such a use and a condition is proposed to restrict such a use from occurring, as it would likely give rise to disturbance to the adjacent occupiers of Oyster Court in particular. Subject to this condition the proposals would not have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring occupiers in terms of loss of light, outlook or privacy and could offer some improvement. The proposals are, therefore, in accordance with Policy LP10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029.
Equalities Impact Assessment: No Implications
RECOMMENDATION: Grant Permission
Subject to the following condition(s):-
1. The development hereby permitted must be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted. Reason - To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (as amended).
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 35 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template Regulatory Board : 23rd July 2019
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1811 L02 B; 1811 20 B; 1811 21; 1811 22 A; 1811 23 Reason - To ensure that the development is completed satisfactorily in all respects and to comply with Policy LP10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029.
3. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological assessment in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) that has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority in order to recognise, characterise and record any archaeological features and deposits that may exist here. The assessment should initially take the form of trial trenches located across the whole of the application area. Reason - To assess the extent, nature and date of any archaeological deposits that might be present and the impact of the development upon these heritage assets and to comply with Policies LP11 and LP12 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.
4. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological mitigation of impact, based on the results of the trial trenching, in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation that has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To mitigate the effect of the works associated with the development upon any heritage assets and to ensure that information regarding these heritage assets is preserved by record for future generations and to comply with Policies LP11 and LP12 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.
5. Following completion of archaeological fieldwork a report will be produced in accordance with an approved programme submitted by the developer and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority setting out and securing appropriate post-excavation assessment, specialist analysis and reports, publication and public engagement. Reason - To contribute to our knowledge and understanding of our past by ensuring that opportunities are taken to capture evidence from the historic environment and to make this publicly available and to comply with Policies LP11 and LP12 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan.
6. a) No development above slab level shall commence until details, including samples, of all external facing and roofing materials has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. b) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure that the external appearance of the development is satisfactory, and to comply with Policies LP10 and LP12 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029.
7. The roof area of the extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason - In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties and to comply with Policy LP10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029.
DC-AGENDA-VW-12.07.19 Page 36 of 36 DC/UNI-form Template