Gosport Borough Council
Councillors:
27
Wards:
14
Committees:
10
Meetings (2026):
59
Meetings (2025):
50
Meeting
Regulatory Board - Gosport
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 3rd December 2025
6:00 PM
Wednesday, 3rd December 2025
6:00 PM
End:
Wednesday, 3rd December 2025
10:00 PM
Wednesday, 3rd December 2025
10:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
03 Dec 2025
03 Dec 2025
Location:
Council Chamber
Council Chamber
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Councillor Mervin Bradley
Present, as expected
Chairman
Councillor Stephen Hammond
Present, as expected
Agenda
1
Apologies for non-attendance
Minutes
There were none.
2
Declarations of Interest
Minutes
Councillor Earle and Hammond advised that had known the applicant from 1c The Redan many years ago, but had not seen him for approximately 30 years.
3
Minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2025
To sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2025.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes , 22/10/2025 Regulatory Board 25 Nov 2025
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2025 be signed as a true and correct record.
4
Deputations - Standing Order 3.4
NOTE: The Board is required to receive a deputation(s) on a matter which is before the meeting of the Board provided that notice of the intended deputation and its object shall have been received by the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on 1 December 2025. The total time for deputations in favour and against a proposal shall not exceed 10 minutes
Minutes
Deputations were received on the following items
· 24/00170/FULL – Seafront at the Former Royal Haslar Hospital
· 25/00153/FULL – The Clarence Tavern
· 25/00255/FULL – 1C The Redan
· 25/00294/GR3 – Former Bus Station, South Street
· 24/00170/FULL – Seafront at the Former Royal Haslar Hospital
· 25/00153/FULL – The Clarence Tavern
· 25/00255/FULL – 1C The Redan
· 25/00294/GR3 – Former Bus Station, South Street
5
Public Questions - Standing Order 3.5
The Board is required to allow a total of 15 minutes for questions from Members of the public on matters within the terms of reference of the Board provided that notice of such Question(s) shall have been submitted to the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on 1 December 2025.
Minutes
There were none.
6
Proposed Amendments to the Taxi and Private Hire Licensing Policy
This report outlines the proposed revisions to the Taxi and Private Hire Licensing requirements, following a comprehensive review conducted by the Licensing Team. The consultation with the trade and the public has now concluded, and the proposed changes, along with the consultation feedback, are ready for confirmation.
Attachments:
- Document Report 3 December 25 Nov 2025
- Document GBC Handbook April 2025 25 Nov 2025
- Document GBC Policy September 2025 PROPOSED 25 Nov 2025
- Document Summary of Changes 25 Nov 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Environmental Health, outlining the proposed revisions to the Taxi and Private Hire Licensing requirements, following a comprehensive review conducted by the Licensing Team. The consultation with the trade and the public has concluded, and the proposed changes, along with the consultation feedback, were ready for confirmation.
The Board were advised that there were two specific areas on which it was requested that Members give consideration, the age at which a vehicle could first be plated and whether or not to continue to allow the selling of plates with grandfather rights between drivers.
The Board was advised that currently, vehicles were allowed to be first plated within the guidance of emissions, and as a result some vehicles up to 10 years old were able to be plated for the first time. Members were requested to give consideration as to whether they wished for this to be amended, considerations included, the significant mileage that could be undertaken by a taxis following licensing that could lead to poor quality vehicles in within the fleet. It was also recognised that older vehicles were more accessible to drivers to purchase as they were cheaper.
The Board was advised that other local authorities in the area had been looked at and their policies were that vehicles should be less than 5 years when registered but that some authorities extended this to 8 years for hybrid vehicles.
The Gosport taxi association had made representation to the consultation advising that believed that the current status and ability to transfer grandfather right plates should continue. Concern was expressed that these were sometimes changing hands for tens of thousands of pounds however the association wished this to continue. These plates were retained on grandfather rights a number of years ago and allowed permission for saloon cars, rather than disabled accessible cars to be plated.
Members debated both elements of the policy, some members were content that if a vehicle met emission targets it was sound to be licensed, and other Members felt that the more consideration should be given to the age of the vehicles. Members were advised that vehicles were subject to mechanical testing and a visual inspection.
Members were advised that in other Local Authorities, in addition to hybrid vehicles, some also allowed extensions to the date of first plating for disabled access vehicles, as these were more expensive, and this allowed them to remain in the fleet for longer.
Members were advised there were approximately 10 disabled access vehicles within the fleet.
A Member expressed concern that they felt that older vehicles may struggle to be maintained with appropriate parts the older they got.
It was proposed and seconded that an age limit be put on vehicles being licensed for the first time, that they should be no older than 5 years on first registration and that this be increased to 7 years for disabled access vehicles.
The Board was advised that it was requested that consideration be given to retaining the grandfather rights, but that once a plate was surrendered it was returned to the Council to be reissued, rather than sold on.
Members were advised that there was a comprehensive list of those that had held, and currently held the plates.
Members were advised that the CCTV in vehicles fell under a separate policy that was considered previously.
Members questioned whether the implementation of mandatory first aid kits and fire extinguishers could be included and were advised that they had been previously, but that they often went out of date as they were not used. Members felt that it was important that they were present to ensure customers were as safe as possible.
This was proposed and seconded and agreed.
It was proposed and seconded that the grandfather plates needed to be surrendered back to the Council, and could not be sold on individually and that power be delegated to the Head of Environmental Health to word the amendments appropriately. This was agreed.
RESOLVED: That the Board accept the proposed amendments to the Taxi and Private Hire Licensing Requirements as outlined, subject to the three amendments identified as follows
· New vehicles licensed must be no older than 5 years old, or 7 years old if disabled access vehicles
· That upon surrender, plates with grandfather rights must be returned to the Council and cannot be sold on
· That all vehicles must contain a first aid kit and a fire extinguisher
And that the Head of Environmental Health be delegated to redraft and publish the document reflecting the changes.
The Board were advised that there were two specific areas on which it was requested that Members give consideration, the age at which a vehicle could first be plated and whether or not to continue to allow the selling of plates with grandfather rights between drivers.
The Board was advised that currently, vehicles were allowed to be first plated within the guidance of emissions, and as a result some vehicles up to 10 years old were able to be plated for the first time. Members were requested to give consideration as to whether they wished for this to be amended, considerations included, the significant mileage that could be undertaken by a taxis following licensing that could lead to poor quality vehicles in within the fleet. It was also recognised that older vehicles were more accessible to drivers to purchase as they were cheaper.
The Board was advised that other local authorities in the area had been looked at and their policies were that vehicles should be less than 5 years when registered but that some authorities extended this to 8 years for hybrid vehicles.
The Gosport taxi association had made representation to the consultation advising that believed that the current status and ability to transfer grandfather right plates should continue. Concern was expressed that these were sometimes changing hands for tens of thousands of pounds however the association wished this to continue. These plates were retained on grandfather rights a number of years ago and allowed permission for saloon cars, rather than disabled accessible cars to be plated.
Members debated both elements of the policy, some members were content that if a vehicle met emission targets it was sound to be licensed, and other Members felt that the more consideration should be given to the age of the vehicles. Members were advised that vehicles were subject to mechanical testing and a visual inspection.
Members were advised that in other Local Authorities, in addition to hybrid vehicles, some also allowed extensions to the date of first plating for disabled access vehicles, as these were more expensive, and this allowed them to remain in the fleet for longer.
Members were advised there were approximately 10 disabled access vehicles within the fleet.
A Member expressed concern that they felt that older vehicles may struggle to be maintained with appropriate parts the older they got.
It was proposed and seconded that an age limit be put on vehicles being licensed for the first time, that they should be no older than 5 years on first registration and that this be increased to 7 years for disabled access vehicles.
The Board was advised that it was requested that consideration be given to retaining the grandfather rights, but that once a plate was surrendered it was returned to the Council to be reissued, rather than sold on.
Members were advised that there was a comprehensive list of those that had held, and currently held the plates.
Members were advised that the CCTV in vehicles fell under a separate policy that was considered previously.
Members questioned whether the implementation of mandatory first aid kits and fire extinguishers could be included and were advised that they had been previously, but that they often went out of date as they were not used. Members felt that it was important that they were present to ensure customers were as safe as possible.
This was proposed and seconded and agreed.
It was proposed and seconded that the grandfather plates needed to be surrendered back to the Council, and could not be sold on individually and that power be delegated to the Head of Environmental Health to word the amendments appropriately. This was agreed.
RESOLVED: That the Board accept the proposed amendments to the Taxi and Private Hire Licensing Requirements as outlined, subject to the three amendments identified as follows
· New vehicles licensed must be no older than 5 years old, or 7 years old if disabled access vehicles
· That upon surrender, plates with grandfather rights must be returned to the Council and cannot be sold on
· That all vehicles must contain a first aid kit and a fire extinguisher
And that the Head of Environmental Health be delegated to redraft and publish the document reflecting the changes.
7
The addition of Foster Gardens to the Council's List of Parks and Gardens of Local Historic Interest
This report sets out the recommendation that Foster Gardens is added to the List of Parks and Gardens of Local Historic Interest held by the Council.
Attachments:
- Document Main Agenda report - Foster Gardens FINAL 25 Nov 2025
- Document Site Plan - Foster Gardens 25 Nov 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Conservation and Design Officer setting out a recommendation that Foster Gardens is added to the List of Parks and Gardens of Local Historic Interest held by the Council.
The Board was advised that the application met the criteria set out in the Local Plan and that the site was a Council owned asset, the benefits of the designation was that it allowed for funding to be applied for, which would increase options available to maintained and improve the site.
The Board was advised that this did not need to be approved to allow friends groups to be set up, but it would allow for applications for funds to improve the asset.
Members recognised the importance of the gardens to the Borough, and recognised that recent work to it had improved the site by opening it up and reducing anti-social behavior.
RESOLVED: That the Board approved the addition of Foster Gardens to the List of Parks and Gardens of Local Historic Interest held by the Council.
The Board was advised that the application met the criteria set out in the Local Plan and that the site was a Council owned asset, the benefits of the designation was that it allowed for funding to be applied for, which would increase options available to maintained and improve the site.
The Board was advised that this did not need to be approved to allow friends groups to be set up, but it would allow for applications for funds to improve the asset.
Members recognised the importance of the gardens to the Borough, and recognised that recent work to it had improved the site by opening it up and reducing anti-social behavior.
RESOLVED: That the Board approved the addition of Foster Gardens to the List of Parks and Gardens of Local Historic Interest held by the Council.
8
G.158 - United Reformed Church, St. Columba, Elson Road, Gosport, PO12 4BW
The purpose of the report is to request the Board consider whether to confirm, amend and confirm, or not to confirm Tree Preservation Order G.158, where representations have been received following a period of public consultation.
Attachments:
- Document Main Agenda Report - St Columba United Reformed Church TPO - Draft V1 25 Nov 2025
- Document Plan - TPO G158 25 Nov 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to a report of the Development Manager detailing the request to the Board to consider whether to confirm, amend and confirm or not confirm Tree Preservation Order G.158
The Board was advised that the trees had been identified as making a significant positive contribution to the character and appearance of the local environment and that once this identification had been raised there was six months to either confirm, not confirm or confirm with amendments the Order.
The Board was advised that the recommendation was to confirm the order.
Members acknowledged that the order would not prevent work being undertaken, but that permission would be required to do so if the order was confirmed.
Members recognised the trees and large and important to the area and recognised that they would monitored and maintained.
RESOLVED: That the Board, in accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012 confirm Tree Preservation Order No G.158 relating to a Sweet Gum tree (Liquidambar styraciflua) and a group of Sycamore trees (Acer pseudoplatanus) at United Reformed Church St. Columba, Elson Road Gosport.
The Board was advised that the trees had been identified as making a significant positive contribution to the character and appearance of the local environment and that once this identification had been raised there was six months to either confirm, not confirm or confirm with amendments the Order.
The Board was advised that the recommendation was to confirm the order.
Members acknowledged that the order would not prevent work being undertaken, but that permission would be required to do so if the order was confirmed.
Members recognised the trees and large and important to the area and recognised that they would monitored and maintained.
RESOLVED: That the Board, in accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012 confirm Tree Preservation Order No G.158 relating to a Sweet Gum tree (Liquidambar styraciflua) and a group of Sycamore trees (Acer pseudoplatanus) at United Reformed Church St. Columba, Elson Road Gosport.
9
Development Manager Report
To receive the report of the Development Manager.
Attachments:
- Document Combined agenda 2 25 Nov 2025
Minutes
Consideration was given to the report of the Development Manager.
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT WORKS TO INCLUDE RE-PROFILING AND RESURFACING OF PROMENADE, NEW SEATING AND LIGHTING ALTERATIONS TO FLOOD DEFENCE WALL AND PROVISION OF GATES (LISTED BUILDING AND LISTED GARDEN IN A CONSERVATION AREA)
Seafront At The Former Royal Hospital Haslar Haslar Road Haslar Gosport PO12 2AA
Mr Wright was invited to address the Board as follows
Canada House is a C2 classified residential accommodation for residents requiring assisted living and on going care.
Residents of Canada house were told when purchasing their apartments that that the site was a private property had 24/7 security with manned barriers at the entrance and a secure gated fence to the seawall.
This information is still being stated by the sales agent and reference made in the brochures and website.
However, when reading the planning notice regarding the development of the seawall there is no reference to the fence remaining in place. It refers to five gates which are flood defence gates so only up at times of flood, and a metal bar
Residents have also only recently discovered that the site is an “OPEN” site with free public access.
Residents discovered this when the café opened in July and visitors started to wander around the site and treated the site as a park.
Sadly they also focussed upon Canada House which is located directly adjacent to the sea wall. This has resulted in visitors peering into resident’s windows intruding upon their privacy and causing significant anguish. There have been many instances of the elderly residents being frightened when these people peer in the windows. Some residents have taken it upon themselves to confront visitors to inform them that this building is residential and not for public access. Some take offence leading to some unsavoury confrontations.
These examples of the site being “OPEN” with free public access is causing much stress and anxiety to the elderly residents in Canada House.
What does open mean?
In the principle issues section 16 of the response to the public advertisement: it quotes “the proposal will enhance connectivity and public access between the waterfront and wider Haslar site and would not prejudice the implementation of the remainder of the development or harm the amenities of the occupiers of existing prospective or neighbouring occupiers”.
In our opinion the development of the seawall and open access to the site with Canada House at the front is going to seriously harm the amenities of the occupiers and increase the number of incidents quoted in this deputation and have a detrimental effect upon resident’s lives. Surely it cannot be right that residents living in Canada House will have to accept this new way of life at their advanced ages. They came here to have a quiet enjoyable life by the sea in their later years and had never expected the site to be totally open to the public.
We sincerely hope that the board will seriously consider the lives of the residents and the potential disruption removing the fence will inevitably have on their lives.
We believe that a fence is needed to provide the Canada House residents with privacy and protect Canada House residents from these intrusions. Residents pay for the upkeep maintenance and repairs and management of the site so should be entitled to living a peaceful enjoyable life. There is no funding provided by the GBC so no cost to the local general public.
There are common laws under The Countryside rights of way laws that state that we are entitled to live in our home without unnecessary interference from the public and the public do not have an automatic right to enter the gardens or surrounding area within 20 metres of the building used as a dwelling. This land is called “excepted land”
We all support the development of the seawall but know that we as residents will be the ones who end up paying for the improved seawall and on-going repairs and maintenance so expect to have a say in the way it is used by the public and to protect the Canada House property from intruders.
Plans can be changed as we all know; normally by the developer but on this occasion we ask as residents, for the board to reconsider this specific requirement of an “OPEN” site to be more defined. I’m sure there is a reasonable compromise which can be reached by further discussion.
There are open days and guided tours available throughout the year for the general public to visit the site free of charge which should be sufficient.
The Board was advised by the Development Manager that comment could not be made on the marketing of the properties and that there had always a requirement for public access to the site, as part of the legal agreement. Things like sensitive planting and signage could be used to address concerns of the residents on site.
The site was gated, but there were access rights to the site for the public.
Eamon Prenter was invited to address the Board on behalf of the Developer, he advised that he had sympathy for the objectors concern, however the proposal presented was exactly the same as a previously approved proposal in 2017, delayed because of the pandemic. The only amendments were that of biodiversity elements and supporting information.
There was a clear requirement for the continued access to the public as per the legal agreement and this had been clear in the outlined permission, the masterplan and the Borough plan.
There would still be 24 hour monitoring on the site and any issues would be monitored, antisocial behaviour would be dealt with by security staff on site and that general access would be limited to 9am – 5pm, but opening times may vary pending the time it got dark. It was confirmed that appropriate signage would be suggested to support residents but that this was not a planning consideration.
Members acknowledged that the legal agreement required the provision of public access and that the application presented was not for the consideration. Members also welcomed the measures being taking against flooding and protection from waste and surface water.
Members acknowledged the concern of the residents and hoped that the developer would take these back and address through planting and signage.
RESOLVED: That application 24/00170/FULL, be approved, subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
24/00322/FULL - CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND FLOOR EXTENSION, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO INCLUDE CHANGES TO NORTHERN ELEVATION, FENESTRATION AND CREATION OF ROOF TERRACE, TO FACILITATE CONVERSION AT PART GROUND AND UPPER FLOORS TO FORM SEVEN DWELLINGS (CLASS C3) (CONSERVATION AREA) (Amended documents received 11.09.25 & 24.10.25, Amended Description of Development)
20 - 24 High Street Gosport Hampshire PO12 1DE
25/00135/FULL -REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING POLYCARBONATE ROOF, WITH PITCHED GLAZED ROOF AND INSTALLATION OF RAILINGS TO WINDOWS ON FRONT ELEVATION (CONSERVATION AREA) (PART RETROSPECTIVE)
Flat 1 7 Ashburton Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 2LH
Members were advised that the applications was for an update to the conservatory roof. Members acknowledged that many of the factors highlighted in the objection were not planning matters.
It was confirmed that many were private legal matters and that these could not be considered as part of the planning application.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00135/FULL be approved subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
25/00153/FULL - CHANGE OF USE FROM PUBLIC HOUSE (SUI GENERIS) TO AN 11 BEDROOM HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (SUI GENERIS) AND PUBLIC HOUSE (SUI GENERIS) TO INCLUDE A FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSION AND AMENDMENTS TO THE FENESTRATION OF EACH ELEVATION (as amended by a revised internal layout received 24.10.2025).
The Clarence Tavern 1 Clarence Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 1BB
Jonathan McDermott was invited to address the Board. He advise that he welcomed the Officer’s report and the recommendation for approval.
He advised that the pub had closed in July 2024 and that the decline in trade had led to the closure, along with many others across the country.
The proposal was such that it would allow for a viable business, but provide a much needed source of affordable homes. The cost of a 1 bed flat in the borough to rent ranged between £1385-£1585 and these would provide an alternative for half the cost. These properties would give the opportunity for young people to leave home.
There had been no objections from the Local Highway Authority, Building Control and the rooms were all at, or greater than required in size. It had been determined that the Pub would have no impact on the amenity of residents and it was reiterated that homes were much needed.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that there would be two management companies, one that ran the pub, and one that ran the HMO. Discussions were ongoing with local breweries about the operation and management of them.
Members welcomed the use of HMOs for those that required accommodation to support them in having accommodation, and to allow workers to have accommodation relative to wages such apprenticeships, but accepted there was often bad publicity in relation to HMO and their occupants. It was accepted that this was not a planning consideration. It was expressed however that the rooms should be available to Gosport residents.
A Member questioned to what level the pub would be preserved as the bar had already been removed, along with other features and it was confirmed that the former pub would be the accommodation, with the chapel like extension being utilised for the pub, this had been built in the 1970s and was not the original building.
Members questioned the provision of parking for the site and it was acknowledged that its location central to transport hubs had mitigated the need for parking but Members felt that if the development wanted to attract professionals like apprentices, it was likely they would have a vehicle. Members also questioned the provision for staff parking, and the impact that the proposal would have on surrounding areas.
The Board was advised that there was sufficient and significant long stay parking available within the area, and local bus provision, however Members felt that workers would not want to walk such distances late at night.
Members reiterated disappointment that the area being preserved for the bar was the later 1970s addition, and not the original bar. Member were advised that the developer was working hard to restore the elements of the building that could be restored.
It was acknowledged that the residents of the HMO were not a planning consideration and could not be controlled and that the Public House would be subject to licensing rules.
The Board was advised that the land identified as used as parking for the pub previously and currently covered in artificial grass was Hampshire County Council land.
Members expressed concern that there was not enough waste storage on the site given the additional requirements for food waste and Members were advised that commercial waste was not for the Council to collect.
Some Members welcomed that the proposal as it would provide both housing and employment, but disappointment was expressed that the entire pub site could not have been saved. Members were advised that the lease for the pub was 5 years, which was considered to be long term.
Councillor Cully was invited to address the Board as the ward Councillor. She advised that she was addressing the Board to highlight the residents’ concerns regarding the proposal.
She advised that there was concern from residents of St Matthews Court a there was already significant parking pressure within the area, King Street suffered with parking problems as a result of people using the pharmacy which often created a blockage of cars.
It was felt that the use of other Council car parks for the development was unsuitable as people did not like walking and would park close to the site to the detriment of other residents in the area. The layby in King Street was owned by Hampshire Highways and as a result was often used by non-residents as an alternative to using the Council Car Parks. It was hoped that the use of the land formerly used for parking could continue to be used as such to help alleviate the issues.
There was concerns that the waste storage could be used by others, residents of St Matthew’s Court were already having to lock their own waste storage area as it was being used for antisocial behaviour.
Concern was expressed that there would be 11 people in the residential element of the property, and there was concern about the behaviour of those residents parallel with the provision of a licensed premises and whether the proximity of the two uses was conducive to a good living environment.
In answer to a Members question, the Board was advised that a Licence had been submitted to the Local Authority in respect of the Public House.
The boundary of the site was confirmed to the Board.
Members accepted that the Public House had not been sustainable, and that this was an opportunity to retain the public house in some form but expressed regret that the original public house was not saved. There was disappointment that it had not been able to be utilised as a boutique hotel, or B and B to compliment the local community need.
Members reiterated their concern with regard to the parking provision on site, and in the surrounding areas but welcomed the employment and the boost to the local economy.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00153/FULL be approved, subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
25/00255/FULL – ERECTION OF A CAR PORT
1C The Redan, Gosport, PO12 2AY
Mr Barrett, the applicant was invited to address the Board, he advised that the car port was a replacement for the existing car port and that the proposal did not compromise access, or cause any discomfort to neighbours and did not present a fire risk.
In answer to a Member’s question, he advised the Board that the proposed height of the car port was to accommodate his camper van, to allow it to be stored undercover and that there were no implications to the surrounding buildings. Neighbouring buildings were not overlooked.
He advised that his bungalow was sunken in relation to neighbouring properties, so it would sit lower in the streetscene.
Members felt that the proposal would have minimal impact on the surrounding area.
RESOVLED: that application 25/00255/FULL be approved, subject to the conditions of the report of the Development Manager.
25/00294/GR3
CONSTRUCTION OF PART SINGLE / PART TWO-STOREY BUILDINGS TO COMPRISE COMMERCIAL UNITS (CLASS E) WITH ASSOCIATED ROOF TERRACES, LANDSCAPING AND SERVICE LAYBY ON THE ESPLANADE (As amended and amplified by documents received on 24.09.25, 17.11.25, 20.11.25 & 25.11.25)
Former Bus Station South Street Gosport Hampshire PO12 1EP
The Board was advised that the application for the performance space had been considered and that this application was for the construction of the commercial units and associated landscaping.
Amended drawings had been received since publication of the Regulatory Board Report. These include:
- minor changes to show the dedicated off-highway turning area as referenced within the Board report;
- minor changes to the plant room accesses and adjoining landscaping;
- Enlarged refuse and recyclable materials store.
Recommended Condition 2 has been updated to reference the following amended drawings:
25.037.004 Rev-P4 - (Proposed Block Plan);
25.037.100 Rev-P6 - (Proposed Ground Floor Plan);
25.037.101 Rev-P6 - (Proposed First Floor Plan);
25.037.102 Rev-P6 - (Proposed Roof Plan);
25.037.200 Rev-P4 - (Proposed Elevations 1 - East & West);
25.037.201 Rev-P4 - (Proposed Elevations 2 - North & South);
25.037.202 Rev-P4 - (Proposed Elevations 3 - Internal East and West);
25.037.203 Rev-P4 - (Proposed Sections).
Arboricultural Report
An updated Arboricultural Report has been provided to reference the retained trees to the north-west corner of the site between the two proposed buildings (Trees T27, T28, T29). The report also includes an updated Tree Protection Plan (Appendix 4). No further tree felling is proposed within the application red line from that previous reported within the Regulatory Board report. Recommended Condition 4 has been updated to make reference to the revised Arboricultural Report and its Tree Protection Plan (Produced by Syntegra ref.24-14336 dated Nov 25, received 02.12.25).
Alex King was invited to address the Board as below
Firstly, I would like to thank members and officers for the opportunity to speak in support of this scheme for the applicant.
As a planning consultant for Mission Town Planning, I am pleased to work with the applicant, and to present the planning merits of the scheme to members the evening.
The scheme is well set out within the committee report in terms of what is being provided, and this has already been set out in the Officers presentation.
The site was formally the site of the bus station and associated hard standing. A new transport interchange is now located to the north of the site. The building is the second phase of a plan to deliver a scheme for the wider area. Phase 1 delivered the change of use of the eastern part of the former bus station site to public open space with associated landscaping works. This element will deliver a mixed-use development comprising commercial, and community spaces and a new ticket office in line with the plans presented by officers.
The scheme marks the culmination of efforts to present a regenerative scheme that will contribute to the entrance to this part of Gosport and will provide will add to the vitality of the area for existing and visiting people.
It is noted that there are no objections from any of the statutory consultees to the scheme. We have worked hard with officers to provide as much information as possible to allow them to make an informed recommendation and to give certainty where possible. Some elements are still subject to conditions to ensure that all areas where queries remain will be addressed.
While there were wider aspirations for the site, these are covered within the officer’s report, and the scheme presented will allow for a deliverable form of development to be bought forward for the wider benefit of the area. The scheme complies with local and national planning policy, and we would contend addresses the requirements of policy LP4 and the Gosport Waterfront and Town Centre Supplementary Planning Document.
The design of the scheme has been considered as improving the quality and character of the area, and one which would enhance the wider townscape area and setting. The buildings will create a sense of activity being dual fronted to ensure activity and vibrance but one which also ensures a sense of wider public safety and security.
While some queries have been raised around amenity, it must be remembered that the proposal replaces a bus station, and phase 1 of the scheme as consented provides a public park area. Officers acknowledge that issues around future operation, but these will largely be operator driven depending on how that businesses wishes to operate. This is secured by proposed condition 18.
In regard to the highway’s implications of the development, the site has previously been used more intensively and has also that the site has been identified for considerably more intensive uses.
The development is car free and the highways authority has raised no object to this concept. There is ample cycle parking offered throughout the site. Finally, as demonstrated through latter submissions the site will be serviced to the east of the site.
The scheme also addresses issues of flooding, ecology and drainage and are all agreed by the relevant statutory consultees.
We acknowledge and are sympathetic to neighbouring concerns, the sustainable location, access to public transport, type of use will mean that the scheme should add to the vitality, accessibility and vibrancy of the area as a whole.
While there is clearly much more I could add I hope that this brief summary has been of use to members and demonstrates the applicant’s commitment to the development.
I would also like to thank officers for all their help and support. I hope that members are able to consider the merits of the scheme and to recommend the development favourably.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that fixed tables were to remain outside but those that could be moved would need to be taken inside each evening.
Clarification was also sought around the time the premises needed to be vacated, as it was felt that 2300 would mean the venues would need to close at 22:30. The hours of the license would also need to be considered as the license for the site was agreed as being until 23:30.
It was felt that sufficient time needed to be given to allowing premises to close down and to vacate the premises and that the standard closing time of 23:00 should be considered to allow the premises to be as viable as possible. It was acknowledged that each venue would need their own premises license.
It was acknowledge that the licensing of a premises and the planning permission detailing a time to vacate were separate, but felt there should be an alignment.
Members agreed that the vacation of the premises should be later and it was proposed and agreed that the time be amended to 2400 Monday to Saturday, and 23:00 on a Sunday.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00294/GR3 be approved subject to the amendments as detailed and the conditions of the report of the Development Manager.
24/00322/FULL CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND FLOOR EXTENSION, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO INCLUDE CHANGES TO NORTHERN ELEVATION, FENESTRATION AND CREATION OF ROOF TERRACE, TO FACILITATE CONVERSION AT PART GROUND AND UPPER FLOORS TO FORM SEVEN DWELLINGS (CLASS C3) (CONSERVATION AREA) (Amended documents received 11.09.25 & 24.10.25, Amended Description of Development)
20 - 24 High Street Gosport Hampshire PO12 1DE
The Board was advised that conversion proposed to the upper and rear parts of the banking hall, and that the external façade would not be impacted.
The building was not listed, nor did have significance.
It was recognised the building was prominent on the street scene and over 100 years old.
Members expressed concern regarding the provision of bin storage, as there was none, and were advised that the alleyway could not be used for storage as waste would not be collected from there. Concern was expressed that the large bins would block the footway.
The Board was advised that some of the converstion could take place within the Permitted Development rules.
The Board was advised that there would be 1 x 360 bin and a food waste bin collected every week.
Members reiterated their concern regarding the proposal and advised that regarding the storage of bins, the intrusion of them on to highway, particularly located next to the bus route and the impact it would have on those using the highway.
Members expressed concern that there was no suitable parking close by and that there would be an increased demand for Town center permits and had concern about the development overall.
RESOLVED: That application 24/00322/FULL be approved, subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT WORKS TO INCLUDE RE-PROFILING AND RESURFACING OF PROMENADE, NEW SEATING AND LIGHTING ALTERATIONS TO FLOOD DEFENCE WALL AND PROVISION OF GATES (LISTED BUILDING AND LISTED GARDEN IN A CONSERVATION AREA)
Seafront At The Former Royal Hospital Haslar Haslar Road Haslar Gosport PO12 2AA
Mr Wright was invited to address the Board as follows
Canada House is a C2 classified residential accommodation for residents requiring assisted living and on going care.
Residents of Canada house were told when purchasing their apartments that that the site was a private property had 24/7 security with manned barriers at the entrance and a secure gated fence to the seawall.
This information is still being stated by the sales agent and reference made in the brochures and website.
However, when reading the planning notice regarding the development of the seawall there is no reference to the fence remaining in place. It refers to five gates which are flood defence gates so only up at times of flood, and a metal bar
Residents have also only recently discovered that the site is an “OPEN” site with free public access.
Residents discovered this when the café opened in July and visitors started to wander around the site and treated the site as a park.
Sadly they also focussed upon Canada House which is located directly adjacent to the sea wall. This has resulted in visitors peering into resident’s windows intruding upon their privacy and causing significant anguish. There have been many instances of the elderly residents being frightened when these people peer in the windows. Some residents have taken it upon themselves to confront visitors to inform them that this building is residential and not for public access. Some take offence leading to some unsavoury confrontations.
These examples of the site being “OPEN” with free public access is causing much stress and anxiety to the elderly residents in Canada House.
What does open mean?
In the principle issues section 16 of the response to the public advertisement: it quotes “the proposal will enhance connectivity and public access between the waterfront and wider Haslar site and would not prejudice the implementation of the remainder of the development or harm the amenities of the occupiers of existing prospective or neighbouring occupiers”.
In our opinion the development of the seawall and open access to the site with Canada House at the front is going to seriously harm the amenities of the occupiers and increase the number of incidents quoted in this deputation and have a detrimental effect upon resident’s lives. Surely it cannot be right that residents living in Canada House will have to accept this new way of life at their advanced ages. They came here to have a quiet enjoyable life by the sea in their later years and had never expected the site to be totally open to the public.
We sincerely hope that the board will seriously consider the lives of the residents and the potential disruption removing the fence will inevitably have on their lives.
We believe that a fence is needed to provide the Canada House residents with privacy and protect Canada House residents from these intrusions. Residents pay for the upkeep maintenance and repairs and management of the site so should be entitled to living a peaceful enjoyable life. There is no funding provided by the GBC so no cost to the local general public.
There are common laws under The Countryside rights of way laws that state that we are entitled to live in our home without unnecessary interference from the public and the public do not have an automatic right to enter the gardens or surrounding area within 20 metres of the building used as a dwelling. This land is called “excepted land”
We all support the development of the seawall but know that we as residents will be the ones who end up paying for the improved seawall and on-going repairs and maintenance so expect to have a say in the way it is used by the public and to protect the Canada House property from intruders.
Plans can be changed as we all know; normally by the developer but on this occasion we ask as residents, for the board to reconsider this specific requirement of an “OPEN” site to be more defined. I’m sure there is a reasonable compromise which can be reached by further discussion.
There are open days and guided tours available throughout the year for the general public to visit the site free of charge which should be sufficient.
The Board was advised by the Development Manager that comment could not be made on the marketing of the properties and that there had always a requirement for public access to the site, as part of the legal agreement. Things like sensitive planting and signage could be used to address concerns of the residents on site.
The site was gated, but there were access rights to the site for the public.
Eamon Prenter was invited to address the Board on behalf of the Developer, he advised that he had sympathy for the objectors concern, however the proposal presented was exactly the same as a previously approved proposal in 2017, delayed because of the pandemic. The only amendments were that of biodiversity elements and supporting information.
There was a clear requirement for the continued access to the public as per the legal agreement and this had been clear in the outlined permission, the masterplan and the Borough plan.
There would still be 24 hour monitoring on the site and any issues would be monitored, antisocial behaviour would be dealt with by security staff on site and that general access would be limited to 9am – 5pm, but opening times may vary pending the time it got dark. It was confirmed that appropriate signage would be suggested to support residents but that this was not a planning consideration.
Members acknowledged that the legal agreement required the provision of public access and that the application presented was not for the consideration. Members also welcomed the measures being taking against flooding and protection from waste and surface water.
Members acknowledged the concern of the residents and hoped that the developer would take these back and address through planting and signage.
RESOLVED: That application 24/00170/FULL, be approved, subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
24/00322/FULL - CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND FLOOR EXTENSION, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO INCLUDE CHANGES TO NORTHERN ELEVATION, FENESTRATION AND CREATION OF ROOF TERRACE, TO FACILITATE CONVERSION AT PART GROUND AND UPPER FLOORS TO FORM SEVEN DWELLINGS (CLASS C3) (CONSERVATION AREA) (Amended documents received 11.09.25 & 24.10.25, Amended Description of Development)
20 - 24 High Street Gosport Hampshire PO12 1DE
25/00135/FULL -REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING POLYCARBONATE ROOF, WITH PITCHED GLAZED ROOF AND INSTALLATION OF RAILINGS TO WINDOWS ON FRONT ELEVATION (CONSERVATION AREA) (PART RETROSPECTIVE)
Flat 1 7 Ashburton Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 2LH
Members were advised that the applications was for an update to the conservatory roof. Members acknowledged that many of the factors highlighted in the objection were not planning matters.
It was confirmed that many were private legal matters and that these could not be considered as part of the planning application.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00135/FULL be approved subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
25/00153/FULL - CHANGE OF USE FROM PUBLIC HOUSE (SUI GENERIS) TO AN 11 BEDROOM HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (SUI GENERIS) AND PUBLIC HOUSE (SUI GENERIS) TO INCLUDE A FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSION AND AMENDMENTS TO THE FENESTRATION OF EACH ELEVATION (as amended by a revised internal layout received 24.10.2025).
The Clarence Tavern 1 Clarence Road Gosport Hampshire PO12 1BB
Jonathan McDermott was invited to address the Board. He advise that he welcomed the Officer’s report and the recommendation for approval.
He advised that the pub had closed in July 2024 and that the decline in trade had led to the closure, along with many others across the country.
The proposal was such that it would allow for a viable business, but provide a much needed source of affordable homes. The cost of a 1 bed flat in the borough to rent ranged between £1385-£1585 and these would provide an alternative for half the cost. These properties would give the opportunity for young people to leave home.
There had been no objections from the Local Highway Authority, Building Control and the rooms were all at, or greater than required in size. It had been determined that the Pub would have no impact on the amenity of residents and it was reiterated that homes were much needed.
In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that there would be two management companies, one that ran the pub, and one that ran the HMO. Discussions were ongoing with local breweries about the operation and management of them.
Members welcomed the use of HMOs for those that required accommodation to support them in having accommodation, and to allow workers to have accommodation relative to wages such apprenticeships, but accepted there was often bad publicity in relation to HMO and their occupants. It was accepted that this was not a planning consideration. It was expressed however that the rooms should be available to Gosport residents.
A Member questioned to what level the pub would be preserved as the bar had already been removed, along with other features and it was confirmed that the former pub would be the accommodation, with the chapel like extension being utilised for the pub, this had been built in the 1970s and was not the original building.
Members questioned the provision of parking for the site and it was acknowledged that its location central to transport hubs had mitigated the need for parking but Members felt that if the development wanted to attract professionals like apprentices, it was likely they would have a vehicle. Members also questioned the provision for staff parking, and the impact that the proposal would have on surrounding areas.
The Board was advised that there was sufficient and significant long stay parking available within the area, and local bus provision, however Members felt that workers would not want to walk such distances late at night.
Members reiterated disappointment that the area being preserved for the bar was the later 1970s addition, and not the original bar. Member were advised that the developer was working hard to restore the elements of the building that could be restored.
It was acknowledged that the residents of the HMO were not a planning consideration and could not be controlled and that the Public House would be subject to licensing rules.
The Board was advised that the land identified as used as parking for the pub previously and currently covered in artificial grass was Hampshire County Council land.
Members expressed concern that there was not enough waste storage on the site given the additional requirements for food waste and Members were advised that commercial waste was not for the Council to collect.
Some Members welcomed that the proposal as it would provide both housing and employment, but disappointment was expressed that the entire pub site could not have been saved. Members were advised that the lease for the pub was 5 years, which was considered to be long term.
Councillor Cully was invited to address the Board as the ward Councillor. She advised that she was addressing the Board to highlight the residents’ concerns regarding the proposal.
She advised that there was concern from residents of St Matthews Court a there was already significant parking pressure within the area, King Street suffered with parking problems as a result of people using the pharmacy which often created a blockage of cars.
It was felt that the use of other Council car parks for the development was unsuitable as people did not like walking and would park close to the site to the detriment of other residents in the area. The layby in King Street was owned by Hampshire Highways and as a result was often used by non-residents as an alternative to using the Council Car Parks. It was hoped that the use of the land formerly used for parking could continue to be used as such to help alleviate the issues.
There was concerns that the waste storage could be used by others, residents of St Matthew’s Court were already having to lock their own waste storage area as it was being used for antisocial behaviour.
Concern was expressed that there would be 11 people in the residential element of the property, and there was concern about the behaviour of those residents parallel with the provision of a licensed premises and whether the proximity of the two uses was conducive to a good living environment.
In answer to a Members question, the Board was advised that a Licence had been submitted to the Local Authority in respect of the Public House.
The boundary of the site was confirmed to the Board.
Members accepted that the Public House had not been sustainable, and that this was an opportunity to retain the public house in some form but expressed regret that the original public house was not saved. There was disappointment that it had not been able to be utilised as a boutique hotel, or B and B to compliment the local community need.
Members reiterated their concern with regard to the parking provision on site, and in the surrounding areas but welcomed the employment and the boost to the local economy.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00153/FULL be approved, subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
25/00255/FULL – ERECTION OF A CAR PORT
1C The Redan, Gosport, PO12 2AY
Mr Barrett, the applicant was invited to address the Board, he advised that the car port was a replacement for the existing car port and that the proposal did not compromise access, or cause any discomfort to neighbours and did not present a fire risk.
In answer to a Member’s question, he advised the Board that the proposed height of the car port was to accommodate his camper van, to allow it to be stored undercover and that there were no implications to the surrounding buildings. Neighbouring buildings were not overlooked.
He advised that his bungalow was sunken in relation to neighbouring properties, so it would sit lower in the streetscene.
Members felt that the proposal would have minimal impact on the surrounding area.
RESOVLED: that application 25/00255/FULL be approved, subject to the conditions of the report of the Development Manager.
25/00294/GR3
CONSTRUCTION OF PART SINGLE / PART TWO-STOREY BUILDINGS TO COMPRISE COMMERCIAL UNITS (CLASS E) WITH ASSOCIATED ROOF TERRACES, LANDSCAPING AND SERVICE LAYBY ON THE ESPLANADE (As amended and amplified by documents received on 24.09.25, 17.11.25, 20.11.25 & 25.11.25)
Former Bus Station South Street Gosport Hampshire PO12 1EP
The Board was advised that the application for the performance space had been considered and that this application was for the construction of the commercial units and associated landscaping.
Amended drawings had been received since publication of the Regulatory Board Report. These include:
- minor changes to show the dedicated off-highway turning area as referenced within the Board report;
- minor changes to the plant room accesses and adjoining landscaping;
- Enlarged refuse and recyclable materials store.
Recommended Condition 2 has been updated to reference the following amended drawings:
25.037.004 Rev-P4 - (Proposed Block Plan);
25.037.100 Rev-P6 - (Proposed Ground Floor Plan);
25.037.101 Rev-P6 - (Proposed First Floor Plan);
25.037.102 Rev-P6 - (Proposed Roof Plan);
25.037.200 Rev-P4 - (Proposed Elevations 1 - East & West);
25.037.201 Rev-P4 - (Proposed Elevations 2 - North & South);
25.037.202 Rev-P4 - (Proposed Elevations 3 - Internal East and West);
25.037.203 Rev-P4 - (Proposed Sections).
Arboricultural Report
An updated Arboricultural Report has been provided to reference the retained trees to the north-west corner of the site between the two proposed buildings (Trees T27, T28, T29). The report also includes an updated Tree Protection Plan (Appendix 4). No further tree felling is proposed within the application red line from that previous reported within the Regulatory Board report. Recommended Condition 4 has been updated to make reference to the revised Arboricultural Report and its Tree Protection Plan (Produced by Syntegra ref.24-14336 dated Nov 25, received 02.12.25).
Alex King was invited to address the Board as below
Firstly, I would like to thank members and officers for the opportunity to speak in support of this scheme for the applicant.
As a planning consultant for Mission Town Planning, I am pleased to work with the applicant, and to present the planning merits of the scheme to members the evening.
The scheme is well set out within the committee report in terms of what is being provided, and this has already been set out in the Officers presentation.
The site was formally the site of the bus station and associated hard standing. A new transport interchange is now located to the north of the site. The building is the second phase of a plan to deliver a scheme for the wider area. Phase 1 delivered the change of use of the eastern part of the former bus station site to public open space with associated landscaping works. This element will deliver a mixed-use development comprising commercial, and community spaces and a new ticket office in line with the plans presented by officers.
The scheme marks the culmination of efforts to present a regenerative scheme that will contribute to the entrance to this part of Gosport and will provide will add to the vitality of the area for existing and visiting people.
It is noted that there are no objections from any of the statutory consultees to the scheme. We have worked hard with officers to provide as much information as possible to allow them to make an informed recommendation and to give certainty where possible. Some elements are still subject to conditions to ensure that all areas where queries remain will be addressed.
While there were wider aspirations for the site, these are covered within the officer’s report, and the scheme presented will allow for a deliverable form of development to be bought forward for the wider benefit of the area. The scheme complies with local and national planning policy, and we would contend addresses the requirements of policy LP4 and the Gosport Waterfront and Town Centre Supplementary Planning Document.
The design of the scheme has been considered as improving the quality and character of the area, and one which would enhance the wider townscape area and setting. The buildings will create a sense of activity being dual fronted to ensure activity and vibrance but one which also ensures a sense of wider public safety and security.
While some queries have been raised around amenity, it must be remembered that the proposal replaces a bus station, and phase 1 of the scheme as consented provides a public park area. Officers acknowledge that issues around future operation, but these will largely be operator driven depending on how that businesses wishes to operate. This is secured by proposed condition 18.
In regard to the highway’s implications of the development, the site has previously been used more intensively and has also that the site has been identified for considerably more intensive uses.
The development is car free and the highways authority has raised no object to this concept. There is ample cycle parking offered throughout the site. Finally, as demonstrated through latter submissions the site will be serviced to the east of the site.
The scheme also addresses issues of flooding, ecology and drainage and are all agreed by the relevant statutory consultees.
We acknowledge and are sympathetic to neighbouring concerns, the sustainable location, access to public transport, type of use will mean that the scheme should add to the vitality, accessibility and vibrancy of the area as a whole.
While there is clearly much more I could add I hope that this brief summary has been of use to members and demonstrates the applicant’s commitment to the development.
I would also like to thank officers for all their help and support. I hope that members are able to consider the merits of the scheme and to recommend the development favourably.
In answer to a Members question the Board was advised that fixed tables were to remain outside but those that could be moved would need to be taken inside each evening.
Clarification was also sought around the time the premises needed to be vacated, as it was felt that 2300 would mean the venues would need to close at 22:30. The hours of the license would also need to be considered as the license for the site was agreed as being until 23:30.
It was felt that sufficient time needed to be given to allowing premises to close down and to vacate the premises and that the standard closing time of 23:00 should be considered to allow the premises to be as viable as possible. It was acknowledged that each venue would need their own premises license.
It was acknowledge that the licensing of a premises and the planning permission detailing a time to vacate were separate, but felt there should be an alignment.
Members agreed that the vacation of the premises should be later and it was proposed and agreed that the time be amended to 2400 Monday to Saturday, and 23:00 on a Sunday.
RESOLVED: That application 25/00294/GR3 be approved subject to the amendments as detailed and the conditions of the report of the Development Manager.
24/00322/FULL CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND FLOOR EXTENSION, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO INCLUDE CHANGES TO NORTHERN ELEVATION, FENESTRATION AND CREATION OF ROOF TERRACE, TO FACILITATE CONVERSION AT PART GROUND AND UPPER FLOORS TO FORM SEVEN DWELLINGS (CLASS C3) (CONSERVATION AREA) (Amended documents received 11.09.25 & 24.10.25, Amended Description of Development)
20 - 24 High Street Gosport Hampshire PO12 1DE
The Board was advised that conversion proposed to the upper and rear parts of the banking hall, and that the external façade would not be impacted.
The building was not listed, nor did have significance.
It was recognised the building was prominent on the street scene and over 100 years old.
Members expressed concern regarding the provision of bin storage, as there was none, and were advised that the alleyway could not be used for storage as waste would not be collected from there. Concern was expressed that the large bins would block the footway.
The Board was advised that some of the converstion could take place within the Permitted Development rules.
The Board was advised that there would be 1 x 360 bin and a food waste bin collected every week.
Members reiterated their concern regarding the proposal and advised that regarding the storage of bins, the intrusion of them on to highway, particularly located next to the bus route and the impact it would have on those using the highway.
Members expressed concern that there was no suitable parking close by and that there would be an increased demand for Town center permits and had concern about the development overall.
RESOLVED: That application 24/00322/FULL be approved, subject to the conditions in the report of the Development Manager.
10
Any Other Items
Minutes
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in