1 Apologies for non-attendance

Minutes Apologies for non attendance were received from Councillor Carter and Councillor Philpott.

2 Declarations of Interest

All Members are required to disclose at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter, any disclosable pecuniary interest or personal interest in any item(s) being considered at this meeting.

Minutes Councillor Huggins declared that she was on the Adult Services Board at the County Council, she would not comment on this part of application 25/00096/FULL and had no voting rights as an exofficio member of the Board.

Councillor Bradley advised that her she knew the landowner for application 25/00096/FULL development in passing, but had no voting rights as an exofficio member of the Board.

3 Minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2026

To sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 3 June 2026.

Attachments:

Document Minutes Public Pack, 03/06/2026 Regulatory Board 21 Jul 2026

Minutes RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 3 June 2026 be signed as a true and correct record.

4 Deputations - Standing Order 3.4

(NOTE: The Board is required to receive a deputation(s) on a matter which is before the meeting of the Board provided that notice of the intended deputation and its object shall have been received by the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on Monday 27 July 2026. The total time for deputations in favour and against a proposal shall not exceed 10 minutes).

Minutes Deputations were received on items

26/00216/CROWN- Haslar Immigration Removal Centre.

25/00096/FULL – Browndown

26/00055/FULL – 1 Britten Road

5 Public Questions - Standing Order 3.5

(NOTE: The Board is required to allow a total of 15 minutes for questions from Members of the public on matters within the terms of reference of the Board provided that notice of such Question(s) shall have been submitted to the Borough Solicitor by 12 noon on Monday 27 July 2026).

Minutes There were none.

6 Crown Development application - Haslar Immigration Removal Centre

Report to Follow.

Attachments:

Document IRC 21 Jul 2026
Document 323319-15207-ATR-000-GF-DR-A-0100-S2-D0100 21 Jul 2026

Minutes Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Development Management detailing a planning consultation received from the Crown Development Unit at the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government (SoS) relating to an Outline planning application to expand the Haslar Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) to provide additional capacity.

Graham Phillips was invited to address the Board.

He advised the following

Health and wellbeing: At no point during the build has the health and wellbeing of local people been taken into consideration. We have had to put up with contractor noise, air pollution, from demolition of buildings, contractor movements of heavy lorries and constant back up safety alarms from vehicles on site. Being woken up at 0600 in the morning by some inconsiderate contractors who refuse to park in the nominated car park. The thought of 600, male illegal detainees living a few yards from our home is of great concern. It is a disgrace the way we have been treated. We appear to be invisible to the Home Office, Ministry of Justice and the Government. These detainees will be given access to dentists, doctors, solicitors and health and wellbeing services. It is disgraceful when we struggle to get a doctors or dentist appointment.

3 storey accommodation blocks: this has been changed from 2 storey to 3 storey, which was not the original plan. This will cause more stress and upset for neighbours who will be both overlooking and overlooked by this development.

600 detainees: This is a huge number of male detainees close to the residential properties which is extremely worrying, why was this number chosen?

Movement to the site of detainees: I understand that this will be day and night. Has anybody given any consideration to how this will affect the neighbouring properties with lack of sleep as vehicles enter and exit the site 24/7 365 days a year.

Communication: this has been dire from the start. We asked right at the beginning to be kept up to date on the build but this has fallen on deaf ears. We need to have someone as a point of contact so that we can air our concerns and worries through one channel of communication.

Proximity of fence line: The bottom of my fence line is 1.98mtrs from the IRC fence line and what will be the recreational part of the IRC. What mitigations will be put in place so that we will not be able to see these detainees walking around in beautiful landscaped gardens and that they won’t be able to see in our homes.

Light pollution: Once the facility is open and the adjacent car park is open what will be put into place to help with the light pollution this will cause? Will the street lighting be turned back on when the facility opens?

Environment: The now IRC car park was land where people could walk their dogs, enjoy walking and have access to the sea wall. This was ripped apart to make way for a temporary contractor car park. Birds and animals were displaced and wildflowers destroyed. This land had, as a condition of sale on it, that it was for the people of Gosport, but that has now been taken away from us.

The way the car park was sold, in a closed meeting was disgraceful as notification of its’ disposal was a small add in the newspaper which only came to light a few days before objections had to be submitted. The boat yard was ripped apart, trees pulled down and wildlife displaced to make into a van park which has caused more problems for people living close by.

The Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Government are at fault for the way they have handled this whole situation from day 1.

Homes locally: Despite substantial reductions below agents’ valuation, buyers are absent. This is not solely due to the market, but due to the building works and the uncertainty of what comes next. I am now a prisoner in my own home as I cannot sell. Phase 1 and the prospect of Phase 2 have effectively trapped me and there seems to be nothing I can do about it.

So to summarise local residents real world situation.

Phase 1 3 years of demolition, construction, van parking wars, cone wars, dust, dirt, noise and littering, and the blighting of our everyday lives and homes. 2 years have been endured so far, with 1 more to go.

Phase 2. An additional 2 more years of the same. That’s a 5 year construction period in total, all happening metres from our boundaries and in a very confined residential area. In addition, there will be a fully operating IRC throughout phase 2 construction adding to the general mayhem.

And if that’s not enough for everyone, we can throw in the development of a 279 bay car park complete with full security fencing, lighting and surveillance, on land that was supposed to be a public amenity area for the benefit of all Gosport’s residents, visitors and wildlife alike until that is, Gosport Borough Council sold it off to the Home Officer, thereby giving the light to phase 2.

Beyond all of that we have the unknown consequences of living with a 600 bed IRC, plus circa 414 staff operating 365 days a year, 24/7.

I have lived and worked in the Borough for 75 years and this is what I and my fellow neighbours are rewarded with.

Will the Council lobby our MP, and the Home Office to set up a scheme to buy out those, whose homes in the area are permanently blighted and effectively unsellable?

The Council’s Solicitor was invited to update the Board. He advised that this application was a Crown Development application submitted to the Secretary of State, by the Home Office and that the Council were statutory consultees as the Local Planning Authority. The report presented was to consider the Council’s response as a statutory consultee in its role as the Local Planning Authority.

Crown Development applications could be considered in a number of ways, there could be a Public Inquiry, or the Secretary of State could appoint a Planning Inspector to determine it.

The application was available on the government website to comment on by all, and it was reiterated that the Board’s role was to consider the Council’s response as the Local Planning Authority. This should take into account the Local Plan and material planning considerations. Non planning matters should not be included in the Council’s response as Local Planning Authority, but other consultees could comment on matters such as Highways. The consultation was open to all to respond, and whilst the Board meeting could only discuss matters of planning considerations, the Council, or individual Members or political parties, could make comment on any wider observations.

The Head of Development Management reiterated that the proposal was a response to consultation relating to Crown Development application submitted to Secretary of State, by the Home Office relating to expansion of Haslar Immigration Removal Centre from 130 to 600 detainees this is in addition to Phase 1 which has comprised of the refurbishment of existing buildings and had not required planning permission.

As part of the Crown Development process, Gosport Borough Council was required to publicise the application as well as provide the Planning Inspectorate with background information, which Officers had done. Gosport Borough Council were also a statutory consultee required to make comments on the application by 6th August.

The phase one refurbishment works for the most part did not require planning approval and will provide a facility with capacity for 130 detainees within a secure complex designed to category C prison standards.

The application presented was an outline with all matters reserved except access, this means that the scale and siting of buildings and their appearance as well as landscaping will be the subject of a future detailed application.

The main access to the expanded IRC would be as existing via Dolphin Way and the land to the south west shown as a car park would be served via the existing access off Fort Road. The existing dropped kerb adjacent to no. 13 Fort Road is shown to be retained as an emergency access only.

The parameters for the new development as set out in the application relate to an additional 3,258 sq m of floor space in buildings of up to 12 metres high (three storey scale).

Application is supported by a range of documents including those relating to flooding, ecology, heritage and transport which are among the main issues to be considered. A number of the supporting documents and drawings are heavily redacted which in some instances has made a thorough assessment of the development proposals more difficult than with a planning application submitted direct to the Council.

Nevertheless Officers have assessed the submitted drawings and documents with their views being set out in the report. Officers are concerned about a number of aspects, albeit that some of these should be addressed by other consultees who will provide their views direct to the Planning Inspectorate.

Other concerns relate to the proposals as shown in the indicative drawings and whilst it is accepted that the same quantum of development could be provided in a more acceptable layout that may reduce the impact on, in particular, the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area and the former Royal Hospital Haslar, as submitted this is has not been demonstrated.

The recommendation includes delegated authority to make additional comments in the event supporting documents with less detail redacted are provided to the Council. These have been requested and are expected to be provided.

Members thanked officers for their explanation of the application and expressed concern at the action taken by the Home Office and commented that some individual Members and parties would be making their own representations.

Members advised that they understood the frustration and concern of residents local to the site.

In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that there had been correspondence advising that the high level of redaction made it difficult to correctly analyse and respond to the application and as of yet unredacted copies of information and plans had not been received. It was advised that the Highway Authority had also requested the same information to allow them to make accurate comments on highway matters.

A Member expressed concern at the high level of transport movement and also reiterated the residents desire for a point of contact. It was advised that this was not something the Council had to provide to residents. The Member was advised that the recent motion to Full Council had included the desire for a Community Liaison Panel and this had been asked for.

Concern was reiterated that the Home Office had provided redacted papers. This had reinforced the mistrust of the proposal, following the amendment to the advertised plan at the community event and made people question what they were hiding. Members reiterated that they should be open and honest with their intentions.

A Member questioned the ongoing position with the mitigation for the impact on the habitat for the animals on site and was advised that there were no updates. The ecologist had raised concerns about the adequate mitigation for protected species. This information would be provided to the decision makers.

Members expressed concern that the proposal had previously been identified within the local plan as a potential housing site which would support meeting the Council’s housing targets.

Members thanked officers for their support and the report they had provided. It was detailed and complex which had been a significant achievement given the short timescale. The proposal was not the correct fit for the site.

It was highlighted that at point 4.3.1 of the report highlighted the proximity to the Haslar Barracks Conservation Area and recognised that this was an important heritage site and that there was concern that the size and scale of the proposal would impact this. The site would not be good for neighbours, the proposal was large and overwhelming, and the site was located within a flood zone.

Concern was reiterated about the redacted documents.

Members reiterated that the consultation was open until 6th August and encouraged people to respond directly. After that date the planning inspector would look at the information provided and decide which method of determination would be used, a hearing, a public enquiry or by written representation.

Members advised that they welcomed the excellent report but felt that it could strengthened. It was suggested that this could be delegated to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chairman and Leader of the Council to finalise.

It was proposed and seconded

‘That authority be delegated to the Head of Development Management, the Chairman of the Regulatory Board to complete the finalised response’

And that the first bullet point be amended to read:

The Borough Council as Local Planning Authority is extremely concerned about the level of redaction of details on the submitted and drawings and supported documents which make a thorough assessment of the proposals very challenging and is contrary to the presumption in favour of transparency and openness in the planning process.

Members recognised the importance of pushing back on the application and strengthening the objection and concern.

The amendment was proposed and seconded and subsequently agreed.

Member’s reiterated concern about the additional journeys to and from the facility as the increase would be a daily occurrence with numbers not clear. In addition, there would be a significant number of staff journeys and the location on the end of a peninsular would add traffic to the whole Borough.

It was advised that an inclusion on the highway impact could be made to the proposal and an additional amendment was proposed,

The Council has very strong concerns of unknown assessment of cumulative traffic, reliance on an unconfirmed bus service. Constrained access to the peninsula and heavily redacted transport information.

This was subsequently seconded and agreed.

RESOLVED:

That authority be delegated to the Head of Development Management, in consultation with the Chairman of the Regulatory Board and Leader of the Council, to complete and finalise a response to the consultation on behalf of the Council and to raise objection and concerns on the following grounds and on any other matter considered relevant in the event that any additional information is received:

· The Borough Council as Local Planning Authority is extremely concerned about the level of redaction of details on the submitted and drawings and supporting documents which make a thorough assessment of the proposals very challenging and is contrary to the presumption in favour of transparency and openness in the planning process.

· The Council has very strong concerns, given the height and scale necessary to achieve the quantum of development proposed in the application, about the harmful impact on the setting of a number of adjacent designated heritage assets, in particular the Haslar Barracks Conservation area and the Listed Buildings and park at the former Royal Hospital Haslar.

· The Council is also very concerned about the potential impact on protected species, including bats and reptiles, especially as the survey work undertaken is considered to be out of date and deficient.

· The decision maker will need to be satisfied that the development proposals would not be at risk of flooding and would not give rise to an increase in flood risk elsewhere.

· The Council has very strong concerns of unknown assessment of cumulative traffic, reliance on an unconfirmed bus service,. Constrained access to the peninsula and heavily redacted transport information.

7 Report of the Head of Development Management

To consider the reports of the Head of Development Management.

Attachments:

Document Combined Agenda 21 Jul 2026

Minutes Consideration was given to the report of the Head of Development Management detailing applications for consideration.

25/00096/FULL - PROPOSED MIXED-USE PHASED REDEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING THE DEMOLITION AND CLEARANCE OF THE SITE, FOR A CARE HOME (USE CLASS C2), 57 NO. DWELLINGS (USE CLASS C3), 3 NO. COMMERCIAL UNITS ACCESSED FROM BROWNDOWN ROAD (CLASS E), PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, SUBSTATION, VEHICULAR ACCESS TO PRIVETT ROAD, PEDESTRIAN/CYCLE ACCESS TO BROWNDOWN ROAD WITH TOUCAN CROSSING, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED LAND RAISING, HIGHWAY, PARKING, LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE, AND OTHER ANCILLARY WORKS (as amended and amplified by documents received 12.01.26, 06.05.26, 29.05.26 & 19.06.26 - Amended description of development)

Browndown Training Camp Browndown Road Lee-On-The-Solent Hampshire PO13 9UG

The Board was advised that there was no updates.

The proposal related to the redevelopment of the former Browndown Camp barracks to provide 57 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings and a 68 bed care home and small commercial units accessed principally from Privett Road.

The detailed recommendation sets out that it was a finely balanced recommendation with a key number of judgements affecting the planning balance.

The starting point is that the development is located outside the urban area and within the settlement gap and sois contrary to policy. There rae also concerns with respect of noise, visual impact on the settlement gap and flood risk that are all negative aspects of the proposal.

However, the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing supply, tilting the balance towards sustainable development.

There are also public benefits that weight favourably within the planning balance, 57 family homes, 40% of which affordable, a 68 bed care home for individuals with high dependency needs, redevelopment of a Brownfield site, the opening of the site to the public with new pedestrian and cycle routes and open spaces and a new pedestrian crossing.

Over all it is considered that the adverse impacts of the proposal do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and the recommendation is to grant conditional permission.

In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that the Council had to demonstrate a 5 year supply of houses to meet its delivery target, currently there was only a 1.78 year supply, so below the target.

As a result, this impacted on which policies in the NPPF could be considered, as consideration should be given to applications that do help the Council meet its delivery target, as this benefit could outweigh concerns.

The delivery target could be seen as unfair in the Borough as there was so little remaining land to develop.

In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that if the council could not demonstrate the supply and did not grant permission to applications that tipped the balance in favour, they could have their decision making powers removed from them.

Decisions could then be made by the planning inspectorate that with the balance tipping the proposal into recommendation the Council would lose. It was reiterated that in Gosport that there was very little space for properties to be built.

Phil Prosser was invited to address the Board. He advised that he was the applicant and that the company was locally based and experienced in delivering such developments. He advised there was a clear need for the residential accommodation, with the population of over 80’s increasing and the market for spaces in such homes was not keeping pace. The home would be built to a high standard.

In addition the plan for the entire site was a strong one, with significant much needed affordable homes and a high quality development.

Mr Hawthorne was invited to address the Board.

He advised the following.

Good evening Chairman, Ladies and Gentleman. My name is Martin Hawthorne and I am the planning director at Highwood.

Firstly, I would like to thank your officers for their approach throughout the progression of this application that is before you this evening. As detailed in para. 20 (in the principal issues part of the report) the “final design and layout represents the outcome of a pro-active and iterative design process between officers and the applicant”. That joint approach has led to an excellent scheme that is of a very good design quality and has addressed all of the technical issues that were raised through the progress of the application. Indeed as you can see from the report there are no objections from any of the formal technical consultees.

As detailed in the officer’s report there are a number of significant planning factors in favour of this proposal:

- The site is previously developed land. The NPPF makes it very clear that planning decisions should give substantial weight to use of brown field land.

- Your housing supply sits at just 1.87 years and your housing delivery test at just 25.2% . These figures both engage the tilted balance and demonstrate the chronic need for new housing.

- In particular, and as my colleague touched on, there is a massive need for high quality care provision for our ever aging population. There is also a huge need for affordable housing. We are providing a fully policy compliant 40% affordable housing. The mix of this was agreed with your Housing delivery officer who welcomes this provision. In addition to the care and affordable there is a need for open market housing and we are also providing 34 dwellings which will all be 2 or 3 bed homes.

- We are also including a small amount of commercial floorspace. This combined with the construction jobs, the some 60 full time equivalent jobs in the care home and local spend by occupants, will provide a significant boost to the local economy.

- We are providing a new footpath/cycleway through the site and a new pedestrian crossing on Browndown Road. In addition, there will be attractive new areas of public open space and new landscaping throughout the site.

Your officer states that this is a high quality development that has significant material planning benefits in the planning balance and in summation concludes that the proposal that would meet the definition of sustainable development and therefore recommends approval.

I obviously ask you to endorse his recommendation and approve this much needed development.

Members expressed concerns that the proposal was located adjacent to an active military site, where live shooting took place regularly. It was accepted that the decision to propose properties close to that was a commercial one and that the applicants had considered this and accepted it would continue. It was advised that occupants would be informed. It was also felt that most occupants would be existing Gosport residents and would therefore have a knowledge of the use of the military range.

It was also advised that the MOD had stated that there was no objection to the proposal but that operations would continue.

In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that a Section 106 contribution towards primary care would be held until the Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB requested them for projects and that the starting point for the request was that the funds would be held for 10 years before the developer could asked for them to be returned. It was advised that primary care contributions would not fully fund additional physical medical facilities, but would be combined with contributions from similar developments and that the contribution sought is be proportionate to address the demand associated with this particular development.

It was advised that this was a legal agreement and that progress would not be made until this had been completed.

In answer to a Member’s question, the Board was advised that the world war one training trenches were located on the north side of Privett Road and there would be no impact from the site.

Members acknowledged that the site was in disrepair and that the buildings on the site were empty.

Members also acknowledged that the proposal would bring significant improvements/benefits including a pedestrian crossing and much needed family housing for local people given the affordable provision proposed..

A Member advised that they felt the proposal would create additional traffic for the peninsular and that more people would make the demand on services worse.

It was advised that there were significant numbers of Gosport residents in need of housing, and in addition there were many residents in larger properties that could benefit families that could not move, as smaller units were not available.

It was acknowledged that although there was some reluctance, and negative aspects to the proposal, on balance it was acceptable.

RESOLVED: That application 25/00096/FULL be approved subject to the conditions in the report of the Head of Development Management; and

RECOMMENDATION A: that, subject to no adverse comment being received from Natural England in respect of the Local Authority's HRA Appropriate Assessment, authority be delegated to the Head of Development Management to Grant Planning Permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement pursuant to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure the following planning obligations and subject to the following conditions;

RECOMMENDATION B: that authority be delegated to the Head of Development Management to add, amend and delete conditions where necessary;

RECOMMENDATION C: that authority be delegated to the Head of Development Management to refuse the application if the legal agreement as set out within RECOMMENDATION A is not completed within a period of six calendar months.

26/00140/FULL - ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING TO INCLUDE RE-CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND STOREY, CHANGES TO FENESTRATION, INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PANELS, PLANT AND MACHINERY, CHANGE OF USE OF BUILDING TO COMMERCIAL (CLASS E), DEMOLITION OF EXISTING TOILET BLOCK AND PROVISION OF NEW CHANGING PLACES TOILET FACILITIES AND HARD SURFACING AND BIN STORE (LISTED BUILDING IN CONSERVATION AREA) (ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS TO PLANNING PERMISSION 25/00061/FULL) (as amplified by information received 08.07.26)

Rum Store Victoria Quay Royal Clarence Yard Gosport Weevil Lane PO12 1AX

Members were advised that the application site is within the former Royal Clarence Yard and comprises a substantial grade II Listed Building, which is currently unoccupied due to its poor condition. Planning permission and Listed Building Consent were granted in September 2025, for a similar scheme, following consideration by the Board. The proposals are to bring the building back into commercial use, and largely reinstate the building to its original design, with an additional floor on the eastern section. The main differences are the more modern intervention of a rooftop bar, previously approved, having been removed from the scheme, the introduction of a marine related retail use at ground floor, some changes to the design features and materials, internally and externally, and amendments to the parking and cycle storage arrangements.

The Board was advised that the Local Highway Authority have commented on the additional highways information provided, by the applicant, and confirmed that they are satisfied that the trip generation indicated will not cause harm, but note concerns about the shortfall of parking. There is no increase in the size of the building, over the approved scheme, noting the removal of the bar from the proposals and given the notable public benefits, of bringing this Listed Building back into use.

The Board was advised that the roof top bar had been removed as it was cost prohibitive, it was acknowledged that this was a shame but that it was important to see the building brought back to use.

It was advised that it could not be conditioned that the jobs on site were for Gosport residents only.

RESOLVED: That application 26/00140/FULL be approved subject to the conditions in the report of the Head of Development Management.

26/00141/LBA - LISTED BUILDING APPLICATION - INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO INCLUDE RE-CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECOND STOREY, NEW FLOORS, INSTALLATION OF NEW STAIR AND LIFT CORES AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING LIFT CORE AND INTERNAL PARTITIONS, CHANGES TO FENESTRATION, THERMAL UPGRADES AND PROVISION OF SOLAR PANELS, INSTALLATION OF NEW MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND FIRE SERVICES, DEMOLITION OF TOILET BLOCK AND PROVISION OF NEW CHANGING PLACES TOILET FACILITIES, NEW RAINWATER GOODS AND DRAINAGE AND USE OF BUILDING FOR A MIX OF COMMERCIAL USES (ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS TO LISTED BUILDING CONSENT 25/00062/LBA) Rum Store Victoria Quay Royal Clarence Yard Gosport Weevil Lane PO12 1AX

RESOLVED: That listed building application 26/00141/LBA be approved subject to the conditions in the report of the Head of Development Management

26/00055/FULL - ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION AND ERECTION OF FENCE (CONSERVATION AREA) (as amended by plans received 28.04.26)

1 Britten Road Lee-On-The-Solent Hampshire PO13 9JU

Mr Pickering was invited to address the board as follows.

Thank you for allowing me to speak today. I am here because, despite several attempts to have my concerns considered by all parties, I do not feel they have been adequately addressed.

I fully appreciate the applicants wish to modernise and extend the property to create a family home, as many of us, including myself have done. However, I believe these amended plans would have long term implications for both my privacy and my sense of enclosure.

My two principle concerns are

The proposed east face window and the proximity and scale of the single storey rear extension.

Firstly regarding the east-facing window, I refer members to appendix 1, 2 and 3. I was previously assured by the applicant that the window would be relocated to the rear of the property. I was also advised by the case officer that, if approved a condition of obscure glass and non opening height would be attached. However, neither of those measures forms part of the amended plans.

The architects drawing shows that the proposed window will move approximately 1.4 metres south, effectively the full width of the opening, despite the Officer’s report describing the change as only slight. Appendix one clearly demonstrates this.

The internal photographs in appendix 2 show that this relocation would create a direct line of sight into our dressing room and en suite, resulting in a significant loss of privacy.

Highlighted are the planning conditions attached to my own approval, application 15/00384/FULL

That proposal included similar side facing windows, conditions were imposed specifically to protects the neighbouring occupiers and to ensure there would be no loss of mutual privacy. Those conditions were implemented, as shown in photograph at appendix 3.

A google maps image also shows that my property benefitted from a greater separation distance than no 1

Both applications must be considered against the same National Planning Policy Framework together with policies LP10 and LP12 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan and saved policies R/DP! And R/BH1

Today I simply ask that those same principles are applied equally to protect my privacy.

Turning to the proposed rear extension, I ask Members to consider appendix 4

The extension would sit just 30cm from both common boundaries and stands approximately 2m high, rising to 4.5m, There would be around 1.2m of solid brickwork about the existing 1.8m boundary fence, extending across virtually the entire west facing outlook.

The officers report states that the proposal could cause a degree of loss of light, could increase overshadowing of neighbouring properties , wold give rise to an increased sense of enclosure but concluded that it would not be unduly overbearing or result in a significant loss of outlook.

These statements acknowledge that there will be an impact, my concern is that once the extension is built, any harm to neighbouring amenity cannot be reversed.

Again, I refer members to the Offier’s report for my own planning approval The proposal respected the architectural character of the Conservation Area and the report concluded there would be no unacceptable loss of light, outlook or visual mass because of the separation distances involved.

In contrast, the proposal before you places a substantial extension immediately adjacent to the common boundary. As shown in the second illustration.

I would like to thank Members for undertaking yesterday’s site visit. My concerns were that your focus lay solely on the new position of the east facing window. As no visit to our dining room was forthcoming in respect of the loss of outlook and sense of enclosure, as detailed in appendix 4.

I hope my deputation demonstrates my concerns are genuine reasonable and supported by the evidence before you. I respectfully ask Members to consider whether this proposal complies with the planning and, if approved it would result in a significant and permanent loss of privacy together with an increased sense of enclosure for my family home within the Lee West Conservation Area.

Mr Juckes, the applicant was invited to address the Board as follows

Thank you for allowing me to speak to you this evening and thanks to your officer for her time assessing the application.

I am a Naval veteran with 44 service who with my family who with my family have travelled and lived in many places. Throughout this period we have always returned to Gosport and we are now privileged to call this amazing location home.

We purchased the property to be a place where we could enjoy our retirement years. This follows a change in our circumstances 4 years ago when I unfortunately suffered a serious accident resulting in life changing disabilities. The accident has had a profound impact on our daily lives and has created specific access and mobility needs.

The proposed works are about modifying and updating the property to meet these, the changes to the property have been carefully considered to address the practical challenges arising and to ensure that our home remains suitable for our long term needs.

Whilst the property currently has a ground floor wet room and bedroom, the proposed rear extension would provide me with greater movement and accessibility around the home.

We have worked closely with our design consultant and consider the proposed extension works to be sympathetic to the street, and provide a much needed uplift in keeping with the surrounding properties.

We welcome the planning officer’s recommendation for approval and note that the council’s heritage officer concluded that the development would not harm the Lee on the Solent Conservation Area.

However, we acknowledge that two of our immediate neighbours have submitted objections to the proposal. In respect of their concerns, I would like to highlight the following

Front garage – we formally amended the proposal to remove the proposed garage being built forward of the building line.

Front fence – this is proposed to try and maximise and enclose the garden which is predominantly on its west flank. The proposed fence is intended to be temporary while the planting is established. Your officer in her report has confirmed the fence would be in keeping with the property. There are no highway safety issues raised by the fence, visibility splays have been provided which show compliance with Hampshire County Council technical guidance.

East side window - please refer to the satellite plan view. This would not be a new opening on the eastern elevation. It comprises the re-siting of the existing window by 1.5m to the south and would have a negligible impact upon the overlooking or privacy of Manor Way room. This is demonstrated by the sight lines on the plan provided.

In relation to the neighbouring property ensuite window, as it would have been viewed on the site visit, it is at 90 degrees to our eastern elevation. There would be no visibility in this window from our property.

Finally as this room is the only 1st floor escape room onto a flat roof, we believe for safety it should have a side opener. If required this could be fitted with obscure glass.

Rear extension I would highlight an inaccuracy in the objection regarding the height of the proposed extension. The height is almost 2.9m not 3.2m as stated in the objection.

The impact on light

Levels of light into the neighbouring property to the east are already impacted by the existing built form including their 6ft high fence and the substantial 2 storey extension to no 3 Britten Road to the west. It is considered any increased loss of light from our proposed single storey extension would be minimal and as highlighted by your officer would not be significant. I would also highlight that the area of external space mentioned in the objection is a courtyard servicing a kitchen, the principal garden space is to the east side of the property.

We note concern from our neighbour at Manor Way that the proposed rooflights would allow sight of his rooms – please refer to the drawings

As shown on the picture, the line of sight to the bedroom is not possible. For us to gaze through the window we would have to climb a step ladder to peer through the lantern which is highly unlikely.

In summary we appreciate that change can be unsettling,. We truly believe our proposed works will enhance the neighbourhood and we are committed to being good neighbours. We are hoping this will be our forever home if we are able to carry our the notifications as suggested. I respectfully ask that you move to approve the application in front of you in line with your Officer’s considered recommendation.

Councillor Hayes was invited to address the Board as ward Councillor

Thank you Chair, and to the members of the board for allowing me the time to make a deputation.

I have met and spoken to a few residents in Britten Road regarding planning application 26/00055/FULL, all in all they are very happy with the application, as No. 1 Britten Road is getting the modernisation that many of the other properties have had over the years.

That being said, residents do have some concerns and alternate suggestions that they would like to raise including a loss of privacy due to the first-floor east elevation window and the overall design of the rear garden extension.

The Loss of privacy as explained in Mr Pickering’s deputation earlier, is where the proposed window’s location would look directly into the neighbouring property’s 31 Manor Way’s bedroom/dressing room’s window. As you can see from the appendices supplied from Mr Pickering the impact on privacy would be significant, due to the distance and direction both windows face. I would request that the board puts a planning condition in place (if 26/00055/FULL is approved) that the First-Floor East Elevation window shall be obscure glazed and that any part of those windows that are less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which they are installed shall be non-opening.

Further supporting my request for this is a planning application that was granted for 31 Manor Way on the 8th of October 2015, which is 15/00384/FULL ERECTION OF SINGLE AND TWO STOREY EXTENSIONS AND RAISING OF ROOF TO FORM TWO STOREY DWELLING (CONSERVATION AREA), in Appendix Number 2 supplied by Mr Pickering there is an excerpt from 15/00384/FULL. This is the 4th condition of the Granted permission that states the following:

“The first floor windows in the southern elevation of the dwelling, outlined in red on the approved plan, Drawing No. 002 rev D, shall be obscure glazed and that any part of those windows that are less than 1.7 meters above the floor of the room in which they are installed shall be non-opening. The windows shall be permanently retained as such thereafter, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason – In order to protect the amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property and to comply with the NPPF and Policies LP10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan, 2011 – 2029 and R/DP1 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review.”

Now, both 15/00384/FULL and 26/00055/FULL are being assessed against the same Local Plan and therefore the same polices. I would invite members of the board to look at Appendix Number 3 supplied by Mr Pickering, shows images of the South Facing Window that is Opaque as per the condition on 15/00384/FULL. If you look at the lower photo of the appendix, you will see that it is a screenshot from Google Maps showing distances from 31 Manor Way’s South-Facing Opaque Window to 29 Manor Way being the Yellow Arrow, and 2 Blue Arrows in equal length. One is showing the distance from 1 Britten Road’s East elevation’s window to 31 Manor Way’s West facing bedroom window, the other is comparing the length to the Yellow Arrow as stated earlier. The exact distances haven’t been measured, but you can clearly see that 15/00384/FULL required conditions for loss of privacy on a greater distance than 1 Britten Road has to 31 Manor Way.

Moving on to the rear garden extension that is brought round the front to the North-West side of the property boundary compensating the building extension to the rear on the South-East of the property boundary.

The main concern that has been raised is the overall design of the fencing that moves around the front of the property, this is that the 1.8m high fencing would have a visually dominant and intrusive effect the character of Britten Road, given that the neighbouring properties and the properties across the road all have low walls or hedges.

Neighbours have noted that in the original plans there was meant to be a hedge placed behind the wall on the North-West side of the property line when a garage was originally requested rather than an extension on the garden. When discussing this they would much prefer the hedge to still be there rather than a 1.8m high fence as it would be more keeping in the overall design of the area as you enter Britten Road from Manor Way.

One other question that has been raised from neighbouring properties is if the fencing does get put in place, how can maintenance of the boundary wall that connects Numbers 1 and 3 Britten Road on the front of the properties be fulfilled on the side that is blocked by the fence that would be put up against the low wall built on Number 3’s property.

Thank you, Chair and members of the board, for taking the time to listen to this deputation. The residents of Britten Road are supportive of modernisation, but they hope that these concerns particularly around privacy, overall character, and practical maintenance will be carefully considered as part of the debate

A Member questioned whether the suggestions from the ward Councillor could be implemented, there was no proposal forthcoming for this.

The Board was advised that access to the flat roof as part of any fire safety matters was a building control matter, not a material planning consideration.

A Member advised that the garden identified within the objection was a side garden possibly utilised for drying washing and that the application was not detrimental to the main garden.

It was acknowledged that a site visit had taken place and had viewed what was currently in place and acknowledge that the proposal was not ideal in relation to the existing bedroom and the proposal could not be amended to move the window.

RESOLVED: That application 26/00055/FULL be approved subject to the conditions identified in the report of the Head of Development Management.

8 Any Other Items

That the Chairman deems urgent.

Minutes The Board was advised that there was upcoming amended legislation that would see more applications determined by planning officers, in liaison with an elected Member.

This would be in place from late October with a report due to Full Council in autumn.

Meeting

Scheduled Time

Councillor Alan Scard

Councillor Paul Carter

Councillor Mrs Zoe Huggins BEM

Councillor Tony Jessop

Councillor Antony Stanton

Councillor Colin Towell

Councillor Lesley Meenaghan

Councillor Philip Sparrow

Councillor Stephen Philpott

Councillor Richard Earle

Join the Discussion