Transcript

Good morning, all. Welcome to the planning committee. I'm Juliette Gill. I'm the principal planning solicitor. You may note that we don't have a chair sitting at the front of the committee. We have apologies from the chair and the vice chair. So where that happens, understanding order 52, members of the committee need to propose and second someone to be chair. I would propose Councillor Chris Atwell. He has the experience. I'm willing to endorse Chris as chair. Seconded. If everyone could just take the vote on that. By raising your hands. Okay. We'll just give Councillor Chris Atwell time to come and take the chair. And then we will commence. Thank you. >> Good morning. Unexpected pleasure to be back in the chair this morning. Good morning. Welcome, everyone. I'm Councillor Chris Atwell, chair of the planning committee for today. Limited public seating has been made available. However, the meeting is also being webcast to allow the public to watch remotely if they so wish. The public seating area is not in view of the camera used to webcast this meeting. Some housekeeping. If the continuous fire alarm sounds, please evacuate the room and public gallery by the stairwells. Do not attempt to use the lifts. Assembled by Queen Victoria's statue in Guildhall Square. In order to comply with the Guildhall trust fire marshal regulations, anyone who signed in at the Guildhall reception desk should sign out when leaving the building at the end of today's meeting. So may I draw everyone's attention to the fact that this meeting will be live streamed and everyone speaking via a microphone will be on camera, including those making deputations today. Members of the press and public are also permitted to record the meeting on the understanding that it neither disrupts the meeting nor records those stating explicitly they do not wish to be recorded. Please can everyone use the microphones and remember to switch them off when you are finished, otherwise the camera will remain on you. There will be some voting. Members, can you please raise your hands and keep them clearly raised until the votes have been stated? So, let's do some introductions and I shall start with members. If we could start with you, Mary. Hi, I'm Councillor Mary Vallalee for Cosham and Wimmering. Good morning, Mary. >> Councillor Hugh Mason, Councillor for St. Jude Ward. >> Good morning, Hugh. Welcome. Good morning, Councillor Shaw for Cosham and Wimmering. Thank you, Shaw. >> Peter Candlish, Easton & Craneswater. Good morning, Peter. >> Councillor Nicholas Dorrington, Easton & Craneswater. >> Good morning, Nick, and welcome to the Planning Committee. >> Good morning, Matthew Cordy for Hillsley Ward. >> Good morning, Matthew, and welcome to the Planning Committee. >> Derek North for Cosham and Wimmering. And Derek, welcome to the Planning Committee. Now, can I ask the officers to introduce themselves, please? >> Good morning, members. Ian McGuire, Assistant Director for Planning and Economic Growth. >> Good morning, Ian. Thank you. Juliette Gill, the Principal Planning Solicitor. >> Juliette, thank you. Lisa Gallica from Democratic Services. >> Good morning, Lisa. Thank you. Now, could I ask anybody who is intending to give a deputation today, we have quite a lot of people in the Chamber, to make themselves known, introduce themselves, if we start over on the left-hand side. >> Matthew Whittington, Councillor for Easton & Craneswater Ward, and doing a deputation on Fraser Range. Thank you. >> Councillor Jason Fezzagli, Nelson Ward, objecting in regards to 27 Belfer Road. >> Thank you, Councillor Fezzagli. Councillor Simpson, Hillsie Ward. I'm reading multiple deputations today. Okay. Thank you. >> Councillor Emily Shadwick, Hillsie Ward, for Shadwell. >> Councillor Benedict Swan, Kompner & Anchorage Park Ward. I'm reading multiple. >> Thank you, Councillor Swan. Steven Paty, planning agent, regarding Fitzherbert Road. Thank you, Mr Paty. Thank you. >> Richard Eyre, Member for Nelson Ward, make a deputation. >> There we go. Thank you, Councillor O'Dare. Councillor Lihan on two or three deputations. >> Councillor Hunt, I think it's your turn. Your go now. >> Nauman Jabbar for 43 Marmian Road. Thank you, Mr Jabbar. Thank you. >> Carri-Ann Wells, agent for Apple Court, representing five of the items on the agenda today. Thank you much, Carri-Ann. >> Could Councillor Swan confirm which items he's proposing to speak on? >> Yes, I'm speaking on Kensington Road and Balfour Road. >> Which number, Balfour Road, 21 or 27? Apologies, 27. >> Thank you. OK. Alan Pierce regarding Fraser Range. >> Thank you, Mr Pierce. Margaret Haskell for 27 Balfour Road. >> If I could ask you, just so we can all hear, just a little closer, thank you. >> Margaret Haskell for 27 Balfour Road. Thank you, Mrs Haskell, thank you. Is that everybody who is intending? Colin Morris for 27 Balfour Road. >> Thank you, Mr Morris. Nigel Scarlett about Fraser Range. >> Thank you, Mr Scarlett. And Rod Bailey on Fraser Range, too. >> Thank you, Mr Bailey. Jocelyn Britcher, 38 Maryvale Road. >> Thank you very much, thank you. Shelley Vernon for 38 Maryvale Road. >> Is that everybody who will be speaking today? >> Dave Emmett, Port City Council, head of waste services, talking to Amersbury Road. >> It's just you, Stuart. Thank you. And Stuart Lane, building projects manager, Port City Council, also with regard to Amersbury Road. Bryn Robertson, 45 Kensington Road. >> Sorry, was it 39? It's around 39. I'm a resident from 45. Thank you. Anybody else? >> Chris, George Madwick is on his way for Amersbury Road, just so you know. He is down, but just to let you know he is on his way. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you, Emily. Right. Members, apologies, Lisa? >> Yes, we've had apologies from Councillor Vernon Jackson and Councillor Judith Smythe. >> Members, anybody else to know if Councillor Madwick is coming later for deputations? Anybody else? Okay. Members, any declarations of interest for today's meeting? >> Apologies. May I ask that if the meeting were to last longer than 1 p.m., I could be excused? Okay. Thank you, Councillor Cordy. >> Apologies, the same for me, please. Thank you. Councillor North, thank you. Anything else from anyone else? Any declarations or any other information that we need to know before we make progress? No. Members, minutes of the previous meeting held on the 24th of April, pages 5 to 11 in your packs. Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. Page 8. 9. 10. And 11. Thank you. So good morning, everyone. We have some new members. I'm just going to take a moment just to explain the process that will be happening for new members to the committee. So we'll have some presentations of the applications from Ian Maguire and then we'll have the deputations so the people that have indicated they're going to speak today during the meeting, they'll give their deputations. We'll then move to questions from the committee and then we'll move to comments, and that will be followed by a vote on the applications. Okay. Shall we -- oh, we're changing the order. For regular attendees, that will not be a surprise to hear me say that. We're going to move the last item to the top of the agenda, which is Merry Vale Road. The rest of the order will be as published. So we'll start with Merry Vale. Are we ready? Good? Okay. Good morning, members. 38 Merry Vale Road. That's the right one. This is an application for the change of use from a Class C three dwelling house to a seven-bed person, a house with multiple occupation. There is the property in an aerial view, should that help, the property in the street. There is the plan that members will be familiar with, the 50-meter radius around the property. As you can see, there are no other HMOs within the relevant area of search, meaning that the percentage mix for this area is 2.3%, well below the 10% threshold within your adopted policy. That is the existing property. You can see a conservatory to the rear. The proposal is to alter that conservatory and provide a further rear extension and door window, all as permitted development, so those operational developments do not fall for consideration today. The landowner has the right to undertake that work. And then the internal conversion of the property to provide seven beds for HMO use. Each of those bedrooms is en-suite and over 10 metres in size, including or rather excluding that area below 1.5 metres in height. Consequently, only 22.5 metres of communal internal floor space is required. And in this case, as is laid out in the table on page 138 in my papers, the 28.14 square metres comfortably exceeds that. The application therefore is fully in compliance with the normal range of policies applied to HMOs. Otherwise, their offices are satisfied that there is no demonstrable adverse harm on parking, amenity or other matters of material consideration. As I say, the design impacts or the alterations to the roof and the rear extension are covered by permitted development and thus do not fall for consideration today. There's some images there. I'm not sure they really help you, however, so I'll leave you back with the floor plans. The application is fully compliant with policy, as I say, with the recommendation to grant planning permission. Thank you. Deputations. Mrs Britcher. Six minutes. Let's give you a deputation. Have we got three people speaking against? It would be four minutes each. Two, sorry, yes, sorry. We've got two. Sorry, I was second on the list. Yeah, well, I'm taking it in alphabetical order, but we've got two people speaking. Have some not turned on? Okay. Okay, six minutes. There you are. Over to you. So four out of the seven bedrooms have plumbing and sanitary ware adjacent to or near the party wall, leading to potential flooding and contamination into the adjoining property, creating a health and safety risk. In accordance with recognised good standard practice, the original plumbing and sanitary ware was on the outside wall. The party cavity gap is approximately 25 millimetres. The jointing between the bricks is lime mortar. When the bricks were laid, mortar spilled out from both the walls joining one party wall to the other, which has created a noise problem over the years. The noise of flushing toilets, particularly if they are of the fanny flow type that uses a macerator to remove waste, will increase, as will the risk of flooding and foul water seepage into the adjoining property. There is also the issue of total deprivation of privacy in the adjoining back garden from being overlooked by the added dormer. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs Pritchett. Thank you. Mrs Vernon, six minutes. I've lived happily next door to this property for 30 years and strongly oppose this proposal to convert a three bedroom family home into a modern monstrosity. Merrivale Road is full of beautiful 1930s style houses that are highly sought after. Families live here, along with many elderly retired couples. I agree with everything already raised in 129 objections submitted online, including an, including an proposal from Penny Morgan MP, but the points I'm about to highlight show how this directly affected me as a next door neighbour. I'll address the planning committee with the same questions that I've been asking myself since these plans were submitted. Why should I suddenly be made to feel insecure in my own home? As pointed out by Penny Morgan MP in her proposal, there seems to be no consideration whatsoever to us as next door neighbours that this property has a shared drive with us and access to the back of our properties. Instead of maybe two adults in a family situation using this, we have the prospect of seven residents, their partners, their visitors, all using our shared drive. And going forward, we do not know who these residents will be or their backgrounds. The idea of this terrifies me due to a past traumatic experience where I was stalked by a serious sexual predator who was lated, convicted of serial rape. I hope this explains why I have a strong need to feel secure in my own home. And short term rentals will encourage a huge turnover of tenants. We therefore won't be able to establish a trusting relationship with our neighbours. In the 30 years we have lived here, we have only ever had three different neighbours. People buy houses in Merrivale Road to establish their forever family home, as some of the residents have lived here for nearly 50 years. We had security gates fitted 30 years ago on our shared drive to stop unwanted visitors walking around the back of our property. And our neighbours at number 38 have always been very happy with this added security. What will happen to these with the constant chains of residents next door? We can't possibly assume that they will be kept locked, not to mention coping with the builders using our shared drive for such a long time while the work is carried out. I feel this will be a huge violation of my privacy and I still feel threatened that my security will be compromised to the point that this has already affected my mental health due to the reason previously mentioned. And why should this development alter the value of our home? Due to the prospect of this development next door, which quite frankly terrifies me, I have looked into the possibility of moving house. The committee report says loss of property value is not a material planning consideration, but after seeking an independent assessment from an estate agent last week, the effect of the proposed development next door would devalue our property by £50,000, proof of which is in this report that I've got here if anyone wants to see that. I have been advised that it will be extremely difficult to sell my house with an HMO next door, so I won't be able to remove myself from this horrible situation even if I wanted to. And why do hardworking families have to suffer a loss of capital to the out of town investors that have no interest in the city's housing needs or any of the local people but only in financial gain? The property should be rented out for the maximum capacity of a standard family home. There is no place for a development of this nature in this area, and there is a lack of infrastructure to support it. This development would result in the loss of a family home forever. Approval would encourage developers to continue to outbid local people wishing to live in this area and therefore change its character. So why is the conversion of this nature acceptable? A house converted for multiple occupancy is not in keeping with the neighbourhood. In fact, the creative photographs that have been uploaded to the website recently do not show a true interpretation of the surrounding properties, especially ours and the house directly at the bottom of the garden. The imposing construction of the extension will block light and sun from both neighbouring properties, a factor that has been enjoyed due to our south-facing gardens. It is obvious there has been no consideration at all as to how this would affect our lives. In addition to the light blocked into the garden, the roof extension will also block natural light entering a window into my hall, casting the inside of my property into darkness. And I've got a photo of that there if anyone wants to see. Not to mention all the extra windows looking into my space. We invested in a house in a family residential area, not one next to a small block of flats. So why do we have to endure the prospect of increased noise? It is a ludicrous assumption that seven separate individuals won't create any more noise than a large family. In fact, a 2020 report submitted to Ports of City Council from Claire Hardwick confirms there are a disproportionate level of noise complaints from HMOs. Regardless of whether there is a high concentration of HMOs in the area or not, there is no denying that these plans will cause significant noise disruption, especially to us, the adjacent neighbours. It will be hard to contain sound just from the general living, and little garden space will inevitably mean residents using the shared drive as communal space. I work from home in my quiet garden room, so therefore find the prospect of increased noise very worrying. How can this application be fairly assessed when the application form is missing failed storage plans? The problems we face have been addressed repeatedly in others' opposals. Increased residents will contribute to a higher nitrate emissions, and to imply that this can be offset by a financial payment undermines any claim of being environmentally responsible. And I'll finish with my final question to the committee. How can you put your trust in this developer? According to Certificate A on the application form, the agent states ownership of the property for 21 days. This was submitted on 19 April, the same day the house sale was completed. While this might seem a minor detail, it cast doubt over their integrity, and for me, perhaps a sign of things to come. Good morning, everyone. Applecore is a successful architectural and planning service of which I'm proud to be part of. Our portfolio is not limited to HMO development, and if our client requires architectural design or assistance with planning and building regulations for any kind of development, we have a service to offer. There are reasons that people opt to go with a specific brand service or product, and that tends to be high quality and value for money. As I said, many of you today, present today, have lived in a shared home at some point in your lives, and historically, some of those homes may have presented a nightmare for our occupiers and neighbours, but this is not the standard we are trying to achieve, nor is it the standard this council are looking to endorse. We ensure all of our designs are fully compliant with planning, building control and licensing, and we work hard to ensure we stay at the forefront of any changes to legislation to ensure our client has the best possible experience with us and is left with a great design shared living home to give tenants the best possible living experience. From our managed HMOs, I can confidently say they're managed the way our HMO properties should be managed, and once again, I invite any one of you to pay a visit and talk to neighbours. I can say with confidence that they will say that living next door to a high standard HMO is not the negative experience that they've expected. The tenants that live in them are happy in their surroundings, and any issues in the property are promptly dealt with. As with all of our applications today, the purpose of our involvement is to ensure the highest standard of living for future occupiers in accordance with this council's and nationally described standards. The rooms are all in excess of the minimum requirement and are all compliant with the regulations for planning, licensing and building control. The architectural process involves much more than design and layouts, and there is a certain degree of engineering involved to ensure the buildings can handle the modifications. Once again, association of these operations with the term HMO raises alarm bells with the local community, whereas they wouldn't if the same modifications were made to a family home to accommodate a growing family. Indeed, there are families in the vicinity with six occupants who may need to expand their property in the years to come, using the same permitted development rights. While it might be nearly impossible to control how a building may choose to operate, Appacore do offer a fully managed project service that will give us some control over who is used, but it's ultimately the client's decisions to what level of service that they take up from us. With this application on Maryville Road, it's a change of use to accommodate seven unrelated individuals. I appreciate there's a high number of objections, and unfortunately they all raise matters that we have either addressed already or matters that are neither in the control of nor the fault of shared living developments. The proposal here is for the accommodation of seven people, and as stated on the plans, all rooms have a single occupancy. As we do with all of our applications, we have presented a well thought out proposal meeting all the criteria expected. We do sympathise with local residents, but would like to assure you that it's not as bad as you think it's going to be. Too often, the term HMO is used and does not carry a healthy reputation. With the standard of accommodation that is produced by the developers who work with us, we are reluctant to use the term HMO because of the associated stigma, and we prefer to lean towards co-living shared residences or other terminology that inspires thought rather than outrage. There has been an evident campaign against this particular development, and we aren't even at the start point or the end point with this project, but we hope eventually the general consensus on the HMO matter will start to change. I note one of the topics of objection being brought frequently is sewage, and a reference to a recently refused application on St Chad's Avenue. Having seen the sewage reports causing the issue, which Councillor Swan referred to on that application, it's clear that in the main blockages reduce fats in the system. As the property on St Chad's was and remains empty, to attribute that issue to the empty HMO industry, in my opinion, is clutching its straws. This I am confident will be overturned at appeal, and we expect that appeal decision shortly. I do not believe refusing the application on sewage or further unrelated planning matters and costing further taxpayer money is warranted. The proposal provides seven spacious bedrooms which meet or exceed 10 square metres. The required standard for the communal area is 22.5, and this property provides 28.14, which exceeds that requirement. An additional WC has been provided on the ground floor for the comfort of the residents. The property benefits from a larger than average rear guard and provide an outdoor amenity space for the occupants. Additionally, there is a garage at the rear which cycles can be accessed easily and securely stored, which is an additional benefit which will appeal to keen cyclists. The garage is accessed via a shared driveway, giving an easier route for cycles. I want to just pick up on a couple of the residents' issues. So I just wanted to reiterate, as I have many times before, the plumbing will be upgraded as part of the renovation, sorry. There will be no macerators, so you do not need to worry about the noise of macerators, and everything will be upgraded to comply with current modern day building regs. Sound transference will also be improved as part of that. With regards to the shared drive, it is a large family house that can easily accommodate more than a couple of adults. Using the drive as a family home or HMO could be a similar level of people, teenage kids bringing bikes in. I feel it is wrong to assume that the residents will not be hardworking, respectful people that are looking to stay in the property for extended periods and wanting to be a part of the socialist community around them. While I appreciate this can be concerning, I do not believe those fears are warranted. I hope that you support the officer recommendation for approval today. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I will keep this short. This, as you can see, there has been some very emotional deputations today. This actual application had 124 objections, and only 90 of those objections were considered before the officer put in his report. It is very unusual that we get an application put in before the deadline for comments is finished, so actually only 90 were given for the officer to make a report on, but then there was an additional 34. I believe that any residents that only gave their comments five days ago would not have had enough time and notice to come to read deputations today. I actually feel we are underrepresented today for this application, so I request the committee to defer to the next planning meeting so that we can have the correct amount of representation today from all of the residents that are unhappy, which are 124. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Simpson. Is that correct? 129 representations is the correct number. They have obviously all been reviewed, but yes, some were received as detailed in the SMAT, the 39 since the publication of the agenda. No new matters were raised in any of those deputations, and consequently there was no need to change the recommendation put forward, and officers are satisfied all those matters have been fully considered in the recommendation and are available for members' consideration today. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Members, okay. Well, look, I think I am minded to propose a motion to defer if people haven't had the opportunity to come here today to give a deputation. So I shall propose a motion to defer. I think that's probably the fairest thing to do, having heard deputations and what you've just said, Councillor Simpson. So I'm moving the motion to defer until the next meeting to give people an opportunity to come and have their say. I will need a seconder for that if we're going to move forward. Thank you. Councillor Cawley, thank you. Members, does anybody have any other views? There's a motion before us, Councillor Mason, to vote. I think we should err on the side of caution in this one, and therefore I would support your proposal that we should defer. Thank you, Councillor Mason. Anything else from anyone else? I feel that's the right thing to do in this instance. Okay. Well, look, if there is nothing else, we've got a lot to get through today, I think. Those in favour of the motion to defer. Councillor Candice, are you itching to come in? No, Chair, I was actually going to make a comment, because I think I should probably be voting against the motion to defer. And the reason I will be doing so is my understanding is there are no new and relevant to the application pieces of information coming in, and the act of deferral will cost the Council some time and money to do so. If there was new information coming in with new points or issues to consider, then I might feel differently, but my understanding, if I understood correctly, is that all of the applications have been looked at, and there is nothing that changes the class of comment that has been made. Thank you. I think slightly differently. I think we consider each application on its own merits, and there might be some additional information that people might want to come in. I certainly want to hear as many people as possible and give people the opportunity to come here. Councillor Mason? I think, Chairman, that this is a matter for consideration of deputations rather than the information which was sent in as objections, and it is on that basis that I would support your recommendation. Thank you. Okay. Is there anything else? Let's move to a vote. So those in favour of deferring until the next committee, please indicate. Thank you. Against? Abstentions? Okay. The application has been deferred. Thank you, Juliette. Okay. We will move on to Fraser Range. Thank you, Chairman. Fraser Range, Fort Cumberland Road, South Sea. This is a very big, long description on there, I recognise, members. Application for 116 apartments and 18 houses with associated works to this previously developed site, including a new sea wall. That is the site, if members are unaware of it. Previous MOD site moved into private sector hands and has been empty for a number of years, immediately south of the Schedule Monument at Fort Cumberland. Some images of the existing buildings, as you can see, relatively tall, two-storey commercial buildings making up parts of it and a number of areas of hard standing and other associated buildings. The buildings have certainly some architectural interest, and consequently the applicant has proposed, whether possible, to retain a number of the buildings, as well as supplementing them with additional structures. As you can see, a lot of dereliction across the site. This is the proposed layout, providing some blocks of houses. You can see on the left of there the conversion of existing buildings and supplementation there, too, into apartments. And on the far right-hand side, a single dwelling, which is the conversion of New Hope House into a, as I say, a single residential dwelling. Just some illustrations of how the buildings will be altered, as you can see there. The provision of an additional storey on a number of the buildings. This is part of the new-build area where we've got a similar design as the old buildings will be altered to become for new houses with a flat roof appearance. And, say, you can see the similarities to the conversion proposed. This is Building 5 in the middle of the site. You can just make out the red block of the top image there of where that sits. Again, some side elevations, as you can see, mostly glazed up a floor to these buildings and, if you will, a relatively standardized layout with mezzanines in those first-floor areas. It fronts onto Easty Beach, and as members will, I'm sure, be aware, Easty Beach has a number of tank traps, that's these concrete blocks. They are listed structures in their own right. Consent to reorientate and move those was given in 2022 in preparation and linked to the redevelopment of this site. They've been moved around quite a bit by, I expect, the Council, if I'm honest, over many years since the original installation. So they're being realigned under the 2022 planning permission. Sea defenses. So the proposal from the applicant is to provide new sea defenses along the area of Beech Top that is in their control, and this is obviously necessary to protect the site and its heritage assets and new residents. There is an illustration of how the levels will be altered to provide new sea defenses. As you can see, the beach placed on top of it, and you can see also there an area of new footpath going across the top of those sea defenses, which I will come to in a moment. There is a fair way out to sea, but obviously that's the nature of views from sea, as you can see the alteration in filling and enlarging those buildings, so it has an impact on the character of the area. Officers are satisfied this is not an inappropriate or harmful one. Some illustrations of landscape throughout the site. You can see across the bottom of this image the new footpath being created within the applicant's control. Obviously this speaks to the desire to have a national coastal path. They can only control the land in their control, but across the full width of their site they provided that new footpath, which will be secured through this plan permission. As you can see, that pedestrian access is permeable into the site, which is not a gated site to enable people to walk into the site. Should they wish, there is no intention from the applicant. It is our understanding to actively encourage people to come deep into the site and so there is no vehicular access rights into the site for non-residents, but as I say it is not a gated site under the landscaping schemes submitted, which are to be finalized and approved as part of the planning conditions. Opportunities for new landscaping are being provided, both hard and soft, through the site within the limitations of its coastal setting. Some other images there and probably a good illustration of the limitations of the coastal setting. Obviously this site is naturally relatively barren because of its position out on the point of Eastney, so there is some limited opportunities for soft landscaping within sites such as this and consequently the applicant has looked to ways of maximizing the benefit for new residents by providing a mixture of soft and hard landscaping provision. Parking within the development, you can see there about four parking, four courts, unlimited on-street parking to provide for the needs of new residents assigned to the individual blocks and plots. The section 106 Heads of Terms, just to give you the cover of for that, there is obviously off-site improvements to the site of important state of conservation. That is the adjacent Fort Cumberland nature reserve often referred to there, so there is some land being taken to enable the widening of the access road and consequently it is justified and necessary to look at opportunities for improvements to that sink for the management and maintenance thereof. Obviously there is a need to ensure the long-term maintenance of the heritage assets of the tank traps that is secured through the 106 as well. There are some direct impacts that need financial contributions, nitrates to achieve nitrate neutrality, the travel plan, employment and skills plan and then some off-site works for sustainable infrastructure, that is active travel opportunities, as well as the penultimate bullet point there, obviously the requirement to deliver and maintain the coastal defence, the flood defence for the site. Just to finish off, a couple of images for the site, these are aerial CGIs, obviously they can see the enhanced rock-based sea defence, which obviously is visible above ground as well as down below Shingle, and the brown roof proposals for a large number of the buildings which are contributing to part of the biodiversity enhancements for the wider area, and we have got that going both ways as images. I will just draw your attention to the SMAT as there is some useful information within there. One, certainly residents have raised concern about the fact that the development may be gated, as I say it is not gated within the landscaping plan as submitted, nor is it the intention of the developer to gate the scheme, they have told us, and while there are checkpoints shown on the plan, these are pieces of art rather than an actual barrier to people accessing. From discussion with local residents, it was clear that additional clarity was required around biodiversity net gain, as members are aware, there is an obligation on schemes such as this to provide a 10% net gain to biodiversity utilising a nationally prescribed metric. Overall the biodiversity net gain resulting from this development is 33.52%. The vast majority of that is off-site on the adjacent sink, mostly there is a small gain of biodiversity on the site through some hedging and some of that soft planting, but to get above the 10 and all the way up to 33.52 off-site enhancements secured through that 106 will be provided. It was highlighted, members, thank you, in the pre-agenda that we did comment about that the Police Designing Act Crime Officer had raised concerns and we have taken the opportunity in here to confirm that those concerns were fully accommodated within the planning conditions such as issues of lighting and landscaping. We've also taken the opportunity to provide a little bit of clarification to paragraph 9.36 and 9.120 as you can see within that report. Other than that, and just highlighting some of the key regulatory aspects that members of course should be aware of, both in respect to EIA development and the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the MPPF, the recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to those conditions, which you have a list of in the agenda papers and the 106 which I've described through its heads of terms. Happy to take any questions. Chairman, obviously we do have a number of public speaking for today's item. Thank you. Mr Bailey, six minutes, please. Thank you. Well, Fraser came about as an emergency Second World War gun battery and it was only ever intended to be used for military purposes. Residential use has come along, but it's the most vulnerable use you can put next to the sea. It's interesting that you show that, and you've described these as two-storey buildings, the existing buildings, but what you're going to get is three buildings along the beachfront, two of which are nearly 50 feet high. One's 16.1 metres and you didn't show a drawing of that, and another one's 15.75 metres. That significantly changes the character and appearance of the seafront, which is against really the spirit of the seafront master plan, which says careful consideration should be given as to how it could be sensitively designed, and that's in relation to the proximity of Fort Cumberland in terms of building heights, style and materials, and to improve physical connections to Fort Cumberland. Fine. We do now know it's a non-gated community development, but we still have checkpoints. Anyway, we're so lucky to have a seafront like we have, and the part about Easton is it's relatively quiet, it's tranquil, and it's a way to escape the busier western end. So why do we want to accept an intensification on this scale? We've got highway issues as well, and okay, we're going to try and do some offsite conditions or solutions, but as a resident close to Milton Road and Eastney Road, these are car parks at weekends. Historic England, there is harm to the setting of the fort, but it's less than substantial where there are wider public benefits. Well, I don't see there are wider public benefits if the seafront is being despoiled by large buildings. Why, too, if the requirement of the seafront master plan is to enhance nature and biodiversity, why are most of the biodiversity enhancements being done on Portsmouth Council land? If the Council declared a nature emergency in 2022, it did so because there's a decline in nature, and therefore it's incumbent on the local authority, that's us, to improve our own parks, gardens and nature reserves, not on somebody else. They could provide some greater nature enhancements on their own site, 6.5 hectares, why should we be doing it? We're saying they're putting from those drawings, we're having brown roofs, but why not put solar panels on them? There's lots of issues with the design on this, and when we come to the sea defences, why, if a landowner buys a site next to the beach with derelict buildings, has he not disclosed to the Environment Agency the condition of the eastern section of the seawall? He's the one introducing the most vulnerable land use to this site at the harbour entrance which is subject to extremely strong tidal streams. The officer's report says these can be conditioned. I say if the applicant is a responsible landowner, he should know what the condition of his sea defences are, otherwise how does he know what to bid for the site from the previous owner? The same goes for the beach. If we, as a result of a legal agreement, that's we the public, have got rights of access across the beach, but the landowner is Orange Star, they own the beach now and they've got to manage it for the next 100 years. But right now, they and their predecessors haven't cleaned up the marine structures which are hazardous to us. So is that symptomatic of how we're going to manage this going forward? I think we're exposing ourselves to a big risk here. Conditions are notoriously difficult to enforce, and private owners are going to be vulnerable to affordability constraints. So I'm worried that we the council are going to have a long-term liability to manage this and to oversee it. None of the statutory bodies here, including the Environment Agency, are really positively for the development. What they're saying is they'll withdraw their reasons to refuse based on the conditions. But how do we know what the conditions are going to say if we don't even know the condition of the eastern section of the seawall? That means these officers, you members, are going to be agreeing to consent to a development that you don't know is safe. I don't think that's right. So I can't accept this development is compliant with the seafront master plan, or it is a sensible and responsible development that we should be worried about, that we should have to continually manage. Thank you. Good morning. I won't try and repeat everything that Rod has said, but I would say for some considerable time I've had severe misgivings about plans to build a residential development at Fraser Range. The current proposals have done nothing to change that view and remain wrong for the site in so many different ways. Recently, four of us had the opportunity of meeting the planners in the offices opposite, and we put forward our main objections, which include disturbance of protected species, loss of habitat, harm to the setting of scheduled ancient monuments, significant flood risk, increased traffic and pollution, and failure to follow the principles of the council's own seafront master plan. On the wildlife aspect, I asked the question as to why the planning department had not insisted on breeding bird surveys in advance of a formal decision in the light of the presence of protected rare species. Actually, I first mentioned this in November of last year. It is clear from John Slater's letter in 2009 that the legal position required such surveys or the Council would be guilty of sanctioning criminal actions. In 2009, there was one notable species present in the area, the Dartford warbler. Now, there are four, two of which are on the red list. These are the Dartford warbler, black red start, green finch, and linnet. This is just one technical reason why this application should not proceed at this stage. Additionally, the figures for biodiversity I simply don't understand as to how it actually improves the area itself. This is not really an application that should have left the drawing board in the first place. There's no current residential development right on the seafront anywhere in South Sea, let alone five-storey blocks, which that showed on the last picture. It is completely at variance with the Council's own seafront master plan, which was only adopted in 2021 following considerable public consultation. Instead of allowing a massive development which will also ruin the surroundings of the scheduled ancient monument Fort Cumberland, the Council should therefore follow the principle of its own master plan and preserve this unique area of Portsmouth for residents and visitors alike. The issue of flood defenses has already been mentioned, and it's huge. It's also clear the environmental agency are still not entirely happy about it. I know of two individuals at least who are contemplating buying within this new development, but both are thought again because they see the potential flood risk and the potential expense required either by them or by the Council. Neither the Council nor individual owners should have to meet that cost. As Rod said, five years passed since this was considered, and a better survey could have been done of the existing seawalls. I don't see the committee has enough evidence on this aspect alone to recommend approval. I also question the site's inclusion in a strategic housing alliance in the new city plan, because it's not a strategic location. It's a peripheral location next to the beach where the seafront and heritage nature conservation rules should apply. Strangely, it's exactly the same number of units which was applied for in this development, but added to that list in advance of the decision by this committee. Adding extra traffic and pollution to an already grossly overcrowded and polluted city in an area which is currently unique and tranquil is simply mad. And it certainly doesn't meet the criteria of proven benefit as opposed to substantial harm as required by the national planning policy framework. In your hearts you have to think this is simply wrong. I very much hope that when you examine the whole proposal in detail, consider all the pros and cons for the people of Portsmouth and the visitors, you will vote against this entirely inappropriate development. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Scarlett. So we'll now hear from the agent, Mr. Pearce. Six minutes. Thank you, chair. Good morning. My name is Alan Pearce and I'm the agent for this application and represent invest in PLC, orange star capital. I'm a chartered planner with over 27 years experience and I predominantly work on previously developed regeneration sites like this as opposed to green field housing. Our involvement in this fascinating site started midway through the determination process in July 2022. We were appointed to peer review the submission material and determine compliance with planning policy and recommend a way forward. Our conclusion was to work with PCC officers to amend the proposals and address the valid design and impact concerns expressed at that time. We were then appointed as agents and working with the existing team of experts worked diligently with PCC officers who have been very thorough and left no stone unturned in their assessments. We have also directly liaised with the environment agency, coastal partners, historic England and natural England to obtain support for the technical aspects of this proposal. This is undoubtedly a complicated site with so many factors to consider, including housing delivery, design, flood risk, heritage and visual impact, archeology, beach management and ecology. We have carefully investigated all of these matters through the lifetime of the application to the satisfaction of your officers who have recommended approval. The proposals will regenerate this 20year derelict Brownfield site and deliver 134 new homes. Yes, sadly no affordable housing, but this has been thoroughly justified from a viability perspective and the reasons for this must be fully appreciated given the significant benefits delivered for Portsmouth. The planned defence works and other contributions arising from this development are in excess of £18.5 million. The seawall in defences alone are costed at £13 million with the coastal walkway costing £2.6 million and the seal at £2.65 million. The public benefits this scheme will bring are substantial and will positively impact on the whole area in terms of delivering the new seawall, flood defences and coastal walkway and securing their long-term maintenance. These defences will not only help safeguard the new housing and immediate area, including the at-risk Fort Cumberland Scheduled Ancient Monument and the site of importance for nature conservation and sink, but if not implemented, the impact of a failed seawall on Langston and Chichester Harbour entrance special protection area must not be underestimated. The proposals will create a fantastic new development of real character. It will also bring policy-compliant car parking, secure cycle parking, but also electric vehicle charging on a one-to-one basis, new public open space, retention and renovation of the main existing buildings and built heritage which is a big carbon benefit, ecological enhancements and biodiversity net gain and significant improvements to the site appearance, built form and landscape. With the planned works, the private beach will be given over to the public ownership, allowing a right to roam which currently does not exist. The access road will be improved and the access lane to the beach will have natural surveillance from the new housing. The limited heritage harm caused to the fort does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Benefits like brownfield regeneration, housing delivery, improved public realm, sea defences and beach management, historical information boards, a stop to the anti-social behaviour and vandalism of the property, employment during construction and future management and increased patronage to the local shops and community. It also means 134 less homes on greenfield sites. The planning journey has been a long one, but this does demonstrate the rigorous process undertaken. Many questions have been rightly asked and answered. Comments raised today about flood defences, alternative use, biodiversity net gain and bird population among others. The proposals will build on previously developed land which is underutilised and in a sustainable location. I am very pleased to see the full council approval of your emerging local plan yesterday. Indeed, the site is allocated for housing in this Regulation 19 document and so approving this application will reinforce your housing delivery strategy and replace decaying flood protection infrastructure. The design changes we have made respond to the historic layout of the site, preserving visual connections between the fort and the sea and enhancing the appearance of the architecture. The proposals have been agreed with key statutory consultees and PCC officers and are in accordance with the policies in the development plan and MPPF. There are no material considerations that would lead to an alternative conclusion where residual issues require further investigation. These matters can be addressed through suitably worded conditions. We hope you agree with your officers and approve this planning application. Thank you all for listening. Thank you, Mr Pearce. Thank you, Chair and thanks for having me here colleagues. I am here to represent the views of the people of Easton-Craneswater Ward in regards to this application. In total there were 55 representations from people who live in Easton-Craneswater of which 50 were opposing the application including Mr Scarlett who you have already heard from today and 5 were in favour of the application. I will come to the 5 who were in favour first because actually they were pretty much all from the same hymn sheet in terms of they were looking forward to having a derelict site redeveloped and that was in their words. There was no other sort of basis, other basis behind anything that was positive and that's just the fact that it would be something that's being derelict. I would point out that these were representations that were made 5 years ago when there was certain issues especially with the previous owner of the site in terms of antisocial behaviour, indeed fires and issues down at the site. For the people who have objected to this, there are various areas. So some of them have already been addressed but I'm bringing all of them up and I'll go through them relatively quickly just so in your consideration of this application if you need more clarification from officers etc or want to go into more detail then you have that opportunity. The first one which has already been mentioned is traffic, traffic and effectively congestion. That is a particular concern for people who have objected and indeed in the case of this site having been empty and not in use for a very long time and as I mentioned in the depreciation for the agents that it's been empty for 20 years so any employment there with the traffic etc would have been on the basis of 20 years ago. So that was a particular concern especially from people who live most adjacent to the site. It's already been brought up about the Seafront Master Plan, is this compliant with the Seafront Master Plan or is it not and that was another concern that people had in terms of saying we don't think it is so that would be something you really need to consider in making this decision on this application. We've heard about the bird survey, Mr Scarlett mentioned that in particular and again there was a general concern and I'll bring in the sink as well about the effects on birds, on nature in the area. It says about the net gain for that and also that's been brought up about but what impact does it have on the adjacent sink and all of those concerns about that and is it a site that do we have birds there that would be affected and would no longer be able to nest and roost there and indeed that would that site have an impact on us not having as much birds and nature in that area as possible. This was brought up by Mr Bailey about that it was only supposed to be used as a brownfield site because of wartime and that was never intended to be something that was used as a brownfield site for a long period. Again that is a particular concern and saying should it not be used for other amenity because I think the point that was made in the deputations in the objections was the fact that before that it was a open space that was in use more generally and was only taken in by the MOD out of necessity because of war. There is concern about sea defences there is objections have said we do not need sea defences here if there is no development here that there is there a justification for you see defences there to protect the schedule ancient monuments there in the objections in some objections there is scepticism about that and indeed would you need the level of sea defences that are being proposed if nothing was built on that site would it be needed for anything other than what is proposed to be built and that therefore is saying if you do not build on that site you do not need those sea defences therefore the fact saying that the council would have to build those is a misnomer because you would not need to because there would be no developments. We talked about the beach usage particularly we have people it is our informal naturist beach down at Eastney and though it is not a formal naturist beach it is something that has been used as a naturist beach for a very long time would that be feasible to continue it is somewhere that people know that they can use and etc and there is concern that that will be done. There was also concern about access to the beach that has been addressed by the agents but again it is on their say so so is that something that is sustainable and obviously the heritage side you have the tank traps and Fort Cumberland itself part of the site is is part of the schedule ancient monument is on the site in terms of its boundary and so is there is concern of the impact on that and obviously the tank traps and just the last couple of bits about the massing it has been mentioned again about the massing of that site is that relevant is that right for this site is it that people are saying it is they have objected and say it is too big and it is not appropriate for this location to have that kind of volume of building and indeed the size of building and the last bit that people have had objections from Eastley and Crenswater is about affordable housing. Is it appropriate that there is no affordable housing here and is that right. I hope that is helpful. As I said ultimately in this ward 50 to 5 was objected to this and as I say in your consideration I hope you will take all of those things into account when making your decision on this application. Thank you very much chair. Thank you Councillor Winington. Ian are you able to address some of the things that might have been covered by the agent. I can try to address a few of the points obviously I think certainly a number of the representations in Councillor Winington's summary there does highlight a lot of the key matters ecology heritage, flooding, transport, certainly key concerns for residents as is detailed in the report. All of the statutory consultees, Natural England, our own ecologist, Historic England, the Environment Agency, our own coastal partners and the local highway authority are all satisfied with this scheme subject to the conditions as described within the report and listed at the end of the agenda. Turning to the compliance with the seafront master plan. The seafront master plan states given that it is currently vacant the Fraser range site may interest a developer to come forward with proposals for its redevelopment and then goes on to highlight that careful consideration that is needed as raised by residents and indeed that careful consideration that we are satisfied the applicant has undertaken with guidance from the council. The scheme is therefore compliant with the seafront master plan. The general concern around birds and the survey work and the seawall and the survey work, it is not unusual practice for large and complex schemes to defer some of the very expensive investigatory work until after the certainty of consent has been provided. Conditions as detailed in the report are proposed to ensure that no development can occur until that survey work is done so there is no risk to flooding, there is no risk to birds because necessary survey work etc. must be carried out prior to the commencement of the works but that is a normal process for larger and more complex schemes to be blunt. There is challenging viability on sites such as this, so much so that they can't afford to make a contribution to affordable housing, to expect them to have gambled a lot of money on additional survey work when they have no confidence whether the planning committee will give them consent or not would not be a reasonable expectation of a developer. It is reasonable if you are satisfied with the scheme and with the assurance of those statutory consultees and your officers that these matters are eminently manageable through appropriate management plans described by the condition to give consent if the other impacts, visual character etc. are acceptable, as I say a normal practice, so members I will advise should not be concerned with that. Other than that I don't think there is really much else to cover but obviously very happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Members, questions? Chair, could I just confirm in terms of access to the site, so we saw, I think many people here will be enjoying the new sea defences and the promenades that are being put together further towards Old Portsmouth and I noticed that in the visual that you put up, the walkway that was between the development and the sea was of a similar kind of characteristic. Can I just confirm that access to that in the current situation will be through the new slightly widened access road and there will be a direct path from there down to the beach promenade and overview that was shown? Yes, so currently the access from the public accessible access road, there is a route south along and outside the sites, outside the applicant's control that takes you on to Eastney Beach and it is the common routing from the Fort Cumberland public car park to the beach and that would of course remain. There is obviously access along the beach as well to provide through that and as part of the final negotiation associated with the 106, we would obviously be looking to secure specific mapped routes of access so that we can, where they do fall within the applicant's control, ensure that we secure the necessary permissive access to provide access to their bit of land, their bit of that new access pathway. And to be clear, is that a condition that we need to be addressing in this session now or is that something that will follow? It is something that officers would recommend you delegate, the full draft of all the conditions and the final wording of the Section 106 agreement, we are recommending you delegate to officers. It can take unfortunately a number of months to settle agreements, any pre-commencement conditions require prior approval from the applicant, for example, and the lawyers get involved with the 106, so that's back and forth quite a lot certainly and more than happy when we get to a motion if it is a positive one, an expressed issue that you absolutely want to see a permissive access right within the applicant's control, obviously we can't do that on land they don't control, expressed within either the conditions or the 106, we can minute that and ensure that form is part of the resolution and subsequent final negotiations. That's something I'll be covering when I come to my comment. Thank you. Members, comments? Councillor Mason. The first thing I think I need to say is that as someone who was here 15 years ago, this is infinitely better than A*26996/AP which we considered in 2009. I am also very concerned about affordable housing, as you know, but I think that the money which is being spent on the sea defences, I understand that that will make this, that affordable housing will not be possible because of the works. 30 million is no small sum. And I think this is a good scheme. I think it is using well the existing buildings. It does comply, so far as I can see with the seafront master plan. It is providing sea defence which will have to be provided for Fort Cumberland at some stage anyway. I like the design. I think the fenestration is good. And so I would propose the officer's recommendation. Thank you, Councillor Mason. Members, comments? So, I definitely do have some comments about this scheme. So, having taken the time to look through it, it is very clear that there is both harm and benefit for it. Land in the UK is scarce and is even scarcer in Portsmouth and it is even scarcer arguably on our seafront or the edges of our city simply because it cannot be we cannot really create very much more of it. As an Eastening Crenswater Councillor I'm also very much aware of the concerns that people have around traffic. We are inevitably adding additional vehicles to the road which will put some additional pressure on them. I think there is an intangible loss from this scheme which is around solitude and quietness. There are very few places in this city where you can go for that. And that is actually available down at the far end of Eastening. Something which the naturist community have identified but also the people who go down there for the wildlife. And those people who don't go down there for the wildlife but kind of know that wildlife has that place down there to go to. And there certainly will be some harm from all of this building and it is unpredictable I think a little bit what the net effect of some of those outcomes will be. We cannot know and the number of some of the species is so small that plus or minuses in a small direction could indeed be terminal. However if I look at the other side of the ledger I see the retention of historic buildings and historic sites which are visibly declining. I went down to the side and had a look myself. It's not just the graffiti, it's the windows, the structure. Everything will eventually go and sitting as it does now it is also a magnet for other forms of harm. Now that is being defended as it were by security at the moment but it is not perfect and without some way forward that eventually will cease. I think as Councillor Mason says the defence of the seafront and the work there is something we absolutely do need and this is a solution to that. I also think that there will be an enhancement of access. So although there definitely will be some loss of utility for some groups of people I think the more organised way of access to it and the problem with the outlooks that are part of the design will attract a different group of people who will like to go to see what is still going to be a very beautiful spot which they really struggle to do at the moment. We have spoken about the lack of affordable housing. I agree that is something we always look to put in but I think the site makes it it is not the most material thing about this specific site that we should be thinking about. We should be thinking because it is such a unique position visible from the sea even more after the development. Fundamentally therefore I see this as a high quality addition to that part of the Eastney Peninsula. It will provide uplift of the area, it will help control some of the antisocial behaviour that goes in and if I look around the city I would like to not be tasked with trying to find and approve more sites for housing within the city but given that I feel that I am I think a Brownfield site like this it might not have been designed ever to be a long-term permanent residential area but it has been turned into a Brownfield site and we now need to deal with it as it lies. I think this is one of the better places within the city to be putting additional housing. We heard earlier about the pressures we have on housing in the city. That is my thoughts on the scheme. Therefore, I guess consequent on that I would be supporting Councillor Mason's recommendation. You are seconding the motion. Members, this is the task before us particularly with complex applications to balance any potential harm with any potential benefits to the city. Just for new members, that is a dilemma you will have to wrestle with while you are part of this committee. We have a motion before us which is to grant planning permission with the conditions in the section 106 agreement. Is there anything else? No? OK. We move to the vote. Those in favour of granting planning permission with the conditions and section 106 agreement please indicate. That is unanimous planning permission granted. Members, we move on to 27 Balfour Road. Thank you, members. 27 Balfour Road. This is the change of use of a Class C3 dwelling house again to a seven bed HMO. There is the property. As you can see, again in an area of no existing HMOs, so 1.45% HMO mix in this case. There is the proposed floor plans as you can see again some alterations to the dwelling including alterations to the roof to enable seven bedrooms. In this case, on-suite bedrooms on the ground and second floor and the three bedrooms on the first floor have a shared bathroom. The size of all the rooms is laid out in the report on paragraph 8.10. As you can see, all the bedrooms exceed the 10 square metres, the 25.3 square metre communal space exceeds the 22.5 requirement and it is therefore fully compliant with your policy on internal space standards as well as the mix and balance policy. The scheme otherwise satisfies your plan in respect of parking, amenity and character and as a compliant scheme is recommended for planning permission subject to conditions as proposed. Happy to take any questions. We'll just say there's no additional comments on this matter, so just public speaking. Thank you. So first, to give the depreciation, Margaret -- six minutes, please. Good morning. We live at 23 Belfour Road. The main house footprint of 27 is the same as ours. These are three-bedroom properties. I will be referring to the council's document standards for housing in multiple occupation, which the committee have been given some copies of, September 2018, as used in the committee report. This will be known as HMO document from now on. The technical value validation officer report dated the 3rd of the 4th 24 concerning bedroom 1 highlights the ceiling is too low in some areas, yet this has not been mentioned again. No actual width and length measurements have been provided to check legality. What's more, HMO document page 6 states no bedroom should be more than one storey from a kitchen dining area. The report further flags up shower room sizes that are so tiny, leaving no room for error or reduction in sizing. Bedroom 6's shower room is on the actual minimum size required, and bedroom 7's is only one squared centimetre over. The proposed plan shows the small communal kitchen diner as 25.33 metres squared. If you look at the corridor area to the side of bedroom 7's en suite, you can see that this space is unusable and impractical as kitchen area. This corridor will also need to be kept clear as an escape route and for access to the bike shed. Using the plans and the scale provided, we have calculated this corridor area to be 2.84 metres squared. Therefore, the kitchen diner only consists of 22.49 metres squared of practical area, which is below the legal requirement. Cramped inadequate rooms will be detrimental to mental health. The first floor demonstrates the proposed overdevelopment of this property. After removing two chimney breasts, replacing two walls and part of another, the total living space will only be increased by 56 centimetres squared. Bedroom 5 only exceeds the minimum size requirement by 5 centimetres squared. It only has half of 1% margin for error. Moreover, referring to document HMO under space on page 2, the committee should see that, it states unusable space includes circulation spaces behind doorways. Therefore, bedrooms 5, 6 and 7 are all below 10 metres squared of usable space. This would also bring the en suites below minimum size standards. Regarding bedroom 4, metres squared is not enough information to ensure the minimum legal width requirement of 2.15 metres is met. By looking at our own house, we are very concerned that this room is too narrow. We contacted the planning department to view the original drawings, but were told there are only the ones online. How did the council authenticate the proposed room sizes with the scant metres squares dimensions provided? The property has been incorrectly presented as four bedrooms. An estate agent's booklet showing the property when it was for sale recently lists it as three bedrooms on the front cover. The transport planning memo dated the 26th of the 3rd 24 states that the proposal would provide an additional three bedrooms, so it has been accepted that the existing property is four bedrooms. This would have influenced the findings. In addition, the committee report published the 17th of the 5th 24 under site and surroundings 2.1, referring to the previous layout, states four bedrooms and a bathroom at first floor level. This is quite clearly incorrect as you can see from the existing plans. Furthermore, the committee report under the proposal 3.3 refers to the construction of a rear extension. Nowhere in this proposal is a new rear extension mentioned. Under standard of accommodation 8.12, it incorrectly states more detailed guidance removes the requirement for a dining room, referring to HMO document on page 7, it clearly states no designated communal lounge area is required and only kitchen and dining area is required. On other matters, 8.34, Southern Water have not been consulted. I rang them myself last Wednesday, the 22nd of the 5th 24, so they cannot have undertaken the favourable desk study. In summary of issues 1.1, the right Honourable Penny Morden, NP, sent an objection letter which was wrongly classified as a comment. What other entries are incorrect? How can judgements be made on incorrect information? Contrary to the application form, there are very important trees and bushes with nesting birds. The committee should have a picture there showing the back garden with two large trees at the property and it has been empty since the end of January 24. Everyone needs a roof over their head, but it has to be the right roof. This proposal has too many problem rooms. The kitchen/diner, bedrooms 5, 6, 7 and the en-suites all have inadequate floor area after reductions for unusable space are removed. There remains questions over bedroom 1's height and bedroom 4's width. The drawings are not detailed enough when considering such minute margins. Unusable space must not be included. The Housing Regulations Committee comment is based on the plans provided. However, there is not sufficient detail to make an informed decision. Can you honestly say you have been given correct, adequate information to make a judgement? If this proposal is allowed to go ahead, Portsmouth City Council will be passing sub-standard housing. Thank you for your time and for listening. Thank you very much. OK, Mr Morris. Six minutes please. Good morning. We're Direct Neighbours and I'm number 27. We live at 29 Balfour Road. I'm going to refer to the Document Committee Report on 27 Balfour Road, dated 17 May 2024, for objections and counter arguments. There are, as we've just heard, numerous errors in this document. Site and Surroundings 2.1 mentions four bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor. This is the first of several references to number 27 being a four-bedroom house. It is a three-bedroom terrace house as marketed by several estate agents. 3.3 says the development will involve the construction of a rear extension and dormer, which are permitted developments. This is another error as there is already an existing rear extension built approximately 25 years ago, which is used on the plans. This is crucial as the plans have to be fitted into the existing structure, as opposed to building an extension to meet the minimum room sizes. This area forms part of the proposed kitchen/diner, which we feel does not meet the minimum size standard for the room. Consultation 6.4 mentions bicycles having to be wheeled through the house. Looking at the plans, if you look, it is an incredibly difficult route to get from the front door to the cycle shed. How is this going to encourage using a bike? This shows the proposal is about minimum room sizing, maximum number of rooms and not about the usefulness, longevity and quality of the accommodation for those who live there. Comment 8.5. Lots of residents have lived in this part of Balfour Road for more than 10 years. Residents at number 52 Balfour Road mentioned in their objection that they were searching for over a year to find a suitable family home in a family area. There is overwhelming resident objection to the proposed HMO, which is not in keeping with the character of this section of Balfour Road. Chichester Road and Leburnham Grove, which are either end of this section of Balfour Road and the other sections of Balfour Road, have numerous HMOs already, as they are much bigger houses. 8.10 states that submitted plans have been checked by officers. The measured room sizes have been used for assessment purposes. What checks have been carried out? Has the building been checked? We have also checked the plans and are convinced. There are questions around the size of the kitchen diner with the bedroom floor and other rooms which barely meet the minimum required size. The proposal should be thoroughly scrutinised by the planning department, which involves more than merely looking at the plans, which do not have detailed measurements other than room area. 8.12 mentions bedroom four as a small area of corridor. But why is there no mention of the long corridor leading into the kitchen diner? This is clearly not a useful space and should not be included in the kitchen dining area, as stated on the plans. The width of the corridors on the first floor have been reduced to try to meet minimum sizes in bedrooms three, four and five. The corridors are already narrow as we live in similar houses. They will have to be shared with the three residents sharing the single shower room on that floor and also the two loft residents to gain access to their bedrooms via this narrow corridor. 8.16 and 8.18 say there is no significant impact on living conditions of adjoining occupiers. We disagree there would be an increase in noise due to the following. More coming and going through the front door, which is only two metres away from our front door. More TV and music playing from seven individual residents. More noise due to removal of brick walls, ceilings and chimneys replaced with plasterboard walls. These are very small terraced houses and noise travels through the party walls. Residents gathering in the kitchen diner, cooking and socialising, the windows and side back door face number 29. More residents in and out the side back door to the garden and gathering around the area, which is within a few metres of the back door of number 29. More noise from residents in the garden, the garden fence on the boundary number 29 is broken and in need of repair, which reduces the privacy of number 29. In a family, noise can be controlled usually by parents. In an HMO, nobody's in charge, so there is no filter for seven individuals. Nobody to tell them to make less noise. According to PCC's own documents, there are 10 times more complaints from HMOs than from family houses. The kitchen diner door that looks on to number 29 could easily be moved to the rear of the extension. There could be a plan to repair/replace the garden fence from number 29. Considering the huge amount of building work proposed here, this would be a minor adjustment if consideration is to be given to the impact on neighbouring properties. Environmental impact, there are five shower room toilets in the proposal that do not have a window and therefore will need light and extractor fans when they are used. There are also numerous dark corridors which would need a light during the day. How is this environmentally friendly? We should be using a minimal amount of energy in refurbished buildings. This is a step backward. Surely it indicates there is no room in this dwelling for all the proposed rooms and services and is a vastly overdeveloped and unsuitable proposal. In summary, 27 Belfort Road is too small to be developed into a seven-bedroom HMO. It is a huge overdevelopment of a small three-bedroom terrace house. We feel it does not meet minimum shared use standards in numerous rooms. It is in the wrong location and these houses are first-time buyer houses in a family-orientated road. An HMO will upset the dynamics and character of this section of Belfort Road and planning permission should not be given. Thank you for the opportunity to share our objections. Councillor Swan, you would like to give a deputation? Thank you, Mr Chairman. Firstly, I want to save the Committee the trouble of getting into the political mud by saying that Michael Gove has done some very good things. However, the permitted development changes are not one of them. Furthermore, I know potentially I'm going to be criticised for voting against the local plan last night before Council and ridiculously be accused of wanting there to be no planning controls, et cetera. It's just not true. I keep extremely well in touch with the views and concerns of the residents of Kompner and Anchorage Park and I'm representing their wishes in voting against the policy on HMOs that is just not strong enough. I work for them and they are my bosses. It's that simple. I'm objecting to this application on the basis that the property will not adequately accommodate seven individual adults, let alone any guests or partners that might stay at the property. Several of the rooms are worryingly close to the minimum size requirements. For example, bedroom 5, which is 10.5 metres squared, has less than a 0.5% margin of error and must be right on the legal requirement. I wonder if it can be confirmed, if this has been assessed in person, to confirm that the rooms actually do meet the requirements. I live very locally to this application in a pretty much identical property and the notion that these could adequately and comfortably fit seven people, not including any guests, et cetera, is frankly ludicrous. The space is not conducive with helping with good mental health, something I speak about with authority. My mental health is adversely affected if I'm in smaller spaces that make me feel closed in or trapped and it makes me feel panicky. I do have serious issues with what is considered a humane living space. The issue with party walls and noise is an issue that we have heard time and time again and it's one that has never been addressed. The nature of properties in the city means that there is not a lot of sound protection from neighbours and when we're seeing a large increase in the originally planned occupation of properties with people potentially working shifts at all times of the day and night, what protection do residents have against noise, bearing in mind that no application seems to include any protection against this and I'm sure any developer, respect for residents would agree that this is a glaring omission and something that really needs addressing going forward. It also needs highlighting the misnomer that the developments represent affordable housing. Circa £850 a month is a significant amount of money and I just don't see that as affordable housing, especially as a cursory look will bring up flats in the similar area of £750 per month, many at £650 per month, but I guess when we're talking about HMO properties bringing in circa 6K a month, it's clear that any altruistic reasons for pushing these developments are dishonest and it's really all about profits, profits, profits. I'm incredibly grateful for the detail from the deputies we have heard on this application. Their input is relevant and compelling and I stand with them in the steadfast belief that this application should be rejected. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Swann. Okay, we'll hear from the agent. Again everything I've previously said for the other application stands. We only design shared living homes that are fully compliant and exceed all the size standards. We have multiple live HMO applications across multiple authorities over the south coast and only here in Portsmouth are we subject to this level of criticism. HMOs are needed in our cities and public perception needs to change. Portsmouth size standards and finished HMOs are amongst the strictest and best designed in the UK. This should be celebrated by the residents of Portsmouth as the policies put in place by this council have ensured high standards across this city, which is not replicated in many cities across the UK. All bedrooms in this property exceed 10 square metres, meet or exceed 10 square metres. In response to public comments regarding the communal space, when all bedrooms exceed 10 square metres, the required standard is 22.5. Again, this property meets that standard. The permitted development works that facilitate the additional space suggests that any single dwelling without imposed restrictions can lawfully add to their home this way. There would be less public outcry if the same operations were carried out to increase the size of a dwelling for a family of six, which is not uncommon, nor is the presence of multiple cars and social behavioural noise strictly associated with the presence of HMOs. There are multiple objections I see to this application and I can only hope that the finished project alleviates some of the concerns brought up. Our clients are not looking to fill their properties with anyone other than those that appreciate and respect the homes available to them and want to be part of the community around them. In the current climate, many cannot afford to purchase a property or even save for a deposit without the option to give them a chance to live and work in comfort until an opportunity to get on the property ladder is more plausible. To bring some of the objections, just to confirm a few things, the ceilings in all the rooms are a minimum of 2.3 head height. This is a requirement for both building regs and licensing. The minimum room size widths are 2.15 and all of the rooms exceed that. Our designs have never been subject to refusal of a HMO licence and we would not design a scheme that did not comply with all the relevant regimes. The owner of 23 Balfour made mention to the 10 square metre rooms being small and inadequate. 6.5 is actually the minimum size required. Bedrooms of 10 square metres are far in excess of that. There was mention of taking cycles through the house. This is a way of life for many residents in Portsmouth, not everyone has the luxury of rear access and those tenants who have an issue with doing this would therefore choose another property. I also wanted to confirm that plan officers regularly tend visits on projects that haven't started and actually finished projects and they do do measurements and yes, they can absolutely be sure of the integrity of the drawings. Councillor Swann made mention of humane living spaces. As previously stated, Portsmouth demands some of the largest size stands in the UK so to describe them as inhumane is frankly ludicrous. This application fully complies with all of the policies and supplementary planning documents and I urge you all to fully support the officers recommendation today. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Board members, Councillor O'Dare. Thank you, Chair. When current residents bought their homes here, they never expected to see the family homes around them being bought up to turn into shared housing, HMOs, bedsits or whatever you want to call them. Balfour Road is a pleasant residential road but residents are worried about the changing character of the street and surrounding neighbourhood evidenced by the large petition and number of objections sent in. Whilst out and about, we called on residents near to the application site. Of course, not all were in but those we did speak to did talk to us and say they were anxious about the application and the change of character in their street. The residents we spoke to knew that your hands are tied by central government but we respectfully request that you take into account the sheer weight of public concern raised by this application. You can see from the report there are great concerns over many issues including parking. Residents have raised concerns over space standards inside for communal use and the rooms. So we ask you to look closely at these whilst making your deliberations. So far as GPs, school places and other public services are concerned, we know that pressure must be put on the government to fund these services properly. Having talked to residents nearby and in the area, overwhelmingly the two main concerns are the loss of family housing and the impact on parking. If you are minded to grant the application, then we further request that this committee write to the leader of the council and portfolio holders concerned, requesting that review of parking standards for HMOs. Finally, we ask that you protect the residential nature of this neighbourhood. The application is out of character with the existing family uses and increases pressure on street parking. For all the reasons described by residents, we ask you to reject this application. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Doar. I'm not sure if that counts as your first speech. Actually, it may do. Councillor Hunt. Thank you, Chair and members, and especially the newer members on the planning committee. It is an arduous responsibility. And I left it last year. And I did that because increasingly I saw that the committee just had to roll over for government legislation, which is something that Councillor Swann did indeed comment on. I wasn't going to nail him for it because he's not responsible, but his party is. The deregulation, what enabled this small family home to come here today seeking the applicants seeking an HMO use there is deregulation of planning law. So that you get permitted development at the back, which enables more people to go in. And that is the real problem behind this. If there hadn't been permitted development, at least that part of Balfour Road probably wouldn't be facing these sorts of applications. So I need to thank, I want to thank, we all want to thank the deputies for coming along today. And particularly you will have noted the diligent investigations by Mrs Haskell and indeed Mr Morris. And she raises really important matters. She's picked up on them. She's read the documentation. She's probably more informed actually than anyone on the committee today, maybe apart from Councillor Mason. And she raises those concerns that I used to make about the layout of the property. So that even though it appears that room standards are met on paper, when you actually go in and live there, the room standards are not met because of the configuration, for example, of the kitchen and that there are units around that take up this communal space. So the way something is configured should be part of your considerations to ensure that communal space and room sizes actually are what they appear to be on paper. I have to thank Mrs Haskell too for going out and working hard to get a petition up of 180 odd names, really hard work, and it shows really and truly the concern that they have as described by Councillor Adair. I'm not going to repeat anything that Richard has said, except to say that we know it's difficult to consider these matters. We know that you get blamed, as it were, for some of these things that go through. But truthfully, the truth is that this is the 10% rule that we debated yesterday, despite what Councillor Swan thinks is the best defence that we have in this city. Residence in just if you allow me for a moment, resident Margate Road didn't have the benefit of that 10% rule. And now we see that about 80% of the houses along Margate Road and Bailey's Road are in multiple occupation and that has completely, completely destroyed the character of that area. I would ask you, Members, and I have a form of words for you, so you can all get your pens out and start scribbling them down. This is a reason to oppose. I think we'll make our own minds up about that. Yeah, okay. Having regard to all material planning considerations and representations, it is concluded that the proposed change of use is out of character and inappropriate for the street and an overdevelopment that the established family homes out of character with the established family homes in Balfour Road and the increased parking will have a detrimental impact on residential amenities and that the room sizes are inadequate, as described by deputies, and therefore the application should be rejected. And if you want to come back to that later on, where you decide to vote this out, I'm happy to repeat it. Okay, thank you. I'm grateful for your addition. I care about you. Thank you. I know you do. Okay, we've heard all the deputations. Oh, Jason. I do apologise. Councillor exactly. Thank you very much. I shouldn't be able to miss you. I apologise. I had to leave the room for a call for my apologies. And again, apologies for any duplication from the drawbacks in speaking last. But so be it. So, Members, first of all, Planning Committee members, look at the strength of local feeling from this in respect to this application. 57 objection comments and 188 signature petition. You've got three ward councillors. All three ward councillors are objecting to this. You've got a ward councillor from Copner objecting. And you've also got, as I understand it, although it's been noted as a comment, a representation objection from the MP for Portsmouth North. I mean, I struggle to recall an HMO application in Nelson that's ever attracted such a degree of opposition as this, and I think it paints a clear picture of concern by residents and Councillors on how the committee will recognise that for the many reasons that have been given. So what we have here is an application to turn a prior three bedroom family home into a seven bedroom dwelling dwelling. So my teeth in today has been highlighted by several of the residents given their deputation. This application is both impractical and an overdevelopment. Firstly, the communal kitchen is too small, but calculations calculated by one of the deputations. And from what I've calculated myself, it's less than the legal requirement. And I looked to the planning officer for comment and clarification. Several other points in the report also raise concerns. 2.1 stating it was a four bedroom property, when in fact it was a three bedroom property, and under 8.34 contact with Southern Water as Mrs Haskell took the time to detail. She spoke with the company and the information given to her conflicts of what's detailed in the report. So it's concerning that we've got potentially factual inaccuracies written in the report. And the black and white of the planning officer's comments as well in the report stands in contrast to what I and my colleagues see in reality. This issue about impact on neighbouring living conditions. Why is it that residents continue to come to us with problems caused by HMO? Only this month I received photographs and details of antisocial behaviour arising from an HMO in nearby Beresford Road. It would be generally useful to know what actual details Apple Door Limited hold of the problems experienced by neighbours next to or in close vicinity of the HMOs that companies championed before at this particular committee. As their representative through her words describes how professional they are and how they create good quality dwellings, it simply doesn't tally up with what I and my colleagues hear. I can only detail what I actually experience. Members of the planning committee, I hope you know that those of us councillors who are here today are objecting to this application, not through playing party politics. We're from different political parties yet we share the same real concerns and the same aim of protecting local residents from an application which we collectively believe is flawed for the many reasons that have been given. You don't need to be either an experienced councillor or an experienced member of this planning committee to recognise that. Yes, there's a need for housing within the city. Government imposes targets for PCC to meet but not through financial driven applications that put profit before people and quantity ahead of quality. What's striking in this application is just that. Lack of usable space, cramped living conditions for occupants. In several of the rooms the bare minimum floor size is stated with no room for error. Yet what's been highlighted, unusable space includes circulation spaces behind doorways for example. Bedrooms 5, 6 and 7 I think fall into that particular area of concern thus they're below the 10 metre requirement of usable space on that basis. There's no communal dining room, all you've got is a small communal kitchen space for residents to use and I believe that to be unsuitable due to the already highlighted mention about corridor access. So members please listen to what's been said to you by residents and by members here today. Look at the facts as they stand. This application is flawed. I think you've got real grounds to reject it and I ask that you do just that. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Councillor Bosaki, apologies for missing you earlier on. OK, I think we have heard all the deputations now. Ian, there were a number of inaccuracies raised by one of the deputies. Are you able to address some of those matters? Sure, I'm not sure there are any real inaccuracies within the report but I'll provide some clarifications. The reference is to four bed rather than three bed. The applicant's submission of the existing layout shows that a ground floor front room is marked up as a bedroom which clearly it lawfully could be. Now, realistically when it was last used as a family home I would expect that was a lounge but that explains the differential of the plans. We have formally submitted to show three bedrooms on the first floor, one on the ground floor. If there is any typos around that, apologies but that I think is the core of the confusion between the two things. Just to pick up on some of the issues around the private sector housing guidance, it is private sector housing guidance, not the planning guidance but we do reference it in our SPD and all corporate guidance has a material factor in your consideration so it's down to you what weight to apply to it. Some of it crosses over into other more relevant documents so the minimum bedroom widths, for example, that's actually from the nationally described space standards, so highly pertinent. The minimum width required for a bedroom for single occupancy is 2.15 metres. Bedroom 4 is 2.265 metres so it is of adequate minimum width. And then another thing to comment on, we do of course check all plans in detail and where possible check development on site but obviously planning should occur before development so we can't measure it on site in most cases and it will depend on whether the developer has chosen at risk to progress with any internal alterations or other permitted development alterations. But just to pick up on the two other points raised, usable space behind bedroom doors, it indeed does say that in the private sector housing guidance. This is not new information, this is 2018 guidance, it's one we reference in our SPD. Quite clearly it is not implying that a bathroom should have additional space above and beyond that behind the door. Most people utilise a bathroom with the door closed so it's not unusable space from that expectation and I think some common sense can be applied to that. The communal kitchen/dining space, it's a very valid point and it does have an area of access corridor by the applicants and by the objectives concerns that reducing it to 2.49 square metres against our 22.5 requirements. So again, 22.49 against our 22.5 requirement. Members will be unsurprised for me to say planning is not a numbers game. It is looking at whether that is a usable space. That is what officers have done. We haven't made a specific deduction to the 25.33 listed in the report for that corridor because there will always be an area within a room taken up by access, whether it be space behind a door or indeed a bit of corridor. But it does have an impact on that availability of usable space. The illustrative layout of that kitchen/diner obviously shows a door halfway down, meaning the bit beyond that door is available for dining furniture or indeed other reception furniture for the use of the applicants overall. And this is the key message, members, I give you every single planning committee when we talk about this. Overall, whether or not this makes an acceptable design and layout for its proposed use. As I say, on a straight reading of the numbers, we're satisfied it does exceed your minimum requirements. But more importantly, we are satisfied through our professional assessment that the overall layout is acceptable. There are vagaries. It's a tight turn with a bicycle to get it through to the rear garden. That's common in many, many Portsmouth homes and we don't feel there's a reason to withhold plan permission. There may be a minor and purely technical breach to the funeral kitchen/dining area. We do not feel there's a reason to withhold plan permission. So we recommend, therefore, that those matters shouldn't in any way impede the grant of plan permission, especially when, as members are obliged to do, you apply the tilted balance under the presumption of sustainable plan in light of the council's current housing land supply. Probably nothing else for me to clarify from what was said, but obviously more than happy to answer any questions. Thank you for that clarification of those things. The other thing, just to remind everybody, of course, we've heard the impassioned deputations and I know Councillor Darrick referred to the sheer weight of public concern, not a matter for us to consider. It's not a material planning consideration whether we agree with that or not. That's not for us to consider in this matter. Okay. Members, questions? Comments? I mean, we do not do this by numbers, so we have to consider the usable space. The kitchen is difficult. That bit by the door is not usable, I don't think. We've got 22.49. That was the number provided by the objector. I don't have any particular reason to disagree with that. So if you take off that bit of corridor, what are we down to? Well, the objector's numbers and say obviously without getting a CAD drawing out and measuring it was that that 25.33 that we report is reduced down to 22.49 against 22.5 standard. It depends where you draw your line on that corridor, I would suggest, of course, yeah. So we do consider usable space. I mean, that's I'm yet to be convinced. Councillor Mason. Like a number of the points we've just heard, I am concerned about this bedroom 4. I would accept that it is 11.3 and that there is it is over 10 metres square. What width is it? It looks very, very narrow to me as a living room. 2.265 metres against a standard, a nationally described space standard of 2.15. So it is a part of national space standards. Just for clarity, if it assists, paragraph 8.12, the corridor into that bedroom we did note might certainly be of very limited utility, so we did also measure the bedroom without that corridor and it remains over 10 square metres. I accept that, yeah. It's probably not the biggest issue or concern, but I do have a question. In terms of the cycling, I have regularly thought that actually it is not very practical for people to be expected to be taking their bike through a house on a day‑to‑day basis, which is one of the reasons why people don't do it, but this application in particular has a right‑angle bend and two doors actually as part of the corridor. Is that not a material restriction on the ability to people to get bikes through? Is there guidance or standards about the ease with which the bike must be capable of being taken through the home? Yes and no. Will that materially restrict the ease of getting a bike through? Of course, you just described the challenge. Would it prevent it? No. Where we have looked at this in some detail, we have seen some very convoluted routing through, but we have had an attempt at tracking routes through with bicycles and indeed many staff who live in not dissimilar layout of homes have also given feedback in discussions we have had as a department about how they move their bicycles through there. There are no standards, unfortunately, that we can apply to it. Undeniably it is less convenient than it otherwise would be. As I say, however, this is a common feature for terrace properties in Portsmouth. It would be lovely if everyone had rear access and we wouldn't need to take bicycles through. It would certainly make it a lot easier to promote cycling when it doesn't prevent it. And I think trying to withhold plan permission on the basis that someone who may choose to have a bicycle we can't force them to, we encourage them to, would be further discouraged by the layout, would be a very difficult argument to win on appeal. Ian, there was a question about certain water. Statutory consultations. Yes, so Thames Water isn't a statutory consultee for schemes such as this. We do occasionally consult them if we believe there is a point of concern and certainly we have seen sites where that has been a concern specifically raised by members before. Obviously, as our top members in the past, under the Water Management Act there is separate legislation out with the planning process to ensure connection to foul water and connection to fresh water. And under those regulations it is for the developer to work with the statutory undertakers for foul and fresh water to make those connections and make any necessary enhancements to it. Obviously this is not only new connections, they already exist, and if the statutory undertaker is dissatisfied that they have adequate capacity, they have the rights to seek funding from a developer entirely outside the planning process. Comments? Chair, I had a question still. It was a question, forgive me, it's my ignorance. Noise has come up several times today and I know that sometimes the developer will say that with a modern redevelopment of a property they improve the sound insulation between properties versus what is normally there in a typical Portsmouth home in this sort of an area. But do we as a council have a particular statement about noise and noise level within a property? Is there anything there that can be the basis for our consideration? Yes and no. The resistance to noise and the transmission of noise between properties is a matter for building regulations. Part E of the building regulations set out the standards and obviously as well as consent under the Town and Country Planning Act for a change of use as well as any necessary connection with consents under the Water Management Act, they will obviously need to undertake the necessary approvals for building regulations and noise transference between and around properties is covered by building regulations and therefore falls out with an appropriate consideration for planning and any necessary conditions or obligations. It differs if we were putting in a nightclub or a licensed premises or something of that nature with abnormal noise that will require some physical alteration to the building but normal sound resistance, necessary insulation between buildings, windows, et cetera, is fully covered by part E of the building regulations. So in short, there's nothing this planning committee can say or do about that. It's out with us. So often this seems to be the case. Okay, thank you. Comments. Councillor Vallely. I'm really struggling with this one because there's clear concern over the size even though I know that Kerry-Ann will appeal if we say no and we may be charged for that. I know that we can't have any say over soundproofing but Kerry-Ann can. So maybe she could ask if we do go through with this, and I'm not saying that we will, that maybe we could ensure that Kerry-Ann asks whoever owns it that we could, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I'm struggling. This is as tight as it gets in terms of space standards and thinking about usable space. I'm struggling. Any other comments that might help us to make some progress? I seem to be the only person standing up on some of these things because it's very difficult for this committee to talk to some of these things because honestly my heart goes out to some of the concerns that the residents have raised which we all recognise and which we would actually like to bring into our consideration, but they are ruled outside of our control. So I was very pleased when someone was trying to use size and some specifics that we could have explored as a potential basis for considering rejection, but having now confirmed that they are all within our specs or there was one centimetre out which is not I think a material one, I don't think there's anything we could do along there. And to be honest my heart also goes out to some extent to some of the incoming residents to these places. Yesterday I packed my daughter to go off to go and live in an HMO in Bristol that is almost identical to what we're looking about now and I really don't know that it's a great place for someone to be living in, but that is not something that this planning committee has authority over and so we will have to look at the application on its merits within the frame that we have. I have stayed away from some of the political elements around this, but I think we have to recognise that we are operating within a frame of law that sits where it does and I hope that some of those frames and laws are changed in the near future. I am very much in the same position as Councillor Van Bush. I don't like this one. I don't feel easy with this one. Partly because of the configuration with this central corridor, the doors, it's not going to be a very pleasant place to live, but it meets our requirements. Okay, only just, but it meets our requirements. I can see no reason why were we to scrabble around and find a reason to turn it down, we would not be overthrown by Her Majesty's Planning Inspectorate because it does meet the standards which we have and therefore with some reluctance I propose the officer's recommendation. Anybody else? I'm not quite there yet I don't think. We need a seconder if we're going to make any progress with that. I'm not there yet. Okay. I'm going to propose refusal on the grounds of useable space within this property. Can I just clarify that is the communal space in light of the orientation and configuration and thus your concerns under policy PCS 23 of the local plan. Two proposals. Councillor Dorrington. Is it possible to get some kind of confirmed clarification upon the space in the dwelling as it lands at the moment and the space in the dwelling once it's developed? Also the space in the dwelling is developed as laid out in paragraph 8.10. They are the approved plans and we're satisfied in checking that. How much of the communal space, that 25.33, you judge to be practically usable in a way that will meet the future needs, make a good living environment for residents is a matter of judgment, not a matter of numbers. So it's applying that judgment. It is a room that is in absolute provable truth 25.33 square metres but a proportion of it and exactly how far down that corridor does it start being usable is a degree of judgment certainly. There's a couple of square metres. The objector's suggestion is it reduces the usable space to 22.49. Other numbers will be available. It's where you feel that that would change whether that orientation and configuration as much as the floor space does create a good living environment. We know a perfectly square, perfectly accessible 22.5 square metre space for seven people is an acceptable living environment. We have many good examples of it across the city. This is an unusual configuration and layout for residents. And if you feel that that configuration and layout, as the chairman has just made a motion for, raises that space below a good living environment, the wording of PCS 23, then you can road to refuse it. And obviously the applicant will have to make that argument on appeal should they wish to do so. But it's a matter of judgment rather than numbers. So the numbers you're going to get are as good as you're going to get in 8.10. It is now for members to apply their judgment to it, which obviously I can keep talking around numbers all the time, but comes back to that point. Planning isn't done by numbers. It is done by the quality of that standard. The numbers there to help guide your thinking. And we're satisfied it's a good living environment. That's our recommendation. Members may come to a different view. Thank you. I think Mary, you first. And I would usually agree with you, but on this occasion, I have to second your refusal. Thank you, Mary. Peter. Ah, yeah. I was just about to, uh, I was just about to second councilor Mason's on the basis that it is very, very close to the wire. And this committee has complained before about what it can and cannot do, but, and it is a balanced, uh, a finely balanced decision. I'm also mindful that we also have a responsibility to the, the tech pay taxpayers and the council tax payers of the city about not, um, raising appeals, which are almost inevitably going to fail because we have failed to find sufficient grounds to support an objection. And this one is right on the cusp. Um, I will support my, my, my colleague, uh, councilor Mason, but it is clear the committee is, um, is split on this. This is as tight as it will get to new members, uh, for these type of, uh, applications. Um, so what I said, this is down to our judgment now. So, uh, we've got two motions in front of us, the first to be proposed and seconded I think was mine. So we'll take that. Okay. Thank you. So we'll take that motion first to refuse on the grounds of usable space and configuration. Those in favor, please indicate against. Okay. Thank you. Planning commission is refused. Thank you, Juliet. Okay. Um, I know you have to go soon, but we'll try and get through the next one. Uh, land at Fitz Herbert road. Thank you chairman. Land at Fitz Herbert road. This is an application for a multi-story car storage facility, um, uh, workshops and office building, uh, with associated, uh, hardens of landscaping, uh, at a, uh, car, um, sales sites, uh, in Fitz Herbert road. So that's the site, um, there, um, that would you mind? Thank you. That's the site, uh, they're up in one of our, uh, industrial, uh, estates in the North of the city. You can see it's, uh, largely an undeveloped site at the moment. There is a, uh, a one building on there, but it's an open car storage at the moment from that, uh, top right hand image. Um, uh, and, uh, it's a bit of orientation because you don't know what we're talking about. Um, uh, right up in, uh, on the mainland, uh, for Portsmouth. Um, uh, that is the image of the site. You can just make out the, um, existing, uh, access way and bellmouth and entrance gates, which do actually, uh, we understand limits the ability of car transporters to easily enter, uh, the sites, meaning that car transporters often offload from the highway. Um, uh, some more images just to really point out, this is a big site full of cars. Um, this is the proposal, uh, three buildings. The large red rectangle, uh, is the multi-story car storage, uh, building. Uh, the green square is the, uh, workshops and the blue rectangle is a two story office building. As you can see, the rest of the site is equally then laid out for, uh, car storage and you can just about make out on that right hand image, the new, uh, entrance way and tracked route for car transporters to be able to enter, uh, and leave the site in forward gear. Um, the car storage building is a significant scale building, uh, three stories, uh, on the Northern end, uh, adjacent to Zetland Road, the residential boundary to the North, four stories as you come down onto Fitzherbert Road. Uh, there is the rear and front elevations and a computer CGI of the, uh, building. You can just see the two story office building in front of it in that lower image. Hopefully that's not too confusing. Um, that is the layout. So we actually have a sort of display space on the ground floor to the left top, um, left image there, uh, and then car storage across the rest of it with solar panels, uh, positioned on the upper floors of the structure. This is the office building, pretty self-explanatory, um, uh, layout inside with a significant amount of commercial floor space and associated economic benefit that would derive there from, uh, and then finally the workshop building, again, fairly self-explanatory series of bays for working upon cars. Um, again, that is probably a clearer image of the building. Uh, the vertical cladding elements, uh, which are shown in this CGI, uh, have since been removed through negotiation. Uh, officers felt that they added a lot of, uh, unnecessary bulk, um, uh, to the scheme, uh, which obviously would be a permanent feature for a structure that would actually have relatively limited, um, uh, movement. This is not a public multi-story car park. This is a car storage facility, so, uh, you're not having cars driving in and out 24/7, 365, you know, 30 cars an hour. Uh, it'll be, you know, it's a large structure. There'll be a lot of movement, but, uh, any, uh, baffling or disguise that those nag-tadding would make we felt was certainly outweighed by, uh, the additional mass that it would be, uh, detrimentally adding to the structure, especially to the rear when, uh, viewed from Zetland. So, um, uh, some assistance from, uh, this drawing you can see on the left there, uh, the, uh, proposed, uh, building with the, uh, cladding, which has since been removed design. There are a few trees, including some mature trees along this boundary, but at the moment, uh, obviously, uh, most of the site is, um, uh, a vacant plot, albeit you can see commercial buildings through it, and this would add, uh, a new, uh, industrial building within the views across the road from facing, uh, properties. Uh, it is a well-established industrial site, and we do feel that that view of it is not, uh, causing material, uh, adverse detriment, but clearly that impact is a key consideration. Um, we're satisfied the buildings don't, however, cause any direct loss of sunlight and daylight, and that's been evidenced by, uh, the necessary sun studies as illustrated here. Um, that is, uh, a view of the existing, um, site from Zetland, so the residential view, if you will, and obviously that one will now include both the workshop and the car storage, uh, building, uh, behind that line of trees. They are looking to supplement those trees, uh, that tree line to help, uh, ameliorate and soften, uh, that appearance, but obviously that's only gonna cover, uh, the ground floor areas of those two buildings. However, and I'll just take you back to probably, uh, that, uh, as an illustration of roughly where they are, uh, however, overall, it is felt that this is a beneficial commercial, uh, development of a well-established commercial site within an industrial park. Uh, the potential adverse impact on, uh, outlook, um, for a couple of properties is, uh, relatively minimal. Of course, there is no right of a view under, uh, planning law, so it is just whether that has a visually dominating, uh, appearance, but certainly, um, while there has been a gap in, uh, the, uh, elevation along, uh, Zetland Road, uh, because of the lack of development on this site, uh, it is a well-established part of the character of the area that those residential properties of the adjacent estate are looking at an industrial site, and we do not feel, therefore, that visual intrusion, uh, is anywhere near that which would be deemed unreasonable. Uh, weighing that against the benefits to local economy through providing greater employment opportunities and some likely opportunities to enhance, uh, transport and highway movement by being able to, uh, move transport, uh, car transporters off the road more easily, uh, is felt that this is overall a significantly beneficial scheme, uh, to, uh, economy with, uh, few, if any, uh, notable adverse impacts. Um, we have, uh, one additional condition to add from the SMAT, which is from the Environment Agency that have asked for a watching, um, uh, brief in terms of, uh, contamination, um, uh, which we are recommending you impose, but other than that, uh, the recommendations stands as listed in the agenda, um, and you have the, uh, agent speaking on behalf, uh, of the scheme, but otherwise happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Ian. Mr. Passy. He's not here. Always there. Thank you, Chair. Who's who? Yes. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, um, for allowing me to speak today. Um, I'm speaking here in support of the application on behalf of Vale Williams, who are the planning consultants, uh, for the applicant, uh, Richmond Motor Group. Um, I'm here in support of the planning application before you, uh, for the construction of a multi-story car storage facility with car workshop, office buildings and associated landscape improvements. The proposals before you are recommended for approval as outlined in your officer's committee report. The planning application, uh, follow the pre-application discussions and public consultation event. Uh, the public consultation event, uh, uh, invited 470 residents and business addresses. Um, and of those 40, 42 residents and two ward counselors attended the public consultation event, uh, which received a 71% in the support response. Um, it is noted, however, that unfortunately six objections from members of the public to the planning application, uh, before you, um, and this, uh, uh, committee speech, um, seeks to, um, take the opportunity to address some of these matters, um, but also acknowledges that the planning officer's report also takes these matters into consideration. Uh, the proposals, uh, will remove, uh, a significant amount of current on-street parking, uh, by staff who are currently unable to park on site and will also remove the current need for the transporters to, uh, uh, wait along Fitzherbert Road. Uh, car transporters, uh, within the proposal, uh, car transporters within the proposal will now be able to enter and exit the site in forward gear, removing the need to wait outside idling. Um, the proposals involve, uh, the proposals involves planting additional 20 trees. Uh, this will provide enhanced screening for the north boundary and also contribute significant biodiversity net gain. Uh, the proposals, uh, the proposal has a similar relationship to the neighbor's residential dwellings as other commercial buildings in the area. Um, the neighboring residential, uh, dwellings to the north are separated by Zetland Road and the tree line northern boundary of the proposal, uh, post site, um, and will not result in any significant harm to amenity. A sun study undertaken by Borland Summers Architects has also been provided, which demonstrates that, um, the development would result in no loss of sunlight to any of the northern, northern residents, the neighbors to the north. The supporting noise impact assessment produced by the acoustics consultants advises that the proposed noise levels will be as per the existing situation. And the air quality, uh, reports undertaken, um, by the applicants consultants is expected to enhance, um, to enhance due to the improved movement around the site, um, and availability of the parking, um, i.e. there won't be the idling vehicles. Um, aside from the six objections from members of the public, Councillors will be aware that the planning application has received no objections from consortees commenting on the planning application while looking in detail at their respective areas of expertise. In balance, the proposal is considered to be of an economic benefit to local economy. It will provide improved environmental benefits in terms of amenity by way of improving parking conditions locally and provision of biodiversity net gain in excess of 10 percent through tree planting. Uh, considering the benefits, um, your office's very positive committee reports and supporting, uh, technical consortees, it is respectfully requested the application be approved as per the office's recommendations and their conclusions, uh, paragraph 6.45 of their reports. Many thanks. Thank you, Mr. Paty. Okay. Members, questions on this application? Uh, comments? It seemed to be an awful lot. Do you want to go here? Okay. Um, this is an industrial building on an industrial estate. It is well designed the, there has been an attempt to screen the rear of the building so that, uh, it does not cause visual impact on Zetland Road properties. I think that this is a very good application and I, um, propose the office's recommendation. Thank you. Mary. Councillor Bali. He's, did you want to come in? I was only going to say much along the same lines and I think the additional parking and getting the, um, the car drop shipper off the street in a circular fashion. It's all good. It's all good. Thank you very much. Good application. Uh, we have a motion before us, Councillor Mason's and Councillor Vannali's to, uh, grant conditional permission for the application. Uh, is there anything else members with the additional condition as mentioned in the SMAT? Sorry. The additional, uh, condition referred to in the SMAT. Is there anything else? Okay. Those in favour, please indicate. That's unanimous planning permission is granted. Thank you. Um, I'm aware some people need to leave. Um, I think it's probably a good time to have a leg stretch. Um, members, how long do you want? What's the bidding? 10 minutes, 10 minutes. Okay. Back here at 10 past please. Thank you. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. Members, members assemble. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] Okay. [inaudible] I just don't understand quite the proposal now that I look at 3.3. Can we see the picture of the layout? So 3.3 says a switchback ramp was deemed not to be feasible, but then it's going to have a top, bottom, and single intermediate landing. I don't understand that. So for apologies, a bit small. So it doesn't switch back upon itself, but what it does is it comes at an incline here of one in 20, where Councillor makes him to ask for the incline, to an intermediate landing. So it levels down, then stops, levels off, and then carries on down to the ground. That is the design and layout as proposed. [inaudible] Does that help? So the 1.5-metre chair that is the axis onto the road. Is a level. You've got a 1.5-metre axis onto the road. You then have a slope up to a 1.5-metre level landing, if you will, then a slope up to a 1.5-metre level landing at, I don't know, back to front, but at the pavement level. So on the left-hand side, that far left, now I understand it, that far left is at the same level as the, you've reached the top. You go out onto flat land. Okay. So two flat squares linked by two sloped ramps. Yeah, I'm slow, but I've got that. Hugh, did you need some additional information? I can't quite remember. One in 20 is the income. One in 20. Okay. Members, any comments? Well, I've had the presentation and deputations and read the reports. I think I'm happy to move the officer's recommendations. Oh, hi. Thank you. Thank you. Actually, I do know this area because sometimes I do deliver some food baskets. I think about this one, we do have pros and cons. And I think pros are more positive is more and negative is less. So I would support the application. Thank you. It's your seconding. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Shah. Okay. Members, any other comments or views? If not, those in favor of moving the officer's recommendations, please indicate. Nick, unfortunately, you're not allowed to vote on this one, but everybody else, please indicate. Okay. I think we're there. Planning permission is therefore granted. Thank you, everybody. Kensington Road. Thank you, Chairman. 39 Kensington Road. This is another change of use from a C3 dwelling house to a seven-bed HMO. There is the property. There it is. Again, an area where there are no other HMOs within the relevant search area, giving us a policy compliant 1.52% mix and balance within this location. Existing floor plans, fairly well understood. Three bedrooms upstairs, normal layout downstairs with the rear conservatory. There is the proposal replacing the conservatory with a more substantial building, which would become bedroom two and an elongated living space and alterations to the roof with that rear dormer window, as you can see there. The floor areas are detailed at 8.12 of the report, with all bedrooms being over 10 square meters and a communal living space of 25.5 square meters, so exceeding our 22.5 square meters. This layout, I would contend, is certainly less impactful in terms of usability compared to the previous HMO we saw. I can also confirm all of the bedrooms, bedroom two and bedroom five, being the two narrow ones, do exceed the 2.15-meter minimum width should that question be coming. I think we have nothing on the SMAT. Objections and the ward member, as well as the applicant, speaking as deputation. Thank you. Mr Roberts? Thank you, Chair. I will try and keep you within my six minutes. Well, you will. Forgive me speaking fast. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Bryn Roberts, I'm a resident of 45 Kensington Road. We are a tight and family-friendly community in this road and a mixture of families of young children, older parents and senior residents. I myself have been a resident for over 40 years and I wish my family to see and feel the same as I have in the safe and family-focused city. We have individually and collectively appealed the decision for 39 Kensington Road, including along with our local MP and local Councillors to be turned into an HMO on the basis of several areas of impact. We have tried to approach this from a non-emotional aspect, but I hope you can understand that at times this might spill over into our concerns. I'm here personally representing over 35 individual residents to express our strong concerns. As a resident of this community, I feel that this change will have a profound negative impact on our neighbourhood, both socially and environmentally, and it urges the council to reject the proposal. Family homes foster long-term residency, stability and personal investment in the community. In contrast, HMOs often lead to a transient population with less engagement in local activities and community building efforts. This shift can erode the social fabric and make our neighbourhoods a less desirable place to live. HMOs typically house more adults than the standard family, leading to increased pressures on local and physical infrastructure. This includes greater demand on public services, such as waste collection, water supply and sewage systems. Additionally, increased population density often results in high levels of traffic and corresponding rise in noise and pollution levels. Our streets, already significantly limited in parking space, will struggle to accommodate the additional vehicles associated with an HMO, with seven residents, each with potentially a vehicle, will cripple the already bursting burden. Combined with each resident potentially having one visitor could lead up to 14 extra vehicles. This could also include large private vehicles, which are already crippling Portsmouth. As a partner of someone who has a disability and small children, parking is already a stretch, and adding to this mix will also make it harder for existing residents to park. This will add to the social isolation of some residents who feel they cannot leave the house after 6pm, as fear of not being able to park within half a mile of the house. The impact on infrastructure also includes things like no dentist spaces, doctors, emergency services. It takes away possible appointments and care for existing residents. Higher occupancy turnover HMOs can lead to a decreased neighbourhood security. Frequent changes in residents makes it difficult for neighbours to form trusting relationships, which are essential for community vigilance and mutual protection. The conversion of a family home to an HMO can adversely affect property values. Prospective fires seeking stable, family-oriented communities can be deterred from the presence of an HMO. This also affects us personally. An increase in the occupancy rates typically results in higher energy consumption and waste production, contributing to the neighbourhood's overall carbon footprint. This change runs counter to the community's efforts to promote sustainable living practices and environmental stewardship. In Portsmouth, you are only permitted to have one waste bin, and whilst we concede that a property artist may have access to a larger one, I can categorically say from experience a family of four could fill that within a week, let alone seven, potentially up to 14 people. This means there will be additional waste in either the front or the back of the building. We have significant mice, fox problems already, and further waste will only increase that. This is a major impact on health and safety and the risk to residents, including those within the HMO. The sewage is also at breaking point in Cottner with the Victorian pipe work. Daily houses have their water overflowing into the street because of baths and water pressure. For my importance, this happens on a daily basis, running into the street. There are significant smells coming from the drains. We have seen a property overflow with sewage due to the system being blocked up. The application also states that any proposals to connect to the existing drain system is unknown. I don't understand how this can be. In our small area of the road, with only one or two toilets per house, we can still have drainage problems, and the system struggles to manage it. To add another house with two toilets to go up to eight would be a ridiculous expansion. The plans for 39 will also affect lighting and sunlight to neighbouring houses. Increasing noise in neighbouring houses means their quality of life will be affected. Whilst we are aware that the panel will approach any concerns raised about potential noise and anti-social behaviour as possible but speculative, reasons for objections, having seven individual tenants in a house built for one family will surely increase that risk. You have, along with the transient nature of the residents, seen a significant increase in the risk of seven strangers and potential visitors living harmoniously together. By turning this property into an HMO, you are not only removing the historic elements of the building, you are permanently removing the option for a family to live in Portsmouth. The number of families on overcrowded housing in Portsmouth is already at its highest level. Why are we removing a property that can effectively be a solution? There are no processes in the city to appeal the turning of an HMO to a family house, and there is good reason for that. It makes perfect sense. And there you have the whole problem. We respectfully urge a council to reconsider these concerns and reject the application. Preserving the integrity of our neighbourhood for over 130 years is paramount in maintaining the status of a family-orientated community, and it will put additional pressures on our infrastructure. We do not object to property supporting multiple residents. We have houses that have been turned into flats and some student houses in the road, and we see this duty to support all kinds of housing needs. However, with Portsmouth being the seventh most densely postulated area in the UK, to turn a family house of over 130 years into a house with seven individuals, unrelated adults, eight toilets, and seven bathrooms is excessive. Personally, while the arrogance of the agent suggesting it is only in Portsmouth where they receive this level of scrutiny is a negative, I find that insulting. Maybe it's because the ownership and passion in the city as we're keeping its identity and supporting its communities is something we feel a little bit stronger and something I'm sure that the councillors will see daily. It makes it hard for us to sell our houses. It will prevent families from ever being able to experience living in a loving, long-term environment. It will create huge environmental and personal impacts for a property that was not built to sustain this. We thank you for your attention in this matter. It's very important that you'll see our points in your consideration and recognise potential detrimental impacts and act in the best interest of our community. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. To raise a couple of issues from the neighbour, he states there's housing more adults in this home, so seven persons. Just to give you an example, one of my colleagues lives at home with his brother, his mum and dad. Seven persons live at home, so six persons in a typical three-bed family home as an example of which there will be many across the city. I do not believe that would be an isolated example. Another point, as these properties are upgraded and renovated to comply with the new building regs, the energy efficiency is actually hugely improved on these properties. It's not negatively impacted them in that way and the EPC score is also improved. Sewage drains is not an issue to be considered by planning committee and cannot be attributed to be solely down to HMOs. Sewage reports produced by Southern Water recently for a similar application attributed most blockages to fats and material in the drains and it's a far stretch to assume this is down to HMO development and could be caused by any of residential dwelling within Portsmouth. Councillor Hunt mentioned before about the 10% rule and stated that he thinks that the 10% rule is PCC's best defence. I wholeheartedly agree with that comment, but for different reasons. 10% of properties are level where HMO can positively contribute towards a mixed and balanced community by providing an affordable living option without saturating the community, as we've seen in Margate Road and the likes of Southsea where these levels have risen to 70-80%. The bedrooms in this property all exceed 10 square metres of ensuite facilities. The required communal area where all bedrooms meet or exceed 10 is 22.5 and this property provides 25.5 of clear, square, open plan, additional communal area with an additional laundry room and a ground floor WC for the comfort of the residents. I find it hard when I listen to residents talking about families and they're talking about how they don't want people in these homes because they're not going to contribute to society, they're going to be mixed, they're fearful of being in their homes. The people that live in these properties have families, they live in Portsmouth, they're people's daughters, they're people's sisters, they're people's sons. They all deserve a decent home, somewhere to live and when I hear again and again about people not wanting them in their streets, it really upsets me that they don't actually embrace these people that live in these homes that want to be a part of the community and are targeted from the minute they move into the property, neighbours not liking them, not wanting to integrate them into their community and I just think it's a sad situation that Portsmouth has got into that situation. Thank you for listening today. Thank you. Councillor Swan. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm adjusting to this application mainly due to the ongoing issues with sewage in the surrounding areas. We're seeing more and more raw sewage, faecal matter, spilling into our roads and more worryingly into people's homes due to the unsuitability of the current system in the Cottmer area for the increased demand and in fact, just yesterday, I had a very recent report from a resident of Kensington Road who have seen sewage flood into their property. There is also a pervasive smell of sewage in the area on a regular basis. I live in the local area myself. I walk my dogs up Kensington Road almost every day so I know this isn't an absolute fact. There's clearly something going on that needs addressing before we further increase the usage of the sewerage system. I do know as of last night, there's no report on the portal from Southern Water attached to the documentation and in light of recent local issues, this is something that needs to be factored into decision-making for this committee. We just cannot risk exacerbating the sewage issues we've seen across the area in roads such as Bedhampton Road, Portchester Road, St Chad's Avenue. By Portsmouth Water's own admission, the sewer system has issues with the two-way valve at the junction points and cannot cope with the increase of developments. The development of all kinds are responsible for the leaks in the streets and people's homes, although admittedly there are other factors, but this is a factor. I'm also concerned about the air quality in the area due to the increase of cars circling local roads looking for parking that residents already living in the area can't find. I'm just not seeing anything in the planning policy or anywhere else that's addressing this, and it has to be addressed. We simply cannot look at planning in this city in isolation, and these issues need dealing with. Following earlier comments, I wonder if it could be guaranteed that, were this application be granted, that suitable soundproofing would be included in the party wall for this property and indeed every application here on in, and perhaps some engagement could be made with neighbours to this property to ensure that there is a mutual understanding. I also want to reiterate, as I always do, that our area needs family homes, not transient populations that seem to cause division and uncertainty. I sincerely thank the residents of Kensington Road that have come today to represent their community in a logical and clear manner, and I'm greatly heartened by their obvious love for the area. As always, I stand with them in opposing this application. Thank you, Councillor Swan. Members, questions? Actually, sorry, before we end, is there anything you want to comment on? I mean, the sewage comes up, it's not a material. Yeah, mentioned on the previous one, the Water Management Act is the legislation that covers that and building regulations is the area which covers noise attenuation, so it cannot form a robust reason to withhold plan permission. There is individual members, our business is material planning considerations and they're the only things we can apply to our decision-making when it comes to applications. All right, members, questions? Comments? No comments? We have a compliant application before us, and so having had impassioned deputations just now and earlier, I think we can't give people false promises about refusing applications like this. I shall move the officer's recommendation. Do I have a seconder? Yeah. Councillor Shahl, you're in first. Members, is there anything else? Okay. Unless there is anything else, members, those in favour of moving the officer's recommendations, please indicate. Okay, thank you. That's unanimous, planning permission is granted. Thank you. 51 Shadwell Road. Thank you, Chair. 51 Shadwell Road, a change of use from a CFD dwelling house to a seven-bed HMO. This is the third time this committee has received this application. The application was deferred at the last committee to invite the application to review a rear window. I'll take you through to the rear window. The applicant has done so, rather than having a single window. Now it is a full-length or double-length window to maximise the opportunity for that bedroom to receive natural daylight. The application is otherwise fully compliant with your policies. Again, you can see a couple of HMOs in this area, but they're not fully compliant. It makes a 5.8 per cent, so well within the 10 per cent, and the properties and layout are fairly unsurprising, a straight shot through to the amenity space in this case, which is laid out at a number of addendums to the report. But page 88 in my papers, showing all the bedrooms are 10 metres or above with a 25.8 square metre communal living/dining. The application is fully compliant with your adopted policies and thus recommended for approval. I think we have nothing on the SMAT. We have four members listed, two of whom are present, for deputations as well as the agent. Thank you. Councillor Hunt. Six minutes. Thank you very much indeed and for your forbearance. I wanted to comment on this because I've got the wrong one. Oh, yes, no, I haven't. Depending on how you classify HMOs or bedsits or whatever, this area, the general area that we're looking at now, is seeing many such applications, and they are changing the neighbourhoods. And thankfully, yesterday, the full council decided to back the 10% rule, as it's known. And members, you rightly deferred the application last time. And if I remember rightly, that charge was led by Gerald Vernon Jackson. Am I right? I think I'm right. And the applicant has now come back with an amendment to resolve your concerns. So whilst we know we can't hear overall, you can't overall govern legislation and regulations over shared housing, because of so much planning control being deregulated, as been discussed earlier, by those civil servants and ministers. You stand on the last couple of occasions, even though there was recommendations for approval, shows that this committee has a strong role to play. And indeed, now, thanks to the stand that you've taken, more natural light will be coming to this person's room. So that is a win for the future intended occupier, and you're to be congratulated on that. Of course, as I said yesterday, we want to see people with their own front door key to their own home, and hopefully we should make some progress with that over the next four years or so. HMOs are not the best way forward, but for so many of our citizens, as we said yesterday and agreed, it's what they can afford. And in this application, members, you have demanded a higher standard, and that is the vital job that you've played in that. Lastly, I would like you to consider this, and I'm sorry some members have gone. It's important that Portsmouth's HMO database has on it around 4,200 entries. So if you multiply that by about six people, an average of six people in each HMO, that is 25,000 people. And those residents should be of equal concern to us as well, and they represent a large number of people in our population, and they should also be treated with respect. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Hunt. Carriere. As Ian has already shared with you, this previous plan application has been to the committee twice previously, sorry. Although the original plans are not applicable drawings, as always, with projects we are involved with, the space standards and other requirements are compliant with the relevant legislation. If they weren't, we would, as always, have made sure they were. As it's the third appearance of the application before the planning committee, it was deferred after the first meeting with an issue with the drawings and deferred again after the second with an issue with a window, as we've just heard. In the lifetime of the application, the applicant has requested the service of Applecorp. The owner of this property is keen to ensure his property is the best property it can be, again, fully compliant with planning and private sector housing requirements. Fortunately, there are still members in this group that were at the committee in which the deferral was made, and we hope that after this nine-month determination process, you can consider what has already been discussed without too much repetition. A change was requested to increase the size of glazing to the rear ground floor bedroom. The request for change has been made. This is something we do specify as standard if it's felt the room needs it, taking into consideration the size of the existing window, position of the sun, and depth of the adjacent extensions. The proposed full-length window will now allow adequate light into this room. I note this third appearance at committee has attracted a multitude of council objections. The cynic in me would relate that to the time of year post-election rather than any real objection to a proposal which has already been considered by committee to be acceptable with the addition of a larger window. After such a prolonged time, the planning system, at no fault to our client, has been happy to take on board the suggestions of the committee members and make improvements that the members felt they would like to happen to the property. I hope that you approve this fully compliant application today. Thank you. Thank you. Russell. Hi. Originally, I was just going to -- so I'm going to read mine and Emily's as combined one, but it would be under the six minutes, I promise. So this is firstly from Councillor Strudwick. Thank you, chair, and thank you to the committee for allowing me to make a deputation. I'm here to speak up for the residents of Shadwell Road. The nightmare they are going through with constant HMOs along this road, the disruption of build works, extra noise, vans taking up even more spaces, and the pressure to the Victorian sewer system. Eight HMOs, and that's just the ones we know about. It's like banging my head against the wall because I'm fed up being told parking is not a material change. It is. What's the point in having ISBDs for parking if we don't even bother to listen to it? The report even says there's no parking. Why is that acceptable? Now, we are closing in on the 10%. I asked the officers to do another consultation to make sure we don't have illegal HMOs or at least they include them as this is a huge concern and strain to the road. We keep seeing these unknown HMOs on the applications. Why hasn't the plan department investigated further into these? It's hard to say that this committee is listening to residents' concerns and actually care for their views when they just keep passing these through. Residents are raising issues like mental health due to these applications. So I ask of you to think of the residents, many comments made, and their welfare when considering this application. I'm just going to add mine very briefly now. As you can hear, we're not making this political. We're going straight to what it's about when it comes to residents. You already know our stance on HMOs and the impact that they have on our communities, which are solely family-based. I don't disagree with Carrie-Anne's mindset of integrating. Unfortunately, this area has been plagued with poorly managed HMOs and it's had its impact. And that is based on data with rise of ASB, parking, et cetera. My personal opinion is this overdevelopment is overbearing on neighbors' gardens and privacy is a strain on the parking. I think I've mentioned it. Parking of Shadow Road about 20 times. But I think the reason I always mention it is because it's always been very, very, very bad there already. So I just don't believe that if you have seven or eight people move in that you think the average is going to be one or two cars. It just simply won't because, you know, once again, who is to know if that will be a nine or ten if they've got partners? Or I always keep saying it seems to be that only singletons live in HMOs. It might be worth questioning if the conservatory space is included or not in the community space, in the communal space. Or would that 25 meters squared, if not, or if so, sorry, should it be? And is it appropriate to be included, you know, if it is cut off? Meaning if you get rid of the conservatory, is it 25 meters squared? Anyway, thank you very much. Thank you. I take absolute offense at being told this committee doesn't care about residents and doesn't think about residents. We do nothing but think about residents and we care deeply. We're all members here and we do the job that we're given and that is to look at each application on its own merits and apply the rules that we are given to work with. So we do care about residents and we do think about them. And I hope, I know they weren't your words, but I take offense at that. Okay. Members? Questions? Comments? Peter? Chair, the committee looked at this last time. We had one issue. The issue has been resolved. I move that we accept the motion. I will not go down the discussion of whether I have been listening to residents or not, but I thought you made some very smart and sensible comments there and I will leave it at that. Thank you, Peter. I think Charles got in. So look, anything else from anyone? Members, the motion before us is to grant conditional permission. Those in favor, please indicate. Thank you. That's unanimous. Planning permission is granted. I think we're on 43 Marmion Road now. This is an application for the installation of an extraction system. Just to be clear, members will note on the papers in front of you that the application has submitted stated change of use of ground floor from retail class EA to cafe class E. You don't need plan permission to move from a class E to a class E use. So no plan permission is needed for that. It is only the extract system being a material change to the appearance of the building that requires planning permission. The application site in Marmion Road is in the parade of commercial premises. You can see it on the north side of Marmion Road. That is the rear of the building where, of course, the extract system is going. There it is with a little closer view. That is the existing plans of the rear. It's going on the side of that rear outrigger, which I'll come to in a second. That is the last layout you see with a large retail unit and then to the rear you'd expect with a normal retail issues. So storage space, some office space and a toilet. Their proposal is to add a kitchen facility into what was previously the office, wherein, of course, the extract system would move. And then the cafe to go in the front element of that area. Therefore, this is the rear extract system. Members in pre-agenda did ask for some clarity as to the specific dimensions of the flue. The flue has a maximum of 0.6 of that hood dropping down to 0.48 as the overall width of the boxing that was the flue running up. That parallel point. So that is the operation that the planning committee is asked to review the installation of an extract flue there. It can be noted this, of course, is within a conservation area and therefore special regard does need to be have to the preservation of the heritage characteristics of the area. As noted in these also images, you can see there are a varied layout of buildings, including access stairs, downpipes, et cetera, on the rear of this parade. And it is felt that the inclusion of a commercial flue would not have any demonstrable impact, thus have an overall neutral impact on the conservation area. And any less than substantial harm arising to the heritage asset would be clearly outweighed by the benefit of bringing that unit back into commercial use. In this case, in the form of a café as proposed. The necessary conditions are listed in the report. They have been discussed with the environmental health team and regulatory services. Some matters are deemed better dealt with by the Environmental Protection Act and the Environmental Health Team's statutory role for that. Others we feel we can include and have been written into the report. Happy to take any questions. I think we've got nothing on the SMAT. The only thing on the SMAT is those dimensions, just for clarification, I've shown you. And we have the applicant here as a deputation. Thank you, Mr Chava. Hello. Dear panel and committee members, I'm writing to address several concerns raised by local residents regarding our application. I hope this letter will provide clarification and help resolve some of the issues that have been brought to our attention. For information purposes, we submitted our pre-application in June 2023 and received a response in January 2024. Following this, we proceeded with submitting the relevant planning permission. Firstly, regarding parking concerns, we understand the challenges of parking in our local areas, fellow residents of South Sea as ourselves. Since taking over the lease, we have ensured that all workers avoid parking on Wilton Place/Terrace to prevent any inconvenience to our neighbours. We share the same frustrations and emphasise with these concerns. The shop itself has a single parking space at the rear available between nine to five Monday to Friday. We will strictly adhere to these hours. Staff are encouraged to use public transport and those who must drive are instructed to park on the main High Street or in local car parks. In response to concerns about delivery staff for online services such as Just Eat and Uber Eats, we will ensure that they are greeted and served through the main entrance on Marmian Road. Delivery personnel will be instructed to use the main entrance only at the time of delivery and not beforehand. We have updated the terms and conditions on these apps to inform drivers with a note that non-compliance may affect their rating and payments from us. We believe this approach will mitigate any unwanted traffic or congregation. Regarding waste management, we are committed to maintaining cleanliness and hygiene in our surrounding area, recognising our corporate social responsibility. This is essential for achieving a high food hygiene rating from the Food Standards Agency. As a new franchise, it is crucial for us to establish a positive reputation quickly. Effective waste disposal will be part of our health and safety training for all staff. Employees will be required to walk and collect any food-related litter on Marmian Road, Wilton Place and Terrace, which has come from my establishment on a road-to-basis at the end of each working day. We aim to become an integral part of the South Sea community and are open to any reasonable adjustments or recommendations. Our goal is to add value to the residents' quality of life while avoiding any disruption. Thank you for considering our response and look forward to any further discussions and collaborations. I'd also like to go on and say I've had to make this disputation today kind of last minute as our agent wasn't available. And I'd also like to thank the panel, members and committee for bringing it to meeting fairly quickly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chava. You've had a bit of a wait, but thank you very much. I got confused earlier. I attempted a seating plan as I'm going around in the morning and I couldn't quite make out who was where. So I had a best guess and I got it wrong. OK, thank you very much. Members, questions? It is the question of whether the extractor flu goes high enough given the height of the windows and the front of the building. That is the building which is fronting onto Barmian Road. At the back, there were windows there and it does not appear that the top of the flu is higher than those. Given the narrowness of the area between the two buildings at the rear, is this flu high enough to meet requirements? The short answer I can give is yes. Environmental health obviously do look at that matter, not just the design of the flu in terms of its mechanical operation, but also the layout and orientation and height above receptors such as windows that may be openable. They are satisfied with the design, which obviously includes that height and proximity both to the windows immediately next to and to the one on the main rear facing of it. I can provide no further detail than that other than our mental health team are satisfied. Thank you. Councillor Doran. Yes, thank you very much. So there seems to be a little bit of confusion in my mind. We're here to talk about the flu at the rear of the property, however it seemed to be that the dissertation at the back was with regards to the change of use. So with regards to just the flu and not looking at the change of use, are the windows above residential windows and if so is there a noise level from the flu in relation to the windows around and the people living above? I'll answer the question first and then deal with the key point because I can understand the confusion. So yes, the environmental health team have looked at the proposed flu and extract system that obviously creates the noise and is satisfied that a properly operated extraction system as described in the manufacturer's details provided as part of the scheme would not make an unreasonable level of noise for those windows, which are indeed residential. Obviously in the future if it's not properly maintained or there's a fault with it and that does result in noise that would cause a nuisance, then the Environmental Protection Act does enable the environmental health team and regulatory services to take direct action against that unreasonable noise. But if it's properly maintained, the design as laid out is capable of being managed in a way that would not cause an unreasonable degree of noise or odour or other disturbance to the residential neighbours. To deal with the point that can understandably cause confusion, obviously the application went out with the description as you see on your papers which is suggesting that there was a change of use that required plan permission. Residential concerns and comments may well therefore have been driven by the fact that people were concerned about a café or indeed a café that would have takeaway facilities that obviously have external impacts that a different form of eating establishment may not. The applicant has confirmed that it is to be a café. The floor plans certainly bear that out. Clearly, as is alluded to in the deputation, even a café can have some ancillary takeaway facilities. As long as they remain ancillary and don't become the predominant use of the café, then no further plan permission is required. If the café is operated in such a way, and this is a daily question, that a takeaway facility becomes a predominant use, further planning permission will be required for that change of use between a café and a takeaway or a café and a mixed use takeaway café. That's a future issue. We of course have to take the applicant who is opening a new business so we can't point to a precedent on their word that this is their intention to run a café. There may well be some ancillary takeaway facilities referenced there with delivery drivers that we do know become a ubiquitous part of food and beverage operations and indeed a lot of retail shops these days. My question is about the location of the flu. So now we've established it's 48 cm in depth. Is there going to be a reduction in the view from the people in the residential property that is going to be significant? And it's not a question, it's a comment, but I wonder why it goes sideways and then up, whereas it looks like it could be further away from the windows if it went straight up. Perhaps there's a technical reason why not, but if my concern is over visibility from the windows being affected, is there anything you can tell me? I can tell you a little more than you can see on the plan. The going straight up question, I imagine that goes to the concern Councillor Mason highlighted earlier. Obviously that would bring it in closer proximity to the rear facing windows, the ones that are facing to the right of the image you can see, obviously not the ones facing towards you in the image you can see. So the impact on view from those thin windows adjacent to the issue, I'm unclear, I'm asking the case officer just to clarify for me whether they are habitable or non-habitable room windows. So you may not have any impact on view at all. However, even if they're habitable room windows, a box of around 50 centimetres mounted on a small bracket, they're mounted pretty close to the wall, but with brackets, so it'd be 55, 60 centimetres out, would have an impact on the view from that window, but not in our view an unreasonable one. Certainly when you're living above a commercial unit, even three stories above, it is not unusual to have the provision of this sort of M&E plant and other facilities that would be part of the normal expected outlook for an edge of town centre above a commercial flat. So again, will they be able to see it? Yes, probably not habitable rooms, those windows, but even if they are, I wouldn't suggest that that is an unreasonable impact on the reasonable enjoyment of their property. Thank you. I think I'm comfortable to move the officer's recommendation to grant conditional permission. What information are we waiting for? It is possible that an answer to my challenge about whether there was a view being interrupted was going to be negated by it being a room, if it was a non-habitable room or an obscured window or something, then obviously it's a completely moot point. I believe that's what we might be waiting on. Yes, so the case officer can suggest that he believes the bottom two are non-habitable rooms, he's unsure about the top one, we haven't been into all of those flats to be certain, so I don't want you to say they're non-habitable, that's not a problem. They, we believe at least some of them are non-habitable, that's a belief, not a statement of fact. I would invite you to consider the worst case scenario, they are habitable, but that degree of visual intrusion is not an unreasonable one. Okay, so I've moved the officer's recommendation to grant conditional permission. Anybody? Councillor Ballinly, you're seconding. Members, thank you. Mary got in before you. Quick. Members, any other comments or points of view? Okay, those in favour of granting conditional permission, please indicate. Thank you. That's unanimous, planning permission is granted. Thank you. Okay, 121 Balfour Road. 121 Balfour Road, this is the change of use from a C3 dwelling house to a seven bed house in multiple occupancy. There is the property in Balfour Road. As you can see, again, one, very few, as I said, there's one HMO a bit further to the south of the circle, in the south part of the circle, you can see there. So this is the second HMO, giving us an overall percentage of 3.45%, well within the 10% requirement. The rooms contained within the building are all 10 metres or more, for bedrooms meeting the 23.5 square metres as laid out in the table in 8.12 of the report meets your minimum standards. The layout, that's the existing, that's the proposed, other than having to kink around the stairwell, it's a fairly standard set of layouts with no notable problematic corridors or similar for this one. And thus, we would invite you to suggest this is entirely in accordance with your adopted standards for acceptable living environments. We would just draw your attention to the SMAT, where we highlight four further objections that have been received, raising no new points, and the cycle storage has already been covered and is deemed to be acceptable. The only thing we just add is we have also had the necessary legal agreements to provide in full already the necessary certain recreational disturbance impacts, both for nitrates and recreational disturbance, so we can remove recommendation one and three from the report so that it's no longer an outstanding matter subject to that amendment. The application is recommended for approval. I think we have fallen off my page now. Councillor Hunt and Simpson, speaking as well as the agent. Thank you. Lee, you're back on. Thank you, members. Members, you may consider that we rehearse this application earlier, and I know it is a bigger property, but also there's seven rather than six from this morning. And the same arguments apply, and whilst, Councillor Candice, the cycle access may be more straightforward, the issues we're going to look at are the same. I have to reemphasize that this is a family home being converted into something it was not intended for. Very few families make a bedroom in the front bedroom. That's a fact. It does happen, of course, when someone is ill or can't get upstairs or they're coming towards the end of their life that a room is created downstairs. So we must, therefore, accept that such changes of use are out of character in Balfour Road. And as Ms McGuire said, there is only one within the radius of 50 metres already. Members, you thought this morning that the rooms were tight at 27 Balfour Road, and you will see that the number one front room, the bedroom here, is actually on the limit. It's 10 metres square. And then similarly, bedroom six and bedroom seven. The communal space is shown on paper at 23.5 metres squared, 1% above the minimum. But members, I think they'll recall that in the past, applications would come and they would show a sofa or chairs or whatnot in the so-called communal space, which in this case is just beyond the kitchen. But you'll notice this morning and this afternoon that the tables and chairs and so on aren't now put into these so-called communal spaces because they want to create the impression that they're bigger than they really are. And I hope that you'll look at that really, really closely like you did this morning because shared accommodation is meant to be shared accommodation. It's meant to be communal. In this case, these people are isolated into their own room except when they share the kitchen. That's the only sharing that goes on here. If there was a table or sofa or whatnot there, you'd see how tiny the communal space probably really is. So this is all very tight again, similar to this morning, and I think it should be rejected. I mean, if the application was coming forward, let's say with six people in, and the front room was the communal space, it would be a different matter altogether. So as it was rejected this morning, the space and the configuration and the layout are not commensurate with its use as a seven-bedroom, seven-person HMO. As I say, the front room could really be used as communal space if they really wanted these things to work. So if communal space is meant to mean anything, then we really have to start looking at it again. I am bound to say, therefore, that this is overuse of the property, so it's overdevelopment, so that the residential amenities of future intended occupiers, which Mr McGuire referred to earlier on, is adversely impacted. And Richard has had to go to feed his mum because she's 93 with dementia, so she's gone off to do that. He's asked me to reiterate his call earlier, that if you do decide to put this through, that you will ask again, you will write to the leader and the portfolios concerned to review parking standards. That's really important in these tight residential areas. This should be rejected as overall, the space and layout do not create good living standards. That's it. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Thank you. So, as you can see, contrary to what Councillor Hunt thinks, this property is significantly larger than the previously refused scheme. All the bedrooms benefit from an en-suite, as the previous scheme had shared bathrooms. The rooms are all fully usable, square, rectangular shapes, as are the bedrooms. The communal area is a true, meets the true 22.5 square metres. Councillor Hunt mentions furniture on plan. This is not planning consideration. I mean, permission is given based on approved plans. Does that mean that technically our client should then have to reapply to change the furniture configuration if he should wish in the future? 22.5 square metres of communal area is not small. As I've stated many times, this is the largest communal area required in the UK. They're not pokey, small spaces when you see these built out and constructed at 22.5 square metres. Comments on this application relate to the same matters that were always raised, and I think these are bigger problems than the presence this shared house will cause. With all due respect given to Councillor Russell-Simpson and his obviously negative views towards HMOs, I do find it pertinent to reiterate 25,000 residents of HMOs have a voice too. They deserve decent, well-managed homes to live in. Those living in HMOs and Hillsley Ward deserve to be represented also. I will too often just hear all the negative side of things and not like people just are happy in the homes that they live in. Integrates the society, helping the neighbours, taking in parcels for the neighbours, a decent human being living in these homes. The plan officers recommend this fully compliant application for approval today and I hope you all support this recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Simpson. I hope this deputation is going to be slightly more thoughtful than the previous one. What I'm going to say is that it's only my deputation, so you'll be happy to know. Thank you, Chair, and actually thank you, Councillor Hunt, for spending the time to really deputation Hillsley. I know we share the same roads, so we share the same views. Oh, okay, then maybe we don't. I've got a few questions really which kind of adds to this. For me, each time I look at these applications and we get all the reports added to the document going forward, there's always so much that's missing. So, for example, why do we have the Transport Planning Highway Report if there is never any consideration for parking SPDs as a material change? Why waste the taxpayers' money for a report not required? It can't be used to refuse an application, so much is never added to the report either to the committee to consider. I'll give you an example. It actually says here, Given the constraints of the site, no off-street parking can be accommodated within the curtilage of the property. Parking pressure appears high within the local vicinity, and therefore there is a potential for increased instances of residents driving around the area hunting for a parking space. However, this is an issue for residential amenity for you to consider in your determination of application. There was a previous application that also didn't have this added to it, but I'm going to say it just because it's in the same area. This is likely to result in increased instances of residents driving around hunting for parking spaces and choosing to park where parking is restricted at junctions, obstruction, visibility, and increase in risk of accidents. You should give this due weight to your determination of the application. The point I'm making is that it never is. It's never considered, and I would like Ian's view on this if you would allow it or if the committee would like to know that also. Very similar to Shadwell, I really encourage the officers to do an investigation into this area. Many residents' comments actually highlight how there's actually more illegal HMOs in this area. I know it's a lot of time, but I think it's really important because we want to make sure that we're not going over the limit that's currently set. Obviously, the water pressure of the street is also abysmal, which has been mentioned multiple times. This system can't cope with the current demand and as well as everything else that seems to come along with HMOs. To finish, I have to add, which has been mentioned, that due to 27 Balfour Road application being refused, even though on paper 27 has a bigger communal space than this application, please look, it's there. Even the diagram shows it's clearly bigger than 121 Balfour Road. These applications are near enough identical and as it was so close in the last decision, I would expect the committee to be consistent and have the same view and to refuse this application today based on spacing standards. Thank you very much. Thank you. You can expect the committee to look at each application on its own merits. Ian, did you want to comment on anything? Not really sure what further information we can add. Obviously, you have details on parking standards for HMOs in your adopted SPD. It is, I think, profoundly wrong to give any weight to the idea that someone wanting to park would park illegally. That would be obviously managed through your parking control and your civil enforcement officers. One can only presume people will act lawfully. As you go down that line and presume people will act unlawfully, where would you stop? So certainly we give no weight to that consideration, albeit it may be a concern that a highway engineer has flagged. We do know people do park unlawfully. That's a statement of fact. We wouldn't have parking wardens otherwise. But to presume residents of an HMO consented would choose to do so or residents of non-HMOs under additional parking pressure would choose to do so is a fallacy. So the parking matters are detailed throughout and consistently on there. Your adopted SPD for parking standards does highlight that the presumed number of vehicles owned and needing parking for a six or seven bed HMO is the same as a similarly scaled dwelling, because that is the comparison we are looking at. We do know populations are increasing, whether that be overcrowding due to lack of small units in the city and new homes or by the densification of sites by including flats and HMOs, population grows and that will unfortunately put a pressure on parking until we can achieve better modal shift through your local transport plan for and other measures that the highways and transport team, of course, lead upon. I think that's probably all the key information I can provide to support the committee today. Thank you. Members, questions? Comments? Well, for me, considering this application on its own merits, I'm going to move the officer's recommendation to grant conditional permission. Do I have a seconder? I presume that's with the amended recommendation, deleting A and B from recommendation 1 and deleting 3. Do I have a seconder? Councillor CANDLISH? I seconded. You seconded. Any other comments? Any other points of view? Any other things you want to say? No? Okay. All right, members, those in favour, please indicate. That's unanimous. Planning permission is granted. Members, thank you. That concludes today's business and my unexpected return to the chair. I'm closing this meeting at 14.31. Thank you.