Two residential buildings at 12-24 Osborne Road And Land To The Southeast Of The Queens Hotel, Southsea

What was proposed

The proposal would demolish 12 Osborne Road and a vacant former casino, replacing them with two buildings providing homes, commercial space and parking.

“DEMOLITION OF NO. OSBORNE ROAD AND THE VACANT FORMER CASINO BUILDING (NOS. 18-24 OSBORNE ROAD). CONSTRUCTION OF TWO BUILDINGS: (A) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FRONTING OSBORNE ROAD WITH COMMERCIAL USE (CLASS E) AT GROUND FLOOR LEVEL (B) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FRONTING CLARENCE PARADE INCLUDING ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING, CAR PARKING, CYCLE STORAGE, REFUSE STORAGE, NEW ACCESS FROM CLARENCE PARADE, AND ASSOCIATED WORKS.”

“The proposal is for demolition of 12 Osborne Road and the former Grosvenor Casino building, and the subsequent construction of 2no. new buildings. The proposed buildings would be mostly residential in their nature, but would also provide some commercial space. In total, 78no. new self-contained dwellings and 127msq. of commercial floorspace would be provided.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site includes a Grade II listed hotel, a vacant casino, conservation areas and nearby listed buildings, parks and a war memorial.

“The application site is made up of a Grade II Listed Hotel building and associated grounds and parking, as well as a vacant former casino building. The hotel was listed by Historic England in 2020.”

“To the east of the site is Clifton Terrace, which is Grade II Listed. Further east is Netley Terrace, which is similarly Grade II Listed. The site is also fronted by Southsea Common, which is a Grade II Listed Park, which contains the Naval War Memorial (Grade I Listed).”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and fallback

Earlier residential permissions were approved, but officers concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated they could proceed without listed building consent.

“The two residential planning permissions 08/01941/FUL and 10/01247/FUL, called P1 and P2 respectively, are considered by the Applicants to be of relevance to the current planning application. The Pavillion building proposed to the south is broadly in the same position as the building in P2. The Applicants consider P2 is a fallback position, i.e. that it can be constructed without the need for Listed Building consent (LBC) despite the listed status of the hotel.”

“P2 can be completed entirely without the need to first implement any part of P1 that interacts with the listed hotel.' The undercroft connection between P1 and P2 is a significant, physical connection between the two developments. P2 cannot be completed in accordance with the approved plans without this significant, physical connection. P1 connects to the listed hotel.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because heritage and design harm outweighed the housing and commercial benefits, even with the tilted balance favouring housing.

“The key matters in this application are the provision of housing, which mostly weighs positively in favour of the development, and the impact of the proposed buildings on the surrounding heritage assets, which mostly weighs against the proposal. Other matters have been afforded appropriate weight, which also contribute to the planning balance. Some matters were identified as having neutral weight, which would not affect the planning balance.”

“Due to the different weights afforded, it is considered clear that, on balance, the proposed development is unacceptable and permission should be refused. This is considered to be the case even if the tilted balance in favour of residential development was applied.”

Officer report

Consultation and representations

Historic England and the conservation officer objected, while residents raised heritage, amenity, design, parking, access and construction concerns; four representations supported the scheme.

“Conservation Areas Owen's Southsea Conservation area (No.2) Designated Sept 1977 High High Derived from: Proposed siting, scale, mass, height, footprint, form and detailed design of proposed residence building.”

“Impact on heritage assets • Impact on residential amenity (natural light, outlook and intervisibility) for residents of Home Heights, Clifton Road) • Inappropriate/generic design • Inadequate car parking provision • Loss of casino building, which is in a poor condition as a result of a lack of maintenance by the applicant • Car parking could cause noise nuisance for residents of Home Heights • Concerns about access via Clifton Road (both during construction phase and once…”

Officer report

Who spoke at committee

Objectors, the applicant’s architect and heritage expert, and a councillor addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members discussed heritage harm, scale, the pavilion’s design, the listed hotel, the fallback position, housing benefits and unresolved highway details.

“The pavilion building's location, scale and prominence made it difficult to sit comfortably between Home Heights and the Queen's Hotel. It's detailed design, including the projecting position, unclear frontage, heavy chimney feature, extensive standing seam cladding, numerous balconies and top-heavy glazing, resulted in a contemporary form that officers did not consider appropriate in the sensitive heritage setting.”

“Several members considered that the proposal would harm the conservation area, including through the loss of a historic building, the pavilion's design, scale and materials, and its impact on views of the Queen's Hotel and the wider historic character of the area.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED to refuse planning permission as per the officer recommendation.”

Minutes