Copnor Road flats plan rejected over parking and size concerns
Plans to build 25 new flats on Copnor Road have been rejected by councillors, citing concerns over parking provision and the height of the development.
The planning application, submitted by UPP Architects on behalf of Sanjay Raizada, proposed the demolition of the current builder’s merchants at 207–217 Copnor Road to make way for a part three, four, and five-storey block of flats.
The L-shaped building would have delivered 25 self-contained units, comprising 11 two-bedroom, 11 one-bedroom, and three three-bedroom flats. The building was designed to rise to five storeys at the corner of the site, reducing to four and three storeys along Copnor Road and Stubbington Avenue.
However, the scheme included just nine car parking spaces - well below the 32 required by Portsmouth City Council policy - though it did propose 44 cycle spaces.
.jpg?crop=3:2,smart&trim=&width=640&quality=65)
Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson, chair of the planning committee, acknowledged that the site would “inevitably” be used for residential development, but argued that the current proposal was "too big".
“If this had come in with one storey less then I think I would have accepted it," he said.
“I think this clearly contravenes our policy in terms of massing, it is too big on that site, the other properties nearby are two or three storeys.
“The lack of parking is a real problem, we know in the last ten years we’ve got 10,000 more cars in Portsmouth than the decade before.”
Councillor Mary Vallely moved to approve the application, though her motion was defeated. She said: “It’s not ideal, parking is a problem, but you will know that when you buy the flat. You know people aren’t stupid, if there's only nine spaces they’ll know it will be a problem to park.
“We need these flats, we need places for people to live – I love the fact that there are so many one and two-bedroom flats.”
Planning officers requested that the chair provide demonstrable harm in the reasons for refusal. Cllr Vernon-Jackson cited the building’s “overbearing” massing and the “very very significant lack of parking provided”.
The motion to refuse the application was carried by the committee however, the application may be subject to an appeal to the planning inspectorate.