Agenda item

Report of the Service Lead, Planning, Infrastructure and Development recommending that the Panel delegate approval in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

The Panel considered the report of the Service Lead, Planning, Infrastructure and Development recommending delegated authority be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

Erection of a 3-storey building including basement for use as fast food restaurant with drive thru, landscaping, parking, cycle storage and associated works, following demolition of existing building.

Duncan Gibbs, Dr Paul Spencer (local residents/ objecting) Councillors Houghton and Lewzey (Peartree ward councillors objecting) and Councillors Payne and Hammond (Woolston ward Councillors) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The Panel considered the recommendation to delegate authority to the Service Lead: Planning, Infrastructure and Development to grant planning permission. Concern was raised in regard a number to anti-social behaviour, litter and potential for increased traffic congestion and air pollution. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was lost.

A further motion to refuse to the application for the reasons set out below was then proposed by Councillor Denness and seconded by Councillor Hecks.

RESOLVED to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for Refusal

1.  Crime, Safety and Security

The proposed restaurant/drive thru by reason of its location, within a mixed-use area in close proximity to residential neighbours, and the proposed late night/early morning use will lead to noise, disturbance, anti-social behaviour and other associated crime (public order incidents and assaults) stemming from poor design in terms securing boundary treatment and play space during operational hours as evidenced by Hampshire Constabulary’s formal objection to the planning application. Insufficient information has been submitted as part of the application to demonstrate that on-site management will be able to prevent the aforementioned issues and the Council does not consider that the conditions suggested by Hampshire Constabulary will sufficiently mitigate against the harm caused in this instance. As such the proposal has been assessed as contrary to 'saved' policies SDP1(i), SDP10 and REI7 (i), (ii) and (iv) from the Amended Local Plan Review (2015) and policy CS13(10) of the adopted LDF Amended Core Strategy (2015) as supported by paragraph 69 the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

2.  Overdevelopment of the site and Impact on Character

Due to the proposed building’s footprint, layout and associated operational activity the application has been assessed as an overdevelopment of the site that would result in the loss of the existing mature boundary trees on site without adequate replacement demonstrated thereby significantly harming the character of the area, which is currently characterised by these mature trees. Therefore the scheme is deemed contrary to 'saved' policies SDP1(i), SDP7 and SDP12 of the Amended Local Plan Review (2015) and policies CS13 and CS22 of the adopted LDF Amended Core Strategy (2015).

3.  Air Quality

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the increase in trips to and from the site will not contribute further to air quality problems within the vicinity of the site due to the increase in congestion that will occur, in addition to that already experienced at the toll bridge, particularly at peak times, and caused by queuing at the drive through associated with the proposed use of the site. The anticipated reduction in air quality would adversely affect the users of the proposed site and its play area, and nearby residential properties. The situation is heightened further by the removal of many of the existing trees on site without an agreed planting mitigation strategy. As such the proposal is contrary to 'saved' policies SDP1(i), SDP12 and SDP15 of the Amended Local Plan Review (2015) and policies CS13, CS18, CS20 and CS22 of the adopted LDF Amended Core Strategy (2015).

4.  Failure to enter into S106 agreement

In the absence of a completed Section 106 Legal Agreement, the proposals fail to mitigate against their direct impacts and do not, therefore, satisfy the provisions of Policy CS25 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2015) as supported by the Council's Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (2013) in the following ways:-

  a.  Site specific transport works for highway improvements in the vicinity of the site which are directly necessary to make the scheme acceptable in highway terms have not been secured in accordance with Policies CS18, CS19, and CS25 of the Southampton Core Strategy (2015) and the adopted Developer Contributions SPD (2013);

  b.  In the absence of a mechanism for securing a (pre and post construction) highway condition survey it is unlikely that the development will make appropriate repairs to the highway, caused during the construction phase, to the detriment of the visual appearance and usability of the local highway network;

  c.  In the absence of Submission and implementation of a Staff Travel Plan.

  d.  In the absence of a mechanism for securing the submission and implementation of a Servicing and Waste Management Plan.

  e.  In the absence of a mechanism for securing the submission, approval and implementation of a Carbon Management Plan setting out how the carbon neutrality will be achieved and/or how remaining carbon emissions from the development will be mitigated in accordance with policy CS20 of the Core Strategy and the Planning Obligations SPD (September 2013).

  f.  Off site contributions to mitigate the loss of trees on 2 for 1 basis where it is considered necessary to provide off site replacements due to site constraints on available space for planting. This would be assessed following the submission of a tree replacement plan. These contributions are as required by saved policies SDP1, SDP12 of the Local Plan Review (2015) and CS22 of the Core Strategy (2015) as supported by the relevant paragraphs of section 4.8 of the Residential Design Guide SPD (2006).xii.  

  g.  In the absence of a mechanism for securing the submission, approval and implementation of a CCTV network that can be linked into and/or accessed by the Council and its partners, with contributions towards community safety associated with the needs of the late night commercial uses;