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.

Redevelopment of the site. Erection of 10 x 3-bed, 2-storey dwellings with accommodation in roof space, in a terrace block of 5, a terrace block of 3 and 2 x semi-detached, with associated car port, parking and cycle/refuse storage, following demolition of existing public house (amended description).

Allan Lloyd, Michelle Baker, Andrea Fox (local residents/ objecting), David Bevan (agent), and Councillor Letts (objecting) 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. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was lost.

A further motion to refuse to delegate planning permission for the reasons set out below was then proposed by Councillor Denness and seconded by Councillor Hecks was carried unanimously.

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

Reasons for Refusal

1.  Site Overdevelopment

The proposed redevelopment represents an overdevelopment of the site by reason of a residential layout and design that fails to respond to the established pattern of development within the locality, is reliant upon a significant amount of building and hardstanding (in excess of 50% of the site), fails to meet the Council’s standards in respect of useable amenity space; particularly in respect of Units 1-3, but also in terms of usability for Units 8-10 given the boundary planting and subsequent shade, and which proposes car parking in close proximity to the main living space of Units 8-10 to the detriment of these residents’ amenity in terms of noise, disturbance and headlight glare.  As such, the application is considered to fail the requirements of Local Plan Review (Amended 2015) policies SDP1(i) and SDP7 as supported by Policy CS13 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2015) and the relevant paragraphs from the Council’s approved Residential Design Guide SPD (2006); with particular reference to sections 3.9 and 4.4 and paragraph 2.3.14.

2.  Lack of Section 106 agreement to secure planning obligations.

In the absence of a Section 106 agreement the development fails to mitigate its impact in the following areas:

i    Contributions towards site specific transport improvements in the vicinity of the site in line with Policy SDP4 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (as amended 2015) Policies CS18 and CS25 of the adopted LDF Core Strategy (as amended 2015) and the adopted SPD relating to Developer Contributions (April 2013); and

ii.   Submission of a highway condition survey to ensure any damage to the adjacent highway network attributable to the build process is repaired by the developer; and

iii.  Contributions or otherwise towards a scheme of measures that mitigate against the impacts of the development on the Solent Special Protection Area as required by LDF Core Strategy (Amended 2015) policies CS22 and CS25; and

iv.  An Employment Training and Skills Plan to secure local employment initiatives during the construction phase as required by LDF Core Strategy Policy CS24.