Agenda item

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

Redevelopment of the site to create 128 residential dwellings comprising a mixture of 21 houses (20 x 3 and 1 x 4 bed) and 107 flats (29 x 1 and 78 x 2 bed) with associated car parking, bin, cycle storage and landscaping.

Simon Reynier (City of Southampton Society), Cheten Chauhan (agent), Ricky Shagma (applicant), and Andy Meader (supporter) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The presenting officer reported that an updated highways management design had been received for the site on the south- west land parcel but, that officers had not been able to model the design to ascertain whether this was an appropriate solution to traffic concerns before the Panel meeting.  It was explained that should the modelling show that the suggested measures were not suitable then granting planning permission for this site would make the site on the south-west parcel difficult to develop.  It was explained that the recommendation had therefore amended to delegate to the Service Lead Infrastructure, Planning and Development authority to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below.  In additional Panel members were informed that an objection to the application from the Council’s Open Space Manager had been received.

The Panel then considered the recommendation to delegate authority to refuse planning permission. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED

(i)  to delegate authority to the Service Lead Infrastructure, Planning and Development to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below;

(ii)  to delegate authority to the Service Lead Infrastructure, Planning and Development to uphold, remove or amend Refusal Reason 01 (layout and access management) following review of the applicant’s late highway submission (revised signalised junction) by the Council’s Highway Engineers; and

(iii)  to note that an extension of time agreement has been received from the developer until 9^th January 2019 to provide additional time for the consideration of the late highway submission.

Reasons for Refusal

01. REFUSAL REASON - Layout and access arrangement would prejudice the future development of adjoining land

The proposed layout and access arrangement would prejudice the development of adjoining land to the south. The planning application by ALDI Stores Ltd (Ref 18/00968/FUL) failed to demonstrate adequate capacity for safe right turn movements out of the site without leading to severe obstruction to traffic flow on Bursledon Road, a main arterial route which has been identified by Highways England as requiring major improvements to improve traffic flow. As a consequence, the land to the south requires access onto Burgoyne Road. Therefore, unless access can be secured over third party land (Highpoint Centre), the proposed residential layout would prejudice the remainder of the wider site from being developed because there is no opportunity for vehicular access connection onto Burgoyne Road. 

Furthermore, because the site as approved under planning permission ref 16/01888/OUT has been split into two land parcels and not master planned or considered comprehensively, the proximity of Block B containing noise sensitive residential accommodation with habitable room windows and balconies with a south facing aspect would also prejudice the development of adjoining land to the south.

The development is thereby contrary to policies SDP1 (i) (iii), SDP16 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015), CS4, CS6 and CS13 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2015) and Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).

02. REFUSAL REASON - Loss of trees

The proposed removal of existing healthy trees along the northern boundary and position of a prominent close boarded fence would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and the Burgoyne Road street scene. The proposed replacement planting would not sufficiently mitigate against the loss of these existing trees. The development proposal is thereby contrary to policies SDP1 (i), SDP7 (i) (ii) and SDP12 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015) and CS13 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2015) and Section 4.7 of the Residential Design Guide SPD (2006).

03. REFUSAL REASON - Affordable Housing 

The proposed 'rent to buy' affordable housing offer fails to meet identified affordable housing need in Southampton.

Furthermore the application has not been supported by an approved viability model to indicate that units for social rent would make the scheme unviable. The proposal is thereby contrary to policy CS15 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015) and Section 5 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).

04.  REFUSAL REASON - 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:-

(i)  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);

(ii)  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;

(iii)  In the absence of either a scheme of works or a contribution to support the development, the application fails to mitigate against its wider direct impact with regards to the additional pressure that further residential development will place upon the Special Protection Areas of the Solent Coastline.  Failure to secure mitigation towards the 'Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project' in order to mitigate the adverse impact of new residential development (within 5.6km of the Solent coastline) on internationally protected birds and habitat is contrary to Policy CS22 of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy as supported by the Habitats Regulations.

(iv)  Submission of a tree replacement plan to secure 2:1 tree replacement and to secure a tree Replacement Off Site Contribution should any off-site replacements be required.

(v)  The provision of affordable housing in accordance with Policy CS15 of the Core Strategy;

(vi)  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); and

(vii)  Employment and Skills Plan