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 conditional planning permission be refused in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

Erection of a 2-bed, detached bungalow with associated cycle/refuse storage.

Kate Drummond and Kate Stirling (supporting the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

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

RESOLVED that the Panel refused to grant conditional planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for refusal

1. Out of Character/Poor Residential Environment

The proposal to form a separate dwelling represents an over-intensive use and physical overdevelopment of the site which would be harmful to the character of the area in terms of introducing residential development in a backland location which would be out of character with the layout and context of the established pattern of development in the area. In addition, the proposal would be harmful to the amenities of neighbouring and existing occupiers in terms of increasing the activity to the rear of the site. The proposal thereby proves contrary to saved policies SDP1(i), SDP7(iii)(v), SDP9(i)(v) of the adopted City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015) and CS13 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2015) as supported by the relevant guidance in section 3 of the approved Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (September 2006).

2. Insufficient parking

Based on the information submitted, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the parking demand of the development would not harm the amenity of nearby residential occupiers through increased competition for on-street car parking. Furthermore the proposed pedestrian access route would result in the loss of a usable frontage parking space serving the existing flats which may compound existing on-street parking pressures. The development would, therefore, be contrary to the provisions of saved policy SDP1(i) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015), Policy CS19 of the Southampton Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2015) and the adopted Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2011).

Note to applicant - The guidance in the Parking Standards SPD (section 4.2.1 refers) expects the applicant to demonstrate that there is sufficient kerbside capacity to absorb the additional parking demand. This should be assessed by undertaking a parking survey using the preferred Lambeth model.

3. Lack of Section 106 or unilateral undertaking to secure planning obligations

In the absence of either a scheme of works or a completed Section 106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking 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.