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

Erection of an additional floor to create 4x 1-bed flats with associated cycle/refuse storage following partial demolition of existing building to create new entrance and extension of existing restaurant flue.

Elizabeth McDonald, Margret Sissons, Richard Buckle (local residents/ objecting), and Councillor Cooper (ward councillor/objecting) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The presenting officer updated the Panel in regard to a minor error in the summary of the recommendation and noted that it should state that the recommendation was for approval and not to refuse.

In addition since the publication of the report it was noted that the amended floorplans showing the removal of the partition walls had been received to satisfy the proposed delegation.  It was also noted that the condition on obscured glass need to be adjusted. 

Upon being put to the vote the Panel confirmed the Habitats Regulation Assessment.

The Panel then 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 approval to the Service Lead: Infrastructure, Planning and Development for the reasons set out below was then proposed by Councillor Coombs and seconded by Councillor Windle.

RECORDED VOTE to refuse planning permission

FOR:  Councillors Savage, Coombs, Galton, L Harris and

Windle: 

AGAINST:  Councillors Fitzhenry and Shields

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

Reasons for Refusal

1.   Reason for Refusal: Design & Subsequent Living Environment

The chosen contemporary roof extension design, and associated changes, to this locally listed building fail to respect the proportions of the existing building and is considered to represent an incongruous addition that fails to respect either the existing building or the wider streetscene to which it relates.  Furthermore, the chosen fenestration arrangement, with narrow openings, will contribute to a poor living environment for prospective residents.  As such, the proposed development has been assessed as being harmful to the existing building and out of character with its wider context and is contrary to saved policies SDP1(i) and HE4 of the adopted Local Plan Review (2015), and saved policy CS13 of the adopted LDF Core Strategy (2015) as supported by the relevant sections of the Council’s approved Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2006) that seek to encourage context-driven design solutions.

2.  Cycle Storage

The proposed cycle storage is poorly located to the residential entrances and will discourage the use of cycling by residents, given its rear yard location and tortuous access arrangements.  As such it is not considered to be safe, secure or convenient and is, therefore, contrary to saved policy SDP10(ii) of the adopted Local Plan Review (2015), as supported by the Council’s approved Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2011), as the wider scheme fails to properly promote alternative modes of travel in the interests of wider sustainable development.

3.  Reason for Refusal - Lack of Section 106 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