Agenda and minutes

To approve and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 2013 and to deal with any matters arising, attached.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 23 July 2013 be approved and signed as a correct record. 

The Panel noted the officer’s clarification under Minute 29 (23 July 2013) regarding previous Minute 21 (25 June 2013 - 75 Bassett Green Close, SO16 3QX 13/00299/FUL) relating to the reason for granting Condition 3, concerning the exact level of protection on trees which had been removed. 

“No enforcement action is to be taken against the removal of trees at 75 Bassett Green Close, as the trees removed were not protected by a Tree Protection Order at the time of their removal.  The remaining trees on the site were made the subject of a protection order following the emergency investigation by the Tree Team at the time of the incident.  The preservation order on the remaining trees has subsequently been confirmed and those trees have been retained.”

Report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending refusal in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address, attached.

The Panel considered the report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending refusal in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.  (Copy of the report circulated with the agenda and appended to the signed minutes).

Erection of a three-storey building to provide 12 flats (4 x 1 bedroom, 8 x 2 bedroom) with associated parking and vehicle access from Almond Road.

Mr and Mrs Lumber (local residents / objecting) and Councillors Moulton and Shields (ward councillors / objecting) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED to refuse planning application 13/00418/FUL for the reasons set out in the report and the additional reason set out below.

04. Reason for Refusal – Inadequate level of car parking

Notwithstanding the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Parking Standards, which are expressed as maximum quantum of parking that can be proposed to serve new development; the Council considers that the provision of six parking spaces, which is significantly less than the maximum number of spaces permitted, would be inadequate to help meet the travel demands of occupiers of the new flats.  It has not been demonstrated that the level of parking provided would be sufficient and in the absence of an on-street parking survey, it is not clear that any overspill car parking could be accommodated on adjacent streets. As such, it is considered that this would provide a poor level of amenity for occupiers of the new flats with poor surveillance of any vehicles that would need to be parked off-site. The proposal would also harm the amenity of adjoining residents by exacerbating on-street parking difficulties and resulting in competition for spaces, owing to overspill parking being generated by the new flats, which cannot be accommodated on site.  As such, the proposed development is considered to be contrary to the following Policies from the Development Plan for Southampton:- City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2006) ‘saved’ policies SDP1 (i – particularly the guidance set out in paragraphs 5.2.12-5.2.13 of the Residential Design Guide SPD [September 2006]) and SDP10 (ii); City of Southampton Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document (January 2010) policies CS13 (4)/(10/(11).

Report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending conditional approval be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address, attached.

The Panel considered the report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending conditional approval be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.  (Copy of the report circulated with the agenda and appended to the signed minutes).

Erection of 2 x 3-storey 4-bed semi-detached houses with associated parking and cycle/refuse storage

Mr Puplampu (Architect) and Mr Huggins (local resident / objecting) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the report and the amended condition set out below:

Amended Condition

CONDITION 11 - Parking and Access [pre-occupation condition]

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved both the access to the site and all the parking spaces approved for the development shall be provided in accordance with the plans hereby approved. Two car parking spaces shall be retained in perpetuity for the occupiers of the development hereby approved and two car parking spaces shall be retained in perpetuity for the benefit of the existing residents within No. 1 to 6 Sirdar Mews, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  None of the spaces hereby approved shall be used for any commercial activity.

Reason:

To ensure a satisfactory form of development

RECORDED VOTE (to grant planning permission)

FOR:  Councillors Mrs Blatchford, Lewzey and Norris

AGAINST:  Councillors Claisse, Cunio, and L Harris

ABSTAINED:  Councillor Lloyd

NOTE: This item was carried with the use of the Chair’s casting vote.

Report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending conditional approval be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address, attached.

The Panel considered the report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending conditional approval be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.  (Copy of the report circulated with the agenda and appended to the signed minutes).

Conversion of existing 3 bed house to 1x2-bed flat, and 1x3-bed flat, with associated refuse/cycle storage.

Mr Watters (local resident / objector) was present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The presenting officer reported that six additional letters of objection had been received raising concerns with the level of car parking proposed and the impact of overspill car parking onto the street.

RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the report.

RECORDED VOTE (to grant planning permission)

FOR:  Councillors Mrs Blatchford, Cunio, Lewsey and Lloyd

AGAINST:  Councillors Claisse, L Harris and Norris

Report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending conditional approval be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address, attached.

The Panel considered the report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending conditional approval be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.  (Copy of the report circulated with the agenda and appended to the signed minutes).

Proposed second floor extension to C3 dwelling to create additional living accommodation and two additional parking spaces.

RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the report with the addition of an informative note to the applicant identifying that planning permission is needed if the use of the property is to change from a C3 house to a C4 HMO. 

Report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending conditional approval be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address, attached.

The Panel considered the report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending conditional approval be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.  (Copy of the report circulated with the agenda and appended to the signed minutes).

Change of use from House (Class C3) to a flexible use of House (Class C3) and House in Multiple Occupation (Class C4)

Mr McDermott (agent), Mr Breen and Mr Rigby (local residents / objecting) and Councillor Payne (ward councillor / objecting) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

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

Reasons for Refusal

1. Reason for Refusal - Impact on amenity of neighbouring occupier

The proposed change of use by reason of the terraced nature of the property, the internal layout which proposes communal living areas adjacent to the party wall, and the intensification of occupation and activity likely to occur as a result of the change of use from a C3 to a C4 use, would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent property contrary to Policies SDP1 (i) and H4 (i) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review 2006.

2. Reason for Refusal - Impact on character of the local area

The proposed conversion of the property to a HMO will result in an adverse impact on the overall character and amenity of the area surrounding the application site in terms of the mix and balance of households in the local community.  Therefore, the proposal will be contrary to saved policies SDP1(i) and H4(ii) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (Adopted March 2006) and policy CS16 of the City of Southampton Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Adopted January 2010) as supported by the section 6.5 of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (Approved March 2012).

3. Reason for Refusal - Impact on amenity of local residents

The proposed conversion to a HMO will result in adverse impact to the amenity of the local residents, due to the further pressure added to on-street parking availability which will make it difficult for residents to park in walking distance of their property. Therefore, the proposal will be contrary to saved policies SDP1(i) and H4(i) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (Adopted March 2006) and policy CS16 of the City of Southampton Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Adopted January 2010) as supported by the section 6.5 of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (Approved March 2012).

RECORDED VOTE (to refuse planning permission)

FOR:  Councillors Claisse, Cunio, L Harris, Lewsey, Lloyd and Norris

AGAINST:  Councillor Mrs Blatchford

Report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending conditional approval be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address, attached.

The Panel considered the report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending conditional approval be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.  (Copy of the report circulated with the agenda and appended to the signed minutes).

Relief from Condition 11 of planning permission 871053/23553/W to enable conversion of garage to living accommodation (retrospective).

Mr Johnston (Pointout Residents Group / objecting) was present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

It was reiterated that the scheme was identical to the item presented to the Panel on 28th May 2013 when they decided to defer the application until the appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse the application for the change of use from dwelling house (C3) to House of Multiple Occupation [C4] (12/00705/FUL) was determined by the Planning Inspector. 

The Panel were informed that the Applicant had submitted an appeal for non determination with respect to this application and that in order to defend the appeal, the Local Planning Authority needed to identify what the Panel’s decision would have been.

RESOLVED

  (i)  to refuse planning permission due to the impact on the visual amenity of the property in the street (failure to use matching materials, window design, lack of solider course) and also the detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood owing to the impact on highways amenity (increased pressure on on-road parking).

  (ii)  tonote that had the application been determined at the meeting in May, the above was the decision that would have been made.

Report of the Planning and Development Manager regarding Enforcement Action at 106 Waterloo Road, attached.

The Panel considered the report of the Planning and Development Manager regarding Enforcement Action to the site at 106 Waterloo Road.  (Copy of the report circulated with the agenda and appended to the signed minutes).

Mr Ahmed (local residents) and Councillor Moulton (ward councillor) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED

(i)  that further enforcement action be taken in relation to the unauthorised development at 106 Waterloo Road; and

(ii)  that this action should not await a further assessment as to the expediency of further enforcement action following the decision issued under planning application reference 13/00678/MMA and the completion of any works which may be approved under that application.

Reason for Decision

The additional works to the side of the property represents a harmful form of development in terms of the impact on the amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring property by the conjoining of the buildings which is likely to give rise to additional noise and disturbance.  Furthermore, the construction and materials used harm the character of the host dwelling and neighbouring property and are out-of-keeping with the character of the area. The extension is therefore contrary to policies SDP1(i)(ii), SDP7(iii)(iv)(v) and SDP9(iii)(v) of the adopted City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2006), CS13 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (January 2010) and the provisions of the Residential Design Guide (with particular reference to section 2.2.2).

Report of the Head of City Services regarding the removal of trees and their replacement with new trees in the Station Quarter and Western Gateway, attached.

The Panel considered the report of the Head of City Services regarding the removal of trees and their replacement with new trees in the Station Quarter and Western Gateway, Phase 1 of the Station Quarter (north) improvement programme, which forms a component of the Future Southampton City Centre VIP improvement projects.  (Copy of the report circulated with the agenda and appended to the signed minutes).

RESOLVED

  (i)  that the removal of 24 trees to enable the public realm enhancements and highway improvements be allowed; and

  (ii)  that 24 new trees be provided, the replacement tree size and specific planting location and layout to be agreed with a Senior Tree Officer.