Agenda and minutes

To approve and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings held on 31 October 2023 and 21 November 2023and to deal with any matters arising.

RESOLVED: that the minutes for the Panel meetings held  on 31 October 2023 and 21 November 2023be approved and signed as a correct record.

The Panel considered the report of the Head of City Services detailing an objection received to the making of a tree preservation order.

No members of public or ward councillor were in attendance and there were no updates presented to the Panel.

Upon being put to the vote the officer recommendation to confirm the tree preservation order was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Panel confirmed the Southampton (112 Botany Bay Road) Tree Preservation Order 2023.

The Panel considered the report of the Head of City Services detailing an objection received in the making and serving of a tree preservation order.  

Mike Kelly (local resident) was present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

No updates were reported to the Panel.  Upon being put to the vote the officer recommendation to confirm the tree preservation order was confirmed unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Panel confirmed the Southampton (102 Botany Bay Road) Tree Preservation Order 2023

Report of the Head of Transport and planning 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 Head of Transport and Planning in respect of an application for planning permission for the proposed development at the above address recommending that the application be refused  subject to the criteria listed in the report.

Redevelopment of the site. Erection of 4 x two-storey buildings to create 11 houses (8x 3-bed and 3x 2-bed) with associated amenities, following demolition of existing buildings.

Loise Cutts (agent),  Ben Webb and jenny Harper ( local residents supporting) and Councillors Keogh and W Payne  (ward councillors) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting. In addition the Panel noted that a statements had been received, circulated, read and posted online from Mr Webb and the agent’s tree surveyor.

The presenting officer reported a number of small amendments to the published report noting that paragraph 6.12 was incomplete and should finish “harmful to local character”, and that the reasons for refusal should read as set out below.  It was noted that amended plans had been received but had not been accepted by the Planning Department and no public consultation had taken place.  It was noted that, even if they could be taken into consideration, they would not have affected the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission.

Following the request by the applicant’s agent, , a vote on whether to defer consideration of the application  was taken and was lost. 

The Panel then considered the officer recommendation to refuse to grant planning permission. Upon being put to the vote, the recommendation to refuse to grant was carried.

RECORDED VOTE to refuse Planning Permission 

FOR:  Councillors Savage, Windle, Cox and Greenhaigh

AGAINST:  Councillors J Baillie and Beaurain 

ABSTAINED:  Councillor A Frampton

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for Refusal

(1)  Reason for refusal: Site Overdevelopment.

The proposed redevelopment comprising frontage and backland housing, by reason of its layout and level of site coverage with buildings and hardstanding (which exceeds 50% of the site) would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area. The siting of the development forward of the prevailing building line within Portsmouth Road combined with the chosen building design and proportions doesn’t suitably reflect the neighbouring context that, when combined with the poor front boundary landscape treatment proposed, would be harmful to the Portsmouth Road street scene. Furthermore, the proposal would result in the loss of trees leading to potential harm to a group Tree Preservation Order. Whilst the promotion of high density residential schemes on previously developed land is encouraged it is considered that the proposed development represents poor design, which fails to respond to the visual characteristics and building to plot ratios of its context, is out of character for this location, and is symptomatic of a site overdevelopment contrary to “saved” policies SDP1 (i), SDP7 (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv), SDP9 (i) & (iv) and H2 (iii) of the adopted City of Southampton Local Plan (March 2015) and policies CS5, CS13  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.