Agenda item

The Panel considered the report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending delegated authority be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

Redevelopment of the site.  Demolition of the existing building and erection of a 3-storey replacement building to provide 9 flats (2 x three bedroom, 3 x two bedroom, 4 x one bedroom) with associated parking (6 spaces) and other facilities – scheme amended following validation to reduce the number of flats.

Dr Chipp, (local residents/ objecting), Mr Stubbings (agent) and Councillor Claisse (ward councillors/objecting) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The presenting officer reported that since the publication of the report two further objections had been received.  It was noted that the size of the development had been reduced to from the provision of 10 flats to provide 9 once the development was completed.  It was explained that the reduction in flats was not considered significant and that therefore there had been no need for additional consultation.  In addition a number of additional conditions were put forward by the planning Officer. On being put to the vote the officer recommendation to grant planning permission with the existing and additional conditions was lost.

Councillor Denness proposed a second motion which was seconded by Councillor Hecks that the application be refused that was for the reasons set out below.

RECORDED VOTE: to refuse planning permission

AGAINST :    Councillor Coombs

FOR :  Councillor Barnes-Andrews, Denness, L Harris, Hecks and Mintoff

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

Reasons for Refusal

01. Overdevelopment and harm to the character of area

The proposed development, due to the proposed footprint and hardsurfacing, would be an overdevelopment of the site when assessed against the existing spatial characteristics of the area. Subsequently, the buildings design in terms of the proposed flat roof and cat slide roof, depth of projection, bulk and scale would result in a development that would be out of character with the area. Furthermore, due to the excessive footprint the proposal would fail to provide sufficient useable amenity space, exacerbated by the tree coverage on site, to serve all residents. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to Policies SDP1, SDP7 and SDP9 of the Adopted City of Southampton Local Plan (2015), Policies CS5, CS13 and CS16 of the adopted Southampton Core Strategy (2015) and the relevant sections of the Council's Residential Design Guide.Supplementary Planning Document (September 2006) especially Parts 2, 3 and 4.

02. Failure to Enter into Section 106 Agreement

In the absence of a completed Section 106 Legal Agreement the proposals fail to mitigate against their direct impact 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 (April 2015) in the following ways:-

a)  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 Polices CS18, CS19 & CS25 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document and the adopted SPD relating to Developer Contributions;

b)  In the absence of financial contributions towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project to. mitigate recreational disturbance and pressure on the Solent European designated conservation sites, the proposal would be contrary to Policy CS22 of the Core Strategy and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010;

c)  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;

NOTE: Councillor Claisse declared an interest and withdrew from the Panel and the meeting after making a representation to the Panel.