Agenda item

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, 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.

Redevelopment of the site. Erection of 5 x 3 bed houses with associated parking and cycle / refuse Storage. (Outline application seeking approval for access, appearance, layout and scale) (Resubmission).

AdiPuplampu (agent), and Councillor Galton (Ward Councillor/objecting) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

On being put to the vote the Officer recommendation to delegate authority to grant planning permission to the Planning and Development Manager subject to the criteria was lost, on the use of the Chair’s second and casting vote.  A further motion to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Harris

RECORDED VOTE to refuse planning permission

FOR:  Councillor Denness and Harris

AGAINST:   Councillor Claisse

ABSTAIN:   Councillor Mintoff

NOTE:  Councillor Lloyd was not present for this item.

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

Reasons for Refusal:

1. REASON FOR REFUSAL: Insufficient amenity space

The proposed development would fail to provide an adequate amount of high quality, usable external amenity space for occupiers of plots 2 - 5. The amenity space proposed is less than the minimum sizes for amenity space for detached (90 sq m) and semi-detached (70 sq m) properties as outlined in both the Core Strategy and the Residential Design Guide. This proposal is therefore, contrary to policy CS13 and CS16 of the adopted Core Strategy Partial Review (March 2015); saved policies SDP1(i) and H7(ix) of the adopted Amended Local Plan Review (March 2015); and paragraph 2.3.14, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.4 of the adopted Residential Design Guide SPD (September 2006).

2. REASON FOR REFUSAL: Inaccurate parking survey

Notwithstanding the provision of 7 car parking spaces on site, the submitted parking surveys contain factual inaccuracies and do not therefore, accurately reflect existing parking pressure and parking availability within the surrounding area. The applicant has therefore, failed to demonstrated that the development would not have a harmful impact on the amenities of nearby residential occupiers through increased competition for on-street car parking. The development would, therefore, be contrary to the provisions of Policy SDP1 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).

3. REASON FOR REFUSAL: Lack of SPA Mitigation

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 Core Strategy Partial Review (March 2015) as supported by the Habitats Regulations.