Agenda item

Report of the Interim Head of Planning and Economic 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 Head of Planning and Economic Development recommending delegated authority be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

Redevelopment of the site. Erection of a 2.5-storey building containing 6 flats (3 x 2-bed, 3 x 1-bed) with associated parking and cycle/refuse storage (Outline application seeking approval for Access, Appearance, Layout and Scale) (Resubmission 20/01054/OUT) (Amended).

John Langram (local resident/ objecting), Adi Paplampu (agent), and Councillors Shields and Leggett (ward councillors) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.  In addition a statement from Mr David Parker was read to the Panel.

The presenting officer reported that questions had been raised in regard to the right of access to the site and noted that the recommendation would be dependent on the results of a bat survey. 

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

The Panel then considered the recommendation to delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Economic Development to grant planning permission. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was lost.

A further motion to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below was then proposed by Councillor L Harris and seconded by Councillor Prior.

RECORDED VOTE to refuse planning permission.

FOR:  Councillors L Harris, Prior, Magee and Windle

AGAINST:  Councillor Coombs

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

Reasons for Refusal:

Reason 1 - Overdevelopment

Whilst recognising the applicant’s proposed reuse of previously developed land the nature of proposed site redevelopment in relation to its local context and character is, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, symptomatic of an overdevelopment and over-intensive use of the site by reason of:-

1. An excessive net residential density level which is significantly above adopted Policy and the required density range of housing for this location and context;.
2. The overspill street parking impact from a development with limited on-site private car parking would adversely harm the residential amenity of local residents being able to conveniently park close to their homes by displacing the availability of kerbside parking spaces and increasing the burden on existing residents to enforce parking within nearby private roads;
3. Three flats fall short of the minimum internal floorspace standards set out in the Nationally Described Space Standards (March 2015) and therefore will create poor living conditions for future residents.

As such, the proposal would prove contrary to saved policies SDP1(i), SDP7, HE1 of the Local Plan Review (amended March 2015) and CS5, CS14, CS18, CS19 of the Core Strategy (amended March 2015) as supported by the relevant guidance set out in the Council’s Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2011), the adopted Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted 2006) as supported by The Avenue Conservation Area Appraisal & Management Plan (2013).

Reason 2 – Bat Survey

The bat emergence survey submitted does not adequately assess whether there is any potential adverse harm to protected bat species as the result of the building demolition and therefore the proposed development could cause unacceptable harm to protected species and prove contrary to saved policy NE4 of the Local Plan Review (amended March 2015) and policy CS22 of the Core Strategy (amended March 2015).

Reason 3 – Lack of Section 106 or unilateral undertaking to secure planning obligations

In the absence of a completed Section 106 legal agreement to support the development the application fails to mitigate against its wider direct impacts in the following areas:

1. Financial contributions towards site specific transport contributions for highway improvements in the vicinity of the site in line with Policy SDP4 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (as amended 2015), policies CS18 and CS25 of the adopted LDF Core Strategy (as amended 2015) and the adopted SPD relating to Planning Obligations (September 2013);
2. Submission of a highway condition survey to ensure any damage to the adjacent highway network attributable to the build process is repaired by the developer;
3. Either a scheme of measures or a financial contribution to mitigate against the pressure on European designated nature conservation sites in accordance with Policy CS22 of the Core Strategy and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010; and,
4. A restriction that residents of the scheme will be informed of the Council’s policy that no parking permits for the surrounding streets be allocated for the future occupants of the development.