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.

Re-development of the site to erect four industrial units with associated parking (flexible use Class E (g)(iii), B2 (General Industrial) and/B8 (Storage or distribution)) following demolition of the existing buildings.

Alan Matlock, David Key and Julian Temple (local residents/ objecting), James Hicks (agent), and Councillor Fielker (ward councillor) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.  In addition the Panel acknowledged the submission of further information from both Alan Matlock and David Key and noted that this had been posted online.

The presenting officer reported that the Public Art clause in the proposed S106 agreement needed to be removed as the new commercial floor space was below the threshold targets with planning obligations.  It was noted that reference to building recording as mitigation within the Reason for granting permission and at paragraphs 5.8 and 7.1 should be amended and changed to confirm that building recording is record evidence of the past but is not a determining factor in the loss of this non-designated heritage asset. Additionally the presenting officer noted that the reason for granting permission also needed to be adjusted to reflect the low degree of significance attached to the building in heritage terms, as set out below.

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 carried.

RECORDED VOTE to grant planning permission.

FOR:  Councillors L Harris, Prior, Coombs, Laurent, Magee, Windle

AGAINST:  Councillor Savage

RESOLVED that the Panel:

1.  Delegated authority to the Delegate to the Head of Planning & Economic Development to grant planning permission subject to criteria listed in report to grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of a S.106 Legal Agreement to secure:

a.  Either a s.278 Agreement to undertake agreed works within the highway or a financial contribution and other highway obligations, including Traffic Regulation Orders, where necessary, towards site specific transport improvements in the vicinity of the site in line with policies SDP4 and TI2 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) to include: Contributions toward bus priority within the traffic signals at Wide Lane, to mitigate the impact on capacity to what is a high frequency bus route to the University and City Centre; and contribution toward low-level cycle lights, dropped kerbs and Advanced Stop Line on the Mountpark exit arm to improve overall and in particular cycle safety.

b.  An off-site contribution towards sustainable travel improvements on Hampshire County Council Road network, within the vicinity of the site. Contribution towards the design and improvement works at Spitfire Roundabout, Wide Lane Bridge and Wide Lane/A335 Roundabout, in line with policies SDP4 and TI2 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);

c.  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;

d.  Submission of a Training & Employment Management Plan committing to adopting  local labour and employment initiatives, both during and post construction, in accordance with Policies CS24 and CS25 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Adopted Version (as amended 2015) and the adopted SPD relating to Planning Obligations (September 2013);

e.  Submission of a Training & Employment Management Plan committing to adopting  local labour and employment initiatives, both during and post construction, in accordance with Policies CS24 and CS25 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Adopted Version (as amended 2015) and the adopted SPD relating to Planning Obligations (September 2013);

f.  Submission and implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan;

g.  Submission and implementation of an Operational Phase Lorry Routing Agreement to limit HGV traffic turning left out of the site; and

h.  Submission and implementation of a Staff Travel Plan.

2.  Delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Economic Development be given powers to add, vary and /or delete relevant parts of the Section 106 agreement and/or conditions as necessary.

3.  In the event that the legal agreement is not completed within a reasonable period following the Panel meeting, the Head of Planning & Economic Development be authorised to refuse permission on the ground of failure to secure the provisions of the Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Reason for granting Permission (Amended wording)

The development is acceptable taking into account the policies and proposals of the Development Plan as set out below. Other material considerations are not judged to have sufficient weight to justify a refusal of the application, and where applicable conditions have been applied in order to satisfy these matters. The loss of the utilitarian Flight Shed as a non-designated heritage asset would represent ‘less than substantial harm’ due to the low degree of significance attached to the building in heritage terms. Mitigation for the loss of this non-designated heritage asset has been secured with heritage interpretation boards to be installed. The development will bring this vacant site back into use and would accord with the site employment allocation and would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the adjacent Mountpark. Furthermore it has been demonstrated that the development will not have an adverse impact on highway safety or in terms of capacity within the surrounding highway network  The scheme is therefore judged to be in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and thus planning permission should therefore be granted.  In reaching this decision the Local Planning Authority offered a pre-application planning service and has sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner as required by paragraphs 39-42 and 46 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).