Agenda and minutes

To approve and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 March 2015 and to deal with any matters arising, attached.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 March 2015 be approved and signed as a correct record.

Report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending that conditional approval 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.

Proposed change of use from Industrial (Class B1) to Community Centre (Class D1).

Mr Hutchings, Mr Dawlish and Mr Whatley (Local Residents/objecting), Councillor Galton and Councillor Denness (Ward Councillors/objecting) and Mr Board (Applicant) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The presenting officer reported amendments to Approval Condition 4 – Hours of Operation and Approval Condition 6 – Music Restriction.

Amended Conditions

4. APPROVAL CONDITION - Hours of Operation

The site shall be closed and vacated by members of the public between the hours of 21:30 and 09:00 Monday to Friday, 21:30 and 17:00 on Saturdays and at all times on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason:

To safeguard the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties and to secure wider community benefit in accordance with Policy CS11.

6. APPROVAL CONDITION: Music Restriction

At no time shall amplified music on site exceed a 15 minute Leq of 70dB(A) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All windows and doors to the rooms in which the music is being played shall remain closed at all times while music is being played.

Reason:

To safeguard the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties and to secure wider community benefit in accordance with Policy CS11.

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

Reason for Refusal

REASON FOR REFUSAL - Impact on Residential Amenity

The proposed use would result in an unacceptable increase in parking demand in an area subject to parking stress and would therefore, be detrimental to the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers. This proposal is subsequently, contrary to saved policy SDP (i) of the adopted City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2006).

RECORDED VOTE to refuse planning permission.

FOR:      Councillors Claisse, L Harris, Lloyd and Mintoff

AGAINST:  Councillor Lewzey

Report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending that 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 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 three storey building to provide 10 flats (eight x one bedroom, one x studio apartment and one x three bedroom) with associated parking and other facilities.

Mr Hamilton, Mr Behan and Mr Batharn (Local Residents/objecting), Councillor Moulton and Councillor Shields (Ward Councillors/objecting) and Mr Lawrence (Agent) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The presenting officer reported that paragraph 6.8 and condition 17 and 18 should be deleted from the report.

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

Reasons for Refusal

REASON FOR REFUSAL - Overdevelopment of the Site

By reason of the proposed residential density, footprint of the residential building and its bulk, scale and mass, the scheme is judged to be out of context and character with the immediate area taking into account neighbouring residential development and represents an over-intensive and un-neighbourly form of development. In particular the development is considered unacceptable as it fails to reflect the established residential character of the area and in combination with nearby residential development would be detrimental to nearby residential amenity.

The proposal is therefore contrary to 'saved' policies SDP1 (i), SDP7 (v), SDP9 (i) (v) and H2 (iii) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2006) and Policy CS13 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (January 2010) as supported by the guidance as set out in the Council's approved Residential Design Guide SPD (September 2006) namely, sections 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.5 and 3.9.1.

REASON FOR REFUSAL – Lack of Section 106 Agreement to secure Planning Obligations

In the absence of a Section 106 agreement the development fails to mitigate its impact in the following areas:

  (i)  Financial contributions towards site specific transport improvements in the vicinity of the site in line with Policy SDP4 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2006), Policies CS18 and CS25 of the adopted LDF Core Strategy (2010) and the adopted SPG relating to Planning Obligations (August 2005 as amended).

  (ii)  The lack of control on future residents obtaining parking permits to the Council's Controlled Parking Zones.

  (iii)  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.

  (iv)  Submission, approval and implementation of a Carbon Management Plan setting out how the carbon neutrality will be achieved and/or how remaining carbon emissions from the development will be mitigated in accordance with policy CS20 of the Core Strategy and the Planning Obligations SPD (September 2013).

  (v)  Financial contribution towards Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project (SDMP) in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), SDP12 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2006), CS22 of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending that conditional approval be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address, attached.

The Panel considered the report of the Planning Manager recommending conditional approval be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

Change of use to a large house in multiple occupation (retrospective).

Mr Lima and Mrs Barter (Local Residents/objecting) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed in the report.

RECORDED VOTE to grant planning permission.

FOR:  Councillors L Harris, Lewzey and Lloyd

AGAINST:  Councillor Claisse

ABSTAINED:  Councillor Mintoff

Report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending that conditional approval 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.

Change of use from three-bed flat to a house of multiple occupation (use Class C4).

Mr Vinson (representing Highfield Residents Association/objecting), Mrs Barter (Local Resident/objecting) and Mr Stredwick (representing Applicant) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed in the report.

RECORDED VOTE to grant planning permission.

FOR:  Councillors Lewzey and Lloyd

AGAINST:  Councillor L Harris

ABSTAINED:  Councillor Mintoff

NOTE:  Councillor Claisse declared an interest in the above application as the local Ward Councillor and withdrew from the meeting for the consideration of this item.

Report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending that conditional approval 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.

Change of use from a single dwelling house (Class C3) to flexible use as either a dwelling house or a house in multiple occupation (Class C4)

Mrs Bailey, Mrs Whiteside and Mrs Barter (Local Residents/objecting), Councillor Moulton and Councillor Shields (Ward Councillors/objecting) and Mr McDermott (Agent) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

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

Reasons for Refusal

REASON FOR REFUSAL - Character

The change of use of the property from a C3 family dwelling to a Class C4 HMO, taking into account the context and character of the area, will result in an over-intensive use which, by reason of the additional general activity and disturbance associated with such a use, will result in an adverse impact on the overall character and amenity of the area surrounding the application site. Therefore the proposal will be contrary to saved policies SDP1(i), SDP7(v) and H4(i)(ii) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review 2006 and policy CS16 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (January 2010) as supported by the Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (March 2012).

REASON FOR REFUSAL – Parking and Highways Congestion

The proposed development is situated in an area with existing parking pressure. Taken with the likely amount of car ownership and traffic generated by the development, it is considered that any car parking overspill from the development would impact negatively on the amenities of those living within the surrounding area and would lead to increased obstruction of the carriageway, footway and off road parking spaces. The development is thereby contrary to saved policies SDP1(i) and SDP7 of the adopted City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2006) and policies CS13 and CS19 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (January 2010) as supported by the adopted Parking Standards SPD in that it would be harmful to the amenity of residents.

RECORDED VOTE to refuse planning permission.

FOR:    Councillors Claisse, L Harris, Lloyd and Mintoff

ABSTAINED:  Councillor Lewzey

Report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending that approval be refused 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 refusal in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

Erection of a single storey one-bed bungalow with associated parking, cycle/refuse storage and amenity space (resubmission of 14/00496/FUL).

Councillor Moulton and Councillor Shields (Ward Councillors/objecting) and Mr Patrick (Agent) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The Presenting Officer reported that the second reason for refusal would be removed as a Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project (SDMP) payment had been made since the report had been written.

RESOLVED to refuse planning application 15/00138/FUL for the following reason set out in the report.

Reason for Refusal

REASON FOR REFUSAL - Character and Amenity

The proposal to form a separate dwelling represents an over-intensive use of the site, introducing a form of back land development which would be wholly out of character with the layout and context of the established pattern of development in the area, with the formation of a separate dwelling causing harm to neighbouring occupiers in terms of increased activity. Furthermore, the application site is compact, allowing minimal amenity space and outlook to the occupiers of the proposed dwelling and would therefore be detrimental to their amenity. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policies SDP1(i) and SDP7(iii)(iv) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (Adopted March 2006) and policies CS13 and CS16 of the Development Plan Document Core Strategy Local Development Framework (Adopted January 2010) as supported by the guidance set out in paragraph 2.3.14 of the Councils Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (approved September 2006).

RECORDED VOTE to refuse planning permission.

FOR:  Councillors Claisse, L Harris, Lewzey and Mintoff

ABSTAINED:  Councillor Lloyd