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 delegated authority be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.  (Copy of the report circulated with the agenda and appended to the signed minutes).

Redevelopment of the site. Demolition of the existing building and erection of a five-storey building to provide 10 flats (2 x one-bedroom, 7 x two-bedroom and 1 x 3-bedroom) with associated parking, access and landscaping.

Mr Hirsh (agent), Mr Worsfold (architect), Mr Knappett (planning consultant for Oakmount Triangle Residents’ Association (OTRA) / objecting), Professor Marshall (Chair of OTRA / objecting), Mr Bevan and Mr Jenkins (local residents / objecting) and Councillor Vinson (ward councillor) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The presenting officer reported:-

• an amended recommendation to grant additional delegated powers to grant planning permission subject to no objection being raised by the Tree Officer;
• an additional clause under the S106 agreement regarding residents’ parking permits;
• three amended conditions (4, 8 and 26);
• an additional condition regarding noise mitigation; and
• the addition of an informative to the applicant regarding protected species.

Amended Recommendation

Delegate to the Planning and Development Manager to grant planning permission subject to no objection being raised by the Tree Officer with regards to minor revisions to the plan showing the Tree Protection Measures.

Additional S106 Clause

  (v)  No resident shall be entitled to obtain parking permits to the Council’s Controlled Parking Zones.

Amended Conditions

4 - APPROVAL CONDITION - Privacy screens (Prior to commencement)

Prior to first commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the balcony and privacy screens/walls shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include a detailed design, specification and material samples for the screens and the obscured colour glass brick walls. The privacy screens/walls shall thereafter be installed as agreed and retained in this manner for the duration of use of the building for residential occupation.

REASON:

To protect the amenity and privacy of the adjoining property.

8 - APPROVAL CONDITION - Arboricultural Method Statement [Pre-Commencement Condition]

The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the Astill Treecare Ltd Aboricultural Report ref: ATC/TS/AIA/AMS/2013/260 and the amended Tree Protection Plan (Rev 2) received by the Local Planning Authority on 11th March 2014 and will be adhered to throughout the duration of the demolition and development works on site. 

REASON

To ensure that provision for trees to be retained and adequately protected throughout the construction period has been made.

26 - APPROVAL CONDITION - Ecological Survey (by exception) [Pre-Commencement Condition]

Prior to the commencement of development, including demolition, the findings of two bat emergence surveys, undertaken at an appropriate time of year, are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If the presence of a bat roost is detected the submitted report should include appropriate mitigation measures to safeguard the ecological interest of the site.

REASON:

For the safeguarding of species protected by The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the conservation of biodiversity as the site is potentially of ecological interest.

Additional Condition

APPROVAL CONDITION – Noise mitigation (prior to occupation)

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, a written scheme for the control of noise for the car park barriers and air source heat pumps shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Prior to first operational use, the car park barriers and air source heat pumps shall be implemented in accordance with the noise mitigation findings approved and thereafter be maintained and retained.

REASON:

To protect the amenities of the occupiers of existing nearby properties.

Note to Applicant:-

If protected species such as bats are found, the advice of Natural England shall be sought and taken into account and adhered to, including obtaining the relevant licenses. It is a criminal offence to harm habitats of protected species.

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

Reasons for Refusal

1 - REASON FOR REFUSAL - Impact on character

The proposed development by reason of its 5 storey height would be unduly dominant and visually intrusive when viewed within the street scene, wider public views in the Oakmount Triangle Conservation Area and the rear gardens of adjacent properties in Blenheim Avenue. The height is out of keeping with the overriding character and appearance of the immediate street scene of Winn Road.  Furthermore the proposal fails to preserve or enhance the character, appearance and setting of the Oakmount Triangle Conservation Area. As such the proposal will have an unacceptable and harmful impact on visual amenity and is therefore contrary to saved policies SDP7(iv) and HE1(i) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (Adopted March 2006) and policy CS5, CS13 and CS14 of the Development Plan Document Core Strategy Local Development Framework (Adopted January 2010).

2 - REASON FOR REFUSAL - Impact on residential amenity

The height and massing of the proposed development in close proximity to the common boundary of Pinehurst Court represents an unneighbourly form of development, resulting in an overbearing impact on the outlook of the neighbouring occupiers and shading of external amenity space and habitable room windows. As such the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity and therefore contrary to saved policies SDP1(i) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (Adopted March 2006) as supported by the guidance set out in paragraph 2.2.1 to 2.2.2 of the Council's Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (Approved September 2006).

3 - REASON FOR REFUSAL - Failure to enter into a Section 106 Agreement that mitigates against the development

In the absence of a completed S106 Legal Agreement the proposals fail to mitigate against their direct impact and do not therefore, satisfy the provisions of policies CS15 and CS25 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2010) as supported by the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on Planning Obligations (September 2013) in the following ways:-

  (i)  Financial contributions towards site specific transport contributions for highway improvements in the vicinity of the site, including the provision of pedestrian facilities to aid road crossing in the near vicinity of the site which will also operate as a traffic calming measure, and Traffic Regulation Order to facilitate pedestrian crossing, 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 SPD relating to Planning Obligations (September 2013);

  (ii)  The 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 has not been secured;

 (iii)  Provision of affordable housing in accordance with Policies CS15, CS16 and CS25 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Adopted Version (January 2010) and the adopted SPD relating to Planning Obligations (September 2013);

 (iv)  The 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)  No resident shall be entitled to obtain parking permits to the Council’s Controlled Parking Zones.

Note: This final reason for refusal could be resolved following the submission of an acceptable scheme and a completed S.106 legal agreement.

RECORDED VOTE to refuse planning permission:-

FOR:  Councillors Cunio, Claisse, Harris and Norris

AGAINST:  Councillors Mrs Blatchford and Lewzey

ABSTAINED:  Councillor Lloyd