Report of the Service Lead, Planning, Infrastructure and 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 Service Lead, Planning, Infrastructure and Development recommending delegated authority be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.
Erection of a three storey building to provide a ground floor retail unit and two x two bed flats on upper floors with associated parking and cycle/refuse storage, following demolition of existing building.
Peter Messer (local residents/ objecting), Gareth Jenkins (architect), and Councillor Keogh (ward councillors/objecting) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.
The presenting officer reported that 2 additional conditions would be required to be added to the application in relation to: external noise and vibration; and Residential - Permitted Development Restrictions as follows:
Noise & Vibration (external noise sources) (Pre-Commencement)
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme of measures to protect the occupiers of the development from external noise and vibration sources, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures shall be implemented as approved before the development first comes into occupation and thereafter retained as approved.
Reason: To protect the occupiers of the development from excessive external noise.
Residential - Permitted Development Restriction
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order the A1 retail unit hereby approved shall not be used for any residential purpose without the benefit of further planning permission.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the development in the interests of the amenities of the area and the quality of the residential environment formed.
The officer also outlined the requirement for an amendment to Condition 23 as follows:
23. Boundary treatment, hardsurfacing, lighting & landscaping detailed plan
Notwithstanding the submitted details before the commencement of any site works a detailed landscaping scheme and implementation timetable shall be submitted, which includes:
i. means of enclosure/boundary treatment; (which shall be retained as agreed in perpetuity).
ii. hard surfacing materials;
iii. planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations
associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/planting densities where appropriate;
v. a landscape management scheme.
Any trees, shrubs, seeded or turfed areas which die, fail to establish, are removed or become damaged or diseased, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting shall be replaced by the Developer in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. The Developer shall be responsible for any replacements for a period of 5 years from the date of planting.
The approved hard and soft landscaping scheme (including parking) and boundary treatment for the whole site shall be carried out prior to occupation of the building or during the first planting season following the full completion of building works, whichever is sooner. The approved planting scheme implemented shall be maintained for a minimum period of 5 years following its complete provision.
The approved hardsurfacing and boundary treatment shall be maintained in perpetuity.
Reason: To improve the appearance of the site and enhance the character of the development in the interests of visual amenity, to ensure that the development makes a positive contribution to the local environment and, in accordance with the duty required of the Local Planning Authority by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The Panel then considered the recommendation to delegate authority to the Service Lead: Planning, Infrastructure and Development to grant planning permission. Upon being put to the vote the officer recommendation was lost with the use of the Chairs casting vote.
A further motion to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below was then proposed by Councillor L Harris and seconded by Councillor Wilkinson.
RECORDED VOTE to refuse planning permission
FOR: Councillors L Harris, Wilkinson and Savage
AGAINST: Councillors Coombes, Mitchell and Murphy
The motion was carried with the use of the Chair’s casting vote.
RESOLVED to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below:
Reasons for Refusal
1. REFUSAL REASON - Design
Whilst the principle of a flatted redevelopment scheme is accepted, the proposed development of this prominent corner site is considered to respond poorly and fails to integrate with its local surroundings by reason of its cramped design, its relationship with the existing pattern of development along Bitterne Road West and excessive site coverage. Furthermore:-
(a) The proposed building footprint and associated hard-standing and incorporation of raised balcony’s results in an excessive site coverage that fails to respond to the spatial characteristics of the pattern and proportions of development along the Bitterne Road West frontage and within the local area.
(b) The need to incorporate a flat roof form, due to the proposed proportions of the building, results in the design which is out keeping and character with the traditional ridged roof form of buildings in the surrounding area.
(c) The limited available space, in combination with the footprint proposed, has led to a cramped form of development that lacks a convenient access to refuse, cycle storage and the retail parking space; and fails to provide adequate external residential amenity space that is fit for its intended purpose.
The points raised above are symptomatic of an overdevelopment.
In combination, these design issues result in a building that fails to respect the character of the area or the needs of its users and, as such, the proposed development is considered to be contrary to "saved" policies SDP1 (i) SDP7 (iii) (iv) (v) and SDP9 (i) (v) of the adopted City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2015) and Policy CS13 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (January 2015) as supported by paragraphs 2.3.14, 3.9.1, 3.9.2, 3.9.5, 4.4.1 and 4.4.3 of the Council's approved Residential Design Guide SPD (2006).
2. REASON FOR REFUSAL – Incomplete Car Parking Survey
The car parking survey information provided is deemed to be insufficient and fails to satisfactorily demonstrate that the amount of parking provided will be sufficient to serve this mixed use development. In the absence of sufficient information to justify nil provision of car parking on site for residents potential localised overspill parking from the development has the potential to be detrimental to the amenity of existing neighbours; who are reliant on the street for parking and who would then face further competition for space and the possibility of parking further away from their homes. The development proposal is therefore contrary to approved Policy SDP1 (i) of the Amended Local Plan review (2015) and the requirements of the Council's Approved Parking Standards SPD (2011).
3. REASON FOR REFUSAL - Lack of Section 106 or unilateral undertaking to secure planning obligations.
In the absence of either a scheme of works, 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 LDF Core Strategy as supported by the Habitats Regulations.