Agenda item

Report of the Head of Planning and Economic Developmentrecommending 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 for 6 dwellings in total compromising erection of a single storey rear extension and alterations to roof including side dormers to facilitate conversion of existing building into 4 x 1 bed flats and erection of 2 x 2-bed semi-detached single storey houses with associated parking, cycle and refuse storage (Resubmission of 19/00818/FUL) (amended description).

Tracy Teesdale and Ken Raquet (local residents/ objecting), were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The presenting officer reported that there had been additional correspondence from an objector since the publication of the papers for the meeting.  Officers requested that recommendation be amended so that the Panel delegated authority to officers for the confirmation of Habitats Regulation Assessment.

The Panel then considered the recommendation to grant conditional planning permission. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation lost unanimously.

A further motion to refuse to grant planning permission, for the reasons set out below, was then proposed by Councillor L Harris and seconded by Councillor G Galton.  Upon being put to the vote the motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED

(i)  That the Panel delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Economic Development to confirm the Habitat Regulation Assessment

(ii)  That the Panel refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for Refusal

1.  UNACCEPTABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT.

The proposed layout fails to provide an acceptable living environment for prospective residents by reason of the relatively small flat size proposed for flats 2, 3 and 4, when compared against nationally prescribed space standards, the lack of useable floor space within the loft for flat 4, the position and limited outlook to the bedroom window serving Flat 1 in terms of its relationship with the boundary, and Flat 2 being wholly single aspect with north facing windows where occupants would fail to receive direct sunlight into habitable rooms.  As such the proposal is contrary to saved policy SDP1(i) of the amended City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015) and the relevant provisions of the Council's approved Residential Design Guide SPD (September 2006), and particularly paragraph 2.2.1, in respect of creating a quality residential environment.

2.  SECTION 106

In the absence of a completed S.106 Legal Agreement the proposals fail to mitigate against their direct impact and do not, therefore, satisfy the provisions of Policy CS25 of the Amended Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2015) as supported by the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on Planning Obligations (August 2005 as amended) in the following ways:-

a)  Measures to support site specific transport contributions for highway improvements in the vicinity of the site in accordance with Polices CS18, CS19 & CS25 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Adopted Version (January 2010) and the adopted SPG relating to Planning Obligations (August 2005 as amended);

b)  In the absence of a Highway Condition Survey the application fails to demonstrate how the development will mitigate against its impacts during the construction phase;

c)  Either a scheme of measures to reduce pressure from the development on the Special Protection Areas of Southampton Waters or a financial contribution towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project (SDMP) in accordance with The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).