Agenda item

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

Erection of a 3-storey building comprising of 1 x 3 bed and 4 x 1 bed flats with associated parking and cycle/refuse storage.  Outline application seeking consideration of access, appearance, layout and scale (details of landscaping to be reserved).

Mr Warwick (Agent), Mr Sumra (Applicant), Mrs Clegg (Objector), Councillors White, Baillie and P Williams (Ward Councillors) were present and with the consent of the Chair addressed the meeting. 

NOTE: Councillor Slade withdrew from the meeting for this item.

UPON BEING PUT TO THE VOTE THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION WAS CARRIED

RECORDED VOTE:

FOR:  Councillors Jones, Osmond and Thomas

AGAINST:  Councillors Fitzhenry, Letts and Samuels

NOTE: Chair used his casting vote.

RESOLVED that conditional planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report as amended below.

Reasons for Refusal

01 – Over-development of the site

The proposed introduction of 5 flats would result in the overdevelopment of the site by reason of poor access to natural daylight experienced by the ground floor flat and by failing to provide adequate useable amenity space for the proposed number of units due to the steep gradient of the amenity space. This is having regard to the 9^th June 2010 update to PPS3: Housing, which by removing minimum density requirements has created a shift in considerations which enables greater emphasis to be placed on retaining the spacious and suburban character of the area. The development would thereby prove contrary to the provisions of policies CS5 and CS13 (10 and 11) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document, SDP1 (i), SDP7 (iv) and H7 (ix) of the Local Plan Review (Adopted Version March 2006) and as supported by the Residential Design Guide SPD 2006 (with particular reference to paragraphs 2.2.1, 2.3.14 and 4.4).

02 - Direct impacts not mitigated by planning agreement

In the absence of a completed S.106 Legal Agreement or Unilateral Undertaking the proposal fails to mitigate against its direct impacts and does not, therefore, satisfy the provisions of Policy CS25 (The Delivery of Infrastructure) of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy (January 2010) as supported by the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on Planning Obligations (August 2005 as amended) in the following ways:-

(a)  Measures to satisfy the public open space requirements of the development have not been secured.  As such the development is also contrary to the adopted City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2006) Policy CLT5 as supported by Policy CS21 of the adopted LDF Core Strategy (2010);

(b)  The development triggers the need for an affordable housing contribution and without such a commitment, or an open-book viability appraisal that can be independently verified, the scheme fails to assist the City with its current housing needs issues and, as such, is contrary to Policy CS15 of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy (January 2010);

(c)  Measures to support sustainable modes of transport, the strategic highway network, and site specific highway requirements (such as necessary improvements to public transport facilities and pavements in the vicinity of the site) have not been secured contrary to the adopted City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2006 Policy SDP1 as supported by policies CS18 and CS25 of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy (January 2010);

(d)  In the absence of a commitment to undertaking an off-site highway condition survey the development fails to explain how its impacts will be managed both during and after the construction phase.