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.

Re-development of the site to erect a 4-storey building containing 10 flats (3 studios, 4 x 1-bedroom, 2 x 2-bedroom, 1 x 3-bedroom units) and commercial unit on ground floor with associated parking, cycle and refuse store (outline application seeking approval of means of access, appearance, layout and scale).

Mr Wiles (Agent), Mr Townsend, Mrs Stockwell and Mr Barlow (Local Residents) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

UPON BEING PUT TO THE VOTE THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT ENTERING INTO A SECTION 106 LEGAL AGREEMENT WAS LOST UNANIMOUSLY

A FURTHER MOTION PROPOSED BY COUNCILLOR JONES AND SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR MRS BLATCHFORD THAT THE APPLICATION BE REFUSED

THE MOTION THAT THE APPLICATION BE REFUSED WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1 - The proposed contemporary design including the proportions of window openings, the proposed external materials and the step forward of existing houses in John Street would result in a development that would be out of character with the established pattern of development in John Street and would have a detrimental visual impact on the setting of the Oxford Street Conservation Area.

The proposals are therefore contrary to policies SDP1, SDP7, SDP9 and HE1 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review 2006 and policies CS13 and CS14 of the Core Strategy 2010.

2 - The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information with regard to the measures to be put in place to ensure prior warning and safe evacuation of occupiers of the building in the event of a flood event (flood warning and evacuation plan) or measures to prevent flooding of the building (flood proofing) contrary to guidance set out in PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk) and policy CS23 of the Core Strategy 2010.

3 -Fails to secure S.106 provisions

The proposals fail to mitigate against their direct impacts or satisfy the provisions of policy CS25 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Adopted Version (January 2010), the named saved policies from the Local Plan Review (March 2006) and the provisions of the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on Planning Obligations (August 2005 as amended) in the following ways:-

a) No mechanism is in place to secure the delivery of affordable housing as part of the scheme and, as such, the development is contrary to Policy H9 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review - Adopted Version March 2006  and Policies CS15, CS16 & CS25 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Adopted Version (January 2010) as supported by the adopted SPG relating to Planning Obligations (August 2005 as amended).

b) Measures to satisfy the public open space requirements of the development have not been secured.  As such the development is contrary to Policy CLT5 and CLT6 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2006) and policies CS21 & 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).

c)  Measures to site specific transport works for highway improvements in the vicinity of the site that are directly necessary to making the scheme acceptable in highway terms - 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) - have not been secured.

d) Measures to support strategic transport projects for highway network improvements in the wider area in accordance with policies  CS18 & 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) have not been secured.

e) In the absence of a mechanism for securing a (pre and post construction) highway condition survey it is unlikely that the development will make appropriate repairs to the highway - caused during the construction phase - to the detriment of the visual appearance and usability of the local highway network.

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out above.