Agenda item

Report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending approval be refused in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address, attached.

Change of use from Class C3 to a Sui Generis 15 bedroom student house (alternative proposal to planning application reference 11/01026/FUL)

Mr Singh (Applicant), Mr Willis, Mr Foster (Local Residents) and Mr Gillen (Highfield Residents Association) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

UPON BEING PUT TO THE VOTE THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION AND TAKE ENFORCEMENT ACTION TO SECURE THE CESSATION OF USE OF THE PROPERTY AS A SUI GENERIS HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

RESOLVED

(i)  that change of use of planning permission be refused for the reasons set out below; and

(ii)  that authority be given for the Planning and Development Manager to take enforcement action.

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

The local planning authority considers that the intensification of residential occupation of the property from either family occupation within class C3, or from a C4 occupation by up to 6 unrelated persons, to occupation as a Sui Generis House in Multiple Occupation by 15 persons would cause serious harm, contrary to policies of the Development Plan for Southampton (SDP7 (v), H4 and SDP16) Local Plan Review (March 2006) and CS16 (3) Core Strategy (January 2010).  The proposed use is also considered contrary to relevant advice set out in Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) and the consultation draft of the Draft National Planning Policy Framework.  The harm from this over intensive use of the property would manifest itself in the following ways:-

(i)  Disturbance to neighbouring occupiers from comings and goings to and from the site by 15 separate students at various times of the day and night and their use of the garden at the property, potentially more likely to be at unsocial hours (being that the tenants are to be students with more active lifestyles), which would not be compatible with the surrounding family housing;

(ii)  Adversely affect the character and nature of occupation of this immediate part of the street, by causing the loss of a single family house, in a street predominantly comprised of family houses and making it more difficult for the local planning authority to resist similar proposals in this street in the future;

(iii)  Be likely to cause overspill parking difficulties in the street, prejudicial to highway safety with people having to park tight to others’ driveways and access points, detrimentally interfering with driver visibility when emerging into the street, whilst also not demonstrating adequate secure cycle storage as an alternative to the private car;

(iv)  Not demonstrating adequate refuse storage facilities, where the visual impact of the quantum of such storage would be likely to be visually intrusive in the street scene, given that the open forecourt of the property is the only realistic place to store refuse; and,

(v)  Not demonstrating convenient access through the building by occupiers of the separate tenancy agreement for 8 persons in the front of the property, sought through ‘saved’ Policy H4 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2006) as supported by Section 4.4 of the Residential Design Guide (September 2006).

NOTE: Councillor Jones declared a prejudicial interest in the above item and withdrew from the meeting.