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.
Minutes:
The Panel considered the 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.
Re-development of the site to provide a part three-storey, part four-storey and part five-storey building to provide a retail unit on the ground floor and 27 self contained student flats with associated refuse, cycle and car parking (Outline application seeking approval for access, appearance, layout and scale). (Copy of the report circulated with the agenda and appended to the signed minutes).
Mr Wiles (Agent), Mr Clark, Miss Baker, Mr Stacey, Mrs Barter (objecting) (Local Residents) and Mrs Gara (objecting) (Community Action Forum) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.
RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
RECORDED VOTE:
FOR: Councillors Mrs Blatchford, Cunio, B Harris, L Harris
AGAINST: Councillor Thomas
ABSTAINED: Councillors Jones, Osmond
1. Refusal reason - Impact on character of the area
The proposed development by reason of its bulk, scale, massing and design is out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area and would thereby have a harmful impact on the street scene and prove contrary to the provisions of policy CS13 (1, 2 and 11) of the Southampton Core Strategy Development Plan Document (January 2010) and policies SDP1(i), SDP7 (iv) and SDP9 (i) (iv) (v) and as supported by section 3 of the Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (September 2006)
2. Refusal reason - Impact on residential amenity
The proposed development by reason of its height and massing would have a harmful impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring property at 113 Wilton Avenue and would appear over-bearing when viewed from the neighbouring property. The development would therefore prove contrary to the provisions of policy CS13 (1, 2 and 11) of the Southampton Core Strategy Development Plan Document (January 2010), policies SDP1 (i), SDP7 (iv) and SDP9 (i) (iv) (v) and as supported by the Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2006 (section 2.2).
3. Refusal reason - Overdevelopment
The proposal would represent an overdevelopment of the site by reason of the site coverage by building and hard-surfacing exceeding 50% of the site area. The proposal would therefore have a harmful impact on the character of the area of prove contrary to the provisions of policy CS13 (1, 2 and 6) of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (January 2010), policies SDP1 (i), SDP7 (ii) (iii) (iv) and SDP9 (i) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (adopted March 2006) and as supported by paragraphs 3.9.1 to 3.9.2 of the Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (September 2006).
4. Refusal reason - Failure to enter into S106 Agreement
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 adopted Local Development Framework 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) Site specific transport works for highway improvements in the vicinity of the site (including a TRO to secure parking restrictions on Bassett Green Road) which are directly necessary to make the scheme acceptable in highway terms - in accordance with polices CS18, CS19 & CS25 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (January 2010) and the adopted SPG relating to Planning Obligations (August 2005 as amended) - have not been secured.
b) Measures to support strategic transport improvements in the wider area in accordance with policies CS18 & CS25 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (January 2010) and the adopted SPG relating to Planning Obligations (August 2005 as amended) have not been secured.
c) A financial contribution towards the provision and maintenance of open space in accordance with ‘saved’ policy CLT5 of the adopted City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2006), policies CS21 and CS25 from the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (January 2010) and applicable SPG is required to support the scheme and has not been secured;
d) In the absence of a mechanism for securing a student intake management plan, the development would fail to address how the changeover of students would be managed to avoid causing disruption of local residents and harming the safety and convenience of the users of the adjoining highways.
e) In the absence of a mechanism for restricting the ownership of parking permits by prospective residents, that the proposal would not generate excessive overspill car parking which would be to the detriment of the convenience of the users of the adjoining highways.
f) 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.
Supporting documents: