Agenda item

To approve and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 March 2013 and to deal with any matters arising, attached.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 26 March 2013 be approved and signed as a correct record subject to the following amendment to minute number 117, (Mental Health Day Centre, Bedford House, Amoy Street 12/00381/OUT), set out below:

RESOLVED that the applicant be invited to withdraw the application and if withdrawal is not forthcoming that the application be refused for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for Refusal

01. Refusal reason - Impact on Character and Residential Amenity

The creation of a vehicular access route through the site which links Amoy Street to Canton Street would have a harmful impact on the character and community of Canton Street which is currently a quiet cul-de-sac. There are other solutions to refuse collection arrangements which could be pursued and which would not adversely impact on the amenities of the residents of Canton Street and business within Henry Street. The proposal would therefore prove contrary to the provisions of saved policy SDP1 (i) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review 2006 and policy CS13 (2) of the Southampton Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010. 

02. Refusal reason - Failure to enter into a Section 106 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) As the scheme triggers the threshold for the provision of affordable housing it is expected to provide a contribution to affordable housing to assist the City in meeting is current identified housing needs as required by Policy CS15 from the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document  (January 2010)

b) Site specific transport works for highway improvements in the vicinity of the site 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.

c) 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.

d) 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;

e) A financial contribution towards the provision of a new children's play area and equipment in accordance with policy CLT6 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;

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.

g) In the absence of a mechanism for preventing future residents of the development from receiving car parking permits for adjoining Controlled Parking Zones, the proposal is likely to result in overspill car parking which would represent harm to the amenities of neighbouring residents, contrary to saved policy SDP1 of the Local Plan Review 2006.

h) In the absence of a contribution towards improvements to the public realm within the city centre, the proposal would prove contrary to policies CS13 and CS25 of the Core Strategy 2010  and the adopted SPG relating to Planning Obligations (2005).