Agenda and minutes

It was noted that following receipt of the temporary resignation of Councillor Vaughan from the Panel, the Service Director Legal and Business Operations acting under delegated powers, had appointed Councillor Bell to replace them for the purposes of this meeting.

To approve and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings held 6^th October 2020and to deal with any matters arising.

RESOLVED: that the minutes for the Panel meeting on 6 October 2020 be approved and signed as a correct record.

Report of the Interim Head of Planning and Economic Development recommending that the Panel refuse planning permission in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

The Panel considered the report of the Head of Planning and Economic Development recommending that the Panel refuse planning permission in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

Redevelopment of the site. Erection of a building ranging from 9 to 24-storeys to provide 199 flats with associated access, parking, cycle storage, substation and landscaping.

Dr Bridge – Chair Pacific Close Residents’ Association, Brett Spiller representing local businesses, Gavin Hall (agent), Tim Tolcher (architect), and Councillors Bogle, Noon and Paffey (Ward Councillors) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting. 

In addition the Panel received and noted written representations from Mr and Mrs Braybrook, Mr Richardson (Chair of the Admirals Quay Apartment Residents’ Association and Johnathan Jarman from Bell Cornwell were circulated to the Panel  and paraphrased at the meeting.  The Panel noted that Kristi Roger representing the development company had encountered technical issues but that her statement had been delivered by Gavin Hal.

The Panel then considered the recommendation to refuse planning permission. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Panel:

RESOLVED to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for Refusal

01. Design & the effect on the character and appearance of the area

The proposed development would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area by reason of the following:

(i)  The bulk, excessive scale and massing of the development fails to relate to the prevailing scale and massing of buildings which immediately neighbour the site and results in a proposed building with bulky proportions that fails to create a pleasing landmark within Ocean Village. This having regard to the adopted Development Plan which does not support tall buildings in this location; promoting, instead, the location of landmark buildings on the waterfront in Ocean Village rather than this set-back site where policies require development to relate to the scale and mass of existing buildings within their context.

(ii)  The development would intrude into the clear space in the skyline around the Grade II Listed Royal Pier Entrance Building when viewed from Mayflower Park, lessening this building`s dominance in this vista.  Likewise, the development would impose upon the southern backdrop of the buildings located within Canute Road Conservation Area.  The scale and mass of the new development, coupled with its standard high-rise design fails to create a visual benefit, to these elements which make up the historic character of the area. As such, the proposals would fail to preserve view/s to the nearby heritage asset/s that positively contribute/s to their setting and significance.

(iii)  The paucity of ground floor space or an appreciable setting to the building compounds the scale and massing of the development, resulting in a building which would appear cramped within the site and over-bearing within the streetscene. Furthermore, the ground floor of the development is dominated by servicing, particularly on its southern elevation failing to provide activity to the public realm.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Report of the Interim Head of Planning and Economic Development recommending that the Panel refuse planning permission in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

The Panel considered the report of the Head of Planning and Economic Development recommending that the Panel refuse planning permission in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

Change of use to storage and distribution (Use Class B8). Siting of a shipping container and re-siting of commercial waste bins (Retrospective).

Councillor Savage (ward councillor) was present and with the consent of the

Chair, addressed the meeting.

In addition the Panel received a statement objecting to the application from Mr and Mrs Young, residents in Kent Road, that was circulated to the Panel and read out at the meeting.  It was also noted that officers had received a request to present to the Panel by the applicant, joining instructions had been sent to the stated email address and then resent during the meeting but that no representative had joined the meeting.

The Panel then considered the recommendation to refuse planning permission. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Panel refused planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for Refusal

Impact on neighbouring business operations and sewage disposal associated with the Portswood Waste Water Treatment Works & highways safety.

On the basis of inadequate plans and supporting information, and owing to the proximity of the site to neighbouring businesses and the access to Portswood Waste Water Treatment Works; and the access into the parking area associated with the business park the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed use can be adequately serviced by vehicles (in particular large articulated commercial vehicles) without obstructing access to other businesses and access to the Portswood Waste Water Treatment Works. The proposal therefore prejudices the operation of neighbouring businesses and the Waste Water Treatment Works and undermines the vitality and viability of Itchen Business Park. Failure to demonstrate safe vehicle tracking might also lead to servicing vehicles having to reverse back out onto Kent Road (and vice versa) which would also represent a highways safety hazard. There is also no confirmation that the development would have indefinite and unfettered access over the likely amount of space required within the private roads to perform the turning manoeuvre. As such the proposal is considered contrary to the provisions of Policies SPD1 (i) and TI 2 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015) and CS6 and Cs18of the amended Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2015); as supported by the NPPF (2019).

NOTE: Councillor Savage withdrew from the Panel for this item to make a presentation to the Panel as a Ward Councillor and withdrew from the meeting whilst the matter was debated.

Report of the Interim Head of Planning and Economic Development recommending that conditional approval be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

The Panel noted that this application would be deferred to enable further analysis of technical data prior to coming forward for decision.

Report of the Interim Head of Planning and Economic Development recommending that conditional approval be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

The Panel considered the report of the Head of Planning and Economic Development recommending that conditional planning permission be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

Application for variation of condition 3 (Drainage - retaining wall) of planning permission ref 19/01530/FUL to alter the proposed drainage system.

David Johnston and Gary Annetts (local residents/ objecting), were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The Panel then considered the recommendation to grant conditional planning permission. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was carried.

RECORDED VOTE to grant planning permission

FOR:  Councillors Bell, Coombs, Mitchell, Prior, Savage and

Windle

AGAINST:  Councillor L Harris

RESOLVED that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions set out within the report