Agenda and minutes

It was noted that following receipt of the temporary resignation of Councillor Barnes-Andrews from the Panel, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, acting under delegated powers, had appointed Councillor Shields to replace them for the purposes of this meeting.

To approve and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings held on 20^th June 2017 and to deal with any matters arising, attached.

RESOLVED: that the minutes for the Panel meeting on 20 June 2017 be approved and signed as a correct record.

The Panel considered the report of the Head of Service seeking confirmation of tree preservation order

Reverend Angus Parker (objecting) and Councillor Lewzey (ward councillor objecting) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

RECORDED VOTE to confirm the Tree Perseveration Order

FOR:  Councillors Denness, Hecks, Murphy, Savage and

Wilkinson

ABSTAINED:  Councillor Shields

RESOLVED that the Panel confirmed The Southampton (Holy Saviours Church) Tree Preservation Order 2016 (Appendix 1) without modifications.

Report of the Service Lead, Planning, Infrastructure and Development recommending that the Panel delegate approval in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

The Panel considered the report of the Service Lead, Planning, Infrastructure and Development recommending delegated authority be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

Demolition of existing public house Class (A4) and erection of 6 x 4 bed semi-detached dwellings with associated car parking, cycle and refuse storage.

Nick Billington (agent) and Councillor Payne (ward councillors) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The presenting officer reported that since the publication of the paper a further 3 objections had been received.  It was also noted that a car parking Survey and a set of shadow diagrams had been submitted.  The Panel sought clarification that the once constructed the properties could not be used as houses of multiple occupation and were given an assurance that an additional condition would be added to safeguard against this possibility, set out below.

The Panel then considered the recommendation to delegate authority to the Service Lead: Planning, Infrastructure and Development to grant planning permission. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was carried.

RECORDED VOTE to grant planning permission

FOR:  Councillors Denness, Hecks, Murphy, Shields

and Wilkinson

ABSTAINED:  Councillor Savage

RESOLVED that the Panel:

  (i)  Delegated approval to the Service Lead – Planning, Infrastructure and Development Manager to grant planning permission subject to any amendments set out below and the completion of a S.106 Legal Agreement to secure:

a.  Financial contributions towards site specific transport contributions for highway improvements in the vicinity of the site in line with Policy SDP4 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (as amended 2015), policies CS18 and CS25 of the adopted LDF Core Strategy (as amended 2015) and the adopted SPD relating to Planning Obligations (September 2013);

b.  Submission of a highway condition survey to ensure any damage to the adjacent highway network attributable to the build process is repaired by the developer

c.  Either a scheme of measures or a financial contribution towards SDMP to mitigate against the pressure on European designated nature conservation sites in accordance with Policy CS22 of the Core Strategy and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

d.  An obligation to preclude future residents being issued with car parking permits.

  (ii)  In the event that the legal agreement is not completed or progressing within a reasonable timeframe after the Planning and Rights of Way Panel, the service lead – Infrastructure, Planning and Development will be authorised to refuse permission on the ground of failure to secure the provisions of the Section 106 Legal Agreement, unless an extension of time agreement has been entered into.

  (iii)  That the Service Lead, be given delegated powers to add, vary and /or delete relevant parts of the Section 106 agreement and/or conditions as necessary. In the event that the scheme’s viability is tested prior to planning permission being issued and, following an independent assessment of the figures, it is no longer viable to provide the full package of measures set out above  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Report of the Service Lead, Planning, Infrastructure and Development recommending that the Panel delegate approval in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

The Panel considered the report of the Service Lead, Planning, Infrastructure and Development recommending delegated authority be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

Erection of a 7-storey building to provide 12 flats (4 x 1-bedroom, 8 x 2-bedroom) and two floors of offices with associated parking and landscaping.

Dene Seanor and Dave Jobbins (objecting), and Kerry Futter (agent) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The Panel considered the recommendation to delegate authority to the Service Lead: Planning, Infrastructure and Development to grant planning permission. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was lost.

A further motion to refuse to delegate approval to the Service Lead: Planning, Infrastructure and Development for the reasons set out below was then proposed by Councillor Denness and seconded by Councillor Hecks.

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

Reasons for Refusal

1.  Overdevelopment and cramped appearance of the site

Due to the small footprint of the site and land level changes the proposal results in an overdevelopment of site with a cramped appearance, which leads to the development being located unacceptably close to the boundary with the adjacent industrial estate. Furthermore, the proximity to the industrial estate, and particularly an existing chimney on the site’sboundary provides harm to the outlook that the future occupiers would enjoy to the detriment of their amenity. As such the proposal is contrary to policies; SDP1, SDP7 and SDP9 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (Amended 2015), CS13 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2015) and paragraphs 2.2.1-2.2.2 of the approved Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2006).

2.  Impact on noise due to proximity of development to adjacent industrial estate

Further to the above, the siting of the development adjacent to the industrial estate leads to a development that potentially harms future occupiers’ residential amenities in terms of noise, disturbance and potential harm from pollution, particularly if the chimney is repaired on a like for like basis and becomes operational once more. This is exacerbated further by the failure of the applicant to provide an acoustic report to enable officers to fully assess the impact of the development in term of noise. Additionally, the proposal may prejudice the current and future occupiers of the industrial units due to potential conflict with working hours, which could result in noise complaints, that could lead to calls to restrict the industrial units activities impacting on the local economy.  As such the proposal is contrary to policies SDP1, SDP7 and SDP16 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (Amended 2015), CS7 and CS13 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2015) and paragraph 123 – bullet point 3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), which seeks to protect existing business and residential amenity.

3.  Failure to enter into S106 agreement

In the absence of a completed Section 106 Legal Agreement, the proposals fail to mitigate against  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Report of the Service Lead, Planning, Infrastructure and 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 Service Lead, Planning, Infrastructure and Development recommending that conditional planning permission be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

The installation of new refrigeration plant and AC unit, external cold-room, barrier rail, access door, relocated existing AC unit and cycle racks.

Dave Ross (local resident objecting), Councillor Hecks (ward councillor objecting) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The Panel expressed concern that the new equipment should cause any additional noise

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 Denness, Shields and Wilkinson

ABSTAINED:  Councillors Murphy and Savage

RESOLVED that the Panel approved conditional planning approval subject to the conditions set out within the report and the amended condition set out below.

Amended Condition

CONDITION 2 – NOISE

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details outlined in the submitted ‘Noise Impact Assessment’ (dated 13/04/2017), with suitable noise mitigation installed and operated in accordance with the noise levels set out in the report. The development shall be maintained and operated in accordance with these details as such thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To protect the amenities of nearby occupiers.

NOTE: Councillor Hecks withdrew from the Panel for this item to make a presentation as Ward Councillor.