Agenda item

Report of the Service Lead, Planning, Infrastructure and Development

recommending that the Panel refuse 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 that conditional planning permission be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.

Redevelopment of the site.  Erection of a single storey building to provide a Lidl food store with parking following demolition of existing building.

The Panel acknowledged that a large pack of late papers had been received on 9 March 2018 from Lidl in the form of a brochure seeking to explain the evolution of the application but voted to continue to hear the application.  This additional information included a counsel opinion but officer’s felt the information did not alter the recommendation.

Steven Galton and Linda Moody (local residents/ objecting), James Mitchell (applicant) and Councillors Denness and Furnell (ward councillors/objecting) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The presenting officer reported that the reference to “SDP7” cited on page 1 of the report under “Reason for Refusal – Impact on Neighbouring Occupiers” should be removed.  The presenting officer added that a late complaint regarding parking had been received from a local resident.

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

RECORDED VOTE to refuse planning permission

FOR:  Councillors Barnes-Andrews,

Claisse, Murphy, Savage and Wilkinson

ABSTAINED:  Councillor Hecks

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

Reasons for Refusal

(i)  REASON FOR REFUSAL – Impact on neighbouring occupiers

The proposed building due to its height, unbroken elevation extending along the common boundary, orientation to the south-east of its residential neighbours and proximity to the neighbouring properties at Mayflower Road would have a detrimental impact on the existing residential amenities of these occupiers in terms of providing an oppressive and overbearing outlook when viewed from habitable room windows in the rear of these dwellings and their associated garden space with additional shading within the rear garden areas. As such the proposal is contrary to 'saved' policies SDP1(i) and SDP9 of the Amended Local Plan Review (2015) and policy CS13 of the Amended Core Strategy (2015).

(ii)  REASON FOR REFUSAL - Lack of Section 106 agreement

In the absence of a completed Section 106 Legal Agreement, the proposals fail to mitigate against their direct impacts and do not, therefore, satisfy the provisions of Policy CS25 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2015) as supported by the Council's Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (2013) in the following ways:-

(a)  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 have not been secured in accordance with Policies CS18, CS19, and CS25 of the Southampton Core Strategy (2015) and the adopted Developer Contributions SPD (2013);

(b)  In the absence of Submission of a Training and Employment Management Plan committing to adopting local labour and employment initiatives, both during and post construction, in accordance with Policies CS24 and CS25 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Adopted Version (as amended 2015) and the adopted SPD relating to Planning Obligations (September 2013);

(c)  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;

(d)  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;

(e)  In the absence of a mechanism for securing the submission, approval and implementation of a Carbon Management Plan setting out how the carbon neutrality will be achieved and/or how remaining carbon emissions from the development will be mitigated in accordance with policy CS20 of the Core  Strategy and the Planning Obligations SPD (September 2013).

NOTE:  Councillor Denness declared an interest and, after he had spoken, withdrew from the meeting for this item.