Agenda item

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.

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. (Copy of the report circulated with the agenda and appended to the signed minutes).

Redevelopment of the site. Demolition of the existing buildings and erection of 6 part two, part three-storey houses (comprising 5 x four bed and 1 x three bedroom) and erection of a three-storey block of 8 x 2-bed flats.

Mr Oldfield (Agent), Mr Pritchard, Mr Jackson, Mr Wilkins (objecting) (Local Residents) Ms Hiscock (objecting) (Local Resident on behalf of local Neighbourhood Watch scheme) and Councillor Moulton (objecting) (Ward Councillor) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The presenting officer reported 6 additional letters of objection had been received.  The presenting officer also reported an amendment to condition 4 and amendment to clause (vi) to the S106 Agreement, set out below:

4  “………. (g) details of how noise emanating from the site during construction will be mitigated and, (h) details of temporary fencing during the construction process to secure the neighbouring site.  …….”

(vi)  An obligation precluding future residents of the flats and houses receiving car parking permits for the adjoining Controlled Parking Zones.

The presenting officer also reported the deletion of Recommendation 2 in the report and the amendment of Recommendation 3 in the report to delete the penultimate paragraph.

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

Reasons for Refusal

Overdevelopment

The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site by reason of the following:

(i) Notwithstanding the council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Parking Standards, which are expressed as maximum quantums of parking that can be proposed to serve new development, the council considers that the provision of 11 parking spaces would be inadequate to help meet the travel demands of occupiers of the new development.  This would harm the amenity of adjoining residents by exacerbating on-street parking difficulties, owing to overspill parking being generated by the new flats, which cannot be accommodated on site. 

(ii) Two of the proposed houses and the proposed block of flats would not be served by sufficient private and useable external amenity space which is fit for purpose. Having regard to the size of the units which are capable of accommodating families with children and the remoteness of the site to public open space, the development is therefore considered to provide a poor residential environment for future occupants.

The development would therefore provide contrary to policies CS5 (1) and CS13 (4) (6) (7) (11) of the City of Southampton Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document (January 2010) and saved policies SDP1 (i), SDP7 (iv) and H7 (ix) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2006), as supported by the Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2006 (with specific reference to paras 2.3.14 and 4.4.1 to 4.4.4).

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.

RECORDED VOTE

FOR:  Councillor Claisse, Cunio, Harris, Lloyd, Shields and Smith

AGAINST:  Councillor Mrs Blatchford