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).

Part three/part four storey extension (following part demolition of existing building) to form student accommodation (19 self-contained studios and cluster flats comprising 62 study bedrooms) managed as a hall of residence above and to the rear of retained ground floor commercial units with associated amenity space, parking and other facilities and vehicular access from Westridge Road.  (Outline application seeking approval for Access, Appearance, Layout and Scale with Landscaping reserved) (amended with revised design and internal layout, removal of rear pedestrian entrance and introduction of manager's flat).

Mr McDermott (Agent), Dr Buckle, Mrs Jameson (objecting) (Portswood Residents Garden Association), Mr Gillen (objecting) (Highfield Residents Association), Councillors Vinson and Norris (objecting) (Ward Councillors) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The presenting officer suggested amendments to conditions 11 and 20 and two additional conditions:

·  Amend condition 11 to also require details of parking, material storage, and construction method during construction to ensure that the access to the rear of the shop was not impeded and servicing could take place.

·  Amend condition 20 to ensure 24 hour occupation of the manager’s office

·  Additional condition to require details to show how the development will not prevent obstruction to the footway and highway during construction, particularly with details of construction cranes and parking

·  Additional condition to require details of the refuse store

RESOLVEDto refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for refusal

Overdevelopment / Over-intensive use

The proposal is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site by reason of its scale, bulk and massing. Moreover the amount of development sought represents an over-intensive use of the site creating a crowded and poor living environment and a level of general activity that would be detrimental to the residential amenities of nearby residents. The development is therefore contrary to policies SDP1(i), SDP7 (iii) (iv), SDP9 (i) (v) and H2 (iii) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (March 2006) and policies CS3, CS5(1) and CS13(1) (10) (11) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (January 2010) as supported by the Residential Design Guide SPG.

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

b) 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.

c) A financial contribution towards the provision and maintenance of public open space (including sports pitches) 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;

d) In lieu of an affordable housing contribution an undertaking by the developer that only students in full time education will be permitted to occupy the flats;

e) The submission and implementation of a Student Drop Off/Collection Management Plan committing to an ongoing review of the site;

f) A Site Waste Management Plan;

g) Submission and implementation within a specified timescale of a Travel Plan;

h) No student, with the exception of registered disabled drivers, shall be entitled to obtain parking permits to the Council’s Controlled Parking Zones;

i) The securing of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for implementation of localised parking permit scheme in the streets adjoining Westridge Road, subject to positive outcome from consultation with local residents;

j) 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;

k) The development signs up to the national best practise code for student accommodation (not managed and controlled by educational establishments) or equivalent best practise (SASSH).

RECORDED VOTE

FOR:  Councillors Mrs Blatchford, Claisse, Cunio, Harris and Shields

ABSTAINED:  Councillor Smith