Agenda and minutes

To approve and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings held on 11 October 2022, and to deal with any matters arising.

RESOLVED: that the minutes for the Planning and Rights of Way meeting on 11^th October 2022 be approved and signed as a correct record.

The Panel considered the report of the Head of City Services recommending confirmation of the Southampton (Victor Court) Tree Preservation Order 2022.

Upon being put to the vote the officer’s recommendation was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Panel confirmed the Southampton (Victor Court) Tree Preservation Order 2022.

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

The Panel considered the report of the Head of Green City & Infrastructure recommending that authority be delegated to the Head of Green City & Infrastructure to grant planning permission subject to criteria listed in the report.

Erection of an 8-storey building containing 88 flats with associated infrastructure, landscaping and public realm works following demolition of Friary House.

Simon Reynier (City of Southampton Society), Ros Cassy, (Convener, Old Town Community Forum), Lily King, Maurice Fitzgerald (local residents/ objecting), and Tom Molyneux-Wright (Agent) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting. A statement received from local resident Donna Drozd was received, circulated and noted prior to the meeting.

The presenting officer read out Ward Councillor Noon’s objection verbatim as it had been erroneously omitted from the report. The officer also reported that the Council was investigating the use of funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy to support GP services in the city centre. The officer explained that condition 5 (Contaminated Land) could be removed, following advice from the Contaminated Land team, that there was no significant risk and therefore a full land contamination risk assessment was unnecessary. 

During discussion on the item, members raised the issue and officers agreed to amend their recommendation by the inclusion of an additional condition in respect of CCTV and the variation to conditions 22, 23 and 30 as set out in full below and the requirement for the submission of shadow analysis and changes to the refuse and cycle storage access.

Upon being put to the vote the Panel confirmed the Habitats Regulation Assessment.

The Panel then considered the revised recommendation (2) to delegate authority to the Head of Green City & Infrastructure to grant planning permission and recommendation (3). Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was carried.

RECORDED VOTE

FOR:  Councillors Coombs, Magee, J Payne, Prior, Windle.

AGAINST:  Councillors Mrs Blatchford and Savage. 

RESOLVED:

(i)  To confirm the Habitats Regulation Assessment set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

(ii)  To delegate authority to the Head of Green City & Infrastructure to grant planning permission subject to.

a.  the submission of an acceptable microclimate study demonstrating that, having regard to the existing situation, the proposed building will not significantly harm the existing amenity of nearby residents, cyclists or pedestrians in terms of the microclimate and wind environment with delegation also offered to secure any suggested mitigation.

b.   the planning conditions recommended at the end of the report, as amended below.

c.  the completion of a S.106 Legal Agreement to secure:

  i.  Financial contributions and/or works through s.278 approvals 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 Developer Contributions SPD (April 2013).

  ii.  Affordable housing provision taking account of the current Development Plan and current independently assessed viability appraisal; with ongoing and fixed reviews  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Report of the Service Lead – Infrastructure, Planning and Development recommending that conditional authority be refused in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address, attached.

The Panel considered the report of the Head of Green City and Infrastructure recommending that planning permission be refused in respect of an application for the proposed development at the above address.

Demolition of former car showroom and outbuildings and the erection of two blocks comprising 35 apartments, with associated parking, access, and landscaping (Resubmission 21/00324/FUL).

Councillor Windle was taken ill and did not attend this item.

Katherine Barbour, Simon Reynier (City of Southampton Society) (local residents/objecting) and Richard Carr, Fortitudo (Agent), were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.

The presenting officer reported the following updates: Paragraph 6.4.4 should have read ‘Osborne Road South’ instead of Osborne Road North’; and Paragraph 6.4.3 should have referred to ‘74 Belmont Road’ not ‘47 Belmont Road’.

During discussion on the item, two motions to amend the recommendation by the inclusion of additional reasons for refusal in respect of the pedestrian entrances and accessibility, as set out in full below, was proposed and seconded.  Upon being put to the vote, the amendments to the recommendation were carried.

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

RESOLVED to refuse planning permission.

Reason for Refusal: Overdevelopment

(i)  The layout, scale, bulk and massing of the development would appear unduly dominant within the St Denys Road and Osborne Road South street scenes and would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

(ii)  The proposed layout and excessive level of site coverage (with buildings and hard surfacing exceeding 50% of the site) is symptomatic of a proposal that results in an overdevelopment of the site that is out of character with the established pattern of development within the vicinity.

(iii)  The layout of the buildings, due to the positioning of habitable windows on and close to neighbouring boundaries (74 Belmont Road) results in poor outlook that would adversely impact neighbouring occupiers.

(i)  Due to the absence of sufficient private and useable amenity space that is directly accessible by all occupants of the development, including those with a disability, the proposal fails to provide an acceptable residential environment for occupants of the development. This is particularly having regard to the two-bedroom units of the development which could provide accommodation for families with small children.

Additional reasons for refusal:

(v)  The location of the entrances to both blocks, given their distance from the road frontage, does not provide a safe nor convenient access for all users.

(vi)  Given the land level changes and the chosen design for block A, including the absence of a lift, the scheme fails to meet the day-to-day needs of all users to enable those occupiers and their visitors that are less mobile to access either the units nor the shared communal amenity terrace.  As such the scheme does not provide full access and fails in its duties under the Equalities Act, as supported by the Development Plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.