Report of the Service Lead, Planning, Infrastructure and Development recommending that the Panel refuse planning permission 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 the Panel refuse planning permission for the above address.
The erection of a food store (Class A1) and a coffee drive thru (Class A1/A3) with associated access, car parking and landscaping.
Graham Linecar (Southampton Common and Parks Protection Society, objecting) Simon Reynier (City of Southampton Society, objecting), Debbie King (Chief Executive Officer Plus You Ltd, objecting) Mike Allott (Plus You Ltd, objecting) Alan Williams and Rob Williams (agents), Lee McCandless (applicant) and Councillor Streets (Ward Councillor objecting) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.
The presenting officer reported that an updated highways management design had been received but, that officers had not been able to model the design before the meeting to ascertain whether this was an appropriate solution to traffic concerns. It was explained that as a result the recommendation had been amended to delegate to officers the reasons for refusal. In additional Panel members were informed that an objection to the application from the Council’s Open Space Manager had been received.
The Panel then considered the recommendation to delegate authority to refuse planning permission. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was carried unanimously.
(i) to delegate authority to the Service Lead Infrastructure, Planning and Development to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below;
(ii) to delegate authority to the Service Lead Infrastructure, Planning and Development to uphold, remove or amend Refusal Reason 01 (site access) following review of the applicant’s late highway submission (revised signalised junction) by the Council’s Highway Engineers; and
(iii) to note that an extension of time agreement has been received from the developer until 9th January 2019 to provide additional time for the consideration of the late highway submission.
Reasons for Refusal
01REFUSAL REASON - Site Access
The proposal has failed to demonstrate adequate capacity for safe right turn movements out of the site without leading to severe obstruction to traffic flow on Bursledon Road, a main arterial route which has been identified by Highways England as requiring major improvements to improve traffic flow. Therefore the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. Furthermore the proposed layout fails to provide direct pedestrian access from the north, because the site is being developed in isolation, with access for cars given priority over pedestrians. The development proposal is thereby contrary to policies SDP1(i), SDP3, SDP4 and TI2 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015) and CS18 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2015) and paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).
02. REFUSAL REASON - Poor Layout
This application and the adjoining residential proposal (Ref 18/01373/FUL) have not been developed comprehensively or master planned and as a consequence, the failure to provide access from the southern land parcel onto Burgoyne Road without agreement from third party land would prejudice the future development of this site in the event the northern parcel is developed. Furthermore, the proposed layout provides a poor relationship between commercial and residential uses, with the servicing area for the Aldi food store located on the boundary with a potential housing site thereby prejudicing its full delivery. The close proximity of the proposed service area to the boundary with another potential development site, and the sub-division of the wider site into 2 discreet parts by the proposed means of enclosure, and 3m height acoustic fence, would represent poor place making and would potentially provide an unacceptable residential environment for a residential scheme on the neighbouring site. The development proposal is thereby contrary to policies SDP1, SDP7, SDP9 of the City of Southampton Local Plan (2015) and CS4, CS6 and CS13 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2015)
03. REFUSAL REASON – Loss of safeguarded open space
This application results in the net loss of safeguarded open space and fails to mitigate against this loss because replacement open space has not been secured on this site or elsewhere, and S106 contributions have not been secured towards off-site open space improvements to meet the needs of the community and to prevent habitat disturbance. The development is thereby contrary to policies SDP1(i) (ii), CLT3 of the Local Plan Review (2015) and CS21 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2015) which seeks to ensure no net loss of public open space.
04. REFUSAL REASON – Insufficient Landscaping
Insufficient tree replacements and landscaping is provided to mitigate against the loss of existing landscaping, trees and biodiversity habitat and to improve the pedestrian environment. Additional landscaping and trees could be provided had the parking layout not exceeded the Council’s maximum car parking standards. The proposed site coverage with buildings and hard surfacing and lack of soft landscaping is symptomatic of a site overdevelopment and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore the development fails to provide net biodiversity gains. Amended landscaping plan 1294-01 Rev C is not considered to adequately address these issues. The development proposal is thereby contrary to saved policies SDP1 (i) (ii), SDP7(i), SDP12 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015) and policies CS13 and CS22 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2015)
05. REFUSAL REASON - Failure to enter into S106 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:-
(i) 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);
(ii) 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;
(iii) In the absence of a mechanism to secure off-site open space improvements the proposal fails to mitigate against the net loss of open space contrary to CLT3 of the Local Plan Review (2015) and CS21 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2015);
(iv) Submission of a tree replacement plan to secure 2:1 tree replacement and to secure a tree Replacement Off Site Contribution should any off-site replacements be required;
(v) Servicing Management Plan;
(vi) 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); and
(vii) (vii) Employment and Skills Plan.