Report of the Service Lead, Planning, Infrastructure and Development recommending that the Panel delegate 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 delegated authority be granted in respect of an application for a proposed development at the above address.
Erection of a two storey detached 4 x bed dwelling with rear terrace and associated car parking, refuse and cycle storage.
Paul Kitcher, Dan Scutt (local residents objecting), Paul Airey (agent) and Councillor White (ward councillor/objecting) were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.
The presenting officer reported all references to the National Planning Policy Framework in the report should be to the 2019 amendment and that had had been an error within the report and that the site was not previously developed land as suggested by paragraph 6.2.1. In addition it was reported that a late objection from a Ward Councillor had been received.
Objectors circulated picture montages indicating the height of fencing along the border with number 51. Officers explained to the Panel that little weight could be given to the montages presented at the meeting as they had not been verified.
The officer went on to detail a number of amendments to conditions relating to landscaping, lighting and means of enclosure, site levels, permitted development restriction and amenity space access.
Upon being put to the vote the Panel confirmed the Habitats Regulation Assessment.
The Panel then considered the recommendation to delegate authority to the Service Lead: Planning, Infrastructure and Development to grant planning permission. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was lost.
A further motion to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below was then proposed by Councillor Savage and seconded by Councillor L Harris.
RECORDED VOTE to refuse planning permission
FOR: Councillors Savage, L Harris, Murphy and Wilkinson
AGAINST: Councillors Coombs and Mitchell
RESOLVED to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below:
Reasons for Refusal
1. REFUSAL REASON: CHARACTER
The proposed development is out of context and character with the established pattern of surrounding development taking into account the lack of street frontage, the backland nature and layout in relation to neighbouring dwellings and the requirement for a bespoke engineered access. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policies SDP1, SDP7(i)(iii)(iv)(v), SDP9(i) of the adopted City of Southampton Local Plan Review (as amended 2015) and saved policies CS13 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (as amended 2015) as supported by the provisions of the relevant sections of the Council’s approved Residential Design Guide SPD (September 2006).
2. REFUSAL REASON: IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY
The proposed development fails to provide suitable privacy for existing occupiers at 51 Thorold Road without the erection of a boundary fence which, in addition to the change in topography and existing means of enclosure, will result in an overbearing sense of enclosure to this affected property and its garden. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policies SDP1(i), SDP7(iii) and (v), SDP9(v) of the adopted City of Southampton Local Plan Review (as amended 2015) and saved policies CS13 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (as amended 2015) as supported by the provisions of the relevant sections of the Council’s approved Residential Design Guide SPD (September 2006).
3. REFUSAL REASON: IMPACT UPON SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS
In the absence of either a scheme of works or a completed Section 106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking to support the development the application fails to mitigate against its wider direct impact with regards to the additional pressure that further residential development will place upon the Special Protection Areas of the Solent Coastline. Failure to secure mitigation towards the 'Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project' in order to mitigate the adverse impact of new residential development (within 5.6km of the Solent coastline) on internationally protected birds and habitat is contrary to Policy CS22 of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy as supported by the Habitats Regulations.