®Planning appeal decision
41 Burgess Road, SOUTHAMPTON, SO16 7AP
retention of first floor rear extension and six self contained flats
- Authority
- Southampton City Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Householder developments
- Inspector
- Jones R
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the development on the provision of family housing
- The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area
- The effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to privacy
- Whether the development provides acceptable living conditions for its occupants, with particular regard to outlook, privacy and the provision of internal living space
- Whether a s106 planning obligation is necessary to secure financial contributions for highway improvements, highway damage and Solent disturbance mitigation
What decided it
The development is likely to significantly adversely affect the integrity of the Solent SPAs without secured mitigation, which provides a clear reason for refusal under paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework and displaces the tilted balance.
The modest increase in housing supply was significantly compromised by the poor quality of the accommodation and the Council's small shortfall in housing land supply (0.5 years), and the adverse impacts of harm to character and appearance, living conditions, and Solent SPAs integrity significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.
Framework references: 11, 69, 104, 119, 130, 134, 180, 182
Plan policies cited: Core Strategy Policy CS 5, Core Strategy Policy CS 13, Core Strategy Policy CS 16, Core Strategy Policy CS 18, Core Strategy Policy CS 22, Core Strategy Policy CS 25, saved Local Plan Policy SDP 1, saved Local Plan Policy SDP 4, saved Local Plan Policy SDP 6, saved Local Plan Policy SDP 7, saved Local Plan Policy SDP 9, saved Local Plan Policy SDP 16, saved Local Plan Policy H7, Bassett Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy BAS 1, Bassett Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy BAS 3, Bassett Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy BAS 4, Bassett Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy BAS 5
Judgments cited: Panton & Farmer v SSETR & Vale of Horse DC [1999] JPL 461; Burdle & Williams v SSE & New Forest DC [1972] 1 WLR 1207; R (on the application of Fairstate Limited) v The First Secretary of State and another [2004] EWHC 1807 (Admin); Fairstate Ltd v FSS & Westminster CC [2005] EWCA Civ 238; Newland v Secretary of State [2008] EWHC 3132 (Admin)
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.