Two-bedroom detached house at Land adjacent 159 Bramley Crescent, Southampton

The site and surroundings

The site was garden land within a spacious residential plot, in an area mainly comprising two-storey semi-detached homes.

“This site comprises garden land within the curtilage of 159 Bramley Cresent. This property has a spacious plot of 484sqm containing a semi-detached dwelling. The frontage is covered by hardstanding for parking. The driveway access is shared with 161 Bramley Crescent. Part of the front driveway of no. 161 is incorporated into the red line of site boundary to provide vehicle access to the proposed dwelling.”

“The area is characterised as suburban residential, with predominantly two storey semi-detached dwellings within a uniform estate layout. The modern infill housing in Laxton Close is located to the west. Two infill dwellings have been approved nearby on the following sites:”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal’s benefits outweighed its limited harm and it would assist housing supply.

“In summary, the design and layout of the proposed dwelling would not be out of character with the local area, nor would the development adversely affect highways safety and residential amenity. 10% Biodiversity Net Gain is shown to be achieved.”

“The principle of new residential development is considered acceptable. It is acknowledged that the proposal would make a contribution to the Council’s five-year housing land supply. There would also be social and economic benefits resulting from the construction of the new dwelling, and their subsequent occupation, as set out in this report, as well as make more efficient use of the spacious residential plot.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Design, highways, ecology, contamination, environmental health and sustainability consultees raised no objection, subject to conditions or mitigation.

“Subject to securing mitigation and improvements to biodiversity including mandatory 10% Biodiversity Net Gain. SCC Contamination No objection…”

“Subject to conditions requiring contaminated land risk assessment & necessary remediation/mitigation. Environmental Health No objection…”

Officer report

What residents said

Ten residents objected on grounds including overdevelopment, parking and traffic, privacy and light, construction impacts, biodiversity, drainage and ownership.

“Road safety, parking and traffic impacts - Increased and excessive traffic congestion in addition to traffic from Worcester Place shops and nearby school. Currently, four existing houses share the same corner and entrance area, which already accommodates approximately 10-12 vehicles at any given time. Additional stress to kerbside parking which will displace parking for…”

“Negative environmental impacts and safety, noise & disturbance from construction, and increased noise from future occupancy in a quiet low- density residential area – damage by heavy construction vehicles to Bramley Crescent which is in significant disrepair and neighbouring dropped kerbs/driveways; loss of biodiversity and green space in a neighbourhood with limited natural buffers; reduction of air quality; increased surface water run off and drainage systems;…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident and the applicant addressed the Panel, and a written statement from residents was also considered.

What members considered

Members heard that revised access measurements provided a three-metre gap and that daylight and sunlight assessments showed no adverse neighbouring impact.

“Since the Panel report was published and the amended plans were made public, an amended block plan was received in response to concerns raised by the neighbour regarding the accuracy of the gap for car access between the driveway of 161 Bramley Crescent.”

“Daylight and Sunlight assessments have been submitted after the panel report published. The assessment demonstrated no adverse impact to sunlight and daylight enjoyed by neighbouring properties.”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The committee refused permission because the development was considered cramped and out of character, and lacked secured mitigation for protected habitats.

“Reasons for Refusal Reason 1 – Out of Character & Poor Residential Environment Notwithstanding the small contribution the proposal will make to the Council’s housing land supply shortfall it is considered that the layout and design of the proposed dwelling will result in a cramped form of development, creating an irregular shaped plot that is disproportionately smaller than surrounding plots. The proposed subdivision of the plot…”

“Reason 2 – Impact on Protected Habitats 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.”

Minutes