Agenda item

Planning Application - Land adjoining 4 Brookfield, Providence Hill, Bursledon, Southampton, SO31 8AU

Outline: Erection of up to 20no. dwellings with associated parking, creation of new access from Providence Hill substation and attenuation pond (landscaping reserved).(Ref. O/17/80899).


The Committee considered the report of the Lead Specialist for Housing and

Development (Agenda Item 8) for construction of up to 20 dwellings with associated parking, creation of new access from Providence Hill substation and attenuation pond (landscaping reserved).


The Committee was advised of the following updates:


Report updates


  Paragraph 11, bullets – Delete ‘Contamination Report’, amend second AIA to ‘Arboricultural Method Statement’, and insert ‘Tree Protection Plan’;

  Paragraph 16 - One additional neighbour representation had been received raising concerns around the level of development in the area and impact on traffic;

  Paragraph 69 - Revised NPPF had been published;

  Paragraph 70 - Updated Planning Practice Guidance – no significant alterations which affected this application.

  Paragraph 80 – Paragraph 11 of the NPPF is now Paragraph 2 of the Revised NPPF;

  Paragraph 83 – Chapter 2 of the Revised NPPF set out Sustainable Development requirements; Paragraph 10 contained the presumption in favour of sustainable development; ‘golden thread’ reference removed;

  Paragraph 84 – Set out in Paragraph 11 of Revised NPPF;

  Paragraph 86 – Core planning principles removed, paragraph 8a identified the need to help build a ‘strong, responsive and competitive economy’;

  Paragraph 90 – Paragraph 8b of Revised NPPF stated that the social objective of Sustainable Development to be supporting ‘strong, vibrant and healthy communities, but ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations…’;

  Paragraph 99 – Paragraph 175c stated that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of, for example, veteran trees, should be refused;

  Paragraph 109/110 – Delete the reference to Paragraph 112 of the NPPF; footnote 53 of Revised NPPF refers to agricultural land hierarchy and Annex 2 defined ‘best and most versatile agricultural land’;

  Paragraph 124 – The aims of paragraph 109 were contained in paragraph 170e; aims of paragraph 124 were contained within paragraph 181;

  Paragraph 141 – Revised NPPF paragraphs 148-154 replaced previous paragraphs 95-99.


Condition Updates –

  Amendment to condition 3 to list most up-to-date plans;

  Amendment to condition 8 to secure compliance with amended Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan;

  Amendment to condition 28 to refer to amended plan revision Y;

  Amendment to informative to refer to Revised NPPF paragraph 38 in place of paragraphs 186 and 187.




That the application be GRANTED, subject to the conditions set out in the agenda and amended conditions as above; and the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement to secure the required planning obligations.


(NOTES: a) Councillor Jane Rich declared a Non Pecuniary Interest in the item because she knew the applicant, left the room, did not take part in the discussion and did not vote; b) two local residents spoke in objection to the application on the grounds of traffic safety, negative impact on air quality and  impact on the setting of Bursledon Windmill and drainage; c) the applicant and one local resident spoke in support to the application; d) Members asked for consideration to be given to using TRO funding towards yellow lines along the junction with the A27 and a speed limit reduction to 30mph; and the use of contributions for bus service infrastructure to support delivery of the service; and that these be pursued with Hampshire County Council as the Highways Authority; and e)  Councillor Craig voiced her concern about the way in which Hampshire County Council’s Highway Department conducted their consultations in regards of new developments on the Hamble peninsula. New developments put a further strain on the road network in the area but the Highways Department did not put sufficient weight on the persistent problem.)


Supporting documents: