This meeting was scheduled to consider objections made to a proposed Tree Preservation Order at 27 Highfield Crescent, and to make decisions on three planning applications.

Objections to The Southampton (27 Highfield Crescent) Tree Preservation Order 2024

The Panel were scheduled to consider objections to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) that was made on 9 July 2024 to protect two oak trees (T1 and T2) at 27 Highfield Crescent.

The TPO was made in response to a request from a member of the public. The request stated that:

‘These trees form part of both a wildlife corridor for birds moving from the green valley between Highfield Crescent and Highfield Lane and are a natural break in an otherwise sparsely green street for pedestrians traversing from Portswood to the University via Highfield Crescent. The trees have all been exceptionally well maintained by the landowners over a period of more than 30 years and are a landmark feature of the road.’

Objections were received from Technical Arboriculture on behalf of the property owners, and from the owner's daughter. Technical Arboriculture’s objection included a tree report that questioned the amenity value of the two trees.

The report stated that T1 'is at best fair', and that T2 'has limited public visibility'. The objection from the owner's daughter stated that 'confirmation of the TPO, on grounds connected to the ‘age and health’ of the objectors, would be a disproportionate interference with human rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998'.

The report pack included a response to the objections from the council's tree team.

The response stated that the council 'considers that the placing of the Tree Preservation Order does not disproportionately interfere with the rights of the landowners, under the Human Rights Act 1998.'

The response also included an assessment of the trees that concluded that both trees are suitable for protection.

Planning Application - 24/00694/FUL - Mayflower Park

The Panel were scheduled to consider an application for full planning permission for a proposed development at Mayflower Park. The application sought to approve a third iteration of permission for the erection of a 40 metre tall stainless steel Spitfire Monument, comprising a 1.5 scale replica of a Spitfire aircraft mounted on a curved 'vapour trail' mast above a 32 metre diameter viewing platform.

Previous permissions, granted in 2014 and 2019, both for a 5-year period, have lapsed without development commencing. This application requests a 10-year period.

The application was referred to the Panel by Councillors Noon and Bogle, because it generated objections from local residents and from Councillor Bogle, who stated that she:

'would seek assurance that any changes to the footprint of the monument will not have a detrimental impact on the other uses of the park, the revetements (which need significant investment) and the habitat.'

The Southampton Commons and Parks Protection Society objected to the proposal on the grounds that:

'There is too much uncertainty for the application to be approved at this time.'

They requested that the application be withdrawn on the grounds of lack of funding for the scheme, the impact of the monument on the structural integrity of the revetment, and the lack of a plan to manage the development's interaction with other park users, such as the Southampton Boat Show and SeaWork.

The report pack includes a response to the objections from the council's planning officers.

The response recommends that permission be granted because:

'The principle of this form of development on the waterfront has been established by the previous permissions at Mayflower Park and Trafalgar Dry Dock. The development would not adversely affect the Old Town and its many heritage assets. Other concerns about structural impact and the effect on the operation of the boat show can be dealt with by conditions or through the Council's role as landowner. It is recommended that the Panel support this project once again given the significance of the Spitfire to the City and the mitigation of its impacts on offer.'

Planning Application - 23/00349/OUT - 49-51 Belmont Road

The Panel were scheduled to consider an outline planning application for the redevelopment of 49-51 Belmont Road. The application sought to demolish two existing dwellings currently in use as Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), and to erect in their place a 3-storey building containing 9 flats, with associated parking and cycle storage.

The application was referred to the Panel by five or more letters of objection from local residents.

The letters raised concerns about the number of HMOs in the area, loss of outlook and light for neighbours, increased traffic, and the loss of an existing building that they believed could be repurposed. The City of Southampton Society also objected to the proposal on the grounds that:

'CoSS appreciates care taken in the application to propose height, massing, style and materials intended to fit with surrounding buildings. CoSS however objects to the proposed demolition. The neighbouring property (47) is flats but achieved by retention of the original house and extension at the rear. There are sound environmental arguments (carbon release) for resisting unnecessary demolition and new build. 49-51 have their own individual character which contributes to the overall character of the road. CoSS therefore objects to demolition in absence of any evidence of major structural defects.'

Natural England objected to the proposal on the grounds that it:

'will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the New Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site through increasing visitor numbers.'

The report pack includes a response to the objections from the council's planning officers.

The response recommends that permission be granted because:

'Taking into account the benefits of the proposed development, and the limited harm arising from the conflict with the policies in the development plan as set out above, it is considered that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As such, consideration of the tilted balance would point to approval.'

The response notes that the site is in a high accessibility area, the proposal will not result in a net loss of family homes, and the proposal will achieve a residential density of 66 dwellings per hectare.

Planning Application - 24/01152/FUL - 3 English Road

The Panel were scheduled to consider an application for full planning permission for a proposed change of use at 3 English Road. The application sought to change the use of the building from a dwelling house (Use Class C3) to a 5 bed House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4).

The application was referred to the Panel by five or more letters of objection from local residents. The letters raised concerns about the number of HMOs in the area, noise, anti-social behaviour, impact on property values, and parking.

The report pack included a response to the objections from the council's planning officers.

The response recommends that permission be granted because:

'The proposal is acceptable in principle and, on balance, is not considered to result in any significant adverse impacts on the character or amenity of the area, on parking amenity, or the function and safety of the highway. There remains a need for all forms of housing in the city; including shared HMOs. This would be the only HMO use within a 40m radius and so complies with our current policy and guidance. The comings and goings associated with an HMO use are not considered to be detrimental to the amenity and safety of local residents. A new C4 HMO use would not imbalance the mix of households locally, as 94% of properties within the 40m radius would remain as family homes. Furthermore, a C4 HMO use would contribute positively towards the availability of lower cost, flexible accommodation to benefit the local community.'

The report notes that the application was submitted after an Article 4 Direction removed permitted development rights for the change of use of a C3 dwelling house to a C4 HMO for up to 6 people. The application would result in the first HMO in the area, with only 6% of properties within a 40 metre radius being HMOs. The parking survey provided by the applicant showed a large number of available on-street parking spaces in the vicinity.