Agenda item

23/03214/FULLS - 19.12.2023

(OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION)

SITE: Land East of Premier Way and South of Botley Road, North Baddesley, Southampton,SO52 9DP ROMSEY TOWN

CASE OFFICER: Paul Goodman

Minutes:

 

APPLICATION NO.

23/03214/FULLS

 

APPLICATION TYPE

FULL APPLICATION - SOUTH

 

REGISTERED

19.12.2023

 

APPLICANT

Mr Sebastian Clarke

 

SITE

Land East of Premier Way and South of Botley Road, North Baddesley, Southampton, SO52 9DP, ROMSEY TOWN

 

PROPOSAL

Erection of 16 light industrial units (E(g)(iii) use), and an office (E(g)(i) use), including access, parking, landscaping and drainage

 

AMENDMENTS

Amended plans received 20.02.24, 05.04.24 & 24.04.24.

 

CASE OFFICER

Paul Goodman

 

The Officer’s recommendation as per the agenda and update paper was proposed by Councillor Cooper and seconded by Councillor A Dowden.  Upon being put to the vote the motion was lost.  A motion for refusal was proposed by Councillor Parker and seconded by Councillor A Dowden.  Upon being put to the vote the motion was carried.

 

REFUSED for the reason:

1.

By virtue of the scale and location of the proposed buildings, and the work necessary to provide access to Botley Road from the site, the development would have an unacceptable urbanising effect on the street scene of Botley Road and impact adversely on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would both physically and visually diminish the separation between settlements adversely affecting the distinctiveness of Romsey and North Baddesley and it would represent a significant compromise to the integrity and function of the Local Gap designation. It is acknowledged that the development would provide benefits to the local economy and make a contribution to meeting a need for employment land in the Romsey area. However, the benefits arising from the development (albeit the proposal does not provide for uses that would fall within Use Class B8) would not outweigh the identified harm to the Local Gap and the distinctiveness of both settlements. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies COM2 and E3 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan (2016).

 

Supporting documents: