The Planning and Rights of Way Panel met on Tuesday, 23rd September, 2025 to discuss a number of planning applications and a tree preservation order. Councillor Vivienne Windle, was scheduled to chair the meeting. The panel was scheduled to consider objections to a tree preservation order, and several planning applications relating to properties at Glenfield Avenue, Vernon Walk, Stafford Road and Luccombe Road.

Objection to Tree Preservation Order

The panel was scheduled to consider an objection to the making of the Southampton (345 Meggeson Avenue) Tree Preservation Order 2025. The order protects a single silver birch tree at 345 Meggeson Avenue.

The council's tree team received a request on 26 November 2024 from a resident at the property, asking for permission to either reduce the size of the tree by half, or to remove it completely.

A site visit was undertaken on 15 January 2025 to assess the tree, and an industry assessment tool called TEMPO¹ was used. The report pack stated that the TEMPO scores placed the application of a tree preservation order as either 'Defensible' or the higher classification of 'Definitely merits a TPO'. The Southampton (345 Meggeson Avenue) Tree Preservation Order 2025 was made on 9 April 2025.

A letter of objection was received on 13 May 2025 from the tree owner, along with a petition signed by 8 individuals from 6 properties. The grounds for objection included:

• The tree is disproportionately large for its setting.
• It encroaches onto nearby properties and restricts natural light.
• It interferes with overhead cables.
• Due to its height and shallow roots, it poses a risk during storms.
• The tree does not possess 'exceptional landscape value'.
• It is not rare or unusual and does not contribute significantly to the character of the area.
• The objector did not want to remove the tree, but to reduce it to a more manageable and safe height.

The council responded to the points raised in the objection on 8 July 2025, and the objector requested an update on 25 July 2025. The council responded on 29 July 2025, and the objector requested that the council attach a letter to the tree to inform local residents that a tree preservation order has been placed on the tree to stop requests to have the tree cut down.

The council responded on 6 August 2025, highlighting that the council had served a copy of the tree preservation order on the required properties, and that any resident could request a copy of the tree preservation order if they wished.

On 14 August 2025, the objector stated that they wished to attend the meeting to put forward their case. The email also contained information that states that the council tree surgeons are felling trees within 20 metres of the property and when asked if they were diseased, it is alleged that the tree surgeons stated that they did not know.

The council responded that there were three jobs to fell trees that were within 60 metres of the property, and these were felled on 14 August 2025. Two of the trees were dead and a third tree was in decline.

The report pack included images of the tree taken from the public footpath, and a plan showing the location of the tree.

The report pack recommended that the panel confirm The Southampton (345 Meggeson Avenue) Tree Preservation Order 2025 without modification.

Planning Applications

The panel was scheduled to discuss the following planning applications.

30 Glenfield Avenue

The panel was scheduled to discuss a planning application for 30 Glenfield Avenue, for a change of use from a class C3 dwelling² to a class C2 children's residential home³. The applicant stated that the home would house up to 3 children between 7 and 18 years of age, supported by up to 3 care workers during the day and up to 2 overnight. No external changes were proposed to the building. The application was referred to the panel due to a request by a ward member and because more than five letters of objection had been received. Councillor Rob Harwood, a ward councillor for properties opposite the site, referred the application to the panel due to concerns about the development being out of character, noise and disturbance, and flood risk.

37 representations were received from surrounding residents, raising concerns about:

• Inappropriate development near a school and in area with families and the elderly.
• Impacts of Noise and Anti-Social behaviour
• Problems at applicant's other home within the city.
• No Evidence of need provided of need or suitability of location
• Private for profit care homes not acceptable
• Notification inadequate
• Applicant has a contract with the City Council
• Loss of Family Home
• Risk of Flooding
• Parking and Traffic
• Potential to become HMO⁴ The council's highways officer raised no objections, subject to conditions relating to parking and on site turning, and boundary treatments. The Council's flood risk management team also raised no objections, subject to conditions.

The report pack stated that the site is in flood zone 3, a high risk zone, but that the proposal would remain in a residential use and, therefore, would not be at greater risk of flooding.

The report pack recommended that conditional approval be granted.

3-4 Vernon Walk

The panel was scheduled to discuss a planning application for 3-4 Vernon Walk to vary the opening hours of the premises to 08:00am - 02:00am Monday to Saturday and 10:00am - 02:00am Sundays and Bank Holidays.

The application was referred to the panel because more than five letters of support had been received, contrary to the officer recommendation.

19 representations were received, 3 objections and 16 in support. Those in support stated that extending the hours would improve customer experience, benefit the local community, and give local residents and visitors more time to enjoy their night out.

Those objecting stated that increasing opening times would increase anti-social behaviour, crime and noise disturbance issues for residents in the area into the early hours of the morning, and that it was contrary to policy AP8⁵. The council's environmental health officer raised no objection, but recommended a condition to secure implementation of the recommendations in the submitted Noise Assessment.

The report pack stated that the site is within a designated Evening Zone because it contains a concentration of existing pubs, bars and nightclubs which are either within or close to residential areas. Planning policy seeks to restrict new or extended late night uses in this area to a closing time of midnight.

The report pack recommended that the application be refused due to noise and disturbance, and failure to secure a Section 106 agreement⁶.

89 Stafford Road

The panel was scheduled to discuss a planning application for 89 Stafford Road for a change of use from a House in Multiple Occupation (Class C4)⁷ to an 8-person House in Multiple Occupation (Class Sui-Generis)⁸ with associated refuse and cycle storage. The application was referred to the panel due to a request by Councillor D Shields, due to the number of HMOs in the area, impact on character, and the negative impact on local residents.

Two representations were received from surrounding residents, raising concerns about pressure on communal facilities, disruption, and noise transference.

Councillor Pam Kenny and Councillor Shields both objected to the application, stating that it would exceed the 10% threshold required in supplementary planning documentation covering HMO development.

The council's HMO licensing team raised no objection subject to complying with internal HMO standards. Natural England stated that the application could 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 council's highways officer stated that overspill parking was not considered to be a highway safety concern and is more of an amenity issue.

The report pack recommended that the Panel delegate to the Director of Transport and Planning to grant planning permission subject to the planning conditions recommended in the report and the payment of a contribution towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project (SDMP).

35 Luccombe Road

The panel was scheduled to discuss a planning application for 35 Luccombe Road for the erection of single storey wrap around extension. The application was a resubmission of a previously approved application.

The application was referred to the panel because 5 or more objections had been received.

8 representations and a public petition were received from surrounding residents, raising concerns about:

• Overdevelopment
• Out of character
• Loss of amenity space
• Concerns regarding Ecology & Wildlife
• The 2nd floor large dormer overlooks neighbouring properties
• The development will be converted into an HMO
• Concerns regarding parking and access
• Loss of amenity to neighbours
• Noise, waste and management issues
• Poor Design

The report pack recommended that conditional approval be granted.