facebook.com/HRASouthampton highfieldracomms@gmail.com



Agenda – HRA Meeting: Monday 14 September 2015 at 7.30 pm – ALL WELCOME

Highfield Residents Association Committee Meeting

To be held on 14th September 2015

at Highfield House Hotel, 7.30 pm:  ALL WELCOME

Please note that the meeting will be in the Breakfast Room


  1. Welcome, apologies and declarations of interest.
  2. Minutes of last meeting (previously circulated and taken as read).
  3. Matters arising.
  4. The Common north of Highfield Avenue including plans for roadworks, (Simon). (Highfield Road Agenda PaperDiagram Agenda Paper)
  5. Local Plan Consultation (paper attached below Agenda).
  6. Reports:-

Planning – Latest Planning update



  1. A. O. B.
  2. Date of next meeting .
  3. Reserved business.


Vision / Objectives / Spatial Strategy

6. Agree objective of sustainable development, but add balanced neighbourhoods to definition.

‘Focus development in locations well served by public transport, jobs and facilities’ reads too

passively; active interventions may be required, so ‘…locations potentially well served…’

7. Agree strong protection for parks, open spaces, conservation areas, attractive residential areas;

but add balanced neighbourhoods.

Add ‘Opportunities will be sought to redress the shortage of recreational and amenity space in

some neighbourhoods.’

In safeguarding the Common due regard should be paid to the historic context and community


8. Agree provision of the right type of new homes; add ‘including affordable family homes’.

Minimising congestion and improving air quality requires park and ride.

Agree protection of heritage, green spaces and waterfront access. Add quality neighbourhoods

and conservation areas. Opportunities should be sought to raise the bar in respect of these


9. Add preserving and enhancing balanced and sustainable neighbourhoods.

A Strong Economy and Vibrant City

11. Agree importance of maintaining the character of district and local centres as well as the city

centre by managing flexibility for retail and service uses, to maintain both diversity and viability.

Active policies are required to address blight from strategic empty properties.

14. Managing night-time economy applies to districts such as Portswood as well as city centre.

17. Agree prioritising new employment floorspace on previously developed land; add reference to

relocating un-neighbourly uses.

31 Agree limiting residential development at ground floor level in district centres, with new flats

above. Density and height of buildings needs to be consistent with historic built environment.

Community buildings and uses need to be sustained where possible.

32 Agree importance of preventing over-concentration of betting and payday loan shops, and

controlling over-concentration of food and drink outlets, including clubs and bars, where this will

limit diversity. Welcome protection for well-managed family-friendly pubs as ‘assets of community

value’. Set standards for e.g. scale of supermarkets in district centre locations.

34 Portswood district centre’s current ‘good health’ is fragile, and needs safeguarding e.g. via

transport links.

37 Protect Portswood Road, St Denys and Highfield local centres.

Meeting the Housing, Education and Health needs of a growing population

40 Great care needed in any proposals for intensification of housing in Portswood district centre and

local centres, with potential sites identified in the Plan.

41 Any areas of ‘poor quality open space’ deemed suitable for development should be listed, with

investment to improve nearby open spaces assured.

43 Corner of Thomas Lewis Way and Osborne Road S suitable might be for development?

47/51 The Local Plan should incorporate a ‘Studentification Plan’ (c.f. Chester).

Welcome avoidance of concentrations which will adversely impact on neighbourhood character;

recognise that this tipping point has already been exceeded in most of Portswood/Highfield.

Student housing needs to be more evenly spread, supported by active intervention in

e.g.transport policies such as bus lanes and routes.

The presence of Halls and the extent of ‘flatification’ should be taken into account when

considering extensions.

Existing areas of over-concentration need vigorous protection via strengthened of existing

policies H4 and CS16, together with incorporation of recommendations of the Panel on the use of

Planning to improve Neighbourhood Quality into a revised A4D/SPD, (including withdrawal of

Permitted Development right for HMOs; an additional 100m threshold; no new ‘sandwiching’;

introduction of a 10% HMO limit by ward in areas where Additional Licensing is in force; subject

where necessary to changes in national legislation, enhanced use of Stop Notices on evidence of

intent, introduce additional fees for retrospective applications, HMO applications and appeals,

confiscation of rent for unauthorised occupancy).

Support for new purpose built student accommodation must take account of existing student

densities, however accommodated, to preserve balanced communities. Existing policy H13

should be strengthened. Include Protocol requiring additional University-built accommodation to

fully match consequential additional student numbers as a condition of planning permission for

university expansion (c.f. Oxford), with conditions to prevent subsequent conversion of nonteaching

to teaching space. Welcome adaptability provided this includes potential use as family


‘To Let’ and ‘For Sale/Sold’ signs to be regulated, and outlawed in conservation areas.

Favour an enhanced housing space standard. Add reference to enhanced specifications for

standards for HMOs.

49 Adequate primary school places in need to be assured in Portswood / Highfield / St Denys.

54 Welcome commitment to protecting open spaces (but compare tenor of paras 41 & 43).

57 ‘Small and fragmented’ open spaces may still have a valuable role in densely populated localities

poorly served with ‘green’ space..

58 Including play areas.

Providing and efficient transport and infrastructure network

63 Enhanced bus and cycle lanes and routes are needed to facilitate a more even spread HMOs.

Re safe facilities for walking and cycling, extend the cycleway network, address cycling on

pavements and parking on yellow lines and pavements.

68 Parking standards must be realistic.

69 In light of increasing congestion, park and ride needs to be shorter rather than longer term– how

rather than whether..

Protecting and enhancing our city’s unique environment

76 Welcome emphasis on acceptable materials that respect the local vernacular, not only for

heritage assets but conservation areas and areas of distinctive character.


77/79 Raising the quality of the built environment needs specific measures and standards for all

buildings, not just tall ones. Particular care needed re densities and heights in district centres.

81 Welcome recognition of need for good design in private and shared spaces, including boundary

treatment, bin and cycle storage, parking and landscaping, with prospective review of Residential

Design Guide.

Sustainable Development

85 Welcome continuing commitment to BREEAM ‘excellent’.

Environmental Health

89 Urge more vigorous use of CIL and Section 106, with community input into priorities.

90 Endorse commitment to addressing noise issues.


94 ‘Green Space Factor’ needs explanation.

Flood Risk

95 Note early consultation on River Itchen defences.

Key Sites

Add new para. outlining considerations to be applied to substantial, significant or strategic

‘windfall’ sites not currently foreseeable (such as Ford’s, B & Q, Portswood Bus Depot would have

been at the time of the last Local Plan Review) e.g. local or city-wide asset desiderata,

neighbourhood character and balance, transport and other infrastructure, critical mass of linked

or competitive uses (such as the Cultural Quarter)………


3. p.21 Relevant Plans – Local

Suggest Conservation Area Management Plans should be included.

4.4 p.27 Landscape & Townscape

Should not River Itchen be mentioned alongside River Test as a local landscape character zone? (N.B.

River Itchen SAC is referenced in Section 2.1.1 p.5 of the Habitat Regulations Assessment.)

5.2.2 p.37 SA Objectives

Strange that ‘Protect, enhance and make accessible for enjoyment, the City’s green spaces and historic

environment’ features only as objective 20.

Would like to see more prominent recognition of Southampton Common.


1.3.1 p.3 Southampton Local Plan Background

Bullet point ‘Protect and enhance the city’s rich heritage…’ should head the list.

2. p.5 European Sites

Alongside the listed European sites, consideration should be given to the Common SSI and River Test

(indeed all the local landscape character zones specified on p.27 of the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping


4.2 p.28 Flood Risk – Sites Potentially Affected

Reference should be made to locality of the Priory Road Hard, St Denys and insurance implications to

the stream running under Highfield from the University campus to the River Itchen.

5.2 p.39 Effluent Discharge

Reference impact on air quality of odours emitted from Portswood Wastewater Treatment Works.

7. p.49 Recreational Disturbance

Reference need for balanced approach to historic conservation and community recreational benefit on

Southampton Common.

10.3.2 p.73 Conclusions

Add Itchen Riverside development to list?