Winchester City Borough Council Planning Committee Meeting

Apologies were noted as above

Councillor Rutter advised that the application at agenda item 6 (Land to the East of Burnet Lane, Kings Worthy) was within her ward, however, she had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, therefore she took part in the consideration of this item and voted thereon.

Councillor Read advised that the application at agenda item 7 (Land South of School Lane, Denmead) was within his ward, however, he had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, therefore he took part in the consideration of this item and voted thereon.

Councillor Lee advised that the application at agenda item 8 (Threeways, Heath Road, Wickham) was within his ward, however, he had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, therefore he took part in the consideration of this item and voted thereon.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 December 2023 be approved and adopted.

The Chairperson clarified that under item 6 of the previous minutes, it had been noted that “Councillor Read raised a point of order that Councillor Achwal had left the room for several minutes during the consideration of the item” Following a review of the recording of the meeting, it was clarified that the actual amount of time absent was less than stated and closer to 30 seconds.   

The committee agreed to receive the Update Sheet as an addendum to the report.

The Committee was advised that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for England was revised on 19 December 2023. Although paragraph numbers in the NPPF had changed, these revisions didn't affect the planning considerations or recommendations in the committee reports. The updates mainly involved adjusting paragraph numbers referenced in the reports and the update sheet provided further information on this where appropriate.

A copy of each planning application decision is available to view on the council’s website under the respective planning application.

The committee considered the following items:

Proposal Description: Development of seven dwellings and the formation of a new vehicular access (AMENDED PLANS).

It was noted that members of the committee visited the application site on 9 January 2024 to enable members to observe the site in context and to gain a better appreciation of the proposals.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding several matters including;

1. That an additional condition (26) be included that before development commences, details of the dormouse bridge shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority and thereby implemented and permanently maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details.
2. That an additional condition (27) be included that notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by Classes A and E of Part 1 Schedule 2 of the Order shall be carried out without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
3. In addition, it was proposed to amend the wording of condition 18 regarding Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCP)  and condition 20 regarding details being submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority regarding new access works.

The details of these amendments were provided in full as part of the update sheet.

During public participation, Stuart Garnett and Davog McCloskey spoke in support of the application and answered members' questions.

Councillor Jackie Porter spoke as a ward member and expressed several points on behalf of residents and Councillor Cramoyson which could be summarised as follows.

1. She advised of a non-prejudicial interest due to being the Chairman of the Watercress Way, which extended across the Top Field area.
2. She appreciated the officer's information and update, particularly concerning the biodiversity net gain conditions and that the officer's report addressed most issues previously raised about ecology and access.
3. She sought assurance regarding the security of the developer's stated biodiversity net gain commitment over the next three decades.
4. That the significance of the biodiversity of the Top Field was important and that the developers should be requested to clarify how they intended to ensure the longevity of biodiversity net gain as the properties being constructed would be behind the corridor.
5. That previous objections had led to amendments in design, including moving the footpath to the West, but there was disappointment about the choice of access through Burnett Lane and hope for an alternative access route, as initially anticipated by the community and that the loss of a pedestrian link from the Top Field site was seen as regrettable.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application and received further information from the council's Ecologist/Biodiversity Officer regarding the Landscape Ecological Management Plan and from the Committees Legal Adviser regarding the responsibility for the future maintenance of the road and the status of the Section 106 agreement should the land be subsequently sold.

RESOLVED

1.    The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and the update sheet.

2.    In addition, it was agreed to amend condition 13 to confirm that details of the management company, as stated in section 1.1 of the Landscape Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Proposal Description: Outline application for the phased development of up to 6 self-build and custom housebuilding plots with all matters reserved except for access.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which advised that an arboricultural survey had been submitted by the Agent on the 8 January 2024 and had been reviewed by the Winchester City Council Tree Officer.

During public participation, Martyn Cooper, and Linda Read spoke in objection to the application, Andrew Moger spoke in support of the application and Councillor Kevin Andreoli on behalf of Denmead Parish Council spoke against the application and answered members' questions.

Councillor Paula Langford Smith spoke as a ward member and expressed several points on behalf of residents which could be summarised as follows.

1. This was an application previously submitted for the site's development and previously refused due to policy contradictions.
2. There was a clear contradiction with planning policies CP15 and CP16, failing to safeguard biodiversity and causing significant harm.
3. She believed that some supporters of the application lived outside of the district and that local residents on the whole were not in support of the application.
4. That there had been insufficient local consultation, and consultation that had been undertaken was via Facebook only.
5. The Parish Council's housing needs assessment revealed that even with a 30% discount, these homes wouldn't be affordable for average-income households in the Denmead area and so the application failed to provide genuinely affordable homes, with the affordable plots significantly smaller than others, and previously refused by the committee.
6. The Emerging Neighbourhood Plan aimed at self-build allocation, this evolving plan emphasised development close to village amenities, which this site lacked.
7. The development's placement was far from key facilities, meaning an unsustainable location, with an anticipated loss of hedgerows and a significant impact on oak trees.
8. That the proposal would create an incongruous development, not harmonising with the countryside setting, impacting a public right of way, and contravening Wildlife and Countryside Act requirements.
9. The application failed to justify a countryside dwelling need, contrary to policy MTRA 4 and the Denmead Neighbourhood Plan.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED

The committee agreed to refuse permission for the reasons set out in the report and the update sheet.

Proposal Description: Conversion of garden outbuilding to ancillary living accommodation.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding an update to condition (3) that the annexe hereby permitted shall only be occupied for ancillary or incidental purposes associated with the dwellinghouse (Threeways) and at no time shall be sold off or occupied as an independent unit of accommodation, or be used as a holiday let or for Airbnb purposes (or similar).

During public participation, Joseph McCarthy, and Andrew Kimber spoke in objection to the application, and Eric Cox spoke in support of the application and answered members' questions.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED

1.    The committee agreed to grant permission for the reason and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and the update sheet.

2.    In addition, it was agreed:

a.    Prior to the commencement of the use as a residential annex, details of external lighting locations, luminance and light spill and specifications must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting will be maintained in accordance with the agreed details.

b.    To include an additional informative that as the property lies within close proximity to the South Downs National Park which is a designated International Dark Sky Reserve. It is strongly advised that consideration be given to minimizing light pollution from any internal lighting, especially through any insertion rooflights, by using low transmittance glazing or installing black out blinds.

Proposal Description: Demolition of existing dwelling to allow for replacement dwelling and 2x new properties with associated landscaping.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding the purchase of nutrient credits from The Grange Hampshire LLP. 

During public participation, Ian Donohue spoke in objection to the application, and Dale Whitfield spoke in support of the application and answered members' questions.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED

The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and the update sheet.