Winchester City Borough Council Planning Committee Meeting

1.    In respect of agenda item 5, (Land at Locks Farm, Botley Road, Bishops Waltham) Councillor Evans declared a personal but not prejudicial interest in that she was acquainted with the Bishops Waltham Parish Council representative.

2.    In respect of agenda item 5, (Land at Locks Farm, Botley Road, Bishops Waltham) Councillor Pearson advised of a personal but not prejudicial interest that he was a member of the Winchester District Board of “CPRE the Countryside Charity”, formerly known as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England.

3.    In respect of agenda item 7, (The Haven School Lane Headbourne Worthy Hampshire SO23 7JX) Councillor Rutter advised that she had a close, personal connection to both Headbourne Worthy Parish Council and the principal objector. To remove any possibility of perceived bias she would leave the room for that item and take no part in the determination of the application.

4.    In respect of agenda item 9, (10 The Soke, Alresford, Hampshire, S024 9DB) Councillor Evans declared a personal but not prejudicial interest in that she was acquainted with the applicant.

RESOLVED:

 That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 8 February 2023 be approved and adopted.

The committee agreed to receive the update sheet as an addendum to report PDC1216.

A copy of each planning application decision was available to view on the council’s website under the respective planning application. The committee considered the following items:

Proposal Description: Solar farm including new access road, permissive footpath, and associated development (May Affect a Public Right of Way; May Affect Setting of Listed Buildings) (Revised Description & Revised Details)

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

1. Further public representations received and associated officers' comments. 
2. Further comments received from the applicant and associated officers’ comments. 
3. Proposed changes to condition 7 (Construction Environment Management Plan), and condition 18 (Working Hours).
4. Proposed additional informatives to be included at numbers 13, 14, and 15.
5. An additional representation from “CPRE, the countryside charity” and associated officers' comments.
6. A summary of a written representation from Councillor Kurn, a Bishops Waltham Ward Councillor. 

In addition, it was advised that there was a typographical error in the additional informative number 15, which should have read "farthest away" instead of "closest" to the nearest noise-sensitive property.

During public participation, Emma Rosling spoke in objection to the application, and James Jamieson (agent), and Bill Gunyon (on behalf of Winchester Action on Climate Crisis) spoke in support of the application. Councillor Josie Wood, Bishops Waltham Parish Council spoke in support of the application and Councillor David Ogden, Shedfield Parish Council spoke against the application and answered members' questions. 

Councillor Malcolm Wallace spoke as a Central Meon Valley Ward Councillor and expressed several points on behalf of residents which could be summarised as follows:

1.       That the UK's energy policy required an affordable, clean, and secure energy supply and that the government aimed to increase solar energy capacity five-fold by 2035.

2.       That the proposal was for an 18-megawatt solar farm, enough to power 5.5 thousand homes.

3.       That large-scale projects were encouraged to locate on previously developed or lower-value land.

4.       Officers had prepared a detailed review of the application, with no objections subject to conditions.

5.       He noted that no objection had been received from WCC Environmental Protection, WCC Ecology Officer, WCC Sustainability Officer, WCC Tree officer, The Environment Agency, National Grid, and Natural England.

6.       He acknowledged that concerns had been raised about the proposal, including issues around location, access, and listed buildings but felt that on balance he did not believe there was sufficient reason to overturn the officer's recommendation.

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.

In addition, it was agreed that:

1.    A note would be added to condition 26 to link it to informative 15. 

2.    That the committee delegates the final version of the legal agreement to the Service Lead - Legal and Service Leader - Built Environment.

3.    That informative 15 is amended to say "furthest" instead of "closest as outlined above.

Proposal Description: A Pedestrian Gate to be inserted between the outer brick wall of 5 Lockburn Place and St Cross Garage opening inwards providing access to the pavement behind the new recessed parking area on Cripstead Lane.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding a further objection received on 8 March 2023, which suggested:

1. That there was an inaccuracy in the drawings relating to the height of the single-storey element of no 5.
2. That there was a ground-floor window in the garage.

During public participation, Ann Jones and Tim Venters spoke in objection to the application, and Catherine Brill (applicant) spoke in support of the application.   

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.

(PDC1217)

The Service Lead: Built Environment introduced the report which provided the committee with a detailed summary of the five appeal decisions for the period 1 October 2022 to 31 December 2022. In summary, the report advised the following:

• Appeals allowed = 2 (40%)
• Appeals dismissed = 2 (40%)
• Appeal withdrawn = 1 (20%)

Members discussed the contents of the report.

RESOLVED:

That the summary of appeal decisions received from 1 October 2022 to 31 December 2022 be noted.

Proposal Description: Demolition of Existing and Replacement Dwelling and Garage with associated Minor Site Works. (AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED 24.10.2022).

The application was introduced, and members were referred to the update sheet which confirmed that the name of the neighbouring property had changed from Chessaumy to The Alpines.

During public participation, Chris Welland spoke in objection to the application, Philip Carr (applicant) spoke in support of the application and Belinda Baker, Parish Clerk, Headbourne Worthy Parish Council spoke against 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.

Proposal Description: Dormer Roof Extension.

The application was introduced and during public participation, Jeremy Tyrrell and Thomas Thwaites (agent) 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 refuse permission for the reasons set out in the report.

Proposal Description: Demolition of existing and proposed replacement dwelling and garage and associated minor site works.

The application was introduced, and members were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding the proposed conditions. Several of the conditions had been amended in agreement with the applicant to avoid unnecessary pre-commencement requirements. The amended conditions were numbers 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 with the amended wording highlighted in bold text in the update sheet.

During public participation, Sue Hoar spoke in objection to the application, and Mr and Mrs Bulloch (applicant) 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. 

Proposal Description: Erection of two-storey side and rear extensions to dwelling.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which provided a representation from Cllr Fiona Isaacs, one of the ward councillors in support of the application.

During public participation Michael Knappett spoke in support of the application and Councillor David Quirk, Bighton Parish Council spoke in support of the application and answered members' questions. 

Councillor Russell Gordon Smith spoke as one of the ward members and expressed several points on behalf of residents which could be summarised as follows: 

1.    That the design of the proposed development was appropriate to the site and well-presented.

2.    That the proposal was supported by the parish council and other residents in the area.

3.    That the proposed development would have no significant impact on the surrounding site.

4.    That the application hinged on local plan policy DM3, which aimed to keep low-cost housing for young families and that the wording of this policy enabled some flexibility in interpretation.

5.    That flexibility existed in policy DM3 to allow a young and expanding family to live there who had been fully involved in the community.

6.    That the planning officers had been diligent and thorough in their work, but he urged the committee to overturn the officer's recommendation.

Councillor Margot Power spoke as one of the ward members and expressed several points on behalf of residents which could be summarised as follows:

1.    That Apple Tree Cottage was a small, well-designed house in a lovely site, but noted that it was cramped and had limited headroom in the bedrooms.

2.    That one unintended consequence of policy DM3 was that medium-sized houses were getting bigger and more expensive, while small houses remained the same size.

3.    That the addition of a third bedroom and space to work from home would allow a young family to remain in the area.

4.    That the proposed changes would result in a minimal increase in the building's footprint.

5.    That the area suffered from a lack of people under 60, and approving the plans would enable a family to stay in the community.

6.    That she supported the approval of the plans and asked the committee to permit the proposed development.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED

The committee voted against the recommendation to refuse planning permission and instead voted to grant permission for the proposal. In reaching this decision they raised the following planning matters which weighed in favour of granting planning permission:

1.    That even though the proposal amounted to a 54% increase, overall, this property would remain a relatively small dwelling.

2.    That the proposal did not breach the 3-bedroom threshold.

3.    That the community support raised points that the dwelling would remain a relatively small dwelling and did not breach the 3-bedroom threshold should weigh in the planning balance. 

4.    That no identified harm in design or impact on the landscape was established.

In addition, it was agreed that:

1.    This approval should be linked to the original granting of planning permission.

2.    That the drafting of relevant conditions and informatives be delegated to the Service Lead – Built Environment in liaison with the Chairperson.