Winchester City Borough Council
Councillors:
45
Wards:
16
Committees:
67
Meetings (2025):
83
Meetings (2024):
100
Meeting
Planning Committee - Winchester City
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Wednesday, 18th October 2023
9:30 AM
Wednesday, 18th October 2023
9:30 AM
End:
Wednesday, 18th October 2023
1:30 PM
Wednesday, 18th October 2023
1:30 PM
Actual Time
Started:
Wednesday, 18th October 2023
9:30 AM
Wednesday, 18th October 2023
9:30 AM
Finished:
Wednesday, 18th October 2023
4:10 PM
Wednesday, 18th October 2023
4:10 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
18 Oct 2023
18 Oct 2023
Location:
Walton Suite, Guildhall Winchester and streamed live on YouTube at www.youtube.com/winchestercc
Walton Suite, Guildhall Winchester and streamed live on YouTube at www.youtube.com/winchestercc
Meeting Attendees
Officer
Lorna Hutchings
Development Management - Prinicple Planning Officer (Team Leader)
Expected
Agenda
0
Applications outside the area of the South Downs National Park (WCC):
Minutes
0
Apologies and Deputy Members
Minutes
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Edwards, with Councillor Williams attending as standing deputy member.
0
Appointment of Vice-Chairperson for the meeting
Minutes
RESOLVED:
That Councillor Achwal be appointed as Vice-Chairperson for this meeting.
That Councillor Achwal be appointed as Vice-Chairperson for this meeting.
2
Disclosures of Interests
To receive any disclosure of interests from Members and Officers in matters to be discussed.
Note: Councillors are reminded of their obligations to declare disclosable pecuniary interests, personal and/or prejudicial interests, and on Predetermination or Bias in accordance with legislation and the Council’s Code of Conduct.
If you require advice, please contact the appropriate Democratic Services Officer, prior to the meeting.
Note: Councillors are reminded of their obligations to declare disclosable pecuniary interests, personal and/or prejudicial interests, and on Predetermination or Bias in accordance with legislation and the Council’s Code of Conduct.
If you require advice, please contact the appropriate Democratic Services Officer, prior to the meeting.
Minutes
Councillors Read, Cunningham, Achwal and Rutter made a personal (but not prejudicial) interest in respect of item 6 (Site 7, Land off Dyson Drive, Winchester – case number 22/01725/FUL) due to their roles as former Mayors for the Council, who also holds the office as President of the Scout Group (the Scouts being referenced within the report). However, they had taken no part in discussions with the Scout Group regarding the application, therefore they took part in the consideration of this item and voted thereon.
Councillor Lee declared a personal (but not prejudicial) interest in respect of item 7 (3 Linden Close, Waltham Chase – case number 23/01500/HOU) due to his role as Ward Member. 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 declared a personal (but not prejudicial) interest in respect of item 7 (3 Linden Close, Waltham Chase – case number 23/01500/HOU) due to his role as Ward Member. However, he had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, therefore he took part in the consideration of this item and voted thereon.
3
Minutes of the previous meeting
Minutes of the previous meeting held on 27 September 2023.
Attachments:
- Document Minutes Public Pack, 27/09/2023 Planning Committee 10 Oct 2023
Minutes
RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 27 September 2023 be approved and adopted.
That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 27 September 2023 be approved and adopted.
4
Where appropriate, to accept the Update Sheet as an addendum to the Report
Attachments:
- Document October Update Sheet 10 Oct 2023
Minutes
The committee agreed to receive the Update Sheet as an addendum to the report.
5
Planning Applications (WCC Items 6 & 7) (Report and Update Sheet refers)
Minutes
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:
The committee considered the following items:
6
Site 7, Land Off Dyson Drive, Winchester, Hampshire, SO23 7HN (Case number: 22/01725/FUL)
Attachments:
- Document Dyson Drive Committee report 10 Oct 2023
- Document Dyson Drive presentation 10 Oct 2023
Minutes
Proposal Description: Item 6: Development of site to provide 8no. two storey, affordable dwelling houses (2no.2 bed, 6no, 3 bed), including vehicular access from Francis Gardens, plus associated car parking and landscaping.
Prior to determination and for clarification purposes, the Planning Manager confirmed that this planning application had been submitted by Winchester City Council.
The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out in full an amendment and typographical errors to the report on pages 9, 16 and 17; an amendment to condition 13 requiring the proposed dwellings to achieve Passivhaus standard; and an update to the Planning Balance and Conclusion set out within the report.
In addition, a verbal update was provided at the meeting that, if minded to approve the application, an additional standard condition by the council’s Contaminated Land Officer would be added stating that, once development had commenced, if any potential contamination was encountered then details of this and how it could be mitigated would need to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
During public participation, Jack Hardy and Emma Street spoke in objection to the application and Deborah Sunley (New Homes Team, Winchester City Council), Jeremy Tyrrell (architect), Ian Tait and Mark Johnson (landscape architect) spoke in support of the application and all answered Members’ questions thereon.
Councillor Tippett-Cooper spoke as a Ward Member. In summary, Councillor Tippett-Cooper stated that there were compelling and strongly held arguments for and against this application. He raised the following points:
· This land provided flat, safe and fondly used play space for local children, a place to hold community events and was highly valued by the local community who live in the area.
· The objections by the community were set out within a presentation prepared by those speaking in objection. He urged the committee view the important detail and valid concerns contained within this presentation.
· The frustration felt by Abbotts Barton residents to the planning applications point regarding the compensatory space (such as Hillier’s Haven) proposed for this scheme; this was space that the community have already been provided with in compensation for previous development which he considered to be inadequate and needed to be reviewed with a revised compensatory provision put forward to Abbotts Barton residents.
· Councillor Tippett-Cooper also recognised the necessity for the creation of vital affordable homes and advocates for the increasingly long list of families on the council’s housing register that desperately need new council homes to become available.
· It was noted that this site had been earmarked for development for a long period of time and that there was a national and local housing crisis. It was undeniable that there was a clear benefit to the Abbotts Barton community given that this would be six new homes for Winchester families in need of suitable council housing, as well as two further affordable homes.
· In conclusion, Councillor Tippett-Cooper stated that the application came down to a battle between these two competing community interests – housing provision or outdoor community open space?
In response to questions, the council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer clarified the principles in determining planning applications, including the weight given to planning policies, material considerations, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the balance to be considered in the determination of the application by the committee.
The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application
RESOLVED:
The committee agreed to refuse permission for the following reasons, with the exact wording delegated to the Chair of Planning Committee in consultation with the Service Lead: Built Environment:
(i) The proposed development is not considered to accord with policies DM5 and CP7 and NPPF in that the loss of the open space for informal use and benefits of health and wellbeing, without appropriate mitigation in the St Bartholomew’s ward, is not outweighed by the community benefit of the new affordable housing; and
(ii) The recorded deficit of 2.83 hectares in the locality.
Prior to determination and for clarification purposes, the Planning Manager confirmed that this planning application had been submitted by Winchester City Council.
The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out in full an amendment and typographical errors to the report on pages 9, 16 and 17; an amendment to condition 13 requiring the proposed dwellings to achieve Passivhaus standard; and an update to the Planning Balance and Conclusion set out within the report.
In addition, a verbal update was provided at the meeting that, if minded to approve the application, an additional standard condition by the council’s Contaminated Land Officer would be added stating that, once development had commenced, if any potential contamination was encountered then details of this and how it could be mitigated would need to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
During public participation, Jack Hardy and Emma Street spoke in objection to the application and Deborah Sunley (New Homes Team, Winchester City Council), Jeremy Tyrrell (architect), Ian Tait and Mark Johnson (landscape architect) spoke in support of the application and all answered Members’ questions thereon.
Councillor Tippett-Cooper spoke as a Ward Member. In summary, Councillor Tippett-Cooper stated that there were compelling and strongly held arguments for and against this application. He raised the following points:
· This land provided flat, safe and fondly used play space for local children, a place to hold community events and was highly valued by the local community who live in the area.
· The objections by the community were set out within a presentation prepared by those speaking in objection. He urged the committee view the important detail and valid concerns contained within this presentation.
· The frustration felt by Abbotts Barton residents to the planning applications point regarding the compensatory space (such as Hillier’s Haven) proposed for this scheme; this was space that the community have already been provided with in compensation for previous development which he considered to be inadequate and needed to be reviewed with a revised compensatory provision put forward to Abbotts Barton residents.
· Councillor Tippett-Cooper also recognised the necessity for the creation of vital affordable homes and advocates for the increasingly long list of families on the council’s housing register that desperately need new council homes to become available.
· It was noted that this site had been earmarked for development for a long period of time and that there was a national and local housing crisis. It was undeniable that there was a clear benefit to the Abbotts Barton community given that this would be six new homes for Winchester families in need of suitable council housing, as well as two further affordable homes.
· In conclusion, Councillor Tippett-Cooper stated that the application came down to a battle between these two competing community interests – housing provision or outdoor community open space?
In response to questions, the council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer clarified the principles in determining planning applications, including the weight given to planning policies, material considerations, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the balance to be considered in the determination of the application by the committee.
The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application
RESOLVED:
The committee agreed to refuse permission for the following reasons, with the exact wording delegated to the Chair of Planning Committee in consultation with the Service Lead: Built Environment:
(i) The proposed development is not considered to accord with policies DM5 and CP7 and NPPF in that the loss of the open space for informal use and benefits of health and wellbeing, without appropriate mitigation in the St Bartholomew’s ward, is not outweighed by the community benefit of the new affordable housing; and
(ii) The recorded deficit of 2.83 hectares in the locality.
7
3 Linden Close, Waltham Chase, Southampton, Hampshire, SO32 2TZ (Case number: 23/01500/HOU)
Attachments:
- Document 23.01500.HOU 3 Linden Close WC Outbuilding - amended 10 Oct 2023
- Document 23.01500.HOU - 3 Linden Preso 10 Oct 2023
Minutes
Proposal Description: Item 7: Retrospective planning on retention of garden building.
The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out in full a follow up consultation response from the council’s drainage engineer; an amendment to page 56 in respect of the shared access; and two additional comments received in objection to the application on 16 October 2023 raising no new material planning issues.
During public participation, Andrew Burgess and Kevin Joyce spoke in objection to the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.
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 Update Sheet.
The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out in full a follow up consultation response from the council’s drainage engineer; an amendment to page 56 in respect of the shared access; and two additional comments received in objection to the application on 16 October 2023 raising no new material planning issues.
During public participation, Andrew Burgess and Kevin Joyce spoke in objection to the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.
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 Update Sheet.
8
Planning Appeals - Quarterly Report
Attachments:
- Document Appeals Summary Report Q2 - July - Sept 2023 - Planning Cttee 18 October 2023? 10 Oct 2023
Minutes
The Planning Manager provided the committee with a detailed summary of the nine appeal decisions for the period 1 July 2023 to 30 September 2023.
RESOLVED:
That the summary of appeal decisions received during July 2023 to September 2023 be noted.
RESOLVED:
That the summary of appeal decisions received during July 2023 to September 2023 be noted.
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in