Winchester City Borough Council Cabinet Committee: Local Plan Meeting

Apologies were received as noted above.

Councillor Porter declared a personal (but not prejudicial) interest due to her role as a County Councillor.

Councillor Laming declared a personal (but not prejudicial) interest due to his role as ward councillor for Olivers Battery and Badger Farm in addition to being the chair of the local residents’ association and community centre.

Three members of the public/representatives of parish council spoke regarding report CAB3419(LP) and their comments are summarised under the relevant minute below.

Councillor Porter referenced a letter from Lichfield which had been sent to all members.  However, as the letter had been received after the statutory deadline for publication of reports for the meeting and no representatives of Lichfield had registered to speak, the letter would be dealt with outside of the meeting.

The Strategic Director referred to a letter received from the trading arm of Hampshire County Council (HCC) which provided clarification regarding the content of paragraph 10.31 of the report.  She assured members that city council continued to work well in partnership with the HCC.

Councillor Porter introduced the report which sought approval for revisions to the Local Development Scheme (LDS) for reasons outlined in the report.

The Strategic Planning Manager gave a presentation on the proposals to revise the LDS.  The presentation was published on the Council’s website prior to the meeting and available here.

Three people spoke during public participation as summarised briefly below.

Patrick Davies

He queried how much regard could be had to a meeting that had taken place with the Local Plan Planning Inspectorate (PINS) Advisory meeting on 15 June following the later announcements by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on 24 June 2023.  He expressed concern about the impact of the later announcement on the progress on adoption of a new local plan.

Councillor Jonathan Carkeet (Curdridge and Curbridge Parish Council)

On behalf of the parish council, he objected to the omission of the Whiteley, Curdridge and Botley gap from policy NE7 on settlement gaps.  He drew attention to paragraph 3.10 of policy SP3 which had been amended to clarify that large settlements would be protected.  He considered if the settlement gap was not identified there was a real risk of creeping coalescence of development.

John Morse

He expressed concern that tackling climate change underpinned the council’s policies as he did not believe it was a scientifically proven danger.  He believed proposed policies risked undermining people’s civil liberties.

Councillor Porter thanked contributors for their comments which, where appropriate, would be addressed as part of the discussion of the report.  Due to the level of detail, she suggested that Councillor Carkeet also submit the parish council’s points in writing to the Strategic Planning Manager.

The Strategic Planning Manager and Strategic Director responded to questions and comments from members on the following:

a)    Proposals for future community engagement, including lessons learned.

b)    Uncertainty regarding national planning policies and how this would be dealt with by future proofing the local plan.

c)    The resources available to facilitate the work required.

d)    The justification for the number of topic papers proposed.

e)    The predicted availability of employment sites.

f)       The assessed level of risk of amending the local plan timetable set out in the LDS 2020 and the reasons behind recommending changes to the Local Plan timetable.

g)    The recent publication of the Spatial Planning for Climate Resilience and Net Zero report.

h)    Possible provision of land for renewable energy sites.

i)      The predicted five year housing land supply, including windfall sites.

j)      Proposals to meet the requirements to meet the housing requirements for gypsies and travellers communities.

k)    The relationship with the West of Waterlooville masterplan.

l)      The transport assessment and relationship with LTP4 and the Winchester Movement Strategy.

m)  The impact of the South Downs National Park authority working to a different local plan timetable.

n)    The work being undertaken and discussions taking place with the Partnership for South Hampshire (PfSH).

o)    The discussions taking place regarding other statements of common ground with neighbouring local authorities and other relevant bodies, such as Southern Water and the Environment Agency.

p)    Proposals for the Winchester waste water treatment upgrade.

At the invitation of Councillor Porter, Councillor Cutler also provided a brief update on the most recent PfSH joint committee meeting.

Councillor Porter also emphasised the importance of Appendices A and B to Appendix 2 of the report in setting out a robust risk register which would be monitored and maintained, together with a clear local plan programme. 

The Committee agreed to the following for the reasons set out in the report and outlined above.

RESOLVED:

1.             ThattherevisedWinchesterDistrict LocalDevelopmentScheme August 2023, as set out inAppendix2 to report CAB3419 including Appendices A and B, be approvedand broughtintoimmediate effect; and

2.             That authoritybedelegatedto theStrategicPlanning Manager, inconsultation withthe Cabinet Member for Place and Local Plan,to undertakeminorupdating and drafting of any amendments required priorto publication.