Decision details

Councillor Horrill introduced the Report.  In summary, the process over the previous 18 months in drafting the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was explained.  This had ensured that the SPD reflected the aspirations of stakeholders, residents and other interested parties.  Councillor Horrill thanked the Project Team for their hard work during this period, developing the document and hosting various and extensive engagement exercises.  Councillor Horrill drew attention to the Public Realm and Framework Plan which was part of the SPD at Section3 (page 27) and had been issued separately to Members. 

During public participation, two members of the public and/or members of local interest groups spoke as summarised below.

Patrick Davies

·         That the SPD now included various changes which had been made without explanation.  The matters raised at The Overview and Scrutiny Committee should have also more specifically related to.

·         Reference to the status of the Informal Policy Group (IPG) meeting on 7 June 2018 (as referred to in the Report’s Recommendation 3) was queried as the IPG had not been formally reappointed at the Cabinet meeting on 17 May 2018. 

·          Why was recent relevant case law not referenced at an earlier stage? 

The Chairman thanked Mr Davies for his contribution.  It was pointed out that the SPD, as set out, was inclusive of advice obtained from Counsel, having regard to recent relevant case law and actions appropriate to comments submitted during the extensive consultation exercises.  This included that of The Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 

Phill Gagg (WINACC)

·         Consultation on the SPD had been undertaken very well and the document, which overall was good, was also full of good ideas.  It should be taken forward into the Local Plan process.  It was hoped that the final outcome was deliverable.

·         WINACC welcomed the SPD’s reference to a sustainability approach to development. It was appreciated that although there was some reference to walking and cycling, that the Movement Strategy would, in due course, build further on this.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor Thompson addressed Cabinet as summarised below.

Councillor Thompson

·         The public engagement throughout the SPD’s development had been exemplary and should be used as model for future similar exercises.

·         Although there were good principles within it, the SPD, overall, was disappointing as the aspirations etc within now appeared to have been ‘watered down’.  Was it to a sufficient standard to meet the challenges of the planning process?

·         The report’s recommendations made no reference to a commitment, about how the public were to be engaged with as part the next stages of the scheme’s delivery. Recommendation 6 should specify that there should be a full programme of meetings arranged to consider the development framework plan. 

The Chairman explained that the Cabinet (Central Winchester Regeneration) Committee was now the mechanism to take forward the scheme and would map out a programme at its first meeting.  With regards to the SPD, although how some changes had been made to the document, the principles of the SPD had not been changed.

Cabinet Members welcomed the SPD.  During discussion the Chairman referred to the retail needs assessment reports undertaken and that Winchester’s lower than average vacancy rate (compared to the national average) was reflective of its successful retail environment which was inclusive of independent traders.  With regard to archaeology, she also advised that the Cabinet (Central Winchester Regeneration) Committee would look at this important aspect and have regard to any other specific actions going forward.

The Chairman drew Cabinet’s attention to some proposed further amendments to the updated draft SPD which were agreed.  Appendix 2 in the October 2017 draft of the SPD had included some factual information on the history of Winchester.  Therefore, original paragraphs A2.1.1 in Appendix 2 would be reinstated to this version.  In addition, on page 21 the sentence at paragraph 3.1.4 in the October 2017 draft made reference to further guidance at paragraphs 3.4 to 3.9.  This would be re-instated.

Cabinet agreed to the following for the reasons outlined above and set out in the Report.

            RESOLVED:

1.            That the proposed amendments to the SPD, following the consultation exercise with the public, be supported.

2.            Than the proposed amendments to the SPD following Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the 4 June 2018 at paragraphs 6.59 to 6.65, be supported.

3.            That the proposed amendments to the SPD following the Informal Policy Group meeting on the 7 June 2018 at paragraph 6.67 and 6.68, be supported.

4.            That the updated SPD be adopted as set out in appendix A, together with those amendments approved following The Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 4 June and Informal Policy Group on 7 June (and as set out above) , in accordance with the requirements of the Town & Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

5.            That the Head of Programme for CWR be authorised to make minor factual changes and corrections to the SPD, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, prior to the publication of the document.

6.            That it be noted that the Head of Programme for CWR is progressing further work on development viability, design and delivery options for the scheme and will bring a report to the Cabinet (Central Winchester Regeneration) Committee in due course.