Issue - meetings

Proposal Description: Demolition of redundant care home and associated outbuildings, redevelopment of the site to provide 32 apartments including 50% affordable housing and associated alterations to site access, sub-station, hard and soft landscaping, car parking, cycle store, plant room, refuse and recycling store, drainage, boundary treatments and other associated works.

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

1. Further comments received on 10 July 2025 from the Winchester Racquets and Fitness (WRF) club.
2. Clarification was provided that the 'building ventilation strategy and overheating assessment' referred to throughout the report was that referred to in condition 24, ' overheating analysis'.
3. A further update to condition 2 to show the change to the site plan revision numbers.

These matters were set out in detail on the Update Sheet.

During public participation, Daniel Wiseman spoke in support of the application and answered members' questions.

Councillor Jonny Morris spoke as a ward member and expressed several points on behalf of residents, which could be summarised as follows.

1. He noted that the application had returned to the committee because the developers had modified their design, firstly in response to officer feedback and secondly to address sound-related issues raised by the adjacent Winchester Racquets and Fitness Club.
2. The primary issue for consideration related to the principle from the National Planning Policy Framework, which sought to protect existing businesses, such as the Club, from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments being permitted nearby.
3. He stated that the committee must be certain that the proposals would ensure future residents of the new development would not have reasonable grounds for finding the noise from the Club's operations a nuisance.
4. He explained that the sport of Padel, played at the club, involved more frequent and rapid ball-striking than tennis. He believed that while not necessarily louder, the frequency of the sound could lead to it being considered more of a nuisance.
5. He believed that it was necessary for all parties to be protected: to prevent the Club from facing future noise abatement notices, to ensure residents were not disturbed by noise, and to allow the developer to avoid potential issues selling the properties.
6. He endorsed a condition proposed by the Club as a satisfactory way of resolving the issue and recommended that the committee approve the application with this condition attached.
7. He also suggested that the committee confirm with the Environmental Health Officer that they were formally satisfied that the proposed acoustic wall would be sufficient to mitigate the noise to a level where it would not be considered a nuisance for future residents.
8. He thanked the developers for their cooperation and for implementing changes in response to concerns raised.

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.