Issue - meetings

Proposal Description: Regulation 3 planning application for the erection of car park to provide 287 park & ride car parking spaces including 800m2 of photovoltaic panels, 16 Electric Vehicle (EV) charging bays, with associated access, turning and landscape proposals; and retrospective permission for i) formation of piling mat; ii) foundations and iii) partial construction of structure.

The Service Lead – Legal reminded Members that the ongoing Judicial Review should not be a factor in their determination of this application, they must determine the application before them today, it would be unlawful not to and that their decision must be based on the material planning considerations.

The application was introduced, and the committee were referred to the update sheet which included the following updates:

• Members were advised that since the publication of the addendum report a further 71 letters of objection, (from 58 households) had been received. These letters did not raise any material planning considerations not already covered in the reports and had been made available to members on the Council’s website.

• Slide 49 of the committee presentation document contained a superseded version of drawing VTX-STL-XX-ZZ-DR-A-XXXX-0301. This had been corrected to include the revised version (submitted 1st October 2021) - revision PL02.

• A further letter from Harrison Grant solicitors (representing Dr Michael Heard) had been submitted outside of the period in which additional representations were invited. This was addressed to members of the committee and was available to view on the Council’s website.

• A correction was required to the addendum report on page 22 concerning how the height of the building was expressed on the elevation plans. In the 5th paragraph under the heading 'Design/layout,' the applicant had confirmed that the North West corner of the building was 9.25m above internal ground floor formation level, which equates to 48.20 m above ordnance datum (AOD).

Officers from the council’s Planning, Natural Environment and Environmental Health teams addressed the committee.

The Chairperson advised that the time limit for contributions from supporters and objectors would be increased to 6 minutes per group but that no one person could speak for more than 3 minutes. During public participation, Patrick Davies and Dr Michael Heard spoke in objection to the application, Andrew Fraser Urquhart QC, Catherine Bartlett (Agent) and Andy Hickman (on behalf of the applicant) spoke in support of the application and answered members’ questions.

Councillor Radcliffe spoke as a ward member and expressed several points on behalf of residents. He explained that residents had questioned the accuracy of the council’s assessment of the impact that the car park would have regarding noise and light affecting residents, wildlife, and the wider environment. He also advised that residents doubted that the potential benefit of fewer vehicles in the city centre would be achieved until a reduction in car parking spaces in the city centre was achieved. He also questioned whether there was the demand for additional park and ride spaces as there appeared to be capacity within the existing sites and some uncertainty of future  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

Item 6: Proposal Description: Regulation 3 planning application for the erection of car park to provide 287 park & ride car parking spaces including 800m2 of photovoltaic panels, 16 Electric Vehicle (EV) charging bays, with associated access, turning and landscape proposals; and retrospective permission for i) formation of piling mat; ii) foundations and iii) partial construction of structure

Coventry House, Barfield Close, Winchester, SO23 9SQ

Case number: 21/01727/FUL

At the invitation of the Chair, the Service Lead: Legal addressed the committee to provide the following announcement:

“As members will be aware, the application has been accompanied by a number of detailed technical appraisals. In response to previous comments by objectors, the Council on last Friday, 17 September 2021, published a number of updated papers to deal with those points.

At 10.34 this morning, the Council received an email from one of the objector’s solicitors asserting that they had had insufficient time to consider the Council’s responses, and in addition other objectors would also be in a similar position and unable to articulate these to the planning committee.

Whilst the Council does not necessarily agree with this, the Council has concluded, in an abundance of caution, that in the interests of fairness to objectors, it is not appropriate to proceed with this matter today, and the application will be deferred.”

RESOLVED:

That the application be deferred for consideration at a later date to be confirmed.