Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence received.

To receive any disclosure of interests from Councillors or Officers in matters to be discussed.

Note: Councillors are reminded of their obligations to declare disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs), other registerable interests (ORIs), non-registerable interests (NRIs) and on Pre-determination 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.

Councillor Aron made a personal statement that she was the Ward Member in respect of all items on the agenda.  However, with the exception of item 10 (Tree Preservation Order 2365 – 3 Grafton Riad, Winchester), she had taken no part in discussions regarding the applications, therefore she took part in the consideration of items 6 - 9 and voted thereon.

In respect of item 10 (Tree Preservation Order 2365 – 3 Grafton Road), Councillor Aron declared a predetermination having previously taken part in discussions regarding the application as the ward member. Therefore, she stated that she would take no part in the determination of the application and left the meeting for the consideration of the item taking no part in the discussion or vote thereon.

Councillor Williams declared a disclosable pecuniary interest due to his role as Hampshire County Councillor.  However, as there was no material conflict of interest, he remained in the room, spoke and voted under the dispensation granted on behalf of the Audit and Governance Committee to participate and vote in all matters which might have a County Council involvement.

The Chairperson announced that Item 6 (Kings School, Romsey Road, Winchester) had been deferred for consideration at a future meeting of the committee.

In addition, it was announced that items 7 and 8 (Listed and Full applications – Monument House, 5 Upper High Street, Winchester) would be considered in reverse order with Item 8 (Full application) to be determined first and that public speaking for both applications would be taken under this item.

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 11 March 2026.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 11 March 2026, be approved and adopted.

The committee agreed to receive the Update Sheet as an addendum to the report.

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:

Proposal Description: Item 6:  Creation of a 3G Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) with perimeter fencing, hardstanding areas, storage container, floodlights, acoustic barrier, access paths and parking area

This application was deferred for consideration at a future meeting.

Proposal Description: Item 8: Addition of an extra storey to 5 Upper High Street to provide two flats, cycle stores, including minor external alterations and connection to the neighbouring listed building (revised plans)

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out in full the following:

(i)             Clarification on proposed materials. The roof to be replaced with slate, not standing seam.

(ii)            Change to recommendation:

Permit, subject to conditions and securing phosphate mitigation. If minded to grant the application, officers would not issue the decision until the phosphate mitigation had been paid and secured.

During public participation, Hugo Dickson spoke in objection to the listed building application (item 7) and Edward Kercher and Liam Thomas spoke in support of this 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 the Update Sheet.

Proposal Description: Item 7: Addition of an extra storey to 5 Upper High Street to provide two flats, cycle stores, including minor external alterations and connection to the neighbouring listed building (revised plans)

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out in full the following:

(i)       Clarification on proposed materials. The roof to be replaced with slate,       not standing seam.

(ii)       Minor update to condition 4 to read:

No related works shall commence on site until large-scale details of all new and altered windows and external doors have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details to be submitted shall include joinery drawings at a scale of 1:10, 1:5 and 1:1 as necessary, showing elevations and sections, the relationship with surrounding fabric, and details of finishes. Following approval of those details, the works shall be carried out and thereafter retained in strict accordance with the details so approved.

Reason: Further information is required because insufficient information was submitted in this regard to ensure preservation of the significance of the listed building, in accordance with Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024.

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.

Proposal Description: Item 9: Upwards extension to provide additional accommodation at first floor

The application was introduced. During public participation, Clive Smith spoke in objection to the application and Jonathan Ryan and Jeremy Tyrrell spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

          RESOLVED:

The committee agreed to refuse permission for the following reasons:

(i)             As a result of the additional size, roof height, design and bulk of the proposed additional storey, the proposed development would appear incongruous amongst neighbouring bungalows within Lynch Close and does not respond positively to the character and context of the street scene. The proposed development contravenes Policies D1 - High Quality, Well Designed and Inclusive Places (i) and D2 - Design Principles for Winchester Town (iv) of the Local Plan 2040 and Paragraph 135 (c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (2025).

The precise wording delegated to the Chair of Planning Committee, in consultation with the Service Lead: Built Environment

The report was introduced. During public participation, Darek Urlewicz, Peter Sykes and Aisling Sykes (slides shown) spoke in objection to the report and Peter Moir (slides shown) spoke in support of the report and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Murphy spoke as Ward Member in support of the report to confirm the tree preservation order.

In summary, Councillor Murphy raised the following points:

1.    He expressed strong support for the council's tree strategy, which focused on preserving existing trees and seeking every opportunity to introduce more trees into the district.

2.    He highlighted the essential role that trees play in absorbing carbon from the atmosphere.

3.    He noted that trees provided unique habitats for a wide variety of animals and birds.

4.    He identified specific human benefits identified in the council's tree strategy that were relevant to this application, including the mitigation of the urban heat island effect, the improvement of air quality, and the positive impact on mental health.

5.    He stated that trees were a precious amenity to the local community.

6.    Following a visit to Grafton Road at the invitation of residents to see the two specific trees, he observed that whilst they were large and unwieldy, yew trees were renowned for their tolerance to pruning and shaping.

7.    He referred to Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) online guidance which stated that yew trees, unlike other conifers, could be cut into old wood and would see growth again.

8.    He acknowledged that while a qualified tree surgeon or arboriculturist was required for advice and action, any challenges regarding the shape of the trees could be addressed with positive attention.

9.    He argued that it was far better to preserve trees that council officers have identified as being in good health rather than cutting them down.

10.He suggested that while the trees may not have been managed in recent years, they could be managed in the future through the council's process for agreeing proposed work, which could mitigate issues raised by those objecting to the report.

11.He noted that residents in Grafton Road do not want to lose these tall trees, a sentiment he felt was emphasised by aerial photographs.

12.Having visited the street at sunset, he observed that these trees add significantly to the amenity of the street and their loss would be fundamental and adverse.

13.He stated that when standing in front of these two trees, it was possible to feel how much they contribute to the area.

14.He highlighted that Grafton Road and neighbouring Christchurch Road and Edgar Road had a range of tall trees that were fundamental to the quality of life in the area, and this group of yews was an important part of that.

15.He concluded by agreeing with the views expressed by residents and strongly supported the confirmation of Tree Preservation Order 2365.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the report.

RESOLVED:

That, having taken into consideration the representations received, Tree Preservation Order 2365  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.