Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED:

That, in the absence of Councillor Rutter, Councillor Laming be appointed as Vice-Chairperson for this meeting only.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Rutter, with Councillor Small attending as standing deputy member and Councillor Read, with Councillor Cunningham attending as standing deputy member.

To receive any disclosure of interests from Members and Officers in matters to be discussed.

Note: Councillors are reminded of their obligations to declare disclosable pecuniary interests, personal and/or prejudicial interests, and on Predetermination 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 Evans declared a personal (but not prejudicial) interest in respect of item 7 (The Cricketers Inn, Curdridge Lane, Curdridge – case number 22/00502/FUL) as the agent was known to her. However, she had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, therefore she took part in the consideration of this item and voted thereon.

Councillor Small declared a personal (but not prejudicial) interest in respect of item 7 (The Cricketers Inn, Curdridge Lane, Curdridge – case number 22/00502/FUL) as the landlords were known to her. However, she had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, therefore she took part in the consideration of this item and voted thereon.

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 25 May 2022.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 25 May 2022 be approved and adopted.

The committee agreed to receive the Update Sheet as an addendum to Report PDC1204.

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: Demolition of existing 2 storey detached property; construction of 2 storey replacement dwelling with associated landscaping (AMENDED PLANS)

The application was introduced. During public participation, Penny Stewart spoke in objection to the application and Ross Galtress (agent) and Martin Johnstone (applicant) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Tippett-Cooper spoke as a Ward Member and answered Members’ questions thereon. He declared a personal (but not prejudicial) interest in the proposal as he lived in close proximity to the application site.

In summary, Councillor Tippett-Cooper expressed concern regarding the proposal which was situated in a ‘golden triangle’ of heritage sites where the majority of dwellings were in keeping with the historic and cultural theme. He made reference to the 156 objections to the application and the concerns of the objector addressing the meeting, which he stated broadly reflected the concerns of other residents.  He drew the committee’s attention to the summary of objections set out in the report.

Councillor Tippett-Cooper stated that redevelopment of the site was not something that local residents were opposed to. However, in its current form he considered that the proposal had jarring design features, the flat roof being one of the issues, which would have a detrimental impact on an important heritage site and suggested that there would be other forms of development that would be more in keeping with the surrounding area.

In conclusion, Councillor Tippett-Cooper considered the comments regarding the impact on historic environment to be a subjective judgement and he urged the committee to refer to the concerns of local residents and refuse the application.

For clarification, the Historic Environment Team Leader addressed the committee to set out the principles surrounding the materials and flat roofline in context with the impact on the historic environment and within the Winchester City Conservation Area.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED:

The committee agreed to refuse permission for the following             reasons: The proposal results in overdevelopment of the site             and does not respond positively to the character, appearance        and variety of the historic settlement pattern of this part of the             Winchester Conservation Area by reason of design, size and            massing and the roof form and consequently would fail to             preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the    conservation area contrary to policies DM16, DM17 and DM27         of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 2 (April 2017), and                  guideline HQB8 of supplementary planning guidance High Quality Places (March 2015).

Proposal Description: Item 7: (Retrospective) New timber garden building constructed within the front garden of the pub for ancillary use to the existing pub; the structure will include a pizza oven and seating for customers, with occasional use for special events (wakes, christenings and weddings)

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out amendments to Conditions 1 and 3, feedback from Curdridge Parish Council and an additional objection received on 14 June 2022. 

During public participation, Andrew Burgess (agent) and Stuart Downie (applicant) 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 grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and update sheet.

Proposal Description: Item 8: Demolition of existing front porch and rear storage structures; erection of new integrated front porch, single storey rear extension with raised patio and first floor side extension over exiting garage (amended plans, amended proposal)   

The application was introduced. During public participation, Peter Arnold spoke in objection to the application and Caleb Lewington and Charlie Warn (applicants) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Craske spoke as a Ward Member and answered Members’ questions thereon.

In summary, Councillor Craske stated that he had sympathy with the objector, Mr Arnold, and was disappointed with the approach the applicant had taken with no pre-planning application or meaningful engagement and with a design which he considered to be a template design with little creativity or sensitivity.

In conclusion, Councillor Craske stated that there was no precedent for double height extensions that block sunlight into habitable rooms of adjoining properties as demonstrated by the photographs submitted by the objector and he urged the committee to refuse the application.

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, subject to an additional informative that consideration be given to the installation of avian boxes.

Proposal Description: Item 9: Installation of an EV charge point for one vehicle and landscape changes including garage

The application was introduced. 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.

Proposal Description: Item 10: Installation of an EV charge point for one vehicle and landscape changes including garage  

The application was introduced. 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.

The meeting commenced at 9.30 am and concluded at 12.35 pm.

Chair