Agenda and minutes

To record the names of apologies given and Deputy Members who are attending the meeting in place of appointed Members.

Apologies were noted as above.

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.

In respect to agenda item number 12, (The Old Forge Brook Street Bishops Waltham Southampton Hampshire SO32 1AX (case reference: 23/00448/LIS)), Councillor Williams advised that he had objected to this application whilst a member of the planning committee at Bishops Waltham Parish Council, before being elected to the city council. He would leave the room for that item and take no part in the determination of the application.

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 October 2023.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 October 2023 be deferred to be approved and adopted at the meeting on 12 December 2023.

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: Construction of flexible incubation space for new businesses within a two-storey, BREEAM Excellent, office building.

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

1.    The receipt of a letter concerning the sequential test and the subsequent response from the Strategic Planning team.

2.    Further information regarding the IncuHive model.

3.    A further letter from Hursley Parish Council regarding road speeds.

During public participation, David Killeen, George Scott-Welsh, Louise Cutts, Naomi Cressweller, Steve Jenkins, and Jeremy Tyrell spoke in support of the application and answered members' questions.

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

1.    He supported the development despite a recommendation for refusal.

2.    That this proposal could be considered as an exception to policy based on local demand, as cited in the Future Land Survey.

3.    He stressed the challenge of finding flexible workspaces and that the local plan's view on startup units might not cover the diversity of spaces proposed.

4.    That IncuHive's model was unique, currently sought after by small businesses and freelancers for economic reasons.

5.    That the waiting list at Hursley Park demonstrated support for the demand for similar spaces.

6.    That locating facilities like IncuHive closer to communities to reduce city-bound traffic was useful and highlighted the development's proximity to an office building and the M3 motorway.

7.    He proposed relocating speed signs for road safety on Poles Lane.

8.    He recognised the site's limited accessibility but saw the potential for community enjoyment with the proposed facility at Woodlands Park.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application and received additional advice from the committee’s legal officer regarding the use of appropriate conditions.

RESOLVED

The committee agreed to refuse permission for the reasons set out in the report and the update sheet.

Proposal Description: New external link way, re-cladding, signage and internal remodelling and modernisation. (AMENDED PLANS).

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding a response from the Environmental Health team who had no adverse comments regarding the proposal.

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

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application and received additional advice from the council's Historic Building Officer regarding the proposal.

RESOLVED

The committee agreed to refuse permission for the reasons set out in the report.

Proposal Description: Remove the existing roof and install a new roof with pitched roof dormers to create a first-floor/loft extension. Build a single-storey extension to the front elevation of the Ground Floor. Build a new two-bay garage building with workshop and Home Office at first-floor level.

The application was introduced and during public participation, Julian Carlick, and John Blake spoke in objection to the application, Peter Arnold and Anne Arnold spoke in support of the application and answered members' questions.

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

1.    That the city council emphasised high-quality urban design, yet opposition to this proposal hinged on local plan policy CP13, which focused on design quality.

2.    Lainston Close was a small cul-de-sac, distinct with single-story homes made of red brick, light stone cladding, and concrete tile roofs.

3.    It was a close-knit community, and a recent committee site visit acknowledged the close's unique character.

4.    The applicant's planning statement, submitted six months after the initial application, failed to reflect the existing context with its proposed materials of slate roof and dark windows.

5.    The proposed roof materials and design were at odds with the existing architecture, especially due to the new building's elevated position and front dormers.

6.    The building's placement, tree removal, and dormers raised concerns about its mass and impact on the neighbouring Close, potentially breaching guidelines on consistent roof designs.

7.    The oversized garage at the front deviated from nearby bungalows and disrupted the street's harmony, with materials that diverged from the area's established character.

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 subject to the following:

1.    An additional condition that no trees and shrubs be removed at the application site.

2.    An additional condition that a landscaping plan be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, before commencement, which would identify vegetation to be retained and proposed.

The precise wording of the conditions was to be delegated to the Planning Delivery and Implementation Manager.

Proposal Description: Provision of an artificial grass pitch (AGP), floodlighting, new and relocated stands, storage container, vehicular access replacement, re-surfacing of the existing parking area and ancillary works (Amended Plans).

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

1.    Consultee comments from Hampshire County Council Highways were not included in the main report and were now summarised for the committee.

2.    New issues raised in letters of objection and the council's response to those.

3.    A further proposed condition seeking a management plan for the pitch.

4.    A further proposed condition to ensure that measures contained within the noise report were implemented.

During public participation, John Mclaren (Winchester City Football Club), Tom Betts (S&C Slatter), and Janek Piatkowski spoke in support of the application and answered members' questions.

Councillor Becker, Cabinet Member for Community and Engagement addressed the committee and raised several points which could be summarised as follows.

1.    That the application was in line with the Council Plan's focus on enhancing health through physical activity.

2.    That there was a need for facilities promoting mental and physical well-being across all ages and abilities.

3.    That this facility was vital for expanding football participation among diverse groups, including people with disabilities, women, and girls.

4.    That this proposal helped to address health disparities, offered diverse activities, and expanded sports and cultural amenities district-wide.

5.    That the proposal would aid inclusivity and facilitate activities such as walking football and further collaboration with Winchester City Flyers to boost female participation and accommodate youth players.

6.    That there were limitations to grass pitches due to the weather, which impacted sports participation.

7.    That there was a shortfall in the availability of 3G pitches in Winchester.

8.    The proposal addressed the environmental concerns linked to the proposed 3G pitch.

9.    That there was a need for a mix of facilities, as reliance on grass pitches alone could adversely affect sports activities.

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.

The following items will not be considered before 2.00pm:

(Depending on the Committee’s progress, some of the morning’s items may overrun into the afternoon session.  Nevertheless, the following items will not be considered before 2.00pm).

Proposal Description: Change of use of property from a domestic residential use to a mixed-use for residential purposes and provision of swimming lessons to children.

The application was introduced and during public participation, Dr Adelaide Morris, and Dennis Dawes spoke in objection to the application, Richelle Brooks, and Andy Brooks spoke in support of the application and Councillor Hill, on behalf of Colden Common Parish Council spoke against the application and answered members' questions.

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

1.    That she agreed with the conclusions from the officer's report to refuse permission due to local concerns.

2.    She stressed the importance of swimming lessons but highlighted concerns about the location of this swimming pool in a residential area.

3.    That the proposal contradicted planning policies DM15, DM16, DM17, and DM18, regarding noise, disturbance and increased activity which was impacting neighbours.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED

The committee agreed to refuse permission for the reasons set out in the report.

Proposal Description: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING (CLASS E(a)) AND REPLACEMENT WITH NEW OFFICES (CLASS E(g)(i)) AND RETAIL UNIT (CLASS E(a)) (Amended Description).

The application was introduced, and members were referred to the update sheet which advised of a minor correction on page 184, that the caption should read ‘Proposed Street Scene’

During public participation, Toby Wincer spoke in support of the application and Councillor Ford, on behalf of Bishops Waltham Parish Council spoke against the application and answered members' questions.

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.