Agenda and minutes

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

There were no apologies.

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 Lee advised that the application at agenda item 8 (Edenbridge Winchester Road Waltham Chase Southampton Hampshire SO32 2LX Case reference: 23/00899/OUT) and agenda item 9 (Land at Mill Lane, Mill Lane, Swanmore, Hampshire (Case number: SDNP/23/01336/FUL) were within his ward, however, he had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, therefore he took part in the consideration of this item and voted thereon.

Councillor Cunningham advised that the application at agenda item 6 (Dunley Vicarage Lane Woodmancott Winchester Hampshire SO21 3BL Case Number:23/02838/FUL). and agenda item 11 (The Dove Inn Andover Road Micheldever Station SO21 3AU Case Number: 21/00737/FUL and 21/00738/LIS) were within his ward, however, he had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, therefore he took part in the consideration of this item and voted thereon.

Councillor Laming advised that the agenda item 13 (Tree Preservation Order: Land Opposite 93 Old Kennels Lane, Winchester SO22 4JT Case Number:TPO2345) was within his Ward. He stepped down from the committee for this item, addressed the committee as a Ward member and did not vote on the agenda item.

The Chairperson advised that the applicant for agenda item 11 (The Dove Inn Andover Road Micheldever Station SO21 3AU Case Number: 21/00737/FUL and 21/00738/LIS) was an acquaintance of several members of the committee due to being a former city councillor. She asked members to indicate if any specific interest needed to be declared, which none was.

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 7 February 2024.

RESOLVED:

 That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 7 February 2024 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 was available to view on the council’s website under the respective planning application.

The committee considered the following items:

Proposal Description: Demolition of the existing link between the main chalet bungalow and the annex to create two separate residential planning units; extensions to the newly-created dwelling.

The application was introduced and during public participation, Jane Milsome and Graham Milsome spoke in support of the application and Andrew Adams spoke on behalf of Micheldever Parish Council in support of the application and answered members' questions.

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

1.    He expressed opposition to development in the countryside in principle, citing the destruction of green fields by buildings that were not absolutely necessary.

2.    He highlighted that the primary reason for refusal in the report was the proposal's failure to constitute infilling in a continuously developed frontage. However, he contested this reasoning, noting that the application site was not in Woodmancott but over half a mile outside.

3.    He mentioned that the area consisted of only two homes within a small group of buildings, historically occupied by those associated with the adjacent farm. The current residents were looking to downsize due to a lack of smaller homes in the vicinity.

4.    The application sought to convert a holiday cottage into a small home to address local needs. He emphasized that the proposal did not entail substantial development, nor would it alter the character or impact the countryside negatively.

5.    He advised that the development had clear community backing and that a new modest family home would contribute to the community's sustainability.

6.    He referred to local planning policies supporting the construction of new, smaller homes in rural areas along with the supplementary planning document for the area, and the Micheldever Village Design Statement (VDS).

7.    He concluded by urging the committee to permit the application, underscoring the benefits to the local community without significantly altering the area's character.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application and received advice from the Legal Officer regarding potential conditions concerning occupancy and the use of the property as a holiday let.

RESOLVED:

The committee voted against the recommendation to refuse planning permission and instead voted to grant permission for the proposal. In reaching this decision they raised the following material planning matters which weighed in favour of granting planning permission:

1.    That this was a small dwelling, providing sustainable downsizing in a rural area.

2.    That the committee attached weight to the amount of local support that had been demonstrated.

3.    That the committee did not consider any material harm in the intensification of different uses.

4.    That the proposal/form was compatible with the character of the area.

5.    That the committee felt that the proposal was in accordance with policy MTRA3 as an undefined settlement and that the sustainability and rural location, and unique circumstances of the site and compatibility with the area as an existing building outweighed any issues related to non-compatibility with this policy.

The case officer proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Proposal Description: Conversion to HMO and addition of bike storage.

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

1.    That page 49 had been updated to record the applicant's name.

2.    That page 49 had been updated to include “Recommendation: Permit”

3.    An updated nutrient budget calculator had been submitted and that the figures shown on page 56 for nitrates and phosphates had been updated but did not affect the nutrient mitigation method or conclusions reached.

In addition, the case officer provided a verbal update and provided further information concerning the following:

1.    That an additional condition be included relating to nutrient neutrality, this would be the standard, Grampian condition.

2.    That a further condition be included, limiting the occupancy to align with the granted permission, which allowed for six individual tenants, with each tenant occupying one bed per room.

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

Councillor Chris Westwood, Cabinet Member for Housing spoke as the Cabinet Member and expressed several points which could be summarised as follows.

1.    He described the initiative to repurpose 59 Colebrook Street for refugee temporary accommodation, leveraging government resettlement scheme funding and noting the property's vacancy since June 2021.

2.    He highlighted the prior approval by Cabinet and Full Council in November 2023, with financial backing from Hampshire County Council and the Local Authority Housing Fund.

3.    That the property’s central location advantages included training, employment, and transport access, promoting community integration for resettlement scheme participants.

4.    He believed that the application addressed noise concerns related to a nearby pub through a comprehensive noise assessment alongside compliance with building regulations for sound resistance.

5.    He responded to the City of Winchester Trust's call for more communal space and the suggestion to repurpose the ground floor bedroom, emphasizing the adequacy of proposed communal facilities.

6.    Finally, he stressed the critical need for additional temporary accommodation in Winchester to address the homelessness crisis and improve housing options for those at risk.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED

The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasonsand subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, the update sheet, and the verbal update.

Proposal Description: Erection of a 4 bedroom 1 1/2 storey house on the site of former dwelling Edenbridge (to be demolished under planning permission 21/00065/FUL).

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

1.    That page 75 of the officer's report was updated to read as follows "Recommendation: Permit"

2.    The page 85 of the officer's report, be updated regarding condition 8 to the following.

“ No development shall take place until a Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan showing hedgehog fencing, swift boxes and bat boxes is submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development must then continue in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To accord with the Policy CP16 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1”

3.    That the previous application was assessed as a replacement house, and therefore included a condition to secure the demolition of the existing dwelling on the site. This is controlled by the previous consent. To confirm, both plots are within the settlement boundary where new additional residential units are acceptable.

During public participation, Councillor Steve Slark on behalf of Shedfield 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 permit permission for the reasonsand subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and the update sheet and subject to an additional condition to be included regarding the submission and approval of a Construction Management Plan.

Proposal Description: Change of use from agricultural to equestrian, proposed barn with stables, tack room, feed and hay store and outdoor Menage 30m x 60m.

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

1. The address is listed as Swanmore even though it is geographically located closer to Soberton.

2. Condition 02 has been amended to include the word in bold, to ensure the condition covers all aspects of the proposed development.

“The use of the equestrian barn, stables and riding arena hereby permitted shall be restricted to the keeping of horses for private recreational use by the owner of the land only and shall not at any time be used for any other form of equestrian activity such as for any commercial riding, breeding or training purposes.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site and in the interests of the amenity of the area and highway safety.”

3. The following condition has been added to limit the use of the stables to 8 horses:

“The stables hereby permitted shall only be occupied by eight horses, in accordance with approved plan 102 Rev D. The tack room/feed store and hay stores shall only be used for the purposes shown on drawing number 102 Rev D, and not as additional stabling, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site and in the interests of the amenity of the area and highway safety.”

During public participation, John Chaplain, and Richard Ward spoke in objection to the application, and Councillor John Hyland on behalf of Soberton Parish Council spoke against the application and answered members' questions.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED:

The committee voted against the recommendation to approve planning permission and instead voted to refuse permission for the proposal. In reaching this decision they raised the following material planning matters which weighed in favour of refusing planning permission:

1.    That the application was not compliant with the following South Downs National Park Local Plan policies:

·       SD4: Landscape character.

·       SD7: Relative Tranquillity.

·       SD8: Dark Night Skies.

·       SD24: Equestrian uses.

2.    That the size of the development was deemed disproportionate for private use.

3.    That there would be impact on the landscape character and tranquillity of the area from the activity and its associated paraphernalia.

4.    That the scale of the premises was considered harmful to the policies mentioned.

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).

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: Demolition and recreation of Coach House to form five letting bedrooms including reconfigured parking layout, outside seating areas and associated landscaping. (REVISED PLANS SUBMITTED 29.07.2022).

The applications were introduced, and the case officer provided the committee with a verbal update to confirm that the complete number of parking spaces is to be twenty-four, an increase of four spaces.

During public participation, Kim Gottlieb spoke in support of the application and Councillor Stephen Godfrey spoke as a ward member and expressed several points on behalf of residents which could be summarised as follows.

1.    Councillor Godfrey advised that he intended to speak on behalf of Micheldever Parish Council and his fellow Ward Councillor, Caroline Horrill as follows:

2.    He noted that the officer report advised that the Monterey Pine tree was to be incorporated into the plans with the protection of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

3.    He noted that all four private water treatment plants serving the settlement had failed to some degree, with two still failing. These failures included the plant serving the Dove Inn building and the homes in Brunel Close.

4.    The ongoing challenges with the Brunel Close sewage treatment system were highlighted as a significant concern for residents and the Parish Council, especially with potential increases in occupancy exacerbating the situation.

5.    Despite concerns, Councillor Godfrey expressed support for the application, citing its potential to improve the economic sustainability of the Dove Inn and associated businesses. He welcomed the proposal to move the Dove Inn from the Brunel Close sewage treatment plant to its own system, which would benefit residents and the Parish Council.

6.    He noted the acceptance of the proposed sewage treatment solution for the entire site by Winchester City Council's drainage engineers but expressed concerns over potential delays in obtaining a discharge license from the Environment Agency, similar to those experienced by the Brunel Close management company.

7.    He recommended approval of the application, requesting firmer conditions regarding the provision of the sewage treatment plant for the entire site, to avoid further delays and resolve the longstanding issues faced by residents.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

Regarding Application: 21/00737/FUL

RESOLVED

The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasonsand subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and the officer update.

Regarding Application: 21/00738/LIS

RESOLVED

The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasonsand subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and the officer update.

Proposal Description: Application Reference Number: 18/02331/FUL Date of Decision: 24/01/2019. Vary Condition Number 2. Supersede the conditioned drawings with the drawings submitted as part of this application.

The application was introduced and during public participation, Ryan Snow spoke in support of 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 reasonsand subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Proposal Description: Confirmation Of Tree Preservation Order, Ref TPO 2345 - Land Opposite 93 Old Kennels Lane, Winchester.

The application was introduced and during public participation, Peter Dingley spoke in objection to the confirmation of the order and answered members' questions.

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

1.    He advised that residents had not raised concerns with him concerning the tree or with vehicular access.

2.    The trees had not been subjected to any maintenance or work for the past 30 years, making them a stable and integral part of the landscape.

3.    He advised that the tree supported a large bat colony.

4.    He understood that the ownership of the land on which the trees stood did not belong to the individual requesting permission for the work.

5.    He supported the tree officer's recommendations and opinions concerning the preservation of these trees.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the order.

RESOLVED

That, having taken into consideration the representation received, that Tree Preservation Order 2345 be confirmed, as set out in the report.

This application was deferred for consideration at a future meeting of the committee.