Agenda and draft 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 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 Achwal and Councillor Small made a personal statement that they were Ward Members in respect of item 9 (The Homestead, Solomans Lane, Shirrell Heath, Southampton, Hampshire, SO32 2HU). However, they had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, therefore they took part in the consideration of the item and voted thereon.

Councillor Small declared an interest in agenda item number 8 (Three Oaks Kennels Botley Road Bishops Waltham Southampton Hampshire (24/00526/FUL)) as she knew the applicant. Councillor Small stated that she would take no part in the determination of the application and would leave the room for the consideration of the item.

Councillor Williams declared a disclosable pecuniary interest due to his role as a 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.

In addition, Councillor Williams made a personal statement in respect of item 8 (Three Oaks Kennels Botley Road Bishops Waltham Southampton Hampshire (24/00526/FUL)). Councillor Williams advised that the application was within his ward and that he was also a Parish Councillor at Bishops Waltham Parish Council. However, he had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, therefore he took part in the consideration of the item and voted thereon.

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 5 February 2025

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 5 February 2025 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: Construction and operation of a battery energy storage system (BESS) facility, associated infrastructure, access provision and ecological enhancement for a temporary period of 30 years.

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

1.    Comments from Hursley Parish Council made on the 16th of July 2024, that had not been included in the officer's report, which could be summarised as follows:   

a.    That the Parish Council objected to the application.

b.    That although the Parish Council recognised the need for energy generated not to be wasted nationally, this facility was in the wrong place.

c.     The Parish Council felt that the proposal failed NPPF criteria, that the application lacked alternative sites, that policies were not adequately addressed, that the site was prone to flooding, that there was an increased road accident risk and that this was a speculative private business enterprise.

2.    Further comments from the Parish Council were made on the 8th of March 2025, which referred to the lack of support for this application and the number of objections.

3.    It was also proposed to change the wording of conditions 3, 4, 9 and 25 and the full details of these proposed changes were set out in full on the update sheet.

The case officer provided a verbal update and provided further information to the Committee on these points.

During public participation, Martin Ayre spoke in objection to the application, Kevin Parr spoke in support of the application and Councillor David Killeen on behalf of Hursley Parish Council spoke to object to the application and answered members' questions.

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

1.    It was noted that Government guidance on battery storage locations was limited, but required Local Authorities to consider the views of the local community. In this instance, over 20 formal objections had been received from residents, and objections had been submitted by the three Parish Councils.

2.    She highlighted that battery storage facilities are typically located adjacent to substations to minimise residential impact, contrasting this with the proposed site's 2.5km distance from the nearest substation and the lack of clarity regarding connection and cable routing.

3.    Councillor Warwick believed that the proposal constituted an industrial complex, not a small agricultural facility, and raised concerns about 24/7 lighting, noise output, and the substantial impact on a dark skies rural setting, with some homes located only 200m from the site.

4.    There was much local concern regarding the removal of a mature hedgerow for site access.

5.    She drew attention to the Noise Assessment, which acknowledged that predicted nighttime noise levels would exceed background levels, potentially requiring residents to permanently close bedroom windows.

6.    Councillor Warwick believed that the application contravened several planning policies, including MTRA4, DM23, and DM24, and highlighted concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Proposal Description: Erection of new 4 bedroom dwellinghouse. Demolition of an existing garage.

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

1.    Regarding Page 69 of the agenda report pack, reference should made to the application being in the St Michael Ward, not the Southwick and Wickham Ward.

2.    Regarding Page 76, of the agenda report pack it was proposed that the following text “the proposal will not result in harm to the significance of the setting and historic interest of the listed building” be updated to “the proposal will result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed building”

3.    Regarding Page 76 of the agenda report pack it was proposed to replace paragraph 4 with the following:

a.    “The application was within the Christchurch Road Conservation Area. The proposed dwelling would be readily visible from the public realm within the conservation area; however, the proposed dwelling and associated elements are considered to respond to the immediate street scene with a scale and appearance in keeping to the site and character of the area."

4.    Two additional conditions (20 and 21) were proposed as follows:

a.    20. “No development, or works of site preparation, shall take place until details, including plans and cross sections of the existing and proposed ground levels of the development and the boundaries of the site and the height of the ground floor slab and damp proof course in relation thereto, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority”.

Reason:  To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the new development and adjacent buildings, amenity areas and trees.”

b.    21. “Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by Classes A and C, D and E of Part 1 Schedule 2 of the Order shall be carried out without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority”.

Reason:  To protect the amenities of the locality and to maintain a good quality environment.”

The case officer provided a verbal update and provided further information to the Committee on these points.

During public participation, Liam Kilpatrick spoke in objection to the application, and Darek Urlewicz spoke in support of the application and answered members' questions.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application and received advice from the Legal Officer concerning Party Wall Agreements.

RESOLVED

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

2.    In addition, the committee agreed to the following:

a.    An additional condition requiring a Construction Management Plan which would need to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any work begins. The plan would address several matters including how waste would be disposed of,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Proposal Description: Proposed 3 new kennel blocks & 2 replacement isolation units with associated paddocks at Three Oaks Kennels.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding a further representation that had been received from a local resident who had previously commented raising concerns about the noise impact assessment. However, this had been assessed by the Environmental Protection Officer who was satisfied with the proposal.

The case officer provided a verbal update and provided further information to the Committee on these points.

During public participation, Patrick Barry spoke in support of the application and Councillor Tracy Conduct 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 and received advice from the Legal Officer. The Legal Officer clarified that there was no conflict of interest for the City Council due to the City Council’s Dog Warden using the kennel facilities. He also responded to questions about overnight accommodation and nutrient neutrality calculations and provided advice regarding the licensing regime for kennel blocks.

RESOLVED

1.    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.

In addition, it was agreed to amend condition no. 6 relating to noise, to require details of noise attenuation measures to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any work begins. The precise wording to be delegated to the Service Lead: Built Environment.

Proposal Description: Erection of 2No. detached dwellings and garages with associated car parking along with use of existing access and creation of new access onto Solomons Lane.

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

1.    A change to the wording of condition 5 regarding the Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan which was set out in full on the update sheet.

2.    A proposal to include a new condition (no.20) regarding the removal of Permitted Development rights as follows:

20. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development permitted by Class A of Part 1; of Schedule 2 of the Order, shall be carried out without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development was proportionate to the site in order to protect the amenities of the locality and to maintain a good quality environment.

The case officer provided a verbal update and provided further information to the Committee on these points.

During public participation, Philip Dudley (Agent) spoke in support of the application and Councillor Sam Charles on behalf of Shedfield Parish Council spoke against the application and answered members' questions.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application and received advice from the Legal Officer regarding the weight to be given to statutory consultees regarding drainage and sewerage, and the types of evidence that would be required to challenge statutory consultees.

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.