Agenda and 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 White made a personal statement that she was the Ward Member in respect of Item 10 (Land at Mill Lane, Mill Lane, Swanmore – case number: SDNP/24/02731/FUL). In addition, Councillor White stated that she had friends that were involved in the application and therefore 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 Aron made a personal statement that she was the Ward Member in respect of Item 13 (Tree Preservation Order No: 2356 – Oak tree in the rear garden of 52 Canon Street, Winchester). In addition, Councillor Aron declared a predetermination that she had taken part in discussions with objectors to the application and 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 Gordon-Smith made a personal statement that he was the Ward Member in respect of Item 9 (Primrose Patch, 42 Grange Road, Alresford – case number: 24/01882/FUL). However, he had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, therefore he took part in the consideration of the item and voted thereon.

Councillor Small made a personal statement that she was the Ward Member in respect of Item 7 (Shedfield Equestrian Centre, Botley Riad, Shedfield – case number: 23/01759/FUL). However, she had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, therefore she took part in the consideration of the item and voted thereon.

Councillor Laming made a personal statement that he was the Ward Member in respect of Item 8 (11 Mount View Road, Olivers Battery – case number: 22/00621/FUL). In addition, Councillor Laming stated that he was involved some time ago in reporting an enforcement on this site with the Parish Council. However, he had taken no part in discussions regarding this specific application, therefore he took part in the consideration of the item and voted 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.

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 28 May 2025 (to follow).

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 28 May 2025 (as set out on the supplementary agenda) 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: (AMENDED) Application for demolition of all buildings, and the construction of 48 dwellings, formation of a new access onto Kilham Lane, provision of landscaping, public open space and drainage (phased development). 

It was noted that the majority of the committee had visited the application site on 10 June 2025 to enable members to observe the site in context and to gain a better appreciation of the proposals.

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

(i)           Changes to the Legal Agreement – Head of Terms:

1.    Affordable Housing financial contribution to Winchester City Council

a.    £2.1million (index linked) to be paid in different triggers during the construction of the development.   

2.    Traffic Regulation Order / Section 278 agreement and financial contribution of £15,000 to Hampshire County Council

a.    To remove on-street parking on the north side of Kilham Lane to facilitate the vehicular accesses

3.    Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees (CAVAT) Assessment financial contribution of £13,233 to Hampshire County Council

a.    Regarding felling of trees in highways land to enable the formation of the vehicular accesses and their visibility splays

4.    Traffic mitigation measures - financial contribution of £210,000 to Hampshire County Council

a.    Towards either pedestrian or cycle improvements on local Cycling and walking infrastructure plan (LCWIP) route 260, or a capacity improvement scheme at the Kilham Lane/Romsey Road signal junction based on drawing 151.0013-0013 Rev P02 to provide additional flare length on Kilham Lane to allow 3 cars to wait side by side.

5.    Travel Plan – including approval and monitoring fees of £15,000 to Hampshire County Council

a.    A travel plan to be submitted to, and approved in writing, the County Council. 

6.    Common Parts and Public Open Space management, maintenance and monitoring fees

a.    The nature and location of soft landscaping and Public Open Space to be provided on the Development;

b.    The nature and location of any hard landscaping works to be provided on the Development;

c.    The location of the LEAP;

d.    The specification of and equipment to be provided on the LEAP;

e.    the timing of the delivery and the transfer of the Public Open Space and Common Parts to the Management Company and for the ongoing management and maintenance of the Public Open Space and Common Parts, including for the avoidance of doubt provisions for the rectification of any defects in any area of the Public Open Space and Common Parts until the completion of the relevant transfer of the Public Open Space and Common Parts to the Management Company.

f.     All paths to be public with connections to entrances into and out of the site, remaining open – a plan to be included in the legal agreement to illustrate the location of the same. 

(ii)          Affordable Housing:

            For this planning application, a Viability Study was submitted which             was considered and an external validation was obtained.

            The outcome of this process was that the proposed development will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Proposal Description: Item 7: Use of existing equestrian building to include equestrian events and partial retention of hardstanding to form associated parking area (Amended Description and Plans) 

The Chairperson announced that determination of this application was to be moved to the first item of the afternoon session at 2pm.

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

(i)            An email received from Shedfield Parish Council on 2 June 2025.

            In response, the amendments to the scheme were discussed with                Hampshire County Council as Highways Authority. It was considered       by Hampshire that as the changes to the application were a reduction   in the wider scheme, that was originally considered to be acceptable in            terms of Highways impacts, and the Transport assessment had not             been updated to reflect the changes. Therefore, they would not                  comment further on the scheme and the assessment of the Local              Planning Authority was that the arrangements and parking will not give   rise to harm to the Highways or safety of its users

.

(ii)          Changes to conditions as follows:

            Condition 3 – change trigger to ‘within 3 months of the date of this               permission, details of surface water drainage works…’

            Condition 6 – change trigger to ‘A detailed scheme for landscaping,            tree and/or shrub planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of this               permission…’

            Condition 8 – change trigger to ‘Details of any external lighting of the          site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning    Authority within 3 months of the issue of this permission…’

            Condition 10 – change trigger to ‘Within 3 months of the date of this            permission, visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m shall be implemented…’

            These have been changed to reflect the reasonable assumption that           the temporary car park in place will be used for event parking prior to       the approved layout of the car park being fully implemented.

(iii)         Additional condition as follows:

            Condition 12. The use of the building approved under 12/02417/FUL           shall be limited solely to use for a commercial livery, riding school, and           associated equestrian events. The Equestrian events hereby permitted         shall not exceed 52 events per calendar year commencing from the         date of this permission.

            Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the proposed     development is carried out in accordance with the plans and       documents from which the permission relates and to prevent           inappropriate levels of development within the countryside.

During public participation, Joanna Harvey spoke in objection to the application and Patrick Barry spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Wallace spoke as contiguous Ward Member in objection to the application. In summary, Councillor Wallace raised the following points:

1.         Councillor Wallace noted members' familiarity with the site, stating   there had been numerous applications, mainly retrospective, and a lot            of ongoing enforcement activities, including those called out in the    current application.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Proposal Description: Item 8: The erection of a pair of semidetached houses (1 x two bedrooms and 1 x three bedrooms) one 4 bedroom house and one 5 bedroom house, together with access, parking and landscaping (REVISED PLANS RECEIVED 26.07.2022) 

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out an additional condition to remove permitted development rights as follows:

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 Classes A, AA, B, C, D, E and F of Part 1; of Schedule 2 of the Order, and Class A of Part 2; 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 is proportionate to the site in order to protect the amenities of the locality and to maintain a good quality environment.

During public participation, Dr Arnold David Boul, Kenneth Lee and Councillor Rona Blundell (Oliver’s Battery Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and Duncan McCarthy 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 the        Update Sheet.

Proposal Description: Item 9: (Amended Plans) New 3 bedroom self-build dwelling.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out an additional condition 21 (Site levels) as follows:

No development, or works of site preparation or clearance, 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.         

During public participation, Stephen Hurrell 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 the        Update Sheet. 

Proposal Description: Item 10: (AMENDED DESCRIPTION and PLANS) Change of use from agricultural to equestrian, proposed barn with stables, tack room, feed and hay store and widening of existing access from Mill. Reduced hard standing.  

The application was introduced. During public participation, Toni Phillips-Munday and Richard Ward spoke in objection to the application and answered Members' questions thereon.

Councillor Lee spoke as Ward Member in objection to the application. In summary, Councillor Lee raised the following points:

1.    The site's location within a protected landscape (South Downs National Park) and its sensitive characteristics were highlighted, including its proximity to the Meon Valley Trail, ancient woodlands, and the River Meon. He noted it arguably warranted a Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI) designation.

2.    A significant change in planning policy was raised, noting the 2024 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) now imposed a stronger legal obligation to "actively further" the purposes of the National Park, which included conserving and enhancing the landscape, rather than the previous duty to merely "have regard for" them.

3.    He referenced a previous Inspector's decision which had cited harm to the character and appearance of the area, and suggested the revised proposals failed to fully address these environmental, landscape, and resident concerns.

4.    It was stated that Soberton Parish Council maintained its objection, as the proposal would result in permanent equestrian use and buildings in a countryside location outside the settlement policy boundary. The scale, massing, and intensified use would harm the rural character, landscape, and tranquillity, contravening numerous South Downs National Local Plan policies (SD4, 5, 7, 24, and 25).

5.    The proposal was also considered to be contrary to policy SD2, as it did not adequately demonstrate enhancement of ecosystem services such as water quality, soil health, and biodiversity. The submitted ecosystem services statement was described as incomplete.

6.    Specific negative environmental impacts were listed, including the degradation of soil carbon capture from converting pasture to hardstanding, the risk of polluting runoff into the flood plain, and a lack of a clear grazing management plan which would undermine biodiversity restoration.

7.    While the biodiversity net gain calculations were welcomed, it was argued they needed to be more robust and linked to the emerging local nature recovery strategy. A lack of a natural capital assessment was also noted.

8.    In conclusion, Councillor Lee argued that the application had not fully reflected the strong weight that should now be given to nature and landscape under the updated NPPF. He contended that the application did not contribute to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park, and therefore the objections from the Parish Council, residents, and himself remained extant.

In response to questions, the council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer clarified the weight that should be given to the comments of the appeal inspector regarding the enhanced duty under the National Parks and Countryside Access Act 1949 and the national guidance of 16 December 2024 in this respect.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Proposal Description: Item 12: (AMENDED DESCRIPTION) Change of use of land farm agriculture to provide 3 no. shepherd’s huts for tourism use (class C3); the self-build conversion of a redundant barn to provide accommodation in the form of a single storey two bedroomed facility to enable the running of a business

The application was introduced. During public participation, Rob Medway spoke in support of the application and answered Members' questions thereon.

Councillor Pett spoke as Ward Member (also on behalf of Meonstoke and Corhampton Parish Council) in support of the application. In summary,      

Councillor Pett raised the following points:

1.    He was speaking as both the Ward Member and the Chair of the local Parish Council. He stated that the case was unique as the proposal had been carefully crafted by the applicant, lifelong resident of the farm, rather than by a commercial developer.

2.    The proposal was a realistic and well-researched plan to meet a demonstrable market need for tourist accommodation, given the site's proximity to the South Downs Way where existing accommodation was in high demand.

3.    He disagreed with the officer's report, which he believed had incorrectly characterised the proposal as being principally for market housing and therefore contrary to policy SD25. He argued that the report's premise, that there was no justification for the operator to live on-site, was subjective and not supported by policy.

4.    He contended that policy SD41, concerning the reuse of redundant agricultural buildings, was of greater importance. He highlighted that this policy made provision for "succession housing" for former agricultural or forestry workers, a category the applicant fell into.

5.    The proposal also met two exceptions within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for development in the countryside: the reuse of redundant buildings that enhance their immediate setting, and the essential need for a rural worker to live at or near their place of work.

6.    While the officer's report noted the design would have a "benign effect," he suggested that constructing a small bungalow within a derelict barn constituted the "required enhancement of the setting" as stipulated by policy.

7.    He explained that the Parish Council had not formally commented due to some members' anxiety about setting a precedent for new development. However, several members had submitted individual statements of support, and the wider village community was fulsome in its support for the applicant's family.

8.    The applicant would be happy to be conditioned to ensure the conversion remained an essential part of the business and was not disposed of separately. He would also be proactive in providing transparent updates on the business's progress.

9.    Councillor Pett concluded that to characterise the application as "new market housing in the countryside" was factually incorrect. Instead, it was a prime example of the intent behind policies SD23 and SD41, creating a new tourism business, reusing redundant buildings, and providing employment and accommodation for a lifelong local resident.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

            RESOLVED

                        The committee agreed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The report was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which stated that the Oak tree concerned was considered to be a semi-mature tree.

During public participation, Dr Sandra Steele spoke in objection to the report and answered Members’ questions thereon.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the report.

During debate, the council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer clarified the test to confirm a tree preservation order and set out the position regarding liability and compensation claims raised by the objector.

            RESOLVED:

                        That, having taken into consideration the representations       received, Tree Preservation Order 2356 be confirmed, as set out in the         report.

The meeting commenced at 9.30 am, adjourned between 12.55 pm and 2 pm and concluded at 3.55 pm.

Chairperson