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. Due to apologies being received from the Chairperson, Cllr Williams (Vice-Chairperson) chaired the meeting, and Councillor Small was elected as Vice Chair for this meeting.

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 Langford-Smith made a personal statement that she was a Ward Member in respect of item 8, Anthill Farmlands, Hambledon Road, Denmead. Ref: 24/02402/OUT. 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 Gordon-Smith made a personal statement that he was a Ward Member in respect of item 9. Arle Barns, Arlebury Park Barns, Alresford, Hampshire. Ref:24/00715/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 Williams made a personal statement that he was the Hampshire County Council Ward Member in respect of item 10, Hayfield, Bourne Fields, Twyford, SO21 1NY. Ref: SDNP/21/02445/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 Williams also declared a wider, 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 11 June 2026.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 11 June 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: Demolition of redundant care home and associated outbuildings, redevelopment of the site to provide 32 apartments including 50% affordable housing and associated alterations to site access, sub-station, hard and soft landscaping, car parking, cycle store, plant room, refuse and recycling store, drainage, boundary treatments and other associated works.

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

1. Further comments received on 10 July 2025 from the Winchester Racquets and Fitness (WRF) club.
2. Clarification was provided that the 'building ventilation strategy and overheating assessment' referred to throughout the report was that referred to in condition 24, ' overheating analysis'.
3. A further update to condition 2 to show the change to the site plan revision numbers.

These matters were set out in detail on the Update Sheet.

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

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

1. He noted that the application had returned to the committee because the developers had modified their design, firstly in response to officer feedback and secondly to address sound-related issues raised by the adjacent Winchester Racquets and Fitness Club.
2. The primary issue for consideration related to the principle from the National Planning Policy Framework, which sought to protect existing businesses, such as the Club, from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments being permitted nearby.
3. He stated that the committee must be certain that the proposals would ensure future residents of the new development would not have reasonable grounds for finding the noise from the Club's operations a nuisance.
4. He explained that the sport of Padel, played at the club, involved more frequent and rapid ball-striking than tennis. He believed that while not necessarily louder, the frequency of the sound could lead to it being considered more of a nuisance.
5. He believed that it was necessary for all parties to be protected: to prevent the Club from facing future noise abatement notices, to ensure residents were not disturbed by noise, and to allow the developer to avoid potential issues selling the properties.
6. He endorsed a condition proposed by the Club as a satisfactory way of resolving the issue and recommended that the committee approve the application with this condition attached.
7. He also suggested that the committee confirm with the Environmental Health Officer that they were formally satisfied that the proposed acoustic wall would be sufficient to mitigate the noise to a level where it would not be considered a nuisance for future residents.
8. He thanked the developers for their cooperation and for implementing changes in response to concerns raised.

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: Two Self-Build Dwellings.

The application was introduced and during public participation, Andrew Burgess spoke in support of the application, and Councillor Clay, on behalf of Denmead Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and answered members' questions.

Following the public speaking session, the Case Officer clarified that, although a “split decision” was within the Committee’s powers, both elements of the proposal were contrary to the Local Plan, and refusal of the full application was therefore recommended. 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 an existing farm building and the erection of a dwelling, landscaping, parking, and associated works. (amended plans received 29 May 2024) (updated details received 12 February 2025).

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

1. The applicant had requested minor changes to a number of conditions (numbers 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8A) relating to the commencement of development. It was considered that the proposed changes were acceptable, and these were set out in full on the Update sheet. The amended conditions were numbers 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8A.
2. In addition, the case officer provided a verbal update concerning recent correspondence concerning the ownership of an adjacent piece of land. The committee was advised that the author was registered to speak at the meeting and so was able to raise those points with the committee directly if required.

During public participation, Ian Tillett spoke in objection to the application, Richard Osborn 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 Advisor, who updated the committee regarding the adjacent piece of land raised during the public speaking session. He advised that a previous application for a lawful development certificate had asserted the land in question was residential garden (C3 use). This application was refused by the Council and subsequently dismissed on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate, who agreed with the Council’s assessment that the land did not constitute garden land. Accordingly, the land retains its designation as agricultural. Consequently, it was noted that any proposed development, such as a Juliet balcony, would not overlook garden or amenity land.

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.

2.    That an additional condition be included regarding the outbuildings to ensure that the use of them was limited to incidental or ancillary purposes only, and that they would not be subdivided, rented out, or converted in any way. The precise wording to be delegated to the Chair of Planning Committee, in consultation with the Service Lead: Built Environment.

Proposal Description: AMENDED PLANS and DOCUMENTS - 09/09/2021) Demolition of detached dwelling, erection of two dwellings..

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

1. An Additional Condition (No.16). A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. This shall include storage of any equipment/machinery/materials/chemicals, dust suppression, construction vehicle parking, waste/construction material disposal, noise/visual/vibrational impacts and lighting.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the area.

2. In addition, six further letters of objection had been received, and the themes raised in these letters were set out in full on the Update Sheet.

During public participation, Councillor Corcoran, on behalf of Twyford Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Councillor Liam Bailey Morgan spoke as a ward member and expressed several points which could be summarised as follows:

1. He advised that he was also speaking on behalf of Councillor Cook, who sent her apologies, and that she fully supported the position he had taken.
2. He confirmed he had reviewed the application, supporting documents and objections from residents and Twyford Parish Council. He had also visited the site and spoken with concerned neighbours.
3. He noted that the South Downs Local Plan (SD27) and the Twyford Neighbourhood Plan promoted a balanced mix of housing, emphasising two and three-bedroom homes, not large five-bedroom homes as proposed in the application.
4. It was highlighted that the Twyford Neighbourhood Plan policy HN1 limited new four-bedroom homes to 150 square metres, yet the proposed five-bedroom homes were more than double this size.
5. He argued that the proposal for two five-bedroom homes did not serve the identified local need for smaller, affordable, and accessible dwellings (as encouraged by policy HN3.and undermined the social objectives of the development plan.
6. He was concerned about the carbon that would be released by demolishing a home and building two larger ones, which conflicted with the Council's and the National Park's net-zero targets.
7. While acknowledging the officer's justification based on site-specific context, he believed that specific planning policies should take precedence and urged the Committee to refuse the application to uphold both the Twyford Neighbourhood Plan and the South Downs Local Plan.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED

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

2.    That the proposed development, because of the scale and size of the two, five-bedroom dwellings, was considered to be contrary to policy HN1 (criterion 1) of the Twyford Neighbourhood Plan and policy SD27 of the South Downs Local Plan, in that it failed to preserve and enhance the purposes of the National Park by providing a mix of housing that meets identified local needs.      

The report set out a summary of the 11 planning appeal decisions for the

period 1 April 2025 to 30 June 2025 and 2 enforcement appeal decisions for the same period. The Service Lead Built Environment provided the committee with further details of several decisions from the report.

RESOLVED:

That the summary of planning and enforcement appeal decisions received during the period 1 April 2025 to 30 June 2025 be noted.