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.

Councillor Russell Gordon-Smith was elected Vice-Chair for this meeting only.

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 Laming made a personal statement that he was a Ward Member in respect of item 10. Norlands Otterbourne Road Compton Winchester Hampshire (Ref: 24/02233/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 Rutter made a personal statement that she was a Ward Member in respect of item 8. 3 - 4 Court Road Kings Worthy Hampshire (Ref: 25/01206/VAR). 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 Pett declared a disclosable pecuniary interest due to his role as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority. However, as there was no material conflict of interest, he remained in the room, spoke and voted under the dispensation granted by the Monitoring Officer.

Councillor Small made a personal statement that she was a Ward Member in respect of item 12 - Land At Titchfield Lane Wickham Hampshire: (Ref 24/02804/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.

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 August 2025.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 August 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 is available to view on the council’s website under the respective planning application.

The committee considered the following items:

Proposal Description: Construction of 48 dwellings, formation of access onto Kilham Lane, provision of landscaping, open space and drainage. Demolition existing buildings. Phased development.

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

An additional condition in relation to archaeology was proposed to be added as follows:

No development or any works of site preparation (other than the necessary demolition of existing structures within the site), shall take place until the applicant or their agents or successors in title have:

a. submitted a Written Scheme of Investigation for archaeological evaluation (trial trenching) to the location planning authority for approval in writing and;

b. have implemented the archaeological evaluation in full in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To assess the extent, nature and date of any archaeological deposits that might be present and the impact of the development upon these heritage assets. Policy DM26 Winchester District Local Plan Part 2; Policy CP20 of the Winchester District Joint Core Strategy.

Further correspondence had been received (23 September 2025) from the NHS regarding healthcare contributions. This did not raise any new issues and was already addressed in the officer's report on pages 37-38.

In addition, the case officer advised that Nick Molyneux from Dixon Searle Partnership who had been instructed by the council to provide an independent assessment of the applicant's viability appraisal was in attendance to answer members questions.

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

During public participation, Stuart Garnett, and Andrew Simpson 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 reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and the update.

Proposal Description: Proposal Description: Variation of condition 2 on application 24/00914/FUL To extend the dwellings with a single storey extension to create additional space for utility, WC and boot room.

The application was introduced, and the committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application. The committee received advice from the Legal Officer regarding the removal of permitted development rights.

RESOLVED

The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report subject to the removal of Permitted Development rights (Class A only).

Proposal Description: The change of use from a 6-bedroom house in multiple occupation (C4) to an 8-bedroom HMO (sui generis).

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the update sheet which provided additional information regarding an additional proposed informative as follows:

No. 5. The applicant is advised that occupants of the property should be informed of the limited parking available at the property and that information should be provided to them about alternative / sustainable transport options.

During public participation, Margaret Houlton spoke in objection to the application, and Rachel Lewis spoke in support of the application.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application and received advice from the Legal Officer concerning the conditions relating to the allowed number of occupants.

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: Application for the variation of conditions 2 and 3 of application 24/00350/HOU relating to changes to elevational finishes and dimensions of the proposed outbuilding (RETROSPECTIVE).

The application was introduced and during public participation, Leanna Cooper spoke in objection to the application, and Councillor Strange, on behalf of Compton and Shawford Parish Council spoke in objection to the application and answered members' questions.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application and received advice from the Legal Officer regarding conditions concerning lighting, colour of render and glass types.

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 three additional conditions, the final wording of which to be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair as follows:

1.    to control external lighting on the outbuilding in order to minimise the impact to neighbouring residents.

2.    to require the use of a recessive render colour for the outbuilding.

3.    to ensure bathroom windows are obscure glazed to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents.

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: Installation, operation and decommissioning of renewable energy generating station comprising ground-mounted photovoltaic solar arrays together with transformer stations, site accesses, internal access tracks, security measures, access gates, other ancillary infrastructure, landscaping and biodiversity enhancements. temporary permission for 40 years.

The application was introduced, and members were referred to the update sheet which provided consolidated, detailed information regarding cumulative impacts. In summary the update concluded that having regard to the points set out that cumulative impacts resulting from the solar development in combination with the nearby Ash Farm would be very modest and would reduce in the longer term to negligible. The cumulative impacts of the development had therefore been assessed and would not justify refusal in this case.

It was noted that the committee had visited parts of the application site on 23 September 2025 to enable members to observe the site in context and to gain a better appreciation of the proposals.

During public participation, Sharon Queeney, and Philip Silk spoke in support of the application, Councillor Broad, and Councillor Rappe spoke on behalf of Wickham and Knowle Parish Council, Councillor Ogden, and Councillor Byrne, spoke on behalf of Shedfield Parish Council in objection to the application and answered members' questions.

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

1.     He advised that he had direct experience of both the construction phase and of living with a solar park of a similar capacity to the one proposed.

2.     It was noted that the proposal was unusual due to its many widely spread parcels of land, which made a comprehensive assessment of the land's value difficult. While some plots had limited agricultural value, others had been consistently used for crop production, and it was his belief that the outdated land classification model did not provide a realistic view of the land's inherent agricultural worth.

3.     Concern was expressed that the construction phase could cause disruption for up to five years due to the disparate nature of the plots, with particular reference to substantial cabling work on Titchfield Lane and the A334. He remained unconvinced that an effective traffic management plan could reduce the disruption to an acceptable level over such a long period.

4.     He highlighted potential substantial cumulative effects from other concurrent developments in the area, as raised by the Parish Council.

5.     Drawing on personal experience where promised biodiversity enhancements on a similar project had not materialised, he suggested a condition be applied requiring the developer to fund independent monitoring of the land management requirements for the lifetime of the development. He also assumed a bond for reinstatement would be a key condition.

6.     He raised concerns about poor community engagement and questioned why a concept master plan was not required for a scheme of this scale. It was felt that there had been no substantial offer of community benefit and that an enforceable commitment to a contribution should be negotiated.

The committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.