Agenda and minutes

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 21 June 2018.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2018, be approved and adopted.

The Committee agreed to receive the Update Sheet as an addendum to Report PDC1113.

A copy of each planning application decision is available to view on the Council’s website under the respective planning application.

Case number: 18/00703/FUL

Item 7:  Section 73 application to vary conditions 2 (Approved Plans), 3 (Interpretations)  4 (Changes to Approved Plans for ADP)  8 (Method Statement on Earthmoving and Re-contouring of Site) and   11 (Materials for Education Building) of planning permission 16/01679/FUL; to allow for changes to layout and infrastructure to form Anaerobic Digester Plant (ADP) and to layout, design and appearance of Education Building.

Sparsholt College, Westley Lane, Sparsholt, SO21 2NF

Case number: 18/00703/FUL

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out the following: two further letters of representation submitted by Sparsholt Parish Council and one additional letter of representation received; the planning officers response; and conclusion with no change to the recommendation. 

In addition, a verbal update was provided summarising the contents of a further letter that had been submitted on behalf of five residents from Stockbridge.

During public participation, Richard Gueterbock, Sue Wood (Sparsholt Parish Council) and Peter Deehan (Crawley Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and John Turvill, Marcus Beddoe (Applicant) and Tim Jackson (Sparsholt College) spoke in support of the application and all answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Horrill had registered to speak on this item as Ward Member. However, due to an emergency she was not able to attend to read her statement personally but had appointed Stewart Wooles to read her representation to the Committee on her behalf.

In summary, it was noted that Councillor Horrill considered that the Council had adopted a sound Local Plan which received significant input from residents as to what would be acceptable in their area. In July 2016 when the Committee considered the last planning application, it was acknowledged that planning permission would only be justified and given to the Anaerobic Digester Plant (AD Plant) based upon the Education function and the integral link to the agricultural college, which was supported at the time by M3 Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) funding.

Councillor Horrill queried how the proposal met the requirements of Policy MTRA(4) by way of the difference between the two applications with the new proposal setting out a significant reduction to the floorspace by 50% from the previous submission, whilst  still suggesting that the building would continue to provide the same level of educational function to the students.  It was considered that this called into question the validity of the application.

Councillor Horrill sought clarity on the aims of Policy MTRA(4) in relation to the type of development that could be permitted in the countryside as she deemed this application to be unacceptable and unjustified in this particular location where, in her opinion, the proposed development would come at a significant cost to the rural villages surrounding the College.

In her statement, Councillor Horrill also suggested that the external advice the Applicant (Ecotricity) provided on the functionality of an AD Plant should be disregarded as the Applicant possessed no direct experience of building an AD Plant and she queried why four other local authorities had previously rejected such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Case number: 17/03218/FUL

Item 8: Change of use from residential care home with nursing (Use class C2) to residential (Use class C3) to provide 15 No. residential units. Proposed external alterations to include alterations to doors and windows, insertion of dormer windows and alterations to the roof. Rearrangement of existing parking to provide additional spaces and new bin and cycle stores.

Revised site plan showing an increase in on site parking provision from 24 to 26 spaces, resulting in the cycle store relocated to closer to the existing building.

The Tiled House, Saffronland Nursing Home, Southdown Road, Shawford  SO21 2BY

Case number: 17/03218/FUL

During public participation, Anthony Lewis spoke in objection to the application and Alison Young (Agent) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

In response to questions from Members, the Council’s Highway Development Control Engineer clarified that the development offered parking in excess of the Council’s residential parking standard and therefore that particular requirement was satisfied.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report.

Case number: 18/00797/FUL

Item 9: Demolition of a single storey side extension and alterations to the fenestration of the existing Overcross House and construction of a new 5 bedroom detached dwelling to the east of the existing house.

Overcross House, Cross Way, Shawford, SO21 2BZ

Case number: 18/00797/FUL

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out: an amended recommendation to read ‘Application Permitted’; deletion of Policy MTRA(2) and Informative 3 and replace with MTRA(3); and additional wording and changes to be made to Conditions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 13. 

During public participation, Anthony Lewis spoke in objection to the application and Tony Boyle (Agent) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

At the conclusion of debate, 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.

Case number: 18/01198/FUL

Item 10: Proposed 1 no. dwelling

50 Willis Waye, Kings Worthy, SO23 7QT

Case number: 18/011498/FUL

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which outlined a change to Page 3 under section ‘Consultations’ Southern Water comments should read ‘no objection’.

During public participation, Ian Gordon (Kings Worthy Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and Louise Cutts spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

At the conclusion of debate, 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.

Case number: 18/01229/AVC

Item 12: Erection of sales and marketing signage.

Hampshire Constabulary HQ, Romsey Road, Winchester

Case number: 18/01229/AVC

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which stated that amended plans had been received on 25 July 2018 showing that the proposed sign 3 (at the entrance to West End Terrace) had been removed due to an objection raised by the Council’s Historic Environment Officer about lack of information pertaining to the structural condition of the flint wall and its suitability to hold the sign.

During public participation, John Burley spoke in objection to the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

During public participation, Councillor Thompson spoke on this item as a Ward Member.

In summary, Councillor Thompson stated that she spoke in behalf of the 43 objectors to the application and urged the Committee to reconsider the recommendation and reject the application. She referred to the number of applications that had been submitted since the original and stated that the 2016 application gave permission for the erection of a temporary sales and marketing suite for a limited period which was due to expire in 2020. Councillor Thompson stated that this application was passed largely unnoticed as local residents were unaware of the application and this application sought to extend the period of vehicular access to 2023.

Councillor Thompson stated that the site was set in a densely populated area of Winchester whereby it was difficult for vehicles to pass and considered that a condition should be applied to the entrance of the site at West End Terrace to enable this to remain as pedestrian and cyclist right of way only. In conclusion, Councillor Thompson clarified that residents were of the understanding that there was an explicit condition in place that the entrance of the site was not to be used by vehicles so to lengthen the amount of time the site was to be used as a marketing suite was considered to be wholly unacceptable and she urged the Committee to reject the extension.

At the conclusion of debate, 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.

Case number: 18/00829/FUL

Item 13:  Demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and the erection of 1no. 2 bedroom house, 2no. 3 bedroom houses, 1no. 4 bedroom house and widening of the existing vehicular access. 

78 Alresford Road, Winchester, SO23 0JX

Case number: 18/00829/FUL

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out; an additional wording and changes to Conditions 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 and Informative 3.

During public participation, Dr H Patel spoke in objection to the application and Jeremy Tyrell (Agent) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

At the conclusion of debate, 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.

Case number: 17/03193/FUL

Item 14:  Change of use from Class D1 to Class B1(a).

St Clements Partnership, Tanner Street, Winchester, SO23 8AD

Case number: 17/03193/FUL

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to refuse permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report.

Case number: 17/03194/FUL

Item 15:  Change of use from Class D1 to Class B1(a).

St Clements Partnership, Tanner Street, Winchester, SO23 8AD

Case number: 17/03194/FUL

This application was withdrawn.

Case number: 18/00646/OUT

Item 16:  Redevelopment of the site: Construct 5 No. detached houses (1 x 4 bed, 2 x 3 bed [each with detached single garage] and 2 x 2 bed) and 4 x 2 bed apartments, associated means of enclosure, surface car parking and new access spur.  Resurfacing of access from Stanmore Lane to new access spur, including construction of passing bay and adjustment of eastern boundary to Stanmore Primary School.  Erection of 3m high acoustic fence to part of common boundary with adjoining electricity sub-station (All matters for consideration except landscaping).

Land adjacent to Stanmore Primary School, Stanmore Lane, Winchester

Case number: 18/00646/OUT

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which stated that the consultations section of the report, WCC Engineers – Highways, the Highways Officer confirmed that there are no objections to the proposals as amended.

During public participation, Steve Lawrence (Agent) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

At the conclusion of debate, 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.

Case number: 18/00896/HOU

Item 17:  Proposed Extensions

43 Woodfield Drive, Winchester, SO22 5PY

Case number: 18/00896/HOU                                     

During public participation, Sarah McGowan spoke in objection to the application and Katie Whiles spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

During public participation, Councillor Hutchison spoke on this item as a Ward Member.

In summary, Councillor Hutchison stated that she supported the concerns of the objector and was speaking on behalf of the residents of 45 Woodfield Drive and the detrimental impact the proposal would have on their home and garden which she considered would effect their quality of life. She stated that she had visited the properties of 45 and 47 Woodfield Drive to assess for herself what the impact would be on these neighbouring properties and that she felt strongly that the proposed design could be altered to minimise the damage to the neighbours amenities.

Councillor Hutchison stated that the curve of the road and shape of the gardens in this area would mean that the effect of the proposed extension would be hugely significant on the amenities of all neighbouring properties by virtue of its height, mass and pitch, resulting in an overbearing form of development.

In conclusion, Councillor Hutchison suggested that, due to the nature of the road, the Committee visit the site to assess the impact of the proposal on the gardens of the neighbouring properties at 41, 45 and 47 Woodfield Drive, prior to making a decision on the application

The Committee agreed to defer the decision to a meeting of the Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee to be held on Tuesday 7 August 2018 at 10.30am.  The Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee would visit the site in order to assess the proposed extensions in the context of its setting and the relationship with the neighbouring properties.

RESOLVED:

1.            That the decisions taken on the Development Control Applications in relation to those applications inside and outside the area of the South Downs National Park be agreed as set out in the decision relating to each item, subject to the following:

(i)         That in respect of item 15, the item be withdrawn; and

(ii)        That in respect of item 17, the decision be deferred to a meeting of the Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee to be held on Tuesday 7 August at 10.30am. The Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee would visit the site in order to assess the proposed extensions in the context of its setting and the relationship with the neighbouring properties.

During public participation, Alison Davidson spoke in support of the  confirmation and answered Members’ questions thereon.

During public participation, Councillor Murphy spoke on this item as a Ward Member.

In summary, Councillor Murphy stated that she supported the case made by the officer to confirm this particular Tree Preservation Order. The Water Garden had provided pleasure to many residents and visitors over many years. It offered additional visual value and amenity to the entrance to the City and it was important that this be protected as an important asset of the Winchester area with the magnolias forming a key component of the Garden.

Councillor Murphy clarified that Tree Preservation Orders were used to protect a tree if it had a significant impact on the historic appearance and character of the conservation area which she considered was relevant in this case.

RESOLVED:

That, having taken into consideration the representations received, Tree Preservation Order 2221 be confirmed with modification (to accurately plot the location of T2).

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee gave consideration to the Report which provided a summary of the appeal decisions received for the period 1 April 2018 to 30 June 2018.

RESOLVED:

            That the report be noted.

The meeting commenced at 9.30am and adjourned between 12.30pm and 2.00pm and concluded at 4.15pm.

Chairman