Agenda and minutes

To receive any disclosure of interests from Members and Officers in matters to be discussed.

Note: Councillors are reminded of their obligations to declare disclosable pecuniary interests, personal and/or prejudicial interests, and on Predetermination 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.

In respect of Item 7 (46 Harrow Down, Badger Farm), Councillor Laming advised that he had predetermined the application as he had been involved in   discussions regarding the proposal.  Councillor Laming spoke as a Ward Member and sat apart from the Committee during the determination of this application, taking no part in the discussion or vote thereon.

In respect of Item 14 (73 Stoney Lane, Winchester), Councillor Weir advised that she had predetermined the application as she had been involved in   discussions regarding the proposal.  Councillor Weir spoke as a Ward Member and sat apart from the Committee during the determination of this application, taking no part in the discussion or vote thereon.

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 26 July 2018 and the minutes of the Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee held on 7 August 2018

RESOLVED:

            That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 July 2018 and the minutes of the Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee held on 7 August 2018, be approved and adopted.

The Committee agreed to receive the Update Sheet as an addendum to Report PDC 1115.

(PDC 1115 and Update Sheet refers)

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

Case number:  18/01161/HOU

Item 7: (Amended Plans and Description) Proposed construction of single storey front and side extensions and two storey rear extension to include external alterations. Alterations to existing driveway and creation of new access. Conversion of existing garage and existing loft into habitable accommodation.

Case number: 18/01161/HOU

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which referred to an amendment to Paragraph 2 of the ‘Other Matters’ section of the Report.  There was also clarification with regard to Houses of Multiple Occupation and also, following receipt of amended plans, a revised Condition 4.  The Update Sheet also set out further representation from Ward Member Councillor Bell who had been unable to attend the meeting.

During public participation, Edward Ellis and John Godbold (Badger Farm Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and both responded to the Committee’s questions thereon. 

During public participation, Councillors Warwick and Laming spoke on this item as Ward Members.

In summary, Councillor Warwick reminded the Committee of the house’s current unoccupied and neglected state as well as explaining its location in a prominent position, in a residential area of similar sized two or three bed properties.  Councillor Warwick also drew the Committee’s attention to the plans as submitted by the applicant which showed desk spaces, ensuite bathrooms and reduced ground floor living space which may suggest intentions for the house to become a student let. 

Councillor Warwick raised concern regarding the proposals which she considered were too big for the plot and that the proposed minimum three parking spaces were inadequate, especially as the integral garage (which was one of the proposed spaces) was insufficient in size for most vehicles.  This was a feature of all the garages in Badger Farm.  The two other spaces outside were too short in length. Therefore, it was likely that there would be additional parking on the already congested, narrow road as it would be difficult to safely enter and leave the proposed spaces.  Furthermore, if the dropped kerb was to be to be extended towards the corner of Harrow Road, this would be unsafe as it would be too close to the road junction.  She suggested this should be at least 10 metres away from the junction, as it would otherwise contravene highway authority requirements.

Councillor Warwick stated that the application contravened Policy CP13 as the proposed new extensions would not be subservient to the existing dwelling.  They represented up to a 80% increase in living space.  She considered the proposal would also contravene Policy DM17 as the development would be overbearing and would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbours.  Furthermore she suggested the proposal was out of character with the area and contrary to Policy DM15, as well as Policies DM17 and DM18.  In conclusion, Councillor Warwick reminded the Committee that the dropped kerb required to facilitate the additional necessary off road car parking, was a separate application to Hampshire County Council as highway authority.  Therefore, she requested that a further condition  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Case number: 18/01359/FUL

Item 8: Development of six houses with garages and parking; new access road.  Demolition of existing.

Case number: 18/01359/FUL

The Head of Development Management drew the Committee’s attention to the Update Sheet which set out additional Conditions 23 – 27.

During public participation, Sylvia Conway-Jones spoke in objection to the application and Stephen Sherlock (Agent) spoke in support of the application and all answered Members’ questions thereon.  

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

In summary, Councillor Green highlighted concerns of safety of pedestrians and traffic on the already busy Olivers Battery Road North.  This would be from traffic generated by the new development and also from creating new hazards associated with the underpass located at the end of the road.  The new access road was to be located in the existing hammerhead which was already located at a blind corner close to the underpass. The underpass was a busy pedestrian and cycle route and the proposed access to the new development close to the underpass would be dangerous. Cars currently were only allowed to reverse into this. There were already parking issues along the road at school drop-off time.

In conclusion, Councillor Green suggested that the application had been rushed through for determination when residents may have been on holiday.  

The Committee agreed to defer the decision to a meeting of the Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee to be held on Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 12 noon.  The Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee would visit the site in order to assess the proposed access route in the context of its setting, specifically with regard to the concerns raised of the safety of pedestrians and traffic generation. 

Case number: 18/01319/FUL

Item 9: Change of use of basement and ground floors from Class A2 (bank) to a mixed Class A1/A3 use (coffee shop) together with shopfront alterations (AMENDED DESCRIPTION) (AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED 18th July 2018)

Case number:18/01319/FUL

The Head of Development Management drew attention to the Update Sheet that added additional wording to the ‘Proposal’ section of the Report.

During public participation, Reverend Natasha Anderson and Jane Parsons (St John’s Baptist Church) spoke in objection to the application and Elliot Jones (Agent) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

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

In summary, Councillor Power highlighted that the building was on a busy and prominent site and the passageway was a popular pedestrian right of way.  The title deeds for the former bank showed that St John’s owned all the land up to  rear wall of the former bank.  The application plans currently showed that bins were intended to be stored here, and therefore this would not be permissible.  The bins would also be below the first floor residential accommodation.  An air conditioning unit was also showing on the plans on the rear wall and that this must have a restriction on its decibel output as it must not be audible from the graveyard to the rear of the building. 

In conclusion, Councillor Power reiterated that St John’s was a valuable green space which must be respected with no detrimental impact on visitors to the graveyard from intrusions from the proposal.

The Head of Development Management confirmed that the air conditioning unit was replacing existing plant and attenuation measures were in place. The proposed seating in the passageway was not part of the planning application but would need separate consent from Hampshire County Council as highway authority.

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, subject to an additional condition requiring refuse to be stored on-site only, except on collection day, with the precise wording being delegated to the Head of Development Management to agree in consultation with the Chairman.

Care number: 18/01321/AVC

Item 10: 2 No. illuminated fascia signs, 1 No. non-illuminated hanging sign, 1 No. non-illuminated panel sign (AMENDED DESCRIPTION) (AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED 18th July 2018)

Case number: 18/01321/AVC

The Head of Development Management drew attention to the Update Sheet that highlighted a correction to the proposal description in the Report and also under the ‘general comments’ section.  There was also a correction to the reasons for Conditions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. 

During public participation, Elliot Jones (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

At 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 Update Sheet. 

Case number: 18/01463/FUL

Item 11:  Alterations and additions to Plot 3, Southgate, Cross Way, Shawford

Case number: 18/01463/FUL

The Head of Development Management drew attention to the Update Sheet that set out representations received from Compton and Shawford Parish Council.

During public participation, Robert Tice and Frances Strange (Compton and Shawford Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and answered Members’ questions thereon. 

At conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to refuse planning permission for the following reasons: the scale, design and layout  of the new dwelling in its enlarged form does not respond positively to the character and appearance of the local environment contrary to Policy DM16 and    the development was contrary to Policy DM17, due it having an unneighbourly impact on the existing house at Tanera  and also to the new plot 1 on site, due to the inclusion of the new dormer windows to the front, with the precise wording being delegated to the Head of Development Management to agree in consultation with the Chairman.

Case number:  SDNP/17/03750/FUL

Item 13: Erection of one new dwelling at land to the rear of Lion Hill House.

Case number: SDNP/17/03750/FUL

The Head of Development Management drew attention to the Update Sheet that set out comments from the Drainage Engineer.  It was confirmed that the Environment Agency and Building Control had now agreed upon an infiltration scheme for the development.

During public participation, John Bennington spoke in objection to the application and Simon Goddard (Agent) spoke in support of the application and all answered Members’ questions thereon. 

The Committee agreed to defer the decision to a meeting of the Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee to be held on Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 12 noon.  The Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee would visit the site in order to assess the issues of parking and the impact on the listed buildings, conservation area and neighbouring properties.

Case number: 18/01268/FUL

Item 14: Proposed change of use of part of 73 Stoney Lane from Class A3/A5 (Restaurant & Take Away) to Class A5 (Hot Food Takeaway), including extraction system and associated minor alterations.

Case number: 18/01268/FUL

The Head of Development Management drew attention to the Update Sheet that clarified that Condition 6 would now be listed as an Informative and also that Condition 8 be reworded to state: ‘No goods for customer delivery shall be dispatched from the rear of the premises after 2100hrs Monday-Sunday.’

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

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

In summary, Councillor Weir highlighted that although Weeke shops were a successful hub in north Winchester, for both the daytime and evening economies, this success had been outweighed by lack of infrastructure.  Parking was a particular problem and an increase in further traffic would exacerbate this and have a further detrimental impact.  There was already rubbish and food waste left in the area. In conclusion, the application would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area and on the wellbeing of local residents.  Councillor Weir requested that any consent should be subject to the applicant submitting a travel plan and also that a further condition be added with regard to no trading outside the 1100-2300 window.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Report and the Update Sheet, subject to an amendment to Condition 3 to read as follows:

‘The use hereby permitted shall only be open to customers and for deliveries within the following times 1100-2300hrs Monday to Sunday’.

Case number: 18/00983/HOU

Item 15: Two storey/first floor side extension, conversion of garage to room, enlargement of porch, erection of new detached garage. Alterations to fenestration

Case number: 18/00983/HOU

During public participation, Aileen Edmunds spoke in objection to the application and Robert Shields (Bishops Waltham Parish Council) 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 as set out in the Report. 

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 7, the application be refused for                       the following reasons: the development by reason of its scale,                      mass and size was contrary to Policies DM16 and CP13,                             and was therefore harmful to the character and appearance of                     the area and also would have an adverse impact on the                                 neighbour, with the precise wording being delegated to the Head                of Development Management to agree in consultation with the                       Chairman;

            (ii)        That in respect of item 8, the decision be deferred to a            meeting of the Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee to be held on        Wednesday, 5 September at 12 noon. The Planning (Viewing)             Sub Committee would visit the site in order to assess the       proposed access route in the context of its setting, specifically    with regard to the concerns raised of the safety of pedestrians           and traffic; 

                        (iii)       That in respect of item 9, permission be granted for                              the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set               out in the Report and the Update Sheet,  subject to an additional

condition requiring refuse  to be stored on-site  only, except on collection day, with the precise wording being delegated to the Head of Development Management to agree in consultation with the Chairman.

(iv)       That in respect of item 11 the item be refused for the   following reasons: the scale, design and layout  of the attached           garage of the new dwelling in its enlarged form does not             respond positively to the character and appearance of the local        environment contrary to Policy DM16 and the development was contrary to Policy  DM17, due it having an unneighbourly impact            on the existing house at Tanera and also to the new plot 1 on          site, due to the inclusion of the new dormer windows to the front,        with the precise wording being delegated to the Head of   Development Management to agree in consultation with the             Chairman.

                        (v)        That in respect of item 13, the decision be deferred to a                      meeting of the Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee to be held on                    Wednesday, 5 September at 12 noon.  The Planning                                           (Viewing) Sub Committee would visit the site in order to assess                    the issues of parking and the impact on the listed                                            buildings, conservation area and neighbouring properties.; and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.