Agenda and minutes

At the start of the 28 September meeting, the Chairperson announced that since the summons and agenda for this meeting had been issued last week, it was not possible for the meeting to take place in the usual venue of the Walton Suite, Winchester Guildhall. This was due to the lift facilities currently being unavailable and as the room venue was located on the third floor it would not offer full accessibility for members of the public and others wishing to speak or observe, therefore it was proposed that the meeting be adjourned.

The Chairperson made a brief statement that apologies had been notified to Democratic Services but given the proposed nature of today’s business, the meeting was taking place with a reduced membership and that there were no declarations of interest..

RESOLVED:

That the meeting be adjourned and reconvene on Friday, 7                  October 2022 at 9.30am

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor McLean, with Councillor Cook attending as standing deputy member.

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.

Councillor Rutter declared a personal (but not prejudicial) interest in respect of item 6 (The Alpines, School Lane, Headbourne Worthy – case number: 22/01617/FUL) due to her role as Chair of Headbourne Worthy Parish Council who had raised objection to the application.  However, she had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, therefore she took part in the consideration of this item and voted thereon.

Councillor Evans and Councillor Clear both declared a personal (but not prejudicial) interest in respect of item 13 (Land South West of Oakdene, Southwick Road, Wickham – case number 22/01136/FUL) due to their roles as Ward Members. However, as they had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, they took part in the consideration of this item and voted thereon.

Councillor Pearson declared a personal (but not prejudicial) interest in respect of item 14 (The Brambles, Melmerby, Spring Lane, Swanmore – case number 22/01313/HOU) due to his role as Ward Member. However, he had taken no part in discussions regarding the application, therefore he took part in the consideration of this item and voted thereon.

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 17 August 2022.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 17 August 2022 be approved and adopted.

The committee agreed to receive the Update Sheet as an addendum to Report PDC1208.

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: Erection of detached two storey four bedroom dwelling, and associated access and landscaping

The application was introduced.  During public participation, Gordon Hawkes spoke in objection to the application and Jeremy Tyrell and Lee Scott (agent) 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 refuse permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report.

Proposal Description: Item 7: Erection of new first floor offices over existing single storey flat roofed, lounge, kitchenette and WC’s. Replacement of existing City Road entrance vestibule with 2 storey glazed entrance lobby. Erection of new lift shaft enclosure at rear of sanctuary. Enclosure of existing Swan Lane entrance canopy to provide draught lobby to Church Hall, with glazed entrance doors and fanlight over.

The application was introduced. During public participation, Reverend Marcus Dickinson spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

For clarification, the Historic Environment Officer advised the committee that the design of the proposal, by virtue of its height and mass, was considered to be harmful and not in keeping with the surrounding area or the positive aspects of the conservation area.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

            RESOLVED:

The committee agreed to grant permission for the following reasons: that the public benefits outweigh the limited harm and are of the view that the application aligns with planning policies, subject to a range of planning conditions the details of which to be delegated to Service Lead: Built Environment to agree with the Chair and to include:

·         Approved plans list;

·         The bronze / brown metal finish and material of the eaves details of the approved extension is not approved and details and samples of the eaves detail shall be submitted to and approved before works commence.

·         Materials schedule/sample panel

·         Large scale plans / detailing

·         Construction Management Plan

Proposal Description: Item 8: Erection of a pergoda to the rear of the property.   

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out that the St Giles Hill Neighbourhood Design Statement (NDS) did apply to the proposal, particularly planning guidance 6. 

In addition, a verbal update was provided at the meeting to advise that planning guidance 10 of the St Giles Hill NDS also specifically applied to the proposal whereby ‘new buildings or building works should not dominate neighbouring buildings’ and ‘new buildings on steep gradients should be set into the slope’.

During public participation, Robert Rowland-Rouse (also speaking on behalf of Corinne Cruickshank) and Ian Tait spoke in objection to the application and Toby Wincer (agent) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Radcliffe spoke as a Ward Member and answered Members’ questions thereon.

In summary, Councillor Radcliffe raised the following points:

·         Opposition and concern from residents of the St Giles Hill community that the application comes on top of two years of heavy construction at the site, all carried out without planning permission quite legitimately relying on permitted development rights.

·         Referred to the works that had previously taken place including the pool house which had been constructed under permitted development and due to the steep slope of the land, was over 8 meters high to the rear – assurance had been provided by officers that this was lawful under permitted development which seems to assume that all plots are level.

·         Acknowledged previous works do not form part of the current application. However, he considered impact of the proposal could not be properly assessed without taking into account what had already been built out on site.

·         The proposal would sit upon a terrace that had already been raised 6.5m over the neighbouring garden, would in effect result in an over 9m structure when viewed from next door which would be overbearing and visually intrusive.

·         A structure of this size would contravene the St Giles Hill Neighbourhood Design Statement.

·         Considered that permitted development rights in this part of St Giles Hill should be reviewed and suggested that action be taken to suspend or restrict the permitted development rights regime in areas where it was causing harm in order to regulate development. Councillor Radcliffe asked the committee to pursue this matter with the Cabinet Member for Place and Local Plan and officers to seek a resolution.

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, the Update Sheet and the verbal update set out above. 

Proposal Description: Item 9: Change of use of agricultural land to residential garden and development to provide a garage (AMENDED DESCRIPTION. AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED 22.07.2022)

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out in full additional surface water drainage information that had been submitted and reviewed by the council’s drainage engineer with the recommended removal of condition 11 and an amendment to condition 2 (approved plans). 

During public participation, Martin Pratt (applicant) 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 11: New lighting installations and change of use of existing loading bay to an events space.  

The application was introduced.  Members were referred to the Update Sheet which sets out in full amendments to the report and to condition 3 and the inclusion of an additional condition 7. 

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 12: Middle Brook Street, Silver Hill and Tanner Street – existing brick wall, columns and panels at ground and partially first floor level painted Anthracite Grey as a backdrop, with ‘Kings Walk’ signage and graphic rings painted on top.

Silver Hill – powder coated steel doors with vision panels and powder coated solid steel panels above, shop names to be applied in black vinyl to solid panels above doors.

Silver Hill – Central Winchester Regeneration logo applied to door at eye level.

Middle Brook Street – vinyl lettering signage applied to first floor window.  

The application was introduced.  Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out in full an amendment to the Historic Environment section of the report.

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 13: Change of use of agricultural land for equestrian purposes; erection of 2no. equestrian stable buildings and 1no. feed store for private use; new access track off of existing (amended plans and proposal).  

The application was introduced.  Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out in full additional information regarding the storage and disposal of manure from the site that had been submitted and reviewed by the council’s environmental protection team with a recommended revision to condition 5; and one letter of support to the application received on 16 September 2022. 

During public participation, Chris Chamberlain and Councillor Lorraine Rappe (Wickham Parish Council) spoke in objection to 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, subject to the following: an amendment to condition 8 stating no livery shall take at the site; an amendment to condition 9 specifying the building materials and colour to be used; and an additional informative that consideration be given to the installation of boxes for the protection of wildlife species. The exact wording delegated to the Chair of Planning Committee in consultation with the Service Lead: Built Environment.

Proposal Description: Item 14: Extension and conversion of side garage and construction of new first floor over.  

The application was introduced. During public participation, Councillor Malcolm Wallace read a personal statement on behalf of a local resident, Craig Blakeway, in objection to the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED:

The committee agreed to refuse permission for the following reasons: the development represents overdevelopment by reason of its siting and height, and results in a cramped built form of development due to unacceptable car parking which does not respond positively to the streetscene. Contrary to policies DM16 and DM18.

The adjourned meeting held on 28 September 2022 commenced at 9.30 am and concluded at 9.35 am. The reconvened meeting held 7 October 2022 commenced at 9.30am, adjourned between 12.35 pm and 2 pm and concluded at 4.30 pm.

Chair