Agenda and minutes

Apologies were as noted above.

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 Williams declared a 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.

In addition, Councillor Williams declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of Item 11 (The Sanctuary, Manor Farm Green, Twyford – case number: SDNP/22/04058/FUL) stating that he had previously met the applicant in a business capacity on another matter several years ago. Councillor Williams stated that he would take no part in the determination of the application and left the meeting for the consideration of the item taking no part in the discussion or vote thereon.

Furthermore, Councillor Williams announced that Item 12 (Land off Petersfield Road, Bramdean – case number: SDNP/24/01974/FUL) was within his county council division. However, he had taken no part on discussions regarding the application, therefore he took part in the consideration of the item and voted thereon.

Councillor Cunningham made a personal statement in respect of Item 13 (2 Abbotts Ann Road, Winchester – case number: 25/00332/HOU) due to his role on Littleton and Harestock Parish Council who had raised objection to the application. However, he had taken no part on their discussions regarding the application, therefore he took part in the consideration of the item and voted thereon.

Councillor Pett made a personal statement due to his role as Ward Member in respect of item 12 (Land off Petersfield Road, Bramdean – case number: SDNP/24/01974/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.

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 March 2025.

          RESOLVED:

                     That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 March      2025 be approved and adopted, subject to an amendment to add Councillor Small to the list of attendance for this meeting.

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: Item 6: The erection of six residential dwellinghouses, with associated access, landscaping and parking. Retention of existing dwelling (AMENDED DESCRIPTION). 

It was noted that the committee had visited the application site on 15 April 2025 to enable members to observe the site in context and to gain a better appreciation of the proposals.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out the following:

(i)             An additional condition removing permitted development rights in respect of extensions, outbuildings, additional storeys and roof alterations.

          Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning                  (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking        and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no                         development permitted by Classes A, AA, B, C, E and F of Part 1; of           Schedule 2 of the Order, shall be carried out without the prior written   consent of the Local Planning Authority.

          Reason:  To ensure that the development is proportionate to the site in order to protect the amenities of the locality and to maintain a good               quality environment.

During public participation, Kate Jackson spoke in objection to the application and Chris Rees 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, subject to the obscure glazing of windows to the          first-floor west side elevation of Plot 4 to prevent overlooking to the                     neighbouring property at 28, Bereweeke Road.

Proposal Description: Item 7: Retrospective planning application for an agricultural polytunnel and     solar battery and animal feed store (resubmission of application 21/01858/FUL

The application was introduced. A verbal update was provided at the meeting by the planning case officer noting the wording to condition 2 to be changed to read ‘Within three months of this permission. Details of materials for the finishing of the storeroom to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority’.

Councillor Wallace spoke as Ward Member in objection to the application. In summary, Councillor Wallace raised the following points:

·       Councillor Wallace highlighted that this particular site had a history of planning issues, requiring significant officer time and generating considerable resident interest.

·       He acknowledged that while there had been pushback against the appearance of the polytunnel, this had been accepted by the inspector.

·       Stated that the primary remaining concern related to drainage.

·       Councillor Wallace explained that the polytunnel and associated structures supported the applicant's agricultural activities and were deemed to have no harmful effect on the character or appearance of the area, according to the report.

·       He emphasised that the key issue was drainage, which was the reason the inspector dismissed the polytunnel aspect of a previous appeal in 2023.

·       It was noted that surface water drainage surveys had been conducted to address the flood risk concerns, suggesting sufficient storage capacity in the filter trench.

·       Since the main surface water drainage survey a year prior, further work had been carried out on the site, including engineering on a drainage ditch and additional hard standing.

·       Cautioned that the drainage calculations might not be entirely reliable due to the ongoing addition of hard standing.

·       If the committee were minded to approve the application, he urged the consideration of additional conditions to prevent any further hard standing, as this would exacerbate drainage issues.

·       Highlighted the need for ongoing maintenance of the Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) and infrastructure drainage ditches, noting that a condition for this appeared to have been included by the case officer.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

During debate, the council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer clarified the position of permitted development rights when applying additional conditions to ensure any condition was necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other regards.

          RESOLVED:

                    The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report, the               verbal update, and subject to the following additional conditions:

(i)             Lighting condition: Details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

(ii)            New condition (in addition or supplementary to condition 3) requiring the applicant to illustrate details of hardstanding that is required for the purposes of servicing the polytunnel and feed store to be submitted. The precise wording to be delegated to the Chair of Planning Committee, in consultation with the Service Lead: Built Environment.

Proposal Description: Item 8: Part single, part 2 storey extension, fenestration changes, minor internal and repair works.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out an additional condition 9, to read as follows:

“Prior to work commencing on the site a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Construction Management Plan shall include the following details:

-         Development contacts, roles and responsibilities

-         Hours of operation during any works

-         Construction parking

-         Public communication strategy, including a complaints           procedure.

-         Details of construction traffic management measures including the provisions to be made for the parking and turning on site of       operative      and construction vehicles during the period of development

-         Loading and unloading and storage of plant and materials;

-         Details of measures to be taken to prevent mud from vehicles        leaving the site during construction works being deposited on the public      highway.

Works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and the approved measures maintained for the duration of the construction of this development.

Reason: To ensure that the construction work is properly managed and does not cause disturbance to nearby land, properties and businesses.”

In addition, a verbal update was provided at the meeting by the planning case officer advising of updated plans within the presentation to committee in relation to the north elevation and an update to condition 2 (for both the householder and listed applications) regarding this north elevation to read ‘Proposed North Elevation - Drawing No. 1245/P/107 Rev P2 – Received 10.01.2025’.

Furthermore, the case officer reported that the proposed and existing roof plans had been incorporated within the presentation to the committee.

During public participation, David Cooper spoke in objection to the application and Simon Goddard spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Power spoke as Ward Member in objection to the application. In summary, Councillor Power raised the following points:

·       She stated that Wickham House does dominate 13 Mill Hill.

·       It was noted that the aerial photograph on page 137 of the meeting pack was the only photograph showing the proximity of 13 Mill Hill to Wickham House.

·       Councillor Power highlighted that 13 Mill Hill, being a small house with very limited windows, did have quite a lot of open sky visible.

·       Considered that the impact was not just about direct sunlight but was also about ambient light and sight of the sky, which was important.

·       She expressed concern that the second-storey extension would have a significant impact on the light available to the side and rear of 13 Mill Hill, affecting light and sky, which she felt was unacceptable.

·       Reference was made to page 146 of the pack, pointing out the two small windows on the side immediately facing Wickham House, noting that this was the only light available to those windows, to the dining room of 13 Mill Hill, and there would be a significant impact on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Proposal Description: Item 9: Part single, part 2 storey extension, fenestration changes, minor internal and repair works.

The application was introduced. 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     verbal update set out in item 8 above, and subject to an amendment to         condition 6 as follows:

(i)             An amendment to condition 6 to include the highlighted wording as follows: ‘No related works shall commence on site until large-scale details of all new and altered windows, rooflights, dormers and doors, including an illustration of obscuration to windows with no top opening have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.’ 

Proposal Description: Item 11: (AMENDED DESCRIPTION) Conversion of existing facilities building to one bedroom holiday let and Replacement of three yurts with one three bedroom and one two-bedroom holiday let; retention of 2 no. yurts for ancillary purposes; and associated works 

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

-       Condition 4 has been amended to emphasize that the units shall be occupied exclusively for holiday purposes and cannot be used as someone's sole or main place of residence. Additionally, the owners are required to maintain an up-to-date register of all occupiers, and specific occupancy limits must be adhered to.

-       Condition 5 has been amended to specify that the holiday accommodation may only be occupied between April and October. It shall be used exclusively for short-term holiday lets and cannot be used, let, or sold for permanent residential accommodation.

Details of these amendments were set out in full on the Update Sheet.

During public participation, Dan Kwiatkowski spoke in objection to the application, Alice Drew spoke in support of the application and Councillor Chris Corcoran spoke on behalf of Twyford Parish Council and answered members' questions.

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application and received advice from the Legal Officer concerning holiday let occupancy restrictions and the general holiday lodges application and policy assessment

          RESOLVED:

                     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 matters which weighed in favour of refusing planning         permission:

1.    Loss of Visitor Accommodation (Policy SD23, 2a): The proposed development would result in a significant reduction in visitor accommodation capacity on the site. Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate, as required by policy, that:

a.    The existing level of provision is financially viable.

b.    A robust marketing campaign of at least 12 months has been undertaken which clearly demonstrates no market demand for the existing or an equivalent tourism use.

2.    Inappropriate Design: The design of the proposed development is considered inappropriate for its specific location and context, failing to meet the requirements of Policy SD23 g i regarding design quality and local distinctiveness.

3.    Failure to Make a Positive Contribution to Natural Beauty and Heritage (Policy SD23, Gi): The proposed development fails to make a positive contribution to the natural beauty and respond positively to the natural heritage of the area, contrary to the requirements of Policy SD23 G1.

Proposal Description: Item 12: (AMENDED DESCRIPTION) (Amended) Construction of building following demolition of four buildings

The application was introduced. In addition, the case officer provided a verbal update and advised the committee of two amendments following initial submission. In summary, these amendments related to a reduction to the unit's height (to 6.73m overall) following parish council objections and to  changing the cladding from steel panelling to natural timber to align with the National Park design guide.

During public participation, Robert Collett 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              verbal update.

Proposal Description: Item 13: Garage conversion with new replacement roof and single storey extension. Replacement windows. Erection of canopy to side of dwelling.    

The application was introduced and in addition, the case officer advised that the reason for the application being at committee was due to a Winchester City Councillor owning the property next door (No. 4 Abbotts Ann Road). The proposal directly affected that property as it involved work to the side wall of 4 Abbotts Ann Road.

          RESOLVED:

                     The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.