Agenda and draft 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 in accordance with legislation and the Council’s Code of Conduct.

Councillors Humby and Warwick declared disclosable pecuniary interests as they were both County Councillors and in particular, Councillor Humby’s portfolio at the County Council included strategic planning.  However they both participated in the meeting and voted on items as below, under the dispensation granted by the Standards Committee.

RESOLVED:

            That the minutes of the previous meeting held 4 December 2017, be approved and adopted.

– to receive and note questions asked and statements made from members of the public on issues relating to the responsibility of this Committee (see note overleaf).

Ian Tait spoke during public participation as summarised below:

·         He spoke in support of more sites for self-build properties being made available;

·         More work should be done to increase the supply of private sector rented housing as part of the mix of housing tenures available in the District.

·         He emphasised that the largest numbers of new social housing provided in the District occurred when the Council was able to buy land for development and believed that more measures were required to increase the supply of affordable housing.

The Chairman thanked Mr Tait for his comments and confirmed that these issues would be examined further as part of the ongoing Local Plan process.

The Head of Strategic Planning introduced the report and emphasised that inclusion of a site in the SHELAA was not a judgment as to whether it should be allocated for development.  Some basic sifting of sites had been undertaken and a few sites were excluded due to high level constraints (for example, location within flood zones).  A list of these sites was included in Appendix 1 of the report.  Of the remaining sites, it was likely that only a very small proportion would be required once the Local Plan assessment process had been undertaken.

The Head of Strategic Planning drew Members’ attention to two corrections to the SHELAA list as set out below:

·         Site Ref LH11 – correction to address of site to Littleton Nursery;

·         Site Ref NA03 – site to be removed as had not been put forward by the landowner and was not available for development.

The Head of Strategic Planning responded to Members’ questions and comments as summarised below:

·         Since the initial call for sites was undertaken at the start of 2018, the Government had stipulated that small sites (less than five dwellings) should now be included.  Consequently, a new call for sites would take place in early 2019 aimed specifically at small sites, but others would not be precluded from submitting additional sites.

·         Government consultation on the methodology for calculating housing numbers ended December 2018 and clarification as to the numbers the Council would be required to provide was expected early in 2019.

·         The initial sifting of sites on the SHELAA did not give the sites remaining on the list any greater status.

·         With regard to a communications plan, all parish councils had been contacted directly explaining the context of the SHELAA and its publication.  Once the Government had provided housing numbers required, further discussions would take place with parish councils.

·         It was acknowledged that inclusion in the SHELAA did raise some concerns amongst local communities.  However, the assessment of sites could not be rushed as it was a fundamental part of the overall Local Plan process and must be assessed against evidence.

One Member queried why sites at Highbridge Road had been excluded from the SHELAA but would be needed to deliver Eastleigh Borough Council’s Local Plan.  The Head of Strategic Planning confirmed that discussions were ongoing with Eastleigh regarding its Local Plan and would investigate this point further.

During discussion, some Members expressed concern about the implications of the duty to cooperate with neighbouring local authorities and other relevant bodies.  It was believed that the Council should take a robust approach to resisting further development within its district.  In addition, particular concern was raised about whether the South Downs National Park (SDNP) would take a fair proportion of the Government housing requirements within the part of the district that fell within the SDNP boundary.  The Head of Strategic Planning emphasised that the duty did not require agreement but there was a duty to look at all opportunities.  The Leader stated that robust conversations should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Committee noted that some of the discussion outlined in the item above also related to this report.

The Head of Strategic Planning introduced the report and drew Members’ attention to key issues as summarised therein. 

The Head of Strategic Planning responded to Members’ questions and comments as summarised below:

·         Officers were aware of the statement made by the Country Landowners Association (CLA) that Winchester was deemed to be overly restrictive in allowing development in rural villages.  However, the Council’s policies did allow for development in the villages and exceptional developments in the countryside and there was necessarily a balance to be sought with the views of local communities and housing requirements;

·         The Local Plan process would have regard to the contents of the Winchester Movement Strategy which was due to be published early in 2019.  An Infrastructure Delivery Plan would be developed which would examine all elements of infrastructure including health provision and transport, as well as other matters such as green infrastructure.

·         With regard to the comments made during consultation about the introduction of a South Hampshire green belt, this was a regional planning tool (rather than relating to one specific Local Plan) and would be examined further with other Hampshire authorities.  It was noted that the Government had indicated that designation of a green belt should only be used as a last resort.

·         Transport groups would be consulted through the Local Plan process.

·         The consultation results indicated a general consensus for retaining the split of the District into three spatial areas, however the split could be re-examined if required.  However, the Head of Strategic Planning believed it was useful for Winchester Town to remain as a separate spatial area.

·         Some concern was expressed that extending the Plan period until 2036 could lead to more developments achieving planning permission at an earlier stage.  The Head of Strategic Planning confirmed this was a possible outcome but that the housing market did manage the building out of planning permissions to some degree.

·         The Head of Strategic Planning confirmed that Local Plan Parts 1 and 2 through the policies under the Winchester Town chapters did in fact constitute  a spatial plan for Winchester Town and this approach would continue.  However regard to the Member’s request for a Design Statement for Winchester, this was considered to be more appropriate for the next layer of planning policies, such as Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD).  It was noted that there was already a Central Winchester Regeneration SPD together with a High Quality Places SPD.

·         It was confirmed that examination of provision of housing for students would form part  of the evidence base.

·         With regard to the need to provide for all ages of the district’s population and also address future commercial/economic requirements, the Head of Strategic Planning advised that it will be necessary to commission a Strategic Housing Market Assessment , together with  studies of employment and retail requirements.  The opportunities for offering land for self-build properties would also be examined as part of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Head of Strategic Planning introduced the report and responded to Members’ questions as summarised below:

·         The SDNP area of the district was excluded from the SCI as the Authority had produced its own SCI for their Plan area.  As most of the SCI contents were set out by legislation it was not anticipated that there would be any significant differences in approach.

·         The revised SCI differed from the previous version as it specifically relates to development management and planning policy.

·         Detailed proposals for planning enforcement were not appropriate for inclusion in the SCI, although were being addressed elsewhere within the Council.

·         One Member commented that Winchester Town was at a disadvantage in terms of consultation as it was not parished.  The Head of Strategic Planning advised that this had been raised in consultation responses and the SCI did highlight the role of the Winchester Town Forum and Ward Councillors in this regard.  The Chairman stated that she was in discussions with the Chairman of the Winchester Town Forum regarding potentially developing its role.

The Committee agreed to the following for the reasons set out above and outlined in the report.

RECOMMENDED (TO CABINET):

That the Statement of  Community Involvement in Planning (SCI) for the Winchester District (with the exception of that part of the District within the South Downs National Park) be adopted by Winchester City Council (as attached as Appendix 2 to the report).

RESOLVED:

1.         That subject to approval of Cabinet, the Statement of Community Involvement in Planning (SCI) for the Winchester District (with the exception of that part of the District within the South Downs National Park) be approved as attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

2.         That authority be granted to the Head of Strategic Planning and the Head of Development Management, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for the Built Environment, to make any necessary edits and minor alterations prior to the publication of the SCI.

3.       That the adopted SCI be published by Winchester City Council.

The Head of Strategic Planning introduced the report and drew Members’ attention to key elements as summarised within.

The Committee agreed to the following for the reasons set out above and outlined in the report.

RESOLVED:

1.         That the revised Winchester District Local Development Scheme 2018, as set out in Appendix 1 to this report, be approved and brought into immediate effect.

2.         That authority be delegated to the Head of Strategic Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Built Environment, to undertake minor updating and drafting of any amendments required prior to publication.