To note the names of apologies given and deputy members who are attending the meeting in place of appointed members.

In addition to those noted above; Councillors Rutter and Cutler left the meeting at the end of the morning session and Councillors Read, and Laming left the meeting during the afternoon session.

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.      

If you require advice, please contact the appropriate Democratic Services Officer, prior to the meeting.

Councillor Cutler declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in relation to two Strategic Housing & Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) sites in Denmead. He left the meeting for the duration of the committee’s discussion on site allocations.

Councillors Tod and Porter declared a personal (but not prejudicial) interest due to their role as County Councillors, as matters may be discussed which related to Hampshire County Council.

The Chairperson advised that this was a joint meeting of the Scrutiny committee and Local Plan Advisory Group and clarified the role and purpose of the joint meeting. She advised that as part of the council’s local plan-making process, the Regulation 18 local plan needed to be produced alongside an Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA). It was intended that the Cabinet on 18 October 2022, would agree for the plan and the IIA to be published for a  six-week consultation between 2November and 14December 2022.

The committee would scrutinise the draft local plan policies, site allocations, and ask whether it considered that it was appropriate to proceed to the consultation stage as scheduled. The feedback and any recommendations made by the committee would be reported to Cabinet whose agreement would be sought to consult on the final version of the Regulation 18 plan and IIA. 

Officers would capture the key points from the meeting which would fall into one of three categories;

1. comments that were noted but require no action
2. comments that may require the document to be altered and
3. comments that need to be taken away for review before deciding whether adjustments should be made to the plan. 

To include public participation (see notes above for further information on speaking at this meeting), discussion by members and recommendations to cabinet.

The following contributions were made during the morning public participation session.

1. Mr Hearn on behalf of the City of Winchester Trust whose contributions included the following:

·         The need for hooks on policies for the subsequent production of a city-wide plan.

·         That there should be a specific policy regarding Development in Winchester Town and Surroundings, and he provided suggested wording for this.

·         That within the sustainable travel and active travel section, there should be an additional policy referring to development in very sustainable sites within the city centre and he provided suggested wording for this.

2. Councillor Wallace whose contribution included the following.

·         That the climate emergency needed to be at the heart of this plan.

·         That it was important that house building methods change to minimise the carbon impact of the building and the ongoing impact of heating them.

·         Ensuring that building improvements were updated throughout the life of the plan was vital.

·         Addressing biodiversity requirements was crucial.

3. Councillor Bolton whose contribution included the following.

·         That 40% of Winchester district planning was governed by the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) and the impact this had on settlements and parishes which straddle both the Winchester District Authority and SDNPA.

·         That Winchester City Council and SDNPA were on different timelines for the development of their respective local plan updates and how would the statement of common grounds  address this.

·         The need to promote food security, especially in current, uncertain times.

·         That provision for adequate parking was required where planned developments were designed for families.

4. Councillor Pearson whose contribution included the following.

·         The importance that the plan was both usable and readable.

·         That we should acknowledge that the design features of housing were going to change.

·         That policies should be clear and unambiguous especially when they were used in the determination of planning applications, for example, page 40 and CN5 refers to unacceptable impact and would “unacceptable” be misinterpreted.

·         The interchangeability of the terms nitrogen, nitrates, phosphorus and phosphates.

·         That he felt that the number of existing gypsy and traveller pitches was incorrect.

The following contributions were made during the afternoon public participation session.

1. Councillor Killeen, Chair of Hursley Parish Council whose contribution included the following.

• That several elements of the Local Plan were uncertain, for example; the requirements of the Partnership for Southern Hampshire (PfSH), the calculations for the “buffer” and issues such as transport.

• That these uncertainties meant that consultation at this stage would be difficult and may lead to changes being required.

2. James Anderson whose contribution included the following.

• That the proposals for South Wonston were contrary to the principles set out in the strategic issues document, “Your Place, Your Plan” in particular, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 15  regarding a positive vision and NPPF paragraph 82  regarding sustainable economic growth.

• That the proposals for South Wonston were contrary to the Winchester City Council's approach of transitioning to a greener economy, in particular.

a)    Housing proposals that would be remote from employment areas.

b)    Housing in an area whose  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The committee agreed that the following comments be reported to the Cabinet: 

A.   Following a discussion on the draft Cabinet report, ref CAB3357,  the following comments were agreed

1.    An explicit and clear statement on why the Council was using the  London Energy Transport Initiative (LETI) would be useful.

2.    Could paragraph 14.42 be amended to allow Parish councils to be better briefed and consulted in future stages?

3.    Page 19, under the heading of “Reputation”, complete the sentence following the words “It would be necessary”.

4.    Page 18, Risk Management to include a specific risk regarding a change in national planning policy.

5.    Could the flexibility in the revised policies around the provision of car parking spaces be misinterpreted and enable a developer to reduce the number of spaces provided?

6.    Paragraph 14.19, consider changing the wording from “may not” to “would not”

7.    That an update be provided in the report to set out the council's work with the Partnership for South Hampshire (PfSH) regarding the Green Belt and housing allocations.

8.    Explain the “buffer” within the cabinet report, its purpose, how it was arrived at etc.

9.    Two sets of page numbering could make the document difficult to follow.

10.Review the document to strengthen wording i.e., instead of could, should, use will, would etc.

B.   Following discussion of the officer's introduction to the Local Plan, the following comments were agreed.

1.    That both the Winchester City Council (WCC) and the South Downs National Park (SDNP) Local Plan timetables be included in either the Local Plan document or the Cabinet Report.

2.    It was noted that some members whose wards included parts of the South Down National Park felt that they did not have all the information required regarding the SDNP local plan process. Members were advised to take these matters up with officers at the SDNP and Councillor Tod advised that he would take up any specific issues if required.

3.    Regarding page 61, policy SP2, it was recommended that an additional comment be included regarding the placement of  Sir John Moore Barracks and Kings Barton with the "Winchester Town" allocation.

C.   Following discussion concerning Policy: Carbon Neutrality and Designing for Low Carbon Infrastructure, the following comments were agreed.

1.    Put in a specific reference to the use of LETI due to its importance to the plan.

2.    Consider whether policy CN1 could be applied to extensions.

3.    Review how to measure CN3 after the consultation.

4.    Consider whether policy CN5 could be amended; to articulate the balance between the use of land for food production and the use of land for renewable or low carbon energy schemes, that the right metrics were used in grading agricultural land and the enforcement of conditions that were attached to developments such as solar farms.

D.   Following discussion concerning Policy: High-Quality Well-Designed Places and Living Well, the following comments were agreed.

1.    Consider greater emphasis and provide additional instruction regarding the importance of community engagement being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.