Agenda and minutes

To record the names of apologies given and Deputy Members who are attending the meeting in place of appointed Members.

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 Agenda Item 7 (7 Stoney Lane, Winchester), Councillor Berry advised that she had predetermined the application, having previously raised objection to the proposal.  Councillor Berry spoke as a Ward Member and sat apart from the Committee during the determination of these applications.

To give consideration to the approval of alternative arrangements for appointments to bodies set up by the Committee or the making or terminating of such appointments.

Case number: 17/01723/FUL

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out the following: a full additional condition (Condition 23) which was deemed necessary following an assessment of future occupancy and alternative uses; clarification that HCC Surface Water Management Team had reviewed the additional drainage information submitted by the developer regarding surface water and foul water drainage which adequately addressed concerns raised by HCC, therefore no further objections or comments were made; and confirmation that the developer has agreed to offer £50,000 towards affordable housing contribution, secured through a S106 legal agreement. Therefore a revised recommendation had been added to read as follows: ‘Revised Recommendation: That the application be APPROVED, subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure £50,000 Affordable Housing contribution, and the following condition(s)’

During public participation, Robert Shields (Bishops Waltham Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and Andrew Burgess (Agent) spoke in support of the application and both answered Members’ questions thereon.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to refuse permission for the following reasons: contrary to Policies: DM16 (development does not respond positively to the design, scale and layout); DM18 (car parking); failure to provide adequate Affordable Housing contribution  and WCC High Quality Spaces Supplementary Planning Document. The precise wording being delegated to the Head of Development Management to agree in consultation with the Chairman.

Case number: 18/00565/FUL

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out: amendments to Condition 9 and Condition 18; the receipt of a 217 signatory petition requesting that the application be deferred and a site visit be made by all voting Planning Committee Members, prior to the meeting.

The Chairman advised that a visit to the proposed application site had been arranged and was attended by Planning Committee Members and Ward Councillors on Monday, 4 June.

During public participation, Jane Parker and Mike Craske spoke in objection to the application and Paul Doswell and Justin Nicholas (Agents) spoke in support of the application and all answered Members’ questions thereon.

During their representation, the Agents confirmed that they would be content to undertake another survey to re-affirm the ground levels. In response, the Head of Development Management clarified that there was a requirement for details of the ground levels to be submitted to planning officers, which was set out in Condition 5 of the Report.

During public participation, Councillors Weir and Berry spoke on this item as  Ward Members.

In summary, Councillor Weir stated that the application no longer met the needs of Policy CP2 as there were no 2 bed dwellings on site, mainly 3 bedroomed properties, with only one dwelling lost from the previously refused application. Although density had reduced, overlooking and massing had increased. She stated that she welcomed the news that Permitted Development Rights had been removed. However, concerns still existed regarding sewerage and the extent of the run off from Stoney Court which she suggested required conditioning.

Councillor Weir referred to the need for a plan for Southern Water to access the site and queried why details of the pump station had been made available in the previous application but had not been made available in the revised proposal. She stated that existing traffic and parking on Stoney Lane was dangerous and problematic, with the proposal only adding to access and parking pressures in that particular part of the road.

In conclusion, Councillor Weir urged the Committee to consider refusing this application for a better design to be sought, which addressed the concerns of residents for an improved long term solution.

In summary, Councillor Berry stated that she had previously voted against this application and that the idea that the development and footprint had changed in this new proposed application was a myth. She expressed concerns that the materials to be used for the groundworks would not absorb all the surface water with existing drainage problems along Stoney Lane and flood risks in Weeke as a whole which would now be added to as a result of this development.

Councillor Berry was of the opinion that the site offered no benefit to the community and that the development was not of an urgent or important nature. However, the effect of the development on the environment was.

She stated that there was a tremendous pressure on the existing road network, with difficulty getting through the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Case number: 18/00251/FUL

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out: amendments to Condition 2 and Condition 10,addition of Condition 17; and additional wording to be added to the recommendation to read as follows: ‘Recommendation: Permission, subject to the following conditions’ to end of report.

In response to questions from Members, the Community Planning Manager clarified that the entire site currently has Asset of Community Value (ACV) status. However, the provisions of the Localism Act mean that, in the event of planning consent being granted and development commencing, that part of the site would then be removed from the ACV listing but the remainder of the pub site would retain its ACV status. 

During public participation, Jonathan Booth and Neil March (Agent representing Bighton Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and Mike Worthington (Agent) spoke in support of the application and all answered Members’ questions thereon.

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

In summary, Councillor Griffiths stated that the application had raised objections from the Parish Council and over half of the households in Bighton. Bighton comprised of a farming community with young families who connected with the community, as such the community were willing to purchase the pub and had previously offered the Applicant more than the asking price to secure the building for this purpose; this offer had been rejected.

She stated that The English Partridge was a popular venue in a truly traditional setting offering a cosy feel and good food and was sorely missed by the local community and those who used to frequent it. She considered that the proposed application would detract from the visual impact of the  Grade II Listed Building, its rural setting and would cut into the frontage resulting in a loss to the garden area, rendering the existing building unbalanced.

Councillor Griffiths stated that with insufficient car parking on site, this would impact on local residents with potential on street parking and blocking of roads which are used by passing tractors and large arable farming machinery.

In conclusion, Councillor Griffiths urged the Committee to consider refusing the application on the grounds of Policy CP6, stating that the application should not threaten the loss of a community facility and that attempts should be made by the Applicant to satisfy this Policy requirement. She stated that the Applicant had not accepted the previous offer made by the community group and that no attempt to offer the business further in this respect had been made.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to refuse permission for the following reason: contrary to Policy CP6 as the facility and service were threatened by the disposition of the land to the side of it, therefore the Committee were not satisfied that the community asset would be retained.

Case number: 17/03184/HOU

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out: details of a further representation submitted to Members; and additional wording to be added following the recommendation to read as follows: ‘Application be permitted’ .

During public participation, Kim Blunt and Mr Stirrup spoke in objection to the application and Karen Gunn spoke in support of the application and  answered Members’ questions thereon.

In response to questions from Members, the Historic Environment Team Leader clarified that officers considered that due to the low key and small scale impact of the proposal the officers considered that the Grade I Listed Building, the Church and Churchyard would not be harmed.. 

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.

Case number:  18/00130/HOU

During public participation, Councillor Weir (on behalf of local residents) spoke in objection to the application and Steve Lawrence 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 set out in the Report.

Case number: 17/02476/HOU

During public participation, Roger Davey spoke in objection to the application and David Flower (Agent) 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 set out in the Report.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the decisions taken on the Development Control Applications in relation to those applications 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 6 permission be refused for the            following reasons: contrary to Policies: DM16 (development            does not respond positively to the design, scale and layout); DM18           (car parking); failure to provide adequate Affordable Housing           contribution; and WCC High Quality Spaces Supplementary        Planning Document. The precise wording being delegated to the       Head of Development Management to agree in consultation with    the Chairman; and

            (ii)                    That in respect of item 8, permission be refused for the following reason: contrary to Policy CP6 as the facility and service were threatened by the disposition of the land to the side of it, therefore the Committee were not satisfied that the community asset would be retained.