Agenda item

Consideration of Local Plan Topic Chapters

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.


  1. 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.


  1. 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.


  1. 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.


  1. 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 secondary schools and medical services were in other places.

c)    Housing proposals in an area whose primary school was oversubscribed.



Councillor June Perrins, Chair, South Wonston Parish Council whose contribution included the following:


  • That the Parish Council and residents did not agree with the plan for 40 homes at West Hill Road North, that this was a sensitive site, and that development here would create a severe pressure point in the village.
  • That Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council had delayed the preparation of its Local Plan because of the uncertainty around planning system reforms.
  • That the proposed housing figures were based on outdated information and the 2021 census data would be a more reliable source.
  • She questioned the inclusion of 1450 extra homes to cover the possibility of other Southern Hampshire authorities being unable to meet their own housing need in full.
  • That the Parish Council had questioned the logic of the settlement hierarchy policy and gave an example of South Wonston scoring the same as Winchester for public transport.


David Baldwin whose contribution included the following:

  • South Wonston Parish Council had already rejected all the sites proposed.
  • All the properties north of La Frenaye Place were not on mains drainage and it would be expensive to provide mains drainage for this site.
  • Water pressure was a problem in the village and the addition of 40 houses would exacerbate that problem.
  • That these proposals were contrary to the council’s climate emergency objectives.
  • That local infrastructure such as shops, schools or GP surgeries were either too far away from the proposed sites or had no capacity for additional residents.
  • That local wildlife such as kestrels, red kites and buzzards were regularly seen in the area.
  • That vehicle access around West Hill Road North was poor and could be dangerous to pedestrians especially school children on their way to or from school.
  • That South Wonston had reached its physical limits due to its topography, layout and infrastructure.


Trevor Salter whose contribution included the following regarding South Wonston:


  • That the inclusion of sites at South Wonston ran contrary to the policies of Winchester City Council, in particular around visual intrusion, light pollution and protection of the environment.
  • That there was no information regarding the type and size of housing that would be proposed, and he asked that 3-storey housing be ruled out.
  • He asked if the brownfield oil site on the A272 been fully assessed as a potential alternative site?
  • That local infrastructure such as water supply, shops, schools or GP surgeries required to be assessed.


Chris Rees, Planning Director, Alfred Homes whose contribution included the following;


  • That he wished to refer to the “Brownfield first” principle and the Littleton Nursery site that was not a site included in the draft Local Plan.
  • That this site was a 2-hectare site, currently used as a storage yard, and close to local services.
  • He asked the committee to review whether all of the brownfield opportunity sites had been assessed prior to the plan moving forward.




Councillor Pearson whose contribution included the following.


  • He thanked officers for the explanations provided in the site allocation documentation.
  • Regarding the allocation of 500 dwellings within SDNP, he questioned whether these dwellings would be away from the village centres and so contrary to the council's “15-minute neighbourhood”  principle and gave an example of Land North of Rareridge Lane.
  • That many residents need and use a car regularly and that public transport provision was often inadequate.
  • That the plan refers to rural lanes but did not contain a definition of what a rural lane was.
  • He made particular reference to the site “Morgans Yard” which he believed would be a controversial site for local residents.


These points were responded to by officers and Cabinet Members accordingly. Following further discussion, the committee resolved to refer several matters to the cabinet which directly related to the public and visiting councillor contributions and were listed below.


Officers introduced each of the following topic areas in turn and the committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the topic in detail.


1.            Introduction

2.            Carbon Neutrality and Designing for Low Carbon Infrastructure

3.            High-Quality Well-Designed Places and Living

4.            Sustainable Transport and Active Travel

5.            Biodiversity and the Natural Environment

6.            The Historic Environment

7.            Homes for All

8.            Creating a vibrant economy

9.            Winchester Site Allocations

10.         South Hampshire Urban Areas

11.         The Market Towns and Rural Area





m - Consideration of Local Plan Topic Chapters{sidenav}{content}