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