Agenda item

Committee Resolution



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 undertaken much earlier in the design process.

2.    Page 95, the table of characteristics should refer to the “City of Winchester” vision not the "Winchester” vision.

3.    Recommend that conversations continue with the Town Forum regarding policy D1.

4.    Consider whether policy D4 should only refer to “up-to-date" Village Design Statements etc and if so, define what was meant by up to date

5.    Consider whether Conservation Area Appraisals be included in policy D4.

6.    Regarding policy D9, consider whether retrospective measures could be applied under this policy.

7.    Review policy D11 regarding internally lit signs.



E.   Following discussion concerning Policy: Sustainable Transport and Active Travel, the following comments were agreed.


1.    Consider a reference in 6.4 to the District Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan.

2.    Regarding policy T2, recommend that officers review the requirements for visitor parking as part of this policy as these were often used for residential parking.


F.    Following discussion concerning Policy: Biodiversity and the Natural Environment, the following comments were agreed.


1.    Policy NE1, review whether Swift towers hedgehog highways etc should be referenced.

2.    Policy NE2,  whilst the policy advises that a masterplan was expected, any application could not be refused if it were not provided and so vital that communication with organisations takes place in advance.

3.    Policy NE7  - could Wickham be added to the first grouping of settlement gaps

4.    Review whether the settlement gap relating to Oliver's Battery and Otterbourne be reviewed and extended.

5.    Review whether Policy NE12, paragraph 7.94 conflicts with the final paragraph of NE12.

6.    Policy NE13. Regarding dog walking, felt that fields being used were becoming a problem with noise, and visual intrusion. It was unclear whether this activity was considered leisure activity or rural economy and whether it should be included as part of paragraph 7.96.

7.    Preview policy NE16 and the wider document for the use of the terms “ phosphates/phosphorus and nitrates/nitrogen”



G.   Following discussion concerning Policy: The Historic Environment, the following comments were agreed.


1.    Policy HE7 refers to the results of investigations that “should” be published, it was suggested that this wording be strengthened.

2.    Consider taking a more receptive approach to measures taken on non-designated historic buildings to reduce their carbon footprint.


H.   Following discussion concerning Policy: Homes for All, the following comments were agreed.


1.    The committee felt that the hierarchy updates could have been done better and consideration should be given to how these could be improved and updated.

2.    Page 208, table H3, it was understood that the proposed allocation of 485 for Hursley was not correct. On the same table, Swanmore and Sutton Scotney should be separated out.

3.    Policy H5 and dwelling sizes, reconsider criteria three to guard against sites being underused.

4.    Policy H5, consider explicitly stating that self-build development should be priced at below-market values

5.    Policy H5 separate out custom build and self-build

6.    That paragraph 9.36 be amended as follows “be provided by the council or a Registered Provider”

7.    Policy H6 how do we assess whether applicants/developers really could not afford to contribute to affordable housing

8.    Policy H7 consider making a specific reference to community support in the bullet points.

9.    Policy H13, recommend consistency in either using the term “pitches” or “plots”

10.Policy H13, amend the table on pages 226 and 228 and 9.94 and review the column headings to ensure clarity for example using the word “Authorised” concerning the number of pitches, also ensure column totals were accurate.



I.     Following discussion concerning Policy: Creating a vibrant economy, the following comments were agreed.


1.    Reconsider paragraph 10.133, within policy D8 and review whether the wording could be strengthened to support the continuation of community services.


J.    Following discussion regarding the Winchester site allocations, the following comments were agreed.


1.    Page 272, to change the number in the table regarding the Central Winchester Regeneration from 400 to 300.

2.    Regarding site W1, Andover Road, confirm allocation details

3.    Site W2, bullet point 4, consider providing further clarification of previously developed land and clarify why the green area to the north of the site was not included in the master plan.

4.    Site W3 St. Peter's car park, concern that this area floods and so would prevent development

5.    Site W5, believed that this site was within the Compton Street local gap (and greenfield land) and so how would the gap be safeguarded?

6.    Look at whether site W5 would also impact businesses in areas such as  Oliver's Battery.

7.    To provide further clarification,  add in the adoption date of the Central Winchester Regeneration (CWR) Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

8.    Review the text in paragraph 9.61 and clarify regarding non-residential use of site W10.



K.   Following discussion regarding the South Hampshire Urban Areas allocations, the following comment was agreed.


1.    Officers to check the sites within the Havant Borough Council draft Regulation 18 to understand any impacts on the City Council's proposals concerning Newlands and West of Waterlooville developments.


L.    Following discussion regarding the Market Towns and Rural Areas allocations, the following comments were agreed.


1.    Site NA1, to note that the documented 50 spaces of public car parking was believed to be 42.

2.    Site CC1, paragraph 14.50, instead of “arrangements should be made for safe crossing points”, the word “should” be replaced with "would”.

3.    Site KW2, regarding the B3047 having a poor safety record, officers were asked to liaise with Hampshire County Council on this.

4.    Site WK4, concerns were expressed about the suitability and sustainability of this site, the lack of footpaths/pavements and the potential security issues of Ravenswood and the impact on neighbouring housing.

5.    Policy O1 is considered to be a sensitive site and recommended that feedback from the Parish Council be considered/included before the consultation.

6.    That feedback Sutton Scotney and Boarhunt suggest that they would welcome some local housing but that the infrastructure did not support this at this time.


M.  Following public participation, the following comments were agreed.


1.    That key documents such as the Movement Strategy and the Winchester Town Vision be attached as an appendix to the Local Plan.

2.    That policy CN5 be reviewed to consider whether the term “unacceptable impact” could be better communicated and understood.

3.    That data regarding gypsy and travellers be checked for accuracy.

4.    How could the council consult on a document or plan that would inevitably change

5.    Regarding South Wonston, the following points were made:


·         It  doesn't have the Vision and Characteristics etc as advised in National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

·         Its allocations contain a site that was outside of the settlement boundary

·         It was unclear why the settlement hierarchy for South Wonston scores the same as Winchester on public transport.

·         That the concerns of South Wonston parish were being ignored.

·         Sought reassurances that 3-story townhouses would not be built.





m - Committee Resolution{sidenav}{content}