Agenda item

1.      That the concept masterplan process as undertaken by the applicants be supported and the accompanying technical document that has helped to inform the preparation of the concept masterplan for Bushfield Camp, which has been undertaken in general conformity with the Councils emerging master planning process be noted; and

2.      That the Bushfield Camp concept masterplan that is attached at Appendix 1 of the report along with the accompanying technical document attached at Appendix 2 be agreed as a material consideration to inform the development management assessment of the planning application.

Councillor Porter introduced the report and emphasised that it sought approval of a high level concept masterplan but was not seeking any decision regarding specific elements of any future development.  Matters such as car parking provision or building size and heights would be considered as part of any planning application process.

She welcomed two representatives of the developer to the meeting – Nikki Davies (Meeting Place) and Neil Goldsmith (Lichfields).

Six members of the public/representatives of local groups spoke during public participation as summarised briefly below.

Councillor John Godbold (Badger Farm Parish Council chair)

He reported on a recent meeting organised by the parish council which had recorded the views of local residents on the proposals.  The developer had been unable to attend.  He stated that many people did not object to the development in principle, but had concerns regarding the scale, the impact on traffic and possible pressure on residents’ parking spaces.  In addition, residents had expressed concern regarding the visual impact on the South Downs National Park area.  The parish council was not opposed to any development but wanted it to be suitable for the area and not cause additional problems.

Siobhan Osborne

As a Badger Farm resident she objected to the proposal to develop 49 acres of land at Bushfield citing its importance ecologically.  She believed that detailed information had been omitted from the materials shared during the public consultation which made it difficult to submit meaningful comments.  In particular, she expressed concern regarding the reference to an urban campus development.  She also stated that the developer’s list of stakeholders omitted the Badger Farm and Olivers Battery residents’ association, despite a specific request for it to be included.  She referred to the petition “Protect Bushfield” which had received comments that the public consultation had been unhelpful and did not adequately represent the proposal.  In general she believed there had been a lack of transparency and engagement from the developers.

Ali Cochrane

She expressed concern that no independent viability study had been available to the public and considered that the estimate of 2,500 jobs seemed optimistic.  She queried whether there was demand for the office space proposed.  She expressed concern regarding the negative impact on the surrounding area including loss of biodiversity, traffic congestion and more pressure on local amenities.  She believed there was a lack of impartial overview with reports being prepared by the developer.  If the scheme did go ahead, she requested assurances that land handed over for public benefit was protected by covenant.

Phil Gagg (WinACC)

He considered that the draft Bushfield masterplan did not demonstrate it had undertaken the work required in a concept master planning exercise.  He believed there was not adequate demonstration of how and what feedback had been taken into account.  He queried the impact of approving the contents of the masterplan on consideration of a future outline planning application.  He highlighted that the technical report included reference to 2,520 campus jobs which would require significant parking spaces to be allocated as there was insufficient existing capacity within the park and ride.  There was also a lack of information regarding energy use and target emissions.  As a result, he considered it was premature to approve the masterplan at this stage.

Mike Davies

He emphasised that Bushfield camp had been rewilded for the past 45 years with in his view, at least two thirds classified as greenfield.  It was an important green corridor with much biodiversity and had been designated as a site that was of importance for nature.  He queried how the council decided what land was considered brownfield?  He highlighted the importance of the area particularly because of the significant amount of grassland that had already been lost within Winchester.

Paul Cooper

He considered that the proposed development would lead to significantly worse traffic congestion in an already busy area.  He also expressed concern about the possible impact of employees choosing to park on-street in neighbouring areas.  He requested that the proposals be rejected.

At the invitation of the Leader, Councillors Warwick, Laming, Wallace and Horrill addressed Cabinet as summarised briefly below.

Councillor Warwick

She spoke in her role as both city and county councillor and acknowledged the efforts made by the developer in engaging with the public and the potential for a positive impact on the local economy and biodiversity net gain.  However, she highlighted that the concerns raised by local residents should not be overlooked and requested that a business case and needs analysis should be published as to why this site should be developed in preference to other sites.  In particular, she mentioned the concerns raised regarding the impact of additional traffic, on residents’ parking in neighbouring areas and of light pollution.

Councillor Laming

He explained he was also speaking as chair of the Badger Farm Community Centre and the Badger Farm and Oliver’s Battery Residents’ Community Association.  He reiterated his comments made earlier in the meeting that it would be premature to approve a masterplan for Bushfield before a city-wide masterplan had been completed.  He expressed concerns related to the impact of increased traffic causing unacceptable levels of congestion in addition to the potential for people to opt to park on-street in neighbouring areas.  He believed that the proposed scale and mass of development was inappropriate for such a sensitive area.

Councillor Wallace

He emphasised that the design principles within the masterplan should be fixed before the outline planning application was considered and believed that many of the carbon neutrality principles had been missed.  He also believed that proposals for energy generation were not adequately addressed.  With regard to transport, he thought it was unlikely that the Council would be in a position to agree an area wide transport plan prior to the submission of any planning application with could cause significant issues.

Councillor Horrill

She welcomed the masterplan noting that the site had already been allocated in the Local Plan for employment.  She also commended the development team for their engagement approach and welcomed the proposals to preserve open spaces for all residents to enjoy.  She asked for some clarity on specific points including what was meant by the site being identified as “mixed use”, whether student accommodation was included in proposals and exactly how the developer would produce opportunities for local people.  She highlighted that the issue of car parking provision and potential overspill in neighbouring areas would require further discussion.

Councillor Porter, together with Mr Goldsmith, Ms Davies and the Service Lead – Built Environment and Principal Planning Policy Officer responded to the points raised by members of the public, local groups and councillors.  In particular, it was emphasised that decisions on many of the matters of concern raised had not yet been determined.  By agreeing the concept masterplan, matters such as access, amount of parking, amount of development and access linkage of the site were not prejudiced.  The existing Local Plan (Policy WT3) and emerging policy limited the development area to 20 hectares which effectively was the area previously occupied by the military camp.  Details about the net zero carbon goals for the development would be included with the planning application.  With regard to the types of development included, the emerging policy WT5 allocated the site for “mixed use high quality flexible business and employment space, an innovation/education hub and creative industries” and it would be for the developer to submit their proposals on the detail.

With regard to ongoing consultation, Ms Davies confirmed she was hoping to agree a new date to meet with the parish council as soon as possible.  She also confirmed that they liaised with the residents’ association through the chair.

Cabinet considered the report and appendices in detail and officers together with Mr Goldsmith and Ms Davies responded to questions thereon.  In particular, the following points were clarified:

·       The concept masterplan will be one of many  material planning considerations that would be considered during any future planning application.

·       Officers were confident that the Bushfield masterplan did conform with the principles established in the concept masterplan governance.

·       The Local Plan policy (existing and emerging) did not include reference to specific uses  such as a hotel, retail space or sports facilities and it would be a matter for the developer in submitting their planning application to demonstrate how their proposals conform to national and local plan policies setting out their planning case for those aspects that were not specifically listed in the local plan policy. 

·       As planning authority, the council’s role would involve assessing and testing the developer’s evidence base and mitigation proposed at the planning application stage consulting with statutory and non statutory consultees.

·       The importance of the developer detailing proposals for phasing at an early stage was emphasised.

Cabinet agreed to the following for the reasons set out in the report and addendum and outlined above.

RESOLVED:

1.              That the concept masterplan process as undertaken by the applicants be supported and the accompanying technical document that has helped to inform the preparation of the concept masterplan for Bushfield Camp, which has been undertaken in general conformity with the Councils emerging master planning process be noted; and

2.              That the Bushfield Camp concept masterplan that is attached at Appendix 1 of the report along with the accompanying technical document attached at Appendix 2 be agreed as a material consideration to inform the development management assessment of the planning application.