The following members of the public and Councillors addressed the committee, and a summary
of their points is detailed below.
1. Councillor June Perrins:
- Raised concerns about the settlement boundary
change for South Wonston, highlighting that the process for the
boundary review, including desktop reviews, site visits, and
consultation, was not applied. The last review was in 2006, and the
Parish Council only learned of the proposed boundary state after
the draft new plan was published.
- It was noted that the Regulation 18 and Regulation
19 versions indicated a settlement boundary adjustment, including
the gardens of 63 to 69 Wrights Way and the open space to the West
of Chaucer Close, which were previously rejected for
development.
- The Parish Council feared that the inclusion of
SWO1 might lead to a larger extension
of the settlement boundary, affecting the rural setting and causing
negative impacts such as increased vehicle movements on the road
network and pressure on local facilities and
infrastructure.
- The background paper to inform the Local Plan
(Appendix 3, 2020-2024) stated that SWO1 achieved a high sensitivity designation for
which protection from development was the preferred option.
However, the main document concluded that it provided an
opportunity to build homes.
- Development on this Greenfield site was considered
inappropriate, based on little more than a general requirement to
deliver homes, and the Parish Council did not consider the
inclusion of SWO1
justified.
2. Councillor Pauline Maunder:
- Referred to the late inclusion of site reference
SU01, Land at Brightlands, and the concerns of sewerage issues
and flooding risks in Sutton Scotney. The Parish Council had
consistently opposed future development until these issues were
resolved.
- Sutton Scotney was a village with a very
high water table, at constant risk of
flooding, and suffering from severe sewerage issues. Developments
in the village had relied on waste being removed by tankers for
over five years.
- The justification for the late inclusion of Land
at Brightlands in the Regulation 19 was
that Southern Water had provided reassurances that a pressurised pipeline would be operating and able to
accommodate additional flow by 2030. However, Southern Water had
previously advised that tankering of
waste would end in 6 to 12 months (July 2019) and that the pipeline
would eliminate the need for tankers during storm conditions
(August 2022), which had not been the case.
- A flood risk assessment commissioned by Wonston
Parish Council concluded that any development at Brightlands would influence the water and
floodplain. The Parish Council felt let down by the Local Plan
proposals and would respond robustly to the Regulation 19
consultation.
3. Councillor Liz Winn:
- Raised concerns about the limited planning
guidance for the development of the Sir John Moore Barracks
site.
- The approach taken relied on a developer-led
master plan, which risked sidelining the community from having an
effective role in this and future sites. The Parish Council had not
yet seen any detail that would guide and inform the development,
such as how it connected to adjoining communities, requirements for
zero-carbon housing, and conservation of sites of importance for
nature.
- The lack of clarity about the Winchester/Littleton
settlement gap policy NE7, also known
as the Littleton gap, was highlighted. The maps showed an overlap
in the allocation of development for the Sir John Moore Barracks
with the existing settlement gap, increasing its vulnerability to
development and potentially removing the voice of local people from
any decision.
4. Councillor Tiggy Ayoub:
- Spoke regarding the Gypsy and Traveller topic paper concerning Boarhunt and other
villages with poor infrastructure.
- At present, there had been no opportunity given to
parish councils for consultation of any shape, size, or form by
Winchester City Council on the siting of new Gypsy and Traveller sites. While it was a legal requirement,
the lack of consultation undermined confidence in both the parish
councils and Winchester City Council.
- The parish already had three Traveller sites, one of which had over 40 homes,
making it unsustainable without further consultation. Future plans should involve thorough consultation
before finalisation.
5. Richard Baker:
- Spoke on behalf of the City of Winchester Trust
and raised two issues relating to the proposed Regulation 19 Local
Plan.
- The first issue was about public consultation. The
Trust had sent 23 pages of detailed comments in December 2022 and
expected to find a schedule of these comments and the
Council’s responses in the report. Without such a schedule
and an appendix showing Regulation 18 Local Plan with track
changes, it was not possible to know what changes had been made and
whether they were fair and reasonable.
- The second issue was about employment policy. The
council revised its timetable for publishing a Regulation 19 Local
Plan to allow a town and employment study to be made to inform the
plan. An employment land study by Lambert, Smith, and Hampton was
published this month. It was questioned whether the study was
adequately assessed and integrated into the Regulation 19
plan.
6. Councillor Caroline
Horrill:
Raised several points, including:
- Were the Regulation 18 responses, in full
available to view? Residents wanted to know where their original
comments had gone after almost two years.
- A summary of changes would be helpful for
individuals to know whether their points had been taken on board,
given the substantial size of the documents to review.
- It was requested that the schedule of public
meetings be shared as soon as possible so residents could attend
and understand how things had changed.
- Concerns were raised about the discrepancy in
housing numbers between Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 and why
substantially more housing was offered to neighbouring districts under the duty to
cooperate.
- The allocation of only 350 houses to the South
Downs National Park, despite representing 40% of the district, was
felt as unfair and impacting village areas within the
park.
- Issues were also raised about the Sir John Moore
Barracks site merging with Winchester town, the lack of clarity on
settlement gaps, and the inconsistency in settlement boundary
adjustments. Further consultation with the Parish Council was urged
on this and several other matters.
- Concerns were raised about the accuracy of housing
numbers at Carousel Park and the inclusion of a new site in Sutton
Scotney without proper consultation or infrastructure commitments
from Southern Water.
7. Patrick Davies:
- He endorsed earlier points about the processes
followed and was concerned over the lack of public engagement and
the handling of Regulation 18 comments.
- He expressed concerns about the Integrated Impact
Assessment’s 2200 pages and the impression that sections
might refer to other districts.
- A better way of dealing with these issues was
suggested, noting that many meetings had been private for members
only, which could have been held publicly.
8. Councillor Eric Bodger:
- He raised concerns about the gap between Curdridge
and Whiteley not being covered in the settlement gap policy,
despite assurances that it would be protected through the
countryside policy.
- Curdridge was moving towards a neighbourhood plan, and a notification had been
sent to the City Council of its intent to produce one.
- It was noted that it was not immediately clear
what had changed between Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 for their
area, but they believed there were very few changes and were
content with the Regulation 19 submission.
9. Councillor Susan Cook and Councillor
Maggie Hill:
- Concerns were expressed about the hierarchy
ranking of Colden Common and the lack of detailed infrastructure
plans. Colden Common had been ranked as a market town, which the
Parish Council believed was incorrect.
- Issues were highlighted regarding flooding and
sewerage problems in Colden Common, with a call for no additional
homes to be built until these issues were resolved. Residents lived
in fear of flooding every time it rained, and there were ongoing
problems with burst water mains.
- It was noted that improvements promised from
Section 106 money from the last plan had not yet been seen, leading
to concerns that future infrastructure plans might also be delayed
or not happen.
10. Janine Pickering:
- Advised that she was the Strategic Estates Manager
for the NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Board
(ICB).
- Currently, 90% of GP surgeries in the Winchester
City Council area had more patients than their infrastructure
capacity could manage. The new local plan could add a further
30,000 patients, creating a significant impact on access to
healthcare.
- The ICB had been
working with the Council's planning team to highlight the impacts
on primary care and requested that the local plan include the needs
of primary care, ensuring sufficient capacity for the increased
population.
- Asked that the City Council supports the NHS by
ensuring that the policies within the Regulation 19 were updated to
include the needs of primary care in the same manner as
Education.
11. Councillor Craig Manuel:
- He highlighted a discrepancy in the allocation of
homes for Wickham Parish, with concerns about the inclusion of
specific sites and the lack of consultation regarding
it.
- In 2021, the City Council sent the Parish Council
the recommended spatial distribution and housing strategy,
allocating 90 to 100 homes. However, the Parish Council was later
told that site WI18 was not suitable
for selection and that the settlement map had been redrawn without
a detailed explanation.
- The Parish Council objected to this change, and
despite rejecting site WI 18, it was still included in the updated
local plan, leading to an allocation of 300 homes, three times the
original calculation.
- Concerns were raised about the impact of 6000
homes being built by Fareham just 150 metres away from the parish boundary.
12. Fred Schiff:
- He raised concerns about the Integrated Impact
Assessment and its approach to identifying a preferred allocation
at Sutton Scotney.
- He felt that insufficient consultation had taken
place, with a limited questionnaire providing little detail of
potential sites and the decision-making process. The site
assessment scoring of the draft allocation itself was considered
flawed, not adequately reflecting the implications of noise,
pedestrian movement, or community integration.
- He also questioned the lack of comparable
assessment to alternative sites and the potential negative effects
on residential site options.
- He supported the view of the parish council that
proper consultation was required for an allocation and beyond that
had a significant impact on the future of Sutton
Scotney.
13. Councillor Danny Lee:
- He was concerned about the timing of the
publication of the Integrated Impact Assessment and the lack of
transparency in the response to Regulation 18 comments.
- He also asked about the local plan’s
alignment with national policies on wind energy, the achievement of
net-zero carbon for new residential dwellings, and the protection
of rivers.
- Concerns were also expressed about the need for a
final Local Plan viability report at the end of the Regulation 19
process and the potential for a partial or full plan review to
ensure sustainable growth without accelerating climate
threats.
- He queried why the Environment Policy for example
chapter didn’t refer to the Nature Emergency
declaration.
- He urged for a definition of valued landscapes to
be included.
14. Councillor Stephen
Godfrey:
- Concerns were raised about Policy CN1 on mitigating and adapting for climate change,
which was at odds with the allocation of small rural
sites.
- Policy NE5 on
biodiversity and Policy NE7 on
settlement gaps were also questioned, noting that the allocation of
Sir John Moore Barracks was at odds with these
policies.
- Further concerns were raised about Policy
HE10 on development in conservation
areas.
- Site SU01 had not been
included in Regulation 18, and there had been no public
consultation on this proposal, so no consideration of expected
comments had occurred.
15. Councillor Jan Warwick:
- The allocation of Bushfield Camp (W5) as a landscaped-focused employment area was
questioned due to its environmental significance and the potential
impact on biodiversity.
- She raised concerns about the potential impact of
5000 daily vehicle movements on the local area and the motorway
network, and the conflict with Hampshire’s Local Transport
Plan 4, which prioritised planning for
people and places over vehicles.
- It was urged that Bushfield Camp be designated for
nature conservation instead, supporting its wildlife-rich habitats
and aligning with climate goals.
16. Jeremy Gardiner:
- Spoke on behalf of Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land
and expressed support for the draft plan’s spatial strategy
in distributing housing across a hierarchy of settlements based on
their relative sustainability.
- He pointed out a discrepancy in the housing
figures between policies SP2 and
H1 for market towns, which needs
correction.
- He noted issues with policy H3, such as inconsistent housing allocations among
rural settlements and errors in categorizing
settlements.
- He argued that misallocating homes to smaller
settlements undermines the strategy focused on sustainable
settlements.
- He proposed amending the plan to reflect its
strategy accurately by reallocating homes to more suitable
settlements and correcting errors.
The Chairperson thanked all members of the public and
Councillors for attending the meeting.
These points would be responded to by officers and the Cabinet
Member accordingly during the meeting.