Minutes:
The following is a summary of the points raised in this section of the meeting.
Carbon Neutrality and Designing for Low-Carbon Infrastructure
1. Should there have been more emphasis on the nature emergency within the Local Plan, considering the frequent mentions of the climate emergency?
High-Quality Well-Designed Places and Living Well
1. Regarding Policy D2, what input could the Winchester Town Forum make to the design principles for Winchester Town, considering it was not a statutory consultee but had contributed in previous years?
2. Officers were asked to explain the role of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) as we moved from the current Local Plan to the next one.
3. How could we prevent poorly designed buildings, such as the flats just outside the Winchester District, from being constructed in the future?
4. How could individuality in housing design be encouraged to avoid uniform styles from major developers and promote distinctive housing?
Sustainable Transport and Active Travel
1. Why was there no employment allocation in major housing developments such as those at the Abbots Barton site?
2. How would the change from employment to mixed-use developments impact the outskirts of the city and its business centre?
3. Were there any inaccuracies in the hierarchies of facilities for example in Colden Common, and how would these be addressed and updated?
4. Did the 20-minute neighbourhood concept apply to places like Waltham Chase and Whiteley, and would it still be effective in the future?
5. How did the lack of linkage between the City Council and Hampshire County Council as the transport authority impact the development of active transport and public transport policies?
6. How could we ensure adequate parking provisions in new developments, considering changes in household makeup and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)?
7. Were the sizes of garages considered in parking provisions, ensuring they were functional for modern vehicles?
8. Were there provisions to ensure every house had access to a charging point for electric cars?
9. Were there considerations for changing the standard size of parking spaces to accommodate larger modern vehicles?
Biodiversity and the Natural Environment
1. In reference to Policy NE9, had we taken advice from ecologists and horticulturists regarding the planting of non-native species, considering climate change had made native species less resilient?
2. Should we consider prioritising non-native species for climate resilience, rather than making exceptions for them?
3. Regarding Policy NE5 and CN1, were these at odds with rural small local sites?
4. What considerations were given to settlement gaps, specifically regarding the Sir John Moore Barracks site/Littleton and Curdridge and Whiteley?
5. Why was only the River Itchen referenced in Policy NE16?
6. What challenges do we foresee with biodiversity net gain, especially considering the reliance on 100% offset credits in the viability assessment report?
7. Could officers comment on the concerns raised by Siobhan Brophy regarding wildlife sites and habitats, specifically the 17 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the district?
8. For Policy NE4, could we change the Wickham to Alton Meon Valley trail reference to reflect that it stops at West Meon?
9. Could we adopt the South Downs National Park's SD2 policy directly, given the different ecosystem services approaches?
The Historic Environment
1. Were we giving enough thought and prominence to the cultural role that historic buildings play, as opposed to focusing solely on their physical and structural aspects?
2. There was a comment that Policy HE10 - Development and Conservation Areas was subjective. Could officers comment on that?
Homes for All
1. In Policy H13, could officers clarify why Carousel Park appears in both lists for Travelling Show People and Gypsy and Traveller pitches?
2. Why had the housing numbers changed from Regulation 18 to Regulation 19, specifically the reduction in the South Downs National Park allocation from 500 to 350?
3. How does the reduction in housing numbers in the South Downs National Park affect the accessibility and affordability of housing?
4. Regarding Tynefield Caravan Park on page 322, had there been any consultation with the town council about increasing the traveller sites from 18 to 30?
5. There was a question about whether the housing numbers split in Policies H1 and H3 had been calculated correctly. Could officers clarify that?
6. Why does Wickham have an increased allocation of 300 homes, when it was originally 200?
7. Could officers explain the changes in the Partnership for South Hampshire (PfSH) allocation for unmet housing needs from Regulation 18 to Regulation 19, and how it affects our housing numbers?
8. What happens if we cannot meet the housing request from Portsmouth and Havant, given the unmet need allocation?
9. How do we ensure that the inspector would not require Portsmouth and Havant to meet their own housing needs instead of allocating it to Winchester?
10.Could it be clarified that our unmet need allocation was not specifically for Portsmouth or Havant but was a general addition to our housing numbers to help meet overall regional needs?
These points were responded to by the Cabinet Member for Place and Local Plan and officers accordingly.