Agenda item

Proposal Description: Item 6: Demolition of redundant care home and associated outbuildings, redevelopment of the site to provide 32 apartments including 50% affordable housing and associated alterations to site access, sub-station, hard and soft landscaping, car parking, cycle store, plant room, refuse and recycling store, drainage, boundary treatments and other associated works.

It was noted that the majority of the committee had visited the application site on 4 February 2025 to enable members to observe the site       in context and to gain a better appreciation of the proposals.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which sets out in full the following:

(i)             A change to plan numbers in relation to condition 2.

(ii)            A change condition 7 regarding the damp-proof course level.

(iii)          An amendment to the report to remove the repetition of condition 19.

(iv)          A change to the wording of condition 20.

(v)           An amendment to condition 22 in relation to the parking management plan.

(vi)          A further objection was received on 29^th January 2025 and a further comment was received in relation to parking and a request for double yellow lines.

(vii)         An additional note from Environmental Protection and an additional condition to read as follows:

          ‘Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, full          details demonstrating how noise sensitive premises will be suitably    protected from external noise or vibration shall be submitted to and          approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

          Development must then continue in accordance with the approved                details. Any mitigation measures must be in operation prior to the                occupation of the development.

          Reason: To ensure acceptable noise levels within noise sensitive                 premises are maintained.’

In addition, a verbal update was provided at the meeting by the planning case officer for additional wording ‘Prior to damp-proof course…’ to be added in respect of the additional noise condition set out in (vii) above.

During public participation, Peter Richards and Mark Robinson spoke in objection to the application and Daniel Wiseman spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Morris spoke as Ward Member in objection to the application. In summary, Councillor Morris raised the following points:

·       Overdevelopment and Intrusiveness: Councillor Morris stated that while there was no opposition to redeveloping the site, the current proposal represents overdevelopment, which would be intrusive, obstructive, and unworkable.

·       Parking Shortfall: He highlighted a significant shortfall in parking provision, noting that the proposal included only 18 parking spaces for 32 units, while the council's adopted parking standards required 62 spaces. Even accounting for car-free units, there remained a shortage of 13 spaces. Councillor Morris argued that approving the proposal would mean agreeing to a proposal that does not meet the adopted parking standards.

·       Practicality and Future Car Ownership: Councillor Morris questioned the practicality of the proposal, pointing out that there was nothing to stop residents of car-free units from requiring a car later, which would exacerbate parking issues.

·       Lack of Capacity: The development lacked spare capacity for food deliveries, visitors, and emergency services.

·       Mitigation Concerns: Questioned the applicant's attempt to mitigate parking concerns using census data, suggesting it could be misleading. In addition, he raised concerns about a proposed parking management scheme, stating that the scheme should be considered before deciding on the building's size and the number of parking spaces.

·       Conflict with Local Plan: Approving the application would be an exception to policy DM of the local plan and the Winchester Council residential parking standards supplementary planning document.

·       Urban Design Assessment: The number of parking spaces falls well below Winchester's parking standards for this type of development.

·       Open Space Deficiency: The proposed open space, described as a narrow sliver of lawn, was insufficient for the number of residents, lacked amenity for children, was of low design quality, and would be in almost permanent shadow. Therefore, he considered the application to be contrary to policies CP13, CP15, CP16, and CP20.

·       Biodiversity Net Gain: Councillor Morris referenced the comments of the HCC ecology team, noting that the submitted biodiversity net gain assessment was of limited value and its accuracy could not be checked. He noted that there was ample time to address the concerns.

·       Design Issues: The proposal falls short of policies DM15, DM16, and DM17, presenting an imposing, box-shaped block that would loom over neighbouring properties, particularly the garden of 5 Bereweeke Road. The building's height and position on a rise give it undue prominence. The proposal also falls short of policy CP13 on design grounds.

·       Balconies: Councillor Morris drew attention to the Urban Design assessment that advised the removal of the balconies.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

          RESOLVED:

                    The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report, the               Update Sheet and the verbal update as set out above.