Decisions

The Head of New Homes Delivery highlighted that the mix of housing provision set out in paragraph 11.2 of the report had changed slightly since the outline planning consent was approved in July 2017.  This was to reflect changes in requirements following alterations to Government proposals regarding benefit entitlement. 

The Head of New Homes Delivery advised that the tenders received were originally £4m over budget, but through working with the Council’s appointed Employer’s Agent, this sum was reduced by over £1m without reducing the quality of the scheme provided.  The Council was expected to hear if it had been successful in its submission for an additional grant of £700,000 from Homes England in the near future (paragraph 12.1 of the report refers). 

Paragraph 13.1 of the report explained that the scheme offered a positive Net Present Value at year 39 (further details in exempt appendix 2).  Normally a scheme would be expected to achieve this at year 35 but the wider value of the scheme for the community had been taken into account.  If the additional Homes England funding was received it would allow the scheme to achieve positive Net Value at year 35.

The Head of New Homes Delivery advised that if approved, contractors were ready to start on site in early April 2019 and construction was expected to last between 18 months and 2 years.

As a local ward Member, Councillor Scott asked a number of detailed questions on the scheme.  Responses to these and other Members questions are summarised below:

·         Drew Smith Limited would be the main contractor on site and discussions would shortly take place with the Council regarding a site movement strategy.  This would include agreement on where contractors’ cars could be parked and the possibility of keeping footpaths open wherever possible (without compromising site safety).

·         The Council had been in regular contact with the Church Commissioners regarding St Lukes Church site access and to ensure this development would not negatively impact on possible proposals for future development of church owned land.

·         The scheme had been designed to offer a mix of different housing tenures, including larger family homes.

·         The importance of the communication and consultation that had taken place with local residents was acknowledged.

Monica Gill confirmed that the report had been discussed by TACT and its members were in support of the proposals.

The Committee then moved into exempt session to consider the exempt appendices to the report.

The Committee agreed to the following for the reasons outlined above, discussed during exempt session and set out in the report.

RESOLVED:

1.         That the Corporate Head of Housing be authorised to enter into a design and build contract to construct 77 properties at The Valley, Winchester with Galliford Try Building Ltd for the sum as detailed in exempt appendix 1.

2.         That in accordance with Financial Procedure Rule 6.4, capital expenditure of up to £18,931,151, including contingency funding and estimated fees as set out in exempt appendix 2 be approved.

3.         That the Corporate Head of Asset Management be authorised to negotiate and agree terms for easements, wayleaves and related agreements with utility suppliers, telecom/media providers and neighbours in order to facilitate the development.

The Head of New Homes Delivery advised that the report proposed the introduction of a local connection test to part of the register. 

Members highlighted that the Government currently provided that self build sites were exempt from CIL contributions.   The Head of New Homes Delivery emphasised that self build accommodation should not be confused with affordable accommodation.  However, this change would assist the Council by ensuring that provision was made within the Local Plan policies for local people.

Monica Gill confirmed that the report had been discussed by TACT and its members were in support of the proposals.

The Committee agreed to the following for the reasons outlined above and set out in the report.

RESOLVED:

1.         That the introduction of a Local Connection Test for the Self Build & Custom Build Register application process be approved.

2.         That the Corporate Head of Housing be given delegated authority to agree the Local Connection criteria.

In introducing the report, the Chairman highlighted that a Housing Company would offer an extra tool for the Council to provide additional affordable accommodation, but it was anticipated only around 10% business would be transacted through the Company.

The Head of Housing Finance advised that £10m funding from the General Fund had been approved, with the exact mix of debt to equity to be determined.  The Strategic Director: Services (Interim) stated that a further report would be required for final approval, following further legal advice, and it was anticipated that this would be submitted by summer 2019.

Officers responded to a number of detailed questions from Members as summarised below:

·         It was confirmed that the report would also be considered by The Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 20 March and Cabinet on 25 March 2019;

·         The Council had received confirmation from its legal advisors that it would be permissible to transfer HRA land at less than market value;

·         One Member queried whether the Council had the necessary accounting expertise for the different accounting required for a Housing company.  The Strategic Director highlighted that the Council already procured external advice regarding, for example VAT, and it was intended to continue this approach.

·         The Strategic Director advised that the majority of the transactions between the Housing Company and the Council could be made public.  However, some discussions, for example regarding negotiation of contract sums, would necessarily remain exempt.

·         The Head of Housing Finance confirmed that discussions had taken place with other local authorities regarding their experiences of establishing a housing company.

·         Officers acknowledged that there were risks involved, as summarised in the report.  However, these were mitigated by limiting the investment to £10m and putting in place tests to ensure that any asset developed would be worth more than the cost of the land acquired.

·         The Head of New Homes Delivery advised that the establishment of a Housing Company would not impact on the Council searching for new sites with potential for development.  However, it would offer an additional means of financing and enable for development for a more mixed community.

·         The Council would seek to introduce a local connection criteria when establishing the Housing Company. 

Monica Gill confirmed that the report had been discussed by TACT and its members were in support of the proposals.

The Committee agreed to the following for the reasons outlined above, discussed during the exempt session, and set out in the report.

RECOMMENDED (TO CABINET):

1.         That the proposal to establish a company limited by shares and wholly owned by the Council to deliver and manage sub market rented and shared ownership accommodation, including the partnered home purchase scheme (PHP)  be approved.  A further report will be made to Cabinet and Council before a final decision is made to establish the company and start trading.

2.         That a combined loan facility & equity shareholding of £10m from the General Fund be approved to support the company’s development activity. This was previously approved in CAB2990 (HSG) 22 November 2017 as a £10m loan facility only. 

3.         That the five year business plan be approved.

4.         That the Corporate Head of Housing in consultation with the Corporate Head of Resources, the Leader with Portfolio for Housing Services and the Portfolio Holder for Finance be authorised to:

a)    Determine the balance of commercial and other loans to equity with due regard to state aid regulations.

b)   Determine the terms of all loans.

5.         That the proposed governance structure be approved, and:

a)    Full Council assumes the role of shareholder of the company.

b)   A Shareholder Advisory Group of three elected members of the Cabinet Housing Committee be established to advise the Council in its capacity as shareholder with senior officers to attend as required.

c)    That the appointment of one elected member and two senior officers to the board of directors, namely The Chair of the relevant Policy Committee, The Corporate Head of Housing and the Head of New Homes Delivery, be approved.

6.         That delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader with Portfolio for Housing Services to appoint additional independent directors at a future date should the need arise.

7.         That authority to finalise the articles of association and shareholder agreement be delegated to the Corporate Head of Housing in consultation with the Legal Services Manager, the Leader with Portfolio for Housing Services and external legal advisors.

8.         That, to ensure that the company is able to commence trading from October 2019,  authority to undertake all remaining steps detailed at Table 5 be delegated to the Corporate Head of Housing in consultation with the Legal Services Manager and Leader with Portfolio for Housing Services. 

RESOLVED:

That the following meetings take place at the Wellington Vale

Care Home, Darnel Road, Denmead, Waterlooville during 2019/20: –

• Tuesday 2 July 2019 at 11:00am

• Tuesday 5 November 2019 at 11:00am

• Tuesday 10 March 2020 at 11:00am

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting, held on 6 November 2018, be approved and adopted.

Richard Smith, Winchester City Council ecologist, gave a presentation on ecology.  A copy of the presentation can be found under this item’s agenda heading on the Winchester City Council website.

In answer to Members’ questions, Mr Smith stated that:

• Reptiles would be moved from the old Town Park under licence and these were principally lizards and slow worms.

• The mitigation land had been set aside for Brent Geese to rest upon during migration.

• The river Wallington was being dug out to be more meandering to allow it to be conducive as a wildlife habitat.

In conclusion, Mr Smith stated that he had a good working relationship with Grainger and nature groups, and that these organisations also covered the Havant Borough Council area.

A summary of the presentation would also be included in the West of Waterlooville Community Newsletter.

Mr Tilbury introduced the report.

In answer to questions from Mr Crichton, Mr Tilbury stated that in the new Municipal Year, the Forum would increasingly take on an overview role where matters relevant to Winchester City Council, Havant Borough Council and Hampshire County Council could be raised as the Newlands Parish Council came into effect.  Newlands Parish Council would be the primary body to consult on planning matters.  A report on the future terms of reference of the Forum would be submitted to the meeting of Cabinet at Winchester City Council to be held on 25 March 2019.

In respect of the temporary community building, the opinion of the Valuation Office Agency was awaited and this would define the approach that would be taken to its future.  Mr Tilbury assured the Forum that the monetary amounts involved were not large and a resolution would be achieved.

In reply to Members’ questions as to whether the facility could be fitted out and used in the interim period, it was explained that Newlands Parish Council had a contingency within its budget which might be considered to provide support for the temporary community centre in the short term whilst the Valuation Office Agency was requested to expedite its decision.

Following discussion, there was willingness at the Forum to find a solution at the earliest opportunity without setting a precedent and to secure a sustainable long-term future for the temporary community centre.  It was suggested that a group be set up to progress this matter so that its purpose for community use could be resolved at the earliest opportunity.

It was further explained that tree planting had not taken place on site as a health and safety risk assessment was required following the finding of ordnance on the site.

Lisa Turley, Grainger, stated that the Town Park Phase A would be subject to a soft opening in April.

Mr Crichton added that house sales at Redrow Phase 13(b) were progressing well.

The Chairman requested that a detailed ward map showing district and county boundaries be provided to members of the Forum.

                        RESOLVED:

That the progress being made in bringing the West of Waterlooville MDA forward be noted.

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Izard be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Committee for the meeting.

Item 13: Hoardings and window stickers/posters surrounding the Friarsgate Medical Centre building.

Friarsgate Medical Centre, Friarsgate, Winchester

Case number: 19/00174/AVC

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which stated that Paragraph 3 of the ‘Design/layout and Impact on Character of Area’ section referred to the use of a map image. This had now been updated to include images taken from the Central Winchester Regeneration Supplementary Planning Document and amended drawings had been received to reflect this.

Therefore, condition 07 was updated to read:

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:

•           Location Plan received 28.01.2019

•           Hoardings – Measurements with Design received 12.03.2019

•           Hoardings – Panel Measurements received 28.01.2019

•           Visual Image showing Hoarding and Windows received 28.01.2019

•           Door Measurements and Graphics received 28.01.2019

•           Archway Graphics received 28.01.2019

•           Block Plan showing location of hoardings received 28.01.2019

•           Single Window Graphic received 28.01.2019

•           Window Vinyl Stickers received 28.01.2019

•           Marked up windows and measurements received 30.01.2019

During public participation, Councillor Horrill spoke on this item as the Leader of the Council.

In summary, Councillor Horrill stated that:

·         As Chairman of the Cabinet (Central Winchester Regeneration) Committee the redevelopment of the area was a key commitment and the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and its vision for the area had been adopted.

·         The Woolstaplers Hall, the former antiques market and Coitbury House would remain in the redevelopment.  The former Friarsgate building had been empty for almost 10 years and after being purchased by the City Council in 2018 it would now be demolished.

·         The Council was seeking hoardings and window stickers/posters in the short term to secure the building, to prevent unauthorised access and provide public safety.

·         The application would complement the street scene and would protect the site during demolition.

·       The images to be used were consistent with the SPD.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and as per the Update Sheet.

RESOLVED:

That the decisions taken on the Development Control Applications in relation to those applications outside the area of the South Downs National Park be agreed as set out in the decision relating to each item.

.

Item 12:  Erection of a 60 bed specialist dementia and nursing residential care home with associated landscaping and car park following demolition of the existing vacant former nursing home building.

Abbeygate, 42 Quarry Road, Winchester

Case number: 18/02385/FUL

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out details of a further letter of objection received due to the size of the structure and its proximity to the junction of Northbrook Avenue and Quarry Road; a revision to Condition 13: Substitute revised Landscape plan (M9335 APL005 rev. D) and site plan (M9335 APL004 rev. D), which showed the temporary storage area for bin collection, and also an additional condition relating to Employment Skills Plan – Full details were set out in the Update Sheet.

During public participation, David Hoggett spoke in objection to the application and Carole Sawyers (Chief Executive of Brendon Care) and James Wallace (Architect) spoke in support and answered Members’ questions thereon.

During public participation, Councillor Murphy spoke on this item as a Ward Member.

In summary, Councillor Murphy stated that:

·         The revised plans had reduced the development’s height; however it was still four stories and would be dominant and close to neighbours.

·         It was contrary to the St Giles Hill Conservation Area guidance and the Neighbourhood Design Statement, which should be respected.

·         The development could be pushed further back into the site and its roof articulated.

·         The provision of solar panels (35 square metres) to the roof area of 900 square metres was relatively small and the development’s level of sustainability to meet Council’s Planning Policy CP11 needed to be clarified.

·         There was inadequate drainage and the development might increase the risk of flooding.

·         There was inadequate capacity for foul sewage and this required improving.

·         The application should be deferred to allow the above points to be dealt with.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and as per the Update sheet, subject to the delegation to the Head of Development Management to issue the decision once the required ecology matters together with any appropriate conditions that may be required.

Item 10:  Change of use of open land to a pet cemetery

Cemetery Hoe Road Bishops Waltham

Case number: 18/02844/FUL

The Head of Development Management clarified that the dimensions of the proposed area for the pet cemetery was approximately 40m on its longest length by 20m and not 25m x 13m as stated on page 62 of the Report under Site Description.

During public participation, Penny Clive (Committee Member of Cemetery) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report.

Item 9:  Car Park with landscaping and new access from Worthy Road.

Land at St Swithuns Church, London Road, Headbourne Worthy.

Case number: 18/01978/FUL.

During public participation, Gail Alexander (The Worthies Conservation Volunteers) spoke in objection to the application and Headbourne Worthy Parish Councillor Christine Clarkesmith and Gimma McPherson (Parochial Church Council for the Church) spoke in support and answered Members’ questions thereon.

During public participation, Councillor Porter spoke on this item as a Ward Member.

In summary, Councillor Porter stated that she wished to raise the following points:

·         Concerns over the viability of the church

·         Concerns over the impact on ecology

·         Highway issues, including the dampness of the site of the existing informal car park and the safety of the entrance to the new car park on a busy 30 to 40mph road.  She asked if sight lines were adequate with the introduction of electric vehicles and the use of cycles that could be less heard.

·         Was car parking capacity met with 25 new spaces

·         Was lighting required for the safety of visitors

·         The erosion of the strategic gap with the development of the car park

·         Possible use as an informal Park and Ride (following the introduction parking restrictions in Abbotts Worthy)

·         Effect on the setting of the listed church, which would not be enhanced

·         The provision of a small number of disabled bays would have been more acceptable

·         Speed limits on the road could have been addressed as part of the Planning Application.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report.

Item 8:  Refurbishment and re-development of The Old Parsonage Care Home to provide 16No. close care apartments with associated welfare and staff facilities. The proposals include the demolition of the 1980's additions, the erection of a new 2.5 storey building with single storey wing to the rear of the site and the re-ordering of the listed building.

The Old Parsonage Care Home, Main Road, Otterbourne

Case number: 18/02064/LIS

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report subject to the deletion of the reference to: ‘and for the provision of an Employment Skills Plan’, which was included and approved under application 18/02063/FUL above.

Applications outside the area of the South Downs National Park (SDNP):

Item 7:  Refurbishment and re-development of The Old Parsonage Care Home to provide 16 No. close care apartments with associated welfare and staff facilities. The proposals include the demolition of the 1980's additions, the erection of a new 2.5 storey building with single storey wing to the rear of the site and the re-ordering of the listed building.

The Old Parsonage Care Home, Main Road, Otterbourne

Case number: 18/02063/FUL

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out that the section headed ‘Recommendation’ should read: 

Application Permitted subject to the following provisions in a S106 Legal Agreement and condition(s):

Heads of Terms

•           Retention of buildings for C2 use

The Employment and Skills Plan shall be secured by Condition 20 not via S106 Agreement.

There was also an update to Condition 8 (Construction Management Plan); and the addition of Condition 20 relating to the need for an Employment and Skills Plan and also the addition of Condition 21 (that accommodation hereby permitted shall not be used for any other purposes than a residence care home (Use Class C2). – Full details were set out in the Update Sheet.

During public participation, Helen Elleby and Otterbourne Parish Councillor Kevin Stafford spoke in objection to the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

During public participation, Councillor Laming spoke on this item as a Ward Member.

In summary, Councillor Laming stated that:

·         The proposed development was much larger than the present.

·         The new development’s windows and their height would result in a loss of privacy for neighbours.

·         The new rooms facing neighbours were living rooms and for permanent occupation.

·         The large scale of the development would change the character of the area.

·         There was insufficient car parking, including provision for visitors

·         There would be an adverse impact on the sewerage system and the ecologically sensitive stream

·         There would be further car parking on the road and limited access for emergency vehicles

·         A Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee was recommended.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and as per the Update Sheet.

1.         That the contents of the report be noted.

2.         That the RIBA stage 2 Concept Design for the refurbishment of Coitbury House as at appendix F and the progression to RIBA stage 3 developed design, detailed in paragraphs 11.14 to 11.18 of the Report be approved.

3.         That the name of the Central Winchester Regeneration area from the shortlist attached at appendix I be Saxon Gate.

4.       That in order to progress with the development of the complex archaeological work related to this site (highlighted in paragraphs 11.42-11.49 of the Report), that additional external resource be procured to support the in house team to develop the archaeology investigation project plan and specification for tenders for the archaeological investigations.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the previous meetings of the Committee held on 27 November 2018 and 22 January 2019 be approved and adopted.

RESOLVED:

That, having taken into consideration the representations received, Tree Preservation Order 2233 be confirmed.

RESOLVED:

That, having taken into consideration the representations received, Tree Preservation Order 2235 be confirmed.

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which stated that Condition 02 should read as follows:

‘The residential accommodation hereby permitted, as shown in drawing No. 02_ Revision B, shall be occupied in association with the dwelling house or shall be used for the purposes ancillary to the dwelling house (Orchard Gate).  At no time shall the building be occupied as an independent planning unit of residential accommodation, business, commercial or industrial purpose.’

During public participation, Maggie Hill, Colden Common Parish Council spoke in objection to the application and Mrs S Rayner spoke in support and answered Members’ questions thereon.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to refuse permission as the development was tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside and was contrary to policy MTRA4.  The precise wording was delegated to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chairman.

RESOLVED:

1.             That the decisions taken on the Development Control Applications in relation to those applications outside the area of the South Downs National Park be agreed as set out in the decision relating to each item, subject to the following:

(i)              That in respect of item 7 (15 Silwood Close) permission be refused in accordance with policies DM15, DM16 and DM17, as the quantum of development would appear cramped in the street scene and it was out of character with the prevailing character of the area.  The precise wording was delegated to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chairman.

(ii)             That in respect of item 8 (63 St Cross Road) permission be granted for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and the Update Sheet and an additional condition be agreed to the effect that no lighting should be installed without first submitting details to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

(iii)            That in respect of item 13 (Orchard Gate, Lordswood, Highbridge) permission be refused as the development was tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside and was contrary to policy MTRA4.  The precise wording was delegated to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chairman.

This item was not considered at this meeting and was deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out that the Tree Officer had withdrawn his objection following investigation into the root area of the Horse Chestnut to the west of the outbuilding.  Therefore paragraph 2 of the Landscape and trees section was amended to read:

‘The landscape plan shows the removal of a number of smaller trees by the access, track and parking area.  The loss of these smaller trees is considered to be acceptable.  There is a significant Chestnut to the west of the outbuilding noted as T3 Horse Chestnut in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) that has a root protection area within the proposed excavation area, it is considered that this tree does not have a TPO served on it and is not readily visible in the street scene.  While the loss of the tree would be lamentable it is not considered to have a high amenity value in the street scene for its loss to warrant a refusal reason.’

In addition, the Ecologist comments, last sentence should read: ‘The Ecologist raised no objection subject to conditions requiring the measures set out in the Ecological Assessment be followed’.

During public participation, Sam Chisnell spoke in objection to the application and Gimma Macpherson, Kings Worthy Parish Council, and Richard Osborn, Agent, spoke in support and answered Members’ questions thereon.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to refuse permission for the reasons set out in the Report and the Update Sheet.

During public participation, Zac Gurtekin, Ian Tait and Phrynette Dickens spoke in objection of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report.

During public participation, James Bone spoke in objection of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and that an additional condition be included to the effect  that no lighting should be installed without first submitting details to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out an addition of condition 15 which read:

‘Development shall cease on site if, during any stage of the works, unexpected ground conditions or materials which suggest potential contamination are encountered, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.  Works shall not recommence before a site assessment has been undertaken and details of the findings along with details of any remedial action required (including timing provision for implementation), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall not be completed other than in accordance with the approved details. 

NB - potentially contaminated ground conditions include infilled ground, visual evidence of contamination or materials with an unusual odour or appearance.

Reason: In order to secure satisfactory development and in the interests of the safety and amenity of future occupants.’

During public participation, Deborah Willsher and Kim Blunt spoke in objection to the application and Jeremy Tyrell, Agent, spoke in support and answered Members’ questions thereon.

During public participation, Councillor Weir spoke on this item as a Ward Member.

In summary, Councillor Weir stated that:

·         There was not a Neighbourhood Design Statement or Plan for the Bereweeke Road area and as there was a lack of designated housing sites it led to infill applications.

·         It was a small site, with the development “shoe-horned in” next to the pavement and represented over development.

·         There was an accumulative effect of development on road safety.

·         It needed to be ensured that the beech tree was not put at risk.

·         Potential problems with road safety from the access at peak times.

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee resolved to refuse permission in accordance with policies DM15, DM16 and DM17, as the quantum of development would appear cramped in the street scene and it was out of character with the prevailing character of the area.  The precise wording was delegated to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chairman.