Decisions

Item 9: Proposal Description: Change of use of existing welfare unit for a temporary 3 year period to house an agricultural manager

The application was introduced.  During public participation, Ali Harrison provided a statement (which was read out on her behalf) in objection to the application.

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, subject to additional conditions: that the temporary agricultural unit hereby permitted, shall not be occupied until details of a recessive colour to be applied to the walls of the unit or cladding in a recessive colour is submitted to the local planning authority for approval and developed within a specified timescale; and an amendment to conditions 1 and 2 to remove the wording ‘mobile home’ and replace with ‘agricultural unit’. The exact wording of the additional conditions to be delegated to the Service Lead: Built Environment to agree in consultation with the Chair.

Item 12: Proposal Description: Two storey rear extension, loft development including rear dormer plus associated alterations to dwelling.

The application was introduced.  Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out additional comments received on 13 November 2021 and additional photographs that had been submitted showing the rear elevations and front elevations and provided clarification regarding the proposed ground floor extension, contextual drawings, the orientation of the dwellings, the first floor window at number 41 St Faith’s Road which was to serve a bedroom and not a bathroom as stated in the report and previous concerns regarding the flue pipe which was not included as part of this application.

During public participation, Carrie Lowe spoke in objection to the application and Sophie Beer (applicant) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

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 and the Update Sheet.

The meeting commenced at 9.30 am, adjourned between 11.55 am and 2 pm  and concluded at 3.35 pm.

Chair

Item 6: Proposal Description: Retrospective application for raised terrace and relocation of garage.

The Chairperson announced that members of the committee had recently undertaken a site visit to view the proposal in the context of its setting and to fully understand its impact on the surrounding area.

The application was introduced.  Members were referred to the Update Sheet which clarified that the new track (to the rear of the site) was outside of the red line plan and could not be considered as part of the application and were also provided with details in relation to Solomon’s Lane as an unclassified road.

During public participation, Alice Drew (on behalf of Mr and Mrs Walsh) spoke in objection to the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

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 and the Update Sheet, subject to an additional condition to require

reinforcement of the southern boundary by further planting . The exact wording of the additional conditions to be delegated to the Service Lead: Built Environment to agree in consultation with the Chair.   The Committee also asked officers to check the originally approved drainage strategy and, if required, seek further information.  This detail was delegated to the Service Lead: Built Environment.

Item 8: Proposal Description: Two storey rear extension, first floor front extension, alterations to roof, demolition and replacement of garage, erection of two bedrooms, two storey dwelling to the west of the existing dwelling with associated additional vehicle access

The application was introduced.  Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out information in relation to condition 2, additional correspondence that had been received, the appeal decision from the previous application 18/02927FUL; the reason for refusal of the 2018 application and an additional condition removing certain elements of permitted development rights from the site. 

During public participation, Gina Cherrett spoke in objection to the application and Jeremy Tyrrell (agent) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

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 and the Update Sheet.

Item 7: Proposal Description: Application Reference Number: 19/00619/FUL Date of Decision: 18/07/2019

Condition Number(s): 2: Amend approved plans condition

The application was introduced.  During public participation, Jane Marsden (applicant) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Power spoke in objection to the application as Ward Member and answered Members’ questions thereon.

In summary, Councillor Power made reference to policy MTRA(2) of the Local Plan in relation to commercial growth consistency in town centres and considered that the proposal to increase the kitchen by three times its current size, would result in twice as much food preparation with the premises no longer being a café attached to a shop. Councillor Power stated that the proposal for a continual expansion of out of town shopping in its close proximity to Alresford would have a damaging impact on the town and was also contrary to the Local Plan and policy MTRA(2), therefore she urged the committee to refuse the application.  

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.

Item 11: Proposal Description: Two storey front extension, roof raising and conversion of garage, first floor side extension, two storey rear/side and single storey rear extensions; replacement roof, windows and finishes to external walls (amended drawings and proposal)

The application was introduced.  Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out an amendment to page 107 to change the number of off road parking spaces from four to three due to the angle of the drive.

During public participation, William O’Brien spoke in objection to the application and Louise Cutts (agent) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

During public participation, Councillor Ferguson spoke in objection to the application as Ward Member. 

In summary, Councillor Ferguson raised various concerns by a number of residents in relation to the scale and mass of the development which was two and half times larger than the existing dwelling and considered to be overdevelopment of the site.

In conclusion, Councillor Ferguson stated that the proposal was overbearing on the neighbouring property resulting in a loss of their privacy, was unsympathetic to the character of the area, would set a precedent for future development on this scale and would change the streetscene of Manningford Close and the surrounding area if permitted.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED:

The committee agreed to refuse permission for the following reasons: the property by reason of its size and relationship to the occupiers of 11 Manningford Close results in (1) overdevelopment of the plot, out of character in its appearance and variety to the local streetscene in terms of its scale and mass (2) will result in an unneighbourly impact on the occupiers of 11 Manningford Close by reason of the two storey side element by virtue of its height and  materials to the living conditions of the occupiers of 11 Manningford Close, contrary to policies DM16 and DM17.  Exact wording delegated to the Chair of Planning Committee in consultation with the Service Lead: Built Environment.

1.     That it be agreed that the council, as landowner of the River Park Leisure Centre, Gordon Road, Winchester, to enter into an agreement for lease to enable the University of Southampton to progress options for the extension of the neighbouring Winchester School of Art campus on the River Park Leisure Centre site. 

2.     That the Heads of Terms be agreed as in appendix B of report CAB3324.  The Heads of Terms include a five year long ‘stop date’ during which time the University of Southampton will investigate and obtain planning consent for their proposed development.

3.     That the land known as The River Park Leisure Centre, Gordon Road, Winchester, as identified within the red line at Appendix A be disposed, to the University of Southampton on a 150 year ground lease subject wholly to obligations set out in the Agreement for Lease. 

4.     That authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Asset Management to enter into an Agreement for Lease with the University of Southampton in accordance with the heads of terms. This delegation is subject to agreeing the land price with the University of Southampton in accordance with S123 best consideration provisions and other relevant valuation assumptions.

5.     That authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Asset Management to enter into a ground Lease with the University of Southampton for the disposal of the land (identified as outlined in red in appendix A of CAB3324), such lease to be in accordance with the above-mentioned Agreement for Lease. Disposal is subject to a 150 year Ground Lease to the university, and payment of a capital sum by the university to the council. The capital sum for the disposal is to be calculated having regard to S123 best consideration provisions and other relevant valuation assumptions.

6.     That the completion of the Agreement for Lease and the ground Lease, and any relevant ancillary agreements as are necessary to implement the recommendations above be delegated to the Service Lead Legal.