Decisions

Councillor Ashton introduced the report and responded to Members’ questions thereon.

 

Cabinet agreed to the following for the reasons set out in the report.

 

RESOLVED:

 

            That the Annual Treasury Outturn Report 2017/18 be noted.

 

Councillor Horrill introduced the Report.  In summary, the process over the previous 18 months in drafting the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was explained.  This had ensured that the SPD reflected the aspirations of stakeholders, residents and other interested parties.  Councillor Horrill thanked the Project Team for their hard work during this period, developing the document and hosting various and extensive engagement exercises.  Councillor Horrill drew attention to the Public Realm and Framework Plan which was part of the SPD at Section3 (page 27) and had been issued separately to Members. 

 

During public participation, two members of the public and/or members of local interest groups spoke as summarised below.

 

Patrick Davies

·         That the SPD now included various changes which had been made without explanation.  The matters raised at The Overview and Scrutiny Committee should have also more specifically related to.

·         Reference to the status of the Informal Policy Group (IPG) meeting on 7 June 2018 (as referred to in the Report’s Recommendation 3) was queried as the IPG had not been formally reappointed at the Cabinet meeting on 17 May 2018. 

·          Why was recent relevant case law not referenced at an earlier stage? 

The Chairman thanked Mr Davies for his contribution.  It was pointed out that the SPD, as set out, was inclusive of advice obtained from Counsel, having regard to recent relevant case law and actions appropriate to comments submitted during the extensive consultation exercises.  This included that of The Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 

 

Phill Gagg (WINACC)

·         Consultation on the SPD had been undertaken very well and the document, which overall was good, was also full of good ideas.  It should be taken forward into the Local Plan process.  It was hoped that the final outcome was deliverable.

·         WINACC welcomed the SPD’s reference to a sustainability approach to development. It was appreciated that although there was some reference to walking and cycling, that the Movement Strategy would, in due course, build further on this.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor Thompson addressed Cabinet as summarised below.

 

Councillor Thompson

·         The public engagement throughout the SPD’s development had been exemplary and should be used as model for future similar exercises.

·         Although there were good principles within it, the SPD, overall, was disappointing as the aspirations etc within now appeared to have been ‘watered down’.  Was it to a sufficient standard to meet the challenges of the planning process?

·         The report’s recommendations made no reference to a commitment, about how the public were to be engaged with as part the next stages of the scheme’s delivery. Recommendation 6 should specify that there should be a full programme of meetings arranged to consider the development framework plan. 

 

The Chairman explained that the Cabinet (Central Winchester Regeneration) Committee was now the mechanism to take forward the scheme and would map out a programme at its first meeting.  With regards to the SPD, although how some changes had been made to the document, the principles of the SPD had not been changed.

 

Cabinet Members welcomed the SPD.  During discussion the Chairman referred to the retail needs assessment reports undertaken and that Winchester’s lower than average vacancy rate (compared to the national average) was reflective of its successful retail environment which was inclusive of independent traders.  With regard to archaeology, she also advised that the Cabinet (Central Winchester Regeneration) Committee would look at this important aspect and have regard to any other specific actions going forward.

 

The Chairman drew Cabinet’s attention to some proposed further amendments to the updated draft SPD which were agreed.  Appendix 2 in the October 2017 draft of the SPD had included some factual information on the history of Winchester.  Therefore, original paragraphs A2.1.1 in Appendix 2 would be reinstated to this version.  In addition, on page 21 the sentence at paragraph 3.1.4 in the October 2017 draft made reference to further guidance at paragraphs 3.4 to 3.9.  This would be re-instated.

 

Cabinet agreed to the following for the reasons outlined above and set out in the Report.

 

            RESOLVED:

 

1.            That the proposed amendments to the SPD, following the consultation exercise with the public, be supported.

 

2.            Than the proposed amendments to the SPD following Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the 4 June 2018 at paragraphs 6.59 to 6.65, be supported.

 

3.            That the proposed amendments to the SPD following the Informal Policy Group meeting on the 7 June 2018 at paragraph 6.67 and 6.68, be supported.

 

4.            That the updated SPD be adopted as set out in appendix A, together with those amendments approved following The Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 4 June and Informal Policy Group on 7 June (and as set out above) , in accordance with the requirements of the Town & Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

 

5.            That the Head of Programme for CWR be authorised to make minor factual changes and corrections to the SPD, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, prior to the publication of the document.

 

6.            That it be noted that the Head of Programme for CWR is progressing further work on development viability, design and delivery options for the scheme and will bring a report to the Cabinet (Central Winchester Regeneration) Committee in due course.

 

Councillor Griffiths introduced the report and highlighted the proposal  for the boxing club to be relocated from its current location on the Garrison Ground to enable the new Leisure Centre to be built.  The report proposed that further work be done to evaluate whether the Club could be accommodated within a new multiuse pavilion on the King George V Playing Field (KGV).  Councillor Griffiths emphasised that consultation would be undertaken on these proposals and the report’s third recommendation be  amended to take account of this.

 

Janet Berry (Highcliffe Forum) spoke during public participation as summarised below:

·                that the local community had not been consulted on the proposals before now, and in particularly as part of the recent consultation on the Design Framework that this proposal seemed to contradict;

·                What steps would be taken to mitigate additional traffic in local roads and how would any overflow parking be managed?

·                Would the ability for general community use of pavilions be retained and would the kickabout area be relocated?

·                Requested that the actions in the Highcliffe Forum Community Plan be supported and considered

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillors Weir and Burns addressed Cabinet as summarised below.

 

Councillor Weir

·                that she appreciated an officer briefing but the Winchester Town Forum had not been consulted on proposals due to the impact on the Town Account budget.  She requested further clarity regarding the ongoing revenue requirements as she believed this was a district-wide project;

·                the implications of the proposals on access arrangements from the local area.

 

Councillor Burns

·                The original 1940 deed of dedication of KGV dedicated it as public playing fields and she believed that the provision of pavilion(s) on the land was contrary to this purpose;

·                that the report’s proposals accorded with the contents of the Design Framework which envisaged that the boxing club would be located to the north west of the new stadium.

 

The Chairman stated that the financial implications were met from the General Fund and that further discussions would be held with Councillor Weir outside of the meeting to clarify the ongoing revenue funding requirements beyond those set out in the report.  Members also highlighted that the idea of reviewing  and/or enhancing the existing pavilions was included within the Design Framework. 

The Head of Programme confirmed that there were existing pavilions on KGV – two currently in use and one which was very old and dilapidated.  There were no proposals to increase the overall size of the area occupied by pavilion(s) but more to rationalise the overall provision. .  Matters relating to the access arrangements would be considered as part of the future consultation on the proposals. The whole of the KGV area would still be available for general use outside of the time the pitches were being used for football games.

 

Councillor Warwick stated that the possibility of a new pavilion on KGV had been considered some years ago by the Council including the option of a facility being named after a former Southampton Football Club player who lived in Winchester The Head of Programme agreed to investigate further this previous proposal and whether any elements could be utilised in the current ideas.

 

Cabinet agreed to the following for the reasons outlined above and set out in the Report.

 

          RESOLVED:

 

1.       That a supplementary capital budget of £200,000 be approved, and authority be given  to incur capital expenditure, in order to:

a)         mitigate the loss of pitches at the Garrison Ground, which is estimated to cost up to £100,000;

 

b)         to undertake feasibility and design work for a new Pavilion, which is estimated to cost up to £60,000; and

 

c)         In the event that the Pavilion project set out in this report is not achievable in the timescales required in line with the Leisure Centre project then up to £40,000 will be required to allow for a temporary relocation of the boxing club.

 

2.       That a supplementary revenue budget of £15,500 be approved in 2018/19 for on-going maintenance costs including improved pitch maintenance at King George V playing fields, leading to a full year requirement of £26,500 per annum from 2019/20.

3.       That the principles of relocating the Winchester Boxing Club and combining it with a new Pavilion on KGV are agreed for further consideration and public engagement, as set out in this report, and that the existing building on the Garrison Ground which currently houses the Boxing Club is demolished, subject to agreeing an alternative location and rehousing of the Winchester Boxing Club.

 

Councillor Miller introduced the report and Cabinet were in agreement that the proposals represented a good opportunity to provide investment in modern business space in the rural area and southern parishes.

 

The Chairman drew attention that the proposal was subject to a supplementary capital estimate that required approval by full Council.  

 

Cabinet agreed to the following for the reasons set out above and outlined in the Report.

 

            RESOLVED:

 

1.            That subject to the approval of the Supplementary Budget by Council the proposals for the development described in the report are agreed and that:

 

a)    the supplementary capital estimate detailed in Appendix C be approved; and

 

b)    the supplementary revenue budget of £16,000 for marketing as detailed in Appendix C be approved.

 

2.            Following the receipt of the final lease offers for the properties, if more than three offers are received, the Corporate Head of Asset Management in consultation with the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for the Economy, Corporate Head of Engagement and the Strategic Director (Resources) be authorised to determine, taking into account the criteria detailed in paragraph 14.9 of this report, which are the most appropriate tenants for the development.

 

3.            That prior to the commencement of construction works, agreements for lease be entered into with the prospective tenants on terms to be settled by the Corporate Head of Asset Management, in consultation with the Corporate Head of Resources.

 

4.             The Corporate Head of Asset Management be authorised to submit a planning application for the proposals and any other applications for works requiring statutory consent.

 

5.            Subject to project approval and satisfactory offers being received for the units:

 

a)    In order to develop the concept design for the proposed development, a direction be made under the Contract Procedure Rule 3.1 to authorise the Corporate Head of Asset Management to appoint OB Architecture to continue as Project Architects and Scott White Hookins as Structural Engineers ;

 

b)    The building works to be managed under a Construction Management  process with the  Construction Manager, Project Manger, Health and Safety advisors, Cost Consultant, Mechanical and Electrical Engineer and other professional consultants and package contractors being appointed in accordance with Contract Procedure Rule 9.2 (obtaining quotations/tenders);

 

c)    The Corporate Head of Asset Management be authorised to accept such quotes and, following their assessment by the Quantity Surveyor tenders received for the works, subject to the tenderers ability to complete the works in the required timescales.

 

d)    Subject to the agreement of the budget by Council, authority be given under Financial Procedure Rule 6.4 to incur the capital expenditure referred to in Appendix C.

 

e)    That if requested to do so by the tenant(s), the Council to undertake the fitting out works as part of the Construction Management process at the direct cost and expense of the tenant(s). Where the tenants opt to rentalise the works delegated authority is sought for the Strategic Director (Resources) to approve additional capital budget and expenditure of up to £250,000 where it is financially beneficial to the Council to do so.

 

 

Councillor Godfrey introduced the Report and emphasised the importance of the Council proactively communicating and engaging with claimants with regard to the changes and also promoting the targeted support that the Council was able to be provide.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor Porter addressed Cabinet as summarised below.

 

• Whilst welcoming the All Member Briefing on 5 July on the changes, ideally this could have taken place at an earlier date.
• Discretionary Housing Payments were very important to help ensure that tenants who may be in financial difficulty kept on top of their rent payments.
• The support offered by the Council’s Money and Benefits advisor and also Citizens Advice Bureau was welcomed. 

 

Cabinet agreed to the following for the reasons set out above and outlined in the Report.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.            That measures being put in place to prepare for the roll out of Universal Credit in the Winchester area from July, as set out in paragraph 17 of the report, be supported.

 

2.            That the £9,600 of Personal Budgeting Advice and Digital Support Advice grants received from the Department of Work and Pensions be used to commission additional support services to supplement the work of Council teams.

 

3.            That the results of the “First Project” trial as detailed in the Appendix be noted, that a package of targeted support options be established and promoted but the option of offering managed “pre-paid” cards to City Council tenants not be pursued at this stage

 

Councillor Warwick introduced the Report and the Head of Landscape and Open spaces gave a presentation to Cabinet. 

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor Porter addressed Cabinet as summarised below.

 

• The Strategy was of interest and relevance to all Members.
• Not all schools were able to undertake or fund sufficient maintenance of their playing fields so to be able to support extensive community use.
• The success of Parkrun should factor in how pitches are maintained when used for this purpose.  For example, Winchester now had 400 participants.
• Was the Council able to influence Hampshire County Council with regard to the design of MUGA pitches (Multi Use Games Areas) at schools?
• Informal kick-about pitches should be factored into the Strategy.
• The South Down National Park’s ‘dark skies’ policy should be carefully considered as floodlighting was necessary at pitches if are to be used after 1630 during the winter months.
• Some existing pitches required investment to bring to sufficient standard.  It was also a fact that the cost of provision was more than the revenue achieved form leasing facilities. The Strategy, therefore, should look to maximise potential funding streams.

 

Cabinet members welcomed the Strategy and noted that it accorded with the Council’s wider Health and Well-being Strategy. The Strategy aspired to the future use of pitches and facilities (as well as existing) and therefore the ambitions of local sports clubs had been sought.  As a consequence of this work and particularly from engaging with the ‘Winchester Flyers’ woman’s football team, the Garrison Ground was to benefit from various improvements including to drainage and ancillary facilities. 

 

Cabinet agreed to the following for the reasons set out above and outlined in the Report.

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.         That the Winchester District Playing Pitch Strategy and Action Plan 2031 to 2031 be adopted.

 

2.         That the Head of Landscape and Open Spaces in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Environment be authorised to make any incidental textual amendment’s or corrections before publication.  

 

Councillor Griffiths introduced the Report.

 

During public participation, two members of the public and/or members of local interest groups spoke as summarised below.

 

Janet Berry (Highcliffe Community Forum for Action)

·                that the plans for the boxing club altered proposals in the Design Framework which had only recently consulted upon.  Improvements to the Number 4 bus service should be included in proposals;

·                Children and young people must be fully engaged in the design process;

·                that the issue of future use of the former depot site had not been resolved;

·                The local community must be involved in future proposals on an ongoing basis particularly in relation to pedestrian access to the facilities from Milland Road.

 

Geoff Wright

·                that the projected cost of £38m was a significant sum which needed to be considered carefully in relation to what will be provided

·                Highlighted that a major component of the cost would be the construction costs for which a preferred contractor had been selected.  Given this, how would the contractor be incentivised to achieve best value for the construction costs. 

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillors Thompson, Murphy and Laming addressed Cabinet as summarised below.

 

Councillor Thompson

·                Supported the proposal for a new centre located at Bar End. It is an exciting project and our biggest to date so its importance means that we must get it right. 

·                Sought clarification  regarding the proposed design of the glass wall in the sports hall in relation to glare and the importance of ensuring the opinions of club users were taking into account.

·                The importance of considering access arrangements to the new centre, including cycle and pedestrian routes from different areas of the city.  Whilst Park and Ride parking spaces are being increased the bus capacity should also be increased in line with this and the findings of the Movement Strategy must be taken into account.

 

Councillor Murphy

·                Welcomed the proposed indicative designs for the building but appealed to take account the fears and wishes of the community;

·                that Highcliffe residents had not been consulted before about the proposals for the boxing club and requested assurances that this consultation would take place;

·                Existing playing field areas in Highcliffe should remain accessible for free play purposes;

·                Recognition that ensuring access from Milland Road required further consideration but highlighted that children from the local primary school would otherwise have a much longer walk to the centre. 

·                Concern that current traffic and parking issues along Milland Road could be acerbated by the proposed relocation of the boxing club.

 

Councillor Laming

·                The depot site must be included within the Design Framework;

·                The designs should be include a viewing gallery for the sports hall;

·                sought clarification regarding the suitability of the proposed glass wall in the hall;

·                The requirements of those with disabilities must be properly addressed and the centre be a centre for all.

 

The Chairman thanked contributors and welcomed the general support for a new centre.  However, she noted that a number of comments made either related to other items on the agenda (and they would be considered at the appropriate time) or to matters that were not for decision at the current time (for example, comments in relation to the design of the building itself).

 

Cabinet members confirmed that consideration of the depot site was included within the Design Framework.  It was also confirmed that although there was already intended to be access to the playing fields  in general from Milland Road, the specific matter of access to the facility itself would be the matter of further consideration, as agreed at the Cabinet (Leisure Centre) Committee on 23 May 2018.  Cabinets Members affirmed the level of public engagement taken to date and that engagement would continue including children and young people.

With regard to the link to the joint County Council/City Council Movement Strategy, the Head of Programme confirmed that relevant County Council officers had been fully involved in proposals.  The results of the Strategy were expected in autumn.   The Council would install an additional park and ride bus stop to service the new centre.   Bus services in general were a matter for the County Council and future discussions could be held as appropriate.

 

Cabinet agreed to the following for the reasons outlined above and set out in the Report.

 

          RESOLVED:

 

          That the Design Framework be approved subject to the amendments proposed by the Cabinet (Leisure Centre) Committee held 23 May 2018 as detailed in the relevant minute above.

 

1.            (RETROSPECTIVE) (AMENDED DESCRIPTION) Proposed use of first-floor mezzanine and partial use of ground floor of (northwest) agricultural storage building for office purposes (Class B1)

Meadows Farm, Ervills Road, Worlds End, Hambledon.

(Extract from Report PDC1122 Item 14 and Update Sheet 13 December 2018 refers).

 

Councillor Read made a personal statement that he was a member of the same organisation as the applicant, and he had met him once in relation to the taking of possible enforcement action on the site, but this was not a personal interest and he would speak and vote on the application.

 

At its meeting held on 13 December 2018, the Planning Committee agreed that the above application be referred to the Planning (Viewing) Sub-Committee for determination in order to assess the impact of the partial use of the agricultural storage building for office use.

 

Public participation had taken place at the aforementioned meeting of the Committee where Paula Langford-Smith (Denmead Parish Council) and Carolyn Hargreaves (World End Residents Association) spoke in objection to the application and Robert Tutton (agent) spoke in support and answered Members’ questions thereon.  Neil Lander-Brinkley spoke on behalf of Councillor Stallard (Ward Member) with a pre-prepared speech.

 

Therefore, immediately prior to the public meeting, the Viewing Sub-Committee visited the application site where Members observed the site in order to assess the impact of the partial use of the agricultural storage building for office use.

 

The Head of Development Management presented the application to re-familiarise Members with the proposal and stated that the application had been taken to the Planning Committee for determination with a recommendation to grant permission.

The Head of Development Management reminded Members that in summary the Update Sheet had referred to comment received from CPRE Hampshire, and conditions relating to hours of operation and lighting details and that an additional objection comment had been received from Denmead Parish Council and that conditions to control the hours of operation alongside lighting (including hours of lighting use) were included to avoid adverse impact on the tranquil nature of the surrounding environment.  There had been no further material changes to the application since the meeting on 13 December 2018.

The Head of Development Management informed the meeting that an additional Condition 7 was proposed regarding light pollution:  That within 3 months of the date of consent, details of measures to reduce light spillage (such as low transmittance glass or screening) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The measures must be installed and operated in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained.  It was also explained that the South Downs National Park was approximately 1 mile to the North East of the application site.

At the conclusion of debate, the Sub-Committee agreed to refuse permission for the reasons set out in the resolution below.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That, Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons,  with authority delegated to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chairman to agree the precise wording:

 

1.      The proposal is contrary to MTRA4 Local Plan Part 1 as the application is not an appropriate reuse in a rural location and Policies DM17 and DM23 Local Plan Part 2 relating to neighbouring amenity and rural location as the application is contrary to these policies as there was no need in the rural location, increased traffic, light pollution and the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property at Meadow Farm House and the impact on rights of way and rural views.

 

The meeting commenced at 12:00pm and concluded at 1:10pm

 

 

Chairman

 

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION

THE NOOK, BANK STREET BISHOPS WALTHAM

CASE NUMBER: 18/01503/HOU

(Extract from Report PDC1116 Item 9 and Update Sheet 20 September 2018 refers).

 

At its meeting held on 20 September 2018, the Planning Committee agreed that the above application be referred to the Planning (Viewing) Sub-Committee for determination in order to assess the impact of the proposed single storey rear extension on neighbouring properties.

 

Public participation had taken place at the aforementioned meeting of the Committee where Paula Turner, and Robert Shields, Bishops Waltham Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and Simon Eatwell, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

Therefore, immediately prior to the public meeting, the Viewing Sub-Committee visited the application site where Members observed the site in order to assess the impact of the proposed single storey rear extension on neighbouring properties.

 

The Planning Officer presented the application to re-familiarise Members with the proposal and stated that the application had been taken to the Planning Committee for determination with a recommendation to grant permission.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

Application Permitted subject to the following condition(s):

 

Conditions

 

01   The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

01   Reason:  To comply with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

02   The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be those as detailed in section 10 (materials) of the associated application forms.

 

02   Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual relationship between the new development and its surroundings.

 

03   The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the following plans:

Location Plan (Drawing Number: L01) Received: 18.06.2018

Proposed Plan, Section and Elevation (Drawing Number: P01B) Received: 18.06.2018

Proposed Plan (Drawing Number: P02A) Received: 18.06.2018

Proposed Section (Drawing Number: P03A) Received: 18.06.2018

Proposed East and West Elevation (Drawing Number: P04) Received: 18.06.2018

 

03   Reason: In the interests of proper planning and for the avoidance of doubt.

 

Informatives:

 

01   In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018), Winchester City Council (WCC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals, working with applicants and agents to achieve the best solution.  To this end WCC:

 

- offer a pre-application advice service and,

- update applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application, where possible suggesting alternative solutions.

 

In this instance a site meeting was carried out with the applicant.

 

02   The Local Planning Authority has taken account of the following development plan policies and proposals:

 

The Local Plan Part 1 (2013): MTRA2, DS1, CP13, CP20

The Local Plan Part 2 (2017): DM1, DM15, DM16, DM17, DM18, DM27, DM28

High Quality Places Supplementary Planning Document (2015)

 

03   This permission is granted for the following reasons:

The development is in accordance with the Policies and Proposals of the Development Plan set out above, and other material considerations do not have sufficient weight to justify a refusal of the application. In accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, planning permission should therefore be granted.

 

04   All building works including demolition, construction and machinery or plant operation should only be carried out between the hours of 0800 and 1800 hrs Monday to Friday and 0800 and 1300 hrs Saturday and at no time on Sundays or recognised public holidays. Where allegations of noise from such works are substantiated by the Environmental Protection Team, a Notice limiting the hours of operation under The Control of Pollution Act 1974 may be served.

 

05   Please be respectful to your neighbours and the environment when carrying out your development. Ensure that the site is well organised, clean and tidy and that facilities, stored materials, vehicles and plant are located to minimise disruption. Please consider the impact on your neighbours by informing them of the works and minimising air, light and noise pollution and minimising the impact of deliveries, parking and working on public or private roads. Any damage to these areas should be remediated as soon as is practically possible.

 

For further advice, please refer to the Construction Code of Practice

http://www.ccscheme.org.uk/index.php/ccs-ltd/what-is-the-ccs/code-of-considerate-practice

 

06   Please be advised that Building Regulations may be required for this development. Please contact WCC Building Control Department for more information (T: 01962 848176, E: buildingcontrol@winchester.gov.uk)

 

07   The applicant should note that this permission does not give any property rights to building on or encroach over or under the adjoining property.  The applicant may be required to serve notice under the Party Wall etc Act 1996.

 

 

Item 8: Development of six houses with garages and parking; new access road. Demolition of existing.

74 Olivers Battery Road North, Olivers Battery, SO22 4JB

Case Number: 18/01359/FUL

(Extract from Report PDC1115 Item 8 and Update Sheet 16 August 2018 refers).

 

At its meeting held on 16 August 2018, the Planning Committee agreed that the above application be referred to the Planning (Viewing) Sub-Committee for determination in order to allow Members to assess the proposed access route in the context of its setting, specifically with regard to the concerns raised of the safety of pedestrians and traffic. 

 

At that meeting, the Head of Development Management drew the Committee’s attention to the Update Sheet which set out additional Conditions 23 to 27.

 

In addition, at this meeting a verbal update was provided stating that amended plans had been received for an area of the site. As a result, an amendment had been made to Condition 14 to reflect the amended plan.

 

Furthermore, it was noted that reference to 14 parking spaces had since been changed to 15 parking spaces and that had subsequently been amended and condition 13 needs to be amended to reflect this.

 

Public participation had taken place at the aforementioned meeting of the Committee where Sylvia Conway-Jones spoke in objection to the application and Stephen Sherlock (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

 

At this meeting, Councillor Green also addressed the Committee on this item as Ward Member.

 

Therefore, immediately prior to the public meeting, the Viewing Sub-Committee visited the application site where Members observed the site in order to gain a better appreciation of the proposal in the context of its setting and an understanding of the safety concerns  previously raised.

 

The Planning Officer presented the application to re-familiarise Members with the proposal and stated that the application had been taken to the Planning Committee for determination with a recommendation to grant permission.

 

At the conclusion of debate, the Sub-Committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons, conditions and informatives set out in the Report and  the Update Sheet and, subject to the amendments proposed in the verbal update above.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be permitted for the following reason(s):

 

Conditions

 

01   The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

01   Reason:  To comply with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

02   No development shall take place until details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

02   Reason:  To ensure that the development presents a satisfactory appearance in the interests of the amenities of the area.

 

03   Detailed proposals for the disposal of foul and surface water shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development hereby permitted.  The approved details shall be fully implemented before development can begin.

 

03   Reason:  To ensure satisfactory provision of foul and surface water drainage.

 

04   No development, or works of site preparation or clearance, shall take place until details, including plans and cross sections of the existing and proposed ground levels of the development and the boundaries of the site and the height of the ground floor slab and damp proof course in relation thereto, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

04   Reason:  To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the new development and adjacent buildings, amenity areas and trees.

 

05   No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected.  The boundary treatment shall be completed before occupation.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

05   Reason:  In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

 

06   A detailed scheme for landscaping, tree and/or shrub planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences.  The scheme shall specify species, density, planting, size and layout.  The scheme approved shall be carried out in the first planting season following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner.  If within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, any trees, shrubs or plants die, are removed or, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, become seriously damaged or defective, others of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, in the next planting season, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

 

06   Reason:  To improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity.

 

07  No development shall take place until details of hard landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved.  These details shall include the following, as relevant:

- hard surfacing materials:

- minor artefacts and structures (eg. street furniture, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc):

- means of enclosure, including any retaining structures:

- existing and proposed finished levels or contours:

 

07 Reason: To improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity

 

08   Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted detailed information (in the form of SAP design stage data and a BRE water calculator) demonstrating that all homes meet the equivalent to Code 4 standard for energy and water (as defined by the ENE1 and WAT 1 in the Code for Sustainable Homes) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be built in accordance with these findings.

 

08   Reason: To ensure a sustainable form of development consistent with the objectives of The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and to accord with the requirements of Policy CP11 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 - Joint Core Strategy.

 

09   The recommendations as listed in Section 5.0 of the submitted Ecological Assessment written by Peach Ecology dated 31^st May 2018 shall be adhered to.

 

09   Reason: In the interests of promoting, protecting and enhancing ecology

 

10   The existing hedge on the northern boundary shown to be retained on the proposed site plan drawing no. 14 Rev D shall be retained and maintained at a minimum height of 1.5 metres If within a period of 5 years from the date of permission, any part of the hedge is removed or, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, become seriously damaged or defective, a replacement hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, in the next planting season, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

 

10 Reason: To improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity.

 

11   Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted detailed information (in the form of SAP "as built" stage data and a BRE water calculator) demonstrating that all homes meet the equivalent of Code 4 standard for energy and water (as defined by the ENE1 and, WAT 1 in the Code for Sustainable Homes) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be occupied in accordance with these findings.

 

11   Reason: To ensure a sustainable form of development consistent with the objectives of The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and to accord with the requirements of Policy CP11 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 - Joint Core Strategy.

 

12   The proposed access and drive, including  shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with specifications to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

 

NOTE:  A licence is required from Hampshire Highways Winchester, Central Depot, Bar End Road, Winchester, SO23 9NP prior to the commencement of access works.

 

12   Reason:  To ensure satisfactory means of access.

 

13   Before the development hereby approved is first brought into use, a minimum of 15 car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter maintained and kept available.

 

13   Reason:  To ensure adequate car parking provision within the site in accordance with the standards of the Local Planning Authority.

 

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

 

Drawing no. 14 Rev D Proposed site plan

Drawing no. 103 Rev B Block Plan

Drawing no. 33 Rev A Proposed garages

Drawing no. 30 Rev A Proposed Plans and Elevations Plots 1 and 2

Drawing no. 105 Location Plan

Drawing no. 31 Rev A Proposed Plans and Elevations Plots 3 and 4

Drawing no. 32 Rev B Proposed Plans and Elevations Plots 5 and 6

Drawing no. 16276-BT2 Tree Protection Plan

Drawing no. 500 Rev D Site Entrance Road Details (received 24.08.2018)

 

Notwithstanding Drawing no. 14 Rev D, the access arrangements and boundary must be constructed in accordance with Drawing no. 500 Rev D.

 

14 Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning

 

15 Protective measures, including fencing and ground protection, in accordance with the Arboricultural Assessment and Method Statement – Barrell Consultancy ref. 16276-AA-CA dated 6^th October 2017, and submitted to the Local Planning Authority shall be installed prior to any demolition, construction or groundwork commencing on the site.

 

15 Reason: To ensure the protection and retention of trees on site

 

16 The Arboricultural Officer shall be informed once protective measures have been installed so that the Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ) can be inspected and deemed appropriate and in accordance with Ref: 16276-AA-CA dated 6^th October 2017 Telephone - Principal Tree Officer. 01962 848403

 

16 Reason: To ensure the protection and retention of trees on site

 

17 The Arboricultural Officer shall be informed prior to the commencement of construction of special surfacing under tree canopies so that a pre commencement site visit can be carried out. Telephone 01962 848403

 

17 Reason: To ensure the protection and retention of trees on site

 

18 No arboricultural works shall be carried out to trees other than those specified and in accordance with the Arboricultural Assessment ref. 16276-AA-CA dated 6^th October 2017.

 

18 Reason: To ensure the protection and retention of trees on site

 

19 Any deviation from works prescribed or methods agreed in accordance with the Arboricultural Assessment and Method Statement Ref: 16276-AA-CA dated 6^th October 2017 shall be agreed in writing to the Local Planning Authority.

 

19 Reason: To ensure the protection and retention of trees on site

 

20 No development, or site preparation prior to operations which has any effect on compacting, disturbing or altering the levels of the site, shall take place until a person suitably qualified in arboriculture, and approved as suitable by the Local Planning Authority, has been appointed to supervise construction activity occurring on the site. The arboricultural supervisor will be responsible for the implementation, of protective measures, special surfacing and all works deemed necessary by the approved arboricultural method statement. Where ground measures are deemed necessary to protect root protection areas, the arboricultural supervisor shall ensure that these are installed prior to any vehicle movement, earth moving or construction activity occurring on the site and that all such measures to protect trees are inspected by the Local Planning Authority Arboricultural Officer prior to commencement of development work.

 

20 Reason: To ensure the protection and retention of trees on site

 

21 A pre-commencement meeting will be held on site before any of the site clearance and construction works begins. This will be affected by the site manager, the Arboricultural consultant and the LPA tree officer.

 

21 Reason: To ensure the protection and retention of trees on the site

 

22 Details of measures to be taken to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site during construction works being deposited on the public highway shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and fully implemented before development commences. Such measures shall be retained for the duration of the construction period. No lorry shall leave the site unless its wheels have been cleared sufficiently to prevent mud being carried onto the highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

23 Details of provisions to be made for the parking and turning on site of operative and construction vehicles during the period of development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and fully implemented before development commences. Such measures shall be retained for the construction period.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

24 The proposed access and drive, including the footway crossing shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with specifications to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

NOTE – A licence is required from Hampshire Highways Winchester, Bishops Waltham Depot Botley Road, Bishops Waltham, SO32 1DR prior to commencement of access works.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory means of access.

 

25 The existing wall situated along the southern boundary adjoining Badger Farm Road for a distance of 5 metres from the proposed shared private access shall be lowered to and at no time be more than 0.6 metres above the level of the carriageway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

 

26 The parking areas including the garages shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans before the dwellings are first occupied and thereafter permanently retained and used only for the purpose of accommodating private motor vehicles or other storage purposes incidental to the use of the dwelling houses as a residences.

Reason: To ensure the permanent availability of parking for the property.

INFORMATIVE NOTE - The minimum internal dimensions of the garage must be 3m by 6m and the minimum width of the entrance door to the garage should be a 2.44m (8ft) -

Reason:- In order that the garage can be used and accessed by modern cars, several of which now have larger vehicle dimensions.

27 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by Classes A and B of Part 1 Schedule 2 of the Order shall be carried out without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:  To protect the amenities of the locality and to maintain a good quality environment.

 

Informatives:

 

01 In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018) Winchester City Council (WCC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals, working with applicants and agents to achieve the best solution. To this end WCC:

 

- offer a pre-application advice service and,

- update applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application, where possible suggesting alternative solutions.

 

In this instance pre-application advice was given

 

02 This permission is granted for the following reasons:

The development is in accordance with the Policies and Proposals of the Development Plan set out below, and other material considerations do not have sufficient weight to justify a refusal of the application. In accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, planning permission should therefore be granted.

 

03 The Local Planning Authority has taken account of the following development plan policies and proposals:-

                                     

Winchester Local Plan Part 1 - Joint Core Strategy: MTRA1, CP2, CP11, CP13

 

Local Plan Part 2 - Joint Core Strategy: Development Management and Site Allocations: DM15, DM16, DM17, DM18

 

04 All building works including demolition, construction and machinery or plant operation should only be carried out between the hours of 0800 and 1800 hrs Monday to Friday and 0800 and 1300 hrs Saturday and at no time on Sundays or recognised public holidays. Where allegations of noise from such works are substantiated by the Environmental Protection Team, a Notice limiting the hours of operation under The Control of Pollution Act 1974 may be served.

 

05 During Construction, no materials should be burnt on site. Where allegations of statutory nuisance are substantiated by the Environmental Protection Team, an Abatement Notice may be served under The Environmental Protection Act 1990. The applicant is reminded that the emission of dark smoke through the burning of materials is a direct offence under The Clean Air Act 1993.

 

06 Please be respectful to your neighbours and the environment when carrying out your development. Ensure that the site is well organised, clean and tidy and that facilities, stored materials, vehicles and plant are located to minimise disruption. Please consider the impact on your neighbours by informing them of the works and minimising air, light and noise pollution and minimising the impact of deliveries, parking and working on public or private roads. Any damage to these areas should be remediated as soon as is practically possible.

 

For further advice, please refer to the Construction Code of Practice http://www.ccscheme.org.uk/index.php/ccs-ltd/what-is-the-ccs/code-ofconsiderate-practice

Item 17: Proposed Extensions

43 Woodfield Drive, Winchester, SO22 5PY

Case Number: 18/00896/HOU

(Extract from Report PDC1113 Item 17 and Update Sheet 26 July 2018 refers).

 

At its meeting held on 26 July 2018, the Planning Committee agreed that the above application be referred to the Planning (Viewing) Sub-Committee for determination in order to allow Members to assess the proposed extensions in the context of its setting and the relationship with the neighbouring properties.

 

Public participation had taken place at the aforementioned meeting of the Committee where Sarah McGowan spoke in objection to the application and Katie Whiles spoke in support of the application.

 

At this meeting, Councillor Hutchison also addressed the Committee on this item as Ward Member.

 

Therefore, immediately prior to the public meeting, the Viewing Sub-Committee visited the application site where Members observed the site in order to gain a better appreciation of the proposal in the context of its setting and its relationship with neighbouring buildings.

 

The Planning Officer presented the application to re-familiarise Members with the proposal and stated that the application had been taken to the Planning Committee for determination with a recommendation to grant permission.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be permitted for the following reason(s):

 

Conditions

 

01   The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

01   Reason:  To comply with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

02   The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the following plans: A17/683/01 rev A (Site Plans) received on 09.04.2018 and A17/683/02 rev B (Proposed Drawings) received on 30.05.2018.

 

02 Reason: In the interests of proper planning and for the avoidance of doubt.

 

03   The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

 

03   Reason:  To ensure a satisfactory visual relationship between the new development and the existing.

 

04  The windows marked as obscure glazing on the submitted drawings shall be glazed with obscure glass which achieves an obscuration level at least equivalent to Pilkington Obscure Glass Privacy Level 4, and the glazing shall thereafter be retained in this condition at all times.

 

04   Reason: To protect the amenity and privacy of the adjoining residential properties.

 

05   Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order, with or without modification), no windows, other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall, at any time, be constructed in the south east facing elevations, north west facing elevations, or south west (rear) facing elevations of the extension’s hereby permitted.

 

05   Reason: To protect the amenity and privacy of the adjoining residential properties.

 

 

Informatives:

 

In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Winchester City Council (WCC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions.  WCC work with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;

 

-offering a pre-application advice service and,

 

-updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.

 

This permission is granted for the following reasons:

The development is in accordance with the Policies and Proposals of the Development Plan set out below, and other material considerations do not have sufficient weight to justify a refusal of the application. In accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, planning permission should therefore be granted.

 

The Local Planning Authority has taken account of the following development plan policies and proposals:-

 

All building works including demolition, construction and machinery or plant operation should only be carried out between the hours of 0800 and 1800 hrs Monday to Friday and 0800 and 1300 hrs Saturday and at no time on Sundays or recognised public holidays. Where allegations of noise from such works are substantiated by the Environmental Protection Team, a Notice limiting the hours of operation under The Control of Pollution Act 1974 may be served.

 

During Construction, no materials should be burnt on site. Where allegations of statutory nuisance are substantiated by the Environmental Protection Team, an Abatement Notice may be served under The Environmental Protection Act 1990. The applicant is reminded that the emission of dark smoke through the burning of materials is a direct offence under The Clean Air Act 1993.

 

All bat species are protected under European Law within the E.C. Habitats Directive and under British law within the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.  The applicant is advised that should bats be present, works must stop and a Natural England European Protected Species licence may be required before recommencing. 

 

Item 13: Erection of one new dwelling at land to the rear of Lion Hill House .

Lion Hill House, Alton Road, West Meon, GU32 1JF

Case Number: SDNP/17/03750/FUL

(Extract from Report PDC1115 Item 13 and Update Sheet 16 August 2018 refers).

 

At its meeting held on 16 August 2018, the Planning Committee agreed that the above application be referred to the Planning (Viewing) Sub-Committee for determination in order to allow Members to assess the issues of parking and the impact on the listed buildings, conservation area and neighbouring properties.  

 

At that meeting, the Head of Development Management drew the Committee’s attention to the Update Sheet which set out comments from the Drainage Engineer and confirmed that the Environment Agency and Building Control had agreed the infiltration scheme for the development.

 

Public participation had taken place at the aforementioned meeting of the Committee where John Bennington spoke in objection to the application and Simon Goddard (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

 

Therefore, immediately prior to the public meeting, the Viewing Sub-Committee visited the application site where Members observed the site in order to gain a better appreciation of the proposal in the context of its impact on the listed buildings, conservation area and neighbouring properties and to assess the concerns expressed regarding parking.

 

The Planning Officer presented the application to re-familiarise Members with the proposal and stated that the application had been taken to the Planning Committee for determination with a recommendation to grant permission.

 

At the conclusion of debate, the Sub-Committee agreed to refuse permission for the following reasons: overdevelopment resulting in a cramped layout, causing visual harm in context of its setting in the West Meon conservation area. The precise wording delegated to the Head of Development Management, in consultation with the Chairman which will reference saved policies from the Winchester District Local Plan 2006, Winchester, policies in the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 Joint Core Strategy 2013 and emerging policies of the South Downs National Park Local Plan.

 

RESOLVED:

 

     That the application be refused for the reasons set out above.

 

 

The Committee received an introduction from Councillor Horrill which provided an update on the Central Winchester Regeneration Project and the meetings of the Advisory Panels.   Councillor Horrill informed the meeting that the archaeology day had been held on 11 December 2018, and that this had included a question and answer session.  A broadsheet on its outcomes would be published shortly.  The former Friarsgate Medical Centre had been purchased from Henderson, and the purchase had also included a number of retail buildings opposite the Guildhall in the Broadway, and these would now be refurbished.  The purchase of the land from Henderson provided greater certainty on achieving the aspirations of the regeneration.  Other recent initiatives included a workshop for local entrepreneurs held on 18 December 2018 to generate ideas and the opening of the Bike-hub delicatessen in the old Post Office building in Friarsgate.   Each of the chairs of the Advisory Panels updated the Committee on progress.   Lower High Street and Broadway   Councillor Ashton, Chair of the Lower High Street and Broadway Advisory Panel, stated that the Panel had met on the date of dispatch of the Committee report, 14 January 2019, and he gave a verbal update to the Committee of its proceedings on that day.   In summary Councillor Ashton stated that the Panel had been joined by two additional members: Dr Paul Spencer from Winchester Business Improvement District (BID) and Phil Gagg from Winchester Action on Climate Change (WinACC).  The principal outcomes had been: ·         The amendment of the name to Broadway and lower section of the High Street. ·         Consideration of the design brief for public realm – feasibility stage. ·         The works required go beyond making improvements; there was a need to transform the area into a vibrant public space. ·         There was a need to take account of the wider development and existing connections. ·         The history of the area and existing street pattern should inform the designs. ·         Recognition of the SPD and the implications of the emerging Movement Strategy. ·         To open up the waterways where possible. ·         That it was complementary to Central Winchester and to be cohesive. ·         To have a refined coherent brief.   There had been consideration to the way forward.  Eight urban design practices that had expertise and relevance had been identified to assist with design following a procurement exercise.  It was also recognised that it was necessary to work with Hampshire County Council who also had a design capability, knowledge of the City and highways expertise.   The Head of Programme added that the procurement on the design was now recommended to have a 60% quality and 40% price evaluation.  There was the option for urban design practices to bid for the project’s feasibility study phase, and when this phase was completed to bid again for the next stages, if the Council decide to proceed.   The Committee debated the options identified by the Advisory Panel and recognised that Hampshire County Council were also the highway authority and would be integral to the scheme’s implementation.  The Head of Programme confirmed that meetings had taken place with Hampshire County Council to scope their involvement and that the inclusion of urban design practices would add another layer of expertise in urban design.   Councillor Ashton commented that it was vital to have Hampshire County Council participate throughout.  Following the feasibility study, a second step could be added to include the urban design practices, and Hampshire County Council would still remain involved.   At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor Berry stated that the brief had taken into consideration the points made and it was clear and exciting.   Following debate, it was agreed to update the recommendations to reflect the latest outcomes from the Broadway and lower section of the High Street Advisory Panel, including the name change and to acknowledge that the City Council was keen to work with Hampshire County Council in partnership including the sharing of costs.   Meanwhile Uses – business case development   Councillor Brook, Chair of the Meanwhile Uses Advisory Panel, stated that ideas had come forward for the bus station and a performance space amongst others.  The brief had been agreed by the Advisory Panel and bids for the feasibility study would be returned on 4 February, to be considered by the Advisory Panel on 14 February 2019.   At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor Berry stated that the ideas for the public realm were exciting and that the waterways should not be hid.     Coitbury House   Councillor Horrill, Chair of the Coitbury House Advisory Panel added that the Panel had been joined by Keith Leaman of the City of Winchester Trust and a RIBA advisor.  Coitbury House was a good and sound building which would be renovated.  Possible uses were office space on the upper floors with the ground floor being used for alternative uses.   Other matters   The Head of Programme outlined the remaining content of the Report regarding archaeology, the Strategic Advisor and Consultancy Update, Naming Strategy and Delivery Roadmap.   In summary, the following matters were raised by Members and the Chairman, Strategic Director: Place and Head of Programme responded as set out below:         i.        The various data relating to archaeology needed to be consolidated.       ii.        The Strategic Advisor was not an individual but a practice that could provide multi disciplinary services and had experience in engagement.      iii.        The Naming Strategy would be shared on social media.  It was commented that history should not be discounted and that young people should be encouraged to contribute.  Names put forward in the questionnaire on the SPD should also be included.      iv.        It was recognised that there was considerable project work to be undertaken in 2019 and the capacity of the City Council to deliver would be kept under review, including buying in additional support as required.       v.        The land at the bus station that was subject to possessory title was not Henderson land.   The Chairman requested that a summary of the 18 December 2018 workshop for local entrepreneurs undertaken by the Economy and Arts Department of the Council be brought to an Advisory Panel as soon as possible.  It was also requested that the full implications of the Durngate Flood Relief Alleviation Scheme should be understood, in order that data could be taken into consideration when considering the design for the possible opening up of waterways and its implications for archaeology and development.   The Committee agreed to the following for the reasons set out above and outlined in the Report.

RESOLVED:   1.          That the progress with the project and the comments of the advisory panels be noted.   2.          That the design brief for lower High Street and Broadway public realm improvements be approved   3.          That the Head of Programme in consultation with the Portfolio Holder pursue the option for Hampshire County Council to carry out the design work and begin discussions with the County immediately.     4.          That authority be delegated to the Head of Programme, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to progress the lower High Street and Broadway public realm work as outlined in paragraphs 11.2 to 11.14, taking account of resolution 3 above.   5.          That a supplementary revenue budget of £60,000 be approved to carry out initial design work for lower High Street and Broadway.   6.          That authority be delegated to the Head of Programme for Central Winchester Regeneration to appoint experts to undertake the Meanwhile Uses business case feasibility study as outlined in paragraphs 11.15 to 11.23.   7.          That the evaluation criteria of 60% quality, 40% price for the meanwhile uses feasibility study bids be approved, and for the Lower High Street and Broadway design bids if open procurement was required.   8.          That authority be delegated to the Head of Programme, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to progress with the work on archaeology as outlined in paragraphs 11.30 to 11.38.

 

 

 

The signing of the minutes for the meeting of the Committee held on 27 November 2018 was deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.  This was in order to clarify the statement under Public Participation from Tim Fell that: ‘He expressed disappointment that a recommendation to open up the waterways underneath the CWR site was not brought to this Committee’ which it was proposed should have read: ‘He expressed disappointment that a recommendation to prioritise the design work for opening up the waterways underneath the CWR site was not brought to this Committee’.

 

The Committee received an introduction from Councillor Horrill which provided an update on the Central Winchester Regeneration Project.  Councillor Horrill emphasised that she was looking for the process to be collaborative across the political groups, to involve residents and to engage with interested parties.  Advisory Panels would also be established to extend the process of engagement.

 

The Head of Programme outlined the report to the Committee, covering items including an archaeology, meanwhile uses, the improvements to the existing estate and public realm, movement strategy, key partnerships and stakeholders, delivery options and viability and governance and engagement going forward.

 

In summary, the following matters were raised by Members and the Chairman responded as set out below:

 

How the outputs from the Archaeology Advisory Panel would be fed into the plans going forward.

 

The Panel would be meeting with those that had raised concerns, would be holding public sessions and there would be the opportunity for members of the Committee to talk informally with members of the Panel.

 

Would the Advisory Panel for the refurbishment of Coitbury House take into consideration the requirements of prospective tenants.

 

The Advisory Panel would assist the Council in terms of design and presentation of the building.  Consideration could then be given to finding the most appropriate user and to make decisions as to whether it required light refurbishment or something more fundamental.  It was envisaged that this project would take 6-12 months to complete.

 

The membership of the Advisory Panels and their consultative role.

 

Local experts could act as advisors if they did not have a commercial or other prejudicial interest in future contracts or the area.  The experience of other projects would also be taken into consideration.   Advisory Panels would also be consultative and be supported by expert advice as necessary, for example in ensuring a good design.  The Advisory Panel’s membership would include Councillors.  All advice flowing from the Panels would be considered by the Strategic Director: Place, project team and this Committee.

 

The proposals for paving and surfacing, including the Broadway, should be well designed and be coherent.

 

The designs would be taken forward in consultation with Hampshire County Council (who had been involved in good schemes elsewhere).  The brief would include on-going maintenance following installation.

 

The Winchester Movement Strategy

 

All councillors would have the opportunity to participate and comment on the emerging Movement Strategy.

 

The Urban Delivery Report

 

Information in this background report would be considered in developing the approach to project delivery, which would form the subject of a report to this Committee in September 2018.

 

The Design Programme should be divided into different parcels which were manageable and coherent.

 

The Strategic Director: Place replied that there was now a coherent vision, articulated in the SPD, which was shared and widely supported. The priority now was for that vision to be delivered through short term improvements and a longer term delivery approach. 

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

1.             That the contents of the report be noted.

 

2.             That the commissioning of further work on delivery options and viability for the Central Winchester Regeneration project be approved.

 

3.             That the principles that underpin the governance structure and the creation of the first three Advisory Panels be approved.

 

Councillor Hutchison stated that her comments made under Minute 3 – Council Procedure Rule 35, had not been reflected fully in the Minute.  She reiterated her concerns that the spirit of cooperation present under the Informal Policy Group had been lost and that the Urban Delivery Report had not been discussed.  She added that the Advisory Panels had not been developed as was wanted.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 10 July 2018 be approved and adopted.

 

The Committee received an introduction from Councillor Horrill which provided an update on the Central Winchester Regeneration Project, including the establishment of the Advisory Panels which would help inform the project streams.  Councillor Horrill stated that the three month period for legal challenge for the SPD had now expired and no challenges had been received, and that this was a material consideration moving forward.

 

The Head of Programme outlined the work streams to the meeting, as set out in the Report.  These were to develop a strategy to deliver the vision and aspirations outlined in the SPD; the establishment of advisory panels; the refurbishment and re-letting of Coitbury House; implementing a meanwhile use strategy for the vacant space in the bus station (a mural had now been displayed); the drive to let vacant property on a short-term basis within the regeneration area; deliver the repaving of lower High Street and revisit plans for Broadway; identify and deliver short term improvements to the public realm in the Central Winchester Regeneration area and to agree and deliver the archaeology event (on 11 December 2018).

 

In summary, the following matters were raised by Members and the Chairman and Head of Programme responded as set out below:

 

The Advisory Panels would help to inform projects and would include a wide range of participants, including the public and interested groups.  The Chairman added that there might be other Advisory Panels appointed as the project moved forward.

 

The SPD assisted in defining the short, medium and long-term options.  For example, as the area was contained, the Broadway gateway could be improved by landscaping, including providing wider pavements and removing car parking by the King Alfred statue.  The repaving of the lower part of the High Street and Middle Brook Street were longer term objectives and it was noted that issues such as the re-opening up of water ways and the archaeology would need to be addressed before the Lower High Street and Middle Brook Street were repaved.

 

There was also parallel work to be undertaken in balancing strategic direction with short-term uses.  Some of the short-term uses could then be judged on their success as to whether they became long-term features within the regeneration scheme.

 

The Meanwhile Use Advisory Panel would consider the provision of pop up shops.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

That the Terms of Reference and membership for the Advisory Panels as outlined in the Report be approved.

 

The Strategic Director: Place introduced the Report stating that the SPD showed the overall approach and was comprised of many interlocking aspects, and he would be pleased to take questions and hear views on the approach.   In answer to Members’ questions, the Strategic Director: Place stated that he would be working with Members to appoint the most appropriate Strategic Advisor to assist in the development of the delivery strategy.  The successful Strategic Advisor would be appointed through a procurement exercise and the brief for the Strategic Advisor would be consulted on with Members.  The Strategic Advisor’s role would be multi disciplinary, looking all aspects of the delivery strategy.   Members also commented that the Master Plan was required to define different sections of the project, leading to dialogue on each.  For example, whether the public transport bus requirement was for a bus station, bus hub or a bus stop.   The Committee agreed to the following for the reasons set out above and outlined in the Report.   RESOLVED: That outline delivery strategy as detailed in the Report, including the development of a scope for procurement of a Strategic Advisor, be approved.

 

 

The meeting commenced at 4:30pm and concluded at 5:50pm

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 25 September 2018 be approved and adopted.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 19 October 2017 be approved and adopted.

 

Councillor Horrill informed the meeting that part of the former Antiques Market was being used by The Nutshell as a meanwhile use.

 

Harriet Morris and Hannah Harding from The Nutshell were present at the meeting and gave a short presentation on the work that was being carried out to promote the Antiques Market as a performance space.

 

In summary, it was stated that the Antiques Market had been used by The Nutshell from September 2018.  Challenges had been the heating of the premises, dealing with the acoustics of the building when two floors were in use and fundraising (with £15,000 raised to date).

 

There had been success in hiring out the space to local groups including the Youth Theatre Company and the Theatre Royal who had use the premise’s studio space to rehearse its Christmas pantomime, Beauty and the Beast.  Two shows had also been staged at the premises and had sold out with 75 people attending each.  The shows had generated excitement in local people and a comprehensive performance programme for the New Year was being devised, including productions to involve young people, acting lessons, mothers with babies, arts and crafts and groups to combat loneliness.

 

There had been support and sponsorship from local organisations, and The Nutshell had featured on BBC television.  The Wessex Hotel had donated chairs for the venture and Travelbag had donated office furniture, with Warrens and local paint shops also providing assistance.  It was working in partnership with the Theatre Royal, Unit 12, The Guildhall and the Railway Inn, which increased the vibrancy of arts provision in Winchester.

 

The Nutshell’s website was https://www.thenutshellwinchester.com and the Chairman stated that the Council would help promote its performance programme through its own social media.

 

The presenters gave their thanks to Melissa Jepson and Graeme Todd in the City Council’s Estates Department for helping them to get established.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the presentation be noted.

 

3.

Central Winchester Regeneration PROGRESS (Report CAB3106 (CWR) refers)   The Committee received an introduction from Councillor Horrill which provided an update on the Central Winchester Regeneration Project and the meetings of the Advisory Panels.  Councillor Horrill informed the meeting that following a meeting of the Coitbury House Advisory Panel and interviews with potential architects, the firm of Henley Halebrown had been appointed to prepare plans for the future of Coitbury House.   The Head of Programme outlined the content of the Report.  The regeneration area was a complex site with a lot of aspirations, and to make sure that the correct decisions were made it was proposed to appoint the Strategic Advisor from a multi disciplinary practice that knew the market both nationally and internationally and could advise on funding and options.  As an ambitious Council, it was now intended that the Strategic Advisor could be called upon as a resource to provide advice on the Council’s other programmes.  Meanwhile uses were progressing, with, for example, a letting to The Nutshell, and other potential uses would be subject to a feasibility study in the New Year.  In respect of the public realm, it had been decided not to proceed with existing designs for the area from the lower High Street to the King Alfred statue and further thought was now being given to designs, and these would be brought to this Committee.   Councillor Horrill added that the Strategic Advisor would supplement the officer resource.  The Central Winchester project was key and it would make better use of the Council’s time and resources if the Strategic Advisor was also available to provide advice on other Council projects.  With regard to the comments raised regarding the Broadway by Mr Fell in public participation, the matter would be discussed with the Chairman of the Advisory Panel in order that the correct articulation was expressed.   In summary, the following matters were raised by Members and the Chairman, Strategic Director: Place and Head of Programme responded as set out below:         i.        It was important that the City Council worked closely in partnership with Hampshire County Council on the installation and maintenance of improved public realm in the Broadway.       ii.        There would need to be flexibility in selecting meanwhile uses so that if one venture did not go well it could be replaced by another.      iii.        An officer did not accompany Members on their site visit to Bath due to illness.      iv.        The delivery paper was circulated in September within the outline delivery strategy.  It was required to be logical in expressing how the project could be delivered; there was also the SPD and a focus on meanwhile uses whilst deciding on how the project moved forward as a whole.       v.        In terms of urgency, the Leader was also keen for the project to progress.  The City Council’s capacity for delivery and skills gap were being taken into consideration when considering the sensible use of procurement of multi disciplinary expert advice across a number of projects.  The Strategic Director: Place provided focus and direction for the projects.      vi.        Cabinet had a wider remit and that was why the brief for the Strategic Advisor would be taken to it.     vii.        It was envisaged that the Council would have a long-term working relationship with the Strategic Advisor, who would be trusted and understood the values of Winchester and have the correct thought processes.   viii.        Under the contract, the Strategic Advisor would report to the Strategic Director: Place (as senior client) and the Heads of Programme, and the officers would then report to the Committee.      ix.        Facilitation would be given further consideration and the brief for specific pieces of work that were deliverable would be taken forward by the Council in the most appropriate way.       x.        In terms of the timeframe, work on projects could be taken forward at different times and this may be over a five year period.      xi.        It was more efficient for the Council not to carry the cost of project professional expertise in house over this period but to secure it as and when required, with the option of terminating the contract if it was not working.  The budget would also need to be controlled by Cabinet.     xii.        The Brief included reference to compulsory purchase as it was a core skill that may be required, but it would hopefully not be needed.   xiii.        The Brief could be made more specific that a local knowledge of place was a requirement.   xiv.        The appointment would be under the normal procurement rules.     xv.        The opening up of the waterways would take into consideration the latest advice on flood alleviation in the town, in order that an integrated scheme could be delivered alongside the works to be carried out at Durngate.  It was noted that the Council’s Head of Drainage and Special Maintenance was a member of the Advisory Panel that would consider the proposals at its meeting in January 2019.   xvi.        It was possible to deliver the proposals for the lower High Street to the King Alfred statue as a standalone project, as this brief could be delivered in stages.   xvii.        The opening of the waterways at the bus station was an option in the brief, but this would involve capital works rather than the meanwhile uses that were being looked at for this area over a period of 3 to 5 years.  A Member mentioned that the neighbouring residents at St John’s Almshouses should be consulted with when considering meanwhile uses for this area.   Councillor Horrill stated that the comments on the brief for the Strategic Advisor would be considered and the brief amended if appropriate to reflect the points raised by the Committee prior to its consideration by Cabinet.   The Committee agreed to the following for the reasons set out above and outlined in the Report.

RESOLVED: 1.             That the progress with the project and the comments of the advisory panels be noted.   2.             That the work to complete the business case for meanwhile use work stream as outlined in paragraphs 11.12 to 11.30 and to delegate authority to the Head of Programme to finalise the brief in consultation with the Portfolio Holder be approved.   3.             That further design work around public realm in lower High Street and Broadway as set out in paragraphs 11.31 to 11.41 and to delegate authority to the Head of Programme to make minor amendments to the brief in consultation with the Portfolio Holder be approved.   4.             That, subject to considering the comments of the Committee, the brief for a Strategic Advisor as at appendix A be recommended to Cabinet.

 

 

The meeting commenced at 4.30pm and concluded at 6.00pm

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the meeting dates be noted as follows:

 

2:00pm Tuesday 6 November 2018

11:00am Tuesday 12 March 2019.

 

Mr Lander Brinkley, Chairman of the Advisory Group, stated in summary that the shadow parish council had met three times.  David Chrichton was the Chairman and it had nine members in its body together with other additional residents who were also interested.  It had established four task groups: Governance, Facilities, Communications and Finance.  It had appointed an experienced Clerk in Tony Danniels and was arranging training through the Hampshire Association of Local Councils (HALC), which was one of the country’s premier organisations.

 

At Winchester City Council, Steve Lincoln, Community Planning Manger, was assisting in advising on the 2019/2020 parish council budget and arrangements with Denmead and Southwick and Widley Parish Council.  The legal procedure for the parish council’s establishment would be approved at the meeting of Winchester City’s Council on 7 November 2018.

 

The new Community Building had shared facilities and was 17 months overdue and it was hoped that larger meeting rooms would be available soon.  The arrangements on its future management; be it by the Parish Council or by a Community Hall Association were yet to be decided upon by the residents.

 

During debate it was established that the shadow parish council now had 10 members and that the formal handing over of the Community Building would take place once the leases had been agreed with Grainger.

 

Mr Tilbury added that the Community Building would initially come under the control of Winchester City Council who would then decide on its future ownership.  This could be the parish council or a sub entity, but it would remain in public ownership with its future management to be decided upon.

 

 

Mr Hughes presented the report.

 

Mr Hughes stated that Mrs Stickland had left the post of implementation officer to work for the Solent University.  The Forum wished her well in her future role.

 

Mr Hughes continued that the adoption by Hampshire County Council of the highways within the Taylor Wimpey development was imminent.

 

The revised planning application for phases 10a and 9a was expected to be submitted prior to Christmas.  Grainger and Savills were also considering matters relating to the infrastructure, access route and landscaping.

 

In respect of the Town Park, Mr Tilbury stated that discussions would take place with the new parish council over its adoption and maintenance out of the parish precept.  This would include the area of the Town Park that was in Havant Borough Council’s area, provided the Borough Council gave its consent to this arrangement.  There would be a commuted sum to be passed to the parish council, which would be proportioned with Havant Borough Council.

 

The Chairman commented that representatives of Winchester City Council and Havant Borough Council had met with the County Council to discuss the crossing on the B150.  There had not been an update since this meeting and this matter would be taken forward by the officers.

 

Mr Watson suggested that the Arts Advisory Panel’s artist in residence could work with the new parish council on a parish logo.  Mr Crichton replied that the shadow Parish Council’s Communications Working Party was already giving this matter consideration.

 

In answer to a question from Mr Crichton, Mr Hughes responded that further to the last meeting of the Forum there had been no update on proposals for the Taylor Wimpey employment land.

 

Lisa Turley from Grainger gave a short presentation.  Mrs Turley stated that there had been consultation on moving the community building from the Local Centre to Town Park (and providing a smaller satellite building at the Local Centre).  The feedback on the consultation had been that this proposal would decentralise the development, and it was also the opinion of retail experts that the community building was required at the Local Centre to ensure its retail viability by providing a hub and destination for local residents.

 

The Town Park would have a facility within the cricket pavilion comprising a cafe and toilets to serve the multiuse sports area (MUSA) in addition to the cricket pitch.

 

Consultation was also ongoing to establish the needs of the area and to identify the correct partners to make the development sustainable in the long term.  For example, to possibly provide a nursery that would generate user footfall and a mix of provision.

 

In respect of Phase 6 of the development, discussion was being undertaken with a medical group to provide a large doctor’s surgery on site with extensive service provision, and this would be located next to the extra care facility.

 

The children’s play area would be provided before the end of the year when it had been turfed and the Town Park would be ready for use in spring 2019.

 

In answer to a question from Mr Crichton, Mrs Turley stated that the MUSA would include four tennis courts in accordance with the Section 106 Agreement.  Any additional provision (for example at six courts for competitive club tennis) would need to be by provided through additional funding.  The facilities would all be disabled access compliant.

 

In reply to questions from Mr Lander Brinkley, Mrs Turley added that the MUSA was for multiuse and was not designed for competitive league matches.

 

The Forum thanked Mrs Turley for her presentation.

 

                        RESOLVED:

 

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

 

 

                        RESOLVED:

 

That the minutes of the previous meeting, held on 5 July 2018, be approved and adopted.

 

Councillor Brook stated that at the opening garden party for the Newlands Walk Park Play area would be held on Saturday 7 July at 12:00.  The opening would be undertaken by the Mayor of Winchester and the deputy Mayor of Havant Borough Council.

 

The magnetic fields of the pylon electrical wires close to the playing area had been tested and were well within relevant safety standards.  Signage would be erected to advise against the flying of kites in the vicinity of the pylons.

 

Measures were being taken to try to reduce the cost of the boat pond and the planting of saplings would take place in the autumn of 2018.

 

                        RESOLVED:

 

That the report and update be noted.

 

Mrs Stickland introduced the report.

 

Mrs Stickland informed the meeting that Mr David Parker has sent his apologies for the meeting and would be leaving Taylor Wimpey next month.  Mr Parker had confirmed that the signage would be carried out by Taylor Wimpey to direct traffic to the recycling centre.  There was CIL money for a road crossing near McDonalds, but this would not be completed imminently.

 

In respect of the Grainger development, Mr John Beresford had now left the company.

 

The Chairman enquired whether the planning applications for phases 9B, 10A and 9A, referred to in the report, had been notified to the parish councils.  Mrs Stickland confirmed that they had and added that the close of comments on the applications would be 11 July 2018.

 

It was agreed that a map of the footprint the new parish council area should be circulated to members of the Forum for their information.

 

The Chairman raised the issue of vehicles accessing the recycling centre from the west using C class roads and not from the motorway as had been agreed.  It was also noted that now that the access bridge had been opened access to the recycling centre should not be via residential roads within the development.  In addition, there was inconsiderate car parking in the elbows of Darnel Road.  It was agreed that these matters are raised with the interested parties involved.

 

                        RESOLVED:

 

That the report be noted.

 

Mr David Crichton clarified that on page three of the minutes the reference to the safe crossing of Hambledon Road should refer to Charlesworth Drive.

 

                        RESOLVED:

 

That subject to the amendment on page three of the minutes that the reference to the safe crossing of Hambledon Road should refer to Charlesworth Drive, the minutes of the previous meeting, held on 22 March 2018, be approved and adopted.

 

Councillor Cutler advised that he was not the chair of the Advisory Group.

 

He explained the origins of the Advisory Group and its relationship with the Denmead and Southwick Parish Councils.  The Advisory Group had adopted within its membership local residents to improve its ability to provide feedback.  It was the driver for the new parish council and had also requested the governance review.  From 1 April 2019 the new parish council would replace the Advisory Group.

 

It was important that the new parish council evolved so that it was competent at its inception, as it would have considerable work to undertake.  The Advisory Group would act as an informal ‘shadow parish council’ until the new parish council was established and would consider matters such as the precept that was required and the training of the prospective parish councillors.  The composition of the shadow parish council remained under review and was required to be resolved before the next Advisory Group meeting.

 

Neil Lander- Brinkley commented that the formation of a shadow body was a standard way for transition and similar bodies had been set up in unparished areas, for example at Queen’s Park in London.

                       

RESOLVED:

 

That the update be noted.

 

Mrs Stickland stated that an architect involved in pre-application discussion had provided illustrative information and a concept design for the commercial units proposed for the Taylor Wimpey employment land and this was displayed at the meeting.

 

Unit 1 was located immediately to the south of the Vale Care Nursing Home, Darnel Road, and Unit 2 (to the south of Unit 1) would include a speculative business park.  Both units would be B1 use and B8 use warehousing.  The same architect was being employed for both developments.  Pedestrian access to the park from Darnel Road would be maintained so that the link to the western open space was maintained.  Landscaping would be incorporated within the development and the height of the units would be stepped down opposite the Care Home and would also be stepped back from the residential development.  A planning application was awaited from the developer and this would be submitted to the Joint West of Waterlooville MDA Planning Committee.

 

In answer to a question from Mr Crichton, Mrs Stickland stated that the development of the employment land should not delay the surfacing of Darnel Road.

                        RESOLVED:

 

That the presentation be noted

Mrs Lee introduced the item and stated that Grainger had completed a proving plan to recheck all aspects of the masterplan requirements on a phase by phase basis.  This demonstrated that a total of 26 or thereabouts additional dwellings could be accommodated over the remaining phases of development, which was within the limits of the Environmental Statement submitted with the masterplan.  She reassured the Forum that there was no ‘planning creep’ in individual applications.

 

Chris Fletcher, representing Grainger, provided background to the current management structure at Grainger.  He continued that to date 1135 dwellings had been sold, with 500 occupations.  The phases of development were continuing over the next 2 to 3 years with Barretts on phase 3(a); Redrow on phase 13(a) and planning applications relating to phases 9B, 10A and 9A.  The community was beginning to develop its own character and the Town Park would be important in this respect.

 

The current programme was as follows:

 

Redrow phases 9A/B and 10A

The employment land

River restoration phase B

Next residential land sale – September 2019 – phases 3B and 8, which would enclose the Town Park

Town Park phase B – 2019

The southern access junction improvements 2020

Local centre – September 2021

 

Drawings of the nature reserve and wildlife area’s indicative locations were displayed at the meeting and Grainger’s representative confirmed that the master plan was being observed and would be brought to the attention of prospective developers when land was sold.

 

In reply to Members’ questions, Mr Fletcher stated that with the exception of Phase One (that included the school) when each phase was completed an application was submitted to Hampshire County Council for its adoption.  The future management of the Town Park, nature reserves and sustainable urban drainage solutions would be adopted by a third party (most probably a public body) following formal discussions.  An additional question related to the use of the name Berewood Park (which would be consulted upon).

 

                        RESOLVED:

 

That the presentation be noted.

 

Members asked questions and made comments about risk and the impact of slippage in the Council’s capital programme; it was also commented that that the review of governance was ongoing; that the contracts register was not up to date and questions were asked on the correlation between the Corporate Risk Register and the Financial Risk Register.  A number of Members were also interested in how risks were managed in major projects and the cumulative effect on risk of having a number of major projects in progress at the same time.

Following debate, it was agreed that an item be included on the next Committee Agenda to cover managing risks in major projects and how assurance could be given.

RESOLVED:

That Risk Management Policy 2018, the Risk Appetite Statement and the Corporate Risk Register for 2018/19 be noted.

 

The Finance Manager presented the Annual Financial Report for the year ended 31 March 2018 to the Committee.  It was noted that an enquiry from a Member on the movement of a balance from a debtor to a creditor had been clarified outside of the meeting.

 

RESOLVED:

1.            That the Statement of Accounts 2017/18 as set out in Appendix 1 be approved.

 

2.            That the Chairman of the Committee signs the Statement of Responsibilities on page 10 of Appendix 1 to certify the accounts and authorise their issue.

 

The Committee noted that the Report had not been notified for inclusion within the statutory deadline.  The Chairman agreed to accept the item onto the agenda as a matter requiring urgent consideration to enable the consideration of the Report in order to approve the letter of representation in order that the Annual Financial Report could be published within the statutory deadline.

 

The Corporate Director: Resources informed the meeting of a consultation exercise that was taking place in response to a CIPFA initiative to highlight where councils might be experiencing financial stress.  Under the initiative CIPFA would consider the Council against six indicators.  He stated that the initiative may result in an overly simplistic analysis of the Council’s financial resilience and there was a risk of unintended consequences through some of the proposed measures. The idea of further Value for Money assessment was supported.  Following discussion, the Committee supported the Corporate Director: Resources to make representations as outlined above.

 

Mr Mathers from Ernst and Young, the Council’s external auditors, presented the preliminary audit conclusions in relation to the audit for 2017/18.  He stated that all audit work was complete and that EY would be giving an unqualified audit opinion on the financial statements and he thanked the Council’s Finance Team for their work.

 

Mr Mathers answered questions from the Committee on the depreciation charge for council dwellings; how matters of concern were monitored and the financial resilience of the Council in funding numerous major projects.  Further questions were raised regarding contract management (including the Leisure Centre) and the capacity of Ernst and Young to meet publishing deadlines when it was the client for a number of councils.

 

Following debate, it was agreed that consideration be given to bringing forward the July meeting of the Audit Committee in future years by a few days to give more time for the auditors to sign their report and for the Annual Financial Report to be published.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Letter of Representation in the Auditor’s Report (appendix 1) be approved.

 

RESOLVED:

1.            That the Annual Governance Statement for 2017/18 as set out in Appendix 1 be approved.

 

2.            That the issues arising and proposed actions identified in Appendix 1 be noted and that progress against the actions be brought back to the Audit Committee in six months time.

 

Mr Harvey from the Southern Internal Audit Partnership presented this item and answered questions from Members on the six reported incidents of fraud and irregularity that had required reactive fraud work.

 

RESOLVED:

That the Chief Internal Auditor’s Annual Fraud Report 2017-18, attached as Appendix 1 to the Report, be noted.

 

Mrs Jerams and Mr Harvey from the Southern Internal Audit Partnership presented this item.

 

In reply to Members’ questions, the Corporate Business Manager stated that a chart showing the period of time that some outstanding audit management actions were overdue would be included in future Reports and Mr Harvey gave details of how the Southern Internal Audit Partnership resourced reactive and proactive fraud governance.

RESOLVED:

That the content of the report and the progress against the Internal Audit Plan as set out in Appendix 1 be noted.

 

RESOLVED:

 

            That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 31 July 2018 be approved and adopted.

 

RESOLVED:

 

            That Councillor Huxstep be appointed Vice Chairman of the Committee for the 2018/19 Municipal Year.

RESOLVED:

 

            That the timetable of meetings for 2018/19 be agreed as set out on the agenda

 

The Chairman requested that members of the Committee give consideration to possible matters that they may wish to have considered at the November meeting of the Committee.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Audit Committee Work Programme for 2018/19 be approved.

Members raised questions regarding Procurement and Contract Management in respect of Street Markets and also the details of Partnership Working (which had received a limited assurance) and the officers provided an update of the current situation.  It was additionally explained that the Local Government Association Peer Review would now take place in September 2018 rather than October 2017.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the content of the Report and the progress against the Annual Governance Statement Action Plan in Appendix 1 be noted.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the indicative annual audit fee for 2018/19 be approved.

Mr Pitman from the Southern Internal Audit Partnership presented this item.

 

The officers provided responses to questions raised by Members in respect of the on-going performance monitoring of Working in Partnership and the update of the Business Continuity Plans.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Chief Internal Auditor’s Annual Report and Opinion for 2017 - 18 attached as Appendix 1 to the Report be accepted.

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

            That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 31 May 2018 be approved and adopted.

RESOLVED:

 

            That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 8 March 2018 be approved and adopted.

 

The Committee noted that this item had not been notified for inclusion on the agenda within the statutory deadline.  The Chairman agreed to accept the item onto the agenda as a matter requiring urgent consideration to enable appointments to be made to the Treasury Management Group at the earliest opportunity.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Chair of the Audit Committee (Councillor Cutler), one other Member from the Administration of the Council from the Audit Committee (Councillor Burns) and the Shadow Portfolio Holder (Councillor Prince) be appointed by the Audit Committee to the Treasury Management Group.

The Committee noted that the Report had not been notified for inclusion on the agenda within the statutory deadline.  The Chairman agreed to accept the item onto the agenda as a matter requiring urgent consideration to enable consideration of the pre-audit statement of accounts, which would be signed by the responsible financial officer and be published by the 31 May 2018.

 

The Committee additionally noted that this Report was open to the public and did not contain and Exempt Appendix as stated on the Agenda for the meeting.

 

The Committee requested at a further briefing on the Annual Financial Report be held before the next meeting of the Committee on 31 July 2018.

 

Following questions from Members on the content of the Report and its appendix, the Committee requested that consideration be given to moving the first meeting of the Audit Committee for the 2019/2020 Municipal Year to early June to allow Members additional time to give advance consideration to the content of the Annual Financial Report.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.          That the Statement of accounts for 2017/18 be noted.

 

2.               That the draft Annual Governance Statement in the Annual Financial Report for 2017/18 be noted.

 

3.               That consideration be given to moving the first meeting of the Audit Committee for the 2019/2020 Municipal Year to early June.

 

(PER320)

 

The Head of Human Resources (Interim) introduced the Report and referred to clarification within the Policy of the matters referenced at paragraph 12 of the Report.  Councillor Godfrey also reiterated that it was important for the Council to continue to have a well defined Pay Policy Statement.

 

 

RECOMMENDED:   THAT THE PAY POLICY STATEMENT 2019/20 BE ADOPTED.

 

Councillor Godfrey introduced the Report.

 

Members asked questions of the information presented and the responses given are summarised below:

 

(i)            There was a peak in employees leaving the Authority in Quarter 2 due to the recruitment cycle in Local Government, with authorities most actively recruiting in the period from March to May.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.             That the Quarter 2 2018/19 Performance Monitoring figures for Organisational Development be noted.

 

2.         That no items of significance be drawn to the attention of the Portfolio Holder or Cabinet arising from the Performance Information.

 

Councillor Godfrey introduced the Report and stated that the Strategy was making significant progress.

 

Members asked questions of the information presented and the responses given are summarised below:

 

(i)            Mentoring and coaching would be addressed in Phase 3 of the Strategy, including management training.

 

(ii)          The retention of ‘key’ workers and maintaining their motivation was important and this should be recognised as a risk by the Authority.  The Strategic Director: Resources stated that staff may leave the Authority for a variety of reasons and initiatives such as a Talent Management Strategy were being introduced to develop the next leaders of the Authority with the skills, values and behaviours that were appropriate for the authority’s size and to help it to grow from within.  The Head of Human Resources (Interim) added that he would discuss with the Head of Development Management about including an article in the Democratic Services Update when an officer left post that previously had a strong interface with Members.

 

RESOLVED:

That the progress against the Employee Strategy be noted.

 

The Strategic Director: Resources introduced the Report.  Councillor Godfrey added that the proposals were intended to have a positive effect on staff retention and the attractiveness of Winchester as a place to work.  The addition to annual leave was a significant benefit and the changes to pay an acknowledgement that staff were valued.

 

Members asked questions of the information presented and the responses given are summarised below:

(i)            Christmas leave and office closure would be introduced this year.

 

(ii)          Additional leave could be bought after six months service when the probationary period had expired.  The purchase of annual leave would usually be discussed with managers at appraisal time so that office cover could be arranged, but the scheme could be flexible to respond to unforeseen circumstances.

 

(iii)         There were currently no core working hours, but Heads of Teams ensure that teams are adequately staffed in normal opening hours (8:30am to 5:00pm Monday to Thursday and 8:30am to 4:30pm on Fridays).

 

(iv)         There was a clear gap for employees on Scale 4 from the lower pay scales (1 – 3), which would be positive in that it retained clear breaks between grades and all scales would see an uplift of 2% at least.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1. That the Head of Human Resources (Interim) be given delegated authority to:

a. implement the revisions to annual leave set out in this Report with effect from 01 April 2019;

b. implement the revisions to the Council’s Flexible Working (“Flexi-Time”) arrangements as set out in this Report;

c. amend the Council’s Policies accordingly.

 

2. That the commitment to ensure the Council sets its salaries at market median is supported.

 

3. That the salary scales set out in Appendix C which meet the requirements of the ‘national assimilation requirement be approved and recommended to Cabinet for the financial implications.

 

To Cabinet:

 

4. To approve the financial implications of the Personnel Committee’s proposals for the Council’s pay scales of an estimated £227k, as set out in Appendix C, and recommend the increased budget provision to Council.

 

 

 

The meeting commenced at 6.30pm and concluded at 7:30pm.

 

 

 

Chairman

 

Councillor Godfrey introduced the Report.

Members raised questions regarding the following and the officers responded accordingly:

(i)            The number of Apprentices at the Council and how many had been retained.

(ii)          The number of those on work experience and the areas of the Council that they had worked in.

(iii)         The amount of the total training budget and the actual amount spent and had the spend on training been typical (when compared to previous years).

(iv)         The launch date of the Corporate Induction pack.

(v)          The cost of refurbishment of the City Offices.

(vi)         The support provided to staff that had been verbally abused during their role and was the trend of verbal abuse upward.

(vii)        The circumstances that had led to the change in employment of the Council’s Occupational Health provider.

RESOLVED:

 

That the Outturn 2017/18 Performance Monitoring figures for Organisational Development be noted.

 

 

            RESOLVED:

 

            That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 2July 2018, be approved and adopted.

 

Councillor Godfrey introduced the Report.

 

Members asked questions of the information presented and the responses given are summarised below:

 

(i)            The increase in personal stress as a reason for sickness (777 recorded cases in Quarter 1 up from 520 cases in Q4 2017/18) reflected a national increase of 25% as set out in a recent report from the Health and Safety Executive.  It was also acknowledged that this was a significant period of change and pressure in Local Government.  There was also improved recording for the reasons for absence provided by Doctors.

 

(ii)          The Authority was proactive in managing stress, with a new Occupational Health Advisor to be appointed in January 2019.  Other initiatives included the promotion of Wellbeing Days, meditation opportunities at work, access to 24 hour Counselling services, the introduction of the Health Care Cash plan, Christmas office closure and providing courses on mental health awareness.  Members additionally suggested that Team Meetings to promote teamwork, employee buddying and the use of flexitime for improved life work balance might also be of benefit.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.       That the Quarter 1 2018/19 Performance Monitoring figures for Organisational Development be noted.

 

2.       That no items of significance be drawn to the attention of the Portfolio Holder or Cabinet arising from the Performance Information.

 

RESOLVED:

 

            That Councillor Cook be appointed Vice Chairman of the Committee for the 2018/19 Municipal Year.

 

(Report PDC1124 refers)

 

                        RESOLVED:

 

            That, having taken into consideration the representations      received, Tree Preservation Order 2228 be confirmed.

 

Item 13: Change of use from existing barn building with permanent warden accommodation to residential use and erection of toilet & shower block (Amended).

Two Hoots Campsite, The Oak Barn, Sutton Wood Lane, Bighton, SO24 9SG

Case number: 18/02331/FUL

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out that not all committee notification letters had been delivered correctly and that the applicants had been sent a copy of this via email accordingly.

 

During public participation, David Parham (Applicant) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

During public participation, Councillor Griffiths spoke on this item as Ward Member.  In summary, Councillor Griffiths raised the following points:

 

-       Successful business in the District which had experienced an increase in bookings over the last year;

-       Received funding from the LEADER programme as a valued asset which was supported by the local community;

-       There was now a need for the applicants to reside on site with no increase to the footprint of the building but offering an improvement to their health and wellbeing;

-       The applicants were not seeking to increase camping so there was no need to remove further sewage;

-       The Council were keen to retain and encourage rural business and considered that this application should be supported; and

-       Considered that this application met Policies DM10 to DM12.

 

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to grant permission for the following reason: the application adheres to Policy DM10 of the Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2) as an essential facility and service in the countryside with a functional need to live on site to service the needs of the business, subject to an appropriate planning condition to ensure that the occupants of the residential accommodation are linked through their employment at the campsite (operational requirement) and adequate drainage and operational condition. The precise wording of these conditions to be delegated to the Head of Development Management, in consultation with the Chairman 

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.             That the decisions taken on the Planning Applications in relation to those applications inside and 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, the planning application was                       withdrawn on 4 January 2019;

 

                        (ii)        That in respect of item 8, permission be granted for the                       reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in                    the Report and the Update Sheet, subject to the removal of                            Permitted Development Rights for the 3no. dwellings proposed;

 

                        (iii)       That in respect of item 9, the determination of the                                 application be deferred,  in order to enable  matters  related to                       the pipeline, health and safety and rights of way to be clarified;                   and

 

                        (iv)       That in respect of item 13, permission be granted for the                     following reason: the application adheres to Policy DM10 of the                        Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2) as an essential facility and service in                        the countryside with a functional need to live on site in order               to service the needs of the business, subject to an appropriate                     planning condition to ensure that the occupants of the residential               accommodation are linked through their employment at the                                campsite (operational requirement) and adequate drainage and                      operational condition. The precise wording of conditions to                                 be delegated to the Head of Development Management, in                           consultation with the Chairman.

 

Item 10: Demolish former day care centre and erect eight detached dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping

The Grove Day Services, Hinton Fields, Kings Worthy

Case number: 18/02349/FUL

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out: a correction to the applicant details to read: Fortitudo Limited, c/o Agent Chapman Lily Planning, Unit 5, Designer House, Sandford Lane, Wareham, BH20 4DY; an updated map; changes to the general comments, the proposal, the principle of development, design and layout, conditions and Appendix 1 to the report; and clarification of the number of representations of objection received.

 

During public participation, Jo Newbery and Anthony Lee, spoke in objection to the application, Councillor Ian Gordon (Kings Worthy Parish Council), Sylvia Leonard (Agent) and Brett Spiller spoke in support of the application and all answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

During public participation, Councillor Porter spoke on this item as Ward Member.  In summary, Councillor Porter raised the following points:

 

-       Speaking on behalf of residents, some local groups and as Chairman of Kings Worthy Pre-school Committee;

-       Housing will be ‘inserted’ into the school site which has doubled in size over the past seven years;

-       Catchment area three miles long and this was a one mile road, therefore it was considered inevitable that land would be used for parking;

-       Management plan is welcomed;

-       Concerns that access from 0830-1530 hours but also used during evenings for community use;

-       Route into school narrow – cars leave the school past the site and therefore movements will be severely restricted;

-       Vehicle restrictions should be put in place during school hours to reduce the impact on the school and for pupil safety during these times;

-       Yellow lines ignored resulting in poor site lines;

-       Disappointed site has to open onto Hinton Fields as traffic at the site was minimal prior to this; and

-       Seeking an access plan for six days a week, instead of five and a mix of smaller houses to generate less traffic overall.

 

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 the Update Sheet. 

 

Item 12: Demolition of existing garages and construction of two semi detached 1.5 storey houses

Flat 1A, The Police Station, Dolphin Hill, Twyford, SO21 1PU

Case number: SDNP/18/05355/FUL

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out additional comments from the Council’s Drainage Engineer with a revision to Condition 6 and an update to Landscape maintenance with a revision to Condition 8

 

In addition, a verbal update was provided setting out an email that had been received from Councillor Cook as Ward Member which reiterated support for the application. 

 

During public participation, Simon Cooper spoke in objection to the application and Derek Steele (WCC New Homes Team) spoke in support of the application and all 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 the Update Sheet. 

 

Item 7:  Two storey domestic extension and single storey side extension to existing 19^th century house. Rendered boundary wall (retrospectively built) to the west elevation. (Amended proposal)

Carlton Villa, 10 Compton Road, Winchester, SO23 9SL.

Case number:  17/03246/HOU

 

This application was withdrawn from the agenda on 4January 2019.

 

Item 8:  Redevelopment of the site following the demolition of existing dwelling house at 29 Downside Road and the erection of 3no. dwellings with associated landscaping and parking. (RESUBMISSION)

Hazelwood, 29 Downside Road, Winchester, SO22 5LT

Case number: 18/02454/FUL

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out: that following amendments to the proposed landscaping in response to earlier comments by the Landscape Officer, it was advised on 8 January 2019 that the Landscape Officer had no further comments; and comments received from objector (Tim Spencer) as set out in full within the Update Sheet.

 

During public participation, Tim Spencer spoke in objection to the application and Jim Beaven spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

During public participation, Councillor Learney spoke on this item as Ward Member.  In summary, Councillor Learney raised the following points:

 

-       Familiar with the issues following the subsequent two refused applications at the site:

-       Does not address the previous reasons for refusal and fails to meet DM15 (local distinctiveness) and CP14;

-       Layout of proposal could be changed going forward to create further bedrooms and the application was therefore contrary to DM2;

-       Internal layout larger and not of a high quality design;

-       Safety and access issues with nowhere for vulnerable road users to go and the road insufficient for the properties that currently use it;

-       Considered that the proposal diminished all aspects for residents at No. 33 Downside Road; and

-       If minded to approve, urged the Committee to ensure the property would be kept to a smaller dwelling by removing Permitted Development Rights to comply with policy CP2 and the addition of a boundary treatment plan in consultation with the residents of No. 33 Downside Road to ensure their privacy needs are met.

 

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 the Update Sheet, subject to the removal of Permitted Development Rights for the 3no. dwellings proposed.

 

Item 15:  Proposed Additional dwelling using existing access with retention of existing dwelling using existing separate access.

Greenwood Farm, Greenwood Lane, Durley.

Case number: 18/02185/FUL.

 

This application was withdrawn on 11^th December 2018.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.             That the decisions taken on the Development Control Applications in relation to those applications inside and 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 10 (Bramble Cottage, 4 Dean Lane, Winchester), the application be refused in accordance with Policy DM16 in that the design and siting were not compatible with the local area and policy DM17 due to the adverse impact on No. 2 Dean Lane in terms of its siting in relation to the neighbouring property.

 

(ii)             That in respect of item 14 (Meadows Farm, Ervills Road, Worlds End, Hambledon) the decision be deferred to a meeting of the Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee to be held on Tuesday 8 January 2019 to commence at 12:00pm.  The Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee would visit the site before the meeting in order to assess the impact of the partial use of the agricultural storage building for office use.

 

Item 13:  Careful removal and rebuilding of existing piggery walls to convert to one-bedroom holiday let.

Manor House Barn, High Street, Meonstoke, Southampton

Case number: SDNP/18/03228/HOUS

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which stated that the applicant had recently submitted details of foul and surface water drainage which had been agreed with the Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

Details of low transmittance grey glass for the conservation style roof lights had also been submitted which would reduce the light transmittance to 44% (clear glass was rated at 80%).  This was considered acceptable and condition 5 had therefore been amended from being a pre-commencement condition to requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted and approved details.

 

The amended wording of the conditions is set out below:

 

3.         The foul and surface water drainage shall be implemented in accordance with the following approved details prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved:

18-1240-FD02- Foul Drainage Details

18-1240-FD01B- Storm and Foul Drainage Plan

18-1240-SW01- The Piggery Roof Soakaway

 

Reason:  To ensure satisfactory provision of foul and surface water drainage.

 

5.         Low transmittance tinted grey glass shall be used for the Conservation Roof Lights hereby approved and shall be installed in accordance with the submitted details from The Rooflight Company (ref: CPR-DOP-CR-005A-2013-07-01).  The glazing shall be retained thereafter at all times.

 

Reason: To minimise light intrusion in the South Downs National Park which is a designated International Dark Sky Reserve.

 

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 the Update Sheet.

 

 

 

Item 8:  Demolition of existing dilapidated cottages and outbuildings to create 16 affordable, fully accessible, residential alms house apartments, support facilities and private pedestrian bridge including highways improvements. (AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED 25/05)

14 Chesil Street, Winchester

Case number: 17/03096/FUL

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out that:

1.    The Habitat Regulations Assessment Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment Report had been approved by Natural England and adopted by the Council as Local Planning Authority.

 

2.    An amended Construction Ecological Management Plan Report had been submitted.

 

3.    An amended Arboriculture Impact Assessment Report had been submitted with minor changes.

 

The submission of these reports had the consequent condition changes:

 

1.    Condition 11 - Insert after details ‘set out in The Arboriculture Impact Assessment RT-MME-127343-04 December 2018’ and remove ‘submitted and approved by the local authority in writing’.

 

2.    Condition 14 - Change report no.to RT-NMME-128836 Rev A and date to December 2018 and CEMP to CEcMP.

 

In addition, Condition 6 required an implementation clause therefore to be added after bullet points:  ‘The surface water drainage strategy shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and the CEcMP Report No. RT-MME-128836 RevA’.

 

Further more, in front of the S106 requirement, the words: ‘subject to a viability assessment’ should be added.

 

During public participation, Katja Ayling spoke in objection of the application and Pete Liddiard, Paul Williams-Agent, Clive Cook and Martin Lowry - St Johns, Winchester, 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 and the Update Sheet.

 

Item 9:  Application for approval of reserved matters (condition 2) and condition 4 of outline application 17/00728/OUT. (AMENDED DESCRIPTION).

Crabwood Lodge, Sarum Road, Winchester

Case number: 18/01896/REM

 

During public participation, Sue Wood, Wonston and Micheldever Parish Council and Lynne Gibson spoke in support to the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

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

 

A summary of the points raised by Councillor Godfrey is set out below:

 

-       The application was long overdue and should proceed.

-       The application was traditional in design with satisfactory lighting and would be an enhancement.

-       Access during construction was controlled from Sarum Road.

-       The application was straightforward and should be approved

 

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 10:  (AMENDED PLANS) New dwelling

Bramble Cottage, 4 Dean Lane, Winchester

Case number: 18/01697/FUL

 

During public participation, Elizabeth McDowell spoke in objection to the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

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

 

A summary of the points raised by Councillor Learney is set out below:

 

-       Policy WT1 – the application was prominent in its location and out of context with the local setting.

-       The form of the building stood out and the City of Winchester Trust had commented that the design failed to fit in as it did not respond positively to the environment in terms of its design and scale.

-       Policy DM17 - The effect on light and living areas (of the neighbouring property) due to its close proximity and adverse impact through over shadowing and its overbearing nature.  It was designed to reduce the impact on 4 Dean Lane.

-       Access – It was opposite Teg Down Mead and visibility was poor, which was contrary to policy DM18 on safe movement.

-       Policy DM15 – the accumulative detrimental impact on Dean Lane.   As recognised in the St Barnabas Neighbourhood Design Statement.

 

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed that the application be refused in accordance with policy DM16 in that the design and siting were not compatible with the local area and policy DM17 due to the adverse impact on No. 2 Dean Lane in terms of its siting in relation to the neighbouring property.

 

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

 

Item 12:  Careful removal and rebuilding of existing piggery walls to convert to one-bedroom holiday let.

Manor House Barn, High Street, Meonstoke, Southampton

Case number: SDNP/18/03229/LIS

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out that the applicant had recently submitted a materials schedule which had been agreed with the Council’s Conservation Officer.  However, it was considered important for a sample panel of the brick and flint work to be constructed on site so that it could be inspected and approved by the Conservation Officer.  Condition 3 had therefore been amended to reflect these changes.

 

The applicant had also submitted joinery details which had been agreed with the Council’s Conservation Officer.  Condition 4 had therefore been amended from being a pre-commencement condition to one requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted and approved details.

 

Details of grilles/vents had also been submitted and approved by the Council’s Conservation Officer.  The references to grilles and vents in conditions 5 and 6 had therefore been omitted.

 

The amended wording of the conditions is set out below:

 

3.         The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved HJ Concepts Materials Schedule.  No development shall take place above foundations until a sample panel of the brick and flint work has been constructed on site and inspected and approved by the Conservation Officer.  The applicant shall contact the Conservation Officer to arrange a site inspection.

 

Reason: To preserve the setting of the listed buildings and to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policy CP20 of the Joint Core Strategy 2013.

 

4.         The windows and doors hereby approved shall be installed in accordance with the approved joinery details as shown on drawing 18-1240-WD01.  Development shall proceed and be maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To preserve the setting of the listed buildings and to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policy CP20 of the Joint Core Strategy 2013.

 

5.         No new security alarms, lighting, cameras or other appurtenances shall be fixed on the external faces of the building unless shown on the drawings hereby approved.

 

Reason: To preserve the setting of the adjacent listed buildings and to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policy CP20 of the Joint Core Strategy 2013.

 

6.         No new plumbing, pipes, soil-stacks, flues or ductwork shall be fixed on the external faces of the building unless shown on the drawings hereby approved.

 

Reason: To preserve the setting of the listed buildings and to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policy CP20 of the Joint Core Strategy 2013.

 

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 the Update Sheet.

 

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

 

 

Item 7:  (Amended Description and Plans) 9 new dwellings with parking and associated landscaping following the removal of an existing bungalow.

Dildawn, Tudor Way, Kings Worthy

Case number: 18/01174/FUL

 

During public participation, Richard Waite spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.  Mr Waite stated that dialogue would continue with the owner of 134 Tudor Way for the boundary hedge to be reinforced on that border to accommodate the wishes of the neighbour.

 

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

 

A summary of the points raised by Councillor Porter is set out below:

 

-       The principle of development was acceptable.

-       Development should reflect the character of the area – chalet bungalows.

-       Blocked out windows (to reduce overlooking) were not in keeping.

-       The development appeared stacked and did not sit comfortably in the landscape.

-       The orientation of the lower units did not reflect the best use of aspect.

-       Defining the use of amenity space.

-       Could restrict future development (of neighbouring plots).

-       Concerns over visitor car parking provision and demarcation.

-       Traffic impact on Springfield Road.

-       Design could be improved.

 

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.

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out the comments received from the Tree Officer on 8 November 2018 stating that there were no significant issues. A verbal update was provided to add an additional condition requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan.  An Amended Site and Landscape Plan (Dwg No 2266/02 B) had been submitted 12 November 2018 showing retention of rear boundary treatment.  The Agent had also confirmed that the existing bungalow had 3 bedrooms.

 

During public participation, Patricia Fennell spoke in objection to the application and Huw Thomas, Agent, spoke in support 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 the Update Sheet.

 

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 (Land To The Rear Of 1 To 34 School Road, Wickham), permission be granted for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and the Update Sheet subject to amendment to condition 4 to ensure that permeable materials be used in appropriate places to reduce water run off from the development.

 

(ii)             That in respect of item 8, (18 Dean Lane, Winchester), permission be granted for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report,  the Update Sheet and the additional condition  referred to in the verbal update regarding the submission of a Construction Management Plan

 

 

Item 9:  Proposed light well and bike store 

30 Clifton Road, Winchester, SO22 5BU

Case number: 18/01807/HOU

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out; an amendment to Condition 3; and an addition to Condition 5.

 

During public participation, John Hearn 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 and the Update Sheet.

 

Item 10: Change of use from a 6 bedroom C4 class HMO to a 7 bedroom Sui Generis House in Multiple Occupation 

34 Chalk Ridge, Winchester, SO23 0QW

Case number: 18/01782/FUL

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which made reference to the Article 4 Direction on the agenda on this item and stated that this direction did not apply to this particular application site. 

 

During public participation, Tim Prowting spoke in objection to 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 the Update Sheet.

 

Item 11:  Change of use of land from travelling showpersons permanent family plot to private residential garden for The Bungalow. 

The Bungalow, Southwick Road, North Boarhunt, Fareham

Case number: 18/01732/FUL

 

In response to questions from Members, the Head of Strategic Planning clarified that there was an identified need assessed as part of the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document (DPD) requiring 15 pitches for gypsy and travellers and 24 pitches for travelling showpersons across the District.

 

It was noted that at present the Council had achieved the15 pitch target for gypsy and travellers but had a shortfall in the provision of the number of travelling showpersons plots of eight plots; this was based on the evidence carried out in the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment 2016. Therefore, there was a need for the site to be retained for this purpose and the application was recommended for refusal and contrary to Policies within the emerging Gypsy and Traveller DPD (Policy TR1) and adopted Local Plan Part 1 Policy CP5.

 

During public participation, Michael Knappett (agent) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

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

 

In summary, Councillor Cutler raised the following points:

 

-       Supported the application as the Gypsy and Traveller DPD had not yet been formally adopted by the Council as Policy and was therefore unenforceable.

-       Local knowledge is that not all other pitches allocated for this purpose in Boarhunt are occupied by travelling showpersons suggesting there is no demand.

-       Applicant trying to sell property for 14 months as no longer residing in this District and property remains unoccupied but unable to be sold due to this restriction.

-       Suggested this is a virtual site which will never be able to be used by travelling showpersons as the owner would not allow its use so would not increase the Council’s pitch provision in any event.

 

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to grant permission for the following reason: The DPD has not yet been adopted and this site is not now available (as was proposed in the DPD).

 

Item 12: Change of use from Nil use to Residential

Renwood, Outlands Lane, Curdridge, SO30 2HD

Case number: 18/01942/FUL

 

During public participation, Simon Fleming and Eric Bodger (Curdridge Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and Ronald Ross (applicant)  spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

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

 

In summary, Councillor Huxstep raised the following points:

 

-       Land used as valuable amenity space by Outlands Road residents for informal parking on an unallocated basis

-       No established need for this application

-       Contrary to Policies DM15, DM16, DM17 and DM23 as land a local rural asset and should be refused.

 

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 an amendment to Condition 3 to ensure that boundary hedging must not exceed 1.2 metres in height.

 

Item 13: Erection of a 3 bedroom, two storey agricultural workers dwelling, car parking and garden area (AMENDED DESCRIPTION)

Bushmoor Farm, Westley Lane, Sparsholt

Case number: 18/01133/FUL

 

During public participation, Sue Wood (Sparsholt Parish Council), Tony Charles and Edward Wheeler (applicant) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

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

 

In summary, Councillor Horrill raised the following points:

 

-       Requested that the Committee consider approving the application for this house in its rural countryside location to support the applicant’s successful farming business.

-       Applicant received a DEFRA grant for butchers unit, purchased more land and possessed a commitment to farming of over 11 years

-       Satisfied all other criteria of Bruton Knowles’ assessment and meets the requirements of Policy DM11.

-       1.16 full time equivalents was the calculation used by Bruton Knowles but this did not incorporate the applicant’s time spent in the butchering unit and the packaging of produce which all took place on site.

 

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to grant permission for the following reasons: the proposal accords with Policy DM11. Conditions would be included to protect trees and ecology, to require details of materials and drainage and to restrict occupation to an agricultural worker. with precise wording to be delegated to the Head of Development Management, in consultation with the Chairman.  

 

Item 14: (AMENDED PLANS) Development of a single dwelling on the land adjacent to number 6 Valley Close

6 Valley Close, Colden Common, SO21 1UN

Case number: 18/01809/FUL

 

During public participation, Mary Shields, David Harwood and Rob Veck  spoke in objection to the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to refuse permission for the following reasons: contrary to Policy DM16, does not respond positively in terms of its design, scale and layout.

 

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 6, permission be granted for the                       reasons and subject to the informatives set out in the Report                            and the revised conditions set out in the Update Sheet, subject               to: the verbal update to amend the wording of revised Condition                   9 to read ‘BREEAM excellent’; an amendment to revised                                Condition 34 to change the hours of use to read 0500            to 2300                       hours; and an additional condition requesting details of the                           Travel Plan to be submitted to officers, with the precise wording                         of this condition to be delegated to the Head of Development                        Management, in consultation with the Chairman 

 

                        (ii)        That in respect of item 11, permission be granted for the                     following reason: The DPD has not yet been adopted and this               site is not now available (as was proposed in the DPD).

 

(iii)       That in respect of item 12, permission be granted

                        for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives                      set out in the Report, subject to an amendment to Condition 3 to                  ensure that boundary hedging must not exceed 1.2 metres in                       height.

 

(iv)       That in respect of item 13, permission be granted for the

                        following reasons: the proposal accords with Policy DM11.                            Conditions would be included to protect trees and ecology, to                    require details of materials and  drainage and to restrict                                    occupation to an agricultural worker, with precise wording to be                   delegated to the Head of Development Management, in                                 consultation with the Chairman; and

 

                        (v)        `That in respect of Item 14, permission be refused for the                   following reasons: contrary to Policy DM16, does not                                            respond positively in terms of its design, scale and layout.

 

Applications outside the area of the South Downs National Park (SDNP): The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out two additional conditions that were required in relation to ecology as follows:

 

Prior to commencement of any tree works in the area shown as Broad-leaved Woodland on the Phase 1 Habitat Map in the Ecological Assessment DFA18009V3 September 2018, a qualified ecologist shall be engaged to oversee works to trees in this area.  Details of the appointment and scope of the monitoring shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority before tree works commence.

 

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity.

 

Prior to the commencement of development, or any other preparatory works other than those already undertaken for archaeological investigations, a qualified ecologist shall be engaged to undertake a pre-construction badger survey to refresh existing data from two to four months prior to the commencement of construction.  Thereafter, further surveys will be undertaken every six months or until the construction is complete.  The monitoring will inform badger mitigation and its adaptation as required.  Details of the appointment and scope of the survey work shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority before development commences.

 

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity.

 

The Head of Drainage and Special Maintenance additionally informed the meeting that Southern Water had confirmed that they would be constructing a new pumping station to be completed in 2020, which was in line with the phasing of the construction of the development.  The satisfactory provision of foul water drainage was covered by condition 5.

 

During public participation, Anton Hanney, Wickham Residents Association and Wickham Society spoke in objection to 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 the Update Sheet and also subject to amendment to condition 4 to ensure that permeable materials be used in appropriate places to reduce water run off from the development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 8:  Reserved matters application – consent for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for new dwellings behind St Lukes Church.

Land at Stanmore Estate, North of Stanmore Lane, Winchester

Case number: 18/01792/REM

 

During public participation, David Chafe 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 14:  Revisions to the new dwelling permitted by Appeal ref. APP/L1765/W/18/3193896 to include a basement storey, light wells and access.

The Corner House, 15 Bereweeke Close, Winchester, SO22 6AR

Case number: 18/01432/FUL

 

During public participation, Mr and Mrs Dickens spoke in objection to the application and Chris Carter (agent) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

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

 

In summary, Councillor Learney stated that having refused the previous proposal which refusal was overturned on appeal, the application today was a considerably different proposal and was an expansion on the original turned down by the Committee. She was of the opinion that the current application was a four or five bedroomed dwelling labelled as a three bed, with the basement large enough on its own to accommodate four people. Councillor Learney referred to Policy CP2 (housing mix) which encouraged two to three bed dwellings; not four to five beds and as such she considered that there was no reason to make this site an exception.

 

In conclusion, Councillor Learney stated that the application also failed to deliver an affordable housing contribution, to provide adequate parking or amenity space and she urged the Committee to support the concerns of residents and refuse this 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 and, subject to an additional condition for the removal of Permitted Development Rights.  

 

Item 17: Proposed ground floor extension and proposed first floor extension over existing bungalow

Tiggers Pond, Church Road, Newtown, Fareham

Case number: 18/01839/HOU

 

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.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.   That the decisions taken on the Development Control Applications in relation to those applications inside and 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 9, permission be granted for the                       reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in                the Report, subject to securing suitable planting by condition                                  and as set out in the Update Sheet;

 

                        (ii)        That in respect of item 12, permission be granted for the                     reasons and             subject to the conditions and informatives set out                     in the Report, the Update Sheet and the verbal updates given at                        the meeting, as set out above; subject to an amendment to                            Condition 9 to clarify the reasons for the condition in relation to                   the manure storage plan; and the requirement for landscaping to              be in place prior to commencement on site;

 

     (iii)       That in respect of item 14, permission be granted for the         reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in   the Report and, subject to an additional condition for the     removal of Permitted Development Rights; and

 

(iv)       That in respect of item 15, permission be granted for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and the Update Sheet, subject to: full landscaping plan to be submitted to the Council within 6 months of the decision for approval with planting to be carried out by the next planting season; and a review of Condition 6 to ensure parking to be used for the parking of HGV’s only, with the precise wording delegated to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chairman.

 

 

 

The meeting commenced at 9.30am, adjourned between 12.20pm and 2.00pm and between 5.00pm and 5.25pm and concluded at 7.10pm.

 

Item 15: Continued siting of 4 no. residential gypsy caravans without complying with Condition 3 of planning permission ref. 11/01875/FUL.

7 The Old Piggery, Firgrove Lane, North Boarhunt, Fareham

Case number: 18/01691/FUL

 

A verbal update was provided setting out additional wording to the last paragraph of the ‘Impact on character of area and neighbouring property’ section of the Report to read ‘…..`it is not considered that the units have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area’.

 

In response to question from Members, the Head of Strategic Planning clarified the four pitches proposed to be permitted were included as an allocation as part of the  Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document (DPD) to ensure the Council was fulfilling its requirements to meet the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community.

 

During public participation, Geoffrey Wright (Boarhunt Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and Joe Cunnane (agent) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

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

 

In summary, Councillor Cutler stated that Boarhunt was a small rural village which had a disproportionate level of caravan pitches. There had been a long standing history of travelling show people which had never been a problem. However, Councillor Cutler advised that he had received more complaints about this particular site than any other site in his ward. There were illegally sited caravans on site (26 vans as at May 2017) and advice given was that enforcement action would not proceed until formal adoption of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD was in place. In conclusion, Councillor Cutler suggested that the decision on this application be deferred to align with the completion of the DPD.

 

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 the Update Sheet, subject to: fulllandscaping plan to be submitted to the Council within 6 months of the decision for approval with planting to be carried out by the next planting season; and a review of Condition 6 to ensure parking to be used for the parking of HGV’s only, with the precise wording delegated to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chairman.

Item 16: Change of use from C3 (Dwellinghouse) to a mixed use of C3 (Dwellinghouse) and Sui Generis, for the breeding of dogs.

2 Hazeldene, Parsonage Lane, Durley, Southampton

Case number: 18/01086/FUL

 

During public participation, Mr and Mrs Mucci spoke in objection to the application and Ian Donohue (agent) 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 6:  Demolition of existing structures and erection of a new Winchester Sport and Leisure Centre, with associated access, landscaping, drainage and car parking

Garrison Ground, Bar End Road, Winchester

Case number:  18/01469/FUL

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out the full conditions of the application which had been re-worded and rearranged.

 

In addition, a verbal update was provided outlining a revision to the updated Condition 9 to read “BREEAM excellent”. 

 

During public participation, Tom Brenan (WinACC), Patrick Davies and Mary Tiles (City of Winchester Trust), John Doyle, Phil Gagg, Jeremy Mortimer, Janet Berry (Highcliffe Community Forum for Action (HCFfA)) and Emma Back (Winchester Sport, Art and Leisure Trust (SALT)) spoke in objection to the application and Mike Lawless (LA Architects), David Sherry (Winchester and District Athletics Club) and Mike Fisher (Penguins Swimming Club)  spoke in support of the application and all answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

During public participation, Councillor Murphy spoke on this item as Ward Member.  Councillors Laming (Badger Farm and Oliver’s Battery), Learney (St Barnabas), Hutchison and Thompson (St Paul) also spoke on this item as Ward Members for their respective contiguous wards.

 

In addition, Councillors Griffiths (Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing) and Warwick (Portfolio Holder for Environment) also addressed the Committee on this item in their capacity as Portfolio Holders.

 

A summary of the points raised by each of these Members is set out below:

 

Councillor Laming

 

-       The pre-application did not meet the budget or facility mix;

-       Building design only just reached the requirements of the green standard

-       Maximised Carbon Reduction

-       Use of polycarbonate material and maintenance costs

-       Omission of the Depot Site from the application

-       Layout fails to address design

-       Failure to provide pedestrian link to residents in Milland Road

-       Provision of electric vehicle charging points less than 75% of spaces

-       Agree the need for a Leisure Centre but not at any cost – design does not meet aspirations

-       Solar PV

 

Councillor Murphy

 

-       Pre-application flaws with improvements to be made

-       Adverse impact on traffic for the residents of Highcliffe and negative impact on neighbouring properties

-       Children crossing hazardous

-       Car Park taking up invaluable green space at the Garrison Ground

-       Provision of disabled parking and pick up/drop off points

-       Negative impact on the four aims of the Winchester Town Access Plan

-       Failure to improve congestion and air quality

-       Inadequate pedestrian and cycle routes – increase to the 40 bicycle spaces provided

-       Noise and light pollution as a result of the hours of use – request reduction in this from 0500- 0000 hours to 0600 – 2300 hours

-       Carbon footprint of the development – 50% more energy than current

-       Winchester parking set to increase by 22%

-       Contravenes Winchester Town Access Plan and the Lower Carbon Council vision

 

Councillor Learney

 

-       Transport aspects – too far to travel for residents using public transport

-       The increase to carbon footprint caused by car journeys

-       Contrary to Local Plans Part 1 and Part 2 (LPP1 and LPP2) and policies

-       Transport assessment is inadequate with proposed increase in traffic over city bridge

-       Insufficient bus services with the No.4 bus service running less than hourly and no evening service and the park and ride bus service not scheduled to operate on a Sunday; only with the goodwill of Stagecoach currently – transport review required

-       Pedestrian and cycling access routes inadequate

-       Priority given to vehicles at the roundabout junction at Bar End causing access issues for pedestrians and cyclists

-       Updated transport assessment required to make mitigation measures

 

Councillor Hutchison

 

-       Supports new Sports and Leisure which provides a fantastic opportunity. However considered the application to be too premature

-       Failure to adhere to LPP2, particularly Policy DM14 – outside the settlement boundary

-       Does not fit in the surrounding neighbourhood

-       Disconnected facilities

-       Poor links with the Depot site and HCC building

-       Missed opportunity for development to make a contribution to resource

-       Application should contribute  to wider regeneration objectives

 

Councillor Thompson

 

-       Would support a new Leisure Centre that provided facilities for all sports and abilities equally but considered that concerns existed in the facility mix of this application.

-       Considered the application to be an aquatic facility primarily with the sports hall as add on. Sports hall and club facilities weak as contributed the same numbers as the existing River Park Leisure Centre and unable to cope with the growing population.

-       Safe and attractive walking and cycling routes required to support the application

-       Request an amendment to Condition 34 to reduce the hours of use due to conflicts with local residents and poor consultation on this matter

-       Facilities expensive to manage

-       A fully costed business plan was required – Operator yet to be appointed, in danger of granting permission for a Leisure Centre that cannot be afforded.

 

Councillor Warwick addressed the main issues raised by Members in respect of Energy Efficiency, Biodiversity and Traffic and Transport, as summarised below:

 

-       The Council were working with experts to achieve an ‘A’ rated Energy Performance Certificate

-       There would be a 16.8% reduction in CO2 which exceeded the building’s energy regulation requirements.

-       Photovoltaic cells were provided

-       The new centre was 35% larger than the RPLC and also provided a 20metre training pool, splash zone, and hydrotherapy suite and therefore had a greater carbon footprint by comparison. However, this was offset by a reduction in emissions of 27% per sq. mtr from the existing centre

-       The Leisure Centre was a facility for all- the many residents over the whole of the District and beyond.

-       HCC had incorporated the Bar End location as part of their transport assessment. A new crossing point would be installed along Bar End Road, a new bus stop would be positioned close to the Leisure Centre as the Council would continue to work with HCC and the bus operator to investigate additional bus routes.

-       Sustainable Travel Plan to be produced once an operator for the Leisure Centre had been appointed.  

 

Councillor Griffiths

 

-       The application had received no objection from the statutory consultees.

-       In 2013 the Council agreed that Bar End was the correct location for the provision of the new Leisure Centre, since this time there had been consultations and conversations with many residents, groups and skilled partners in the sports and leisure industry to listen and understand views to design one facility for all on the Garrison Ground, through to King George V.

-       The development offered: soft landscaping design; cohesive links with the athletic track; drainage to the south of the site; energy efficiency; extensive use of glazing; sports and community events; connecting building externally; recycling materials; open viewing galleries which were accessible for all; a significant improvement to current facilities;

-       When appointed, the operator would be tasked with producing a Traffic Management Plan, in conjunction with the Council and HCC to adhere to the Council’s aims and aspirations. 

 

During consideration of this item, a number of questions were raised by the Committee and the following responses were received:

 

In respect of the proposed hours of use, the Council’s Environmental Health Scientific Officer clarified that advice given was not specific to the hours of use, set out in the report and that officers had sought to adequately control any potential impact from noise and lighting via thorough conditions. As a result, officers were satisfied with the hours of use proposed (0500 to 0000 hours) and advised that this would be a matter for the Committee to consider when reaching its decision.

 

Hampshire County Council’s Highways Officer confirmed that the plans had been taken on board in respect of the Movement Strategy. In addition, he stated that there were existing bus services operating in Winchester and the surrounding area that ran to and from the facility and that it was anticipated that 68% of trips to the site would not travel through the town centre, with the majority of visitors expected by car, due to its close proximity to the motorway. 

 

To address concerns regarding energy efficiency and sustainability, Members attention was drawn to the report which set out the CO2 savings submitted by the applicant that identified a 16.8% reduction in energy within the fabric of the building. The application provided three electric vehicle charging points on site, with possible scope to increase this level in the future based on need. The Head of Development Management clarified that the applicant had a Strategy in place to mitigate carbon emissions and the report covered this aspect in planning terms, therefore officers were satisfied that the application met Policy CP11 in this respect.  

 

In relation to drainage measures for surface water on site, the Council’s Head of Drainage and Special Maintenance clarified that the site was a naturally sloping site to an adjacent watercourse that led to the River Itchen via the Bar End Industrial Estate where there was good drainage provision. He stated that the proposed water would be held on site in a SUDS/Retention system and discharged to the adjacent watercourse at the naturally occurring greenfield run off rate so there wouldn’t be any increase in the flow of water to the existing watercourse. It was confirmed that there will be a maintenance plan for the on site drainage, and all the required details for drainage have been adequately conditioned within the report and there were no concerns that this would not be achieved.   

           

At the conclusion of debate, the Committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the informatives set out in the Report             and the revised conditions set out in the Update Sheet, subject to: the verbal update to amend the wording of revised Condition 9 to read ‘BREEAM excellent’; an amendment to revised Condition 34 to change the hours of use to read 0500 to 2300 hours; and an additional condition requesting details of the Travel Plan to be submitted to officers, with the precise wording of this condition to be delegated to the Head of Development Management, in consultation with the Chairman 

 

 

Item 17:  Single Storey Front Extension, Single Storey side extension, 1st Floor rear extension. (AMENDED PLANS).

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out that the proposal section within the Report should read:  The application has been submitted for a single storey front extension, single storey side extension, first floor rear extension and garden room. The materials to be used in the extensions are proposed to match the host dwelling.

 

During public participation, Anne Young and Fenella Jarvis, Badger Farm Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and Andy Salter (agent) spoke in support 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 the Update Sheet.

 

Item 18:  Replace existing roof lantern.

 

The Committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report.

 

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 (Albany Farm, Bishops Waltham), permission be granted for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and the Update Sheet and also subject to  a variation of the existing Section 106 Agreement  to ensure that the wildlife corridor was first offered to Bishops Waltham Parish Council to manage, and if not it would be managed  by the Management Company (as detailed in the existing Section106 agreement ) as part of the public open space. It was agreed that officers would consult with Ward Members and Bishops Waltham Parish Council over the terms of the s106 variation.

 

(ii)             That in respect of item 8, (Land to The East of Tangier Lane, Bishops Waltham), permission be granted for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report and the Update Sheet subject to authority being delegated to the Head of Development Management to revise the wording of Condition 3 (details and samples of the external surfaces – variation in colour of brick elevations to be clarified), Condition 4 (hard and soft landscaping – detail of landscaping on southern border to be clarified) and Condition 11 (access point within the development to Bishops Waltham Footpath 43 – clarification of Footpath 43’s relationship with the new footpath and cycleway).

 

(iii)            That in respect of item 9 (The Nook, Bank Street Bishops Waltham), the decision be deferred to a meeting of the Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee to be held on Tuesday 9 October 2018 to commence at 11:00am.  The Planning (Viewing) Sub Committee would visit the site before the meeting in order to assess the impact of the proposed single storey rear extension on neighbouring properties.

 

(iv)            That in respect of item 14 (8 Stoney Lane Winchester), permission be granted for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report subject to the removal of Permitted Development Rights for dwellinghouses in Classes A, B and C for the reason that extension of the houses could lead to a requirement for a greater number of car parking spaces.

 

 

 

The meeting commenced at 9.30am and adjourned between 12.35pm and 2.00pm and concluded at 4.50pm.

 

Chairman

Item 13: The provision of 6 houses and associated works (4 semi-detached and 2 detached units) following planning permission 16/01490/FUL and 17/02457/FUL.

Chingri Khal, Sleepers Hill, Winchester

Case number: 18/01269/FUL

 

During public participation, Jeannie Berridge spoke in objection to the application and David Milligan 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 12:  Erection of an agricultural building for free range egg production and associated feed bins and hardstanding areas

Land north of Vale Farm, Enmill Lane, Pitt, Winchester

Case number: 18/01082/FUL

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out the following:  A supplementary consultation response from the Head of Environmental Health with a recommended condition which would replace Condition 9 with an expanded reason to include all sensitive receptors; It was also pointed out that ‘Arquiva’ had been removed from the site address to avoid confusion with the company of that name which was not connected to the proposal and the site address had been amended to read ‘Land North of Vale Farm, Enmill Lane, Pitt.

 

In addition, a verbal update was provided as follows:

That a final response had been received from Natural Englandstating that consideration of plans and projects within 5km to assess the ‘in combination effect’  was reasonable and plans and projects could include the anaerobic digester (although it was pointed out that in a previous consultation response Natural England had stated that the anaerobic digester would not have an impact on Crab Wood SSSI and this was read out to Members), the manure should be stored in line with best practice and covered and the manure heap to the north of Sarum Road should be moved further south, and the woodland buffer is welcomed.

 

In addition, the officer proposed an amendment to Condition 5 to require planting to be carried out prior to commencement of use and an amendment to Condition 5 to remove the wording ‘the northern end of’ and drew Member’s attention to the wording; in the section of the report relating to residential amenity where the reference should be to Condition 9 not Condition 10;  and finally, it was reported that an additional email had been received from an objector relating to the manure storage and the impact of the emissions on human health. 

 

In response to questions from Members, the Environmental Protection Officer clarified that in relation to the storage of manure, there were four sites located. It was likely that only one store would be used at any one time. These stores would be used by rotation one year at a time, ensuring that there was at least a two year gap period prior to return.

 

During public participation, Mary Hill (Crabwood Action Group), Sue Wood (Sparsholt Parish Council) and David Killeen (Hursley Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and Sam Burge spoke in support of the application and all answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

During public participation, Councillor Warwick spoke on this item as Ward Member.  Councillor Horrill also spoke on this item as Ward Member for the contiguous ward of Wonston and Micheldever. 

 

In summary, Councillor Horrill stated that she was representing the residents of Sparsholt Village on this complex and technical application and considered that, if the Committee was minded to approve the application, it should be sufficiently assured that the interpretation of the extensive data was reasonable.

 

Councillor Horrill questioned why a development should be agreed when situated alongside the heavily utilised Clarendon Way? She suggested that the building was likely to result in a danger to public health with increased pollution, dust, ammonia and vermin at the nearby Pisnent camping site and along the ancient woodland, which indicted that the proposal was contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Councillor Horrill considered animal welfare to be a concern with 32,000 chickens on site where levels of welfare could not be assured. She referred to the additional vehicle movements created by the development along Woodman Lane, Sparsholt, Pitt and Sarum Road which were already used as ‘rat runs’ during peak hours.

 

In conclusion, Councillor Horrill stated that it was the residents that would have to live with the consequences if the application was approval and urged the Committee to consider that, if they had any doubt, to refuse the application.

 

In summary, Councillor Warwick stated that this was a unique application on the boundary of two parishes, Sparsholt and Hursley, and that care needed to be taken in the consideration of this application. She stated that the Clarendon Way trail was one of Winchester’s important cultural assets that needed to be protected and that a robust plan was required for the levels of manure to avoid any environmental damage.

 

Councillor Warwick suggested that options to relocate the proposal to a less sensitive part of the site away from the SSSI should be investigated further to ensure that ammonia levels were kept as far away as possible to minimise the impact. She stated that no survey had been carried out on Crabwood since 2009 and that objections had been raised by several organisations including the Wildlife Trust who considered that the application could cause potential damage to Crabwood.

 

In conclusion, Councillor Warwick stated that the proposed development was sited in a sensitive location which did not respect, protect or enhance the community asset along Clarendon Way, but increased pollution, odour and light pollution, contrary to Policy DM19 and urged the Committee to request the applicant to consider an alternative environmentally sustainable position for this application.

 

In response to the concerns raised by Councillor Warwick, the applicant clarified that other on site locations had been considered. However, these failed to meet the requirements in order to make the site free range, whereby a 40 acre ranging area for birds was to be provided and the need to ensure an adequate power and water supply to the building.

 

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, Update Sheet and the verbal updates given at the meeting, as set out above; subject to an amendment to Condition 9 to clarify the reasons for the condition in relation to the manure storage plan; and the requirement for landscaping to be in place prior to commencement on site.

 

Item 8:  Proposed two new 2 bed semi-detached cottages.

Forge Cottage, West Street, Hambledon, Winchester

Case number: SDNP/18/01459/FUL

 

In response to questions from Members, the Highways Engineer clarified that a speed survey had been undertaken and officers were content that the visibility could be provided in accordance with those speed limits currently set.

 

During public participation, David Long and Tony Higham (Hambledon Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and Jack Warshaw 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 10: Removal of condition 4 of approved permission W105401/04LB

Tempus House, Petersfield Road, Hinton Ampner, Alresford

Case number: SDNP/18/02995/CND

 

During public participation, Caroline Young (applicant) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

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

 

 

Item 7:  Revised application for the erection of one dwelling (Amended Plans 14/09/2018)

Land adjacent to Appletree Cottage, Chilcomb, Winchester.

Case number:  SDNP/18/04041/FUL

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out a further seven letters of objection that had been received in relation to the revised plans.

 

In addition, a verbal update was provided to note that there had been a reduction in the size of the first floor accommodation by one metre.

 

During public participation, Piers Sherlock spoke in objection to the application and Harry Dhand (applicant) and Stephen Hurrell (architect) spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Historic Environment Team Leader clarified that the key point to be considered was that this application had been re-orientated and its built form differed vastly to the appealed scheme. The proposed scheme had now overcome the previous concerns in relation to scale, built form and materials and was now considered to be of no material harm to the listed building as a result.

 

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 Update Sheet.

 

Item 9:  Erection of replacement stable building and alterations to adjoining ground levels (Revised application)

Barrs Farm, High Street, Soberton, SO32 3PN

Case number: SDNP/18/04226/HOUS

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out details of an alternative planting scheme that had been received.

 

During public participation, Mr Patrick spoke in objection to the application and Jeanette Hopkins (applicant) 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, subject to securing suitable planting by condition and as set out in the Update Sheet.

 

Item 7:  Reserved Matters application pursuant to 15/00053/OUT for the erection of 125 dwellings including appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out updates required to Condition 2 (which listed the plans and documents that would be approved if consent was granted). Some of the plan numbers were incorrect and some documents which were referred to in other conditions were also listed in the Update Sheet for completeness.  Further updates were included with regard to phasing, variations to Condition 5 (SAP and BRE details); Condition 8 (landscaping) and Condition 6 (parking).  An additional condition was also included relating to protection of trees and hedgerows on the south eastern edge.

 

During public participation, Robert Shields, Bishops Waltham Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and James Iles, Agent, 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 and the Update Sheet and also subject to a variation of the Section 106 Agreement  to ensure that the wildlife corridor was first offered to Bishops Waltham Parish Council to manage, and if not it would be managed by the Management Company (as detailed in the existing Section106 agreement ) as part of the public open space. It was agreed that officers would consult with Ward Members and Bishops Waltham Parish Council over the terms of the s106 variation.

 

Item 8:  Application for reserved matters planning permission for the erection of 66 dwellings, with associated access via Tangier Lane, associated parking provision, landscaping and public open space pursuant to planning permission 16/01327/OUT (THIS APPLICATION MAY AFFECT THE SETTING OF A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY)

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out the addition of the following documents to Condition 2: Drainage Strategy Plan ref: 171590/SK02-P2 and External Level Strategy ref: 171590/SK03-P2.  In addition, an email had been received from an affordable housing provider confirming that the provider was interested in the scheme as it was currently designed and that they were comfortable with the tenure mix and distribution; there was no problem with the parking courts as they were a standard feature where parking was not individually assigned and that the provider was satisfied with the location of the affordable units and their parking.

 

During public participation, Robert Shields, Bishops Waltham Parish Council, commented on conditions 3, 4 and 11 of the application and Mark Cooke, Agent, 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 and the Update Sheet, subject to authority being delegated to the Head of Development Management to revise the wording of Condition 3 (details and samples of the external surfaces – variation in colour of brick elevations to be clarified), Condition 4 (hard and soft landscaping – detail of landscaping on southern border to be clarified) and Condition 11 (access point within the development to Bishops Waltham Footpath 43 – clarification of Footpath 43’s relationship with the new footpath and cycleway).

 

Item 10:  Change of use from civil engineering contractor's yard and engineering workshop to a mixed use comprising 2.no workshops (Use Class B1c) and 1.no office (Use Class B1a); alterations to existing building; associated parking and landscaping.

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out drainage comments that the site was at high risk of surface water flooding. The proposals were for a change of use therefore the change in impermeable area was negligible. The foul and surface water connections were to remain the same. It was unclear whether there would be any increase in foul flows, and whether the site did connect to the foul sewer. If there was a private sewage treatment plant and flows were expected to increase, the suitability of the plant should be investigated.  Further information had also been received about the acoustic report which demonstrated that potential noise levels from the workshops would be acceptable if the windows and doors of the units were open. There was therefore no requirement for Condition 10 and this would be removed.  The Head of Development Management also clarified that the authorised use should state B2 and not B8 as set out in the Highways/Parking section of the Report.

 

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 the Update Sheet.

 

Item 11:  Application Reference Number: DRD.1163/16 Date of Decision: 30/01/1973 Variation of Condition 2 to allow the siting of two additional caravans.

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out two letters from Denmead Residents Association drawing attention to the lack of parking and condition of the access road.  The new parking spaces were located in an area already used either as a drop off point or for the storage of bins on collection day and the loss of view and use of the open recreational area.  The entrance to Dando Road was blocked by buses when they stopped.  Drainage to the access road was completely blocked and water built up on it and insufficient lighting on the road.  There were two further letters from one household attaching photos of the road and various hazards.

 

During public participation, Kevin Andreoli, Denmead Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

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

 

In summary, Councillor Brook stated that the lack of objections to the application was misleading and that the site had a difficult access route for refuse and emergency vehicles (which had been a reason for refusal in 1980).  There was a lack of green space in Denmead, due to development that had taken place since the 1980s, and there would be a loss of really valuable amenity space which was used by the residents.  Due to the unsafe access and loss of public open space the application should be refused.

 

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 13:  Proposed one and two storey rear extension

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out an update to Condition 3 with amended drawing: - Plans and Elevations as Proposed (Visual Impact), Drawing PA18-123:03 amended August 2018.  This amended drawing superseded Plans and Elevations as Proposed, Drawing PA18-123:03 dated April 2018.

 

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 the Update Sheet.

 

 

Item 14:  Demolition of No.8 Stoney Lane and erection of seven residential dwellings, with associated access, parking and landscaping.

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which stated that the pond referred to in the ecology section of the report was in the garden of No 5 Stoney Lane.

 

During public participation, Mrs C L Hamer, Simon Hutton and Malcolm Roger spoke in objection to the application and Chris Rees, agent, spoke in supportand answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

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

 

In summary, Councillor Weir declared a personal (but not prejudicial) interest as she lived in neighbouring Woodstock Court, but her property did not adjoin the application site.  She continued that the proposal was out of character with the area and had a density of 30 dwellings per hectare.  The three bedroomed properties could be readily converted to four bedrooms, and also the two bedroomed into three bedrooms by internal reconfiguration, which circumnavigated policy CP2, and if the number of bedrooms was altered this could impact on parking provision as the parking criteria would not be met.  Three properties were greater than 1,400 square feet and had little amenity space.  The style of development in the area was informal 20^th and 21^st century, and not the formal, classical style that was proposed.  The front property would also be three metres forward of the adjacent next dwelling.  The proposals were contrary to policies CP2, CP3, DM4, DM8, DM13, DM17 and DM18 and should be refused to allow the developer to provide a more sympathetic and sustainable development.

 

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 removal of Permitted Development Rights for dwelling-houses in Classes A, B and C for the reason that extension of the houses could lead to a requirement for a greater number of car parking spaces.

 

Item 15:  Proposed Garage

 

The Head of Development Management referred Members to the Update Sheet which set out the addition of Condition 7 relating to the use of the studio: Condition 7. The studio hereby permitted shall only be used as ancillary accommodation incidental to the use of York House and at no time shall be let separately or used as a separate unit of accommodation to York House. Reason: To accord with the terms of the application and to prevent the creation of inappropriate units of accommodation, possibly leading to over intensive use of the site.

 

During public participation, Anthony Lewis and Ken Staunton and also Tim Hunt, Compton and Shawford Parish Council, spoke in objection to 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 the Update Sheet.

 

Item 16:  Loft conversion with dormer to the rear elevation and velux windows to the front elevation

 

During public participation, Ian Gordon, Kings Worthy Parish Council spoke in support of the recommendation to refuse the application, and Andrew Mant spoke in support of the application (and against the recommendation to refuse the application) and answered Members’ questions thereon.

 

The Planning and Information Solicitor advised that careful consideration would be given to the wording of the condition for the removal of Permitted Development Rights relating to the property when considering the taking of enforcement action. Furthermore officers would have to consider the expediency of any future enforcement action.

 

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

 

Andrew Boutflower, Deputy Investment and Borrowing Manager (Hampshire County Council) introduced the report.

 

In answer to Members’ questions, it was stated that the return of 1.04% on long-term investments referred to in table 4 of the Report would be clarified.  Subsequent to the meeting it was confirmed that the return of 1.04% was correct, but the two percentage figures had not been updated; instead of 0.94% and 0.86% for the rates at 30.09.2018 they should have stated 1.06% and 1.03%.

 

The Committee debated whether the Council was too risk averse in its investment strategy.  The Strategic Director: Resources commented that the Council required cash to fund its capital programme, and the funding of the capital programme would reduce balances in the forthcoming months.

 

Councillor Ashton added that the Council did have investments in higher risk assets that increased investment returns.  Cash was also used to reduce borrowing which had a positive effect in combating inflation.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Treasury Management Mid Year Monitoring Report 2018/19 be noted.

 

 

The Committee noted that the Report had not been notified for inclusion within the statutory deadline.  The Chairman agreed to accept the item onto the agenda as a matter requiring urgent consideration to enable the Committee to consider the conclusions of the Corporate Peer Challenge Follow up Visit.

 

The Strategic Director: Resources introduced the report.

 

In reply to Members’ questions the Strategic Director: Resources responded that:

 

(i)            The timetable for the submission of the revised Constitution for Member scrutiny was in the process of being decided upon.  The revised draft would be available in December and a joint meeting of the Audit Committee and The Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be held early in the New Year.

 

(ii)           The new People Strategy/Workforce Plan was explained including the review of business travel, effects of staff turnover and increases in staff absence attributed to stress.  As part of the delivery of the Council Strategy staff would be recruited to support different stages of the life of a project through fixed term contracts.  The Council would aim to be a flexible employer to compete in the recruitment market and a recent Personnel Committee paper set out plans to deliver this.

 

(iii)          A Transformation Programme would commence in February 2019 with service reviews.  The action plan would be progressed in conjunction with staff, with staff briefings being held. A Staff Forum was also being established and other measures put in place to help ensure that services were efficient and effective and that staff were clear on the direction of travel of the Council.

 

(iv)         The Residents Survey was currently being procured and would be launched in January 2019.

 

(v)          An update on progress against the peer review action plan would be included in the Quarter 3 Governance Monitoring Report in March 2019.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the comments made by the LGA Peer Challenge Team as set out in Appendix 1 of the Report be noted.

 

The Strategic Director: Resources and Mr Harvey from the Southern Internal Audit Partnership presented this item.

 

In reply to Members’ questions, the Corporate Business Manager stated that the delay in clearing the overdue action arising from the limited assurance opinion in respect of the Hampshire Cultural Trust related to the signing of leases by the Trust.  Although the lease was being paid for by the Trust, staff changes at the Trust had delayed the signing of the lease and the Council's Estates Department was providing assistance to the Trust to the resolve this matter.  Mr Harvey added that the Mayor's Charity was subject to an audit review as part of its annual certification.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the content of the Report and the progress against the Internal Audit Plan and Annual Governance Statement as set out in Appendices 1 and 2 be noted.

 

The Strategic Director: Resources introduced the report and answered Members’ questions relating to trading companies and also to the proposed future changes to accounting standards, including IFRS 9 Financial Instruments, and whether the changes would result in extra work for the Council.

RESOLVED:

That the Annual Audit Letter 2017/18 be accepted.

 

The Strategic Director: Place gave a presentation on the methods the Council used to manage risks.

 

In answer to Members’ questions, the Strategic Director: Place and the Strategic Director: Resources answered Members’ questions as follows:

 

(i)         The Corporate Risk Register considered the accumulative risk of a number of individual risks occurring at the same time.  Risks that were common in all projects would filter through to the Corporate Risk Register.

 

(ii)        The methodology used in the risk proximity score indicated how immediate the risk was and considered the impact on revenue rather than the longer term impact, for example on construction.  It was commented by a Member that a higher level risk management tool was required to span the 40 year horizon of a project to adequately cover the longer term period.

 

(iii)       The Corporate Risk Register took into consideration risks of partnerships, including private sector contractor risks.  This would include the potential  default of an operator, including for example the operator of the new leisure centre.

 

(iv)      The Council's risk appetite was included in the risk register and included all potential risk options including that a project was not financially viable.  The Council could look at each stage at the risks and could also look to see if the current controls needed to be stronger.  The Cabinet Committees also considered projects from outline to full business stage and ensured that project gateways and stop points were included as well as preventing mission creep that increased costs.  In addition, each project had its own project board that met monthly.

 

Councillor Ashton commented that the date of commencement of construction of the sport and leisure centre project had been delayed resulting in a slippage against the schedule as The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had requested a Facilities Needs Appraisal.  There were no new risks resulting and this matter had been considered by the Cabinet (Leisure Centre) Committee.  The full business case, including the risks associated with the partner operator would be known by February 2019.  The risk of the project programme/project delivery being delayed was risk number 6 in the Winchester Sport and Leisure Centre Project Risk Register and was constantly reviewed.  The informal meetings of the project groups were cross political party and the notes of meetings were available to Members.

 

The Chairman commented that the likely scenarios associated with Brexit were a possible matter for consideration within the Corporate Risk Register.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Report be noted.

Councillor Warwick introduced the report and highlighted that the Government had just announced its new Resources and Waste Strategy. The Strategy included the following:

·         Proposals to ensure producers pay the cost of recycling packaging;

·         Weekly food waste collection;

·         Promoting free garden waste collection;

·         Introduce a consistent set of recyclable materials and labelling on packaging.

 

Councillor Warwick stated that the report linked closely with the new Strategy and the Council was intending to respond positively to the Government on its proposals.

 

Councillor Warwick highlighted that a detailed procurement exercise had been undertaken with consultant’s advice.  The 2016 survey had indicated the popularity for introducing kerbside glass collection and it was proposed this would be introduced from the start of the one year contract extension.  Although this one year contract extension was more expensive than currently charged (due to the shorter timescale and inclusion of kerbside glass recycling), comparison indicated it was at a mid-point in terms of price.  The contract extension proposed would also enable the lease of some new refuse vehicles to improve reliability.  There would also be a dedicated contract management team based within the Council.  Councillor Warwick highlighted that legal advice was that it was not possible to enter into a joint contract with East Hants District Council as they had delegated provision of the service to Havant District Council.  She thanked the Strategic Director for his work in progressing the contract negotiations.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillors Thompson and Bell addressed Cabinet as summarised below.

 

Councillor Thompson

·         Welcomed the proposal to introduce kerbside glass collection but believed it should have been included when the current contract was awarded 8 years ago;

·         Expressed regret it would only be a monthly collection of glass and queried whether this would change to fortnightly after the one year contract extension period?

·         Was the cost of the collection containers included?

·         Welcomed the Government announcement regarding food waste collection but urged the Council to introduce before the deadline given of 2023.

 

Councillor Bell

·         Welcomed the Government’s proposals in relation to waste and recycling;

·         Requested that the Integra presentation given at The Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 13 December 2018 be made available to Members;

·         Agreed with Councillor Thompson’s comments that kerbside glass recycling should have been introduced earlier and that food waste recycling should be introduced as quickly as possible.

 

Councillor Warwick stated that the capital cost of purchase of new containers was included in paragraph 2.2 of the report.  The Integra presentation would be made available to Members.

 

With regard to frequency of glass collection, the Strategic Director advised that this varied between local authorities with some collecting fortnightly and some monthly, without a significant different in collection rates.  The monthly collection would operate for one year and Members’ could then decide whether they wished to increase frequency based on experience.

 

In response to questions, the Strategic Director confirmed that benchmarking information indicated that the current contract was one of the cheapest compared with other local authorities and had offered significant savings to the Council.  The overall quality of service provided had been good, although he acknowledged there had been some issues recently with vehicle breakdowns as the end of the contract approached.

 

The Strategic Director confirmed that Members’ workshops would be organised early in 2019 which would offer an opportunity to consider further various matters raised.

 

The Strategic Director advised that the report had been considered at The Overview and Scrutiny Committee where Members’ had requested that Cabinet consider further the proposed choice of pricing proposal (detail in exempt minute).

 

Cabinet agreed the recommendations in principle before moving to exempt session to discuss the matters contained within the exempt appendices to the report.

 

Cabinet agreed to the following for the reasons outlined above, discussed during the exempt session below, and set out in the Report.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.         That the waste collection contract with Biffa be extended for one year until 30^th September 2020 on terms as detailed in exempt resolution 1 below.

 

2.         That the terms for the core service provision be approved as set out in the exempt resolution 2 below and that officers be authorised to take the necessary actions in relation to the contract and the Inter Authority Agreement with East Hampshire District Council to give effect to this decision.

 

3.         That a contract for a kerbside glass collection service from October 2019 until September 2020 be awarded for one year on the terms set out in Exempt Appendix 1 of the report and thereafter incorporate kerbside glass collection as part of the baseline service to be provided for in the waste collection contract.

 

4.         Further to Resolution 3 above, that the Council’s Contract Procedures Rules be suspended to allow for the award of the contract to the existing contractor.

 

5.         That the resolution of the trade waste position which has arisen within the scope of the existing contract is resolved as proposed in Exempt Appendix 5 of the report.

 

6.         That the necessary revenue and capital expenditure provision required for its decision on Resolutions 1 and 2 above be incorporated into the financial proposals for the 2019/20 budget.

 

7.         That the timetable and key milestones for the retendering of the waste contract be noted.

 

Councillor Warwick introduced the report, together with the Head of Environmental Health and Licensing.  The Head of Environmental Health and Licensing highlighted that the Government had published a new Air Quality Strategy since the report was produced.  The new Strategy focussed on emissions from non-vehicular sources (e.g. wood burning stoves) but still retained the ambition to reduce emissions from vehicles.  The Government had adopted a policy aim of 70% of all vehicles sold being electric vehicles (EVs) by 2030 and 100% by 2040.

 

Cabinet welcomed to the meeting Ernie Shelton from Horizon Power and Energy who had prepared the Electric Vehicle Charging Strategy for the Council, contained as the appendix to the report.  Mr Shelton gave a presentation outlining the contents of the Strategy.  In summary, his advice would be that the Council start on a small scale basis with careful consideration of the most appropriate place to site EV charging points.  Decisions as to how to expand could then be based on data captured and taking account of expected advances in technology.

 

Mr Shelton responded to detailed questions from Members and others present on his presentation.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillors Bell and Thompson addressed Cabinet as summarised below.

 

As a member of the Air Quality Steering Group, Councillor Bell welcomed the report and the proposal to run pilots with specific interested residents with on-street parking in the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).  With regard to the possible future use of electric park and ride buses, she suggested “shuttle” electric buses could be used to ferry passengers over shorter distances, supplementing the main bus routes.

 

Councillor Thompson also welcomed the report and the presentation given by Mr Shelton (which had also been received at a previous Winchester Town Forum meeting).   She remained slightly concerned that the proposals were not sufficiently ambitious.  She suggested that the option of providing EV charging spaces in car parks specifically for residents without off-street parking be investigated.  She believed there might be capacity issues with the National Grid and suggested solar panels could be installed on car parks to provide additional electricity.  In addition, the Council should seek to market Winchester as an attractive place for EV users to stop and charge their vehicle.

 

Councillor Warwick thanked Mr Shelton for his presentation.

 

Cabinet agreed to the following for the reasons outlined above and set out in the Report.

 

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.         That the draft Strategy be adopted.

 

2.         That a detailed options appraisal for the delivery and operation of an electric vehicle charging network be completed for consideration at a future Cabinet meeting.

 

Councillor Warwick introduced the report.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillors Bell and Evans addressed Cabinet as summarised below.

 

Councillor Bell welcomed the report and asked a number of detailed questions:

·         Assurance that new parking payment machines include additional payment options to payment via Pay Mobile or Ringo;

·         Request for an additional payment machine at Worthy Lane car park;

·         Assurance that the SMART card facility would not be removed until consultation had been undertaken with the University and Hospital;

·         Request that when next refurbished, it be considered that  the different floors on Chesil MSCP be painted different colours;

·         Consideration should be given to providing information to increase understanding for the wider public if virtual residents’ permits were introduced.

 

As a ward councillor for Wickham, Councillor Evans welcomed the additional car parking spaces provided at the old station in Wickham but emphasised there remained a shortage of car parking spaces in the town.  This was causing capacity and safety concerns with inconsiderate parking in Wickham Square.  In addition, she requested that additional lighting be provided in the area.

 

The Chairman requested that the Portfolio Holder and Corporate Head of Regulatory respond directly to the detailed questions raised by Councillors Bell and Evans.  Councillor Warwick emphasised that recommendation 3 of the report confirmed that consultation would be undertaken before the smart card payment option was removed.

 

In response to questions, the Corporate Head of Regulatory advised that proposed expenditure was higher than in previous years due to the number of schemes being ready for implementation, together with the remit of the report being widened.  Cabinet noted that expenditure would be funded from a mixture of capital and revenue expenditure, as detailed in the report.  Members also highlighted the links with the Winchester Movement Strategy.

 

Cabinet agreed to the following for the reasons outlined above and set out in the Report.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.         That, subject to Council approval of the Budget and Capital Strategy in February 2019, expenditure of £658,000 for 2019/20 as outlined in appendix A, be approved and that the indicative programme for 2020/21 totalling £185,000 be noted as a basis for planning and preparing future works.

 

2.         That the Corporate Head of Regulatory Services be given delegated authority to make minor adjustments to the programme in order to meet maintenance and operational needs of the District’s car parks throughout the year, as required, in consultation with the Corporate Head of Asset Management and Portfolio Holder for the Environment.

 

3.         That in principle the smart card option of payment for customers using park and ride car parks be ceased subject to prior consultation with those parties most affected by this change to this means of making parking payments.