Agenda and draft minutes

The meeting was held in the Hollybank Room at the Public Service Plaza, of Havant Borough Council.

The Chairman welcomed members and officers from Winchester City Council and Havant Borough Council to the inaugural meeting of this committee.

The Chairman reminded the Committee that Winchester City Council and Havant Borough Council had agreed to appoint this Joint Committee to streamline and improve the decision making process for dealing with applications relating to the West of Waterlooville Major Development Area.

This new committee was comprised of councillors from both councils; 5 from Winchester and 4 from Havant and replaced  the procedure which involved the Planning Development Control/Development Management Committees of Winchester and Havant meeting together to consider the applications.

To receive any disclosure of interests from Members and Officers in matters to be discussed.

Note:  Councillors are reminded of their obligations to declare Code of Conduct interests and on Predetermination or Bias.

If you require advice, please contact the appropriate Democratic Services Officer, prior to the meeting.

Councillor Read declared a personal but not prejudicial interest in respect of applications 13/02843/FUL/ W19499/27 (WCC), APP/14/00032 (HBC), 14/00068/REM (WCC), APP/14/00061 (HBC) and 14/00092/REM due to his role as Chairman of the West of Waterlooville Forum. He advised that he had not seen or spoken about these applications and remained in the room and spoke and voted

Proposal:            (AMENDED PLANS) Residential development comprising 103 no. dwellings with associated on-site infrastructure

Parish:                Denmead

Proposal:           (AMENDED PLANS) Residential development comprising 103 no. dwellings with associated on-site infrastructure

The Committee considered the written report and recommendation of the Head of Development Management of Winchester City Council to grant permission.

Arising from members’ questions it was clarified that:

(a)             the density of the proposal was similar to the density of other residential phases within the major development area;

(b)             the loss of this employment site could be justified because it was not recognised as a strategic employment site by the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership and recent evidence demonstrated that less floor space was required to create the level of jobs envisaged when the Major Development Area was first proposed. In addition the applicant had supported the application with a marketing exercise that proved that there was no demand for the site as employment land;

(c)             other retained areas for employment due to their location were not suitable for residential use and would be retained for employment use;   

(d)             changes had been made to the position of some of the access gates to residential gardens to address security issues;

(e)             although the concentration of some of the affordable housing in the west end of the site was not ideal, the proposals complied with the requirements set out in Section 106 Agreement for the rest of the MDA and this arrangement was acceptable;

(f)              the garden amenity space for units 551 – 554 was considered adequate;

(g)             the change from 3 bed flats over garages to 2 bed units was requested by the officers;

(h)             the materials proposed for rendering was of a high quality and would be the same materials used for other phases in this development; the existing staining problem raised by members was likely to be maintenance issue;

(i)               the officers noted that some members were concerned about the bund and agreed it was important to ensure that the bund was appropriately designed and recommended a condition requiring the approval of details including height, profile, planting details and future maintenance of the feature to ensure that the members’ concerns were adequately addressed;

(j)               the main roads within the development would be offered for adoption by the highway authority: the maintenance of the other roads and parking courts would be private;

(k)             the scheme had been designed to provide safe pedestrian routes across the entire major development area so as to encourage residents not to use vehicles;

(l)               bollards prevented vehicles onto the common; and

The Committee was addressed by Mrs Caine, on behalf of the Old Park Farm Residents Association and Civic Society, who raised the following issues:

(1)             the traffic likely to be generated by the proposed increase in housing would interfere with the free flow of traffic on the single access road  and exacerbate the existing problem of on street parking; and

(2)             the proposed increase in housing, without adequate play areas or a community building, would exacerbate the existing anti social behavioural problems experienced by residents of the area;

In response to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Proposal:            Reserved Matters application for 246 residential dwellings, phase 2 of the Berewood development within the West of Waterlooville MDA development (to meet the requirements of Condition 6, together with discharge of conditions 3 (Compliance with outline documents), 4 ((Compliance with Design Code), 11 (noise mitigation) and 16 (Construction management Plan), of Outline permissions for HBC APP/10/00828 and WCC 120/02862/OUT

Parish:                Southwick and Widley

Ward:                  Stakes

Proposal:           Reserved Matters Application for 246 residential dwellings, phase 2 of the Berewood development within the West of Waterlooville MDA development (to meet the requirements of Condition 6, together with discharge of conditions 3 (Compliance with outline documents), 4 (Compliance with Design Code), 11 (noise mitigation) and 16 (Construction Management Plan), of Outline permissions for HBC APP/10/00828 and WCC 10/02862/OUT).

The Committee considered the written report and recommendation of the Executive Head of Planning and Built Environment and Head of Development Management together with an update issued prior to the meeting.

The Committee was advised that Appendix A showed the location of those objectors, who could be identified: a further anonymous representation had been received.

Arising from Members’ questions, it was clarified that:

(1)             The density quoted of 31 dph was calculated for the area that included the application site and the infrastructure of the central spine road and SUDs; without the inclusion of these features the density for the application site would be a higher figure;

(2)             that nature of the boundary along the London Road would prevent breakthroughs;

(3)             the distances between the gas valve compound and the proposed housing was such that it should not materially affect the amenities of the residents of these properties;

(4)             no objections had been received from the gas provider or fire service;

(5)             the marginal shortfall in affordable housing would be provided elsewhere in the major development area in accordance with the Section 106 Agreement;

(6)             the Master Plan did not require the link to the school to be provided for at least another two years;

(7)             there was adequate space for parking at the school either on street or using vacant land; and

(8)             there was a difference between the Code for Sustainable Homes Levels adopted by the Councils, through their Local Plans (Havant required level 3 and Winchester code level 4 for water and 5 for energy) – in this case the open market homes would achieve level 3. This was considered acceptable by officers because most of the dwellings were located in Havant and it would not be reasonable to apply Winchester’s policy to the handful of market housing in their part of the site. However, all the affordable housing across the entire site would be required to meet Level 4;

Following debate, the Committee agreed

(a)             to grant planning permission for the reasons (and subject to the conditions) as set out in the Report and the update;

(b)             that the Executive Head of Planning and Built Environment at Havant Borough Council and the Head of Development  Management at Winchester City Council  be authorised to approve the discharge of Conditions 3 (Compliance with outline documents), 4 (Compliance with Design Code), 11 (noise mitigation) and 16 (Construction Management Plan),of Planning Permissions for HBC APP/10/00828 and WCC 10/02862/OUT

Proposal:            Reserved matters Application for landscaping of Phase A of the Town Park (under Condition 6(i)(d)), together with discharge of Condition 6(ii)(f)(ecological mitigation) and condition 3 (Compliance with outline documents) of Planning Permissions for HBC APP/10/00828 and WCC 10/02862/OUT

Parish:                Southwick and Widley

Ward:                  Stakes

Proposal:            Reserved Matters Application for landscaping of Phase A of the Town Park (under Condition 6(i)d)), together with discharge of Condition 6(ii)(f)(ecological mitigation) and condition 3  (Compliance with outline documents) of Planning Permissions for HBC APP/10/00828 and WCC 10/02862/OUT.

The Committee considered the written report and recommendation of the Executive Head of Planning and Built Environment  and Head of Development Management together with an update.

Arising from members’ questions, it was clarified that::

(1)             the village green was not a “village green” as defined by legislation; and

(2)             the amphitheatre would be grassland.

Mr Fletcher, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application emphasising that Redrow and Grainger were committed to providing an open space facility that would benefit the whole community. He further advised that work was underway on the design of the skateboard park and  additional landscaping features.

Following debate, the Committee agreed:

(a)             to grant planning permission for the reasons (and subject to the conditions) as set out in the Report and

(b)             that the Executive Head of Planning and Built Environment at Havant Borough Council and the Head of Development  Management at Winchester City Council  be authorised to APPROVE the discharge of Condition 6(ii)(f)(ecological mitigation) and condition 3  (Compliance with outline documents) of Planning Permissions for HBC APP/10/00828 and WCC 10/02862/OUT.