Winchester City Council Planning subcommittee |
Public meeting re Longacre application, Otterbourne Village Hall
|
| see also the Hampshire Chronicle report of the meeting |
 The crowded hall waiting for the meeting to begin. In all, about 80 members of the public attended. David Atwell (standing, left), Chairman of WCC planning committee, took the chair and banned photography during the meeting itself. |
| The meeting began with Sian Proudlock from Winchester City Council summarising
the 80-odd letters of objections and a presentation from the applicant's
architects explaining how they planed to fit a block of 12 flats, 5 further
dwellings and an underground car park onto the site of what is currently
a single house, Longacre, in Hurdle Way.
The proposed development is on page 7 of the City Council's weekly list of applications dated 8 April 2003 at http://www.winchester.gov.uk/planning/applications/2003/april/rec08042003.pdf Then the meeting was opened to questions and comments from the public, many focusing on the inadequacy of Hurdle Way to take about twice the number of cars as at present, with consequent danger to walkers and horse riders. |
Submission from Compton & Shawford Parish Council (Councillor Bell)[This is a slightly edited version of the notes used by Martin Bell for his submission] "This case will be a landmark decision, crucial in determining the future of Compton Down."The policies being applied are new and there is not yet sufficient certainty about their application through Inspectors' rulings to allow developments of this significance to proceed without absolute confidence. "It is also uncertain whether Compton Down will remain in H2 designation following the local plan enquiry. We heard that two other planning bodies, Eastleigh and Romsey, are currently refusing similar applications on the grounds that blocks of flats are out of character with their areas, basing these decisions on guidance from PPG3. I would ask that if there is any doubt in your minds, you reject the application. "One reason why PPG3 does not require minimum densities (contrary to the officers' report) is that quite clearly there will be occasions, such as this, where large scale, dense development fails other aspects of PPG3, e.g. reflecting local character or sufficiency of infrastructure. Hence a degree of flexibility is given in order to avoid such contradictions. Indeed there are more guidelines in PPG3 that oppose this development than support it. The officers seem to have failed to point these out. "Winchester City Council's own work shows that Compton Down fails to meet H2 sustainability criteria. The Urban Capacity Study, using prescribed methodology, found one additional house appropriate for this site. To quote the Urban Capacity Study "The Winchester District Urban Capacity Study is consistent with Planning Policy Guidance Note 3:Housing and addresses the principles of Good Practice Guidance etc"….further "The Winchester District Urban Capacity Study has been a thorough and comprehensive process, helping to ensure the reliability of its results". To repeat, this study found one additional house suitable for this site. "There are at least five material planning considerations on which this application fails, each one a good reason for refusal.
"One is enough but this plan should be rejected on all five." |