The Planning Committee has decided to refuse permission for the construction of 48 dwellings due to failure to provide on-site affordable housing and concerns about biodiversity net gain.

URL: https://democracy.winchester.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1367

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: Proposal Description: Item 6: (AMENDED) Application for demolition of all buildings, and the construction of 48 dwellings, formation of a new access onto Kilham Lane, provision of landscaping, public open space and drainage (phased development).  It was noted that the majority of the committee had visited the application site on 10 June 2025 to enable members to observe the site in context and to gain a better appreciation of the proposals. The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out the following:   (i)           Changes to the Legal Agreement – Head of Terms: 1.    Affordable Housing financial contribution to Winchester City Council a.    £2.1million (index linked) to be paid in different triggers during the construction of the development.    2.    Traffic Regulation Order / Section 278 agreement and financial contribution of £15,000 to Hampshire County Council a.    To remove on-street parking on the north side of Kilham Lane to facilitate the vehicular accesses 3.    Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees (CAVAT) Assessment financial contribution of £13,233 to Hampshire County Council a.    Regarding felling of trees in highways land to enable the formation of the vehicular accesses and their visibility splays 4.    Traffic mitigation measures - financial contribution of £210,000 to Hampshire County Council a.    Towards either pedestrian or cycle improvements on local Cycling and walking infrastructure plan (LCWIP) route 260, or a capacity improvement scheme at the Kilham Lane/Romsey Road signal junction based on drawing 151.0013-0013 Rev P02 to provide additional flare length on Kilham Lane to allow 3 cars to wait side by side. 5.    Travel Plan – including approval and monitoring fees of £15,000 to Hampshire County Council a.    A travel plan to be submitted to, and approved in writing, the County Council.  6.    Common Parts and Public Open Space management, maintenance and monitoring fees a.    The nature and location of soft landscaping and Public Open Space to be provided on the Development; b.    The nature and location of any hard landscaping works to be provided on the Development; c.    The location of the LEAP; d.    The specification of and equipment to be provided on the LEAP; e.    the timing of the delivery and the transfer of the Public Open Space and Common Parts to the Management Company and for the ongoing management and maintenance of the Public Open Space and Common Parts, including for the avoidance of doubt provisions for the rectification of any defects in any area of the Public Open Space and Common Parts until the completion of the relevant transfer of the Public Open Space and Common Parts to the Management Company. f.     All paths to be public with connections to entrances into and out of the site, remaining open – a plan to be included in the legal agreement to illustrate the location of the same.  (ii)          Affordable Housing:             For this planning application, a Viability Study was submitted which             was considered and an external validation was obtained.             The outcome of this process was that the proposed development will          provide affordable housing off site due to the site constraints and costs    of providing affordable housing on site. A financial contribution of £2.1          million was therefore negotiated based upon the external assessment   increasing the AH provision from 0% to 40% from the original                        submission. The council’s consultants confirmed that the £2.1million           would equate to 19 affordable housings off site.  This equates to the     40% affordable dwellings needed for this site.    (iii)         An amendment to the wording of Condition 10 to remove reference to ‘above DPC level’.   (iv)         Additional Conditions as follows:             Details of the construction and specifications of the internal roadways         shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning                      Authority prior to the development commencing. The roadways shall            thereafter be laid out in accordance with the approved details prior to           occupation of the first dwelling.                                     Reason: To ensure appropriate provision of the non adopted highways.               Visibility Splays shall be laid and provided in accordance with plan               drawing reference 151.0013-0003 P07 prior to the occupation of the         dwellings hereby permitted.   Reason: In the interests of highway safety.             A verbal update was provided at the meeting by the planning case officer noting an objection received from Councillor Cook which made reference to the following three points:   (i)           Inadequate support for active travel; (ii)          The lack of clarity regarding plans to maintain existing pedestrian access to the planned development; and (iii)         The lack of any affordable housing being offered.   During public participation, Peter de Groot spoke in objection to the application and Stuart Garnett, Gemma Saffhill and Shannon Betteridge spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.   Councillor Tod spoke as contiguous Ward Member in objection to the application. In summary, Councillor Tod raised the following points:   1.    Spoke as Ward Member for St Paul Ward, which bordered the application site, and the County Councillor for Winchester Westgate, which encompassed the entire area. 2.    Councillor Tod stated his opposition to the application, with the fundamental reason being that it looked to deliver a public benefit off-site which should have been delivered on-site. He felt this raised important planning policy questions for the committee to investigate. 3.    He had previously raised three issues in a written submission: transport and access, the maintenance of that access, and the provision of affordable housing, noting the original application had no such provision. 4.    He supported concerns raised by the objector who spoke regarding the use of management companies, which resulted in some residents paying a "double charge" for services that were publicly funded for others. 5.    While the transport maintenance issue appeared resolved, the access plans were considered inadequate. They were based on flawed assumptions, such as all traffic turning right from the development, which ignored the reality of "rat-running" on Kilham Lane and the extremely poor pedestrian access. 6.    He believed that the issue of biodiversity net gain also warranted discussion, as there was a deficit of habitat units to reach the required target, and the committee needed to explore if everything possible was being done to deliver the expected net gain on-site. 7.    Councillor Tod emphasised that the most significant issue was the affordable housing contribution. He cited policy CP3, which stated that developments were expected to provide 40% of the gross number of dwellings as affordable housing on-site, unless specific criteria for off-site provision were met. 8.    He argued that although a financial contribution was now offered, there was no reference to how this off-site provision would better meet priority housing needs as required by policy. 9.    In conclusion, Councillor Tod contended that the council's policy was for developments to deliver housing on-site and that the 40% requirement should be calculated based on the gross number of dwellings, not a lesser figure. Councillor Porter spoke as Cabinet Member for Place and Local Plan in objection to the application. In summary, Councillor Porter raised the following points: 1.    Councillor Porter expressed regret over the lack of affordable housing on the site, which was described as a highly sustainable location with a strong precedent for affordable housing, good employment, public transport, and schooling. 2.    It was noted that while the reason given for the lack of affordable housing was non-viability, an independent view had suggested a financial contribution of between £2.1 and £3 million would be a reasonable alternative. 3.    She stated that the key to delivering affordable housing was land, and expressed disappointment that no land had been identified on which to build the 19 homes that the financial contribution was intended to fund. 4.    A concern was raised that the open space was enclosed within the site and, based on past experience, a management company could potentially change the terms of public use over time. 5.    Assurance was sought that the open space would be genuinely open to the public and easily accessible for all. 6.    A request was made for a strong condition to be included in the S106 agreement to ensure the open space was attached to the land in perpetuity. 7.    The need for the development to have access to other facilities, including the park and ride route and local schools was emphasised. 8.    In conclusion, Councillor Porter referred to the contradiction between the government stating affordable housing was a priority and the committee considering an application for 48 homes with no on-site affordable provision, which was a situation she deeply regretted. The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.   RESOLVED:                           The committee agreed to refuse permission for the following                         reasons:   (i)            The development fails to accord with policy CP3 of Local Plan Part 1 (LPP1) as it fails to provide on-site provision of housing (ii)          Nutrients and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) (iii)         Offsite contributions - lack of mechanism or S106 Legal agreement securing infrastructure.                           The precise wording to be delegated to the Chair of Planning                        Committee, in consultation with the Service Lead: Built                                 Environment.

Date of Decision: June 11, 2025