One two-storey dwelling at Land South Of Bereweeke Way, Winchester

The site

The approximately 870-square-metre site lies at the north-west corner of college playing fields, beside a nursery and an existing dwelling.

“The Application Site (approximately 870 square metres in size) is located at the northern western corner of the existing Peter Symonds College playing fields. It comprises a rectangular section of land which is separated from Bereweeke Way (to the north) by a mature screen of landscaping and trees. Bereweeke Way itself is an adopted but unclassified highway. A day nursery adjoins the south boundary of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier proposal for three houses was refused and dismissed on appeal after extending into protected open space and including ball-stop netting.

“By way of background, this planning application follows a previous application for 3 dwellings which was refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal. This previous application proposed a larger development area, extending east into the playing fields and encroaching into the formally designated protected open area). This previous scheme would have resulted in the loss of approximately 1100m 2 of designed open space.”

“Loss of protected open space without clear justification contrary to policy CP7 of LPP1 and policy DM5 of LPP2, as well as the corresponding policies of the NPPF • The proposed ball stop netting would result in harm to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area and would be contrary to policies DM15, DM16 and DM17 of LPP2.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

The dwelling would sit within Winchester’s built-up area, address the earlier appeal concerns and avoid unacceptable harm to character, neighbours, trees or biodiversity.

“The development is recommended for permission because it lies within the built up area of Winchester where the general principle of new residential development is supported and also supports the NPPF objectives of boosting housing supply and promoting sustainable development and efficient use of land. The development design fully addresses the reasons which led to the predecessor application (reference 21/00726/FUL) being dismissed on appeal.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Highways, drainage, trees and ecology officers raised no objections subject to conditions, while the Trust and 19 objectors opposed the proposal.

“Service Lead – Engineering (Drainage) – No objections subject to conditions (Condition 5):”

“Service Lead – Sustainability and Natural Environment (Trees) – No objections subject to conditions ensuring protection / retention of trees (Conditions 16 – 20)”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker opposed the application and another supported it; both answered members’ questions.

Members considered the proposal

The committee asked questions and debated the application after hearing the two speakers.

“During public participation, [name withheld] spoke in objection to the application and [name withheld] spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.”

“The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Permission was granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out for the application.

“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.”

Minutes