TrustNews Mar 20
Planning Appraisal Group
There is always a period over Christmas and New Year when the number of applications coming in to be reviewed slows to a trickle, and this year was no exception. However, the New Year brings pay back time. I think we have now caught up and are seeing 2020 applications coming through.
We have not recently objected to many applications, although we have tried to make constructive suggestions for modifications in several cases, especially those for large extensions which threaten loss of light to neighbouring gardens. We do also try to hold the line on shop frontages. 5 Southgate Street is one example where we objected to the initial proposal to put in an expanse of plate glass. Historic Environment Officers agreed that there was a need for stall risers (bases to the windows) and a more traditional look. The approved drawings have been significantly revised to conform with these suggestions. We also in general object if there is a proposal to put illuminated signs (whether projecting or in the window) on the High Street.
We encountered LDP (Lawful Development Certificate for Proposed Use) applications for poorly designed large ‘sheds on the roof’ which yet again demonstrate the deleterious effects of permitted development. These applications are determined on a purely legal basis on which we cannot comment. The question is simply whether what is proposed is within the de?nition of what is permitted.
Another application which raised a concern that our panel was not really able to address was 6 Woodpeckers Drive (19/O2677/FUL). This is an application from Alfred Homes to demolish the existing house and replace with four new houses. This is the same company that has been doing other developments on adjoining sites in Weeke (including Meadowlands). Our panel expressed concern at the piecemeal way in which three adjoining sites had been acquired by the same developer within a relatively short timescale and put forward for separate planning approvals while linking the sites. The developers are linking the designs for individual houses, but their approach means that access, landscaping, for parking and other issues cannot be considered as a coherent whole. No doubt it also has an impact on other aspects, such as contributions to affordable housing and CIL. The planning authority was asked to consider whether these really are separate sites and whether they should be dealt with separately, although as things stand this seems to be quite possible.
Previously we alerted you to an issue concerning nitrate levels in the Solent, something you may also have seen discussed in the Hampshire Chronicle as a result of complaints from smaller local developers negatively impacted by delays in planning permission. This has had implications for Winchester District among others. WCC has held back on a signi?cant number of planning cases and has now issued a paper outlining its position. This is a lengthy document and one which leaves me with a far from clear understanding of the Council's position. It does seem clear that the whole of Winchester District (excluding the South Downs National Park) is implicated. It is also clear that part of the problem is the mixed messages coming from central government - a requirement of nitrogen neutrality from Natural England, a no change policy from the Department of the Environment (which includes not imposing higher standards on sewage treatment works) and no let upon the housing push. This leaves planning authorities in the affected region in a dif?cult position. WCC has requested clari?cation from central government, but in the meantime has faced pressure from small developers to develop an interim policy, which is what we now have. This basically seems to place an additional obligation on developers who will have to address this issue in their planning application before it can be approved. It also places an additional responsibility on those reviewing documentation. The additional condition to be attached to any planning permission for new development would be:
The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until:
“A water ef?ciency calculation which demonstrates that no more than 105 litres of water per person per day shall be consumed within the development, and this calculation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. [2016 Building Regulations require 125 litres or less per person per day of potable water. Sustainable homes level 3-4 requires 105 l/p/day or less, level 4 requires 90 I/p/day or less.]
“A mitigation package addressing the additional nutrient input arising from the development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such mitigation package shall address all of the additional nutrient load imposed on protected European sites by the development when fully occupied and shall allow the Local Planning Authority to ascertain on the basis of the best available scienti?c evidence that such additional nutrient loading will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the protected European Sites, having regard to the conservation objectives for those sites;” and
“All measures forming part of that mitigation secured along with an implementation strategy agreed with the Local Planning Authority.”
Reason: To accord with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and Policy CP11, CP16 and CP21 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1.
The wording of the proposed condition will need to be reviewed to ensure it is legally effective bearing in mind the policy tests for conditions outlined above. For sites on agricultural land that are nitrogen neutral, or in other circumstances, alternative conditions or Section 106 legal agreement may be required depending on the circumstances in each case.
In addition WCC proposes to develop an avoidance and mitigation package to assist applicants, and this will include reviewing the scope for additional water use reduction measures in WCC owned housing stock. It promises to work with partners to identify opportunities to secure agricultural land de-commissioning (which can be used for offsetting) if the developer has no other means of meeting the requirement. There will be a fee for this service.
Finally, l received a request from PAG panel members to provide an annual summary of the number of cases in which their objections had any impact. So l did take a look at 2019. This turned out to be much more complicated than I had anticipated so this is just a very preliminary report (where the numbers don't quite add up!). The reason it is quite hard to work out is because of the delay between our comments and a decision being made on an application; this can be quick or it can be quite a long time. To get a more accurate picture l should really analyse all the applications that start with 19/... and see what the decision was, but until this week we were still reviewing those applications. So please take this as a very rough estimate.
ln 2019 we reviewed 462 applications, objected to 79, commented on 159 and made no comment on 224.
So in 2019 we objected to just under 16% of applications (but some of these were holdovers from 2018).
Of these:
12 were refused; 10 were allowed after modifications; 19 were allowed; 10 were withdrawn.
There are currently at least 20 undecided cases where we had objected.
I know the numbers don't quite add up and will do another analysis once all the 19/.. cases have been decided.
Mary Tiles
Members and Public Comments
The Trust welcomes informative comments from local people, but must avoid being influenced by vested interests or personal matters. Individuals who believe their interests are being threatened by proposed schemes are advised to contact their Ward Councillors, who have more influence over such matters. If you would like to see details of Trust objections to planning applications and their fate, please go to the monthly PAG reports on our website.