Land North of Winchfield Court

LAND NORTH OF WINCHFIELD COURT

Residents will be aware that the land north of Winchfield Court is being offered for sale as individual plots, either privately or, failing accepted offers, by public auction. The photographs on the Rightmove website give a projection of how houses might be built on the land. This is misleading, as planning applications for development have been refused repeatedly in the past. In addition, the agents, Barnard Marcus, wrongly describe the building on the site as 'a pumping station or similar’. In fact, it is what was a mortuary, when Winchfield Court housed a hospital. It is in a poor state of repair, but, according to the Victorian Society, it is of heritage value.

The land has a long planning history dating back to when Winchfield Court was first converted into housing in the mid-1980s.

On the 19th August 1985 the owners, Lacken Construction Limited, signed a Section. 52 Agreement (now known as a Section 106 agreement) relating to the site with Hart District Council (Hart) as a requirement of the planning permission to convert Winchfield Court to residential use.This agreement stated:

not without the consent in writing of the Council such consent not to be unreasonably withheld to cause or permit the site to be used for any purpose other than that as an area of open space…

In 1996, Application 96/00865/OUT for 21 houses was refused permission by Hart.
In 1997, an appeal against the above refusal (T/APP/N130/A/97/278561/P5) was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.

In 1999, when reviewing the then Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006, the Planning Inspector created a new settlement boundary around Winchfield Court but directed the site should remain outside it. This settlement boundary remains in place today.

In June 2014, Hart refused permission for Application 14/00707/MAJOR for 18 homes.

On 1 November 2017 two parallel planning applications were submitted for 17 and 10 houses on the site: ref. 17/02621/FUL and 17/02620/FUL respectively.Both were refused by Hart on 18th June 2018. The full reason for refusal for both applications was:

The site is located in the countryside outside any settlement as defined in the Hart District Local Plan and is located significant distances from higher order facilities. This means that the site would only be accessible by the private car for most journeys. The proposed development would be located adjacent to a settlement which falls within the lowest order within the settlement hierarchy. Although the proposal would bring the benefit of additional housing and affordable housing the balance lies against granting planning permission as the proposal does not represent sustainable development. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policies RUR2 and RUR3 of the Hart District Local Plan and the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

The appeals lodged against both refusals were dismissed on 3 July 2019 and the reasons given would be relevant for any future applications. All planning documents are available on Hart District Council’s website, but the Inspector’s conclusion was:

The proposals would result in an additional 17 dwellings (of which 7 would be affordable) and 10 dwellings respectively which would be a useful contribution to housing supply and have significant economic and social benefits for the area. The workhouse mortuary building, a non-designated heritage asset but now in poor condition, would be retained and restored which would also be a benefit. However, as explained above, neither proposal would comprise an acceptable form of development having regard to development plan policy and the prevailing character of the area. Both proposals would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole and in neither case would the benefits outweigh this conflict. The appeals should therefore be dismissed.

On 23 October 2019, Hart issued pre-application advice on a further proposal for 6 houses on the site, similar to those shown in the illustrations on Rightmove. The advice concluded:

Having considered the benefits and disbenefits of the proposal, the benefits would not in my opinion outweigh the harm to the locality and the conflict with the Development Plan.

I am therefore of the opinion that the proposed housing development would not be appropriate or supported….

The Hart website (Hart Maps) shows the planning constraints relating to the site including 9 trees subject to tree preservation orders as shown on this plan.

If anyone has any questions about the above, please contact the Secretary of Winchfield Court Residents Limited.