Winchester Local Plan Examination Hearings will take place on 3 June 2025. The following responses have been provided to the Inspector's advance questions.
Matter 16: Creating a vibrant economy (including site allocations)
Winchester employment allocations: Policy W5 Bushfield Camp
Inspector Question 1: What would be the status of the masterplan? In dealing with matters to ensure the development of the site is acceptable in planning terms, would the policy be effective?
Policy D5 refers to Masterplans/concept masterplans but does not distinguish between the two; it is not clear, therefore, what is the status of the masterplan for this site. Whilst supported by Cabinet, it has not been considered by the Planning Committee.
Policy D5 (i) expects masterplans to provide, in addition to an indicative layout, a phasing and implementation plan. The developer’s Masterplan for Bushfield includes no such information, therefore fails to ensure that the development of the site is acceptable in planning terms.
Appendix A provides further analysis of the masterplan.
Inspector Question 2: Given site constraints, including its location:
(i) within a settlement gap, close to the South Downs National Park, its open green qualities;
(ii) current use by the community,
(iii) biodiversity and natural habitats and
(iv) transport impacts,
how has the developable area been defined (approximately 20Ha). Should this be included within the policy?
Q2 (i) within a settlement gap, close to the South Downs National Park, its open green qualities.
Policy WT3 of the extant Local Plan allocated 20ha of land at Bushfield Camp for Employment Use. The proposed allocation is for a range of mixed uses within the 43ha of land owned by the Church Commissioners.
The developable area appears to have been based on the curtilage of a derelict military camp site. This was requisitioned by the War Office in 1939 to meet a national emergency, but was not returned to use as agricultural land at the end of hostilities.
The allocation of 20 ha for employment related use was never justified on planning grounds. In the draft 2013 Plan, WT3 allocated Bushfield Camp for ‘Opportunity Use’, which the Inspector then modified to ‘Employment Use’.
WT3 was not supported by an assessment of the impact that the development would have on the surrounding downland landscape. Furthermore, the site fails to meet the definition of Previously Developed Land as set out in the glossary to the NPPF, which states:
Previously developed land excludes: … land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape.
The remains of structures constructed in relation to the site’s temporary wartime use have now blended into the landscape. Therefore, we contend that the site should no longer be considered as PDL.
Appendix B references the planning history of the site from the 1960’s. All proposals were rejected on the grounds that the only appropriate uses for the site were agriculture and recreation. Appendix B also refers to landscape studies produced for the site.
Landscape studies and consideration of planning applications, over a period of forty years, have consistently concluded that the site should not be developed, but should be used for either agriculture or recreation.
The developable area of 20ha has not been clearly defined in planning terms, nor fully assessed against the site constraints. This work should have preceded its allocation in Policy WT3 of the extant Plan and Policy W5 of this Plan.
The site is situated in the countryside and in a strategic gap, where the following policies apply:
Emerging Local Plan
1. Strategic Policy SP3 Development in the Countryside
2. Policy NE7 Settlement Gaps
3. Policy NE8 South Downs National Park
4. Policy NE9 Landscape Character
5. Policy NE14 Rural Character
NPPF
6. Paragraph 180
In conclusion, the site is an area of open chalk downland that adjoins the South Downs National Park and forms part of the landscape setting for the City of Winchester. Any development in this location must comply with the above policies which are: not to create unacceptable noise, light, traffic generation; to maintain the open and undeveloped nature of the settlement gap; to conserve and enhance the unenclosed open downland; and to avoid visual intrusion and impact on tranquillity. When assessed against these policies, the proposed allocation will have an unacceptable impact on this valued landscape, of a magnitude to make Policy W5 unsound.
Q2 (ii) current use by the community.
The site is an area of natural beauty on the edge of four densely populated residential areas.
Policy W5 fails to consider the unique nature of the area as a community resource. The entire site, including the permissive access area and the disused camp has been regularly used for lawful recreations by the surrounding communities for at least the past 50 years, documented in local residents’ testimonies as part of the 2008 application for Town and Village Green status.
Bushfield constitutes an important ‘green lung’ and recreation resource for the four surrounding communities which constitute a significant population: Badger Farm, Stanmore, St Cross, and Olivers Battery.
It offers extraordinary access to an open space for local residents, providing a very special kind of freedom to local people who run, walk their dogs, explore with their children, and engage in other recreational activities.
Prior findings relating to local community use:
In considering the application for Town & Village Green status Leslie Blohm QC (now His Honour Judge Blohm KC) found that an application for the entire Bushfield area to be designated as a Town and Village Green was sound and duly made.
The relevant sub-section of the statutory Framework of the 2006 Town & Village Green Act states an area is appropriate for designation as a ‘green space’ where:
(a) a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of
any neighbourhood within a locality, indulged as of right in lawful
sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years.
In the subsequent judgement in the High Court of Justice, The Church Commissioners for England and Hampshire County Council and Barbara Guthrie, 10 July 2013 (Case number CO/8047/2012), Mr Justice Collins found that the application for Bushfield to become a Town & Village Green was sound.
This decision was overturned in the Court of Appeal, on application of the Church Commissioners, on a time technicality.
Notwithstanding the appeal, the findings of Blohm and Collins defined in law that the entire Bushfield area constitutes an important ‘green space’ area of significance and utility for local residents.
The 1997 ‘Bushfield Camp’ Study published by the Planning Department, Winchester City Council reported the ‘sense of openness and the site’s importance’:
“there are parts of the site which, because of their topology/visibility, ecology, archaeology and/or essential value to the setting of St Cross, are totally unsuited to built development in any significant form.”
Further evidence of community use is set out in Appendix C.
Q2 (iii) biodiversity and natural habitats
From a biodiversity and natural habitats perspective, the designation of approximately 20 hectares of Bushfield Camp as “developable” is not justified. The area includes land designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), recognised by Winchester City Council for its remnant chalk grassland, a priority habitat under the NERC Act 2006.
Despite this ecological significance, Policy W5 imposes no clear restrictions on density, floorspace, or form of development within the 20-hectare allocation. This omission allows developers to pursue high-density, high-impact schemes, such as the one currently under consideration, where the scale of development would present a substantial threat to biodiversity for the following reasons:
I. Reduced Ecological Connectivity and Network Fragmentation
Bushfield Camp lies at the intersection of local and regional green corridors and is a vital stepping stone habitat connecting the South Downs National Park to green spaces across Winchester. It contributes directly to the Nature Recovery Network (NRN), and its development risks severing this connectivity, contrary to national and local policy. This fragmentation undermines landscape-scale ecological resilience and will negatively impact species movement, including for bats, dormice, and butterflies.
II. Air Pollution and Road Traffic Impacts
Increased vehicle movements will raise levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx), which degrade nutrient-poor chalk grassland within the Bushfield Camp SINCs and contribute to nutrient enrichment in the River Itchen SAC and SSSI through atmospheric deposition and surface water runoff.
III. Urban Runoff and Nutrient Loading
Urbanisation increases impervious surfaces and leads to higher volumes of nutrient enriched runoff (containing nitrogen and phosphorus), directly impacting the River Itchen SAC. This will contravene Policy NE16 and necessitate a full Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) under the Habitats Regulations.
IV. Eutrophication of Designated Water Sites
Nutrient discharges via foul wastewater present a credible risk of eutrophication of the River Itchen SAC, the Solent Maritime SPA and Ramsar site, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar site. Such effects risk a finding of “likely significant effect” under HRA, making the proposed allocation potentially unlawful without substantial evidence and mitigation.
V. Wildlife Disturbance and Habitat Loss
Increased disturbance from people, pets, lighting, and noise will impact a range of protected and sensitive species, including Hazel Dormice, Otters, Kingfishers, Woodlarks, and Nightjars, all of which are known to be present on or adjacent to the site.
VI. Increased Predation and Competition
Urbanisation supports opportunistic species (e.g. rats, magpies, foxes) that prey on or outcompete more vulnerable species. These indirect effects are rarely mitigated effectively and further erode site biodiversity value.
VI. Increased Predation and Competition
High-density development can disrupt the microclimate of chalk downland, harming sensitive flora and fauna, including orchids (bee, pyramidal) and chalk grassland butterflies.
VIII. Light Pollution
Overnight accommodation and commercial uses will introduce artificial lighting, which will degrade nocturnal habitat quality and alter predator-prey dynamics (e.g. increasing predation of dormice). This is particularly concerning given the site’s elevated and exposed topography and proximity to the South Downs National Park, a designated Dark Sky Reserve.
Flawed Justification of the Developable Area:
The designation of the 20-hectare “developable” area appears to be based on the historic footprint of the former military camp, rather than a robust ecological assessment. There is no evidence that this boundary reflects seasonal biodiversity survey data, functional ecological value, or buffer zones. This approach is inconsistent with the mitigation hierarchy required by Natural England and the IUCN and fails to meet the expectations of the Environment Act 2021.
Notably, the Environment Act 2021 mandates a minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) for all qualifying developments. Given the site’s existing high ecological value, achieving a genuine 10% BNG on or off-site will be extremely challenging and may not be feasible without loss of ecological function.
Wider Policy Context and Conflict:
• The proposed allocation appears to be in direct conflict with Winchester City Council’s declaration of a Nature Emergency (September 2023). Proceeding with this level of development on a SINC undermines the Council’s own biodiversity commitments.
• The site lies adjacent to the South Downs National Park. Under the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA), local authorities have a statutory duty to seek to further the purposes of National Parks, not simply avoid harm. This includes the protection of natural beauty, wildlife, and cultural heritage.
Appendix D sets out recommended amendments should the allocation be retained.
Q2 (iv) transport impacts
There are fundamental transport emission challenges in locating economic development at a site like Bushfield, on the edge of town. Modelling so far has demonstrated the likelihood of excessive traffic growth.
The site is remote from other activity areas and public transport facilities, and as such will pose major difficulties for keeping its transport emissions low enough. It is likely that the allocation will lead to excessive additional transport emissions in a district where transport emissions are already unsustainably high.
Sections iv and v of Policy W5are so vague that they risk transport emissions that would undermine the Council’s Carbon Neutrality Action Plan’s target of net greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
References in Policy W5 v to the Winchester Movement Strategy and Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) are misleading since proposals have not been published for either. Discussions so far on the Winchester Movement Strategy have not included specific references to Bushfield, so this strategy in its current unfinished form provides no guidance for this site. No timetable has been given for consultation on final proposals for the Winchester Movement Strategy.
Policy W5 is unsound. It is not effective because it does not provide clear requirements to ensure that development would be consistent with the Council’s Carbon Neutrality Action Plan’s target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. It would conflict with Policy CN1 of the Reg19 Plan and with national policy in paragraph 11a and para 159 (previously 158) of the NPPF. Furthermore the allocation conflicts with paragraph 108 (was 110) (b) of the NPPF, as it has not been prepared with the active involvement of the highways authority or neighbouring council/s.
Question 3: What evidence supports the provision of office space within the 20 Hectares developable area?
See Question 4.
Question 4: What is the justification for the site’s development for high-quality flexible business use and employment space, an innovation hub/ education hub and creative industries? Given the commuting patterns in the district would this site deliver necessary social, economic or environmental development?
Questions 3 and 4 both refer to the justification for the proposed allocation. We have therefore dealt with these two questions together in order to avoid repetition.
The following statement responds to the above questions and does not seek to duplicate the original objection which also refers to the ambiguity of the wording of W5; the impact development at Bushfield Camp would have on Winchester city centre; and the site’s close proximity to junction 11 of the M3 which, in turn, means the development would relate to the wider sub-region rather than the city itself.
The need for and supply of additional office employment land
There is a significant lack of evidence to support the need for 20 hectares of office space at Bushfield Camp.
The Planning, Regeneration & Infrastructure Employment Land Study (July 2024) referred by Winchester City Council in their response to the Reg.18 local plan objections as the “updated employment land study and the Employment and Town Centre Uses Study 2024 or ETCUS.
ETCUS shows a need for office employment land to 2040 of: -
· 12.2 ha. based on an average of the three economic forecasts: or
· 3.3 ha. based on past completions (ETCUS table 54, p.110).
The 12.2 ha. need includes: -
· 3.4 ha. to replace offices lost to other uses (“replacement allowance”); and
· 0.8 ha. to create a “5-year margin” (ETCUS table 53, p. 109).
Currently, 4 city centre offices, comprising 97,000 sq.ft. have been/are being lost to other uses and impending local government reorganization could further reduce the need for office space in Winchester.
It is unsustainable to allocate countryside outside the city centre to replace office space lost to other uses within the centre. Recognising this, in November 2017 WCC issued an Article 4 Direction to control the loss of offices to residential.
On the need side, if the “replacement allowance” and “5-year margin” were to be excluded from the need for office employment land that need would fall to 8 ha.
On the supply side, if the 11.8 ha. of office employment land allocated at Bushfield Camp in Policy W5 were to be excluded the supply of office employment land would fall to 5.2ha. (The 11.8 ha. of office employment land is taken from WCC’s Response to Objections to the Reg. 18 local plan).
A supply of 5.2 ha. (without Bushfield Camp) is marginally close to the reduced need figure (based on average forecasts) and greater than the need of 3.3 ha. based on past completions.
Therefore, based on the evidence on the requirement for and supply of office employment land Policy W5 is not justified and is therefore unsound.
Commuting Patterns
ETCUS (pp. 44-45) demonstrates how strong Winchester’s economy is, thereby undermining any need for a further 11.8 ha. of employment land at Bushfield Camp:
“Winchester has a considerable commuting inflow with 11,318 more workers working in Winchester than residing there.” This net inflow may reflect its county town status.
“At the time of the 2021 Census 33,264 (55%) of Winchester’s working residents worked mainly from home or had no fixed workplace. Out of Winchester (district’s) 27,319 residents who commute to work, 13,293 work in Winchester (city), representing a 49% residence self-containment rate.”
ETCUS continues (para. 3.5.27)
· Winchester has a diverse economy with sectoral strengths in retail, health, professional scientific, and technical, education, and business administration and support services;
· Levels of homeworking are higher in Winchester compared to the national average;
· With regards to annual earnings, Winchester is broadly in line with the Hampshire and England average;
· (Figure 5. p. 40) Winchester’s employment rate is above that of Hampshire and England.
The increase in and high level of homeworking in Winchester is significant and beneficial as it retains the high spending power of Winchester’s resident workforce (by reducing out-commuting) without any need for additional office employment space which, in the case of Bushfield Camp, would have a severe environmental impact.
Therefore, the commuting patterns in the district mean that Bushfield Camp is not required to deliver necessary social, economic or environmental development.
Inspector Question 5: Would the policy require phasing to align with the delivery of sewage infrastructure?
Yes – if adopted Policy W5 must include a binding requirement for phasing to align with the delivery of sufficient foul and surface water infrastructure. Without this, the Local Plan risks failing the tests of soundness and breaching the Habitats Regulations and nutrient neutrality legal obligations.
Appendix E sets out changes that would be required to ensure legal compliance, protect the River Itchen SAC, and meet the requirements of nutrient neutrality and sound plan-making.
Inspector Question 6: This site allocation is being carried over from the extant Plan. Given that it has not delivered yet, what evidence is there that it will deliver within the submitted Plan period
There is no evidence to indicate that this allocation would be delivered within the submitted Plan period. As we explain in our Regulation 19 statement (paragraph 2.3), since the WT3 was allocated in 2013 no attempt has been made to develop the site as allocated.
The outline planning application made in 2023 is for mixed use, not the employment use allocated. The very fact that this application has stalled indicates that there remain serious barriers to delivery, one of which is presumably viability. However, failure to develop the site for the previously allocated use over a period of 12 years does not justify changing the allocation to a more harmful use.
Progress on the outline planning application has been glacial, such that it has already fallen far behind the masterplan timeline. Furthermore, the recent announcement that the developers propose to work in collaboration with Sparsholt College suggests a degree of desperation and confirms that this is a site in search of a use rather than an allocation that will meet an identified need.
Inspector Question 7: Should the policy include requirements in relation to the nutrient neutrality solutions and impacts on the River Itchen SAC for the purposes of soundness?
Yes — to be found sound, Policy W5 must include clear, enforceable requirements addressing nutrient neutrality and the protection of the River Itchen Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Without these, the policy risks non-compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), and the requirements of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA). These are set out in Appendix F.
Appendices to hearing statement from SBC
Appendix A (question 1 response)
Emerging Policy D5 refers to Masterplans/concept masterplans but does not make a distinction between the two; it is not at all clear therefore what the status of the masterplan for this site is. Whilst presented to and supported by Cabinet, it has not been considered by the Planning Committee.
Policy D5 (i) expects masterplans to provide, in addition to an indicative layout, a phasing and implementation plan. The developer’s Masterplan for Bushfield includes no such information therefore fails to ensure that the development of the site is acceptable in planning terms.
Further comments on the masterplan are as follows:
As part of this submission much has been said about transport, landscape and biodiversity, all of which feed into the masterplan; this will not be repeated here but the following comments on the masterplan’ should be noted and addressed before any masterplan is prepared or agreed:
the geometric layout presented on a flat surface looks as though it could be used anywhere; it does not respond the topography of the site or its naturalistic context. In this respect it does not adequately ‘respect character’ as required by D5 ii. Furthermore, the text reads as though preparation is being made for a text book stand-alone residential neighbourhood, with something for everyone, supported by images that do not seem to relate to the uses identified in the masterplan.
Similarly, D5 vi and vii require ‘sustainable modes of transport’ and for masterplans ‘to integrate with the surrounding areas.” While providing for sustainable transport within the site is to be welcomed it will not be significant if it doesn’t encourage walking and/or cycling to the site along safe and attractive routes from the city centre, the station and residential areas; much work is to be done, and funding secured, to ensure that this is more than lip service. Reference is made to the Movement Strategy which certainly refers to, and supports, ‘Active Travel’ although there are no firm plans for its implementation and certainly any ideas that all the connecting streets in the city will be made pedestrian and cycle friendly are very remote, unless the key routes were funded by the development. The site is surrounded by attractive chalk downland; it is not connected to the city and as a built-up area it is separated from other built-up areas and so not integrated. While stating the intention to support active travel this is unlikely to be significant given the site’s topography and distance from the city centre, residential areas and the station. It is at least a 45-minute walk from the city centre, at present much would have to be done to improve routes for pedestrians and cyclists if they were to be encouraged to access the site on foot or by cycle, even then it is likely to only appeal to limited numbers of those who are keen. Furthermore, the site’s proximity to the motorway makes it attractive to vehicle drivers.
The concept masterplan plan, and its images, bear little resemblance to a place designed primarily for employment, albeit of a scientific, research and educational nature, as proposed to be allocated in the Local Plan, Policy W5. It presents more as somewhere that could appeal to large numbers of people, especially young and old for recreation and leisure, part of a new residential neighbourhood with a significant population. The evidence base for development on the site is lacking. As such by presenting everything that local people say they value it appears attractive although the reality would almost certainly be very different.
Appendix B (to Question 2 (i) response)
Planning History
In 1939 the War office requisitioned agricultural land south of Bushfield Down from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (to become the Church Commissioners in 1948) to establish a military camp. It remained in use by the Ministry of Defence until it was abandoned in 1975-76, when most of the Camp buildings were demolished. In 1979 the site was returned to the Church Commissioners.
In the 1960’s and 1970’s a range of development proposals, including residential, industrial and a superstore were made to the City and County local planning authorities. They were all rejected on the grounds that the only appropriate uses for the site of the camp were agriculture and recreation.
In 1995 the City Council in preparation for the 1998 Winchester District Plan produced the Bushfield Camp Study, which concluded that only recreation related uses would be appropriate for the site. The inspector for the inquiry into the Plan agreed with the Study and said that the site forms part of a wider area of countryside.
In 2005, prior to the Winchester District Plan 2006, the Council as part of its Biodiversity Action Plan, produced a consultation brief on Bushfield Down and Bushfield Camp. This recognised the significance of this area of chalk downland.
In 2009 a report for the Church Commissioners prepared by Roger Tym and Partners and Drivers Jonas LLP promoted Bushfield Camp as a ‘Knowledge Park’, comprising a hybrid science and business park.
In 2009 Winchester City Council instructed Vail Williams, commercial property estate agent in Southampton, to carry out and evaluation and viability study for the development of a knowledge park at Bushfield Camp. This led to the Council including in the 2013 Winchester District Plan, proposal WT3 for a 20 hectare ‘opportunity site’ at Bushfield Camp. The proposal was modified by the Inspector, who recommended allocating the land for Employment, a recommendation that the Council adopted.
South Downs National Park designated on 1 April 2011
2013 Winchester District Plan made a site allocation WT3 for 20 hectares of land at Bushfield Camp for Employment Use.
On 21 June 2023, the City Council Cabinet approved a report to support a concept masterplan for Bushfield Camp, prepared by the developer, to inform the development management assessment of a subsequent outline planning application.
In October 2023 the Church Commissioners submitted an outline planning application ref: 23/02507/OUT to develop Bushfield Camp for mixed use flexible business and employment uses occupying 96,000 sq. metres of floorspace, arranged in 2,3 and 4 storey buildings, 1055 parking spaces for 3,300 employees The application received 849 comments of objection and 11 comments of support. The application remains to be determined.
Appendix C (Question 2 (ii) response)
COMMUNITY USE:
REGULAR USE OF THE BUSHFIELD AREA FOR LAWFUL RECREATION BY FOUR AJOINING COMMUNITIES: BADGER FARM, STANMORE, ST CROSS, OLIVERS BATTERY.
The entire Bushfield site, including the permissive access area and the disused camp (the ‘developable area’), has been regularly used for lawful recreations by a members of the surrounding local communities for at least the past 50 years in local residents’ testimonies.
These recreations by local residents include, but are not limited to, walking, running, dog walking, group nature walks, bird watching, night visits to see glow worms and species of bats. At least five Red List bird species (of high conservation concern) are regularly found on Bushfield (bullfinch, linnet, song thrush, turtle dove, and yellowhammer) and a further eight species on the Amber list for conservation. The birdlife alone, is a valuable asset for the local communities.
PRIOR FINDINGS RELATING TO LOCAL COMMUNITY USE
In preparation for an application for Town & Village Green status in 2008 for the entire Bushfield area – the camp, downland, and old allotment fields - more than 80 local residents provided statements that they, together with their families, regularly used the entire Bushfield area.
A. In May 2012, Leslie Blohm QC (now His Honour Judge Blohm KC) found that an application for the entire Bushfield area to be designated as a Town and Village Green was sound and duly made. The statutory Framework of the 2006 Town & Village Green Act states:
“15. Registration of greens
(1) Any person may apply to the commons registration authority to register
land to which this Part applies as a town or village green in a case where subsection (2), (3) or (4) applies.
.......
(4) This subsection applies (subject to subsection (5)) where—
(a) a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of
any neighbourhood within a locality, indulged as of right in lawful
sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years;
B. In the judgement in the High Court of Justice, The Church Commissioners for England and Hampshire County Council and Barbara Guthrie, 10 July 2013 (Case number CO/8047/2012), Mr Justice Collins found that the application for Bushfield to become a Town & Village Green was sound. This judgement was overturned on a technicality of the timing of the application process, rather than on the substantive issues, in the Court of Appeal in a case brought by the landowners, the Church Commissioners.
C. During this legal process, Hampshire County Council was fully supportive of the proposal for Town and Village Green Status for the entire Bushfield area, to the extent that HCC encouraged submission of the T&VG the proposal rather than an alternative for public footpaths across the area.
D. The 1997 ‘Bushfield Camp’ Study published by the Planning Department, Winchester City Council reported the ‘sense of openness and the sites importance’:
“there are parts of the site which, because of their topology/visibility, ecology, archaeology and/or essential value to the setting of St Cross, are totally unsuited to built development in any significant form.”
THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING BUSHFIELD AS A COMMUNITY RESOURCE.
Bushfield is an area of natural beauty on the edge of four quite densely populated residential areas.
The area offers extraordinary access to an open space filled with wild flowers and inhabited by many forms of wildlife. It is an area that provides a very special kind of freedom to local people who run, walk their dogs, explore with their children, and engage in other recreational activities.
Quite specific to the area are the wonderful views of Winchester. From Bushfield Down you can see the 800-year-old St Cross Church, the 900-year-old Winchester Cathedral, St Catherine's Hill with its Iron Age earth works and many areas of Winchester.
Andrew Rutter, Conservation Officer for Winchester City Council 1974-1999, described the Bushfield site in this way:
“This is a unique area which, although it does not have any distinctive features, nonetheless by virtue of its elevated position on the west side of the valley plays a crucial part in the setting of St Cross, as well as providing a backdrop to the central conservation area. It also represents the best position to appreciate the three principal medieval buildings that give Winchester conservation area its visual character, the Cathedral, Winchester College and St Cross in their original downland setting, still amazingly unaffected by modern development. If one considers that these three groups of medieval buildings are of both national and European cultural importance .. unblemished by subsequent development, then the desirability of retaining this open space - part of their setting - becomes essential and should never be downgraded."
COUNTRY PARK DESIGNATION
Country Parks are defined as public green spaces often at the edge of urban areas which provide places to enjoy the outdoors and experience nature in an informal semi-rural park setting.
More than 400 Country Parks exist. They are public green spaces often at the edge of urban areas which provide places to enjoy the outdoors and experience nature in an informal semi-rural park setting. Country Parks normally have some facilities such as a car park, toilets, perhaps a cafe or kiosk, paths and trails, and visitor information.
There is not necessarily a public right of access, although most are publicly accessible; some charge entry others do not. Most are owned and managed by Local Authorities.
Many Country Parks were designated in the 1970s by the then Countryside Commission, under the Countryside Act 1968. More recently Country Parks have been created under a less formal arrangement and Natural England is working with partners to encourage a renaissance and accreditation of parks which meet certain criteria.
To be designated as a Country Park, the land must be:
- at least 10 hectares in size
- defined by a clear boundary – marked on a map, whether it’s open or fenced in accessible – less than 10 miles from a residential area
- free to enter
- inclusive and accessible – show how you’ve met equality and disability needs and provided for varied groups
- predominantly natural or semi-natural landscape, for example woodland, grassland, wetland, heathland or parkland, with no more than 5% of the area built upon (excluding car parks)
- signposted and easy to navigate – you should show visitors where they can go, what they can do and direct them along footpaths, bridleways and cycle routes
- visibly staffed, for example litter collection and maintenance
- available for public or educational events
- near public toilets – either on-site or a 2-minute walk away
- informed by the local community – the public should have some influence over the management and development of your site
LOCAL GREEN SPACES
TO BE DESIGNATED AS A LOCAL GREEN SPACE:
The land has to be ‘reasonably close to the community it serves’.
There is no definition of this in the NPPF and it will be up to individual planning authorities to define. This may vary depending on the size of the community to which the green space relates, the size of the green space or the value placed on it by the community. The land must not be isolated from the community. Some councils have policies relating to LGS and have introduced a maximum distance between the space and the community. For instance, one has stated it must be within 400 metres, another 600 metres.
The land must be ‘demonstrably special to a local community’.
Evidence must be provided of the land’s value to and use by the local community to show that it holds a particular local significance. The land must fulfil one or more of the following criteria:
(a) Beauty
This relates to the visual attractiveness of the site, and its contribution to landscape, character and or setting of the settlement. The LGS would need to contribute to local identity, character of the area and a sense of place, and make an important contribution to the physical form and layout of the settlement. It may link up with other open spaces and allow views through or beyond the settlement which are valued locally.
(b) Historic significance
The land should provide a setting for, and allow views of, heritage assets or other locally valued landmarks. It may be necessary to research historic records from the County Archaeologist or National or Local Records Office.
(c) Recreational value
It must have local significance for recreation, perhaps through the variety of activities it supports, and be of value to the community.
(d) Tranquillity
Some authorities have an existing tranquillity map showing areas that provide an oasis of calm and a space for quiet reflection.
(e) Richness of wildlife
This might include the value of its habitat, and priority areas may have been identified by the council. It may require some objective evidence, such as a designation, like a wildlife site or Local Nature Reserve.
The land needs to be ‘local in character, not an extensive tract of land’.
The criteria may differ between settlements depending on their physical size and population. The areas would normally be fairly self-contained with clearly defined edges.
NPPF paragraph 104 states:
The Local Green Space designation should only be used where the green space:
◦ in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves;
◦ demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and
◦ local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.
Appendix D (to Question 2 (iii) response)
Without prejudice recommendations should the allocation be retained:
1. Remove or defer definition of the developable area in Policy W5 until:
o A comprehensive, seasonal ecological assessment is completed; o Functionally linked land is mapped. o Edge effects and buffer zones are modelled.
o A site-specific BNG feasibility study is conducted.
2. Amend Policy W5 to include:
o A clear upper limit on floorspace and density; o Height restrictions developed in consultation with the South Downs National
Park Authority; o A requirement for a site-wide lighting strategy to protect dark skies;
o Integration with Policies NE16 and NE14 (Biodiversity and Green
Infrastructure).
3. Adopt a precautionary approach, consistent with the Habitats Regulations and Environment Act 2021, to ensure that biodiversity, ecological connectivity, and water quality are not irreversibly compromised.
Appendix E (to question 5 response)
The River Itchen SAC is a nationally and internationally protected chalk stream that supports Annex II species such as Atlantic Salmon, White-clawed Crayfish, and Southern Damselfly, all of which are highly sensitive to pollution, sedimentation, and hydrological change.
Sewage spills into the Itchen are already a serious and growing problem. According to publicly available Event Duration Monitoring data, there were 118 recorded sewage spills into the River Itchen in 2023, amounting to over 1,116 hours of discharge – a stark increase from 43 events in 2022. These discharges are caused by storm overflows and outdated infrastructure unable to cope with increased loading.
This upward trend is well supported by:
• Environment Agency reports on combined sewer overflow performance;
• Natural England concerns about nutrient enrichment and sedimentation in the SAC;
• Southern Water’s performance record and acknowledged investment backlog.
The SoCG between Winchester City Council and Southern Water provides clear policy justification for requiring phasing. It states:
• Reinforcement of the sewerage network is required to accommodate the development proposed under Policy W5, in order to avoid increased flood risk and pollution;
• A Local Plan policy criterion requiring phasing of occupation in line with infrastructure delivery is necessary.
This represents formal agreement from both the Council and the statutory undertaker that development must not proceed ahead of infrastructure capacity. This requirement should be enshrined in Policy W5.
Without phasing tied to infrastructure delivery, the development risks:
• Increased foul and stormwater overflows into the River Itchen;
• Breaching the requirement for nutrient neutrality (which is legally required for this catchment);
• Non-compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended);
• Increased surface water runoff and flood risk, exacerbated by climate change-driven rainfall events;
• Unlawful discharge or planning decisions based on uncertain or aspirational infrastructure delivery by Southern Water (whose upgrades depend on long-term AMP funding cycles and regulatory approval).
“Development at Bushfield Camp must be phased to align with the delivery of sufficient foul and surface water infrastructure to prevent any increase in nutrient loading or pollution risk to the River Itchen SAC and its tributaries. No occupation of development that gives rise to overnight accommodation or other nutrient-generating uses shall occur until a project-level Habitats Regulations Assessment has demonstrated that nutrient neutrality will be achieved and there will be no adverse effect on site integrity, either alone or in combination. A legally binding monitoring and mitigation framework must be secured through planning conditions or obligations to ensure compliance over the lifetime of the development.”
This formulation ensures the criterion is:
• Legally enforceable;
• Focused on occupation, not merely construction;
• Tied to actual infrastructure availability;
• Supported by a robust and monitored mitigation strategy.
Appendix F (to Question 7 response)
Part 7 and Schedule 15 of LURA sets out statutory obligations for sewerage undertakers to upgrade Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTWs) by 2030 to meet the highest technically achievable standards. Crucially, LURA treats these upgrades as part of the future baseline for Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). They cannot be used as mitigation for new development — a position also confirmed by Natural England.
Therefore, under Section 93 of LURA, local planning authorities have a legal duty to ensure that assessments and supporting evidence are not misleading. Any attempt to double count statutory WwTW upgrades as nutrient neutrality mitigation would directly conflict with this statutory duty.
Winchester City Council's nutrient neutrality strategy for Bushfield Camp, as reflected in Cabinet Report CAB3470 and the Nutrient Neutrality Topic Paper, is understood to rely on:
• Upgrades to council-owned Package Treatment Plants (PTPs) at Itchen Abbas and Cheriton;
• Access to strategic mitigation credits via the Partnership for South Hampshire (PfSH);
• Not on statutory upgrades undertaken by Southern Water (which are excluded from Natural England’s nutrient calculator baseline).
This distinction is important, but it does not absolve the Council of the need to demonstrate that these specific mitigation measures meet all legal and technical criteria.
The Statement of Common Ground (ED19) confirms Natural England’s endorsement of the principle that nutrient neutrality can be achieved through appropriate mitigation, including the potential use of PTPs. However, this agreement is not a substitute for the Council providing detailed, site-specific evidence demonstrating that its proposed mitigation strategy is legally valid, scientifically robust, and deliverable under the Habitats Regulations.
To comply with the Habitats Regulations, Winchester City Council must provide confirmation during Examination that its proposed PTP-based mitigation satisfies all of the following conditions, as required by Natural England guidance:
• The PTPs are not connected to the mains sewer;
• They fall under the category of: “Replacing existing inefficient septic tanks and
Package Treatment Plants (PTPs) with improved PTPs”;
• The existing systems being replaced are inefficient, and evidence of their baseline performance has been submitted;
• The upgraded systems meet Environment Agency permit requirements;
• The mitigation is funded, secured, and maintained for a minimum of 80 years, including provision for eventual replacement and ongoing monitoring;
• Where chemical dosing is used, this must be robustly justified, comply with regulations, and avoid prohibited chemicals;
• No credits are being claimed for very small discharges (<2m³/day), which are excluded from mitigation schemes;
• The credit calculation methodology is transparent and based on measured flows, or if estimated, still meets Natural England’s standard for robustness;
• The mitigation is demonstrably additional to the baseline and undertaken specifically for the purpose of delivering nutrient neutrality.
Explicit confirmation of each condition, along with Natural England’s endorsement of the specific scheme at application level, is necessary to ensure legal certainty under the HRA process.
Bushfield Camp will significantly increase water demand, especially from employment and overnight accommodation. This raises serious concerns about water abstraction impacts on the River Itchen SAC, especially during drought conditions and under climate change projections.
The following hydrological risks must be assessed:
• Lowered water levels and flow velocities;
• Sediment accumulation, particularly impacting Ranunculus beds;
• Warmer water and reduced dissolved oxygen, affecting salmonids and invertebrates;
• Concentrated nutrient and contaminant levels, increasing eutrophication risk.
To address these risks, we recommend that a site-specific Water Resources Assessment (WRA) be required for the Bushfield Camp development, either as a stand-alone document or as part of the project-level HRA or future Environmental Outcome Report (EOR) under LURA.
“Development proposals at Bushfield Camp must demonstrate nutrient neutrality in accordance with Policy NE16, Natural England guidance, and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Nutrient mitigation must be demonstrably additional to