CITY councillors are to decide a controversial proposal for a new multi-storey car park at Bar End.

The structure is currently being built by the city council on the Vaultex site off Barfield Close using a previous planning permission but its planning committee is now considering an amended plan following public opposition.

The application was due to have been heard last month but was deferred because of a flurry of late representations.

The planning committee will meet next Thursday, October 21.

Campaigners are urging people to comment on the council website with a deadline of Monday October 18.

They have launched a legal challenge which is due to be heard in the High Court in London on November 25.

The local residents on Domum Road are unhappy that the council is pressing on with construction with the matter still to be heard in the High Court.

Their objections include the over-bearing scale of the car park and the impact of noise and light pollution, and anti-social behaviour.

They say it would be over-development, larger than Coventry House that previously stodd on the site. The structure would be visible from the Water Meadows and St Catherine's Hill, and would also overshadow many areas of Domum Road.

Hampshire Chronicle: Progress at the new multi-storey car park in Bar End

Campaign leader Ken Day, of Domum Road, wrote to the Chronicle; letter below:

"As many will be aware the Planning Committee meeting in September to consider

this project was abandoned. It is now due to be held on Thursday 21st October and

the closing date for comments on the planning website (21/01727/FUL) on yet more supporting documentation is 23:59 on Monday 18th October.

"The Council purchased the site overlooking the water meadows in April 2018. It demolished the Vaultex building and cleared the site in 2019, and granted itself planning permission for a ground level car park on this land adjacent to the Barfield Park and Ride in May 2020. Neighbours did not object as the existing P&R is well screened and is only open between 7am and 7pm “in the interests of protecting the amenities of adjoining residents”.

He continued: "In 2021, the Council applied to erect a three-storey structure for 287 cars, giving itself planning permission again despite 77 letters of objections. Construction started on 21st June 2021, although the planning permission was by then subject to a Judicial Review. This latest planning application, submitted just two days later on 23rd June 2021, has no changes to the building itself and seeks to obtain retrospective permission for the construction work, commenced despite the legal challenge.

"The Winchester Movement Strategy(WMS) shows that, pre-Covid, 16,000 commute into the city by car, about 5,300 commute out by car, and about 2,400 city dwellers drive in to work. Furthermore commuters account for 85% of the city’s traffic, through traffic 7%, and short-stay 8%.

"WinACC’s May 2016 report on parking estimated roughly 17,300 spaces of which 9,700 are private non-residential, 6,000 are public off and on-street, and 1,600 are P&R. WMS traffic figures 2016-2018 imply that there are probably 19,000 to 20,000 spaces, 18,400 for commuters in and an allowance for those using short-term parking. Over half of the car spaces for commuters are private non-residential. WinACC concluded that the traffic problems were caused by the road network, and not the availability of parking spaces.

"There are no public supporters of this project. The objectors include Friends of the Earth, City of Winchester Trust and Winchester College, and their five letters can be viewed in the Planning section of the WCC website.

Hampshire Chronicle: A cherry picker showing how high the new car park will stand through Domum Road houses

"The following 10 are illustrative of the objections thus far lodged on the website by everyone who has done so:

1. This application is virtually indistinguishable from 21/00219/FUL which is subject to a Judicial Review hearing in November.

2. There is no proven need for more P&R. Barfield and Pitt operate near capacity, but they are only 21% of total P&R spaces. The Council state that the current P&R is rammed full, clearly not the case. The signs near M3 Jn11 showed totals of 838 empty spaces (11.10hrs on 23/09) and 864 (14.05hrs on 30/09). Further, the traffic assessment ignores any permanent changes to working habits after Covid.

3. P&R has not achieved its objectives of reducing traffic in the city, and allowing city car park spaces to be reduced by any significant amount. Indeed, there is research which demonstrates that P&R actually generates more traffic.

4. The cost to UK taxpayers of the £7.3m project is over £25,000 per parking space. Is this the best use of public funds?

5. The scheme is definitely not carbon neutral if embedded (“production”) emissions are included, and only has a marginal effect if the narrow EU definition of carbon neutrality is used. The Winchester Carbon Neutrality Action Plan (Section1) commits the City to carbon neutrality by 2024, and the District by 2030, “taking into account both production and consumption emissions”.

6. P&R increases CO2 emissions, as it encourages the use of cars to visit the city, rather than using public transport.

7. The overbearing structure is right on the boundary of the South Downs National Park, with a negative impact on the environment, local ecology and views from the water meadows. In the Preliminary Ecological Assessment document, Table 4.1 shows that the site is only 20 metres from River Itchen SSSI, 190 metres from River Itchen SAC, and 640 metres from St Catherine’s Hill SSSI.

8. The Planning Permission for the adjacent Barfield P&R (ref. 94/00491/ful) included no entry between 21.00 and 07.00 “in the interests of protecting the amenities of adjacent residents”. No such consideration has been applied in this application, which will be open 24/7 with potential problems from loss of sunlight, noise and light pollution, and criminal activities.

9. Winchester City Council is the landowner, applicant and regulatory authority. The development has been progressed in an unfair manner to third parties and it seems improbable that a private developer would have been given planning permission.

10. This is another retrospective planning application – a practice on which the Planning Committee have wished to take a firmer position in the past."

He added: "If you the general public want to take a stand and, if nothing else, stop the Council planning further P&R expansion until there is evidence that it is both needed and achieves its stated objectives, then please put in an objection. Remember the deadline is midnight on Monday next. Thank you."