CIVIC chiefs have permitted plans for a sun shade, in an historically important area of the city centre.

Concerns were raised at the amount of work which had already been done at Gifford House, St Giles Hill, under permitted development rights.

The application, by Mr and Mrs O'Connor, was to erect a pergoda at the rear of the property.

Winchester City Council's planning committee approved the plans at its meeting on October 7.

READ MORE HERE: Controversy over new garden fence in St Giles Hill

Speaking at the meeting, Robert Rowland-Rouse gave an objection on behalf of the St Giles Hill Residents Association. He said: “This is in an area of historical interest. We have found numerous historical artifacts in our garden. It's a wildlife haven, I'm desperate to protect the area.

“There have been two years of building work at Gifford House. They had a swimming pool and sauna house under permitted development rights.”

Cllr Charles Radcliffe said: “The pergoda comes on top of two years of heavy construction work. We run the risk of harm if permitted development rights are unrestricted in this area.”

Agent Toby Wincer spoke in support of the application. He said: “This will be a temporary and sustainable structure. The sun shade had been designed to be erected and disassembled at will. It's not substantial enough to cause significant harm.”

READ MORE: Winchester cottage reduced to £799,950

The committee made it clear that the work done under permitted development rights was entirely lawful.

Cllr Jane Rutter said: “I understand how the amount of development has caused concern. The application is for a slim structure, a sun shade over an existing patio. I can't see any planning reasons to turn this down. But I do share the neighbour's concerns.”

Cllr Frank Pearson said: “I'm very nervous about this application. I'm staggered by the amount of development already. How temporary will the structure be? Will it be knocked over by a gale? I'm reluctant to agree with this, but I can't see any planning reasons to turn this down. I reluctantly agree with the recommendations, but I don't like it.”

The committee approved the plans, with eight votes for and one abstention.

To view the plans online, search 22/01236/HOU on the city council's planning portal.