Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

There were none.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 25 February 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 February 2016 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

The following declarations of interest were received:

Cllr Britton noted that one of the applications referred to Selwood Housing, of which he was the Director. This was a personal interest and not a pecuniary.

Cllr Clewer noted that he had previously pushed hard for the Council to develop the Old Manor site as social housing; he would look at this application with a clear mind.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman explained the meeting procedure to the members of the public.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to speak either in favour or against an application or any other item on this agenda are asked to register in person no later than 5.50pm on the day of the meeting.

The Chairman will allow up to 3 speakers in favour and up to 3 speakers against an application and up to 3 speakers on any other item on this agenda. Each speaker will be given up to 3 minutes and invited to speak immediately prior to the item being considered. The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice.

Questions

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution which excludes, in particular, questions on non-determined planning applications. Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such questions in writing to the officer named on the front of this agenda (acting on behalf of the Corporate Director) no later than 5pm on Thursday 31 March 2016. Please contact the officer named on the front of this agenda for further advice. Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent.

Details of any questions received will be circulated to Committee members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals.

The committee received details of the appeal decisions as detailed in the agenda.

To consider and determine planning applications as follows:

Public Participation

Mr Sam Hobson (Architect) spoke in support of the application

Mr Steve Godwin (Salisbury BID) spoke in support of the application

Mr Robert Sykes (Local Resident) spoke in support of the application

Cllr’s John Lindley and Matthew Dean spoke in support of the application, on behalf of Salisbury City Council

The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to late correspondence, from Highways England, which was circulated at the meeting and introduced the application to demolish the existing extensions to listed building Finch House and remove the existing detached buildings in the vicinity (including Foxley Green previous occupied by the NHS Mental Health Partnership), and construct 71 assisted living extra care units. The scheme would also include associated landscaping, ancillary buildings and uses such as a cafe and communal uses and rooms, including a new convenience store of 422sqm.

This proposal included works to alter the existing vehicular access onto the adjacent A36, which would involve works to the existing boundary walling, including stopping up the existing access, creating a new vehicular access, and creating a pedestrian access.

At this time, it was intended that this proposal would form Phase 1 of part of a much larger development of the surrounding Old Manor site (a total of 5 Phases), including future works to the adjacent Finch House itself (Phase 2). As currently indicated by the suggested masterplan and phasing, Phase 5 would facilitate the creation of a cycle and pedestrian route with the adjacent Windsor Road.

The application was recommended for approval. It was noted that this was a phased development, with phases 1 and 2 for consideration at present. 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officers. It was noted that by nature of virtue the tunnel attached to Finch House was also listed, however it did not form part of the planning application.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Clewer then spoke on the application, adding that the local community supported the development of this site. With a low stock of accommodation in Wiltshire, a development of this type would free up many family sized homes across the county. Although he would have liked to see some affordable housing on the site, as this was not possible, the solution of an offsite contribution had been agreed.

The listed buildings on the site were now in such a state of disrepair that if something was not done soon, then they may well fall down. An extra care housing development for this site was fitting due to the medical centre which was already there.

The Committee discussed the application, noting that there had been over 800 letters of support received for this development. Although some mature trees would be removed as part of the development, a vibrant set of buildings would be built in their place. The phased approach to development of the site raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26a

Information on this application was included in the previous presentation for 15/09465/FUL.

Cllr Clewer moved the Officer’s recommendation for approval, seconded by Cllr Westmoreland.

Resolved:

The application be APPROVED subject to conditions:

INFORMATIVES

Separate Highways and planning consent matters

Notwithstanding and in addition to this LBC consent, the proposed redevelopment  of the wider site will require planning permission and the separate Highway England approval for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26b

Public Participation

Lisa Witcher spoke in objection to the application

Mr T Pegrum spoke in objection to the application

Mr Nicholson spoke in objection to the application

David Wood spoke on behalf of Teffont Parish Council

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application for the demolition of an existing bungalow and construction of a replacement dwelling with associated works, at Paddock View. The application was recommended for approval. It was noted that the site was accessed via a shared driveway leading from the street, and a public footpath also extends along the shared driveway along the northern boundary. The site was within the Cranborne Chase AONB and Conservation Area.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officers. It was noted that whilst the dormer windows faced north, it was considered that the replacement dwelling would not unduly impact upon residential amenity.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

A representative from Teffont Parish Council spoke in objection to the application, due to the size, style and height. However the parish council noted that it did not object to principle development of the site, but did not support this application and would like to see a like for like bungalow in its place.

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Wayman then spoke on the application, adding that what was once a 1930’s bungalow would now be a two storey house, sitting higher on the hillside. No consideration had been given to the Village Design Statement where it was specific on the design of dormer windows. New buildings should be complimentary to existing character of the village.

The Committee discussed the application, noting that the design matched an already approved development in the village. It was sympathetic that site traffic would need to use the shared driveway, which may cause further damage to fencing and obstructions during deliveries for the neighbouring residents. The application would need to adhere to standard hours as part of the loading and unloading of materials in the conditions, and damage to neighbouring property would be a civil matter.

Resolved

The application be APPROVED subject to conditions:

1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON:   To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2) No development shall commence on site until details and samples of the materials to be used for the external walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

3) No development shall commence on site until a sample panel of stonework, not less than 1 metre square, has been constructed on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26c

Public Participation

Mr Ronnie Hutchinson spoke in objection to the application

Penny Joyce (Old Sarum Community Coordinator) spoke in objection to the application

Sharon Burgess (Salisbury Medical Practice) spoke in support of the application

Mr David Burton spoke in objection on behalf of Laverstock & Ford parish council

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application for the erection of three storey building comprising of 21 affordable housing apartments with parking, bin & cycle stores, associated infrastructure (alterations to S/2012/1829). The application was recommended for approval. It was noted that the community space which originally included a Doctors surgery was now proposed to be replaced by affordable housing.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officers. It was clarified that affordable housing could not be considered ‘community use’ and therefore could not replace a doctors surgery or other deemed suitable ‘community use’ alternatives if there had been insufficient marketing of the vacant space, as ‘community use’.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

A representative Laverstock & Ford Parish Council spoke in objection to the application on the grounds that there had been no attempt to market the space as a doctor’s surgery to other interested parties. It was felt that there was massive interest in having a community facility in the space rather than housing. There was huge objection from local residents and parish councils to the proposals.

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor McLennan then spoke on the application, adding that in the beginning there was a local plan where 630 houses were welcomed. Councillors agreed to the master plan and Persimmon’s agreed that a doctor’s surgery would be included. He had been in discussions with another surgery in the city which had expressed interest in the site. There was huge public need for a doctor’s surgery as the amount of people living in the community now equated for 3 doctors.

The Committee discussed the application, noting that the site was always intended for community use, specifically as a doctor’s surgery. It was felt that the correct process should be followed and the site should be marketed as so, to give the community time to find an alternative.

Cllr McLennan moved for refusal against the officer’s recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Tomes.

Resolved

The application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

The wider Old Sarum development was permitted on the basis that it would be served by a number of community facilities, including a doctor's surgery. The S106 legal Agreement associated with the development requires a suitable scheme of marketing in respect of a doctor's surgery use and an alternative community use, prior to a scheme being submitted for a residential or other non-community use. Adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) policy CP49 indicates that proposal's involving the loss of community uses will only be permitted as a last resort where it has been proven that the community use is no longer economically viable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26d

Public Participation

Mr Eric Daffern spoke in support on behalf of Grimstead parish council

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application for alterations, extensions, and conversion of existing Staddle Stone barn and attached stable to form three bedroom dwelling with creation of associated garden.  Alterations and extension of Victorian barn to create stables, garaging and workshop.  Associated works including removal of lean-to structures within yard area. The application was recommended for approval. It was noted that a restricted occupancy condition was contained in the report.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officers. It was noted that the use of the stables was tied to the dwelling.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

A representative from Grimstead Parish Council spoke in support of the application.

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Britton moved Officer’s recommendation for approval, seconded by Councillor Westmoreland.

Resolved

The application be APPROVED subject to conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

The equestrian and agricultural farm yard and buildings as shown on plan 784-20-21 (and hatched in red) shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the main dwelling hereby approved, known as the Staddle Stone Barn, Emmotts Farm, Grimstead Road, West Grimstead SP5 3RQ. There shall be no subdivision of the planning unit. 

Reason: To ensure that the residential property known as the Staddle Stone Barn is not occupied by anyone who is not associated with the existing farm and equestrian use at Emmotts Farm, in the interests of future amenities.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans listed in schedule:

Planning Statement October 2015, Pegasus Group, received 28/10/15

Design and Access Statement, Favonius Architects, received 28/10/15

Heritage Statement August 2015, Elaine Milton, rceived 28/10/15

Structural Viability Report 7463:01 14/4/15 received 28/10/15

Chalkhill Environmental Consultants, Bat Survey 578-15 15/16 July 2015, received 28/10/15

Response from Jan Freeborn, Project Ecologist, Chalkhill Environmental Consultants, received 11/1/16

Photos of Victorian Barn (stables) roof received 11/2/16 from Mr. S Lock

Site Plan, 784-20-05 Jul 2015, received 28/10/15

Block Plan, 784-20-07 Jul 2015, received 28/10/15

Location Plan, 784-20-06A Jul 2015, received 3/11/15

Drainage Plan, 784-20-19 Aug 2015, received 28/10/15

Ground Floor Plan, 784-20-01A July 2015, received 9/2/16

First Floor Plan and Roof Plan, 784-20-02 Jul 2015, received 28/10/15

Sketch Sections, 784-20-08 July 2015, received 28/10/15

Sketch Section C-C, 784-20-22 Feb 16, received 2/2/16

Typical Window Detail and Rooflight Detail, 784-20-11A, received 2/2/16

Stable Elevations, 784-20-04B Jul 15, received 14/3/16

Proposed Elevations, 784-20-03 Jul 2015, received 28/10/15

Door Details Utility Door D04, 784-20-09 Jul 2015, received 28/10/15

Door Details D05, D06, 784-20-14 Jul 2015,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26e

Public Participation

John Mills spoke on behalf of Durrington parish council

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application for the installation of an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) on the front elevation of the building facing onto Bulford Road. Permission was previously granted in 2004 but the works have not been implemented. The proposal also incorporates advertisements associated with the ATM which are subject to an accompanying Advertisement Consent Application (15/12231/ADV). The application was recommended for approval.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officers. It was noted that the applicant had been approached to see if it was viable for the machine to be situated on the other side of the shop acing New Road, but had advised that they did not have the time to carry out the survey needed prior to the committee meeting, and so wished to proceed.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

A representative from Durrington Parish Council spoke on the application, noting that they wished for the machine to be located on the New Road side of the shop to alleviate traffic stopping near the crossing, on Bulford road to use the machine, as it was felt that people would then park in the car park which could be entered from New Road.

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Graham Wright, had been in attendance at the start of the meeting, had been given the opportunity to address the Committee before he had to leave to attend a meeting elsewhere. He was opposed to the position of the cash machine, which was proposed for installation directly opposite the crossing on Bulford Road side of the Coop, due to safety issues associated with vehicles parking on double yellow lines to use the machine. He asked that the applicant install the ATM on the New Road side of the building instead.

The Committee discussed the application, noting that the ATM would be better positioned on the New Road side of the building to alleviate parking on the roadside.

Resolved

The application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

By virtue of the positioning of the ATM directly opposite a main road with crossing point and parking restrictions, the proposal may result in dangerous parking in association with use of the ATM that would result in significant detriment to highway safety and amenity of the area, the proposal is contrary to the guidance contained within Core Policy 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Senior Planning Officer had addressed this application for LBC in her earlier presentation; to alter, extend and convert the existing Staddle Stone barn and attached stable to form a three bedroom dwelling with a garden area. The Victorian barn would also be altered and extended to create stables, garaging and a workshop, as part of the new residential curtilage. Associated works include removal of modern lean to structures in the yard. Access to the dwelling would be from the existing farm access, which has been used to access the farm for more than 20 years. Foul drainage would be to a package treatment plant, as the levels on the site require pumps and a pump chamber. The application was recommended for approval.

Resolved

The application be APPROVED subject to conditions:

The works for which Listed Building Consent is hereby granted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans listed in schedule:

Planning Statement October 2015, Pegasus Group, received 28/10/15

Design and Access Statement, Favonius Architects, received 28/10/15

Heritage Statement August 2015, Elaine Milton, rceived 28/10/15

Structural Viability Report 7463:01 14/4/15 received 28/10/15

Chalkhill Environmental Consultants, Bat Survey 578-15 15/16 July 2015, received 28/10/15

Response from Jan Freeborn, Project Ecologist, Chalkhill Environmental Consultants, received 11/1/16

Photos of Victorian Barn (stables) roof received 11/2/16 from Mr. S Lock

Site Plan, 784-20-05 Jul 2015, received 28/10/15

Block Plan, 784-20-07 Jul 2015, received 28/10/15

Location Plan, 784-20-06A Jul 2015, received 3/11/15

Drainage Plan, 784-20-19 Aug 2015, received 28/10/15

Ground Floor Plan, 784-20-01A July 2015, received 9/2/16

First Floor Plan and Roof Plan, 784-20-02 Jul 2015, received 28/10/15

Sketch Sections, 784-20-08 July 2015, received 28/10/15

Sketch Section C-C, 784-20-22 Feb 16, received 2/2/16

Typical Window Detail and Rooflight Detail, 784-20-11A, received 2/2/16

Stable Elevations, 784-20-04B Jul 15, received 14/3/16

Proposed Elevations, 784-20-03 Jul 2015, received 28/10/15

Door Details Utility Door D04, 784-20-09 Jul 2015, received 28/10/15

Door Details D05, D06, 784-20-14 Jul 2015, received 28/10/15

Door Details Breakfast Room French Door D03, 784-20-10 Jul 15, received 28/10/15

Door Details D01, 784-20-13 Jul 15, received 28/10/15

Door Details D02, 784-20-12 Jul 15, received 28/10/15

Stable Doors, 784-20-15 Jul 2015, received 28/10/15

Staddle Stone Barn and Extent of Associated Equestrian/Farm Yard, Buildings and Garden Area, 784-20-21 Dec 2015, received 3/12/15

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Notwithstanding the approved drawings, the building shall be stripped back to its frame and the roof tiles and weatherboarding shall be removed. No further works shall take place until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

(i)       A full photographic survey including analysis and photographic record of the existing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26g

The Senior Planning Officer had covered this application for ADV in his earlier presentation.

Resolved

The application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

The advert subject of this application relates to an ATM (cash machine), which was itself subject of a separate planning application ref 15/11944/FUL, which has been refused on highway safety grounds by the LPA. As a result, the proposed advert  would not be required or necessary, and it would therefore be contrary to the aims of  Core Policy 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency 

There were no urgent items