Browse

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Sarum Academy, Westwood Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP2 9HS

Contact: Lisa Moore  Email: lisa.moore@wiltshire.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

96.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 13 October 2016 were presented.

 

Resolved:

 

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

97.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

There were none.

98.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

Minutes:

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

99.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

100.

Public Participation

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 by phone, email or in person no later than 5.50pm on the day of the meeting.

 

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. 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.

 

Members of the public will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

 

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 no later than 5pm on Thursday 27 October 2016 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on Monday 31 October 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.

Minutes:

The committee noted the rules on public participation.

101.

Planning Appeals and Updates

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate.

Minutes:

The committee received details of the appeal decisions as detailed in the paper circulated at the meeting, for the period 30/09/2016 to 21/10/2016.

 

Resolved

That the report be received and noted.

 

102.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

103.

16/06154/OUT: Land Adjacent 1 Longhedge Cottages, Longhedge, Salisbury, SP4 6BP

Outline application for 4 detached dwellings with garages (All matters reserved except access and layout)

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Tony Allen (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

 

The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to late correspondence circulated at the meeting and introduced the outline application for 4 detached dwellings with garages, noting that the application had previously come to Committee on 13 October 2016, where it had been deferred for further information in respect of the provision of a footpath/cycle lane along the Western boundary of the site, extending southwards. The application was recommended for approval, subject to a S106 Legal Agreement and subject to conditions.

 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officers, it was noted that the section 106 only related to a small section of land, and did not cover the land proposed for preservation for the aspiration of a future path. The application was for 4 dwellings, and a development of that size did not warrant the provision of a footpath.

 

The land was partly owned by Highways and partly by the land owner, so any future development of a footpath on that reserved land would need negotiation with the landowner. A footpath was originally offered as part of the initial housing development at Longehedge, however there were now 673 houses on the site, and it was now considered a sustainable location.

 

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

 

The Unitary Division Member; Councillor Ian McLennan noted that he felt that in terms of the footpath/cycle path, the wider site should be looked at as a whole, as most of the employment land had not been sold to anyone yet. The housing development ended with connection to the Longhedge employment land, he felt there was every case to be made for a path to go to that land, creating a connection, with possible access to the park and ride somehow.

 

Councillor Ian McLennan proposed Refusal against Officers recommendation, due to the non provision of a footpath/cycle path. This was seconded by Cllr Ian Tomes

 

The Committee discussed the application, noting that it was unsure how a development of this size could have been allowed to take hold without ensuring there were footpaths and access points to the city, however the application for consideration was for 4 dwellings and was not responsible for the provision of a footpath.

 

The Longehedge development was now considered as a sustainable development. The ownership of a footpath, if the land was developed at a later date was largely a civil matter, and so unless it was incorporated in to a S106 legal agreement, this was not a planning consideration.

 

There was no policy background for a cycleway and no evidence that there was a Community aspiration for one.

The Committee voted on the motion put forward by Cllr McLennan, it was not carried. Cllr Westmoreland then put forward a second motion for Approval with conditions in line with Officer’s recommendation; this was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

 

Resolved

That application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

104.

16/04126/OUT: Land at Hilltop Way, Salisbury, SP1 3QX

Outline application for the proposed erection of 10 semi detached bungalows, new footpath link, and creation of public open space (resubmission of 15/11350/OUT) incorporating 20 off street parking spaces and 5x laybys to Hilltop Way.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Keith Leslie spoke in Objection to the application.

John Gately (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Kate Blakemore spoke in support of the application.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the Outline application for the proposed erection of 10 semi detached bungalows, new footpath link, and creation of public open space (resubmission of 15/11350/OUT) incorporating 20 off street parking spaces and 5x laybys to Hilltop Way. The application was recommended for Refusal.

 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officers, it was noted that they specific type of affordable housing to go on the site was not yet determined. The land was currently deemed as open countryside.

 

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

 

The Unitary Division Member; Councillor Mary Douglas spoke in Objection to the application, noting that it had been called in due to local concern, as there had been 22 letters of concern relating to this application. She drew attention to the policies in place to protect residents from certain future planning issues. Nothing had changed with this application since the previous occasion it had come to committee, the impact of this development on Pauls Dene would be negative. The Committee were urged to refuse the application.

 

Councillor Ian McLennan proposed the application be refused in line with Officers recommendation. If we pre-judge and agree a site outside of the housing allocation site we would open up the floodgate. We should wait to see what the outcome of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) process was. This motion was then seconded by Cllr Richard Britton.

 

The Committee discussed the application noting that despite the application being supported by Salisbury City Council’s (SCC) Planning Committee, the shared ownership bungalows did not fit with affordable housing, as retired people would find it hard to get a mortgage.

 

The Chairman took issue with the Open Space Study and hoped that SCC would look at what they were asking for in terms of open space. He added that bungalows on a hill were not best placed for older people’s housing.

 

Resolved

The application 16/04126/OUT be Refused in line with Officers recommendation, for the following reasons:

 

 

1

The site lies outside the defined limits for development and the proposed residential development for affordable housing in this location would be contrary to the Wiltshire Core Strategy Polices 1 and 2 and NPPF para 11, 12, 14 and 49. Although the site is under consideration as part of the Site Allocation process, no decisions have been taken on the likely site choices, and therefore no conclusions can be drawn on the likelihood of this site's designation. Therefore it would be premature to cite this as justification for allowing development contrary to the Core Strategy. By virtue of its scale and nature, the proposal is not considered to meet any of the criteria for exceptional development as set out in the Core Strategy and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

105.

16/06309/FUL: 1 Manor Farm Cottages, The Street, West Knoyle, Wiltshire, BA12 6AG

Erection of an open fronted garage to cover two existing car spaces (retrospective)

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the late correspondence circulated at the meeting, and introduced the retrospective application for Erection of an open fronted garage to cover two existing car spaces. There had been one objection received from the local Parish Council on four aspects. 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 there had been a structure previously in the exact position, however a replacement would still require permission as time has elapsed.

 

There were no public speakers for this application.

 

The Unitary Division Member; Councillor George Jeans spoke on the application, noting that he respected both of the view from the Parish Council, and the Officers report. 

 

Councillor Westmoreland proposed approval in line with Officers recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Devine.

 

Resolved

That application 16/06309/FUL be APPROVED with the following condition:

 

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

 

Site Location Plan Date Received 28.06.16

DWG No: MC2 Existing Layout Date Received 28.06.16

DWG No: MC3 Elevations Date Received 28.06.16

Side Elevations Date Received 28.06.16

 

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

106.

16/06888/OUT: Farmer Giles Farmstead, Teffont, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP3 5QY

Erection of 1 No. dwelling and associated works following demolition of redundant outbuildings, (Outline application for access and layout only)

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation.

Pamela Fisher spoke in Objection to the application.

Cally Troup spoke in Objection to the application.

Mary Corrie (Applicant) spoke in Support of the application

Chris Beaver (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Cllr David Wood (Chairman) Teffont Parish Council spoke in support of the application in principle.

 

The Area Team Leader drew attention to the late correspondence circulated at the meeting and presented the application, noting that this was an Outline application for the erection of 1dwelling and associated works following

demolition of redundant outbuildings. The application follows an application made in March 2015 for a similar proposal, which was refused by the Southern Area Planning Committee in June 2015. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officers, it was noted that the retained barn as shown on the plan could be removed under Grampian style permission as it was on part of the applicants land.

 

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

 

The Unitary Division Member; Councillor Bridget Wayman spoke in Objection to the application, noting that she was a Wiltshire Council representative on the CC&WWDAONB Partnership Panel which was an alliance of 18 local, national and regional organisations that guides the implementation of the Management Plan.

 

Cllr Wayman felt that the proposal was contrary to the policies CP1 & 2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the exception policies CP44 for Rural Exception sites and CP48 Supporting Rural Life. Adding that Local Planning Authorities should avoid granting permission for new isolated homes in the countryside unless there were special circumstances, such as the essential need for a rural worker, the use of a heritage asset, where the development would lead re-use redundant or dis-used buildings and lead to an enhancement of the immediate setting, or the exceptional quality or innovative design of a building, however she felt that none of these exceptions applied in this instance.

 

A decision on whether the development was of exceptional quality of innovative design could not be determined as only an outline application had been submitted. Both the AONB and the parish council had expressed their concern at supporting such type of application.

 

The likelihood of the visitor centre ever reopening was very unlikely as it had been closed for 3 years now, so this was a minor concern.

 

The master plan which accompanied the application stated that elements of the vision would need to be revisited if this section of the application was approved.

 

Originally the Lodges were permitted subject to the condition that upon Farmer Giles Farmstead ceasing to trade or operate from the land and/or ceasing to be open to the public, the lodges shall be removed and the land reinstated to grassland in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved by the LPA. Yet despite it being mentioned on two occasions, this had not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

107.

Urgent Items

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

 

Minutes:

There were no urgent items