Browse

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Alamein Suite - City Hall, Malthouse Lane, Salisbury, SP2 7TU. View directions

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

Items
No. Item

108.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from:

 

·       Cllr Richard Britton

·       Cllr Ian McLennan

109.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 3 November 2016.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 3 November 2016 were presented.

 

Resolved:

 

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

110.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

Councillor George Jeans declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to item 9f S/2003/1016 - due to him sitting on the Western Area Committee of Salisbury District Council when the application had first come for consideration. He stated that he would look at it with a fresh mind.

111.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

Minutes:

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

112.

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 (4 clear working days, e.g. Wednesday of week before a Wednesday meeting) 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 (2 clear working days, eg Friday of week before a Wednesday meeting). 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.

113.

Village Design Statement - Steeple Langford

To consider the contents of, and approve as a material consideration, the Village Design Statement (VDS) for Steeple Langford. 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the contents of the Village Design Statement (VDS) for Steeple Langford.

 

The Committee noted that Steeple Langford and all involved in the work should be commended for the VDS.

 

The Chairman proposed the Committee support the VDS going forward as a material consideration. This was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

 

Resolved

The Southern Area Planning Committee endorsed the Steeple Langford Village Design Statement as a material consideration for future planning applications.

 

 

 

114.

Rights of Way - Durnford Paths 8, 25 and 26

To consider the one representation and one objection received to the making of The Wiltshire Council Durnford Paths 8, 25 and 26 Rights of Way Modification Order 2016 made under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Nick Gallop spoke in Support to the Application

Fiona Curtis spoke in Support of the Application

 

The Rights of Way Officer presented the report including one representation and one objection received to the making of The Wiltshire Council Durnford Paths 8, 25 and 26 Rights of Way Modification Order 2016 made under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

 

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, of which there were none.

 

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

 

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Hewitt noted that the report showed evidence that the paths had been used for several years.

 

Cllr Hewitt proposed Support in line with Officer’s recommendation; this was seconded by Cllr Devine.

 

Resolved

The Southern Area Planning Committee Approved the recommendation that the Order be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for determination and that Wiltshire Council supports the confirmation of the Order as made.

115.

Planning Appeals and Updates

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period 21/10/2016 to 20/12/2016.

 

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The Committee received details of the appeal decisions as detailed in the report attached to the agenda, for the period 21/10/2016 to 20/12/2016.

 

Resolved

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

116.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

117.

14/01986/FUL The White Hart, St John Street, Salisbury, SP1 2SD

Alterations and extensions to existing rear extension/courtyard buildings, to provide function rooms, entrance, and 28 guest bedrooms. Internal changes and refurbishment, with enhancement of existing parking area.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Cecile Gemmell spoke in objection to the Application

Carina Birt spoke in objection to the Application

Katie Brown (Agent) spoke in Support of the Application

 

The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to late correspondence circulated at the meeting and introduced the application for alterations and extensions to existing rear extension/courtyard, buildings, to provide function rooms, entrance, and 28 guest, bedrooms. Internal changes and refurbishment, with, enhancement of existing parking area. A site visit had taken place earlier in the day. The Officer gave a brief overview of the planning history of the site and previous schemes leading to the current revised scheme and presented the proposal.

 

The application was recommended for APPROVAL subject to conditions.

 

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, it was noted that new fire escapes were included. There were no details on which type of glass would be used in the glazed stairwell.

 

The Parking Statement submitted detailed that 53 spaces would be provided. The addition of a function room to the site was new, as there had only previously been a meeting room. No comments had been submitted by Salisbury City Council (SCC).

 

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

 

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Tomes pointed out the visual differences between the front of the building to the rear extension built in the 1970’s. He noted that the proposal was more suited to other locations outside of Salisbury and its historic environment.

 

He felt that the proposed extension was not suited in a conservation area; next to a grade II listed building.

 

With an additional 28 bedrooms and losing 23 car parking spaces, the addition of the extra guests using the function rooms would increase the number of people needing to park. The nearby car park in Brown Street, was a short stay and there were rarely many free spaces.

 

Noise was an issue to consider, as with the function rooms, this would bring a larger mass of people even closer to the neighbouring residents, adding to the amount of people coming and going, increasing the noise disturbance taking place. The noise management plan would be forgotten in time, windows would still be left open allowing noise to escape.

 

Cllr Tomes proposed REFUSAL against Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

 

·       Noise and amenity (related to the function rooms and increased operations of the hotel in close proximity to dwellings, dominance and overlooking of adjacent properties).

·       Parking – based on the loss of parking and increase in bedroom numbers.

·       Heritage Impact – on listed building and conservation area due to the poor design

 

This was seconded by Cllr West

 

The Committee discussed the application noting that the lack of input from SCC Planning Committee was unfortunate. The impact of noise on the houses in close proximity to the extension would be quite substantial. The Committee felt that covering the 1970’s extension with a more pleasing design had its merits;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

118.

14/01990/LBC The White Hart, St John Street, Salisbury, SP1 2SD

Proposed alterations to existing 1970s block including conversion of parking undercroft, stepped four storey extension including an upward extension to form new level, providing function rooms and a new hotel entrance on the ground floor with 28 No new guest bedrooms above. Proposed internal refurbishment and alterations to existing public areas with associated landscaping.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The presentation and discussion relating to this application was included with the previous application on the agenda - 14/01986/FUL.

 

The chairman; Cllr Westmoreland moved REFUSAL against Officer’s recommendation for the following reason:

 

·       Heritage Impact – on listed building and conservation area due to the poor design

 

This was seconded by Cllr Devine.

 

Resolved

That application 14/01990/LBC be REFUSED for the following reason:

 

1.     The White Hart is a substantial Grade II* listed building located at the heart of the Conservation Area of the historic city of Salisbury and forms a significant part of one of the historic Chequers of the mediaeval settlement. The Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (Sections 16 & 66) places a statutory duty on the local planning authority for 'special regard' to be given to the desirability of preserving the special interest of listed buildings and their settings. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 also places a statutory duty on the local planning authority that 'special attention' shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. The proposed extension to the hotel would result in a further substantial and bulky addition to the original listed building with an uncharacteristic roof form, including an upward extension to the later 1970s block. It is considered that the built form and design of the proposed development would be unsympathetic to the character and setting of the main listed building, would have a negative impact on the setting of the nearby listed buildings and would adversely affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  As such, the scheme as submitted is considered to be contrary to Core Policies CP57 and CP58 of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy (January 2015); guidance within the PPG and NPPF; and the duty placed on the Council under Sections  16 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed building and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving the character  and appearance of the Conservation Area. Having regard to advice in Section 12 of the NPPF (in particular paragraphs 131-135) it is considered that the public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the resultant harm identified above.  

 

 

 

 

118a

16/09228/FUL Land at the rear of 82 Britford Lane, Harnham, Salisbury, SP2 8AJ

Proposed development of two detached chalet dwellings and garages

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Andrew James spoke in objection to the Application

Roger Pragnell spoke in objection to the Application

Richard Harvey (Applicant) spoke in Support of the Application

 

The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the late correspondence circulated at the meeting and introduced the application for the proposed development of two detached chalet dwellings and garages. The application was recommended for Approval subject to conditions. It was noted that an application for 9 dwellings on an adjoining site had been approved the previous year.

 

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, it was noted that there were no affordable housing contributions because the proposal did not require section 106 contributions.

 

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

 

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Tomes noted that he understood why the applicant wanted to develop their land, however there had been objections from several residents and SCC on the grounds of overdevelopment.

 

Cllr Tomes proposed REFUSAL against Officer’s recommendation on the grounds of Overdevelopment.

 

This was seconded by Cllr Brian Dalton.

 

The Committee discussed the application, noting that the nursery development next to the site had already put in a lot of backfill. In comparison to the other plots around the site, this proposal did not equate to overdevelopment and therefore from a planning point of view the application could not be refused on those grounds. It was felt that the proposal was an extension to a reasonable sized development that has already been allowed.

 

The motion to REFUSE was not carried.

The Chairman; Cllr Westmoreland then moved the motion of APROVAL in line with Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Devine.

 

Resolved

That application 16/09228/FUL be APPROVED in line with Officer’s recommendation, 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) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

 

Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement dated 19/09/2016, including Tree Protection Plan GH1652b, received by this office 21/09/2016

Plan Reference: P16-065 02-02-003, dated August 2016, received by this office 21/09/2016

Plan Reference: P16-065 02-03-001, dated August 2016, received by this office 21/09/2016

Plan Reference: P16-065 02-03-002, dated August 2016, received by this office 21/09/2016

Plan Reference: P16-065 02-05-001, dated August 2016, received by this office 21/09/2016

Plan Reference: P16-065 02-05-002, dated August 2016, received by this office 21/09/2016

Plan Reference: P16-065 02-02-002A, dated 07/11/2016, received by this office 11/11/2016

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

 

(3) No development shall commence on site until the exact 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118a

119.

16/09446/FUL Mayfield, White Way. Pitton, SP5 1DT

Rear extension and raise roof to provide rooms within roofspace.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

James Mardon spoke in Objection to the Application

Chris Juhkental (Applicant) spoke in Support of the Application

Cllr Rod Coppock – Chair of Pitton PC spoke in Objection to the Application

 

The Planning Officer introduced the application for Rear extension and raise roof to provide rooms within roof space. The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

 

The site was adjacent to a conservation area, in an adopted core policy housing boundary area.

 

Planning permission had been granted in March last year for a two storey dwelling next door, for a property named Journey’s End.

 

A site visit had taken place earlier that day.

 

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, it was noted that the development at the neighbouring property named

Journeys End would be built on the existing footprint.

 

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

 

Concerns were expressed by a third party with regards to the accuracy of the Officer’s report, however the case Officer presented slides to clarify this point showing the relative heights of the application dwelling to adjacent dwellings, and explained that the dwelling as enlarged would be above the height of Journeys End to the south east.

 

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Devine thanked Chairman of Pitton parish council for coming to present their views. He noted that Pitton was a unique village which had not been overrun by development of its bungalows.

 

He felt the parking situation was not sufficient, as having three spaces in a line was not practical in that section of the village. He suggested that the applicant listen to neighbours and bring back a proposal more in keeping with the village.

 

Cllr Devine proposed refusal against Officer’s recommendation on the grounds of the inappropriate parking arrangement. This was seconded by Cllr West.

 

The Committee discussed the application, noting that the proposed parking arrangements were unrealistic, as to juggle cars out on to a busy road was not practical, as it sits on the narrowest point of the road. Officers should have a proper plan on how parking would work on the site.

 

The proposed development was approximately 80% larger than the original property. From a planning point of view there were already other properties along the road which were two storeys, with Journeys End about to become 1.5 storeys, so to say that a chalet bungalows did not fit here was not valid.

 

There was room for an extension on this bungalow; however something would need to be worked out in terms of parking. And a condition could be put in to request this.

 

The motion for REFUSAL was not carried.

 

The Chairman Cllr Westmoreland then moved APPROVAL subject to the addition of a condition to request a revised Parking Plan which would incorporate room for parking and turning in front of the property to allow vehicle to leave in a forward direction. This was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

 

Resolved

That application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

120.

16/05643/FUL Land to the rear of 22-30 High Street (The Old Garden Centre) and 98 Crane Street, Salisbury

Change of use of existing retail unit/storage for restaurant use, extensions, landscaping and public access onto Avon riverside path and servicing access. Demolition of 98 Crane Street and replacement building with gated access.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Margaret Reese spoke in Objection to the Application

John Collins spoke in Objection to the Application

Dan O’Boyle spoke in objection to the Application

Philip Villlars (Agent) spoke in support of the Application

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application for Change of use of existing retail unit/storage for restaurant use, extensions, landscaping and public access onto Avon riverside path and servicing access. The application was recommended for Approval with conditions.

 

The site was in a conservation area and secondary shopping area.

 

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, it was noted that the vehicular entrance would be located on Crane Street, via a gated building, which was next to a protected wall. The conditions in the report included the inclusion of a scheme for safety bollards to protect the wall and the buildings either side.

 

Riverside walk was partly owned by the applicant and partly by SCC, which had indicated support for the proposals.

 

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

 

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Hoque was not in attendance

 

The Chairman; Cllr Westmoreland proposed approval in line with Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Devine.

 

The Committee discussed the application, noting that this part of the river front was a missed opportunity for development. However the vehicular access on Crane Street presented issues. Deliveries would either block the road or have difficulty turning in at that point of the narrowing road. The pedestrian path also crossed the route and vehicles using the access would not be able to see people using the path until they had driven out across it.

 

The site was a derelict site in the city centre, ripe for development, however the entrance on Crane Street did not work.

 

The motion for APPROVAL was not carried.

 

Cllr Clewer then moved REFUSAL against Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

 

·       Poor design of the proposed building and access onto Crane Street, and the subsequent impact on the area, contrary to CP57 & 58.

 

Resolved

That application 16/05643/FUL be REFUSED against Officer’s recommendation; for the following reasons:

 

·       Poor design of the proposed building and access onto Crane Street, and the subsequent impact on the area, contrary to CP57 & 58.

 

Reasons for Refusal:

 

98 Crane Street is an unlisted building in the Salisbury Conservation Area. The proposal requires the demolition of this building to provide service access for the development. The late 19th century exterior of the building makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and the setting of nearby listed buildings and the Conservation Area. The approach to the access from Crane Street is physically restricted on each side by the boundary wall to the Masonic Hall and the flank wall of 96 Crane Street, which is a Grade II listed building.

 

The proposed replacement building would be of a "gatehouse" design, with no specific proposed use or occupier. It would comprise a timber gated access on the ground floor to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

121.

S/2003/1016 - E V Naish Ltd, Crow Lane, Wilton, SP2 0HD

Demolition of Existing Buildings to Facilitate the Mixed Use Development of the Site to Provide 61 Residential Units, Two Commercial Units of B1 Use, One Retail Unit, and Associated Car Parking.

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Mark Blackburn spoke in Objection to the Application

David Von Zeffman spoke in Objection to the Application

Keith Crockett spoke in Objection to the Application

Gavin Hall spoke in Support of the Application

Geoff Naish spoke in Support of the Application

Cllr Trevor Batchelder spoke from Wilton Town Council, in Objection to the Application.

 

The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to late correspondence circulated at the meeting and introduced the application for Demolition of Existing Buildings to Facilitate the Mixed Use Development of the Site to Provide 61 Residential Units, Two Commercial Units of B1 Use, One Retail Unit, and Associated Car Parking. The application was recommended for Approval.

 

There were two current access points to the site. One of which was not currently used by the owner.

 

As the development was subject to a feasibility study, the elements up for consideration at the meeting were the access and the number of dwellings.

 

A site visit had taken place earlier that day.

 

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, it was noted there was no affordable housing was offered by the applicant as part of the scheme. The applicant wanted to know whether they would get permission for the scheme before he carried out a feasibility study.

 

Affordable housing was separate to CIL and it would be possible to ask for an education contribution. The Education authority would want some from this development.

 

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

 

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Edge noted that he called the application in because of the impact on the centre of Wilton. He was disappointed to see the old building was due to be removed. However the continuation of industrial use on this site was not viable.

 

The Crow lane access was often hit by large lorries, causing damage to buildings either side. In his view, the development would ease traffic congestion. He noted that access from the C&O tractor site was due to come available in the near future, this could be considered as an alternative.

 

He confirmed that emergency vehicles could currently access the site and would still be able to in the future.

 

A Flood protection investigation has been worked on and there had been lots of negotiations on putting forward a proposal.

 

The Old coach works was next to a listed building on the site, any development would need to maintain some access for that resident. He asked the Committee to move approval with conditions.

 

Cllr Fred proposed Approval in line with Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

 

The Committee discussed the application, noting that the site was not suitable for industrial use any longer. The applicant intended to move the business to another site where the existing staff could be taken on.

 

There were access problems due to the narrow width of Crow Lane and North Street.

 

This site was ripe for development; however  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

121a

16/07192/FUL - E V Naish Ltd, Crow Lane, Wilton, SP2 0HD

Demolition of Existing Buildings to Facilitate the Mixed Use Development of the Site to Provide 61 Residential Units, Two Commercial Units of B1 Use, One Retail Unit, and Associated Car Parking.

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The presentation and discussion relating to this application was included with the previous application on the agenda – S/2003/1016.

 

The Chairman moved Officer’s recommendation for APPROVAL in line with Officer’s recommendation; this was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

 

The motion was not carried.

 

Cllr Devine moved the motion for REFUSAL against Officer’s recommendation for the reasons as set out in the decision below.

 

This was seconded by Cllr Tomes.

 

Resolved

That application 16/07192/FUL was REFUSED against Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

 

1.    The precautionary approach adopted by The National Planning Policy Framework is that the overall aim of decision-makers should be to steer new development to Flood Zone 1 and a 'Sequential Test' must be undertaken to see whether there are alternative lower risk sites that could accommodate the development. The proposal is for a 'more vulnerable' form of development proposed within Flood Zone 2/3. The NPPF makes clear that such development should be located in Flood Zone 1 unless it can be demonstrated that no such sites are available.

The council can demonstrate that there is a readily available and deliverable 5-year supply of housing land in Flood Zone 1, the zone of least risk, within the Local Planning Authority area to meet the housing development needs of the area. South Wiltshire has 5.69 years of deliverable housing land supply and therefore there is no urgent or immediate need for further housing to be permitted on this site to meet strategic requirements.

The applicant has not demonstrated that the site should be brought forward for housing development ahead of other sites in Flood Zone 1. The proposal would

therefore represent an unacceptable form of development with particular regard to its flood zone location, the flood vulnerability of the residential development and the sequential test of the NPPF, NPPG and contrary to Core Policy 67 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

 

2.    The applicant has provided a viability assessment dated the 7th April 2016 which outlines the applicants case that the proposed development is not considered to be viable to provide the required contributions for affordable housing and other infrastructure contributions. The local planning authority's assessment of this document indicates that there is scope to provide some contributions towards infrastructure requirements associated with the site.

Therefore the proposed development, does not make provision for 40% affordable housing on site as required by core policy 43 of the Adopted Wiltshire Core strategy nor does it make provision for other infrastructure requirements including contributions towards the cost of a traffic regulations order to control parking on the estate, Education contributions towards primary and secondary school education in the area, on site public art contribution or contribution towards waste and recycling as required by core policy 3 of the adopted Wiltshire Core strategy.

 

3.    The site is located in the historic market town of Wilton and will be served by several narrow access roads. The development would result in significant traffic generation which would utilise the existing access points. Traffic generated by this residential  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121a

122.

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