Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from:

·         Cllr Chris Devine – who was substituted by Cllr John Smale

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the last two meetings held on Thursday 12 January 2017 and Thursday 2 February 2017.

The minutes of the last two meetings held on Thursday 12 January and Thursday 2 February 2017 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign both sets of minutes.

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

There were none.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

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

He noted that application 16/11929/FUL Nadder Centre, Tisbury which was due to be considered under Urgent items, had been withdrawn and deferred until a later date pending consultation with the public.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 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.

The committee noted the rules on public participation.

To consider the Salisbury Cathedral Master Plan for endorsement as a material planning consideration for the purposes of development management.

Public Participation

Jackie Molnar spoke in support of the application

Robert Titley spoke in support of the application.

The Team Leader for Major Projects gave an outline of the Salisbury Cathedral Master Plan which was proposed for endorsement as a relevant material planning consideration.

The Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Spatial Planning Manager, where it was noted that the Committee would retain the ability to consider future planning applications for any new builds within the development area covered by the Plan. The Plan was not a binding document but instead acted as an informative for future development.

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

The Unitary Division Member Cllr Tomes praised the Deane and Chapter for the extensive consultation, which he felt had listened to what people have had to say. He felt they had become far more inclusive over last 20 years and now offered a bigger and better tourist attraction whilst maintaining a place of worship. Overall, opening up the southern side of the cathedral was good, and in principle it was a good proposal.

Cllr Tomes then moved APPROVAL that the Master Plan be adopted. This was seconded by Cllr Westmoreland.

The Committee then discussed the Master Plan, it was noted that although the consultation had been good, there was some concern regarding the proposal to develop a new house within the development site, however if in the future this aspect of the development was not to be approved, then the rest of the plan could go ahead.

The Committee voted on the proposal to APPROVE the Plan for endorsement.

Resolved

That the Salisbury Cathedral Master Plan be endorsed as a relevant material planning consideration to be taken into account when making decision on planning applications on any proposal set out in the master plan, as attached at Appendix 1 of the Report, subject to the amendment in paragraph 17 of the report, and any other minor alterations required to improve its clarity.

There are no Planning Appeals received or decided between 19/01/2017 and 10/02/2017.

There were no new appeals or updates for the period 19/01/2017 to 10/02/2017.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Demolish and erect pair of semi detached 3 bed houses and 2 no. detached houses (Resubmission of 16/07471/OUT).

Public participation

John Palmer spoke in objection to the application

Derek Symes spoke in objection to the application

Tim Stroud spoke in objection to the application

Darryl Howells (Agent) spoke in support of the application

The Senior Planning Officer noted that a site visit had taken place earlier in the day. He introduced the outline application which was to demolish and erect a pair of semi-detached 3 bed houses and 2 no. detached houses. The application was a resubmission of 16/07471/OUT. The application was recommended for APPROVAL with conditions.

The Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was noted that only the footprint and parking was set by the plan. 

Reasons for refusal of the earlier applications on this site had been due to general cramped and over developed form of development at that time and out of character with the area.

The red line shown on the plan went into Tylers Close which was not owned by the applicant, however the correct notices to the owners of Tylers Close had been made. Tylers Close provided the access to the proposed new dwellings.

The front two properties would have parking at the rear, with pedestrian access at the front only.

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

The site was on the boundary of two Unitary Division Members. With Tylers Close in Cllr Tomes division and the property at 142 Netherhampton Road in Cllr Daltons division.

Cllr Tomes noted that having a fourth property as part of this application was one too many, resulting in cramped parking arrangements because of the over development.

There were issues around access, if the land was developed space for turning and manoeuvrings the vehicles would need to be included. There was already a parking issue in Tyler’s close.

Cllr Tomes then moved REFUSAL against Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Dalton. On grounds of over development.

The Committee then discussed the application, it was noted that whilst the plan to have two semis on the front was in keeping with other properties in the same area, it was felt however that the owners of those properties would not park at the designated spaces at the rear of the garden and would instead park outside the front on Netherhampton Road, which would impact on amenities of the neighbours due to the detrimental effect on Tyler’s Close.

To squeeze two semi-detached properties into the front of the site would mean in a loss of access at the font resulting in having to use Tyler’s Close for access.

The Committee then voted on the motion to REFUSE the application against Officer’s recommendation.

Resolved

That application 16/11241/OUT be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Installation of new parking meter.

Public Participation

Luke Hughes spoke in objection to the application

Richard Arundall spoke in objection to the application

Matt Bulford spoke in Support of the application

Cllr Jo Ings of Tisbury PC spoke in objection to the application.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application for the installation of a new parking meter at Old Wardour Castle, which was recommended for APPROVAL with conditions.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. There were none.

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

The Unitary Division Member Cllr Deane noted that he had called in the application because of the lack of consultation by English Heritage. Adding that the residents, the land owner and the Parish Council were all against having the pay meter. To introduce a charge to park may put off tourists and tourist were needed in this area. If English Heritage were to enforce parking charges at this site, it would encourage cars to park in other places, thus causing a negative impact on the surroundings.

The Committee then discussed the application where it was queried as to why the application had come to Committee, if it was at the privilege of the land owner to introduce parking charges, then why could he also not be able to refuse having them introduced.

Cllr Jose Green endorsed the views of those in objection to the application and moved REFUSAL against Officer’s recommendation, on the grounds that the parking meter was of an alien appearance in the setting and detrimental to the landscape.

Cllr Green moved for REFUSAL, this was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

The Committee then discussed the application. It was noted that there was little logic as to why the meter was proposed, as visitors parking and viewing the castle would receive a full refund on the parking charge.

Some felt that in terms of Planning, there was little reason for this application to be refused, whereas other Members felt that as the application was at the site of a significant ancient monument, the introduction of the pay meter was not inconspicuous and would be detrimental to the landscape. It was also noted that there had been clear indication from local community and the land owner that they were not in support of the introduction of the pay meter.

The Committee then voted on the motion of REFUSAL against Officer’s recommendation.

Resolved

That application 16/10220/FUL, Parking Meter at Old Wardour Castle be REFUSED for the following reasons:

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