Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

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

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 16 March 2017 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 16 March 2017.

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 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 objections and representations of support received following the making and advertisement of “The Wiltshire Council (Parish of Idmiston) Path No. 9 Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2016”, under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Recommendation:

that the Order be forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for determination, with a recommendation from Wiltshire Council that the Order be confirmed without modification.

Public Participation

Mark Jones spoke in Objection to the Order

Don Whittlestone spoke in Objection to the Order

Bob Pope spoke in Objection to the Order on behalf of Mr and Mrs Tidd

Steve Castellano spoke in support of the Order

Valerie Creswell spoke in support of the Order

Wesley Bight spoke in support of the Order

Cllr Gould of Idmiston Parish Council spoke in Objection to the Order

The Rights of Way Officer; Janice Green drew attention to the late correspondence circulated at the meeting from the land owner. She presented the report for Footpath No.9 – Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2016 in the Parish of Idmiston. It was explained that Wiltshire Council received an application dated 3 November 2015 and made under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to add a footpath to the definitive map and statement of public rights of way in the parish of Idmiston.

The application was made on behalf of Porton Neighbourhood Plan Group, on the grounds that public footpath rights could be reasonably alleged to subsist or subsist over the claimed route, based on user evidence and should be recorded within the definitive map and statement of public rights of way, as such.

Key points noted were that part of the land the footpath would cross was privately owned and the other part in Bourne Close was across an un-adopted road.

The Committee was asked to consider the evidence of use over a 20 year period from 1995 to 2015, as supported in the evidence forms. Other matters such as planning matters could not be considered.

The Order would be forwarded to the Secretary of State for determination by an appointed Inspector.

There had been 27 completed user evidence forms detailing use within the 20-year period, with some evidence of use dating back as early as 1960.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, it was noted that the evidence contained within the witness forms submitted, was consistent.

Prior to the housing estate being built, the site was part of Manor Farm, and a route (possibly a private access to the Manor Farm buildings), located alongside the boundary of Rose Cottage, as per the Order route, could be seen on historic mapping.

For transparency, Cllr Britton noted that he lived in Porton and regularly walked past the site, however he was not affected by the proposals at all.

Clarity was sought on whether the Order recommendation could be changed by the Committee. The Officer explained that the Secretary of State would consider only the Order before them and if the Committee were minded to make any amendments to the Order, i.e. moving that part of the Order route A-B onto the Bourne Close roadway, clear evidential reasons for Wiltshire Council’s recommendation to the Secretary of State to confirm the order  with modification, must be provided.

If the Committee were minded to support the Order in full, then there could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 162.

To consider the eighteen representations and one objection received to the making of The Wiltshire Council City of Salisbury (Stratford sub Castle) Salisbury Footpath No. 6 Diversion Order 2016 and Definitive Map Modification Order 2016 and The Wiltshire Council Stratford sub Castle Footpath Linking Salisbury 24 with Salisbury 6 Extinguishment Order 2016.

Recommendation:

That the Orders be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with the notification that Wiltshire Council supports the confirmation of both Orders as made. 

Public Participation

Penny Fulton spoke in Objection to the Order

Arnold Harrison spoke in support of the Order

Richard Griffiths spoke in Support of the Order

WC Cllr John Walsh spoke (as a local resident) in Support of the Order

The Rights of Way Officer; Sally Madgwick presented the report for The Wiltshire Council City of Salisbury (Stratford sub Castle) Salisbury footpath No. 6 Diversion Order and Definitive Map Modification Order 2016 and The Wiltshire Council Stratford sub Castle footpath linking Salisbury 24 with Salisbury 6 Extinguishment Order 2016.   Different legislation than the last RoW Order. The Committee has the power to abandon the order or to send to the Sec of State.

It was noted that due to Planning Permission already granted to the applicant for the replacement of a garage, alteration of vehicular access and a new boundary wall at Parsonage Farm House. If the committee is minded to abandon these Orders then a further Order under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 legislation would need to be made as the development would obstruct part of the path, therefore the footpath would need to be diverted to enable the consented development to proceed

The new route had uninterrupted views of Old Sarum. The use and enjoyment of the route was an important factor in the decision to move the route.

Advantages of the new route included better accessibility, as it was wider, easy to find, had no styles and was already in popular daily use.

There had been eighteen representations and one objection received to the

making of the orders.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, it was noted that the Order width of the path would be 3m. As the path was currently wider than 3m, the planting of a hedge would be permitted. 

Members of the public then presented their views as detailed above.

The Unitary Division Member Cllr Douglas spoke in support of the order, noting that it was a sensible plan which would mean less mud, more use, and had wide community support.

Cllr Westmoreland then moved the motion to support the Order. This was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

Resolved

That the Wiltshire County City of Salisbury (Stratford sub Castle) Salisbury Footpath No. 6 Diversion Order 2016 and Definitive Map Modification Order 2016 and the Wiltshire Council Stratford sub Castle Footpath Linking Salisbury 24 with Salisbury 6 Extinguishment Order 2016 are forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with the recommendation that they be confirmed as made.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period of 03/03/2017 to 24/03/2017.

The committee received details of the appeal decisions for the period of 03/03/2017 to 24/03/2017 as detailed in the agenda.

Resolved

That the report be noted.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Conversion and renovation of the existing Grade II* Listed Old Ship Inn into 7 Apartments and 2 x three bed cottages. To include the demolition of outbuildings and construction of an additional new build two bed cottage to the rear (10 dwellings in total).

Public Participation

Cllr Bret Norris of Mere Town Council spoke in Objection to the Application

The Planning Team Leader; Richard Hughes, introduced the application for the conversion and renovation of the existing Grade II* Listed Old Ship Inn into 7 Apartments and 2 x three bed cottages. To include the demolition of outbuildings and the construction of an additional new build two bed cottage to the rear (10 dwellings in total).

He drew attention to the combined report which included both Full and Listed Building applications for this development.

Key details stated included the insertion of new roof lights in the existing property. There were no elevations of the proposed cycle store included in the application, therefore a condition would need to be included if the application was approved, to request these prior to any work taking place.

There was a separate cottage at rear of the development which did not form part of the application site. There were planning restrictions in place on the historic car park.

The application was recommended for APPROVAL subject to conditions.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. Details were sought on why the red line at the front of the site was shown on the highways owned road. It was explained that this was to show access and not ownership.

The garden space at the rear was the only amenity land on the proposal, and was to be accessed solely by the 2 bed property.

The 7 apartments would consist of 1 and 2 bedroom properties. The cottages were 3 bedrooms.

Historic England’s had not imposed any conditions regarding their comments that there was an opportunity to reinstate some of the buildings historic layout. Any conditions were generally left to the Conservation Officer and the Local Authority to make judgement.

A vacant buildings credit was applicable to this development, which was a policy from Central Government allowing smaller developments of ten or less properties to avoid too many contributions in the planning system, such as affordable housing.  Factors taken into consideration included the vacant building and the preference to see houses built and buildings being brought back into life with smaller requirements.

Members of the public were then able to present their views, as detailed above.

Cllr Bret Norris, Mere Town Council spoke in objection to the application. He noted that although the Planning team and applicant had been working to alleviate concerns, the parish still had some concerns with over development of the site, Inadequate parking, the bin area was insufficient and it was felt that this should be swopped for the cycle shelter. Measures should be taken to protect the tree roots in the car park during excavation of earth and associate works.

Other desired alterations included the front arched doors to remain as wood, and the bracket and sign to be retained at the front of the property to preserve the character of the building.

The Town Council was not against a residential accommodation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 166.

Erection of 2 bay garage to front of property.

Public Participation

Cllr Neil Sutherland of Whiteparish Parish Council

The Planning Officer; Christos Chrysanthou introduced the application for the erection of a 2 bay garage to the front of Florance House.

The application was recommended for APPROVAL subject to conditions.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer.

Members of the public had the opportunity to speak as detailed above.

The Parish Council spoke in Objection to the application, and made the point that the primary consideration was the visual impact. The original development of two properties on the site of the old village hall, had been granted permission without garaging.

The two new houses sat back in line with neighbouring properties, none of which had garages at the front. It was noted that to have the garage at the side of the property may present issues relating to an underground sewer.

The applicant had made steps to reduce the size of the construction but it was felt that the visual impact was still too great.

The Unitary Division Member Cllr Britton spoke in Objection to the application.  He noted his concerns in respect of the design of the development, visual impact upon the surrounding area and relationship to adjoining properties.

This was the site of the old village hall which had been a dilapidated building. These attractive houses were set back from the road, and in this case having a garage at the front would be an unnatural feature. He felt that the plot was quite large, going well back with ample room at the rear for a garage.

Cllr Britton moved the motion of REFUSAL against Officer’s recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Jeans.

The Committee then discussed the application, where it was noted that the streetscene would be impacted upon if there was a garage at the front of the property, along the edge of the road. In addition, there was ample space at the rear of the property where a garage would be better placed.

Resolved

That application 17/00444/FUL be REFUSED for the following reasons;

1.      The proposed garage would be sited directly in front of the main dwellinghouse and would be readily visible in the surrounding street scene, being positioned closer to the road than the existing dwellinghouses. The proposed garage, by reason of its scale, mass and siting would be visually prominent and would have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the street scene.

2.     The proposed development is therefore considered contrary to the aims and objectives of CP57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Construction of two residential dwellings.

Public Participation

Alison Whalley (Agent) spoke in support of the Application

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes introduced the application for Construction of two residential dwellings. The application was recommended for REFUSAL

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer.

Members of the public then presented their views as detailed above.

It was noted that the Parish Council was in support of the application.

The Unitary Division Member Cllr Johnson spoke in Support of the Application. He noted that Odstock was a small village, where an opportunity was available to build a couple of dwellings. He added that people should be encouraged to stay in the village, developments like this would assist with that.

Cllr Westmoreland moved the motion of REFUSAL in line with Officer Recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Devine.

The Committee then discussed the application. The main points raised included that the proposal in the form suggested did not represent infill as defined by the Policy, and was considered as a back-land development. However, they noted that they liked the actual design of the dwellings, and may look more favourably on a scheme which located the dwellings along the main road.

The Committee voted on the motion for REFSAL in line with the Officer’s recommendation.

Resolved

That application 16/12123/FUL 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