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

193.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from:

 

·         Cllr Bran Dalton, who was substituted by Cllr Trevor Carbin

194.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 30 May 2017.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the last meeting held on 29 June 2017, were presented.

 

Resolved:

 

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

195.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

In relation to application 17/03957/FUL - Cllr Richard Britton noted for openness, that he had a historic connection to the current building, as he had been the Assistant General Manager of UK Provident when the building had been built over 30 years ago. As this did not constitute an Interest, he took part in the discussion and vote on the application.

196.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

Minutes:

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

197.

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 2.50pm 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 18 August 2017 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 22 August 2017. 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.

198.

Planning Appeals and Updates

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

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The Committee received details of the appeal decisions for the period 16/06/17 to 11/08/17 as detailed in the agenda.

 

Resolved

That the appeals update for 16/06/17 – 11/08/17 be noted.

 

Questions

Cllr Green asked for clarity on what steps would now be taken following the outcome of the retrospective application 16/03437/FUL in Fonthill Gifford.

Answer: The Enforcement Officer would write to the offender advising of the need to comply with the original planning consent and give them a period of time to do so within. If they did not comply with it enforcement action would then be taken.

 

199.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

200.

17/01402/FUL: 79 Southampton Road, Clarendon

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Speakers

Louise Cooper spoke in support of the application

Joanna Rees-Bains spoke in support of the application

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Warren Simmons introduced the report, which recommended that the application for the replacement of existing structures be approved subject to conditions as listed in the report.

 

Attention was drawn to the confidential correspondence circulated to Members prior to the meeting and the site visit that had taken place earlier that day.

 

The site was recognised as a Gypsy and Traveller (G&T) site of 2.6 hectares which was extensively screened by mature trees. Material considerations to be considered were supported by the confidential medical documents.

 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that the Enforcement Team had confirmed there were no outstanding on this site.

 

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

 

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Chris Devine then spoke in support of the application, noting that he had originally called in the application, prior to the last Committee meeting, where it had been for consideration as the Officers recommendation then had been for refusal. Further information was needed which is why it was deferred. The application had now come back with an Officer’s recommendation of approval. He added that all the surrounding neighbours were in support of the application.

 

Cllr Devine then moved Officer’s recommendation of Approval subject to the conditions as detailed in the report. This was seconded by Cllr McLennan.

 

A debate followed where key issues raised included, that this site was well kept and maintained by the applicants.

 

A detailed explanation of medical concerns had been provided, along with two letters of support from doctors which addressed the relevant medical issues, including specific references to the intended occupier of the bungalow.

 

The site had been occupied for over 60 years. One of the conditions applied to the recommendation included the restriction of occupancy of the bungalow to those with G&T origin. This would restrict who could live in the bungalow in the future.

 

The Committee voted on the motion of Approval, subject to conditions.

 

Resolved

That planning permission be approved in line with Officer’s recommendation, with the following 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.

 

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

 

Drawing number DJB/SW/01 (undated), as deposited with the local planning authority on 21.04.17, and

Drawing number 70383297-69608 (dated Jan 2017), as deposited with the local planning authority on 14.03.17, and

Drawing reference ‘Proposed bungalow’ (floorplans and elevations) (undated), as deposited with the local planning authority on 21.04.17.

 

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 200.

201.

17/03957/FUL: UK House Complex including 79 and 89 Endless Street, Salisbury

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Speakers

Mr Venner spoke in objection of the application

Mr Mike Lennard spoke to raise some points

Mrs Barbara Barbour spoke in support of the application

Mr Gian Bendinelli spoke in support of the application

Cllr Jeremy Nettle of Salisbury City Council spoke in support of the application

 

The Head of Development Management, Mike Wilmott introduced the report, which recommended that the application for the retention & conversion of Belle Vue House to dwelling with self-contained flat. Demolition of all other buildings and erection of: 3 houses & 2 apartments with associated car parking; 24 retirement apartments with communal facilities & car parking; assisted living/extra care accommodation for older people with communal facilities & car parking. Vehicular access to all parts of proposed development via Endless St be approved subject to conditions as detailed in the report.

 

Attention was drawn to the late correspondence circulated at the meeting.

 

The development would see the existing structure built 30 years ago, returned to a residential use of the listed building Bellevue house.

 

The development would be 3.5m lower overall than the previous building, and included 56 off street parking spaces.

 

The Clubhouse would be demolished. There had been no objections from Highways, as a substantial amount of parking would be provided.

 

Approval of the development would be subject to the prior completion of a 106 agreement. All accommodation provided within the development would have a restricted age criteria.

 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that SCC request for a second temporary pedestrian crossing during construction would be addressed by Rights of Way during the construction works at the time.

 

In relation to the existing clubhouse, condition 3 allows for further consideration of a revised more suitable contemporary design to be submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing.

 

The 56 parking spaces would be in addition to those allocated for Belle Vue house, which would accommodate the staff parking.

 

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

 

Salisbury City Councillor, Cllr Nettle spoke in support of the development. Some of the key points he raised included concern surrounding access on the path during development stages. They had suggested a second crossing further down towards the post office during the works.

There had been no reference to any light pollution from the bus depot, that some of the houses may be affected by. Construction works should be limited between the hours of 8.00am – 6.00pm.

 

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Atiqul Hoque then spoke in objection to the application, in view of its scale and significance within the context of Salisbury.

He added that McCarthy and Stone had agreed in principle to financially contribute towards a local community needs project. Local residents had put forward their wish that a series of murals be incorporated within the St Edmund and Milford Ward. Andrew Guest was aware of this request, which would require  ...  view the full minutes text for item 201.

202.

17/01880/FUL: Land adjacent 1 Longhedge Cottages, Longhedge

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Robin Reay (agent) spoke in support of the application

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Warren Simmons introduced the application for Construction of 10 semi-detached houses with associated parking, which was recommended for approval.

 

This was a Full application following on from a previous Outline application for 4 detached dwellings with detached garages, which had been approved last year. The application was now for five pairs of semidetached dwellings.

 

One of the conditions listed in the report was to extend the footway, linking up to longhedge. 

 

Attention was drawn to the late correspondence circulated at the meeting, relating to drainage and archaeology. It was noted that the conditions as listed in the report would need to be amended to support that new data, should the application be approved.

 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that the houses would be approximately 9-10m from the rear elevation of the house and the gardens at the rear would have a varying width of around 8m.

 

The grassed area shown on the bottom of the plan, next to plot 10, was not a communal area, the Officer thought it to be associated with plot 10.

 

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

 

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Ian McLennan then spoke in objection to the application, due to due to concerns in respect of the scale of development, visual impact upon the surrounding area relationship to adjoining properties, design (bulk, height, general appearance), environmental/highway impact and car parking. He also noted that the bin lorry seemed to be an issue with Highways as to whether it could access and turn on site.

 

Cllr McLennan then moved for Refusal, against Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Devine.

 

A debate followed where key issues raised included the scale of the development for the size of the plot. It was suggested that the proposal for 10 dwellings was cramped in comparison to the outline application. It was also noted that compared to the scale of development of the dwellings on the Longhedge site, the proposed dwellings on this development were similar.

 

The report detailed that there were no issues from Highways and that loss of amenity was not supported.

 

There had been much debate on the outline application, relating to the possibility of a cycle link going south from the site. Subsequently through discussions with Highways, it had been established that the land concerned was in the ownership of Wiltshire Council, and was therefore not in the applicants control. Any further links on that land would be for the Council to consider in the future, and did not form part of this application.

 

The Committee voted on the motion of Refusal, against Officer’s recommendation. The motion was not carried.

 

The Chairman then moved the motion of Approval, in line with Officer’s recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

 

Resolved

That planning permission for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 202.

203.

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