Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

·         Cllr Fred Westmoreland – who was substituted by Cllr Robert Yuill

·         Cllr Matthew Dean – who was substituted by Cllr Tony Deane

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 24^th August 2017 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the 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 noted that the order of the applications would be changed, due to some speakers having to leave early on. He then explained the meeting procedure to the members of 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 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 (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.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period of 11/08/2017 to 06/10/2017.

The Committee received details of the appeal decisions for the period 11/08/2017 to 06/10/2017, as detailed in the agenda.

Resolved

To note the update.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Construction of one detached dwelling with disabled annexe, including work space for lifelong living and outside space for supported horticultural activities

Public Speakers

Vicky Hotton spoke in support of the application

Katherine Allen spoke in support of the application

Dan Steedman spoke in support of the application

Cllr Charles Penn spoke on behalf of Winterbourne PC

The Senior Planning Officer, Richard Nash introduced the report, which recommended that the application for the construction of one detached dwelling with disabled annexe, including work space for lifelong living and outside space for supported horticultural activities, be refused as the site was within open countryside, outside of any recognised limits of development, there were highway safety issues and the impact on the setting of a Grade II listed building. The needs of the Applicant’s child were also highlighted as a primary consideration.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that a new access to the site would be created, this would lead out onto a straight fast piece of road.

The applicant had offered to improve and extend the pedestrian path near to the site, Highways had objected to that proposal.

The local Neighbourhood Plan (NHP) was in the developmental stage only, and currently had not included the proposed land as a development site.

If approved, the house would become quite an asset in this part of Wiltshire, as the property was a dwelling house it was not possible to condition it for type of use.

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

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Mike Hewitt then spoke in Support of the

application, noting that this was not an easy decision, the applicant had gone a long way to look for a site in the area however none had become available.

The nearest home to accommodate Carston was out of county. For the family to take control of the situation, this was the only way. He felt that the listed building mentioned in the report was a wreck. There was no protection on this building.

Cllr Hewitt then moved for approval, against Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr John Smale.

A debate followed where key issues raised included, That the site was not in the emerging NHP. The site was in an open area, where permitted development would not usually be approved.

The parish council whilst was sympathetic, had not come up with an alternative site within the village. The medical condition and associated needs of the child were material considerations. The expected need would be for a further 50 to 60 years.

Aside from the genuine need, which was proven, the other exceptions detailed in CP46 were not met.

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

Resolved

That planning permission for application 17/06469/FUL be approved against 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 211.

Variation of Condition 2 of 15/04530/FUL and 15/04698/LBC relating to approved plans

Public Speakers

Philip Eastern (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer, Warren Simmonds introduced the report, which recommended that the application for a variation of condition 2 of 15/04530/FUL and 15/04698/LBC relating to approved plans, be approved subject to conditions as detailed in the report.

The Conservation officer had been consulted as it was a listed building, and had raised no objection. CPRE south Wiltshire group had objected to the level of detail provided in these applications.

Members of 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 view to the

Committee as detailed above.

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Tony Dean then spoke in objection to the

Application. He noted that Tisbury Parish Council was not able to attend to speak in objection of the application. He read a short email on behalf of them, stating that the PC believed the proposed development would be less in-keeping than the previous.

Cllr Dean then moved for Refusal, against Officer’s recommendation, on the grounds that the details available were insufficient. The changes were minor changes to the windows. The PC recognised that the pub was no longer viable, however they would like to see the front elevation maintained.

This was seconded by Cllr Hewitt

A debate followed where key issues raised included, the proposed alterations were minor.

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

Cllr Devine moved for approval in line with Officer’s recommendation.

This was seconded by Cllr Hocking

The members voted on the motion of approval.

Resolved

That planning permission for application 17/06148/VAR be Approved, 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.

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

Drawing number 1314160-17-Revision B dated 08.08.17, as deposited with the local planning authority on 11.08.17, and

Drawing number 1314160-08-Revision E dated 26.03.15, as deposited with the local planning authority on 13.11.15, and

Drawing number 1314160-10-Revision C dated 26.03.15, as deposited with the local planning authority on 13.11.15, and

Drawing number 1314160-16 dated 09.11.15, as deposited with the local planning authority on 13.11.15, and

Drawing number 1314160-07-Revision E dated 26.03.15, as deposited with the local planning authority on 13.11.15, and

Drawing number 1314160-11-Revision C dated 26.03.15, as deposited with the local planning authority on 03.08.15.

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

3. No development shall commence on site until a construction methodology (i.e. details of coursing, capping etc) and exact details of the materials to be used for the external stone wall have been submitted to and approved in writing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 212.

Variation of Condition 2 of 13/05402/FUL relating to approved plans.

Public Speakers

Mr Stephen Berry spoke in objection to the application

The Senior Planning Officer, Warren Simmonds  introduced the report, which recommended that the application for a variation of Condition 2 of 13/05402/FUL relating to approved plans, be approved with conditions as detailed in the report.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that plots 1 & 2 had no garages, and plots 4 & 5 could access their back gardens through their garages.

The site was cut in to the hill side and was a lower level than the surrounding properties.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their view to the

Committee as detailed above.

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Brain Dalton then spoke in objection to the

application, noting that the inspector had previously overturned the committees earlier decision, to give the original development permission, with associated conditions. Those conditions were more favourable than the alterations being proposed. The work to build the garages had already started without waiting for permission. The garages would not be used as garages and he felt that the hipped roofs were more attractive.

Cllr Dalton then moved for Refusal, against Officer’s recommendation.

This was seconded by Cllr Devine.

A debate followed where key issues raised included, that the alterations included the parts which had been removed for the appeal to go through.

The proposal now was massively cramped, with every space taken up with a garage or sun room. It was felt that there would be a parking issue here, as the garages would not be used for the cars, and therefore the cars would park elsewhere. However, there were still 2 parking places per property as the garage did count as one, and so the proposals met the criteria for parking.

The garages join up the properties and makes the development appear as one whole mass. This was considered as over development.

The Committee voted on the motion of Refusal.

Resolved

That planning permission for application 17/07765/VAR be Refused against   Officer’s recommendation, for the following reasons:

The proposed variations to the previously approved scheme would result in an increased scale and mass that it is considered would reduce the overall quality of the design of the development and would constitute an overdevelopment of the site. Additionally, the proposed amendments to the previously approved roof forms would increase the mass and perceived visual impact of the development and would be thereby out of keeping with the existing character of the surrounding area. In these respects the proposal is considered contrary to Core Policy CP57 of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy and the aims and objectives of the NPPF & NPPG

Two phase expansion of Stonehenge School: Phase 1 - new building, additional parking spaces, covered canopy link between existing Upper School and new building, fencing and resurfacing to provide all-weather training facility, separate small fenced games court, and associated landscaping. Phase 2  - new building, demolition of Lower School building and creation of new playing field and car park, improvements to Lower School car park, and associated landscaping

Public Speakers

Ian Simpson spoke in objection of the application

Suzanne Gough spoke in support to the application

The Senior Planning Officer, Georgina Wright, introduced the report, which recommended that the application for a two-phase expansion of Stonehenge School:

Phase 1 - new building, additional parking spaces, covered canopy link between existing Upper School and new building, fencing and resurfacing to provide all-weather training facility, separate small fenced games court, and associated landscaping.

Phase 2  - new building, demolition of Lower School building and creation of new playing field and car park, improvements to Lower School car park, and associated landscaping, be approved with conditions, as detailed in the report.

There would also be separate in and out access arrangement and possibly a bus link through the site.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that the flat roof design would meet the standards required to withstand rainfall.

The main reason for the required digging down on the site was to try and reduce the bulk of the development in relation to the neighbouring properties.

It was noted that it was for the education authority to decide if the development was value for money.

The arboriculture report had been amended in response to the Tree Officers report, however there was not the capacity to provide a like for like replacement.

The Holders Road recreation ground site had also been considered as a possible site, and had been declared as not viable.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their view to the

Committee as detailed above.

Concern was noted regarding the suggestion that insufficient work had been carried out on the ground works of the site, with the plans to remove and relay a new pipe under the field. It was noted that the route of the realigned pipe was not for planning to consider, it was for Wessex Water to plan that.

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Westmoreland was not in attendance to speak.

As neighbouring ward Member, Cllr Yuill spoke on the application, he noted that the local Member, Cllr Westmoreland had believed that whilst funding was available for phase 1 it was not yet available for phase 2. He asked whether any timescales could be made available for the phase 2 works. This was not possible at the moment as they were not in a positon to move forward with phase 2.

He hoped the Holders Road facility would be safeguarded, as he felt that there were not enough areas for recreation in Amesbury.

Cllr Yuill then moved for Approval, in line with Officer’s recommendation.

This was seconded by Cllr Devine.

A debate followed where key issues raised included, that if after phase 1 was complete, the project was not ready to move on to phase 2, there would be an interim loss of the playing field until the phase 2, however they already had over what was required.

A community use agreement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 214.

Demolish existing & erect two No.3 bed houses & two No.2 bed bungalows with parking

Public Speakers

Dave Hacker spoke in objection of the application

Jack Holloway spoke in objection to the application

Philip Holdcroft spoke in support of the application

The Senior Planning Officer Lucy Minting, introduced the report, which recommended that the application for the demolition of existing buildings & erect two No.3 bed houses & two No.2 bed bungalows with parking, be approved with conditions, as detailed in the report.

The development included 9 parking spaces which amounted to 2 for each dwelling and one for visitors, positioned in the driveway.

The previously refused scheme had gone to appeal and was dismissed by the inspector. That report was a material consideration.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that it was not necessary to condition the ownership of the shared driveway.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their view to the

Committee as detailed above.

It was noted that the current tenant had witnessed hedgehogs and other wildlife in the grounds of the development site. However there was no specific requirement to have an ecology study, this could be included as an informative.

The removal of one dwelling increased the separation distances and mass of the heights of the buildings. The dwellings would all benefit from good sized gardens.

There had been no objections from key consultees and the scheme was compliant with development plan policies.

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr John Walsh then spoke in objection to the

application, noting that the small route down from Queen Alexander Road was not relative, but it was the route to Wellington Way. The road in the evening was busy with parked cars. The developer was hungry to cram houses into this space.

Despite this application being an improvement on what had been put forward before, he felt that only two houses would be better on this plot.

He stated that Salisbury City Council was not happy with the double parking, and added that the problems would be worse in the evening when people returned home from work and parked their cars.

He felt that the proposal was overdevelopment, and was detrimental to wildlife and residents.

Cllr Devine then moved for Approval in line with Officer’s recommendation. Noting that there was a duty of responsibility for the endangered species, however this has been to appeal, the inspector had made some pertinent points and the  applicant had listened to that and brought back a revised application.

This was seconded by Cllr McLennan. A debate followed.

The Committee voted on the motion of approval subject to conditions.

Resolved

That planning permission for application 17/04897/FUL be approved in line with Officer’s recommendation, with the following conditions:

Extensions, alterations and construction of replacement garage

Public Speakers

Jane Gregory spoke in objection of the application

David Sharpe spoke in support to the application

James Butcher spoke in support of the application

Jane Gregory read the statement of Hommington Parish Council.

The Planning Officer, Joe Richardson introduced the report, which recommended that the application for extensions, alterations and construction of replacement garage, be approved with conditions, as detailed in the report.

Some works had already taken place, in the installation of the gates to the dwelling. The proposed garage had also been moved back in line with the dwelling.

Attention was drawn to the late correspondence received from a member of the public, which had been circulated at the meeting.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that there would be a linkway to the proposed double garage from the main dwelling.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their view to the

Committee as detailed above.

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Richard Clewer then spoke in objection to the application, noting that it had been called in at the request of the parish council and a number of residents who still had concern about the design and style of the proposal.

The scale and size had been the main concerns, as this was a small village, with not many large buildings in the village. Its was not an urban area, and some comments had raised concern that the design was too urban.

Cllr Devine then moved for Approval, in line with Officer’s recommendation.

This was seconded by Cllr Hewitt

A debate followed where key issues raised included,

the conservation officer had given a thorough report which concluded that this was an awful development and should not be built. There had been little or no concerns from Highways.

What was the purpose in protecting these special areas of AONB if we did not protect them from unsuitable developments.

Resolved

That planning permission for application 17/07475/FUL be approved in line with Officer’s recommendation, with the following conditions:

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