Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Clewer and Green.

Councillor Wayman replaced Councillor Green for this meeting only.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 4 July 2013, copy attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 July 2013 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 4 July 2013 as a correct record.

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

The following declarations were made:

1.    Councillor Devine declared that in relation to agenda item 7 – Land at The Grange, Gaters Lane, Winterbourne Dauntsey, he had been contacted by interested parties, he had not expressed an opinion on the report.  Councillor Devine declared that he would  consider the enforcement report on its merits and debate and vote with an open mind.

2.    Councillor Westmoreland declared that in relation to agenda item 7 – Land at The Grange, Gaters Lane, Winterbourne Dauntsey, he had met the owners of The Grange during a site visit with a fellow Councillor and he was familiar with the background of the case but had not expressed an opinion on the report.  Councillor Westmoreland declared that he would  consider the enforcement report on its merits and debate and vote with an open mind.

3.    Councillor Britton declared that in relation to agenda item 8 – Village Design Statement for Idmiston, Gomeldon and Porton that he was a resident of Porton and had made a contribution to the Village Design Statement.   Councillor Britton declared that he would  consider the report on its merits and debate and vote with an open mind.

4.    Councillor Wayman declared that in relation to agenda item 9a and 9b – 1 Beckford Cottage, High Street, Hindon, Salisbury, she had discussed the application with the applicant.  Councillor Wayman declared that she would  consider the application on its merits and debate and vote with an open mind.

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

2.    The Chairman also explained that agenda item 9c – Stonehenge Campsite, Berwick St James, Salisbury, SP3 4TQ had been withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting, and therefore would not be considered by the Committee at this meeting.

3.    Site visits were requested should the following applications come to committee:

a.    An application in Gasper

4.    The Chairman thanked the Area Development Manager Southern, Andrew Guest, for the list of Planning Policies and Core Policies and asked for those Policies along with the list of standard conditions and material conditions to be circulated to all members of the Committee.

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 in person no later than 5.50pm on the day of the meeting.

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. The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice.

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 Thursday, 18 July 2013. 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, copy attached.

The committee received details of the following appeal decisions as detailed in the agenda.

Resolved:

That the appeal decisions be noted.

The report of the Team Leader (Enforcement) is attached.

Public Participation:

·         Hannah Rebdi, owners daughter, spoke in support of her parents, Mr and Mrs Rebdi who were owners of The Grange

·         Mr Rebdi, owner of The Grange, spoke in support of the events that took place on his property

·         Roger Morgan, local resident, spoke on behalf of Dave Southwood in support of Mr and Mrs Rebdi

·         Michael Tristram, local resident, spoke in objection to the events taking place at The Grange

·         Graham Shepherd, local resident, spoke in objection to the events taking place at The Grange

·         Maureen Atkinson, spoke on behalf of the Parish Council in support of Mr and Mrs Rebdi

The Committee received a report of the Team Leader (Enforcement) about the unauthorised use of a former barn and adjacent field for events including wedding ceremonies and receptions on land at the Grange, Gaters Lane, Winterbourne Dauntsey.

The Team Leader (Enforcement) explained that the report had been deferred at the last meeting of the Committee so that members had an opportunity to visit the site prior to this meeting.  He reported that it was not the intention of the Council to restrict activities at the site which could be deemed incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling as detailed in paragraph 18 of the report. This allowed for the occasional family or charity function at the site. 

It was noted that planning permission was required for the owners to continue using the barn as a wedding venue constituted a material change of use of the barn. As the owners had not sought planning permission enforcement action was necessary in order for the commercial activities to cease.  

The Committee was informed that the owners had indicated that their intention was to cease the use of the barn as a wedding venue after 7 September 2013 as that was the date of the last booking.  Officers proposed that enforcement action should not commence until after this date and only if further wedding ceremonies and events took place at the site in future without the owners having obtained prior planning permission in breach of planning control.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee with their views, as detailed above.  It was noted that the Committee had visited the site earlier on the day of the meeting.

The Local member, Councillor Mike Hewitt, then spoke to the report.  In particular he raised issues relating to the letters of representation received from neighbours, confirmed that the car parking area was historically a hard standing area as it was a farm yard, permission had been given to fell trees as they were diseased, noise levels, the lane was not used to park cars in and cars could leave the property by the field. 

The Committee then considered the report and raised the following issues:

·         applicants needed to be informed that once a licence had been issued for wedding ceremonies they also needed to apply for planning permission.  It was understood that action had now been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

The report of the Senior Spatial Planning Officer, Economy & Regeneration is attached.  Appendix 1 to be circulated.

The Committee will be informed that at the last meeting of the Amesbury Area Board held on 30 May the Board made the following recommendation:

Decision

To recommend to the Southern Area Planning Committee that the Village Design Statement for Idmiston, Gomeldon and Porton be endorsed.

The Committee considered the report of the Senior Spatial Planning Officer, Economy and regeneration about the approval as material planning consideration, the Village Design Statement – VDS - for Idmiston, Porton and Gomeldon.

The officer explained that the VDS provided a comprehensive description of the villages and its environments and identified its key characteristics.  The VDS provided clear guidance to developers as to what should be respected and acknowledged by new buildings in order to help preserve the local scene. It was considered that the VDS was fit for purpose and the Committee was asked to approve its use as a material planning consideration for the purposes of development management.

The Committee were informed that the Amesbury Area Board at its meeting held on 30 May 2013 also considered the VDS and recommended that it be endorsed by this Committee.

The Chairman thanked the officer for her presentation and work undertaken on the VDS.  He also congratulated the three villages and all those associated with the VDS for producing such a comprehensive document.

Resolved:

That the Village Design Statement for Idmiston, Porton and Gomeldon be approved as a material planning consideration for the purposes of development management.

Public Participation:

•      Joanna Harrison, local resident, spoke in objection to the application

•      DicconCarpendale, planning agent, spoke in support of the application

•      Caroline Leatham, applicant, spoke in support of the application

•      Charles Bowen, Hindon Parish Council, spoke in support of the application

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended refusal with reasons.  He explained that the planning application was to carry out alterations and the construction of a first floor rear extension. 

Members of the Committee were informed that the proposed extension, by reason of its positioning, would lead to the loss of historic fabric and the sense of the scale of the building, and its size and design, would harm the character and setting of the listed building and, in turn, the character of Hindon Conservation Area.

Members then raised a number of technical issues in relation to previous application refused for the property and materials to be used in the construction of the flat roof.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee with their views, as detailed above.

The local member, Councillor Bridget Wayman, then spoke in support of the application.

The Committee then considered the application and debated a number of issues.  It was felt that the listing, although it encompassed the whole building, mainly focused on the facade of the building rather than the rear of the property, where the proposed extension would be built.  A number of members were aware that the applicants personal circumstances should not be a factor in determining the application even though they were sympathetic to the reasons for the application. 

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED with officers delegated to agree the conditions in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and local member.  The agreed conditions are as detailed below:

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. No development shall commence on site until 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 Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

POLICIES:  Saved policies H16, G2, D3, C5, CN8, CN11 and CN3 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (which are ‘saved’ policies of the adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy).

3.The first floor window in the south western (rear) elevation serving the bathroom shall be glazed with obscure glass only prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted and shall be permanently maintained as such at all times thereafter.

REASON:  In the interests of residential amenity and privacy.

POLICY:  Saved policy G2 (General Criteria for Development) of The Salisbury District  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Public Participation:

•      Joanna Harrison, local resident, spoke in objection to the application

•      DicconCarpendale, planning agent, spoke in support of the application

•      Caroline Leatham, applicant, spoke in support of the application

•      Charles Bowen, Hindon Parish Council, spoke in support of the application

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended refusal with reasons.  He explained that the listed building planning application was to carry out alterations and the construction of a first floor rear extension. 

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED with officers delegated to agree the conditions in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and local member. The agreed conditions are as detailed below:

1. The works for which Listed Building Consent is hereby granted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

REASON:  To comply with the provisions of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

            2.  Notwithstanding the approved drawings, no works shall commence until details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

(i)Full details and samples of external materials

(ii)Internal door details

(iii)Roof junction details

(iv)Obscure glazing details

The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: In the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the listed building and its setting.

POLICY:  Saved policy CN3 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (which is a ‘saved’ policy of the adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy).

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

Proposed rear elevation, proposed cross section, proposed first floor plan, proposed roof plan, proposed ground floor plan, site location plan, existing rear elevation, existing cross section, existing first floor plan, existing second floor plan, existing ground floor plan, elevation of bathroom window, typical section of proposed new sash window jamb and typical section through proposed new sash window:  Drawing reference:  2002 / 11 D  Date drawn:  December 2013  Date received by Wiltshire Council:  17/04/2013

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

The Chairman explained that the applicant had withdrawn this application to enable amendments to the application prior to a re-submission.

Public Participation:

•      Matthew Shellum, planning agent, spoke in support of the application

•      Andrew Wiliams, Stonehenge Chamber of Trade, spoke in support of the application

•      Ian Mitchell, Mayor of Amesbury and on behalf of the Parish Council, spoke in support of the application

The Area Team Leader introduced the report which recommended for approval subject to a legal agreement and conditions.  She explained that the planning application was for the redevelopment of the site to form a mixed use development of circa 5,000 sq ft A1 retail floorspace, and 33 later living apartments for older persons including associated landscaping, car parking and access.

In accordance with paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Wiltshire Council had worked proactively to secure the development to improve the social, economic and environmental conditions of the area.

Members then raised a number of technical issues in relation to car parking for staff and customers, space for refuse collection vehicles and the affordable housing contribution.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee with their views, as detailed above. The Committee attended a site visit of the application site prior to the meeting.

The local member, Councillor Fred Westmoreland, then spoke to the application. In particular he explained his concerns about the retail space being too small and the design of the overall development would not alleviate antisocial behaviour in the town centre.  

The Committee then considered the application and debated a number of issues. Members highlighted the overwhelming support for the application received from the Chamber of Trade who represented over 120 local businesses and the need for smaller stores in the town.  There was a concern that if this application was refused the site would not be developed for many years and that this would be detrimental to the social, economic and environmental conditions of the area.

The Committee asked for an officer to attend the next meeting to speak about housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

Public Participation:

·         John Bryant, spoke in objection to the application

·         John Wilkinson, Chair of Old Sarum Residents Association, spoke in objection to the application

·         David Parker, local resident, spoke in objection of the application

·         Glen Godwin, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application

·         Ron Champion, Chairman of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council, spoke in objection of the application 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended refusal with reasons. She explained that the planning application was for the erection of 69 dwellings and associated car parking, landscaping and infrastructure.  Members noted that because the application had been appealed, they were unable to determine the application but were able to indicate how they would have voted. 

The Committee were informed that the area of land in question was identified in the Design Code document 2007 as land which may be suitable for development after 2011. It was also located within an emerging settlement, and hence, its development for housing would accord generally with national and local planning policies.  In the absence of a signed S106 Agreement, the proposal would fail to mitigate against the impact of the additional dwellings in terms of additional provisions towards local infrastructure, services and facilities.

Officers also explained that the proposal was considered to be contrary to Core Policy CP3 in that without a suitable S106 Agreement, it made no provision for 40 percent affordable housing within the application scheme, and sought to separate the location of affordable from market housing, contrary to the guidance provided in the NPPF, which aimed to provide high quality affordable housing, and mixed healthy communities.  The Local Planning Authority considers that the future occupiers of the proposed units may suffer a significant adverse impact to their residential amenity to the detriment of the enjoyment of their property from vibration and noise emanating from an adjacent commercial operation.  It was noted that there was an outstanding highways objection, which would have to be imposed as a highways reason for refusal.

Members then raised a number of technical issues in relation to existing permission for area 10 and the relocation of affordable housing from area 12 to area 10.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee with their views, as detailed above.  The Committee attended a site visit of the application site prior to the meeting.

The local member, Councillor Ian McLennan, then spoke to the application. In particular he spoke about his concerns in relation to the application and in particular the density of the site and the proximity to the football club.

Resolved:

That the Committee indicated that they would have been minded to REFUSE planning permission, for the following reasons:

1.  Under Core Policy 3 of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy the application requires a target of 40% affordable housing provision. However, the proposal suggests that no affordable housing  will be provided on another separate parcel of land (Area 12), subject to a current separate planning application (S/2012/1836), and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

Public Participation:

·         John Bryant, spoke in objection to the application

·         John Wilkinson, Chair of Old Sarum Residents Association, spoke in objection to the application

·         David Parker, local resident, spoke in objection of the application

·         Glen Godwin, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application

·         Ron Champion, Chairman of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council, spoke in objection of the application 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended refusal with reasons.  She explained that the planning application was for the erection of 35 dwellings with associated car parking, landscaping and infrastructure.  Members noted that note that because the application had been appealed, they were unable to determine the application but were able to indicate how they would of voted.

Members of the Committee were informed that the proposal would result in the development of a large area of intended public open space which is ecologically sensitive.  It was noted that the proposed area was intended by the agreed Masterplan to have a more rural and spacious visual quality, as well as helping to provide a strong character and sense of place to the development. The loss of the proposed open area and its development for housing would have a significant detrimental impact on the open character and visual qualities of the area, and would adversely affect the amenities of adjacent dwellings, contrary to the agreed masterplan.

Officers explained that in the absence of a signed S106 Agreement, the proposal would fail to mitigate against the impact of the additional dwellings in terms of additional provisions towards local infrastructure, services and facilities. Furthermore, in the absence of a suitable report demonstrating whether and to what extent these areas are affected, the Local Planning Authority considers that the future occupiers of the proposed units may suffer a significant adverse impact to their residential amenity to the detriment of the enjoyment of their property from vibration and noise emanating from an adjacent commercial operation. It was noted that there was an outstanding highways objection, which would have to be imposed as a highways reason for refusal, if the highways officer maintains a valid planning objection.  Members delegated this matter to Officers to impose a reason for refusal where considered appropriate.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee with their views, as detailed above. The Committee attended a site visit of the application site prior to the meeting.

The local member, Councillor Ian McLellan, then spoke to the application. In particular he was concerned at the loss of the proposed open space area and felt this would have a detrimental impact on those living in the development.

Resolved:

That the Committee indicated that they would have been minded to REFUSE planning permission, for the following reasons:

1.The proposal would result in the development of a large area of intended public open space which is considered to be of local ecologically value. Whilst there is an acknowledged over-provision of such land to serve the housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

Public Participation:

·         John Bryant, spoke in objection to the application

·         John Wilkinson, Chair of Old Sarum Residents Association, spoke in objection to the application

·         David Parker, local resident, spoke in objection of the application

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended refusal with reasons.  She explained that the planning application was for the erection of 22 dwellings and associated car parking, landscaping and infrastructure.  Members noted that note that because the application had been appealed, they were unable to determine the application but were able to indicate how they would of voted.

Members of the Committee were informed that the proposal would result in the development of a large area of intended public open space. The proposed open space area was intended by the agreed Masterplan to have a more rural and spacious visual quality, as well as helping to provide a strong character and sense of place to the development. It was considered that the loss of the proposed open area and its development for housing as proposed would have a significant detrimental impact on the open character and visual qualities of the area, and would adversely affect the amenities of adjacent dwellings, contrary to the agreed masterplan.

In the absence of a signed S106 Agreement, the proposal would also fail to mitigate against the impact of the additional dwellings in terms of additional provisions towards local infrastructure, services and facilities.

Members noted that the proposal was considered to be contrary to Core Policy CP3 in that it made no provision for affordable housing within the application scheme, and sought to separate the location of affordable from market housing, contrary to the guidance provided in the NPPF, which aimed to provide high quality affordable housing, and mixed healthy communities.  Also, the Local Planning Authority considered that the future occupiers of the proposed units may suffer a significant adverse impact to their residential amenity to the detriment of the enjoyment of their property from vibration and noise emanating from an adjacent commercial operation.  It was noted that there was an outstanding highways objection, which would have to be imposed as a highways reason for refusal.

Members then raised a number of technical issues in relation to the materials used for the roof and the walls of the extension.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee with their views, as detailed above.  The Committee attended a site visit of the application site prior to the meeting.

The local member, Councillor Ian McLennan, then spoke to the application. In particular he was concerned at the loss of the proposed open space area and felt this would have a detrimental impact on those living in the development.

Resolved:

That the Committee indicated that they would have been minded to REFUSE planning permission, for the following reasons:

1.The proposal would result in the development of a large area of intended public open space. Whilst there is an acknowledged over-provision of such land to serve the housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.