Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

There were no apologies received.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 05 September 2013.

The minutes of the meeting held on 05 September 2013 were presented for consideration. It was,

Resolved:

To APPROVE as a true and correct record and sign the minutes.

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

There were no declarations.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman 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 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 19 September 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.

It was agreed a site visit would be held for application 13/00246/FUL - Croucheston Farm The Cross Bishopstone Salisbury Wiltshire SP5 4BW 

- should the item come before the Committee.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals.

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

It was also agreed that the Committee would endorse a letter, to be delivered by the Chairman to the Cabinet, on the delays and expected completion of the council’s Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document, the lack of which it was felt had exposed the council to negative decisions from Planning Inspectors during appeals.

A late list of observations was circulated as attached to these minutes.

Public Participation

Mr Ron Champion, Laverstock and Ford Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the item, explaining that following the Committee meeting on 05 September 2013 where the application had been refused, the applicants had lodged an appeal the next morning prior to receiving the formal notice of the decision, appealing against the non-determination of the application because of the delays in bringing the item forward for determination.

It was stated that officers therefore sought the Committee’s approval of the refusal reasons as listed in the report and agreed at the last meeting, to form the basis of any appeal challenge by the Council.

Members then had the opportunity to ask questions of the officer. It was confirmed the Committee could amend or add additional reasons for refusal if they felt that would be appropriate.

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

The Local Member, Councillor Ian McLennan, reiterated his objection to the application.

A debate followed where the Committee confirmed their previous decision to refuse the application, and discussed potential amendments, including the land supply for housing, burial contributions and other issues.

After discussion, it was,

Resolved:

To approve the grounds for challenging the applicant’s appeal as follows:

1) It is acknowledged that the application site is located within the allocated housing site defined by saved policy H2D of the Salisbury District Local Plan and within the approved site associated with outline application S/2005/0211. However, whilst the policy and adopted development brief alludes to additional dwellings being permitted after 2011, the Council is of the opinion that any additional dwellings were envisaged to come forward following a formal consultation and allocation as part of a future Local Plan adoption process. As no such land has been allocated at the Old Sarum site as part of the now adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy, or is intended as part of the draft Wiltshire Core Strategy, and given that there is a 5 year land supply, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the Development Plan, in particular policy H2D and the associated development brief, which stipulated a limit of 630 dwellings prior to 2011; policy CP6 of the adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy, which does not allocated further land in this area, and similarly, draft policy CP1 & CP2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. The proposal would therefore also be contrary to the guidance contained with the National Planning Policy Framework, which indicates that housing provision should be considered on the basis of the adopted up to date local planning policies.

2) Notwithstanding the above, the scheme would only provide for 25 percent affordable housing, and would not provide any on site public open space or provide any access to additional planned open space within the allocated Longhedge development located immediately adjacent to the site. As a result, and in the absence of a suitable Section 106 Agreement, the proposal would not accord  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

Public Participation

Mr John Bryant spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Ron Champion, Laverstock and Ford Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the item, explaining that following the Committee meeting on 05 September 2013 where the application had been delegated to the Area Development Manager to approve subject to conditions and the completion of a s.106 legal agreement, the applicants had lodged an appeal the next morning prior to receiving the formal notice of the decision, appealing against the non-determination of the application because of the delays in bringing the item forward for determination.

Attention was drawn to the additional information as attached to these minutes, which detailed the applicant’s grounds for appeal, relating to the restriction on the opening hours of the shop, restrictions on the land offered to the school for educational purposes and a dispute over the s.106 contributions.

It was stated that officers therefore sought the Committee’s approval for the proposed resolution to form the basis of any appeal challenge by the Council.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask questions of the officer. It was confirmed in response to queries that Members could amend their resolution from the Committee meeting on 05 September 2013 if they felt certain aspects should be reconsidered. It was also clarified that the Council’s Education Department intended to utilise the land offered by the developers for educational use at the local school, meaning that even if a clause was retained stating the land should be used for open space if not used for that purpose, or that it should be returned to the applicant in that circumstance, there was little prospect of that clause being utilised.

Members of the Public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

The Local Member, Councillor Ian McLennan, reiterated his support for the application on the terms as agreed by the Committee at its previous meeting.

A debate followed where which issues required provision to mitigate the impacts of the development, to be included in any appeal challenge by the Council, was raised, along with the appropriateness of the restriction on opening and delivery hours for the proposed shop.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

To approve the grounds for challenging the applicant’s appeal as follows:

1)    The proposal would result in additional dwellings, and hence additional impacts, on existing and proposed facilities. To mitigate the impacts of the development, provision would therefore need to be made towards the following:

·         Additional Educational facilities/contributions including secure use of the blue land as part of the adjacent school, or otherwise as public open space

·         Provision of suitable additional waste and recycling provision/contributions

·         Provision of additional open play space financial contributions

·         Financial contribution towards stone curlew project

·         Additional Public open space facilities/contributions

·         Additional public art financial contributions

·         Additional transportation financial contributions/sustainable transport initiatives

·         Additional Financial Contribution towards planned community centre

·         Secure affordable housing provision, including 4 additional affordable housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

Public Participation

Mr Emad Moussa, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer introduced a report which recommended that planning permission be granted. It was confirmed no highways concerns had been raised by officers, and that the proposed wall would run directly alongside the pavement, except for a small section which would run behind the street sign and lamp post.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. It was clarified that permitted development only allowed a wall to be built of up to 1m adjacent to a highway, and that the proposed wall was 2m in height, a reduction of 0.8m from a previously refused application. Details were also sought on the exact path of the proposed wall.

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

The Local Member, Councillor Chris Devine, then spoke in objection to the application.

A debate followed where the impact of the proposed wall on the character of the area was assessed, and the presence of similarly heighted walls and fences in the area was noted.

After discussion, it was,

Resolved:

That permission be GRANTED, for the following reasons:

The proposed new wall, by reason of its reduced height over that previously proposed under refused planning application S/2013/0063, would not present a visually dominant and unduly overbearing structure, and would accord with the existing character of the surrounding area where significant boundary structures are frequently located immediately at the highway edge, and would thereby integrate satisfactorily in relation to other properties and the overall landscape framework.

The proposed development is thereby considered accordant with the provisions of the Development Plan, and in particular Policies G2 (General Criteria for Development), D3 (Design) & H16 (Housing Policy) of the saved policies of the adopted local plan (constituting saved policies listed in Appendix C, of the adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy), and the aims and objectives of the NPPF (in particular chapter 7). The proposed development would not be discordant with the guidance contained within the Winterslow Village Design Statement.

Subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

The Committee commented upon the additional information and discussed supporting the view of the Highways officers in appendix 1 regarding a connecting link between Old Sarum and the Longhedge strategic site.

Resolved:

To receive a report from the Highways team on the matter at a future date.