Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillor Brian Dalton, who was substituted for the meeting by Councillor Peter Edge.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2013.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 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.

There were no announcements.

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 10 October 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.

The update report on Planning Appeals was received.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Attention was drawn to a series of late observations and report changes was circulated to the meeting, to be attached to the agenda on the council website.

Public Speaking

Mr James Humphery spoke in objection to the application.

Mrs Elizabeth Soar spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Richard Soar spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Guy Rash, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Planning officer introduced a report which recommended that permission be granted. Key issues were stated to include the principle of the proposed new access and farm track, justification for its creation and impact upon the character and appearance of the area. It was noted that a traffic survey had been conducted on behalf of the applicants, as detailed in the late observations. It was also confirmed that officers from Highways had raised no objections to the application.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought regarding who had carried out the traffic survey at the site, and it was stated to be PFA Consulting, a professional consultancy agency.

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

The Local Member, Councillor Mike Hewitt, then spoke in objection to the application.

A debate followed, where the issue of highways safety, including the impact of surface water drainage across the road, was raised, along with a discussion on whether the proposed track was justified as an essential need given the existing access at the site.

At the end of discussion, it was,

Resolution:

To REFUSE the application for the following reason:

The development proposes a new vehicular access to serve an existing pheasant rearing shed and associated yard. The access would be sited on the outside of a bend where views of emerging vehicles would be partially obscured to users of the highway, and the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that surface water could be adequately dealt with so as to prevent its discharge onto the highway. Furthermore, it is not considered that the proposed access is essential or necessary development within the countryside, on the basis that the site has historically been accessed by alternative means which is still available for use by the applicant. Consequently the proposed access would be detrimental to highways safety and would not comprise essential development within the countryside, contrary to Local Plan policies G2(i) and C20 (as saved within the South Wiltshire Core Strategy).

Public Participation

Mr John Foster spoke in objection to the application.

Mrs Patricia Solomon spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Ronnie Butler spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Mike Ash, on behalf of Bishopstone Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer introduced a report which recommended approval be granted. The key issues were stated to include the impact on the surrounding area including the river systems and highways and ecology issues. It was noted that there was a dispute of land ownership over part of the site. A site visit had taken place with several members in the hours before the meeting.

Attention was drawn to the late observations circulated at the meeting, which had replaced the conditions as detailed in the agenda report.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to queries it was confirmed the purpose of the proposal was to recreate and manage a flood plains habitat, and that it was proposed to tarmac an existing track on the site.

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

The Local Member, Councillor Jose Green, then spoke in objection to the application.

A discussion followed, where concerns were raised about the sustainability of the proposal regarding the spring being able to provide enough water for the site given the dispute over access to the sluice gate on the site, and the lack of likelihood that a licence for the amount of water required could be obtained from the Environment Agency. An increase in vehicular traffic from the tarmac track was also debated.

It was,

Resolved:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1.     The application fails to demonstrate that a continuous and adequate flow of water necessary to sustain a wetland habitat can be achieved.  An intermittent and inadequate flow would neither maintain nor enhance the natural environment leading to, in particular, ponding and stranding of fish and other aquatic wildlife.  This is contrary to Policy G1 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (SDLP) (which is a ‘saved’ policy of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy) which requires priority to be given to ensuring new development conserves the natural environment in the interests of sustainability, Policy C12 of the SDLP which resists development which would affect species protected by law, and Policy C2 of the SDLP which resists development in the countryside unless it would benefit the local economy and maintain or enhance the environment.  This is also contrary to paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.     The proposal, to resurface the existing farmyard access track with tarmac, would introduce an urban feature into this rural environment which would detract from its character and appearance. This is contrary to Policy G2 and C2 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (which are ‘saved’ policies in the South Wiltshire Core Strategy).

Public Participation

Mrs Laura James spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Stutchbury spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Harris spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Robin Henderson spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Ian Youdan, Woodfalls Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Area Development Manager introduced a report which recommended the application be delegated for approval subject to the completion of an s.106 Legal Agreement and suitable conditions. Key issues were stated to include the design of the proposed bungalows and impact on the wider area, the impact on residential amenity and highways issues. It was noted that highways officers had raised no objections to the application, and that a previous refusal on the site had been for three, two storey dwellings, and the application was for two bungalows.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer, where details of the layout and boundaries of the proposed dwellings was sought.

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

The Local Member, Councillor Leo Randall, then spoke in objection to the application.

A debate followed, where the level of garden amenity for the proposed dwellings was raised, along with a discussion of the planned layout of the site. Access into the site was raised, as well as safety issues on the highway and impact of the development on the character of the wider area.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1.     The proposed development would be located on, and involve the severance of, an existing garden area serving a large dwelling in an area characterised by properties set within large gardens. The proposed dwellings would be located within close proximity to other existing dwellings and would result in the creation of a vehicular access between two existing dwellings.

The proposal, by reason of its design and layout, would result in a cramped development which would not be in-keeping with the spacious character of established surrounding development (in particular, the south-eastern proposed dwelling).  Furthermore, by reason of the cramped layout, the proposal would not provide adequate amenity space for the occupiers of the dwellings commensurate with established surrounding development (in particular, the south-eastern dwelling).  Additionally, the proposed vehicle parking and turning arrangements within the site would be cramped and contrived, and so be likely to lead to conflict and/or nuisance for occupiers of the proposed dwellings.  

This is contrary to Policies G2 and H16 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (which are ‘saved’ policies in the South Wiltshire Core Strategy) and the NPPF, particularly paragraphs 17, 53 and 56.

2.     The proposed access to the site, by reason of its physical characteristics (specifically, its limited width and its gated design) and by reason of the inevitable intensity in its use (serving three dwellings), is considered to be hazardous for both its users and other users of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

Public Participation

Mr Tolmie-Thompson, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Malcolm Cullimore, Chairman of Donhead St Andrew Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

The Area Development Manager introduced a report which recommended permission be refused. The key issues were stated to include the principle of development, the design and scale of the proposals and impact upon neighbour amenity.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer.

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

The Local Member, Councillor Tony Deane, then spoke in support of the application.

A discussion followed, where the impact from the proposal if screened by hedges was assessed, and the design including the proposed dormer windows was raised.

After debate, it was,

Resolved:

To GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1)    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of 26th June 2012.

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 bat roost and associated access points within the roof space of the garage hereby permitted shall be maintained in perpetuity. The roof space of the garage shall be designated as a bat roost and shall not at any time be occupied as or converted to habitable accommodation.

REASON: In the interest of preserving protected species.

3)    The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the first five metres of the splayed access, measured from the edge of the carriageway, has been consolidated and surfaces (not loose stone or gravel). The access shall be maintained as such thereafter.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety.

4)    The gradient of the access shall not at any point be steeper than 1 in 15 for a distance of 6.5 metres from its junction with the public highway.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety.

5)    Any gates to close the access shall be set back a minimum distance of 6.5m from the carriageway edge.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety.

6)    No construction or demolition work shall take place on Sundays or Public Holidays or outside the hours of 07:30 to 18:00 on weekdays and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays.

REASON: In the interest of public amenity.

7)    No burning of waste shall take place on the site during the demolition or construction phase of the development.

REASON: In the interest of public amenity.

8)    A new bat roost will be constructed in accordance with the recommendations for mitigation in section 5.0 and Appendix iii of the Bat Update Report (David Leach Ecological Surveys, June 2012) and all bat mitigation features will be maintained solely for use by bats for the lifetime of the development. The house shall not be occupied until a record has been submitted to and approved by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

Public Participation

Mrs Joan Curtis spoke in objection to the application.

Mr O Guttridge spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr Brian Edgeley, Firsdown Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Area Development Manager presented a report which recommended permission be granted. The key issues were stated to include the scale of the proposal to raise the roof and create additional rooms in the roofspace, visual impact and the relationship to adjoining properties from the development.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. It was stated in response to queries that the only windows in the bathroom in the proposal were roof lights only.

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 extensive local development on the site was raised, as well as noting the multiple refusals and unsuccessful appeals for two storey dwellings on the site prior to being granted permission for a bungalow.

After discussion, it was,

Resolved:

To REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:

The proposal, by reason of the increase in size of the dwelling and the resulting intensification in its use as a larger house, would result in an over-development of the site, to the detriment of the character and amenities of the area.  Furthermore, the additional bulk created by the increase in size would result in an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties.  This is contrary to Policies D3 and G2 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (which are ‘saved’ policies of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy).

After confirming at the beginning of the meeting that no-one in attendance had wished to speak to the application, the Chairman announced that the application had been included on the agenda as the applicant was an officer of Wiltshire Council, but that after further assessment it was determined that the applicant’s position did not meet the requirements of an appropriate ‘Senior Officer’ in the constitution that required the application to be called to Committee for determination.

The application was therefore withdrawn from the agenda.

It was agreed site visits would be arranged for the following applications when they appeared before the Committee:

13/00699/FUL: Land north of Deptford Farm, Wylye, Warminster, Wiltshire

13/04369/SCO: Bake Farm, Coombe Bisset.