Agenda and minutes

To note any changes to the Membership of the Committee following the Council meeting on 12 November 2013.

It was noted that following Council on 12 November 2013, Councillor John Noeken was removed as a member of the Committee, to be replaced by Councillor Mike Hewitt.

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologises were received from Councillor Richard Britton, who was substituted by Councillor Leo Randall and Councillor George Jeans who was substituted by Councillor Terry Chivers.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2013.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2013 were presented for consideration. It was,

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 no declarations.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

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 21 November 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 committee received details of the appeal decisions as detailed in the agenda.

Following discussion, it was determined that on behalf of the Committee, the Chairman would recommend to the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Development Management, Strategic Housing, Property and Waste that the Council put forward the decision regarding application S/2012/0815 for Judicial Review.

To consider and determine the following planning applications:

Attention was drawn to the late list of observations and representations, and which would be made available on the council’s website with the agenda pack.

Public Participation

Mr Richard Harris spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Scot Masker (agent) spoke in support of the application.

It was agreed that the reports for applications 13/04590/FUL and 13/04597/LBC would be presented together as they concerned the same site and development.

The Planning Officer introduced a report which recommended that permission be granted. The officer stated that the application had been previously rejected due fear of odours from the extraction system. The new application included an upgraded extraction system and the relocation of the roof flue. The officer confirm that the application was applying for A3 permission only rather than A5; therefore would not include a takeaway service.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought regarding the relocation of the flue and clarification of the major differences between this application and the previous application.

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

The Local Member, Cllr Dr. Helena McKeown, then spoke in objection to the application. Cllr McKeown, as a local GP located in Rollestone Street, stated that this is a residential road and many of the residents are elderly and housebound. Cllr McKeown also highlighted the problem of congestion that the road already faces, as well as concerns that the restaurant could result in excess noise and disturbances late at night.

A debate followed where the issues of congestion, improving the local economy and the positive or negative impacts to residents of Rollestone Road arising from a new restaurant opening on the site were discussed.

At the end of discussion, it was,

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be Approved subject to conditions:

Conditions

The Planning Officer recommended that the proposal be approved subject to conditions, as detailed under Minute 124.

Technical questions and representations from the public and local member were as detailed under Minute 124.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

That Listed Building Consent be Approved subject to conditions

Public Participation

Mr Robert Molteno spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Tim Reeve, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Patrick Boyles, Chairman of Chilmark Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Area Development Manager introduced a report which recommended permission be granted. Key issues for consideration included the area’s designation as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and impact on neighbour amenity.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to queries, it was confirmed that the proposed development would only be available for personal use and would not be used for commercial purposes.  Details were also sought about the permitted development rights on the site.

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

The Local Member, Cllr Bridget Wayman, then spoke in objection to the application, highlighting the presence of the AONB and intrusion into the countryside.

A debate followed, where concerns were raised over the scale of the development, along with its impact on neighbouring properties and issues of appropriate screening. It was also considered whether the development was larger than required in need to serve the intended purpose, and the possibility of future conversion into a dwelling

At the end of the discussion, it was,

Resolved:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

The proposed home office and yoga room, by reason of its excessive size and prominent positioning within the AONB landscape, is considered to have a detrimental impact on the quality of the rural area, and as such is considered contrary to policies D3, C4 and C5 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (which are 'saved' policies of the adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy).

The large scale and footprint of the proposed home office and yoga room, together with its separation distance from the main dwelling results in a building which with no further development could be capable of creating a separate dwelling and is therefore considered to be contrary to part iii of policy H31 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (which is a 'saved' policy of the adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy).

Public Participation

Ms Kim Blunt (agent) spoke in support of the application.

The planning officer introduced the report which recommended permission be granted. It was stated that the application was for a change of use from a bus station to a commercial car park.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Concerns with highway safety, relating to the entrance and exit plans on the Salisbury Road, were raised. In response to queries it was also stated that decisions on pricing in the car park would be the responsibility of the applicant.

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

The Local Member, Cllr Fred Westmoreland, then spoke in support of the application subject to appropriate conditions.

During debate, it was noted that Amesbury had recently had a reduction in the number of parking spaces available and replacements were required, although some members felt that the site had potential for more productive long term use than as a car park, and the possibility of restricting the time of use as a car park was discussed.

The restriction of access on the Salisbury Road was also raised.

At the end of discussion, it was,

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to 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)    No development shall commence on site until the following details have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

·         Details of the parking layout;

·         Details of the location, scale and appearance of the pay station and any associated signage;

·         Details of the making good to exposed surfaces where features have been removed (i.e. the lean-to building, railings, footways);

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details prior to the first use of the car park.

Reason: In the interests of highways safety and the character and appearance of the area.

3)    Prior to the first use of the development, a revised car parking management plan reflecting the requirement of Policy PS5 of the adopted Wiltshire Local Transport Plan 2011-2026 Car Parking Strategy, as submitted but to include a regular visit by an attendant, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The parking management plan shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved plan at all times following the opening of the car park unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the adequate provision and control of the car parking.

4)    Prior to the commencement of work, a signage scheme to include directional road signs, entry / exit signs and internal signs/ directional arrows  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

Public Participation

Mr Gary Maloney spoke against the application.

Mr Roman Lukasziewski spoke against the application.

Mr Rob Hewlett (applicant) spoke in support of the application.

Mr Steve Allen spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Simon Port, Winterslow Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

The planning officer presented the report which recommended refusal as the development was outside the current housing policy boundaries.  Key issues were stated to include the principle of the application, and impact on the character of the area.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought over past use of the site as private amenity space and access. Clarification was also sought regarding the village design statement (VDS) and the level of support for the site to be developed within the VDS.

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

The Local Member, Cllr Chris Devine, then spoke in support of the application, highlighting the support of the parish council to sustainable development on the site.

A debate followed, where the amount of consideration to be given to the Village Design Statement versus local Planning policies was raised, in addition to assessing the impact on the character of the area from the proposed development.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be Refused for the following reasons:

1)    The site comprises undeveloped land outside of a Housing Policy Boundary and is in a location that is not identified for housing growth within the development plan. There is a lack of facilities in the vicinity of the site to meet the needs of future residents and consequently few options to travel by means other than the private car, particularly since a lack of footways means that walking would not be a desirable option. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the aims and objectives of the adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy, having particular regard to Core Policy 1 and saved Salisbury District Local Plan policies H23 and G1(i), and the NPPF.

2)    The proposed dwelling would as a result of its isolated location within the open countryside introduce an incongruous feature at odds with the character of the open countryside and would fail to protect or enhance the area contrary to the aims and objectives of saved Salisbury District Local Plan policies C2, C6, G1(iii) and G2(iv&v).

3)    The development has not made adequate provision towards affordable housing or public open space, and would therefore be contrary to Core Policy 3 of the adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy and Saved Salisbury District Local Plan policy R2 (as saved within the adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy).

INFORMATIVE:

It should be noted that the reason given above relating to policy R2 and Core Policy 3 could be overcome if all the relevant parties complete a Section 106 legal agreement.

The Planning Officer presented a single presentation for items 8f and 8g. The application was an extension to the previous application’s three year permission and contained no changes. Changes to planning policy since the initial permission were detailed.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Questions were raised if the Highways Agency had any objections to this proposal. and it was stated that their recommendation and lack of objection had not changed.

The Local Member, Cllr Ian McLennan, then spoke in objection to the application, stating that the situation had changed from when permission had been granted, and there were concerns about people walking to work, as the area had become increasingly dangerous and extending permission would increase traffic further.

A debate followed, where the level of traffic on the roads in the area and whether it had changed significantly since permission had initially been granted was discussed, along with whether  the increased provision of dementia services in the region made the proposed extensions necessary.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be Approved with conditions:

The Planning Officer presented their report in connection to item 8f, recommending planning permission be approved with conditions. 

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be Approved with conditions:

It was agreed that a site visit should be arranged if application 13/03521/FUL - 90 Blind Lane, Ansty, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP3 5QE, was scheduled to come before the Committee.