Browse

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Alamein Suite - City Hall, Malthouse Lane, Salisbury, SP2 7TU

Contact: David Parkes  Email: david.parkes@wiltshire.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

20.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Cllr Fred Westmoreland (Chairman) who was substituted by Cllr John Smale. Cllr Christopher Devine (Vice-Chairman) was in the Chair for the duration of the meeting.

 

Apologies were received from Cllr Brian Dalton was substituted by Cllr Peter Edge.

 

21.

Minutes

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 05 February 2015.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Resolved:

 

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting held on 5 February 2015 as a correct record with an amendment to minute no. 18a. Cllr West spoke as the Local Member and did not support the application. A copy of Cllr West’s speech is attached to these minutes.

22.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

There were no declarations.

23.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

Minutes:

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

24.

Public Participation and Councillors' Questions

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 (acting on behalf of the Corporate Director) no later than 5pm on Thursday 19 February 2015. 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.

 

Minutes:

The committee noted the rules on public participation.

25.

Planning Appeals

To receive details of completed and pending appeals.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

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

26.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

26a

14/10548/FUL - Land to the west of Bake Farm Buildings, Salisbury Road, Coombe Bissett, Salisbury, SP5 4JT - The erection of solar photovoltaic panels and associated works and infrastructure, including switchgear, inverter stations, access tracks, security fencing, security cameras, grid connection, together with temporary construction access, compound and unloading area and continued agricultural use

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

 

Jennifer Epworth spoke in objection to the application.

Melinda Simmonds spoke in objection to the application.

Linda Buckley spoke in objection to the application.

 

Chris Jowett spoke in support to the application.

Richard Jowett spoke in support to the application.

Angus MacDonald spoke in support to the application.

 

Chris Chelu (Coombe Bissett and Homington Parish Councillor) spoke in objection to the application.

 

The Planning Officer presented his report to the Committee which recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions. In particular the Planning Officer stated the following:

 

“The Committee will recall that in October last year it refused an application for a solar farm at this site.  The reason for refusal related to the adverse impact of the solar farm on views to and from the nearby AONB.

 

That earlier application was for a solar farm across four fields totalling some 30 ha in area.  The current proposal is for a smaller solar farm covering approximately 10 ha across just over two fields.  The reduced area means that the proposed solar farm has lesser overall dimensions than before, avoids panels on the slightly steeper slopes facing the AONB, and is sited slightly further away from the AONB.  As a consequence it is not considered that the proposal now has a detrimental impact on the AONB.

 

The fields in question are currently used for agricultural purposes or are fallow.  This time the application is accompanied by an Agricultural Land Quality Assessment which reveals the soils at the site are Grade 3a.  Grades 1, 2 and 3a are at the higher end of the quality range, being ‘excellent’, ‘very good’ and ‘good’ respectively, and together they are considered to be ‘the best and most versatile’.  Below these are grades 3b which is ‘moderate’, 4 which is ‘poor’ and 5 which is ‘very poor’.

 

The relevant extracts from the NPPF and NPPG regarding use of the best and most versatile land were read out to members The NPPF states that .....

 

“Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile land

 

.... and ....

 

When significant development..... is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use poorer quality in preference to that of higher quality”

 

It was explained that in relation to solar farms the PPG specifically requires consideration to be given to whether the proposed use of agricultural land has been shown to be necessary or whether poorer quality land has been considered in preference; and whether the proposal allows for continued agricultural use and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around arrays.

 

To address these ‘tests’ members were told that the application provides evidence demonstrating that approximately 86% of all land within the solar farm search area of some 1,963 ha is either grade 2 or grade 3.  Grade 4 land covers about 6% of the search area, but none is suitable for a solar farm because of constraints such as the AONB, SSSI’s and flood zones.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26a

26b

14/09367/FUL - Sarum House & Wandle House, Cow Drove, Chilmark, Salisbury, SP3 5AJ - Demolition of 2 no. detached dwellings, and the erection of 6 no. dwellings; with associated parking, turning, landscaping,improvements to existing access, and a footpath link

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

 

James Cain spoke in objection to the application.

Roland Castlemaine spoke in objection to the application.

Alistair White spoke in objection to the application.

 

Andrew Bracey spoke in support to the application.

Mike Fowler spoke in support to the application.

Richard Humphries QC spoke in support to the application.

 

Cllr Patrick Boyles (Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application.

 

The Local Member, Cllr Bridget Wayman, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Wayman declared that she was a member of the the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB Partnership Panel. Cllr Wayman raised the core strategy and stated that the site was in the open countryside. The need to respect the existing character and form of the village was also stated. Cllr Wayman raised concern that this development would be defined as infilling. The visual impact of the design on the surrounding listed building was raised. The potential for changing the characteristics of the loose-knit area was stated. Concern was raised by Cllr Wayman into the materials (and quantities of these materials) to be used in the construction of the proposed dwellings. It was stated that flood prevention guidance was at an early stage and the development was therefore premature.

 

The Planning Officer presented their report to the Committee which recommended that permission be granted subject to the completion of a section 106 obligation requiring payment of a financial contribution towards off-site recreation / open space provision and conditions.

 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. The demolition of two existing dwellings was raised. The number of trees and hedges to be retained were discussed, as well as their ecological significance.

 

An item of late correspondence was circulated at the meeting.

Members discussed the benefit to the village of the development. The definition of ‘infill’ was discussed and how it related to this application. Concern was raised in relation to the design of the proposal and also the removal of existing screening. Members raised Highways concerns. The core strategy was discussed and the need for growth in the area was raised. Members raised concern in regards to the quantity of dwellings proposed for an area of this size. The sustainability of the location was raised and local need was considered. The potential for a change to the character of the village was debated. Members raised concern in relation to the demolition of two houses that were in the character of the village.

 

Members debated the need for growth in Chilmark and how this could be achieved sustainably. The need for specific amenities in the village was discussed. The achievement of affordable housing in the area was raised. Members discussed the instalment of a pavement and refuse collection at the development. Members stated that this was not an infill development and was instead an overdevelopment of the site. Concerns in regards to Highways and the impact on streetscene were also debated.

 

Resolved:

 

To refused planning permission for the following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26b

26c

14/11528/FUL - St.Thomas Church, St Thomas Square, Salisbury, Wiltshire. SP1 1BA - Installation of new glazed outer doors to western entrance

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

 

John Foster spoke in support to the application.

Mrs Salter spoke in support to the application.

Rev. David Linekar spoke in support to the application.

 

Cllr Jo Broom (Mayor of Salisbury) spoke in support to the application.

 

The Planning Officer presented her report to the Committee which recommended that permission be refused with reasons stated in the report.

 

In particular the Planning Officer emphasised the following: St Thomas’ church is a highly significant Grade I listed church within the context of the City’s ecclesiastical heritage and an important testament to the formation of New Sarum as the Parish Church for the new settlement. The list description explains that it was probably founded in 1220, enlarged in the 14th and 15th centuries and rebuilt and extended in the 15th century.

 

English Heritage had advised that of significance externally are the bell tower and the west elevation and their prominence when viewed from Silver Street/St Thomas’ Square.  Internally, the church was especially renowned for the 15th century Doom painting and other important wall paintings within its impressive interior. 

 

The proposal was to install new glazed outer doors to the western entrance of the church.  The design and access statement outlines other internal alterations (including a replacement internal lobby and re-ordering of the nave and aisles) which would be subject to Faculty approval under the Ecclesiastical Exemption so are not under consideration in this application.

 

Sections 16, 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 place a duty on the local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings and their settings and conservation areas.

 

The NPPF outlines government policy, including its policy in respect of the historic environment and explained that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.

 

Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.  Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, including grade I listed buildings should be wholly exceptional.

 

The NPPF explains that where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss and where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. (officer’s emphasis)

 

English Heritage guidance on church alterations states existing doors often contribute to the special interest of a church by virtue of their age, design or traditional role  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26c

27.

Urgent Items

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency 

 

Minutes:

There were no urgent items