Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Fred Westmoreland who was substituted by Cllr John Smale.

Apologies were received from Cllr Ian Tomes who was substituted by Cllr John Walsh.

Apologies were received from Cllr Mike Hewitt who was substituted by Cllr Tony Deane.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2015.

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2015 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 15 January 2015.

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

Cllr John Walsh declared a non-pecuniary interest in the Orchard House applications (7B and 7C) as he lived in the locality of the proposed development.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

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

The Chairman wished Cllr Westmoreland a speedy recovery on behalf 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 (acting on behalf of the Corporate Director) no later than 5pm on 29 January 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.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals.

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

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

A site visit is to be arranged for this item.

Public Participation

Sean McClure spoke in support of the application.

Paul McKernan spoke against the application.

Cllr Carole Slater spoke against the application on behalf of Shrewton Parish Council on the application.

The Planning Officer presented his report to the Committee which recommended that permission be grantedsubject to conditions.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. The neighbourhood plan was discussed and Members asked what weight should be applied to it. In response, it was heard that this was a leisure proposal and therefore limited weight should be given to the neighbourhood plan. The state of the highway near the site was discussed and it was noted that a gravel-like surface would be used.

An item of late correspondence was circulated at the meeting.

The Local Member, Cllr Ian West, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr West stated reservations regarding both ends of the approach road to the site but believed it would be an excellent project and great asset to the community.

Members discussed the potential for traffic on the London Road, the southern part of Nett Road and relevant transport plans. The size of the proposed parking site was discussed and the number of visitors who could attend was debated. The potential for coaches visiting the site and potential issues with the access were also raised. The Highways recommendation for approval was discussed by Members. A request was made to planning officers in regards to the planning history of the site and it was noted that there was no relevant planning history. The value of this facility to local villages was also highlighted. The potential for an alternative site was discussed but only this single application had been considered. The need for the Parish Council to be involved regarding alterations to the access was discussed. It was heard that this would be a community asset and Members’ discussion continued to clause 4 (p.14 of the agenda).

The concerns of residents on Nett Road were raised. The potential issues with a chalk track as access to the proposed site were discussed, with particular concern in the winter months. The Highway’s Officer stated the need to consider cricket’s seasonality due to the nature of the application and discussed ‘passing places’ on the road leading up to the site. The use of the multi-games facility was also discussed which was expected to be used throughout the year but less frequently than the cricket facilities. Potential improvements to the road were discussed but it was explained that it would not be a smooth surface. The Chairman stated that this was a good opportunity for such an amenity in a small village and stated that the location was favourable.

The Committee requested that condition 10 be amended by replacing “12pm” with “midnight”.

Cllr Jose Green and Cllr George Jeans both abstained from voting on the item.

Resolved:

To approve planning permission for the following reasons:

1.Thedeve  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18a

A site visit is to be arranged for this item.

Public Participation

Bryony Stala (agent) spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer presented his report to the Committee which recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. It was noted that this site was owned by Wiltshire Council but the applicant had no involvement with the Council. The front elevation of the historic building would remain unchanged. The flood risk assessment was discussed with the advice of the Environment Agency was taken into consideration.

The extension of a wall in relation to the site access was discussed and the Conservation Officer had no issue with the insetting of the wall. Spatial planning boundaries and the core strategy were also raised. A possible contribution to the creation of a pavement was discussed but it was heard that there was no justified Highway’s reasoning for this. Concern was raised regarding young people having to cross the road to a very narrow pavement and then having to cross again to the school. The width of the highway by the site was also highlighted and the contribution to R2 was raised.

An item of late correspondence was circulated at the meeting.

The Local Member, Cllr Mary Douglas, spoke in support to the application. Cllr Douglas believed there had been significant public interest in this application and therefore a decision should be made in public. Cllr Douglas raised concern in regarding the pavement due to the locality of a school – Cllr Douglas had photographed a mother walking with her child in the road.

Members raised concerns in regards to the lack of pavement immediately outside of the property. The Chairman stated that it would not be possible to force the applicant to install an inside pavement. The Chairman stated that this was an ideal site for development as it was an existing site but stated that it was unfortunate that there was no affordable housing on the site. Condition 12 was discussed and it was heard that the technical drawings were unavailable.

The Area Development Manager clarified that there were pavements on either side of the development. The need for social housing on this site was debated by Members and it was noted that the residents in the area ‘fully supported’ the development. The Highways Officer was asked by Members about the historic wall but it was noted that the wall currently impacted on Highway visibility. Some Members stated concerns with the Highways advice in regards to the lack of pavement in front of the site.

Resolved:

To approve planning permission for the following reasons:

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18b

Public Participation

Public participation on Orchard House (SP1 3LG) was taken during minute no. 18B as they referred to the same proposed site. 

The Planning Officer presented his report to the Committee which recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions.

An item of late correspondence was circulated at the meeting.

Resolved:

To approve planning permission for the following reasons:

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)    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.

3)    No works shall commence on site until a full schedule and specification of all repair works to Orchard House, the workshop and the front boundary walls has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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.

4)    No works shall commence on site until a full survey, including analysis, and photographic record of the front boundary wall has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To secure the proper recording of the listed building.

5)    No works shall commence on site until a scheme for the protection of existing architectural / historic features in situ (including plasterwork, ironwork, cupboards, fireplaces, doors, windows, staircases, staircase balustrading and other woodwork) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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.

6)    Within 12 months of the approved demolition works at Orchard House being carried out, all adjoining surfaces which have been disturbed by the works shall be made good with materials and finishes to match those of existing undisturbed areas surrounding the surfaces.

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

7)    No demolition works shall commence on site until a valid construction contract has been entered into under which one of the parties is obliged to carry out and itself complete the works of development of the site for which planning permission has been granted under application reference 14/04486/FUL or such other application(s) approved by the Local Planning Authority; and; evidence of the construction contract has first been submitted to and approved by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18c

Public Participation

There was no public participation.

The Planning Officer presented his report to the Committee which recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Procedural clarification was required in regards to how the Council approves the companies who will advertise on the roundabout. It was heard that this was not relevant to the Committee’s decision. It was heard that there had been a dozen of these advertising ideas in the County to date. The costs involved in regards to maintenance were raised.

The Local Member, Cllr Ian McLennan, spoke in objection to the application. It was heard this signage would face Old Sarum and that the Parish Council believe it would be detrimental. Cllr McLennan did not feel this signage enhanced the area in anyway and that it was an inappropriate place for such signage.

The Chairman commented on the historic importance of this area and that this was a dangerous roundabout due to the volume of cars; particularly at weekends. Members discussed the commercialisation of such an important historic location. The unknown design of these signs also caused concern. The potential impact on the landscape was debated. The nature of current signage near the ‘Park and Ride’ was raised. The core strategy was raised in relation to the application making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of Wiltshire.

Resolved:

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

The proposed signs, by reason of their size, location and numbers (both in isolation and cumulatively with existing signage), would be incongruous in the rural context and at this important 'gateway' to Salisbury, and would result in a proliferation of signage on the roundabout to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.  The signs would therefore be harmful to amenity, which would be contrary to Core Policy 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and paragraph 67 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

There were no urgent items