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

36.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

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

 

Apologies were received from Cllr Ian McLennan who was substituted by Cllr Ricky Rogers. 

37.

Minutes

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 19/03/2015.

 

(TO BE PUBLISHED AS AN APPENDIX – LEGAL APPROVAL STILL REQUIRED).

Minutes:

The minutes for the previous meeting were not available for approval due to officer illness.

38.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

Cllr Ian West declared a non-pecuniary interest as Chairman of Winterbourne Stoke Parish Council.

 

Cllr Fred Westmoreland declared a non-pecuniary interest as a representative of an Area Board on the Stonehenge Management Group.

 

Cllr Christopher Devine declared a non-pecuniary interest as his wife rents a stable near Matrons College Farm.

39.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

Minutes:

The Chairman explained the meeting procedures to those in attendance.

40.

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 2 April 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.

41.

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.

 

42.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Minutes:

In order to prepare the members for the changes introduced by CIL regulations and the effect they would have on the applications the legal officer had prepared a short paper on the subject. This was introduced by the officer and members were asked if they had any questions. There were no questions at this stage.

 

In addition, the Legal Officer explained orally, to the whole meeting, that the certain elements identified in the draft heads of terms of the  Matrons Farm, Alderbury/Whaddon application would not be available under s 106 as a consequence of the introduction of the pooling regulations (these were specified as including education, highways, leisure by ref to page 10 of the agenda.). It was also explained that Wiltshire Council intended to adopt CIL in early/mid May 2015. The amount of contributions that could be received from the developer would depend upon whether CIL had been adopted before the final reserved matter in the application had been concluded at which point CIL would be triggered. If the CIL had not been adopted by this point the only contributions would be via a fully CIL compliant S106. This would mean reduced contributions.

 

Through the Chair the meeting agreed that it was content to delegate any such matters arising from the above to the appropriate officer.

 

It was also pointed out, when it became apparent that, the committee was moving to resolve the application be granted that they should indicate that permission was being granted on the understanding that one of two scenarios could exist as to the payment of contributions (S106 alone or S106plus CIL). This was in order to avoid a challenge on the basis that planning permission was given pre the adoption of CIL and a new scenario now existed that had not been in the minds of the committee when planning was granted. Again through the Chair, it was indicated that any matters rising in this respect could be dealt with by delegated powers.

 

43.

13/02543/OUT - Matrons College Farm, Castle Lane, Whaddon, Salisbury, SP5 3EQ - Erect 28 dwellings and Local Health Centre on land to north and north east of Matron's College Farm, change of use of land south east of Matron's College Farm from agricultural to allotments, develop new access adjacent to Oakridge Office Park

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

sPublic Participation

 

Elizabeth Neville spoke in objection to the application.

Sandra Richardson spoke in objection to the application.

Dr Rachel Clapton spoke in support  to the application.

Julian Kirby spoke in support to the application.

Jon Gateley spoke in support to the application.

Cllr Kim Diprose spoke on behalf of Alderberry Parish Council in objection to the application.

 

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

 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. The presenting officer highlighted a letter within the pack that discussed the delivery of the Health Centre and other new relevant information. Members asked if there was another allotment site in the area and the size of said allotments.

 

An item of late correspondence was circulated at the meeting.

 

The Local Member, Cllr Richard Britton, spoke on the application. Cllr Britton stated that work was being done towards developing the Alderberry Hub and clarified the definition of the word ‘hub’. Cllr Britton stated that this application was against the provisions of the core strategy and the national planning strategy. Cllr Britton stated that there was a need for the medical centre and that the additional work done by the applicant had been helpful. The Local Member discussed the commercial incentive to deliver this project and the need to see documentary evidence of the financial case. It was stated that Members could not be sure how the running costs of this development would be met and that evidence was required to provide reassurance. Cllr Britton recommended that the item be deferred as more information was required.

 

Members debated the financial viability and deliverability of the project. The suitability of the site for development and the importance of affordable homes in the area was discussed. The existing development on the site was raised and the medical need in the area was highlighted. Clarification was sought in regards to the potential for a non-determination appeal from the applicant should the item be deferred again. The need to prioritise the health facility over the residential dwellings was raised. Members discussed the structure of potential funding for the development, with reference to the input of AGE UK. The logistics of visiting the potential medical centre were discussed and the draft S106 Heads of Terms were referred to.

 

Cllr Richard Britton wished his dissent for the decision to be recorded.

 

Resolved:

 

To delegate to the Area Development Manager to APPROVE planning permission, subject to a S106 agreement, with the following conditions:

 

 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

            REASON:  To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. No development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

44.

14/12106/FUL - Stonehenge Visitor Centre, Amesbury, Wiltshire, SP4 7DE - Change of use from agricultural land and creation (temporary consent 2 years) of a 26 space coach park and associated ancillary works

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

 

Janice Hassett spoke in objection to the application.

David Hassett spoke in objection to the application.

Jan McKernan spoke in objection to the application.

Kate Davies spoke in support  to the application.

Dominic Watkins spoke in support  to the application.

Cllr Mike Lucas (Chitterne Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr Carole Slater (Shrewton Parish Council) spoke in objection to 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. Clarification over the potential removal of a tree belt was provided. Members asked if the green travel plan had been implemented. The number of cars using parking bays was discussed. The scale of the development was raised, as well as a recent metro count. The planner officer did not have the metro count figures to hand but confirmed that they had been considered by the Highways Officer. The booking procedure for visitors parking at the site was raised. The proposed temporary surface – compacted gravel – could be removed without disturbing the archaeology of the site.

 

An item of late correspondence was circulated at the meeting.

 

The Local Member, Cllr Ian West, spoke against the application. Cllr West discussed the views of Winterbourne Parish Council, stating that more visitors to the site would be positive but raised concerns in regards to more vehicles using unsuitable roads to visit the site. Winterbourne Parish Council encouraged a more sustainable method of transport to the site. Cllr West made reference to other representations who had both supported and objected to the application. Cllr West made reference to previous visitor figures and the potential removal of tree lines, as well as highways concerns. The Local Member made reference to previous visitor centre’s success in dealing with the number of visitors it received. Cllr West raised peak traffic in Shrewton High Street and the severe impact that this had on local people. The diversion of A303 traffic onto local roads was raised. The potential visual impact on the world heritage site was debated, as well as the materials that would be used.

 

Members discussed the need to find an appropriate solution to the issues caused by visiting coaches. Members raised concerns in regards to congestion on the surrounding roads. Coaches being parked in lay-bys and related safety concerns were highlighted. The management of the site and the impact on local people was discussed. The scale of the proposed car park was debated and the need for an appropriate travel plan was raised. The need for appropriate landscaping was discussed and the ecological impact of the material used was highlighted. 

 

The logistical difficulties of transporting an estimated 1M people to and from the site were raised. The aesthetic issues with the proposal were discussed. Queuing on the A360 and A303 to get into the site was raised, as well as the lack of parking spaces  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

45.

14/12193/FUL - 4A and 4B The Crescent, Hillview Road, Salisbury - Extension to east elevation to create 2 x 2 bed flats

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

 

Nick Allerton spoke in objection to the application.

Nicola Allerton spoke in objection to the application.

Ros Liddington spoke in objection to the application.

David Sharp spoke in support to 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 definition of subservient was clarified. The number of flats and number of parking places was stated.

 

An item of late correspondence was circulated at the meeting.

 

The Local Member, Cllr Ian Tomes, provided a written notice which Cllr John Walsh read on his behalf. Cllr Tomes believed this was overdevelopment of the site. The statement referred to the impact on neighbouring amenities and the access to the site. Cllr Tomes made reference to the consequences of extra cars being parked at the site and the potential for conflict and strain on neighbours. The impact on the conservation area was also highlighted.

 

Members discussed the surrounding location of the site and the potential for overdevelopment. Concerns were raised in regards to parking and the impact of additional vehicles. The removal of trees on the site was also discussed. The need to maintain the character of the area was emphasised by Members. A lack of parking locally - due to double yellow lines - was stated. Members debated the impact on neighbouring properties. The locality of the site to public transport stations was raised and the sustainability of the proposal was discussed. The unenforceable nature of car parking on the private road was highlighted. The scale of the proposed development was seen as being too great by some members.

Landscaping concerns were also raised, as well as the impact on the conservation area. Discussions continued to the practicalities of living at the site and the likely difficulties of entering, turning around and leaving The Crescent. Members raised the need for the replacement of a bank of earth that had been removed.

 

Resolved:

 

To REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed development, by reason of its size (height and width), the amount of excavation works/tree removal required to enable the development, and the number of additional residential units created at the site, would result in a cramped form of overdevelopment for this small, narrow parcel of land, which would be harmful to the character of the existing property, the semi-detached pairing and the wider Crescent which is designated as a Conservation Area. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Core Policies 57 and 58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

 

2.         The proposed development, by reason of its location at the top of a narrow and congested private driveway with limited parking for motorised vehicles, would provide insufficient parking for future occupiers of the site, and is likely to result in unauthorised parking and obstruction on-and-around the existing parking spaces/ the vehicular access leading to the site. The scheme is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

46.

15/00150/FUL - Stonehenge Campsite, Berwick Road, Winterbourne Stoke. SP3 4TQ - Erection of a log cabin for use as a reception building for the campsite

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

 

Rosemary Gairdner spoke in objection to the application.

Grace Douse spoke in objection to the application.

Mr W Grant spoke in support to 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. The size of the proposal was clarified as a single story development.

 

An item of late correspondence was circulated at the meeting.

 

The Local Member, Cllr Ian West, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr West raised the conservation area and discussed the number of buildings on the site. Cllr West stated this proposal was unsuitable and intrusive due to the size, height and roof materials of the building.

 

Members then continued by debating the application. The need to preserve the countryside was discussed, as well as any relevant planning history. The visual impact of the building on the surrounding landscape was discussed. The need for a reception area at the camping site was discussed. The height of the log cabin was raised, as well as the existing design of the site. The need for a potential condition in relation to painting the cabin was raised, as well as lighting conditions.

 

Resolved:

 

To APPROVE planning permission for the following reasons:

 

In pursuance of its powers under the above Town & Country Planning Act 1990, the Council hereby grant PLANNING PERMISSION for the above development to be carried out in accordance with the application and plans submitted (listed below), subject to compliance with the condition(s) specified hereunder:-

 

1.            The cabin hereby permitted shall only be used as a reception building in connection with the running of the campsite and for no other purposes. The building shall not be converted to habitable accommodation.

 

REASON: The site lies within an area where it is against the policy of the Local Planning Authority to allow permanent accommodation without a special agricultural (or other proven, local) need.

 

2.         This development shall be in accordance with the submitted drawings

- Elevations, dated 28/05/14 and received to this office on 27/01/15

- Floor Plan, dated 26/01/15 and received to this office on 27/01/15

- Block Plan, dated 08/01/15 and received to this office on 15/01/15

 

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.

 

47.

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