Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies or substitutions.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 24 January 2013 (copy herewith).

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 January 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.

Councillor Brian Dalton declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 19c – S/2012/0815/Full – by virtue of being a member of the city council. He declared he had had no prior involvement with the application and would consider it on its merits.

Councillor Jose Green declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minutes 19b and 19c - S/2012/0814/Full and S/2012/0815/Full – by virtue of past employment with the Wilton Estate. She stated this was as a tourist guide, not in connection with any form of development, and would therefore contribute to the debate.

Councillor Graham Wright declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 19d - S/2012/1751/Full - by virtue of the extent of his involvement with the application. He stated he would abstain from voting on the application as a result.

The Chairman announced four Stonehenge campsite applications would be appearing before the Committee at its next meeting. It was agreed that a site visit be held for the four Stonehenge campsite applications, numbered as follows:

S/2012/1555

S/2012/1603

S/2012/0132

S/2013/0056

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 7 February 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.

The committee noted the rules on public participation.

There were no questions or statements submitted.

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

Report of the Service Director, Economy and Regeneration

The Planning Officer introduced the report which requested that members endorse the village design statements so that they can be used as material planning considerations in future.

The Committee welcomed the design statements, and praised their high quality and professionalism. The significance of the design statements as material considerations was also discussed.

It was,

Resolved:

That the Village Design Statements for:

(i)            Durrington

(ii)          Winterslow

(iii)         Swallowcliffe

be approved as a material planning consideration for the purposes of

development management.

The Committee determined the following applications.

Public Participation

Sandra Jenkins, spoke in objection to the application.

Duncan Briggs spoke in objection to the application.

Michael Walker spoke in objection to the application.

Andy Barron spoke in support of the application.

John Drewitt spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Joe Rooney, Salisbury City Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer presented a report which recommended approval. Key issues were detailed as contained in the agenda. Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting, and which are attached to these minutes.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. Details were sought regarding the gate access at the north end of the site, along with information regarding the footpath to the nearby school, the materials to be used on the site, fence lines and play area.

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

The Local Member, Councillor Richard Clewer, then stated he supported the principle of the development, but that various details of the scheme still required additional work for it to be suitable for approval.

A debate followed, where access to the neighbouring school was discussed, along with problems with parking in Highbury road to the north, and whether the northern gate could be removed to prevent further congestion in that area. The route of the path to the south of the site was debated, and the distance from the path to the houses, and from the proposed houses to existing properties, was raised.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

To delegate for officers to approve pending negotiation to secure amendments as follows with agreement of the Chair and the two ward councillors. Those amendments being –

1)    A safe and secure access to the primary school/nursery

2)    A ramp to be provided at the southern end of the site in addition to/instead of the steps

3)    A separate pedestrian route from the development to Highbury Avenue at the Southern end of the site.

4)    Bricking/blocking up the Northern pedestrian entrance

And subject to the following reasons and conditions subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement in respect of the following matters:

1)       Education:  a contribution towards additional primary school places that will be required as a result of the development;

2)       Affordable Housing:  provision of 40% on-site affordable housing through a registered provider (amounting to 24 units);

3)       Open space/play space: 

Youth and adult off site open space contribution;

Public open space maintenance sum;

LAP and Trim Trail Maintenance Sum;

4)       Bins/Waste Storage:  contribution;

5)       Wessex Stone Curlew Project:  contribution;

6)       Public art:  contribution;

7)       Highways:  core strategy contribution:

For the following reasons:

The redevelopment of this ‘brownfield’, former school site which has been unused for a number of years will result in 60 residential units including 24 affordable units which will contribute to both the private and affordable housing stock in Salisbury and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19a

Public Participation

Nicola Lipscombe, Salisbury Civic Society, spoke in objection to the application.

Glen Godwin, agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended approval. The key issues were detailed as contained in the agenda, and the creation of a new roundabout and other access arrangements were highlighted, along with outline details of the school, employment and open space aspects of the development. It was noted that the permission was for outline permission regarding the principle of development, and that specific details on designs and other aspects would follow at a later date.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. Details on footpath and cycle routes, open space and access were sought.

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

The Local Member, Councillor Ricky Rogers, then spoke in support of the application.

A discussion followed, where the level of affordable housing was raised, along with the need to ensure all necessary contributions from the developer are delivered. The level of landscaping that would be required was also debated, in addition to details of matters to be covered by a legal agreement.

At the conclusion of discussion, it was,

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the completion of a legal agreement in respect of the following matters:

1)       Education:  a contribution towards secondary school places and the funding of a primary school that will be required as a result of this development;

2)       Affordable housing:  a 40% on-site affordable housing provision through a registered provider;

3)       Open space:  a contribution towards maintenance of open space on site;

4)       Bins/waste storage:  a contribution towards bins/waste storage;

5)       Ecology:  Wessex stone curlew project  contribution

6)       Public art:  a contribution to public art, including towards gates and walls at the new cemetery

7)       Highways: a core strategy contribution

8)       Pedestrian link to UKLF

9)       Provision of a cemetery

10)    The provision of a vehicular link to Westwood Road, Salisbury

11)    Submission of a travel plan for the residential and employment aspects of the development for a period of 10 years

For the following reason:

It is considered that the comprehensive redevelopment of this site and the provision of 1250  dwellings and 8 hectares of employment along with other services and ancillary development will contribute to the economic prosperity of Salisbury by providing much needed housing and long term employment facilities for the local population. The provision of 40% affordable housing achieves the councils target as set out in core policy six of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy to bring affordable housing to those in need in the South Wiltshire area. It is further considered that the proposed development with it’s accesses to both Bemerton Heath, the existing Fugglestone Red development and via pedestrian footpath to the former UKLF site. will provide greater permeability and integration between existing developments and those proposed in the future.

It is further considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19b

Public Participation

Cllr Phil Matthews, Wilton Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended approval, and gave details of the key issues as contained in the agenda.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. Details were sought about footpath access to the proposed site, and which parish the site was contained within.

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

A debate followed, where the location of the proposed cemetery away from the centre was raised, and issues of public transport discussed. The siting away from the proposed major development to the south, into the countryside, was also raised.

At the end of discussion,

Resolved:

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1)    The proposed cemetery, by reason of its prominent siting in open countryside and the inevitable high visibility of associated development (such as gravestones, the car park and associated storage), would detract from the amenities of the countryside contrary to saved policy C2 of the South Wiltshire Core strategy.

2)    The proposed cemetery by reason of its siting outside of the Fugglestone Red development template area and outside the development limits of Salisbury is considered to be too remote from the city and limited primarily to servicing by private motor vehicles. It would therefore be an unsustainable form of development contrary to saved policy G1 of the south Wiltshire Core strategy

(Councillor Jose Green asked that her abstention be recorded)

Public Participation

David Maytun spoke in objection to the application.

Graham Amos spoke in objection to the application.

Naomi Defriend, applicant (Wiltshire Council) spoke in support of the application.

Arthur Williams spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer presented a report which recommended approval. It was noted that the application had previously come to Committee in October 2012, and additional details in the report regarding signage were noted.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought about the entrance to the site and drop off locations, as well as the enforceability of restricting the drop off sites through signs. In response to queries regarding the felling of trees on the site, it was stated that none of the trees on the site had Tree Protection Orders.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the committee with their views, as detailed above.

The Local Member, Councillor Graham Wright, then detailed the positives and negatives of the application, but stated that he felt he had been heavily involved with the application as it progressed, and so would abstain from voting given his closeness to the issues.

A debate followed, where the need for a nursery was raised, along with the effectiveness of the proposed changes to the reservations that led to refusal of the Committee previously. The enforceability of a travel plan or contract with parents at the nursery was discussed, and the suitability of drop off points was also raised.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposed nursery would be sited in a location which would encourage excessive vehicular movements on inappropriate roads, and it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that there would be adequate parking and dropping-off facilities, to the detriment of highways safety. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Local Plan policies G2(i&ii) and PS6 (i&ii) as saved within the adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy.

There were no urgent items.