Agenda item

Public Participation:

·         John Bryant, spoke in objection to the application

·         John Wilkinson, Chair of Old Sarum Residents Association, spoke in objection to the application

·         David Parker, local resident, spoke in objection of the application

·         Glen Godwin, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application

·         Ron Champion, Chairman of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council, spoke in objection of the application 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended refusal with reasons. She explained that the planning application was for the erection of 69 dwellings and associated car parking, landscaping and infrastructure.  Members noted that because the application had been appealed, they were unable to determine the application but were able to indicate how they would have voted. 

The Committee were informed that the area of land in question was identified in the Design Code document 2007 as land which may be suitable for development after 2011. It was also located within an emerging settlement, and hence, its development for housing would accord generally with national and local planning policies.  In the absence of a signed S106 Agreement, the proposal would fail to mitigate against the impact of the additional dwellings in terms of additional provisions towards local infrastructure, services and facilities.

Officers also explained that the proposal was considered to be contrary to Core Policy CP3 in that without a suitable S106 Agreement, it made no provision for 40 percent affordable housing within the application scheme, and sought to separate the location of affordable from market housing, contrary to the guidance provided in the NPPF, which aimed to provide high quality affordable housing, and mixed healthy communities.  The Local Planning Authority considers that the future occupiers of the proposed units may suffer a significant adverse impact to their residential amenity to the detriment of the enjoyment of their property from vibration and noise emanating from an adjacent commercial operation.  It was noted that there was an outstanding highways objection, which would have to be imposed as a highways reason for refusal.

Members then raised a number of technical issues in relation to existing permission for area 10 and the relocation of affordable housing from area 12 to area 10.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee with their views, as detailed above.  The Committee attended a site visit of the application site prior to the meeting.

The local member, Councillor Ian McLennan, then spoke to the application. In particular he spoke about his concerns in relation to the application and in particular the density of the site and the proximity to the football club.

Resolved:

That the Committee indicated that they would have been minded to REFUSE planning permission, for the following reasons:

1.  Under Core Policy 3 of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy the application requires a target of 40% affordable housing provision. However, the proposal suggests that no affordable housing  will be provided on another separate parcel of land (Area 12), subject to a current separate planning application (S/2012/1836), and that all the affordable housing provision for that Area would be included on Area 10 subject of this application.

However, the current proposal would create an uneven balance of affordable housing provision across the wider site and in the absence of a suitable legal agreement which agrees to 40 percent affordable housing provision, the applicant would not have met the affordable housing policy requirements.

As a result, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Core Policy CP3 of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy, and the guidance provided in the NPPF at paragraphs 47 to 50, which aims to provide high quality affordable housing, and inclusive, balanced and mixed communities.

2. The proposal would result in additional dwellings, and hence additional impacts, on existing and proposed facilities. To mitigate the impacts of the development, provision would therefore need to be made towards the following: 

• Additional affordable housing
• Additional contributions towards the planned community centre
• Additional contributions towards the existing educational facilities
• Additional public art contributions
• Contributions towards the Wessex Stone Curlew project
• Additional contributions towards public open space and equipment
• Additional contributions towards sustainable transport infrastructure, including bus and cycle vouchers
• Waste and recycling facilities
• Vehicular/pedestrian link with adjacent land including removal of ransom strip

However, in the absence of any provision being made at this time for mitigation towards the enhancement of these facilities or any financial contribution offered towards them, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies CP3, CP21 & CP22 of the adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy, policy WCS 6 of the Waste Core Strategy and saved policies D8 & R2 of the Salisbury District Local Plan, and guidance provided in the NPPF regards planning obligations.

3. The site is located close to existing commercial and industrial units, and there is a known vibration/noise problem associated with the processes carried out by one of the occupiers of the industrial estate, which currently affects existing residential amenity in the area. In the absence of a suitable report demonstrating whether and to what extent these areas are affected, the Local Planning Authority considers that the future occupiers of the proposed units may suffer a significant adverse impact to their residential amenity to the detriment of the enjoyment of their property. On this basis, the proposal is considered to be contrary to saved policy G2 of the Salisbury District Local Plan, as saved within Appendix C of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy, and guidance in the NPPF, in particular paragraph 123.