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 35 dwellings with associated car parking, landscaping and infrastructure.  Members noted that note that because the application had been appealed, they were unable to determine the application but were able to indicate how they would of voted.

Members of the Committee were informed that the proposal would result in the development of a large area of intended public open space which is ecologically sensitive.  It was noted that the proposed area was intended by the agreed Masterplan to have a more rural and spacious visual quality, as well as helping to provide a strong character and sense of place to the development. The loss of the proposed open area and its development for housing would have a significant detrimental impact on the open character and visual qualities of the area, and would adversely affect the amenities of adjacent dwellings, contrary to the agreed masterplan.

Officers explained that 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. Furthermore, 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 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, if the highways officer maintains a valid planning objection.  Members delegated this matter to Officers to impose a reason for refusal where considered appropriate.

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 McLellan, then spoke to the application. In particular he was concerned at the loss of the proposed open space area and felt this would have a detrimental impact on those living in the development.

Resolved:

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

1.The proposal would result in the development of a large area of intended public open space which is considered to be of local ecologically value. Whilst there is an acknowledged over-provision of such land to serve the housing development, the proposed area was intended by the agreed Masterplan to have a more rural and spacious visual quality, as well as helping to provide a strong character and sense of place to the development. Further, in the absence of a detailed ecological assessment regards the impact of the development, it is considered that the proposal would be likely to cause significant harm to the local ecology and biodiversity of the site and area.

It is therefore considered that the loss of the proposed open area and its development for housing as proposed would have a significant detrimental impact on the open character and visual qualities of the area, and would adversely affect the amenities of adjacent dwellings, and potentially cause significant harm to the local ecology and biodiversity of the site and area. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the agreed masterplan, and contrary to policies Salisbury District Local Plan policies H2D, G2, D1, R5, R6, C6, C7, C8  as saved within the Adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy, Adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy policies CP21 & CP22, policy CP50 of the draft Wiltshire Core Strategy and the NPPF, particularly paragraphs 58 & 59 in relation to design codes and provision of attractive and quality open spaces and paragraphs 109 to 119 related to biodiversity and ecology matters.

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

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 Waste Core Strategy and saved policies D8, R2 & G9 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.