Agenda item

A site visit has been arranged for this item for the day of the meeting.

Public Participation

Mr Tony Allen spoke in objection to the application.

Mrs Elizabeth Bec spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Bob Law spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Damian Thursby spoke in support of the application.

Mr Peter Hughes spoke in support of the application.

Cllr John Lindley, Chairman of the Salisbury City Council Planning and Transportation Committee, spoke in objection to the application.

The Area Development Manager presented a report which recommended that planning permission be approved. Key issues were stated to include the principal of development, particularly in lights of permitted development rights for some development in the garden of the existing property, the impact on residential amenity and the siting, scale and design of the proposal. It was confirmed that trees of sufficient height to screen views from the neighbouring Tower Mews development, were included as part of the application details.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer, and clarification was sought on the height and orientation of the application.

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

The local Unitary Division Member, Councillor Bill Moss, then spoke in objection to the application, stating that the proposed plot was not suitable for another dwelling despite the understandable personal position of the applicants.

A debate followed, where the Committee discussed whether another dwelling could be accommodated on the site, with particular attention to the amount of amenity space that would be available, or whether although the current applicants might find it acceptable, this constituted overdevelopment of the area. The character of properties in the area was assessed, with it noted that although all the properties were of a unique design, each had been designed to fit a distinct familial style, and it was considered whether the proposed dwelling was in character with that style.

At the end of debate, it was,

Resolved:

To REFUSE  the application for the following reasons:

1.  The proposed development would be located in the side garden of an existing two storey property in Ventry Close.  The site slopes and is elevated above road level, and is prominent being close to the entry point to the Close. 

The proposal, by reason of the relatively large size of the proposed dwelling on the site, its positioning close to the roadside boundary, and the relatively small areas within the site proposed to provide amenity space/garden, would amount to an over-development of the site to the detriment of the character and appearance of the wider Ventry Close estate.  Furthermore, the proposed dwelling, by reason of its design and appearance, would be out of keeping with the grain and style of established development in Ventry Close.

The development would therefore be contrary to ‘Saved’ Policies G2 and D2 of the Salisbury District Local Plan and the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework - Para 9, 56, 58 and 64.

2.    The development would be contrary to saved Policy R2 of the Salisbury District Local Plan, as provision for public open space has not been made.

Informative: Reason 2 above can be overcome by the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement in respect of Policy R2.