Agenda item

Public Participation

Mr Ronnie Hutchinson spoke in objection to the application

Penny Joyce (Old Sarum Community Coordinator) spoke in objection to the application

Sharon Burgess (Salisbury Medical Practice) spoke in support of the application

Mr David Burton spoke in objection on behalf of Laverstock & Ford parish council

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application for the erection of three storey building comprising of 21 affordable housing apartments with parking, bin & cycle stores, associated infrastructure (alterations to S/2012/1829). The application was recommended for approval. It was noted that the community space which originally included a Doctors surgery was now proposed to be replaced by affordable housing.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officers. It was clarified that affordable housing could not be considered ‘community use’ and therefore could not replace a doctors surgery or other deemed suitable ‘community use’ alternatives if there had been insufficient marketing of the vacant space, as ‘community use’.

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

A representative Laverstock & Ford Parish Council spoke in objection to the application on the grounds that there had been no attempt to market the space as a doctor’s surgery to other interested parties. It was felt that there was massive interest in having a community facility in the space rather than housing. There was huge objection from local residents and parish councils to the proposals.

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor McLennan then spoke on the application, adding that in the beginning there was a local plan where 630 houses were welcomed. Councillors agreed to the master plan and Persimmon’s agreed that a doctor’s surgery would be included. He had been in discussions with another surgery in the city which had expressed interest in the site. There was huge public need for a doctor’s surgery as the amount of people living in the community now equated for 3 doctors.

The Committee discussed the application, noting that the site was always intended for community use, specifically as a doctor’s surgery. It was felt that the correct process should be followed and the site should be marketed as so, to give the community time to find an alternative.

Cllr McLennan moved for refusal against the officer’s recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Tomes.

Resolved

The application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

The wider Old Sarum development was permitted on the basis that it would be served by a number of community facilities, including a doctor's surgery. The S106 legal Agreement associated with the development requires a suitable scheme of marketing in respect of a doctor's surgery use and an alternative community use, prior to a scheme being submitted for a residential or other non-community use. Adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) policy CP49 indicates that proposal's involving the loss of community uses will only be permitted as a last resort where it has been proven that the community use is no longer economically viable and where all other options have been exhausted.

Whilst some marketing appears to have been undertaken in relation to a doctor's surgery use, no alternative marketing scheme has been formally submitted relating to the use of the space for an alternative community use. It is not clear whether the ground floor space has been marketed in a flexible and open manner, or at an appropriate price which reflects the desire for a community use of the space, and which takes account of the likely future demand for a community uses as a result of a growing population in the Old Sarum area. Furthermore, the evidence submitted and the public consultation process has been challenged by several third parties and local Parish Councils, and hence, the robustness of the applicant's evidence is unclear at this time.

Whilst the provision of affordable housing is supported by policy CP43 of the WCS, the additional seven housing units being proposed are not considered to be a suitable replacement for a community facility, particularly as the additional housing will create a need and demand for additional facilities, whilst reducing the available space for any such community uses to be provided within the growing community.

The Local Planning Authority therefore remains to be convinced that the aims of the associated S106 Agreement have been fully complied with or that the requirements of policy CP49 in relation to the submission of a comprehensive marketing plan have been fully addressed. Consequently, the current proposal is considered to be contrary to the aims and criteria of the original housing allocation and saved policy H2D, the associated S106 Agreement, and contrary to policy CP49 of the WCS, and the aims of the NPPF to promote the retention and development of community facilities.