Agenda item

Retrospective Application for retention of single storey outbuilding, extension of existing single storey outbuilding, single storey rear extension to create a cold store. Upgrading of extraction equipment to roof on first floor (rear) and erection of closed boarded fence and flue enclosure

Public Participation

Major Michael Hawtrey spoke in objection to the application

Dr John Avery Jones CBE spoke in objection to the application

Geoffrey Bennetts spoke in objection to the application

Tony Allen (agent) spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer, Christos Chrysanthou introduced a report which recommended that the retrospective application for retention of a single storey outbuilding, extension of an existing single storey outbuilding, and a single storey rear extension to create a cold store. With upgrading of extraction equipment to roof on first floor (rear) and erection of closed boarded fence and flue enclosure, be approved.

Key details were stated to include the impact to the conservation area, and that numerous objections had been received. The previous application had been refused, due to the impact of the extraction equipment in terms of noise and odour.

This application had now submitted a noise and odour level assessment. The proposals now complied with required levels and was not considered to be of a negative impact.

The noise report indicated that the new system was ten decibels lower than the old system. The current fence was not continuous so would need to be replaced. The applicant had agreed to timber clad the outbuildings and stain the fence with a colour agreed by the Planning Authority.

Following complaints regarding noise levels, noise recording equipment had been placed in a resident’s flat, where it did not record anything above the levels considered to be a nuisance.

Attention was draw to the site visit which had been undertaken earlier that day.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. Details were sought whether the back yard was use by customers, it was clarified that it was only used by staff of the restaurant.

It was noted that one of the conditions in the report stated that development should have begun by expiry of 3 years of this application, it was asked whether there was a danger that the applicant could leave the site unchanged for a period of 3 years before anything was changed? It was clarified that this was a standard condition and was followed up with other planning conditions which required the work to be carried out within 3 months. The Committee asked for this to be taken out.

An Environmental Health Officer investigated the noise complaints, and installed recording equipment over a period of 4 days the equipment did not pick up any recordings of the required level to be considered a statutory nuisance.

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

The Unitary Division Member; Cllr Hoque had declared an interest. Cllr Clewer spoke on his behalf, as up until the last election he had represented the next ward to this.

He noted that there had been concern about this site. Although this had been a restaurant for many years, there had also been residents there prior to the alterations which had taken place.

The development concerned the entirety of the rear of this property, and was of a poor standard. This was a case of over development. He suggested that perhaps it would be favourable if the structures had been fitted together as part of one building at the end of the main building but not at the end of the garden.

The site was in the city centre, overlooked by a lot of other properties. Even when a building meets the requirement, it can still be intrusive, especially where you have a lot of residents in flats. He urged the Committee to refuse the application and to ask the applicant to go away and come back with another development proposal which suited the city centre.

Cllr Devine then moved the motion for approval, in line with the Officer’s recommendation this was seconded by Cllr Dean.

Cllr Devine noted that people living near a restaurant, should expect that it will operate as a restaurant. The improvements to the extraction unit would be of benefit, and the fence would be improved with a coat of paint. Sympathy with residents but the applicant is working within the guidelines.

A debate the ensued where key points were raised including; that the colour of the fence had been suggested as gun metal grey, however this could be changed with a condition.

This was a retrospective application as the applicant had already erected the structures. If this was an application for proposed works, then how would the Committee vote. It was felt that this was a disregard of the planning process, which in this case had not been followed.

The fencing did not comply with the requirements and should be continuous.

The site was in a conservation area, we all want Salisbury to look better, and be improved as time goes on. It was recognised that restaurants needed to flourish also, however the prefab buildings would not get permission if they came as an application today, and the wiring had not been carried out correctly.

The application would be considered on the planning merits of what was before us today. Previous reasons for refusal have been addressed. The out buildings were not attractive. It was important that if the application was supported then the conditioning should be carefully considered to mitigate the poor quality of those buildings.

The business had been there for over 50 years. The buildings at the rear had been put up ad-hoc over the years, with no planning design, and no history of when they were built. Sec 7 NPPF & CP57, CP58 regards high quality design. This was not a properly designed feature, taking in to account its surroundings.

The Committee voted on the motion of Approval subject to conditions. This motion was not carried.

The Chairman moved the motion of refusal, this was seconded by Cllr Smale.

Resolved

That Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:

The single storey outbuilding, extension of the existing single storey outbuilding, single storey cold store and close boarded fence and flue enclosure are considered to be poorly designed by reason of their materials, siting and layout. Part 7 of the National Planning policy framework states that it is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development including individual buildings, public and private spaces. It is considered that these buildings situated as they are within the Salisbury conservation area and visible in public view along the river from Fisherton Street and neighbouring residential properties at Steynings house do not meet the high quality of design required by the NPPF for such a development. The buildings appear as a jumble of unrelated utilitarian structures and the fence at first floor level a prominent and unsightly feature out of character with the conservation area, as such the development is considered to be contrary to part 7 the NPPF, as well as core policies CP57 and CP58 of the Wiltshire Core strategy which require developments to achieve a high standard of design.