Agenda item

Outline application with all matters reserved, except means of access to site, for the demolition, modification & renovation of existing buildings, structures & site development. Provision of approx. 315 residential dwellings, & mixture of employment, commercial/leisure, & aviation uses, including a "flying hub" comprising control tower, heritage centre, visitor centre, café/restaurant, parachute centre, aviation archives & aircraft hangars. Provision of new vehicular access to surrounding highways network, car parking, & connections to surrounding footpath/cycle networks. Green infrastructure provision, including open space, play space, foot & cycle paths, & landscape enhancement areas; & sustainable urban drainage system & waste water treatment works. Associated vegetation removal, ground modification & engineering works.

Public Participation

Susan Daniel spoke in objection to the application.

Ron Champion spoke in objection to the application.

Mark Uffindell spoke in objection to the application.

Tim Burden spoke in support of the application

Cllr Nick Baker, Vice Chairman of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr Annie Riddle of Salisbury City Council spoke in objection to the application.

Richard Hughes, Development Management Team Leader, introduced a report which recommended that the application for an outline application with all matters reserved, except means of access to site, for the demolition, modification & renovation of existing buildings, structures & site development. Provision of approx. 315 residential dwellings, & mixture of employment, commercial/leisure, & aviation uses, including a "flying hub" comprising control tower, heritage centre, visitor centre, café/restaurant, parachute centre, aviation archives & aircraft hangars. Provision of new vehicular access to surrounding highways network, car parking, & connections to surrounding footpath/cycle networks. Green infrastructure provision, including open space, play space, foot & cycle paths, & landscape enhancement areas; & sustainable urban drainage system & waste water treatment works. Associated vegetation removal, ground modification & engineering works be refused.

Attention was drawn to additional consultee responses, which were available in agenda supplement 2. It was highlighted that Ecology had no objections, subject to conditions.

The officer ran through the slides relating to the application which were published in agenda supplement 3. The application was for a very large site on the edge of the Old Sarum development and adjacent to Ford. There were 2 conservation areas linked to the application, 1 covered the Old Sarum Monument and the other was the airfield itself, which had several Grade II* listed buildings which were highlighted. 

CP25 in the current Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) was detailed. Furthermore, it was explained that the green buffers identified in the Laverstock and Ford Neighbourhood Plan did not conflict with CP25. Also, the Ford Amenity Green Space was not affected by the application. Noise from the site had previously been an issue, but this had been concluded positively with conditions to limit noise. There would be a pathway and cycleway around the perimeter of the site and there was also mitigation for Skylarks.

The various areas of the site were detailed (Areas A, B and C). The dwellings proposed for Area A, had been reduced from over 300 to 160. The line of the old roman road within the site would be delineated within the application. Suggested designs of the dwellings were shown, with the apartment roofs mimicking the hangers on site. Proposed highways works and creation of access points were detailed in the report.

Details were given on Area B, which was in front of existing industrial units and would contain a new aviation building. This area also contained the listed hangers. Some of which, in particular hanger 3, was in a poor state or repair. A separate permission had already been granted to rebuild / repair hanger 3.

Area C was on the Ford side of the site. Green Lane, which was referred to in the report ran down the side of the site. There was also an old firing range at the side of the site which was still in use, this has caused some concern with Public Protection. There was some land protected within the Leverstock and Ford Neighbourhood Plan (NP) which was excluded from the application. The proposed number of dwellings for Area C had been reduced to 155. Water treatment works would be required due to phosphate issues. There was a pedestrian crossing proposed from the Ford side of the development to the County Park. Area C would include dwellings ranging in size from 2 to 6 bedrooms. A new access to Area C would be created from Ford (Roman) Road and therefore improvements to the road were proposed including widening the carriageway in certain areas.

The officer referred attendees to the detailed report within the agenda. The officer recommendation was to refuse the application, on the basis of concerns regarding highways, conservation and public protection. The officer also highlighted an appeal decision appended to his report which included the comments of the planning inspector when the previous iteration of this application had been considered at appeal.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the restoration of Hanger 3 and community benefit of the application.

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

The unitary division member, Cllr Andrew Oliver (Old Sarum and Boune Valley Division) was unable to attend the meeting so had asked Lainey Barker (of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council) to read a statement in objection to the application on his behalf. Issues raised included that the site was a conservation area with 3 Grade II* listed hangers; the site was of significant historical importance with the grass airstrip one of only 3 surviving from World War 1. The majority of local residents were in objection to the application. The site was unsustainable and the existing rural road infrastructure surrounding the site was substandard and could not cope with the increased traffic movements. CP25 was detailed and the reasons why he felt that the application did not comply with it. The Committee was urged to refuse the application.

Cllr Ian McLennan (Laverstock and Ford Division) spoke as neighbouring division Member and highlighted that the site had been in his division until the boundary changes in 2021. Cllr McLennan was also strongly opposed to the application. Issues raised included the conservation status of the site; the historical importance of the site as a World War 1 airfield, which was unique due to the infrastructure still on site such as the listed hangers and the firing range which was still in use. Furthermore, changes to the landing strip could lead to noise complaints; Area C would double the size of Ford which would dramatically and adversely affect its setting; the community had not been consulted on a Conservation Area Management Plan (CAMP) for the site; CP25 had not been considered by the applicant and the previous planning appeal was overwhelming in its refusal. Therefore Cllr McLennan also urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Cllr Ernie Clark proposed the officer recommendation to refuse the application, this was seconded by Cllr Pip Ridout.

All Members were against the application, and it was,

Resolved

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

REASONS

1.    The development location would result in significant increase in vehicular movements on a sub-standard rural road that provides no priority for walking and cycling in a location that is unsustainable in transport terms due to the high levels of car ownership and vehicle use associated with development in this area,and would not make the best use of existing infrastructure through effective design, management and maintenance. The Roman Road (C.278 road) is unsuitable in design terms due to its substandard nature and would result in the route being unsuitable for all road users, particularly sustainable modes, and further increase the risk of harm and perception of safety to vulnerable road users. The increase in vehicle movements on a substandard vehicular route with no dedicated walking or cycling facilities will discourage uptake of sustainable modes in this location.

The proposal would therefore have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, and the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe, contrary to the aims of the NPPF paragraphs 109, 115 & 116, the general amenity improvement aims of CP25 at criterions (iv) and (vi), and Wiltshire Core Strategy policies CP60, 61 and 62, and objectives SO3,06, 08, 09, 010, 012, 013, 014, 015, 017 & 018 of the Wiltshire Local Transport Plan, and the Wiltshire Highways Asset Management Policy and strategy in relation to the site

2.    The proposal is located within close proximity to and within the setting of the Old Sarum Scheduled Ancient Monument and its surrounding Conservation Area, and is located within the Conservation Area encompassing the Old Sarum Airfield, which itself contains several listed buildings. The site currently has an open character. The proposal is in outline form, with only access being a detailed matter, and the number of dwellings being approximately 315.

Policy CP25 does not specify the number of dwellings or quantum of development. The development in all three areas would be of a significant height and scale, and the Council remain to be convinced that the number of hangar buildings, the uses, and their overall design, proposed for Area B would enhance the operation of the airfield. The development would visually amalgamate as seen from the Old Sarum monument, and from south of the site. The green buffer along the airstrip between Areas B & C would be visually diminished. Thus, the open character of the site would be significantly reduced and eroded.

Consequently, it is considered that the scheme as proposed, which stems from the applicants submitted Master Plan and Conservation Management Plan, would have a significant visual impact, and be likely to cause less than substantial harm, to the character and setting of the surrounding heritage assets, including the historic landscape of Conservation Area surrounding the Old Sarum Monument, and the airfield Conservation Area itself, which is not outweigh by significant public benefits. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the aims of policy CP25 and CP58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, the Laverstock and Ford Neighourhood Plan and associated Design Guide, and the guidance given in the NPPF, and sections 66 and 72 of Town and Country Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

3.    The application scheme suggests the provision of a large area of public open space, including pathways and cycleways, and interpretation information. Whilst these public benefits are welcomed in principle, at the current time, the viability assessment of the application has not yet been concluded. Thus, it is currently unclear what mitigation, and via what mechanism (ie a legal agreement) this mitigation and public benefit is able to be secured, in respect of the on-site provision of affordable housing, or towards mitigating the off-site impacts of the development in terms of educational provision, provision for public art, highway improvements and waste and recycling facilities, and other mitigation.

Consequently, and in the absence of a suitable legal agreement to secure such mitigation, it is considered that the scheme would not be able to provide  required mitigation or offer significant public benefits, and would not be sustainable development, contrary to the aims of policy 6 of the Wiltshire Waste Core Strategy, policies CP3, CP25, CP43, CP57, and CP61- 64 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, including saved policy D8 and R2, and the guidance given in the NPPF regarding planning obligations and the provision of sustainable development which mitigates its impacts.

4.    Proposed Area C is located close to an active public firing range. There is currently conflicting information related to the intensity of use and operation of that firing range from the applicant and a third party. In the absence of further clarifying information from the applicant, it is considered that the proposal would be likely to result in noise impacts on some of the planned Area C dwellings to the south. On this basis, the proposal would be contrary to the aims of policy CP57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, and amenity and noise guidance in the NPPG.

5.    The application is for a development of 315 dwellings in an area which has the potential to increase traffic within the Salisbury London Road Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The air quality report confirms significant increases in nitrogen dioxide at the Salisbury London Road AQMA. According to the Council’s draft Air Quality Management SPD, the site would be classed as a 'Type 3' site and therefore additional documentation is required from the applicant.  In the absence of such additional evidence, the Council must conclude that the scheme would have an unacceptable impact on air quality, contrary to the aims of policy CP55 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, and related guidance in the NPPF and NPPG.

Note: The meeting was adjourned at 1.25pm for a half hour break. The meeting reconvened at 1.55pm.