Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

• Cllr Charles McGrath

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2023 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

During consideration of Item 8b, Application PL/2022/09311 4 The Flood, Middle Winterslow, Cllr Nabil Najjar noted that he had previously retained the Agent for the application for his own personal work. He took part in discussion but abstained for the vote.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman explained the meeting procedure to the members of the public and drew attention to the presentation slides which had been uploaded to the website as Supplement 1 to the online agenda.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to speak either in favour or against an application or any other item on this agenda are asked to register no later than 10 minutes before the start of the meeting. If it is on the day of the meeting registration should be done in person.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are linked to in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. The Chairman will allow up to 3 speakers in favour and up to 3 speakers against an application, and up to 3 speakers on any other item on this agenda. Each speaker will be given up to 3 minutes and invited to speak immediately prior to the item being considered.

Members of the public will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

Questions

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution which excludes, in particular, questions on non-determined planning applications.

Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such questions in writing to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on Thursday 23 March 2023, in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on Monday 27 March 2023. Please contact the officer named on the front of this agenda for further advice. Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent.

Details of any questions received will be circulated to Committee members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

To consider an application, made under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to add a Footpath to the definitive map and statement of public rights of way in the parish of Whiteparish, (The Drove).

Public Participation

Sheila Cook spoke in objection to the Application.

Graham Peacop spoke in objection to the Application.

Christine Davies spoke in objection to the Application.

Attention was drawn to the information contained in Agenda Supplement 1 which included late correspondence from the Applicant with a response by the Officer. Also, the notification of the withdrawal of support by a neighbour for non-evidential reasons.

The Senior Definitive Map Officer, Janice Green, presented the Application under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to add a footpath to the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way, between Common Road and Footpath no.6 Whiteparish, “The Drove”, based on user evidence and some historical evidence.

As set out in the report and noted during the presentation, submissions in objection and support had been received, as detailed in para 8 of the report.

The Officer explained that where an Order received objections which had not been withdrawn, the Order must be forwarded to the Secretary of State for determination. The Order had come to Committee to make a recommendation to be attached to the Order when it was presented to the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State would determine the Order by:

•        Written representations;

•        Holding a local hearing; or

•        Holding a local public inquiry, to be presided over by an Inspector appointed on behalf of the Secretary of State, at which witnesses on both sides will give oral evidence and be cross-examined on their evidence.

Based on the evidence, the Inspector appointed on behalf of the Secretary of State would determine whether the Order was:

•        Confirmed;

•        Confirmed with modification/s; or

•        Not confirmed.

The Committee was asked to consider the objections and representations received and the evidence as a whole, in order to determine whether or not Wiltshire Council continued to support the making of the Order under Section 53(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

The Officer set out the options available, these were:

(i) Members may resolve that Wiltshire Council continues to support the making of the Order, based on consideration of the available evidence, in which case the Committee should recommend that the Order be confirmed without modification;

(ii) Members may resolve that Wiltshire Council continues to support the

making of the Order with modification, based on consideration of the available evidence, in which case the Committee should recommend that the Order be confirmed with modification;

(iii) Members may resolve that Wiltshire Council no longer supports the making of the Order, based on consideration of the available evidence, in which case the Committee should recommend that the Order is not confirmed with clear evidential reasons given for this resolution;

(iv) Members may resolve to take a neutral stance, if the Committee considers on consideration of the available evidence that a Wiltshire Council recommendation cannot be attached to the Order when it is forwarded to the Secretary of State for determination.

The Officer explained the tests for Making and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 145.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate.

The committee received details of the appeal decisions as detailed in the agenda.

Resolved

To note the Appeals Update.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Construction of single 2 bedroom cottage on part of garden.

Public Participation

Mrs Tarn Winstone spoke in objection to the application.

Mrs Thelma Tompkins spoke in objection to the application

The Planning Officer, James Repper presented the report on the application, which was for the construction of a single 2 bedroom cottage on part of a garden.

The main issues which were considered to be material to the determination of the application were noted as:

·       Principle of development

·       Scale, design, impact on character and appearance of the area

·       Impact on AONB

·       Residential amenities/living conditions

The application had generated an objection from East Knoyle Parish Council and 8 letters of representation from the public. The AONB had also raised an objection.

The application was for an infill development in a small village. The ground floor side window was not considered to be overlooking and the change in height was considered minor. The shadow path analysis was explained and detailed on the presentation slides.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

There were no technical questions asked of the Officer.

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application. Some of the main points included information relating to the separate matter of a boundary dispute between the applicant and an adjoining neighbour.

In addition, comments stated the development would be detrimental to the privacy and lighting of the neighbouring properties as well as being overbearing. If approved the development would overlook that outside space and would cause overshadowing and have an oppressive feel. 

Other comments noted the negative impact to the AONB and a reduction to current views of hills and trees and increased traffic movements and issues.

Traffic issues will arise from this build.

The design was considered out of character and too large for the small sized plot.

The Divisional Member, Cllr Bridget Wayman who was on the Committee spoke in objection to the application, noting the AONB concerns relating to light from the roof lights, and highlighted that the report had disregarded the concerns.

Stating that it had no regard to para 185 of the NPPF. Cllr Wayman also explained what was required to retain a Dark Sky status.

In addition, the roof windows at the rear would be overlooking the neighbour behind. Overall, Cllr Wayman felt that it was a poorly designed property which would be better placed on the edge of the village where it could be more spaced out.

Cllr Wayman then moved the motion of refusal against officer recommendation, noting the following reasons:

·       Overdevelopment and proximity to neighbouring properties.

·       Out of character with the Streetscene

·       Contrary to AONB Management Plan 

·       Contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy policies CP51 & CP57

This was seconded by Cllr Hocking.

The Committee discussed the application, the main points included the AONB concerns and the importance continuing to preserve the Dark Skies status and how much weight this held in planning considerations.

The size and narrow layout of the site and the scale of the proposed development were felt to be too large for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 148.

Erection of a dwelling house, associated access, hard and soft landscaping and associated works (Resubmission of 21/00943/FUL)

Public Participation

Mr Joseph Elder spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Michael Mallock spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Clive Duggleby spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Dan Roycroft (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Clerk Jane Tier spoke on behalf of Winterslow Parish Council

The Senior Planning Officer, Lynda King presented the report on the application, which was for the erection of a dwelling house, associated access, hard and soft landscaping and associated works (Resubmission of 21/00943/FUL).

The main issues which were considered to be material to the determination of the application were noted as:

·       Principle and planning history

·       Neighbouring amenities

·       Highway safety

·       Ecology

·       CIL/S106

The application had generated an objection from Winterslow Parish Council and 14 letters of objection from third parties.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

It was noted that the previous application which went to appeal had only been refused on Nitrates and on Overlooking, specifically from the rear bedroom windows on to the Middleton House conservatory area. As such, the Committee was advised that to refuse the application on any other grounds would not stand up to appeal.

The former reasons had been mitigated in the current application, as the development now included roof lights which served bathrooms and a stairwell and an agreement to resolve the nitrate issues.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was noted that the S106 agreement involved an agreement to contribute to the councils strategy to mitigate nitrates.

The officer clarified where the subdivision of the site would be, using the presentation slides and explained that the development had moved approximately 1m forward on the plot.

In addition the Officer noted that the site was not in an area of flood risk and that other permission would be required to remove overhead wires, should the application be approved.

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application. Some of the main points included the scale of the development for the size of the plot, the general unkempt condition of the land, and the local concern relating to highways safety for varied users including, local families on their way to school, dog walkers, horse riders and general on foot pedestrian access due to there being no footpath or streetlights.

Other issues included heavy vehicular traffic access and an increased presence of large delivery vehicles which struggled to pass oncoming traffic due to there being only a few places where vehicles could pass each other along the road.

It was noted that there was no visitors parking and antisocial carparking would cause further issues.

The design was felt to be inappropriate, unsympathetic and out of character for area and the exits and entry were considered to be too close to the corner.

The privacy of the residents in Middleton House would be directly impacted by the development. It was stated that the Inspector had not had the opportunity to examine the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

Construction of painted timber bike store to front of dwelling. Install window with rendered surround and painted cladding below.

Public Participation

Dr Nicholas Arnold spoke in support of the application.

Mrs Robyn Arnold spoke in support of the application.

The Committee noted a correction to the report due to typographical errors, which involved the applicants name and the recommendation as detailed in para 1. 

The Planning Officer, Sarah Hill presented the report on the application, which was retrospective, for the construction of a painted timber bike store to the front of a dwelling and to install a window with rendered surround and painted cladding below.

The main issues which were considered to be material to the determination of the application were noted as:

·       Principle of development, policy and planning history;

·       Design, scale and impact on the amenity of the area;

·       Other matters

The application had generated a response of no comment from Salisbury City Council and 3 letters of objection from members of the public.

The site had a previous 2016 permission for alterations to the garage, to implement a window and brick surround.

The timber bike store sat forward and was not covered under permitted development.

The application was recommended for refusal.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was noted that the door in the wooden frontage to the old garage are led to underfloor storage, however no details had been included on the submitted plans. 

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application. Some of the main points included that the applicant had not understood that alternative materials could not be used to those specified on permission, when carrying out the alterations to the garage conversion.

Reference was made to one of the objectors’ positions at Wiltshire Council and that only 3 objections had been received, with the suggestion that the majority of local residents did not object.

The applicant believed that the lack of conformity was in line with the varied styles found along the street, adding that cladding was a material used on many houses in the locality and that they were willing to paint or stain in any way deemed appropriate.

The Bike shed was noted as providing storage for means of alternative transport and as such being supportive to the wellbeing of the family.

The Divisional Member, Cllr Dr Mark McClelland who was not in attendance, had called the application in to committee, to enable consideration in public, to ensure public confidence in the outcome.

Cllr Hocking moved the motion of Refusal, in line with Officer recommendation, noting that he did not mind the appearance of the bike shed, however it was the cladding on the garage which did not match the previous planning permissions which he did not approve of.

The motion was seconded by Cllr Bridget Wayman.

Cllr Hocking also noted the reason the application had been called to Committee, was so that the application could be debated in public for transparency. Cllr Hocking asked for clarification on whether the Committee could approve the bike shed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency 

There were no urgent items