Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Brian Dalton.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 14 April 2011(copy herewith).

The minutes of the meeting held 14 April 2011 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes subject to the addition of Cllr Mary Douglas under minute no.45, Apologies for Absence.

Cllr Mary Douglas declared a personal interest in planning application S/2011/0046 – 151 – 161 and 169 Fisherton Street, Salisbury. She explained that her interest was a result of her active role in the local Christian community, but clarified she was not a member of the St.Paul’s Parochial Church Council nor did she have any sort of role on any steering committee.

The Chairman explained the meeting procedure to the members of the public.

The Chairman added that further to the Councillors’ request at the previous meeting a meeting for the committee members with the new Area Head of Planning Andrew Guest was in the process of being arranged. It would take place in advance of the next committee meeting.

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 in person no later than 5.50pm on the day of the meeting.

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. The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice.

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 (acting on behalf of the Director of Resources) no later than 5pm on 26 April 2011. 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.

The committee received details of one forthcoming appeal as follows:

S/2010/1699 - Land Opposite Southview Cottage, Brook Hill, Donhead St. Andrew, Shaftesbury, SP7 9LG.

Public Participation:

Mr Andrew Robertson, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Richard Clewer, the local member spoke to convey local residents’ concerns regarding parking and some elements of the design (at least partially addressed), and expressed support of the plan as a whole.

The Planning Officer introduced the application and drew members’ attention in particular to the conditions listed under point 11 of her report regarding glazing and the opening of windows on the proposed community centre.

A debate ensued wherein members of the committee discussed the potential community benefits of the scheme and regenerating effect it could have on the St. Paul’s roundabout area, and also the situation regarding parking provision for this and other such inner-city developments.

It was

Resolved:

That the application be GRANTED, subject to the completion and agreement of a s106 legal agreement / a unilateral undertaking which provides contributions towards off site open space and educational facilities, for the following reasons:

The proposed development would not cause any significant demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance, in this case, the impact on the character of the area, amenities, highway safety/parking, contamination, protected species and open space/education requirements.  The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the aims and objectives of the following saved policies in the Salisbury Local Plan namely:

G1 - Sustainable development

G2 – General

G9 – Planning obligations

C12 – Protected species

H8 - Housing Policy Boundary

D1 - Design

D2 – Design

CN5 – Development affecting the setting of a listed building

TR11 - Off street car parking

TR14 -Provision of cycle parking

R2 - Recreational open space

E16 –Employment

And subject to the following conditions:

(1)  The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:   To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2)  No development shall commence until details of the entry gate and traffic light signal system, including the locations of the installations, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall not be first brought into use until the gates and traffic light signal system has been installed in accordance with the approved details and shall be serviced and maintained at all times thereafter.

Reason:  To ensure that vehicles do not meet on the access ramp and prevent the need for vehicles to reverse onto the highway.

Policy: G2 (General)

(3)  No development shall commence until details of the reinstatement of the footway to remove existing vehicle crossings, in accordance with Wiltshire Council footway specification, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall not be first brought into use until the footway has been reinstated in accordance with the approved details.

Reason:  In the interests of amenity and public safety.

Policy: G2 (general)

(4) No development shall commence until  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60a

Public Participation:

Mrs Carol Hewson spoke in objection to the application

Mr Richard Hewson spoke in support of the application

Mr Ray Avery spoke in support of the application

Cllr John Martin, Landford Parish Council, spoke in objection to the proposal.

The Chairman informed the committee that a number of letters had been received as submissions for inclusion under the late list, however the content of these was contested and offered no new and relevant information in planning terms.

The planning officer introduced the retrospective application and answered technical questions on the case officer’s report.

A motion for permission was proposed and seconded and then debated. Contributions focused on the following factors:

·         The intent behind the original permission for the renovation of Landford Manor

·         The sustainability of the business as operated out of these premises

·         The need to encourage the development of the rural economy

·         Fire safety and fire mitigation measures

·         The amenity of the other occupants of Landford Manor

·         Traffic levels in the proximity of the Manor and the levels of parking available on the site

On being put to the vote the motion for approval was lost.

A new motion for refusal was proposed and seconded on the grounds that the application was an inappropriate change of use of part of a listed building in a conservation area, was contrary to the rules governing development within listed buildings and objecting in principle to the assertion that the unit was suitable for use as offices, noting further that such use would be detrimental to the amenity of local residents.

Following discussion it was

Resolved:

To REFUSE planning permission for the proposed continued use of the upper floor of Unit 1 of Landford Manor by Innovative Consultancy UK Ltd, for the following reasons:

1)    the scale of the use having resulted in a significantly large number of cars being parked in front of the Manor, which is considered to be visually detrimental to the setting of the listed building;

2)    the changes that would be required in order to facilitate the provision of adequate fire precautions for such a large office employing up to 12 persons; are likely to be unsympathetic to the historic interest of the building,

3)    the changes would have unacceptable long term implications for the historical integrity of the building being incompatible in terms of its scale and impact upon the listed grade II* Landford Manor, and would adversely affect the amenities of neighbours. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan, and in particular Policies G1 and G2 (General Criteria for Development), CN4 and CN5 (Listed buildings) and E17 (Employment) of the saved policies of the adopted local plan, and PPS4.

Cllr Mike Hewitt requested his vote against the refusal of planning permission be recorded.

None.