Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Ian McLennan and Cllr Paul Sample. Cllr Jeans had informed officers that he would be arriving late.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2011 (copy herewith).

The minutes of the meeting held 28.07.2011 were presented.

Councillor West raised a point of accuracy regarding minute number 94c. It was suggested that the condition agreed by committee was in fact to grant planning permission following delegation to officers, as stated in the minutes, but to stipulate that the applicant retain all the roadside trees.

The following matters arising from the minutes were also discussed:

·         Minute number 92 – The update report requested by Cllr Britton and to be discussed in closed session was too brief.

·         Minute number 94 – Members requested that a report from officers on site selection be brought to committee at the earliest opportunity.

·         Minute number 96 – An application S/2010/1549 (Packway Garage, The Packway, Larkhill) that was deferred from the previous meeting. Officers explained that this application had originally been called-in by the local unitary councillor, with a recommendation of approval from officers. The Councillor had since withdraw his call-in request, so delegated powers returned to officers, who took the decision to approve the application.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes, once amended to include the following amended paragraph as the decision under minute number 94c: “That the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to officers following negotiations with the applicant to retain all the roadside trees and amend condition no.18 accordingly”.

Cllr Devine explained that he held a personal interest in Item 7, which he did not believe was prejudicial, but could be perceived as such, so he would withdraw from the room for this item only.

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 Thursday 11 August. 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 the following appeal decisions:

S/2010/1699 - Opposite Southview Cottage, Brook Hill, Donhead St. Andrew – Delegated – Dismissed

And forthcoming appeals as follows:

S/2011/0166 - Maddington Manor Cottage, The Common, Shrewton

S/2011/0073 – Lions Head, The Common, Winterslow

S/2011/0694 - Site at Flower Lane, Amesbury (L/B Appeal).

Public Participation:

Mr W Fox-Grant spoke in favour of the application.

The planning officer outlined the background to the report under consideration. He noted the Inspector’s appeal decision, and the lengthy and tailored nature of the conditions applied to that decision as an important motivation for the recommendation. He also drew attention to the additional representations for and against the confirmation of the Article 4 Direction that were contained in the late list.

 Resolved:

That the Article 4 Direction made in respect of this site on 7^th June 2011, is NOT confirmed.

Cllr Tony Deane (in attendance) left the room.

Public Participation:

Mr Gary Adlem, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application

The Chairman also noted a late submission from Mr Richard Longfox of Teffont Parish Council (see attached Schedule of late correspondence)

The planning officer outlined his report and ran through the amended plans for this property.

Technical questions were answered as follows:

·       With the additional loft conversion the property was now a 4-bedroom residence

·       The applicant had agreed to pay an additional S.106 contribution.

There was general support for the application to proceed on the basis laid out in the officer’s report, inclusive of the lower pitched garage roof agreed in negotiations with the applicant and a fixed opaque roof light replacing one of the existing rooflights, as promised verbally by the applicant at the meeting.

Resolved:

That subject to the applicant entering into an appropriate revised section 106 legal agreement to secure the appropriate financial contribution towards off-site recreational open space

Planning Permission be GRANTED for the following reason:

The proposed amendments to the dwelling, compromising a loft conversion and provision of a detached garage, would not significantly alter the planning merits of the scheme as originally consented subject to conditions including the fixing shut and fitting of obscure glazing to a roof light. The proposal would therefore still accord with the aims and objectives of the development plan and other Government guidance, having particular regard to Local Plan policies G1, G2, G5, H19, D2, C4, C5, C12, C13, C17, C18, CN8, CN10, CN11, CN21, CN22, TR11, TR14, R2 and PPS3, PPS5, PPS9, PPS25.

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 Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2)    The development shall only be undertaken in accordance with the following approved plans:

Plan Ref….C/603/1...                 Date Received….18.04.11….

Plan Ref….9.0...                        Date Received….29.03.11….

Plan Ref….9.02...                      Date Received….29.03.11….

Plan Ref….9.06 First Floor...      Date Received….20.05.11….

Plan Ref….9.06 Second Floor... Date Received….20.05.11….

Plan Ref….C/603/5...                 Date Received….29.03.11….

Plan Ref….C/603/15...               Date Received….18.04.11….

Plan Ref….9.01rev b...              Date Received….01.08.11….

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

3)    No development shall commence on the garage until a schedule of external facing materials, and where so requested samples, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To secure a harmonious form of development.

Policy: H19, D2, CN8

4)    The finished floor level of the garage shall be set no lower than the finished floor level of the dwelling, as detailed within submitted drg. no. C/603/15.

Reason: In the interests of minimising flood risk.

Policy: PPS25

5)    No development shall commence on the garage until details of all new windows and external doors have been submitted to and approved in writing by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103a

Public Participation:

Mr David Lohfink, the applicant, C G Fry and Sons, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Patrick Duffy, Tisbury Parish Council, stated his organisations’ support subject to certain conditions being met.

Cllr Tony Deane, unitary member for Tisbury, stated his support for the proposal and focused on a number of points which should be clarified, including: need for unfettered access across and to the site, the community will against street lighting, and the need for joined up thinking given the possible future development of Wiltshire Council’s campus to the immediate south of the site.

The planning officers summarised his report and drew the committee’s attention to a number of additions to his suggested conditions. He explained that this was a reserved matters application. These included the addition of a ‘plans list’ condition, an informative that the application should be read in conjunction with the original application and the S.106 agreement for the application.

Technical questions on the application were received from the committee members, as follows:

·         Lighting – Members queried the legal necessity for lighting within the scheme. In response the planning officer suggested that the flexibility existed in the proposed condition as worded to allow for a minimal scheme of lighting, however he was unsure of the legality of imposing a condition of no lighting.

·         Police Audit – There was no police audit of the application proposed.

·         Retail units- No retail units were proposed within the development

·         Numbers of Homes / Affordable homes – Officers clarified that there were a total of 90 homes confirmed, of which 32 were affordable housing.

·         Road standards / adoptability – It was confirmed that all roads on the development were to be built to an adoptable standard and it was planned that they would be adopted by the council.

There followed a lengthy debate wherein the following key points were debated:

·         The final form of the access to Hindon lane (T-Junction / Roundabout)

·         Members’ support for open access to Weaveland Road and the Wiltshire Campus site - during the debate it was made clear that all parties were amenable to achieving a through access to Weaveland Road and that Wiltshire Council should pursue this option without delay.

·         The level of affordable housing and usefulness of R2 funds

·         Local support for measures to minimise / have no street lighting

Resolved:

That planning Permission be GRANTED for the following reason:

This reserved matters application is considered to have addressed the matters reserved by the outline application S/2008/0779 in an appropriate manner. The proposal is well designed overall in accordance with the aims and objectives of the adopted Development Brief for the site “Hindon Lane, Tisbury” December 2006. And in detail the proposal reflects the established characteristics of Tisbury, will utilize acceptable high quality materials throughout and will not result in any demonstrable or, unreasonable harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, the highways network both on and off site, protected species and drainage and in all other regards. As such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103b

Public Participation:

Mr D Ezard, local resident, spoke in objection to the application

Mr McCombe, local resident, spoke in objection to the application

Cllr Joe Rooney, Salisbury City Council, presented the City council’s concerns.

The planning officer outlined the application. He then drew members attention to the late correspondence which contained three additional proposed conditions to add to the officers’ recommendation.

Technical questions were asked of the planning officer on the following topics:

·         Tree felling on the site – It was explained that 6 trees recently cut down by Jubilee Close were always intended to be felled and replaced, and that no trees that had been designated as protected had been cut down.

·         Monies to fund the entrance from Pembroke Road – The planning officer explained that it was his understanding that the existing funding allowed for the construction of the amended application only; not the access via Pembroke road.

A debate ensued and focused on the following matters:

·         Errors in the planning and execution of the previously approved application

·         The desirability of the planned affordable homes and the time-limited nature of funding from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA).

·         Suitability of access through Penruddock close.

Resolved:

1)    To defer this item to the following visit in order for members to hold a site visit and receive further information on the current situation of the site.

2)    To request that work on plots 4-7 (only) be halted until the matter is resolved at the next committee meeting.

None

Resolved:

To agree that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the public from the meeting for the business specified in minute no. 44 because it is likely that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in  paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information to the public.

The Committee received a confidential update on two ongoing enforcement cases.

Resolved:

1)    That a full report with planning history and detail of all enforcement measures be brought to the next committee meeting regarding application number S/2004/0496.

2)    That a warning letter be sent to the applicant regarding further breaches at application number S/2011/0708, and any subsequent breaches to be followed by enforcement measures.