Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Brian Dalton, Christopher Devine and Mary Douglas.  Councillor Bill Moss substituted for Councillor Douglas.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 9 December 2010 (copy herewith).

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 December 2010 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

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

There were no declarations of interest

The Chairman announced the death of Councillor Frank Bissington of Salisbury District Council and sent the sympathy of the committee to his family.

The next meeting of the committee would be in 4 weeks time on 10 February 2011.

Councillor Graham Wright had written to the Chairman to say that he wished to resign from the committee; he will be replaced at the next Council meeting.

This was the last meeting for Judy Howles, Area Development Control Manager and Ann Beard, Solicitor.  The Chairman thanked them for all their hard work on the committee and wished them well for the future.  He also asked that a letter be sent to Tim Pizzey, Area Team Leader, who had already left the Council, thanking him for all his hard work.

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

Members of the public who wish to speak either in favour or against an application 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. 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.

The committee noted the rules on public participation.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals (copy herewith).

The committee received details of the following appeal decisions:

S2009/1936 & S2010/0764 – 66 Winterslow Road, Porton – Delegated-Dismissed

S2010/0821 – The Heather, Alderbury - Delegated-Dismissed

And forthcoming appeals as follows:

S2010/1806 – Upton Farm, Berwick St John

S2010/1318 – Waters Edge, Hackthorne Road,Durrington

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Public participation:

Mr Andrew Pywell spoke in objection to the application

Mr Gerald Steer spoke in objection to the application

Mrs Anne Moynihan spoke in objection to the application

The Reverend Canon Keith Lamdin spoke in support of the application

The Very Reverend Prior Simon Jarrett spoke in support of the application

Dame Rosemary Spencer spoke in support of the application

Councillor John Brady, local member, spoke in objection to the application

The planning officer introduced the report which was recommended for approval.    A debate ensued during which issues of loss of amenity to the adjoining property (No. 18) and overdevelopment were discussed.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed single storey extensions to the rear of No.19a The Close (Principal’s House) to accommodate an oratory, sacristy and 2x guest bedrooms together with ancillary works would create development that is within close proximity to the neighbouring dwelling at No.18 which has windows facing the application site. The resultant impact of this close proximity with the western boundary of No.18 is considered to be contrary to Salisbury District Local Plan saved policy G2 (vi) in that it would be detrimental to the amenity of the occupiers of No.18.

2.      The proposal is situated within the Conservation Area of the Cathedral Close, and proposed single storey rear extensions to the rear of the application dwelling would also be within close proximity to a number of listed buildings. It is considered that the creation of this rear extension would result in an adverse impact on the setting of the grade I listed Sarum College and the adjacent grade II* listed dwelling at No.18, as it would, together with the development already permitted under application S/1997/1508/09, result in a significant reduction in the open nature of the existing space. This impact is considered to be contrary to Salisbury District Local Plan saved policies CN5 & CN8 and policy HE10.1 of PPS5 in that the benefits of the proposal are neither considered to outweigh the adverse impact on heritage assets, nor preserve nor enhance the character of the conservation area.

Public participation:

Mary Myers spoke in objection to the application

Jeremy Hooper spoke in objection to the application

Jenny Luzmoor spoke in support of the application

Aileen Croft spoke in support of the application

John Camparelli spoke in support of the application

Councillor Tony Deane, local member, spoke to the committee and requested that they consider a site visit to the school.

The planning officer introduced the report and drew member’s attention to the late list which contained correspondence from the Conservation Officer, CCWWD AONB and English Heritage together with an additional condition.   A debate ensued during which various issues regarding the design were discussed.

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED for the following Reasons:

The hall and classroom extension is considered to be acceptable in terms of impact on amenities, scale and design for the reasons outlined above and as such in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan, and in particular Policies G2, D3, C5 and PS1 of the adopted Salisbury District Local Plan.

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 200

2. No development shall commence on site until a sample panel of stonework, not less than 1 metre square, has been constructed on site, inspected and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The panel shall then be left in position for comparison whilst the development is carried out. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved sample.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

POLICY- G2

3. This development shall be in accordance with the submitted drawing[s] deposited with the Local Planning Authority on 13/09/10, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt

4.  The proposed development requires the legal diversion of Public Footpath Tisbury 83 to enable the development to take place. Before the start of development details of a scheme for the replacement footpath, including the timing of the closure of the existing footpath and the opening of the new replacement footpath shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The diversion order should be in place prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved

REASON  In the interests of pedestrian safety.

The planning officer introduced the report and drew members attention to the revised recommendation on the late list.   A debate ensued and it was

Resolved:

The planning officer introduced the report and drew members attention to the revised recommendation on the late list.   A debate ensued and it was

Resolved:

That following completion of a legal agreement to secure the following provisions:

1.    That none of the dwellings to be sold separately from the remainder of the Fonthill Estate

2.    That two of the dwellings shall be occupied in the first instance by persons who are employed in the locality of Fonthill Bishop  (whether or not on the Fonthill estate)

3.    That two of the dwellings shall at all times be occupied by persons employed in the locality (whether or not on the Fonthill Estate)

4.    That the area of land immediately to the east of Elm Grove, shown in cross hatch on plan Drawing No: 1114/20K, is returned to agricultural use prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings

5.    That the appropriate commuted sum in relation to recreation provision under Policy R2 is paid

That planning permission be GRANTED for the following reasons:

This revised proposal in combination with the Section 106 agreement, the local occupancy housing element in the scheme and the reduction of the existing domestic curtilage to Elm Grove by returning part of it to agriculture, effectively outweighs the restrictions on numbers of policy H19, with which it otherwise complies. A reduction in the scale of the properties and a design solution (in terms of layout and appearance and use of materials) which reflects the character of nearby estate cottages, the improved level of on site parking and the landscaping retaining and improving upon the existing characteristic hedgerow boundaries, will result in an acceptable form of development that is considered to comply with policies C2, CN8, C5, G8, and H19, by resulting in replacement dwellings that, (i) will not adversely impact on the character of the settlement designated as a housing restraint area, (ii) there will be no loss of important open spaces which contribute to the special character of the area,(iii) loss of features such as trees, hedges and walls, which contribute to the character of the area will be kept to a minimum (iv) the development will be in keeping with character of the neighbouring properties.

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 on site until a sample panel of stonework, not less than 1 metre square, has been constructed on site, inspected and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The panel shall then be left in position for comparison whilst the development is carried out.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7c

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

The Committee considered the need for a site visit to application number S/2010/1247 - Brockhurst, White Road, Mere.

Resolved:

That a site visit be organised to take place prior to consideration of this item at committee.

To consider passing the following resolution:

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 Item Number 10 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.

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. 10 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 planning officer presented the confidential report in respect of enforcement at the above site.

Resolved:

To agree the recommendations set out in the report as amended.