Agenda and minutes

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

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

The committee noted the rules on public participation.

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

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Public participation:

Mr Andy Kettlety spoke in objection to the application

Mr James Bravery spoke in support of the application

Mr Peter Bravery spoke in support of the application

Mrs Emma Bravery spoke in support of the application

The planning officer introduced the report and drew attention to the late correspondence.  He explained that there were two parts to the application, the first to demolish part of the existing house and the second for the erection of a semi-detached dwelling.  During the debate issues regarding the design of the proposed dwelling and its proximity to neighbouring dwellings were discussed in detail.

Resolved:

Planning Permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.     The proposed house, by reason of its uncharacteristically narrow plot and resulting cramped appearance, and by reason of its size, design and massing, would detract from the appearance of the street.  This is contrary to Policies H16 and D2 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (which are ‘saved’ policies of the adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy). 

2.      The proposed house, by reason of its proximity to the side boundary of the site with no. 47a Ladysmith, its size and its design (incorporating a first floor window in the side elevation), would both have an overbearing impact on and overlook no. 47a Ladysmith to the detriment of the occupiers’ amenities and privacy.  This is contrary to Policy G2 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (which is a ‘saved’ policy of the adopted South Wiltshire Core Strategy). 

3.      The application does not make provision for the increase in pressure on recreational open space facilities and affordable housing stemming from the additional house.  This is contrary to Policy R2 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (which is a ‘saved’ policy of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy) and Core Policy 3 of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy. 

INFORMATIVE:       

It should be noted that the reason for refusal 3 given above relating to Policy R2 and Core Policy 3 of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy could be overcome if all the relevant parties agree to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement, in accordance with the standard requirement for recreational public open space and affordable housing provision.

Public participation:

Mr Ivor Cottrell spoke in support of the application

Mr Colin Trickett spoke in support of the application

The planning officer introduced the report which was for outline consent to demolish Out of the Way and erect three dwellings.  During the debate members discussed the fact that many of the issues related to previous application appeared to have been overcome.

Resolved:

Planning Permission be GRANTEDfor the following reasons:

The proposed outline development of three dwellings (and demolition of Out of the Way) would be in accordance with the saved policies G2, D2, H16, C6, C8, C12 and R2 of the Salisbury District Local Plan and policy CP3 of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy, including the saved policies in Appendix C.

The erection of three dwellings within spacious plots would not harm the existing character of the area, which lies within the Housing Policy Boundary for Alderbury (Policy H16 and D2).

Provided the dwellings are single storey, with no windows above eaves level, neighbouring amenities would not be unduly disturbed in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy, or dominance. Provided existing boundary trees and fences are retained, there would be no undue disturbance to neighbouring occupiers resulting from the use of the access for three dwellings or use of the gardens by the occupiers (Policy G2 and D2)

Subject to conditions relating to access and visibility, the development would not be detrimental to existing highway safety arrangements for Southampton Road, or the access itself (Policy G2).

Existing and protected trees and nature conservation interests such as bats and their roosts would not be adversely affected by the development, subject to conditions (Policy C8, C6 and C12).

Affordable housing and public open space provision could also be made in accordance with Policy CP3 and R2, subject to a condition requiring the applicant to enter into a legal agreement at the full planning or reserved matters stage.

And subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

REASON:  To comply with the provisions of Section 92 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 details of the following matters (in respect of which approval is expressly reserved) have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority:

(a)The scale of the development;

(b)The layout of the development;

(c)The external appearance of the development;

(d)The landscaping of the site;

(e)The means of access to the site.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON:  The application was made for outline planning permission and is granted to comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34b

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