Agenda item

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application put before them. Members’ attention was drawn to two pieces of late correspondence outlining objections to the application.

 

A site visit had taken place on Monday 14^th February in respect of this application, which had been attended by Cllr Andrew Davis, Cllr Christine Crisp, Cllr Charles Howard, Cllr Chris Humphries, Cllr Julian Johnson and Cllr Leo Randall.

 

Also in attendance was Cllr Moss (local member).

 

There followed a number of technical questions to officers wherein the following points were highlighted:

 

ü  No ‘zone’ of protection existed around Old Sarum in planning, other than statutory measures concurrent with its status as a listed monument.

ü  The flats/apartments forming the gateway entries to areas of the development were confirmed as roughly 12metres or 3-storeys high.

ü  The emerging core strategy (to be debated and voted upon at Council on 22^nd February 2011), was a material consideration, however the officer was not in a position to advise how much weight should be given to it.

ü  Crossings bisecting Green Lane were available for pedestrians and cyclists.

ü  The bulk of the houses were designed to a Code Level 3 standard (following the code for sustainable homes).

ü  There are reservations about the position and spread of the affordable homes provision in respect of the north-south axis.

 

Public Participation:

 

Mrs Elizabeth Antony, spoke in objection to the application

Mr Frank Palmer spoke in objection to the application

Mr Steve Hannath spoke in objection to the application

 

Mr Chris Rees, Agent, spoke in support of the application

 

Mr Ron Champion, Chairman, Laverstock and Ford Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposal.

 

Cllr Ian MacLennan, local Wiltshire Council member for Laverstock and Ford spoke in objection to the proposal citing a number of concerns summarised below:

·         The loss of land means the loss of the strategic gap between the edge of Salisbury suburbs and the village of Ford.

·         The rural / farmland nature of the land makes development on such a large scale out-of-character and invasive.

·         The local community including the Parish Councillor do not object to development in the general sense, rather they in fact feel they have taken their fair share of the burden of need.

·         Provision of the Country Park should not be conditional on the granting of 500 houses; in fact the land should remain in its current rural state.

 

Cllr Bill Moss, local Wiltshire Council member for Salisbury St Marks and Bishopdown, spoke in objection to the proposal citing a number of concerns:

·         Residential use of a rural site

·         Questionable necessity of the housing given the depressed economic climate

·         Insufficient/unsatisfactory infrastructure to support the development

·         Other large developments underway nearby at Old Sarum and Long Hedge

 

Debate

The Chairman explained that as usual the Committee’s role in this case was to consider the merits of the application, but as it had been referred to appeal on the basis of non-determination, they were to provide officers with their view on how they would have determined the application had it not been appealed. This could then be communicated to the Inspector as part of the appeal consideration.

 

Contributions from members of the Committee emphasised the following:

·         The northern edge of Salisbury is an extremely sensitive area for new developments of scale to be taking place.

·         A feeling that consultation could have better been carried out, and made more meaningful, through mechanisms such as the Salisbury and Southern Wiltshire Area Boards, to mitigate some of these concerns through re-designs

·         The existing suggested conditions, although excellent, should be added to, on the basis that members objected in principle to the development, because of the impact it would have on Ford and on open space in the area – policies G2, H23, C7.

·         A reduced requirement in numbers for houses in South Wiltshire.

·         The desirability of a meaningful strategic gap between Hampton Park and Ford.

·         The proposed buildings would be obtrusive in the landscape.

 

Following the views of the local members, and after the contributions summarised above, members decided the following

 

Resolved: That notwithstanding the appeal against non determination, the Council as Local Planning Authority would have REFUSED the application, for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposal for 500 dwellings would involve the redevelopment of a significant area of agricultural land which (prior to the formal adoption of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy) is currently 'open countryside' and outside any housing policy boundary.   The site is visually important as it forms an area of open land that provides a strategic landscape gap between the built up limit of the city and the adjacent rural settlement of Ford to the north.   Consequently, this large scale proposal would extend housing into the important landscape setting of Salisbury and result in the loss of the existing and attractive open gap between Pearce Way and the adjacent rural settlement.   The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims of policy G2, H23 & C7 of the Salisbury District Local Plan.

 

2.    Based on the information submitted to date, and notwithstanding the discussions between the applicants and the Highways Agency, the Agency’s Direction of Non Approval remains in place, and it is understood that the applicants have not yet satisfactorily met all of the Agency’s requirements. As a result, and in the absence of any mitigation measures being agreed, it is therefore considered that as currently proposed, the scheme would be likely to result in additional car borne traffic using the road systems around the site, thus exacerbating existing congestion problems on the Strategic Road Network, contrary to the sustainable transport and accessibility aims of policies G2, G9 and TR1, & TR12 of the Salisbury District Local Plan, policies DP1, DP2, DP7, T3, T5 & T6 of the Wiltshire Structure Plan, PPG13, and the guidance within Circular 5/05.

 

3.    Based on the information submitted to date, and notwithstanding the discussions between the applicants and the Council’s Highways department, an objection on highway safety remains. In the absence of a suitable legal agreement securing off site highway works and a contribution towards the Council’s transport strategy, and in the absence of suitably detailed plans of the layout of the housing and surrounding highway system, the scheme as submitted does not in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority adequately facilitate a reduced speed limit of Pearce Way or provide a safe environment for users of the proposed highways system in and around the site. As a consequence, it is considered that the proposal has failed to demonstrate that the development would not adversely affect highway and pedestrian safety, and would not adversely affect the wider highway system around the site. The scheme as currently proposed is therefore considered to be contrary to the aims of draft Core Strategy policy 2 of saved policies G1, G2, G9, and TR1, TR12  of the Salisbury District Local Plan, policy DP1, DP2, DP7, T3, T5, & T6 of the Wiltshire Structure Plan 2006, and Planning Policy Guidance Note 13.

 

4.    The proposal would necessitate the provision and transfer of land for a new school, and a financial contribution towards the provision of a new school building and associated infrastructure. However, in the absence of a suitable legal agreement or similar measure to facilitate the provision of commuted payments towards infrastructure, the proposal fails to mitigate for the impact resulting from the development, as a result, the proposal would be contrary to Core Strategy policy 2, the guidance in Circular 5/05, Salisbury District local plan policy G9, and policies DP2 & DP7 of the Wiltshire Structure Plan.

 

5.    The proposal would necessitate the enhancement of an existing community facility, and would require a financial contribution towards such an enhancement. Similarly, several areas of public open play space are proposed throughout the housing development, which the applicant has indicated would be privately owned and run. However, in the absence of a suitable legal agreement or similar measure to facilitate the provision of commuted payments towards the enhancement of the community centre, or an agreement securing that play areas would be made freely available to the general public in perpetuity,  the proposal fails to mitigate for the impact resulting from the development, as a result, the proposal would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy 2, the guidance in Circular 5/05, and Salisbury District Local Plan policies G9 , R2 & R4 and policies DP2 & DP7 of the Wiltshire Structure Plan.

 

6.    The proposal is located adjacent to the River Bourne; part of the River Avon SAC/SSSI, and would also affect existing hedging and trees along Green Lane, footpath 11, and the ecology of the proposed Country Park area. A long term management plan/construction environmental management plan, is required in order to ensure the proper management of the Country Park area, and to demonstrate that the drainage and river systems are protected. Furthermore, a detailed arboricultural statement and habitat protection plan is needed to ensure the protection and enhancement of trees and hedging along Green Lane and Footpath no.11.

 

In the absence of information to demonstrate that the proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the protected river system, the scheme would be contrary to the aims of policy  G9, C11, C12,C13, C15, C17, & C18 of the Salisbury District Local Plan, policies C1,C2, & C3 of the Wiltshire Structure Plan, and the aims of PPS9, Core Strategy policy 2 & 20, and the guidance in Circular 5/05, which aims to ensure that proposal mitigate for their impacts.

 

7.    The proposal would necessitate the provision and transfer of land for a Country Park, and a financial contribution towards future maintenance and associated infrastructure.  It is considered that issues related to the overall layout, future use, and maintenance of the Country Park area have not yet been satisfactorily resolved. In particular:

·         a suitable plan or scheme has yet to be received which adequately mitigates for the concerns expressed regarding anti-social behaviour; and

·         Additional information and assessment is needed regarding the likely impact on archaeological features and other heritage assets within the landscape, including Old Sarum SAM.

·         the proposed works and the long term management of those works shown on the submitted plans have not yet been agreed with those parties likely to have future responsibility for the Park, and

·         further consideration needs to be given to the future management and establishment of the ecological enhancement of the park area, and

·         The retention in perpetuity of the play areas for free public use has not been secured.

·         A suitable legal agreement to secure the above, the land transfer, and the future maintenance of the Country Park.

 

In the absence of the above information, it is therefore considered that the proposals currently indicated on the submitted plans would not achieve the aims of Core Strategy policy 2, policies R2, C1, C2, C7,C8, G9, & CN21-CN23, of the Salisbury District Local Plan, Wiltshire Structure Plan policies DP2, DP7, C1, C2, C3, C10 & RTL2; PPS5, and the aims of Secure by Design.

 

 

8. The proposal would generate a requirement for 40 percent affordable housing provision as part of the development. Whilst the submitted scheme indicates that such provision would be made, the locational details and the sizes of the affordable units are not yet considered acceptable, and also, in the absence of a suitable legal agreement or similar measure to secure such a facility, the proposal fails to mitigate for the impact resulting from the development, and as a result, the proposal would be contrary to the guidance in PPS3, Salisbury District Local Plan policy G9 & H25 and the Council’s adopted Affordable Housing SPG, the emerging draft Core Strategy policy 2, 3 & 6, and the guidance in Circular 5/05, which aims to ensure that proposal mitigate for their impacts.

 

9. The application site is located close to the Conservation Area surrounding Old Sarum Scheduled Ancient Monument, and is visible from it and the surrounding historic landscape. The site and area is therefore rich in heritage assets and important archaeological deposits.

 

It is considered that there is a need for more sophisticated graphic information to confirm that views from the surrounding landscape, including to and from Old Sarum SAM have been safeguarded. It is also considered that additional information is required regards the likely impact of the development on archaeological deposits. 

 

In the absence of such additional information, the Local Planning Authority has to conclude that the scheme may not safeguard the character and setting of the heritage assets. It is therefore considered that the policy requirements of PPS 5 have not been satisfied, in particular, the provisions of policies HE6.1, 6.2, 7.4, 7.5, 9.1, 9.2, 9.4, 10.1, 10.2. The proposal would therefore also fail to accord with policies CN11 & CN20 of the Salisbury District Local Plan, and aims of policy HE2 & HE6 of the Wiltshire Structure Plan.

 

10. In the absence of a suitable legal agreement, a scheme and suitable financial contribution for public art, or the provision of household waste and recycling bins, water and drainage services, cannot be secured.  The proposal would therefore fail to accord with policies G2 (ii), G3, G5, G9, &  D8 of the Salisbury District Plan, policies DP2 & DP7 of the Wiltshire Structure Plan, and policy WCS6 of the Wiltshire Structure Plan waste and recycling supplementary guidance, and conflict with Core Policy 2 of the SW Core Strategy.