Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

·       Cllr Nick Errington who was substituted by Cllr Trevor Carbin

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the online meeting held on 1 April 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 April 2021 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

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

In relation to application 7b:

The Chairman, Cllr Britton noted that he had known the applicant for several years through her work within the community however as this did not constitute a prejudicial interest, he would take part in discussion and the vote for the application.

Other Members who also knew the applicant in the same capacity also declared a non-prejudicial interest, these were; Cllr Dalton, Cllr Hocking, Cllr McLennan & Cllr Najjar.

Cllr McGrath noted that he had attended the opening event for the premises, although this did not constitute a prejudicial interest, for openness he stated that he would not take part in the discussion or vote for that application.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman explained the meeting procedure to the members of the public and paid tribute to the previous Chairman, Fred Westmoreland.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to submit a statement in relation to an item on this agenda should submit this in writing to the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on Tuesday 22 June 2021.

Submitted statements should:

·       State whom the statement is from (including if representing another person or organisation);

·       State clearly whether the statement is in objection to or support of the application;

·       Be readable aloud in approximately three minutes (for members of the public and statutory consultees) and in four minutes (for parish council representatives – 1 per parish council).

Up to three objectors and three supporters are normally allowed for each item on the agenda, plus statutory consultees and parish councils. Speakers are usually taken in order of registration.

Those submitting statements would be expected to join the online meeting to read the statement themselves, or to provide a representative to read the statement on their behalf.

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 electronically to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on (4 working days before the meeting – insert exact date eg xx September 2020) in order to be guaranteed of a written response.

In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on Thursday 17 June 2021.

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 members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website. Questions and answers will normally be taken as read at the meeting.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period of 19/03/2021 to 11/06/2021.

The committee received details of the appeal decisions as detailed in the agenda for the period of 19 March – 11 June 2021.

Resolved:

That the Appeals Report be noted.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Change of Use from storage, processing and distribution of lime to storage, processing and distribution of horticultural products, with the addition of one building.

Public Participation

Ms L Paramor spoke in objection to the application

Mr R Flower (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Cllr E Hartford spoke on behalf of Alderbury PC

Cllr M Fry spoke on behalf of Grimstead PC

Attention was drawn to additional information which had been published in Supplements 1 & 2 to the agenda, which detailed the Ecology Officer’s response and additional comments.

The Senior Planning Officer, Lynda King presented the application for a change of use from storage, processing and distribution of lime to storage, processing and distribution of horticultural products, with the addition of one building.

It was noted that the application should have been a major application and advertised in the press. The application had now been advertised and consultation would end on 15 July. Due to this, any decision would need to be delegated to Officers to implement following close of the consultation period and consideration of any new matters arising.

The main issues which had been considered to be material in the determination of this application were listed as Principle/retention of rural employment, Neighbouring Amenity and landscape, Highway Safety, and Ecology and drainage.

The site had been used for lime preparation since the 1980s.The application sought Change of use, to the production of horticultural soils.

Points noted were that there would be an average of 2 HGVs movements per hour from the site. The roller shutter doors would be closed during the drying operation and would be conditioned.

The owners operated another site at New Milton, photos of that site were shown and explained as part of the presentation.

The application had generated Objections from Grimstead Parish Council; and Alderbury Parish Council with a further 9 letters of objection from third parties.

The NPPF and Core Strategy both supports the diversification of agriculture and other land based rural business, this application was the latter.

Previous appeal for a B2 and B8 use were dismissed, a copy of the Inspector’s decision was provided in the agenda pack.

There were no current conditions on the hours of use. This application would enable there to be some conditions to control the level of usage on the site.

The Local Plan Policy and the Salisbury Plan looked to protect employment.

It was considered that there would be no harm to the local amenities.

This was a unique site and it would be very difficult to find an alternative anywhere else.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions as set out in the report and additional conditions recommended by the Council’s Ecologist, which were set out on the Supplements to the agenda.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that there was an ancient woodland with priority habitat to the south of the site, this was not an SSSI. The site lies within  an SLA. The amended plan included showed the revisions required by Ecology and was the final plan.

The plans included a pond to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Demolition of existing building with retention of existing façade with minor modifications and use of land as a hospitality area (Description revised following changes to the proposed frontage – previously “Demolition of existing building, erection of gates and railings as modification to front facade to facilitate use of land as a hospitality”)

Public Participation

Mr W Bennett spoke in objection to the application

Mr E Gray spoke in objection to the application

Ms J Newman spoke in objection to the application

Ms A Newbery (Applicant) spoke in support of the application

It was noted that additional information was uploaded as Supplement 2 to the online agenda, which detailed the response from Public Protection.

The Senior Planning Officer, Julie Mitchell presented the application for demolition of existing building with retention of existing façade with minor modifications and use of land as a hospitality area (Description revised following changes to the proposed frontage – previously “Demolition of existing building, erection of gates and railings as modification to front facade to facilitate use of land as a hospitality”).

The main issues which had been considered to be material in the determination of this application were listed as demolition of the existing building and impact on the Conservation Area, principle of the proposed use, impact on residential amenity and noise/disturbance.

The application had generated Objections from residents. During the presentation, pictures were shown from the site during construction.

Live music act allows for live un-amplified music to be played anywhere between 0800 – 2300hrs and live amplified music to be played between 0800 – 2300hrs in workplaces with an audience limit of 500.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions as set out in the report.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that the demolition of the old building had already taken place after the application being submitted. The applicant had undertaken the process for prior notification, however during that because the site was in the conservation area it was discovered that full application was required.

An option when there was a potential breach of planning was to invite a planning application, as this had been received the matter was not passed on to enforcement. 

The Live Music Act 2012 allowed for unamplified music anywhere and live music in workplaces, the premises was considered to be a workplace.

The Public Protection response made reference to some amended/additional conditions which if wished, could be added by the Committee should it be minded to approve.

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application.

Some of the main points raised related to the complaints from neighbouring residents in relation to associated noise and food smells permeating into their gardens and homes when the Brown Street outside space was in use.

Reference to a diary of logged incidents was referred to and had been circulated independently to Members prior to the meeting by one of the speakers.

The impact the venue would have on Charter Court residents with an increased level of noise and disturbance due to the acoustic funnelling at the rear, caused by a gap between buildings. The suggestion of a complete ban on all amplified music, recorded or live was proposed, as was the possibility of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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

There were no urgent items