Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

There were none.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 8 December 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 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.

There were none.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public. During the

ongoing Covid-19 situation the Council is operating revised procedures and the public are able to participate in meetings after registering with the officer named on this agenda, and in accordance with the deadlines below.

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 1 February.

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.

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 Thursday 27 January, 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 Monday 31 January.

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.

The committee received details of the appeal decisions as detailed in the agenda.

The Chairman noted his frustration regarding the Lime Tard appeal which had been overturned by the Inspector, who had commented that the Committee was entitled to take a different view than that of the Officer, yet still proceeded to apply charges to the Council, which seemed perverse.

The Planning Team Leader added that Inspectors now required firm evidence to support such decisions in opposition to the Officer recommendation, rather than relying on Members local knowledge of an application sites issues, as had been the case with the Lime Yard application.

Resolved:

To note the Appeals Report

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Erect 95 dwellings together with garages, car barns, and refuse/cycle stores. Lay out gardens and erect means of enclosure. Creation of new vehicular access to Odstock Road. Lay out internal roads, including drives and pavements. Provision of associated public open space, play areas and landscape planting.

Public Participation

Peter Durnan (COGS) spoke in objection to the application

Nicola Liscombe (Salisbury Area Green Space Partnership) spoke in objection to the application

Philip Saunders (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Annie Riddle spoke on behalf of Salisbury City Council

Supplement 2 containing late correspondence, had been uploaded to the online agenda pack. This included a revised condition 16 relating to noise and third party comments from COGS, Salisbury Civic Society and Salisbury City Council, confirming previous objections.

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes presented the application which was for the erection of 95 dwellings together with garages, car barns, and
refuse/cycle stores. Lay out gardens and erect means of enclosure. Creation of new vehicular access to Odstock Road. Lay out internal roads, including drives and pavements. Provision of associated public open space, play areas and landscape planting. A slide showing the location of the site was shown and explained.

The application was recommended for Approval with conditions as set out in the report attached to the agenda.

Material considerations noted in the report included:

• Principle of development, policy and planning history;

• Design, scale and impact to the amenity of the area/Landscape Impacts

• Heritage impacts/archaeology

• Parking/Highways Impact;

• Ecological Impact/River Avon Catchment Area

• Drainage

• S106 matters

The natural mature screening along the existing Rowbarrow site was detailed on slides in both summer and winder for comparison. Rights of Way, linkages and paths were also shown.

The site was a housing allocation site in policy H3.4 and had been assessed to be suitable for around 100 dwellings.

The original proposals for 108 dwellings, had been reduced following consideration of archaeological and statutory consultee concerns which had raised issues.

The original layout proposed 108 dwellings, however due to constraints on the site and the discovery that there may be more archaeological artefacts to be avoided and areas of ecological sensitivity, following further consultation the proposals were revised twice. The current proposals for consideration at Committee include a reduction of dwellings to 95.

Comments within the report from the landscape and ecology officers noted required adjustments, however it was suggested that these could be managed by applying additional conditions.

What was shown was not the final landscaping measures for the site, plans would need to be further approved by the Landscape, ecology, and archaeology teams prior to commencement.

A land bank was in place between the existing Rowbarrow estate and the proposed development, which was owned by the developer of the adjacent development. Thus, the applicants of this scheme had no control over this bank.

Highways were satisfied with the development in terms of the parking requirements and the scheme included planned Highways works to Odstock Road.

An affordable housing scheme formed part of the proposals.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that the mature trees did have a TPO and were protected.

Clarification around the established protected tree belt line, the Saxon cemetery, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

Full Application - Proposed single storey extension to rear to provide ground floor bedroom.

Public Participation

No public speakers were registered.

The Planning Officer Hayley Clark presented the application which was for a single storey extension to rear to provide ground floor bedroom.

The application was recommended for Refusal as set out in the report attached to the agenda. It was noted that the property was grade 2 listed and was one of many listed buildings which form the High Street in Hindon.

There were no technical questions of the Officer.

Local Member, Cllr Bridget Wayman, who was not on the Committee, spoke in support of the application noting that she was in attendance on behalf of the applicant, who had two serious degenerative medical conditions.

It was reported that the applicant has lived in the community since 1985. The rear extension was required to house a hospital bed on the ground floor, which would be required as the applicant’s condition worsened. The applicant currently struggled to access the upstairs of the property. The extension would enable the applicant to access the downstairs facility and house all that was required for her medical needs.

It was noted that the Council supported assisting residents to remain in their own homes.

The rear extension was designed to match another neighbouring rear extension on the property pictured in the slides. Cllr Wayman noted that she felt there had been unnecessary remarks from the Conservation Officer regarding other alterations in the property which had been carried out under approval.

The Applicants had been made aware of the difference between what was permitted under Building Regulations as opposed to Planning Permission and had no plans to do anything untoward.

The ‘hip solution’ put forward by the Conservation Officer would be more harmful in appearance. The rear extension would not be visible from the road.

As Cllr Wayman was not on the Committee, the Chairman invited the Committee to put forward a motion for debate.

Cllr Najjar then moved the motion of approval against Officer’s recommendation. Based on the support of the local member and parish council and the limited impact on the property.

This was seconded by Cllr A Oliver

The Committee was invited to discuss the application, the main points included the existing extension on a neighbouring property, the lack of visibility from the road.

Cllr McLennan was not in support of the motion which he noted went against the regulations of Listed Buildings and requested his decent be recorded.

The Committee then voted on the motion of Approval against Officer recommendation for the reasons discussed above.

Resolved:

That application PL.2021.07817 be Approved against Officer recommendation with the following conditions:

Conditions: (3)

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 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Application form received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Listed Building Consent - Proposed single storey extension to rear to provide ground floor bedroom.

Because this was the listed Building element of the previous application, the discussion and reasons were included in the previous minute.

Cllr Nabil Najjar moved the motion of Approval against Officer recommendation for the reasons as stated.

Cllr Oliver Seconded the motion.

The Committee then voted on the motion of Approval against Officer recommendation for the reasons given.

Resolved:

That application PL.2021.08180 be Approved against Officer recommendation with the following conditions:

1. The works for which Listed Building Consent is hereby granted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Application form received 09/08/2021

Design and access statement received 09/08/2021

Heritage Statement received 09/08/2021

Location and block plan Drg no 100 received 09/08/2021

Proposed joinery details Drg no 103 received 25/08/2021

Proposed plans, section and elevations Drg no 102 received 25/08/2021

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3. Not withstanding the approved plans. once the existing rear elevation of the main dwelling becomes an internal wall for the approved extension, it shall remain uncovered brick and shall not be painted, plastered or any other covering.

REASON: In the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the listed building

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