Agenda and minutes

To note the changes to the membership as agreed by Full Council on 17 May 2022.

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

·         Cllr Nabil Najjar who was substituted by Cllr Kevin Daley

The Committee also noted changes to the membership as agreed by Full Council on 17 May 2022:

Cllr Andrew Oliver - appointed as Chairman

Cllr Bridget Wayman - appointed as Committee Member

Cllr Richard Britton - removed

Thanks to Cllr Britton for his chairmanship over the last 12 months and his contributions to the Planning committee over the years.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 28 April 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 April 2022 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 item 7c - Application PL/2021/10952, Cllr Rich Rogers noted that he knew the applicant as he was a Wiltshire Councillor. It was noted that all of the Committee Members knew the Applicant, however as this did not constitute a disclosable pecuniary interest, the Committee would consider the application with an open mind.

In relation to item 7c - Application PL/2021/10952, Cllr Andy Oliver noted that he lived in Porton and had been a part of the working group which wrote the Idmiston NHP, he would however consider the application with an open mind.

In relation to item 7e – Application PL/2022/01547, Cllr George Jeans noted that he was on the Mere Town Council which had considered and objected to the application. He advised that he was not part of the discussion or vote in his role on the Town Council, so would consider the application with an open mind.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to speak either in favour or against an application or any other item on this agenda are asked to register no later than 10 minutes before the start of the meeting. If it is on the day of the meeting registration should be done in person.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are linked to in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. The Chairman will allow up to 3 speakers in favour and up to 3 speakers against an application, and up to 3 speakers on any other item on this agenda. Each speaker will be given up to 3 minutes and invited to speak immediately prior to the item being considered.

Members of the public will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

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 in writing to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on Wednesday 25 May 2022, 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 Friday 27 May 2022. 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 Committee members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period of 14/04/2022 to 20/05/2022

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

Resolved:
To note the Appeals report.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Siting of mobile home for rural worker's accommodation

Public Participation

Quintin Bull spoke in objection to the Application

Gina Dent spoke in objection to the application

Patrick Drummond (Applicant) spoke in support of the Application

Matt Williams (Agent) spoke in support of the Application

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes, presented the application for the siting of a mobile home for rural worker's accommodation, at Lower Marshes Farm.

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

·         Scale, siting, design, impact on the wider landscape within the Cranborne Chase AONB

·         Impact on amenity

·         Highways

·         Ecology/Impact on the River Avon SAC

It was noted that a mobile home had already been placed on the site.

The planned business would be split between agriculture, equine and sheep farming, with 100 sheep in the first year, rising to 300 at year 3. In addition, there would be rearing and training of horses for Polo.

The Agricultural consultant had agreed that there was a need on the site for a mobile home.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer,

where it was clarified that the existing farm had agricultural operations on it which appeared to include a history of reference to an equine business. In 2016 there was an adjustment to a legal agreement which had been put in place in 2002.

The application was for a set size of mobile home. There was already one on site, however it was later clarified that it was not currently lived in and was used by staff during the day. The application was therefore retrospective.

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application, the main points included references to the poor quality of the land and that the land may not be suitable for farming use all year round.

Other concerns regarding the possibility that the applicant may in the future, make an application for a permanent home on the site were raised, in particular to the impact on the AONB.

The agent noted that the two applications (20/09189/FUL 20/09188/FUL) & were related.

There was further work to carry out to the ground, as it was currently wet. There was an essential need to have someone on site around the clock, when rearing and breeding horses due to animal welfare issue. The materials would be in line with AONB requirements.

Local Member, Cllr Bridget Wayman, who was on the Committee, spoke to the application noting that she had called the application in to committee some time ago, as the site was in the AONB, noting that national and local policies did not allow for houses to be easily built in the AONB.

Supporting the conditions in the report Cllr Wayman queried the condition relating to external lighting.

Cllr Wayman then moved the motion of Approval in line withOfficer Recommendation.

This was seconded by Cllr Trevor Carbin.

The Committee was invited to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

Erect replacement multipurpose agricultural/equestrian building and horse walker.

Public Participation

Quintin Bull spoke in objection to the application

Gina Dent spoke in objection to the application

Patrick Drummond (Applicant) spoke in support of the Application

Matt Williams (Agent) spoke in support of the Application

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes, presented the application for the erection of a replacement multipurpose agricultural/equestrian building and horse walker, at Lower Marshes Farm.

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

·         Scale, siting, design, impact on the wider landscape within the Cranborne Chase AONB

·         Impact on amenity

·         Highways

·         Ecology/Impact on the River Avon SAC

There were no technical questions to the Officer.

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application, the main points included reference to the change of use from agriculture to equestrian and the impact on the single access track, with an increase in use by people coming and going with or without horses and the subsequent impact on amenity and local highways.

Reference to the need for light during the winter months on a farm in the AONB and the impact on the dark skies.

Suggestions were made that the application equated to a new build barn and not a replacement to the existing, and the unsuitability of the land for the purpose of breeding horses due to marshy conditions.

The applicant and agent set out the need for the barn on the farm, to provide shelter and storage. The old barn had been assessed for renovation, however it was reported that it had been declared not viable so would need to be removed, due to being derelict and dangerous.

Reference to policies which supported new buildings in the countryside for land based enterprises and justification for the size based on the type of enterprise was provided.

There was no objection from Highways and the design complied with AONB preferred colour.

Local Member, Cllr Bridget Wayman, who was on the Committee, spoke to the application noting that she was more conflicted with this application than the previous for the mobile home. The existing barn was an agricultural barn, the applicant had stated that the new barn would be used for animals, so would have equestrian use. The plan shown detailed a row of stable like structures along one side.

The Officer clarified that it was a replacement barn application for agricultural and equestrian purposes, should the committee not be content that it be used for equestrian purposes then it was able to refuse the application.

Cllr Wayman queried condition 1, the horse walker and equine works should be removed after 3 years and requested that ‘any ancillary equine’ facilities include reference to the proposed barn being removed.

Cllr Wayman then moved the motion of Approval in line with officer recommendation, subject to the inclusion of equine as above to condition 1.

This was seconded by Cllr Rich Rogers

The Committee was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94a

Full plan application for the erection of one dwelling with garage, at the land adjacent to Bramble Cottage, with garage and driveway.

Public Participation

Dan Roycroft (Agent) spoke in support of the Application

Ms Maysun Butros spoke in support of the Application

Late correspondence was summarised, which included a notice of support from Idmiston PC, a further objection from the neighbour, a revised proposal for a sewerage treatment plant by the applicant and comments from the Ecology Officer.

The Officer confirmed that the additional information had not changed the Officer recommendation.

The Senior Planning Officer, Julie Mitchell, presented the Full planning application for the erection of one dwelling with garage, at the land adjacent to Bramble Cottage, with garage and driveway.

The application was recommended for Refusal as set out in the report attached to the agenda.

Material considerations detailed in the report included:

1. Principle of development

2. Highway issues

3. Character of the area

4. Residential amenity

5. Drainage

6. River Avon SAC

7. Other issues

It was noted that there was no pedestrian access to the village from the site. Plans showing the access, location and proximity of existing dwellings, with a visibility splay diagram to set out the extent of visibility on the road.

The site was situated outside of the development boundary and development went against policy. The application was recommended for refusal.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer,

where it was clarified that until further assessment had been carried out, unplanned development in the location was not lawful.

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

Those in support explained that a report had been submitted which set out the phosphate levels would be less than the 5 cubic litres per day maximum stated by the councils Ecology Officer and the Parish council had voted in support of the application.

Reference to the council’s lack of 5 year land supply was made and a suggestion that the development would add to the overall housing numbers for Wiltshire.

The site was sustainable as the occupants would be able to commute to Salisbury for employment and amenities.

The site was part of the applicants’ families land and would enable him to remain in the village in which he had resided for the last 20 years.

The rural nature of the area had been considered and environmentally friendly features had been included in the design.

Local Member, Cllr Rich Rogers, who was on the Committee, spoke to the application noting that he had not called it in, but that it was policy that any application of an elected Member would come to committee for consideration.

Cllr Rogers then moved the motion of Approval against Officer recommendation.

The reasons given were that despite the site being some way from the settlement boundary, the development was in keeping with the Bourne Valley settlement.

There had been only one objection from a neighbour, and there was full support from the parish council.

He considered the location to be sustainable, noting that rural settings generally required residents to use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94b

Change of use with external alterations and extensions to convert a Class E use to form 6 apartments.

Public Participation

Andy Melleney spoke in objection to the Application

Tony Allen (Agent) spoke in support of the Application

Late correspondence was summarised at the meeting and included letters of support.

The Senior Planning Officer Georgina Wright presented the application for change of use with external alterations and extensions to convert
a Class E use to form 6 apartments.

The unusual nature of the site was noted. It was a former Citizen Advice Bureau and was sited to the immediate back of a number of residential properties  and had recently received prior approval under Class MA of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015, for its conversion from offices to 6 flats. 

It was explained that this full application now involved a similar conversion of the building into 6 flats but involved alterations to the external finish; extensions to allow internal layout changes so that 4 of the resultant flats would be one bedroom flats rather than studio flats; each flat was to have their own private entrance; and changes were proposed to all existing fenestration, including the removal of all windows on the northern elevation. It was noted that parking provision of 2 spaces, one each for the two bed flats is to be provided.

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

Material considerations noted in the report were:

• Principle & Site History
• Heritage, Character & Design
• Neighbouring Amenities
• Highway Safety
• Ecology
• Drainage
• CIL/S106

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer,

where it was clarified that future residents would not be entitled to an on-street parking permit as the area was already over subscribed to permits. Highways had restricted on street highways permits for this development, as there was easy access to the city centre.

The Officer noted that if the application was refused, the existing permissions would remain valid and so the applicant could still convert the building into 6 flats; redevelop the site with a bungalow; or it could be used again as offices.

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application.  The main points touched on the effect the development would have on the neighbouring properties, limited light to the development, the requirement for major groundworks and the access to the site and the accessibility issues for waste collection and emergency services.

In response to the comments of those in objection regarding car parking, drainage and construction noise, the Agent noted that the site already had permission to build 6 flats with 2 parking spaces. 

To refuse on Highways or overdevelopment grounds would fail to take into account the fall back prior approval.  This scheme would see improvements to the quality of materials and the type/size of flats that could be built under the prior approval consent.

The two storey windows facing the back of park street would also be removed compared with the approved permission, thus removing overlooking windows.

Local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94c

Demolition of existing garage and erection of a new 2 bedroom dwelling.

Public Participation

Jack Garner spoke in support of the Application

Lesley Traves spoke on behalf of Mere Town Council

The Planning Team Leader Richard Hughes presented the application for Demolition of existing garage and erection of a new 2 bedroom dwelling and noted the site visit which had taken place earlier that day.

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

Material considerations were:

• Principle for the development, tilted balance and 5 year housing land supply
• Visual impact on the character of the Conservation Area, impact on the streetscene.
• Impact on neighbouring amenities
• Highway safety
• Biodiversity
• The planning balance

The application had generated 3 letters of objection and an objection from Mere Town Council.

The site was described as being in the urban fabric of the settlement with the proposed dwelling higher in comparison to the barn building next door.

The Officer noted the location of the proposed bin storage under the canopy area shown in the plan.

There were no technical questions of the Officer.

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application, the main points included the Applicants family connection to the local area, and the positive engagement with the conservation and planning officers.

The proposal met the current building regulation and sustainability factor. Materials would be locally sourced, and the design would complement the existing surrounding buildings and be of a high quality.

Access concerns of the town council were not supported by Highways.

The Town council representative stated an objection to the application, on grounds of over development of a small site. Concerns regarding the size of the smaller second bedroom were also raised, suggesting that space standards were not being adhered to.

In addition, there was a lack of amenity space and bin area and a low quality accommodation which would require 2 parking spaces on a road which they considered to be busy, narrow and dangerous.

Concerns regarding the Highways safety due to being on the corner, the logistics of entering the property at an upper level due to the split level of the front and rear, due to different road heights.

Local Member, Cllr George Jeans, who was on the Committee, spoke to the application noting he usually supported smaller unit developments and asked the committee to judge the application on its merits. He stated that the site visit had highlighted the issue of the location on the corner.

A residential development there would mean vehicles moving their cars in and out of the narrow lane, with an apex of approx. 9m high.

He disagreed with the Highways assessment, noting that parking spaces in the evenings were full.

The development would alter the open space in a conservation area as the cottages there were low on the streetscene, and the development was high.   

Despite there being bin storage there was no washing line, and the dwelling was of a poor quality.

Cllr Jeans then moved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94d

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