Browse

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Alamein Suite - City Hall, Malthouse Lane, Salisbury, SP2 7TU. View directions

Contact: Lisa Moore  Email: lisa.moore@wiltshire.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

229.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from:

 

·       Cllr Matthew Dean who was substituted by Cllr Robert Yuill

230.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 16 November 2017 were presented.

 

Resolved:

 

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

231.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

There were none.

232.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

Minutes:

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

233.

Public Participation

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 by phone, email or in person no later than 2.50pm on the day of the meeting.

 

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed 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 (4 clear working days, e.g. Wednesday of week before a Wednesday meeting) 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 (2 clear working days, eg Friday of week before a Wednesday meeting). 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.

Minutes:

The committee noted the rules on public participation.

234.

Planning Appeals and Updates

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period 03/11/2017 to 01/12/2017.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The committee received details of the appeal decisions as detailed in the agenda, for the period 03/11/2017 to 01/12/2017.

 

Resolved

To note the update.

 

235.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

236.

17/02198/OUT - Rose Farm, Hurdcott Lane, Winterbourne Earls, Salisbury, SP4 6HR

Outline Planning Permission Including Access Details for 2 Four Bedroom Detached Dwellings

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Gaenor Nokes spoke in objection to the application

Robyn Harper spoke in support of the application

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Georgina Wright, introduced the report, which recommended that the application for Outline Planning Permission Including Access Details for 2 Four Bedroom Detached Dwellings be refused.

 

It was noted that it had previously been refused due to access reasons and the site was also outside the village boundary of the adopted core strategy. The village has started the NHP process, however this was in the early stages and had not yet adopted.

 

Member then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that the site was one of the 11 sites which had been identified as possible locations for development, but the 11 sites which were to be considered had not yet gone out for public consultation.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

 

The Unitary Division Member Cllr Mike Hewitt then spoke in support of the application, noting that the A338 ran through the village. It was always difficult to build in these villages without upsetting something. The proposal was for 2 houses which were needed. These could be used as accommodation by workers at Porton Down. The development included the proposal to expand the footpath. The only reason for refusal was due to the site being out of the Housing Boundary.

 

Cllr Hewitt then moved the motion of approval, this was seconded by Cllr Devine.

 

A debate followed where key issues raised included, that as the NHP had not been adopted it could not be used as a planning consideration, as it was too early in the development of the NHP to speculate what would or would not be included. The development was supported by the parish council.

 

The Committee then voted on the motion of approval.

 

Resolved:

That application 17/02198/OUT be approved, against Officer’s recommendation with 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;

 

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 236.

237.

17/00842/OUT - Land opposite Horefield, Idmiston Road, Porton, Wiltshire, SP4 0LD

Outline Planning Application for residential development of 16 dwellings with all matters reserved.  Provision of new footways and dropped kerb crossings to Nicholas CofE Primary School and 15 public car parking spaces for Horefield residents/school use.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

David Neal spoke in objection to the application

Adrian Dibden spoke in objection to the application

Valerie Creswell spoke in support of the application

Tony Allen spoke in support of the application

Simon Zielonka spoke in support of the application

Cllr James Humphries spoke on behalf of the Parish Council

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Lucy Minting introduced the report, which recommended that the application for Outline Planning Application for residential development of 16 dwellings with all matters reserved. Provision of new footways and dropped kerb crossings to Nicholas CofE Primary School and 15 public car parking spaces for Horefield residents/school use, be refused.

 

It was noted that the proposed site was outside the limits for development

The site was currently in agricultural use, and school parking had been identified as an issue.

 

The Parish Council was in support of the application and the site had been included in the NHP.

 

Attention was drawn to late correspondence circulated at the meeting, relating to a response to late submission of ecological data provided by the applicant. The reasons for refusal had been altered, as listed on late correspondence.

 

The Ecological Officer had considered the new submission and concluded there would not be an adverse impact.

 

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that the applicant did not have control over some sections of the land, which was why the planned footpath would cross over twice. Specific details of the type of crossing would be conditioned as part of the decision should the application be approved; however it was understood that the crossing would be unmanned.

 

The plan showed the proposal to retain the verge along the roadside, except where the accesses were to the front dwellings.

 

There was no right to park on the verge at present, so there would be no loss to residents. The proposal included 15 public spaces for use.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

 

The Unitary Division Member Cllr Mike Hewitt then spoke on the application, noting that it was not an easy application and if he had not called it in it would have been refused. He believed there was a place for houses along the site, being built properly with appropriate consideration of the road.

 

The site was outside of the housing boundary, and there were flooding issues, but these could be overcome. The Water company had been working in the village, to make improvements over last few years. If the application was approved, there were still lots of questions to be asked. With additional parking and further consideration to the cars dropping children off for school along that road, as it was unsafe.

 

Cllr Hewitt then moved the motion of refusal, in line with Officer’s recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Britton.

 

A debate followed where key issues raised included the support of NHP Group and the Parish Council. The parking problem on this narrow  ...  view the full minutes text for item 237.

238.

17/05578/FUL & 17/06125/LBC - 3 Silver Street, Wilton, SP2 0HX

Proposed alterations, replacement ground floor & new 1st floor rear extensions (Resubmission of 17/00328/FUL and 17/00693/LBC)

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Lucy Patterson spoke in support of the application

Melanie Latham spoke in support of the application

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Lucy Minting introduced the report, which recommended that the application for proposed alterations, replacement ground floor & new 1st floor rear extensions (Resubmission of 17/00328/FUL and 17/00693/LBC) be refused.

 

It was noted that the site was in the Wilton conservation area and the special regard to preserving listed buildings.

 

The application proposed to demolish all of the red brick range, and the demolition of the roof structure over the garden room.

 

Member then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that the veranda would be re-roofed.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

 

The Unitary Division Member Cllr Pauline Church then spoke in support of the application, noting that this prop has laid derelict for 20 years, unloved and unlived in. The proposed quality of materials craftmanship and design was superb.

 

The rear elevation did not have the same grandeur as the front. Historic England had made their recommendations but had not been on site.

 

Cllr Westmoreland moved the motion of approval this was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

 

A debate followed where key issues raised included that the proposed development was sympathetic to the building, which had been deteriorating quite rapidly, putting new life in to this building that could last another 100 years.

 

The Conservation Officer was not in support of the proposals. This was a major re-invention, far more major than an alteration to just window frames.

 

The Committee then voted on the motion of approval.

 

Resolved:

That application 17/05578/FUL be approved against Officers recommendation, with the following conditions:

 

Subject to the following conditions:

 

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:

Plan Reference: Design and Access Statement, received by this office 09/06/2017

Plan Reference: Heritage Statement, received by this office 09/06/2017

Plan Reference: 16-05-02-01, received by this office 09/06/2017

Plan Reference: 16-05-02-02, received by this office 09/06/2017

Plan Reference: 16-05-02A-05, received by this office 09/06/2017

Plan Reference: 16-05-02A-04 , received by this office 09/06/2017

Plan Reference: 16-05-02A-06, received by this office 09/06/2017

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

 

3          The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the Bat Survey report, dated 13 January 2017, prepared by Davidson-Watts Ecology Ltd which has already been submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle; and prior to the commencement of works on site, a detailed method statement and work schedule as per paragraph 5.3.4 of the aforementioned report shall be submitted to the local planning authority for review.

REASON: To  ...  view the full minutes text for item 238.

239.

17/05736/FUL - Longacre Farm, Figsbury, Salisbury, SP4 6DT

Proposed portal frame building for hen house, service link, rearing shed and feedstore. Landscaping work. Work in connection with access. Stationing of mobile home all in connection with free range egg production flock.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Naomi King spoke in support of the application

Susan Smith spoke in support of the application

Colin Burrows spoke in support of the application

Cllr Brian Edgeley spoke on behalf of Firsdown Parish Council

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Richard Nash introduced the report, which recommended that the application for Proposed portal frame building for hen house, service link, rearing shed and feedstore. Landscaping work. Work in connection with access. Stationing of mobile home all in connection with free

range egg production flock, be refused.

 

Attention was drawn to late correspondence circulated at the meeting.

 

The site was accessed by a bridal way. The front of the site was in the same ownership of development site. The height of the newly proposed building was greatly reduced. The development would be screened by bund and planting on top of building.

 

A previous application including proposals for 2 mobile homes had been refused, this new proposal was for a smaller footprint single dwelling cabin style accommodation. The applicant had overcome the previous reasons for refusal.

 

The Parish Council had confirmed they support the proposal.

 

Member then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that the planting on top of the bund was conditional, native species of trees and shrubs were suggested.

 

The dwelling was a full time dwelling, but this would be conditioned for staff use only.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

 

The Unitary Division Member Cllr Chris Devine then spoke in support of the application, drawing attention to the access in and out of the site. The applicant had gone out of their way to ensure the access was as safe as could be.

 

Highways were concerned that in the future the adjoining land owner may take back that section of the splay to the site. However that was highly unlikely.

The applicant has a good proven track record and had a good business plan. The site was ideally suited to this type of business.

 

Cllr Devine then moved the motion of approval, this was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

 

A debate followed where key issues raised included the concerns of Highways, were not just over ownership, but included highways safety. This would need to be considered.

The Committee then voted on the motion of approval.

 

Resolved:

That application 17/05736/FUL be approved against Officers recommendations subject to the following conditions:

 

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:

02917 1 (LDS/14107-TP3) (Topographic Survey showing Location Plan)

02917 3 A (Alterations to Access)

02917 4 (Proposed Buildings)

02917 4 (Plans showing ownership of land required for visibility splay)

REASON: For  ...  view the full minutes text for item 239.

240.

17/06734/FUL - Former Piggery Buildings at Cotswold Farm, West Dean Road, West Tytherley, SP5 1QA

Conversion of former agricultural buildings to 9 residential dwellings

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Ian Donoghue spoke in support of the application

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Matthew Legge introduced the report, which recommended that the application for Conversion of former agricultural buildings to 9 residential dwellings be approved.

 

It was noted that the site had been used as a piggery and had been left derelict for a number of years.

 

The applicant already had permissions for development of other dwellings on the site. The site entrance was approved in 2013.

 

Attentions was drawn to the late correspondence circulated at the meeting.

 

Member then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that the reason for the application coming to committee had been omitted from the report, it was detailed in the late correspondence as:

 

Councillor Chris Devine has called this application into the planning committee with the following concerns that the development is contrary to:

 

·       The Wiltshire Core Strategy – as published

·       This is not in the `emerging` Neighbourhood Plan

·       This is an Agricultural site

·       The current planning policy does not state that agricultural brown field sites may become housing

·       This is an SLA and such a development would detract from that

·       The local highways infrastructure would not support another 35 cars

·       Outside the current HPB

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

 

The Unitary Division Member Cllr Chris Devine then spoke in objection to the application, noting that this was never in the plans for Wintersow. There was an emerging NHP, which was due to go out on a final run around the village before going to Wiltshire Council for adoption.

 

The proposed site was way outside of the village, on a narrow road. There were issue with infrastructure in Winterslow. The parish council did not support this application. There would be 36 vehicles on this site, making up to 150 movements on and off the site each day, which would impact on the road which was used by horses.

 

These homes would bring lots of additional people into the area, which was next to Benley Wood. It was never meant for development. It could be turned back in to agricultural land. This was a corruption of CP48. There was not the highways infrastructure to take another 35 cars.

The NHP was nearly completed and identified other sites for development.

 

Cllr Devine then moved the motion of refusal this was seconded by Cllr McLennan.

 

A debate followed where key issues raised included that the site was not included in the emerging NHP and was not supported by the parish council.

 

The development was of an attractive design, an imaginative and was a good reuse of this land.

 

The NHP was never intended to stop things from being developed, Wiltshire Council had core policies designed to do that. The NHP was the communities option to add to that, not to detract.

 

This does not need the support of a NHP, the application stands or falls on CP48.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 240.

241.

17/04001/OUT - Land off Firs Road, Alderbury

Outline application for residential development of up to 50 dwellings, associated parking and access (off of Firs Road) , open space and infrastructure; relocated guide hut, new pre-school building and land to extend existing primary school playing fields.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

E Harris spoke in objection to the application

B Sloane spoke in objection to the application

N Miles spoke in objection to the application

A Whalley (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Cllr Elaine Hartford spoke on behalf of Alderbury Parish Council

 

It was noted that the senior planning officer left the room for transparency, due to him residing within the community area for this application.

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Warren Simmonds introduced the report, which recommended that the application for Outline application for residential development of up to 50 dwellings, associated parking and access (off of Firs Road) , open space and infrastructure; relocated guide hut, new pre-school building and land to extend existing primary school playing fields be approved subject to the land owner entering into a S.106 agreement with the Council addressing the heads of terms as detailed in the report.

 

Attention was drawn to late correspondence circulated at the meeting.

 

It was noted that there would be pedestrian only access off the junction road.

An already approved development of new sports pitches and a pavilion on the field beyond, had already commenced.

 

The site was outside of the housing boundary for Aldrebury, and did not meet any of the exceptional circumstances, however it did meet some of the community benefits.

 

The proposal included 9 Affordable Housing units, the relocation of the existing guide hut to a more suitable location with parking. The gifting of land to the school, and a source of new pupils for the school as it was currently undersubscribed. The roadway to the football pitches and club would double as an additional Drop off facility, at school times.

 

Member then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that there was not a turning circle at the end of the drop off track for vehicles to turn and exit. The application site was quite boggy, but it was used for football.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

 

The Unitary Division Member Cllr Richard Britton then spoke in objection to the application, noting that the Policy reasons for refusal, don’t just revolve around HPB but also CP1, which states that development will be restricted to infilling and small developments (10 houses or less).

 

Alderbury had several more sites for development in the pipeline and with the development at Matrons College of 28 dwellings, Alderbury would continue to develop.

He felt that there was no policy justification for this.

There were Highways considerations associated with the problems on the A36. Highways England said the road was operating at capacity and they would oppose significant development if put forward. This proposal was for 50 dwellings, which was a significant proposal.

 

There was already a rat run through Whaddon to bypass the traffic build up. A real and significant increase of traffic through the village was inevitable.

 

The recommendation for approval depended solely on the community benefits.

A new  ...  view the full minutes text for item 241.

242.

Urgent Items

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

 

Minutes:

There were no urgent items