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

253.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from:

 

·       Cllr Brian Dalton who was substituted by Cllr Trevor Carbin.

 

254.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the last meeting held on Wedneday 10 January 2018.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 January 2018 were presented.

 

Cllr Britton noted that in relation to minute number 250 - Nightwood Farm – the accuracy of our resolution, is correct, but not consistent with the decision notice that had been published.

 

This matter would be addressed under Public Participation of the meeting, when responding to the Public Question that had been submitted in relation to this application.

 

Resolved:

 

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

 

 

 

 

255.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

There were none.

256.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

Minutes:

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

257.

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.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The committee noted the rules on public participation.

 

A question had been submitted in advance of the meeting by DrClaydon.

 

Question

In relation to application 17/10079/FUL: Nightwood Farm, Lucewood Lane, West Grimstead, SP5 3RN, considered by Committee on 10 January 2018:

 

1.     Why was the full resolution, which required the removal of the bunds, excluded from the Notification of Refusal letter?   

2.     What has the Enforcement Department done about the resolution since 10th January?

Response

 

Planners response to question 1

The removal of the bunds are purely an enforcement matter, thus they are not referred to by the decision notice. However, it is quite correct that the minutes of the meeting refer to the possibility of future action to remove the bunds as this is what members resolved to do. 

 

Enforcement response to question 2

Following the refusal of the application at Committee officers have been requesting updates from the Environment Agency (EA) as to their intentions given that matters such as asbestos are usually dealt with directly from that organisation. The EA have come back to us in recent days that they intend to take no further action. We are aware of members views on this matter and therefore will be taking the matter forward with the owner seeking to remedy the breach.’  

 

Dr Claydon was granted one supplementary question.

 

Since it was a retrospective application for the authorisation of unlawful bunds, and the bunds should not have been there in the first place, it was essential that they be removed.

 

I have been in correspondence with Environment Agency (EA) for many months, they informed me that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) chose to write to the wrong office.

 

They informed me that they had made a decision based on the fact that they were told the bunds were not on ancient woodland but adjacent to it. They had been misled from the start.

 

The LPA is perfectly entitled to remove the bunds in their own right. I would hope that within two months after the SAPC made their decision nothing has been done. I believe the EA are reviewing the matter.

 

The Chairman noted that the Committee would continue to monitor the situation through updates from the Officers.

 

258.

Path No. 83 Diversion Order and Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2017 - Tisbury

To consider the thirty objections received to the making of The Wiltshire Council Parish of Tisbury Path No. 83 Diversion Order and Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2017.

 

With the recommendation that the Order be revoked and the application abandoned.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Dr Myers spoke in support of the recommendation

Tim Martin spoke in support of the recommendation

Jeremy Hooper spoke in support of the recommendation

Janet Amos spoke on behalf of Tisbury Parish Council

 

The Acting Team Leader for  Definitive Map and Highway Records, Sally Madgwick, introduced the report which recommended the diversion order be abandoned and revoked.

 

An Order had been made to divert the footpath to the dashed line, as indicated in the pack and on the screen at the meeting.

 

The route of the current path was explained by the Officer. The path travelled past St Anne’s Cottage, then past the Priory, it was the owners of the Priory who had made the application for a diversion. The diversion route was then explained.

 

These Orders were a power that the Council has, it may choose to abandon the order or to support it.

 

The Officer noted that they had not realised that one of the land owners objected to the Order. They had also received objections from residents of St Anne’s Cottage and the owners of Spring Cottage and School Cottage which lay beside the school and  used the path to access the chapel and the wider network.

 

There had been  33 objections made to the Order. 

 

The Officer drew attention to some irrelevant points as listed on page 18, paragraph 36.

 

Members had no technical questions to ask the Officer.

 

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

 

The Division Member Cllr Tony Deane then spoke in support of the abandonment  of the order.

He noted that this was the first time he had heard a public debate on this footpath. He offered to Chair a meeting of interested parties, to be held at Wardour School to see if some of the concerns could be addressed, to enable those involved to agree a way forward.

 

Cllr Westmoreland moved Approval, in support of the Officers recommendation to revoke the order, this was seconded by Cllr Hewitt. He suggested that the parties get together and find a way forward.

 

 

Resolved

That the Wiltshire Council Parish of Tisbury Path No. 83 Diversion Order and Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2017 is revoked and the application abandoned.

 

259.

Planning Appeals and Updates

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period between 21/12/2017 and 23/02/2018.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

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

 

Resolved

To note the update for the period 21/12/2017 to 23/02/2018

 

 

260.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

261.

17/00842/OUT - Land opposite Horefield, Idmiston Road, Porton, 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 18 public car parking spaces for Horefield residents/school use.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Kevin Hannah spoke in objection to the application

Hayley Hannah spoke in objection to the application

David Neal spoke in objection to the application

Valarie Creswell (IdmistonNP) spoke in support of the application

Tony Allen (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Andrew Oliver spoke on behalf of the Parish Council in support of the application

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Lucy Minting introduced the report for Outline Planning permission for a residential development of 16 dwellings with all matters reserved.  Provision of new footways and dropped kerb crossings to Nicholas CofE Primary School and 18 public car parking spaces for Horefield residents/school use. This application was recommended for approval subject to a S106 agreement.

 

The Officer clarified a mistake in report – p205, refers to it as full planning application, where as it actually is an outline application with all matters reserved.

 

The site was outside the limits of development and had been identified as a site for development in the adopted NP.

 

There was an outstanding permission for 20 dwellings at Porton, thus leaving a gap for a remaining 12 dwellings to be developed. This proposal of 16 dwellings was considered as filling that gap.

 

The LPA required the results of the tree survey and bats roost survey, this had now been submitted and was contained in the report.

 

Policy 12 of the NP identifies a lack of parking outside of the school. The application included the provision of 18 public parking spaces for public use. That number had increased from 15 to 18 since the last meeting.

 

A list of conditions was included at page 209.

 

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions, where it was noted that the probable reason for the proposed path crossing the road and not running through the existing school path was due to the need for public use whit when the school was closed.

 

The report stated that there was no to negligible evidence of bats. The use of the parking spaces was recommended to be included as part of the S106 agreement as they were not managed by Wiltshire Council.

 

The legal agreement would be delegated back to Officers, however when the full application was submitted it would come back to committee for consideration.

 

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

 

The representative from Idmiston Parish Council (IPC) noted that it had met to consider the application in May 2017 and supported the aims and objectives, adding that the proposal would deliver smaller housing for people to downsize and stay in the village.

 

The Division Member Cllr Mike Hewitt then spoke. There were 3 large sites brought forward for development. Two sites were not accepted by the IPC planning team, one came to this committee (Chalke House) and was approved. The time to develop that site was running out. This was the only other larger site to be built on. It was not easy to restrict development to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 261.

262.

17/06709/FUL - Corrindale, The Street, Teffont Magna, SP3 5QP

Construction of a new house and vehicular access

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Rowena Taylor spoke in objection to the application

Chris Edwick spoke in support to the application

David Gregory spoke in support to the application

Cllr Tony Deane spoke on behalf of the Parish Council.

 

The Senior Planning Officer Lucy Minting introduced the report detailing the proposed construction of a new house and vehicular access, which was recommended for Approval.

 

The proposals included the removal of five trees, with the dwelling set in to the existing landscaping. Level one was an under croft area, Level 2 included the  entrance, and Level 3 had 3 bedrooms and a study.

 

The site was part of a previously proposed development which had been refused.

 

The recommendation included the removal of permitted development rights.

 

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions, where it was clarified that the proposed access to the site would be a new access.

 

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

 

Cllr Tony Deane spoke on behalf of Teffont PC, as Cllr Wood had sent his apologies. He noted that the PC’s objections were included in the agenda, adding that it recognised there would be a house at this site at some time, however the present design was considered as over development of the plot. Cllr Dean thanked the Officers for the balanced report and conclusion.

 

The Division Member Cllr Bridget Wayman then spoke in Objection to the application, noting that there had been around 15 new properties in Teffont over the last 10 years, which she felt was quite a high number.

 

Teffont was a small village, the site lay within the designated conservation area. The Teffont VDS had a section on the settlement layout of the village. If this site was granted permission there would be a further decline in gaps between dwellings within Teffont. She urged the Committee to refuse this application.

 

Cllr Devine moved the motion of approval this was seconded by Cllr John Smale.

 

He noted that this would be a perfect place for infill in this village. He felt that if someone was proposing to bring a family with young children to settle, this was a good thing.

 

A debate followed where the key issues raised included, that a house on this site would fill an obvious space, however to minimise the excavation to the rear of the property had been brought forward, in comparison to the neighbouring dwellings.

 

The proposals had been changed to reflect the comments of the Conservation Officer, to move the dwelling back and down in height, through further excavation.

 

The design was imaginative, and there was already a good mix of historic and contemporary design properties in the village.

 

Resolved

That application 17/06709/FUL be APPROVED with 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 262.

263.

17/11250/FUL & 17/11681/LBC - Little Manor Nursing Home, Manor Farm Road, Millford, Salisbury, SP1 2RS

External and internal alterations/refurbishments of the historic part of a 24 bed residential care home. Demolition of the recent extensions to the rear, and construction of a Care Quality Commission (CQC) compliant replacement extension, increasing capacity to 30 beds and alteration to existing access. Demolition of 2 ancillary buildings and associated landscape works.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Cllr Hewitt and Cllr Jeans left the meeting.

 

Public Participation

Mr Fuller spoke in Objection to the application

Matthew Airey spoke in Support of the application

Matthew Holmes spoke in Support of the application

Jonathan Ross spoke in Support of the application.

 

The Senior Planning Officer Becky Jones introduced the report for external and internal alterations/refurbishments of the historic part of a 24 bed residential care home. Demolition of the recent extensions to the rear, and construction of a Care Quality Commission (CQC) compliant replacement extension, increasing the capacity to 30 beds and alteration to existing access. Demolition of 2 ancillary buildings and associated landscape works. The application was  recommended for refusal.

 

The Officer noted that the proposed site plans had been amended since publication of the agenda, as detailed in the late correspondance circulated at the meeting. As a result the Conservation Officer had removed a reason for refusal. He had also asked for the scale and amenity to be added to the reasons for refusal.

 

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions, where it was

Clarified that the recommended reasons for refusal had been edited since the report was published.

 

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

 

The Division Member Cllr Sven Hocking then spoke in support of the application. Noting that with regards to conservation and heritage, the front of the property did have character, however he felt that the rest of the building dids not, adding that there was a need to bring the facility up to the required standards.

 

He aknowledged that Mr Fuller would have a large development at the rear of his property and that would need to be addressed, however the benefits outweighed the negatives, so he supported the application. He would expect the applicant to work with the residents to mitigate the negatives to their properties.

 

Cllr Hocking moved the motion of approval this was seconded by Cllr Smale.

 

A debate followed where the key issues raised included that the Applicant  Wessex Care were a major provider in care for the elderly in the area, however it was a matter of balance, to consider the local need for the nursing provision over the loss of the protection to the building and limiting the impact on  neighbouring properties.

 

The Conservation Officer had raised some concerns on the effects the proposed development would have on the listed building. The residents living at the property next door had raised concerns on the impact of the development would have on them. 

 

The scale of the proposed building was too big and would impact on those around it.

 

The Committee voted on the motion of approval, this motion was not carried.

 

The Chairman then moved the motion of Refusal, for application 17/11250/FUL, this was seconded by Cllr Britton.

 

Resolved

That application 17/11250/FUL be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

1. The development seeks to remove modern extensions and to extend and alter a Grade II listed building  ...  view the full minutes text for item 263.

264.

17/10559/OUT - 34 Park Lane, Salisbury, SP1 3NP

Outline planning application for demolition of existing five bedroom detached bungalow and replacement with two detached chalet style dwellings and a single block containing four apartments.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Mr Weaver spoke in Objection to the application

Rachel Yeomans spoke in Support of the application

Rodney Job spoke in Support of the application

 

The Senior Planning Officer Warren Simmonds introduced the report for an outline planning application for demolition of existing five bedroom detached bungalow and replacement with two detached chalet style dwellings and a single block containing four apartments. which was recommended for approval with conditions.

 

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions, where it was clarified that the Ecologist had not visited the site, but had instead conducted a  desktop study.

 

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

 

The Division Member Cllr Douglas had had to leave the meeting, provided a statement which was read out by the Officer:

 

I have called this to committee due to concerns regarding visual impact, relationship to surrounding properties and design.  Although I recognise that this is an outline application, and that the accompanying design and layout is merely indicative, I want to stress that the design and layout are not acceptable, as indicated in the officers report (section 9.2, para 3 and 4 under ‘Impact on the amenity of neighbours’; and  INFORMATIVE at the end of the report).  I would urge the committee to make that very clear in their decision.

 

The Chairman moved the motion of approval this was seconded by Cllr Devine

 

A discussion then took place, where the mian points raised included that during the site visit it was evident how enormous the site actually was. It was felt that a development of the proposed size would still leave a reasonable amount of amenity space around it. The front building would be placed inline with the building next door, and the 2 chalets seem of an entirely reasonable size.

 

The application if approved would need to be followed up by an un reserved matters application.

 

The Committee then voted on the motion of approval with conditions.

 

Resolved

That application 17/10559/OUT be APPROVED 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 external appearance of the development;

(b) The landscaping of the site;

(c) The scale of the development;

(d) The layout of the development;

(e) The means of access to the site.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: The application was made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 264.

265.

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