Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

·       Cllr John Smale

·       Cllr Brian Dalton

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 8^th March 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 March 2018 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.

During debate on application 17/08832/FUL Cllr Dean declared a non-pecuniary interest as the acoustic consultant was known to him. He took part in the discussion and vote on this application. 

During debate on application 17/12499/FUL & 18/00274/LBC Cllr Matthew Dean declared a pecuniary interest as he was aquatinted with a supplier to the business and opted to leave the room. He did not take part in the discussion or vote on this application. He did not return to consider the last application on the agenda.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

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

The Committee thanked Senior Planning Officer Matthew Legge for his support and work with the Council, as it was his last meeting.

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.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period of 23/02/2018 to 23/03/2018.

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

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Installation of a 17.5m slimline telecommunications column with 3 no. antennas within shroud, 2 no. 300mm dishes, with installation of 1 no. equipment cabinet and 1 no. meter cabinet and ancillary works within a secure fenced compound.

Public Participation

John Kenny spoke in objection to the application

John Kent spoke in objection to the application

Ben Kelly spoke in objection to the application

Paul Street spoke in support of the application

Cllr John Blocksidge representing Redlynch PC spoke in objection

The Planning Team Leader Adam Madge introduced the report detailing the application for the installation of a 17.5m slimline telecommunications column with 3 no. antennas within shroud, 2 no. 300mm dishes, with installation of 1 no. equipment cabinet and 1 no. meter cabinet and ancillary works within a secure fenced compound, which was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Attention was drawn to late correspondence circulated at the meeting.

There was already consent for another mast approximately 2m away from the site of the proposed slimline mast, up for consideration today. The one already permitted was of a different style, with a thicker pole, and more columns around the top.

Some trees had been removed on the site since the photos were taken. There were still some trees, but less than shown in the photos.

The nearest property would have two windows facing the mast.

The reason for a new mast was that one had to be taken down in another area, due to redevelopment of the site it was currently on. That was a 2G mast 12m high. The new mast would have 4G capability and was 17.5m high.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions, where it was clarified that if planning permission was granted today, then the slimline mast would be built, however if it were refused then the applicants could go ahead and build a mast 2m from this position.

With regards to the removal of the trees, the Officer confirmed that it was not considered detrimental to the amenity to a degree that he would refuse the application.

The list of sites detailed in the report which were assessed by Vodafone, were accepted as satisfactory by the Officer.

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

detailed above.

Key points raised included that the trees had been completely removed, not partially.

The Parish representative noted that previous correspondence from 2014 detailed Redlynch playing field as a possible site, if agreement with landowners could be reached. The mast suggested for that site was 20m high.

The Division Member, Cllr Leo Randall then spoke in objection to the application, noting that when the previous application first got approval, there was an error on behalf of the PC, and when they started construction some six months later, that was the first time the locals found out it had approval. In that six months they could have been trying to find a better site but nobody knew about it so this was not done.

The Code of best practice for mobile network details public consultation. Specifies that consultation, when local concern, and media interest then there should be significant public consultation on the application.

There should have been site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 273.

Erection of two storey, 20 bedroom hotel with associated car parking, cycle parking and landscaping following demolition of derelict garages.

Public Participation

Barrie Sutherland spoke in objection to the application

Jerome Renouard spoke in objection to the application

Anne Waddington spoke in objection to the application

Mr Cooper (Agent) spoke in support of the application

The Senior Planning Officer Matthew Legge introduced the report detailing the application for the erection of a two storey, 20 bedroom hotel with associated car parking, cycle parking and landscaping following demolition of derelict garages. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The applicant would install a 2m high acoustic fence. The height to the ridge was 8m. The windows to north and south were proposed to be obscured glaze.

Attention was drawn to late correspondence circulated at the meeting.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions, where it was clarified that signage and lighting did not form part of this application.

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

detailed above. Some of the main points raised included a lack of signage to control the traffic and parking which created issues at the rear of the premises.

It was noted that the current filter system in the kitchen omitted a strong food smell outside towards the gardens of the residents which was considered as horrific.

The Division Member, Cllr Sven Hocking then spoke in objection to the application, noting that Salisbury was a tourism driven city which needed more accommodation, however, in this case he supported the residents. Their lives would be affected by the build and general daily life. The scale of the proposed works was quite big, as there would be an almost 30ft high structure outside of their back gardens.

The noise and smell from the kitchen would need to be revisited. When someone used satnav to navigate to the pub, they were taken to rear of the building not the front car park. That would put significant pressure on the roads and this part of the city.

Residents were happy to engage with the applicant again, and would be happy for a hotel of some sort, but for one where the structure blended in with the environment.

Cllr Hocking then moved the motion of refusal against Officer’s recommendation, due to the scale and the bulk of the development and the impact on neighbouring amenity. This was seconded by Cllr Matthew Dean.

A debate then followed, where the key issues raised included, that there had been a history of antisocial behaviour at the site.

Most of the reasons for refusal could be enforced with conditions. This was a sensible place to have a hotel, close to town.

The conditions included in the report did cover extractors and lighting and acoustic fencing had been clearly specified. The travel plan section could be adjusted to address the vehicular problem at the rear.

The Committee then voted on the motion of refusal against Officer’s recommendation. This motion was not carried.

Cllr Fred Westmoreland then moved the motion of approval in line with the Officer’s recommendation,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 274.

Alterations to shopfront and change of use of ground floor from A3 use (Restaurant) to A4 use (Bar) and part first floor from B1 use (Office) to A4 use (Bar).

Cllr Dean declared a non-pecuniary interest, he took part in discussion and the vote for this application.

Public Participation

Tim Denholm spoke in objection to the application

Steve Gosling spoke in objection to the application

Gary Griffiths spoke in objection to the application

Mark Shearman spoke in support of the application

Amanda Newbery spoke in support of the application

The Planning Officer Christos Chrysanthou introduced the report detailing the application for alterations to the shopfront and change of use of ground floor from A3 use (Restaurant) to A4 use (Bar) and part first floor from B1 use (Office) to A4 use (Bar). The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

A neighbour had also conducted an independent noise management survey which contradicted that of the authorities.

A noise limiter would be installed within the premises. There would be an acoustic roof canopy and the external lighting would be switched off after the hours in which external use was to end.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions, where it was clarified that the beer garden would be locked at the stated closure times to prevent patrons from entering after that time.

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

detailed above.

Some of the main points included that the premises would be open until 2am most evenings, with intoxicated people having access to the rear beer garden until 10pm. Chipper lane had high buildings either side and noise would reverberate back and forth into the flat next door.

A late-night economy would be created here if the bar was permitted to open until 2am, there were concerns that this could not be properly policed in this section of the city.

The applicant had worked to address the concerns raised, and had liaised with the Environmental Health Office in agreeing to the conditions as set out in the report.

Salisbury’s Purple Flag wanted a vibrant late-night economy and welcomed investment in the City, however with the rear garden closing from 10pm, this would push all of the smokers out onto the front of Blue Boar Row until 2am when the bar closed, sending the patrons out to linger in market square.

The Division Member, Cllr Atiqul Hoque then spoke in objection to the application, noting the concern raised by the residents. Noting that the applicant calls the business a bar however they had applied for 11 toilets, which seemed to imply the nature of the business was something else, such as a club. 

Cllr Matthew Deane noted for transparency that Mr Gosling was known to him, but that this was not a prejudicial interest, so took part in the discussion and vote for this application.

Cllr Dean noted that the company specialised in a niche of young professionals, supplying draft beer and cocktail drinks with a strong food offering. As the evening goes on the food diminishes and dancing and drinking increases.

The sites can be quite noisy internally due to music.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 275.

Single Storey Rear Extension (Orangery) to Pub Building & Separate Barn Conversion / Restoration with extension to provide Lodging

Cllr Matthew Dean declared a pecuniary interest in this application and left the meeting. He did not take part in the discussion or the vote for this application.

Public Participation

Dr M Byfield spoke in support of the application

Mr Robin Bell spoke in support of the application

The Planning Team Leader, Adam Madge introduced the report detailing the application for a Single Storey Rear Extension (Orangery) to Pub Building &

Separate Barn Conversion / Restoration with extension to provide Lodging. The application was recommended for refusal.

The Conservation Officer was in attendance to note her concerns. These included the impact of the works and how they would affect the character and interest of the listed building. The works would make lasting changes.

The host building was the listed building. There was no objection to the rear extension. Concerns related to the rear barn building, of which she felt the use was unclear.

The barn was listed by association to the main building and not in its own right.

The manner of the conversion, lack of conservation and the design were of concern. There had been little information provided on how the proposals would impact on the structural fabric, and no structural survey was available. There was a level of ambiguity.

A single-story extension would have been preferable.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions, where it was clarified that the applicant utilised the existing footprint of the barn building.

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

detailed above.

The main points raised included that the pub had been closed for 3 years. The application had support from 52 local residents and the parish council.

Whiteparish PC were in support of an increased dining area and the provision of accommodation for visitors to the village since the Fountain B&B was made into residential housing.

The Division Member, Cllr Richard Britton then spoke in support of the application, noting that a more attractive design could have been produced, however the impact of this design on the barn was not significant enough to reject the whole application. 2 other pubs in the village had been lost to housing development.

He felt the Conservation Officer’s concerns were not dramatic, and was sure that these could be looked at and overcome.

This extension would not be visible from the road, and therefore there was no impact on the street scene. There had also been no objections from neighbours.

Cllr Britton then moved the motion of approval, against Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Hocking.

A debate then followed, where the key issues raised included that the proposals were not visible from the front at all. The comments and wishes of the community showed an overwhelming community support for the proposals.

In relation to application 17/12499/FUL, the Committee then voted on the motion of approval against Officer’s recommendation on the grounds of “the public benefit of the project in terms of providing additional income to help  ...  view the full minutes text for item 276.

Variation of conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission 16/09446/FUL to allow for alterations to the materials for the approved extension.

Public Participation

Cllr Rod Coppock – Pitton and Farley PC

The Planning Officer Christos Chrysanthou introduced the report detailing the application for the variation of conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission

16/09446/FUL to allow for alterations to the materials for the approved extension. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Members had no technical questions for the Officer.                                  

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

detailed above.

Pitton PC spoke in objection to the application as the proposals contravened CP57. Noting that at the original debate to consider the planning application it had been agreed that it could be detrimental to the street scene. The property was not in the conservation area, but was surrounded on 3 sides by it.

The Division Member, Cllr Chris Devine was not in attendance to speak on the application.

Cllr Fred Westmoreland moved the motion of Approval in line with officer recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Mike Hewitt.

The Committee then voted on the motion of approval in line with Officer’s recommendation.

Resolved

That application 18/00115/VAR 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 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

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

Application Form

Location Plan

Block Plan

Drawing No. 16053/3/B Elevations

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

3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending that Order with or without modification), no window, dormer window or rooflight, other than those shown on the approved plans, shall be inserted in the southeast or northwest roof slopes of the development hereby permitted.

REASON: In the interests of residential amenity and privacy.

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