Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

·       Cllr Fred Westmoreland

·       Cllr Leo Randall – who was substituted by Cllr Robert Yuill

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 7^th February 2019.

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 7 February 2019 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.

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 Thursday 28^th March 2019 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 1^st April 2019. 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 25/01/2019 to 22/03/2019.

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

Resolved:

To note the Appeals report for the period of 25/01/19 – 22/03/19.

The Chairman provided an update on Nighwood Farm. An Enforcement Notice had been issued at the start of the week requiring the asbestos bunds to be removed within the next four months.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Reversion of 4A and 4B The Crescent to a single dwelling including side/rear extension with parking. 

Public Participation

Ros Liddington spoke in objection to the application

Timothy Pennell spoke in objection to the application

The Senior Planning Officer Tim Pizzey, presented the application which was for reversion of 4A and 4B The Crescent, to a single dwelling including side/rear extension with parking. The application was recommended for approval with conditions, as set out in the report.

Late correspondence was circulated at the meeting, which included a report clarification and photos provided by a third party.

It was explained that the site had a reasonable amount of planning history as detailed in the report.

The proposal was to revert two flats back into one dwelling, with an extension. The original application had included a car port; however this had since been removed, and now substituted with two car parking spaces.

There was a bank along the boundary with a row of trees, and around the extension it was proposed that there would be a retaining wall.

There would be one single entrance door to the front, with the extension on the side of the dwelling. There was already accommodation in the roof.

The previous scheme that was dismissed on appeal included a larger extension, with a path close  to the boundary,  and involved an additional of a flat, with the rear extension deeper and wider than was now proposed. That scheme was dismissed on appeal on the grounds of impact on the conservation area.

On the rear of the property, there was currently a flat roofed extension which would be retained and incorporated into the proposed extension.

The proposal included removing some more of the bank to make way for the side extension, with some trees identified in the arboricultural report to be felled, some to be pruned  back and some new planting.

There was reference in the most recent appeal decision of the importance of the trees. There were no TPO’s on the trees but they had been identified as contributing to the conservation area.

The appeal decisions are a material planning consideration; the main consideration was the impact on the conservation area.

The Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that there was a condition which required the details of the tree species proposed for re-planting. The Officers would work with the Tree Officer to seek clarification on what types of trees would be required. The following points came out of that questioning:

• The whole area was of archaeological interest, due to the potential for Palaeolithic remains, known to be in the area.

• The Arboriculture report would cover aspects of avoiding nesting season during construction.

• If this application was approved, the applicant would be able to submit further applications to increase the development. All applications are considered on their own merits, however unless something materially changed it was likely to have same decision.

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

The main points raised included:

• the alleged damage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Erection of agricultural building to house poultry.

Public Participation

Richard Hickman spoke in objection to the application

Trudy Austreng spoke on behalf of Tisbury Parish Council

The Senior Planning Officer Warren Simmonds, presented the application which was for the erection of an agricultural building to house poultry. The application was recommended for approval with conditions, as set out in the report.

The proposed building would be 46 x 12m and approx. 3m high, with a 4.4m overall height of ridge.

The proposed juniper green colour was sympathetic to the surroundings, and the building included ventilation fans.

The building would house organic free-range chickens. The applicant was a provider to a major supermarket chain.

There was a requirement for the chickens to have a large area of outside space to qualify for free range.

There were other existing buildings on the site which also housed chickens. The new building would be sited so far to the north to maximise the distance between the existing unrelated dwellings in either direction.

Views of the building would be mitigated by other hedgerow and buildings. The proposed building was of relatively low height and not considered to have a detrimental impact on surrounding landscape. It was approximately 360 meters away from the nearest residential dwelling and there were no odour concerns.

The Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. There were no questions.

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

The main points raised included the visibility of the proposed building in the open countryside in an AONB, and raised the following points:

• The raised position of the chosen site, as opposed to the suggested preferred option of positioning the new building between the existing farm buildings.

• The duration it would take for planting to grow up to form cover.

• The use of the proposed service road, instead of an opening along the lane.

Trudy Austreng spoke in objection, on behalf of West Tisbury PC. She noted that the Officer had not mentioned the letter submitted by the AONB which stated their concern about the siting of the chicken house in this location and suggested that it be placed in between the farm buildings. She also raised the following points:

• The chosen location was in the skyline and not appropriate in an AONB. There were also concerns raised about the close proximity to the lane.

• Some current issues relating to an existing shed had not yet been addressed, and it was felt that this second chicken shed was also going to be a problem.

• Local knowledge was that it was along a narrow lane and large vehicle movement would cause an issue.

The Parish Council noted that a precedent would be set for large scale rural agriculture in an area of AONB. They wished for it to be positioned away from residential dwellings but not on the skyline.

The Division Member Cllr Tony Deane then spoke noting that he had called this application in because the Parish Council had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Two storey side extension.

Public Participation

MarziaParodi spoke in objection to the application

James Murphy spoke in objection to the application

Mrs Reed (applicant) spoke in support of the application

John Barber spoke on behalf of Salisbury City Council

The Planning Officer James Repper, presented the application which was for a two-storey side extension. The application was recommended for approval with conditions, as set out in the report. He showed a variety of slides, and highlighted the following points:

• The proposal included the removal of a side window and move that to the rear of the extension.

• The objections received included a claim of reduction in sunlight to the neighbouring property and as a result an adverse effect on it.

• There were other similar extensions on neighbouring properties. The extension would facilitate a bedroom and en-suite

• There was currently a boundary dispute, Surveyors were involved and reports had been produced to state who owned the boundary.

• Property number 14 had an extension of a similar in size, with the proposed being slightly narrower.

The Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that it was not possible to show where the shadow of the proposed extension would fall in the neighbouring rear garden, as it would be dependent on several factors which were changeable with time of day, and whether it was summer or winter. However, slides were shown of existing overshadowing caused by the existing dwelling.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above. The main points included:

• that the neighbouring property number 14 already had the extension up to the boundary when that house was purchased. If number 12 had a similar extension, there would not be enough of a gap between the two and as such would not be enough to distinguish the two properties as semidetached.

• The properties were set out in a staggered style and sat at different heights, with number 12 higher than number 14. An extension of this size would subject the rear garden of number 14 to additional shadow.

• New developments should provide a high standard of amenity. The neighbours property sat higher and further back from number 14, and it was felt that those factors had not been taken in to consideration.

• The applicants had lived in the property for a number of years and had a detailed knowledge of the area.

• There were other extensions of varying sizes and styles in the area, and the design had followed planning criteria closely. The proposed extension at 2.5m wide, was smaller than others nearby and that of the next-door neighbour at number 14.

• The property was in the corner of a cul-de-sac only used by residents and those turning. The existing adequate parking of 2 spaces would remain.

Salisbury City Council (SCC) representative, John Barber spoke in objection to the application, noting that SCC had refused the application on grounds of scale and overdevelopment, and indicated the following:

• The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

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