Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillor Sven Hocking, who was substituted by Councillor Robert Yuill.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2019.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2019 were presented for consideration, and it was,

Resolved:

To approve and sign the minutes as a true and correct record.

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

Councillor Jose Green declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 19/11453/Ful as a result of being a member of the Cranbourne Chase AONB. She declared she would participate and vote on the item.

Councillor Leo Randall declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 19/09523/Ful by virtue of being a member of Whiteparish Parish Council. He stated he had not been present when the application was discussed by the parish council, and would participate and vote on the item.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no announcements.

During the ongoing Covid-19 situation the Council is operating revised

procedures to permit remote attendance of meetings. The procedure for the

Strategic Planning Committee including public participation is attached.

Access the online meeting here

Public guidance for accessing meetings online is available here

Statements

Members of the public who wish to submit a statement in support of or in

objection to an application on this agenda should submit it to the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on 22 June 2020.

Those statements in accordance with the Constitution will be included in an

agenda supplement. Those statements must:

• State whom the statement is from (including if representing another
• person or organisation)
• State clearly whether the statement is in objection to or support of the
• application
• If read aloud, be readable in approximately 3 minutes

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 17 June 2020 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 19 June 2020. 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.

The Chairman detailed the procedure for the meeting and details of public participation, in the first virtual meeting of the committee. Statements were included under Agenda Supplement 1.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period of 01/11/2019 to 12/06/2020.

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

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

The following applications were considered.

Erect new church with day nursery

Public Participation

I P Tilley provided a statement in objection.

Phil Gorman provided a statement in objection.

Sarah McNicol provided a statement in objection.

Foster Osei provided a statement in support.

Katie Dickinson provided a statement in support.

Simon Rutter, agent, provided a statement in support.

Amesbury Town Council provided a statement in objection.

The Development Management Team Leader, Adam Madge, presented a report on the application for erection of a new church and day nursery. Key issues included the principle of the application, design, highway safety and neighbouring amenity.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers. In response to queries it was confirmed that applications for community halls and nursery on the site had been approved in 2016, though the permission had now lapsed. The application before the committee was larger, with fewer provided parking spaces, but highways officers considered the number adequate. Details were sought on usage of the car park used by other facilities in the area.

In accordance with the procedure for virtual meetings public statements were then read out by the Democratic Services Officer, as detailed above, with further statements included in Agenda Supplement 1 along with the committee presentation.

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Robert Yuill, then spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee then debated the application. Planning history on the site was raised along with parking requirements, relationship with other facilities and impact on residential amenity as a result of increased noise, along with consideration of overdevelopment of the site and design and scale of the proposed structure.

On the motion of Councillor Robert Yuill, seconded by Councillor Fred Westmoreland, at the conclusion of debate and with each member present for the item confirming they had heard and could access all relevant visual materials, it was,

Resolved:

That application 19/06605/FUL be refused against Officer recommendation, for the following reasons:

1.     The proposed Church and nursery by reason of it's size, design and appearance is considered to be both out of character with other more traditionally styled buildings within the local centre and to be of an excessive, size, scale and footprint for the plot on which it is situated. As such the building would dominate the area to the detriment of both local residents and others using the local centre and leaving insufficient area for parking within the curtilage of the plot. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to both chapter 12 of the NPPF which requires the creation of high quality buildings and Core policy 57 (iii and vi  and xiv) of the Wiltshire core strategy which requires a high standard of design.

2.     The proposed development, in that it exceeds the threshold for non A1 retail uses within the local centre at Archers Gate would conflict with the signed legal agreement for the development and core Policy 4 of the Wiltshire Core strategy, the appendix to the Core strategy relating to Kings Gate and the Adopted development brief for land South of Boscombe road  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61a

To build a granny annex at the rear of the site address

Public Participation

Hazel Burns and Martin Walker provided a statement in objection.

Mr and Mrs Lashmore-Searson provided a statement in support.

Shrewton Parish Council provided a statement in objection.

The Development Management Team Leader, Adam Madge, presented a report on the application for a detached annexe ancillary to a main dwelling. Key issues included the principle of the application, scale and design, and impact on the character and appearance of the area, and matters of residential amenity.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers. Details were sought on the dimensions and siting of the proposed annexe, and in response to queries it was stated that the proposed build was slightly in excess of what would be allowed through permitted development rights without planning permission.

In accordance with the procedure for virtual meetings public statements were then read out by the Democratic Services Officer, as detailed above, which were included in Agenda Supplement 1 along with the committee presentation.

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Kevin Daley, then spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee then debated the application. It was confirmed that the case officer had visited the site, and Members debated the impact of the proposed annex, its scale, and location.

On the motion of Councillor Fred Westmoreland, seconded by Councillor Mike Hewitt, at the conclusion of debate and with each member present and voting for the item confirming they had heard and could access all relevant visual materials, it was,

Resolved:

To approve permission 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:

Application Form & Certificate Received 25February 2020

Revised Proposed Elevations DWG 38/EL Received 20April 2020

Block Plan Received 25February 2020

Floor Plans DWG 38/FP Received 25February 2020

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

3.     OBSCURE GLAZING

Before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use the window in the Rear elevation (serving the shower room) shall be glazed with obscure glass and be top opening only. The window shall be maintained as such in perpetuity.

REASON: In the interests of residential amenity and privacy.

4.     The outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the main dwelling, known as Glen Esk and it shall remain within the same planning unit as the main dwelling.

REASON: The additional accommodation is sited in a position where the Local Planning Authority, having regard to the reasonable standards of residential amenity, access, and planning policies pertaining to the area, would not permit a wholly separate dwelling.

Councillors Brian Dalton and Christopher Devine  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61b

Removal of the now redundant Farm attraction buildings. Restoration and replanting of landing. Farmhouse in the currently derelict pond site

Public Participation

Fields Wicker-Miurin provided a statement in support.

Robin Faulkner provided a statement in support.

Mary Corrie, applicant, provided a statement in support.

Teffont Parish Council provided a statement in support.

The Development Management Team Leader, Adam Madge, presented a report on the application for removal of redundant farm attraction buildings, restoration replanting of landing, construction of a farmhouse in the derelict pond site. Key issues included the principle of the application, scale and design, and impact on the character and appearance of the area, in particular considering its location and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers. Details were sought on the holiday lodges on the site which had received permission whilst the Farmer Giles business had been operating, and it was confirmed that if permission were granted for the application the lodges would be retained for business use. In response to queries details were provided on the change of location of the proposed dwelling from previous applications, and alterations in design to be more in keeping with the area. It was explained that weight needed to be given to the comments from the AONB, however officers considered that the removal of unused and derelict buildings and features on balance meant that permission for the dwelling should be approved, also taking into account additional landscaping and design. It was confirmed there was no S106 legal agreement proposed.

In accordance with the procedure for virtual meetings public statements were then read out by the Democratic Services Officer, as detailed above, which were included in Agenda Supplement 1 along with the committee presentation.

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Bridget Wayman, then spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee then debated the application. The history of applications on the site was noted, and the change in location of the dwelling to be less prominent and the additional landscaping and design changes made were debated. The impact on visual and residential amenity was considered, along with comments of the AONB, as well as the support from the parish council. The status of the holiday lodges was discussed, and whether the application provided the exceptional circumstances necessary to grant permission in the countryside location. Additional conditions proposed in the event of permission being granted were raised during debate, including relating to asbestos removal, removal of tourist signs, removal of permitted development rights, tying the house to the site and relating to any static caravan.

On the motion of Councillor Fred Westmoreland, seconded by Councillor Mike Hewitt, at the conclusion of debate and with each member present and voting for the item confirming they had heard and could access all relevant visual materials, and confirming the inclusion of additional conditions as raised during the debate, it was,

Resolved:

That application 19/11453 be approved, in line with Officer recommendation, subject to the following conditions:

Proposed development to build a single bay garage at the front of the property

Public Participation

Whiteparish Parish Council provided a statement in objection.

The Development Management Team Leader, Adam Madge, presented a report on the application for proposed development to build a single bay garage at the front of the existing property. Key issues included impact on residential amenity, highways considerations and scale, siting and design of the proposal.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers. Details were sought on the height of the proposed garage and the existing hedgerow.

In accordance with the procedure for virtual meetings a public statement was then read out by the Democratic Services Officer, as detailed above, which was included in Agenda Supplement 1 along with the committee presentation.

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Richard Britton, then spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee then debated the application. The location of the proposed garage and its impact on the streetscene was raised, with discussion of the scale of the application.

On the motion of Councillor Richard Britton, seconded by Councillor Mike Hewitt, at the conclusion of debate and with each member present and voting for the item confirming they had heard and could access all relevant visual materials, it was,

Resolved:

That application 19/09523/FUL be refused against Officer recommendation for the following reason:

1.     The proposed garage would be sited directly in front of the main dwellinghouse and would be readily visible in the surrounding street scene, being positioned closer to the road than the existing dwellinghouses. The proposed garage, by reason of its scale, mass and siting would be visually prominent and would have a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the street scene. The proposed development is therefore considered contrary to the aims and objectives of CP57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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