Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

The following apologies were received:

·       Cllr Jeans who was substituted by Cllr Wright

·       Cllr Hewitt

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held online on 12 November 2020.

The minutes of the last meeting held online on 11 November 2020, 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 Chairman explained the meeting procedure to the members of the public.

It was noted that the presentation slides had been uploaded as supplement 1 to the online agenda.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public. During the

ongoing Covid-19 situation the Council is operating revised procedures and the public are able to participate in meetings online after registering with the officer named on this agenda, and in accordance with the deadlines below.

Guidance on how to participate in this meeting online

View the online meeting here: Link

Statements

Members of the public who wish to submit a statement in relation to an item on this agenda should submit this in writing to the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on Tuesday 2 February 2021.

Submitted statements should:

·       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;

·       Be readable aloud in approximately three minutes (for members of the public and statutory consultees) and in four minutes (for parish council representatives – 1 per parish council).

Up to three objectors and three supporters are normally allowed for each item on the agenda (with slots being allocated on an order of registration basis), plus statutory consultees and parish councils.

Those submitting statements would be expected to join the online meeting to read the statement themselves, or to provide a representative to read the statement on their behalf. A separate joining link will be provided to those registered.

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 electronically to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on Thursday 28 January 2021, 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 February 2021.

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 members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website. Questions and answers will normally be taken as read at the meeting.

The committee noted the rules on public participation.

Questions:

The Committee had received two questions, submitted by one person, by the deadline indicated on the agenda.

The questions submitted by Cllr Jose Green on 1st Feb 2021 were:

1.     When would site visits be resumed?

2.     Could the procedure on erecting site notices be clarified? As it had been drawn to her attention that some locations had not had the notice erected.

The following response had been provided to Cllr Green in writing, and was read out by the Chairman at the meeting:

1.     Site visits – Member committee site visits were not currently being undertaken due to the COVID pandemic restrictions that were in place. It was likely that they would only resume once the national circumstances were deemed safe enough to do so.

Officers were only carrying out site visits on applications where it was deemed absolutely necessary and safe to do so. Agents and applicants were being requested to supply photographs to accompany their applications to assist officers in their appraisal of proposals.

2.     Site notices - As part of its response to the COVID pandemic, the Council was only currently displaying site notices where it is legally bound to do so, such as applications relating to listed buildings or significant major developments. In addition, the Council was sending notification letters to neighbours to ensure that they were informed of developments next to them.  This ensures that the Council complies with the legislative requirements relating to publicising planning applications.

These changes to practice were corporate decisions made by the Council’s Senior Management Team to ensure that the planning system could continue to function during the pandemic, whilst restricting unnecessary journeys and protecting public health.

Cllr Green was then asked whether she wished to put forward one supplementary question for each of the original questions.

Cllr Green confirmed she had no further questions.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period of 30/10/2020 to 22/01/2021.

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

Resolved

The Committee noted the Panning Appeals and Updates report.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Erection of a 3-bed bungalow to the rear of 107 Bouverie Avenue South, associated access and driveway, and hard and soft landscaping.

Public Participation

Martin Cook spoke in objection to the application

John Rolt spoke in objection to the application

Adrian Abbott spoke in objection to the application

Dan Roycroft (Agent) spoke in support of the application

The Planning Officer, Louise Porter presented the application for the erection of a 3-bed bungalow to the rear of 107 Bouverie Avenue, associated access and driveway, and hard and soft landscaping. The application was recommended for approval.

A written response from the Senior Environmental Health Officer, to points raised in relation to noise, had been uploaded to the online agenda as supplement 2.

The main issues which had been considered to be material in the determination of this application were listed as, Principle of development, Character and appearance of the area, Impact on neighbour amenity, Highway Safety, Trees

Archaeology, Waste collection, and River Avon Special Area of Conservation - Phosphate Neutral Development.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to queries, it was clarified that the current wooden fencing shown in photographs of the site would be replaced with acoustic fencing and be covered by an additional condition if the application was approved.

The driveway would run west to east and the number of bedrooms proposed had decreased from a previous application from 4 to 3.

All 22 letters received were in objection to the scheme.

The ownership of the hedge around the site was not confirmed, however the Officer noted that it would be difficult to put a control on the height of a hedge in planning terms.

Members of the public, as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application.

Some of the main points included comments around the access driveway, its proximity and adverse impact to neighbouring properties.

The Noise Assessment report, submitted plans, the proximity data in particular to neighbouring dwellings, the elevated position of the proposed development and the impact on surrounding properties.

The Planning Inspector report and previous comments relating to unsatisfactory proposals in terms of noise, disturbance, privacy and outlook in relation to the neighbouring properties was also referred to.

The proposed sewerage pumping system in relation to the proximity of the neighbouring dwellings and emergency vehicle access were also noted concerns.

Local Member Cllr Brian Dalton then spoke in objection to the application, noting that he had met with the applicant and local residents over the past few months.

The application had been registered in July 2020, he stated that it had taken a long time to determine one property. He had also asked for a Member site visit as he had felt it was necessary due to the considerable drop in height between the proposed dwelling and surrounding properties, however due to the Covid restrictions in place it had not been possible. Cllr Dalton felt that if a site visit had taken place, Members would have seen the height different, which was not available due to there being no drawings submitted to reflect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Erection of three pairs of semi-detached houses with associated access, parking and landscaping following the demolition of existing property.

Public Participation

Neal Cruse spoke in objection to the application

Martyn Armstrong spoke in objection to the application

Ian Challoner spoke in objection to the application

Giles Moir (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Cllr Stephen Botham, Vice Chair – spoke representing Durrington TC

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes presented the application for the erection of three pairs of semi-detached houses with associated access, parking and landscaping following the demolition of existing property. The application was recommended for approval.

The main issues which had been considered to be material in the determination of this application were listed as Principle of development, Character of the area, Design, Residential Amenity, Highways Safety and Parking Provision, Ecology implications and Trees.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to queries, it was clarified that the six dwellings would consist of five 3-bedroom and one 2-bedroom properties and not be affordable housing in the normal way due to being private.

Members of the public, as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application.

Some of the main points raised were associated with the proposal not being in-keeping with neighbouring properties due to the site being surrounded by bungalows.

Associated noise, the impact of the bin area, concerns relating to overlooking and increased vehicular movement and parking required by the associated development.

The Town Council (TC) was in objection to the application.

Local Member Cllr Graham Wright then spoke in detail, in objection to the application, where he addressed all of the areas within the report, including that the concerns of the TC and residents had not been addressed as suggested in the report.

Some of the points raised included that the application would not enhance the village and would be at odds with the Village Design Statement.

There had been concerns relating to the proposed parking at the rear of the properties and that no other housing in Durrington had over three houses with communal parking which sat within the curtilage of the properties.

Highways had not visited the site and there was clear doubt whether vehicles using the 8 parking slots proposed would be able to leave the site in a forward gear.

There would be a significant tree loss, as all trees were to be removed apart from the hedge, changing the feel and outlook of the area.

The existing level of housing in Durrington was currently listed as adequate in the Core Strategy document.

The report regularly mentioned that the application looked and felt like 3 properties however the development would produce 6 dwellings with 6 families, not 3 and would not represent similar properties in the area.

The development of 6 dwellings would total 17 bedrooms and would easily incur vehicles in excess of the 6 spaces provided for. Also the proposed refuse space to accommodate 6 families was not considered adequate, with regards to the additional recycling and black box containers each would require  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

Demolition of existing car port and garage and the erection of a double storey side extension and erection of double garage with storage area above. Replacement of windows and doors and associated improvement works.

Public Participation

Philip Stevens spoke in objection to the application

Dodie Stevens spoke in objection to the application

A statement by Lisa & David Miller was read by Dodie Stevens

Dan Roycroft (Agent) spoke in support of the application

The Planning Officer, Emily Jones presented the application for Demolition of existing car port and garage and the erection of a double storey side extension and erection of double garage with storage area above. Replacement of windows and doors and associated improvement works. The application was recommended for approval.

The main issues which had been considered to be material in the determination of this application were listed as an objection from Laverstock and Ford Parish Council due to the effect of the proposed development on the appearance of the area; the quality of the design; and the significant overbearing impact and loss of outlook.

There had also been 11 third-party representations objecting to the scheme.

Photos and elevation drawings were explained. Some shrubbery, a tree and hedging had been removed from the site since the presentation photos were taken. The shared drive with Lark House was indicated.

Street scene, access, ridge heights, neighbouring dwelling positions, retaining wall, existing property with car port were all detailed by the Officer.

A previous proposal included the development to be clad in timber with render. Following some changes, the application now included materials to fit in with the character of the area. A single-story garage was also proposed with a terrace. 

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. There were none.

Members of the public, as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application.

The main points raised included that there was strong objection to the garage element and the positioning in relation to the neighbouring properties, in particular there were concerns relating to the proximity of the roofline, the 6m height, the scope for future development of the garage into an additional dwelling, changed outlook of the area, loss of green space resulting in increased flooding and impact on nearby properties, infilling, placement and scale of the garage and hardstanding, felling of trees, overall negative impact on the immediate area.

The Parish Council had objected to the application.

The applicant’s agent addressed the provisions made to address the concerns.

Local Member Cllr Ian McLennan then spoke in objection to the application, noting that Laverstock Park had few houses, with each being quite large in its own setting, and not impacting adversely on each other.

Little mention had been made of Lark house; however it was entangled with Cobbins due to the shared drive. The height and size of what was proposed would diminish Lark House.

CP57 was supposed to have high quality design and place shaping, the size of this development would adversely shape the place.

When coming up from the Avenue towards the site, you see Cobbins on the end, at the moment it was not obtrusive. The extension was proposed to be 15ft  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

Discharge of S106 Agreement dated 15^th March 2005 under S/2004/1131 in respect of public meeting area.

Public Participation

Clive Gutteridge spoke in objection to the application

Stuart Marinet spoke in objection to the application

Richard Greenwood (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Dr Simon Creasey spoke in support of the application

Cllr Debbie McIsaac, Chairman, spoke as representative of Pitton & Farley PC.

The Senior Planning Officer, Becky Jones presented the application for the discharge of S106 Agreement dated 15th March 2005 under S/2004/1131 in respect of public meeting area. The application was recommended for approval.

The original old Black Barn as it was in 2004, was shown on the presentation slides and the circumstances around the agreed S106 in 2005 at the time of the application to replace the barn was set out.

Two drawings which had been provided by the PC were also shown and explained by the Officer. These detailed; Plan 1, produced 8 days prior to the S106 agreement in 2005 and then Plan 2 after the S106 agreement which showed a gap between the barn and the space for the notice board.

The owners of the Black Barn no longer wished to be party to the agreement, due to the public liability associated with owning and maintaining the public space.

The PC wished to continue to use the site as a public place to display notices. There was significant but divided local opinion to the removal of the S106.

The main issues which had been considered to be material in the determination of this application were listed as:

1. Planning history and reasons for the S106 Agreement under S/2004/1131

2. Purpose of planning agreements (or obligations) and “useful” purpose

3. Highway & pedestrian safety and visibility splay

4. Public open space provision (Policy R2)

5. The planning balance.

There were 3 letters of objection, from Pitton & Farley Parish Council (PC), 9 letters of support and a further 10 letters of objection.

The Committee was asked to consider whether the S106 agreement still served a useful purpose, and whether it should be retained or discharged. 

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to queries, it was clarified that for a short time an alternative meeting point had been located outside the village shop, which was opposite the barn. There were 2 other areas of open space as detailed in the report.

Members of the public, as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application.

Some of the main points included comments around the use of the shop and post office, highway safety, vehicular movement through the village past the barn and shop, the responsibility of maintenance of the area where the notice board was sited, who was responsible for the public liability at the location, legal aspects and alternative suggested locations.

The PC Chairman spoke in objection to the recommendation.

Local Member Cllr Chris Devine then spoke in objection of the recommendation, noting that the public space at the barn was well used and at the heart of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

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, however the Committee did note the importance of Member site visits in providing added insight in considering certain applications.

The Chairman reminded Members that until restrictions were lifted, Member site visits were not being facilitated, however Members were able to make independent visits to a site and view externally, at a safe distance should they wish to do so.