Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

There were no apologies.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 14 October 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 October 2021 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.

In relation to item 7a – Application 19/11282/FUL, Cllr Hocking noted that he knew the applicant some 35 years ago but had had no interaction with him since that time and he would take part and vote on that application.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

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 after registering with the officer named on this agenda, and in accordance with the deadlines below.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to make a statement in relation to an item on this agenda should register with the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on Tuesday 9 November 2021.

Statements to the Committee 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, plus statutory consultees and parish councils.

Those submitting statements would be expected to attend the meeting to read the statement themselves, or to provide a representative to read the statement on their behalf.

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 4 November 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 8 November 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.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate.

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

Resolved:

That the Appeals Report be noted.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Carry out alterations to existing access, erect single storey dwelling and provision of parking to serve new and existing properties.

Public Participation

Mr Aspinall (Applicant) spoke in support of the application

Mr Carpendale (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Cllr Gerry Murray spoke on behalf of Tisbury PC

The Planning team Leader, Richard Hughes presented the application for permission to carry out alterations to existing access, erect a single storey dwelling and provision of parking to serve new and existing properties which was recommended for approval.

Supplement 2 to the agenda was noted, this contained the parish council comments and the Officer response.

Material planning concerns cited include:

·       Impact on surrounding properties

·       Impact on the historic wall and on the conservation area

·       Visual impact, height of the roof, lack of detail on materials, rainwater goods

·       Overdevelopment, loss of garden area, footprint too big for plot

·       Impact on amenity, loss of light, loss of privacy, overlooking, noise

·       Highway safety, parking

·       Structural stability of neighbouring properties, historical wall, party wall

·       Drainage, sewage disposal

·       Loss of tree

The presentation slides showed the proposed bungalow on part of the garden area of Cleveland House. It was noted that none of the surrounding properties were listed, and that several of them were at different levels to the proposed dwelling.

The proposed turning area was shown on the plans, but it was noted that it was not formally part of the application.

A selection of photos provided by Local Member Cllr Errington were also shown.

Members were then able to ask technical questions of the Officer where the position of the neighbouring property no.17 was clarified in relation to the proposed development.

The Officer explained that with regards to the boundary treatments, nothing had been shown on the submitted plan. There was no reference of a fence at all on the northern boundary, but there was in the south. The report included a condition on boundary treatments should the application be approved. The position of the proposed car parking below phoenix collage was also clarified.

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

Some points covered included that the applicant and his wife wished to downsize due to the mobility constraints of his wife, but remain on the site, in close proximity to their daughter who would remain living in Cleveland House with her young children.

A professional report was commissioned to assess two areas of concern, which were the rainwater run-off and the retaining wall. This had been used to adapt the plans to combat those areas of concern.

Cleveland houses garden was significantly larger than any other garden in the area, and if developed as proposed, the remaining garden space would still be larger than that of any of the 9 local properties.

Modifications had been made to the plans to address the feedback received from the parish council.

The Parish council objected to the application as it was felt to contradict the Tisbury Neighbourhood Plan.

Other points raised by the PC related to loss of amenity, failure to protect an ancient wall, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Change of use from agriculture to dog exercise grounds.

Public Participation

Rosie Wilkinson spoke in objection to the application

Nina Mirski-Fitton spoke in support of the application

Mr Colin Burrows spoke in support of the application

Mr Jeremy Read (Applicant) spoke in support of the application

JP Sharp spoke on behalf of the Parish Council

Attention was drawn to Supplements 1 & 2 to the agenda which contained amended conditions on traffic management, additional letters of support and the amended operational hours to take in to account the change of the clocks from summer to winter months.

The Planning team Leader, Richard Hughes presented the application for Change of use from agriculture to dog exercise grounds, and was recommended for approval.

Material Planning considerations were noted as:

·        Principle of development

·        Impact on the character of the area and setting of nearby listed buildings

·        Impact on amenity

·       Highways/ Rights of Way

·       Field next to railway line and a restricted RoW

The Site access, proximity of the dwellings and buildings to the north and the listed church was indicated on the presentation. It was noted that there was a natural barrier between the site and the church, one could not be seen from the other.

The site consisted of an open field with newly erected fencing around part of it.

Users of the site arriving in a vehicle, would come off the main access to the site and park in a designated area.

There was a non-fixed hut/shelter on the site which did not require planning permission

Details of how the applicant would restrict noise was referred to on p56 of the report.

The site was bookable for slots under 1hr, with one booking per hour max, there were buffering allocated slots either side of the bookings.

Members were then able to ask technical questions of the Officer where it was clarified that the site was already in use as a dog exercise area.

The works already carried out to the wooden structure, hard standing and deer fencing did not require planning permission. 

Clarification on the operation of the proposed booking system was given, in that it would be an online app/site.

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

Some of the main points included that most of the letters of support had originated from people living outside of the village.

A suggestion that users of the facility would need to travel on narrow lanes to access the site and cross a restricted byway. An increase in vehicle movement in a quiet area and the detrimental environmental impacts of driving to exercise a dog. 

The use of the nearby fields for horse and pony exercise, was not disturbed by any associated noise from the facility.

Users of the paddock had a dedicated parking area and were not required to stop and open the gate to gain access.

The paddock was quite out of sight and would not be in constant use. The facility was well planned, maintained, secure and in need by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

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