Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

 

·         Cllr Brian Dalton

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 31 March 2022 (to follow).

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 31 March 2022, published as Supplement 1 to the agenda 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 no later than 10 minutes before the start of the meeting. If it is on the day of the meeting registration should be done in person.

 

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are linked to 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 [change this to the day which is 4 clear working days before the meeting – eg Wednesday 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 [change this to the day which is 2 clear working days before the meeting – eg fridaybefore 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.

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

 

Resolved:

 

To note the Appeals report.

 

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

(Revised) Erect 86 dwellings together with garages, car barns, and refuse/cycle stores. Lay out gardens and erect means of enclosure. Creation of new vehicular access to Odstock Road. Lay out internal roads, including drives and pavements. Provision of associated public open space, play areas and landscape planting.

Public Participation

Philip Saunders (Agent) spoke in support of the application

 

Late correspondence had been circulated at the meeting, which included a series of responses from Statutory Consultees, and additional conditions, which were summarised at the start of the presentation.

 

The application was a revised proposal, following deferral at the meeting on 3 February 2022.

 

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes presented the revised application which was for the erection of 86 dwellings (reduced from 95) together with garages, car barns, and refuse/cycle stores. Lay out gardens and erect means of enclosure. Creation of new vehicular access to Odstock Road. Lay out internal roads, including drives and pavements. Provision of associated public open space, play areas and landscape planting.

 

The application was recommended for Approval with conditions as set out in the report attached to the agenda and additional conditions, as summarised by the Officer.

 

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that other than the layout and numbers of dwellings have there been any other changes to the design of the dwellings, there had been some minor changes to some of the proposed materials.

 

Clarity on the percentage of affordable dwellings on the revised application to the previous application was given. The Officer confirmed that the changes amounted to approximately 9 dwellings less, however the percentage of the total number remained the same.

 

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application. The Agent outlined the changes which had been made to address the reasons for refusal at the previous meeting and noted that Salisbury City Council (SCC) had expressed an interest in adopting the open space land if approved.

 

It was also noted that all of the Statutory Consultees were now in approval of the application.

 

The SCC representative spoke in support of the application and applauded the level of alterations the applicant had made to alleviate previous concerns and supported the provision of additional bat boxes.

 

Local Member, Cllr Sven Hocking, spoke to the application noting that the scale had been reduced, with a reduction in dwellings from the area nearest the access and tree line. He felt that the applicant had listened to and looked at all of the issues previously raise and taken all concerns into account and thanked them for their efforts. He also noted the support of SCC.

 

Cllr Hocking then moved the motion of Approval in line with Officer recommendations.

 

This was seconded by Cllr Britton.

 

The Committee was invited to discuss the application, the main points included reference to the merit of deferring the application, in that a collaborative approach had produced a scheme which addressed the previous concerns and was a benefit to the community.

 

A question was raised on whether there needed to be additional conditions to safeguard elements around tree planting or swift blocks, however the Officer clarified that the conditions set out in the report and late correspondence, were sufficient.

 

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Proposed Extension of White Hart Hotel providing 22 No. new hotel bedrooms, relocation of back of house facilities infill of ground floor and façade changes to St Johns Street.

Public Participation

John Starkey (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

 

The application had been deferred at the 31 March 2022 meeting for further information and consideration of the materials and design aspects of the development.

 

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes presented the application which was for the proposed extension of White Hart Hotel providing 22 No. new

hotel bedrooms, relocation of back of house facilities infill of ground floor and façade changes to St Johns Street.

 

The Officer showed several samples of the tiles proposed.

 

The application was recommended for Approval with conditions as set out in the report attached to the agenda.

 

There were no technical questions to the Officer.

 

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

 

The Agent noted the importance of the historic location, and the applicants experience in the development of listed and historic buildings. The Hotel was in need of additional room capacity to protect the asset and value.

 

There were no objections by the Statutory Consultees.

 

Local Member, Cllr Sven Hocking, spoke to the application noting that since deferral the concerns around the materials for the roof had been discussed and that he was satisfied with the samples of the proposed materials which had been displayed at the meeting.

 

Cllr Hocking then moved the motion of Approval in line with Officer recommendations.

 

This was seconded by Cllr Britton.

 

There were no points for discussion.

 

The Committee then voted on the motion of Approval subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

It was;

 

Resolved:

 

That application 20/10860/FUL be Approved subject to the following conditions:

 

Three Year commencement

1.The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of thispermission.

 

REASON:To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and CountryPlanning Act 1990as amendedby thePlanning and CompulsoryPurchase Act2004

 

Plans

 

2.The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:

 

Location Plan PS7 – 01

Existing site plan  PS7-02

Existing site survey PS7-21 Rev A

Existing Ground Floor Plan PS7 -04

Existing First Floor Plan PS7-05

Existing Second Floor Plan PS7-06

 

 

Proposed site plan SK01-03

 

Demolition Plan Ground Floor PS7-17

Demolition Plan First Floor PS7-18

Demolition Plan Second Floor PS7 -19

 

Proposed ground floor plan – SK01-07

Proposed first floor plan – SK01-08

Proposed second floor plan -SK01 -09

 

Three storey accommodation block:

 

Proposed elevation – east (facing Brown Street) SK01 -12 & 17 (coloured elevation)

Proposed elevation – north (facing Ivy Street) SK01-15 & 19 (coloured elevation)

Proposed elevation – north (2) (facing Ivy Street) SK01-16

Proposed elevation – west (internal courtyard) SK01 – 13 & 18 (coloured plan)

 

Proposed elevation St Johns Street – PS7 10 REV B

Proposed section through St Johns street elevation PS7-22 Rev A

 

Proposed south elevation of undercroft works – PS7 11 REV A

 

 

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt

 

Materials and planting

 

3.Before the development comes into use/occupied, details of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Proposed alterations and extension to existing dwelling.

Public Participation

Lisa Jackson (Agent) spoke in objection to the application

Annie Parnell (Chalke Valley Preservation Society) spoke in objection to the application

David Warder spoke in objection to the application

Andy Turner (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Paul Sampson (Chairman) spoke on behalf of Ebbesbourne Wake Parish Council

 

The Officer summarised the late correspondence which had been circulated at the meeting. This included an update on works which had already been carried out on the site, including the installation of gates and the formation of a gravelled parking and turning area at the front of the dwelling and the associated Highways response and amended conditions.

 

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes presented the application which was for the proposed alterations and extension to an existing dwelling.

 

The existing dwelling had been built in around the 1960s. Presentation slides indicating the street scene were explained, in particular the height difference between the current single storey property to the neighbouring dwellings which ranged in type, size and height.

 

It was explained that the proposed alterations and extension would retain the same footprint, with an increase in height of up to 7.5m to the ridge of the new roof. The extension was shown on the presentation to be at the rear of the property.

 

The Officer noted concerns raised around drainage and clarified that the drainage issue in the area appeared to be ground water related, and as such it was not felt that extending the dwelling would make an increased difference to the drainage for the area, when there was already a dwelling on the site.

 

The Officer also highlighted that there had been suggestions that a bat survey should be carried out. He went on to explain that when assessing an application for alterations and an extension to an existing dwelling, a foundation checklist was used which indicated that a bat survey was not required. However, the Officers had asked the application to carry out a bat survey and in response had received photographic evidence detailing inside the existing roof void, which was noted as being of fairly new construction. It was the Officers opinion therefore that there was no need to ask for a bat survey in this instance.

 

The application was recommended for Approval with conditions as set out in the report attached to the agenda and the late correspondence.

 

Material considerations were:

 

·         Principle of development

·         Design, impact on Conservation Area/listed buildings and the AONB

·         Impact on amenity

·         Parking/Highways Impact;

·         Ecological Impact/River Avon Catchment Area/drainage/flooding

 

The report noted that there had been 63 letters of objection, in addition, the Parish Council also object to the proposal.

 

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that the report when first published had contained an erroneous paragraph, under the conclusion section, which mentioned refusal, however in the Recommendation section the correct text was included and detailed that the application was recommended for approval with conditions by Officers.

 

It was noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Proposed replacement dwelling (revised design) and erect detached garage

Public Participation

Charlie Brinton (Applicant) spoke in support of the application

James U’Dell (Agent) spoke in support of the application

 

The Planning Officer drew attention to the late correspondence which was circulated at the meeting. It included a statement from a neighbour, advising no objection providing the screening proposed was put in place. In addition, the Applicant had provided photos showing the existing living conditions.

 

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes, presented the application which was for the proposed replacement dwelling (revised design) and erection of a detached garage.

 

The application was recommended for Refusal based on the policies of the Development Plan, and the material considerations listed below and set out in the report attached to the agenda.

 

·         Principle of development

·         Scale, design, impact to character and appearance of Cranborne Chase and West

·         Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

·         Residential amenity

·         Highway issues

·         Trees

·         Ecology

·         Other issues raised

 

The overall height of the development was reported as approximately 6.8m.

 

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. A question was asked on whether the rear west elevation, which was shown to have a large, glazed area, differed from the previous approved scheme. The Officer was not able to discern from the two plans what the difference was to the glazed area.

 

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

 

Some of the main points included that the applicant and his family had lived and worked in the village for the last 7 years and had been working proactively with neighbours, the parish council and the AONB since a previously approved application in 2018, to produce a suitable revision.

 

There was no significant change to footprint of the previously approved building, however the design was considered to have been dramatically improved.

 

It was noted that the proposed landscaping would have no negative affect

And was not objected to by the Landscape expert.

It was reported that there had been 8 letters of support from members of the village and there was not adverse effect on the amenity.

 

The Agent clarified the earlier asked question regarding the glazing, confirming that it remained the same as the previous application, previously approved.

 

Local Member, Cllr Bridget Wayman, spoke to the application noting that

She had called in the application because she saw no reason for it to be refused, noting that the previous application which was approved was for 6 bedrooms.

 

It was noted that the Parish Council had not objected and in fact supported the family remaining in the village in a dwelling that was suitable for them.

 

The current roof line was reportedly hardly visible from approach and that the opposite dwelling was 40m away.

 

Reference to the dormer windows was made, noting that they would permit natural light into the house. One of these windows was to a bathroom so could be conditioned to be obscured if screening and distance were not considered adequate.

 

Cllr Wayman concluded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Erection of one pair of semi detached two storey dwellings and associated infrastructure.

Public Participation

Caron Merritt spoke in objection to the application

Dane Richardson spoke in objection to the application

Mark Doodes (Agent) spoke in support to the application

David Burke (Chairman) spoke on behalf of Netheravon parish council

 

Late correspondence was circulated at the meeting and outlined by the Officer, which included reference to revised drawings included in the presentation slides, which showed a further 0.5m set back of the dwellings from the parking space, as requested by Highways. Also included were alterations to the internal floor plans and revised conditions.

 

The Planning Officer, Julie Mitchell, presented the application which was for the erection of one pair of semi-detached two storey dwellings and associated infrastructure.

 

The site location was shown as being outside of the settlement boundary, however the Officer noted that the land was on the corner of and adjoined the settlement boundary and had been previously removed from within the boundary.

 

The site was at the junction of the 50mph A345 and the 30mph Pigott Close. The curve in the A345 road was noted as causing limited visibility when exiting Piggott Close. As detailed in the late correspondence, Highways had recommended a 2.4m wide no development zone to maintain visibility.

 

The application was recommended for Approval with conditions as set out in the report attached to the agenda and further in the late correspondence.

 

Material considerations were listed as:

 

·         Principle of development

·         Character of the area

·         Residential amenity

·         Highway issues

·         Ecology

·         Other issues raised

 

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that the plot had previously been in the settlement boundary, however during a review in the 2020 Housing Site Allocations Plan, the parish council had made representation for the site to be removed.

 

The Officer clarified that despite the site not being in the settlement boundary, she had made the judgement that it was clearly not open countryside and therefore deemed that development on the site was acceptable in principle.

 

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

 

Some of the main points included strong concerns associated with the safety of the road junction between Pigotts Close and the A345, with examples of traffic incidents ranging in severity, from minor to fatal.

 

Poor visibility on exiting Pigotts Close due to the curve in the road and the negative impact on visibility the proposed development would have.

 

Concerns relating to increased double parking caused by an additional 2 dwellings and associated road safety issues were noted, along with suggestions of overdevelopment for the size of the plot of land.

 

The Agent noted that there were no objections from the Statutory Consultees, and that the development would provide 2 sustainable dwellings to the area. He noted development on greenfield areas was not ideal however existing properties did not have a right to a view.

 

The Parish Council representative spoke in objection to the application.

Having personally lived in the village for over 55  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

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