Browse

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Wylye Meeting Room, Five Rivers Health & Wellbeing Centre, Hulse Rd, Salisbury SP1 3NR

Contact: Lisa Alexander  Email: lisa.alexander@wiltshire.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

106.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from:

 

·       Cllr Charles McGrath

 

107.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 23 June 2022.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 June 2022 were presented.

 

Resolved:

 

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

108.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

There were no declarations of Interest.

109.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

Minutes:

The Chairman explained the meeting procedure to the members of the public. Due to the larger capacity of attendees for the first application, the Chairman noted that public speakers and attendees would be rotated by application. Introductions and meeting procedure was therefore repeated for each application.

 

Attention was drawn to the late correspondence which had been circulated in hard copy at the meeting to all Members and made available at the meeting to the public. This was also summarised by the relevant case Officers during the Officer presentations. 

110.

Public Participation

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 Thursday 3 November 2022, 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 7 November 2022. 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.

 

 

Minutes:

The committee noted the rules on public participation.

111.

Planning Appeals and Updates

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

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

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

 

Resolved


That the appeals update be noted.

112.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

113.

APPLICATION NUMBER: PL/2021/09778 - Station works, Tisbury

Outline planning application for redevelopment of the Station Works site to provide a mixed development of up to 86 dwellings, a care home of up to 40 bedspaces with associated medical facilities, new pedestrian and vehicular access and traffic management works, a safeguarded area for any future rail improvements, and areas of public open space.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

­Public Participation

Dick Budden spoke in objection to the application

Gerald Blundell spoke in objection to the application

Patrick Durnford spoke in objection to the application

Simon Trueick (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Gerry Murray spoke in representation of Tisbury PC

Morag Macnair spoke in representation of West Tisbury PC

Tim Martin spoke in representation of Ansty PC (& the Access to Tisbury Group)

 

The Committee had attended a site visit earlier in the day.

 

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes, summarised the late correspondence which had been circulated at the meeting, relating to third party reiteration of objections to the proposal, and a further response by WC Education, relating a withdrawal of their S106 requirement.

 

He went on to present the report, which set out the merits of the planning proposal against the policies of the development plan and other material considerations. It was explained that the committee was asked to consider, in light of the non-determination appeal, whether the application would have been refused as recommended.

 

The outline application was for the redevelopment of the Station Works site to provide a mixed development of up to 86 dwellings, a care home of up to 40 bedspaces with associated medical facilities, new pedestrian and vehicular access and traffic management works, a safeguarded area for any future rail improvements, and areas of public open space.

 

The issues in the case were noted as:

 

·       Principle of development, policy and planning history;

·       Design, scale and impact to the amenity of the area/AONB/heritage asset impacts

·       General Amenity issues

·       Parking/Highways Impact, rights of way

·       Impact on railway station and line

·       Archaeology

·       Ecological Impact

·       S106 matters

 

The case officer showed slides of the proposal and the site. The site position and size were noted as were the footpath location, Landscape study, proposed screening and historic flooding which occurred under the railway arches.

 

The slides indicated the grass bank to the rear which would be unaffected and the visual appearance of the site, set out on a series of images taken from various location points.

 

The site was included in the NHP for development and was in the Settlement Boundary. Policy BL7 was summarised.

 

This was an outline application with all matters reserved, except access.

 

The comments from the Ecology Officer were noted, around the various proposals for lighting in the scheme and that some additional work was being carried out to alleviate some issues.

 

A drainage feature was proposed at end of the site. It was confirmed that Network rail had no plans to introduce a bridge over the railway.

 

The applicant had submitted the application to the Planning Inspectorate, for appeal due to non-determination.

 

The Officer noted that the Committee was therefore asked to consider the application in order to conclude whether the outcome would have been in line with Officer recommendation, if the matter had been considered. The decision of the Committee would then form part of the evidence for the Appeal.

 

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

114.

APPLICATION NUMBER: PL/2022/02766 - Land to the rear of Caynton Lawns, Alderbury

New dwelling with associated drive, carport/garage and garden amenity space (as approved under planning ref 20/07065/FUL with revised access position) – resubmission of PL/2022/02035

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Nick Whines spoke in objection to the application

Ken Carley spoke in objection to the application

Patricia Dashwood spoke in objection to the application

Simon Longhorn (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Elaine Hartford spoke in representation of Alderbury PC to object to the application

 

The Committee had attended a site visit earlier in the day.

 

The Planning Officer, Joe Richardson, summarised the late correspondence which had been circulated at the meeting, relating to a late submission of a third party, which was included in full as part of the hardcopies circulated at the meeting. This related to a complaint to the Ombudsman, regarding the handling of a previous application for the same site and continued concerns regarding the site and the current application.

 

The Planning Officer, then presented the report, which set out the merits of the proposal against the policies of the development plan and other material considerations. The application was recommended for approval.

 

The application was for a new dwelling with associated drive, carport/garage and garden amenity space (as approved under planning ref 20/07065/FUL
with revised access position) – resubmission of PL/2022/02035.

 

It was noted that a previously approved application had not been implemented due to land ownership matters and that a ransom strip was in the ownership of someone else. In addition, the red line around the site had been amended as detailed on page 79 of the report.

 

The issues in the case were noted as:

 

·       Principle of development, policy and planning history;

·       Design, scale and impact to the amenity of the area;

·       Parking/Highways Impact;

·       Ecological Impact/River Avon Catchment Area;

·       Flood Risk;

·       Other matters

 

It was noted that there was no change to the layout or garage of the existing scheme.

 

Highways had no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

 

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical question of the Officer. There were none.

 

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

 

Some of the points raised, included a failure to provide an on-site turning provision and adequate parking for deliveries and the safety of the spur road.

 

The practicality of the proposed turning space and the possibility of destruction to the hedge and a change in character of the lane, with the secluded nature addition to possible accidents for users.

 

CP57 was raised, in regard to the protection of neighbouring amenity, convoluted vehicle manoeuvres and limitations for cyclist/pedestrian users to pass vehicles using the spur.

 

The site was in a remote conservation area where there would also be a negative impact on wildlife.

 

Damage caused by construction traffic to the track and any impacts on  drainage, due to heavy rain causing flooding.

 

No option to widen the lane due to the large bank and trees either side and little space to leave refuse bins for collection.

 

A site visit and a feasibility study had been carried out, with the site being assessed as feasible.

 

The reports which were suggested as part  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

115.

APPLICATION NUMBERs: PL/2022/03968 & PL/2022/04157 Berrybrook Farm, Sedgehill

Proposed change of use of the Long Barn to holiday accommodation, including new fenestration, rooflight's, an extension, internal alterations and refurbishment of a granary.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Diana Berry spoke in objection to the application

Georgia Le Sueur spoke in objection to the application

Matthew Haley (Agent) spoke in support of the application

 

The Committee had attended a site visit earlier in the day.

 

The Planning Officer, Joe Richardson, presented the report, which set out the merits of the proposal against the policies of the development plan and other material considerations and to consider the recommendation that the application be approved.

 

The application was for a Proposed change of use of the Long Barn to holiday

accommodation, including new fenestration, rooflight's, an extension, internal alterations and refurbishment of a granary.

 

The issues in the case were noted as:

 

·       Principle of development;

·       Design, scale and impact to the listed building;

·       Impact to the amenity of the area and the special landscape area;

·       Ecological Impact and Archaeological Impact;

·       Parking/Highways Impact;

·       Other matters

 

It was noted that a master plan was requested to show the overall potential for the site.

 

The application site is adjacent to Sedgehill House. To soften the impact of the proposed changes, boundary treatments were proposed, with the planting of hedgerow and 1.8m fence.

 

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical question of the Officer, where there were none.

 

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

 

Some of the points raised included that the application site and that of the neighbours was originally one farm, which was broken up in 1931. The owners of Sedgehill House had lived there for 20 years. 

 

The application site and that of the neighbouring dwelling were on split levels. Noise from the development site could impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property, Sedgehill House. 

 

New planting would not create a suitable screen until it was fully established.

 

The Master Plan indicated further development. There had been a previous application in 2021 for 5 dwellings.

 

The proximity of the development site to the neigbouring property meant that talking could be heard in Sedgehill House, emanating from the milking barns.

 

Permissions on the Grade 2 listed house were in place. Works to complete the courtyard were planned. Following initial approval, the access had been moved further away. Parking was planned outside of long barn.

 

The barn would be converted into 2 units, so to preserve some natural features.

There was some contention regarding the boundary due to the differing height levels.

 

The planned planting on the boundary of hedges would hide the fence and create a strong boundary screen. Advance nursery stock could be used.

 

Barn D at the top of the site obscured part of the house. The development was a sensitive and attractive low-key conversion of a heritage asset, which would improve the courtyard as a whole.

 

Division Member, Cllr Bridget Wayman, who was on the Committee, noted that Sedgehill was a small and rural parish with scattered dwellings and no obvious centre. The site was accessed by a single track lane.

 

The development site, Berry  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

116.

Urgent Items

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency 

 

Minutes:

There were no urgent items