Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

• Cllr Any Oliver
• Cllr Charles McGrath
• Cllr Rich Rogers, who was substituted by Cllr Rob Yuill
• Cllr Ian McLennan
• Cllr Brian Dalton

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 10 November 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2022 were presented.

Cllr Errington noted that in relation to Item 7a, application PL/2021/09778 - Station Works, Tisbury, the paragraph ‘It was confirmed that Network rail had no plans to introduce a bridge over the railway’ was correctly recorded, however he believed it not to be a true statement, as the Network Rail Line Study document of 2020 referred to a second platform and a diagram outlining a bridge at Tisbury Station, suggesting that a bridge had formed part of considerations for future development.

It was;

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.

The following Declarations of Interest were made:

In relation to item 7a, Application PL/2022/00855, Cllr Nick Errington noted that he was a member of the Tisbury Community Land Trust (CLT) Steering Group. As the CLT would hold the freehold of the affordable houses on the site if developed, he would remove himself from the room for the item and would not speak as Division Member or take part in discussion or the vote on the application.

In relation to item 7a, Application PL/2022/00855, Cllr Bridget Wayman noted that she was a non-executive Director of Stone Circle and as such had a pecuniary interest, therefore would remove herself from the room for the item and would not take part in discussion or the vote on the application.

In relation to item 7c – Application PL/2022/06794, Cllr Nabil Najjar noted that the Agent for the application had previously worked for him on a personal application, as this was a non-pecuniary interest, he was able to remain on the Committee for the discussion and vote.

In relation to 7a, Application PL/2022/00855, Cllr Nabil Najjar, noted for openness that he was Portfolio holder for Housing. As this did not constitute an interest, he would remain on the Committee for the discussion and vote.

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 Thursday 1 December 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 5 December 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.

Attendance

Due to the limited size of the venue, attendees may be rotated per application, allowing access to the consideration of the relevant application of interest only. There will be ample space directly outside of the room to wait until you are called by an Officer. If you have any queries, please contact the Democratic Services Officer named on the front of this agenda.

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 update be noted.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Demolition of former sports centre (class E(d)) involving redevelopment to form 13 no. dwellings (class C3) & associated works.

Public Participation

Gerry Murray of Nadder Community Land Trust (NCLT) spoke in support of the application

Bev Cornish (Clerk) spoke as representative of Tisbury Parish Council

The Senior Planning Officer, Becky Jones, summarised the late
correspondence which had been circulated at the meeting, relating to a response from the open space team for a suggested donation for off site play and adult provision and an update to the recommendation adding a further condition relating to the S106 and all those with an interest in the land, in Section 9 of the report.

The Officer went on to present the report on the application, which was for the demolition of a former sports centre (class E(d)) involving redevelopment to form 13 no. dwellings (class C3) & associated works. The application was recommended for Approval with conditions.

The issues of the case were noted as:

1. Principle of development and absence of 5 year housing land supply
2. Scale, design, impact on the character of the AONB and neighbouring amenity
3. Trees and Landscaping
4. Other S106 matters and contributions - waste, public open space, education and affordable housing
5. Highway safety
6. Biodiversity – Ecology, Chilmark bat SAC and River Avon catchment
7. Flood Risk and Drainage
8. The Planning Balance

Members had no technical questions of the Officer.

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

The NCLT noted its support and the close involvement they had had with the project which would secure affordable housing which would be available to people with a local connection.

The Freehold of the affordable homes would remain with the NCLT. The site was allocated in the Neighbourhood plan as a site for community development.

The Tisbury Parish Council representative spoke in support of the application, noting the importance of the development within the community. Issues identified in the report were noted, as was the agreement of the Stone Circle Development Company to honours its commitments as set out in their letter to Tisbury Parish Council dated 8th March 2022, which related to the treatment of the affordable housing proportion on the site. 

As the Division Member Cllr Nick Errington had declared an Interest and had left the room, he did not speak on the application.

The Chairman asked for a Committee Member to move a motion for debate.

Cllr Trevor Carbin moved the motion of Approval in line with the revised Officer recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Hocking.

Cllr Carin noted that the site was a brownfield site on edge of Tisbury, which if approved would be able to provide an element of affordable homes to meet the need of the local community.

There had been comprehensive engagement between all parties, to deliver what was needed by the community.

The Committee discussed the application, the main points included clarification on what ‘local connection’ meant in terms of allocation of the affordable homes.

After discussion, the Committee voted on the motion of Approval, in line with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.

Construction of two residential dwellings, with associated parking and landscaping, and community orchard

Public Participation

Andy Partridge (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Ed Riley spoke as representative of Odstock Parish Council

The Senior Planning Officer, Becky Jones, presented the report, which set out the merits of the planning proposal against the policies of the development plan and other material considerations. The application was for the construction of two residential dwellings, with associated parking and landscaping, and community orchard.

The application was recommended for Refusal, for the reasons as stated in the report.

The issues of the case were noted as:

• Principle of development, absence of 5 year housing land supply and infill at small villages
• Scale, design, impact on the character of the AONB and neighbouring amenity
• Highway safety
• Biodiversity – Ecology, River Avon catchment and New Forest SPA
• Drainage and flood risk
• CIL
• The Planning Balance

In the summary, the officer explained that the River Avon SAC nutrient reason for refusal had been added. This is because if Members decided that the development did not comply with CP2 and is not infill, then it would not fall under the Strategic Mitigation Strategy for planned development.

There were no technical questions of the Officer.

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 had the support of the parish council and would deliver a community orchard, which would provide residents with a recreation space.

Other points raised the position of the 5 year land supply, the need for smaller more affordable houses and that the development would provide 2 & 3 bed semi-detached properties.

The definition of infill was explored in that it could refer to a space in-between the edge of a housing boundary and another dwelling and that a site in the AONB did not automatically rule out development in cases where a 5 year land supply was not met. However, the tilted balance did not automatically apply in the AONB.

The economic benefits and the sustainability elements were also noted.

The Parish Council representative spoke in support, noting that the site was the best option available n Odstock for affordable housing and that the design was felt to be sympathetic to the existing environments.

Division Member Cllr Richard Clewer who was not on the Committee, spoke on the application, noting the housing situation for Odstock and Nuneton, which was currently constrained. He highlighted the support of the parish council, the local community and the desire of the school and the village as a whole to remain sustainable.

The Chairman asked for a Committee Member to move a motion for debate.

Cllr Najjar moved the motion of Approval against Officer recommendation, for the reasons of the support of the parish council and need of this type of development in the community.

This was seconded by Cllr Jeans.

The Committee discussed the application, the main points included whether or not the development could be considered infill, based on its position or whether it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.

Conversion of an existing barn/equestrian building to form a 2-bedroom dwelling, with associated hard and soft landscaping (resubmission of PL/2021/10169)

Public Participation

Richard Storey Walker spoke in objection to the application

John Reading spoke in objection to the application

Dan Roycroft (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Keggy Carew (Applicant) spoke in support of the application

The Planning Team Leader, Adam Madge, presented the report, which set out the merits of the planning proposal against the policies of the development plan and other material considerations.

The application was for the Conversion of an existing barn/equestrian building to form a 2-bedroom dwelling, with associated hard and soft landscaping
(resubmission of PL/2021/10169). The application was recommended for Approval with conditions.

Previous applications on the site for similar conversions had previously been refused, as they did not state why they met CP48, and had not explored alternative use.

The application now had run through various other uses for the barn and why those were not suitable, setting out why accommodation was suitable.

The issues of the case were noted as:

· Principle & Planning History
· Character & Design
· Neighbouring Amenities
· Highway Safety
· Ecology
· CIL/S106

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical question of the Officer.

It was noted that the barn had been in place since at least 1926, or possibly earlier.

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

Some of the main points raised included the importance of the barn locally as a historical asset, noting the unusual, secluded nature of the redbrick building and its location next to a nature reserve which had been created by the applicant on an adjacent field.

The bar had historically been for equestrian use, which was no longer required, due to the implementation of the nature reserve.

The negative impact that a residential dwelling would have on wildlife due to lighting and human habitation.

Whether any conditions could be applied to prevent any future business operating on the nature reserve.

The Agent noted the applicants experience in the field of rewilding, the redundant use of the barn for equestrian use and the proposals support for CP48, conversion of rural buildings.  

It was stated that the village nearby already has community buildings, and the development was supported by a financial viability statement, leaving residential use as the only viable reuse for the barn.

Work would be minimal and sensitive, noting that the nearest neighbour was 70m away.

An ecologist had advised that bats would abandon buildings which had deteriorated. Advice would be followed to preserve the bats. In addition, the development would incorporate other elements including ledges for birds.

Cllr Wayman moved the motion of Refusal, against Officer recommendation, for the reasons:

Division Member Cllr Bridget Wayman who was on the Committee, spoke in objection to the application, moving the motion of Refusal, against Officer recommendation for the reasons:

·        Relationship to adjoining properties

·        Design – bulk, height, general appearance

·        Environmental or highway impact;

·        Other – Inappropriate conversion of a barn to residential use in a rural location in the Cranborne Chase AONB

It was noted that the Barn  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

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