Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

·       Cllr Charles McGrath

·       Cllr Rich Rogers

·       Cllr Andy Oliver

It was noted that Cllr Andy Oliver (Chairman) had been delayed by traffic and that Cllr Sven Hocking (Vice-Chairman) would chair the meeting. Cllr Oliver arrived after the Officer presentation and so did not take part in the meeting.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 17 October 2024 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 no declarations of interest.

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 and others will have had the opportunity to make representations on planning applications and other items on the agenda, and to contact and lobby their local elected member and any other members of the planning committee, prior to the meeting.

Those circulating such information prior to the meeting, written or photographic, are advised to also provide a copy to the case officer for the application or item, in order to officially log the material as a representation, which will be verbally summarised at the meeting by the relevant officer, not included within any officer slide presentation if one is made. Circulation of new information which has not been verified by planning officers or case officers is also not permitted during the meetings.

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 7 November 2024, 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 18 November 2024. 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.

The Committee noted the rules on public participation.

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.

Two storey and single storey extensions and associated alterations.

Public Participation

Mr Nick Cusack spoke in objection to the application

Mr Mark Maidment (Applicant) spoke in support of the application

Cllr Annie Riddle spoke in objection, on behalf of Salisbury City Council

A site visit took place prior to the committee meeting.

The Planning Officer, Hayley Clark, introduced a report which recommended that the application for two storey and single storey extensions and associated alterations, be approved.

Key details were stated to include the principle of development, scale, design, impacts on the character and the appearance of the area, residential amenity and highway issues.

A series of photographs and plans of the proposed development and site were shown throughout the presentation.

Members were made aware of the various third-party objections and concerns, including those from adjacent properties. It was advised that representations received in objection were focused on the impact to the neighbouring property Havendale, as well as scale and change in character of the current property. It was also suggested in the representations that the extension would be better placed if it were at the rear of the existing property and not to the front.

In addition, concerns had been raised around whether a larger property on the site would later be turned into a HMO or care home, however as clarified by the Officer, the application for consideration did not include change of use and therefore the Committee was reminded that it could only consider the application as it was presented.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the difference between the current living space to the proposed, of which the Officer estimated the extension to be 2.5 times the size of the current dwelling and that it would be extend beyond the current footprint.

The site was also noted as being close to the boundary of a Special Landscape Area (SLA) but that this had no bearing on the application. It was clarified that SLA was a saved policy from the Salisbury District Local Plan.

Councillor Andy Oliver arrived at the meeting, but as he had not been present for the Officer presentation, he did not take part in the meeting.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the committee as detailed above.

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Brian Dalton read the comments of a neighbour living at Mulberries, who had been unable to attend the meeting. He then spoke in objection to the application, stating that he had called the application in to Committee for consideration in support of the resident’s concerns, noting that he had also spoken to the applicant and had considered both sides of the situation.

Cllr Dalton agreed with there being no Highway concerns, however he supported the concerns relating to the proposed significant increase in size and height and the movement of the footprint by approximately 3m.

Cllr Dalton moved the motion of Refusal stating reasons as CP57, impact to neighbouring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

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