Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

·       Councillor Andy Oliver (Chairman)

·       Councillor Charles McGrath

The Committee noted that Councillor Sam Charleston was delayed and would be joining the meeting once he arrived.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 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.

In relation to item 10 – PL/2024/07428, Howards House Hotel, Councillor Nabil Najjar noted for openness that he had used the business in a private capacity, however as this did not amount to an interest as set out in the constitution, he took part in the debate and vote on that application.

In relation to item 11 – PL/2022/00839, Farmer Giles Farmstead, Councillor George Jeans noted for openness that the applicant was a former Wiltshire councillor whom he had previously served with on the South West Wiltshire Area Board. However, as this did not amount to an interest as set out in the constitution, he took part in the debate and vote on that application.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements (Registered Speakers)

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 with the officer named on the front of the agenda. 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 12 December 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 16 December 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.

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.

Installation of a ground mounted solar array and associated works.

Public Participation

Mr Dan Roycroft (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Ms Emily Lodge (Applicant) spoke in support of the application

Cllr Hugh Collins of Sutton Mandeville Parish Council spoke in objection to the application

The Senior Planning Officer, Becky Jones, introduced a report which recommended that the application for Installation of a ground mounted solar array and associated works be approved, subject to conditions.

Key details in the report included the principle of development Scale, design and impact on the National Landscape, settings of heritage assets, rights of way, impact on neighbouring amenity, ecology, protected species and biodiversity net gain. During the presentation, the local RoW and the view from the proposed location of the solar panels to the surrounding dwellings were set out.

Ther Officer noted an amendment to paragraph 168 of the published report, in relation to the recently update NPPF, in terms of the significant weight that could be given to all forms of renewable energy.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on whether any consideration had been given during previous planning application requests associated with the swimming pool, for the need of additional buildings.

The need for the 90-panel solar array was questioned, where it was clarified that the proposed solar array was now required to address the heating requirements of the pool and the house.

The Board noted that in addition to the changes to the NPPF as updated by the Officer during the presentation, the National Landscapes document (AONB) also carried great weight and that all would need careful consideration.

The Officer further clarified that the Council’s Conservation Officer had been to the site and walked the footpaths, and the Renewable Energy Officer, Rights of Way (ROW) Officer and the National Landscapes partnership had no objections to the proposed scheme.

The Conservation Officer had provided helpful comments and the impact on listed buildings had been deemed as neutral.

The Officer noted that there was a potential diversion of one of the footpaths (SMAN13), however, that would be a separate matter to planning.

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

The unitary division member, councillor Nabil Najjar then spoke on the application, noting that he called it to committee due to the high levels of concern from local parish council and neighbours, the visual impact upon the surrounding area and the design, bulk, height, general appearance.

Thanks were given to the Officer for conducting a thorough evaluation of the application and to the engagement of all in the process.

Cllr Najjar noted that he would not present a strong view either way, however as there had been a number of historic concerns regarding the site, he felt that it was important for both parties to have the opportunity to participate in the process.

Cllr Najjar noted the degree of community objection from residents and the parish council regarding the setting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

Erection of agricultural building, soft landscaping and associated works.

Public Participation

Mr Dan Roycroft (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Ms Emily Lodge (Applicant) spoke in support of the application

Cllr Hugh Collins of Sutton Mandeville Parish Council spoke in objection to the application

The Senior Planning Officer, Becky Jones, introduced a report which recommended that the application for Erection of agricultural building, soft landscaping and associated works be approved, subject to conditions.

Key details in the report included the principle of development and need for the building, scale design and impact on the National Landscape, settings of heritage assets, rights of way, impact on neighbouring amenity, ecology, protected species and biodiversity net gain and Highway safety.

The Officer gave an update on the published report, noting an amendment to the measurements of the proposed building.

In addition, Late correspondence from the planning agent for the applicant was summarised.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on whether the proposed building was in open countryside, where it was clarified that as there had never been any change of use on the land, the use category defaulted to agricultural land.  

The Officer also clarified that when there was a condition confirming land was agricultural, then a class Q would not later be permitted as would be in conflict with the set condition.

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

The unitary division member, councillor Nabil Najjar then spoke on the application, noting that he called it to committee due to the high levels of concern from local parish council and neighbours, the visual impact upon the surrounding area and the design, bulk, height, general appearance.

Cllr Najjar noted that when taken within the wider context of the site, the application for the proposed building required careful consideration, due to the farming and sustainable land management future ambition for the site.

Councillor Hocking moved the motion of approval, in line with Officer recommendation.

This was seconded by Councillor George Jeans.

The Committee discussed the application, noting the need for agricultural buildings if the land was to be used for farming purposes in the future. The difference between farming and equestrian was also discussed.

The Officer clarified that a condition had been included, if approved, which would require the applicant to provide details of proposed materials for approval.

The Committee noted comments in relation to a similar application elsewhere, where the Committee had refused a conversion of an agricultural building to industrial, which was later overturned at appeal. It was further noted that the application as presented must be considered on its merits and that future or similar applications could not be taken into account when determining an application.

The Committee sought further clarification on Class Q and change of use. The Officer explained that most change of use applications required other access. In the case of the planning site in question, the building did not have separate access  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

Part change of use of B8 Strukta Trade Store to incorporate Sui Generis members only retail club Campus & Co.

Public Participation

Mr Dan Roycroft (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Mr Ben Diffey (on behalf of Applicant) spoke in support of the application

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes noted some adjustments to the report due to recent change to the NPPF, these related to paragraph numbers.

The Officer then went on to introduce a report which recommended that the application for Part change of use of B8 Strukta Trade Store to incorporate Sui Generis members only retail club Campus & Co, be refused.

Key details stated in the report included the principle of development and appropriateness of such a use in the location and retail impact on the city centre. Impact on the character and appearance of the area, impact on neighbour amenity/uses, Highway matters and flood risk.

The Officer set out the site layout and noted the Salisbury Central Area Framework (CAF) document (2020) which set out areas on a map for different types of use for the city.

If approved the applicant had suggested a condition relating to the class of use being designated as Retail Warehouse Club, however the Officer noted concerns raised by the Enforcement Officer in applying such a condition.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the mix of other units on the Churchfield site as a whole, with an explanation that the history of Churchfields was that it had a non-enforcement background, in that business premises there had evolved over time without any enforcement, prior to the implementation of the CAF in 2020. The existing use for the application unit was noted as B8 use. 

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

The unitary division member, councillor Sam Charleston  then spoke in support of the application, noting that he had brought it to Committee for consideration, as he felt that the main objection was that the proposal was incompatible with the upcoming Local Plan, however, he noted that this was not yet in effect. In addition, the refusal made reference to the CAF, which he believed did not explicitly rule it out.

Cllr Charleston also noted that if the application had been submitted prior to the Local Plan’s adoption, it would have been accepted. On the issue of enforcement, he noted that other councils across the country had been able to enforce similar class buildings, so he did not see why this was an issue for Wiltshire and therefore, did not see in planning terms why the application could not be approved.

Councillor Charleston moved the motion of approval, against Officer recommendation based on the change of character of the site with a varied mix of uses and no real reason to refuse.

This was seconded by Councillor Richard Budden.

A debate followed where the Committee discussed the variety of quasi retail warehouse type uses plus other unauthorised uses other than industrial uses which were currently in operation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

FULL

Construct a single storey orangery building to the south elevation of the building to form a dining room. Change of use of land to form car park for customers, involving laying of permeable surfacing to reinforce existing ground surface. (resubmission of PL/2023/07927).

LBC

Formation of enlarged opening within timber framed partition between existing dining room and lounge at ground floor level within main hotel building. Construct a single storey orangery building to the south elevation of the building to form a dining room. (resubmission of PL/2023/08124)

Public Participation

Mr Ben Keating (on behalf of applicant/landowner) spoke in support of the application

Mr Dan Brod (Development Partner) spoke in support of the application

Ms Clare Bolton (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Cllr David Wood Teffont Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes, introduced a joint report which covered the Full and the Listed Building Consent applications for the site.

The Officer recommendation was refusal for both applications.

Key details stated in the report included the principle of development, character and design including impacts on heritage assets, Highway safety/parking, ecology and neighbour amenity. 

The Officer drew attention to the strong concerns of the conservation officer and the local support as detailed in the report.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the permeable surface for the planned walkway and bollards.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the committee. There were no public speakers registered.

The unitary division member, councillor Bridget Wayman then spoke in support of the application, noting her agreement with the comments in support provided by the applicant and the parish council chairman.

Cllr Wayman noted that previous applications had been refused after she had missed calling them in, under the belief that they would be automatically approved.

Cllr Wayman expressed her support for the proposals which would see a grade II listed building rescued from deterioration, in the efforts to make the premises a viable business.

Councillor Wayman moved the motion of approval, against Officer recommendation, on the grounds that the positive public and other benefits of bringing the hotel and listed building back into use outweighed the very limited harm that would be caused by the proposals.

This was seconded by Councillor Nabil Najjar.

A debate followed where the Committee discussed the support shown by the residents and the parish council and the balance between the impact on the listed buildings against the significant public benefits in rejuvenating a deteriorating building for future use within the community.

The Committee agreed that the proposed works warrants clear community benefit as a place for people to meet in a community hub in an area that was rurally isolated. In addition, it would provide a form of business development to revitalise a building which was in deterioration.

The Committee discussed and sought advice from the Officer on conditions which should be applied should the application be approved.

After full consideration of the heritage issues and the Conservation Officers concerns, Members considered that the very limited harm caused was significantly outweighed by the positive public and other benefits of bringing the hotel and listed building back into use, including the heritage enhancements to the property which had fallen into disrepair externally.

At the close of debate,

It was:

Resolved

That planning permission for PL/2024/07428 (FULL) be granted subject to the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Variation of condition 2 (demolition of buildings) on PL/2021/11405.

Public Participation

Mr Richard McNamara spoke in Objection to the application

Ms Mary Corrie spoke in support of the application

Mr Angus Corrie-Dean spoke in support for the application

Mr Robin Faulkner spoke in support for the application

The Principal Planning Office, Adam Madge, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the variation of condition 2 (demolition of buildings) on PL/2021/11405 be approved subject to conditions.

The main issues stated in the report were whether the alteration of the previously granted permission to omit the demolition of one of the main barn structures that were previously proposed to be demolished was acceptable. 

Attention was drawn to the late observations summarised by the Officer.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on which buildings it was proposed would remain, in addition to the main barn, as there appeared to be an old kitchen/restaurant building remaining from a previous business use, which members queried was not relevant to the equestrian use.

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

The unitary division member, councillor Bridget Wayman then spoke in objection to the application, noting reasons as the Scale of development, the visual impact on the surrounding area, the relationship to adjoining properties, the design, bulk, height and general appearance, and the environmental or highway impact.

Cllr Wayman summarised the history of former applications on the site, noting that the approval of the dwelling in open countryside in 2020 had been subject to conditions which required the complete removal of a series of buildings, including the main barn on the site, prior to the dwelling being commenced, with the land returned to paddock with a planting scheme.

Cllr Wayman stated that the conditions around removal of the main barn and buildings was one of the exceptional reasons the application had been granted in the National Landscape area (AONB). There had been further attempts to state the need for removal of the redundant farm buildings which were no longer required.

Cllr Wayman believed that the current application sought to retain the buildings which were previously described as redundant, in an attempt to deliberately and dishonestly manipulated the planning system to gain permission of the house.

Cllr Wayman asked that if the application was approved that all PD rights on domestic curtilage and on the camping, curtilage be removed across the entire site to protect, conserve and enhance the national landscape.

Cllr Wayman also stated that the kitchen annex which was now a laundry annex has no permission and should come down as had no connection to equestrian use.

Cllr Wayman moved the motion of support subject to the permitted development (PD) rights being removed across the whole of the land holding (blue line) and for the laundry room (former kitchen) to be demolished.

Officers noted that it would be dependent on what the site plan for the application included and advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

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