Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from:

·       Councillor Andy Oliver

·       Councillor Sam Charleston

·       Councillor Ricky Rogers

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 20 February 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 20 February 2025 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 7 – PL/2024/011252 - Timbermill House, Vale Road, Woodfalls, Councillor Nabil Najjar declared that he due to his role as Portfolio Holder for Education and Skills and that he also sat on the Corporate Parenting Panel and Safeguarding Panel he would not take part in the discussion or vote on the application.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman explained the meeting procedure to the members of the public.

In relation to item 8, PL/2024/09449 (FUL) & PL/2024/09842 (LBC) - Cathedral Hotel, Salisbury, the Chairman noted that since the officer report was written, amended plans had been submitted by the applicant/agent that now required a further consultation to all statutory consultees and interested parties.

As a result of the requirement for a formal re-consultation, members could not make a decision on the applications until this had taken place, and therefore, the Committee agreed the applications be deferred and would be brought to a future meeting for determination.  

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 13 March 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 17 March 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.

It was;

Resolved:

To note the Appeals update.

Change of use from a C3 dwelling house to a C2 residential care home for up to 4no children, retain conversion of an existing integral garage into habitable space and infilling of open porch to create increased internal lobby

Public Participation

Mr Graham Witte spoke in objection to the application

Mr Clive Griggs spoke in objection to the application

Mr Chris Tivey (Agent) spoke in support of the application

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

The Planning Officer, Jonathan Maidman introduced a report which recommended that the application for the change of use from a C3 dwelling house to a C2 residential care home for up to 4 children, retain conversion of an existing integral garage into habitable space and infilling of open porch to create increased internal lobby be approved.

Key details were noted in the report to include the principle of the change of use and assessment against Core Policy 46, Highway matters and Impact on neighbour amenity.

The Officer noted that the provision was for 8 – 17-year-olds with emotional and behavioural difficulties for which carers would be present at all times.

Internal and external alterations had already been undertaken, as detailed in the report. It was confirmed that the works were not in breach of planning control.

External lighting was present on the site and should this cause a nuisance it would be a matter for Public Protection to consider.

The Officer referred to CP46 which related to meeting the needs of Wiltshire’s vulnerable people. There had been no objections from the statutory consultees.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the level of cover the care staff would provide and whether there was evidence of the scheme working elsewhere in the county.

The Committee was directed to section 5 of the report on page 32, where it set out details of other similar scheme’s in the county.

The Legal Officer was asked to clarify the process for applications relating to Council Owned land and whether the committee should declare an interest in the application. It was confirmed that as set out in the Constitution, applications submitted by Wiltshire Council were not dealt with under delegated powers where an objection has been received raising material planning considerations. This would also apply for applications on Council owned land, submitted by a third party. There was no requirement for committee members to declare an interest as this did not amount to a pecuniary interest.

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

The unitary division member, Councillor Zoe Clewer then spoke to the application, noting the various reasons for contention, including the works already carried out on the site, that the land was owned by Wiltshire Council, and the change of use.

Cllr Clewer went on to note the Council’s statutory duty of care for children and in providing homes for vulnerable people in the county they come from, referencing the Council’s Business Plan which sets out the commitment to provide smaller homes more in line with a normal home setting.

The lack of local consultation was noted with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

Extensions and Internal and External Alterations to the Grade II Listed Hotel Including Diversification of the Existing Class C1 Hotel Use involving Redevelopment of the existing 22-bedroom hotel into a 13 suite 5-star, luxury hotel with bar, restaurant, courtyard garden and rooftop terrace bar.

As per the Chairman’s announcement under item 4, this application was deferred.

Permanent change of use of former tennis courts to car park (previously approved under temporary consents); the provision of electric vehicle charging points; the provision of a covered cycle parking area; the provision of a water standpipe; associated works.

Public Participation

Mr Jeremy Edwards spoke in objection to the application

Mr Nick Bacon spoke in objection to the application

Mr Paul Oakley (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Mr Kenneth Padley spoke in support of the application

Cllr Ian Tomes spoke in objection, on behalf of Salisbury City Council

The Senior Planning Officer, Becky Jones, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the permanent change of use of former tennis courts to car park (previously approved under temporary consents); the provision of electric vehicle charging points; the provision of a covered cycle parking area; the provision of a water standpipe; and associated works be approved subject to conditions.

Key details as stated in the report included:

1.     Principle of development

2.     Scale, design and impact on the settings of heritage assets and archaeology

3.     Impact on neighbouring amenity

4.     Flood risk and drainage

5.     Highway safety

6.     Ecology, Biodiversity Net Gain and trees

7.     Planning balance

It was noted that there were a number of listed buildings surrounding the site area. A SUDS betterment scheme was proposed to improved drainage.

Attention was drawn to the late observations including reference to policies within the Salisbury Neighbourhood Plan which was not yet made.

Items of late correspondence had been sent to members in full and uploaded to the website for public information.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Clarity was sought on why there had been a history of temporary planning approvals on the site.

It was noted that often temporary permissions were given as a way to test the waters, in this case, there had been a history of excess traffic coming into the close with a desire to see that reduced. The Moving Green Paper produced by the Cathedral had also been progressing over time, which included consideration on how to deal with visitors and parking.

It was further clarified that the carpark would include a drainage strategy, where the applicant had been encouraged by Officers to consider a SUDS scheme. Since the last permission had lapsed the permission had reverted back to that for a tennis court.

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

The Salisbury City Council (SCC) representative spoke in objection to the application noting that he had represented the local council on planning since 1995 and was aware of a historic objective to minimise traffic in the close. He stated that a number of temporary permissions were given on the grounds that car parking was removed from 2 other areas within the close. In addition, he believed that the application did not reflect the high standards which should be expected for any development in an exceptional setting such as Cathedral Close.

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Sven Hocking then spoke on the application, noting that he had called the application to Committee due to its controversial nature.  He had spoken to many  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Approval of Reserved Matters for erection of 3 dwellings, parking and associated landscaping approved under Outline Permission 19/10610/OUT (Scale, layout, external appearance, landscaping and access).

Councillor George Jeans left the meeting before the start of this item and did not take part in the discussion or vote.

Public Participation

Mr Matt Hume spoke in objection to the application

Rupert Byerley spoke in objection to theapplication

Ms Deborah Slade (Agent) spoke in support of the application

The Senior Planning Officer, Lynda King noted the site visit held earlier in the day and introduced a report which recommended that the application for Approval of Reserved Matters for erection of 3 dwellings, parking and associated landscaping approved under Outline Permission 19/10610/OUT (Scale, layout, external appearance, landscaping and access). be approved.

Key details as stated in the report included:

• Scale of development
• Visual impact upon the surrounding area
• Relationship to adjoining properties
• Design – bulk, height, general appearance
• Environmental/highway impact

A plan of the 2019 Outline application proposal for 3 dwellings was shown. It was noted that in 2019, the outline application, was supported by the parish council and the site was at that time included in the settlement boundary.

The 2019 outline permission did not restrict the houses from becoming 3 bedrooms at reserved matters stage or that there could be rooms in the roofspace.

A slide indicating the gable end of a bungalow next to the site which was at a lower level than the planned development was explained, as were some additional slides which showed the sight lines from approximately 43m along the road, which provided context to visibility information.

The Officer noted that following recent clearance works, it had become noticeable that the floor level had been built up over time with waste materials. It was suggested that an additional condition be added to those listed in the report. The condition which was read out by the Officer, suggesting that prior to the commencement of development, the slab levels of the dwellings be agreed by the Local Planning Authority, and that an informative note be added to the permission indication that it would be expected that the slab levels would be at a lower level than the existing ground levels, to take account of the need to remove made up ground on the site, and to improve the relationship with the neighbouring bungalow.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the proximity between the surrounding hedge and the neighbouring property, which was stated to be approximately 1m.

The Committee asked for clarification on the exact topographical detail regarding the suggested additional condition to require the ground level to be reduced. Whilst the officer was able to indicate on the presentation slide an approximate level, the Committee expressed concerns over not having a plan to detail this, stating that having evidence of where the proposed rooflines would be once the ground level had been reduced, was also important in ascertaining the level of overbearing this development would have on the bungalow next door.

The Committee also questioned whether the proposed dwellings had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

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