Agenda item

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 residents in the close and stated that opinion was divided.

Cllr Hocking stated that the car park had been in use for almost 3 decades and during that time there had always been a requirement to come up with a form of traffic management plan that reduced traffic in the close. He noted that due to the element of sensitivity to the surroundings he believed the design should be of a higher quality visually with a more permeable surface to the car park. 

Cllr Hocking noted that to get a traffic management plan through the close would be extremely difficult. He then moved the motion of Refusal, against Officer recommendation, stating the reasons as design and heritage.

This was seconded by Councillor Rich Rogers and the Committee entered debate, during which discussion included the aspiration to produce a more attractive scheme due to the importance of the site.

The Committee urged the applicant take note of the concerns raised before submitting a revised application. 

At the close of debate, the Committee voted on the motion of Refusal, against Officer recommendation for the reasons as stated.

It was;

Resolved

That planning permission for PL/2024/011252 be refused for the following reasons:

The application site and Marsh Close are identified as part of an Existing Outdoor Facility under saved Policy R5 in the Wiltshire Core Strategy. The site was historically used as tennis courts that were replaced in 1996 by a car park use in a series of temporary consents, the most recent of which expired on 25/07/2014. The temporary consents were issued in the hope that a sustainable parking and transport solution could be found for the Cathedral Close and its environs. However, since 2014, the car park use has continued but no formal consent for the car park has been issued. These works seek to improve a visually poor car park with new planting, resurfacing with SUDS drainage and betterment, EV charging facilities (with signage) and covered cycle parking infrastructure.

The scheme as proposed would not, it is considered, significantly improve or enhance the condition and appearance of the existing car park, and the overall scheme design fails to enhance the setting of the surrounding heritage assets. The proposals are not considered to address the policy requirements of the NPPF or CP58 in terms of enhancing the character or setting of the internationally important heritage assets. The scheme also fails to meet the sustainable and green agenda put forward by the Cathedral document Moving Green (Moving Green: Towards more sustainable travel at Salisbury Cathedral and Close, Dec 2022).

The proposal as submitted would therefore be contrary to the Salisbury Neighbourhood Development Plan 2020 – 2038 Policy 7 which seeks to enhance the internationally distinctive character of the Close, as well as Core Policy 57 and Core Policy 58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy which seek to protect, conserve and where possible enhance the historic environment. The proposal is also considered contrary to NPPF 2024 para 219, which requires development within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance.