The Southern Area Planning Committee met to discuss planning appeals and updates, and to consider one planning application. Councillors approved a listed building consent for alterations to a cottage in Downton, against officer recommendation.

Application Number: PL/2025/02191 - 10 The Borough, Downton, Salisbury, SP5 3ND

Councillors approved a listed building consent for the raising of the existing timber beam above the staircase opening to provide headroom for a stair lift and convert a bathroom into a wet room with DDA¹ compliant fixtures and fittings at 10 The Borough, Downton, Salisbury, SP5 3ND. This was against officer recommendation.

The Senior Conservation Officer, Jocelyn Sage, introduced a report recommending refusal of the application. The main issues for consideration were the effect that the proposed changes would have on the listed building, including the raising of the listed beam above the staircase to accommodate a stairlift, and the conversion of the existing bathroom into a wet room.

Ms Sage noted a previous application (PL/2024/08168) for similar works, which had been refused. She also referred to paragraph 208 of the NPPF² where it stated that:

where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal’, further adding that public benefits did not equate with private benefits.

Ms Sage clarified that the applicant’s Heritage Consultant agreed with the assessment of there being ‘less than substantial harm’ however he disagreed with the assessment of private over public benefit.

The height difference of the beam between the current and proposed position, once cut and moved, was confirmed as 200mm.

Speaking in support of the application were Ms Elizabeth Lydia (Applicant), Mr Paul Stevens (Architect), Mr Bob Edwards (Forum Heritage), and Councillor Dave Mace of Downton Parish Council.

Points raised included the applicants medical need for the stairlift due to associated impairments following a stroke and that installing the stairlift would enable the applicants to access the upstairs bathroom and bedrooms which would enable them to continue living in their home. It was clarified that in the proposals, once the stairlift was no longer needed, it would be removed, and the beam would be reinstated to the original place.

The committee heard that whilst cutting through a heritage timber was not to be taken lightly, in this instance, as the property was a home, not a monument, it should be capable of change or adaptation to enable the owners to continue living in it.

Councillor Mace confirmed that as the timing of the planning meeting fell before the parish council meeting, the council had been unable to consider the application and present a formal view. It was noted however, that in relation to the previous application, which could be considered more invasive, the council had considered this and had strongly supported the proposals.

The unitary Division Member, Councillor Richard Clewer then spoke in support of the application, noting the summary of the issues around the level of harm involved in cutting and moving the beam and stated his view, that the level of harm was at the lowest level. He suggested that it would make sense to approve the application which would enable the residents to remain in their home.

As Councillor Clewer was not on the Committee, Councillor Sven Hocking moved the motion of Approval against Officer recommendation. He noted the need of the homeowner’s to have a stairlift installed, to enable them to continue living in the premises, and balanced this against the minor impact of a cut in an internal beam, which it was proposed would be reinstated once the stairlift was no longer needed, resulting in a low level of harm. This was seconded by Councillor Bridget Wayman.

A debate followed where the Committee discussed the Council’s role in enabling residents to remain in their own homes, against the retention of the character and historic nature of the building, due to the proposed works. The Committee also discussed the alternative option to facilitate the ground floor extension, which had not been supported by the Applicant. A suggestion that a condition be applied which would require the removal of the stairlift once no longer needed was queried with the officer, who noted that such a condition would not usually be applied.

The Committee also discussed whether a condition to require the lintel remain in the building, agreeing that this should be applied to the motion. Councillor Hocking agreed to an amendment to his motion to include a condition which would require the section of beam to be retained in the building.

The Officer confirmed the proposed conditions, should the Committee be minded to approve the application.

The Committee voted on the motion of Approval, against Officer recommendation, for the reasons as stated and with the conditions discussed, delegating the wording of such to the Officer.

The application was approved, subject to conditions.