The Southern Area Planning Committee were scheduled to meet to discuss planning appeals and updates, and to consider planning applications. The committee was also expected to receive public questions and statements.

Landford Wood Farm Planning Application

The committee was scheduled to discuss a planning application for Landford Wood Farm near Salisbury, for the retention of an agricultural barn.

According to the planning officer's report, the applicant, named as Mr N Stone, had already partially constructed the barn, which is a steel portal frame extending to three bays, with a roof in profile steel sheet. The proposal was therefore partly retrospective.

The planning officer's report noted that the site is located in the open countryside of the Special Landscape Area, and that to the immediate north west and south of the A36 is within the remit of the New Forest National Park.

The overall dimensions of the barn were listed as:

• A-C – 9.14m
• Bay width – 6.00m, 3 x bays = total building length 18.0m
• Height to eaves – 4.8m
• Roof pitch - 15 degrees
• Total building height – 6.02m

The roof cladding was scheduled to be box-profile insulated cladding in Juniper Green, and the side wall cladding 'Live edge' (also known as 'waney edge') wooden cladding on all four walls.

The planning officer's report noted that there had been 29 responses from neighbours and third parties, raising concerns including:

• The land is not and hasn't been used for agricultural use
• The second barn is not required
• Operation is hobby farming
• Adverse impacts on restricted access roads and residential amenity
• Barn may not be same dimensions as approved barn
• Does not accord with local plan policies
• Impacts on national park, and ecology
• Querying of consultants conclusions and report accuracy
• Contradictory statements made by applicant regards agricultural need
• Traffic using site is non agricultural in nature
• Traffic to site has increased significantly

Landford Parish Council also objected, stating that more detailed information should be included as part of the planning application, including a full agricultural justification for the use of two barns on this 2.1 hectare partly wooded site, as well as a landscape report, a tree survey, an ecology report and a report from Wiltshire Council enforcement team highlighting any previous and current unauthorised use of the site.

The New Forest National Park Authority said that if the application was recommended for permission, they would encourage the use of a condition for the building to only be used for agricultural purposes and for no other commercial, business or storage purposes whatsoever, and that if in the future the building is no longer required for agricultural purposes, the building should be demolished within the three months of the cessation of the agricultural use and the land restored to its former condition.

The planning officer's report noted that the Council's agricultural consultant had produced two reports, and had confirmed that the barn subject of this application is required.

The planning officer's report stated that if the proposed barn subject of this application were to be approved, there would be two barns on the site. The agricultural consultants response to this point was:

I was shown the second barn at the time of my visit. The applicant advises that it was erected under PD and that the use is for agricultural machinery storage and repair. At the time of my visit the open fronted bays on the building were in use to store agricultural machinery. The closed fronted bays were in use as a machinery workshop (tools etc). The use of the building was, in my view, compatible with the wider activity represented by the applicant i.e. the production of hay and straw and the agricultural machinery in the building was also compatible with that activity.

The planning officer's report concluded that the application was considered in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS), and that the concerns of third parties had been fully considered and taken into account with additional information sought. The planning history of the adjacent Nursery Farm and its impacts on the highway system had also been taken into account.

The planning officer recommended that the committee approve the application, subject to conditions.

The Cathedral Hotel, 7-9 Milford Street, Salisbury

The minutes of the previous meeting on 12 June 2025 record that the committee considered an application for extensions and internal and external alterations to The Cathedral Hotel at 7-9 Milford Street, Salisbury. The application included diversification of the existing Class C1 hotel use¹ 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. The Senior Planning Officer, Joe Richardson introduced a report which recommended that the application be refused.

The minutes record that Mr Adam Bennett (Agent), Ms Lucy Beck (Chamber of Commerce) and Mr Brian Currie (Larasian Ltd) spoke in support of the application.

The minutes record that Councillor Paul Sample JP, the Unitary Division Member, spoke in support of the application, noting the long history the Cathedral Hotel had had within the city, and highlighting the changes to the nighttime economy over the last five years and how such changes had negatively impacted hotels and businesses across the city, with the Grade 2 listed building being vacant and in decline for some years.

Councillor Sample stated that the £10m investment into the sensitive renovation of the local landmark would bring a valuable asset back into use, and that the Spitfire bar planned for the rooftop would be a tribute to wartime workforce that made Spitfires in Salisbury.

Councillor Nick Baker moved the motion of approval, against Officer recommendation, noting that the Committee must take the concerns seriously and consider on balance the public benefits of the unique offer and economic lift, against the significant but less than substantial harm as set out in the report. Councillor Sven Hocking seconded the motion.

The committee considered that if the hotel was not developed, the derelict building would remain as such and lose the opportunity for the large-scale investment for the city.

The committee were supportive of the design of rooftop bar noting it was sensitive to the historic surroundings and consideration to CP22². The committee welcomed the positive statement made by the Chamber of Commerce regarding conservation of the city and the need to consider some of the wider considerations to enable the city to grow and remain economically viable, adding that historic cities such as Salisbury would benefit from unique but sensitive development like the proposal to boost the economy.

The committee also considered the benefits of the rooftop bar in that it would open up another advantage point to view and appreciate the city, create local jobs and bring investment back into the city.

The committee further discussed the current height of the non-permitted structures on the rooftop of the hotel, noting that if approved, the development would result in the removal of the structures and replacement with a development lower in height than it currently stood.

When discussing the rooftop bar, concerns were raised regarding additional rooftop paraphernalia such as umbrellas or sun sails and external lighting. The Officer was asked to explain whether conditions could be applied to prevent rooftop paraphernalia and limit lighting to address concerns.

The Officer noted that there were conditions which could be applied to manage the concerns.

The committee considered the impact of approving a development which contravened the CP22 rule, in terms of future impact to the skyline of the city but agreed that all future applications would need to be considered on their own merits. In addition, the Committee noted the unique nature and benefits of the proposed development and the balance of economic and public benefit over the less than substantial harm as stated in the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant legislation.

The committee discussed the opening hours of the rooftop bar and asked whether conditions would be applied or whether this was a matter for Licensing.

The Officer confirmed that the Public Protection officer had proposed a condition as set out in para 9.4 Amenity consideration section of the report.

The Planning Team Leader read out para 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph; where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated asset, this harm should be weighed against public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

The Legal Officer highlighted to the Committee that the decision was ultimately the Committee's, it was imperative that the decision was made with regard to relevant planning considerations namely Wiltshire Council Core Policies, National Policy that require clear and convincing justification and the harm should be weighed against the public benefits, along with the statutory duty set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 stated in sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1), in that the Committee must give the harm considerable importance and weight to the Grade 2 listed building and the high emphasis in preserving a listed building of a conservation area against the benefits to the public and the city. Also, that the Committee was not seeing to be creating a precedent if it was minded approving the application in respect to the Policy 9 as set out in the new Salisbury Neighbourhood Plan and it was based on unique merits of the proposal that Members have carefully debated.

At the close of debate, the Chairman confirmed the details of the motion to Approve PL/2024/09449 (FUL), subject to the conditions as set out by the Officer, noting that Members considered that the economic and other benefits of the proposal outweighed any limited less than substantial harms which might result from the development, in accordance with the NPPF including para 215.

Councillor Brian Dalton voted against the motion, requesting that his dissent be recorded in relation to the breach of CP22: Salisbury Skyline 40ft rule.

The minutes record that planning permission PL/2024/09449 (FUL) was granted, with conditions.

The minutes record that Councillor Nick Baker moved the motion to approve the listed Building application, against Officer recommendation, noting as before the greater public benefit in protecting the Grade 2 listed building by bringing it back into long term use, and that Councillor Sven Hocking seconded.

The Committee was reminded to consider the balancing act in weighing the harm against the public benefit and whether there were exceptional circumstances which would tip the balance in favour of supporting the application and that they were not setting a precedent by approving this planning application.

The committee discussed the sympathetic restoration plans for the building and were supportive of the works which would improve on the current state of the building and enable the historic hotel building to be brought bac in to use.

The minutes record that planning permission PL/2024/09449 (FUL) was granted, with conditions.

Planning Appeals

The committee was scheduled to receive details of completed and pending appeals. The Appeals Report included in the report pack listed the following planning appeals received between 30 May 2025 and 27 June 2025:

• Albany House, 3-5 New Street, Salisbury - Division of the existing dwelling into three separate dwellings.
• Albany House, 3-5 New Street, Salisbury - Proposed alterations to enable division of the existing dwelling into three separate dwellings
• Land at The Old Rectory (The Spinney), Tidworth Road, Boscombe - Erection of 1 no. self build dwelling

The Appeals Report also included the following planning appeals decided between 4 April 2025 and 27 June 2025:

• Dinton Recreation Ground, St Mary's Road, Dinton - The installation of a storage container at the north end of the pavilion and the installation of three pieces of outdoor adult gym equipment.

The Appeal Decision document included in the report pack stated that the appeal was allowed and planning permission was varied by deleting condition No 3, which stated that:

Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, no works shall commence in relation to the installation of the metal storage container until full details (to include site plan, elevations, materials and/or planting species) of screening (fence, cladding, trellis or planting) to go around all four sides of the container have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.