The Southern Area Planning Committee met to discuss planning appeals and applications in the Southern Area of Wiltshire. Councillors approved the demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection of two detached dwellings at Glendale, Lopcombe Corner, subject to a legal agreement and conditions, after a motion to refuse the application was defeated. The committee also noted an update on planning appeals.

Planning Application: Glendale, Lopcombe Corner

Councillors approved an application for the demolition of the existing dwelling at Glendale, Lopcombe Corner, Salisbury, SP5 1BX and the erection of two detached dwellings, including access, parking, hard and soft landscaping, and the installation of a package treatment work¹ and other associated works, subject to a legal agreement and conditions. The Senior Planning Officer, Joe Richardson, introduced the report, highlighting that the application site is within Lopcombe Corner, classified as a small village in planning terms, and that the principle of infill² applied to the proposal. The site also falls within a Special Landscape Area, is within the River Test Catchment Area, and within the 13.8km recreational buffer zone of the New Forest Special Protection Area (SPA)³ / Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The application had been called in by Councillor Rich Rogers, Unitary Division Member for Winterslow & Upper Bourne Valley, due to concerns about the sustainability of the location, design, density, and highway safety.

During the meeting, the committee addressed several key points:

• Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG): Councillors heard that a 10% BNG would be required via a separate process.
• Accuracy of Plans: In response to queries about missing windows on the plans, officers clarified that the windows were rooflights and would not overlook neighbouring properties.
• Historic Land Charges: Officers addressed concerns about historic land charges, confirming that they had reviewed old documents from the 1950s or 1960s, but these were not relevant to the current application and could not be given any weight. Alwyn Thomas, the legal officer, confirmed that there was no connection to the current application, so the documents could not be given any weight.
• Local Highways and Footpaths Improvements Group (LHFIG): Members noted that a similar application at the neighbouring site at Windwhistle had been approved, and if this application was also approved, it may raise requests from the local parish council to the LHFIG for improved signage or other such improvements.
• Infill Policy: Some members questioned whether demolishing one dwelling and replacing it with two constituted infill. Officers referred to the Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) definition of infill and a Planning Inspector's clarification on a similar application, stating that the application was a combination of a replacement dwelling and infill, which was permissible.
• Nutrient Neutrality Mitigations: Questions were raised about nutrient neutrality mitigations and the habitability of the current dwelling on the site.

Jeff Higgins spoke in objection to the application, and Dan Roycroft, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Rich Rogers spoke against the application, raising concerns about sustainability, lack of demonstrated need for the houses, design standards, scale, amenity, privacy and light issues for neighbours, strain on the national grid, building line, and highway safety. He proposed refusal, arguing that the policy was contrary to WCS Core Policy (CP) 1, 48, 57, 60, 61 and National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 117. Councillor Kevin Asplin seconded the motion.

Officers responded that they had recommended approval based on the report's reasons, highlighting that there had been no objection from Highways, that there was an infill policy, and that infill applications were approved in less sustainable locations. They also noted that CP48 related to the conversion of buildings in rural areas and did not apply in this context.

During the debate, some councillors expressed sympathy for the points raised by Councillor Rogers but did not reach the same conclusions. They acknowledged the officer's advice that the application was infill, which was allowed by the policies, and the precedent set by the approval of the application at Windwhistle.

Some members felt that the application should be refused because local residents and the parish council did not want it to go ahead, and that demolishing one building and building two in its place did not seem like infill. However, they acknowledged the precedent set by the Windwhistle site approval. Concerns were also raised about whether the conditions were measurable and enforceable. The officer clarified that the parish council had withdrawn their objection.

Other members highlighted the weight given to mitigations related to the River Test, BNG, and protected species, even though the River Test was miles away. They felt that these onerous conditions were a barrier for small developments.

The legal officer advised that there were no technical statutory consultees objecting to the application, that Winterslow Parish Council had withdrawn their objection, and that a similar planning application had been approved two sites down from the application site. They stated that it would be difficult to defend a refusal on appeal, which would require outsourcing the defence to external professionals and potentially calling members as witnesses.

The motion to refuse the application was put to a vote and was defeated.

Councillor Sven Hocking then proposed the officer recommendation to approve the application subject to a legal agreement and conditions, as per the agenda report, which was seconded by Councillor Bridget Wayman.

Councillor Brian Dalton proposed an amendment to add a standard condition limiting the hours that building work could be undertaken, which was accepted by the mover and seconder.

The committee then voted to approve the application, subject to the legal agreement and conditions, including the added condition regarding construction hours.

Planning Appeals and Updates

The Committee received details of the appeal decisions as detailed in the agenda.

Members queried if it would be possible to see or have reference to other appeal decisions from around the county rather than just those related to the Southern Area Planning Committee.

A discussion followed in which some Members suggested that these could be seen by looking at the agendas for the other planning committees online. Others felt it would be good if they were appended to agendas, as there may be appeal decisions from around the county which were informative in the cases they were considering. Following further discussion, it was suggested that a list of appeal decisions could be added to the regular planning applications email which was sent to all Members.

Everyone concurred that this was a good idea, and officers confirmed that this would be fed back.