Sarum Oratory - Proposed Development

 

The Trustees of Sarum College have decided to sell the former Principal's house to a declining order of Anglican Benedictine monks. The order consists of four remaining members. The latter have submitted a planning application to Salisbury District Council for a substantial extension.

 

SCCPS Comment:

The planning application is asking for an extension to the existing house which is

• unnecessary in its scope and extent

• out of character with the setting of The Close

A detailed response of the committee of the Salisbury Cathedral Close Preservation Society has been submitted to Wiltshire Council. (Objection, full text..))                                                                                                      

.

Reference Number: S/2010/1319/FULL

Click the link below to view the full planning application and to submit your comments directly to Wiltshire Council: (Up to 14 October 2010)

www.wiltshire.gov.uk/environmentandplanning/planninganddevelopment/2010/1319/applicationdetails.htm

.

Latest Developments (10/05/2011)

The Salisbury Cathedral Close Preservation Society is pleased that the Planning Committee have accepted our objection to inappropriate over-development of this sensitive site. We hope that this overwhelming majority vote of the Committee on 13 January 2011 will open the way to a much more constructive and sympathetic solution.

Appeal

Currently an appeal against the Planning Committee decision has been lodged. The Salisbury Cathedral Close Preservation Society has written to the Inspectorate:

Firstly, the reasons given for refusal of planning permission accurately accord with my memory of the Meeting of the Committee.

The appellant's Reasons for Refusal 2 states that "the Committee took an exclusively negative view of the application". The application was held over for a month to allow a site visit by the Committee prior to the Meeting. Following the presentations by three opposing, then three supporting, speakers a detailed and even handed discussion of considerable duration, involving all members of the Committee, took place. This resulted in a conscientious and considered decision that was unanimous, with one member abstaining.

We have examined the Attachment 2 of the Planning Appeal Form section H in detail and cannot agree with any of the relevant planning conclusions of the appellant. For the sake of brevity we have not recorded this point by point.
 

J.G. Wort Chairman