Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllrs Jonathon Seed and Robert Yuill.

Cllr Seed was substituted by Cllr Richard Britton.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 17 April 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 April 2024 were presented for consideration, and it was,

Resolved:

To approve and sign the minutes as a true and correct record.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to speak either in favour or against an application or any other item on this agenda are asked to register no later than 10.20am on the day of the meeting. If it is on the day of the meeting registration should be done in person.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are linked to in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. The Chairman will allow up to 3 speakers in favour and up to 3 speakers against an application, and up to 3 speakers on any other item on this agenda. Each speaker will be given up to 3 minutes and invited to speak immediately prior to the item being considered. Representatives of Parish Councils are included separately in the speaking procedure, please contact the officer listed for details.

Members of the public and others will have had the opportunity to make representations on planning applications and other items on the agenda, and to contact and lobby their local elected member and any other members of the planning committee, prior to the meeting.

Those circulating such information prior to the meeting, written or photographic, are advised to also provide a copy to the case officer for the application or item, in order to officially log the material as a representation, which will be verbally summarised at the meeting by the relevant officer, not included within any officer slide presentation if one is made. Circulation of new information which has not been verified by planning officers or case officers is also not permitted during the meetings.

Questions

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution which excludes, in particular, questions on non-determined planning applications.

Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such questions in writing to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on Tuesday 28 May 2024 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on Thursday 30 May 2024. Please contact the officer named on the front of this agenda for further advice. Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent.

Details of any questions received will be circulated to Committee members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

The procedure for public participation was noted.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals, and any other updates as appropriate.

Kenny Green, Development Management Team Leader explained that there were no appeal decisions to report. However, there was one outstanding appeal referenced that was subject to a hearing taking place simultaneously (hosted in Chippenham).

The cited appeal related to application PL/2022/05221, for a Gypsy/Traveller site at Clackhill Yard, Bradenstoke. The application had come to the Strategic Planning Committee on 10 January 2024 and had been refused for a number of reasons including the sustainability of the location; site access along a narrow unlit highway with no pedestrian pavement, site isolation from the nearby settlement as well as obtrusive boundary treatment.

Note: This update was given under Chairman’s announcements instead of under Planning Appeals and Updates.

Construction of a care home (within Class C2), parking, access, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works.

Public Participation

Anna Gillings (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Gen Collins, Senior Planning Officer, introduced a report regarding an application for the construction of a 71-bed care home (within Class C2), parking, access, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works. The recommendation was that the Head of Development Management be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the first completion of a planning obligation/Section 106 legal agreement covering the matters set out in the report, and subject to the planning conditions listed in the report.

Attention was drawn to some drafting errors in the report where on one occasion it referred to access off Snowberry Lane, which should have read access off Verbena Court and Cranesbill Road. Also, the report referred at one point to Westbury Market Town, which should have read Melksham.

The application had been called in by the local division Member, Cllr Mike Sankey, on the basis of the scale of the development and concerns regarding pressure on NHS services.

The application had been consulted on twice and 4 objections from local residents had been received. Both the local councils; Melksham Without Parish Council and Melksham Town Council had objected to the application for the reasons set out in the report.

The application site was described as being located to the West of the Eastern Way bypass on land adjoining the completed local centre comprising retail with flats above, and that the application site was previously identified for development as part of the urban extension of Melksham.

The committee were informed that most of the surrounding land forming part of the consented urban extension development, had been built out with the proposed access to the application site being through Verbena Court – which serves the local centre, housing and public house.

The case officer explained the extent of residential development within the wider area and the nearby Forest and Sandridge Primary School with buildings generally being 2 to 3 stories in height.

Slides were shown to the Committee detailing the site, its locality and the proposal. The Committee was advised that the application site was located outside the settlement boundary, but it forms a part of the urban extension with the site context being a material factor.

With the plan framework taken fully into account, policy requires that this application be assessed against evidential genuine need as required by Core Strategy policy CP46. Members were advised that with the emerging local plan and mindful of the site context, officers considered this site to very likely form part of a future re-drawn settlement boundary for Melksham.

The Committee was informed that the application submission was supported by a needs assessment and the essential details were set out in the committee report. Members heard that the Council’s Adult Social Care team had been consulted and confirmed that there was a genuine need for this care home to address current shortfall and ensure market equilibrium in the coming years.

The Committee also heard that the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Reinstatement of a stretch of approximately 140m of the B4069, the Lyneham Banks section, located 2km northwest of Lyneham, including associated engineering, land drainage works and demolition.

Callan Powers, Senior Planning Officer, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the reinstatement of a stretch of approximately 140m of the B4069, known as the Lyneham Banks section, located 2km northwest of Lyneham, including associated engineering, land drainage works and demolition, be approved with conditions.

The officer explained that the road was a single carriageway road up a steep hill to Lyneham, that had been closed since February 2022 following a major landslip. Slides of the damage were shown to the Committee, which was quite extensive, and the road remains currently unusable.

The Committee was informed that the application site extends to approximately 4 hectares and includes land above and below the road. The land below the road was described as agricultural with the land above the road being occupied by an incomplete dwelling.

The Committee heard that there were no landscape or heritage concerns with the proposal.

As a result of the road closure, detours were in place, putting pressure on a single-track road which had to be made one way, and the Committee heard there were long diversions in place that have had significant effects on local residents.

Plans were shown of the proposed works, which included a herringbone drainage system and engineering works to redesign the slope. Site management plans covering the construction phase would require conditioning to ensure the works are completed in a timely manner.

The proposal would deliver substantial benefit and subject to planning conditions, officers were very supportive.

In response to technical questions from Members of the committee, the officer explained that the application was before the committee as it had met the threshold for a regulation 3 application (being a Wiltshire Council application which had received at least 1 objection from a member of the public). It was further confirmed that had it not received any objections, the application would likely have been made under delegated authority.

In relation to a query about compulsory purchase, Jack Francis, from the Councils highways project team, explained that there was an agreement in principle for the land to the north of the highway, and ongoing negotiations regarding land to the south. The Committee was informed of the statutory powers available to the Council, if required.

In relation to land drainage, the scheme would improve matters and there would not be additional flow as a result of the works, in fact the solution would provide a 20% betterment.

In response to questions regarding the cost of the scheme, Members were advised that this was not a planning consideration. However, Members could look back at reports which went to the Cabinet meeting on 16 April 2024 for further details, including potential costs.

It was furthermore confirmed that the intention was that there would be no built form on the land to the north of the road and that the incomplete dwelling would be removed. In relation to the stability of the rest of the road, officers confirmed that it would continue to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Any other items of business, which in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency.

There were no urgent items.