Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillor Paul Oatway QPM. Councillor Oatway was substituted by Councillor Jerry Kunkler.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2017 were presented for consideration and it was,

Resolved:

To approve and sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2017.

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

During debate on application 17/07414/FUL Councillor Richard Gamble declared that he was currently Portfolio Holder for Heritage, Arts and Tourism, and that he would continue to consider the application on its merits and with an open mind.

During debate on application 17/05767/FUL Councillor Jerry Kunkler declared his profession as publican, and that he would continue to consider the application openly and on its merits.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

With agreement of the Commtitee it was announced that in a change to the agenda order application 17/06842/FUL would be considered as the first item.

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 by phone, email or in person no later than 2.50pm on the day of the meeting.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed 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.

Members of the public will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

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 26 October 2017 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 30 October 2017. 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 rules on public participation were noted.

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

An update on planning appeals submitted or undertaken since the last meeting was received. The Committee noted the successful defence rate for decisions for the Eastern area.

Resolved:

To note the update.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The following planning applications were considered.

Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and construction of replacement dwelling and outbuildings (Resubmission of 16/11968/FUL)

Public Participation

Richard Cosker, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Craig Dalby, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer, Nick Clark, introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused for demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings and construction of a replacement dwelling and outbuildings. Key issues were stated to include the impact of the proposed replacement dwelling on neighbour amenity and the character of the area, as well as planning policy in respect of replacement dwellings in the countryside.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

The local unitary division member, Councillor Anna Cuthbert, then spoke in support of the application.

A debate followed, where members considered the scale of the proposed replacement dwelling and whether this complied with planning policy. Members noted that although the proposal was larger than the existing dwelling, planning policy did not specify what constituted too significant an increase in scale, and they considered that the new dwelling was not excessively large for the site or the surrounding area and so would be in accordance with policy. They further noted that the modern construction and design would be an improvement for the site.

A motion to approve the application was moved by Councillor Stewart Dobson, seconded by Councillor James Sheppard, and at the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Demolition of existing garages and erection of two houses with garages

Public Participation

Carolyn Flower spoke in objection to the application.

Margaret Farnon spoke in objection to the application.

Nicholas Tye spoke in objection to the application.

Paul Oakley, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Ian Myhill on behalf of Market Lavington Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Ruaridh O’Donoghue, introduced the report recommended that planning permission be granted for the demolition of existing garages and the erection of two houses with garages. Key issues were stated to include the principle of residential development on the site, impact upon neighbouring residents and the conservation area, and impact upon highway safety/parking arrangements. Details were provided of letters received in objection since the report had been published. It was also noted that incorrect information on the level of parking provision available at the properties of the tenants of the garages had previously been provided, but that this did not affect the officer’s reasons for recommending approval.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. It was confirmed that it was unclear who owned the land upon which the present bridleway was situated and that as a result, anyone using it with a vehicle to access the site would technically be breaching the law as permission of the landowner would be required. This also applied to existing properties and garages along the bridleway that people currently accessed with vehicles. It was also confirmed that a highway safety objections could only be readily substantiated if there would be severe harm from additional vehicle movements, and that officers considered the area was suitable for housing.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

The local unitary division member, Councillor Richard Gamble, then spoke in objection to the application.

A debate followed, where members discussed the principle of the number of dwellings on the site, the impact upon the local highways network resulting from displaced parking, and the suitability of access to the site via the bridleway. The ability for vehicles to turn around on the site was debated, along with the legal situation regarding access, the priority to be given to pedestrian and horse access and the impact for emergency services and delivery vehicles resulting from the layout and the physical characteristics of the bridleway, including its narrow width and the lack of turning areas.

A motion to refuse the application was moved by Councillor Richard Gamble, seconded by Councillor Ian Blair-Pilling, and at the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

The Clays is a bridleway (MLAV24) with a definitive width of just 3 metres across its entire length.  It is unsuitable, by reason of its narrow width and poor quality surfacing, to provide safe and suitable access to the development or to accommodate the additional vehicular movements associated with it.  This would cause conflict with users of the bridleway, including cyclists and pedestrians. 

Furthermore, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Proposed dwelling on site of former horticultural buildings

Public Participation

Howard Waters, agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer, Nick Clark, introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused for a proposed dwelling on the site of former horticultural buildings. Key issues were stated to include the impact upon the setting of Devizes Castle as a scheduled monument and Grade I listed building, and the impact upon other listed buildings nearby and the archaeological potential of the site.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. Details were sought on the likelihood of archaeological remains being present on the slopes of the castle setting, previous development in the area and the status of the site in the context of the Devizes Area of Minimum Change.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

The local unitary division member, Councillor Sue Evans, then spoke in support of the application.

A debate followed, where it was discussed whether there were any public benefits to the scheme which would outweigh any harm caused by development. The design and scale of the proposals was also raised, along with the objections on archaeological and conservation grounds, as well as the significant impact upon the Castle’s setting.

A motion to refuse the application was moved by Councillor Nick Fogg, seconded by Councillor Jerry Kunkler, and at the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1)    The application site occupies a sensitive heritage setting in the designated Area of Minimum Change on the slopes at the base of the Devizes Castle mound, where the largely undeveloped nature of the land and its residual character as former gardens to the castle contribute to the heritage significance of the Scheduled Monument and Grade I listed castle. Within this setting, the proposed dwelling would be visible from a number of directions. The significant size and elevated position of the dwelling and the associated access and garden accoutrements would be detrimental the character and appearance of the site and would intrude upon the heritage setting of the castle and particularly the relationship between the castle and the grade I listed St John’s Church, resulting in less than substantial harm to their heritage significance. As such, the development would be contrary to Kennet Local Plan policy HH10 and Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 57 and Core Policy 58, and in the absence of public benefits sufficient to outweigh the harm, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

2)    The development would necessitate significant excavation and earthworks in an area where there is the potential for significant archaeological remains to exist such as the bailey and/or town defences and medieval settlement remains. In the absence of archaeological investigation of the site, the nature and extent of archaeological remains unclear and thus the impact of the development on the archaeological value of the site cannot be determined. As such, the application would be contrary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Full planning application for a new dwelling on land forming part of the curtilage of the Red Lion Inn, following previous approval 15/09840/FUL.

Public Participation

Councillor Sheila Glass, Chairman of Ramsbury and Axford Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Nick Clark, presented the report which recommended that planning permission be granted for a new dwelling, of a revised height and design, on land forming part of the curtilage of the Red Lion Inn. Key issues were stated to include impact on neighbour amenity and on the character and appearance of the area.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Planning permission had previously been granted for a smaller dwelling in on the site, and details were sought on the differences between the two schemes, which included an increased ridge height and the introduction of rooflights.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

The local unitary division member, Councillor James Sheppard, spoke in objection to the application.

A debate followed, where members discussed whether the increase in height resulting from adding another storey to the dwelling and the addition of rooflights were in keeping with the area, and whether the impact of the changes was such that the impact upon the area and neighbours had significantly increased.

A motion to refuse the application was moved by Councillor Stewart Dobson, seconded by Councillor James Sheppard, and at the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

The dwelling as proposed, by reason of its scale/height (which is not subservient to adjacent buildings) and design, including a proliferation of rooflights which would be unduly prominent, especially at night time due to emanating light, would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area.  It also causes a loss of light to the adjoining property, Pear Tree Cottage, which in turn adversely affects the reasonable living conditions of its occupants.  This conflicts with Core Policy 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires good design.

Following the Committee providing planning policy refusal reasons, precise wording of those reasons was delegated by the Committee to the case officer in consultation with the Chairman.

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.