Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Christine Crisp who was substituted by Cllr Jacqui Lay.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 6 September 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 6 September 2017 were presented.

Resolved:

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

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

Cllr Toby Sturgis declared an interest in agenda item no 8i- 17/02820/OUT - Land south of Brook Farm, Great Somerford, Chippenham. He stated that he did not have a direct pecuniary interest in the item, but due to being a neighbouring land owner, would speak only as the Local Member and leave the room prior to the debate and vote taking place.

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 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 Wednesday 27 September 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 onFriday 29 September 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 Committee noted the rules on public participation.

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

The Committee noted the contents of the appeals update.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting and attached to these minutes, in respect of applications; agenda no 7- Application to Register Land as a Town or Village Green- Land Adjacent to

Vowley View and Highfold, Royal Wootton Bassett, agenda no 8a- 17/03112/FUL - Land adjacent to Barton Piece, Silver Street, Colerne, SN14 8DY, agenda no 8b- 17/06735/FUL - Northwood Barn, Doncombe Lane, North Colerneand,  agenda no 8c- 17/07011/FUL - Land South of Shoe Cottage, The Shoe, North Wraxall, Wiltshire, agenda no 8d- 17/06617/FUL - Blarney Cottage, Biddestone Lane, Yatton Keynell, Nr Chippenham, SN14 7BD

SN14 8SG, agenda no 8f- 17/05460/FUL - Land at Cedar Lodge, 3 Cove House Gardens, Ashton Keynes, Wiltshire, SN6 6NS, agenda no 8g- 17/05672/FUL - Land to West of Forest Lane, Forest Lane, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 3PX, agenda no 8h- 17.07192.FUL - Land off Abberd Lane, Abberd Lane, Abberd, Nr Calne, Wiltshire, SN11 8TE, and agenda no 8i- 17/02820/OUT - Land south of Brook Farm, Great Somerford, Chippenham,

Wiltshire, SN15 5JA, as listed in the agenda pack.

There were no public speakers.

The Rights of Way Officer introduced the Town Green application, to allow consideration of the evidence submitted with an application made under Sections 15(1) and (3) of the Commons Act 2006, to register land adjacent to Vowley View and Highfold, Royal Wootton Bassett, as a Town Green. The Officer gave an overview of the planning history of the site, explaining that since 2002, there had been 4 planning applications, and that there was currently a further application on the land. It was explained that the land had been used by those in the community for various activities, over a number of years, until May 2015, when a gate that had been installed, along with a fence in 2006, was locked. A brief overview of the Legislation was given, namely Sections 15(1) and (3) of the Commons Act, whereby Land may be registered as a Town or Village Green where a significant number of inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, have indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years and they have ceased to do so, the application being made within one year of the cessation of user. The two objections were explained to the Committee. Firstly, regarding the timescales/validity of the application. Secondly, whether a planning trigger event was in place over the land, by reference to the Wiltshire Core Strategy document, which would extinguish the right to apply. Both objections had been raised by the landowner, as legal points against registration. However, Councillors were advised that the correct procedures had been followed in the application and the Council, as the Commons Registration Authority, were satisfied that the application was valid and there was no planning trigger event in place, on the date the application was submitted to the Council. It was noted that there was no challenge to the user evidence submitted with the application.

There were no technical questions.

Cllr Chris Hurst spoke as Local Member and gave his support to the application. He read out a statement from the applicant Mr Gosnell. Cllr Hurst spoke of the Council’s aims to build strong and resilient communities, and maintained that community green spaces were important in this respect. He also referred to his own experience of the area being used for community activities and said that it had been a community asset for many years. Cllr Hurst did, however, declare that he had already made statements in support of this application, and so declared that he would not vote in the application.

In the debate that followed, Cllr Tony Trotman proposed the Officer’s recommendation, which was for approval, this was seconded by Cllr Hutton, and approved by the Committee.

Resolved:

To GRANT the application to register land at Vowley View and Highfold, Royal Wootton Bassett, as a Town or Village Green, and to register the land in full under Sections 15(1) and (3) of the Commons Act  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

The applicant’s agent Ivan Lazzaroni spoke in favour of the application. Cllr Tom Hall from Colerne Parish Council spoke against the application.

The Team Leader introduced the application, which was for the conversion of an existing dilapidated garage into a 2 bedroom house, situated within the Colerne Conservation Area and Cotswolds AONB. A presentation was delivered, which displayed a site plan, photographs of the existing site, and proposed plans. It was also confirmed that the existence of covenant dispute was a civil matter and not a planning consideration for the Committee. It was also clarified that permitted development rights had been removed from the property. Attention was drawn to the Late Observations, which amended conditions 3 and 4 of the Officer’s recommendation for approval.

There were no technical questions.

Members of the public spoke as detailed above.

Cllr Brian Mathews spoke as Local Member. He said that the area was being overdeveloped and that the application would lead to additional parking issues. 

In the debate that followed, Cllr Tony Trotman proposed the Officer’s recommendation for approval. This was seconded by Cllr Ashley O’Neil and approved by the majority.

Resolved:

To GRANT permission subject to the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Existing Ground Floor Plan, Dwg No: A 0.10, Dated: 02/09/2015;

Existing Roof Plan, Dwg No: A 0.11, Dated: 02/09/2015;

Existing Elevations, Dwg No: A 0.20, Dated: 27/07/2015;

Existing Sections: Dwg No: A 0.30, Dated: 02/09/2015;

Proposed First Floor Plan, Dwg No: A 1.01, Dated: 02/09/2015;

Proposed Roof Plan, Dwg No: A 1.02, Dated: 02/09/2015;

plans as received by the LPA 27/03/2017;

Proposed Elevations, Dwg No: A 2.00, Rev: 01, Dated: 27/07/2015;

Proposed Sections, Dwg No: A 3.00, Rev: 01, Dated: 02/09/2015;

plans as received by the LPA 14/06/17; and

Location Plan and Site Plan, Dwg No: 0.01, Rev: 04, Dated: 02/09/2015; plan as received by the LPA 25/07/17; and

Proposed Ground Floor Plan, Dwg No: A 1.00, Rev: 01, Dated: 02/09/2015; and

Proposed SW Elevation, Dwg No: A 2.01, Dated: 26/07/2017; plans as received by the LPA 26/07/2017.

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3 No part of the development hereby approved shall be first brought into use until the garage on the approved plans (A 1.00 REV 01) has been consolidated, surfaced and laid out in accordance with the approved details. This area shall be maintained and remain available for this use at all times thereafter.

REASON: To ensure that adequate provision is made for parking within the site in the interests of highway safety.

4 “Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

The applicant Ben Harraway, and his agents Vic Moore and Chris Dance,  spoke in favour of the application. Cllr Paul Joppins also spoke in favour of the application.

The Team Leader introduced the application, which was for the erection of a replacement dwelling on the site, within the Cotswold AONB.  A presentation was delivered which displayed a site location plan, photographs of the existing site and the proposed plans. It was explained that the application was the demolition of the existing stone built house and for the erection of an eco-build, modular home, which would be timber clad, with a slate roof. Attention was drawn to the Late Observation. The Officer’s recommendation was for approval.

Councillors were invited to ask technical questions and in response Officers confirmed that the house had a certificate of lawfulness to be used as a dwelling, having previously been a holiday let. Furthermore, it was confirmed that the property would be a dwelling in its own right, and would not be attached to another dwelling.

Members of the pubic spoke as detailed above.

Cllr Brian Mathews spoke as Local Member. He explained that the applicant was from a local farming family and that the Council should be supporting them to live in sustainable eco-homes, in area.

In the debate that followed, Councillors discussed the principal of development and the fact that they could support the erection of a new dwelling in principle, but expressed concerns as to the proposed design of this application. Cllr Peter Hutton proposed the Officer’s recommendations. This was seconded by Cllr Ashley O’Neil. In the vote, with one Members abstention, it was a 5/5 split, with the Chairman Cllr Tony Trotman having the casting vote,  in favour of the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Resolved:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its location would be contrary to the settlement, delivery and community area strategies and residential development in the open countryside policy and is unacceptable in principle. The proposal fails to accord with Core Policy 1, 2 and 11 of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015), as well Saved Policy H4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 and Paragraphs 14 and 17 of the NPPF.

2. The proposed development, by reason of loss of the existing building, which entirely appropriate to the distinctive character of the Cotswold AONB, and its replacement with a pre-fabricated bungalow would adversely impact the character and appearance of the Cotswold AONB. The proposal fails to accord with Core Policy 51 (ii and ix) and 57 (i, iii and vi) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015), and Paragraphs 14, 17 and 115 of the NPPF.

Member of the public Mr Decks spoke against the application. The applicant Neil Edwards, and his agent Richard Harlow, spoke in favour of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application, which was for a change of use to a dog kennelling business, erection of dog kennels and conversion of existing building to a small retail unit. A presentation was delivered, which displayed a site location plan, photographs of the existing site and proposed plans. It was explained that part of the application was part retrospective, in that the applicant sought permission for an existing outbuilding to be used as a pet supplies business and reception area. Attention was drawn to the Late Observations, which amended conditions to the Officer’s recommendation of approval.

There were no technical questions.

Members of the public spoke as detailed above.

Local member Cllr Baroness Jane Scott of Bybrook OBE was not present but had requested Cllr Toby Sturgis represent her views in Committee. He stated that the principle concern was the retail unit, with a view that once a retail permission had been granted, this could be extended. He also expressed concerns as to the suitability of such an enterprise in the Cotswold AONB, along with concerns as to the acoustic insulation and increased traffic congestion in the area.

In the debate that followed, Cllr Peter Hutton proposed the Officer’s recommendation of approval, with an additional condition against the external storage of paraphernalia and outside storage of any materials related to the dog kennelling and retail business, which was seconded by Cllr Greenman. However, this motion was withdrawn by Cllr Hutton when it was highlighted that a consultation from the Parish Council had not been received by Officers. Cllr Hutton then proposed a motion to delegate authority to Head of Development Management to approve the application, with an additional condition against the external storage of paraphernalia and outside storage of any materials related to the dog kennelling and retail business, subject to confirmation that the Parish Council’s consultation representations do not raise any material planning matters not addressed at the Committee meeting, but with delegated authority to determine the application if any and if new material planning considerations are raised. This was seconded by Cllr Greenman but voted against by the majority.

Cllr Gavin Grant proposed a motion, which proposed to delegate Authority to Head of Development Management to approve, with an additional condition against the storage of paraphernalia, subject to confirmation that the Parish Council’s consultation representations do not raise any material planning matters not addressed at the Committee meeting, but in the event that new material planning considerations are raised by the Parish Council representation to bring the application back to Committee for determination. This was seconded by Cllr Sturgis and approved by the majority.

Resolved:

To DELEGATE Authority to Head of Development Management to Approve subject to confirmation that the Parish Council’s consultation representations do not raise any material planning matters not addressed at the Committee meeting. In the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

Members of the public Claire Lawrence and Ralph Whittaker spoke against the application. The applicant Hugh Rogers and his agent Sharon White spoke in favour of the application. Cllr Alistair Parker from Yatton Keynell Parish Council spoke against the application.

The Team Leader introduced the application which was to regularise amendments to an original permission, including amendments to the windows, fascia boards, use of materials and dimensions of the approved extension. A presentation was delivered which displayed a site location plan, photographs of the existing site and proposed plans. It was explained that revisions had been negotiated with the applicant as a consequence of enforcement action taken, against changes made outside of the original permissions. Attention was drawn towards the Late Observations, which added an additional condition to the recommended approval.

Councillors were invited to ask technical questions and in response to questions, as to the necessity of the dormer window,  Officers confirmed that all options had been considered and that the amendments were not considered to be significantly harmful to the Cotswold AONB, conservation area, setting of nearby listed buildings or existing neighbouring amenities.  

Members of the public were invited to speak as detailed above.

Local Member Cllr Baroness Jane Scott OBE was not present in the meeting but had requested that Cllr Toby Sturgis represent her views in Committee. He explained that the cumulative total of the changes made were not acceptable and that the dormer window was particularly detrimental to the conservation area.

In the debate that followed, there was strong criticism of the dormer window and the development of the cottage, outside of previous permissions. Cllr Tony Trotman proposed the Officer’s recommendation of approval, seconded by Cllr Hutton. This was voted against by the majority. Cllr Toby Sturgis moved a motion to delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to seek further scheme revisions to reverse the works to the first floor gable end window to the original size and position; and removal of the first floor rear dormer window and replacement with a conservation style rooflight. Subject to securing these amendments to delegate authority to approve as per the conditions in the report. Officers clarified with members that in the event the amendments were not agreed and secured, that permission ought to be refused due to harm to the character and appearance of the locality, including the conservation area and consequent policy conflict. This was seconded by Cllr Grant and approved by the majority.

Resolved:

Delegate Authority to the Head of Development Management to seek further scheme revisions to reverse the works to the first floor gable end window to the original size and position; and removal of the first floor rear dormer window and replacement with a conservation style rooflight. Subject to securing these amendments to delegate authority to the Head of development Management to approve as per the conditions in the report revised as necessary by the revisions. In the event that these revisions are not agreed with the applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

The applicant Peter Hathaway spoke in favour of the application. Cllr Helen Hall from Oaksey Parish Council spoke against the application.

The Team Leader introduced the application, which was for an oak framed mansard (garden room) at the rear of the property, and for removal of timber cladding and making good with matching stone. A presentation was delivered, which displayed site location plan, photographs of existing site and proposed plans. It was explained that concerns had been raised as to the impact to neighbouring residential amenities and character of the area, however, this was not considered to be a significant level of harm and so the recommendation was for approval.

Councillors were invited to ask technical questions and it was stated that due to the layout of surrounding houses, the rear of the property was visible to other properties. . Officers clarified that as part of the original consents for the barn conversions, permitted development rights had been remove by condition, but that this was not a prohibition to all future development in perpetuity but a means to exercise control over and consider the impacts of further householder development.

Members of the public spoke as detailed above.

Cllr Chuck Berry spoke as Local Member. He spoke against the application, expressing concerns as to the future urbanisation of the area. He gave a balanced view of supporting sustainable development but maintained the importance of protecting the heritage of the Oaksey conservation area.

In the debate that followed, Cllr Hutton proposed the Officer’s recommendation,  which was seconded by Cllr Greenman and approved by the majority.

Resolved:

To GRANT subject to the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the

development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the materials listed on the applications form.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

3 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan (Drawing No 10650/04), Block Plan (Drawing No 10650/03), Proposed Plans and Elevations (Drawing No 10650/02) received by the LPA 12/07/2017.

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

4 INFORMATIVE TO APPLICANT:

The applicant should note that the grant of planning permission does not include any separate permission which may be needed to erect a structure in the vicinity of a public sewer. Such permission should be sought direct from Thames Water Utilities Ltd / Wessex Water Services Ltd. Buildings are not normally allowed within 3.0 metres of a Public Sewer although this may vary depending on the size, depth, strategic importance, available access and the ground conditions appertaining to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

Member of the public Steve Shaw spoke against the application. Nicolas Hurst Spoke in favour of the application.

The Team Leader introduced the application, which was for a proposed single storey dwelling. A presentation was delivered, which displayed a site location plan, photographs of the existing site and proposed plans. It was explained that the proposed build was a modern design but would be screened by significant boundary treatments and tree planting and therefore not visually prominent in the locality, or harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Officers referred to the site history and how the revised proposals sought to address previous concerns with a modern design. Officers referred to an additional condition in the Late Observations.

There were no technical questions.

Cllr Chuck Berry spoke as Local Member. He confirmed that previous concerns raised by the parish council had been addressed and their objections were removed. He sought clarity that all trees would be protected, to ensure the screening and it was confirmed that they would be protected.

In the debate that followed, Cllr Chuck Berry proposed the Officer’s recommendation for approval. This was seconded by Cllr Gavin Grant and approved unanimously.

Resolved:

To GRANT subject to the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Proposed Elevations, Site and Block Plans (Drawing No 1652_0411b) and Proposed Ground Floor Plan (Drawing No 1652_0421b) received by the LPA 06/06/2017.

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3 No development shall commence on site until the exact details and samples of the materials to be used for the external walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: The matter is required to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before development commences in order that the development is undertaken in an acceptable manner, in the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area

4 The development shall be carried out as specified in the approved Arboricultural Report prepared by Certhia Consulting Limited dated August 2017 and shall be supervised by an Arboricultural Consultant.

Reason: To prevent trees on site from being damaged during construction works

5 No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until the parking area shown on the approved plans has been consolidated, surfaced and laid out in accordance with the approved details. This area shall be maintained and remain available for this use at all times thereafter.

REASON: To ensure that adequate provision is made for parking within the site in the interests of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Members of the public John Wallis and Sharon Parfitt spoke against the application. The applicant’s agent Jonathan Walton spoke in favour of the application. Cllr Richard Banbury from Chippenham Town Council spoke against the application.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application, which was for the erection of 6 residential units including landscaping, highways layout and related works. A presentation was delivered, which displayed a site location plan, photographs of the existing site and proposed plans. It was explained that there was particular concerns as to the highways impact, with risks to pedestrians, caused by increased vehicle traffic on the narrow lane.  Attention was drawn to the Late Observations, which amended conditions. The Officer’s recommendation was for approval.

Councillors were invited to ask technical questions and in response Officers confirmed that there was no s.106 obligation for the developers and none of the units were affordable housing. It was also confirmed that allocated parking spaces would be provided with the properties.

Members of the public spoke as detailed above.

Local Member Clare Cape was not present.

In the debate that followed, Councillors spoke of the importance of maintaining the lane for residents. Members also discussed the appropriateness of the scale of development in that area, and its effect on the amenity of local residents and neighbouring properties. Cllr Peter Hutton proposed a motion for refusal based on harm to the character of the area, poor quality design of the development and harm to residential amenity of local residents and residential properties, contrary to CP57 (i), (iii) & (vii) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and para 17 of the NPPF. This was seconded by Cllr Howard Greenman and approved by the majority.

Resolved:

REFUSED for the following reason:

The harm to the character of the area, poor quality design of the development and harm to residential amenity of local residents and residential properties is considered to be contrary to CP57 (i), (iii) & (vii) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and para 17 of the NPPF.

There were no public speakers.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application, which was for the erection of 2 No 10 metre high chimneys in association with onsite biomass boilers within approved building. A presentation was delivered showing a site location plan and proposed plans. It was explained that a previous application for the erection of 2 chimneys at this site had been refused, for lack of information being provided to enable Members to determine the application. It was confirmed that all information had now been provided and the Officer’s recommendation was for approval. Attention was also drawn to the Late Observations, which provided for an additional condition requiring the colour of the flue to be non-reflective and requiring written approval of Planning Officers. 

Councillors were invited to ask technical questions and in response Officers confirmed that the chimneys were going to be used to burn wood and that it could be conditioned that the chimneys would need to be removed if no longer required for the use specified in the documentation.

Cllr Alan Hill spoke as Local Member, against the application. He maintained that the application should be refused on the same grounds as the previous application. He stated that there was not enough additional information provided. He explained that the area concerned was becoming increasingly residential and would soon have hundreds of homes, on 3 sides of the site. Comparison was made to the requirements placed on Hills Recycling Centre,  which he stated faced stricter controls, and that the current application should not be approved, without the same impact assessments being made.

In the debate that followed, Cllr Peter Hutton proposed the Officer’s recommendation for approval, with additional conditions for removal of the chimneys, should they no longer be required for their specified use.  This was seconded by Cllr Toby Sturgis but voted against by the majority.

Cllr Gavin Grant proposed a motion for refusal of the application, stating that not enough information had been provided and for the application to be refused as contrary to CP 51, 55, 57(7) and 59 of  Wiltshire Core Strategy. This was seconded by Cllr Brian Mathew and Cllr Peter Hutton requested a recorded vote, which received the requisite number of supporters. Councillors Greenman, Groom, Lay, Mathew and Grant voted in support of this motion. Councillors Berry, Hutton, Sturgis, Hurst and Trotman voted against the motion. Cllr Ashley O’Neil abstained. As Chairman Cllr Tony Trotman had the casting vote, so the motion was defeated.

Cllr Hutton, again, proposed the Officer’s recommendation for approval, with the additional condition for the removal of the chimneys, should they no longer be required for their specified use. This was seconded by Cllr Lay and approved by the majority.

Resolved:

To GRANT permission as per recommendations, with the following additional conditions:

Approved at Committee:

Should the chimneys hereby approved no longer be required for the purpose specified in the submitted documentation. The Chimneys shall be removed from the building and site within 3 months from their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

Member of the public Andy Morris spoke against the application. The applicant’s agent Naomi Hubbard spoke in favour of the application.

Prior to introducing the application the Senior Planning Officer clarified that on the first page of the report it states that the Case Officer and Author of the report was Mark Staincliffe. He confirmed that case officer and original drafting of the report was by Mark Staincliffe. However, the report has been amended by the Head of Development Management, Mike Wilmott in relation to the weight that can be afforded to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. The recommendation within the report has remained the same.

The Senior Planning officer introduced the application, which was for outline planning permission for the erection of 8 dwellings with access to be determined. A presentation was delivered, which displayed the site location plan, photographs of the existing site and proposed plans. Attention was drawn to the Late Observations. The Officer’s recommendation was for approval.

Councillors were invited to ask technical questions and it was confirmed that a 40% affordable housing contribution formed part of the application, as a s.106 agreement, which would equate to 3 houses.

Members of the public spoke as detailed above.

Cllr Toby Sturgis spoke as Local Member. He informed Members that he was the previous owner of the site, but had sold the land with permission in 2006. He explained the planning history behind the application and stated that the drainage issues and s.106 contribution issues, previously identified, had been resolved in the current application. As stated, earlier in the meeting, Cllr Toby Sturgis, exited the Committee room, prior to debate taking place and did not vote.  

In the debate that followed, Cllr Tony Trotman proposed the Officer’s recommendations, this was seconded by Cllr Ashley O’Neil and approved by the majority.

Resolved:

To GRANT permission subject to all parties entering into an agreement under s106 of The Act in respect of bin/recycling facilities and affordable housing, then planning permission be

In the event of failure to complete, sign and seal the required section 106 agreement within the originally defined timeframe to then delegate authority to the Area Development Manager to REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:-

The application proposal fails to provide and secure the necessary and required Services and infrastructure supporting the proposed residential development including Affordable Housing; Ecology and is therefore contrary to Policies CP3 CP43 & CP50, CP57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy Adopted January 2015 and Paras 7, 14 & 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.

Conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

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.