Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from:

• Councillor Bill Parks, who was substituted by Councillor Mike Sankey

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 4 September 2024.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 4 September 2024 were considered. Following which, it was:

Resolved:

The Committee approved and signed the minutes of the previous meeting held on 4 September 2024 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 specific 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 minutes before the start 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.

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 Wednesday 2 October 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 Friday 4 October 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 Chairman explained the rules of public participation and the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

There were no questions or statements submitted by Councillors or members of the public.

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

The Chairman invited Simon Smith, Development Management Team Leader, to update the Committee on the pending and determined appeals as per the appeals report included within the Agenda Pack.

The two determined appeals were detailed, with Members being informed of the successful defence of application PL/2024/00785 pertaining to a proposed detached 1 bed dwelling on vacant land to the rear of 1 Philip Close, in which it was found that the development would be out of character with the locality and would result in cramped living conditions.

As discussed during the previous meeting of the Committee, application PL/2022/09842, Land off Storridge Road, Westbury, was highlighted with officers reiterating that despite the appeal being successfully defended by the Council and dismissed, the appointed Appeal Inspector had concluded that after examining the Council’s Housing Land Supply position, the Council was now in deficit, having 3.85 years supply when tested against the extant 4-year requirement. It was also explained that the issued decision would now be regarded as a significant material consideration for future appeal decisions. During the discussion, Members suggested that Strategic Planning Officers considered publishing the Council’s Housing Land Supply Statement more frequently than the current yearly publication in order to have a more up to date understanding of the current housing supply position.

Following which, it was:

Resolved:

The Committee noted the appeals report for the period 23 August 2024 to 27 September 2024.

Change of use from a C3 dwelling house to a C2 residential care home.

Public Participation

• Mr John Spencer, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.
• Mr Gareth Jones, agent, spoke in support of the application.
• Ms Sam Choules, applicant, spoke in support of the application.
• Ms Claire Bates, applicant, spoke in support of the application.
• Councillor Lesley Welch, on behalf of Upton Scudamore Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Verity Giles-Franklin, Senior Planning Officer, presented the report which recommended that the Committee approved the application, subject to conditions, for the change of use from a C3 dwelling house to a C2 residential care home. 

It was noted that Members of the Committee had undertaken a site visit on Tuesday 8 October 2024, with the Case Officer being present.

Key material considerations were identified including the principle of development; the impact of the proposal on the setting of nearby Listed Buildings; the impact on the amenity of existing and future neighbouring occupiers; highway safety; and ecology matters.

Attention was drawn to late representations that had been submitted following publication of the agenda, however it was confirmed by officers that the material considerations raised had already been taken into account within the report.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer. Members noted the reliance on private vehicles to and from the site, particularly when considering the different working patterns of staff, and limited public transport options available within the village of Upton Scudamore. Further queries were made with regard to what constituted as exceptional circumstances for the provision of specialist accommodation outside but adjacent to principal settlements, and other aspects such as waste storage, the tenancy arrangements for the property, and the safety of the pond as identified within the location risk assessment.

In response, officers reiterated that the applicants were intending on operating the home as close to a traditional family set-up as possible and would therefore take responsibility for transporting the children to school, after school clubs, and other social or recreational activities. It was further explained that the accessibility of facilities/services from the site, and if these were accessible to the children or the adults caring for them, were considered as one of the criteria when assessing suitable specialist accommodation. However, it was highlighted that Wiltshire’s Core Strategy was not prescriptive when identifying what constituted as acceptable or exceptional circumstances to these provisions, yet due to the proximity of the site to Warminster and Westbury and in light of the intensity of scale of the development, officers were satisfied that the proposal met those criteria and therefore did not consider the application site to represent an unsustainable location.

Furthermore, it was explained that the applicants were intending on screening any applications to the site to ensure that any particular child’s requirements/needs could be met before they were introduced into the home. It was further explained that the applicants were intending on covering the pond with a meshing to mitigate safety risks, that waste would be classed as residential use, and that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

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.