Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllrs Ernie Clark, Sarah Gibson, Christopher Newbury, Pip Ridout, and James Sheppard.

Cllr Ridout was substituted by Cllr Bridget Wayman.

Cllr Gibson was substituted by Cllr Stewart Palmen.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 10 January 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 January 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 or Monitoring Officer.

Cllr Carole King made a non-disclosable declaration of interest in respect of application PL/2021/09013 by virtue of a member of her husband’s family was married to someone who currently farmed on the opposite side of the road to the site. It was confirmed that this interest did not preclude Cllr King from taking part in the debate and vote with an open mind.

Cllr Stewart Palmen declared an Other Registerable Interest in respect of application 20/09659/FUL, by virtue of being a trustee of St. James’ Trust, the landowner. Cllr Palmen withdrew from the meeting in his capacity as a councillor for the entirety of the item and did not participate in discussion or vote on the application.

Cllr Elizabeth Threlfall made a non-disclosable declaration of interest in respect of application PL/2021/03749 by virtue of having worked with the agent for the applicant on an unconnected Neighbourhood Plan (Brinkworth). It was confirmed this minor connection would not prevent her participating or voting on the item.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no 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 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 28 February 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 1 March 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.

A statement from Chris Beaver was received in relation to application 20/09659/FUL, as detailed under Minute 19.

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

The Chairman and the Head of Development Management provided information as set out further in the committee reports for each application on the agenda, explaining why the items had been brought back to the Committee following previous considerations in 2023.

This was as a result of changes to the National Planning Policy Framework announced in December 2023, which was a material consideration for those applications which had not yet had decisions formally issued. Legal advice had been received confirming the need to reconsider the applications in light of the changed circumstances, and a recent appeal decision for application PL/2022/09397 in Semington was regarded as supporting the council’s position. The full implications of the changes, including impact on the planning balance and in some cases amended officer recommendations, were set out in each report.

At the beginning of item PL/2021/09013 a query was raised regarding the likelihood of the council facing costs being upheld in relation to any of the items on the agenda, if a different decision was reached from the first consideration. It was stated that the council was following appropriate processes in response to new material considerations, and following receipt of legal advice, and that it was not expected that this would be assessed as unreasonable.

During the meeting it was also noted that the committee presentations included at Agenda Supplement 1 incorrectly listed the recommendations for the first four applications, as set out for Minutes 15-18, to be approval with conditions, when these were in fact recommended for refusal.

Outline application for the erection of up to 205 dwellings, community hub, public open space, access, infrastructure and associated works (access to be approved with all other matters reserved).

Public Participation

Andrew Lee spoke in objection to the application.

Dr Tony Grieg spoke in objection to the application.

Ian Tinsley spoke in objection to the application.

Chris Marsh, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Phil Keeble, Warminster Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

David Cox, Senior Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that the Planning Inspectorate be advised that had Wiltshire Council remained the deciding authority it would have refused permission for an outline application for the erection of up to 205 dwellings, community hub, public open space, access, infrastructure and associated works.

The background to the application including its initial approval by the Committee on 1 November 2023 subject to the signing of a s.106 legal agreement was detailed, along with revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the impact on the planning balance and other material considerations which had led to a change in recommendation from the officers.

Details were also provided of late and additional representations received. Key issues included the principle of the development, and housing delivery policies.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. It was confirmed that as the application was the subject of an appeal against non-determination, the Committee was being asked to confirm the determination it would have made, not to determine the application itself. Issues were also raised in relation to sewage, and that officers did not consider landscape impact objections would be a suitable reason for refusal.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Cllr Bill Parks, then spoke in objection to the application.

On the motion of Cllr Jonathan Seed, seconded by Cllr Elizabeth Threlfall, it was then without further discussion,

Resolved:

That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that had Wiltshire Council remained the deciding authority for this application then it would have refused planning permission for the following reasons:

1.    Principle of Development

Core Policy 1 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the 'Settlement Strategy' for the County, and in doing so identifies four tiers of settlement - Principal Settlement, Market Town, Local Service Centre, and Large and Small Village.  Within the Settlement Strategy Warminster is defined as a Large Village.  The Principal Settlements, Market Towns, Local Service Centres and Large Villages have defined boundaries, or ‘limits of development’.  Beyond the limits of development is countryside.  The application site lies beyond / outside the limits of development of Warminster, and so is in the countryside.

Core Policy 2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the 'Delivery Strategy'.  It identifies the scale of growth appropriate within each settlement tier. The policy states that within the limits of development of those settlements with defined limits there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development; but outside the defined limits – that is, in the countryside – other in circumstances as permitted by other policies of the Plan, development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Residential development (use class C3) for up to 145 homes, community orchard, children's play areas (LEAP), tree planting, habitat creation and ecology buffers and mitigation; site drainage and associated infrastructure. All matters reserved except for access.

Public Participation

Francis Morland spoke in objection to the application.

David Jenkins spoke in objection to the application.

Jemma Shorrock, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr John Masson, Heywood Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Gen Collins, Senior Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that permission be refused for a residential development (use class C3) for up to 145 homes, community orchard, children's play areas (LEAP), tree planting, habitat creation and ecology buffers and mitigation; site drainage and associated infrastructure. All matters reserved except for access.

The background to the application was explained to be the same as set out for the application at Minute 15, having received initial approval by the Committee on 1 November 2023 subject to the signing of a s.106 legal agreement, with revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the impact on the planning balance and other material considerations leading to a change in recommendation from the officers.

Details were also provided of late and additional representations received, including disagreement on behalf of the Applicant on the council’s legal advice regarding the impact of the NPPF revisions. Key issues included the principle of the development and the council’s settlement and delivery strategies.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. It was confirmed that Highways officers had not amended their lack of technical objection to the application, and that conditions would be able to address any highways concerns.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Cllr Suzanne Wickham, then spoke in objection to the application.

In relation to comments on behalf of the Applicant the officer confirmed that the council’s advice was that reference to an appeal decision in Chichester was not applicable to Wiltshire, and that its position remained as set out in the report in respect of a requirement to demonstrate a four-year housing land supply only.

On the motion of Cllr Bridget Wayman, seconded by Cllr Carole King, it was then without further discussion,

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.    Principle of Development 

Core Policy 1 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the 'Settlement Strategy' for the County, and in doing so identifies four tiers of settlement - Principal Settlement, Market Town, Local Service Centre, and Large and Small Village.  Within the Settlement Strategy Westbury is defined as a Market Town.  The Principal Settlements, Market Towns, Local Service Centres and Large Villages have defined boundaries, or ‘limits of development’.  Beyond the limits of development is countryside.  The application site lies beyond / outside the limits of development of Westbury, and so is in the countryside.

Core Policy 2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the 'Delivery Strategy'.  It identifies the scale of growth appropriate within each settlement tier.  The policy states that within the limits of development of those settlements with defined limits there is a presumption  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Outline planning permission for up to 53 dwellings including formation of access and associated works, with all other matters reserved.

Public Participation

Cllr John Glover, Chairman of Melksham Without Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Mark Gay spoke in support of the application.

Jon Price spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Richard Wood, Chairman of Planning, Melksham Without Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Ruaridh O'Donoghue, Senior Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that permission be refused for outline planning permission for up to 53 dwellings including formation of access and associated works, with all other matters reserved.

The background to the application was explained to be the similar as the previous items at Minutes 15-16, having received initial approval by the Committee on 29 November 2023 subject to the signing of a s.106 legal agreement, with revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the impact on the planning balance and other material considerations leading to a change in recommendation from the officers.

Key issues included the principle of development, the site being outside the limits of development, sustainability of the site and affordable housing provision.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought and provided on the site adjacent to the application which had received permission following an appeal, and which had also been outside the limits of development, although that had been during a period where the council had been required to but unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Cllr Jonathan Seed, then spoke in objection to the application.

During debate a point of order was raised regarding Local Member participation in debates and votes. It was confirmed there was no legal or procedural issues with such participation in itself. Other issues raised in debate included the benefits of affordable housing, particularly larger dwellings which were affordable, and the isolation of the site from local amenities.

Following discussion, and on the motion of Cllr Bridget Wayman, seconded by Cllr Howard Greenman, it was then,

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.    Principle of Development

Core Policy 1 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the 'Settlement Strategy' for the County, and in doing so identifies four tiers of settlement - Principal Settlement, Market Town, Local Service Centre, and Large and Small Village. Within the Settlement Strategy Melksham is defined as a Large Village. The Principal Settlements, Market Towns, Local Service Centres and Large Villages have defined boundaries, or ‘limits of development’. Beyond the limits of development is countryside. The application site lies beyond / outside the limits of development of Melksham, and so is in the countryside.

Core Policy 2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the 'Delivery Strategy'. It identifies the scale of growth appropriate within each settlement tier. The policy states that within the limits of development of those settlements with defined limits there is a presumption in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Outline application (all matters reserved except external access) for residential development of up to 25 dwellings with access to Romsey Road, parking, opens space, landscaping and drainage.

Public Participation

Ivor Ellis spoke in objection to the application.

Gemma Ward spoke in objection to the application.

Aaron Smith spoke in support of the application.

Matt Smith spoke in support of the application.

Lynda King, Senior Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that permission be refused for outline application (all matters reserved except external access) for residential development of up to 25 dwellings with access to Romsey Road, parking, open space, landscaping and drainage

The background to the application was explained to be the similar as the previous items at Minutes 15-17, having received initial approval by the Committee on 16 August 2023 subject to the signing of a s.106 legal agreement, with revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the impact on the planning balance and other material considerations leading to a change in recommendation from the officers.

Key issues included the principle of development, the site being outside the limits of development, scale of the application, and stated positive impact on local education provision.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to queries it was confirmed Whiteparish was designated as a large village, and that no housing sites within the settlement boundary were included in the emerging Local Plan. Details were also sought on pedestrian access to the site, planning policies for new development in villages, grading of the agricultural land that would be lost and its size, and that it was for the Committee to determine how much weight to give to the material considerations, with Members noting the site, whilst outside the limits of development, was bordered on two sides by that limit and other properties.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Cllr Richard Britton, then spoke in support of the application, noting the community benefits of the application listed in the report.

The Committee noted the changed position with the NPPF, but that weight could also be given to other material considerations as appropriate. The previously approved conditions and legal agreement terms were raised.

Following a brief discussion, and on the motion of Cllr Adrian Foster, seconded by Cllr Stewart Palmen, it was then,

Resolved:

To grant planning permission, subject to the prior completion of a S106 Agreement in respect of the Heads of Terms referred to within the committee report for 16 August 2023, and subject to the following 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.

2)    No development shall commence on site until details of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Erection of 50 dwellings and associated access and landscaping works.

Public Participation

David Goodship read a statement in objection to the application on behalf of

Chris Beaver, Agent, spoke in support of the application under Minute 13.

Ruaridh O’Donoghue, Senior Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that permission be granted for erection of 50 dwellings and associated access and landscaping works subject to the signing of a s.106 legal agreement.

The background to the application was explained to be the same as set out for the application at Minutes 15-18, having received initial approval by the Committee on 22 February 2023 subject to the signing of a s.106 legal agreement, with revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the impact on the planning balance and other material considerations.

It was explained that the s.106 agreement had been very near completion at the time of the changes to the NPPF, and that officers considered that the changes did not materially affect the application, noting it was for an allocated housing site, with no other technical objections or relevant material considerations. The recommendation was therefore unchanged from the initial consideration.

Other key issues included the requirements of the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy, with it stated that offsite contributions had been agreed to mitigate for any net loss of biodiversity on the site.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on access to the site, the level of affordable housing being 30% in accordance with policy, and that the application had been brought back despite the unchanged recommendation following legal advice due to the change to at least one significant material consideration.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Cllr David Vigar, then spoke in objection to the application. He raised concerns regarding lack of onsite mitigation for biodiversity, compliance with the bat mitigation strategy, and the need for the site given changes to the NPPF. The adjacent Unitary Member, Cllr Horace Prickett, also spoke in objection to the application.

The officer responded to comments raised stating no objections had been raised on ecological grounds by the council or Natural England in respect of biodiversity and bat mitigation, which was not regarded as an unresolved issue, which was able to be offsite in nature. The site remained an allocated housing site, and if housing did not come forward this would have an impact on future calculations of the housing land supply.

On the motion of Cllr Elizabeth Threlfall, seconded by Cllr Bridget Wayman, and following a comment regarding the buffer zone to the south of the site and the biodiversity mitigation, it was then.

Resolved:

That the Head of Development Management continues to be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to completion of the planning obligation/Section 106 agreement currently in preparation covering the matters set out below, and subject also to planning conditions listed below.

S.106 matters

·         Affordable housing – 30% provision of 15 No.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

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.