Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllrs Howard Greenman and Robert Yuill.

Cllr Greenman was substituted by Cllr Bridget Wayman.

In the absence of the Chairman, Cllr Christopher Newbury, the Vice-Chairman, presided over the meeting.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 11 December 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 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.

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 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 Thursday 16 January 2025 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 Monday 20 January 2025. 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 on public participation was noted.

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

Kenny Green, Planning Manager, provided an update on the Council’s housing land supply, particularly in the context of government changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and made reference to the December 2024 member briefing note as set out in Agenda Supplement 2. The Committee also heard a summary on the allowed appeal for housing on land at Glenmore Farm near Westbury.  The Committee was also informed about the revised NPPF and the return of the 5-year housing land supply requirement for the Council as well as being told about the Council’s housing land supply being reduced to 2.03 years (when tested against the necessary 5-year requirement (which is now subject to a 5% buffer).

With respect to the Glenmore Farm appeal, members asked questions seeking additional detail on the meaning of sustainable development and new forms of development outside of defined settlement limits pursuant to electric vehicles becoming more common and the requisite charging infrastructure being a building regulations requirement for new development.  Members also asked about the emerging Local Plan and how Wiltshire’s HLS position compared with our neighbouring Councils, as well as asking about the implications for Wiltshire in 2026 when the HLS will require a 20% buffer - which would effectively require the Council to demonstrate a 6-year housing land supply.  A question was asked whether the emerging Local Plan reserve sites could address the shortfall.

It was then,

Resolved:

To note the update.

Demolition of agricultural buildings and development of up to 500 dwellings; up to 5,000 square metres of employment (class E(g)(i)) & class E(g)(ii)); land for primary school (class F1); land for mixed-use hub (class E / class F); open space; provision of access infrastructure from Sandridge Common (A3102); and provision of all associated infrastructure necessary to facilitate the development of the site (Outline application relating to access)

Note: Please see also see minute 25 of the 19 March 2025 meeting, regarding minor updates to the conditions for this item.

Public Participation

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

Cllr David Pafford, Chairman of Melksham Neighbourhood Plan and Vice-Chairman of Melksham Without Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Teresa Strange, Clerk to Melksham Without Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Jacqueline Mulliner, agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

Senior Planning Officer, Steve Sims, presented a report which recommended that authority be delegated to the Director of Planning to grant outline planning permission for development of up to 500 dwellings and up 5000 square meters of employment land for uses falling within classes E(g)(i)) & class E(g)(ii) and other matters detailed in the report, subject to the completion of a s.106 legal agreement and planning conditions.

Key issues included the scale of development, highway and access matters with the vehicular access onto the A3102 being the only detailed matter for assessment), the landscape and visual impacts, land drainage and ecology as well as setting out relevance of the emerging Local Plan, our adopted policies and design guide.

The Council’s emerging local plan status and the application’s broad conformity with the emerging WLP in terms of the red lined site area was explained, along with explaining the increased housing quantum that required a balanced judgement given the lack of any technical objections to the application at a time when the Council’s HLS was significantly below the required 5 year requirement. 

The detailed means of vehicular access was explained along with the modelling work that informed its design and acceptability. The Committee was also informed of the necessary s106 contributions to include 40% affordable housing, as well as developer contributions for various infrastructure including highways and PRoW improvements, £750,000 to go towards a new bus service to link the site with the town centre, £512,727 to go towards funding local health care improvements at the Giffords Surgery and Spa Medical Centre in Melksham, securing public open space and a developer contribution for £118,000 to enhance local leisure/ sporting provision (as a summary of some of the identified necessary s106 obligations).

Members were also advised of the negotiated agreement officers had reached with the applicant to agree to construct future highway infrastructure up to the western site boundary to prevent a future ransom strip scenario impacting upon site permeability and having a future linkage with the Skylark Roundabout and Eastern Way. Following member/officer exchanges, it was accepted that the ‘no ransom’ strip s106 obligation could be extended to also refer to the southern boudnary to avoid compromising future highway connections to the identified employment site within the application site and the emerging local plan employment land allocation outside the site parameters.

The report concluded that officers considered there were no technical grounds to refuse the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Outline planning application for the development of up to 150 residential dwellings with associated parking, green infrastructure, engineering works and other infrastructure with all matters reserved except access.

Public Participation

Ruth Pocock spoke in objection to the application.

Colin Danks, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Principal Planning Officer, Victoria Davis, presented a report which recommended that authority be delegated to the Director of Planning to grant outline planning permission for development of up to 150 dwellings and other matters detailed in the report, subject to the completion of a s.106 legal agreement and conditions. Key issues included the principle of development, impacts upon highways, residential amenity, ecology, and flooding.

Details were provided on the access plans for the site, 40% affordable housing allocation, lack of objection from conservation officers subject to appropriate mitigations, and policy considerations. The site was contrary to parts of the existing Local Plan and an unallocated site, but particularly due to the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and lack of five year housing land supply, on assessment under appropriate policies it was considered that benefits outweighed any harm, and there were no technical grounds to refuse the application.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. Additional details were sought on flood risk assessment on the site given recent major flooding within the Chippenham area, on proposed highways improvements and usage, confirmation that the Town Council maintained its initial objections, and that they had expressed interest in taking on the proposed allotments as part of the application.

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

The adjoining Division Member, Cllr Ashley O’Neill, then spoke in objection to the application, highlighting changes to government policy and the negative impacts leading to recommended approval of unsuitable sites such as the application.

The Local Division Member, Cllr Clare Cape, then spoke in objection to the application, highlighting concerns regarding traffic, education, and the speculative nature of the application.

The item was then opened for debate. Given the housing situation and recommendations as outlined, it was not considered there were grounds in this specific case to refuse the application. On the motion of Cllr Bridget Wayman, seconded by Cllr Jonathan Seed, it was then,

Resolved:

To delegate to the Director of Planning to grant the application subject to all parties entering into an agreement under s.106 to the Town and County Planning Act 1990 (as amended) as specified at seconds 9 and 10 of the report, 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 the following matters (in respect of which approval is expressly reserved) have been submitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Development of a solar farm of up to 40MW ac of export capacity, comprising the installation of solar photovoltaic panels, associated infrastructure and associated works including grid connection.

Public Participation

Chris Niker spoke in objection to the application.

Sarah Merrick, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Max Sealy spoke in support of the application.

Ian Pitman spoke in support of the application.

Simon Smith, Planning Manager, presented a report which recommended that permission be granted for development of a solar farm of up to 40MW of export capacity, comprising the installation of solar photovoltaic panels, associated infrastructure and associated works including grid connection. Key issues included the principle of development, the use of agricultural land, landscape and highways impacts, and other matters as set out in the report.

Details were provided on the proposed access for the site, the provision of a community orchard, and National Planning Policy Framework policies in support of renewable or low carbon development where impacts can be made acceptable.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. Details were sought on the condition of local highways, with improvements required by conditions to ensure these were suitable for the construction traffic and other matters. Queries were also raised on assessing the level of visual or landscape impact of a solar farm, including the distance and direction from which there would be any detrimental visual impact. Officers stated there were some conflicts with relevant WCS policy in terms of developing the greenfield site, but when tested against the NPPF and having due regard to appeal decisions, officers reported that the application should be approved with the requisite planning conditions including appropriate mitigation.

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

The item was then opened for debate. There was discussion on the relevant planning policies relating to the benefits of renewable energy installations and associated infrastructure, as well as reflecting upon the long-term use of the site, and the diversification of farmland. On the motion of Cllr Jonathan Seed, seconded by Cllr Stewart Palmen, it was then,

Resolved:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following planning conditions: 

Scope of permission 

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 permission hereby granted shall be for a temporary period and shall expire 40 years from the date that electricity from the development is first exported to the electricity distribution network (‘First Export Date’) or no later than 44 years from the date of this decision, whichever is the sooner. Written confirmation of the First Export Date shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority no later than 1 calendar month after that First Export Date. Within 6 months of the date of expiry of this planning permission, or, if sooner, the cessation of the use of the solar panels for electricity generation purposes for a continuous period of 6  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Application for outline planning permission for up to 55 residential units (all matters reserved other than access)

Public Participation

Matthew Symons, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Adam Madge, Principal Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that delegated authority be authorised to officers to grant outline planning permission for up to 55 residential units (all matters reserved other than access), subject to the completion of a s.106 legal agreement and compliance with planning conditions. Key issues included the scale of development, the visual and landscape impacts, highway and access implications and design.

Details were provided on the proposed access for the site, its location, and relevant planning policies particularly in the context of the council’s lack of a five-year housing land supply. Attention was also drawn to late correspondence received from the NHS, who owned the site, and supported the application identifying the perceived benefits of the proposed development.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. In response to queries it was confirmed that the site lay directly alongside the Cotswolds National Landscape. It was also confirmed following Member questions, that the National Landscape Board were not a statutory consultee and had not been sent a formal consultation on the application which several Committee members considered a material omission.  Consequently, it was suggested that a motion to vote on a deferment to allow officers to consult with the Cotswolds National Landscape Board and to report back to Committee was mooted.

Those Members of the public who had registered to speak to the item then had the opportunity to express their views before the Committee considered the proposal to defer. One speaker made representations, as detailed above.

The Local Member, Cllr Gavin Grant, supported a deferment of the application to receive the comments from the Cotswolds National Landscape Board.

The item was then opened for debate. On the motion of Cllr Jonathan Seed, seconded by Cllr Adrian Foster, and without further discussion, it was then,

Resolved:

To defer the application to the next meeting (if a consultation response from the Cotswolds National Landscape Board was to be forthcoming in time). Otherwise, to report the application back at the earliest possible date and to place the item first (under the planning items) on a future confirmed and published agenda.

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.