Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from:

·       Cllr Tony Pickernell (substituted by Cllr Jerry Kunkler)

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2024.

On the proposal of the Chairman, seconded by Cllr Adrian Foster, it was:

Resolved

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2024 as a true and correct record.

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

In order to speak freely as the Unitary Division Member for Item 7 (PL/2022/08744), Cllr Iain Wallis declared that he would not vote on, or participate in, the formal debate about the application. Cllr Wallis sat with the public attendees for the duration of the item and only spoke in his capacity as local member. 

Cllr Adrian Foster declared a non-registerable interest in relation to Item 9 (20/02272/FUL) that his wife was a leaseholder of Stonewater Housing. He would leave the room in his capacity as a councillor so would not vote on, or participate in, the formal debate about the application. Cllr Foster sat with the public attendees for the duration of the debate and did not speak, or vote, on the item. 

For transparency, Cllr Foster also made an additional declaration in relation to Item 12 (PL/2023/01684) that he knew residents in Bytham Road. He would still participate in the debate and vote on the application.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman reported that Cllr Carole King and Cllr Ross Henning had both been appointed as substitute members of the Committee.

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 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 Thursday 15 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 Monday 19 February 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 Committee noted the rules on public participation.

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

On the proposal of the Chairman, seconded by Cllr Stuart Wheeler, it was:

Resolved

To note the appeals report for the period 12 January to 9 February 2024.

Outline application (all matters reserved except for access) for part conversion and part redevelopment of the Devizes Community Hospital site to provide up to 58 no. residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and circa 67.7sqm flexible commercial unit (Use Class E), including the retention and conversion of two original buildings to the east of the site, with associated landscaping and parking.

Public Participation

·       Mr Mark Adams (NHS Property Services Ltd) spoke in support of the application.

·       Mr Marc Hoenen (NHS Property Services Ltd) spoke in support of the application.

·       Cllr Richard Ormerod (Devizes Town Council) spoke in opposition to the application.

The Senior Planning Officer, Ruaridh O’Donoghue, introduced a report which recommended that the outline application for the part conversion and part development of the Devizes Community Hospital site, to provide up to 58 residential units and a circa 67.7 metre squared commercial space, be approved. The approval would be subject to a Section 106 agreement and the conditions outlined in the report. It was noted that the application would include associated landscaping and parking, as well as the conversion of two historically significant buildings (non-designated heritage assets) to the east of the site. All other matters, excluding the access arrangements, would be considered under a reserved matters application. Key details were stated to include the principle of development, highway safety, drainage, parking, heritage and landscape impacts.

The Committee were reminded that they had deferred the application at their previous meeting so that they could consider a review undertaken by Dixon Searl Partnership, on behalf of Wiltshire Council, about the financial viability assessment produced for the Applicant by Montague Evans. The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that both reports had concluded that the development would be unable to viably support any affordable housing. However, there were differences between the conclusions of the two reports, which were set out on pages 48-49 of the agenda pack.

It was noted that the provision of 30 percent affordable housing was a requirement for sites of five or more dwellings, so the development was in breach of Core Policy 43 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. However, the requirement of Core Policy 3 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy had been met as an ‘open book’ viability assessment by an independent third party had been completed. Development Plan policy allowed for contributions not to be met in full if there were concerns about viability and it was felt by the Senior Planning Officer that the substantial benefits of the development, such as safeguarding heritage assets and the regeneration of the site meant that the development should be approved.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Further details were sought about the financial viability of the provision of affordable housing.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the NHS was planning to sell the land on to a commercial developer and that Dixon Searl Partnership had concluded that the gross development value was below the minimum threshold to be commercially viable.

In response to a query about whether, if outline permission were granted, it would be possible to stipulate that a further viability review was undertaken at the reserved matters stage, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that Core Policy 3 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy did not require a further review. He noted that some applicants did accept a recommendation for a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Change of Use from Agricultural to Equine Clinic with associated buildings, access and landscaping improvements.

Public Participation

·       Ms Mary Gillmore (Campaign to Protect Rural England, Kennet Group) spoke in opposition to the application

·       Mr Martin Ephson, OBE, spoke in opposition to the application

·       Ms Kate Featherstone-Godley, spoke in opposition to the application

·       Mr Howard Waters (Agent), spoke in support of the application

·       Dr Andrew Buthe, spoke in support of the application

·       Mr Benjamin Hosack, spoke in support of the application

The Senior Planning Officer David Millinship introduced a report which recommended that the application for the change of use from agricultural land and the creation of an equine clinic with associated access and landscaping improvement, be approved for the reasons outlined in the report. Key details were stated to include the principle of development, landscape and visual impact and impact on neighbouring amenity.

It was explained that the proposed development involved both building work and a change in land use. The land on the site to the south of the river Og was proposed to be changed into an equine orthopaedic clinic use, along with the erection of a large multi-purpose barn to accommodate stables, storage (feed and machinery), office space, laboratory/diagnostics area and an indoor exercise area. The site included a Scheduled Ancient Monument, the Dam of King’s Fishpond. The position of the proposed barn on the site had been revised in order to help minimise its impact on the monument. It was also noted that the Grade II* listed Poulton House was located close to the site. However, it was the opinion of officers that the proposed development would not substantially alter the distinctively rural character of the site, meaning that the wider setting of the Grade II* building would be preserved. 

Attention was drawn that a number of late submissions had been sent to the Committee, but the Senior Planning Officer did not believe that these would impact his recommendation. He recommended that an additional condition relating to the final design and materials of the bridge on site was also applied. The original plan had featured two bridges on the site, but this had been reduced to one following concerns from the Environment Agency. 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Senior Planning Officer. Details were sought on whether there was a retrospective element to the application for the equine clinic and whether, if the application was not approved, this would have an impact on the existing business. The Senior Planning Officer explained that it was a grey area about whether the existing use was lawful. A historic application for the existing stables had a ‘no commercial use’ restriction on it but, a separate application for the manège did not have any use restrictions. If the application were to be granted, it would enable the equine clinic use across the whole site, subject to the restrictions and controls imposed by the recommended conditions.

In response to a query about road safety, the Senior Planning Officer noted that a third-party assessment commissioned by a neighbour  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Demolition of former coach depot buildings and bungalow; redevelopment of site for 27no. dwellings including associated highways, parking and landscaping.

Public Participation

·       Mel Clinton (Nash Partnership, on Behalf of Stonewater Housing) – spoke in support of/opposition to the application

·       Cllr Owen White, Lugershall Town Council – spoke in objection to the application

The Senior Planning and Conservation Officer Georgina Wright introduced a report which recommended that the application for the demolition of former coach depot buildings and bungalow; redevelopment of site for 27 dwellings including associated highways, parking and landscaping, be approved. Key details were stated to include the principle of development, design, highway and ecological impacts.

Attention was drawn that the plan references in Condition 2 of the report needed to be amended to correctly identify plans submitted for approval; and Condition 9 in the recommendation needed to be amended to include reference to the two metre wide footpath as well as the 1.5 metre wide footpath. It was also noted that outline permission for 25 dwellings was granted in 2017 and that as a subsequent reserved matters application had been submitted that was still undetermined, the original 2017 application remained a material consideration for the Committee when assessing the application before them. It was noted that the proposals had identified six affordable housing units, 22 percent of the total. However, the Applicant was a Housing Association and had indicated that it was their intention to build the site with 100 percent affordable housing.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Senior Planning and Conservation Officer. Details were sought on whether discussions had been held with the nearby Tesco Express regarding access arrangements for their delivery vehicles. In response, the Senior Planning and Conservation Officer explained that, although Tesco had raised road safety concerns, Wiltshire Council’s Highways Team were satisfied that viable alternative arrangements were available. It was also noted that the extant permission from 2017 had set a precedent that 25 residential units could be adequately accessed using the same access point.   

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

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Christopher Williams then spoke about the application, explaining that he had called the application in to gain clarification about the project and in particular the access.

In response to the points raised by the public and Unitary Division Member, the Senior Planning and Conservation Officer explained that the development had a H shaped cul-de-sac layout which would allow turning points for larger vehicles. She reiterated that Wiltshire Council’s Highways Team had not objected to the application on highway safety grounds.

So that the Committee had something to debate, the Chairman, seconded by Cllr Jerry Kunkler, proposed that the application be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report, subject to the revisions advised by the Senior Planning Officer, and the agreement of a S106 agreement to secure affordable Housing and contributions towards off site infrastructure.

A debate followed where the number and height of the houses as well as the provision of affordable dwellings were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Erection of 24 dwellings (10 affordable and 14 market dwellings) and associated works and widening of the public right of way along the eastern site boundary.

Public Participation

• Mr Les Durrant – spoke in support of the application

The Senior Planning Officer David Millinship introduced a report which recommended that the application for the erection of 24 dwellings, 10 of which would be affordable and 14 sold at market value, be approved. The scheme would also involve associated works and the widening of the public right of way alongside the eastern boundary of the site. Key details were stated to include the principle of development, design, highway conservation and landscape impacts.

Attention was drawn to the measures that the proposed development was on a brownfield site, within the defined settlement boundary of Marlborough and adjoined other residential areas. The scheme would involve the retention and enhancement of a wooded tree belt surrounding the site and new areas of landscaping would be created. 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Senior Planning Officer. Details were sought on whether it would be possible to condition who the market rate properties were sold to and it was confirmed that this would not be possible.

In response to a query about whether the development would comply with the design guide approved by Wiltshire Council on 20 February 2024, the Senior Planning Officer was not able to say categorically but it was his understanding that it would meet most of the recommendations. The proposed development was judged to be capable of satisfying the requirements of good design as set out in Core Policy 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. It was noted that there was a proposed condition in the report relating to the construction materials to be used.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the committee as detailed above. It was confirmed that the rubble on the site was a legacy of the old railway station in Marlborough.

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Jane Davies, was not in attendance.

The Senior Planning Officer was given the opportunity to respond to the points raised by the public.

So that the Committee had something to debate, the Chairman, seconded by Cllr Adrian Foster, proposed that the application be granted, subject to entering into a legal agreement to secure the financial contributions in the report and to secure a scheme of 10 affordable housing units, as well as to secure the requirement to enter into an agreement with the Local Highway Authority to complete the widening and surfacing of MARL30).

A debate followed where the provision of affordable housing was discussed. As the conclusion of the debate, it was:

Resolved

To GRANT the application for the erection of 24 dwellings, 10 of which would be affordable and 14 sold at market value, and associated works including widening of the public right of way along the eastern site boundary.

Conditions

1.Timeframe

The works 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 92  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Erection of single dwelling and associated works to existing access and landscaping.

The Chairman took this item in advance of Item 8.

Public Participation

·       Mr Richard Cosker – spoke in support of the application

·       Mr Tom Kent – spoke in support of the application

·       Mr Greg Wilkinson - spoke in support of the application

·       Mr Adam Slusarczyk (Bromham Parish Council) – spoke in support of the application

The Senior Planning Officer Jonathan James introduced a report which recommended that the application for the erection of a single dwelling and associated works to the existing access and landscaping, be refused for the reasons outlined in the report. An existing agricultural building would be demolished to make way for the new dwelling. Key details were stated to include the principle of development, the settlement strategy, sustainable transport and supporting rural life.

Attention was drawn that the application had been called in to discuss its merits against the policies of the Development Plan. The Senior Planning Officer explained that the site was in open countryside, outside of the limits of development so was not in accordance with Core Policy 1 (Settlement Strategy) or Core Policy 2 (Delivery Strategy) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. Furthermore, although the proposed new dwelling reflected the agricultural character of the exiting building, the proposed dwelling would have an urbanising effect on the area. The proposed development would be contrary to Core Policy 51 (Landscape) and Core Policy 57 (Ensuring High Quality design and Place Shaping) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. Wiltshire Council’s Landscape Officer had raised concerns that external lighting could have a potential impact on the dark skies and rural tranquillity of the countryside.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Senior Planning Officer. Details were sought about paragraph 84e of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) permitting buildings in the open countryside if their design was of exceptional quality, being truly outstanding and reflecting the highest standards in architecture. In response the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that these could be permitted if the building were to help to raise the standards of design more generally in rural areas and would significantly enhance a building’s setting and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area. However, the Senior Planning Officer explained that, although the building would be capable of being built to passivhaus standards, this was becoming increasingly common practice and in his view the building did not meet the very high threshold to be considered outstanding.

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

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Laura Mayes then spoke in support of the application.

In response to the points raised by the public, Parish Council and Unitary Division Member, the Senior Planning Officer noted that Wiltshire Council’s Landscape Officer did not raise objections but had concerns about the impact of the external lighting.

So that the Committee had something to debate, Cllr Dr Brian Mathew, seconded by Cllr Stuart Wheeler, proposed that the application be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Proposed Erection of 6 No Dwellings (Class C3) and associated works.

Public Participation

·       Mr Malcom Exeter (Campaign for the Protection of Rural England) -spoke in opposition to the application

·       Miss Victoria Convey – spoke in support of the application

The Senior Planning Officer Meredith Baker introduced a report which recommended that the application for the erection of six Class C3 dwellings be refused for the reasons outlined in the report. Key details were stated to include the principle of development, design, transport and landscape impacts.

Attention was drawn that two late representations in support of the application that had been sent to the Committee by the Applicant on behalf of the local primary school and a nearby business. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that neither of these would change her recommendation to refuse the application. She reported that, since the publication of the report, the Applicant had now agreed that two of the units would be provided as affordable dwellings, so the information included in the final paragraph on page 247 of the agenda pack relating to affordable housing was out of date.

It was noted that the application site was located in an elevated position in open countryside outside of the settlement boundary, so the proposed development would be contrary to Core Policy 1 (Settlement Strategy) and Core Policy 2 (Delivery Strategy) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. The Senior Planning Officer also raised concerns that Unit 6, at the southern end of the site, would have an inset dormer window that would have a direct outlook into the private amenity space of Unit 5. As the dormer window in question was the sole window in a bedroom, it would not be possible to add a condition to impose obscure glazing and, as such, the arrangements were Contrary to Core Policy 57 (Ensuring High Quality Design and Place-Shaping). 

The Senior Planning Officer also noted that the development was in close proximity to the A346 and that Wiltshire Council’s Public Protection Officer had raised concerns that closed windows with trickle vents would be relied upon to mitigate noise pollution. As insufficient evidence had been presented by the Applicant to justify this approach, or to demonstrate that it would not lead to an unacceptable level of overheating, the application was in further breach of Core Policy 57 as well as the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework as well as the ‘Planning Consultation Guidance Notes Section 5 – Good Acoustic Design.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Senior Planning Officer. Details were sought on sustainable transport options to the site. It was noted that there was a proposed footpath to the site and that there was a bus stop in Ogbourne St George. However, the Senior Planning Officer explained that there would be a reliance on private vehicles to access the site to access the facilities and services required for day-today living, so the development was contrary to Core Policy 60 (Sustainable Transport) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

In response to a query  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

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.