Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from:

·       Cllr Paul Oatway QPM

·       Cllr Dr Brian Mathew MP, substituted by Cllr Sam Pearce-Kearney

The Committee sent their best wishes to Cllr Oatway QPM who was unable to attend due to ill health.

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

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

Resolved

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 11 July 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 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 Thursday 15 August 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 August 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 between 28 June and 9 August 2024.

The Chairman observed that the Inspector had allowed applications for the installation of solar panels on the garage of a listed building.

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

Resolved

To note the planning appeals update for the period between 28 June and 9 August 2024.

Redevelopment of redundant farmyard to provide 14 ‘net zero’ dwellings (including 4 affordable dwellings) and associated works.

Public Participation

·       Ms Clare Plank had a statement read out in opposition to the application

·       Mr Richard Cosker (RCC Town Planning) spoke in support of the application

·       Mr Nick Church (Gaiger Brothers Ltd) spoke in support of the application

The Senior Planning Officer, Meredith Baker, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the redevelopment of a redundant farmyard to provide 14 ‘net zero’ dwellings and associated works, be approved subject to conditions and the completion of a S106 agreement. Key details were stated to include the principle, and design, of the development as well as the landscape, highway and drainage impacts.

It was reported that the application had been brought to Committee as it was being recommended for approval despite being a departure from the policies of the Development Plan. The proposed development was in open countryside and was contrary to Core Policy 1 (Settlement Strategy), Core Policy 2 (Delivery Strategy) and Core Policy 61 (Transport and Development) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

However, the Senior Planning Officer explained that the redevelopment of the land, in landscape and visual impact terms, should have significant positive weight in the planning balance. The proposed development would have several benefits including, delivering an 85 percent biodiversity net gain, improving drainage, as well creating a new bus shelter and footway. Furthermore, the proposed development would provide housing on a site which was unlikely to be economically viable for commercial operation without significant rebuilding.

The Senior Planning Officer argued that the benefits that the development would deliver outweighed the harm it would cause, highlighting that Paragraph 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that development should take account of local circumstances to reflect the character, need and opportunities of each area.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Senior Planning Officer. Details were sought about the distribution of affordable housing within the development and whether it met the need identified in the area. The Senior Planning Officer explained that Wiltshire Council’s Housing Enabling Officer had not objected to the scheme, subject to the completion of the S106 agreement. The affordable properties, plots two to five, would include two two-bedroomed dwellings and two three-bedroomed dwellings.

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

The Chairman read out a statement in objection on behalf of Ms Clare Plank, who was unable to attend in person.

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Tamara Reay, then spoke in support of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer then had the opportunity to respond to the points raised by the public and Unitary Division Member.

So that the Committee had something to debate, the Chairman, seconded by Cllr Stuart Wheeler, proposed that the application be approved in line with officer recommendation.

Details were sought about whether the application site was classified as brownfield land. The Senior Planning Officer explained that the site was technically classed as agricultural; the NPPF was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Erection of a new one a half storey garage building.

Public Participation

·       Mr Michael Fowler (Fowler Architecture and Planning Ltd) spoke in support of the application

·       Mr Bill Clemence spoke in support of the application

Cllr Stuart Wheeler recused himself from the Committee and sat with the public. He spoke only in his capacity as Unitary Division Member. 

The Senior Planning Officer, Meredith Baker, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the erection of a one and a half storey detached garage be refused for the reasons outlined in the report. Key details were stated to include the principle of development, as well as the design, highway and ecological impacts. 

Attention was drawn to the location of the proposed development within the East Grafton Conservation Area. The Senior Planning Officer explained that although there was a substantial hedge screening the site, by nature of its design, sighting and 6.1 metre height, the proposed development was contrary to Core Policy 57 (Ensuring High Quality Design and Place Shaping) and Core Policy 58 (Ensuring the Conservation of the Historic Environment) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. As a substantial structure, the proposed one and a half storey garage would not have a subordinate relationship with its host dwelling and would overdevelop the front of the site. Furthermore, insufficient information had been provided to ensure that the proposed development would not harm the surrounding trees and hedgerows, so it was contrary to Core Policy 51 (Landscape) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Senior Planning Officer and Development Management Team Leader, Karen Guest. Details were sought about whether it would be possible, if the development were to be approved, to add a condition to guarantee the retention of the nearby trees and hedge. The Development Management Team Leader explained that it would not be possible to condition the retention of the hedgerow long term unless their trunks were above a certain size. She noted that trees would have a degree of protection as they were in a conservation area but would not necessarily have Tree Protection Orders (TPOs). The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that the existing planning permission for parking on the site included permission to remove the tree shown on page 74 of the agenda pack, so removal of this tree had already been approved. 

 In response to a query about whether the possibility of erecting a single garage had been discussed with the Applicant, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that it had. She noted that she would be likely to recommend approval for a single storey car port on the site. The Development Management Team Leader emphasised that the height of the proposed development in relation to existing buildings on the site was the Planning Authority’s principal concern.

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

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Wheeler then spoke in support of the application, arguing that the proposed application would not be detrimental  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

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.