Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies had been received from:

·       Councillor Andy Oliver

·       Councillor Ricky Rogers

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2025 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

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.

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 13 February 2025, in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response question must be submitted no later than 5pm on Monday 17 February 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.

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

The committee received details of the appeal decisions as detailed in the agenda.

It was,

Resolved:

To note the update

Construction of three dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping

Public Participation

Mr Matt Holmes (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Mr Keith Hartland spoke in support of the application

Cllr Kirsty Exton, (Chairman) of Idmiston Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Senior Planning Officer, Becky Jones, introduced a report which recommended that the application forDemolition of existing dwelling and annex and construction of 4 dwellings (Resubmission of PL/2023/08067) be approved, subject to conditions.

The Officer summarised late correspondence, which related to a response from the Tree Officer, stating no objection subject to conditions and a letter from a third party who had already submitted an objection, reiterating points around drainage and the demolition of former function room at the hotel, which had been carried out under permitted development rights.

Key details were stated in the report to include the principle of development, Landscape/visual impacts, Residential amenity, Highways, Archaeology and Ecology/River Avon SAC catchment.

Within the presentation slides the extent of existing settlement boundary, proposed street scene and proposed site plan were explained. 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the width of the proposed driveways and the impact of the Council not being able to demonstrate a 5 year Housing Land Supply (HLS).

The Officer clarified that Highways had looked at the drawings in relation to the standard requirements and had no objection to the driveway measurements.

In relation to the impact of the shortfall of a 5 year HLS, significant weight should be given to the consideration of development when there were good reasons to do so. A tilted balance would tip in favour of allowing dev in housing settlement boundaries.

Clarification was sought on the inclusion of swept paths in the proposal and whether this would be enforceable. The Officer confirmed that Highways had not objected on the basis that the development was built as per the submitted plans, which included the swept paths, so if the applicant deviated from this during construction, then there would be a breach which could be managed by enforcement.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the committee as detailed above. The Idmiston Parish Council representative spoke in objection, noting concerns relating to increased vehicle movements, access to neighbouring driveways, parking of site vehicles adding to restrictions, tree removal, lack of infrastructure and the size of the dwellings.

Councillor Rich Rogers who had called the application in to Committee on the grounds of scale of development, relationship to adjoining properties and environmental/highway impact, moved the motion of Refusal, against Officer recommendation, noting the reasons as CP1, CP57, CP45 and policy 9 of the Idmiston Neighbourhood Plan (INP).

This was seconded by Councillor Hocking.

Cllr Rich Rogers noted there were 3 similar scale applications for consideration at the meeting which were all within close proximity of each other.

He went on to state that Porton had seen significant development over recent years, making reference to NP Policy 19 as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Demolition of existing dwelling and annex and construction of 4 dwellings (Resubmission of PL/2023/08067)

Public Participation

Mr Joe Li (Owner) spoke in support of the application

Cllr Kirsty Exton, (Chairman) of Idmiston Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Jonathan Maidman, introduced a report which recommended that the application Demolition of existing dwelling and annex and construction of 4 dwellings (Resubmission of PL/2023/08067) be approved, subject to conditions.

The officer summarised late correspondence relating to an objection by a local resident to the removal of a garage on the site, concerns about the positioning of the proposed tied agricultural dwelling and that this proposed dwelling was too small.

Key details stated in the report included the principle of development, Landscape/visual impacts, Residential amenity, Highways, Archaeology and Ecology/River Avon SAC catchment.

The officer noted that the dwelling on plot one would be tied as an agricultural dwelling, with dwellings on plots two, three and four to be 3-bed market houses.

The existing access was proposed to be blocked up and a new access created, away from the junction. Trees along the frontage would be retained and the site was within the settlement boundary.

The applicant had made a request that conditions 4 (external lighting) and 7 (bat and bird boxes) be removed as they had not been included on the previous application or requested in the list of suggested conditions in the appeal statement for the earlier application. 

A further request had been made by the applicant to split the landscaping condition into two conditions. One condition would require the submission and agreement of details relating to all existing trees and hedgerows on the land which are proposed to be retained prior to any works commencing. A separate condition would require all proposed landscaping details to be submitted and agreed at a later date.

There had been no objection from Highways.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the timeframe of the pending appeal on a previous application on the site. The Officer confirmed that an appeal statement had been submitted in October 2024 and standard guidance stated approximately 7/8 months for a decision. He further noted that the current application had been submitted to try and overcome the previous refusal. 

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

The Idmiston Parish Council representative spoke in objection, noting that although the design had been changed, there were still concerns relating to the access. Reference to a tractor warning sign which had been approved under the Local Highway’s and Footpath Improvement Group (LHFIG), had not been installed at the location and that a garage on the site had been demolished prior to planning permission being granted. Further concerns related to the layout of the dwelling on plot one and the amount of traffic passing along the road.

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Rich Rogers moved the motion of Refusal, against Officer recommendation, noting the reasons as CP60 and policies 9  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Demolition of Existing Bungalow and Erection of 3no. dwellings, access and associated works.

Public Participation

Mr Kevin Hunt spoke in objection to the application

Ms Alison Whalley (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Cllr Kirsty Exton, (Chairman) of Idmiston Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Hayley Clark, introduced a report which recommended that the application for demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 3 no. dwellings, access and associated works be approved subject to conditions. Key details were stated in the report to include the principle of development, scale, design, and impact character and appearance of the area, Highways, Amenity, Ecology and trees.

The site was noted as being in settlement boundary. The Planning Officer advised that the recommendation which was approval subject to conditions also required a S106 agreement to be completed to secure off site BNG.

The committee had no technical questions for the officer.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the committee as detailed above. The Idmiston Parish Council representative spoke in objection, noting concerns relating to the speed of vehicles and visibility splays along the A338, narrow pavement width, the plot size for the proposed development, and the lack of affordable housing.

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Rich Rogers moved the motion of refusal, against Officer recommendation, stating the reasons as scale of development, relationship with adjoining dwellings and environmental/highway impact, noting CP1, CP45, CP57 and Idmiston Neighbourhood Plan Policy 19.

This was seconded by Councillor Hocking.

Councillor Rogers started the debate highlighting concerns regarding highways safety due to the proposed new access on to the A338, which was stated to be a known area of concern in close proximity to a Community Speedwatch location, also noted the restricted visibility for vehicles accessing the A338.

Cllr Rogers suggested that a scheme which better reflected the needs of the community with smaller affordable housing would be more favourable.

During debate, the Committee discussed the height of the fence on the development site and the condition which would restrict the height of greenery at junctions to prevent restricted access. Members noted that highways had not objected and that condition 12, relating to visibility splays required any hedge be set back at least 1m and be permanently maintained.

The Legal officer provided guidance to the Committee stating that the application and the Highways officer’s response should be considered as set out in the report, highlighting that stating highways as a reason for refusal would contradict the statutory consultee’s judgement and be difficult to defend at an appeal.

The local member Cllr Rogers noted that it was the newly created access which was of greater concern, than the existing.

At the close of debate, the Committee voted on the motion of Refusal, for the reasons as stated above.

The motion failed.

Cllr Sven Hocking then moved Approval in line with Officer recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Bridget Wayman.

With no further debate, the Committee voted on the new motion of Approval.

It was;

Resolved

That planning permission for PL/2024/04928  ...  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