Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from:

·       Cllr Adrian Foster – substituted by Cllr Carole King

·       Cllr Dr Brian Mathew – substituted by Cllr Sam Pearce-Kearney

·       Cllr Stuart Wheeler

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

On the proposal of the Chairman, seconded by Cllr Kelvin Nash, it was:

Resolved

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

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

In relation to the Rights of Way item, Cllr Iain Wallis made an additional declaration that he worked for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He emphasised that he did not work in the footpaths department or in the Secretary of State’s private office. He would be speaking in a personal capacity and any views expressed were not necessarily representative of the department.

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 6 June 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 10 June 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 the Vice-Chairman, it was:

Resolved

To note the planning appeals update for the period 12 April to 31 May 2024.

Change of use of grass verge to residential garden, erection of new boundary walls, and installation of new dropped kerb.

Public Participation

·       Mr Paul Flippance (Inter County Surveys), spoke in support of the application

The Planning Officer, Hayley Clark, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the change of use of a grass verge to residential garden, erection of new boundary walls, and installation of new dropped kerb be refused for the reasons outlined in the report. Key details were stated to include the visual impact, residential amenity and highway considerations.

Attention was drawn that there was an error in the plan of elevation three, shown on page 28 of the agenda pack, as it showed the garden gate rather than the proposed dropped kerb. However, an updated version was available on page nine of Agenda Supplement 1 and shown as part of the Planning Officer’s presentation.

 The Committee were informed that the application site comprised an existing end-terraced dwelling located within an established residential area. The Planning Officer considered that the proposal, to incorporate an adjacent area of open green space within the residential curtilage, would have a negative impact on the character of the area due to the loss of openness and as the green space broke up the built form. She explained that the proposals were contrary to Core Policy 57 (Ensuring High Quality Design and Place Shaping) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, as well as paragraphs 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework. There were a mix of boundary types in the area and there were concerns about granting permission for the proposed development, as it would set a precedent that may see the loss of further green space on the estate.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Planning Officer. Details were sought about why the Applicant was installing wooden panels at the back to make the structure higher. The Planning Officer explained that the proposed structure would be similar in height to the existing boundary wall at the rear of the property to maintain privacy. However, the wall towards the front of the property would be far shorter.

In response to queries about the exiting road sign and utility box on the site, the Planning Officer explained that they would need to be moved as they were located within the boundary of the proposed wall. Permission to change the access to the utilities would be required, but this was not a planning matter. She had not seen any details of designs showing the road sign behind the proposed wall.

The Committee noted that the Highway Authority had recommended that if the proposed application was granted, the grey utility box should be set back behind the utility box. Questions were asked about whether they would be able to propose a condition about the box’s location. The Planning Officer confirmed that was a separate issue for the Highway Authority, so it would not be necessary to impose a condition.

Details were also sought about the potential impact of a covenant agreed when the Applicant purchased  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

Public Participation

·       Mr Peter Gallagher (The Ramblers), spoke in opposition to the Order.

·       Mr Bill Hughes (Ramsbury Manor Foundation Trustees), spoke in opposition to the Order.

·       Ms Mary Askew (Ramsbury Estates Ltd.), spoke in support of the Order.

The Definitive Map Officer Craig Harlow introduced a report considering four objections to the application for the Wiltshire Council Parish of Ramsbury Path Nos. 5, 6 and 8C and Parish of Little Bedwyn Path No.20 Diversion and Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2024. 

A comprehensive overview of the Modification Order was provided by the Definitive Map Officer, which included detail about the application routes, Wiltshire Council’s duty, the legal tests and the Order plans. He explained that the application had been submitted on 5 August 2022. The Applicant’s land was changing from arable to pastoral farming, so they felt that the proposed route would help to reduce potential conflict between the enjoyment of the footpath and livestock. Diverting the existing routes would also help to separate the users of the bridleway and vehicle access to the newly constructed development at Park Farm as well as to improve security at that development. It was explained that there had been 23 responses to an initial consultation on the proposals, 16 of which were in objection. After taking comments into consideration the Order was made on 10 January 2024.

Objections to the Order included that the proposed diversion would be longer, and substantially less convenient, than the existing route. Further concerns were that the diversion was being done purely for the personal convenience of the Applicant and would impact the view and sporting rights enjoyed over the land.

Attention was drawn to a late submission from the British Horse Society, as published in Agenda Supplement 1. The British Horse Society had raised objections to the Order on the grounds that the proposed diversion crossed a part concrete surface, had a narrower width than the existing route and that RAMS6 could potentially bring horses and riders into contact with shooting.

The Definitive Map Officer addressed each of the objections in turn. In response to concerns about the length and convenience of the new route, he referenced the Inspector’s findings about an Order in the parish of Calne Without. Although there had been a proportionately larger increase in the distance of the revised route created in Calne Without, the Inspector had concluded that it was likely to be used as part of a leisure journey, so was not substantially less convenient for users. The Definitive Map Officer concluded that, by nature of the proposed location of the subject Modification Order, a similar conclusion could be adopted in this case.  He also noted that legislation allowed for compensation to be claimed for the loss of sporting rights caused by a Diversion Order and, in his opinion, the view would not be any worse than that from the existing route.

He reported that the Wiltshire Countryside Access Officer had accessed the surface of the proposed diversion and was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

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.