Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Cllr David Halik substituted for Cllr Christopher Newbury who was absent at the start of the meeting.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 20 June 2018. (Copy attached)

Resolved:

To confirm and sign the minutes of the previous meeting held on 20 June 2018.

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

Cllr David Jenkins declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute Nos. 43 & 44  below as he was a member of Hills Waste Liaison Committee.  

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no Chairman’s 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 by phone, email or in person no later than 10.20am on the day of the meeting.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed 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 Wednesday 11 July 2018 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 Friday 13 July 2018.  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 Chairman explained the rules governing public participation at meetings.

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The Case Officer informed the Committee that the Secretary of State had received a request to ‘call-in’ the two planning applications relating to the Northacre Industrial Estate, Westbury.  The Secretary of State would be unable to commence his consideration of this request until such time as this Council had reached its decision on the planning applications.  Should this Committee be minded approve the applications then the Secretary of State could begin his consideration and decide whether or not to call in the applications for his own determination.

The Committee received a presentation from the Case Officer which set out the issues in respect of the application. The purpose of the report was to assess the merits of the proposal against the policies of the Development Plan and other material considerations and to consider the recommendation to grant planning permission subject to conditions, although now subject to the referral process set out above.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which they heard statements from members of the public as follows, expressing their views regarding the planning application:-

·         Mr Jim Marley, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application.

·         Ms Maggie Daniell, representing Westbury Gassification Action Group, spoke in opposition to the application.

·         Ms Harriet James, a Warminster resident, spoke in opposition to the application.

·         Cllr Mike Sutton, Deputy Mayor of Westbury, spoke in opposition to the application.

Members then heard the views of Cllr Russell Hawker, the local Member, who objected to the application and supported the views expressed by members of the public, particularly with regard to public health and safety and size of the proposal.

Cllr Gordon King, an adjoining Member, also expressed his opposition to the proposal, stating that he supported the views of Westbury Town Council and in particular, considered that the proposed development was too large.

During discussion, Cllr David Jenkins expressed concern especially regarding the impact such a proposal would have on the town and the likely effect it would have on the road network.

The Case Officer pointed out that for planning purposes the site and its close surroundings were designated as a Principal Employment Area and/or an Employment Allocation in the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015.  In addition, the Northacre Industrial Estate was an allocated Strategic Scale Waste Site in the Wiltshire & Swindon Waste Site Allocations Local Plan 2013.

The Case Officer stressed that the Committee could only consider the planning aspects of the proposal and that issues regarding health and safety and emissions were matters for consideration by the Environment Agency when issuing an environmental permit.

After further discussion, on the proposal of Cllr Tony Trotman, which was seconded by Cllr Fred Westmoreland,

Resolved:

Subject to the Secretary of State calling this application in for his  determination, to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:-

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The Case Officer informed the Committee that the Secretary of State had received a request to ‘call-in’ the two planning applications relating to the Northacre Industrial Estate, Westbury.  The Secretary of State would be unable to commence his consideration of this request until such time as this Council had determined the planning applications.  Should this Committee approve this application then the Secretary of State could begin his consideration and decide whether or not to call in the application for his own determination.

The Committee received a presentation from the Case Officer which set out the issues in respect of the application. The purpose of the report was to assess the merits of the proposal against the policies of the Development Plan and other material considerations and to consider the recommendation to grant planning permission subject to conditions, although now subject to the referral process set out above.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which they heard statements from members of the public as follows, expressing their views regarding the planning application:-

·         Mr David Levy, representing The Air That We Breathe Network, Westbury, spoke in opposition to the application.

·         Mr Stephen Eades, representing Wiltshire & North Wiltshire Friends of the Earth, spoke in opposition to the application.

·         Mr David Davis, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application.

·         Cllr Mike Sutton, Deputy Mayor of Westbury, spoke in opposition to the application.

·         Cllr Kathy Hutt, Chair, Dilton Marsh Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the application.

Members then heard the views of Cllr Russell Hawker, the local Member, who objected to the application and supported the views expressed by members of the public.

Cllr Gordon King, an adjoining Member, also expressed his opposition to the proposal, stating that he supported the views of the objectors and in particular, considered that the proposed development was too large for a town the size of Westbury. He considered that the infrastructure around Westbury was inadequate for the scale of the development and that the development would be visually intrusive and detrimental to the landscape.  He also stated that assurances regarding public health were necessary.

During discussion, Cllr David Jenkins expressed concern especially regarding the impact such a proposal would have on the town and the likely effect it would have on the road network. He also expressed concern that the effect of the proposal would have on the health, particularly of children and the elderly.

The Case Officer stressed that the Committee could only consider the planning aspects of the proposal and that issues regarding health and safety and emissions were matters for consideration by the Environment Agency when issuing an environment licence.  Objectors to the proposal had the opportunity of submitting their concerns regarding the possible effect on health and the danger of emissions direct to the Environment Agency when considering the issuing of a licence to the applicant, should planning permission be granted.

After further discussion, Cllr Tony Trotman proposed the following motion, which was seconded by Cllr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The Committee received a presentation from the Case Officer which set out the issues in respect of the application and advised the Committee of the recent observations received from the Council’s Drainage Engineer.

The purpose of the report was to assess the merits of the proposal against the policies of the development plan and other material considerations and to consider the recommendation to grant planning permission.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which they heard a statement from Mr Christopher Tennant, WGI Planning, agent on behalf of the Secretary of State, in support of the application.

Members then heard the views of Cllr Mark Connolly, the local Member, who whilst supporting much of the scheme, objected to the removal of the right hand lane out of Station Road on to Pennings Road (Road A338) on the grounds that it would cause problems for both traffic exiting Tesco Store and in Station Road.

The Case Officer explained that the removal of this right hand lane would lead to the build up in traffic of a maximum of four vehicles which was not considered to be significant when compared with the benefits which would be made from the introduction of the scheme as a whole. It was noted that the Council’s Highways Engineer had raised no objections to the scheme which would be kept under review. The Highways Development Control Officer advised that the section 278 Highways Act 1980 Agreement to secure the works could have a requirement for a Stage 4 Road Safety Audit to ensure the junction operates in a safe and efficient manner following the implementation of the improvement works. 

After discussion, on the proposal of Cllr Andrew Davis, which was seconded by Cllr Tony Trotman,

Resolved:

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions and informatives:-

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The Committee received a presentation from the Case Officer which set out the issues in respect of the application.

The purpose of the report was to assess the merits of the proposal against the policies of the development plan and other material considerations and to consider the recommendation to grant planning permission.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which they heard statements from the following members of the public expressing their views regarding the planning application.

·         Ms Gwyneth Doran, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the proposal.

·         Mr Nat Green, agent to the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

·         Cllr Gill Sowerby, Chairman of Grimstead Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the proposal.

Members then heard the views of Cllr Richard Britton, the local Member, who expressed concern that the village of East Grimstead contained no shops, school or a public house and was therefore not a sustainable location for this proposal. He considered that the proposal was in conflict with Core Strategy Policy 47 which considered the needs of gypsies and travellers.

The Head of Development Management explained that there was a shortage of travellers’ sites in the south of Wiltshire and an additional 37 pitches were required to bring numbers up to an acceptable level.

After discussion, on the proposal of Cllr Fred Westmoreland, which was seconded by Cllr Stewart Dobson,

Resolved:

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:-

Notwithstanding the accepted shortfall in gypsy and traveller sites in the housing market area within which the site is located, the Council consider that the adverse impacts of granting permission on this site would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The Council consider that these adverse impacts lie in the failure of the proposal to meet specific criteria set out for gypsy and traveller sites in Core Policy 47 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, which is the development plan for the area, adopted in 2015. The proposal fails to meet criteria ii, in that the site is not served by a safe and convenient pedestrian access; criteria v, in that the site is not located within a reasonable distance of a range of local services and community facilities; criteria vi in that the site is located in an isolated position within a Special Landscape Area where the development will have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the landscape; and criteria viii, in that when taken together with other gypsy and traveller sites in the vicinity, the cumulative impact is inappropriate to the small scale of the existing nearby settlement of East Grimstead.

To note that the next scheduled meeting of this Committee is due to be held on Wednesday 15 August 2018, in the Council Chamber at County Hall, Trowbridge, starting at 10.30am.

Resolved:

To note that the next scheduled meeting of this Committee was due to be held on Wednesday 15 August 2018, in the Council Chamber at County Hall, Trowbridge, starting at 10.30am.

Any other items of business, which in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency.

There were no items of urgent business.