Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillors Adrian Foster, Sarah Gibson and Carole King.

Councillor Foster was substituted by Councillor Clare Cape.

Councillor Gibson was substituted by Councillor Helen Belcher.

Councillor King was substituted by Councillor Stewart Palmen.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 23 February 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 February 2022 were presented for consideration, and it was,

Resolved:

To approve and sign the minutes as a true and correct record.

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

Councillor Elizabeth Threlfall declared a non-pecuniary interest in that years prior, before she had been elected, she had submitted a personal objection in respect of application 20/03528/FUL. She stated that she had and would consider all relevant information and had approached the application with an open mind and would debate and vote on the item.

Councillor Ernie Clark declared a non-pecuniary interest as he was a member of Hilperton Parish Council, which had submitted comments in respect of application PL/2021/03061. He confirmed he had and would consider all relevant information in his role as a Unitary Member, had approached the application with an open mind and would debate and vote on the item.

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 submit a statement in relation to an item on this agenda should register with the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on Monday 4 April 2022.

Submitted statements should:

·       State whom the statement is from (including if representing another person or organisation);

·       State clearly whether the statement is in objection to or support of the application;

·       Be readable aloud in approximately three minutes (for members of the public and statutory consultees) and in four minutes (for parish council representatives – 1 per parish council).

Up to three objectors and three supporters are normally allowed for each item on the agenda, plus statutory consultees and parish councils.

Those submitting statements would be expected to attend the meeting to read the statement themselves, or to provide a representative to read the statement on their behalf.

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 electronically to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on 30 March 2022 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 1 April 2022.

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 members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website. Questions and answers will normally be taken as read at the meeting.

The rules on public participation were noted.

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

The report on planning appeals was received. It was noted that for both applications, 19/05898/OUT and 20/08341/OUT, the table should state that the officer recommendation had been to approve, which were overturned by the Committee.

The applications were part of the same area of land, and so would be considered by an Inspector together for the appeal inquiry.

The Chairman explained that there had been three main reasons for refusal in both cases, including that the sites lay outside the settlement boundary, was not in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan, and the access to the site being prone to flooding. Advice had been received that at present the Council was unable to find a consultant or barrister prepared to defend that reason for refusal. If that remained the case, the Chairman informed the Committee that under the Scheme of Delegation officers in consultation with himself were empowered to withdraw that reason for refusal.

The Committee discussed the update, and ability of members to attend appeal hearings in defence of the council’s positions, and the advice received on the possibility of facing costs if the reason for refusal was not able to be legally defended.

After discussion, it was,

Resolved:

To note the update on appeals as detailed above.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The following planning applications were considered.

Installation of a renewable led energy scheme comprising ground mounted photovoltaic solar arrays and battery-based electricity storage containers together with transformer stations; access; internal access track; landscaping; security fencing; security measures; access gate; and ancillary infrastructure.

Public Participation

Alexander Golesworthy spoke in objection to the application.

Mark Hawkesworth spoke in objection to the application.

Jacqui Erskine-Crum spoke in objection to the application.

Adam Withers, Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Tim Kent spoke in support of the application.

John Thorne spoke in support of the application.

Michael Bromley Gardener, clerk, on behalf of Hankerton Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which recommended that permission be granted for installation of a renewable led energy scheme comprising ground mounted photovoltaic solar arrays and battery-based electricity storage containers together with transformer stations; access; internal access track; landscaping; security fencing; security measures; access gate; and ancillary infrastructure.

The scale and details of the site were outlined, including the reduction in scale from the original application along with additional significant landscaping and assessments of impact. Key issues included the principle of the application, the impact upon the landscape and visual or residential amenity, impact on protected species and other environmental impacts. It was noted the recommendation was to condition permission to give consent for 40 years, with a decommissioning plan required to remove all panels at that time. Benefits of the application would include an increase in renewable energy generation, with associated benefits from carbon reduction.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. Details were sought on the estimates of power generation, the council’s planning policies in respect of carbon reduction, and confirming that the applicants could require installations be removed earlier in the event the technology become outdated.

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

A local Unitary Member, Councillor Chuck Berry, then spoke regarding the application. He referenced issues of energy security, a lack of council strategy in respect of major substations and the scale of installations in relatively few areas, and the views of local residents.

The local Unitary Member, Councillor Elizabeth Threlfall, then spoke regarding the application. She noted the scale of the proposed installation and its impacts and spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee then debated the application.

On the motion of Councillor Christopher Newbury, seconded by Councillor Pip Ridout, it was proposed that the application be deferred to allow for a site visit to take place. In support of the motion comments were made that given the significance of the installations it would be appropriate to be personally familiar with the site in order to assess its suitability with council policy. In opposition to the motion comments were received that sufficient information had been provided to assess and be familiar with the site. Comments were also made regarding potential fire risks and monitoring systems.

At the conclusion of debate the vote was lost.

A motion was then moved by Councillor Tony Trotman, seconded by Councillor Ernie Clark, to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation in the report. The benefits  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Construction and operation of a renewable energy scheme comprising ground mounted solar photovoltaic (pv) arrays together with ancillary battery storage and other associated infrastructure including inverters, external switchgear, dno substation, customer substation, security cameras, perimeter fencing, access tracks and landscaping.

Public Participation

David Dean, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Richard Allan, on behalf of Hilperton Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Andrew Guest, Head of Development Management, presented a report which recommended permission be granted for construction and operation of a renewable energy scheme comprising ground mounted solar photovoltaic (pv) arrays together with ancillary battery storage and other associated infrastructure including inverters, external switchgear, DNO substation, customer substation, security cameras, perimeter fencing, access tracks and landscaping.

Details of the application and the site were provided, including the temporary construction compound, as well as relevant council and national policies. Key details included the principal of development, as well as impacts on character of the area. No objections had been received from Highways.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. It was confirmed there was a condition in respect of the colour of fencing and containers on the site, and that public protection advice had been received that noise generated should not be above background noise level. Questions were also raised on construction of previous installations nearby, and operational considerations on fire risk.

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

The local Unitary Member, Councillor Ernie Clark, highlighted the comments from the parish council and the issues raised.

The Committee then debated the application. Strengthening conditions relating to landscaping plans was raised, along with other details on planting and screening. The mover and seconded accepted adjustments to conditions on height of hedges and other landscaping. The structural integrity of a bridge that would be crossed by construction vehicles, with a road condition survey one of the conditions, was also discussed.

On the motion of Councillor Tony Trotman, seconded by Councillor James Sheppard, it was then,

Resolved:

To GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions.

1 The development 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 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Drawings No: INR001-SP-01, Rev 05, Whaddon Farm Site Location Plan, as received on 22 March 2021; INR001-PL-01, Rev 10, Whaddon Farm Site Layout, as received on 28 September 2021; INR001-PL-02, Rev 03, Whaddon Farm Panel Elevations, as received on 22 March 2021; INR001-PL-04, Rev 02, Whaddon Farm DNO Substation Elevations, as received on 22 March 2021; INR001-PL-05, Rev 01, Whaddon Farm Customer Substation Elevations and Floor Plan, as received on 11 May 2021; INR001-PL-06, Rev 01, Whaddon Farm Cross Section of Internal Access Track, as received on 22 March 2021; INR001-PL-07, Rev 01, Whaddon Farm Fence and Gate Elevations, as received on 22 March 2021; INR001-PL-08, Rev 01, Whaddon Farm CCTV Pole Elevation, as received on 22 March 2021; INR001-PL-09,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Provision of 3 gypsy and traveller pitches and associated works including day rooms, parking, turning, septic tank and landscaping.

Public Participation

Cllr Jeff Ligo, reading statements on behalf of local residents, spoke in objection to the application.

Ruth Munns, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Jeff Ligo, on behalf of Bratton Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Andrew Guest, Head of Development Management, presented a report which recommended permission be granted for provision of 3 gypsy and traveller pitches and associated works including day rooms, parking, turning, septic tank and landscaping. 

Details of the application and the site were provided, as well as relevant council and national policies. A Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) had taken place, identifying the need for pitches between 2022-2038 across the council area. 120 new pitches for travellers who meet the planning definition in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) Annex 1, 61 pitches for households who do not meet the definition but may be protected under the Equality Act, and up to 18 pitches for households who could not be determined. This application would therefore contribute 3 pitches against the final criterion, and as the GTAA was newly updated, current delivery was zero. Further details were provided on recent appeals and substantial unmet need being of considerable weight. It was confirmed there was no mains power proposed for the site, but in isolation and without other sufficient reasons the recommendation assessed that the proposal should be approved.

Key details therefore included the principal of development, impact upon the area, neighbouring amenity and highways impacts.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. Details were sought on the impact of generators on the site, and a condition had been proposed to mitigate this. It was confirmed energy generation would be domestic scale, and the council could encourage generation be through solar power. Normal household waste could be burned on the site as with any residential site. Details were also sought about the road alongside the site and visibility splays. It was confirmed no objections had been received from Highways.

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

The local Unitary Member, Councillor Suzanne Wickham, spoke in objection to the application. She highlighted concerns about lack of local need for sites, concerns with highways, lack of essential services for the site, access, and impact upon character and appearance and amenity.

The Committee then debated the application. A motion was moved by Councillor Pip Ridout, seconded by Councillor Christopher Newbury, to refuse the application as contrary to Core Policy 47.  Comments in support of the motion included the narrow road and high speed limit, and the lack of pedestrian access, as well as adverse amenity access and lack of essential services for the site. Comments against the motion included that the site was already suitable for the current pitch, including the access as acceptable, and that concerns regarding the impact of generators and other aspects could be mitigated by condition. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

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.