Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillors Stewart Dobson and Richard Gamble. Each were in attendance, but had formally withdrawn in their capacity as Committee Members.

Councillor Gamble was substituted by Councillor James Sheppard.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 21 April 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 April were presented for consideration and it was,

Resolved:

To APPROVE and sign as a true and correct record.

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

There were no declarations made.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

At the start of the meeting the Chairman apologised to the Committee and public for confusion over the location of the meeting. Officers had been posted at the location the public had been directed to, so as to inform them of the new location a short distance away, and the meeting had started late in order to ensure all those who had wished to attend were able to do so.

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 in person no later than 5.50pm on the day of the meeting.

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. The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice.

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 5 May 2016. 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 rules on public participation were noted.

An update on appeals was provided as detailed in Agenda Supplement 1.

Resolved:

To note the update.

Demolition of existing primary school building and associated structures, erection of new primary school building, car parking and external landscaping.

Public Participation

Mr Gordon Hutt spoke in objection to the application.

Mrs Anne Schwodler, Headteacher for St Mary’s School, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Tom Lambshead, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Ian Mellor spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Marion Hannaford-Dobson, Chairman of Marlborough Town Council Planning Committee, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer presented the application and detailed therecommendation to approve the demolition of the existing primary school building and associated structures, and the erection of a new building, car parking and external landscaping. Key issues were stated to include the impact of increased traffic on residential amenity and parking. Details were also provided on proposed amended conditions in relation to archaeology, the timing of BREEAM(Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology) certification, the timing of parking provision, footway widening, and an interim Travel Plan for the final phases of the development. 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. In response to queries it was confirmed that the National Planning Policy Framework, which required only ‘severe’ traffic concerns be a barrier to development, did not specifically define what impact would be severe, but that in the judgement of officers the application, suitably managed, would not rise to that level. Details were also sought on ecological assessments of the site, and alternate parking options in the area for parents.

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

The Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, Cllr Laura Mayes, and the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Schools, Cllr Richard Gamble, were invited to address the Committee. They spoke in support of the application, highlighting the need for the new school and efforts to mitigate existing concerns through conditions, and encouraged the monitoring of the situation and a review of any arrangements, as necessary.

The local Unitary Division Member, Cllr Nick Fogg MBE, addressed the Committee, agreeing with the concerns as raised by the Town Council in relation to traffic problems in the area and what had initially been an out of date, inadequate traffic plan. He noted the site was ideal for a school and there was support for the development, but that like the Town Council he urged every effort should be made to address the concerns of local residents, and to explore further options regarding parking and access.

The neighbouring Division Member, Cllr Stewart Dobson, stated there was widespread support for development on the site, but that serious concerns had been raised in relation to the impact on local residents.  He also highlighted several aspects of the travel plans that he felt could still be addressed further, along with suggestions of improvements.

The Committee then debated the application. In response to queries officers stated that the inclusion of a lay-by at the site, as suggested, would most likely encourage further traffic, which would conflict with the aims of the travel plan. Members discussed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

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.