If you are reading this page using a screenreader, we support ARIA landmarks for quick navigation too

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Wessex Room, Corn Exchange, The Market Pl, Devizes SN10 1HS

Contact: Tara Shannon  Democratic Services Officer

Items
No. Item

55.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Cllr James Sheppard. Cllr Sheppard was substituted by Cllr Christopher Williams.

 

56.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 15 August 2019.

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 August 2019 were considered and it was,

 

Resolved:

 

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

 

57.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

The Chairman read out a note emphasising the quasi-judicial role of the Committee, the requirement to act in accordance with the rules of natural justice to act fairly towards all interested parties, to approach the matter with an open mind and determine the application with an open mind. He then invited any declarations.

 

Councillor Mark Connolly declared that in relation to application 19/06982/VAR he was acquainted with the applicant, in his capacity as a Councillor, but not in a social or any other capacity. Therefore he would debate and vote on the item, considering it with an open mind.

 

Councillors Paul Oatway QPM, Peter Evans, Ian Blair-Pilling and Chris Williams made the same declaration in relation to application 19/06982/VAR; that they knew the applicant as a Wiltshire Councillor but not in any other capacity, therefore they would debate and vote on the matter with an open mind.

 

Councillors Stewart Dobson, Nick Fogg MBE and Richard Gamble also  declared an interest in application 19/06982/VAR. They felt that as well as being acquainted with the applicant in their capacity as Councillor, their relationship extended beyond the professional. Therefore, they felt that they were unable to take part in the debate or to vote on this item.

 

Cllr Ian Blair-Pilling also declared an interest in application 19/07460/FUL as he was the local member for this application and he would speak as the local councillor during public participation. This was a non-pecuniary interest and Cllr Blair-Pilling stated that he would take part in the debate and vote on the item with an open mind.

 

58.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

Minutes:

There were no announcements.

 

59.

Public Participation

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 2.50pm 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 31 October 2019 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on4 November 2019. 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.

Minutes:

The rules on public participation were noted.

 

60.

Planning Appeals and Updates

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

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The update on appeals was noted.

 

61.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Minutes:

The following planning applications were considered.

 

62.

19/06465/FUL - Fernbank, Chimney Lane, Honeystreet, SN9 5PS

Erection of proposed boundary fences & gates.

 

Please note that after publication of the agenda this application was withdrawn by the applicant, so it will no longer be considered at the Eastern Area Planning Committee on 7 November 2019.

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

After publication of the agenda this application was withdrawn by the applicant. Therefore, it was not considered by the committee.

 

63.

19/06982/VAR - River Mead House, Church Hill, West Overton, Lockeridge, SN8 4EL

Removal of conditions 3, 7 and 8 of 19/02445/FUL (proposed erection of a building for the storage of agricultural machinery in connection with a farm contracting business (B8 Use)).

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Cllr Stewart Dobson left the room at 15.05.

 

Public Participation

Mr Bob Green spoke in objection to the application.

 

Ruaridh O'Donoghue, Senior Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that planning permission be granted with conditions, for the removal of conditions 3, 7 and 8 of 19/02445/FUL (proposed erection of a building for the storage of agricultural machinery in connection with a farm contracting business (B8 Use)).

 

The key detail to consider when looking at the application was whether the removal of the visibility splays set out in condition 3 of 19/02445/FUL would still allow for a safe and suitable means of access to serve the development (Core Policy 61 and NPPF 108).

 

A summary of consultation responses was given to the meeting. Most concerns were regarding the removal of condition 3 and the visibility splays.

 

It was stated that works had started in advance, so the applicant was currently in breach of condition 3. Whether enforcement action would be taken would depend on the committee’s decision. If the application was approved, no action would be taken. If declined, then enforcement action might need to be taken.

 

Slides were shown with location plans and photographs, it was explained that the site was outside the main built up area of the village, in a ribbon of development. However, the site was considered open countryside and lay in In the North Wessex Downs AONB.

 

The officer stated that due to a tree with a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on it, the applicant was unable to complete the splays as per the original condition (2.4m by 43m in both directions). A revised plan was shown and it was explained that the distance would stepped out by 1m into the carriageway, resulting in a distance of 2.4m by 40.7m. This was considered acceptable by the Local Highways Authority and deemed not to prejudice highway safety.  Core Policy 61 and NPPF 108 would be met.

 

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to questions it was stated that the applicant had been advised of the conditions of the application and had accepted these, however they must not have been aware of the TPO. If the committee approved the application they could impose a condition to lift the crown of the tree, however this would be subject to the Tree Officers approval. If the officer said no, then the applicant would be unable to meet the requirements of the condition and the case would come back to committee again.

 

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

 

Cllr Mark Connolly proposed a motion to approve planning permission, with conditions, as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Chris Williams.

 

A debate followed where the following issues were discussed.

 

The Chairman stated that when looking at the application one had to consider whether reducing the length of the visibility splays from 43m to 40.7m would result in a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

64.

19/07460/FUL - Lowerhouse Farm, Lower Chute, Andover, Wiltshire, SP11 9DX

Conversion and extension of outbuildings and stables to form 3 dwellings (amended scheme following refusal of 18/04151/FUL).

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Ms Ann Rudland spoke in objection to the application

Mr Tim Curran spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Chris Hewlett spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Aaron Smith, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Carolyn Wall representing Chute Forest Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Heather Bourner representing Chute Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

 

Georgina Wright, Senior Planning Officer presented a report which recommended that planning permission be granted with conditions for the conversion and extension of outbuildings and stables to form 3 dwellings (amended scheme following refusal of 18/04151/FUL).

 

Attention was drawn to the additional representations received after publication of the agenda, these representations and responses from the officer were published in agenda supplement 1.

 

Key details were stated to include the following:

 

Fundamentally the application was a resubmission. The previous application on the site, 18/04151/FUL, the conversion and extension of outbuildings and stables to form 3 dwellings, was refused by the Eastern Area Planning Committee on 7 September 2018. The full reasons for refusal were stated at the top of page 50 in the agenda pack. In summary the application was refused due to the proximity of plot 2 (now plot 3) to a listed building, compromising it’s setting and the character and appearance of the conservation area, it would also result in overcrowding. The applicant’s proposal was altered and the officer felt that the application before the committee overcame the previous reasons for refusal. When considering this application, the officer advised that it would not be correct to introduce new reasons for refusal at this stage, which were not cited as reasons for refusal to the previous application. Therefore, the officer recommendation was to approve the application with conditions.

 

Photographs, proposals and elevations were shown to the meeting. The form of the buildings would remain largely unchanged. When viewed from the street the original function and relationship of the buildings was maintained. In the previous application, plot 2 had a very large extension. In the current application plot 3 (which in the last application was called plot 2) no longer had an extension. Therefore, the proposed scheme included raising the elevation of this building by 0.5m in order to accommodate rooms in the roof. This was felt to be acceptable.   

 

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Cllr Blair-Pilling sought details on why the red line on the map and aerial photo included the garages which were to be retained by the main house. There was also to be bat and bird mitigation undertaken on the garages, the councillor queried whether these factors meant that the garages could be developed at a later date. The officer stated that was not what was being proposed. Also, one of the conditions of the planning permission was to remove the permitted development rights, so planning permission would need to be sought for any future works. 

 

Members of the public then had the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

65.

Urgent items

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

 

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.

 

 

Actions

Search

This website