Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllrs Jemima Milton, Laura Mayes and Peggy Dow.

Cllr Milton was substituted by Cllr Jerry Kunkler.

Cllr Mayes was substituted by Cllr Liz Bryant.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2012.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2012 were presented. It was,

Resolved:

To APPROVE as a correct record and sign the minutes.

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

Cllr Nick Fogg declared a non-pecuniary interest in Application E/2012/0786/FUL - Burbage Wharf, Burbage, Marlborough, SN8 3BJ - by virtue of being acquainted with the partner of the applicant. He declared this would not affect him considering the application on its merits, and would debate and vote with an open mind.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There 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 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 Wednesday 24 October 2012. 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.

There were no questions or statements submitted.

The Committee considered the following applications, with reference to the late list of representations, attached to these minutes.

Public Participation

Mr Ben Bathurst spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the report, which recommended approval, and drew attention to the late correspondence received including an amendment to condition 5 and the full details of the planning obligations as set out within the current draft of the S106.

It was stressed that apart from the issues of access, all other details for the site were reserved for a future application, meaning specifics relating to scale, design, landscaping and other issues, would be determined at a future date. The main issues to consider therefore included the principle of the development, and the details of the access arrangements. Attention was drawn to the views of council officers contained in the report.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. The visibility of the site and Zouch Manor in particular was raised, along with details of ownership of the Manor, surrounded by the application site, by the Ministry of Defence, and initial details of the proposed dwellings.

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

The Local Member, Cllr Mark Connolly, then addressed the Committee, supporting the principle of the application, but suggesting further conditions to mitigate local concerns.

A debate followed, where the level of affordable housing provision that could viably be sought through an s.106 legal agreement was discussed, along with details on permitted construction times at the site and acceptable heights for properties depending on their relationship to nearby, existing residential properties.

The suitability of the proposed access arrangements was raised, and it was confirmed a condition had been suggested to ensure the primary access was completed first, and used for construction traffic thereafter. Details on recreational space were also sought.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

That subject to the applicant entering into a s.106 legal agreement to secure:

·         The provision of 25% affordable housing on site;

·         The provision of on-site recreational space;

·         Financial contributions towards primary & secondary education, a new community centre, highway infrastructure improvements and public transport, sports pitches, waste & recycling bins for the development, and the Wessex Stone Curlew Project.

·         Off-site highways works.

·         A monitoring fee towards the Travel Plan.

That Planning Permission be GRANTEDfor the following reason:

The residential development would be acceptable in principle, falling within the boundaries of a main settlement, and the proposed density of development would make effective use of the land whilst being able to respond to the key characteristics of the site and surrounding area. Subject to conditions, the proposed means of access to the site would be acceptable in highway safety terms and the development would not have a significant effect upon the highway network.

The indicative layout demonstrates a generally acceptable townscape and relationship with neighbouring dwellings subject to the further approval of detailed matters relating to scale, design and landscaping. Subject to conditions there would be no significant adverse impacts in terms of ecology,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.1

Public Participation

Mr Paul Oakley, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Ian Booth, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Mike Vardy, Burbage Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

The Area Development Manager introduced a report which recommended refusal. The key issues included the principle of the development, the impact upon the listed building, visual amenity and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Highways safety and the lack of recreation space and affordable housing.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers.

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

The Local Member, Cllr Stuart Wheeler, then spoke in support of the application.

A debate followed, where the current state of the site was raised, along with its location in the open countryside. The impact upon the listed building and the AONB from the application designs was discussed, along with the lack of pedestrian access for the site, and the relevant aspects of local, Wiltshire and national planning policy were raised in assessing the suitability of the site.

After discussion, it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development occupies a countryside location which is remote from services and employment opportunities, and with poor facilities for pedestrians to safely and conveniently access the site, would be unsustainable in that it would increase the need to travel, especially by private car. This would be contrary to policies HC26 and PD1 of the adopted Kennet Local Plan 2011, policy DP1 of the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016 and Chapters 6 and 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The A346 Class I road, from which the proposed development would take access, is busy, winding without pedestrian facilities, only subject to the national speed limit, and is therefore inadequate and inappropriate to provide safe and convenient pedestrian access to and from the site. This is contrary to policy PD1 of the adopted Kennet Local Plan 2011 and Chapters 6 & 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The scale, layout and design of the proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the setting of heritage assets, the character or quality of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the setting and appearance of the Kennet and Avon Canal. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to policies PD1, NR6 and NR7 of the adopted Kennet Local Plan 2011 and Chapters 7, 11 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. The proposal fails to make adequate provision for affordable homes in this area of housing need. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy HC32 of the adopted Kennet Local Plan 2011 and Chapters 6 & 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. The proposal fails to make adequate provision for children's recreation. This is contrary to policy HC35 of the adopted Kennet Local Plan 2011 and Chapter 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

There were no urgent items.