Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mark Connolly.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 25 April 2013.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 April 2013 were presented for consideration. It was,

Resolved:

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

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

There were no declarations.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

1)    The Membership of the Committee following the Council meeting on 14 May 2013 was noted, as listed on the front of the agenda, with the addition of Councillor Jeff Osborn as a substitute.

2)    With the agreement of the Committee it was announced that item 6c on the agenda, E/2013/0372/S73 - Little Thornham Farm Bungalow, Trowbridge Road, Seend - would be moved forward to the first item on the agenda.

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 22 May 2013. 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 procedure were noted.

There were questions or statements submitted.

The Committee determined the following applications:

Public Participation

Mr Haines spoke in support of the application.

Mr Cosker, agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Area Development Manager introduced a report which recommended permission be refused for the agricultural occupancy restriction on the property to be removed.

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

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

The Local Member, Councillor Jonathon Seed, then spoke in support of the application.

A debate followed, where the efforts to market the property with the agricultural occupancy restriction was assessed. It was noted there was no dispute that there was no longer any requirement for the adjoining land to be serviced by the occupants of the bungalow.  The key issue was whether the applicant had shown that the agricultural occupancy condition no longer served a useful purpose. As the property had been offered at a discount less than recommended by law it was felt that to remove the restriction could set a precedent for other similar properties in the open countryside.

It was,

Resolved:

Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the existing need for dwellings for agricultural workers in the locality no longer warrants reserving the bungalow for that purpose.  In particular, the marketing of the bungalow has not included an appropriate discount on the purchase price to reflect the restriction of its occupancy to an agricultural or forestry worker.  The removal of the condition would result in the creation of a dwelling in the open countryside in conflict with the terms and objectives of the policies in the development plan, namely NR6 and HC26 of the Kennet Local Plan, and of the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Public Participation

Mr Mowbray, a representative of Jasmine Trustee’s Ltd spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Ian Christie spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Peter Andrew spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Alfred Moule spoke in support of the application.

Mr Darren Thomas spoke in support of the application.

Mr Cosker, agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Area Development Manager introduced the report which recommended approval. The key issues were stated to include the impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and neighbouring amenity and the setting of the adjacent listed building.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought about the visibility from the access and location of highways splays. It was confirmed the hedge lining the site would be trimmed back to facilitate visibility and the splays, but would not be removed.

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

The Local Member, Councillor Richard Gamble, then spoke in objection to the application.

A discussion followed, where relevant national and local planning policies were raised, discussing the impact on the historic core of the village and character of the area, and the level of impact on the area, in particular the adjacent pub, from the proposed design was assessed.

Following the debate a motion was proposed and seconded for the application to be refused. This was defeated by vote.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

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. No development shall commence on site until details and samples of the materials to be used for the external surfaces, including the retaining walls, steps and hardsurfacing for the car parking have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON:

In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

3. No development shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall include:-

a) location and current canopy spread of all existing trees and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Public Participation:

Mrs Vanessa Tanfield, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Paul Stibbard, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Mr John Baumber, Council of British Archaeology, spoke in objection to the application.

The Area Development Manager introduced a report which recommended refusal. The key issue was stated to be the impact of the proposal on the listed building.

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

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

A discussion followed, where the lack of detail in the proposal on how the structure would be dismantled and stored appropriately was noted, together with the absence of public benefit to outweigh the removal of a heritage asset.

After debate, it was,

Resolved:

To REFUSE listed building consent for the following reasons:

1)    The proposal would result in the loss of a designated heritage asset, for which no adequate justification has been provided.  As such, the proposal is contrary to Government policy contained in Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, including paragraphs 130, 132 and 133.

2)    The proposal would result in the loss of a significant element within the setting of the Baydon Manor, a designated heritage asset.  As such, the proposals are contrary to Government policy contained in Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, including paragraphs 132 and 133.

There were no urgent items.