Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Mollie Groom.

Cllr Mollie Groom was substituted by Cllr Philip Whalley.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 07 August 2019.

The minutes of the meeting held on 07 July 2019 were presented.

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.

Cllr Chris Hurst declared an interest in agenda item no. 7d (family members have attended or currently attend Lea and Garston Primary School and/or Malmesbury Primary School). He declared he would participate in the debate and vote for each item with an open mind.

Cllr Philip Whalley declared an interest in agenda item no. 7c (been in contact with public about this application). He declared he would participate in the debate and vote for each item with an open mind.

Cllr Toby Sturgis declared an interest in agenda item no. 7d (had business with the applicant and his predecessors and most recently has been in discussions with the applicant about the use of land in Great Somerford). He declared he would participate in the debate and vote for each item with an open mind.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no Chairman’s 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 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 28 August 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 on30 August 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.

The Committee noted the rules on public participation.

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

The Committee noted the contents of the appeals update.

To consider and determine the following planning applications:

Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting and attached to these minutes, in respect of applications 7a, 7c and 7d as listed in the agenda pack.

The Committee then considered the following applications:

Public participation

Gail Seviour, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Alex Fogwill, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Hilary Evans, of Evans Planning & Design, spoke in objection to the application.

Chris Beaver, the agent, spoke in support to the application.

Neville Farmer, Corsham Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Paul Galpin, introduced a report which recommended that authority is delegated to the Head of Development Management to grant outline planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of the Unilateral Undertaking within six months (or otherwise to refuse the application), for the erection of up to 27 dwellings following the demolition of 2 no. existing dwellings and attached domestic garage, and associated access and landscaping works.

Key issues highlighted included: principle of development; impact on local highways; impact on site drainage and flooding; impact on ecology; impact on landscape character; relationship to the Great Western Railway; impact on residential amenity and S106 contributions. Officers also highlighted the importance of the extant permission relevant to this site and advised as to the implications of the appeal decision relating to an alternate revised scheme that had been issued two days before the Committee meeting.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on planning permission 15/11544/OUT, the Corsham Neighbourhood Plan and noise concerns. Clarification was provided as to the revised weight to be attached to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan following recent progression of the document.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as

detailed above.

Cllr Philip Whalley, Division Member, spoke regarding the application with the main points focusing on: the scale of change application 15/11544/OUT; the principle of development; the 5 Year Land Supply; the Corsham Neighbourhood Plan; impact on visual amenity; the relationship to the Network Rail; impact on ecology; impact on landscape character; impact on site drainage and flooding and impact on local highways.

The Planning Officer then addressed some of the issues raised by members of the Committee and the public with the main points focusing on: the Corsham Neighbourhood Plan; the 5 Year Land Supply; the impact on ecology; landscaping issues and in particular the importance of the extant permission as a material planning consideration of significant weight.

At the start of the debate Cllr Peter Hutton put forward a motion to approve the application, which was seconded by Cllr Christine Crisp, in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

During the debate the main points raised were: application 15/11544/OUT and the improvements made since the last application regarding the number of dwellings, access, street scene and the number of houses being demolished.

Following the debate, the motion was defeated.

A proposal was then moved by Cllr Toby Sturgis, seconded by Cllr Gavin Grant, to defer the application to receive additional information in relation to the matters detailed below.

During further debate the main points raised were: the Corsham Neighbourhood Plan; the relationship with Network  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Public participation

Alex Robinson, the agent, spoke in support to the application.

Jonathan Bourne, Royal Wootton Bassett Town Council, spoke in support to the application.

The Senior Conservation Officer, Caroline Ridgwell, introduced a report which recommended refusing planning permission for the replacement of UPVC windows, replacement of damaged lintels and rebuilding of front wall above windows. Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting and attached to these minutes including updates and clarifications. Jon Avent, Mann Williams CARE registered Structural Engineer, provided detailed advice as to structural matters in a heritage asset impact context.

Key issues highlighted included principle of the works, impact on significance of the heritage asset and impact on setting of the heritage assets.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions

of the officer which focused on: the structural harm of the proposal; whether strengthening is necessary; the use of lintol and the impact on heritage assets.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as

detailed above.

Cllr Chris Hurst, Division Member, spoke regarding the application with the main points focusing on investment in the high street; the use of lintol and health and safety concerns.

The Senior Conservation Officer and the external consultant then addressed some of the issues raised by members of the Committee and the public with the main points focusing on the brickwork, the use of lintols and health and safety concerns. Area team Leader, Lee Burman, confirmed the formal positon of Building Conntrol North Team in respect of the proposals and structural matters as set out in the late list of observations.

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Cllr Tony Trotman, seconded by Cllr Toby Sturgis, to refuse planning permission as detailed in the report.

During the debate the main points raised were the weight that should be given to the judgement of experts on the matter, whether strengthening is necessary and the impact on heritage assets.

Resolved

That planning permission is refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation as detailed in the report and set out below:

The proposed works to the lintol over the two first floor windows on the front elevation would harm the special historic interest and significance of the heritage assets due to the intrusive nature of the works and introduction of unsympathetic details and materials. The degree of strengthening is excessive and will create two areas of overly rigid masonry that will not move with the rest of the building. Furthermore, removing the recently rebuilt sections of brickwork above the two first floor windows will result in unnecessarily disturbing historic material that has only recently been rebuilt. The proposed works would be contrary to Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 and NPPF section 16 paras 189, 192, 193, 194, 196 and 200, and the BS7913, as well as Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015) CP57 (i),  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Public participation

Anthony Dixon, the applicant, spoke in support to the application.

Charlotte Harrison, Lea and Garsdon School Chair of Governors, spoke in support to the application.

Stuart Suter, Lea and Cleverton Parish Council, spoke in support to the application.

The Planning Officer, Lee Burman, introduced a report which recommended granting planning permission, subject to conditions, for the redevelopment of the existing 0.5FE size school site to provide a 1FE size school. This includes increasing the school site and providing a new building for three

classrooms, a hall and a kitchen. Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting and attached to these minutes.

Key issues highlighted included: highways impact; parking provision; accessibility and safety; impact to residential amenity; impact to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the locality; ecology; drainage and archaeology.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on parking provision.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as

detailed above.

Cllr Toby Sturgis, Division Member, spoke regarding the application with the main points focusing on the need for extra school places in the Malmesbury area; highways impact; parking provision and accessibility and safety.

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Cllr Philip Whalley, seconded by Cllr Ashley O’Neill to grant planning permission as detailed in the report.

During the debate the main points raised were: parking provision; the need for extra school places in the Malmesbury area; the importance of village schools to village communities; highways impact and accessibility and safety.

Resolved

That planning permission is approved in accordance with the Officer recommendation as detailed in the report.

Public participation

Ben Tallis, the applicant, spoke in support to the application.

The Senior Planning Officer, Catherine Blow, introduced a report which recommended refusing planning permission for the development of a new tractor and agricultural machinery dealership, workshop and associated car parking together with 82 car parking spaces for those working at the existing industrial estate. Officers identified that late representations submitted by the Agent for the application directly to members of the Committee had been reviewed but did not raise any new matters that had not been addressed in full in the report and did not alter the recommendation.

Key issues highlighted included: principle of development and alternate site investigations; scale, design and impact upon the character, appearance  and visual amenity of the area; impact upon the amenity of the area; access and parking/impact on parking; ecology; noise; lighting and drainage.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on: existing nearby industrial development and access and parking issues.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as

detailed above.

The Planning Officer then addressed some of the issues raised by members of the Committee and the public.

Cllr Chuck Berry, Division Member, spoke regarding the application with the main points focusing on agricultural development and the need to place an agricultural company in a rural setting.

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Cllr Toby Sturgis, seconded by Cllr Ashley O’Neill to grant planning permission contrary to the officer report subject to conditions set out below.

During the debate the main points raised were the unique nature of the application, the applicant’s submitted site search information and employment opportunities arising from the proposal.

Resolved

To delegate authority to the Head of Development Management Services to grant permission subject to appropriate and necessary conditions to be prepared by Officers contrary the Officer recommendation.

The reason for the decision being:

The use and activity proposed is of a unique nature that requires a rural location in operational terms that cannot reasonably and sustainably be located within defined employment areas. Committee members also conclude based on the available evidence, debate at Committee meeting and local knowledge of available land and buildings that the applicant’s submitted site search information is sufficiently comprehensive and robust that it adequately demonstrates that there is no more appropriate and sustainable site available than that which is the subject of the application. On this basis it is considered by the Committee that there are sufficient and sound material considerations that justify a decision otherwise than in accord with the Development Plan in this instance.

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.