Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Ansell, Cllr Chivers and Cllr Hurst.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2016.

Resolved:

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2016.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive any announcements through the Chairman.

The Chairman drew the meeting’s attention to the following matters: The evacuation procedures; the procedure for public participation; and the policy on recording and broadcasting of meetings.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements:

If you would like to make a statement at this meeting on any item on this agenda, please register to do so at least 10 minutes prior to the meeting. Up to 3 speakers are permitted to speak for up to 3 minutes each on any agenda item. Please contact the officer named above for any further clarification.

Questions:

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution. Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such questions in writing to the officer named above (acting on behalf of the Corporate Director), no later than 5pm on Wednesday 27 July in order to be guaranteed a written response prior to the meeting. Any question received between the above deadline, and no later than 5pm two clear working days before the meeting, may only receive a verbal response at the meeting.

Please contact the officer named on the first page 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 and that no questions had been submitted.

An appeals update report is attached for information.

The Committee noted the contents of the appeals update.

To consider and determine planning applications as detailed below.

Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting and attached to these minutes, in respect of applications 7a, 7b and 7c as listed under ‘Agenda Supplement 1’.

James Wallwork spoke in support of the application. Nicola Dow and Pete Sladdon spoke in objection to the application.

The planning officer, Mathew Pearson, introduced the application for the proposed construction of a solar farm; comprising solar arrays, inverters, transformers, equipment housing, security fencing, CCTV cameras, internal tracks and ancillary equipment. He highlighted that the application had previously been to Committee and had been deferred by Members and, at this point, Members had identified 6 areas where further information was required before a final decision could be made. These 6 areas included the following: flooding, detailed access drawings, a full construction management transport plan, detailed potential cabling routes, ground levels and the public right of way (PROW). Attention was drawn to the late list of observations, provided under ‘Agenda Supplement 1’. Maps, plans and photographs of the site were shown.

Mr Pearson relayed that Wiltshire Council’s Drainage Officer had commented that there was a recognised flooding issue in the area. However, it was concluded by the officer that this was not caused by run-off from the moor on which the site was located. Potential flooding was in fact caused by flood water running ‘uphill’ from the River Thames. The meeting was informed that the solar panels would not raise flood risk in the area. The Council’s drainage officer had also highlighted that the use of the site for pasture would make any historic land drainage system ineffective, the proposed solar farm would have no direct effect on flooding in the area.

In terms of detailed access drawings, a full construction management transport plan and detailed potential cabling routes, the meeting was informed that highways officers were largely satisfied with the proposals put forward for the site. Some minor further details were conditioned in regards to wheel washing facilities. It was stressed that while it was recognised that there would be an impact on local people during the construction period, this could be seen as severe over the 30 year life span of the site. As such the NPPF stated that permission should be granted and the impact was deemed to be acceptable.

It was explained that the proposed development would not materially raise the ground level of the site and that, at the end of the 30 year life span of the site, the Council’s standard reinstatement condition had been applied to the proposed application. Mr Pearson also noted that the PROW would remain in situ and would be fenced off during the construction phase, in order to ensure that members of the public were still able to use the pathway.

It was highlighted that due to a recent high court case, the planning officer should make it clear that as stated in the report, the proposed development was in conflict with Core Policy 58. However, planning officers believed that: as the proposed construction was deemed to cause less than substantial harm; because the development would be well screened; as the site was not versatile in terms of agricultural use;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

The planning officer, Chris Marsh introduced the application and outlined that the application was for the proposed conversion of stables to form dormitories for Grittleton House School. A map, blueprints and photographs of the area were shown.

Mr Marsh explained that, in light of the shift in justification for the proposed development as outlined in the late list of observations, the planning officers had not had a significant opportunity to consider the application in full. Officers would therefore need sufficient time to consider the public benefit of the application in detail, before an adequate recommendation could be provided. Mr Marsh then signalled that he wished to recommend that the application be deferred until after such a time.

The Chairman proposed, seconded by Cllr Hutton, that the application be deferred to allow officers and members sufficient time to consider the significant late observations appropriately.

The motion was put to the vote and passed.

Resolved:

To defer the application until after such a time as Officers and Members had had the appropriate opportunity to reconsider the public benefit of the application.

REASON:

In light of the significant late observations received on the morning of the Committee meeting which related to a shift in justification for the proposed development, Officers require sufficient time to reconsider the application in order to be able to make an informed recommendation to the Committee.

Stephen Gardener and Patricia Gardener spoke in objection to the application.

Ben Turner spoke in support of the application.

The planning officer, Mathew Pearson, outlined that the application was for a variation to a 2015 application which had sought permission for the demolition of the existing bungalow within the site and the erection of a large 6 bedroom dwelling, as well as a detached 4 bay garage. It was highlighted that the variation principally related to a revision in the site layout and that the previous application had been decided by way of delegated powers. Photographs of the area and plans were shown.

Mr Pearson explained that the revision to the site layout was to move the garage from the south west corner of the site to the north east corner. He stated that the garage would largely retain its size (as detailed on the original application); the difference from that originally proposed and as a part of this application, would be that the garage would have a complete rear wall.

It was detailed that the applicant would need to remove the hedgerows that line the public right of way (PROW) during the construction phase. However, this had been conditioned to ensure that any disturbance to the PROW would be acceptable. Mr Pearson detailed that it was a priority that the PROW was re-instated on its legal line.

The meeting was informed that the proposed development would be required to adhere to the conclusions of the ecology survey that had been undertaken. It was noted that the site plans were deemed to be acceptable and that officers felt the impact in relation to the surrounding properties was acceptable. Indeed, it was highlighted that although the proposed building would be viewed from 2 listed buildings, officers felt that the design of the site was acceptable and would not impact on the setting or significance of these properties.

Members of the Committee were then invited to ask technical questions. Mr Pearson confirmed that the newly reduced height of the garage would mean that the eaves height of the garage would remain similar to the existing garage, located to the east of the bungalow. The garage would be viewed as a single ridge from the neighbouring property, although this ridge would be closer to the neighbouring property than the current larger gable end and ridge associated with the existing bungalow.

Members of the public were then invited to speak, as detailed above.

Cllr Greenman spoke in his capacity as the local member and applauded how the applicant had shown himself to be keen to maintain a good relationship with his neighbours. Cllr Greenman thanked the planning officer, Mr Pearson, for his endeavours in helping to ensure that the proposed development could be palatable for the site’s neighbours. However, Cllr Greenman still felt that the garage was located too close to the neighbouring property and would have an unacceptable impact and would therefore not be supporting the application.

In response to questions, the planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

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.