Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

There were no apologies.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 09 October 2019.

The minutes of the meeting held on 09 October 2019 were presented.

The Chairman drew the Committee’s attention to a letter received from Cllr John Boaler, Calne Town Council, regarding the accuracy of the minutes.

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 Toby Sturgis declared an interest in agenda item no. 8b (family member uses the services of the applicant’s equestrian business). 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 30 October 2019in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on01 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.

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.

Public participation

Norman Beasley, Wiltshire Bridleways Association, spoke in objection to the application.

Graham Bennett, British Horse Society, spoke in support of the application.

Derek Walsh, solicitor to the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Rob Hislop, Calne Without Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

The Highways Officer, Sally Madgwick, introduced a report which recommended refusing the application for an Order to divert lengths of public bridleways at the Mill House, Calstone Wellington, Calne.

Key issues highlighted included: the landowner’s interest; the location and convenience of termination points; the convenience of the new path; the effect on public enjoyment of the new path or way as a whole; the effect on the existing right of way; the effect on land served by the existing right of way; the effect on land served by the new right of way; consideration of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan and the needs of agriculture, forestry and conservation of biodiversity.

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

of the officer which focused on: the cost of making an Order; the cost of bringing the new route to the required standard; the cost of maintaining the existing right of way and highway safety concerns.

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

detailed above.

Cllr Alan Hill, Division Member, spoke regarding the application with the main points focusing on: safety and security concerns; the impact on heritage assets; the convenience of the new path; the accessibility of the existing right of way; the use of gates on the new route; local support for the application and the local authority’s obligation to maintain the existing right of way.

The Rights of Way Officer addressed some of the issues raised by the public and local members with the main points focusing on the use of gates on the new route.

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Cllr Howard Greenman, seconded by Cllr Gavin Grant to approve the application to divert parts CALW89, 89A and 89B, contrary to the officer recommendation.

During the debate the main points raised were: safety and security concerns; accessibility issues; accessibility to the countryside; the convenience of the new route; the need to consider the existing right of way as if it were in a usable state; the views of the Wiltshire Bridleways Association and the current state of the existing right of way.

Resolved

That, contrary to the officer report, an order (under s.119 Highways Act 1980 and s.53 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) is made and duly advertised.

To consider and determine the following planning applications:

Attention was drawn to application 19/03152/OUT, as considered on 04 September 2019. It was noted that officers are not yet able to refer the application back to Committee because the Ecologist’s consultation advice which was requested at the meeting was dependent upon additional information which has not yet been made available.

The Committee considered the following applications:

Public participation

Paul Kavanagh, long leaseholder, spoke in objection to the application.

Simon Chambers, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer, Lee Burman, introduced a report which recommended granting planning permission, subject to conditions, for the removal of conditions 8, 9 & 10 of application reference N/10/03612/S73A to allow unrestricted residential occupancy of units 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 &11 and 20-25.

Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting and attached to these minutes.

Key issues highlighted included: the principles of the development proposal and compliance or conflict with the development plan; the viability of the existing units of accommodation with the currently attached conditions restricting the scope and nature of the residential use and occupancy; whether the properties have been marketed appropriately reflecting the restrictive occupancy conditions and residential amenity.

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

of the officer which focused on: the valuations of the properties; whether the properties have been marketed appropriately reflecting the restrictive occupancy conditions and residential amenity; the viability of the existing units of accommodation with the currently attached conditions restricting the scope and nature of the residential use and occupancy.

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

detailed above.

Cllr Chuck Berry, Division Member, spoke regarding the application with the main points focusing on: the use of the development as both residential and holiday let/accommodation; the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan and whether or not the material considerations as detailed in the report outweigh Policy 3 Holiday Accommodation, Leisure & Recreation of the made neighbourhood plan.

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Cllr Toby Sturgis, seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton to grant planning permission as detailed in the report.

During the debate the main points raised were: the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan; the need to give weight to the overwhelming material considerations as detailed in the report; the National Planning Framework; the suitability of the current waste collection; the effect of residential usage on local businesses within the park infrastructure; the character and appearance of the area and residential amenity.

Resolved

That planning permission is approved, subject to the conditions below and the completion of a S106 agreement within 6 months of the date of the Committee resolution to vary the existing agreement to apply to this permission; address open space requirements; and prevent the Applicant from building out phase 4 of planning permission ref N/10/03612/S73A without demonstrating to the Council’s reasonable satisfaction (to be confirmed in writing and such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed) that there is demand for the units contained within phase 4. In the event that the applicant declines to enter into the s106 agreement to refuse permission for the following reasons:

1.    The application fails to make provision for the requisite services, facilities and infrastructure needs arising from the proposals and is therefore contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy Policy CP3 and paras 54  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Public participation

Peter Gallagher, The Ramblers, spoke in objection to the application.

Tony Kernon, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Colin Rendell, Broad Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Nicole Gillett, introduced a report which recommended granting planning permission, subject to conditions, for the change of use of agricultural land to equestrian and construction of all-weather gallop.

Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting and attached to these minutes.

Key issues highlighted included: the principle of development; the impact on the character and appearance of the area and AONB; the impact on highway safety; the impact on neighbour amenity; the impact on public rights of way and the impact on heritage assets.

There were no technical questions. 

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

detailed above.

Cllr Mollie Groom, Division Member, assured the Committee that she would participate in the debate and vote for each item with an open mind. She then spoke regarding the application with the main points focusing on the impact on public rights of way, highways concerns and the impact on the character and appearance of the area and AONB.

The Planning Officer addressed some of the issues raised by the public and local members with the main point focusing on the applicant needing to agree the type, position and wording of signage to be erected at the Broad Town Road crossing with the Local Planning Authority in the interest of public safety.

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Cllr Toby Sturgis, seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton, to grant planning permission as detailed in the report and subject to the amendment of condition 8 to alter hours of operation/use to 9:00am – 4:00pm Monday – Friday and 9:00am – 12:00pm Saturdays.

During the debate the main points raised were: the viability and use of the gallops; the concerns of The Ramblers; operation/usage times; the impact on the public rights of way; the impact on neighbour amenity and road safety issues.

Resolved

That planning permission is approved as detailed in the officer report and subject to the amendment of condition 8 to alter hours of operation/use as detailed below:

1.    Time Limit

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.    Approved Plans

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Site Location Plan KCC2759/01A received 21st October 2019

Site Plan KCC2759/02A received 18th October 2019

Further revised details of gallop and location of footpath crossings KCC2759/03B received 11^th October 2019

Revised details of stopping circle KCC2759/04A received 7th October 2019

Details of start circle and entrance track KCC2759/05 received 29th July 2019

Revised cross section of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Public participation

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

Cllr Philip Exton, Malmesbury Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Catherine Blow, introduced a report which recommended granting planning permission, subject to conditions, for the change of use from an A3 cafe to single dwelling house. The proposed refurbishment & internal alterations are to facilitate the change of use.

Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting and attached to these minutes.

Key issues highlighted included: the principle of development; the impact on the listed building and conservation area; the design and site layout; the impact on the locality and amenity and highways concerns.

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

of the officer which focused on the viability of the property as a café and the provision of adequate residential parking.

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

detailed above.

Cllr Gavin Grant, Division Member, spoke regarding the application with the main points focusing on the impact on the locality and amenity; impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre; the importance of protecting existing services and facilities; parking concerns and the impact on the listed building and conservation area.

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Cllr Peter Hutton, seconded by Cllr Tony Trotman to grant planning permission as detailed in the report.

During the debate the main points raised were: the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan; the importance of protecting existing services and facilities; the impact on the locality and amenity; the impact on the town centre’s retail offering, vitality and viability and parking concerns.

Following the debate, the motion was defeated.

A proposal was then moved by Cllr Gavin Grant, seconded by Cllr Brian Mathew to refuse planning permission, contrary to the officer recommendation.

The Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, advised the Committee that without sound reasoning which addressed the material considerations relevant to the determination of the application and the basis for the officer recommendation, refusing planning permission would leave the Local Planning Authority open to appeal.

This motion was also defeated.

The original proposal, to grant planning permission as detailed in the report, was then put back to the Committee by Cllr Ashley O’Neill, seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton.

This motion was carried.

A proposal was moved by Cllr Tony Trotman, seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton, to grant listed building consent as detailed in the report.

This motion was defeated.

A proposal was then moved by Cllr Gavin Grant, seconded by Cllr Brian Mathew, to refuse listed building consent, contrary to the officer’s report.

The Development Management Team Leader again advised the Committee that without sound reasoning which addressed the material considerations relevant to the determination of the application and the basis for the officer recommendation, refusing planning permission would leave the Local Planning Authority open to appeal.

The original proposal, to grant listed building consent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

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.