Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllr Marshall and Cllr Packard.

Cllr Packard was substituted by Cllr Watts.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 2 October 2013.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 October 2013 were presented.

Resolved:

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive any announcements through the Chairman.

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 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 16 October 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 Committee noted the rules on public participation.

An appeals update report is attached for information.

The Committee noted the contents of the appeals update.

To consider and determine planning applications 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 and 7b as listed in the agenda pack.

Public Participation

Dr Eva Detko and Mr Peter Eccott spoke in objection to the application.

Nick Charlton spoke in support of the application

The officer introduced the report which recommended that authority be delegated to the Area Development Manager to grant planning permission subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement; and subject to planning conditions.

The Committee noted negotiations between the applicant and officers which had resulted in a change in the design to 2 storey dwellings with a lower roof pitch.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions and it was confirmed that the proposal resulted in a 30% reduction in current parking space. There had been no survey on how many vehicles used the car park, however highways officers had considered the application and raised no objections. Attention was drawn to the late observations where the statement requiring a maximum of 30 spaces was found to be incorrect. Officers confirmed that there were no concerns over privacy and were confident no light would be taken from surrounding gardens.

Members of the public then address the Committee as detailed above.

The Local member, Cllr Peter Hutton spoke in objection to the application. He raised concerns over the lack of local engagement, the design being out of character and the impact of the reduction in parking spaces on the neighbouring roads, in particular on emergency access to Barons Mead where there was a predominantly elderly population.

A motion to recommend refusal due the, size, scale and layout and the design being out of character with the area, making reference to policy C3(i) was proposed and seconded.

In the debate that followed the Committee discussed whether the application was out of character with the street scene and the impact of the reduction in parking spaces.

Resolved:

To REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:

Policy C3(i) of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 states that new development should respect the local character and distinctiveness of the area. It is considered that the proposed development, by reason of its siting, scale, mass, design, and density would represent an overdevelopment of the site, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the local area. Furthermore, the design of the proposed development and its relationship with Hungerdown Lane is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the street scene to thedetriment of the area. As such the proposal fails to accord with Policy C3 (i) of the adopted North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 and section 7 of the NPPF.

Site visit for Members Monday 21 October 2013 at 1530.

Public Participation

Don Quinn, Mr Dave Martin and Caroline Stephens spoke in objection to the application.

Richard Wearmouth spoke in support of the application.

Sian Neill, Clerk to Hullavington Parish Council spoke in objection to the application

The officer introduced the report which recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions.

He noted that the application had been deferred from 11 September meeting for a site visit that allowed members to understand the location and landscape issues. A new fencing proposal had been submitted that was deer proof and more agricultural in appearance.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers and it was confirmed that any subsequent application would be considered on individual merits, should the Committee be minded to approve the application it would be a material consideration on any application made for the adjacent fields. The footpath on the west side of the application did not intrude on the site. Landscaping plans included filling gaps in the hedge line. No response had been received from the MOD or the CAA to the consultation.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee as detailed above.

The local member, Cllr Jane Scott OBE spoke in objection to the application, explaining that, whilst not against the principle of solar farms, she felt the location of this site was inappropriate. She highlighted the importance of receiving a response from the MOD given the potential future use of the airfield as part of the rebasing programme, and drew attention to the landscaping not shielding during the winter months. If the Committee were minded to approve the application she asked that the fields be sown to manage the weeds and allow grazing and the roads and verges to be returned to their existing state.

In the debate that followed the Committee discussed the need to have a reply from the MOD and the CAA to the consultation and for remedial work to be completed on roads and verges.

Resolved:

To DELEGATE to the Area Development Manager to grant planning permission subject to receipt of written acknowledgement from the Ministry of Defence and the Civil Aviation Authority to confirm they had seen the consultation, and for the rewording of conditions 4 and 8 below in consultation with the Chairman of Area Planning Committee, for the following reason:

The proposed development, by reason of its siting, size, scale, design and materials, will not adversely affect the character or appearance of the host landscape or the setting of the Cotswolds AONB, nor will it result in detriment to highway safety once operational. As such, the proposal accords with Policies C2, C3, NE4, NE15 and NE16 of the adopted North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 and Sections 10 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Subject to the following conditions:

Public Participation

Mrs Carolyn Madley spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Ashley Juniper, Biddestone Parish Council spoke in support of the application.

The officer introduced the report which recommended that listed building consent be refused.

They noted the existing 2 roof lights as being acceptable but an increase to three would result in awkward positioning, an over-cluttered look and further loss of historic fabric.

The Committee then had the chance to ask technical questions and it was confirmed that the roof lights were difficult to see from public highways but were visible from private land. A larger roof light on a lower roof was being changed to a smaller one and all other work was seen as an enhancement.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the committee as detailed above.

The local member, Cllr Jane Scott OBE, spoke in support of the application, noting the building was being renovated to a high standard.

In the debate that followed the Committee discussed the need for amended plans to show the existing roof lights as they are with the addition of a smaller roof light to the shower room.

Resolved:

That listed building consent is DELEGATED to the Area Development Manager to grant subject to receipt of amended plans that are satisfactory to the Area Development Manager showing retention of the existing roof lights plus the addition of one smaller roof light for the following reason:

The addition of a third, smaller roof light would not be detrimental to the aesthetic and historical value of the heritage asset and is in accordance with paragraphs 131, 132 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

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.