Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllr Groom and Cllr Scott.

Cllr Groom was substituted by Cllr Lay.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2013.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 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.

The Chairman drew attention to the late observations circulated at the meeting.

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 31 December 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.

To consider and determine planning applications as determined below.

Public Participation

Richard Pagett spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Geoff Greenaway, Purton Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The officer introduced the report which recommended that in the absence of a section 106 agreement to secure the provision of necessary ecological mitigation, the Committee’s position would have been to refuse planning permission. 

He explained that permission had previously been delegated to the Area Development Manager to grant subject to the signing of a section 106 agreement.  A section 106 agreement had not been signed and  the applicant had appealed against non-determination. The Committee’s position if able to determine without ecological mitigation needed to be established.

There were no technical questions asked.

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

The local member, Cllr Jacqui Lay spoke in objection to the application.

In the debate that followed the need for a legal agreement to secure the provision of necessary ecological mitigation was noted.

Resolved:

That had the Committee been in a position to determine the application it would have been refused for the following reason:

The proposed development results in the loss of a significant protected ecological habitat which is a designated Country Wildlife Site and Biodiversity Action Plan listed habitat. The proposals include no provision for commensurate, deliverable mitigation for the loss of and harm to protected ecological habitat (calcareous Grassland). The proposals are contrary to the NPPF section 11 and paragraphs 14, 17 & 118; NWLP policies C3, NE7, NE10, NE11; and core policy 50 Wiltshire core Strategy proposed Modifications.  

Public Participation

John Bull and Paul Jobbins spoke in support of the application.

The officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused.

He explained that the site was located on the green belt. Previous planning permission to build a dwelling had been granted because it resulted in the removal of several old buildings, but that this was considered the limit of desired development. Retrospective planning permission had not been sought for a hardcore parking area which was constructed on the site. A caravan was parked on the site under a certificate of lawful use. He confirmed that the applicant was not seeking retrospective planning permission and had not sought to engage in legal agreement to remove of the caravan.

The local member, Cllr Parker addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the application. She noted the size, scale and impact of the proposed development. She explained that the proposed development would improve the public footpath and visibility from across the greenbelt.

In the debate that followed the Committee noted public support for the development. Concerns were noted regarding the caravan being allowed to remain on the site,, the scale of the proposed building and the building being partly sited on a hardcore parking area that, having no planning consent was unlawful.

Resolved:

The application for planning permission is REFUSED for the following reason:

Due to the size, scale and location of the proposed outbuilding it would be a disproportionate addition to the existing dwelling which would be harmful to the openness of the green belt and would not conserve the natural beauty of the landscape. The proposed development would be contrary to policies C3, H8, NE1 and NE4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 and section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.  

Public Participation

Roger Budgen, William Allbrook and Cllr Kim Powers spoke in objection to the application.

John Harris spoke in support of the application.

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

Attention was drawn to an updated plan contained within agenda supplement 1 and late observations which were available at the meeting, and were available in agenda supplement 2.

He explained that outline permission had been granted in 2005 for a residential development. A previous planning application to build four flats had been refused due to its siting, height, bulk and orientation having a detrimental impact on neighbouring uses and lack of adequate parking provision. The subsequent appeal was dismissed . The current proposal was of a different design and reduced bulk and was therefore not considered to have an overbearing impact on the adjacent school. He explained that a footpath to the school ran alongside the site which the previous permission had used as access and there had been no highways objections received. 

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers and it was confirmed that an informative to contact the school when construction would occur could be included. Any further development which would restrict access to the school path would require a new planning application. It was confirmed that a condition to maintain the hedge within the site boundary could be added to the application as well as a construction method statement.

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

The local member, Cllr Killane spoke in objection to the application. He explained that the hedge running along the boundary of the site was extremely overgrown and was obstructing a footpath to the school. He noted road safety concerns, rubbish collection issues, emergency service access and delivery concerns.

In the debate that followed road safety concerns were noted as well as the need to encourage children to walk to school. It was noted that there were alternative entrances to the school and that such entrances were only used for short periods of the day. The existing outline permission was highlighted, and the need to have a construction method statement and a condition regarding maintenance of the boundary hedge on the footpath was agreed

A motion to refuse planning permission based on pedestrian safety, policy C3(vii) was moved, seconded, voted on and lost.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6c

Public Participation

Denise Williams, Ian Carter, Paul Sibley and Cllr Linda Packard (Chippenham Town Council) spoke in objection to the application.

Sats Ahluwalia spoke in support of the application.

The officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be delegated to the Area Development Manager to be granted subject to no adverse comments being received in relation to archaeology and the pipeline and subject to conditions.

He drew attention to the existing permission which granted extensive extensions to the buildings. The proposal at hand was of a similar size, style and scale to the permission already granted. There were significant benefits for people who needed care, and being within the community met both the local and national strategy’s in caring for people with dementia.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers and it was confirmed that the application would allow resident numbers to increase by 25, from 19 to 44. The Highways department had not raised any objection to the development. The plans did not include measures to reduce noise levels but that the applicant was working with residents to address these issues.

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

The local member, Cllr Mark Packard addressed the Committee and spoke in objection to the application. He noted concerns regarding privacy, noise and disruption, access to the site and the impact on existing infrastructure.

A motion to refuse the application was made but not seconded.

A motion to delegate to the Area Development Manager to be granted subject to no adverse comments being received in relation to archaeology and the pipeline and subject to conditions was made and seconded.

In the debate that followed, the Committee noted the need to base their decision on planning issues. It was also noted that signs and traffic calming measures could be included in a legal agreement provided they were located on land in the applicant’s ownership.

Resolved:

That permission be DELEGATED to the Area Development Manager to grant subject to the signing of a section 106 agreement in respect of traffic calming measures and signs within the applicant’s land; and

Subject to conditions:

Public Participation

Mr Cheetham, Mr Howard Walters and Cllr David Pearce (Nettleton Parish Council) spoke in support of the application

It was noted that there were two applications, the full application and the listed building consent and that the full application would taken first.

The officer introduced the report which recommended that the planning application be refused.

He explained that linking the two buildings by a large extension was detrimental to the historic character and nature of the buildings and contrary to policy.

The Committee then had the chance to ask technical questions of officers and it was confirmed that the current use of the right hand building was unknown and any works to it would need listwed building consent.

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

Cllr Toby Stugis spoke on behalf of the local member, Cllr Jane Scott OBE addressed the committee and, whist appreciating what the applicant was trying to do highlighted issues with both the linking and the massing being contrary to policy and harming the overall complex of buildings.

In the debate that followed concern was raised over connectivity.

Resolved:

In respect of 13/3728/FUL:

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

The size, position and detail of the extension will have an adverse impact upon the listed building and its setting. It would be over-dominant in relation to Green Barn and would fail to preserve both the significance of the listed building and the character and significance of its setting. This would be contrary to Section 12 of the NPPF 2012 and policies C3 and HE4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011.

In respect of 13/04105/LBC:

That listed building consent is REFUSED for the following reason:

The size, position and detail of the extension will have an adverse impact upon the listed building and its setting. It would be over-dominant in relation to Green Barn and would fail to preserve both the significance of the listed building and the character and significance of its setting. This would be contrary to S.16(2) and S.66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 of the NPPF 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.