Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

All members were present.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2014.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2014 were presented.

Resolved:

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

Cllrs Hurst and Killane declared an interest in agenda item 6c both having previously worked for Dyson. They declared that they would participate and vote with an open mind.

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 28 May 2014. 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 detailed below.

Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting in respect of applications 6b and 6c as listed in the agenda pack, and available in Agenda Supplement 1.

Public Participation

David Pearce, Claire Holt and Cllr David Kerr, Nettleton Parish Council all spoke in support of the application.

The officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused. He explained that the site was in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (ANOB), and the impact of the change of use would be significant on the surrounding natural environment which was harmful in visual terms to the character and appearance of the landscape and the ANOB.

There were no technical questions asked.

Members of the public than addressed the committee as detailed above.

The local member, Cllr Jane Scott OBE then addressed the committee and urged members to support the application with conditions to ensure it was used for parking only, that no buildings could be placed on the site and that a sympathetic surface / materials were used.

In the debate that followed the Committee noted that legal parking requirements already exist at the site. The importance of highways safety was acknowledged. Concern was raised over the size and shape of the site of the site, and the lack of linkage to the curtilage.

Resolved:

To REFUSE the application for the following reason:-

The proposed development results in a significant change to the open rural nature of the area and does not preserve the character or appearance of the landscape and defined Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which is harmful and not justified by any overriding material considerations. The proposal is in conflict with policies C3(ii), NE4 and NE15 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 and Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Public Participation

Mark Crocker, Johnathan Hall and Cllr Richard Moody, Chairman – Oaksey Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Dr Cooper, Paul Groves and Simon Chambers 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 conditions

He explained that the application had been previously deferred at the meeting held on 12 March 2014 to enable officers to seek additional information and provide additional comment. The holiday let scheme had been unviable as a business and there had been no proceedable interest in purchasing with restrictive occupancy attached. An independent report had also concluded that business was unviable.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers and it was confirmed that although difficult to speculate if grounds aren’t substantive there was a risk of costs.

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

The local member, Cllr Chuck Berry then addressed the committee, noting the two sides being a family in significant financial stress and the objection of the parish council with support from the village on the issue of non-viability and the impact on amenities and services within the village. He drew attention to the availability of business rates relief of 50%.

In the ensuing debate the Committee raised concern over lowering the numbers of holiday lets available and debated the relevance of the tourism development policy 39 given the lack of viability of the business. The re-use of existing units was welcomed.

Resolved:

To DELEGATE to the Area Development Manager to grant planning permission subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement and subject to the following conditions:

1.     Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order no fences, walls or other means of enclosure other than those shown on the approved plans shall be erected anywhere on site.

REASON: To ensure that the open areas of the site remain in communal use.

2.     The area between the nearside carriageway edge and lines drawn between a point 2.4 metres back from the carriageway edge along the centre line of the access and points on the carriageway edge 160m back from and on both sides of the centre line of the access shall be kept clear of obstruction to visibility at and above a height of 900mm above the nearside carriageway level and maintained free of obstruction at all times.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy C3 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011.

3.     The development hereby permitted shall be served solely from the access shown in drawing c310/1.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy C3 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011.

4.     The workshop / estate yard shall be used only for purposes ancillary to the golf course.

REASON: To prevent an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Public Participation

Iris Thompson, David Longridge and Gavin Grant spoke in objection to the application.

Kim Power, Nigel Whitehead, Chris Miles, Cllr John Gundry – Malmesbury Town Council and Cllr Robert Tallon – Brokenborough Parish Council spoke in support of the application.

The officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. He noted the scheme included amended plans which showed an adequate landscaping buffer. Highways improvements had been conditioned to be completed prior to first occupation, and there would be no development over the gas pipeline which ran through the site.

He drew attention to an error in the report which was missing condition 13 relating to archaeological works which would be required if the Committee was minded to approve, and this could be delegated to the Area Development Manager.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers and it was confirmed that at present the sports facility was not open to the community but the intention was to allow some sort of use. Traffic assessments had been completed with forecasting to allow for additional commitments. Beuttell Way works were not part of the application however officers understood that Dyson were in negotiations with owners to alter the access, and if granted works would happen. An additional grampion condition could be added for details to be agreed prior to the commencement of development. Light pollution was covered under condition 5. The helipad had been sited to cause minimal disturbance and had conditions limiting it for the use of Dyson employees only and limiting the time of day it can be used in. The pelican crossing was not part of the original planning application, but addressed residents concerns. It was estimated that circa 3000 jobs would be created with the new development, not including the knock-on effect.

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

The local member, Cllr Simon Killane then addressed the committee and spoke in support of the application, highlighting it as a model of positive engagement and working together.

In the debate that followed the committee highlighted the need to add an additional condition relating to archaeological works and informatives on the highways works, in particular those around Beuttell Way and the Nurding roundabout. The benefit to the whole county was noted.

Resolved:

To APPROVE the planning application subject to the following conditions:

1.     Details of the appearance, layout, and scale of the development hereby permitted (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.     Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

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.