Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillors Mark Packard, Howard Marshall and Sheila Parker.

Councillor Parker was substituted by Councillor Chuck Berry.

Councillor Marshall was substituted by Councillor Glenis Ansell.

Councillor Packard was substituted by Councillor Nick Watts.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 4 June 2014.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 June 2014 were presented for consideration and it was,

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.

Councillor Peter Hutton declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 13/05214/FUL: Malmesbury Tennis Club, due to the contribution of the council’s Public Protection Team (Environmental Health), given his position as Portfolio Holder for Public Protection, but declared he had no involvement in this specific application in any way, and therefore participated and voted on the item.

To receive any announcements through the Chairman.

There were no 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 18 June 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 the following planning applications:

Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting, provided in an agenda supplement.

Public Participation

Mr Miles Edmeston, Chairman of Malmesbury Tennis Club, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Chris Miles spoke in support of the application.

Mrs Jo Kitching spoke in support of the application.

The Area Team Leader presented their report which recommended the application be approved. The key issues were stated to include the access and impact on highways, residential amenity and local ecology. Attention was drawn to the late observations and the proposed alteration of some conditions, as well as noting that the applicant’s had stated that a temporary permission would not enable them to secure the grant funding being sought from the Lawn Tennis Association.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the timing controls for the operation of the floodlighting, noise concerns and the enforcement of a traffic management scheme.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

The Local Member, Councillor Simon Killane, then spoke in support of the application provided the work to mitigate the concerns of residents was achieved.

A debate followed, where the community benefit of expanding the Tennis Club was raised, but that this would increase traffic to the site and that the proposed Travel Plan needed to be sufficient and should be reviewed in the future to ensure this.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

That authority be delegated to the Area Development Manager to grant Planning Permission subject to agreement of an amendment to the Travel Plan to incorporate provisions for review at appropriate intervals to be agreed with the applicant and subject to the following conditions:

Public Participation

Mrs Kathy Smedley spoke objection to the application.

Mr David Wynne-Davies spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Bruce Groves spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr Glenda Woodville, Sutton Benger Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Senior Planning Officer presented their report which recommended the application be delegated for approval subject to the signing of a s.106 legal agreement. Key issues were stated to include the principle of development, impact upon drainage, ecology, highway safety, character and appearance of the area, and s.106 contributions. It was noted there was extant permission to demolish the farm building currently on the site and redevelop for residential purposes. Attention was also drawn to the late observations and some proposed amended conditions.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to queries it was stated the accesses into the site had been designed to accommodate waste collection services. It was also confirmed that although the adjacent development site was now being undertaken by the same developers, each was still subject to their own legal agreements. Further detail was sought on flooding in the area and it was confirmed that the ponds that had previously been included as part of the application had been for ecological mitigation, not flood mitigation, and that this was now considered unnecessary with the increased public open space alongside the river in the north of the site.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee with their views, as detailed above.

The Local Member, Councillor Howard Greenman, then spoke in objection to the application due to the unsuitability of the site due to flooding and drainage concerns, and requested further negotiations towards the extent of and targeting of s.106 contributions, particular with regards play equipment.

A debate followed, where the design and density of the site was assessed, along with the measures taken to mitigate flood risk on the site. On and off site s.106 contributions were debated, along with parking provision and amount of affordable housing.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

That subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure contributions in respect of on-site affordable housing and public open space, and off-site contributions in respect of primary and secondary education provision, drainage improvements, leisure provision and play equipment, to delegate to the Area Development Manager to GRANT planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

Public Participation

Mr Hans Kuropatwa, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Mrs Charlotte Watkins, town planner, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Charles Cook, Minety Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

The Area Team Leader presented their report which recommended the application be refused. Key issues were stated to include the impact of the proposal on the open countryside. It was stated that officers considered the proposed ancillary accommodation being tantamount to a new dwelling due to its separation from the main dwelling. Reference was made to late observations relating to the matters considered in the determination of the application.

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

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

The Local Member, Councillor Chuck Berry, then spoke in support of the application, stating that a restriction against the ancillary dwelling being separately sold could be imposed.

A debate followed, where the scale and amenity of the proposed ancillary accommodation was discussed, along with its significant distance from the main dwelling and location next to the existing stable doors.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reason:

The proposed location of the ancillary accommodation separate to the main dwelling house known as Flisteridge Farm is considered to be inappropriate for the purpose of providing ancillary accommodation for elderly relatives and does not achieve an adequate level of residential amenity for future occupants. By way if its design, scale and location the proposed extension is considered tantamount to a new dwelling in the open countryside remote from local services, facilities and transport services and is therefore unsustainable. Due to these reasons the development is contrary to policies NE15, C3 and H8 of the adopted North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011.

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.