Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

The Chairman began the meeting by welcoming planning officers from the Hammerfest municipality in Norway attending the meeting as part of a study programme.

The change to the status of item 6a on the agenda 14/03084/FUL was explained. Members were advised that, following correspondence from the Secretary of State’s office, Wiltshire Council would be unable to issue an approval notice to the applicant if conditions were to be agreed at the meeting. The Committee’s decision would be a resolution and would assist the Secretary of State in deciding whether to call-in the application, and the Committee had been recommended to proceed to consider the conditions.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Christine Crisp who was substituted by Cllr Jacqui Lay, Cllr Sheila Parker who was substituted by Cllr Chuck Berry, and Cllr Simon Killane and his substitute Cllr Terry Chivers.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 17 September 2014.

The Chairman explained an amendment to the minutes of the 17 September 2014 meeting to omit the reference to ‘Paragraphs 5 and 27 of the Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy’ and replace this with a reference to ‘Paragraph 13 of National Planning Practice Guidance section ‘Renewable and low carbon energy’, it was explained that the change was not substantive and had already been made in the printed minutes.

Mr Robert Reed spoke against the accuracy of the minutes of the last meeting and, in particular, commented that the reference to Paragraph 13 of the National Planning Practice Guidance section Renewable and low carbon energy, did not replicate the previous reference to Paragraph 5 and suggested a new reference was needed to cover this.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 September were presented to the Committee.

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 Peter Hutton declared himself Portfolio Holder for Public Protection and confirmed had no dealing with the application number 14/06727/FUL under consideration on item 7b of the agenda. The councillor declared he would participate in debate and vote on the 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 in person no later than 2.50pm 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 1 October 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 draft conditions recommended by officers for the following application:

Mr Charles Todd raised concerns over the procedure which determined the application at the last meeting.

Mrs Pauline Reed spoke in objection to planning conditions.

Mrs Anne Henshaw spoke in objection to planning conditions.

Mr Tim Barton spoke in support of the suggested conditions.

The suggested conditions for the application were noted by the planning officer to be those in the report for consideration by the Committee.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer and it was confirmed that the summary of the previous meeting’s resolution on the application was the same as in the printed minutes.

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

Following statements from the public, the planning officer confirmed that he felt condition 11 was suitable to overcome concerns and a condition on lighting had been included to help determine whether lighting would be appropriate to the location. The officer advised that the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan would ensure management of screening and that plans submitted to the Council were public documents.

The Chairman explained the site visit previously undertaken had examined the site thoroughly.

The local member, Cllr Dick Tonge expressed disappointment that there had been no debate on the public’s statements in relation to the minutes of the last meeting.

In the debate that followed, members considered the timing of Miscanthus planting, the definition of ‘first use’ in condition 5 and items considered under the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan. Members suggested that, if conditions were to be approved and planning permission be granted, the applicant should do all he could to relieve the concerns of local residents. It was agreed that ‘first use’ should reflect the first production of electricity and that the local authority would be informed when this started.

An amendment to a motion to approve the conditions was agreed, it was moved to approve conditions with an amendment  to condition 5 to read:

The Miscanthus ‘elephant grass’ planting detailed in the approved details shall be planted prior to the first production of electricity of the development hereby permitted. The Miscanthus shall be left to grow to aheight of at least 2.5m,after which a band at least 10m thick shall be maintained at all times across the full span of the indicated strip at a height of at least 2.5m, until such time as the apparatus is removed from the site and the land restored to its previous condition. If for any reason during the operational life of the development the Miscanthus should die, be removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, it shall be replaced in the next planting season with a similar species. And within 6 months of first production of electricity the Local Planning Authority shall be informed in writing.

Resolved:

To APPROVE the  following conditions for the application:

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

To consider and determine planning applications as detailed below.

Mr G Cheetham and Mr Hamilton spoke in support of the application.

David Pearce, Nettleton Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

The officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission and listed building consent be refused. Aerial photographs of the site were shown, it was confirmed that this was a Grade 2 listed building, the residential curtilage of the site was explained and it was shown there were prominent views onto the site. The history of the application was explained as were the differences to a previous application considered by the Committee, and images simulating the proposed development were projected.

There were no technical questions.

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

Cllr Toby Sturgis spoke on behalf of  the local member Cllr Jane Scott, explaining she had called-in the application due to parish council support.

In the debate that followed some members felt the extension was modest and would not detract from the original building, however other members expressed support for the officer’s reasons for refusal and felt the extension would damage the feel of the traditional farmstead.

Resolved:

To REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:

The proposed development, by reason of its siting, scale, massing, design and materials, will adversely affect the character and appearance of the listed building and its setting. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies C3, HE4 and H8 of the adopted North Wiltshire Local Plan and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

To REFUSE listed building consent for the following reason:

The proposed works, by reason of their siting, scale, massing, design and materials, fail to conserve or enhance the listed building or its setting, and are not otherwise justified by any wider benefit. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraphs 16(2) and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Mr Fergus Sykes spoke in support of the application.

The officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be granted to change the use of Units 2 and 3 Abacus House from A1 (Retail) and A2 (Financial & Professional Services) to A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) including the installation of a replacement shop front and installation of extraction/ventilation equipment subject to conditions, as amended by the agenda supplement.

Photographs of the building and plans for extractor flues were shown to the Committee. It was explained that existing retail units would be used and so the building would not be increasing in size. The officer commented that retail activity in the town centre was not expected to he harmed by the development and that activity could benefit by filling a vacant unit. Plans showing car parking near to the units were presented.

There were no technical questions.

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

The local member Cllr Alan MacRae spoke in objection to the application and expressed disappointment at the earlier meeting time of the Committee.

In the debate that followed some members raised concerns that staff and customers may park outside the shop located on a busy junction, and that this could cause pedestrian safety issues. However, it was noted that the change of use would fill a vacant shop and that there was ample car parking nearby. The Committee agreed that problems of littering could be mitigated by adding an informative to the applicant to help minimize litter.

Resolved:

To GRANT planning permission for a change the use of Units 2 and 3 Abacus House from A1 (Retail) and A2 (Financial & Professional Services) to A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) including the installation of a replacement shop front and installation of extraction/ventilation equipment subject to the following  conditions:

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 Purchase Act 2004.

2.    There shall be no customers/members of the public on the site outside the hours of 23:00 in the evening and 11:00 in the morning from Mondays to Fridays and between 23:00 in the evening and 11:00 in the morning on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays.

REASON: To ensure the creation/retention of an environment free from intrusive levels of noise and activity in the interests of the amenity of the area.

3.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: DB111-EX-01; DB111-EX-02; DB111-GA-03; DB111-EI-04; and DB111-LP08, received and date stamped by the LPA on the 17 July 2014; and 'Planning Design and Access Statement'; and 'Supporting Annexe B Document for Proposed Ventilation System', received and date stamped by the LPA on the 10 July 2014.

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

4.    Any plant shall not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

Mr Gallagher spoke on the application.

Mr Richard Pope and Mrs Anne Pope spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Brian Dufty spoke in support of the application.

The officer introduced the report which recommended that that authority be delegated to the Area Development Manager to grant planning permission subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement and the conditions listed in the report, as amended by the late observations. The constitution of this hybrid application was explained to the Committee.

Photographs of the site, its proposed layout, and the topography of the land were shown. The Committee was informed that consent for developing the land for employment use already existed however, there had been no take-up by developers for this purpose. The officer drew attention to the late items and noted the Environment Agency had withdrawn objections in relation to surface water draining and that parking concerns had also been addressed. The Committee heard Oxford University had raised an objection as they  understood a road bypass, once suggested for this land, would be halted by the development. The officer confirmed there were no documented proposals to create a bypass.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers and it was confirmed that revisions to the proposed layout of housing addressed concerns over the movement of refuse vehicles. It was explained that the Section 106 agreement specified the need for a management company for the country park. It was confirmed that there was no further land in the area designated for employment in the Core Strategy and that 3 hectares of the country park would be lost from this development and the one to the north.

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

The local member, Cllr Chris Hurst, spoke in objection to the application and expressed the need for Wainhomes to address residents’ concerns with developments they had already started.

The planning officer confirmed Network Rail had been consulted and that drainage works were being addressed by Wainhomes.

In the debate that followed members expressed concern that country park land may further be encroached upon and questioned whether Wainhomes had been reliable in fulfilling previous commitments. The sustainability of the development was discussed and it was confirmed that the Section 106 heads of terms covered sustainable transport requirements. Members understood there were no confirmed plans for a bypass to be built on the site but considered that this would be a very useful development to alleviate heavy traffic on other roads.

Whilst the Committee did not consider the application could be refused, it was agreed that the applicant should be discouraged from building on the country park in the future and that a suitable landscape management plan should be in place.

An amendment to a motion to move the planning officer’s recommendation, was agreed to include an alteration to Condition WC1 Landscaping to incorporate a requirement to submit and agree a Landscape Management Plan with particular regard to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

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.