Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from:

Cllr Simon Killane, who was substituted by Cllr Terry Chivers.

Cllr Mollie Groom, who was substituted by Cllr Jacqui Lay.

To confirm and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 28 January 2015 .

Hilary Ford spoke against the accuracy of the minutes of the last meeting in relation to item 14d. The Chairman made a statement explaining how the determination of the application was reached at the meeting and the content of the minutes. Amendments to be made to the minutes were explained.

Resolved:

To confirm as a true and correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting on 28 January 2015 subject to the following amendments in relation to item 14d:

·         ‘Margaret Carey, Box Parish Council’;

·         A reference to ‘grey crested newts’ to be corrected to ‘Great crested newts’;

·         To amend condition 2 from:

‘Within three months of the date of this permission the hard standing, access, mobile home (including any fixtures and ancillary pipe work), horse trailer and any other trailers or buildings not shown as approved on the approved plans shall be removed from the site.’

to read:

‘Within 3 months of the date of this permission, the hard standing, access, the mobile home (including any fixtures and ancillary pipe work), horse trailers or buildings and any other trailers or buildings not shown on the approved plans together with the 2 containers on site shall be fully removed from the site.’;

·         To add the following to the summary of the debate:

‘Advice given by the legal officer and planning officer allowed members to come to a majority decision to accept the officer’s recommendation’.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

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 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 11 February). 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 detailed below.

THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN

This application was withdrawn in advance of the meeting.

The officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, as amended by the late observations. It was explained the application was for reserved matters following the granting of Outline planning permission at appeal. There was a legal dispute over ownership on the site however the Committee was advised it could proceed to determine the application. A layout was shown and the officer commented a high quality level of public open space was provided.

There were no technical questions.

Cllr Alan Hill spoke in objection to the application and requested determination be deferred.

The planning offer confirmed permission granted at appeal did not link the outline permission for housing in a planning or legal agreement with the full permission for the Dementia care facility and so permission could be granted separately by the Committee for the housing.

The local member, Cllr Christine Crisp, spoke in objection to the development without the Dementia Care facility and expressed disappointment in the behaviour of the developer and the consequences of the decision made at appeal.

In the debate that followed the Committee expressed frustration that the Dementia care facility was not part of the plans but did not agree on planning reasons for refusal.

Resolved:

To grant planning permission 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.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

ESD0806 - Free Standing Wall Detail

ESD0900 - Post and Rail Detail

ESD0906 - Close Board Fence Detail

ESD0922 - Ball Top Railing Details

Received 29 August 2014

SS001 rev B - Street Scenes

SS002 rev B - Street Scenes

APT_01 rev A - Apartments Plan 01

APT_02 rev A - Apartments Plan 02

APT_03 rev A - Apartments Elevation

BR001 - Bat Roost

Parking Schedule

Received 19 November 2014

House Type Booklet (C) [unless otherwise superseded]

EF_LETC_S.1.0 rev C - Letchworth (Plan)

EF_LETC_S.1.0 rev A - Letchworth V1 (stone)

Received 6 January 2015

SL001 rev M - Site Layout

EP001 rev D - Enclosures Plan

MP001 rev E - Materials Plan

SH001 rev D - Adoption Plan

AP001 rev D - Storey Heights Plan

SL002 rev E - Slab Level Plan

TP001 rev C - Vehicle Tracking Plan

TF001 rev B - Indicative Surface Finishes Plan

394-P-04 rev C - Drainage Strategy

394-P-07 rev C - Bus Vehicle Tracking

394-P-06 rev A - Visibility (Planning)

Received 21 January 2015

RED19412-11 rev I - Landscape Proposals 11 (1of6)

RED19412-11 rev I - Landscape Proposals 11 (2of6)

RED19412-11 rev I - Landscape Proposals 11 (3of6)

RED19412-11 rev I - Landscape Proposals 11 (4of6)

RED19412-11 rev I - Landscape Proposals 11 (5of6)

RED19412-11 rev I - Landscape Proposals 11 (6of6)

RED19412-13 rev F  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21b

Mr Dury spoke on behalf of Mr and Mrs Richardson in objection to the application.

Hugh Bellars and Arlene Warren spoken in objection to the application.

Nathen McGloghlin spoke in support of the application.

Norman Davis, Sutton Benger Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The planning officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused and drew attention to an additional reason for refusal in the late observations. The application had originally been for 60 dwellings and had been reduced to 28. The indicative layout of the site was shown in addition to photographs of the street scene and a description of the surrounding area.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical question and it was confirmed the development was outside the settlement boundary and there was a five year land supply.

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

The local member, Cllr Howard Greenman, spoke in objection to the application.

Following comments raised the planning officer confirmed the outline application demonstrated the development would be far enough from existing neighbouring properties to avoid an adverse impact on them. It was noted issues such as the retention of hedges could be resolved at a reserved matters stage and comments from the Conservation officer were considered a material consideration.

In the debate that followed Members considered there had been much development in this area and this application may constitute overdevelopment. The planning officer advised he could not confirm whether the boundary treatment approved under the previously consented scheme was close-boarded fencing. Councillors advised the community to develop a Neighbourhood Plan to help ensure housing was provided in appropriate locations. Some Members expressed concerns the site could be of archaeological importance. The Committee noted relatively few houses needed to be found in the wider Chippenham area, this application was outside the framework boundary and considered overdevelopment of the site in the village with inadequate services and facilities to support additional residential development.

Resolved:

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.    The site is located in the countryside outside of the limits of development of Sutton Benger as defined on the Policies Map and by virtue of its scale and location would conflicts with the sustainable development strategy of the plan as expressed in Core Policies 1, 2 and (community area strategy policy) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. The proposed residential development does not fall to be determined under any of the 'exception policies' defined at paragraph 4.25 of the plan within Core Policies 10 & 44 of the Core Strategy, or relate to a site allocated in the development plan for residential use. It would therefore constitute unsustainable development in the countryside.

2.    In light of the above, the Council has been unable to secure a Section 106 Agreement in respect of financial contributions associated with the proposed development, contrary to Policies CP43 & CP3 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and policies H4, CF3 & CF2 of the adopted North Wiltshire Local Plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21c

Mark Clarke spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr John Coole, Cricklade Town Council spoke in objection to the application

The officer introduced the report which recommended that the application be refused. The application was for the construction of 7 employment buildings; aerial photographs and a site plan were shown. It was explained planning permission existed for gypsy and traveller pitches on the site, however the current application was considered new build development in open countryside and unsustainable. The officer drew attention to the late observations.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions during which it was verified the permission would not permit residential occupancy and the existing permission did not establish a precedent for the development proposed by this application. Work on the gypsy site had not commenced.

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

The local member, Cllr Bob Jones, spoke in objection to the application.

In the debate that followed the Committee expressed support for the officer’s reasons for refusal and requested inclusion of inconsistency with Core Policy 19 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy in the reasons for refusal . Additionally, Members anticipated an increase in HGV use on the site and considered the road network unsuitable to this use. It was considered the design of the site would not be a positive contribution to the character of the area. 

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.    The proposal is not within or adjacent to any settlement identified in the plan and is located in the open countryside, nor will it support sustainable farming and food production. It is therefore inconsistent with criteria i, ii, and iii of Core Policy 34 and Core Policy CP19 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. In addition, it is not considered that the proposal would be of strategic importance to the Wiltshire economy, and therefore does not qualify as an exception to the general approach to employment land provision under criteria iv of Core Policy 34. The proposal does not meet provisions for additional employment land and is therefore contrary to Core Policy 34 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy

2.    The proposal does not fall into any of the circumstances set out in Core Policy 48 under which development in rural areas will be supported. The proposal is for new industrial units in the open countryside and therefore is contrary to Core Policy 48 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

3.    The proposal, located remote from residential areas and services, and poorly served by public transport, is contrary to Core Policy 60 of the WCS as well as the key aims of NPPF which seek to promote sustainable development and reduce growth in the length and number of motorised journeys.

4.    The character of existing local countryside in this area is permanently changing into a sprawling urban area, which pays little respect to appropriate local distinctiveness in terms of design or character. Further incremental and piecemeal industrial development at this site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21d

Geraint Jones spoke on behalf of Mr and Mrs Freedman in objection to the application.

Andrew Pywell spoke in support of the application.

The planning officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, as amended by the late observations and verbal submissions. It was explained there was a related but separate application, 14/04555/FUL, as item 6f on the agenda. The application currently under consideration was retrospective and locally contentious; attention was brought to the objections in the late observations. Aerial photographs and a site plan with access were shown. It was highlighted that the legal status of passing bays was disputed however land ownership was not a material planning consideration. The application was for the re-use of existing buildings and was, on balance, considered sustainable. Highways officers had not raised an objection to the scheme. Conditions, amendments to conditions and issues raised in the late observations in relation to both this application  and application 14/04555/FUL were explained.

There were no technical questions.

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

The local member, Cllr Chuck Berry, spoke in objection to the application.

In the debate that followed the Committee agreed traffic movement as a result of the application would cause significant harm to the residential amenity of neighbours. It was considered that lorries would obstruct the bridleways and, even with the provision of passing bays, the access road would not be suitable for the passing of two HGVs, access to the site was therefore inadequate. The Committee felt the economic benefit of the development was not significant enough to outweigh harm caused to the amenity of residents and bridleway users. It was commented the development was, on balance, unsustainable.

Resolved:

To refuse planning permission for the following reason:

The development proposed would generate traffic movements to and from the site utilising a site access that results in significant harm to existing residential amenities and the amenities of users of the right of way through disruption, disturbance and vehicular conflict on the site access route. The significant harm to residential amenities and the amenities of users of the rights of way is not outweighed by the economic benefits of development and the proposals are on balance considered to be unsustainable. The proposals are contrary to Paragraphs 14, 17 & 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies CP34, CP48 and CP57 of the Adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy January 2015.

Geraint Jones, speaking on behalf of Mr and Mrs Freeman raised no objection to the application.

Andrew Pywell spoke in support of the application.

The officer introduced the report which recommended that the application be granted subject to conditions as amended by the late items and verbal submissions. The application was retrospective and photographs of the covered parking were shown. No concerns had been raised by the highways officer and it was confirmed the parking would service the wider site, not only activities in the B1 and B8 uses considered under the previous agenda item for application 14/04529/FUL.

There were no technical questions.

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

The local member, Cllr Chuck Berry, spoke in support of the application.

In the debate that followed the Committee expressed support for the officer recommendation and it was confirmed that the covered parking area could not be used for storage.

Resolved:

To grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1.    Within two months of the date of the decision notice the parking areas shown on the approved plans (Block Plan 0823/13/06 A dated May 2014 and Existing Parking and Turning Areas, Figure 4) shall be consolidated, surfaced and laid out in accordance with the approved details. This area shall be maintained and remain available for this use at all times thereafter.

REASON: To ensure that adequate provision is made for parking within the site in the interests of highway safety.

2.    Within two months of the date of the decision notice full construction details for the widening of the vehicle access of the private road and / Hornbury Hill C76 (as outlined in PFA Technical Note para 2.12) shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details, within two months of the date of approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety.

3.    Within two months of the date of the decision notice a full and detailed scheme of signage along the private road requesting motorists to give way to bridleway users shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details, within two months of the date of approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority and retained in perpetuity thereafter.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety.

4.    The use hereby permitted shall only take place between the hours of 08.00am and 18:00pm on Mondays to Saturdays and not on 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.

5.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

0823/13/04

0823/13/05/A

0823/13/06/A

0823/13/07/A

PFA Technical Note 1 Fig 4

All dated May 2014

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21f

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.