Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Terry Chivers, Howard Marshall, and Mark Packard.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2015.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2015 were presented.

Resolved:

To confirm as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2015.

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 17 June 2015. 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.

Deborah Loader, John Longford-Brown, and Doreen Jevons spoke in opposition to the application.

Peter Lydiate and Lindy Lydiate spoke in support of the application.

Richard Hughes, Great Somerford Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. The application was for the erection of new detached dwelling including new access and new single garage within the conservation area. The officer explained that the application was a resubmission of an application that was approved in 2012 and remains extant (live) until the end of 2015. As the new application contained no material changes and no significant change in material considerations, it was explained that this carried significant weight in considering the new application.

It was noted that the Conservation Officer considered that the proposal would result in harm which had also been advised in the previous application. It was highlighted that the concerns of the Conservation Officer and the representations made by members of the public had been taken into consideration by the case officer who considered the proposal, on balance, to be acceptable. In response to some concerns regarding the shared access on Hollow Road, the officer drew attention to the proposed condition requiring the submission and approval of a construction method statement prior to development if the application was granted.

The Planning Officer explained that there had been a change in the policy framework for the consideration of the proposal as the Wiltshire Core Strategy had now been adopted. However, it was confirmed that the relevant policy considerations were broadly similar in objectives and requirements. The application was in line with the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework and, as such, there was no significant change in policy since the application was determined that justified refusal.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions; it was confirmed that only certain types of tree were protected under conservation area status which did not include hedges and the hedging along the boundary lines was under the control of the applicants.

The Committee enquired how much weight should be given to the extant (live) planning permission and the Legal Officer confirmed that if this application were refused, the applicants could implement the live consent which was materially the same as the application under consideration. It was explained that a change in policy could have an effect but clarified that this would only be the case if there were any material differences in the application which was not the case.

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

The local member, Cllr Toby Sturgis, expressed support for the views and concerns of the Parish Council and members of the public. Further concern was raised regarding the height of the proposed structure and the objections of the Conservation Officer. It was warned that the proposed structure could dominate the conservation area landscape and that there was no requirement to maintain the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Sir James Fuller spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report and drew attention to the late observation in which Highways considered the parking area and visibility splays to be acceptable. The application was for the conversion of a redundant chapel as an extension to the existing dwelling with an associated upgrade of parking facilities. The officer explained that, as a former community use building, Core Policy 49 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy was relevant and this required applicants to demonstrate that there was no demand or need for other appropriate uses of the building as referenced in the policy before conversion to a residential use could be considered as a matter of last resort. As such the applicant was required to market the building for community uses prior to consideration of a change of use to a residential building. Evidence of this marketing had not been demonstrated in the application and was a key policy objection which formed the basis for reason 1 of the recommendation for refusal.

The Planning Officer highlighted that there were also concerns regarding the future residential amenities of the dwelling and those visiting and using the graveyard which was an active burial ground with burials as recent as two years ago. It was explained that similar proposals were often granted if the burial ground was historic or if there was some separation or boundary treatment between the burial ground and the dwelling but that this was not possible in this situation owing to the very close proximity of the burial ground to the dwelling. Attention was also drawn to the proposals to add a first floor which cut across the middle of the window openings. This was highly visible from public view and out of character with the form and use of the building and therefore in conflict with Core Policy 58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the protection of heritage assets in the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions and it was explained that the graveyard adjoined the property on two sides and the other two sides could be an amenity garden. It was confirmed that it would be possible to condition the submission and agreement of boundary treatment details that may partially address amenity concerns but officers highlighted that the proximity of the graves to the building could make this very difficult over a significant part of the site. The Planning Officer clarified that there was a hierarchy of uses for consideration as alternatives to residential use in relation to any proposals to convert community use buildings under Wiltshire Core Policy 49. It was explained that redevelopment for non-community service/facility use was only to be permitted as a last resort and where all other options had been exhausted.

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

The local member, Cllr Richard  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Laurence Hibberd spoke in opposition to the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. The application was for the removal of conditions 4 and 5 of planning application 14/04909/FUL. The officer explained that, following a further consultation with the Public Protection Team, the removal of condition 5 would not impact as the remaining conditions (concerning noise limits, closed doors, and limited hours of operation) were sufficient to control the noise impact on nearby residential amenities subject to the retention of condition 4.

There were no technical questions.

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

The Planning Officer responded to comments from the public and explained if parts of the application were acceptable that it was best practice to approve those parts and reject the others. In this instance, to approve the removal of the condition considered to be superfluous and to retain the condition that was considered necessary; the applicant could then appeal against the retained condition. 

Cllr Peter Hutton spoke on behalf of the local member, Cllr Nina Philips, and echoed the concerns expressed by the local resident concerning the noise impact of the site. The retention of condition 4 was welcomed as any increase in operational hours would severely impact local residents. The local member welcomed the recommendation but remained mindful of the noise impact and encouraged local residents to contact the Environmental Team if noise levels were too high.

In the debate that followed, the Committee thanked Laurence Hibberd for his account and for providing a clear picture of the impact on local residents. It was noted that the recommendation would ensure that the remaining conditions on noise, closed doors, and operational hours were sufficient to control the impact of noise on nearby residential amenities.

Resolved:

To GRANT planning permission for the removal of condition 5 of planning application 14/04909/FUL 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 rear doors and windows in the easterly facades of units 5 to 13, as shown on the submitted plans, shall remain closed at all times whilst the units are open for business;

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.     During daytime hours of operation (0700-2300) the Rating Level due to activities and/or machinery operated in, on or around each unit shall not exceed 44 dB when measured at a point 3.5m from any dwelling; and

During night-time hours of operation (2300-0700) the Rating Level due to activities and/or machinery operated in, on or around each unit shall not exceed 35 dB when measured at a point 3.5m from any dwelling.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

Nick Dye spoke in support of the application.

Ruth Szybiak, Cricklade Town Council, spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. The proposal was for extensions and alterations to Cricklade Leisure Centre including new car park, multi-use games area and petanque court. It was highlighted that the application was in keeping with the existing building and that a tree conservation plan was included. The Planning Officer explained that the application was an improvement of the existing facilities that was welcomed by the Town Council and that there was no loss of privacy or amenity for nearby residents.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions and it was confirmed that the Highways team had no objections and that there would be 40 additional car parking spaces (three of these would be for blue badge holders). The Committee also asked whether there was a condition relating to lighting on the site. It was explained that a lighting scheme was submitted as part of the application and the Environmental Health Officer raised no objections. It was highlighted that, although there was no specific condition relating to lighting, there were acceptable lighting proposals submitted with the application and the approved plan’s condition referred to this document. Also, the opening hours of the leisure centre were controlled.

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

In the debate that followed, the Committee recognised the extensive consultations that had taken place and the overwhelming support for the improvements to the leisure centre, including the Town Council and residents of Cricklade and the surrounding areas.

Resolved:

To GRANT planning permission subject to 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.     No demolition, site clearance or development shall commence on site until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) prepared by an arboricultural consultant providing comprehensive details of construction works in relation to trees shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.  All works shall subsequently be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. In particular, the method statement must provide the following: -

·       A specification for protective fencing to trees during both demolition and construction phases which complies with BS5837:2012 and a plan indicating the alignment of the protective fencing;

·       A specification for scaffolding and ground protection within tree protection zones in accordance with BS5837:2012

·       A schedule of tree works conforming to BS3998.

·       Details of general arboricultural matters such as the area for storage of materials, concrete mixing and use of fires;

·       Plans and particulars showing the siting of the service and piping infrastructure;

·       A full specification for the construction of any arboriculturally sensitive structures and sections through them, including  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

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.