Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllr Mollie Groom, who was substituted at the meeting by Cllr Philip Whalley.

Apologies were also received from Cllr Terry Chivers and Cllr Glenis Ansell

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 27 January 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 January 2016 were presented.

Resolved:

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

Cllr Whalley declared an interest in agenda item no.18, because he sat on the Corsham Town Council. He declared that he would participate in the debate and vote for each item with an open mind.

Cllr Mashall declared an interest in agenda items 16 and 17 because he sat on the Calne Town Council. He declared that he would participate in the debate and vote for each item with an open mind.

To receive any announcements through the Chairman.

The Chairman drew the meeting’s attention to the following matters: The evacuation procedures; the procedure for public participation; and the policy on recording and broadcasting of meetings.

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 (4 clear working days, e.g. Wednesday of week before for a Wednesday meeting). 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 and that there were no questions submitted.

An appeals update report is attached for Members to note.

The Committee noted the contents of the appeals update and the Chairman noted that such reports would be provided at each meeting of the Committee.

Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting and published online under agenda supplement 1, in respect of applications Marden Farm, Calne and Land at Bradford Road, Corsham as listed in the agenda pack.

Anne Henshaw and Sue Baker spoke against the application.

Andy Cockett spoke in support of the application.

Kate Moorly (Calne Without Parish Council) spoke against the application.

The planning officer, Mark Staincliffe, introduced the report which recommended to delegate authority to the Area Development Manager to grant planning permission, subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement within 6 months of the date of the resolution of this Committee and the conditions and informatives, as amended by the late observations, outlined in the report. In the event of failure to complete, sign and seal the required section 106 agreement within the defined timeframe, to then delegate authority to the Area Development Manager to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the report. The application was for the development of 56 residential dwellings, open space, landscaping, sustainable urban drainage, vehicular access and associated infrastructure and engineering works; plans and maps relating to the proposal and the previously permitted application were shown. It was highlighted that an application had been granted for the entirety of the site at  appeal.

The officer explained that an 85 bedroom dementia care home had been previously consented, however, the applicant had been unable to secure an operator and the application now sought permission to construct 56 residential units in lieu of the care home. It was outlined that the parking requirements met the Council’s plans and consultations had been favourable subject to the planning application. The officer further stated that the dementia care home had the benefit of full planning permission and could be implemented immediately, subject to discharging any pre-commencement conditions. The principle of built development in this location had therefore been established;  furthermore, there were no requirements for the dementia care home to be built within the newly proposed residential area in policy terms or by way of legal agreement.

The officer drew attention to the late observations for the item and highlighted that outside of the red outline on the map, access had already been constructed and granted planning permission and hence, the fact that condition 6 be deleted was noted in the late observation.

The Committee was then invited to ask technical questions, for which there were none.

Members of the public were then invited to speak, as detailed above.

The division member for Calne South, Cllr Hill, was permitted to speak and several raised concerns, such as:

Wiltshire required a dementia care home and thus, this should be delivered;

a dementia care home, as opposed to the proposed residential site, would provide additional employment opportunities to the immediate Calne area;

the site had only been marketed for 1 year for someone to agree to build the care home and this was not sufficient;

the site had been established as intended for business and the Council should safeguard this;

the core strategy stated that housing growth must be carefully balanced with job creation;

attention and due respect ought to have been given to the later stages of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Anne Henshaw spoke against the application.

The planning officer, Mathew Pearson, introduced the report which recommended that authority be delegated to the Area Development Manager to grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement within 6 months of the resolution of this Committee and the conditions and informatives listed in the report. In

the event of failure to complete, sign and seal the required section 106 agreement within the defined timeframe, to then delegate authority to the Area Development Manager to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the report. The application was for the construction of 42 homes and associated landscaping; photographs and a map of the site were shown. It was highlighted that the site was on agricultural land; which was outside of the settlement boundary, however, due to the 5 year land supply, Core Policy 2 was not considered up to date and thus, the application would be judged against the NPPF; specifically paragraphs 14-49, which advised that permission should be given unless adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The officer noted that national policy regarded housing as a significant benefit and therefore, recommended that the Committee approve the application with regard to the position the Council found itself in, in terms of national policy. The officer outlined that to the North of the proposed application site, an application would be going to a planning appeal for 41 units, as opposed to the proposed 42 units on the proposed application site.

The Committee was then invited to ask technical questions and it was confirmed that there had been an approved planning application for the construction of the supermarket store ‘Tesco’s’ and that this application was still live, it was noted that the proposed ‘Tesco’s’, along with a couple of already established residential dwellings, would be on the opposite side of the road to the proposed development. It was highlighted that the lead time in appeals was 10 months. Concern was raised by members that the proposed land had been allocated for joint industrial and residential use and, therefore, if the erection of the 42 dwellings was to be permitted, there would be a minimal amount of the land left for industrial use. The officer explained that the site to the North of the proposed site was the site allocated for employment and not the site being subjected to permission at the meeting.

Members of the public were then invited to speak, as detailed above.

Cllr Ansell had sent her apologies for her absence at the meeting and thus, as Cllr Hill’s ward was adjacent to Cllr Ansell’s ward, the Chairman permitted Cllr Hill to speak on Cllr Ansell’s behalf.

Cllr Hutton sought clarification on conditions that referred to public protection and archaeology. The officer confirmed that contamination and archaeology conditions were included in the list of conditions.

Cllr Sturgis, seconded by Cllr Hutton, moved the officer’s recommendation as outlined in the report. The motion was put to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Paul Turner, David Taylor and Tony Clarke spoke against the application.

Dan Washington spoke in support of the application.

Peter Pearson (Corsham Town Council) spoke against the application.

The planning officer, Mark Staincliffe, introduced the report which recommended to delegate authority to the Area Development Manager to grant planning permission subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement within 6 months of the date of the resolution of this Committee and the conditions and informatives, as amended by the late observations, outlined in the report. In the event of failure to complete, sign and seal the required section 106 agreement within the defined timeframe, to then delegate authority to the Area Development Manager to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the report. The application was for the development of 170 dwellings, including a medical centre/community hall; photographs and a map were shown. It was highlighted that the proposed application was a resubmission of application 14/04179/OUT, that had been dismissed at a planning appeal. The officer explained that 2 days prior to the item being heard previously, serious concern had been raised by ecologists and Natural England that surveys on bats had not been undertaken and thus, the reason for refusal of the application had been based on ecological grounds. It was confirmed that this was then appealed and that the planning inspector had purely refused the application on ecological grounds and had not cited any additional reasons for refusal, for which he had been at liberty to do.

The officer then drew the meeting’s attention to the late items included in the agenda supplement and stated that Natural England had not raised any objections to the granting of planning permission to the proposed site. It was confirmed that both ecologists and Natural England were satisfied that work could be carried out, without endangering any protected species.

The officer explained that Core Policy 2 was no longer engaged, as there was no ability to demonstrate a 5 year land housing supply. It was noted that central government outlined that planning should be granted, where there was not a 5 year housing supply, unless any adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.

The Committee was then invited to ask technical questions and it was confirmed that the maintenance of the public open spaces in the proposed application would be controlled by a management company, of which the owners of the proposed properties would pay for. Also, that to develop on the area marked within the blue line on the map would require additional planning permission. Further, that conditions 17 and 18 listed in the report denoted that there would be 2 refuge points on either side of the road; that pedestrians would be able to cross the road from the proposed site and that the additional noted 4 cars on the road related to the number of additional queuing vehicles on the road; which is how the Local Authority determined additional road users. It was then confirmed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

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.