Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from:

Councillor Seed

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on

The minutes of the meeting held on 30 May 2018 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 30 May 2018.

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 Chair.

There were no Chairman’s Announcements.

The Chairman gave details of the exits to be used in the event of an emergency.

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 by phone, email or in person no later than 2.50pm on the day of the meeting.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. 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.

Members of the public will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

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 a Wednesday meeting) in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on (2 clear working days, eg Friday of week before 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.

No questions had been received from councillors or members of the public.

The Chairman welcomed all present. He then explained the rules of public participation and the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate.

It was noted that no appeals had been received or determined since the last meeting.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Public Participation

Harriet James spoke in objection to the application

Mark Reynolds, Chartered Town Planner, spoke in objection to the application

Anthony Setter, Road Safety Auditor, spoke in objection to the application

Paul Greatwood spoke in support of the application

Ian Mellor, Chartered Country & Town Planner spoke in support of the application

Diccon Carpendale, Agent, spoke in support of the application

Cllr Denis Brett Warminster Town Council, spoke in objection to the application

Steve Sims, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which recommended outline planning permission be granted subject to a s106 legal agreement for up to 28 dwellings on land to the east of Damask Way with all matters reserved except for the vehicular means of access (with a new access being proposed off Upper Marsh Road).

It was noted that two late representations had been received in objection to the application however they did not raise new or additional matters.

Key issues included within the officer’s presentation comprised; the principle of development, the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, highway issues, ecology issues, and the impact on heritage assets and drainage issues.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on: The current status of the emerging housing sites allocation plan (HSAP DPD) and settlement boundary review, details on the planning history of a neighbouring site, details on the emergency vehicle access, the grading of the land, the extent of local road widening and the impact on the established trees on the site.

Kenny Green, Development Management Team Leader, informed the Members that the emerging HSAP was scheduled to be reported to Cabinet on 3 July, following its endorsement, the Plan would be reported to full Council for its approval before being sent to the Secretary of State, to appoint a planning inspector who would be tasked with opening up an examination in public and to review and determine what needs to be examined and to weigh up a number of conflicting representations.  Members were advised on the direction provided by paragraph 216 of the NPPF in terms of the weighting decision makers can apportion to emerging plans.  The paragraph was read out in full and the officer advised Members that at this stage, the plan should be afforded limited weight. The weight would increase as the HSAP advanced through the process and after unresolved objections were duly appraised by a planning inspector.  Members were informed that the HSAP had numerous conflicting and unresolved objections which meant that at this stage, with an adopted core strategy in place, the application having reached such an advanced stage, should be tested against the Core Strategy, and that full weight should be apportioned to the relevant policies identified within the published officer report.

The pervious planning application which was refused for a single dwelling on land near to the site on the opposite side of Upper Marsh Road was referenced  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Public Participation

Maggie Thackway spoke in objection to the application.

Professor Nigel Brown spoke in objection to the application.

Ian Buick spoke in objection to the application.

Derek Tanswell spoke in support of the application.

Edward Drewe spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Keith Muston, Chairman Chapmanslade Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Jemma Foster, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report and members were informed that a previous application for a temporary agricultural workers dwelling on the site had previously been refused by the Council which went to appeal but the appeal had been dismissed. Members were informed of the material differences between the previous refused application and the current submission. Reference was made to what the planning inspector concluded as part of the previous appeal, which included an acceptance, that there was an agricultural justification for an agricultural worker’s dwelling on the site. The reason the appeal was dismissed was due to an unacceptable impact on the special landscape area.

The key issues were identified as; the principle of the development (with due regard made to the previous appeal decision), the impact upon the character and appearance of the special landscape area and potential neighbouring amenity impacts, as well access and highway matters and recommend that planning permission should be granted.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer however no questions were asked.

Members of the public, as detailed above, had the opportunity to speak on the application.

Local Member Councillor Fleur De Rhe-Philipe spoke to the application highlighting: concerns about the impact on the special landscape area and that any further development would have a detrimental impact, and furthermore cast doubt about whether there was a need for the applicant to be on site 24 hours a day. 

A motion was moved to refuse planning permission by Councillor Pip Ridout and seconded by Councillor Jerry Wickham.

A debate followed and the key points included: the provisions of Core Policy 48 and paragraph 6.66, the need for the committee to have consistency when making decisions and the decision of the Inspector. 

At the end of the debate it was;

RESOLVED

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.            The site is located in the open countryside, outside the limits of development for Chapmanslade as defined in the Wiltshire Core Strategy. Residential development in this location is restricted by Core Policy 48 which first requires a thorough scrutiny of available accommodation found locally and within nearby settlements (as directed by para 6.67 pursuant to CP48); and secondly, there must be a demonstrable essential need to justify a new dwellinghouse to be erected in the open countryside for the purpose of protecting the countryside and maintaining its local distinctiveness. In this particular case, the Council is not satisfied that there is an essential need for this proposal and the applicant has failed to appraise local housing opportunities as required by the adopted Core Strategy; and, for these reasons, the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Public Participation

Paul Oakley, Agent, spoke in support of the application

Cllr Keith Muston, Chairman Chapmanslade Parish Council, spoke in on the application.

Matthew Perks, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which recommended approval be granted for an outline application for the erection of a single storey dwelling with all matters reserved except for access.

The key issues were identified as; light of the principle of the development and the potential impacts on the neighbouring amenity.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer and no questions were asked. 

Members of the public, as detailed above, had the opportunity to speak on the application.

A motion to move the officers recommendation with an amendment to condition 6 deleting the word ‘between’ and replacing it with the word ‘outside’ was proposed by the Chairman and seconded by Councillor Ernie Clark.

A debate followed and the key points included: the merit of including additional condition to restrict permission for just one dwelling and to amend condition 6.

At the end of the debate it was:

RESOLVED

To approve the officers recommendations subject to the following conditions: 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

REASON:   To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. No development shall commence on site until details of the following matters (in respect of which approval is expressly reserved) have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority:

(a)       The scale of the development;

(b)       The layout of the development;

(c)       The external appearance of the development;

(d)       The landscaping of the site;

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON:  The application was made for outline planning permission and is granted to comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Article 5 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

3.         The landscaping plan shall include provision for parking and turning areas on site. These areas shall be laid out and constructed prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved and shall be retained without obstruction thereafter.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety

4.         The dwelling hereby permitted in outline form shall be single storey only.

REASON: To define the terms of this outline permission and to protect the amenity of the adjacent properties.

5. No development shall commence on site until an investigation of the history and current condition of the site to determine the likelihood of the existence of contamination arising from previous uses has been carried out and all of the following steps have been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Public Participation

Andrew Mead spoke in objection to the application.

Keith Goddard spoke in objection to the application.

Lawrence Howe spoke in objection to the application.

Verity Giles-Franklin, Planning Officer, introduced the report which recommended approval be granted for a Change of use of agricultural land to equestrian use and proposed erection of a timber loose box / stable building

As part of the officer’s presentation, members were informed that two late representations had been received following the publication of the committee report. Members were advised however that the late submissions repeated objections which had already been received during the consultation period.

The key issues were identified as; principle of development, the impact on the Green Belt and special landscape area as well as the impacts on neighbouring amenity, flood risk and highway safety.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on: whether structures already on the site needed planning permission, how many sheep were currently on the site and the amount of land that would be left taking into account the area of hardstanding.

Members of the public, as detailed above, had the opportunity to speak on the application.

Local Member Councillor Johnny Kidney spoke in objection to the application with the key points highlighting: That the development was in the greenbelt and special landscape area, that concerns were raised about increased traffic which had already caused damage to the local lanes and that the development was not appropriate for the size of the landholding.

A motion to defer the application for a site visit was proposed by Councillor Trevor Carbin and seconded by Councillor Ernie Clark.

A debate followed where the key points comprised: the scale of the development compared to the size of the land, clarification on the guidance published by the British Horse Society in terms of what constitutes as an appropriate ratio of horses numbers to area of landholding.  Highway safety and increased traffic generation as also discussed and a question was posed to officers as to whether water and electric utilities were available on the site.

.

At the end of the debate it was:

RESOLVED

To defer the application for a site visit and to request that officers seek answers on whether the site has water and electric utility connections.

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency.

Members discussed site visit arrangements for the two applications that were deferred for site visits and it was;

RESOLVED:

It was agreed that the site visit for 17/12348/OUT would take place at 1pm on Monday 23 July 2018.

It was agreed that the site visit for 18/01969/FUL would take place at 1pm on Wednesday 25 July 2018.