Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

An apology for absence was received from Cllr Stewart Palmen.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2024 were presented, and it was,

Resolved:

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

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

Cllr Pip Ridout declared a non-disclosable non-pecuniary interest in application PL/2023/02682 by virtue of previous interactions with interested parties. She confirmed she would voluntarily not participate or vote on the application.

Cllr Andrew declared a non-disclosable non-pecuniary interest in application PL/2023/02682 by virtue of having been lobbied about the application by the applicant. He confirmed he would participate and vote on the application.

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 no later than 10 minutes before the start of the meeting. If it is on the day of the meeting registration should be done in person.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are linked to 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 and others will have had the opportunity to make representations on planning applications and other items on the agenda, and to contact and lobby their local elected member and any other members of the planning committee, prior to the meeting.

Those circulating such information prior to the meeting, written or photographic, are advised to also provide a copy to the case officer for the application or item, in order to officially log the material as a representation, which will be verbally summarised at the meeting by the relevant officer, not included within any officer slide presentation if one is made. Circulation of new information which has not been verified by planning officers or case officers is also not permitted during the meetings.

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 26 June 2024 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 Friday 28 June 2024. 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 procedure for public speaking was noted.

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

The planning appeals update report was noted. Attention was drawn to application Pl/2022/09147 where refusal for an agricultural workers dwelling was upheld by the Planning Inspectorate, though it was noted that had the appellant been able to evidence an essential need for such a dwelling in the Green Belt, that would constitute as very special circumstances.

It was then,

Resolved:

To note the planning appeals update report.

Retrospective application to regularise the use of part of the rugby club car park for (a) The stationing of storage and collection lockers and (b) Heavy Goods Vehicle Driving Licence training area.

Public Participation

Richard Cosker, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Kevin Davis, Trowbridge Rugby Football Club, spoke in support of the application.

Richard Culverhouse on behalf of Hilperton Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Jemma Foster, Senior Planning Officer, presented a report recommending permission be granted for the retrospective application to regularise the use of part of the rugby club car park for (a) The stationing of storage and collection lockers and (b) Heavy Goods Vehicle Driving Licence training area.

Key issues included the principal of the application, impact upon the character and appearance of the area, and on highways. No objections had been received by statutory or technical consultees.

Members of the Committee were given the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the planning conditions requested by the Council’s ecologist, noting in particular that the biodiversity action pan request was not included within the planning report on the basis of that condition not meeting the legal tests to which all planning conditions must satisfy.

Members of the public were then able to address the Committee with their views, as detailed above.

The Local Member, Cllr Ernie Clark, then noted the objections raised by the Parish Council, and the officers recommended conditions to mitigate the potential impacts of the application. He also drew the Committee’s attention to the original permission for the site and the restricted use which was permitted.

Following moving a motion to refuse which was not seconded, Cllr Ernie Clark moved that the application be approved as set out in the officer’s report. This was seconded by Cllr Trevor Carbin.

During debate there was discussion around the restricted hours of operation for the HGV training on the site, and noting the play park was located on the opposite side of the site.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

To grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted retrospectively is based on the following approved plans and documents:

BDS-02-24-03 (proposed block plan), BDS-02-24-04 (storage lockers) received by the Local Planning Authority on 29th February 2024

BDS-02-24-01 (location plan) received by the Local Planning Authority on 14th March 2024 Highways Note received by the Local Planning Authority on 10th April 2024

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

2. The use hereby approved shall enure solely for B&W Truck Training and B&W Recruitment being identified as Lorry Manoeuvring Training on Drawing Number BDS-02-24-03 and shall operate only between the hours of 09:00 to 16:00 on Mondays and between 08:00 and 12:00 Tuesday to Fridays. No equipment including trucks and trailers associated with this consented use shall be present on the site outside of these hours. The use shall not operate on weekends or Bank Holidays.

REASON: In the interests of the users of the Trowbridge Rugby Club car park

3. The ByBox Storage area identified on drawing number BDS-02-24-03 shall only be used for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

Conversion and extension to a partially constructed single storey ancillary garden building to a 2-storey detached dwelling and associated works.

Public Participation

Chris Beaver, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Kenny Green, as Planning Manager, and in the absence of the case officer, presented the report recommending that permission be refused for the conversion and extension of a partially constructed single storey ancillary garden building to a 2-storey detached dwelling and associated works. The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the site planning history which was set out in detail in the published report.

Key issues included the impact on the setting of nearby heritage assets and the impact the proposed development would have upon the character of the area and the appropriateness of the proposed amenity provision when tested against the framework, the WCS, the made Warminster Neighbourhood Plan and the recent adopted Wiltshire Design Guide.

The Committee were informed the applicant had commenced the erection of an outbuilding which was without a roof and that the applicant maintained it was permitted development, although officers were unable to verify if that was the case since the structure was within 2m of the boundary and was very close to the 2.5m maximum height threshold, and without having a roof, it was not possible to confirm matters. Notwithstanding the above, the Committee were advised to only consider the merits of what was proposed in the form of a 2-storey dwelling.

Members of the Committee were given the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the immediate heritage asset setting effects mindful of the modern construction of the of the Imber Court residential retirement home (to the south of the application site (and within the Conservation Area), confirmation was also sought that there had been no statutory objections or third-party representations received.

The appointed planning agent representing the applicant, was then able to address the Committee with his views, as detailed above.

The Local Member, Cllr Andrew Davis, then provided his reasons for the committee call-in and provided his own observations on the application’s key issues, and informed the Committee that he had only visited the site recently and after reading the published committee agenda and wished to hear from his fellow Members with the potential benefits of a Member site visit being one option.

A motion was then moved by Cllr Bill Parks, seconded by Cllr Ernie Clark, to refuse the application as recommended by officers. During debate the design of the proposed dwelling and the garden sizes for both the proposed new house and the host dwelling that would have its plot sub-divided were discussed, along with noting the reasons for dismissing the previous planning appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.  Members also wished to understand what weight a self-build proposal should be afforded in the planning balance.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.            The proposalwould have a harmful effect onthe character and appearance of the area and the setting of the nearby designated heritage assets, which would detract from the wider  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

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.