Agenda and minutes

 Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Horace Prickett. Cllr Prickett was substituted by Cllr Graham Payne.

To approve the minutes of the last meeting held on 21 May 2014.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 May 2014 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 21 May 2014.

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

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

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

Cllr Magnus MacDonald declared that he had a pecuniary interest on application 14/02361/FUL Garage site at Leslie Rise Westwood BA15 2BN, as a result of being a director of Selwood housing. For that item Cllr MacDonald withdrew from the committee and did not participate in the debate or vote.

Cllr Keith Humphries declared that he was the Cabinet Member for housing, although he would not be speaking in that capacity during application 13/06782/OUT - Land North West Of Boreham Mill, Bishopstrow Road, Warminster, but would be speaking as a local resident.

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 2pm on Wednesday 4 June 2014.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 consider and determine the following planning applications:

A site visit had been arranged for Members of the Committee. Details of the site visit have been sent separately.

Public Participation

Andy Green spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer outlined the report which recommended the application for approval subject to planning conditions and a S106 agreement for contributions to Education and Open Space. The site description and an overview of the proposed development were also given noting that the site levels had been amended.

The Area Development Manager outlined the relevant planning policy. 116 letters of objection had been received which were outlined in the report. The Area Development manager drew attention to the relevant planning considerations.

Members were invited to ask technical questions about the site.

Members of the public were invited to speak on the application as listed above.

Cllr Rosemary Brown as local member spoke in objection noting that the site visit had been a worthwhile exercise. The main points raised included: Issues around access, pedestrian safety, the amended site levels, light pollution, ecological survey and the density of the number of houses. A statement from a local teacher was also read highlighting similar concerns.

The debate focused on the density of the number of houses and concerns with parked cars on the road side which would reduce motorists’ visibility when exiting the development. A motion for refusal was not accepted by the committee. A new motion was to move the officer’s recommendation with additional conditions was proposed. The new conditions included a construction management plan where deliveries would not be allowed from 8am to 9am and 2.45pm to 3.45pm. It was noted that on street parking restrictions would not be able to be imposed by a planning application but this could be examined separately as a highway matter if problems arose. At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved

To delegate to the Area Development Manager to grant permission, subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement in relation to the following matters:-

• Delivery of contributions towards education costs of a total of £76,449.
• Delivery of contributions towards the cost of offsite play and open space provision at a total cost of £11,175

And subject to the following conditions:

A site visit had been arranged for Members of the Committee. Details of the site visit have been sent separately.

 Public Participation

Mr Pursey spoke in objection to the application.

Howard Waters (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Richard Covington on behalf of West Ashton Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer outlined the report which recommended the application for approval. The site description and an overview of the proposed development were also given.

The Planning Officer outlined the relevant planning policy. Four letters of objection had been received which were outlined in the report. The Planning Officer drew attention to the relevant planning considerations.

Members were invited to ask technical questions about the site.

Members of the public were invited to speak on the application as listed above.

The debate focused on the size of the development, how the development was out of keeping with the area which dominated neighbouring properties. At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved:

To refuse planning permission for the following reason:

The proposed dwelling by reason of its siting, size, height and design would have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene and neighbouring amenity, contrary to Policy C31a and C38 of the West Wiltshire District Local Plan (Adopted 2004).

Public Participation

Jeremy Kelton spoke in objection to the application.

Alastair Wright spoke in objection to the application.

Danny Howell spoke in objection to the application.

Steve Dancey spoke in objection to the application.

Mike Robert spoke in support of the application.

Isabel Allen spoke in support of the application.

Keith Humphries spoke in support of the application.

Mike Perry spoke on behalf of Bishopstrow Parish Council in objection to the application.

Sue Fraser spoke on behalf of Warminster Town Council in support of the application.

The Planning Officer outlined the report which recommended the application for approval subject to a section 106 legal agreement. The site description and an overview of the proposed development were also given.

The Planning Officer outlined the relevant planning policy and drew attention to the relevant planning considerations.

52 letters of objection had been received which were outlined in the report and it was noted that a further 309 had signed an online petition. A letter had also been received from the local MP and 12 late objections from consultees including Fish Legal and the Wiltshire Fishery Association. 4 letters of support had also been received.

Members were invited to ask technical questions about the site. Questions focused on the cascading marketing approach which would be used, clarification on the custom build definition and if the development would be affected by flooding.

Members of the public were invited to speak on the application as listed above.

Cllr Davis as local member spoke against the application; the main points raised included: the site being located outside of the Warminster town planning policy limits, flooding and that the application was an outline application with no details.

The debate focused on affordable housing, policy H1 and CP2, the buffer zones around the development and limiting the developments to two storeys.

During the course of debate there was a discussion of the position of Selwood Housing, and Councillor Magnus Macdonald declared that he was a member of the Selwood board. However, Selwood Housing made a late submission in writing to clarify that it was a prospective partner, not the applicant, and that there was no formal agreement in place, after which Councillor Magnus Macdonald stated that he would vote on the application.

A motion to refuse the application was put forward and the requisite number of members having requested a recorded vote, the results were as followed:

For;

Cllrs Trevor Carbin, Ernie Clark, Andrew Davis, John Knight, Christopher Newbury.

Against;

Cllrs Dennis Drewett, Magnus Macdonald, Pip Ridout, Jonathon Seed, Roy While, Graham Payne.

The motion was defeated and a new motion to approve the recommendation was put forward with an added condition to impose a 2 storey restriction on the development. An amendment to the motion was proposed to increase the buffer zone from 8 metres to 20 metres. The amendment was defeated and the original motion to approve the recommendation with the additional condition was back on the table for discussion. The requisite number of member  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Public Participation

Chris Wordsworth spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer outlined the report which recommended that listed building consent be granted. The site description and an overview of the proposed development were also given.

The Planning Officer outlined the relevant planning policy. Eight letters of objection had been received which were outlined in the report. The Planning Officer drew attention to the relevant planning considerations.

Members were invited to ask technical questions about the site. These focused on where the milestone would be placed and if on the other side of the road then set back from the path.

Members of the public were invited to speak on the application as listed above.

The debate focused on the area which was best for the milestone noting that the exact area was still to be determined and that the Committee preferred the milestone to be set back from the footpath.

Resolved:

To grant consent, subject to the following conditions:

1        The works for which Listed Building Consent is hereby granted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

REASON:  To comply with the provisions of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2        The milestone shall not be removed from its existing location until a schedule of refurbishment works including a timetable for its restoration and re-erection have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The schedule shall detail the careful transport and secure storage of the milestone during the course of these works. The schedule shall also identify the proposed precise location of the site of the re-erected milestone, which shall be set back from the pavement to preserve its setting. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: In the interests of preserving the physical fabric and historical integrity of this heritage asset and good conservation planning.

3        The milestone shall be relocated to the approved new location within one calendar month of the completion of its refurbishment.

REASON: To minimise the amount of time in which the heritage asset is not on public view and in the interests of good conservation planning.

4        The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: IMA-13-071 002A, IMA-13-071 004C and IMA-13-071 005

REASON: To define the terms of the consent hereby granted and in the interests of good conservation planning.

Public Participation

George Menzies (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Jeffery Hyatt on behalf of Steeple Ashton Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer outlined the report which recommended the application for approval. The site description and an overview of the proposed development were also given.

The Planning Officer outlined the relevant planning policy. Four letters of objection had been received which were outlined in the report. The Planning Officer drew attention to the relevant planning considerations.

Members were invited to ask technical questions about the site.

Members of the public were invited to speak on the application as listed above.

The debate focused on the previous permission granted, the site being overdeveloped, the visual impact on the area and the permitted development rights being previously removed. At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved:

To refuse planning permission for the following reason:

The proposed development by reason of its increase in size would represent overdevelopment of the site and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area contrary to Saved Policy C31a of the West Wiltshire District Local Plan (Adopted 2004).

Public Participation

Francis Morland spoke in objection to the application.

Keith Muston spoke in objection to the application.

Derek Tanswell (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Dennis Barnard on behalf of Champmanslade Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer outlined the report which recommended the application for approval. The site description and an overview of the proposed development were also given.

The Planning Officer outlined the relevant planning policy and gave the relevant planning history. Two letters of objection had been received which were outlined in the report. The Planning Officer drew attention to the relevant planning considerations.

Members were invited to ask technical questions about the site.

Members of the public were invited to speak on the application as listed above.

Cllr Keith Humphries read a statement on behalf of the local member Cllr Fleur de Rhé-Phillipe, the points raised included: The use of the development and the amount of space actually required for the intended use.

The debate focused on the requirement of the development, the impacts on the area and that the applicant had not justified the agricultural need of the extension. At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved

Torefuse planning permission for the following reason:

The proposed extension would exceed the justified need and have an adverse impact upon the special landscape character area contrary to Saved Policies C3 and C31a of the West Wiltshire District Local Plan (Adopted 2004).

Public Participation

Kevin Gale spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Vines spoke in objection to the application.

Paul Walsh (Selwood Housing) spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer outlined the report which recommended the application for approval subject to conditions. The site description and an overview of the proposed development were also given.

The Planning Officer outlined the relevant planning policy and gave the relevant planning history. One letter of objection had been received which was outlined in the report and a petition with 15 signatures objecting. The Planning Officer drew attention to the relevant planning considerations.

Members were invited to ask technical questions about the site.

Members of the public were invited to speak on the application as listed above.

Cllr Roy While as the local member opened the debate and raised concerns over parking, loss of garages and the increase of vehicles in the area. An amendment was made to a motion of refusal for unacceptable levels of overlooking. The motion was defeated and a new motion to move the officer’s recommendation was put forward and at the end of the debate it was;

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. No development shall commence on site until details and samples of the materials to be used for the external walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

3. No development shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall include :-

a) location and current canopy spread of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land;

b) full details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development;

c) a detailed planting specification showing all plant species, supply and planting sizes and planting densities;

d) finished levels and contours;

e) means of enclosure;

f) car park layouts;

g) other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas;

h) all hard and soft surfacing materials;

i) minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse and other storage units, signs, lighting etc);

j) proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications, cables, pipelines etc indicating lines, manholes, supports etc);

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory landscaped setting for the development and the protection of existing important landscape features.

4. All soft landscaping comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Public Participation

Michael Gribble spoke in objection to the application.

Bryan Wyatt spoke in objection to the application.

Michele Reed spoke in objection to the application.

Steven Reynolds (Applicant) spoke in support of the application.

Peter Grist (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Brian Pearce spoke in support of the application.

The Area Development Manager outlined the report which recommended the application for refusal. The site description and an overview of the proposed development were also given.

The Area Development Manager outlined the relevant planning policy. Six letters of objection had been received which was outlined in the report and three letters of support. The Area Development Manager drew attention to the relevant planning considerations.

Members were invited to ask technical questions about the site.

Members of the public were invited to speak on the application as listed above.

Cllr Newbury as the local member opened the debate and noted that there were no comments from the parish council. He moved the case officer's recommendation, and this was seconded. It was;

Resolved

To refuse planning permission for the following reason:

1.       The proposed dwelling, set in an elevated backland position on a small plot out of keeping with the existing grain of development and in a cramped relationship with the neighbouring dwelling under construction, would be visible from High Street and Chapel Road. In this setting the dwelling would constitute an incongruous presence that would therefore neither preserve nor enhance the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies H17, C17 and C18 of the West Wiltshire District Plan First Alteration 2004, the Emerging Wiltshire Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Public Participation

Brian Convery spoke in objection to the application.

Bob Pippett spoke in objection to the application.

The Area Development Manager outlined the report which recommended the application for approval. The site description and an overview of the proposed development were also given.

The Area Development Manager outlined the relevant planning policy. Five letters of objection had been received which were outlined in the report. The Area Development Manager drew attention to the relevant planning Considerations.

Members were invited to ask technical questions about the site. No questions were asked.

Members of the public were invited to speak on the application as listed above.

Cllr Graham Payne read a state submitted by Cllr Blakemore the local member, points raised included the visual impact, the distance to the neighbouring property, the removal of trees and the extent of the applicant’s land.

The debate focused on the development being built in a conservation area and the visual impact. At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved

To refuse planning permission for the following reason:

The proposed development would have an adverse visual impact on the appearance of this part of the conservation area, by reason of the siting, height, design and general appearance of the building in this location and the associated works required to construct it. This would conflict with policy C31a of the West Wiltshire District Plan and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of this part of the conservation area.