Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from:

·       Dennis Drewett

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 20 May 2015.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 May 2015 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 20 May 2015.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman gave details of the exits to be used in the event of an emergency and explained that the setup of the meeting was due to technical issues.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

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 (acting on behalf of the Corporate Director) no later than 5pm on Wednesday 3 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 Chairman welcomed all present. He then explained the rules of public participation and the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

The following written question and response was received and noted:

Question from Councillor Ernie Clark, Hilperton Division:

Re Wiltshire Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 1459 (Admin) - judgment handed down on 20 May 2015.

This seems to be a truly appalling decision by a High Court judge, and surely needs to be appealed to the Court of Appeal on grounds of procedural error and error of law.

The old saying is that it is a woman's privilege to change her mind, but that cannot extend to a decision handed down by a High Court judge which has already finally determined an issue, viz. [74] of [2015] EWHC 1261 (Admin):-

"In the circumstances and, with a degree of reluctance, I find that I am unable to exercise my discretion not to quash the decision letter."

Furthermore, it is plainly inconsistent and wrong not to quash the decision letter in Appeal B on the basis that the decision would have been the same in spite of the Secretary of State's error of law, but to refuse to quash the decision letter in Appeal A because the decision would almost certainly have been different and hence would deprive the Developer Defendants of the benefits of that unlawful decision letter.

The consequences of such flawed reasoning must be that a Local Planning Authority can never overturn an Appeal Decision, however serious the unlawfulness of it may be.

The judge also seems totally to have ignored the fact that Wiltshire Council is the Local Planning Authority with a duty to the public at large to ensure that the integrity of the planning system in its area is maintained and in that respect it cannot be treated as on a par with developers.  There is no proper evaluation in the judgment of the harm to the public interest that will be caused by not quashing the decision letter.

I am advised that the proper approach to the exercise of the discretion, which is supposed to be exceptional, not to quash a decision that has been found to be unlawful is that of Mr Justice Gilbart on 19 February 2015 in Davies v Carmarthenshire County Council [2015] EWHC 230 (Admin), following Bateman v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2011] EWCA Civ 157, particularly Moore-Bick LJ at [31].

In the circumstances will Wiltshire Council be taking this decision to the Court of Appeal?  If not, why not?

Response

Officers can confirm that the Council is seeking permission from the Courts to appeal the Judge’s decision not to quash the decision letter issued by the Secretary of State in relation to the planning appeal at Devizes Road, Hilperton.

The following supplementary question and response was received and noted:

Question from Councillor Ernie Clark, Hilperton Division:

As both the decision letters from the Secretary of State were unlawful, will WC be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

To consider and determine the following planning applications:

Public Participation

Professor Nigel Brown spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Charles Thackway spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Keith Muston spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Derek Tanswell spoke in support of the application.

Mr Edward Drew spoke in support of the application.

Mr Dennis Barnard representing Chapmanslade Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the report which recommended the application for approval. Key issues were stated to include the principle of the development, impacts upon the character and appearance of the landscape, impact upon neighbouring amenities and the highways impact. The committee had previously deferred the application on the 17 December 2014 to allow the Local Planning Authority to gather more information.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The local Unitary Member, Councillor Fleur de Rhé-Philipe, then spoke in objection to the application.

Issues discussed in the course of the debate included: whether there was an essential need for the dwelling, the visual impact on the character and appearance of the area, the viability of the proposed business plan and the close location of the applicant’s residence in Frome.

Advice was provided by Mr Tony Coke, the Council’s Specialist Agricultural Advisor.

At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

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 policy CP48 to that required to meet the needs of employment essential to the countryside. The Council consider that the functional need for accommodation to oversee any birthing/sick animals could be met through permitted development rights to be on hand during such events and does not justify a year round presence. The applicant has failed to submit robust financial information to support such a dwelling and no evidence has been submitted demonstrating that the appellants could not provide sufficient oversight of the holding from a dwelling in a nearby settlement.  Furthermore, the siting of the temporary dwelling harms the character and appearance of the Special Landscape Area. The proposal fails to comply with Core Policies 48, 51 and 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and Saved Policy C3 of the West Wiltshire District Local Plan and the NPPF, namely paragraph 17 and 55.

Public Participation

Mrs Janet Williams spoke in objection to the application.

Mr David Timbrell spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Paul Walsh spoke in support of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the report which recommended the application for approval. The key consideration was identified as assessing whether the Section 52 Agreement served a valid purpose, given the changes in circumstances and planning background since its completion in 1975. The committee had previously discussed the application at the meeting on the 20 May 2015 which resolved that Planning Officers should gather more information.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

The local Unitary Member, Councillor Jon Hubbard, then read a statement on behalf of Mr Jenkins and spoke in objection to the application.

The legal officer advised the committee that the Section 52 agreement was a contract between the council and the party to the agreement. The legal agreement would be held on the land making it a land charge.

Issues discussed in the course of the debate included: the relevance of the Section 52 Agreement today and the need to protect the residents from over development. 

At the conclusion of debate, it was

 Resolved

To approve the discharge by the Council of the Section 52 Agreement.

Recorded Votes

Cllr Ernie Clark – Against

Cllr Andrew Davis - Against

Steven Hawkins, Planning Enforcement Team Leader, referred to the enforcement update included in the agenda.

Members discussed the budget for direct action allocated to the enforcement team and being able to call enforcement items into the committee.

At the end of the discussion it was;

Resolved

To congratulate Mr Hawkins and the enforcement team.

To note the report.

To pass on comments about the need for a budget for such direct action on enforcement matters to the Cabinet.

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