Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Horace Prickett who was substituted by Cllr Jerry Wickham for this meeting only.

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

25 November 2015.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 November 2015 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 25 November 2015.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

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 Pip Ridout and Cllr Jonathan Seed both stated that they were acquainted with Col Linge, a speaker on item 8 – Footpath Diversion, but that this did not preclude them from participating in the consideration of the matter, and that they would do so with an open mind.

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 9 December 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.

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:

The Area Planning Team Leader outlined the report and recommended that the application be approved with conditions with no legal agreement and requested that members consider revising the committee resolution agreed at the area committee on 12 August 2015.

There were no speakers in the public forum.

Cllr Magnus MacDonald spoke as the local member.

Issues discussed in the course of the presentation and debate included: The officer describing the location and topography of the application site in relation to the settlement boundary; the green belt and conservation area status, the size of the proposed replacement building compared to the old agricultural buildings which would be demolished and the planning history of the site.

The officer reminded members that the committee resolution which was made in August was to grant permission subject to a s106 agreement; and the officer presentation largely focused on the use of planning conditions and the statutory tests which must satisfied. The officer informed members that the s106 could not be fulfilled since officers had received confirmation from the applicant’s mortgage lender that they would not be an agreeable party to such an agreement.  Members were informed that the mortgage lender had a clear financial and legal stake in the property and that they would need to be party to any legal tie.  Without their signature, the s106 could not be fulfilled.  Members were reminded of the statutory tests to which all s106s must accord with. The officer informed members of the content of para 203 of the NPPF which directed decision makers to use planning conditions rather than legal agreements (where it is necessary to make developments acceptable).  Reference was also made to updated government planning practice guidance. The officer referenced the conditions which would restrict future occupancy in this case and cited two recent appeal decisions which the Council had successfully defended for cases which centred on the robustness of planning conditions restricting holiday let occupancy.  Members were advised that, in officer’s opinion, this case did not merit a legal agreement as planning conditions would robustly serve the function of restricting future occupancy, and that maintaining a requirement for a s106 could place the Council at risk for unreasonable behaviour, a likely non determination appeal and potential costs application. 

Cllr Magnus MacDonald moved, subsequently seconded by Cllr Roy While, that planning permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendations as outlined in the report.

In questioning the Area Team Leader, the committee clarified that the mortgage lender was content with conditions to tie the property to a holiday let, but would not enter into any legal agreement; that there was evidence across the County where similar planning conditions had been used to restrict holiday let occupancy which had been challenged and successfully defended at appeal and that the recommended conditions are fully enforceable; and, to avoid an appeal in this case, and potential costs application, the committee were asked to determine the application for approval without a legal agreement.

Having been put  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the report recommending that the application be approved with conditions.

Peter Auburn, Alexander Venables and Fiona Drysdale spoke in objection to the application. Dermot Tully, the applicant, and Peter Grist, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Trevor Carbin spoke as the local member.

Issues discussed in the course of the presentation and debate included: The officer describing the location of the site and its relationship with neighbouring properties; the orientation of the properties and gardens; the footprint of the existing property in relation to the proposals; the vegetation existing on the site; the views of the neighbours; the size and scale of the proposals in relation to the existing and neighbouring buildings; the topography of the site; the size, location and glazing of the windows in the proposal; the materials proposed to be used; the view of the highways officer; how the proposal compared with other extended properties nearby; as well as outlining the potential impact of the proposals on the amenity of  neighbours.

Cllr Trevor Carbin moved, subsequently seconded by Cllr Ernie Clark that consideration of the application be deferred to enable a site visit to take place.

Having been put to the vote, the meeting;

Resolved

To defer the consideration of the application to enable a site visit to take place.

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the report recommending that the application be approved with conditions. The officer also drew the meetings attention to a colour copy of a photomontage produced by the applicant to assist members, but advised that he had not been afforded the opportunity to check the veracity of the image. The officer also drew the member’s attention to plans of previously approved proposals on the site.

Janet Repton and Martin Newman spoke in objection to the application. Warren Jones, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Cllr Gwen Allison spoke on behalf of Bradford-on-Avon Town Council

Issues discussed in the course of the presentation and debate included: The officer describing the location of the site within Bradford on Avon’s town centre and conservation area and its relationship with listed buildings nearby, as well as identifying the size, scale and height of the proposed development.  The officer also referenced the extant approved development for the site and drew members attention to some comparisons in terms of building size, scale and design; the planning history on the site was outlined, with particular attention drawn to the reasons for refusing the most recent application for 4 x 3-bed dwellinghouses; the officer outlined the differences between the current proposal compared to the previous applications; the materials proposed for the development; the amount of amenity land to be provided on the site as well as referencing the amount of communal amenity space afforded to a flatted development located nearby; the views of the highways officer and the issues of car parking; the impact of the proposals on the conversation area; the views of the Historic England and the Council’s conservation officer; the viability of the site and the proposals; the access of the location to services and public transport; and the applicability of the current core strategy were also all discussed.

In questioning the Senior Planning Officer, the committee sought some clarification regarding the highways officer’s reasoning for their views on the parking provision and specifically about their non-objection to a 4 house development having no parking provision; and  that, in their opinion, it would be preferable for a Highway Officer to be present to explain their reasoning.  Members also sought clarity on the height of the proposed new building in comparison to the extant and previous permissions; some discussion was also held about the loss of the taxi rank from the site, as well as seeking confirmation from officers that the associated noise impacts from the railway line and the nearby pub had been considered.

Members expressed great concern about the lack of parking for a 4 house development, the design of the building and the overdevelopment of the site.

Cllr Magnus MacDonald proposed, subsequently seconded by Cllr Jonathan Seed, that planning permission be refused.

Having been put to the vote, the meeting;

Resolved

That planning permission should be refused for the following reasons:

1.     The proposal fails to provide adequate standards of amenity for its future occupiers contrary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

The Rights of Way Officer presented the report which outlined the recommendation.

Francis Morland spoke in objection to the order. Col Nigel Linge, Graham Bennett, James Nevitt and Brian Micklam spoke in support of the recommendation.

Issues discussed in the course of the debate included: the location of the diversion, and its relationship to a scheduled ancient monument and site of scientific interest; the current use and access to the land; that a creation order has no objections to it but the diversion order did; the views of those making representations; the impact of the diversion on those using the existing paths; the views of Historic England; the relationship of the proposals to other roads; the topography of the site; the requirements for improved access and gating; the historical evidence of the access; the location of MOD property and ranges; and the impact of the existing route and the proposals on the current land.

In questioning the officer, the committee clarified; that the process for considering a representation as a formal objection was prescribed by regulation and strictly adhered to; the extent to which the current obstruction had affected access, that only one complaint had been received, and that officers had given this a low priority in relation to addressing obstructions in better used locations; the liability for maintenance of a footpath; that it was not within the scope of s.119 of the Highways Act 1980 to retain footpath rights over part of the bridleway route, but that there were other possible options for this subject to the agreement of both the landowner and Wiltshire Council; and what corrections had been brought to the officer’s attention by the objector.

Cllr Newbury expressed concern as to whether the regulations with regard to considering a representation as a formal objection where being too rigorously applied.

Cllr Christopher Newbury proposed, subsequently seconded by Cllr Pip Ridout, that the officer’s recommendation as set out in the report be approved with the additional recommendation that Mr Wright’s representation be considered as a formal objection.

Having been put to the vote, the meeting unanimously:

Resolved

That The Wiltshire Council Parish of Norton Bavant Path No. 4 (part) Diversion Order and Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2015 be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with the recommendation that it be confirmed with the following modifications:

(i)              In paragraph 2 where referring to the rights of Scottish and Southern Energy replace the word “footpath” for “bridleway”.

(ii)            In Part 3 of the Schedule amend the width to read “4 metres from OS Grid ref. ST 90853 44042 to ST 91694 43539 the remainder to be 3.5 metres”.  Amend approximate length to be “1600 metres”.

(iii)           In the event that Order is confirmed, The Wiltshire Council Norton Bavant 10 (part) Creation and Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order, which has attracted no objections or representations, be confirmed.

(iv)          That the representation of Mr A Wright be considered as a duly made objection.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

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