Agenda item

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The following people spoke against the proposal

Mr Kim Stuckey, a local resident

Mr Paul MacLaurin, WAVIN Operations Director for Europe

Mr Craig Howell Williams QC on behalf of Mr Fionn Pilbrow, a local resident

Cllr David Mannering, representing Langley Burrell Parish Council

Cllr Ian Janes, representing Bremhill Parish Council

The following person spoke in favour of the application

Mr Peter Frampton, the agent

The Head of Development Management reported that at its meeting held on 14 September 2016, this Committee resolved to delegate authority to him to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 legal agreement. The legal agreement was progressing, but had not yet been completed and the permission had therefore not yet been granted. In these circumstances, the Council had a duty to consider any changes to the planning considerations that might arise between a decision being made and a granting of permission where these may be material to the decision. 

Regarding this application, since the decision as referred to above was agreed by this Committee, the Council had been consulting on proposed further modifications to the draft Chippenham Site Allocations Plan (CSAP) following receipt of the Inspector’s letter dated 12 October 2016, which he issued upon the conclusion of the Plan’s examination between 27 September and 4 October 2016.  The consultation period on the proposed modifications concluded on 12 December 2016 but representations received had not yet been analysed.    

 Furthermore, in November 2016 the Council had published its 2016 Housing Land Supply Statement as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and accompanying Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). In accordance with the NPPF, the Council was required to apply the appropriate buffer to its 5 year housing supply (either 5% or 20%).  The Council considered that it required a 5% buffer, this equating to needing to show a 5.25 year supply of land to meet 5 year’s worth of requirement. At the time this Committee considered the application in September there was a 4.76 year’s supply.  Though the Council’s position had improved it still could not currently demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.       

The application was therefore being referred back to this Committee so as to update Members in the light of these changing circumstances.

Additionally, it was reported that the Secretary of State had issued an Article 31 Holding Notice the previous day in response to a representation received from a member of the public earlier on Tuesday 12 December 2016 the same day.  This Holding Notice stated that the Council could not grant planning permission. A planning decision could not be made and issued until the Secretary of State had decided whether or not to call in the application for a decision by himself.  However, this did not prevent the Committee from considering the application and forming a view on its merits, giving further consideration to the matters referred to above including delegating a grant of approval to the Head of Development Management, in accordance with the recommendation and making a decision, subject to the Secretary of State’s decision on a call in of the application.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which they heard statements from members of the public as detailed above, expressing their views regarding the proposal.

Members then heard the views of Cllr Chris Caswill, the local Member, in which he set out his objections to the proposal.  In particular, he referred to:-

·                The issue of housing supply and considered that an additional 50 houses above that proposed in the CSAP allocation would be an overdevelopment.

·                The impact of the proposed development on Cocklebury Lane and Station Road had not been sufficiently considered.

·                A separate application for a new bridge over the railway line at Rawlings Green had not been received and might not be approved. 

He considered that this application was being brought back to the Committee prematurely and that the matter should be deferred pending receipt of the Planning Inspector’s report on the Examination in Public on the CSAP and further information regarding the points he had raised.

During the subsequent discussion, some Members considered that this application was being referred back to the Committee for further consideration prematurely and that in particular the report of the Planning Inspector on the Examination in Public of the CSAP and also the analysis by him of the representations received following consultation on the proposed modifications to the CSAP should be available before the Committee was asked to make any further decision on the application. 

Resolved:

To defer further consideration of the application pending the receipt of outstanding information regarding in particular:-

·         A decision from the Secretary of State as to whether or not he wished to call in the application for a decision to be made by himself.

·         An analysis of the representations received following the public consultation on the proposed modifications to the CSAP.

·         The Planning Inspector’s report on the Examination in Public following the Public Inquiry on the CSAP, including his comments on the representations received following the public consultation on the proposed modifications to the CSAP published in October 2016.

(Cllr Fred Westmoreland requested that his vote against the Motion be recorded.)