Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Sarah Gibson, who was substituted by Councillor Stewart Palmen.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2023 were presented for consideration, and it was,

Resolved:

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

Councillor Adrian Foster asked that a date be set as soon as possible for councillor training on the Housing Land Supply (HLS) and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as previously requested and agreed. Andrew Guest (Head of Development Management) responded that officers would organise training to align with a relevant planning application and committee meeting as soon as practicable.

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

Councillor Stewart Palmen declared an interest concerning item 7b, as he was a trustee of St. James’ Trust, who owned the land. He was advised that he should  leave the room for the debate and vote on the item in question, due to the nature of this Other Registerable Interest.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman announced the appeal for the Westbury Incinerator had been allowed the previous day.

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 10.20am on the day 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. Representatives of Parish Councils are included separately in the speaking procedure, please contact the officer listed for details.

Members of the public will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

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 15 February 2023 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 17 February 2023. 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 noted the rules for public participation.

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

The Chairman noted that an appeals report was included with the agenda.

Revisiting the appeal for the Westbury Incinerator application, Members sought detail as to the costs involved. The officer advised that there were partial costs, but the specific figure was uncertain. Officers were digesting the lengthy report on this and could provide an update at a future meeting.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The following planning applications were considered.

Outline application for residential development of 55 houses including creation of new access from Frome Road and removal/demolition of all existing buildings (all matters aside from access reserved).

Public Participation

Graham Hill spoke in objection to the application.

Steve Wylie spoke in objection to the application.

Peter Mills spoke in objection to the application.

Darren Parker (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Lance Allen of Trowbridge Town Council spoke in support of the application.

Andrew Guest (Head of Development Management) outlined the late representations received which had been circulated to the Committee. Councillor Sarah Gibson had sent a representation pertaining to items 7a, 7b and 7c, and this was read to the meeting.  Councillor Gibson questioned the urgency for housing provision in the area, and raised the matter of a potential archaeological issue, stating that a pre-consent investigation may be needed. She also posited that the application was a breach of Section 194 of the NPPF and various core policies, disagreed that the three sites did not warrant an overarching masterplan and questioned the secondary school provision. In response, the officer explained that these sites, as WHSAP allocated sites, were factored into the housing delivery figures and there would be a detrimental impact if they were not considered as predicted trajectories of housing delivery could be affected.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), had sent a representation relating to item 7c regarding archaeology on site and a possible Roman Villa that may be present.

Mr Francis Moreland had sent a representation relating to item 7d. This would be dealt with under that item.

The officer then presented the report on item 7a, which recommended that the Head of Development Management be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a planning obligation / Section 106 agreement as detailed in the agenda pack for application 18/10035/OUT, Land South of Church Lane, Upper Studley, Trowbridge (H2.4) for the outline application for residential development of 55 houses including creation of new access from Frome Road and removal/demolition of all existing buildings (all matters aside from access reserved). 

The officer explained that this was the first of three applications for sites in the vicinity which were all adopted in the Wiltshire Housing Sites Allocations Plan (WHSAP). All three of the applications had a specific policy under the WHSAP. A number of representations had expressed concern that they should be master planned or considered as one. This was not the opinion of officers, who felt that they should all be addressed separately and did not require a single masterplan. The Committee report and planning inspector for the WHSAP had explained this. However, schemes coming forward should have regard to other proposals in the development pipeline to ensure that they were not mutually exclusive or prejudicial to each other. Each application had its own masterplan and was supported by its own suite of surveys and reports. Cumulative impact assessments were undertaken where necessary, such as for Highways or Ecology.

The officer ran through the presentation slides for the cumulative aspects and for item 7a as published in agenda supplement 2.

The officer explained that bat mitigation plans were in place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Erection of 50 dwellings and associated access and landscaping works.

Public Participation

Graham Hill spoke in objection to the application.

Norman Swanney spoke in objection to the application.

Andrew Stone spoke in objection to the application.

Tom Sheppard (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Richard Westwood (St. James’ Trust) spoke in support of the application.

Lance Allan (Trowbridge Town Council) spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor Palmen left the meeting for this item due to the interest which he had declared earlier.

Ruaridh O’Donoghue (Senior Planning Officer) presented a report which recommended that the Head of Development Management be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to first completion of a planning obligation / Section 106 agreement and subject also to the planning conditions listed within the report and in supplement 1 (which contained some corrections to the conditions) for application 20/09659/FUL, Land off Frome Road, Upper Studley, Trowbridge (H2.5), for the erection of 50 dwellings and associated access and landscaping works.

The officer mentioned that the applicants were keen for the Committee to acknowledge their commitment to providing all 50 homes as net zero carbon, however this was not something that the planning authority were presently able to control so was not reflected within the planning balance.

The officer went on to explain how the site in question was currently surrounded by existing residential developments to the north and east, Frome Road and Southwick Country Park to the west, and Lambrok Stream to the south. The site was comprised of open agricultural land most recently used as a small holding. Heritage assets near to the site were detailed. The officer explained that this was a full matters application and that 30% of the scheme would be affordable housing.

The officer took the Committee through the presentation slides for the application as published in agenda supplement 2. These included layout; ecology mitigation; the landscape masterplan; elevations; street scenes and access.

The application complied with relevant policies and with the H2.5 WHSAP masterplan. Consultees had raised no objections, and the Highways Officer supported the scheme subject to a financial contribution to the Trowbridge Transport Plan.

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

In response to questions on affordable housing, it was explained that housing associations preferred the affordable housing to be grouped together and that the Housing Enablement team would have looked at what the most sought-after type of housing was, which was what would be included in the affordable housing element of the proposal.

Members queried whether it would be possible to add a pedestrian crossing on Frome Road for this site and whether a secondary access was required. Officers explained that the site was not big enough to warrant an emergency secondary access and that a pedestrian crossing had been considered by the Highways team for site H2.6, but that there was only demand for a refuge island. The team had considered the applications cumulatively. There was funding allocated from this application to the Trowbridge Transport Plan which could involve a pedestrian crossing,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Outline planning permission with all matters reserved except access for the erection of up to 180 residential dwellings (Use Class C3); site servicing; laying out of open space and associated planting; creation of new roads, accesses and paths; installation of services; and drainage infrastructure.

Public Participation

Graham Hill spoke in objection to the application.

Simon Tesler spoke in objection to the application.

Geoff Whiffen spoke in objection to the application.

Nick Matthews (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Lance Allan (Trowbridge Town Council) spoke in objection of the application.

Ruaridh O’Donoghue (Senior Planning Officer) presented a report which recommended that the Head of Development Management be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to first completion a planning obligation / Section 106 agreement and subject also to the planning conditions listed within the report, for application 20/00379/OUT - Land South of Trowbridge, Southwick, Trowbridge, Wilts (H2.6). Which was for outline planning permission with all matters reserved except access for the erection of up to 180 residential dwellings (Use Class C3); site servicing; laying out of open space and associated planting; creation of new roads, accesses and paths; installation of services; and drainage infrastructure.

The officer highlighted some corrections as follows:

In Section 3 (site description and location) it stated that, in archaeological terms, the site appears to represent water meadows from the post medieval period.

The officer clarified that it was only land to the west of the Lambrok where historic water meadows may have been present i.e., not where the housing development was going.

In section 9.6, the final paragraph on page 194 of the agenda pack concluded on the heritage balance by stating that the substantial public benefits outweigh the harm to heritage assets. It should be noted that great weight was to be given to the less than substantial harm identified. As written in the report it reads as though this is an even balance however, the ‘great weight’ means it is a tilted balance in favour of conserving the asset. 

In section 11 on page 207, the planning balance appears to solely rely on paragraph 11d of the NPPF. However, requested it was recorded that it should also state that the proposal complies with the development plan as a whole, as per the requirements of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Condition. No. 6 should be deleted as it was recommended by officers that the decision not be issued until trial trenching occurred.

The officer then proceeded to detail the application which concerned 18.8 acres in Southwick Parish as part of an outline application. There were several Rights of Way (RoW) running across the land which would remain. The land was classified as grade 3 agricultural land. Southwick Court Farmhouse was located adjacent to the site and was Listed at grade II* along with its gatehouse and bridge over moat. The site lay within the Yellow Zone (Medium Risk) defined in the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy.

The officer took the meeting through the slides for the application as published in supplement 2. These included photographs of the site, the indicative layout, green infrastructure plan, lighting parameters plan, site access and emergency access.

The application met with core policies and subject to conditions, there would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Residential development of 18 Dwellings with associated works including vehicular access and parking.

Public Participation

Francis Moreland spoke in objection to the application.

Chirs Beaver (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Dr William Scott – Semington Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Jemma Foster (Senior Planning Officer) presented a report which recommended that permission be delegated to the Head of Development Management to grant full planning permission subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to cover the contributions identified in Section 10 of the report, and subject to the conditions outlined in the report, for  PL/2022/01367 - Land off St George's Road, Semington, Melksham, for a residential development of 18 Dwellings with associated works including vehicular access and parking.

The officer highlighted the late representation from Francis Moreland who felt that Wiltshire Council could demonstrate a 5 year HLS based on the Drynham Lane Trowbridge Appeal Decision and how other south west authorities calculate their housing land supply figures. In particular the inclusion of windfall sites. An officer from Spatial Planning had prepared a response which was read at the meeting as follows:

“The NPPF allows for an inclusion of a windfall allowance within its anticipated housing land supply, subject to matters that are set out in NPPF 71. The Council include such an allowance within its five-year housing land supply and supply over the medium and long term. The Council review the factors that affect delivery from windfall sites as part of its annual review of housing land supply. Such factors, including the approach set out in the development strategy and historic delivery, will vary between authorities. As such, the method for calculating future windfall for one authority (such as that for Cotswold District Council as quoted by Mr Morland) is not necessarily directly transferable to that for Wiltshire. Any revisions to the windfall allowance within the housing land supply position will be documented in updates to the Council’s annual Housing Land Supply Statement.”

The officer explained that the reason for this relatively small application being brought to Committee was because it involved a departure to the policies of the statutory development plan.

The officer took the Committee through the presentation slides for the application, highlighting that the application was in a gap between already existing houses and others that were currently being built. The houses were of a similar design to those currently being developed to the North and would be carbon neutral.

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

In response to questions the officer confirmed the developer was the same for this site and the houses already being developed to the North. There was no benefit to the developer to putting in the applications separately, affordable housing figures had to meet regulations on both sites individually. However, figures could be rounded down for each application.

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

Councillor Jonathan Seed, the local division Member (Melksham Without West & Rural) spoke in objection to the application.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

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.