Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Glenis Ansell, Cllr Christopher Newbury and Cllr Fred Westmoreland (who was substituted by Cllr Jerry Wickham).

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 9 December 2015.

Resolved:

To confirm and sign the minutes of the previous meeting held on 9 December 2015 as a true record.

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

Cllr Andrew Davis declared a non-pecuniary interest in Planning Application No. 15/08374/FUL (Minute No. 6 below) as he was a member of Warminster Town Council and, as a member of the Town Council’s Planning Advisory Committee, had taken part in that Committee’s consideration of this application.  However, he would take part in the forthcoming debate with an open mind and vote.

Cllr Stewart Dobson declared a non-pecuniary interest in Planning Application No. 15/02026/OUT (Minute No. 8 below) as he was a member of Marlborough Town Council and, as a member of the Town Council’s Planning Committee, had taken part in that Committee’s debate on this application but did not vote.  He would take part in the forthcoming debate with an open mind and vote.   

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

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 10.20am 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 February 2016. 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.

There were no questions received from members of the Council.

Members of the public addressed the Committee as set out in Minute Nos. 6 to 9 below.

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The following people spoke against the application

Mr Jonathan Carver, a local resident

Mr Eric Tomes, a local resident

Mr P Muir, a local resident

Cllr Rob Fryer, Chairman, Warminster Town Council

The Committee received a presentation from the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application, with a recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions. He explained that the Council’s Drainage Engineer considered that the proposed arrangements for foul water drainage and the storm water drain were inadequate and should be linked to the main drainage system. He recommended that the proposed Conditions 4 and 6 should be strengthened to take these views into account.

Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which the Committee received statements from members of the public as detailed above, expressing their views regarding the planning application.

Members then heard the views of Cllr Pip Ridout, the local Member, who expressed concern the proposed development would have on the surrounding area, its relationship to adjoining properties, the design, environmental impact and dangers of flooding. She also expressed concern at the lack of footpaths on the highway and the consequent dangers particularly to children walking to and from school.  

After discussion, during which Members considered that Conditions 4 and 6 should be strengthened as recommended by the Drainage Engineer,

Resolved:

To Grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The following people spoke against the application:-

Mr Edward Barham, a local resident

Cllr David Mannering, representing Langley Burrell Parish Council

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application.  He explained that the applicant had submitted an appeal in respect of this application on grounds of non-determination.  As a consequence, no formal decision could be made in respect of this application.  However, in order to progress with the appeal, Officers were seeking the opinion of the Committee in respect of the application had they been in a position to determine it and on what grounds the Committee wished to contest the scheme at appeal, if at all.

The Case Officer further reported that a late representation had been received from Highways England, taking the form of a formal TR110 response.  In it Highways England confirmed that it would recommend that if planning permission were to be granted, the following planning condition should be imposed:-

No development shall commence, except for works referred to in conditions [. . .], until a detailed scheme for the highway junction improvement works at M4 Junction 17 (comprising signalisation of the M4 eastbound and westbound off-slips) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Highways England. The occupation of development authorised by this permission shall not commence until such scheme is completed and open to traffic.

Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which the Committee received statements from members of the public as detailed above, expressing their views regarding the application.

After some discussion,

Resolved:

Had the Committee been able to determine the application, it would have recommended that planning permission be REFUSED and that officers be authorised to contest the appeal for the following reasons (including the delegated authority to negotiate potentially satisfactory outcomes that may address reasons 03 and 06 prior to that appeal taking place):

1. The proposal is unacceptable when having regard to the principles of polices CP1 and CP2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (2015), saved Policy H4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011, as well as the principles set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposal is not sustainable development since it fails to address the phasing and delivery of the North Chippenham Consortium site, especially the link road therein, which is necessary for the development to avoid an unacceptable impact upon surrounding road junctions and traffic movements across Chippenham as a whole.  Such impacts would be contrary to policies CP3, CP10, CP61 and CP62 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (2015).

3.    The application fails to set out a scheme that would ensure the delivery, at the appropriate time, of the necessary improvements to J17 of the M4 so as to render the Strategic Road Network safe.  As such, the application would not meet the requirements of policies CP10, CP62 and CP66 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (2015).

4.    The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The following people spoke against the application:

Mr Peter Ridal, a local resident

Ms Rebecca Davies, Planning Advisor, North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Mr Chris Cooper, a local resident

Cllr Mervyn Hall, Vice-Chair, Planning Committee, Marlborough Town Council

The following people spoke in support of the application:

Mr Ian Mellor, a local resident

Mr Alexander Kirk Wilson, a local resident

Mr Neil Hall, representing the applicant

The Committee received a presentation from the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application, with a recommendation that a decision to grant outline planning permission be delegated to the Area Development Manager, subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure the required level of affordable housing, financial contributions towards public open space, education facilities, healthcare facilities, waste/recycling facilities, improvements to on and off site highway infrastructure, and a programme for the management and maintenance of the surface water scheme, and subject to the planning conditions.

Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which the Committee received statements from members of the public as detailed above, expressing their views regarding the planning application.

Members then heard the views of Cllr Nick Fogg, the local Member, who expressed some misgivings particularly with regard to the traffic issues that were likely to arise on the Salisbury Road following the development.  However, he acknowledged the need for additional housing in Marlborough and also the great need for an hotel to cater for the needs of the number of tourists visiting the Marlborough area.

Cllr Stewart Dobson, the other Wiltshire Councillor for Marlborough, acknowledged the need for further affordable housing in the area.   However, he did express concerns regarding the traffic problems that were likely to arise particularly on the Salisbury Road  following the development, the effect of the development on the air quality in the area and also the impact of the development on the surrounding area should building be permitted up to the 160 foot contour line.  On balance, he couldn’t support the application as submitted.

After discussion,

Resolved:

To delegate to the Area Development Manager, the decision to grant planning permission subject to the prior completion of a S106 agreement to cover the following matters:-

·                Affordable housing

·                Recreation provision

·                Education provision

·                Transportation provision

·                Waste management facilities

·                Healthcare facilities

·                The maintenance and management of the surface water drainage system

 and subject to the imposition of the  following conditions:

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The following people spoke against the applications:

Ms Mareile Feldman, a local resident

Mr Bryan Clover, a local resident

Mr Andrew Butterworth, a local resident

The following person spoke in support of the applications:

Mr Andy Birch, representing the applicants

The Committee received a presentation from the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the applications.  Members were informed that there were two planning applications with identical proposals for the same site by the same developer because it provided the applicant with an opportunity to appeal one application to the Planning Inspectorate for non-determination of the application, whilst still negotiating on the other application with the Planning Authority.  In this case application 14/10461/OUT was still before the Authority for determination by this Council, whilst application 14/06938/OUT had been appealed. 

The Council had to advise the Planning Inspectorate by 19 February 2016 of its stance on the appealed application whilst, at the same time, it was considered appropriate to bring application 14/10461/OUT before this Committee for determination.  If the decision was made to grant planning permission, then it was unlikely that the appeal, which was scheduled to be heard at a public inquiry in late summer, would be necessary.

Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which the Committee received statements from members of the public as detailed above, expressing their views regarding the planning applications.

Members heard the views of Cllr Jon Hubbard, the local Member, whilst generally in support of the development, did express some concerns.  He drew attention to the boundary wall of 3 Farmhouse Court which was listed and should be protected.   He also referred to the plan to construct an additional roundabout near the junction of Spa Road and Snowberry Lane and considered that traffic lights should be installed instead in the interests of road safety.  He felt that the Eastern Relief Road should be built before commencement of building the houses rather than occupation which could then be used by the construction traffic.

Cllr Roy While, an adjoining local Member, spoke in favour of the development.

After discussion,

Resolved:

(1) In relation to application 14/06938/OUT, the Council advise the Planning Inspectorate that provided the matters set out in (2) below are satisfactorily provided through a legal agreement(s), and subject to the conditions also set out in (2) below, the Council supports the grant of planning permission;

(2) In relation to application 14/10461/OUT, that the grant of planning permission be delegated to the Area Development Manager, subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement(s) to cover the following matters:-

·                Affordable housing

·                Education

·                Ecology

·                Open space and play provision

·                Highways

·                Refuse

·                Village Hall

and subject to the conditions set out below:-

To confirm that the next meeting of the Committee is due to be held on Wednesday 9 March 2016, at County Hall, Trowbridge, starting at 10.30am.

Resolved:

To note that the next scheduled meeting of the Committee is due to be held on Wednesday 9 March 2016, at County Hall, Trowbridge, starting at 10.30am.

There were no items of urgent business.