Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Terry Chivers and Cllr Christopher Newbury.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2016. (Copy attached)

Resolved:

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2016 as a correct record.

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

There were no declarations of interest made at the meeting.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman reminded members of the public that whilst they had the opportunity to make representations on the applications under consideration today and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee before today’s meeting, he would not allow any last minute lobbying of members once the debate has started, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which had not been verified by the Council’s planning officers. He respectfully asked Members and members of the public to please bear this in 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 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 7 September 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.

Cllr Chris Caswill referred to the planning process and considered that engagement with the public needed some attention.  He mentioned that some members of the public had experienced difficulties in navigating the Council’s website to find the site dealing with planning applications. He also suggested that rather more information be included in reports to committee about representations received.     

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The following person spoke in favour of the proposal

Mr Martin Miller, the agent

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application. It was noted that the applicant had submitted an appeal in respect of this application on grounds of non-determination and, as a consequence, no formal decision could be made in respect of the 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 also brought to the attention of the Committee late representations from Chippenham Town Council and the agent.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which they heard a statement from the agent expressing his views regarding the planning application.

After some discussion,

Resolved:

(1)       To agree that had the Committee been able to determine the application, planning permission be refused.

(2)       To authorise the officers to contest the appeal for the following reasons (including the delegated authority to negotiate potentially satisfactory outcomes that may address reason for refusal 4 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. A development of this size and general scale, in this location, would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the landscape character of this rural area of countryside which generates a number of harmful landscape and visual impacts. Despite the site’s close proximity to the existing edge of Chippenham large scale urban expansion at this location will undermine the valued countryside transition and setting to the town and breech the existing effective visual containment provided by mature trees and woodland. This development will also reduce the rural separation between individual settlements which is also considered to be harmful. The proposal is therefore contrary

to the provisions of policies CP10, CP51 (i), (ii) and (iii) and also CP57 (i), (ii), (iii) and (vi) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

3. The development is considered to harm the setting of a number of heritage assets because the rural character would be eroded, the agricultural land that many of the heritage assets were constructed to be associated with will be lost and the peaceful

setting urbanised. The harm caused would be less than substantial but that the harm cannot be outweighed by the public benefit. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Core Policy 58 of the WCS, NPPF section 12, as well as section 16(2) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990.

4. The proposed development fails to provide and/or secure adequate provision for necessary on-site and, where  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The following people spoke against the proposal:

Mr Stephen Eades, representing Allington Action Group

Mr Paul Frobisher, representing Cepen Park North Residents’ Association

Cllr Howard Ham, representing Chippenham Without Parish Council

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application, with a recommendation that the application be refused. The Case Officer also brought to the attention of the Committee late representations received.

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

Members then heard the views of Cllr Howard Greenman and Cllr Nina Phillips, local Members, objecting to the proposal.

After some discussion,

Resolved:

To refuse permission for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed development by virtue of scale, form, location, works of

construction and inadequate mitigation would result in substantial harm to below ground archaeological remains that are the subject of a Scheduled Ancient Monument designation. The proposals are contrary to CP57 criterion I and CP58 criteria i & iii Wiltshire Core Strategy Jan 2015 and paras 17 & 132 of the NPPF.

2. The proposed development by virtue of its scale, form, location and inadequate mitigation would result in harm to the setting of various listed buildings (including Bolehyde Manor (Grade II*), Allington House, The Pitts, Manor Farm, Ivy Cottage and The Cottage). The proposals are contrary to CP57 criteria i and CP58 criteria iii Wiltshire Core Strategy Jan 2015; paras 17, 128, 132, 134 and 137 of the NPPF; and Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

3. The proposed development by virtue of its scale, form, location and inadequate mitigation would result in harm to the setting of the Allington Conservation Area. The proposals are contrary to CP57 criteria i and CP58 criteria iv Wiltshire Core Strategy Jan 2015; paras 17 128, 132, 134 and 137 of the NPPF; and Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

4. The proposed development by virtue of its scale, form, location and inadequate mitigation would result in harm to protected species of fauna and their habitats. In addition the proposed development is not informed by sufficiently detailed and robust information to fully assess the impact on all protected species of fauna and their habitats. The proposals are contrary to CP50 Wiltshire Core Strategy Jan 2015 and paras 17 & 118 of the NPPF.

5. The proposed development taking direct access from the A350 national primary route outside of a built-up area, and for which no overriding need has been established, would be contrary to adopted Core Strategy Policy 62 Wiltshire Core Strategy Jan 2015.

6. The proposed development would lead to unacceptable traffic conditions, with additional congestion, delays, and hazardous conditions at nearby roundabouts and the proposed site access contrary to policy CP62. The proposed development would be detrimental to road user safety and convenience on the important A350 national  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The following people spoke against the proposal:

Mr Michael Bryant, representing Eagle Retail

Ms Kirsten Wilson, a local resident

The following person spoke in support of the proposal:

Mr Clive Wilding, Property Director, Langley Properties

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application, with a recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and the imposition of appropriate conditions within six months of the date of this Committee decision.

In the event of failure to complete, sign and seal the required Section 106 agreement within the defined timeframe to then delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to refuse planning permission.

The Case Officer also brought to the attention of the Committee late representations received.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which they received 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 generally welcomed and supported the application but did express some concerns as follows:-

·                The need to recognise the costs involved in dealing with a huge amount of contamination at the sight.

·                Concerns of local residents at the increased amount of traffic resulting from the opening up of Hawthorn Road.

·                The need for a residents’ parking scheme at Langley Park and to request the developer to make a contribution towards this scheme.

·                Disappointment at the failure to secure a contribution towards the provision of a third left at Chippenham railway station for those members of the public who were unable to access the railway bridge from Langley Park.

After some discussion,

Resolved:

To authorise the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and the imposition of the following conditions within six months of the date of the resolution of this Committee.

In the event of failure to complete, sign and seal the required section 106 agreement within the defined timeframe to then delegate authority to the Area Development Manager to refuse planning permission for the following reason:-

The application proposal fails to provide and secure the necessary and required Services and infrastructure supporting the proposed residential development including Affordable Housing; Waste; Air Quality Management and is therefore contrary to Policies CP3 CP43 & CP55 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy Adopted January 2015 and Paras 7, 14 & 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.

Conditions

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application, with a recommendation to delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and the imposition of appropriate conditions within six months of the date of this Committee decision.

In the event of failure to complete, sign and seal the required Section 106 agreement within the defined timeframe to then delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to refuse planning permission.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which they heard the views of Cllr Chris Caswill, the local Member in which he generally welcomed and supported the application.

After some discussion,

Resolved:

To delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and the imposition of appropriate conditions within six months of the date of the resolution of this Committee.

In the event of failure to complete, sign and seal the required section 106 agreement within the defined timeframe to then delegate authority to the Area Development Manager to refuse planning permission for the following reason:-

The application proposal fails to provide and secure the necessary and required Services and infrastructure supporting the proposed residential development including Affordable Housing; Waste; Air Quality Management and is therefore contrary to Policies CP3 CP43 & CP55 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy Adopted January 2015 and Paras 7, 14 & 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.

Conditions

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The following people spoke against the proposal:

Mr Patrick Moss, representing Messrs Moss Naylor Young

Mr Nick Murray, a local resident

Mr Fionn Pilbrow, a local resident

Cllr Ian James, representing Bremhill Parish Council

The following person spoke in support of the proposal:

Mr Peter Frampton, Planning Director, Messrs Framptons

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application, with a recommendation to delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and the imposition of appropriate conditions within six months of the date of this Committee decision.

In the event of failure to complete, sign and seal the required Section 106 agreement within the defined timeframe to then delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to refuse planning permission.

The Case Officer also brought to the attention of the Committee late representations received.

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

Members then heard the views of Cllr Chris Caswill and Cllr Howard Greenman, local Members, in which they both objected to the proposal. Cllr Caswill considered that:

·                The application site lay outside the existing settlement which should be preserved.

·                The residents of Rawlings Farm Cottage, situated in the midst of the proposed development site, had not been notified of the receipt of the application and had been informed by neighbours.

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

·                An application for a new bridge over the railway line at Rawlings Green had not been received and might not be approved.  The bridge needed to be completed after the first 200 houses had been built and occupied.

·                The Air Quality and Landscape and Visual Impacts of the proposed development had not been sufficiently considered.

Cllr Greenman explained that although he had no issue in principle with the proposed development, he was firmly of the opinion that a bridge over the railway at Rawlings Green should be provided before further houses, after the first 200, could be built and occupied.

The Case Officer explained that the application was for outline permission and that all detailed matters were reserved and would follow in due course. He stated that many of the issues raised had been covered in his report but drew attention to the highway issues, which had been fully assessed and approved by the Council’s Highways Officer.

After discussion,

Resolved: 

To delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and the imposition of appropriate conditions within six months of the date of the resolution of this Committee.

In the event of failure to complete, sign and seal the required section 106 agreement within the defined timeframe to then delegate authority to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

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.