Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillors Ernie Clark and Tony Trotman.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2021 were presented for consideration, and it was,

Resolved:

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

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

Under the next item Councillor Robert Yuill declared that in relation to the Freeth Farm Quarry applications, that he had previously been Portfolio Holder for Waste and had some contact with The Hills Group, but none with the Hills Quarry Products portion of the business, and therefore no historic interest.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no announcements.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public. During the

ongoing Covid-19 situation the Council may need to operate revised procedures and timescales.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to make a statement at the meeting in relation to an item on this agenda should contact the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on 12 July 2021

Statements should:

·       State whom the statement is from (including if representing another person or organisation);

·       State clearly whether the statement is in objection to or support of the application;

·       Be readable aloud in approximately three minutes (for members of the public and statutory consultees) and in four minutes (for parish council representatives – 1 per parish council).

Up to three objectors and three supporters are normally allowed for each planning application on the agenda, plus statutory consultees and parish councils.

Those submitting statements would be expected to attend to read the statement themselves, or to provide a representative to read the statement on their behalf.

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 electronically to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on 7 July 2021 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 9 July 2021.

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 members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website. Questions and answers will normally be taken as read at the meeting.

The procedures for public participation were noted.

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

The planning appeals report was received and noted.

To consider the proposed Salisbury River Park Masterplan.

David Milton, Major Projects Spatial Planning Manager, presented a report on the Salisbury River Park Masterplan. The Committee was recommended to endorse the masterplan as a relevant material planning consideration to be taken into account when making decisions on planning applications on any proposals for the Salisbury River Park and wider integrated zone.

The presentation set out details of flood zones in Salisbury and reassessment  of flood risk by the Environment Agency, plans to improve open space and the environment for the River Park/Green Corridor project, the multiple stages of public consultation which had identified support for the proposals, and that amendments had been made based on those responses. It was confirmed the masterplan did not include the area of the Cathedral Close.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought of housing location in or around the River Park, the limited loss of car parking, and other work being undertaken by the Environment Agency.

A local Unitary Member, Councillor Paul Sample JP, then addressed the Committee. He noted issues remained with the document and some residents had concerns relating to parking, footpaths and cyclepaths, and future maintenance, but supported the masterplan.

The Committee then had the opportunity to debate the masterplan. On the motion of Councillor Howard Greenman, seconded by Councillor Pip Ridout, it was then,

Resolved:

That the masterplan for the Salisbury River Park, as attached at
Appendix 1 of the report, together with any other minor alterations required to improve its clarity, is endorsed as a material planning consideration for the purposes of development management.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Review of minerals planning conditions - Application for determination of conditions for mineral site.

Public Participation

Dr Peter Alberry spoke in objection to the application.

John Brooks, on behalf of James Pendley, spoke in objection to the application.

Charles Reis spoke in objection to the application.

Peter Andrew, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Nick Dunn, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Peter Szczesiak, Compton Bassett Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Jason Day, Minerals and Waste Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended approval be granted through delegation for a scheme of planning conditions under which the site would operate.

Planning Permission for mineral extraction already existed for the site, but development could not lawfully commence until new, modern conditions necessary to address environmental and other issues of mineral working at the site had been agreed by the Mineral Planning Authority. Key issues included the control of noise and protection of visual amenity at the nearest residential properties. A site visit took place ahead of the Committee meeting.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details sought included information regarding dates of minerals and ecology reports, dimensions of the proposed acoustic bund and the distance to existing properties, the level of noise monitoring, assessment of financial viability, and confirmation that the conveyor for materials would be covered.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as detailed above.

As the local Member, Councillor Ashley O’Neill, was unable to be present due to Covid-19 self-isolation requirements, his statement was read out by Councillor Nick Botterill, objecting at length to the application in particular the buffer zone of 35m from neighbouring properties, and suggesting revisions to the conditions were it to be considered for approval.

A debate followed. The adequacy of the proposed buffer zone was discussed, and impact on financial viability and residential amenity if this were increased to 70m, along with suggestion that noise and or dust monitoring should be continuous. The impact of additional conditions on operation was raised, and the need to delegate to officers the adjustment of other conditions in the event continuous dust and/or noise monitoring was agreed.

On the motion of Councillor Howard Greenman, seconded by Councillor Adrian Foster, at the conclusion of debate, it was therefore,

Resolved:

To accept the recommendation at paragraph 185 of the report subject to the addition of a condition delegated to the Head of Development Management requiring a 70 metre buffer from the nearby dwellings to the screen bund and the replacement of recommended conditions 12 and 16 (compliance with the submitted noise and dust management plans) with conditions delegated to the Head of Development Management requiring new schemes that provide for continuous monitoring.

Construction of a quarry field conveyor to transport excavated soft sand from Freeth Farm Quarry to the existing Processing Plant at Sands Farm Quarry

Public Participation

Dr Peter Alberry had registered to speak in objection to the application.

Peter Andrew, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Nick Dunn, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Peter Szczesiak, Compton Bassett Parish Council, had registered to speak in objection to the application.

Jason Day, Minerals and Waste Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended approval be granted for a quarry field conveyor to transport extracted soft sand to its the processing plant at Calne Quarry. The route of the conveyor was detailed, along with the potential environmental impacts of replacing vehicle movements a conveyor.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Questions were asked on construction timescales, any impact on trees and the proposed conditions.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as detailed above.

As the local Member, Councillor Ashley O’Neill, was unable to be present due to Covid-19 self-isolation requirements, his statement was read out by an officer, objecting to the application in particular reports of the conveyor not being enclosed.

A debate followed. It was confirmed that the conveyor would be covered which address many of the objections which had been raised, and the time taken to transport the materials was discussed. It was noted that if approved conditions would need to be delegated to officers to update to take account of the decision on the previous application.

On the motion of Councillor Howard Greenman, seconded by Councillor Pip Ridout, at the conclusion of debate, it was therefore,

Resolved:

To accept the recommendation at paragraph 83 of the report subject to the addition of a condition delegated to the Head of Development Management requiring the conveyor to be covered along its full length and the replacement of recommended conditions 8 and 11 (compliance with the submitted noise and dust management plans) with conditions delegated to the Head of Development Management requiring new schemes that provide for continuous monitoring.

Outline planning application for mixed use development comprising: residential (up to 2,500 dwellings - Classes C3 & C2); employment (Class E (‘Business’ only), B2, and B8); two local centres (Classes E, C2, and C3); two primary schools, one secondary school, ecological visitor facility, public open space,  landscaping and associated highway works including for the ‘Yarnbrook / West Ashton Relief Road’ and the access junctions.

Public Participation

John Cox spoke in objection to the application.

Chris Minors, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Mike Wilmott, Head of Development Management, presented a report which recommended that the existing resolution to grant permission approved  at a meeting 25 April 2018, be amended to include a revised arrangement for affordable housing delivery in the Section 106 agreement and  updates to the conditions to be attached to the grant of planning  permission. It was stated that the overall affordable housing element would be just over 26%, with phased delivery. It was noted that this was not a fresh application to that already approved, so the principle of the development, which was very significant in terms of the council’s housing land supply, had already been agreed. Details were provided of late representations received.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details sought included information on the phased delivery of the affordable housing, and that this would mean that should the developer wish to amend this in future, for instance to place housing on the employment land, it would require a fresh planning application, with the policy position starting at an expectation of the figure required in the development plan extant at the time (currently 30% affordable housing). It was also discussed what the agreement being signed in a timely manner would mean in practice. Details were also sought on references to the funding of a wildlife warden and the costs of that over time, which it was stated would be a matter for the developer and trust to secure through agreement, and on the status of the land and bats in the area.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as detailed above.

Councillor Stewart Palmen, a Unitary Member for Trowbridge, then spoke regarding the level of affordable housing.

Councillor Horace Prickett, the local Unitary Member, then spoke regarding aspects of the application, noting parish council acceptance of the need for housing in the area, and matters raised by the scouts.

A debate followed, which noted the significant level of affordable housing being delivered from the overall 2500 housing development, the scale of the s106 legal agreement contributions sought for schools and other infrastructure and whether this would be deliverable, and the inclusion of a limit of 12 months for the agreement to be signed.

On the motion of Councillor Howard Greenman, seconded by Councillor Elizabeth Threlfall, at the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved:

To amend the April 2018 decision of this Planning Committee as follows –

Either -

To GRANT planning permission, this subject to the main ‘legal agreement’ being first entered into but with a change to its affordable housing terms – specifically, to minimum 20% affordable housing provision in the first 500 units; minimum 25% affordable housing provision in the next 500 units; and minimum 30% provision in all units thereafter; (all other terms to remain as in the April 2018 resolution);  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

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.