Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Sarah Gibson who was substituted by Cllr Stewart Palmen.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 6 October 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 October 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.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.To ensure Wiltshire Council COVID-19 public health guidance is adhered to, a capacity limit for public attendance at this meeting will be in place. You must contact the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on Monday 1 November 2021 if you wish to attend this meeting. Places will be allocated on a first come first served basis and all requests may not be accommodated if there is high demand.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to submit a statement in relation to an item on this agenda should submit this in writing to the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on Monday 1 November 2021.

Submitted 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 item on the agenda, plus statutory consultees and parish councils.

Those submitting statements would be expected to attend the meeting 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 27 October 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 29 October 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 rules on public participation were noted.

To receive a verbal update on the s106 agreement in relation to 15/12351/OUT: Land at Rawlings Farm, Cocklebury Lane, Chippenham.

Andrew Guest, Major Projects and Performance Manager gave an update to the meeting stating that the s106 agreement for 15/12351/OUT: Land at Rawlings Farm, Cocklebury Lane, Chippenham had been completed, so planning permission was issued.

In response to a question on when there would be updated 5 year land supply figures, the officer stated that the figures were being prepared but at present there was no confirmed date when these would be available.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The following planning applications were considered.

Demolition of 1 existing dwelling and erection of 25 market and affordable dwellings, with associated access works, car parking, public open space and landscaping.

Public Participation

Julie Hennessy spoke in objection to the application.

David Arnold spoke in objection to the application.

Alison Young (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Professor Richard Pagett representing Purton Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Lee Burman, Development Management Team Leader (North) presented a report which recommended that authority be delegated to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission with conditions and subject to a s106 agreement for 20/11382/FUL, Land at Pavenhill, Purton, Swindon, SN5 4DA, for the demolition of 1 existing dwelling and erection of 25 market and affordable dwellings, with associated access works, car parking, public open space and landscaping.

The officer highlighted some typing errors within the agenda report. Corrections were stated as follows:

·       Page 39, the first paragraph under Tilted Balance, includes the following sentence – “The scale of development is limited at 24 dwellings (net increase) and this is not considered reasonably well related to the scale of the settlement itself.” The word “Not” was included in error and should be deleted.

·       Page 41, last paragraph under Residential Amenity, should read ‘As such the proposals are considered to accord with the relevant policies of the plan and provision of the framework.’

·       The numbering on the conditions attached to the recommendation to approve was slightly out and would be corrected for the minutes if the application was approved.

The officer drew attention to representations sent directly to the Committee from Purton Parish Council and the CPRE (The countryside Charity, formerly known as the Campaign to Protect Rural England). The points raised in these representations were already addressed within the agenda report.

The officer explained that this application was being considered by the Strategic Planning Committee, rather than the Northern Area Planning Committee, as it had been called in by the local Member to consider the principle of development; the constrained vehicular access which was a concern to local residents; the conflict with the development plan and as the application raised housing land supply issues which affected all of Wiltshire.

The officer ran through the presentation slides, highlighting the location of the site and that the site was landlocked, requiring the demolition of 1 dwelling in order to provide access. The proposed site layout was very similar to a previous application (16/03625/FUL) which had been refused at Committee and dismissed at appeal. Within the proposed site layout, the play area had increased in size, the turning head had been reconfigured, the access road was of a slightly different alignment and there was better pedestrian access.

The substantive issues were stated to include the following, the proposal gave a net gain of 24 residential dwellings, the site was outside the limits of development and was not in accordance with Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) Core Policy (CP) 1, 2 and 19 and the Purton Neighbourhood Plan. As previously stated, a very similar application had been refused and dismissed at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. However, at that time Wiltshire Council could demonstrate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Construction of up to 187 dwellings, means of access, landscaping, drainage, public open space and all other associated infrastructure.

Public Participation

Mike Townley spoke in objection to the application.

Caroline Lincoln spoke in objection to the application.

Sarah Dickenson (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Trevor Carbin of Hilperton Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr Edward Kirk of Trowbridge Town Council spoke in objection to the application.

Ruaridh O'Donoghue, Senior Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that authority be delegated to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission with conditions and subject to the completion of a s106 agreement for application 20/09701/FUL, Land at Elizabeth Way, Hilperton, Trowbridge, for construction of up to 187 dwellings, means of access, landscaping, drainage, public open space and all other associated infrastructure.

The officer highlighted some errors within the agenda report, these included:

·       Page 56 of the agenda, section 3 ‘Site Description’, the report referred to a number of grade ll listed buildings adjacent to the site, it was confirmed that there were no grade ll buildings adjacent to the site.

·       Page 78, section 9.11 ‘Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)’, which stated that CIL charges would be calculated later, it was confirmed that this was an error, CIL charges could be calculated at this stage.

The officer referred attendees to the detailed report within the agenda which would be taken as read. In summary the application site was approximately 6.5 hectares within Hilperton Parish. The site formed part of the housing allocation in the Wiltshire Housing Sites Allocation Plan (WHSAP) under reference H2.3 which had been adopted in February 2020. The site was to the south west of Elizabeth Way in an area locally known as The Hilperton Gap. A masterplan for the site had been approved by the Council. A separate application for 165 dwellings within the wider H2.3 allocation had been granted outline planning permission by the Committee on 2 December 2020, that application was signed off with a completed s106 in May 2021. There were several Rights of Way (RoW) within the site known as HILP4, HILP5 and HILP33. It was noted the site was in the yellow zone of the bat mitigation strategy.  

Key details were stated to include the following the principle of development, whether the scheme constituted high quality design, negative effect in a highway and parking, adequate draining and impact on species and habitats.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Several Members queried the uplift in numbers across the allocation site H2.3 from 355 (allocated in the masterplan) to approximately 423. In response the officer explained that this had been debated by the Committee on 2 December 2020 when the first application within the allocation came to Committee and had been found to be acceptable by Members as the uplift in numbers caused no planning harm, there were no sound reasons for refusal and this would also reduce pressure on greenfield sites. The NPPF also stated that there should be an uplift in the density of housing so  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

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.