Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from:

·       Cllr Ernie Clark

·       Cllr Elizabeth Threlfall, who was substituted by Cllr Bridget Wayman.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 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 29 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 29 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 join 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 24 November 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 26 November 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 details of completed and pending appeals, and any other updates as appropriate.

There were no updates.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The following planning applications were considered.

Outline planning permission for up to 47 dwellings with associated landscaping and vehicular and pedestrian accesses off Restrop Road (all matters reserved except means of vehicular access).

Public Participation

Chris Fairfax spoke in objection to the application

Hywel James (agent), spoke in support of the application.

Professor Richard Pagett, on behalf of Purton Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Andrew Guest, Head of Development Management, 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 21/01155/OUT, Land at Restrop Road, Purton, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN5 4BP.

The officer detailed a late representation from Professor Richard Pagett on behalf of Purton Parish Council which drew attention to a previously refused application near this site. The representation stated that the valid reasons for refusal on that occasion could also be used to refuse this application. Despite the issues with the shortfall in five year housing land supply the representation stated that balance was tilted towards refusal as the site was outside the limits of the village and was not sustainable, this could be supported by case law.

The officer gave a brief description of the site which was a parcel of land on the edge of the large village of Purton. The site was largely within an area identified within policy 14 of the Purton Neighbourhood Plan as an area of search for dwellings. Land immediately to the North of the site had planning permission granted for 38 homes. The number of homes provided in Purton exceeded policy expectations. The application did conflict with some core policies and key issues included the principle of development/development plan compliance; highways impact; impact on the character, appearance and visual amenity of the locality; impact on residential amenity; ecological impact and drainage impact.

The officer referred to the fact that the Planning Authority could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply. The National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF) at paragraph 11 stated:

“…where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites (with the appropriate buffer) …” then “policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date”, and permission should be granted unless:

i) There is a clear reason for refusal due to protection policies as listed in footnote 6 e.g. Green Belt; Local Green Space; Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; designated heritage assets; or

ii) Any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits

This was sometimes referred to as the ‘tilted balance’ affecting the weighting awarded to policies. The officer stated that there were no assets or designated areas affected by the application and that there were no adverse impacts when the application was assessed against the NPPF as a whole.

The officer drew the Committees attention to a planning application 20/06684/OUT in Calne which had been refused and overturned at appeal. The officer quoted some of the recent appeal decision (APP/Y3940/W/21/3275477) made by the Planning Inspectorate, including:

·       The Council’s housing land supply position was dated, and the most recent position was now 2.5 years old. Therefore, it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Outline Planning Application (with all matters except access reserved) for up to 26 Dwellings, Public Open Space, Landscaping and Associated Engineering Works.

Public Participation

Catherine Doody, on behalf of Paul Smith, spoke in objection to the application

Erica Whatton, on behalf of Campbell Ritchie, spoke in objection to the application.

Catherine Doody, on behalf of Jeremy Ollis from Malmesbury River Valleys Trust, spoke in objection to the application.

Glenn Godwin (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Frances Smith on behalf of Cllr Kim Power of Malmesbury Town Council spoke in objection to the application.

John Bartholomew representing Brokenborough Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Andrew Guest, Head of Development Management presented a report which recommended that planning permission be approved with conditions, subject to first entering into a legal agreement.

The officer highlighted that the appeal decision described under the last agenda item was also relevant to this application.

The officer gave a brief summary of the application. The site was a parcel of land classed as being in the countryside although it lay against the outside edge of Malmesbury. The application was in outline form and was for 26 dwellings. The site was not allocated in the Development Plan or the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan (made 2015). Planning permission had been refused on the land to the North of this site which was now subject to an appeal. As with the previous application, agenda item 7a, the officer detailed the lack of a five year housing land supply, the tilted balance invoked by paragraph 11 of the NPPF as a result and the recent appeal decisions. The officer stated that there were no adverse planning effects from the proposal. The Neighbourhood Plan was also over 2 years old so carried less weight. Therefore, the recommendation was for approval, with conditions, subject to a s106 agreement. 

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Many Members sought details regarding the emergency access to be used in the event of flooding. The officer stated that there were no houses in the flood zone, but that the low end of the site and access road occasionally flooded. The emergency access was for emergency vehicles in the event that the usual access flooded. Pedestrians and cyclists could also access the site via this emergency route. That route had not been deemed appropriate as the usual access to the whole site, as the road approaching that access was convoluted and narrow. Matters regarding the how the barrier or bollards at the emergency access would be activated were for the management company to consider and costs should be covered by the s106.

In response to a question regarding the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan the officer stated that the review of the plan was progressing but as this was still in process the plan had limited weight.

In response to a query regarding the road being shown as part of the application it was confirmed that the road was a public road, but as changes to the road would take place as part of the proposal, it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

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.