Venue: Council Chamber - County Hall, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge, BA14 8JN. View directions
Contact: Stuart Figini Email: email@example.com
To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.
Apologies were received from Cllr Tony Trotman and Cllr Sarah Gibson. Cllr Gibson was substituted by Cllr Stewart Palmen for this meeting.
Minutes of the Previous Meeting
To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2023.
Please note that these minutes will be published as a supplement.
The Chairman explained that due to officer illness the minutes from the Strategic Planning Committee meeting held on 1 November 2023 would be received at the next meeting.
Declarations of Interest
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.
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 no later than 10.20am on the day of the meeting. If it is on the day of the meeting registration should be done in person.
The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are linked to in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. 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. Representatives of Parish Councils are included separately in the speaking procedure, please contact the officer listed for details.
Members of the public will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.
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 no later than 5pm on Wednesday 22 November 2023 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 Friday 24 November 2023. 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.
The procedures for public participation were detailed and noted.
Planning Appeals and Updates
To confirm that there is no report to be received of completed and pending appeals, and any other updates as appropriate.
The Chairman confirmed that there was no report for this meeting on completed or pending appeals and any other updates.
PL/2022/08155 - Land west of Semington Road, Melksham.
Outline planning permission for up to 53 dwellings including formation of access and associated works, with all other matters reserved.
Cllr John Glover (Melksham Without Parish Council) spoke in objection of the application.
Aaron Davidson office of Michelle Donnellan’s office spoke in objection of the application.
Tamsin Almeida Planning Manager spoke in support of the application.
Cllr Richard Wood (Melksham Without Parish Council spoke in objection of the application.
Ruaridh O'Donoghue (Senior Planning Officer) presented a report which recommended that the decision be deferred and delegated to the Head of Development Management to grant full planning permission subject to first completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions set out in the report.
The officer showed the Committee the slides relating to the application, whilst explaining key details.
The site is located within Melksham Without Parish on land to the south of Melksham and is currently an agricultural field, unaffected by urban development and surrounded by popular Public Rights of Way, although none cross the site and the Kennett and Avon Canal towpath/Sustrans Route 4.
The main issues highlighted in the officers presentation and detailed in the report were the principle of development, Wiltshire Core Strategy and Joint Melksham Neighbourhood Plan, the five-year housing land supply and relevant appeal decisions, design, landscape, open space and visual impact, heritage impact, agricultural land, flood risk and drainage, environmental impact, ecological impact, highways and rights of way and the Community Infrastructure Levy.
The officer commented on the planning balance, the harms and benefits of the application and the neutral impacts. He concluded that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission (the conflict with Core Policy 1, 2 and 15 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy as well as Melksham Neighbourhood Plan policies 1 and 6) would not be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the benefits (provision of 100% affordable housing and economic benefits), when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to the questions the officer explained that affordable housing was being delivered in line with the need in Wiltshire equating to 60%, along with some shared ownership and first homes; that land located in flood zone one was unlikely to flood and therefore the flood risk was acceptable; confirmed that the Melksham Neighbourhood Plan was over two years old; the allocation of affordable housing detailed in the Melksham Without Neighbourhood Plan; details about bat boxes and hedgehog highways were detailed in the suite of ecological conditions; technical objections are used against planning applications at appeal by officers to provide a more robust case; the number of different bedroom size homes depends on need; recycling bins for waste currently collected would be provided by the Council, any new collections for instance food waste would be by the Council in the future; and planning officers were not involved in the process for involving housing association.
Officers were asked to prepare a report to include (i) the breakdown of Planning Inspector decisions at appeal where there is a technical ... view the full minutes text for item 71.
PL/2021/08064 - Innox Mills, Trowbridge.
Hybrid (full and outline)
planning application descriptions (i)
The listed building consent application proposes internal and external works and part demolition of Innox Mill; internal and external works, and extension to Innox Place. Although a separate application, the issues relevant to the impact upon the listed buildings (Innox Place and Innox Mill) are considered under this report.
Dean Plumley spoke in objection of the application.
Chris Beaver (agent) spoke in support of the application.
Ruaridh O'Donoghue (Senior Planning Officer) presented a report which recommended that the Head of Development Management be authorised to grant planning permission and listed building consent, subject to first completion of a planning obligation/Section 106 agreement covering the matters set out in the report and summarised in the recommendations and subject to planning conditions.
The officer showed the Committee the slides relating to the application, whilst explaining key details.
The site of approximately 4.07ha in area is located within Trowbridge Town Parish and comprises the whole former Bowyer’s site with the exception of Nos. 5-9 Stallard Street. It is adjacent to Trowbridge town centre, with the Trowbridge Railway Station and branch line to the west of the site with housing and Stallard Recreation Field behind and the River Biss adjoining the western and northern boundary of the site with neighbouring industrial parks.
The main issues highlighted in the officers presentation and detailed in the report were the principle of development, both for the outline and full applications, the need, design, neighbour amenity, heritage impacts, landscape, open space and visual impact, flood risk and drainage, environmental impact, ecological impact, highways and rights of way, financial viability and developer contributions and the Community Infrastructure Levy.
The officer concluded that the substantial benefits of revitalising a site that has been a derelict eyesore for years outweighs its inability to delivery all the desired/required mitigation. Notably the following benefits –
In the context of paragraph 11d)ii of the report the officer concluded that the harm identified, does not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits that this development would deliver.
Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to the questions the officer explained that minimal weight should be given to the emerging Local Plan; the developments impact on traffic would have been considered if Bowyers was still trading, however, as the site is derelict there was no comparative data existing, part of the mitigation in this respect is that there were no objections from highways and Network Rail; a dedicated bat roost was being supplied in the former brewery building; consideration would be given to light spill and appropriate planting alongside the River Biss and the railway corridor to facilitate bat movements; the bulk of historic buildings on site were due to be retained with appropriate conditions detailed in the recommendations of the report; the provision of housing would count as a significant material benefit of the scheme; high quality design would be achieved through suggested conditions and detailed consents; the Methodist Chapel was demolished some years ago and would have required conservation area consent if it was still on site; the costs listed in the presentation would only be used on obligations in the application ... view the full minutes text for item 72.
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.