Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were recived from Cllr Ernie Clark, who was substituted by Cllr George Jeans.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 18 August 2024.

The minutes of the previous meeting were presented for consideration, and it was,

Resolved:

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 18 August 2024 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.

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 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 and others will have had the opportunity to make representations on planning applications and other items on the agenda, and to contact and lobby their local elected member and any other members of the planning committee, prior to the meeting.

Those circulating such information prior to the meeting, written or photographic, are advised to also provide a copy to the case officer for the application or item, in order to officially log the material as a representation, which will be verbally summarised at the meeting by the relevant officer, not included within any officer slide presentation if one is made. Circulation of new information which has not been verified by planning officers or case officers is also not permitted during the meetings.

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 no later than 5pm on Tuesday 15 October 2024 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm Thursday 17 October 2024. 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 procedure for public participation was noted.

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

The Chairman referenced the appeals report in the agenda and highlighted that the appeal in relation to PL/2022/08155, Land to the West of Semington Road, Melksham. This application had been refused at the Strategic Planning Committee previously. It had now been allowed on appeal; however, costs had not been awarded.

Cllr Jonathon Seed stated that he had attended that appeal inquiry and that the council had not defended the decision of the Committee. In his opinion the appeal had been surrendered, rather than lost.

Erection of 190 dwellings, car parking, access including extension to Empress Way, green infrastructure including open space and landscaping, infrastructure, drainage, utilities and engineering works. Off-site highway works at junction of Astor Crescent / Empress Way and Tidworth Road. Land reserved for 2-form entry primary school.

Note: This text was amended following publication of the agenda to correct the description of the application.

Please refer to the amended report and map published in agenda supplement 1 for the correct details regarding the application.

Public Participation

Aaron Smith (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Adam Madge, Principal Planning Officer, introduced a report which recommended that the application for Erection of 190 dwellings, car parking, access including extension to Empress Way, green infrastructure including open space and landscaping, infrastructure, drainage, utilities and engineering works. Off-site highway works at junction of Astor Crescent / Empress Way and Tidworth Road. Land reserved for 2-form entry primary school, be approved with conditions and subject to a S106 agreement. 

Attention was drawn to the updated report published in agenda supplement 1, which corrected the description of the proposal and the division Member. An updated map of the site was also published in the supplement.

The officer stated that the site was on allocated land and had been to the Strategic Planning Committee before, on 10 August 2022. The S106 agreement had not yet been completed so permission had not yet been granted. Therefore, the application was back before the Committee as there had been some changes made to the proposal. Additionally, changes had been made to the National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF).

Slides of the proposal (published in agenda supplement 3) were shown to the Committee, including the site, plans, elevations and access, of which there were 2 proposed. The site was mainly surrounded by green fields, but the land had been allocated in the new Local Plan, so if the Local Plan was approved by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, that land would likely be built on.

In terms of changes to the proposal, there were some Skylark/Lapwing plots close to the sites as part of a mitigation scheme. Under the amended proposal, these sites would be moved as the land surrounding the site had been allocated for housing. This would form part of the S106 agreement. The Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) had been moved marginally. Furthermore, the affordable 2 bedroom dwellings were to be 2sqm bigger.

In terms of the second access to the site, the applicant had queried whether this was necessary, Wiltshire Council considered that it was, hence it forming part of the application. The recommendation before the Committee was to approve with conditions, subject to the successful completion of the S106.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response it was explained that the land for the Lapwing/Skylark sites was owned by the applicant, and this was suggested as part of the S106 legal agreement, rather than by condition. Therefore, it would be in place in perpetuity and if the applicant wanted to change this, they would need to come back to the council. Some Members highlighted that the new location for the Lapwing/Skylark plots was at Beacon Hill where there was a lightly used firing range. In addition, there was an application for a more extensive shooting school there and they questioned whether this was suitable. The officer had not been aware of this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Outline planning application for residential development of up to 66 dwellings and associated public open space with all matters reserved except for access.

Public Participation

David Feather (North Bradley Neighbourhood Planning Steering Group) spoke in objection to the application.

Francis Morland spoke in objection to the application.

Alice Lack (applicant) spoke in support of the application.

Millie Dodd spoke in support of the application.

Matthew Bell spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Roger Evans, Chairman of North Bradley Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Jemma Foster, Senior Planning Officer, introduced a report which recommended that outline planning application for residential development of up to 66 dwellings and associated public open space with all matters reserved except for access be approved, subject to conditions and a S106 agreement. The site was to the West of North Bradley, outside the limits of development.

Slides of the proposal (published in agenda supplement 3) were shown to the Committee and explained, including the site, nearby Public Rights of Way (PRoW), listed buildings in the vicinity, a previously refused application on that site, a proposed illustrative masterplan, the proposed access, and photos of the site. The site was on grade 4 (poor quality) agricultural land and at low risk of flooding.

The officer explained the previously refused application on the site in 2019 in more detail, and gave the reasons for refusal for that application, which were detailed in the report. It was noted that this application was similar to the previous application, but was now for up to 66 dwellings, rather than 85 units. In relation to landscaping (a previous reason for refusal), the new proposal had a wider landscape buffer and a decreased density of housing, which helped it to integrate into its surroundings. Whilst the proposal would cause an irreversible change of rural countryside to built development, the site was measured as having a medium landscape value, which was on a community level and not a regional or national level. It would not impact on the landscape setting gap allocated in the North Bradley Neighbourhood Plan (NP). So, the landscape officer now supported the application.

In relation to ecology and archaeology (also reasons for refusal for the previous application), additional survey work had been submitted with this application, which overcame the previous reasons for refusal, and the relevant council officers now supported the application. In addition, Natural England had signed off the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA).

With regards to neighbouring amenity, whilst a reserve matters application would look at the details, based on the information provided, there would be no reasons to refuse on neighbouring amenity.

Some of the technical consultee responses such as Highways and Drainage were highlighted, and it was noted that none had objections, although some were subject to conditions and a successful S106 agreement.  

The officer stated that the site was outside the limits of development for North Bradley (a large village in planning terms) and as such was contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) Core Policy (CP) 1, 2 and 29. However, as the council could only currently prove a 3.85 year Housing Land Supply  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

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.