Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Christine Crisp and Cllr Julian Johnson, (who was substituted by Cllr Leo Randall).

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 16 November 2011.

Resolved:

To confirm and sign as a correct record the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 16 November 2011.

There were no declarations of interest.

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 in person no later than 1.50pm on the day of the meeting.

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. The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice.

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 (acting on behalf of the Director of Resources) no later than 5pm on Wednesday 8 February 2012. 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.

Members of the public addressed the Committee as set out in Minute Nos. 6 and 7.

There were no questions received from members of the public or members of the Council.

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The following people spoke against the proposal:

Dr Richard Pagett, representing Purton P’s & Q’s

Mr Robert Buckland, MP for South Swindon (also speaking on behalf of Mr James Gray, MP for North Wiltshire)

Mr Kevin Fisher, a local resident

Mr Philip Smith, Planning Policy Manager, Swindon Borough Council

Cllr Nick Martin, Swindon Borough Council

Cllr Geoffrey Greenaway, representing Purton Parish Council

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application.  She explained that the applicant had submitted an appeal in respect of this application on the grounds of non-determination, that is the Council’s failure to determine the application by the agreed date of 1 July 2011.  Consequently, no formal decision could be made by the Council in respect of the application.  However, in order to progress with the appeal and in the light of the call-in request, the opinion of the Committee was being sought in respect of the application had they been in a position to determine it and on what grounds the Committee might wish to contest the scheme at appeal, if at all.    She also drew Members’ attention to the late observations.  

A site visit had taken place earlier that morning in respect of this application, which had been attended by Cllr Mark Connolly, Cllr Andrew Davis, Cllr Peter Fuller, Cllr Charles Howard, Cllr Francis Morland, Cllr Stephen Petty, Cllr Leo Randall, Cllr Tony Trotman and Cllr Fred Westmoreland.  Cllr Jacqui Lay, Cllr Mollie Groom and Cllr Peter Colmer, as local Members had also attended the site visit.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which the Committee received statements from members of the public as detailed above, expressing their views regarding the planning application.

Members then heard the views of Cllr Jacqui Lay, Cllr Mollie Groom and Cllr Peter Colmer as local Members, who expressed their objections to the proposal on the grounds of the size of the proposed development, which would have a significant impact on the surrounding rural area, eroding the rural buffer between Swindon and North Wiltshire and the inadequacy of the highway proposals.

Cllr Peter Doyle, as Chairman of the Wootton Bassett & Cricklade Area Board, reported that the Area Board opposed the proposed development on account of its impact on the rural buffer between the rural villages of North Wiltshire and Swindon.

The Committee noted that Section 106 Agreement discussions had been taking place with the applicant during which the Local Authority had stated that with such a large scale development, it would require the developer to provide funding for a complete new primary school and also £700,000 towards the cost of a new secondary school. 

After some discussion,

Resolved:

Had the Committee been able to determine this application it would have refused Planning Permission and the officers were authorised to contest the appeal for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed development is in the countryside, outside the framework boundary of any settlement where  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The following person spoke in favour of the application:

Mr John Salmon, the agent

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application.  He introduced the report which requested consideration of the application for approval of full modern planning conditions to facilitate the reactivation of a “dormant” (mineral site).  He explained that that, under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995, Park Lane Quarry was classified a “dormant” site and no minerals development could lawfully recommence at this site until a new scheme of conditions had been approved. 

The main issue to be considered was whether the submitted conditions were acceptable or should be modified or added to in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and relevant guidance.   It was important to note that planning permission already existed for the mine itself and as a consequence the planning merits of permitting a mine in this location were not for consideration. 

The Case Officer also drew Members’ attention to the late observations. 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which the Committee received a statement from the agent as detailed above expressing his views.

Members then heard the views of Cllr Peter Davis and Cllr Dick Tonge, local Members, who both objected to the proposal on highway grounds regarding access to and from the site, the construction of a new haulage road across five fields breeching six long established hedge and wall boundaries, and the sinking of a totally unnecessary new access slop shaft to the underground workings when an existing slope shaft already existed, causing severe damage to the rural setting of the area.

After discussion, during which the appropriateness of the proposed condition requiring vehicles to use a new access onto Brookleaze and route along Rough Street or a modified condition requiring access to be via the previous route along Park Lane was considered,

Resolved:

To defer consideration of the application in order that:-

(1)          the Officers could consult the local residents on the option of a condition requiring access to and from the site along Park Lane.

(2)          all members of the Committee could acquaint themselves with the site.      

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

Resolved:

To defer consideration of the application for the reasons set out in Minute No 7 above.

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be considered as a matter of urgency.  Urgent items of a confidential nature may be considered under Part II of this agenda.

There were no items of urgent business.