Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor John Knight.

Councillor Mark Packard was replacing Councillor John Knight for this meeting only.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2013 were presented and it was

Resolved:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2013 be approved as a true and correct record.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

Councillor Stephen Petty declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 6 – Land South West of Christie Miller Sports Centre, Lancaster Road, Bowerhill, Melksham as he was a member of Melksham Without Parish Council, where the application had been previously considered.  He explained that he did not take part in consideration of the application by the Parish Council, but that he would consider the application on its merits and debate and vote with an open mind at this meeting.

The Chairman referred to a recent request  by the Vice-Chairman, Councillor Julian Johnson for a site visit to Hills Waste Solutions, Calne in advance of an application being considered by the Committee for a proposed Waste Recovery Facility at Lower Compton, Calne.  It was suggested that the site visit be held on the morning of the appropriate Strategic Planning Committee with the Committee meeting being moved to the afternoon of the same day.

Resolved:

That the request for a site visit, detailed above, be agreed.

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 10.20am 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 6 March 2013. 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 Committee noted the rules on public participation and the manner in which the meeting would be held.

Members of the public addressed the Committee as set out in Minute No 12 and 13, as detailed below.

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 spoke in support of the application:

• Graham Dean – Herman Miller Ltd – the applicant

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application. She introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions and a Unilateral Undertaking.

Members of the Committee were informed that when looking at the application it was important to note the economic stimulus the development would bring to the local area, the safeguarding of a high number of jobs in a sustainable location and the retention of one of Wiltshire’s strategically significant businesses within the county.  The development would provide future employment opportunities, temporary construction jobs and the completion of a link road which would improve access to the industrial estate and could facilitate further regeneration and improvements.  The proposal would also ensure that the local community of Melksham Without would have an upgraded sports pavilion that was in line with Sport England and the FA requirements.

The Case Officer responded to a number of points raised in a letter received from Melksham Without Parish Council commenting on the application, which was circulated at the meeting.   The case Officer also provided full details of the commuted sum calculations with which the Committee agreed. 

Members then raised a number of technical issues in relation to the application and heard from the public who had an opportunity to address the Committee with their views, as detailed above.

The Committee then considered the application and debated a number of issues, in particular about parking, the pavilion and roofing materials being used for the pavilion, employment opportunities.

Resolved:

That Planning Permission to grant be deferred and delegated to the Service Director, Development Services, subject to the signing of a Unilateral Undertaking for the following reasons:

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken on the grounds that the proposed development would not cause any significant harm to interests of acknowledged importance and having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and the following policies and proposals in the West Wiltshire District Plan 1st Alteration 2004 namely Saved Policies C31a, C32, C34a, C35, C38, C40, R2, R11, E1B, E2, T4E of the West Wiltshire District Plan 1st Alteration 2004, Policy LP2 of the West Wiltshire Leisure and Recreation DPD, Policies W1 and WCS6 of the Wiltshire and Swindon Waste Core Strategy (adopted July 2009), the Wiltshire Local Transport Plan 2011-2026: Car Parking Strategy, Circular 06/05 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

In accordance with paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Wiltshire Council has worked proactively to secure this development to improve the economic, social, transport, ecology and environmental conditions of the area.

Subject to the following condition(s):

1       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

          Reason:  To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

A report by the case officer is attached.

The following spoke in support of the application:

• Paul Fong – Planning Agent
• Simon Westerfield – Kemble Enterprise Estate
•  Jeff Downes - Architect for the applicant

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the hybrid application for employment development Class B1 and B8 uses. The Case Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused.

Members of the Committee were informed that there were restrictive planning policies at both national and local level, however it was recognised that the site was an established employment use and the proposal would have positive economic benefits in terms of job creation. As such, some additional development at the site might be acceptable to help safeguard existing businesses on site in line with adopted policy. It was noted that due to the rural location of the site there were key sustainability considerations and a limit to what could be considered to be a reasonable level of increased floorspace. It was suggested that a robust Travel Plan supporting access by sustainable forms of travel for a more limited scheme would be important to encourage and support access by modes other than the private car.

The Case Officer acknowledged that the re use of this former Ministry of Defence site for employment uses had helped safeguard and protect historic buildings on the site, however the application did not offer any additional benefits that would help secure their survival in the longer term that may help to offset the harm to listed buildings. Officers felt that the effect that the proposed buildings would have upon the listed buildings, in particular building 4, was not considered to be acceptable.

Members then raised a number of technical issues in relation to the categories of trees mentioned in the report, highways, development opportunities on the site. 

The Committee then heard from the public who had an opportunity to address the Committee with their views, as detailed above.

The Committee then considered the application and debated a number of issues. Several members expressed reservations about the officers recommendation for a refusal as they felt that further negotiations could be held with the applicant for a reduced scheme that included a Travel Plan.  The Service Director of Development Services explained that negotiations with the applicant had been on-going for 18 months with all available avenues for a compromise now being exhausted.  It was noted that the size of building 4 could not be reduced as it was designed specifically to the requirements of an end user.

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

1)    The proposal is located within open countryside and on a Greenfield site within a former MoD site. The proposals are not considered to be limited expansion or redevelopment of an existing premises; are not well related to any existing settlements and are considered to be remote, involving development of an open area. The proposals are thus considered to conflict with policies  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.