Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mark Connolly.

Councillor Connolly was substituted by Councillor Chris Williams.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2014.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2014 were presented for

consideration, and it was,

Resolved:

To APPROVE as a true and correct record and sign the

minutes.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no 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 5.50pm 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 no later than 5pm on 31 July 2014. 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 rules on public participation were noted. There were no questions or statements submitted.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The following applications were determined:

Public Participation

Philip Bellew spoke in objection to the application.

Simon Wheeler spoke in support of the application.

Tim Swinburn spoke in support of the application.

Mike White, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Lucille Packer, spoke on behalf of Marston Parish Council.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application which recommended the application be granted. Key issues were stated to include principle of the development, whether the proposal would result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land, the landscape, the cumulative impact of solar farm development in the locality, the historic environment, the use of local transport network, biodiversity, and residential amenity.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Clarification was sought on what would happen at the end of the 30 years of use. It was explained that the development would revert to its original use or have to be reconsidered for permission if an extension was sought. Questions were asked on the location of access routes and the size of vehicles that would be using them. It was stated that the access routes had plenty of width and that suitable works had been asked to be carried out.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the

Committee, as detailed above.

The local member, Councillor Richard Gamble, then stated that while he had no specific objections to this proposal, he had concerns over the growing numbers of solar farm developments across the county and the lack of clear planning policy restraints on their development.

A debate followed where the impact of the loss of land on the community was discussed, along with what would happen if the full 30 years was not used. It was explained that within 6 months of non-use the development had to be reverted. Access to the site was discussed, and it was suggested that it should not be an insurmountable problem so long as the conditions requested by the local highway authority and set out in the report were accepted and adhered to.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

That the planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

Public Participation

Brian Toogood, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

Pat Banwell, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor David Motram, speaking on behalf of Urchfont Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced a report which recommended the application be refused. The key issues were stated to be the principle of development, layout design and visual impact, the impact on highway safety, and the environmental and ecological impact.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the settlement boundary for the proposed development area. It was explained that it was outside of development boundaries, and that whilst there was going to be a review, under the initial plans it was still outside.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the

Committee, as detailed above.

The local member, Councillor Philip Whitehead, then spoke in support of the application, stating that the land was not agricultural, remote, rural, or unsustainable. It was highlighted that there were houses located all around The Bottom, and that the proposed house design was not out of character.

A debate followed, where it was discussed whether the land should be included within the boundaries in future and whether an exception could be made at this point in time or whether this would set a precedent for development outside settlement boundaries which could have negative impacts across the area and county . Members also debated the officer’s recommended reasons for refusal.

At the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would result in the creation of a new residential unit within the countryside outside of the Limits of Development of Urchfont as defined within the Kennet Local Plan. The site is considered to be within an unsustainable location for residential development and there are no exceptional circumstances to justify a residential use at the site. As such, the proposal would be contrary to both national and local planning polices, which seek to promote sustainable development and protect the countryside, namely section 4 ‘Promoting sustainable transport’ and 6 ‘Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes’ of the NPPF, saved Policies NR6 ‘Sustainability & Protection of the Countryside’ and HC26 ‘Housing in the Countryside’ of the Kennet Local Plan, and Core Policy Core Policy 1 ‘Settlement Strategy’, Core Policy 2 ‘Delivery Strategy’ and Core Policy 12 ‘Devizes Community Area’ of the draft Wiltshire Core Strategy.

2. The proposed development would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area in that it would disrupt the unspoilt character of the site by introducing a new modern dwelling, and associated works, into a prominent position. The proposal would erode the rural appearance of the site and have an adverse impact on the character of the landscape. As such, the proposal is contrary to section 11 ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.2

There were no urgent items.