Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

Cllr Nick Fogg MBE

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 20 November 2014.

Resolved

To approve and sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 20 November 2014.

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

Cllr Peter Evans declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 7a, as he was a member of Devizes Town Council. Cllr Evans stated that he had not taken part in the application at the Town Council level and would participate in the item with an open mind.

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 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 Thursday 22 January 2015. 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 submitted.

To receive details of the completed and pending appeals.

There were no planning appeals.

To consider and determine the following planning applications:

Public Participation

Peter Jordan spoke in objection to the application.

Adrian Abbs spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the application which was recommended for approval subject to conditions. Key issues were stated to include principle of development and provision of care facilities; design, landscaping and visual impact; and density and layout.

There were no late items.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. It was asked what control there was over the hours of work and deliveries during the construction period. Condition 11 set out the construction method, with point F giving provision to include time restrictions. These would be set at the Wiltshire Council’s standard, which was for work to operate Monday to Friday 7am-6pm, Saturday 8am-1pm and no work on Sundays.

Clarification was sought over the amount of parking which would be provided for staff, residents, and visitors. It was noted that an average had been calculated through other schemes, and that this scheme was above the average. Links were available to the town centre, and staff numbers on site would be reduced.

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

Committee, as detailed above.

The division member Cllr Sue Evans spoke in favour of the applications. It was suggested that construction should take place during working hours and that no deliveries should take place at weekends.

It was explained that deliveries from 8am-1pm on Saturdays were considered standard working hours. The location of the bins was clarified as being placed in the most convenient place to limit their impact on amenity.  The separation distances from the proposed building and the neighbouring houses on the west were stated to exceed the minimum distance.

A debate followed whereby the development of the site, its location, and access to town were discussed. The issue of balconies overlooking neighbouring properties was discussed. Restrictions on construction and delivery hours were considered.

At the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved

To grant planning permission subject to the following conditions, a unilateral undertaking to secure 30% affordable housing and £6,609.00 towards public open space, and the inclusion of an informative restricting large-scale site deliveries to weekdays:

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 Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.    Each of the apartments hereby permitted shall be occupied only by:

a.    persons of 55 years of age or over;

b.    persons living as part of a single household with such a person or persons;

c.    persons who were living as part of a single household with such a person or persons

d.    who have since died.

REASON:

The units of the residential home/sheltered accommodation have been designed for occupation by persons who satisfy the above criteria and are unsuitable for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Public Participation

Nigel Keen spoke in support of the application

Thomas Bailey spoke in support of the application

Carolyn Whistler spoke on behalf of North Newnton Parish Council

The planning officer introduced the application which recommended that it be refused. Key issues were stated to be the principle of new residential development in the countryside; the impact upon the rural character of the area; and the sustainability of additional new residential development in this location.

One late item was reported, which were the comments of North Newnton Parish Council.

There were no technical questions from members of the Committee.

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

Committee, as detailed above.

The division member Cllr Paul Oatway spoke in support of the application. It was explained that the application had the full support of the parish council. There were other similar existing properties in the area, and it was heard that the application was within the village of Hilcott and was served by Wiltshire Council funded buses.

It was explained that whilst the application was within the village of Hilcott the assessment was that it was not within the built-up area of Hilcott. With regards to sustainability, there was no provision for pedestrian walking alongside the road, and the street lighting was limited.

A debate followed whereby core policy one of the Wiltshire Core Strategy was discussed. The access and the location of the application site were discussed. The reliance on cars in rural areas was considered. Strategy objective six from the Wiltshire Core Strategy was discussed.

At the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.            The development would not constitute ‘infill’ and would occupy a countryside location beyond the built up part of the village of Hilcott (identified as a ‘small village’ in Core Policy 18 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy).   It would therefore conflict with Core Policies 1, 2 and 48 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, which sets a presumption against development outside of the villages in rural areas unless for a number of exceptional circumstances, none of which apply in this instance. 

Furthermore, the development would be poorly served by local services, facilities and amenities such that the occupants of the dwellings would likely be heavily reliant on the use of private cars for the majority of routine journeys, contrary to the principles of sustainable development set out in Core Policies 1, 2 and 60 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

2.            The siting and layout of the development set perpendicular to the road would be out of keeping with the general character of development around the crossroads of Hilcott and would elongate the built up area of the village into open countryside and towards the neighbouring built up area to the north, thereby eroding the separation between built up areas to the detriment of the rural character of the area and the landscape and scenic beauty of the North Wessex Downs AONB  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Public Participation

Peter Small spoke in opposition to the application

Mike Holland spoke in support of the application

Andrew Snook spoke in support of the application

Mike Fowler spoke in support of the application

Tracy Rose spoke on behalf of Patney Parish Council

The planning officer introduced the application with the recommendation that it be refused. Key issues were stated to be the principle of development, the impact on the character of the landscape and the special quality of the North Wessex Downs area of outstanding natural beauty, and the impact on nearby trees.

There were no late items.

There were no technical questions from members of the Committee.

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

Committee, as detailed above.

The divisional member, Cllr Paul Oatway, spoke in support of the application. The application had received support from the parish council. Patney was a sustainable village, and care would be taken with regards to the protected trees. The application was described as infiling, and would provide local employment opportunities.

It was explained that the application would have been recommended for refusal by officers under the Kennet Local Plan.  The application did not fit the definition of infilling, as this applied to small gaps only capable of accommodating one dwelling.

A debate followed where the classification of the area was discussed, along with the weight of the recently adopted Core Strategy.

At the end of debate it was,

Resolved

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.            The application site is not identified as an appropriate location for future housing development in the 'Delivery Strategy' and 'Settlement Strategy' set out at Core Policies 1 and 2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.  It would therefore constitute unsustainable development to which no exceptional circumstances apply that may otherwise warrant the proposal acceptable.

Furthermore, the proposed development would be poorly served by local services, facilities and amenities such that the occupants of the dwellings would likely be heavily reliant on the use of private cars for the majority of routine journeys.  It would therefore be contrary to Core Policies 1, 2, 48 and 60 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

2.            The proposed development would result in an undesirable encroachment into the countryside and a consolidation of sporadic loose knit development.  This would have an adverse impact on the landscape character of the village of Patney and the special qualities of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which would be contrary to Core Policies 51 and 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

3.            The proposed development fails to adequately consider important landscape features and as such would lead to future pressure to prune or fell protected trees in a tree belt which is an important and dominant feature in the local landscape.  This would be contrary to Core Policies 51 and 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

Public Participation

Steve Colling spoke on behalf of Burbage Parish Council.

The planning officer introduced the application which recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions. Key issues were stated to be the principle of development, public amenity, and public safety.

A late item of representation from a local resident was reported.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions. It was asked whether the paint used for the signs would be reflective. The type of paint could not be confirmed, but the signs would be non-illuminated. It was clarified that the subject of the advertisement did not need consent; however the structure required consent.

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

Committee, as detailed above.

The divisional member, Cllr Stuart Wheeler, spoke in objection to the application. It was heard that Wiltshire Council were looking at reducing signage clutter, and that the sponsor money from advertisers would not go to the roundabout’s maintenance. It was also mentioned that the amenity of those affected by the erection of the signs should be considered.

It was explained that public safety impact included signs that impair sightlines or are distracting to drivers. The definition of amenity was said to include the visual impact on the area. It had been determined that this application would not result in any harm to the amenity of the area.

A debate followed where the Wiltshire Council policy of de-cluttering signs was considered. Paragraph 67 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Wiltshire Core Strategy CP57 were discussed. Highways safety and public amenity were debated. It was noted that this was a primary tourist route during summer.

At the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved

To refuse permission for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed signs, by reason of their size, location and number (both in isolation and cumulatively with existing signage), would be incongruous in the rural context and would result in a proliferation of signage on the roundabout, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area, which is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty.  The signs would therefore be harmful to amenity, which would be contrary to Core Policy 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, paragraphs 67 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance contained in the Planning Practice Guidance.

2.    The proposed signs, by reason of their size, location and number (cumulatively with existing signage) would have an adverse impact on public safety as road users would be distracted.  This would be contrary to Core Policy 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, paragraph 67 in the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance contained in the Planning Practice Guidance.’

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency.