Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Peter Evans, Cllr Nick Fogg MBE, Cllr James Sheppard, Cllr Stewart Dobson who was substituted by Cllr Jerry Kunkler and Cllr Ian Blair-Pilling who was substituted by Cllr Christopher Williams.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 22 March 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 March 2018 were presented for consideration, and it was:

Resolved:

To approve and sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 22 March 2018.

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.

The Chairman thanked officer Kieran Elliott for his work supporting the Eastern Area Planning Committee.

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 by phone, email or in person no later than 2.50pm on the day of the meeting.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed 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.

Members of the public will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

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 12 April 2018 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on16 April 2018. 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.

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

The report on completed and pending appeals was presented for consideration.

Resolved:

To note the updates.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The following planning applications were considered.

The erection of a residential dwelling.

Public Participation:

Mr Nick Patterson-Neild, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Bill Evans, Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer, Jonathan James, introduced a report which recommended that planning permission be refused for the erection of a residential dwelling. Key details were stated to include the principle of development, as the site lies within open countryside outside any defined Limits of Development and impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape, as the site lies within the North Wessex Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Attention was drawn to late correspondence circulated at the meeting which was summarised by the officer.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on whether the Parish was in the process of preparing a Neighbourhood Plan.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the committee as detailed above.

A debate followed, whereby the key issues raised included; that the site was outside the settlement boundary of the village of Baydon; and that the application did not meet the criteria for an exception to the policy to restrict residential development outside of the settlement boundary. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF was cited, which supports dwellings, beyond those necessary for essential needs or supporting heritage, where they are considered to be of exceptional quality or of innovative nature in design. However, the Design Review Panel did not feel that the applied for dwelling met those criteria. Other issues raised included the location of the site in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the potential for other similar applications in the open countryside and the precedent this would set.

Following debate, and following a motion from Cllr Mark Connolly, seconded by Cllr Jerry Kunkler, the Committee voted on the motion to refuse as recommended by officers and it was:

Resolved:

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.    The site is located in open countryside, outside of the limits of development for any nearby settlements (as defined in the Wiltshire Core Strategy) and in a location poorly-served by local services and amenities, where none of the exceptions policies listed at paragraph 4.25 are applicable. Nor has the site been identified through the neighbourhood planning process. The proposal would therefore conflict with Core Policies 1, 2, 14 and 60 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (2015), which seeks to properly plan for sustainable development of housing in Wiltshire and to central government policy contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    The proposal would result in residential development and associated domestic paraphernalia within the countryside which, in turn, would erode the rural character of the area and negatively impact on the appearance of the landscape, which is designated as the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This would conflict with Core Policies 51 and 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and with paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which gives great  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Demolition of existing garages and erection of two houses with garages plus the provision of a passing space adjoining The Clays (amendment to 17/07414/FUL).

Public Participation:

Mr Fred Davis spoke in objection to the application.

Mr John Williams spoke in objection to the application.

Miss Rada Tintor spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Paul Oakley, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Ian Myhill of Market Lavington Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Ruaridh O'Donoghue, introduced a report which recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, for the demolition of existing garages and the erection of two houses with garages plus the provision of a passing space adjoining The Clays (amendment to 17/07414/FUL).  Key issues were stated to include; the principle of residential development on the site; impact upon neighbouring residents; impact on the conservation area, and impact upon highway safety/parking arrangements.

The main issue to be considered was whether the proposal had now overcome the Committee’s reason for refusal on highways grounds in respect of the previous application at its meeting on 2 November 2017. The applicant had amended the plans to include a passing bay to try to address this issue.

Attention was drawn to the late observations, which were summarised by the officer.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to questions, the officer clarified that The Clays is a Bridleway, so is designated for use by horses, pedestrians and bicycles; there are no vehicular access rights. However, there are at present cars using the bridleway - 6 or 7 properties currently use it for access. It was confirmed by the officer that no complaints have been received regarding unauthorised use of The Clays, so residents either have a demonstrable private right to use The Clays or have not caused a nuisance that has been reported. The officer also advised that the garages currently on the site pre-date some of the houses so the applicant may well be able to demonstrate a right of access. It was further confirmed that the granting of planning permission does not give applicants a vehicular right of access.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the committee as detailed above.

In response to public statements the planning officer stated that a condition was proposed requiring the submission and approval of a construction method statement to ensure that safe vehicle access by construction vehicles can be achieved. 

A debate followed, whereby the main issues raised included access and parking. Some members felt that, although a small improvement had been made to the application through the addition of a passing bay, it was not felt that this was sufficient to overcome the previous highway refusal reason. It was also raised that there was evidence of other problems, including damage to local buildings and emergency vehicles not being able to gain access due to parking problems in the area, and that parking rules were not currently being obeyed and subsequently enforced. Concerns were raised that the construction of these properties would make the situation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The erection of one detached dwelling and detached garage.

Public Participation:

Mr Mike Long, the occupant of Beekeepers Cottage, spoke in objection to the application.

Ms Rebecca Lord, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Mike Lockhart of Shalbourne Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Ruaridh O'Donoghue, introduced a report that recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, for the erection of one detached dwelling and detached garage. Key issues were stated which included the principle of development and the impact upon the Shalbourne Conservation Area and local heritage assets. It was stated that there was extant planning permission on the site, for a dwelling, and that it would be possible to construct both schemes. As such, it was stated that a legal agreement could be put in place to prevent both applications being built.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the legal agreement. It was clarified that the legal agreement usually takes the form of ‘This permission shall not be exercised in conjunction with the extant permission’, so if the new permission was granted, the applicant would not be able to implement the extant planning permission as well.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the committee as detailed above.

The unitary division member, Cllr Stuart Wheeler then spoke in objection to the application.

There was also a question as to whether a section 106 agreement may be required. The officer clarified that the proposed informative numbered 2 on the condition list refers to the section 106 agreement and that a legal agreement is stronger than a condition - this would be used to ensure that if permission was granted for this application, only one of the permissions on the site could be implemented.

After further questions the officer clarified that the property, The Elms, would be retained. If granted permission, the new house in the application would be built. The legal agreement would prevent the extant planning permission being exercised if they chose to implement the new consent. However, there was nothing to prevent them applying for further planning permissions in the future.

Cllr Mark Connolly proposed a motion to grant the permission, with conditions, as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Jerry Knuckler.

A debate followed whereby in opposition to the proposed motion to approve the application, some members stated that they did not consider the application met the requirements of Core Policy 57 in relation to high quality design, or Core Policy 58 in relation to ensuring conservation of the historic environment. The scale of the property in relation to the site was debated, and whether it constituted overdevelopment of the site. Issues of amenity were also raised, in relation to the storage of bins adjacent to Beekeepers Cottage and the subsequent impact this would have on occupants’ living conditions by reason of smell.

Following the debate, the Committee voted on the motion to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

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.