Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

There were no apologies.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 19 April 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 April 2018 were presented and it was,

Resolved:

To approve and sign the minutes as a true and correct record.

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

Councillor Richard Gamble declared a non- pecuniary interest it application 17/12461/OUT by virtue of his position as Portfolio Holder for Heritage, Arts and Tourism. Due to that position he was also a Trustee of the Wiltshire Historic Buildings Trust, a Trustee of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, and a Member of the Canals and Rivers Trust. He declared he would consider the application on its merits with an open mind as he debated and voted on the item.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

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 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 7 June 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 on11 June 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.

Resolved:

To note the update.

To consider the confirming of a Direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (An “Article 4 Direction”) to remove ‘permitted development’ rights under Part 4, Class B (Temporary Use of Land) of Schedule 2 for the above Land as outlined in red on the location plans with the Direction at Appendix 1 to this report.

Public Participation

Hannah Mannion, on behalf of the landowners, spoke in objection to the confirmation of the Article 4 Direction.

Judy Boyt spoke in support of the confirmation of the Article 4 Direction.

Andrew Guest, Major Projects and Performance Manager, presented a report which outlined points including the following:

That the Committee on 22 March 2018 resolved to make an immediate Article 4 Direction to remove Part 4, Class B ‘permitted development’ rights at Crookwood Farm. That decision triggered a formal consultation exercise; and now, following this, the requirement for the Committee to consider the representations arising, this prior to it confirming or otherwise the Article 4 Direction.

The report before the Committee provided a summary of the representations received, and in the light of these recommended that the Committee confirmed the Article 4 Direction. However, additional comments for the Committee to take into account were also detailed as below.

1.     The full original representation from Thrings Solicitors on behalf of the owners of Crookwood Farm together with the officer’s response to it was provided to the Committee as an agenda Supplement.  In addition to the summary of this representation in the report, the Committee was asked to take into account the following specific points:

(a)  On paragraphs 1.1-1.2 of the representation, there is no requirement in the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) for the sub-paragraphs referred to in Article 4(1) to be referred to in the Direction, and so this does not render the Direction defective;

(b)  On paragraph 1.3, the procedures for Article 4 Directions set out in the GPDO state that “…. notice of any direction made under article 4(1) of this Order must, as soon as practicable after the direction has been made, be given by the local planning authority ….”.  In this case the notice was given as soon as practicable after the direction was made back in March, this in accordance with the Order. The Thrings letter refers to Planning Practice Guidance saying that “in all cases the local planning authority must have already begun consultation processes towards the making [of] a non-immediate article 4 direction”. This is guidance and not the law as referenced from the Order itself; but in any event consultation had commenced by virtue of prior notification to interested parties of the intended consideration of the matter by the Committee in March.

(c)  On paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3, the harm that the Direction is intended to address is set out in the minutes of the original committee meeting and the officers original report.  The reasons for the immediate Direction are:

-          In view of the unsuccessful attempts to obtain a meaningful events management plan to ensure the safety of all users of the highways hereabouts, including emergency services, and to safeguard the amenities of nearby residents from noise and general disturbance; and

-          In view of the immediate impact of the events themselves on local amenity and the well-being of the area in terms of the traffic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The following planning applications were considered.

Hybrid planning application:  'Full application' for change of use and some extension/alteration of Tottenham House and grounds to residential use (C3 use) from educational use (C2 residential institution) and ancillary leisure development, related staff accommodation, and associated landscape works; 'outline application' for outlying related family houses and further related staff accommodation. 

Public Participation

George Saumarez-Smith, architect, spoke in support of the application.

Andrew Guest, Major Projects and Performance Manager, presented a report which recommended that permission be granted to the hybrid planning application for Tottenham House and Estate as follows: 'Full application' for change of use and some extension/alteration of Tottenham House and grounds to residential use (C3 use) from educational use (C2 residential institution) and ancillary leisure development, related staff accommodation, and associated landscape works; 'outline application' for outlying related family houses and further related staff accommodation. 

Details were provided of late correspondence received since the publication of the Committee report, including comments from the Canals and Rivers Trust in relation to use of the Canal bridge for access to the site.

The history of the site, its location in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the dilapidated state of the Grade I Listed main house and the other Listed structures on the estate was detailed, along with national planning policy for the preservation of irreplaceable heritage assets. The high cost of any restoration was highlighted, with the additional amenities and construction on the site assessed as necessary in order to deliver that restoration, along with the neutral to positive impacts of the other new builds on the site, structures and local amenities.

It was also noted that previous permission had been granted for a golf resort hotel on the site in order to reverse the decline of the heritage assets, which would have had a significant impact on the assets compared to the proposal to return the site to a private dwelling, which was seen as a sustainable proposal. Extensive details were provided for all proposed planning works across the site.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on a traffic management plan during the restoration of the site, the hybrid nature of the application and the conditions and legal agreement proposed to accompany permission, which included clauses to prevent the break-up of the site.

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

A debate followed, where members congratulated the applicants for the detail and depth of the proposals, recognising the exceptional nature of the estate and the need to arrest the decline of the heritage assets. It was considered clear that the proposals would provide benefits to the estate and county as a whole.

Councillor Mark Connolly, seconded by Councillor Nick Fogg MBE, moved the officer’s recommendation, and at the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved:

That permission be DELEGATED to the Head of Development Management authority to GRANT planning permission subject to the applicant and Wiltshire Council first entering into a legal agreement covering the following matters:

1.     To tie the beneficial freehold ownerships of all proposed estate buildings and houses/cottages shown on the Site Masterplan to the ‘Tottenham House & Estate’ estate (with the exception of the Deer Park, ‘Upper Wolfhall Farm’ (no. 41), ‘Seymour Grange’  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

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.