Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Stewart Dobson, who was substituted by Cllr Christopher Williams.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 14 June 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 June 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 14 June 2018.

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

Councillor Richard Gamble declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 18/04676/FUL 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. He declared he would consider the application on its merits with an open mind as he debated and voted on the item.

Councillor Richard Gamble also declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 18/03223/FUL by virtue of his previous position as Portfolio Holder for Education and Skills, during this tenure, the developer, McCarthy & Stone had offered to provide turning circles for buses at the Braeside outdoor education centre on the site. He declared he would consider the application on its merits with an open mind as he debated and voted on the item.

Both Councillor Mark Connolly and Councillor Christopher Williams declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 18/03223/FUL by virtue of the fact the builder was known to them. They declared they would consider the application on its merits with an open mind as they 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 Thursday 5 July 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 onMonday 9 July. 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. The Chairman noted that the Committee had previously voted to refuse application 17/05767/FUL, however it was allowed on appeal.

Resolved:

To note the update.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The following planning applications were considered.

Erection of a dwelling with access and parking (following withdrawal of 18/01573/FUL).

Public Participation

Mr Bob Edwards, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Aaron Smith, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Owen White, Chair of Planning for Ludgershall Town Council spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Christopher Williams, unitary division member for Ludgershall and Perham Down, spoke in support of the application.

Georgina Wright, Senior Conservation/Planning Officer presented a report which recommended that permission be refused for the erection of a dwelling with access and parking (following the withdrawal of 18/01573/FUL).

Key issues were stated to include the following:

This was a full application proposing the subdivision of the plot and the development of most of the existing garden with an additional two storey dwelling. The current property on the site, Perry’s Cottage, was grade II listed for its historic significance. The Conservation Officer objected to the application on the grounds that less than significant harm would be caused by the subdivision of the plot reducing the visual and physical separation of the cottage from its neighbours.

An update was provided to the Committee containing clarification relating to the heritage assessment of the application. The application had been accompanied by a Heritage Statement produced by Forum Heritage Services. This concluded that ‘the setting of the listed building has been obliterated to such an extent that no further harm may be done’. After due consideration, the Conservation Officer’s assessment was contrary to the applicant’s heritage adviser. It was considered that the proposed severance and development of the plot would adversely affect the setting of the Grade II listed cottage, reducing its visual and physical separation from its neighbours. It was also likely to reduce its desirability/use and maintenance in the long term and therefore would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset. Therefore the recommendation was to refuse the application.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on some of the photographs of the site regarding the positioning of the new dwelling. It was clarified that the new dwelling would face the shops adjacent to the site and would be situated 2m from the boundary fence.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their view to the committee as detailed above. During public statements Ludgershall Town Council and Councillor Christopher Williams, unitary division member for Ludgershall and Perham Down, highlighted that Perry’s Cottage was owned by Ludgershall Town Council. It was stated that monies raised by the sale of the land would be used to renovate and maintain Perry’s Cottage. Perry’s Cottage would be rented out, therefore the application provided community benefit.

In response to public statements the officer stated that these details were not provided with the application, which was made by an independent person rather than Ludgershall Town Council, and therefore had not been taken into consideration.

A debate followed, whereby many members stated they felt that the damage to the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Erection of six age exclusive chalet bungalows with car parking.

Public Participation:

Maggie Hemmings, Services and Development Manager for Vision West of England, spoke in objection to the application.

Alan Whetherley, Site Advisor for Vision West of England, spoke in objection to the application.

Carla Fulgoni, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Andy Geddes, Devizes Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr Sue Evans, unitary division member for Devizes North spoke in objection to the application.

Morgan Jones, Senior Conservation/Planning Officer presented a report which recommended that permission be granted, subject to conditions, for the erection of six age exclusive chalet bungalows with car parking.

The main issues to be considered were:

The site is the former headquarters of Kennet District Council and was within the limits of development for Devizes. Planning permission had previously been granted in 2016 to demolish existing buildings on the site and build 55 assisted living apartments. That development was nearing completion. The current proposal was for 6 age exclusive bungalows on the same site. Policy H3 of the Devizes Area Neighbourhood Plan (DANP) allocated the site for 60 dwellings, so the combined applications adhered to the development plan. The proposed bungalows would match the apartments in style. Access would be provided using existing routes within the site and the scheme would not result in overdevelopment.  

Details were provided of late correspondence received since the publication of the Committee report, including a heritage statement and comments on the Conservation Officer’s observations from David Beardmore, Architect. The officer highlighted that no new issues were raised in this correspondence.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the number of dwellings on the site. The proposed scheme would take the number of dwellings to 61, when the DANP had allocated the site for 60 dwellings. The officer explained that the figure was a guide and as such the extra dwelling did not present any significant planning issues.

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

In response to public statements the officer stated that although there may be some loss of light on site, when planning standards were applied there would be no justifiable reason to refuse planning permission. It was felt that it would be unreasonable to expect the developers to change the layout of the site when they were using existing infrastructure. Regarding concerns raised about traffic on site, especially for users of Wiltshire Sight, a charity supporting blind and visually impaired people,  the officer stated that traffic would be significantly reduced on site as compared to when the site was a functioning office complex. Heavy vehicles would reduce once the build was complete.

Councillor Mark Connolly proposed a motion to grant planning permission, with conditions, as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Paul Oatway.

A debate followed whereby concerns were raised by members about the number of dwellings going over that proposed by the DANP. However,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

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.