Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

There were no apologies for the meeting.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 30 January 2020.

The minutes of the meeting held on 30 January 2020 were presented for consideration 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.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman announced that if the Committee took a short break at any point, the broadcast would continue.

Therefore, he requested that Members and Officers did not engage in discussion during that break and that they muted their microphones.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Public Participation

During the ongoing Covid-19 situation the Council is operating revised procedures to permit remote attendance of meetings. The procedure for the Eastern Area Planning Committee including public participation is below.

The meeting will be available to view live via a Teams Broadcast Link as shown below. A public guide on how to access the meeting is included below.

Access the online meeting here

Public guidance for accessing meetings online is available here

Statements

Members of the public who wish to submit a statement in support of or in objection to an application on this agenda should submit it to the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on 6 July 2020.

Those statements in accordance with the Constitution will be included in an agenda supplement. Those statements must:

·       State whom the statement is from (including if representing another person or organisation)

·       State clearly whether the statement is in objection to or support of the application

·       If read aloud, be readable in approximately 3 minutes

All statements received by the deadline will be published in an agenda supplement.

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 1 July 2020 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on 3 July 2020. 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 Chairman detailed the procedure for the meeting and the procedures for public participation which were set out at item 5 of the agenda.

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

The Chairman requested that Andrew Guest, Major Projects and Performance Manager, introduce the Appeals Report as detailed on pages 27-30 of the agenda pack and requested that Members email any questions on the report to Andrew Guest.

Andrew Guest stated that he had nothing to add to the list of decisions detailed in the report but was happy to receive questions.

The Chairman proposed a motion that the Committee note the updates, this was seconded by Cllr Paul Oatway QPM. It was

Resolved:

To note the report on completed and pending appeals.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The following planning applications were considered.

Erection of 15 dwellings with access onto A338, formation of bus stop layby on A338, parking and associated landscaping with change of use of agricultural land to residential garden land.

Public Participation

David Lemon (Applicant) provided a statement in support of the application.

Aaron Smith (Agent) provided a statement in support of the application.

Bill Clemence provided a statement in support of the application.

Grafton Parish Council provided a statement in support of the application.

Andrew Guest, Major Projects and Performance Manager, presented a report which recommended that planning permission be refused for the erection of 15 dwellings with access onto A338, formation of bus stop layby on A338, parking and associated landscaping with change of use of agricultural land to residential garden land.

Key details were stated to include the following.

In planning policy terms East Grafton was a small village in the countryside and the application lay beyond the Eastern edge of the village in the countryside. Wiltshire Council Core Policy 1 (CP1) and Wiltshire Council Core Policy 2 (CP2) limit development in small villages to infill, which was defined as the filling of a small gap within the village that was only large enough for not more than a few dwellings. Therefore, the proposal, being for 15 dwellings and not being within the village did not meet this definition. Consequently, it was classed as unsustainable development and was contrary to CP1 and CP2.

In addition, the NPPF stated that permission should be refused for major developments (which this would be classed as) in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) other than in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that the development was in the public interest, which was not the case for this proposal, as detailed in the report.

There were also issues with the proposal having a detrimental impact on views in the area and the proposal not meeting the exception policy for affordable housing in rural areas (CP44). Whilst it was accepted that the Local Authority could not now demonstrate a five year housing supply, there was only a modest shortfall and recent appeal decisions (contained in the agenda pack) concluded that the overall strategy of the Wiltshire Core Strategy remained desirable and effective.     

There were no technical questions for the officer. 

In accordance with the procedure for virtual meetings public statements were then read out by the Democratic Services Officers, as detailed above, with any further statements included in Agenda Supplement 1 along with the committee presentation.

The unitary division member, Cllr Stuart Wheeler, Burbage and The Bedwyns, spoke in support of the application. Cllr Wheeler’s main points concerned: the shortfall on the five year housing supply meaning that certain applications should be looked upon favourably; that the AONB had not been consulted and were in support of the application; that the definition of infill was restrictive and open to interpretation; the Wiltshire Council Residential Development Project had made an offer on the six affordable homes and the proposal was supported by the community and the boundaries of the village were up for debate.   

In response to public statements the officer directed the Committee again to the appeal decisions concerning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Change of use of former factory building to D1 exhibition hall (for Crop Circle Exhibition) - Resubmission of 19/10296/FUL.

Public Participation

Alex Whittle provided a statement in objection to the application

Robert Carpenter Turner provided a statement in objection to the application.

Nicola Sidney provided a statement in objection to the application.

Richard Cosker (Agent for the applicant) provided a statement in support of the application.

John Wyles (Applicant) provided a statement in support of the application.

Camilla and Piers Hampton provided a statement in support of the application.

Alton Parish Council provided a statement in objection to the application.

Jonathan James, Senior Planning Officer presented a report which recommended that planning permission be granted with conditions for the change of use of a former factory building to D1 exhibition hall (for a Crop Circle Exhibition) - Resubmission of 19/10296/FUL.

Attention was drawn to the late observations. It was stated that objections were maintained on the proposal in relation to comments on the inaccuracy of visitor numbers; ticket sales not being an accurate representation of visitor numbers; inaccuracies on details submitted; lack of proper accounts; objections to the exhibition but not the café; the subject of the exhibition; no disabled access; references to insufficient parking and highways safety impacts, which contained no new comments other than those contained in communications already received and addressed.

Late letters of support had also been received which included support for the scheme; benefits for the area; the proposal was a valuable education resource; the scheme brought tourism to the area; the scheme supported local businesses.

The conversion to the exhibition centre had already taken place with minimal alterations to the building. Key details were stated to include the provision of parking and highways safety. The building currently had planning permission for B1 and B8 uses. Taken in isolation, if applying the parking standard for those uses equated to a maximum requirement for 4 parking spaces. If the D1 use was granted this would also give a maximum requirement for 4 parking spaces. The wider site, including the café, shop and warehouse had 34 spaces in total. Plans and photographs of the site were shown. 

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Clarification was sought on the whether the maximum requirement for parking was the same in the current B1/B8 use and the proposed D1 use. It as confirmed that the floor area of the building associated with the conversion had the same requirement of 4 parking spaces, whether in B1/B8 use or D1 use. It was acknowledged in the report that there was a shortfall of parking across the wider site, but the situation would not be made worse by this proposal. 

In accordance with the procedure for virtual meetings public statements were then read out by the Democratic Services Officers, as detailed above, with any further statements included in Agenda Supplement 1 along with the committee presentation.

The unitary division member, Cllr Paul Oatway, spoke in objection to the application. The main concerns raised were related to parking issues at the site. It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To consider the following rights of way items.

The following Rights of Way items were considered.

To consider the recommendation that the Order be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (SoSEFRA) with Wiltshire Council support for the confirmation of the Order.

Public Participation

Adrian Noviss, (Agent for the applicant) provided a statement in support of the application.

Craig Harlow, Definitive Map Officer presented a report which recommended that “The Wiltshire Council Burbage 6 (part) Extinguishment Order 2020” should be determined by SoSEFRA with Wiltshire Council recommending that the Order be confirmed.

Key details were stated to include the following: Wiltshire Council received an application dated 19 July 2019, made under Section 118 of the Highways Act 1980, to extinguish part of the width of footpath Burbage 6, on the grounds that it was not needed for public use. The section to be extinguished measured 3.3 metres wide by 21 metres long. At that point the path was recorded as being 8 metres wide. The path would retain a width of 4.7 metres if the Order was confirmed. The legal test under section 118 was to consider whether the path was needed. Consultations had been carried out and two objections had been received. It was determined that the section of footpath to be extinguished was not needed for public use as the path would still be wide enough (4.7 metres) for the public to use. Once made the Order received one objection. This was considered and was addressed in the officer’s report. The Officer was proposing that the Order be confirmed as that section of the path was not needed for public use and any use was very limited. The Order would also not have a negative effect on the public using the footpath.

In accordance with the procedure for virtual meetings public statements were then read out by the Democratic Services Officers, as detailed above, with any further statements included in Agenda Supplement 1 along with the committee presentation.

Cllr Mark Connolly proposed a motion that “The Wiltshire Council Burbage 6 (part) Extinguishment Order 2020” should be determined by SoSEFRA with Wiltshire Council recommending that the Order be confirmed, as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Paul Oatway, QPM.

A debate followed where the following points were made. The case seemed clear cut and the width of the path that would remain, which was 4.7 metres wide, was wide enough to allow the public to continue to use the path without any issues.

At the conclusion of the debate it was;

Resolved:

That “The Wiltshire Council Burbage 6 (part) Extinguishment Order 2020” should be determined by SoSEFRA with Wiltshire Council recommending that the Order be confirmed.

To consider the recommendation that Wiltshire Council should support the confirmation of the above Order by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Public Participation

Lewis Ballin provided a statement in objection to the application.

Jack Edwards (Agent for Southgrove Farm) provided a statement in objection to the application.

Amy Richards provided a statement in objection to the application.

Rosie Pack provided a statement in support of the application.

Annabelle Roycroft provided a statement in support of the application.

Bill Riley (Applicant) provided a statement in support of the application.

Nigel Baybrook of Collingbourne Kingston Parish Council provided a statement regarding the application.

Sally Madgwick, Definitive Map and Highways Records Manager presented a report which recommended that The Wiltshire Council Grafton 29 (part), 29A, 30 and 31, Burbage 1 (part) and Collingbourne Kingston 34 Definitive Map Modification Order 2019 was submitted to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (SoSEFRA) with the recommendation that the Order is confirmed as made.

Key details were stated to include the following: The Council had a statutory duty under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to keep the definitive map and statement under continual review and to make legal orders to correct it where errors where found. A basic premise in regard to highways was ‘once a highway, always a highway’. Evidence had been found that showed that a number of rights of way linking West Grafton with Collingbourne Kingston should be recorded as restricted byways. They were currently recorded as a mixture of footpaths and bridleways. A restricted byway was a public right of way for walkers, horse riders, cyclists and carriage drivers. There would be no right to use a mechanically powered vehicle on a restricted byway and it would be an offence to do so.

It had been found that the majority of the route was awarded to the public as a 40 foot wide Public Carriage Road in an Inclosure Award in 1792 and this was highly weighted evidence. This was the last legal event effecting the route. Maps, plans and documents had also been found which were consistent with the route being a public road. Evidence had also been discovered labelling part of the route as a road as far back as AD 961.

The order had received 2 representations of support and 2 objections. Due to the objections being received the Order would need to be sent to SoSEFRA for determination. The Council and SoSEFRA could only take into account objections that were relevant to the evidence, for example evidence of legal extinguishment of the public rights on the route. Landowners concerns, and objections related to management concerns which were not relevant to the determination of the Order could not be considered.

Representations to the Committee showed some misunderstanding, this process was about correctly recording the route. Currently one of the landowners permitted walkers to walk on a permissive route which it was stated would be withdrawn if the Order was confirmed. Permissive routes were between the landowner and the users of the route and not a matter for Wiltshire Council under section 53  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

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.