Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Stuart Wheeler. Cllr Wheeler was replaced for this meeting by Cllr Caroline Thomas.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 24 February 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 February 2022 were presented for consideration.

Resolved:

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

(Note – Cllr Sam Pearce-Kearney and Cllr Kelvin Nash abstained from voting as they were either not in attendance or arrived late for the last meeting).

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.

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to submit a statement in relation to an item on this agenda should submit this in writing to the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on Tuesday 22 March 2022.

Submitted statements should:

·       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;

·       Be readable aloud in approximately three minutes (for members of the public and statutory consultees) and in four minutes (for parish council representatives – 1 per parish council).

Up to three objectors and three supporters are normally allowed for each item on the agenda, plus statutory consultees and parish councils.

Those submitting statements would be expected to join the online meeting to read the statement themselves, or to provide a representative to read the statement on their behalf.

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 electronically to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on Thursday 17 March 2022 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 Monday 21 March 2022.

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 members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website. Questions and answers will normally be taken as read at the meeting.

The Chairman detailed the procedure for the meeting and the procedures for public participation which were set put at item 5 of the agenda.

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

Resolved:

To note the report on completed and pending appeals.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The following planning applications were considered:

Demolition of bungalow and replacement with 1 detached dwelling and associated works to include change of use of land to form extended residential curtilage.

(Note – There is one report covering this application and the application at item 7b below as both applications relate to the same location in Netherstreet, Bromham, issues for both applications are identical and the applicant is the same).

Public Participation:

·       Jeremy Payne - spoke in objection to the application

·       John Cattell – read a statement from Nigel Thomas in objection to the application

·       Vikki Cattell – spoke in objection to the application

·       Mike Butler – Applicant – spoke in support of the application

·       Richard Cosker – agent – spoke in support of the application

Jonathan James, Senior Conservation/Planning Officer presented the report which recommended that planning permission be approved with conditions and informatives as detailed in the report, for the demolition of bungalow and replacement with 1 detached dwelling and associated works to include change of use of land to form extended residential curtilage. The Committee noted that the report addressed 2 separate but neighbouring applications on which currently there was a single plot occupied by a bungalow.

The officer stated that the main issue for consideration by the Committee was an assessment of the merits of the proposals against the policies of the development plan and other material considerations, and the on-balance recommendation detail in the above paragraph.

The officer advised that the redevelopment (and enlargement) of the combined site for 2 dwellings is contrary to the development plan but was previously accepted in principle in the granting of outline consent on 7 October 2021. That application did not include any details of the proposed dwellings. As individually the applications represent a one-for-one replacement of the existing dwelling, the principle is in accordance with the development plan and can be supported subject to impacts. The assessment of the combined application rests on the planning balance between the benefits  and adverse impacts of the development, considering the design, scale and layout of the development detailed in the two applications. 

The Officer in detailing the representations received, highlighted that there had been no objection from Bromham Parish Council and Wiltshire Council Archaeology, although some conditions had been suggested by Wiltshire Council Highways. Ten local resident objections to the application had been received and a summary of the issues raised were detailed in the report.

There were no technical questions asked by the Committee.

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

The unitary division member, Cllr Laura Mayes, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Mayes commented on the street scene and the mix of housing in the vicinity of the application site, highlighting that there was no one design, the large scale and bulk of the proposed dwellings, the current design blocking views for neighbouring properties, and urged the Committee to refuse the application.

So that the Committee had something to debate the Chairman proposed a motion to approve the application, with the conditions stated at pages 33 – 36 of the agenda, as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Paul Oatway QPM.

A debate followed where Members commented on the future use of rooms to increase the number of bedrooms, design and scale of the dwellings, the comprehensive nature of the report, and the similarities in design  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Demolition of bungalow and replacement with 1 detached dwelling and associated works to include change of use of land to form extended residential curtilage.

(Note – There is one report covering this application and the application at item 7a above as both applications relate to the same location in Netherstreet, Bromham, issues for both applications are identical, and the applicant is the same).

Note – The Committee considered the application for Plot 2 at the same time as Plot 1 above, as the applications were linked and shared common considerations. Therefore, the minute wording for Plot 1 is repeated here as the same issues and comments were addressed for both planning applications.

Public Participation:

·       Jeremy Payne - spoke in objection to the application

·       John Cattell – read a statement from Nigel Thomas in objection to the application

·       Vikki Cattell – spoke in objection to the application

·       Mike Butler – Applicant – spoke in support of the application

·       Richard Cosker – agent – spoke in support of the application

Jonathan James, Senior Conservation/Planning Officer presented the report which recommended that planning permission be approved with conditions and informatives as detailed in the report, for the demolition of bungalow and replacement with 1 detached dwelling and associated works to include change of use of land to form extended residential curtilage. The Committee noted that the report addressed 2 separate but neighbouring applications on which currently there was a single plot occupied by a bungalow.

The officer stated that the main issue for consideration by the Committee was an assessment of the merits of the proposals against the policies of the development plan and other material considerations, and the on-balance recommendation detail in the above paragraph.

The officer advised that the redevelopment (and enlargement) of the combined site for 2 dwellings is contrary to the development plan but was previously accepted in principle in the granting of outline consent on 7 October 2021. That application did not include any details of the proposed dwellings. As individually the applications represent a one-for-one replacement of the existing dwelling, the principle is in accordance with the development plan and can be supported subject to impacts. The assessment of the combined application rests on the planning balance between the benefits  and adverse impacts of the development, considering the design, scale and layout of the development detailed in the two applications. 

The Officer in detailing the representations received, highlighted that there had been no objection from Bromham Parish Council and Wiltshire Council Archaeology, although some conditions had been suggested by Wiltshire Council Highways. Ten local resident objections to the application had been received and a summary of the issues raised were detailed in the report.

There were no technical questions asked by the Committee.

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

The unitary division member, Cllr Laura Mayes, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Mayes commented on the street scene and the mix of housing in the vicinity of the application site, highlighting that there was no one design, the large scale and bulk of the proposed dwellings, the current design blocking views for neighbouring properties, and urged the Committee to refuse the application.

So that the Committee had something to debate the Chairman proposed a motion to approve the application, with the conditions stated at pages 33 – 36 of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Development of a coach, mini-bus and taxi drop-off / pick up area and associated infrastructure.

Public Participation:

·       Peter Storey – spoke in objection to the application

·       Philip Richardson – spoke in objection to the application

·       Sarah Hockin - agent spoke in support of the application

·       Julia Ford, West Lavington Parish Council – spoke in objection to the application

Ruaridh O’Donoghue, Senior Conservation/Planning Officer presented the report which recommended that planning permission be approved, for reasons detailed in the report, for the development of a coach, mini-bus and taxi drop-off / pick up area and associated infrastructure.

The officer advised that the application concerned a parcel of land at Dauntseys School that is located to the west of the main driveway. The site is currently made up of a staff car park and a netball/tennis court with associated hedging around the perimeter. The School is located within the limits of  development of West Lavington which is recognised as a Large Village within the WCS. The site is located within the West Lavington and Littleton Panel Conservation Area. The main school building is listed at grade II and opposite the site lie No.’s 7 and 9 Cheverell Road that are also grade II listed. A public right of way runs through the middle of the site.

The officer stated that there were no ‘in principle’ policies that indicate this form of development should be considered unacceptable. It was felt that the scheme would not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area and was considered to be in broad accordance with Core Policies 51 and 57 of the WCS. The proposal will have a broadly neutral impact upon heritage assets and in the absence of identified harm, is considered to comply with Core Policy 58 of the WCS. It is noted that the greatest impact is from the presence of coaches on the site but, this is a temporary impact during the periods of school drop off and collection and therefore not a substantive ground in which to attach harm to.

The Committee noted that the parking of coaches in this location did not require any form of planning consent. However, because the school had chosen to lay hardstanding, create pavements and erect fencing and lighting, planning permission is required.

The officer explained that whilst subject to appropriate conditions, there are no technical objections raised with the application against ecology, trees or drainage, and is considered to accord with the development plan policy and is acceptable.

The report detailed the responses to the consultation and representations received. It was noted that considerable objection had been raised in respect of the highways impacts of the development from local residents. The Local Highway Authority were satisfied that the scheme would not have a severe impact on users of the adjoining highway (A360). In light of NPPF para 111 they had not raised objection to the scheme.

In response to technical questions asked by the Committee, the officer confirmed that coaches were currently parking to the rear of the school site and use either  ...  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.