Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Richard Gamble.

Cllr Gamble was substituted by Cllr Christopher Williams.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 28 August 2014.

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 August 2014 were presented for consideration, and it was,

Resolved

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

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

Cllr Stewart Dobson declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 7, as he was the objector to the application. For this item Cllr Dobson withdrew from the Committee and spoke as a member of the public.

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 in person no later than 5.50pm on the day of the meeting.

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. The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice.

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 13 November. 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. There were no questions or statements submitted.

To receive details of the completed and pending appeals.

There were no planning appeals.

Public participation

Cllr Stewart Dobson spoke in objection to the order.

Mr Alex Deane spoke in support of the order.

The Rights of Way Officer introduced the application which recommended the Order be submitted to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for determination and that Wiltshire Council supports the Order.

There were no late items.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Questions were asked on the history of where the path crosses the river Kennet. It was stated that there were no records of the path on Ordinance Survey maps ever being a ford.

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

A debate followed where the heritage and usage of the pathway in its current state was discussed. It was noted that the path runs through the river Kennet. It was stated that the renovation of a grade II listed building was being delayed as long as the order was not being implemented.

At the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved

That Wiltshire Council makes an order under s.257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and s.53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to extinguish part of Marlborough path no. 26 at Bridge Garage and if after due advertisement no objections or representations are received the Order be confirmed and the definitive map and statement altered accordingly.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Public participation

Adele Martin spoke in opposition to the application.

Mark Sanderson spoke in opposition to the application.

David Gollings spoke in objection to the application.

Steve Carrington spoke in support of the application.

Anna Greenwood spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the application which was recommended to be delegated to the Area Development Manager to approve subject to the signing of a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions. Key issues were stated to include: whether the site can accommodate up to 181 dwellings, together with the necessary car parking, public open space and strategic landscaping, and access.

Late correspondence had been received from the Environment Agency and the Council Ecologist.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Clarification was sought on the percentage of affordable housing, it was explained that 30% had been reached as a viable percentage after much negotiation. It was asked why highways had objected to item 8b but not 8a. It was explained that it had been considered that there was an upper limit of how many dwellings could be reasonably accommodated on the site and that this point had been reached in the second application. It was also asked why there were not appeals for both applications for non-determination at Ludgershall Garden Centre, this was said to be up to the discretion of the applicant.

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

It was explained that with regards to the number of houses, that the density was not too high. Simmonds Road was explained as being the best route into the site, and highways were noted as being content subject to the conditions. A substantive contribution was said as being given towards education as a part of the application’s conditions.

A debate followed where the issue of making sure motorists adhere to speed limits in the area was discussed. It was asked whether there should be measures in place to make sure that working and development only takes place during weekdays. Concerns were raised over the width of the roads and access. The location of the car parking bays in relation to the village green were discussed. It was asked if some kind of fencing should be placed around to protect children playing on the village green from traffic accidents. The effect of 181 extra houses on the infrastructure of services in the neighbourhood was debated.

At the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved

To delegate to the Area Development Manager to approve subject to the signing of a Section 106 legal agreement in respect of the following –

Affordable Housing - 30% contribution

Highways – A planning obligation to secure a contribution of £100,555 (£250k / 450) x 181 ) time limited to 10 years, index linked for, congestion relief in Ludgershall.

Education - Financial contribution of £1,340,000 towards improvements to existing education

infrastructure, in accordance with policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.1

Public participation

Adele Martin spoke in opposition to the application.

Roger Greenwood spoke in opposition to the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the application which had been appealed against non-determination within the statutory timescales, and would not therefore be determined by the Council. However, the Council would be asked for its view on that application and so it recommended that planning permission be refused. Key issues were stated to include: whether the site can accommodate up to 200 something dwellings, together with the necessary car parking, public open space and strategic landscaping, and access.

There were no technical questions from the Committee.

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

A debate followed where the density of the proposal was discussed. The relevance of approving the previous application 14/06522/FUL was also discussed.

At the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved

That the Council oppose the appeal and advise the Planning Inspector that it would have refused planning permission for the development for the following reasons -

1) In the absence of plans amending the scheme to reflect the highways officers concerns as set out in his consultation response of the 20th August 2014 (and as attached) with regard to parking, internal road widths, service strips turning heads and other internal highway related issues within the estate layout. It is considered that the layout as submitted will lead to an unsafe highway configuration for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic contrary to policy AT1 of the Kennet Local plan.

2) In the absence of a suitable legal agreement, a scheme and suitable financial contributions for Education, Affordable Housing, highways contribution for congestion relief, adult and children’s recreation, social and community infrastructure and ecology cannot be secured. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with saved policies HC34 and HC42 of the Kennet Local Plan.

Public participation

Kim Slow spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the application which recommended the application be delegated to the Area Development Manager to approve subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions. Key issues were stated to include: highway safety, affordable housing provision, public open space provision, and visual and residential amenity.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. It was asked if there was any flexibility on the 25% affordable housing rate, it was heard that this had been agreed for viability reasons on the outline application. Questions were asked about the roundabout and the lack of a right hand turn at the Devizes entrance. It was explained that the site could not justify a roundabout but that speed reduction measures and lighting would be funded.

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

A debate followed where the speed limit of 40mph was discussed. It was noted that speed limits could be commented on at a later stage. The state of the derelict site next door was debated, it was stated that they hoped the rest of this site would be demolished soon. The land set aside for a roundabout and the lack of a right hand turn on the A342 was discussed.

At the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved

To delegate to the Area Development Manager to approve subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement covering the following matters and subject to the conditions set out below:

Section 106 –

1.      Affordable housing – 30% to be affordable;

2.      Highway works –

·                   a financial contribution towards future projects to relieve congestion in Ludgershall;

·                   a financial contribution towards bus revenue support for local services;

·                   the submission of a street lighting scheme and a financial contribution towards its provision;

·                   an assurance in perpetuity that land will be set aside at nil cost for any potential link roads and/or potential paths between the application site and adjacent land within Drummond Park and between the application site and the A3026 (whether direct or crossing the railway line or other land), and any land within the site that may be required for a potential roundabout at the junction of the ‘tank road’ and the A342 will be protected at nil cost for this purpose.

3.      Education – financial contributions towards to cost of primary and secondary education provision locally;

4.      Open  space  –  a  financial  contribution  towards  off-site  adult/sports  pitch provision/improvement in the locality;

5.      Ecology –  a  financial contribution  towards the  cost  of  future  management  and monitoring schemes for the Wessex Stone Curlew project;

6.      Community facilities – a financial contribution towards the cost of providing and/or improving existing social and community facilities within Ludgershall;

7.      Waste collection containers – a financial contribution towards the cost of waste collection containers.

Conditions –

1                 The development hereby permitted shall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Public participation

Mr Huw Roberts spoke in opposition to the application.

Mr Martin Roberts spoke in opposition to the application.

Dr Mike Bishop spoke in opposition to the application.

Mr Aaron Smith spoke in support of the application.

Mr Bob Green spoke in support of the application.

Mike Morrissy spoke on behalf of Fyfield and West Overton Parish Council.

The Area Development Manager introduced the application which recommended the application be delegated to the Area Development Manager to approve, subject to conditions and the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement. Key issues were stated to include: impact on the visual amenities of the area including the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the setting of heritage assets including grade II-listed Manor Farm and the setting of nearby Scheduled Monuments and Avebury World Heritage Site.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. It was asked whether changes of use to agricultural sites required permission. In explanation it was stated that anyone wanting to redevelop farmyard sites of this nature should come up with proposals after discussing with the community and parish and that planning permission was required for the erection of the buildings themselves, not a change of use only.

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

The local member, Cllr Jemima Milton, then spoke on the application. Cllr Milton expressed thanks to those who had all worked together in order to try and find a solution to the situation. Concerns were expressed by Cllr Milton on the level of provison  of affordable housing, drainage for West Overton and the Kennet, and access to the main road (A4).

It was heard that the single lane track was not the only route to the A4 or in and out of the village. The Environment Agency and Thames Water had responded by requiring detailed schemes that needed to be approved and  before development could begin and implemented before occupation. In response to questions on affordable housing it was explained that there had been an assessment of the viability of the scheme and that the Housing team had assessed that 20% was viable. It was stated that it was possible to defer and delegate on this issue to seek to negotiate an increase in the level of on-site provision to 30% within the section 106 agreements.

A debate followed where the issue of foul drainage was discussed. Reassurance was sought that this issue was covered. It was explained that recommended condition 7 was requested by Thames Water and recommended condition 6 was requested by the Environment Agency. These pre-commencement conditions should satisfactorily deal with the matter. The provision of affordable housing was debated. It was suggested that 30% would be a more appropriate rate given the development plan policy and the emerging Wiltshire Core Strategy. It was advised by a councillor that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.1

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.