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 Wednesday 15 February 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 15 February 2017 were presented.

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 Tony Trotman declared an interest in agenda item no. 7f. He informed the Committee that he knows the applicant Mr Mel Wilkins, however he declared that he would participate in the debate and vote for each item with an open mind.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman confirmed that items 7b and 7c had been withdrawn and would not be considered in the meeting.

The Chairman also referred to the supplementary Late Items and announced the Committee had been asked to defer agenda item 7g, in light of the revised Housing Land Supply Statement which was published on 3 March 2017. Cllr Tony Trotman moved this motion, which was seconded by Cllr Howard Greenman and approved by the Committee.

RESOLVED:

That the application, 16/11427/FUL- Land adjacent to Sharplands, Sutton Lane, Sutton Benger, Chippenham, SN15 4RS, be deferred until 24 May 2017 to enable the applicant sufficient time to consider the updated housing land supply statement and to respond accordingly.

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 Wednesday 15^th March 2017 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm onFriday 3 March 2017. 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 Committee noted the rules on public participation.

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

The Committee noted the contents of the appeals update.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting and attached to these minutes, in respect of applications 7a, 7d and 7g as listed in the agenda pack.

The applicant Daniel O’Hara spoke in favour of the application. Parish Councillor Alan Clench from Box Parish Council, spoke against the application.

The Team Leader, presented the application for a first floor extension to an existing flat roof projection. It was explained that this property was within the Western Wiltshire Green Belt and the Cotsworld Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Photographs were shown of the existing site, along with diagrams showing proposed development, detailing intended elevations. A summary of previous planning history was also provided, explaining that the property had already received permissions to allow significant increase to the size of the property. Previous permissions were granted on the basis of the removal of the first floor element which was now the subject of a further application to include in the expansion of the dwelling.

The Officer’s recommendation for refusal was explained on the grounds that the extension was disproportionate to the size of the original building and therefore constituted inappropriate development in a Green Belt area.  Attention was also drawn to the Late Items, that identified that the officers accepted the applicant’s view that the proposed extension was a 45% increase from the original, as opposed to the 50% referred to in the Officer’s report. However, it was clarified that this figure did not change the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Councillors were invited to ask technical questions. Members expressed concerns as to the cumulative nature of the planning permissions, incremental development, potential precedent and pursuit of the first floor extension element previously deemed disproportionate. Members asked Officer’s whether, if planning permission was granted in this instance, could a condition be put in place to prevent further development. The Officer clarified that each application had to be considered on it’s own merits and such a condition could not be applied to an approval.

Members of the public were invited to speak, as detailed above.

The Local Member Cllr Dick Tonge spoke in favour of the application. He said that there was no strict definition of a disproportionate build in a Green Belt area and that each had to be considered on it’s own merits. He also noted the Late Items and that fact that applicant had been working in good faith on the 50% figure. He also pointed out that the dwelling stood within a large acreage and that the extension would not have an increased footprint, nor would it impact neighbours or the surrounding area.

In the debate that followed, Members expressed their sympathy for the applicant, stating that they did not consider the proposal to be an inappropriate build in a Green Belt area. Members noted that there were a number of other large houses in the area and it was not out of keeping with the locality. It was also stated that the existing flat roof projection looked untidy and that the extension would be an improvement.

Cllr Glenis Ansell proposed that the application be granted with suitable conditions to be delegated to Officers to determine, on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32a

Note: following the decision to withdraw the report from the agenda, please note that this item should be considered at the next meeting on the 29 March 2017.

Item was withdrawn as listed above.

Note: following the decision to withdraw the report from the agenda, please note that this item should be considered at the next meeting on the 29 March 2017.

Item was withdrawn as listed above.

The applicant Nick Coombes spoke in favour of the application, along with his agent John Armstrong. Parish Councillor Alistair Parker, from Yatton Kennel Parish Council, spoke against the application.

The Team Leader introduced the application for a single storey extension. A presentation was shown with photographs of existing site, including images of the neighbouring property, from which an objection to the plans had been received. It was explained that whilst the conservatory would be visible from the public street and the neighbours property, merely being visible was not a reason to refuse in itself. Attention was also drawn to the Late Items, clarifying that reference to Listed Building Consent in section 1 of the Officer’s report is incorrect. The property in question is not listed and LBC is not required for this

development.

A technical question was asked by Councillors as to why the extension could not be included within permitted development rights. It was explained that although the property was not a Listed Building, permitted rights do not apply to buildings in conservation areas.

Members of the public were invited to speak, as detailed above.

Cllr Toby Sturgis spoke on behalf of Local Member, Baroness Cllr Jane Scott. He asked Members to look at the wider visual impact of the proposals on the conservation area.

In the debate that followed, Councillors expressed support for the extension, stating that it was a moderate extension and would not have a negative impact on the conservation area, with very little impact on visual amenity. However, Members thanked the Parish Council for raising their concerns.

Cllr Peter Hutton proposed a motion to accept the Officer’s recommendation for approval and Cllr Mollie Groom seconded. This was approved by the Committee.

RESOLVED:

To GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan (received 29 November 2016), Existing Ground Floor Plan AJ/16/17/01,

Existing Section AJ/16/17/02, Existing Elevations AJ/16/17/03, Existing Site Plan

AJ/16/17/04, Proposed Ground Floor Plan AJ/16/17/05, Proposed Section

AJ/16/17/06 rev. A, Proposed Elevations AJ/16/17/07 rev.A and Proposed Site Plan

AJ/16/17/08 (all received 18 January 2017)

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3 INFORMATIVE TO APPLICANT:

Any alterations to the approved plans, brought about by compliance with Building Regulations or any other reason must first be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before commencement of work.

4 INFORMATIVE TO APPLICANT:

The applicant is requested to note that this permission does not affect any private property rights and therefore does not authorise the carrying out of any work on land outside their control. If such works are required it will be necessary for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32d

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application for the demolition of existing garage and erection of a new dwelling. A presentation was shown which included photographs of existing site, along with diagrams of the proposed build. Attention was drawn towards the sites location in relation to the highway and the positioning of the neighbouring properties window was also noted.

There were no Technical Questions.

There were no public speakers.

The Local Member Cllr Tony Trotman spoke in regard to the application, explaining that since he had called in the application, amendments had been made. He considered the proposals to be squeezed into a small site, although he noted the length of the garden. The Councillor also raised concerns as to reports of near-miss accidents on the bend of the highway, where the proposed development is situated, however noted that the highways officer had raised no objections to the scheme.  

In the debate that followed, some Members emphasised concerns raised as to the potential added hazard to the highway in that area. Members spoke of their own experience of what they described as a busy and fast section of road. However, Members noted the size of the plot and expressed support for the plans, in light of the moderating amendments.

Cllr Peter Hutton proposed to accept the Officer’s recommendation and approve the plans, which was seconded by Cllr Chuck Berry. Councillors then approved the application.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

CB/C/02/16.A - Proposed Block Plan, Floor Plans & Elevations

Received 31 January 2017

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3 No development shall commence on site until the exact details and samples of the materials to be used for the external walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: The application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and the matter is required to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before development commences in order that the development is undertaken in an acceptable manner, in the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

4 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be first occupied until the access, turning area and parking spaces have been completed in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans. The areas shall be maintained for those purposes at all times thereafter.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety.

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32e

The applicant Mel Wilkins spoke in favour of the application, along with his agent Colin Johns. Parish Councillor Jeff Files spoke in favour of the application on behalf of Hilmarton Parish Council.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application which was for a single storey rear extension of a listed building, for ancillary use. A presentation was given which included photographs of existing property and showed diagrams of the proposed build. The planning history of the building was explained and Members were informed that having been converted into a single dwelling previously, permissions had been granted to revert it back to two dwellings, but that more living space was required, to make it habitable for modern day living. The Officer explained the significance of this listed building and the conservation area and the perceived harm that the proposed extension would cause.

Technical Questions were asked surrounding the need for the “link” design and it was explained that following to previous consultations with conservation officers, it was thought that by keeping the new build separate to the listed building appearing as a clearly defined new extension, the lightweight structure would retain the character of the original and do less harm to both the listed building and the conservation area. Members also noted that the photographs provided did not do justice to the original charm and beauty of the conservation area.

Members of the public were invited to speak, as detailed above.

Local Member Cllr Christine Crisp spoke with regard to the application, stating the property had been maintained to a very high standard and that to refuse would be penalising the applicant, who had enabled the building to continue as a habitable and attractive dwelling. The Councillor said that there was a public benefit in providing a second home to the village and that would outweigh any perceived harm to the conservation area.

In the debate that followed, Cllr Peter Hutton first proposed that the application be deferred for a site visit, to allow members to visit the listed building, surrounding area and understand more about the extensions to other listed buildings in the locality. This was seconded by Cllr Mollie Groom. However this was on going to the vote the motion was refused. Officer’s used Google Street view to show the street scene. Members expressed sympathy for the need to develop listed buildings, in order to make them suitable for modern living.

A second motion  was moved by Cllr Christine Crisp to approve the Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent, on the grounds that the public benefit, of bringing the building up to modern standards and providing an additional small dwelling to the village, outweighed the harm to the listed building and conservation area, which was less than substantial. This was seconded by Cllr Glenis Ansell.

The Committee considered, that in its current layout, the building was not suitable for family accommodation and highlighted that the proposal would be a constructive form of consideration. Members questioned the materials to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32f

Item was deferred as announced above. (See Late Items in agenda pack for details).

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.