Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Mark Packard, Cllr Howard Greenman, Cllr Howard Marshall and Cllr Mollie Groom.

Cllr Packard was substituted by Cllr Chris Hurst.

Cllr Groom was substituted by Cllr Lay.

Cllr Marshall was substituted by Cllr Whalley.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 2016 .

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 2016 were presented. Cllr Jacqui Lay asked that the names of two people recorded as speaking on the Witts Lane application be corrected to read ‘Geoff Greenaway’ and ‘Robert Owen’.

Resolved:

To approve as a true and correct record and sign the minutes the minutes of the meeting held on the 9 March 2016 as amended.

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 Chairman.

The Chairman welcomed those in attendance and introduced himself and the supporting officers.

The Chairman stated, with the consent of the meeting, that the item on Public Rights of Way at Langley Burrell would be considered prior to the planning applications.

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 2:50pm 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 Monday 21 March 2016. 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.

An appeals update report is attached for information.

The Committee noted the contents of the appeals update.

The Chairman invited Sally Madgwick, Rights of Way Officer, to present the report which asked that the Committee to consider the objections and representations received to the making of “Langley Burrell 22 (part) Stopping Up Order and Definitive Map Modification Order 2015” made under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and  Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and which recommended that the Order be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for determination.

David Mannering spoke in objection to the order. Richard Walker and Robert Whitrow spoke in support of the order.

Issues highlighted in the course of the presentation and discussion included: the legislative framework relevant to the order; the location of the site and the implications of the permitted planning development; the issues of the security of the site; clarification that the matter was a stopping up and not a diversion order; the potential impact on walkers weighed against the potential impact on the developer; and whether, on balance, the alternative route was a reasonable route.

In response to a question, Lee Burman, Area Team Leader (Planning), stated that he would be seeking to address the issues of the construction of the bund with the site owners.

Cllr Tony Trotman proposed, subsequently seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton, that the proposal as outlined in the report be approved.

Having been put to the vote, the meeting;

Resolved

That “Langley Burrell 22 (part) Stopping Up Order and Definitive Map Modification Order 2015” is forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for determination with the recommendation that it is confirmed without modification.

Reason for Decision:

It is considered that the loss of this section of Langley Burrell 22 to the public is outweighed by the inconvenience of having to accommodate a footpath through the site.  Such a path would not only disadvantage the operation of the site and potentially its security but would provide the public with such a diminished walking experience that there would be a significant loss to them even if the path were retained.  In the event that members consider the path should be retained through the site a new planning application would need to be made by Wavin Ltd.

An adequate alternative route exists for the public which is easier to use and not any longer.

To consider and determine planning applications as detailed below.

The planning officer, Lee Burman, introduced the report which recommended that the application should be granted permission subject to the conditions outlined in the report. The officer also drew the meeting’s attention to the late observations relevant to the application, circulated as a supplement, specifically the two additional conditions relating to lighting and waste.

Issues highlighted in the course of the presentation and discussion included: the location of the proposal in an Area of Natural Beauty (AONB) and adjacent to a scheduled ancient monument; that up to 1900 pigs could be accommodated by the proposal; the consultation with the Environment Agency, Historic England and Cotswold AONB all of whom had not raised any objection; the concerns raised by some objectors with regard to highways issues and that the Highways Officer had not raised any formal objections; the size and scale of the building, and the materials to be used; the views of the parish councils in the vicinity;  the implications of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations and that a screening opinion had been prepared which concluded that an EIA was no required; the views of the public protection team and the recommendation of two additional recommendations; the location of neighbouring residential and commercial properties; the potential impact on the landscape and odour; the possible steps that could be taken to address odour issues; the number of objections to the development; the animal welfare and farm standards proposed on the farm; and the implications of national and local policies.

In response to a question from Cllr Peter Hutton, Lee Burman confirmed that water would be supplied to the buildings and that each pig pen would have their own supply.

Mark Willis, Martin Irisari, Andrew Cook spoke in objection to the application.

Thomas Collins. Francis Baird and Charlotte Boole spoke in support of the application.

Cllr John Thomson spoke as the local division member.

Cllr Toby Sturgis proposed, subsequently seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton, that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and the late observations. Cllr Sturgis also proposed an additional condition to limit the height of silos built in conjunction with the proposal.

Cllr Chuck Berry asked if it were possible to defer consideration of the application to ask the applicant to prepare an EIA to give the members of the public more assurance. Lee Burman advised the meeting requiring an EIA for this reason would not be reasonable or necessary and that a Scree

ning Opinion had been issued in this respect. Will Oulton, Senior Democratic Services Officer, advised the Chairman that a proposal for deferral could not be considered as an amendment to a proposal for permission, and this question was not put.

The meeting then returned to the consideration of the proposal for permission with additional conditions.

Having been put to a vote, the meeting;

Resolved

That that planning permission be granted subject to conditions listed below:

1          The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

The planning officer, Lee Burman, introduced the report which recommended that the application should be granted permission subject to the conditions outlined in the report. The officer also drew the meeting’s attention to the late observations relevant to the application, circulated as a supplement, specifically that the Environment Agency had confirmed that the information and details submitted by the applicant team had addressed their concerns and as such they had written to confirm that their holding objection is now withdrawn. On this basis and as is set out in the report the Council’s drainage officers confirmed that their own objection were also withdrawn.

Issues highlighted in the course of the presentation and discussion included: the number of dwellings and the planning history on the site; that the site was subject to an approved application for residential housing including extra-care and age restricted dwellings; that the providers of the care home had withdrawn from the proposals, and the application had been submitted for all for un-age-restricted market housing and affordable housing; the issues of noise and security resulting from proximity to a industrial land; that the extant permission must be given significant weight in considering the proposals; the implications of the five year land supply, and the implications of NPPF guidance; and the previous consents for employment land and the extent of marketing of the site.

In response to a question from the members of the Committee, Lee Burman confirmed: that pending the signing of a legal agreement, the developer had agreed to pro-rata increase their financial contributions, including for education provision, arising from the increase in proposed housing numbers; that the minimum number of house required for the Housing Market Area had not been met and due to their being insufficient land allocated, that following recent appeal decisions Core Policy Two could not be given full weight in any deliberation; that the Environment Agency had wanted confirmation that previously requested drainage works had been undertaken, and that this had been confirmed; that the size of the affordable housing units was similar to the extant permission; that the solar panels had not been identified as a specific policy requirement, but that this could be encouraged as part of the discharge of conditions on materials; that private operator interest in providing care facilities had waned in other similar sites; that charges to residents for management costs were similar to schemes made in other sites; that there is no proposed bypass in any extant Development Plan Document or Local Transport Plan  document; that build out rates for the community area, along with those for the Housing Market Area, were being assessed; and that, as it had yet to be formally examined or adopted, the emerging local plan for Wootton Bassett could not be given significant weight.

Tim Block, Steve Watts, spoke in objection to the application.

Andrew Ball spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Paul Heaphy spoke on behalf of Royal Wootton Bassett Town Council

Cllr Chris Hirst spoke as the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

The planning officer, Lee Burman, introduced the report which recommended that the application should be refused for the reasons outlined in the report. The officer also drew the meeting’s attention to the late observations relevant to the application, circulated as a supplement.  

Issues highlighted in the course of the presentation and discussion included: that the building proposed to be extended was a previously extended annex converted from garage; that the site was in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty within the greenbelt; that the applicant wished to extend the annex to make it fully habitable due to personal medical reasons;  the amount of extension to the property that had already been allowed; whether on balance the harm to greenbelt created by the cumulative development on the site was outweighed by the benefit to the applicant; whether or not the personal circumstances of the applicant constituted very special circumstances under green belt policy; and the impact of the design and the landscaping in the proposals.

Chris Beaver spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Sheila Parker spoke as the local division member.

Cllr Sheila Parker proposed, subsequently seconded by Cllr Terry Chivers, that the application should be approved as the personal circumstances of the applicant constituted very special circumstances and outweighed the harm to the openness of the green belt resulting from the additional development. It was also agreed that permitted development rights should be removed, and to link the annex to the other residence on the site and restrict further extension of the annex and the main dwelling through a Section 106 agreement.

Having been put to a vote, the meeting;

Resolved

Resolved to delegate authority to the Area Development Manager to approve subject to the signing of a section 106 agreement to tie the annex to the main dwelling known as Chuffs and to restrict any further extension of the main dwelling or the annex beyond that now approved under this application for the following reason:-

It is considered that the personal circumstances and needs of the applicant outweigh the harm to the openness of the green belt and the proposal is therefore in accordance with paragraphs 14 & 17 and Chapter 9 including paragraphs 88 & 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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.