Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillors Chuck Berry, Howard Marshall and Terry Chivers.

Cllr Berry was substituted by Cllr Jacqui Lay for the meeting only.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 1 June 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 June 2016 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a true and correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on the 1 June 2016.

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.

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements:

If you would like to make a statement at this meeting on any item on this agenda, please register to do so at least 10 minutes prior to the meeting. Up to 3 speakers are permitted to speak for up to 3 minutes each on any agenda item. Please contact the officer named above for any further clarification.

Questions:

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution. Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such questions in writing to the officer named above (acting on behalf of the Corporate Director), no later than 5pm on Wednesday 15 June 2016 in order to be guaranteed a written response prior to the meeting. Any question received between the above deadline, and no later than 5pm two clear working days before the meeting, may only receive a verbal response at the meeting.

Please contact the officer named on the first page 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, and the Chairman emphasised that members of the public are permitted to lobby members in advance of the meeting, but at the meeting the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers would not be permitted.

An appeals update report is attached for information.

The Committee noted the contents of the appeals update.

To consider and determine planning applications as detailed below.

Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting and attached to these minutes, in respect of applications 16/03151/FUL & 16/03350/LBC and 15/10659/FUL as listed in the agenda pack.

Mr Marc Willis spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Charles Cook Minety Parish Council spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the application for 6 dwellings and that the application was considered at the 4May meeting and permission was granted subject to a s106 agreement. Officers identified that there had since been a material change in circumstances in relation to S106 requirements including affordable housing requirements owing to a change to the Planning Practice Guidance affecting applications of this size and following the recent court of appeal decision that effectively removes  requirement for “tariff style “contributions The authority is currently considering the implications of the judgement, noting that whilst it is a not a blanket ban in relation to all development proposals of this scale and that assessments of all relevant the material circumstances is required, and  that the PPG needs to be weighed in the balance against the adopted Local Plan as the prime consideration as defined by statute. In this case Officers identify that the Local Plan cannot be given full weight as it is not up to date due to the current absence of a deliverable Housing Land Supply. Officers noted other material considerations to be weighed in the balance including that there are significant other benefits arising from the development including maintaining the public house for the community; economic benefits arising from development, increased population, increased public house occupancy and to a limited extent increased housing and that there are no other material changes to the application previously considered at the meeting on the 4 May 2016.

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

It was noted that the local member was not able to attend the meeting, but the Chairman did relay a message that the local member was content with the application.

Councillor Tony Trotman proposed, subsequently seconded by Councillor Peter Hutton, that the officer’s recommendation be approved.

Councillor Trotman expressed his frustration as to the change in government policy, but noted that it was clear that the other benefits arising from development outweighed the loss of contributions.

The meeting unanimously;

Resolved

That authority is delegated to the Area Development Manager to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions listed below and completion of a S106 legal agreement within six months of the date of the resolution of this Committee.

In the event of failure to complete, sign and seal the required section 106 agreement within the defined timeframe to then delegate authority to the Area Development Manager to REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:-

The application proposal fails to provide and secure the necessary and required enhancement to and retention f the local community facility of the public house and is therefore contrary to Policies CP1 & CP49 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy Adopted January 2015 and Paras 7, 14 & 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.

1.            The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Mr David Sterling, Ms Lorrain Vaun-Davis and Ms Jane McDermott spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the application for an extension with associated listed building consent. In giving his presentation, the officer highlighted the character of the building and of the immediate area; its relation to buildings nearby; the planning history of the site and the relevance of planning appeal judgements; the possibility of alternative solutions to prevent damp in listed buildings; the implications of material and roof pitch with regard to damp-proofing; and the relevance planning policies to the proposals.

The Officer drew attention to late items highlighting that Building Control and Conservation officers accepted the veracity of the submissions but maintained and confirmed the position that there were less intrusive methods available to achieve the required damp prevention from rainwater ingress.

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

The local member, Cllr Alan Macrae spoke in support of the application.

The planning officer responded to comments raised by the public and again confirmed that the conservation and building control officer were of the view that less harmful and invasive means could be employed to address the water ingress problem and has been successfully applied to a similar listed building; and addressed the differences between this proposal and that granted permission next door.

Councillor Peter Hutton proposed, subsequently seconded by Councillor Trotman, that the officers recommendation for refusal be accepted.

Cllr Hurst stated that he believed that on balance permission should be granted for the application.

Resolved

That planning permission is REFUSED, for the following reason:

That listed building consent is REFUSED, for the following reason:

Mr Stuart Bulley, Mr Alan Hopkins and Caroline Bulley spoke in objection to the application and with reference to visual aids including their own illustrative material

Officers clarified that the illustrative material was provided by objectors and not the applicant or officers and that accuracy could therefore not be confirmed.

Mr Chris Beardsmore and Ms Charlotte Watkins spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Roger Budgen, St Paul Malmesbury Without Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the application for the proposed erection of two detached dwellings and associated landscaping and demolition; attention was drawn to the additional condition outlined in late observation; the mix of character and materials used in neighbouring buildings; the size and scale of the development; the potential impact of the proposals on neighbouring properties; and that changes to the position of windows and glazing to address concerns regarding privacy.

The Officer drew attention to late items and additional proposed conditions.

In response to Chairs question, it was regarding materials and pitch of the roof.

Cllr Sturgis – queried the floor level of the bungalow behind, identified that when he visited the site the building appeared to be level with the proposed first floor of one of the proposed dwellings. Cllr Sturgis identified that the plans submitted did not indicate the height of the dwellings to the rear and whether the bungalow at the back was at the same ridge height of the proposed closest building.

The Chair asked, clarified that the proposal was two metres higher than the ridge of the existing bungalow.

Councillor Lay asked whether the new house would be substantially higher than the houses on either side. Officer stated that it would be higher than the neighbouring property to the side but not significantly higher.

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

The local member, Cllr John Thomson spoke in objection to the application.

During the debate that followed,

Councillor Toby Sturgis proposed, subsequently seconded by Councillor Howard Greenman, that the application be refused for the following reason:

The proposed development, by reason of its siting, scale and design, would result in a contrived and cramped form of development out of keeping with the character and appearance of its setting. The proposal therefore conflicts with Core Policy 57(iii) and (vi) of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy and Paragraphs 17 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The position of the property by virtue of its close proximity to the neighbouring properties, have an overbearing impact upon and result in loss of amenity of neighbouring properties. The proposed development would therefore result in unacceptable levels of amenity for future and existing occupiers contrary to the requirements of with Core Policy 57(vii) of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy and Paragraphs 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In the debate the following issues were highlighted: the size of the plot and proximity to neighbouring properties; the height of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

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.