Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Howard Marshall who was substituted by Cllr Jacqui Lay.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2016.

The minutes of the previous meeting were presented and the Chairman advised that Cllr Hill had subsequently sent his apologies for that meeting.

Resolved:

To approve as a true and correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2016.

To note the apology for absence from Cllr Alan Hill.

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.

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 (4 clear working days, e.g. Wednesday of week before a Wednesday meeting) 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 (2 clear working days, eg Friday of week before a Wednesday meeting). 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.

The Committee considered planning applications as detailed below.

David Pearce spoke in support of the applications.

Cllr Lesley Palmer, Grittleton Parish Council, spoke in support of the applications.

The planning officer introduced the applications which were for full planning permission and listed building consent to allow the conversation of stables to form dormitories for Grittleton House School. The application had been deferred from a previous meeting to allow members to undertake a site visit; the site visit had taken place on 20 September 2016 and was attended by six members of the Committee. The officer recommended that both applications be refused for the reasons outlined in the report, the officer had significant concerns in respect of the impact of permission on the character and setting of listed buildings. Photographs of the site were shown, along with the proposed elevations and plans for the conversion.

In response to technical questions, it was confirmed that in the event of permission being granted a condition could be in place to seek details of insulation. Officers considered that a full business case and heritage impact assessment to demonstrate and justify the need for conversion had not been submitted and advised the Committee that such a business case was material in balancing the benefits of the application with the risk of harm.

Members of the public then addressed the Committee as detailed above.

The local member, Baroness Scott, spoke in support of the application, preferring that the site be used for business enterprise by the school rather than for residential use.

In the debate that followed, members acknowledged the absence of a full business plan, however considered that the proposals would support the school to be economically viable and make a significant contribution to the local economy. The Committee considered that it would be impractical for dormitories to be within the school house and that the proposal would be the best option to maintain the stables by ensuring they had a use. The Committee agreed that, on balance, the benefits of the conversion outweighed the harm caused, due to the advantage it would bring to the business, educational benefit and social benefit of bringing the stables back into use. The Committee felt that other means to create dormitories would be more damaging that the current proposal.

Members were conscious that planning permission and listed building consent should be strictly conditioned to protect the listed buildings. Cllr Sturgis, seconded by Cllr Greenman, moved a recommendation for planning permission, and listed building consent and delegated to officers to impose conditions, requesting that conditions included WL1 and WC1.  The reasons given for moving approval of permissions were that the Committee considered that the public benefits arising from the proposed development and works were significant and sufficiently so to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the listed building, adjacent listed buildings and conservation area that had been identified. The public benefits included the significant contribution to the local economy of the enhanced business operations at the site and the development proposed; alongside the enhanced educational opportunities  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

Andrew Pywell spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Charles Cooke, Minety Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The planning officer introduced the application which was for the erection of a new 4 bed detached dwelling. The officer’s report recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions and informatives in the report, as amended by the late observations. Attention was drawn to the late observations which recommended the removal of condition 3 and amendment to condition 12. Photographs of the existing cottage and proposed elevations of the new dwelling were shown. The planning officer described that the proposal was considered to be infill development.

In response to technical questions, it was confirmed that the site was outside a previous settlement boundary however this boundary had not been retained as part of the Core Strategy and therefore was not a planning consideration. The planning officer stated that this application was considered to be within the built form of the village. Members were advised that a limited scope construction method statement could be conditioned to address members concerns about parking and traffic during construction.

Members of the public then addressed the Committee as detailed above.

The local member, Cllr Chuck Berry, spoke against the application on the grounds that it was unsuitable for the location and unsustainable. The councillor also considered the previous settlement boundary to be relevant to the application.

In the debate that followed, members discussed whether the application could be considered as an infill development and whether housing was needed in the area. Cllr Hutton, seconded by Cllr Greenman proposed the officer recommendation, as amended by the late observations, and with the addition of a condition requiring a construction method statement to address parking and traffic concerns.

Resolved:

To grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and informatives:

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.     No part of the development hereby permitted shall be first brought into use 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.

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 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 development shall commence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

Tony Philips spoke in support of the application

Ian Rae spoke in objection to the application

Cllr Margaret Bawden, Hullavington Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The planning officer introduced the application which was for the creation of a new vehicular access onto a classified road at 40 The Street, Hullavington, to allow access to the site of residential property with paddocks which benefitted from an extant permission for the erection of stables. The offer recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives in the report and drew attention to the late observations. Photos of the site and plans for access arrangements were shown. It was explained that highways officers had originally raised concerns with the proposed access however had withdrawn their objections since additional information including adequate visibility splays had been submitted.

In response to technical questions it was noted that the planning permission did not include the removal of an existing boundary wall to the north of the site. The planning officer advised that the highways officer was satisfied that the wall height had been reduced to a level that would not obscure views for drivers using the entrance and main road. It was explained that suggested planning conditions would limit the height of the wall to a safe height.

Members of the public then addressed the Committee as detailed above.

The local member, Baroness Scott, spoke in objection to the application, considering the existing access to be safer and questioning why a new access was required. The local member considered the access would be a highways safety risk to the busy road.

In the debate that followed, members noted the judgement of the highways officer however considered that on balance the highways impact of the proposal was dangerous and therefore ‘severe’. Members of the Committee commented that they were familiar with the site and were concerned that the proposed access would be at the narrowest part of The Street, meaning that vehicles with trailers or horseboxes would have to use the other side of the road to turn slowly into the entrance. The Committee also agreed that a second access road into the site was unnecessary and considered the location of the existing access to be much safer. Councillors were mindful that it would be common for horseboxes to enter and exit the stables and they would only be able to do so slowly and so may cause a hazard blocking the road for on-coming traffic. Members also commented that the visibility splays demonstrated an improvement to visibility when exiting the site, however would not improve visibility for vehicles approaching the site, on the highway, from around the nearby corner.

The Committee was reminded that that the planning officer had deemed the proposal to be acceptable and would have considered access by horseboxes, however felt the highways safety risks to be so severe that the application should be refused. The Chairman noted that the local member, and committee member who  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

Ian Pople spoke in support of the application.

Eileen Warren and David Ratcliffe spoke in objection to the application

Cllr Norman Davis, Sutton Benger Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The planning officer introduced the application which was for the construction of up to 14 dwellings; the application sought only outline planning permission, with all matters reserved. The officer recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the signing of a section 106 agreement and conditions and informatives outlined in the report. Attention was drawn to the late observations. It was noted that residents had requested the application be deferred; however officer advised sufficient detail had been submitted to proceed to determination. The Committee was reminded the application had been reduced from previous proposals for 28 dwellings on the site. An indicative layout of the site in respect of access arrangement and location of dwellings was presented, however members were reminded they were not asked to consider such matters at this stage, these issues would be addressed at reserved matters stage in the event of outline planning permission being granted.

Photographs of the site were shown and details of nearby extant planning permission were given. The officer acknowledged that there would be some harm to the setting of the listed building at Arms Farm as a result of the development, however considered this would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.

In response to technical questions the officer advised that the parish council had not been asked to form a judgement on the access arrangements on site, this was not part of the application for outline permission. It was noted that the Conservation Officer’s response to the proposal had been published and the parish council was entitled to form a separate view on the impact of the development on the listed building, independent of the comments of the conservation officer. It was confirmed that the listed farm building would still have an outlook into an open field as a result of the development and that if access was taken from the B4069, as shown on the indicative layout, there would be some harm to the setting of the listed building. It was suggested that cart/bump stones be installed at frequent intervals along the rear of the byres in order to protect the structure if the track was created.  On balance, the planning officer considered the harm that would result from a new track, and the alterations associated with it, would be less than the harm that would occur if the access route were to be through the middle of the farmyard. It was explained that the harm would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.

Members of the public then addressed the Committee as detailed above.

In response to statements from the public, the planning officer verified that proposed planning conditions would cover archaeological matters. It was acknowledged that there may be a need to remove a small part of the listed building as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.

The planning officer introduced the application for the erection of a stable block at land to the rear of Church, North Wraxall. The officer’s recommendation was that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and informatives as outlined in the report and amended by the late observations. The late observations proposed the additions of three conditions and the requirement to add a plan number to condition 7. The officer made reference to the site as located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and explained the proposal for the stable building had been reduced in size from the original application. It was explained that the field could sustain two horses and conditions on the number of horses had been proposed in the report. The officer also identified that further information as to the access arrangements had been submitted.

In response to technical questions it was confirmed that the site was bounded by the curtilage listed wall of the Grade 1 church, however would not impact upon a churchyard boundary wall and that the conditions proposed would restrict use of the shelter to private stabling. The officer explained that the shelter may be used to keep agriculture and had two entrances/exits.

The local member, Baroness Scott, highlighted that the parish council had raised concerns over the impact of the proposed shelter on the setting of the Grade 1 listed church. It was also commented that equipment to support equine use could impact upon the listed building and setting in the AONB and conservation area.

In the debate that followed, members noted that the proposed conditions addressed external lighting on the site. It was considered that the stable was note in an ideal location, however on balance, was acceptable, provided it was conditioned strictly to minimize the impact in a sensitive area. Cllr Hutton, seconded by Cllr Trotman, moved the officer recommendation, with additional conditions to prevent outside storage and additional fencing.

Resolved:

To grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and informatives:

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.     No fences (including temporary ones to divide the land) or jumps shall be erected on the site without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In order to protect the setting of the heritage assets and the landscape character of the area.

3.     The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use/occupied/ [DELETE as appropriate] until details of the storage of manure and soiled bedding (including the location of such storage) and its disposal from site (including frequency) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and; the works for such storage and disposal have been completed in accordance with the approved details. The approved storage area shall subsequently  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

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.