Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

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

Apologies were also received from Cllr Chris Hurst, Cllr Terry Chivers and Glenis Ansell.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 16^th November 2016.  

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 16^th November 2016 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.

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 Wednesday 30^th November 2016, 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 Friday 2^nd December 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.

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:

16/07182/FUL and 16/07712/LBC- 8 The Forty, Cricklade, Wiltshire, SN6 6HR

16/07182/FUL and 16/07712/LBC- 8 The Forty, Cricklade, Wiltshire, SN6 6HR

The applicant Laura Lally and the agent Mike Wright spoke in favour of the application.

The planning officer introduced the report which was an application to extend and build upon a listed building. The applicant sought permissions for the removal of an existing single storey porch to rear of  the property and for the construction of a new two storey gable, and single storey flat roof with parapet wall. The extension would provide a dining room and play room at ground floor level, with a master bedroom with en-suite on the first floor. Pictures and diagrams were shown to the committee demonstrating the proposed plans, pointing out the variations in the proposed elevation, size, bulk and massing, compared to the existing build. The officer explained that conservation officers had identified potential harm to the historic fabric of the building by the substantial loss of original rear walls. Officers also considered the proposal would dramatically increase the size, bulk and massing of the listed building and be out of keeping with the character of the heritage asset.  

The Chairman invited Councillors to ask technical questions in response to which it was confirmed that, should permission be granted, the retention of existing landscaping at the front of the property could be conditioned to screen the extension from the road. In response to queries about parking provision it was noted that the Highways Officer had not raised any objections.

The Chairman invited public speakers to make representations, as detailed above. 

The local member, Cllr Bob Jones, spoke in support of the application and expressed concerns over the assessment of the application by the Conservation Officer.

In response to queries raised by the public and local member, the planning officer explained that in the Historic England listing of buildings not every heritage detail of a building was detailed and therefore the rear wall of the property could be considered as a heritage asset without a direct reference to this in the listing.

Officers also advised that they had previously indicated to the agent that a smaller extension would cause less harm the listed building however the application had not been reduced in scale.  In response to a statement from the applicant, the Planning Officer stated that the site was indeed outside of the Conservation Area and therefore the submission by the Conservation Officer was inaccurate. However it was highlighted that the application was recommended for refusal based on harm to the listed building rather than the impact on the Conservation Area.

The Chairman, moved the officer’s recommended which was seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton.

During the debate that followed, members were sympathetic to the need for an extension to the property and supported the principle of a smaller extension to allow the listed building to be enjoyed. The Committee was however concerned that under this proposal a significant amount of the original wall would be lost and this would be contrary to Paragraph 132  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168.

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.