Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Glenis Ansell and Cllr Terry Chivers.

To approve and sign as a true and accurate record the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 7^th December 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 7^th December 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.

Cllr Toby Sturgis declared an interest in agenda item 7c, Mays Farm. He informed the Committee that his son’s firm may be the selling agent of the property in question, Mays Farm. In respect of item 7a Church Farm applications, the councillor stated that he knew many of people on both the applicants and objectors side. In respect of the above-named items, the councillor declared that he would participate in the debate and vote on each item with an open mind.

Cllr Howard Greenman also declared an interest in agenda item 7c Mays Farm, stating that he knew the applicants however, he declared that he would participate in the debate and vote on each item with an open mind.

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 Tuesday 27^th December 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 Thursday 29^th 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 of public participation which would apply to agenda items no. 7b and 7c.

However, the Chairman explained that he would use his discretion to change the procedure for agenda item 7a- 16/05721/FUL- 16/05729/FUL: 9 Church Farm, Easton Grey, Malmesbury.

Due to the applications having a cumulative impact and common representations having been submitted in relation to many of the applications, the public participation would take place under the first application only. Although for this agenda item, the public speakers would have 4 minutes, instead of the usual 3 and speakers from the Town/Parish Council would have 5 minutes instead of the usual 4.

The Chairman proposed that item 7c on the agenda be brought forward for determination first and that the applications 16/05721/FUL-16/05729FUL Church Farm be considered in a different order, as detailed in the late items.

RESOLVED:

To change the order of the agenda, as detailed above.

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 the ordering of the agenda and applications 7a) 16/09965/LBC: Mays Farm, Hullavington and 7b) 9 Church Farm, Easton Grey, Malmesbury:-16/05721/FUL-16/05729/FUL, as listed in the supplementary reports and 7c 15/10712/FUL: Land North of Baydons Lane, Chippenham.

The applicant Kim Swithinbank spoke in favour of the application.

The Conservation Officer introduced the application for Listed Building Consent on a Grade-II Listed farmhouse building, a retrospective application to include replacement of bedroom timber floors with plywood, replacement of living room, sitting room and dining room floors and hearths, alterations to master bedroom partitions, installation of freestanding bath on raised platform, alterations to kitchen window, removal of second floor bedroom ceiling, and reinstatement of recently blocked up gate in the garden boundary wall. 

The officer detailed some of the planning history of the property, explaining that in 2012 it had come under new ownership however some of the work undertaken by the owners had not been in accordance with permission granted, for which retrospective approval was now sought.  Pictures were shown to the Committee demonstrating the works done in contravention to consent. These works were considered to give a false impression of the history of the building and result in the unjustified loss of historic fabric. It was highlighted that the applicant had not given justification as to why much of the contravening work had been necessary or why alternative materials, from existing or agreed under the approved scheme, had been used. It was noted that some of the works undertaken, although beyond the permission granted, could be deemed acceptable, given information secured by the site inspection, however other elements were considered wholly unacceptable. The officer explained the recommendation for refusal, by reason of the harm caused to the historic fabric of the building.

There were no technical questions.

Public speakers, as listed above, were then invited to make representations by the Chairman.

Cllr Toby Sturgis spoke on behalf of the local member, Baroness Jane Scott of Bybrook. The councillor considered the matter as a balance between benefit and harm, noting that some good work had been undertaken to what had been a building in a very poor condition, but agreeing that it had been done in contravention of planning permissions and no justification had been given for this.

Cllr Toby Sturgis moved the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application which was seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton.

During the debate that followed, members considered that, whilst some of the works were of good quality, they had been against the advice and permissions given by the officers and without sufficiently robust and detailed supporting historical  and structural/condition survey evidence to justify doing so. It was noted that in particular the plywood floor was not suitable for the listed building and should be removed and that if permission was granted it would cover all of the works, including the plywood. On balance, members considered that to approve the application would set a dangerous precedent for all listed buildings in Wiltshire and noted that if the application was refused, the applicant could begin to negotiations again on the works undertaken to resolve the situation appropriately, including the provision of necessary supporting evidence and information.

RESOLVED:

That Listed Building Consent be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

John Heathcock, Henry Jodrell and Keith Waterhouse spoke against the application.  The Chairman of Easton Grey Parish Council, John Tremayne, also spoke against the application. Simon Tomlinson, Ian Firth and Marc Willis spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer gave an overview of the 9 concurrent applications at the site, seeking various agricultural buildings to allow for the consolidation of the applicant’s beef and dairy businesses, including the creation of an agricultural workers dwelling and an Anaerobic Digester for use by the applicant’s business. A site location plan, its proximity to the road and photographs of the site were shown. A comparison between the current layout of the site and proposed layout of the site was provided. It was highlighted that the 9 concurrent applications would have a cumulative impact on the site, all were located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and outside of a defined settlement.

The Planning Officer then proceeded to introduce the application in respect of the Anaerobic Digester.

The officer introduced the report, showing pictures and diagrams which identified the proposed location and specifications of the Anaerobic Digester (AD). The officer confirmed the applicant was looking to consolidate his existing business and explained that the Anaerobic Digester was to be built with the intention of minimalizing the impact on the area.

The officer explained the proposed conditions and identified that screening would be provided by landscaping and, in part, existing structures at the site. It was advised that a slurry lagoon was already in existence on the site and neighbours would likely see a reduction in odour disturbance, as a result of the proposed development, due to the modern model. An Odour Protection Management Plan would also mitigate any potential impacts.

Attention was drawn to objections raised by residents in respect of surrounding highways and drainage issues. The officer advised that these concerns had been addressed by the conditions set out in the report. In respect of drainage, a strategy had been submitted utilising and expanding upon the existing drainage ditches at the site, and it was also identified that the site and land ownership were sufficient to accommodate any additional requirements and proposals that may prove necessary following detailed site assessment of drainage requirements as required by the conditions.  It was identified that Drainage Engineers were satisfied with the proposals. It was noted that the proposals to consolidate operations at the site would reduce traffic movements in the locality overall and would be sustainable by reducing inter-site travel . The officer drew attention to the late observations in respect of the AD Unit and other applications for Church Farm, which had been published as a supplement to the agenda and proposed an additional condition in respect of the Dairy Parlour.  The officer verified that 15 objections had been received in respect of the application, in addition to an objection from the parish council. In response to the public concern that feedstock would be brought in to feed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9a

Public Participation was conducted as outlined above.

The Planning Officer explained that the application was one of 9 concurrent applications at the site, seeking various agricultural buildings to allow for the consolidation of the applicant’s beef and dairy businesses, including the creation of an agricultural workers dwelling and an Anaerobic Digester for use by the applicant’s business. This application related only to the erection of the beef building.

The Planning Officer introduced the report, showing pictures and diagrams of the proposed build, featuring 12 pens with a capacity of up to 280 animals. It was explained that conditions in respect of landscaping and drainage were suggested, as with other applications on the site. The Planning Officer highlighted that an agricultural dwelling was appropriate development within the AONB.

In response to technical questions, officers clarified that it the usage of the building would not be classed as intensive farming. The Chairman questioned whether there would be conditions against light disturbance, in response to which, it was confirmed that there was a proposed condition on every application for Church Farm to cover external site over the whole site.

Local Member, Cllr John Thomson, suggested that any lighting on site should be low-level.

Cllr Peter Hutton proposed the officer’s recommendation which was seconded by Cllr Toby Sturgis.

In the debate that followed, members noted that the Council’s Agricultural Consultant was satisfied with the application.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be 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:
   1. Site Location Plan - 2663/01A - Received 13th July 2016;
   2. Proposed Block Plan - 2663/02 - Received 13th July 2016;
   3. Proposed Floor Plans - 2663/03A - Received 24th June 2016
   4. Proposed Elevations - 2663/03 - Received 24th June 2016

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

3. No development shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping to mitigate against the impacts of the development on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall include :

Public participation was conducted as outlined above.

The Planning Officer explained that the application was one of 9 concurrent applications at the site, seeking various agricultural buildings to allow for the consolidation of the applicant’s beef and dairy businesses, including the creation of an agricultural workers dwelling and an Anaerobic Digester for use by the applicant’s business. This application related only to the erection of a hardstanding and shed for the storage of implements and machinery which would be used across the site.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and showed pictures and diagrams of the proposed site, giving details about the specifications and materials to be used. It was explained that conditions in respect of landscaping and drainage were suggested, as with other applications on the site.

The Chairman invited technical questions and there were none.

Cllr Chuck Berry moved the officer’s recommendation; this was seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be 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:
   1. Site Location Plan - 2663/01 - Received 30th June 2016;
   2. Proposed Block Plan - 2663/02 - Received 30th June 2016;
   3. Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations - 2663/05 - Received 30th June 2016.

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

3. No development shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping to mitigate against the impacts of the development on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall include :
   1. location and current canopy spread of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land;
   2. full details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development;
   3. a detailed planting specification showing all plant species, supply and planting sizes and planting densities;
   4. finished levels and contours;
   5. means of enclosure;
   6. car park layouts;
   7. other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas;
   8. all hard and soft surfacing materials;
   9. minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse and other storage units, signs, lighting etc);
   10. proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications, cables, pipelines etc indicating lines, manholes, supports etc);
   11. retained historic landscape features and proposed restoration, where relevant.

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, to ensure a satisfactory landscaped setting for the development and the protection of existing important landscape features.

4. All soft landscaping comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9c

Public participation was conducted as outlined above.

The Panning Officer explained that the application was one of 9 concurrent applications at the site, seeking various agricultural buildings to allow for the consolidation of the applicant’s beef and dairy businesses, including the creation of an agricultural workers dwelling and an Anaerobic Digester for use by the applicant’s business. This application related only to the erection of the Farm Office and Workshop.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and showed pictures and diagrams of the proposed site, giving details about the specifications and materials to be used. It was explained that conditions in respect of landscaping and drainage were suggested, as with other applications on the site.

The Chairman invited technical questions and Cllr Toby Sturgis asked if there could be any conditions to remove permitted rights to covert the office to residential use in the future. The Planning officers confirmed that this was an option.

Cllr Sturgis moved that authority be delegated to officers to grant permission subject to the conditions in the report, and an additional condition to restrict conversion of the office into residential use, the wording of which to be determined by officers. This was seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton.

RESOLVED:

To DELEGATE authority to the Head of Service for Development Management to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions below and an additional condition to restrict conversion of the approved office wholly or in part, to residential use, either through removal of any Permitted Development Rights or other legislative and policy measures. Authority is delegated to the Head of Service to prepare an appropriately worded condition in this regard.

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:
   1. Site Location Plan - 2663/01 - Received 10th June 2016;
   2. Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations - 2663/04 - Received 10th June 2016.

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

3. No development shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping to mitigate against the impacts of the development on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall include:
   1. location and current canopy spread of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land;
   2. full details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development;
   3. a detailed planting specification showing all plant species, supply and planting sizes and planting densities;
   4. finished levels and contours;
   5. means of enclosure;
   6. car park layouts;
   7. other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas;
   8. all hard and soft surfacing materials;
   9. minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse and other storage units,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9d

Public participation was conducted as outlined above.

The Planning Officer explained that the application was one of 9 concurrent applications at the site, seeking various agricultural buildings to allow for the consolidation of the applicant’s beef and dairy businesses, including the creation of an agricultural workers dwelling and an Anaerobic Digester for use by the applicant’s business. This application related only to the erection of the grain and straights store.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and showed pictures and diagrams of the proposed site, giving details about the specifications and materials to be used. The proposed floor plans were highlighted and it was explained that conditions in respect of landscaping and drainage were suggested, as with other applications on the site.

The Chairman invited technical questions, in response to which officers explained that traffic to and from the farm for grain delivery would be reduced as a result of the development.

Cllr Peter Hutton proposed the officer’s recommendation which was seconded by Cllr Chuck Berry.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be 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:
   1. Site Location Plan - 2663/01 - Received 24th June 2016;
   2. Proposed Block Plan - 2663/02 - Received 24th June 2016;
   3. Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations - 2663/06 - Received 10th June 2016.

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

3. No development shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping to mitigate against the impacts of the development on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall include :
   1. location and current canopy spread of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land;
   2. full details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development;
   3. a detailed planting specification showing all plant species, supply and planting sizes and planting densities;
   4. finished levels and contours;
   5. means of enclosure;
   6. car park layouts;
   7. other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas;
   8. all hard and soft surfacing materials;
   9. minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse and other storage units, signs, lighting etc);
   10. proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications, cables, pipelines etc indicating lines, manholes, supports etc);
   11. retained historic landscape features and proposed restoration, where relevant.

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, to ensure a satisfactory landscaped setting for the development and the protection of existing important landscape features.

4. All soft landscaping comprised in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9e

Public participation was conducted as outlined above.

The Planning Officer explained that the application was one of 9 concurrent applications at the site, seeking various agricultural buildings to allow for the consolidation of the applicant’s beef and dairy businesses, including the creation of an agricultural workers dwelling and an Anaerobic Digester for use by the applicant’s business. This application related only to the erection of the straw barn. 

The Planning Officer introduced the report and showed pictures and diagrams of the proposed site, giving details about the specifications and materials to be used. It was explained that conditions in respect of landscaping and drainage were suggested, as with other applications on the site.

The Chairman invited technical questions and there were none.

Cllr Anthony Trotman proposed the officer’s recommendation which was seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be 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:
   1. Site Location Plan - 2663/01A - Received 13th July 2016
   2. Proposed Block Plan - 2663/02 - Received 13th July 2016
   3. Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations - PA-100 - Received 10th June 2016.

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

3. No development shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping to mitigate against the impacts of the development on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall include :
   1. location and current canopy spread of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land;
   2. full details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development;
   3. a detailed planting specification showing all plant species, supply and planting sizes and planting densities;
   4. finished levels and contours;
   5. means of enclosure;
   6. car park layouts;
   7. other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas;
   8. all hard and soft surfacing materials;
   9. minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse and other storage units, signs, lighting etc);
   10. proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications, cables, pipelines etc indicating lines, manholes, supports etc);
   11. retained historic landscape features and proposed restoration, where relevant.

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, to ensure a satisfactory landscaped setting for the development and the protection of existing important landscape features.

4. All soft landscaping comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the first occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development whichever is the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9f

Public participation was conducted as outlined above.

The Planning Officer explained that the application was one of 9 concurrent applications at the site, seeking various agricultural buildings to allow for the consolidation of the applicant’s beef and dairy businesses, including the creation of an agricultural workers dwelling and an Anaerobic Digester for use by the applicant’s business. This application related only to the erection of the grain dryer. 

The Planning Officer introduced the reports and showed pictures and diagrams of the proposed site, giving details about the specifications and materials to be used. It was highlighted that this building would be higher in elevation compared to neighbouring buildings. Conditions in respect of landscaping and drainage were suggested, as with other applications on the site, and a condition was also proposed in respect of noise control.

The Chairman invited technical questions in response to which the officer confirmed that an intention of the applicant was that fuel from the AD unit would be used to power the grain dryer; it would not be reasonable to condition this, however an informative could  be added.

Cllr Anthony Trotman proposed the officers recommendation, subject to an additional informative on usage of fuel from the Anaerobic Digester unit to power the grain dryer, the wording of which to be delegated to officers. The motion was seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton.  

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions below and an additional Informative to request that the applicant investigate the possibility of servicing the Grain Dryer hereby approved with power generated by the AD unit approved under application reference 16/05728/FUL. Authority is delegated to the Head of Service to prepare an appropriately worded informative in this regard.

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:
   1. Site Location Plan - 2663/01 - Received 10th June 2016;
   2. Proposed Block Plan - 2663/02 - Received 10th June 2016;
   3. Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations - 2663/09 - Received 10th June 2016.

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

3. No development shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping to mitigate against the impacts of the development on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall include :
   1. location and current canopy spread of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land;
   2. full details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development;
   3. a detailed planting specification showing all plant species, supply and planting sizes and planting densities;
   4. finished levels and contours;
   5. means of enclosure;
   6. car park layouts;
   7. other vehicle and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9g

Public participation was conducted as outlined above.

The Planning Officer explained that the application was one of 9 concurrent applications at the site, seeking various agricultural buildings to allow for the consolidation of the applicant’s beef and dairy businesses, including the creation of an agricultural workers dwelling and an Anaerobic Digester for use by the applicant’s business. This application related only to the erection of the dairy parlour only.  

The Planning Officer introduced the report and showed pictures and diagrams of the proposed site, giving details about the specifications and materials to be used. It was explained that conditions in respect of landscaping and drainage were suggested, as with other applications on the site, a condition on noise was also included and attention was drawn to the additional condition proposed in the late items.

The Chairman invited technical questions, members questioned the stopping of the Dairy vehicles on the highway to service the building and the potential for a hardstanding layby to be provided. It was confirmed that the proposed conditions should address landscaping on the site and the site was located further from the highway than other agricultural buildings on site. Local member Cllr John Thomson expressed concern that access arrangements for servicing the building had not been fully considered in the application.

Cllr Toby Sturgis moved that authority be delegated to officers to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the report and further conditioning for suitable, hardstanding/layby to be provided to service the dairy, the wording of which to be determined by officers. This was seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton.

In the debate that followed, councillors agreed that hardstanding should be provided in the interests of highway safety, and retained free of obstruction or other usage, for the purposes of servicing the proposed Dairy Parlour. Members also noted the proposed landscaping of the site. 

RESOLVED:

To DELEGATE authority to GRANT planning permission to the Head of Service for Development Management subject to the conditions below and an additional condition to require the submission and approval of details for the provision of an off road (off the metalled highway/carriageway) hardstanding/layby suitable for the servicing of the Dairy Parlour hereby approved. Authority is delegated to the Head of Service to provide an appropriately worded condition in this regard.

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 here`by permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
   1. Site Location Plan - 2663/01A - Received 13th July 2016;
   2. Proposed Block Plan - 2663/02 - Received 13th July 2016;
   3. Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations - 2663/10A - Received 13th July 2016;

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

3. No development shall commence on site until a scheme of hard  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9h

Public participation was conducted as outlined above.

The Planning Officer explained that the application was one of 9 concurrent applications at the site, seeking various agricultural buildings to allow for the consolidation of the applicant’s beef and dairy businesses, including the creation of an agricultural workers dwelling and an Anaerobic Digester for use by the applicant’s business. This application related only to the erection of the agricultural farmers dwelling and heifer shed.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and showed pictures and diagrams of the proposed site, giving details about the specifications and materials to be used. It was explained that conditions in respect of landscaping and drainage were suggested, as with other applications on the site. It was highlighted that there was a functional need for the dwelling on the site, as identified by the Council’s Agricultural Consultant, and that other buildings near the site were unable to be used. The officer identified that the dwelling had been designed to reflect the financial and functional requirements of the operation as proposed. The officer advised that it was conditioned that the dwelling would not be occupied until the beef and dairy element of the farm was in use and would be restricted to use by agricultural workers and their dependents. Following submissions in by the applicant team, it was clarified that the Council’s agricultural consultant had identified that part of the functional need for a dwelling related to the provision and operation of the dairy herd facilities and therefore the conditional restriction in this respect was necessary.

The Chairman invited technical questions and it was confirmed that the dwelling was necessitated by the agricultural work and not maintenance of the AD unit.

Cllr Anthony Trotman proposed the officer’s recommendation, which was seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be 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:
   1. Site Location Plan - 2663/01 - Received 24th June 2016;
   2. Proposed Heifer Shed - 2663/07 - Received 10th June 2016;
   3. Proposed Dwelling Elevations - 2663/11A - Received 30th November 2016
   4. Proposed Dwelling Floor Plans - 2663/12A - Received 30th November 2016

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 of the dwelling hereby approved 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9i

Michael Sammes, Vanessa Robshaw and Michael Gibbons spoke against the application. John Bostock spoke in favour of the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the report which was an application for the erection of 6 dwellings, which had been reported to Committee on 26 October 2016 and deferred for further consideration of three issues:  the possibility for an environmental corridor, an assessment of the Japanese Knotweed issues on the site, and vicinity, and the possibility of traffic calming measures sympathetic to the character of the conservation area. Officers explained that all issues had been considered and addressed by the proposed conditions in the report.

The officer showed pictures and diagrams which identified proposed location and specifications of the build, it was highlighted that slight alterations had been made to the layout, moving the proposed houses further into the site and therefore further away from neighbours, alterations had also been made to avoid the root zone of a beech tree on the site. The environmental corridor was now included in the plans with minor alterations and with minimal impact. The Knotweed issue had been addressed by a condition to ensure the removal of the species prior to commencing the building works. The traffic calming measures were to be dealt with by a revised road layout and protection zones, alternative materials appropriate to the conservation area status of the site had been proposed by the applicant and agreed by officers.

The Chairman invited members to ask technical questions and there were none.

The Chairman invited members of the public to make representations, as detailed above.

In response to statements from the public, the Planning Officer explained that the Committee was already familiar with the application; members were considering the three issues deferred from a previous Committee meeting, and key changes to the proposed consent were in response to the matters Committee had sought further clarity on when it was last debated. It was explained that public consultation on the revised plans had not been undertaken since the overall impact of the proposed development on neighbours had been lessened in comparison to the previous proposals. The proposed condition on Knotweed had been considered appropriate by the Council’s Ecologist.

Cllr Peter Hutton moved the officer’s recommendation, subject to the conditions in the report and a requirement that a completion survey be carried out post eradication of the Knotweed, and an informative referring the applicant to the maximum fine for allowing Knotweed to spread, the wording of which to be determined by officers. This was seconded by Cllr Howard Greenman.

In the debate that followed members considered the impact of the Japanese Knotweed and agreed the development to be acceptable and an improvement to the previous proposal.

RESOLVED:

That authority is DELEGATED to the Head of Development Management 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, and subject to an amendment to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

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.