If you are reading this page using a screenreader, we support ARIA landmarks for quick navigation too

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices, Monkton Park, Chippenham, SN15 1ER

Contact: Edmund Blick  Email: edmund.blick@wiltshire.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

A minute’s silence was observed to mark the loss of life caused by a terrorist attack in Manchester on the evening of 22May 2017.

34.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Tony Trotman who was substituted by Cllr Jacqui Lay, Cllr Peter Hutton was to act as Chairman for the meeting.

 

Cllr Brian Mathew was substituted by Cllr Ruth Hopkinson.

35.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 8 March 2017.

Minutes:

Resolved:

 

To approve as a true and correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 8 March 2017.

 

36.

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

Minutes:

Cllr Brian Mathew later made a declaration under item 7a, as detailed below. Cllr Ashley O’Neill later declared an interest under item 7e, as detailed below.

37.

Chairman's Announcements

The Chairman will announce Changes in Membership to the Committee.

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed newly elected members to the Committee and gave his thanks to councillors who had previously served on the Committee.

38.

Public Participation

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.

Minutes:

The Committee noted the rules on public participation.

 

39.

Planning Appeals and Updates

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Resolved:

 

To note the appeals update.

40.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Supporting documents:

41.

16/069353/FUL London Road Streetworks London Road Corsham

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Tim Walton and Owen Hurst spoke in objection to the application.

 

Cllr Sheila Parker, Box Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

 

The Planning Area Team Leader introduced the application which was for a proposed 4G equipment installation for Box Tunnel. It was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report an additional condition recommended in the Late Observations. It was explained that the application had been deferred from a previous meeting to allow investigation of four issues: the line of sight through Box Tunnel and the location of the telecommunications mast, alternative locations considered, the ability to use cabling to achieve the same coverage as a mast, and the need for enhanced emergency services coverage in the tunnel above Network Rail communications technology.

 

The Team Leader explained that the applicant was satisfied the proposed location would allow extended coverage, and a map to illustrate this was shown. It was highlighted that Appendix 2 to the report demonstrated alternative mast locations that had been considered and it was emphasised that nearby land was owned by Network Rail which was not obliged to give up its land for the siting of a mast. Members understood that the applicant had advised that cabling would not be suitable in the Box Tunnel as an alternative to a mast; there would also be negative impacts upon the heritage asset of such cabling. It was also confirmed that that Network Rail’s communication technology was not available to the emergency services which would benefit from improved coverage as a result of the proposal. Officers recommended the application be approved due to the benefits of extended coverage in this ‘not spot’ outweighing the negative implications of the proposal.

 

The Committee was invited to ask technical questions, in response to which it was confirmed that information about the viability of cabling had been submitted by the applicant in writing. It was also explained that Network Rail were not obligated to assist in providing alternative options for emergency service coverage. The officer confirmed that other locations for the mast had been explored, as detailed in the report, and the proposed location would allow for improved coverage in the tunnel.

 

Members of the public then spoke as detailed above.

 

The local member, Cllr Brian Mathew, stated that following legal advice he was not attending this meeting as a Committee member to avoid any perception of bias or predetermination since he has previously campaigned against this application. Cllr Mathew spoke only as the local member and cited the many objections raised by local residents to the application. The councillor spoke in favour of using cabling in the tunnel or other locations for the mast to ensure suitable 4G coverage.

 

In the debate that followed, Cllr Hutton, seconded by Cllr Sturgis, moved the officer recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as amended by late items. Members of the Committee expressed disappointment with the response from the applicant that cabling was not a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

42.

17/01623/FUL Dahl Al Misfir, Park Lane, Ford

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Kenneth Carter and Beau Roberts spoke in objection to the application.

 

Keren Worsnop spoke in support of the application.

 

The Team Leader introduced the application which was for the erection of a building for equipment and tractor storage. It was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions outlined in the report. The location of the site was shown, alongside the proposed elevations of the storage unit. The officer considered that the proposal was not prominent in location, scale or in use of materials and would not have a significant negative impact.

 

There were no technical questions.

 

Members of the public then spoke as detailed above.

 

The local member, Baroness Scott of Bybrook OBE, spoke against the application on the grounds that it was not in the style of a typical agricultural building. The councillor also considered the building to be in a sensitive location and questioned whether the piece of land was being used for agriculture.

 

In response to points raised in the public forum, the Team Leader confirmed that a previous decision by a Planning Inspector that had been referred to in respect of this site, only applied to the residential curtilage and not the agricultural area of the site.

 

In the debate that followed, the Committee agreed that the application was not suitable for the site, and it was felt that there was not evidence of agricultural use on the site which had been levelled, and that the style of the proposal was out of character for its proposed use and siting. Members agreed that the issues of the glazing, doors, roofing, and log stores would need to be addressed to make the application suitable.

 

Cllr Sturgis, moved that authority be delegated to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to the receipt of a design to address the aforementioned issues, and conditions to restrict later amendments to the development, a requirement that it only be used for agricultural storage and that no external lighting be permitted. It was also requested that it be investigated by the Council’s Enforcement Team as to whether the site had undergone alterations without consent. The motion was seconded by Cllr Greenman. In response to questions from the Committee, the Team Leader advised that under such a delegation the revised plans would be consulted on and would come back to this committee if they did not accord with the recommended changes.

 

Resolved:

 

To DELEGATE authority to the Head of Development Management Services to grant planning permission subject to design alterations as follows:-

 

-           Remove fenestration and glazing to door opening;

-           Alter door design to single panel without exposed oak frame;

-           Remove both log stores lean too structures;

-           Alter roof design to standard agricultural building roof material e.g. onduline  or eternit profiled sheets;

 

And subject to conditions to be determined by officers, including an amendment to condition 3 to restrict the use of the building to agricultural usage, and additional conditions to restrict external  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

43.

17/00446/FUL-54 Chestnut Springs, Lydiard Millicent SN5 3NB

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Tony Jones, Tom Pepperell and Vernon Montgomery spoke in objection to the application.

 

Edward Tucker spoke in favour of the application.

 

The Team Leader introduced the application which was for alterations to a property including: raising of roof height to accommodate a new first floor, single storey rear extension and front roof extension and conversion of a garage into utility and kitchen extension. It was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Photos of the streetscene and proposed elevation of the application were shown. Members were advised that the area was of mixed character with both single and two storey properties, officers considered there would not be significant loss in residential amenity or harm to the character and appearance of the area, or the property itself, as a result of the development.

 

There were no technical question.

 

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

 

The local member, Cllr Mollie Groom, spoke in objection to the application on the grounds of loss of neighbouring amenity.

 

In response to comments from the public forum, the Team Leader confirmed that planning permissions did not set a precedent and there was no record of a similar application on this site.

 

In the debate that followed, members discussed the merits of a site visit and it was considered that the bungalow in question was close to neighbouring properties. The Committee considered the benefits of retaining the dwelling as a bungalow, noted the mixed character of properties in the locality and considered the implications of a results at appeal given those circumstances. Cllr Sturgis, seconded by Cllr Hutton, moved the officer recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Members debated the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties and the location of other two-storey dwellings nearby.

 

Resolved:

 

To GRANT planning permission 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: Drawing No.16/CHEST.1/P-02 Rev B received 16.01.17

 

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

 

3.    INFORMATIVE TO APPLICANT:

Any alterations to the approved plans, brought about by compliance with Building Regulations or any other reason must first be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before commencement of work.

 

4.    INFORMATIVE TO APPLICANT:

The applicant is requested to note that this permission does not affect any private property rights and therefore does not authorise the carrying out of any work on land outside their control. If such works are required it will be necessary for the applicant to obtain the landowners consent before such works commence. If you intend carrying out works in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

44.

17/00118/FUL+ 17/00420/LBC- 8 The Forty, Cricklade SN6 6HR

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Andrew Pywell and Mr and Mrs Lally spoke in support of the application.

 

Cllr John Coole, Cricklade Town Council, spoke in support of the application.

 

The Team Leader introduced the application which was for the removal of an existing timber single storey porch to the rear of the property and the construction of a new single storey extension. It was recommended that planning permission and listed building consent be refused for the reason set out in the report in respect of the impact upon the listed building and its setting.

 

In response to technical questions by the Committee, it was confirmed that a previous application for this property had come to Committee and that officers also considered the current proposal to cause significant harm to the listed building. It was noted that the Committee was able to explore the benefit of making the property suitable for modern living accommodation.

 

Members of the public then spoke as detailed above.

 

The local member Cllr Bob Jones spoke in support of the application on the grounds that the benefit of the proposals would outweigh the harm, it was also considered that the third floor of the property was not usable space.

 

In the debate that followed, councillors considered that the proposal would not negatively impact upon the streetscene, which it was considered was the principle reason why the property had originally been listed, and that the proposals would enhance the property. Cllr Hutton, seconded by Cllr Grant moved that authority be delegated to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission and listed building consent, subject to standard conditions and informatives. The Committee felt the proposal would secure optimum viable use for the property and any identifiable harm would be outweighed by the use. Councillors expressed disappointment that the conservation officer had not undertaken a site visit.

 

Resolved:

 

To DELEGATE authority to the Head of Development Management Services to approve Full Planning Permission and grant Listed Building Consent subject to appropriate and necessary conditions;

 

REASON:

 

The identified harm to the heritage asset is outweighed by the benefit arising from securing the optimum viable use of the building as a residential property and family home which has been considered and weighed in the balance in accordance with paras 132 & 134 of the NPPF and found to accord with the requirements of Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015) Core Policy 58.

45.

16/08756/FUL Springfield Farm Kington Lane Stanton St Quintin

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Andrew Miles spoke in support of the application.

 

The Team Leader introduced the application which was for the change of use of a building and land to Class B8 use, and construction of new vehicular access. It was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions outlined in the report. The officer drew attention to the Late Observations and showed the location of the site, photographs of existing buildings, proximity to residential properties and the proposed new access. It was noted that the routing of vehicles accessing the site would be conditioned. Officers drew attention to the site history and identified the existence of Certificates of Lawfulness unrestricted by any conditions which allowed similar uses at the site to that proposed in the application.

 

In response to technical questions the data in respect of anticipated vehicular movements was explained. The officer advised that Highways Engineers was satisfied that the roads could sustain the vehicle use and photographs were shown. It was highlighted that a ‘Certificate of Lawfulness’ was currently in place on the site which meant there was currently no limit on vehicular use. The officer confirmed that the Yard Management Plan and Traffic Management Plan would be included as part of any permission and would be enforceable.

 

Members of the public then spoke as detailed above.

 

The local member, Cllr Howard Greenman, spoke in objection to the application due to the increased vehicular use of the site in comparison to the current occupants, and concern over the enforceability of the conditions.

 

In the debate that followed, Cllr Peter Hutton, seconded by Cllr Sturgis, moved the officer recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

 

Cllr O’Neill declared an interest in the item due to a personal interest arising from a family member previously being employed by the applicant. The councillor did not participate in the debate or the vote.

 

Members commended that the proposed traffic route would be self-enforcing as it was the route to the M4 motorway, and that the access to the site was in the corner of the village, away from school parking. Other comments expressed some concern as to the impact of traffic to and from the site.

 

Resolved:

 

To GRANT planning permission 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:

TMP/101/030/001 REV P0 Received 07 March 2017

Traffic Management and Yard Operations Plan for Springfield Farm Received 07

March 2017

CDF/PL/006 REV P0 Received 07 March 2017

CDF/PL/007 REV P0 Received 07 March 2017

DOUBLE SIDED REFLECTIVE SOUND SCREEN FITTED TO TIMBER POSTS Received 27/02/2017

ABSORBENT SOUND SCREEN FITTED INTO STEEL POSTS Received 27/02/2017

NOISE  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

46.

Urgent Items

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency.

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.

 

Actions

Search

This website