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. View directions

Contact: Libby Johnstone  Email: libby.johnstone@wiltshire.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

76.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Brian Mathew, substituted by Cllr Bill Douglas, and from Cllr Chuck Berry, substituted by Cllr Jacqui Lay.

77.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 9 August 2017.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 August 2017 were presented.

 

Resolved:

 

To approve as a true and correct record and sign the minutes.

 

78.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

Cllr Toby Sturgis and Cllr Chris Hurst declared later in the meeting for the purposes of transparency under item 7c) 17/05625/FUL they had previously used the services of the same architect Charles Manning, however were no longer in a contractual relationship.

 

Cllr Hurst advised he would not participate in the debate or vote on this item.

79.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chairman.

Minutes:

The Chairman advised he would allow speakers for applications in respect of Land North of Bath Rd, Corsham, item 7a an additional minute each to allow statements to cover both applications on this site.

80.

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 Wednesday 30 August 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 1 September. 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.

 

81.

Planning Appeals and Updates

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

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The Committee noted the contents of the appeals update.

82.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Supporting documents:

83.

16/03721/REM and 16/04544/REM Land North of Bath Road, Corsham

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Tony Clark, David Taylor and Nigel Jackson spoke in objection to the applications.

 

Mathew Cowley and Jenny Mitter spoke in favour of the applications.

 

Nevil Farmer, Corsham Town Council, spoke in objection to the applications.

 

The Chairman advised the planning officers would give a presentation covering both applications on this site, however two separate resolutions would be required.

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the reserved matters applications relating to the residential development for 150 units and associated works, and also reserved matters related to the access, appearance, layout and scale of the proposed employment units on the site. Both applications were recommended for permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the reports.

 

The officer showed site location plans and photographs, a historic mine shaft and Public Right of Way crossing the site were identified. Details of layout, affordable housing plans, boundary treatments, materials, elevations of the employment unit, office layout plan and landscaping were provided. Attention was drawn to the Late Observations which included legal advice in relation to licensing matters and officers advised the Committee was able to determine the applications with the information before it. The officer explained the landscaping, layout, appearance and scale of the applications were the issues under consideration in these reserved matters applications.

 

The Committee was invited to ask technical questions, in response to which it was confirmed Outline planning permission for the two applications had been granted at Appeal. The Planning Inspector had given only 1 year for implementation following approval of the last of the approved matters and if the applications were approved at this meeting the 1 year time limit would start; if pre-commencement conditions were not discharged within one year, the permission would expire.

 

Members of the pubic then spoke as detailed above.

 

The local member, Cllr Ruth Hopkinson, highlighted the significant objections that had been raised by local residents and the Town Council.

 

In response to queries raised in the public forum, officers confirmed that matters in respect of ecology and the safeguarding of minerals were conditioned under the Outline permission. Likewise, access arrangements to the site had been agreed under the previous permission. It was understood the Council’s drainage engineers were satisfied with drainage provision on the site. Officers acknowledged it was unfortunate that a tree on the site commemorating the sacrifice of local people in World War I was to be removed.

 

In the debate that followed on 16/03721/REM Cllr Hutton moved the officer’s recommendation, which was seconded by Cllr Sturgis. Members considered whether the design of the residential dwellings was in keeping with the Corsham Neighbourhood Plan and the weight of that Plan since it had not yet been adopted. It was acknowledged that design was a subjective element and what some members might find acceptable, others would not. It was argued the design did not cause significant harm to the historic environment and a similar development by Redrow at Sutton Benger had been of good quality. It was noted the Council had originally refused Outline  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

84.

17/03035/REM Land at Former Blounts Court Nursery, Studley, SN11 9NQ

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Ioan Rees, Richard Fitter, Richard Aylen spoke in objection to the application.

 

Emma Geater spoke in support of the application.

 

Keith Robbins, Calne Without Parish Council, raised a number of concerns about the development.

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application which was a reserved maters application in respect of scale, layout, external appearance and landscaping for the erection of 53 dwellings, public open space and associated infrastructure. The application was recommended for permission subject to planning conditions, as amended by late observations. It was highlighted that outline planning permission had already been granted for up to 53 units on the site. Site location maps and photographs were shown, including photographs of neighbouring development and style of housing. The officer considered the proposal offered very good residential amenity and separation from neighbouring properties. It was acknowledged the proposed design of housing was different in appearance to dwellings in Studley, but not compared to closer developments.

 

The Committee was invited to ask technical questions, in response to which it was confirmed that driveways of the proposed dwellings would not exit directly onto the A4. Attention was drawn to the Late Observations which proposed an amendment to condition 2.

 

Members of the public then spoke as detailed above.

 

The local member, Cllr Christine Crisp spoke about the history of the site and the benefits of a pedestrian crossing that had been approved as part of the outline permission.

 

In the debate that followed, Cllr Hutton moved the officer’s recommendation, which was seconded by Cllr Stugis. It was commented that outline consent had already been granted and the proposal before the Committee was an acceptable scheme for this site, it was noted that design was a subjective matter and whilst some members did not consider the application to be appropriate, others considered it to feature good landscaping and frontage. Some members of the Committee considered the application was not suitable as a gateway to Studley and recommended further consideration should be given by the developers to the comments of local residents and the parish council to propose a more suitable design. The motion was put to the vote and failed.

 

Cllr Grant, seconded by Cllr Hurst, moved that determination be deferred for two cycles to allow for negotiations with the applicant to address design and layout elements of the scheme. Members of the Committee commented the application was contrary to Core Policy 53. Officers cautioned the Committee against deferring the item as the developer was under no obligation to amend the plans and the Committee needed to specify the design elements it was not satisfied with. Officers therefore recommended the application either be refused or approved and highlighted Studley was not a separate settlement to Derry in the context of the Core Strategy and that any refusal of the application on this basis could not be defended at Appeal.

 

Members commented there were constraints on the developer as to the changes that could be made, however the Committee felt the development was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

85.

17/05625/FUL Land between 18 & 19 Avils Lane, Lower Stanton St Quintin, SN14 6BY

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Gil Schwenk, Paul Craven and Murray Walker spoke in objection to the application.

 

Mr Vitale and Charles Manning spoke in favour of the application.

 

Cllr John Seale, Stanton St Quinton Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application for a new dwelling and garage, noting the proposed change of use of a small area of the rear paddock to residential curtilage had been removed from the scheme. The application was recommended for permission, subject to the planning conditions outlined in the report. A site location plan, photographs and details of the proposed plans was provided. The officer drew attention to the extant outline permission which already existed on the site.

 

The Committee was invited to ask technical questions, in response to which it was confirmed a condition was in place to secure a scheme of drainage on site. Additionally, officers advised permitted development rights could be removed from the garage should the Committee consider it would affect amenity.

 

Members of the public then spoke as detailed above.

 

The local member, Cllr Howard Greenman, spoke in objection to the application.

 

In response to statements from the public and the local member the Senior Planning Officer advised there was a proposed condition on the application to prevent the use of the garage for residential accommodation. It was also highlighted the plans presented at outline stage for point of access were only indicative.

 

Cllrs Hurst and Sturgis declared interests in this item as detailed above.

 

In the debate that followed members agreed that slab levels should be as low as possible since they would be higher than the adjacent plot. Cllr Hutton, seconded by Cllr Sturgis, moved the officer’s recommendation with an amendment to a condition on drainage to ensure that slab levels and drainage be kept as low as possible.

 

Resolved:

 

To GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions, including an amendment to drainage conditions to require low drainage and slab levels, the wording of which was DELEGATED to officers:

 

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:

892/CAM/2017/1 rev A - Elevations & Floor Plans

Received 31 July 2017

 

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 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 application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and the matter is required to be agreed with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

86.

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