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: Stuart Figini  Email: stuart.figini@wiltshire.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

12.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Baroness Scott Bob local division member

 

Cllr Peter Hutton was substituted by Cllr Philip Whalley

 

13.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 16th May 2018.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 May 2018 were presented.

 

Resolved:

 

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

 

14.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 May 2018 were presented.

 

Resolved:

 

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

 

15.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

Minutes:

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

16.

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 6th June 2018 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 8th June 2018. 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.

 

17.

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.

18.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine the following planning applications:

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting and attached to these minutes.

19.

18/03570/FUL - Land Adjacent to Nettleton Baptist Chapel, Nettleton

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Richard Lay, spoke in objection to the application.

Chris Engley-Duffy, spoke in objection to the application.

Susan Leonard, spoke in support of the application.

Emma Madge, spoke in support of the application

Ian Madge, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Jenny Minney, Nettleton Parish Council, spoke in relation the application.

 

The Planning Officer, Lee Burman, introduced a report which recommended that the application be refused.

 

Key issues highlighted included: that the application was the resubmission of an application previously refused; the changes to the application following its resubmission were limited to the offer of entering a S106 agreement to restrict further development at the site; the location of the land outside the settlement boundary within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; the application of relevant core policies; that the officer’s view was that an exception to those policies could not be justified; the planning history on the farm associated with the application; the size and nature of the proposals; the difference between low cost and affordable housing as defined by policy.

 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on: the availability of agricultural residence on the farm connected to the application.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as detailed above.

 

Councillor Toby Sturgis spoke on behalf of the local Division Member, Baroness Jane Scott, who was unable to attend, outlining her views on the proposal.

 

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Councillor Toby Sturgis and seconded by Councillor Christine Crisp that the application be refused for reasons set out in the report.

 

During the debate the main points raised were: that, currently, national and local policy did not support a development on this site; the supply of dwellings in small villages; and the policies that restrict the growth of small villages.

 

At the conclusion of the debate, the meeting unanimously;

 

Resolved:

 

1.    The proposed development, by reason of its location outside of any defined settlement boundary and not being considered to meet the criteria of infill development contained within WCS Core Policy 2, the proposal is contrary to the settlement, delivery and community area strategies and is unacceptable in principle. The proposal fails to accord with Core Policies 1, 2, 10 and 48 of the adopted WCS (Jan 2015), Saved Policy H4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 and Paragraphs 14, 17 and 55 of the NPPF (March 2012).

 

2.    By reason of the location of the application site within the open countryside and AONB, the proposed development would result in the consolidation of the existing loose knit pattern of development and would alter the visual appearance and prevailing rural character of the area. It is not considered that the proposal would integrate effectively into the immediate setting and it would not conserve or enhance the AONB which is afforded great weight. Consequently the proposal is considered contrary to Core Policy 51 (ii,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

20.

17/12507/FUL - Common Road, Ashley

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Dr Chris Bateman, spoke in objection to the application.

Pete Sladden, spoke in objection to the application.

Juliana Beardsmore, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Roger Budgen, St Paul Without Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

 

The Planning Officer, Victoria Griffin, introduced a report which recommended that the permission be granted subject to the conditions listed in the report. The meeting’s attention was drawn to additional consultation views and the proposed revision to condition thirteen as outlined on the late observations circulated in the supplement.

 

Key issues highlighted included: the location of the proposals and the character of the area; the design of the proposal and the current development on the site; the elevation of the site and its access to the highway; the height of the proposals relative to houses in the area; the relationship between the extant permission and the proposed development; the layout of the proposals and the possible landscaping on the site; the mix of materials proposed and the siting of windows and openings and relationship to neighbouring properties and impact on amenities; that the slab levels can be checked, as part of the relevant proposed condition; the views of the drainage engineer; and that boundary treatment and landscaping could be conditioned.

 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on: the application of CP1, 2 and 57, and the provisions of the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan; clarification that permitted development rights were recommended for removal permitted in the proposed conditions; that an alternative ridge height would require permission; whether there was a similarly designed residential property in the area.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as detailed above.

 

Councillor John Thomson, Division Member, spoke in objection to the application.

 

At the start of the debate a proposal to refuse the application was moved by Councillor Gavin Grant and seconded by Councillor Brian Mathew for the reason that the application is contrary to CP57 criteria (i) &(iii) in that the development did not contribute to a sense of place; was wholly out of character with the existing development in the locality; did not correspond to existing pattern of development and topography of the area; and would be contrary to the relevant tasks of the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan and the guidance contained in National Planning Policy Framework.

 

 During the debate the main points raised were: the impact of the proposals on the character of the area; the application of the inspector’s decision; the impact of the proposals on the streetscene;

 

The meeting sought advice from the Area Team Leader (North), Lee Burman, on the wording of the proposal.

 

At the conclusion of the debate, the meeting unanimously;

 

Resolved:

 

That the application be refused for the following reason:-

 

The proposed development by virtue of its scale, mass, form, layout and use of materials would constitute an incongruous feature in the street scene, out of character  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

21.

17/07724/FUL - SW Logistics, Braydon Lane, Chelworth Industrial Estate, Cricklade

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Chris Hodgson, Cricklade Town Council, spoke in relation to the application.

 

The Planning Officer, Lee Burman, introduced the report which recommended that the permission be granted subject to the conditions listed in the report.

 

Key issues highlighted included: the location of the site and its current use; the boundaries and treatments on the site; the relationship of the site in relation to that owned and used by the business; the access arrangements to the site; that the site falls outside but adjacent the development boundary for the settlement of Cricklade but within the area of the existing industrial estate identified in the neighbourhood plan; that unplanned employment sites are able to come forward to expand existing facilities under WCS Cor Policy Cp34 subject to a a range of criteria and other development plan policies; the local concerns about the impact of the proposals in particular in relation to highways, but that the views of highways officer was that the application would not present a severe cumulative impact and was therefore permissible; that a full flood risk assessment had been submitted and considered by the drainage engineers.

 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as detailed above.

 

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Councillor Chuck Berry and seconded by Councillor Howard Greenman to grant permission in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

 

During the debate the main points raised were: the conditions in relation to traffic; that the site must be considered on its own merits; the economic impact of the application; and the impact of the proposals on traffic movements.

 

At the conclusion of the debate, the meeting unanimously;

 

Resolved

 

That 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 and documents:

 

Design and Access Statement

Existing Site location Plan

Elevation and Section Proposed TA 16 071 36 REV A

All Received 08/08/2017

 

Site Location Plans; TA 16 071 20 REV A

Received 5/9/2017

 

Proposed Site Access Arrangements T344/1

PFA Consulting Transport Statement December 2017

Received 15/02/2018

(TA Addendum Statement Received 05/04/2018)

 

Site Location Plan Proposed TA 16 071 30 REV A

GF Warehouse and Ground & first Floor Office Proposed Plans TA 16 071 35 REV B

Site Plan TA 16 071 31 REV A

Received 20/04/2018

 

Flood Risk Assessment BR-533-0005 REV A May 2018

Received 14/05/2018

 

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

 

3.  The development hereby permitted shall not, at any time, be subdivided into a larger number of units.

 

REASON:  To  enable  the  Local  Planning  Authority  to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

22.

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