Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Brian Mathew.

Cllr Brian Mathew was substituted by Cllr Ruth Hopkinson.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2019.

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2020 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 Ashley O’Neill declared an interest in agenda item no. 7b (he grew up in Lacock and a resident sharing the same surname objected to the application, though this was not someone he knew personally). He declared he would participate in the debate and vote for 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 26 March 2020 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on28 March 2020. 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:

The Committee considered the following applications:

Public participation

Lesley Jefferson, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Rebecca Palmer, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Ben Pearce, Land Development & Planning Consultants Ltd, spoke in objection to the application.

Richard Harlow, the agent, spoke in support to the application.

The Planning Officer, Simon Smith, introduced a report which recommended granting planning permission and listed building consent, subject to conditions, for the demolition of an existing single storey extension and the erection of a replacement the single storey extension with internal works.

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

Key issues highlighted included: principle of the development; impact upon neighbour amenity; highways and parking; heritage and scale of extension.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on: compatibility with adjoining businesses; lack of rear access; the size and scale of extension; impact on the adjoining residential property; impact on the listed building and whether the application falls into A1 retail use class.

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

detailed above.

Cllr Ruth Hopkinson, Division Member, spoke regarding the application with the main points focusing on: compatibility with adjoining businesses; lack of rear access; ventilation and odours; traffic and parking concerns; hazardous waste; overdevelopment of the site; impact on the listed building; impact on a historical and heritage site; the Corsham Neighbourhood Plan; impact on local amenity and the lack of engagement from the applicant.

The Planning Officer addressed some of the issues raised by the public and local members with the main points focusing on: whether the application falls into A1 retail use class; whether the application sought a change of use; hazardous waste; mechanical ventilation and the applicant’s hours of work.

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Cllr Hutton, seconded by Cllr Toby Sturgis, to grant planning permission as detailed in the report.

During the debate the main points raised were: whether the application falls into A1 retail use class; traffic and parking concerns; applicant engagement with residents; the Corsham Neighbourhood Plan; the design of the application; impact on the listed building; the scale of the application; similar applications in nearby towns; impact on the conservation area; whether the application sought a change of use; compatibility with adjoining businesses and lack of rear access

impact on the adjoining residential property.

Following the debate, the motion was defeated.

A proposal was then moved by Cllr Gavin Grant, seconded by Cllr Howard Greenman, to refuse planning permission contrary to the officer’s report.

This motion was carried.

A proposal was then moved by Cllr Gavin Grant, seconded by Cllr Chris Hurst, to refuse listed building consent contrary to the officer’s report.

Resolved

That planning permission and Listed Building Consent be refused for the following reason:

19/09183/FUL:

By reason of its design, scale and extent to which it fills the rear yard, the proposed extension  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Public participation

Mark Funnel, the National Trust, spoke in objection to the application.

Des Seal, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Mark Johns, the applicant, spoke in support to the application.

Samuel Croft, the agent, spoke in support to the application.

John Bolden, Vice-Chair of Lacock Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Simon Smith, introduced a report which recommended granting planning permission and listed building consent, subject to conditions, for a proposed ground floor and upper ground floor extension.

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

Key issues highlighted included: principle of development; design and scale; impact upon a listed building and the conservation area; impact on residential amenity and highways and parking.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on: the design and scale of the application and the materials used in the construction for the external surfaces and their design.

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

detailed above.

Cllr Ben Anderson, Division Member, spoke regarding the application with the main points focusing on: the massing, size and scale of the application; the unique and distinctive character of the local area; the impact on the wider area; overdevelopment of the site; impact on neighbourhood amenity; impact on the listed building and the lack of public benefit.

The Planning Officer addressed some of the issues raised by the public and local members with the main point focusing on the Committee’s responsibility to compare the applications harm with its public benefit.

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Cllr Peter Hutton, seconded by Cllr Tony Trotman to grant planning permission as detailed in the report and subject to additional conditions regarding the construction of external surfaces.

During the debate the main points raised were: the public benefit of the application; the impact on neighbouring residential properties; the size and scale of the application; the impact on the Old Chapel; the construction for the external surfaces and their design; impact on neighbour amenity; impact upon a listed building and the conservation area; the unique and distinctive character of the local area and the weight of the views of those that are entrusted with the area’s conservation.

Following the debate, the motion was defeated.

A proposal was then moved by Cllr Grant, seconded by Cllr Greenman, to refuse planning permission contrary to the officer’s report.

This motion was carried.

A proposal was then moved by Cllr Grant, seconded by Cllr Greenman, to refuse listed building consent, contrary to the officer’s report.

This motion was carried.

Resolved

That planning permission and Listed Building Consent be refused for the following reason:

19/0842/FUL:

By reason of its design, massing, height above the existing roof and materials to be used, the box shaped garage extension element of the proposal would be out of character in the Conservation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Public participation

Gary Brain, local resident, spoke in support to the application.

The Planning Officer, Simon Smith, introduced a report which recommended refusing planning permission for the erection of an open timber cart barn.

Key issues highlighted included: principle of development; appropriateness of development in a green belt site and harm to the openness; impact on rural landscape and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; residential amenity and highways safety.

There were no technical questions.

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

detailed above.

Cllr Ruth Hopkinson, on behalf of the Division Member, spoke regarding the application with the main points focusing on the material differences of the application to a previously refused scheme; that it was in keeping with surrounding architecture; tree retention; the lack of objection and the support of the parish council and the covering of parked cars within the estate.

The Planning Officer addressed some of the issues raised by the public and local members with the main points focusing on permitted development rights.

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Cllr Tony Trotman, seconded by Cllr Christine Crisp to refuse planning permission as detailed in the report.

During the debate the main points raised were: the impact on the rural landscape and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the appropriateness of development on a green belt site.

Resolved

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed building is considered to represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful. The proposal is contrary to Section 13, paragraphs 143, 144, 145 & 146 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    The proposal, by reason of its scale and location, would result in an intrusive element, encroaching into the countryside contrary to Core Strategy Policy 51 criteria ii, iii vi & ix that require the protection of important landscape character and Core Strategy Policy 57 criteria i, iii & vi which requires development to respond to landscape features and relate well to its surroundings. It is also contrary to Section 12, paragraph 127 and Section 15, paragraph 172, of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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.