Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Howard Greenman.

Cllr Howard Greenman was substituted by Cllr Philip Whalley.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 4 March 2020 .

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 4 March 2020 were presented.

Resolved

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 4 March 2020 as a true and correct record.

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

Councillor Ashley O’Neill declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 19/06559/OUT (Agenda Item 7b) as his property resided on the lane leading to the application site and stated he did not hold or own any land involved within the application site, and the application did not materially affect him. Therefore, he would participate in the debate and vote with an open mind.

Councillor Toby Sturgis declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 19/06559/OUT (Agenda Item 7b) by virtue of being the Cabinet Member for Spatial Planning, Development Management and Investment, should Wiltshire Council owned land be involved in any way. He stated that he would participate in the debate and vote with an open mind.

Councillor Philip Whalley declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 19/06559/OUT (Agenda Item 7b) as he stated he had worked professionally on the Corsham Neighbourhood Plan with the agent for the applicant, whose statement was read out by the Democratic Services Officer. He stated he had not discussed or had any dealings with the agent in respect of the application and he would participate in the debate and vote with an open mind.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman explained the procedure should a recess be required.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

During the ongoing COVID-19 situation the Council is operating revised procedures and the public are able to participate in meetings online after registering with the officer named on this agenda, and in accordance with the deadlines below.

Guidance on how to participate in this meeting online

Access the online meeting of the NAPC here

Statements

Members of the public who wish to submit a statement in relation to an item on this agenda should submit this in writing to the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on Friday 2 October 2020.

Submitted statements should:

·       State whom the statement is from (including if representing another person or organisation);

·       State clearly whether the statement is in objection to or support of the application;

·       Be readable aloud in approximately three minutes (for members of the public and statutory consultees) and in four minutes (for parish council representatives – 1 per parish council).

Up to three objectors and three supporters are normally allowed for each item on the agenda, plus statutory consultees and parish councils.

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 electronically to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on Wednesday 30 September 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 on Friday 2 October 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 members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website. Questions and answers will normally be taken as read at the meeting.

The Chairman explained the rules of public participation and the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

No questions had been received from Councillors or members of the public.

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

The Chairman moved that the Committee note the contents of the appeals report included within the agenda pack. As such, it was:

Resolved

To note the appeals report for the period of 21 February 2020 to 25 September 2020.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The Committee considered the following applications:

Development of a Medical Centre (with integral Pharmacy) with associated development, including means of access, access road, diagnostics/ambulance bay, car and cycle parking, bin storage area and hard and soft landscaping.

Public Participation

Emma Hillier, neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Dawn Marshall, neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Dr Tom Rocke, planning consultant and agent, spoke in support of the application.

Dr Simon Church, on behalf of the Patford House Partnership, spoke in support of the application.

Stan Woods, on behalf of the Patford House Partnership Patient Participation Group, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr John Boaler, on behalf of Calne Town Council, spoke in support of the application.

Simon Smith, Development Management Team Leader, introduced a report on the application for the development of a Medical Centre (with integral Pharmacy) with associated development, including means of access, access road, diagnostics/ambulance bay, car and cycle parking, bin storage area, and hard and soft landscaping. Officers recommended delegating to the Head of Development Management to negotiate a suitable design of means of vehicular access arrangements to the site and upon agreement of those satisfactory access arrangements, that planning permission should be granted, subject to conditions. However, if satisfactory access arrangements cannot be agreed within six months of the date of this Committee then planning permission should be refused.

Attention was drawn to the late observation that altered the wording of the recommendation after following advice from a Wiltshire Council solicitor, published as Agenda Supplement 2. It was noted that the recommendation was rather convoluted due to Highway Engineers commenting upon the access points as problematic in terms of visibility and conflicting traffic movements when considering the new Stoke Meadow development opposite the application site.

Key issues highlighted included: principle of development and location; access, parking and highway capacity; design, layout and impact on landscape; impact on neighbour amenity; impact on setting of Grade II listed Vern Leaze; ecology; and archaeology.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer. The main points of focus included: existing drainage issues faced by residents of Fynamore Gardens; Conditions 2 & 14; landscaping along the boundaries between Fynamore Gardens and the application site; and the altered living conditions of the residents living in Fynamore Gardens if approved.

In response, officers noted: that the existing drainage issues would not be exacerbated by the application and suitable drainage solutions would be found, and that the existing vegetation along the boundaries would not be removed and would be added to, specifically denser hedging along the edge of the car park to provide a buffer. It was suggested that an informative could be added in respect to the landscaping along the boundaries to minimise the direct impact of the car park on the living conditions of the residents in Fynamore Gardens; especially those living in Numbers 1 and 3, to which officers agreed.

Members of the public, as detailed above, had the opportunity to address the Committee and speak on the application.

Due to the location of the application site sitting within two divisions (Calne Central and Calne Rural), both Local Unitary Members, Councillors Ian Thorn and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Outline application for the layout and redevelopment of residential site including the demolition of existing structures and erection of up to 3no. dwellings including means of access, with all other matters reserved.

Members took a comfort break from 16:40pm – 16:45pm.

Public Participation

Andrew Bird, neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Leah Gingham, neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

A statement in support of the application from Ben Pearce, agent on behalf of Land Development & Planning Consultants Ltd, was read out by a Democratic Services Officer.

Councillor Glenis Ansell, on behalf of Calne Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Victoria Davis, the Planning Officer, introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, for an outline application for the layout and redevelopment of a residential site including the demolition of the existing structures and erection of up to 3no. dwellings, including means of access, with all other matters reserved.

Key issues highlighted included: principle of the development; and impact on highway safety.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer. In response to a question from the Chairman, it was clarified that there were 7 properties, including the bungalow on the application site, on Beversbrook Lane.

Members of the public, as detailed above, had the opportunity to address the Committee and speak on the application.

Councillor Philip Whalley requested legal advice from Senior Solicitor Vicky Roberts, as he declared that he knew and worked with the agent for the applicant, who had presented a statement to the Committee. On discussion with the Senior Solicitor, Councillor Whalley confirmed he only knew the agent professionally from working on the Corsham Neighbourhood Plan and had no dealings or discussions regarding this application. It was confirmed that as it was a non-pecuniary interest, Councillor Whalley stated that he would participate in the debate and vote with an open mind.

Local Unitary Member Councillor Tom Rounds spoke in objection to the application. The main points of focus were: access concerns in consideration of the single-track lane; impacts on existing occupants of Beversbrook Lane in respect of light, noise and traffic implications if approved; Core Policy’s 51 and 57; and neighbours reportedly sighting bats in the immediate vicinity of the application site.

Officers clarified that the Highway Engineers were satisfied with the highway safety issues. It was also established that although the presence of bats was mentioned in the report in respect of Core Policy 50, the area was not a special bat interest area and no further consultation was required with the Ecology Team. It was noted that this aspect was protected outside of the planning process in separate regulations such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Core Policy 51 was reiterated as relating to landscape impacts when considering tranquillity and natural beauty as opposed to residential setting applications. Reference was made to Condition 5 and the Construction Method Statement which related to construction traffic and it was suggested that additional criteria such as time restrictions, and limitations to vehicle weights and sizes could be included. It was noted that as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

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.