Browse

Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Ben Fielding  Email: benjamin.fielding@wiltshire.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

70.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor David Bowler, who arranged for Councillor Bob Jones MBE to attend as a substitute.

71.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve as a true and correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 August 2021.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 August 2021 were presented for consideration, and it was

 

Resolved:

 

To approve and sign as a true and correct record of the minutes of the meeting held on 18 August 2021.

72.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

Councillor Elizabeth Threlfall declared that though allegations had been made towards herself regarding Item 7a, she had only been representing local residents and would approach the vote in a fair and openminded manner.

 

Councillor Tony Trotman declared an interest in Item 7d due to being part of Calne Town Council and would not take part in the vote.

73.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

Minutes:

74.

Public Participation

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 Monday 13 September 2021.

 

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.

 

Those submitting statements would be expected to join the online meeting to read the statement themselves, or to provide a representative to read the statement on their behalf.

 

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 8 September 2021 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 10 September 2021.

 

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.

Minutes:

No questions had been received from councillors of members of the public.

 

The Chairman welcomed all present. He then explained the rules of public participation and the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

75.

Planning Appeals and Updates

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

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman moved that the Committee note the contents of the appeals report included within the agenda. It was,

 

Resolved:

 

To note the Planning Appeals Update Report for 15 September 2021.

76.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine the following planning applications:

Minutes:

77.

PL/2021/03412 - Unit 10, 11 & 12, Callow Park, Callow Hill, Brinkworth, SN15 5FD

Change of use of B1(a), B1(b) areas to sui generis use of, car auction room storage facility with members area and reception. (B8 use class to remain) including extensions and alterations to the units.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Andrew Fleet spoke in objection of the application.

Tony Apps spoke in objection of the application.

Tim Mayneord spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Owen Gibbs spoke on behalf of Brinkworth Parish Council.

 

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which outlined the Change of use of B1(a), B1(b) areas to sui generis use of car

auction room storage facility with members area and reception. (B8 use class to remain) including extensions and alterations to the units.

 

Details were provided of the site including the principle of development, impact on the character, appearance and visual amenity of the locality/open countryside, impact on residential amenity, impact on highways/parking requirement, impact on heritage assets (archaeology).

 

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on the current operational hours of the units as well as the proposed extension of hours, as well as clarity regarding when the current conditions had previously been applied to unit 10.

 

Clarity was also sought regarding the permitted number of visitors each day, as well as whether vehicles would be permitted to be test driven and whether noise would be limited by conditions.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

 

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Elizabeth Threlfall, then spoke regarding the application. Key points included doubts regarding the business model with the virtual nature of the business meaning that buyers wouldn’t view or start the car before purchasing. Councillor Threlfall cited that the design and access statement suggested two journeys in and out of the site for vehicles, however this would potentially ignore trips out of site for car maintenance.

 

Additionally, Councillor Threlfall questioned whether the three permitted members a day would include members of the P1 club and additionally it was unclear how visitor numbers would be monitored. Councillor Threlfall also stated concerns regarding the potential extension of opening hours from 8am-8pm, citing that in the summer this would be time for families to be outdoors, as well as the road being part of the Sus-Trans cycle way.

 

At the start of the debate a motion to move and accept the officer recommendation was moved by Councillor Chuck Berry and seconded by Councillor Grant. An amendment was accepted to Condition 3 regarding the permitted hours of operation for units 10,11 and 12. Additionally, it was agreed to amend Condition 5 to provide clarity regarding the three permitted daily visitors. Furthermore, a friendly amendment proposed by Councillor Bucknell to add a condition to prevent gathering events from being arranged was accepted.

 

During the debate the issues included, such as the opening hours of the units and whether these could be altered to appease both the applicant and public. It was also questioned as who would constitute the three visitors to the site a day. Concern was also raised regarding potential gatherings that might be organised on site 28 days per annum under  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

78.

19/12002/FUL - Land Off Common Road, Corston

Erection of 4 dwellings.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Angeli Dunkerley was unable to attend the meeting, therefore Democratic Services Officer Ben Fielding read out a statement that had been provided prior to the meeting in objection of the application.

Peter Gray spoke in objection of the application.

Ann Skinner spoke in objection of the application.

Sam Croft spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Roger Budgen spoke on behalf of St Paul Malmesbury Without Parish Council.

 

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which outlined the erection of four dwellings.

 

Details were provided of the site including the principle of development/development plan compliance, ecological impact, drainage impact, highways impact, impact on the character, appearance and visual amenity of the locality, impact on residential amenity.

 

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on the case law within the officer’s report and how the housing shortfall figures that were referenced would compare to Wiltshire, additionally that the housing land supply shortfall would not impact the recommendation for approval. It was also stated by Lee Burman that an Inspector at appeal would likely approve this application.

 

It was clarified that the ecology and Natural England reports had not raised objections to the application. It was stated that this site had not been approved to be a site within the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Area Plan, nor the Wiltshire allocation plan. Clarification was sought between the difference of the terms “infill” and “greenfield” site. It was also questioned where the Right of Way was located on the presentation provided.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

 

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Martin Smith, then spoke regarding the application. Key points included that this is only one of two local nature reserves in North Wiltshire, which would mean potentially halving biodiversity numbers. Additionally, Councillor Smith cited the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust where the need to where possible direct developments away from sensitive locations was drawn upon. It was also referenced that Natural England raised concerns about water levels in the pond being disrupted, which was not mentioned along with the mitigation of flooding to house No.6.

 

Councillor Smith also questioned whether the nature of this development was sustainable, citing that Corston is isolated with infrequent public transport and little local employment or services. Given the evidence provided, Councillor Smith did notbelieve that the benefits outweighed the harm of the case.

 

At the start of the debate a motion to reject the officer recommendation was move by Councillor Grant and seconded by Councillor Smith, with the reasoning that the proposal conflicted with CP2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy that seeks to limit development in small villages to infill within the existing built area. Councillor Bucknell offered a friendly amendment regarding the reasons for refusal, which was accepted, on the grounds that the application conflicted with CP51 and CP50 that seek to conserve and enhance the landscape and protect features of nature  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

78a

21/01153/FUL - Land at Dyers Close, Chippenham

Demolition of existing garages; erection of detached bungalow with associated garage/parking and landscaped curtilage area and public turning space.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Mark Humphrey spoke in objection of the application

Peter Crozier spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Matthew Short spoke on behalf of Chippenham Town Council.

 

Development Management Team Leader, Simon Smith presented a report which outlined the demolition of existing garages; erection of detached bungalow with associated garage/parking and landscaped curtilage area and public turning space.

 

Details were provided of the site including the principle of development, design and layout, impact on amenity, impact on highways, impact on heritage assets, impact on ecology, impact on drainage.

 

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought as to whether the property had windows that overlooked the property at the rear. It was additionally clarified that the area which acted as a turning head at the top of the road was owned, but had been agreed to be for resident’s use. The use of the garages for residents in the locality was also questioned as well as when this would have been filed for original consent.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

 

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Liz Alstrom, then spoke regarding the application.Key points included that a gap between the hedging along the property which was an entrance way to property No.13 had been omitted from the applicant’s proposed plans, which were formulated without prior consultation and included intention to create a new parking space directly in front of the No.13 entrance. The loss of off-street parking would mean having to find space in a neighbouring street, therefore exacerbating the local parking issue; whilst also being impractical to the owner of No.13 who is registered as disabled.

 

Additionally, Councillor Alstrom noted that the area proposed in the plans would not allow vehicles to turn, consequently causing road users to have to reverse, which would not be safe.

 

At the start of the debate a motion to move and accept the officer recommendation was moved by Councillor Trotman and seconded by Councillor Puntis. An amendment was agreed that an Informative would be added that the Council would have an expectation that the applicant would deliver alternative off-street parking arrangements for No.13 Dyers Close to replace that lost through development taking place.   

 

During the debate issues included: whether it would be possible to arrange for a designated parking area for the residents of No.13 if the application was to be approved along with the potential for conditions. Additionally, potential enforcement was discussed as well as what might be the consequences of a potential breach of condition. It was also stressed that the civil matter within the application would remain outside of the planning process.

 

At the conclusion of the debate, it was,

 

Resolved:

 

That planning permission be GRANTED in accordance with the recommendation set out in the report, with the following additional informative:

 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78a

79.

21/02390/FUL - Potters Field, Recreation Ground, Anchor Road, Calne

Relocation of existing rugby pitch on the Recreation Ground to former football pitch on Potters Field. Erection of 1.5m high permanent perimeter fencing & 4.5/6.0m high ball-stop netting. Installation of shipping container for storage use.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Angel Lopes spoke in objection of the application

Paul Gill spoke in objection of the application

 

Development Management Team Leader, Simon Smith presented a report which outlined the relocation of existing rugby pitch on the Recreation Ground to former football pitch on Potters Field. Erection of 1.5m high permanent perimeter fencing & 4.5/6.0m high ball-stop netting. Installation of shipping container for storage use.

 

Details were provided of the site including the principle of development, design and layout, impact on neighbouring properties’ amenity, highways impacts.

 

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on which area of the application restrictions to temporary floodlighting would apply and whether this could be extended to cover the whole application as well as being delegated to officers. Additionally, the potential raising of the land was questioned due to the pitch dressing that would take place as well as the potential need for cross-sections to be provided.

 

Furthermore, it was clarified that it was the net and pole permissions that were being applied for as well as that the rugby team would be moved across to Potters Field in order for the Recreation Ground to be developed as a formal garden.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

 

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Ian Thorn, then spoke regarding the application. Key points included that the proposal was to create a private enclosed space within a public park to be used by a private club with a fee-based membership, therefore allowing no access to the wider community or residents. Councillor Thorn noted that funding for this proposal would come from a Section 106 agreement, which stipulated that funding would have to support and provide a resource for the community, however in this case the beneficiaries may only be the rugby club. Councillor Thorn questioned whether a condition could be placed in order to grant the wider community access.

 

Additionally, Councillor Thorn drew upon the Calne Neighbourhood plan, which aims to retain community facilities as well as to protect public space and parkland. These principles would be affected by both the privatisation of the area with the use of fencing as well as by placing a shipping container within the most attractive part of Calne town centre. Floodlighting was also identified as an issue for nearby residents.

 

At the start of the debate a motion to move and accept the officer recommendation was moved by Councillor Ashley O’Neill and seconded by Councillor Chuck Berry. An amendment was accepted to Condition 3, to state that no floodlighting would be placed on any of the land subject to the application. Additionally, a further amendment was agreed to state that no development would take place until full and complete details of any change to land level were submitted.

 

During the debate issues included: the health concerns caused by dog walkers not picking up after themselves and the need for a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

80.

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.