Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Steve Bucknell, who had arranged for Councillor Jacqui Lay to attend the meeting in his absence.

To approve as a true and correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 15 September 2021 .

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 September 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 15 September 2021.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman made those in attendance aware of the Covid regulations that were in place for the meeting.

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 11 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 6 October 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 8 October 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.

No questions had been received from councillors or 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.

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

Councillor Gavin Grant moved that the Committee note the contents of the appeals report included within the agenda. It was seconded by Councillor Martin Smith.

Resolved:

To note the Planning Appeals Update Report for 13 October 2021.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The Committee considered and determined the following planning applications:

Partial redevelopment to provide new warehouse development (Class B8) and ancillary design and administration accommodation (Class E(g)) and associated works.

Public Participation

Simon Chambers spoke in support of the application.

Andrew Maltby spoke in support of the application.

Graeme Slaymaker spoke on behalf of Hullavington Parish Council.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which outlined a partial redevelopment to provide a new warehouse development (Class B8) and ancillary design and administration accommodation (Class E(g)) and associated works.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development, scale, design and impact upon the character of the area, impacts upon the amenity of the area, access and parking, impact on highways. Attention was drawn to the agenda supplement, which was published as a late report in relation to Item 7a.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were clarified that it had been the parish of St Pauls Malmesbury without who had shown support for the application, rather than the parish of Crudwell. It was questioned whether the proposal was consistent with the Hullavington neighbourhood plan, as well as with the Wiltshire Core Strategy and Spatial vision for Wiltshire; Lee Burman clarified that the proposal was not in accordance with Core Policies 1, 2, 10 and 34 of the WCS as well as not being in accordance with the Hullavington neighbourhood plan. It was additionally clarified that though the site is vacant it’s extant use remained a horticultural site, there was however no detail available as to why the previous operation ceased and at what date.The officer also clarified that from a Highways perspective, the access arrangements as well as the nearby dip in the road and low bridge had been rigorously tested at length, with the Highways team content on the proposal. It was also clarified that regarding the site’s historical use, the proposed application’s traffic movement generated would not be substantively different to that in the past.

Additional technical questions were asked regarding the late report that was provided, which drew attention to the availability and suitability of the site at Malmesbury Garden Centre, amongst others.The officer explained to members that though thereare constraints at the Malmesbury Garden Centre Site, there is no absolute barrier to the site accommodating the proposed use and it would be a matter of agreement between the parties involved and that this would be at the owner’s discretion; therefore though it wouldn’t be immediately available, the legal covenants would not be an absolute bar on use.Further questions were also asked regarding whether the permission of the site was restricted to be a horticultural site only, and additionally what Class B8 and Class (E(G)) meant for the application.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Nick Botterill, then spoke regarding the application. Key points included that the application had received wide ranging support and had not faced opposition from a range of bodies including Wiltshire Economic Development,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Erection of agricultural building and yard: alterations to access.

Public Participation

Peter Osgood spoke in objection of the application.

Stuart Masson spoke in objection of the application.

Henry Meakin spoke in objection of the application.

Marc Willis spoke in support of the application.

Marcus Smith spoke in support of the application.

Chris Pope spoke on behalf of Lea and Cleverton Parish Council.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which outlined the erection of an agricultural building and yard along with alterations to access.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development, impact to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the locality, impact to residential amenity, impact to heritage assets, impact to highways.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on whether conditions had been proposed by the planning officer to mitigate any potential noise created. It was noted that conditions had been included in the officer’s recommendation to mitigate noise production, such as use of hedgerows, boundary trees and timber fencing. Additionally, it was noted that Condition 6 of the recommendation would limit the hours of operation for woodwork machinery.

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 that the application had originally been called to committee by Councillor Threlfall’s predecessor, Councillor Toby Sturgis due to vagueness in the original application documents as well as local concerns, which had since been addressed by a further information submission.The risk, if refused by the Committee, of the application being granted by appeal without imposing any conditions to compromise between the applicant and objectors was acknowledged.Additionally, Councillor Threlfall acknowledged that agricultural and forestry work would be permitted normally however to mitigate concerns of neighbours, additional tree planting to the east of the site would help further mitigate impact and Condition 8 could be used.

At the start of the debate a motion to accept the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Chuck Berry and seconded by Councillor Howard Greenman.

During the debate issues included that the nature of the business, if the planning application was to be granted, would be sustainable in the respect that it would be in close walking distance of the applicant’s home. It was also acknowledged that if the application was to go to appeal, it would more than likely be approved potentially with significantly less conditions. Following a site visit, it was noted that initially, if approved, the building would stand out however with additional tree planting and screening it wouldn’t be as obvious within the landscape. Additionally, it was agreed that the conditions proposed would be restrictive for the proposed application, with the hours of work restricted and noise attenuation boundary treatment to be completed if approved. It was also  recognised that if these times were to be breached, enforcement could take place toensure that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

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.