Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Jacqui Lay, who had arranged for Councillor Peter Hutton to attend the meeting in her absence.

To approve as a true and correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 October 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 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 13 October 2021.

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

Councillor Steve Bucknell declared an interest in Item 7g, being the applicant and would therefore leave the room for this item.

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 31 January 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 26 January 2021in 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 28 January 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 2 February 2022.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The Committee considered and determined the following planning applications:

Demolition of former youth centre (D1 Use) and redevelopment to form nine 2 & 3 bedroom dwellings (C3 Use) and associated works.

Senior Planning Officer, Charmian Eyre-Walker, presented a report which outlined the demolition of the former youth centre (D1 Use) and redevelopment to form nine 2- & 3-bedroom dwellings (C3 Use) and associated works.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of the application, loss of the facility, highways matters, drainage, archaeology, design, impact on residential amenity, loss of playing field, impact on heritage assets as well as other matters raised.

Attention was also drawn to the late items agenda supplement, which detailed an additional condition to be attached to the Officer’s recommendation.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were clarified by the Officer that the semi-detached properties with linked garages would have permitted development rights. It was also clarified that provision of replacement facilities was not part of the application, however there are other facilities for youth clubs in Calne, such as Beversbrook. Additionally, the Officer noted that funds could not be put aside to assist in the provision of a replacement facility as this would be subject to a Section 106 agreement. Further technical questions were clarified by the Officer, including that the attenuation pond within the application had been designed by engineers and that there was not a plan for the inclusion of solar panels.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, however there was no registered speakers.

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Ian Thorn provided his apologies of his absence.

At the start of the debate a motion to move and accept the officer’s recommendation, including the additional and revised conditions, was moved by Councillor Peter Hutton and seconded by Councillor Gavin Grant. Following which, it was,

Resolved:

To approve the application in accordance with the officer recommendation and additional and revise conditions as set out in late items and recommended during the meeting as follows: -

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following Approved plans:0001;RevA;100;120RevD;121RevD;125; 26;127;128;129;140;141;145;150RevA received 17th September 2021.

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

2. 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.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.3) (England) Order 2020 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending that Order with or without modification), there shall be no additions to, or extensions or enlargements of any building forming part of the development hereby permitted.

REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to enable the Local Planning Authority to consider individually whether planning permission should be granted for additions, extensions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Part retrospective change of use of section of agricultural land to residential.

Public Participation

Bob Nicholls in objection of the application.

Peter Birch in objection of the application.

Councillor Derek Harden spoke on behalf of Lydiard Millicent Parish Council.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which outlined the part retrospective change of use of section of agricultural land to residential.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development, impact on the landscape & character and appearance of the area, impact on residential amenities and other matters. Reference was made to an omission within the report, which should have referred to consent in the planning history, which approved alternations to the garage for part use of residential purposes.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application, however no questions were asked.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Steve Bucknell then spoke regarding the application. Councillor Steve Bucknell stated that a current Bing aerial map would show a clear encroachment onto the field before the depicted red area within the block plan. With aerial views having shown that the applicant had set up football goalposts as well as parking a vehicle on the field. Councillor Bucknell also noted that before it was previously removed, the hedge line was the parish boundary between Lydiard Millicent and Purton. Therefore Councillor Bucknell argued that this was contrary to CP1.

Councillor Bucknell also cited that the development would breach CP51 (i) (ii)(ii) (v) (vii) on the grounds that there had been evidence of the disregard of neighbouring amenity with the removal of the hedgerow, the erection of goal posts and the parked vehicle. In particular, Councillor Bucknall noted that CP51 seeks that developments protect, conserve and enhance landscapes through sensitive developments; whilst also referencing the separate identity of settlements, in relation to the removed hedgerow. Furthermore in relation to the hedgerow, Councillor Bucknell, drew upon CP57 (i) (ii) (iii) (vi) (vii), stating that the parish boundaries create a strong sense of place as well as contributing to the character of Wiltshire.

At the start of the debate a motion to move and reject the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Steve Bucknell and seconded by Councillor Gavin Grant. On grounds that the development undertaken and proposed for the change of use of land is out of character with the immediate locality and the existing features and characteristics of the settlement and adjoining areas. The proposals would not maintain, reflect and respond positively to the existing landscape character and were thereby in conflict with Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015) Core Policies CP51 (i) (ii)(ii) (v) (vii) & CP57 (i) (ii) (iii) (vi) (vii).

During the debate the issues were raised such as the permitted development rights of the land in question and the nature of the size of the land in question; however it was advised by the enforcement team that permitted development rights do not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Extension to side and rear with link building to garage and conversion of garage.

Public Participation

Denise Simpkins, on behalf of Mrs Stare and Mr Bellamy, spoke in objection of the application.

Sandra Brimacombe spoke in objection of the application.

Simon Littlewood spoke in support of the application.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which outlined an extension to side and rear with link building to garage and conversion of garage.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development; impact on the character and appearance of nearby listed buildings; impact on the character, appearance, visual amenity of the locality; impact on the residential amenity and impact on highway safety. It was also noted that the application had changed to have small and obscure overlooking windows.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on what the percentage of development increase would be compared to the current property, to which it was clarified by the Officer that such assessments no longer formed a policy basis.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Jacqui Lay provided her apologies of her absence and was therefore represented by Councillor Allison Bucknell, who had beencovering Councillor Lay’s case work.Councillor Allison Bucknell stated that havingdriven past the site it appeared to be a large infill site with little space either side, therefore making it constrained. Councillor Bucknell stated that though the proposals would be advantageous for the applicant, this would be at the expense of neighbours, through a loss outlook and the extension potentially having an overbearing impact. Furthermore, there would be an additional loss of amenity to a neighbour, with a proposed glass side that would be overlooking. Councillor Bucknell further added that if permitted, the application would potentially cause a loss of parking whilst also causing more vehicle movements with cars being forced onto the road. In summary, Councillor Bucknell stated that this would be overdevelopment to the property, which would contradict CP57 (vii), causing an existing amenity impact.

At the start of the debate a motion to move and accept the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Tony Trotman and seconded by Councillor Peter Hutton, however when later voted upon the motion fell due to the number of votes against.

Consequently, a motion to reject the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Gavin Grant and seconded by Councillor Steve Bucknell. The reason being that following debate and receipt of representations at the meeting, members considered that the proposal constituted an overdevelopment of a constrained site that would not achieve high quality design by virtue of its bulk, mass and positioning. The proposals thereby result in harm to the character appearance and visual amenity of the locality and existing neighbouring residential amenities being both overbearing and resulting in loss of privacy. The proposals were thereby in conflict Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015) Core Policy CP57 (iii) & (vii).

During the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Change of use from a Bank (Use Class A2) to a Hot Food Takeaway (Use Class A5) Together with External Alterations.

Public Participation

Stacey Hartrey spoke in support of the application.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which outlined the change of use from a Bank (Use Class E) to a Hot Food Takeaway (Sui Generis) Together with External Alterations.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development, impact on heritage assets and the character of the area, impact on neighbour amenity, parking and highways, waste and recycling.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were clarified that it was not a care home behind the application, but rather an age-related accommodation in the form of flats. The Officer clarified that the trading hours if approved would be comparable to other takeaway establishments on the High Street and that regarding the taxi rank immediately outside, if other vehicles were to park here, they would face parking enforcement controls.

Further technical questions were clarified by the Officer that extraction facilities would be practically possible to put into place, having been considered and addressed within the Public Protection assessment within the report. The Public Protection assessment also addressed concerns about potential noise implications caused by 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 Mary Champion provided her apologies of her absence and was therefore represented by Councillor Allison Bucknell. Councillor Bucknell stated that though the majority of her concerns for the application had been addressed within the report, there was concern about deliveries including large articulated lorries potentially blocking the High Street and therefore causing congestion. Councillor Bucknell also additionally noted that there had been no reference to delivery vehicles, the hours of operation that they would follow and also where they would park whilst conducting business.

At the start of the debate a motion to move and accept the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Tony Trotman and seconded by Councillor Gavin Grant.

During the debate the issues included that parking should not be reason for concern, as it was suggested within the report that there was adequate parking opposite and collecting a takeaway would only take minimal time and that though this was a main arterial road, patience would be required from road users. Congratulations were offered to the town of Royal Wootton Bassett for seeking to convert an empty bank to have a useful purpose, also offering further benefit that there would potentially be minimal litter due to food being delivered or taken away. The potential benefits to the town, such as increased footfall and employment were referenced.

It was also acknowledged that though there would potentially be noise, a noise impact assessment had been completed, with the Officer’s report having done all that it could to mitigate concerns. Additionally, it was stated that noise and odour shouldn’t be overstated with there currently being a pub next door. Potential concerns regarding deliveries were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Outline application (with all matters reserved) for a village recreation hall, all weather tennis court, parking, access and erection of six houses (Resubmission of 19/08877/OUT).

Note: The meeting adjourned for a break at 5.05pm and then resumed at 5.12pm.

Public Participation

Andrew Miles spoke in support of the application.

David Pembridge spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Kevin Johnson spoke on behalf of Latton Parish Council.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which outlined an application (with all matters reserved) for a village recreation hall, all weather tennis court, parking, access and erection of six houses (Resubmission of 19/08877/OUT).

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development, heritage assets, character and appearance, flood risk and drainage, transport and access, ecology, archaeology and community facilities.

Attention was also drawn to the late items agenda supplement, which provided a revised plan showing a reduced red line boundary area.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were clarified that it was not recommended by the Officer that the application should be deferred, with the applicant already having had an opportunity to provide a detailed archaeological assessment. When queried about why the archaeological assessment had not been forthcoming, it was suggested that this could have been related to finances. It was also clarified that the Parish of Latton has provided a local plan and that the small village does not feature a settlement boundary.

Further technical questions included who the existing provision was owned by, to which it was clarified that this was the Diocese of Bristol. It was additionally noted that regarding the surroundings, the area consisted of a mixed age of buildings, including a number that were listed. It was also clarified that it would not be possible to set a condition regarding the archaeology assessment.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Bob Jones MBE then spoke regarding the application. Councillor Jones provided the Committee with a slide show, providing an overview of the Parish of Latton as well as of the character and appearance of the village and its location. The overview also included reference to two listed buildingsand a listed cross, which though the report identified as potentially being harmed within the report, this would be less than substantial. Councillor Jones also cited some of the benefits to accepting the application, such as providing 6 properties as well as an outstanding financial contribution to the local community; further adding that the current village hall had declined and would need £150,000 of funding to restore.

Councillor Jones noted that if granted, the application would in regard to planning balance, provide benefits to local residents, such as physical wellbeing through the tennis courts as well as being a development in the centre of the village. A potential reason to approve the application was cited as being the lack of a 5-year housing land supply.

At the start of the debate a motion to reject the officer’s recommendation was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Outline planning application for Proposed erection of a GP Surgery (Class E(e)), car park and associated works (Outline application relating to access).

Public Participation

Michael Rees spoke in objection of the application.

Cllr Martin Smith, representing Mrs Robinson, spoke in objection of the application.

Cllr Martin Smith, representing Councillor Tanya Burgess, spoke on behalf of Sherston Parish Council.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which outlined a planning application for Proposed erection of a GP Surgery (Class E(e)), car park and associated works (Outline application relating to access).

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development; design issues; impact on the immediate area including the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); impact on heritage; impact on biodiversity; impact on highway and access considerations.

The Planning Officer drew attention to the late item agenda supplement, in which two letters of representation had been submitted by Sherston Parish Council and Sherston Primary School Governors. The letters were in objection to the application due to the indicative site layout proposing a surface water attenuation basis, the land in which would potentially be required if the school was to expand. The Planning Officer noted that the application was in outline and other drainage solutions and facilities could be pursued that wouldn’t impinge on potential school expansion; though the Council’s Education Department had confirmed that there was no current or projected requirement for expansion of the school.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application, however no questions were asked.

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. Councillor Smith stated that the proposal was a key part of the Sherston Neighbourhood plan, which had been worked on since 2012 by residents and that the plan had the support of 93% of local residents. Councillor Smith noted that the Parish Council and School were supportive of the plan in principle but had sought clarity on the provision of land available for future school expansion if required. Following the latest response, Director of Assets & Commercial Development, Simon Hendey had arranged for a revised layout for the drainage basin.

At the start of the debate a motion to move and accept the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Peter Hutton and seconded by Councillor Martin Smith with an informative added encouraging consultation with the school governors and parish council in respect of drainage proposals and solutions.

During the debate the issues included that though there was a pre-school diagonally opposite to the land (Pumpkins Pre-school), it would be positive to approve the application with questions surrounding the lease. It was also stressed that though the Education Department assess data on birth-rates, Sherston previously had to build a new school due to a population increase, which could happen in the future again.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Proposed Change of Use to Auction Rooms together with alterations to front elevation and first floor extension to provide Gallery and rooftop terrace.

Note: Councillor Steve Bucknell left the room at 6.45pm.

Public Participation

Steve Tubb spoke in objection of the application.

Bill Pier spoke in support of the application.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which outlined the proposed Change of Use to Auction Rooms together with alterations to front elevation and first floor extension to provide Gallery, rooftop terrace and café bistro.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development; impact to heritage assets, residential amenity, highways impact, parking and access.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were clarified that a condition had not been imposed within the Officer’s recommendation in relation to external music amplification as at the time of application there was no detail of what activities might take place on the outside terrace. The Officer however noted that strict conditions had been included within the recommendation in order to negate any potential harm that might be caused by the rooftop terrace. Clarification was provided that the empty pub shown within the Officer’s presentation was not within the redline boundary and that this building had been vacant for an extended period of time.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor David Bowler then spoke regarding the application. Councillor Bowler stated that if approved the new frontage façade would be an improvement to the High Street, further adding the vibrancy of the town centre, as well as offering employment and increasing footfall. Regarding any concerns surrounding the Officer’s report and recommendation, Councillor Bowler stated that though CP57 and CP58 were cited within the report, Highways and Public Protection did not raise any issues, therefore Councillor Bowler believed that if there was to be a degree of harm it would be to a lower scale. Additionally, if there were any issues regarding parking shortfall, this would be difficult to argue with the previous use of the property having been a supermarket and with additional parking at Borough Fields, a 5-minute walk away.

At the start of the debate a motion to move and accept the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Peter Hutton and seconded by Councillor David Bowler .

Prior to the debate, Senior Solicitor Dorcas Ephraim, mentioned that though on page 138 of the agenda pack there was within an objection of an intention to submit a legal injunction on the applicant that this should not deter the Committee from making a decision as this was a civil matter between the applicant and resident.

During the debate the issues included that there are other local examples of such businesses successfully managing with a limited parking provision, such as Bingham Hall in Cirencester. Additionally, it was noted that there was a typo within Condition 14 of the Officer’s recommendation, with the omission of the word “No”.

At the conclusion of the debate, it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

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.