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 Tom Rounds to attend the meeting in her absence. Apologies were also received from Councillor Dr Brian Mathew who had organised for Councillor Dr Nick Murry to attend in his absence.

To approve as a true and correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 2 February 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2022 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 2 February 2022.

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

Councillor Howard Greenman stated that he would not speak and would also abstain from the vote in relation to item 7b; having spoken to the Wiltshire Council Legal Team and due to his Chairmanship of the Strategic Planning Committee.

To receive any announcements through the Chairman.

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 28 February 2022.

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 23 February 2022 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 25 February 2022.

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 Elizabeth Threlfall.

Resolved:

To note the Planning Appeals Update Report for 2 March 2022.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The Committee considered and determined the following planning applications:

Proposed new driveway entrance to replace existing, with  alterations to the existing driveway layout.

Public Participation

James Rainbow spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Richard Campbell spoke on behalf of Box Parish Council.

Development Management Team Leader, Simon Smith presented a report which outlined the proposed new driveway entrance to replace existing, with alterations to the existing driveway layout.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of the application; green belt; design, scale and materials; impact upon nearby Heritage Assets; Impact on Residential Amenity; Landscape Considerations; Highway Safety.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application.Details were sought on the difference in height between the property driveway and of Quarry Hill with it clarified that the property hedgerow would have to be a maximum of 900mm to ensure visibility.Additionally, it was clarified by the officer that the layout of the driveway was not part of the application and that the applicant could shut off the current existing access if they chose to with no planning permission needed and that a condition could be added to keep it closed.

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

Councillor Gavin Grant then spoke on behalf of the Local Unitary Member,  Councillor Dr Brian Mathew regarding the application. Councillor Grant passed on the gratitude of Councillor Dr Mathew to the Parish Councillors, Chair Sheila Parker and Councillor Richard Campbell. The statement provided expressed concerns of safety from a Highways perspective, with it noted that speed is gained travelling down Quarry Hill and that if permitted the new entrance could lead to an accident due to added complication for road users. The statement noted that the integrity of Bargates should be preserved and suggested that the application should be turned down as the proposals could potentially conflict with Core Strategy Objective 6 which looks to improve safety of all road users and reduce the number of casualties.

At the start of the debate a motion to refuse the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Steve Bucknell and seconded by Councillor Gavin Grant, with reasons for refusal cited as road safety and that the proposals would lead to an unacceptable change of appearance in Quarry Hill. However when later voted upon the motion fell due to the number of votes against.

Consequently, a motion to accept the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Tony Trotman and seconded by Councillor Nic Puntis, with an additional condition that the existing vehicular access to Bargates should be closed and permanently stopped up prior to the first use of the new access to Quarry Hill. Additionally, that the existing vehicular access onto Bargates should not be reopened unless otherwise agreed in the form of a separate planning permission in that regard.

During the debate the issues included the potential need for a condition to be added to the officer’s recommendation to close the previous exit if the new proposal was to be accepted. The potential  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22a

Erection of 4 dwellings and associated works.

Public Participation

Martin Verspeak spoke in objection of the application.

Marc Willis spoke in support of the application.

Senior Planning Officer, Charmian Eyre-Walker presented a report which outlined the erection of 4 dwellings and associated works.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development, conflict with the emerging neighbourhood plan, impact on residential amenities of adjoining neighbours, impact on character and appearance of the area, impact on the setting of the listed buildings and Sutton Benger Conservation Area, previous appeal decision.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were clarified that the existing and proposed developments were outside of the existing framework boundaries and that the land had been used for agricultural use. It was additionally clarified that the neighbourhood plan had not been fully developed yet. Reference was also drawn to the agenda supplement which stated that originally the archaeologist had objected, however it was clarified by the officer that they had since seen the proposed conditions and would be happy with pre-commencement.

Further details were clarified that the Council would not have control over the landscape planting and the consequent impact that if turned into a woodland the land would not be dissociated from being farmland. The recent inspector’s decision in regard to the Filands proposal was referenced, with the inspector noting that the Council had a modest shortfall of the 5-year housing land supply in January of 4.1 and that the 4 proposed homes would be insignificant in contributing towards this. The potential inclusion of EV charging and air source heat pumps was questioned, with it being clarified by the officer that these had not been considered but both suggestions could be added through conditions. Additional clarification was provided that the proposal included no affordable housing but rather 4- or 5-bedroom large houses.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Howard Greenman did not speak regarding the application.

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

During the debate the praise was given to the officer’s report which recognised the challenges faced as a local authority. Core Policy 10 was cited  by means of exception sites that relate to a local need for affordable housing, with it argued that this proposal did not have affordable housing nor did it speak to the local need as heard from the neighbourhood planning steering group. In addition, Core Policies 57 and 58 were cited with it stated that the proposal does not meet these policies and that the village of Sutton Benger had already provided large amounts of development. This was further supported as due to their being no 1- or 2-bedroom homes in the proposal, it could be argued that this proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22b

Erection of single storey front, rear and first floor extensions and replacement roofs with roof lights.

Public Participation

Ben Williams was unable to attend therefore Democratic Services Officer, Ben Fielding read out a provided statement in support of the application.

Councillor Mel Allsop spoke on behalf of Lydiard Millicent Parish Council.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which outlined an erection of single storey front, rear and first floor extensions and replacement roofs with roof lights

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development; impact on the character, appearance, visual amenity of the locality; impact on the residential amenity; access, parking and highway safety.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application.Details were sought on the distance between the second storey of the proposal and the neighbouring bungalow; which was clarified to be 7 metres from the east boundary and in excess of 24 metres from the north boundary. The make up of the neighbouring properties of the Beeches was queried and it was clarified by the officer that the applicant would not be able to demolish the existing property to build a replacement as this was not within the proposal. It was also clarified that though the neighbourhood plan was not silent within this proposal, it did not specifically relate to this location.

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 Bucknell stated that the proposal looked to turn a modest 3-bedroom single storey bungalow into a family home with an additional 2 storeys and a total of 5 bedrooms. In turn, the proposal would increase the ridge height of the property from 7 metres to 12 metres. The impact of parking for the proposal was stressed, with there being no bus services to Lydiard Millicent or nearby shops; therefore meaning that cars would be necessary with there potentially being 5 cars required by the property due to the proposed number of bedrooms. This would therefore potentially cause issues as the proposals showed no increase in parking provision, with the current drive suitable at most for 3 cars; thus causing cars to have to park on the narrow road.

Councillor Bucknell acknowledged that to an extent the report was true when it referred to a mix of homes; however these follow a definite pattern with the outside ring of homes being 2 or 3 storey family homes, with the inside ring being bungalows. Regarding the bungalows, Councillor Bucknell stated that there are Core Policies which require the Council as an authority to build lifetime homes, suitable for those who want to downsize in their retirement years, it would therefore be contradictory to replace such a bungalow with a family house.

Councillor Bucknell stated that the proposals were contrary to Wiltshire Core strategy Core Policy CP57 (i) (iii) (vi) (vii) (xi) (Jan 2015) as the proposal would break the current pattern of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22c

Residential development and a GP surgery, together with vehicle and pedestrian access including a new footway to Sopworth Lane, associated parking, open space, landscaping, drainage infrastructure and land safeguarded for educational use.

It was noted that this application had been withdrawn prior to the Committee and was therefore not debated or decided upon during the Committee meeting.

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.