Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Howard Greenman, who arranged for Councillor Peter Hutton to attend the meeting in his absence. Additionally, apologies for absence were received from Councillor David Bowler, who arranged for Councillor Bob Jones MBE to attend the meeting in his absence.

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

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

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

There were no declarations of disclosable interest or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman informed those in attendance of the procedures in place if there was to be a fire alarm.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to speak either in favour or against an application or any other item on this agenda are asked to register no later than 10 minutes before the start of the meeting. If it is on the day of the meeting registration should be done in person.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are linked to in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. The Chairman will allow up to 3 speakers in favour and up to 3 speakers against an application, and up to 3 speakers on any other item on this agenda. Each speaker will be given up to 3 minutes and invited to speak immediately prior to the item being considered.

Members of the public will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

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 in writing to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on 20 April 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 22 April 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 Committee members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

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.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman noted that there had been an amendment to the Planning Appeals Report, with the final item on page 18 of the agenda (PL/2021/08453) being a hearing rather than written representations.

Councillor Tony Trotman moved that the Committee note the contents of the appeals report included within the agenda. It was seconded by Councillor Chuck Berry.

Resolved:

To note the Planning Appeals Update Report for 27 April 2022.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The Committee considered and determined the following planning applications:

Demolition of existing residential dwelling and garage, and construction of a replacement dwelling and garage plus associated works.

Public Participation

Richard Cosker spoke in support of the application.

Ged Brockett spoke in support of the application.

Andy Richardson spoke in support of the application.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman presented a report which outlined demolition of existing residential dwelling and garage, and construction of a replacement dwelling and garage plus associated works

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development, impact on the character and appearance of the site & locality, impact on residential amenities, highways safety, ecology, lawfulness.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on whether the fire had taken place within the house itself, with it clarified by the officer that the fire had taken place within the house and that this would not render the building incapable of retention and could be repaired. Furthermore, it was questioned where the boundary starts and ends for buildings being appropriate for repair, it was clarified by the officer that the latest submissions provided by the applicant suggested it would be more cost effective to completely replace the building. Additionally, it was clarified by the officer that the current building was not insulated up to modern standards with it acknowledged that the proposed replacement would have greater energy efficiency.

Additional technical questions were received in relation to Policy H4 with examples cited of 1950s bungalows being purchased and then knocked down to be replaced by a new house. It was clarified by the officer that Policy H4 only deals with developments in the countryside. Additionally, it was clarified by the officer that the building was currently occupied and was not abandoned. Further questions were asked as to whether it would be possible to add a condition surrounding the use of an air source heat pump, to which the officer stated that this would not be possible but the property itself would demonstrate energy improvements. It was also confirmed by the officer that the property was in the countryside and outside of any framework boundaries.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Chuck Berry then spoke regarding the application. Cllr Berry raised the following points that having listened to the applicant the reasoning behind the replacement property was clear, however he did have an understanding why the officer had applied the policies within their recommendation. Cllr Berry acknowledged that within a year’s time, this application could fall within the policies in place and that time could have been lost in terms of reducing Carbon Dioxide. Cllr Berry noted that as a wider community, Minety has been contributing to this reduction by having larger numbers of battery and solar farms. In addition, the road in which the property is located on already has a number of properties on both sides.

At the start of the debate a motion to refuse the officer’s recommendation was moved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Construction of four dwellings and associated works.

Public Participation

Robin Goodfellow spoke in objection to the application.

Kate McFarlane spoke in objection to the application.

Charlotte Watkins spoke in support of the application.

Shendie Green spoke on behalf of Lyneham and Bradenstoke Parish Council.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman presented a report which outlined the construction of four dwellings and associated works.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development in this location; the design and effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the locality; the impact on residential amenity; highways safety and parking; drainage; ecology.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on whether the neighbourhood development plan made in October 2021 had designated this site for development, to which the Officer clarified that the development had not designated any site nor had it made any allocations for housing. In addition, the Lyneham Banks landslip issue was mentioned with there being rumours that a separate development may have caused the slip; the Officer clarified that there were no indications that that the proposal would exacerbate the situation or cause further issues. The Officer also clarified in relation to the access road to the proposed development that this was a private road which highways officers advised was sufficiently wide enough for two-way travel.

Additional technical questions were received in relation to whether the officer’s recommendation for this application was looking to make up a shortfall of housing not arising elsewhere in the county; to which the Officer noted that this was not the case and that shortfalls are considered in relation to defined housing market areas by Inspectors at appeal rather than as being county wide. Comparisons were also drawn to another recent proposal which was rejected, to which the Officer stated that each application is assessed on its own merits and that this was a small-scale development in comparison to the other proposal of 50+ dwellings which would be disproportionate. Furthermore that 4 dwellings in the instance of Bradenstoke would not be enough to refuse as it would be proportionate to the scale of development.

Furthermore, clarification was sough as to what “infill” meant to the site in question, with it clarified by the officer that infill is defined as a small gap that can be used to accommodate a maximum of 4 dwellings but most commonly 1 and is an area surrounded by other dwellings, which this application was not.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Allison Bucknell then spoke regarding the application. Cllr Bucknell raised the following points that despite the applicant’s opinion that they had fulfilled requirements, the application was still contrary to policies, with the only point in favour being that Wiltshire Council can’t demonstrate a 5-year land supply and has a tilted balance. Cllr Bucknell stated that the application lies  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

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.