Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Martin Smith, who had arranged for Cllr Clare Cape to attend the meeting in his absence.

To approve as a true and correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 7 December 2022.

Councillor Gavin Grant updated that positive discussions with Bloor Homes over a contentious application had continued with representatives and Malmesbury Town Council. There is the belief that Bloor Homes will be placing a single application for both elements of the site that would be likely to be seen by the committee and with the suggested form, it would be supported by Malmesbury Town Council.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 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 7 December 2022.

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

The were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest.

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 Wednesday 25 January 2023 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 27 January 2023. 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.

It was noted that the appeals report was missing an appeal. After which, Councillor Chuck Berry 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 1 February 2023.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The Committee considered and determined the following planning applications:

Erection of Retirement Apartments (Category II Type) with Communal Facilities and Car Parking & Erection of Assisted Living Accommodation (Class C2) with Communal Facilities and Car Parking.

Public Participation

Gian Bendinelli spoke in support of the application.

Andrew Conroy (Head of Planning) spoke on behalf of Chippenham Town Council.

Senior Planning Officer, Rose Fox presented a report which outlined the proposed erection of retirement apartments (Category II Type) with communal facilities and car parking & erection of assisted living accommodation (Class C2) with communal facilities and car parking.

Details were provided including issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development; highway impact; drainage; impact on heritage assets (including loss of non-designated heritage asset); design, character, and appearance of area. Additionally, residential amenities of adjoining neighbours; ecological considerations; affordable housing provision and designing out crime.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application.Details were sought on, but not limited to whether the office building which had been granted permission adjacent to the respective site could be implemented, to which it was clarified that theoretically the office could still be built with no linkage between the permitted multi-storey carpark to compel it to happen. Additionally, reference was made to the additional provision of the stated form of accommodation and whether there was a measurement for market need anddesirability, to which the Chairman noted that there was a general need in the county for such accommodation. Questions were also asked regarding what the resale conditions of the properties could be with examples cited of families unable to sell vacant flats designed for elderly residents. Furthermore, it was questioned whether part of the application would constitute affordable housing, to which it was noted that the Anchor element of the application would be affordable as well as meeting an objectified need in the locality.

Further technical questions included but were not limited to whether the application included staff accommodation, to which it was noted that this would not be included in the McCarthy Stone part but would be within the assisted living section. It was questioned whether the old college building had been considered as a heritage asset as part of the previous planning application which had been granted permission, to which it was clarified that the same assessment would have taken place and that the building had been submitted for listing, but a decision was made not to list it. Further clarity was provided that regarding the decision-making process and the heritage asset, the weight of the asset attributed to any decisions made would be down to the Committee with nothing in statute proposed. Additionally, reference was drawn to the report, in which it was acknowledged that the conservation area had identified key buildings and conservation areas and that the respective building made a positive contribution to the townscape and that the proposal would add a wall and railings, which the conservation statement suggested might be of benefit.

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

The neighbouring Local Unitary Member, Councillor Liz Alstrom then spoke regarding the application. Cllr Alstrom provided  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Demolition of 3 existing buildings and the erection of 3 light industrial buildings use class E, B2 and B8.

Public Participation

Giles Brockbank spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Jonathan Hill spoke on behalf of Cricklade Town Council.

Acting Development Management Team Leader, Raymond Cole presented a report which outlined the demolition of three existing buildings and the erection of three light industrial buildings use Class E, B2 and B8.

Details were provided including issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development; highways impact; drainage impact; ecological impact; effect on character and appearance of the area; the impact on neighbouring uses.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on, but not limited to the potential for a bypass around Cricklade and whether the HGVs would take a 50/50 split in travelled direction; to which it was clarified that this was an assumption made within the transport assessment. Clarity was provided regarding weight restrictions in the area and that routes had been sign-posted to indicate which direction HGVs should travel in and that any enforcement would be down to the police. It was queried why there couldn’t be a travel plan for the for the HGVs as they would likely either travel through Cricklade town centre or Cowleaze housing estate, which consisted of 650 homes.

Further technical questions included, but were not limited to, the onsite parking of the application, to which it was clarified that there would be 20 additional parking spaces for employees which would meet adopted standards. It was acknowledged that the site was within 8km of a recreation impact zone, to which the officer stated that those employed on the site would more likely use the land to the south of the site for recreation. It was also clarified by the officer that there had been no issues raised regarding the accident history of the immediate vicinity of the application site.

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 theapplication. Cllr Jones stated that the assumed 50/50 traffic split within the report was flawed due to weight restrictions in Purton and how the HGVs would not want to travel through the new residential area; therefore, meaning they would travel through Cricklade town centre. Cllr Jones raised concerns that the 10 new units, if granted, would generate more HGVs through the town and that the trading estate could not be afforded to get any bigger as it would encourage more HGVs.

At the start of the debate a motion to accept the officer’s recommendations for planning permission to be granted subject to conditions was moved by Cllr Steve Bucknell and seconded by Cllr Tony Trotman.

During the debate, issues were raised, but not limited to that the units would be broken down into 10 sub-units, therefore potentially meaning that there would be less HGV movements. It was suggested that there was a need to promote the growth of small businesses and that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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.