Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

Cllr Steve Bucknell

Membership Changes:

Councillor Chuck Berry was announced as the new Chairman of the Northern Area Planning Committee.

Councillor Mike Sankey was welcomed as the newest member of the Committee.

To approve and sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 31 January 2024.

The minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 31 January 2024 were considered for approval by the committee.

After discussion it was:

Resolved

To remove the words “up to” from Agenda item 7 - PL/2022/09258: Minety Substation, Minety, Wiltshire, SN16.

To approve and sign the minutes of the previous meeting held on 6 December 2023 as a true and correct record.

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 Chair informed the Committee that it would no longer be considering Agenda Item 9: PL/2022/09258: Minety Substation, Minety, Wiltshire, SN16, during this meeting. At the previous meeting, the Committee resolved to defer the application pending the submission of additional information provided by the applicant alongside a Unilateral Undertaking.

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 21 February 2024 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 23 February 2024. 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.

The Committee noted the rules on public participation.

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

Councillor Chuck Berry invited Adrian Walker, Development Management Team Leader, to briefly update the Committee on the pending and determined appeals as per the appeals report included within the Agenda Pack.

Following which, it was:

Resolved:

The Committee noted the appeals report for the period 19 January 2024 to 16 February 2024.

Relocation of garden fence.

Public Participation

Mr Armstrong spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Ioan Rees of Calne Without Parish Council spoke in objection of the application.

Officers from the Development Management Area Team introduced the report which recommended that the Committee grant planning permission, subject to conditions, for the relocation of the existing 1.8-metre-tall fencing to a position some 2.0m from the edge of the private drive, thereby moving part of the incidental grass strip into the private garden area. The fence is to be moved out approximately 0.8m resulting in approximately 1.3m of hedging remaining. Some of the shrubbery/hedging will be removed, with the two ornamental trees remaining.

Key considerations identified included the principle of development, design and scale, impact on residential amenity and highways and parking issues. Attention was drawn to the representation from Calne Without Parish Council, concerned over the potential impacts on both the listed buildings and the wider area.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer.

It was clarified that the ownership of the land belonged to the applicant. The trees situated near the fence would remain outside it and any landscaping conditions would have long since expired. It was explained that Highways would still involve themselves in private road matters but had no objections to this application.

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

A debate followed where the progress made in discussions between the applicant and the Parish Council was discussed and the potential impact on the nearby trees from moving the fence.

During debate a motion to grant was moved by Cllr Nic Puntis and seconded by Cllr Gavin Grant. An amendment was put forward to condition the protection of the nearby trees, however this was withdrawn.

Resolved

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and informatives:

Conditions

1.    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.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Existing Site Block Plan

Proposed Site Block Plan (Received by LPA 12th June 2023)

Site Location Plan (Received by LPA 22nd June 2023)

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

3. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match in material, colour and texture those detailed on the approved drawings and application form.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

Informatives

4. The applicant should note that the grant of planning permission does not include any separate permission which may be needed to erect a structure in the vicinity of a public sewer. Such permission should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Variation of condition 2 of PL/2021/08755 ''Erection of an agricultural building for livestock and machinery storage and associated track''.

Public Participation

Mr Dance spoke in objection of the application.

Mr Kernon spoke in support of the application.

Mr Barber, on behalf of Seagry Parish Council, spoke in objection of the application.

Officers from the Development Management Area Team introduced the report which recommended that the Committee grant planning permission, subject to conditions, for variation of the design, materials and access lay out.

Key considerations identified included the Principle of Development, Impact on the Character, Appearance and Visual Amenity of the Locality and Impact on Residential Amenity.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer. Concerns were raised over the increase in size between plans.

It was clarified that officers did not consider the difference a significant increase and that the drawings were to scale and accurate. It was reassured that enforcement could be taken if the building was not built in accordance with agreed plans.

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

The unitary division member, Councillor Howard Greenman then spoke in objection of the application.

A debate followed where the Committee considered Wiltshire Council’s Core Policy 51 and Core Policy 57, considering the plans to be against these policies.

During the debate Officers warned Cllrs against prejudicial thought based on previous applications. Cllrs wanted to ensure it was made aware that this had not been the case.

It was understood that there had been a cheaper option to buy the building “off the shelf” which meant different dimensions. However, Cllrs felt the applicant should have returned to ask for planning permission before pressing ahead.

During debate a motion to refuse was proposed by Cllr Howard Greenman and seconded by Cllr Gavin Grant, after which it was:

Resolved

That planning permission be refused.

Extension of existing substation comprising installation of 400/132kV transformer, 3no. 400/33kV transformers, circuit breakers, construction of retaining wall and 33kV switchroom, formation of access road, culverting of watercourse, erection of fencing and associated works.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Installation of a Battery Energy Storage Facility, substation, underground cabling, access, landscaping, biodiversity enhancements and ancillary infrastructure & equipment to include acoustic fence, security fence & gates.

Public Participation

Ms Brooks spoke in objection of the application.

Mr King spoke in objection of the application.

Mrs King spoke in objection of the application.

Mr George Hall spoke in support of the application.

Officers from the Development Management Area Team introduced the report which recommended that the Committee grant planning permission, subject to conditions, for a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity of c.50MW. The batteries would be housed within containers which utilise air conditioning units for cooling purposes. The facility is supported by ancillary development, including transformers, inverters, and switch gear units. The site would also be surrounded by a security fencing and new landscaping and biodiversity enhancements.

Key considerations identified were:

a)    Whether the proposal is acceptable in principle.

b)    Whether the proposal would result in the loss of agricultural land.

c)    Whether the proposal would be harmful in terms of its landscape and visual impact.

d)    Whether the scheme would give rise to an adverse impact on residential amenity.

e)    Whether the proposal would have an adverse impact upon highway safety or public rights of way.

f)      Whether the scheme would cause harm to protected species and/or their habitats.

g)    Whether the proposal would result in the loss of trees and ancient woodland.

h)    Whether the scheme would cause harm to areas of archaeological interest or to heritage assets; and

i)      Whether the proposal would result in any other adverse environmental impacts.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer.

It was clarified a previous permission for the site that was granted in 2018 had lapsed. Network Rail hadn’t been consulted as the proposed site was not within close proximity to railway lines. It was confirmed that the need assessment was based on a need for renewable energies and that the public protection officer had raised no objections in relation to hazardous materials.

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

The unitary division members, Councillor Chuck Berry and Cllr Jacqui Lay, then spoke in objection of the application.

A debate followed where the Committee considered that there had been no representations by official bodies and no statutory opposition. The national need for battery storage was also highlighted.

Councillors also considered the impact of the site on local residents, the landscape and the potential for significant sound pollution. Wiltshire Council’s Core Policy 51 and Core Policy 57 were also referred to.

During debate a motion to grant was moved by Cllr Elizabeth Threlfall and seconded by Cllr Dr Brian Mathew. Following a vote, the motion was lost. A motion to refuse was then moved by Cllr Gavin Grant and Cllr Howard Greenman, and it was:

Resolved

That planning permission be refused.

Variation of condition 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 & 20 of 20/03528/FUL - To allow modifications to the approved layout, increase from 12 battery units with 16 localised inverters to 22 battery units and 19 containerised inverters, alterations to location of vehicular access.

Public Participation

Mr Greslow spoke in support of the application.

Officers from the Development Management Area Team introduced the report which recommended that the Committee grant planning permission, subject to conditions, to vary the conditions of planning permission reference 0/03528/FUL in order to secure amendments to the layout of the approved development. The amendments relate to a reduction in the extent and number of solar panels, the introduction of battery storage units, and a proposed change to the access strategy.

The main issue for consideration was whether the proposed amendments to the conditions of planning permission reference 20/03528/FUL should be granted, as the principle of development could not be reconsidered.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer, where it was clarified that Network Rail had not been consulted.

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

It was also noted that 3 objections had been received by planning officers in writing.

The unitary division members, Councillor Elizabeth Threlfall, then spoke in support of the application.

A debate followed where the Committee considered that the proposed site was already within a developed area, and that the Strategic Planning Committee had considered and proposed changes to this application which had then been agreed.

During debate a motion to grant, was moved by Cllr Elizabeth Threlfall and seconded by Cllr Howard Greenman. An additional condition was included to place noise reduction kits on all invertors for ecological protection.

Resolved

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and informatives:

An additional condition was included to place noise reduction kits on all invertors for ecological protection.

1.    The development hereby permitted shall begin before the 07 April 2025.

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.

2. The permission hereby granted shall be for a temporary period and shall expire 40 years from the date that electricity from the development is first exported to the electricity distribution network (‘First Export Date’) or no later than 44 years from the date of this decision, whichever is the soonest. Written confirmation of the First Export Date shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority no later than 1 calendar month after that First Export Date. Within 6 months of the date of expiry of this planning permission, or, if sooner, the cessation of the use of the solar panels for electricity generation purposes for a continuous period of 6 months, the solar panels together with any supporting/associated infrastructure including the inverter stations, security equipment, poles and fencing shall be removed from the land and the land restored to its former agricultural condition in accordance with a scheme of work to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme of work, including a restoration plan and a decommissioning scheme that takes account  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Proposed Development is for a battery storage facility and ancillary development.

Public Participation

Cllr Parsons, on behalf of Brinkworth Parish Council, spoke in objection of the application.

Officers from the Development Management Area Team introduced the report which recommended that the Committee grant planning permission, subject to conditions, for full planning permission for a battery storage facility. The batteries would be housed within containers which utilise air conditioning units for cooling purposes. The facility is supported by ancillary development, including  transformers, inverters, and switch gear units.

Key considerations identified included:

a)    Whether the proposal is acceptable in principle.

b)    Whether the proposal would result in the loss of agricultural land.

c)    Whether the proposal would be harmful in terms of its landscape and visual impact.

d)    Whether the scheme would give rise to an adverse impact on residential amenity.

e)    Whether the proposal would have an adverse impact upon highway safety or public rights of way.

f)      Whether the scheme would cause harm to protected species and/or their habitats.

g)    Whether the proposal would result in the loss of trees and ancient woodland.

h)    Whether the scheme would cause harm to areas of archaeological interest or to heritage assets; and

i)      Whether the proposal would result in any other adverse environmental impacts.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer.

It was clarified that the site would connect to the grid via the Minety substation, would be below ground, and that planning permission was not required for this particular element. Limits on the colours of the containers was set out in condition 5, with balance kept between keeping them dark and avoiding any risks of overheating.

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

The unitary division member, Cllr Elizabeth Threlfall then spoke in objection of the application.

A debate followed where the Committee considered Wiltshire Council’s Core Policy 51 and Core Policy 57, considering the plans to be against these policies due to the proximity of the site to the road and the site’s impact on the local landscape.

The impact of lighting in and around the site was also considered.

During debate a motion to refuse was proposed by Cllr Elizabeth Threlfall and seconded by Cllr Nic Puntis, after which it was:

Resolved

That planning permission be refused.

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.