Browse

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices, Monkton Park, Chippenham

Contact: Fiona Rae, 01225 712681,  Email: fiona.rae@wiltshire.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

73.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Terry Chivers and Howard Marshall.

 

Apologies for absence were also received from Cllr Chris Hurst who was substituted by Cllr Glenis Ansell and Cllr Howard Greenman who was substituted by Cllr Philip Whalley.

 

It was also noted that Cllr Christine Crisp gave her apologies for any part of the meeting that occurred after 4.15pm due to other council business; A substitute had been requested but was not available.

74.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2015.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2015 were presented.

 

Resolved:

 

To confirm as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2015.

75.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

Cllr Philip Whalley declared that he had previously considered items 6c, 15/05372/FUL and 15/05824/LBC - 8 Pound Pill, Corsham, Wiltshire, SN13 9HZ, and 6e, 15/03367/FUL - Neston Gospel Hall, Chapel Lane, Neston, Wiltshire, SN13 9TD, as a member of Corsham Town Council but confirmed that he would be considering these applications with an open mind.

76.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chairman.

Minutes:

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

77.

Public Participation and Councillors' Questions

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 in person no later than 2:50pm on the day of the meeting.

 

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. The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice.

 

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 29 July 2015. 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.

Minutes:

The Committee noted the rules on public participation.

 

78.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine planning applications as detailed below.

79.

15/03136/OUT - Ridgeway Farm, Tetbury Lane, Crudwell, Wiltshire, SN16 9HB

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

James Griffin spoke in support of the application.

Tim Roberts and Alex Stewart spoke in opposition to the application.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that authority be delegatedto the Area Development Manager to grant planning permission subject to the completion of Section 106 agreement and conditions. The application was for the erection of 10 dwellings, associated parking, public open space, landscaping and associated works.

 

The Planning Officer drew attention to late items and explained that, although the application related to a greenfield site, the site had several large agricultural barns of a standard modern construction, with some smaller general purpose outbuildings and associated hardstanding. It was highlighted that the application included a new public right of way and the provision of a surfaced footpath on Tetbury Lane and 40% affordable housing.

 

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions and it was confirmed that all agricultural buildings were excluded from the definition of previously developed land in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); this was why the site was referred to as greenfield land, despite the existing areas of hardstanding.

 

The Planning Officer explained that the site was completely outside of the settlement boundary for Crudwell. It was also clarified that a section of the right of way (RoW) did not appear to be in the land ownership of the applicant. The Planning Officer explained that the plan was an indicative layout and the RoW provision to be secured through the Section 106 agreement would be limited to land within the applicant ownership.

 

Members of the public then addressed the Committee as detailed above.

 

The Planning Officer responded to comments from the public and explained that Wessex Water considered the area to have sufficient capacity for foul drainage. The Planning Officer noted that there were representations that highlighted foul drainage issues in the area but explained that Wessex Water had been consulted and had no objections. It was highlighted that drainage was conditioned in the officer recommendation and this would require further drainage details to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development.

 

The Planning Officer drew attention to the fact that Highways had no objections to the proposal and that a footpath was to be provided on Tetbury Lane. It was also clarified that the proposed gift of land to neighbouring properties was not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application.

 

The local member, Cllr Chuck Berry, highlighted that the proposals extended deep into the countryside and slightly beyond the existing concreted area. It was explained that there were nearly 100 letters in opposition to this proposal and that local residents were concerned about sewerage issues. The local member drew attention to the strict control of development outside the settlement boundary set out in Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 1 and urged the Committee to consider the appropriateness of this proposal in the current time and location.

The Planning Officer confirmed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

80.

15/03573/FUL - 5 Mead Villas, High Street, Box, Corsham, Wiltshire, SN13 8NB

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. The application was for the erection of a three storey side extension located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Box conservation area. It was highlighted that, due to the gradient of the land, the extension would appear as a two storey extension from streetview. It was confirmed that the access to the property remained the same, parking was provided, and Highways had no objections. The Case Officer and Highways advised that a decking area now existed to the rear of the property and this would have to be removed in order to meet parking requirements; a condition to this effect was attached to the officer recommendation.

 

The application was considered to be of high quality and appropriate to the location. The Planning Officer explained that there were some concerns from residents and Box Parish Council about privacy, mass, bulk and scale but considered the proposals to be sufficiently set back to avoid overlooking or an overbearing impact.

 

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions and it was confirmed that, should the Committee be mindful to grant planning permission, it was possible to insert a condition that would tie the proposed extension to the host dwelling.

 

The local member, Cllr Sheila Parker, highlighted that local opposition mainly related to the size of the proposed extension and the car parking provision. Concern was expressed that there would be insufficient space for vehicles to attend the site during construction and that this would negatively affect local residents. The local member urged the Committee to consider the impact of the proposal on local residents and, if necessary, to add an informative about considerate construction.

 

In the debate that followed, it was proposed and seconded to add a condition requiring the extension to remain ancillary to the host dwelling. The Committee noted the importance of minimising the impact of building works on the local community and agreed to add an informative to the applicant to encourage liaison with Box Parish Council.

 

Resolved:

 

To GRANT planning permission subject to the following 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 Plans & Elevations Drg.VL.2015/04/02 (received 27 April 2015), Location &

Block Plan Drg.VL.2015/04/01 rev.A and Proposed Plans & Elevations

Drg.VL.2015/04/03 rev.A (both received 5 June 2015)

 

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 used in the existing building.

 

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

81.

15/05372/FUL and 15/05824/LBC - 8 Pound Pill, Corsham, Wiltshire, SN13 9HZ

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Peter Frost and David Pearce spoke in support of the application.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused. The application was for the partial demolition of a garden wall, the erection of a two bay car port and gate to the rear garden. The Planning Officer drew attention to late items and it was confirmed that Highway safety had not been a reason for the call in. The building was a Listed building and largely maintained its original form and design. The Planning Officer noted that there were concerns about the location of garage, and the size, scale, and mass of the proposal.

 

It was explained that the Conservation Officer considered the current garden wall, although not the original, to add to the historical importance of the property.

 

The Planning Officer explained that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan which maintained the position of the original wall. It was highlighted that this plan had not been subject to the required 21 day period of consultation and it was not possible to determine whether this revision satisfied the concerns of the Conservation Officer. As such, the plan could not be allocated significant weight in determining the application.

 

There were no technical questions.

 

Members of the public then addressed the Committee as detailed above.

 

The local member, Cllr Philip Whalley, highlighted that the revised plans submitted by the applicant constituted a significant amendment. It was suggested that these changes were intended to address the concerns of the Conservation Officer and the local member urged the Committee to defer consideration of this application in order to allow officers to address and be consulted on the revised scheme.

 

In the debate that followed, members considered whether there was insufficient information to make a decision, it was proposed and seconded that the item should be deferred for one cycle in order to fully consult on the amended plans.

 

Resolved:

 

To DEFER for one cycle in order to ensure that appropriate consultation was undertaken in relation to the amended plans submitted by the applicant, specifically to consult with the Conservation Officer who had objected to the original plans.

82.

15/03266/FUL - Land off Shirehill Lane, West Kington, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN14 7AR

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

David Pearce spoke in support of the application.

Suzanne Holdem spoke in opposition to the application.

 

Cllr Jeanne Bush, Nettleton Parish Council, and Cllr Bob Veitch, Marshfield Parish Council, spoke in opposition to the application.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. The application was for the erection of a general purpose agricultural building in the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Planning Officer noted that the Cotswolds Conservation Board had objected to the original application but had withdrawn this objection following changes to the scheme.

 

Attention was drawn to a number of late items and the Planning Officer explained that North Wraxall Parish Council objected to the proposal due to the prominent position in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the impact on the surrounding road network. It was highlighted that Highways and South Gloucester Council had been consulted and both considered the access to be acceptable.

 

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions and the Planning Officer explained that there was no intention in the proposal to connect the agricultural building to services; it was assumed that water was to be brought onsite and that sewerage was to be taken offsite.

 

It was also confirmed that the description of the development as a general purpose agricultural building was a technical planning term. The Planning Officer explained that the information in the application set out the more specific use to accommodate the calving of cows. Though it was added that the building may have other uses for storage depending on the time of the year.

Members of the public then addressed the Committee as detailed above.

 

The Planning Officer responded to comments from the public and confirmed that no objections were raised by Highways or the Archaeological Officer.

Cllr Toby Sturgis spoke on behalf of the local member, Cllr Jane Scott OBE, and expressed sympathy with the objections of North Wraxall Parish Council. It was explained that the two main concerns were the effects on the landscape and the road network. It was noted that the Cotswold Conservation Board and the Landscape Officer had no objections but highlighted that the site was highly visible and improvements could be made to reduce the visibility of the site.

 

Concern was expressed that the large, modern machinery was not appropriate for the roads in the area. It was also highlighted that there were limited facts available regarding the potential traffic issues in the area should the proposal be granted.

 

In the debate that followed, the Committee considered whether there was sufficient information to properly assess the visual impact of the proposal and its potential effect on local road networks.

Resolved:

 

To DEFER for two cycles to obtain further information about:

1.    The traffic issues specific to the site;

2.    The height of the bund;

3.    Question 5 of the application form specifically relating to the split between arable land, grassland, and woodland;

4.    Question 9 of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

83.

15/03367/FUL - Neston Gospel Hall, Chapel Lane, Neston, Wiltshire, SN13 9TD

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Steve Briggs spoke in support of the application.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused. The application was for the conversion of a redundant chapel as extension to an existing dwelling with an associated upgrade of parking facilities. It was explained that this application had been previously deferred in order to receive additional information in relation to the marketing exercise in Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 49. The Planning Officer drew attention to the report produced by Savills and communicated the opinion that this was not a typical marketing exercise that would satisfy Core Policy 49.

 

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions and it was explained that Highways had no objections to the proposal. It was also confirmed that it was possible for the Committee to delegate authority to the Area Development Manager to grant permission subject to section 106 agreements and that some boundary treatment was permitted.

 

The Planning Officer also clarified that the marketing exercise for alternative use was required by the Wiltshire Council Core Strategy Core Policy 49.

 

Members of the public then addressed the Committee as detailed above.

 

The local member, Cllr Richard Tonge, expressed concern that hall had been deteriorating since services ceased in 2011 and that many local residents were concerned for the future of hall.

 

The local member considered the reasons for refusal as set out in the officer’s recommendation. Regarding reason 1, it was explained that the Hall Trustees had endeavoured to find an alternative use for a long period of time. It was also highlighted that there had been little record of any marketing as the Hall Trustees and Neston Park Trust were unaware of the marketing exercise required by the Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy at the time. The local member also advised that there were two other unused halls in the area.

 

In respect of reason 2, the local member drew attention to the example photos provided which evidenced that similar applications were considered appropriate and had been accepted in the area. It was emphasised that the proposal included minimal floor height and that the floor was to be painted matt black in order to reduce the visual impact. 

 

For reason 3, it was explained that the proposals would involve sealing the door that directly opens onto the burial ground. It was suggested that this would have a greatly reduced impact on the amenity of the burial ground.

 

The local member accepted that the marketing exercise had not been formally completed but urged the Committee to remove reasons 2 and 3 of the officer recommendation.

 

 

In the debate that followed the Committee recognised that some marketing had been undertaken by the applicant and that not all of this had been documented.

 

It was also noted that the building had been disused for a number of years and that it was important to preserve this non-designated heritage asset. Some members expressed concern regarding the visual impact of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

84.

Urgent Items

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency.

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.