Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Howard Greenman who was substituted by Cllr Jacqui Lay.

Apologies for absence were also received from Cllrs Chris Hurst and Howard Marshall. 

The Chairman reminded the Committee members that they should arrange for a substitute to attend on their behalf should they be unavailable.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 5 August 2015.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 August 2015 were presented.

Resolved:

To confirm as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 5 August 2015.

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.

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

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 19 August 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.

The Committee noted the rules on public participation.

To consider and determine planning applications as detailed below.

Andy Cockett spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that authority be delegated to the Area Development Manager to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and conditions. The application was for a residential developmentcomprising 13 dwellings with associated gardens, parking, drainage and landscaping.

It was highlighted that this application had been considered by the Committee on 15 July 2015 and been deferred in order to obtain additional information about the availability of B1 employment land in the local area. Information had been supplied by the applicant and by officers to confirm that there were other B1 employment land sites in the local area.

It was explained that the applicants had worked with the Planning Officers and the Urban Design Officer to achieve a high quality of development that respected the original character of the village and the adjoining new housing.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions and it was confirmed that the marketing exercise conducted by the applicant was considered sufficient by the Estates Team. It was also explained that the Estates Team considered that the refusal of the one firm offer made for the purchase of the site was reasonable and figures were available in Appendix 2.

The Planning Officer clarified that a care home was not classified as B1 business use and the use of the land for a care home would require planning permission. It was also noted that the consideration of uplift in value of any unsold properties on the site would only be material if the viability of the site was drawn into question. Officers explained that the applicant had agreed to provide affordable housing on site and this would meet the requirements set out in the Core Strategy.

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

In the debate that followed, the Committee considered the additional information provided by the applicant and officers regarding the availability of other B1 employment land in the area. Some members expressed concern about the loss of this employment land in the local area. The Committee also discussed the policy position regarding the loss of commercial floor space and its change of use to residential as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

Resolved:

To DELEGATE authority to the Area Development Manager to grant planningpermission subjectto thecompletion ofSection106 agreementto addresson siteaffordable housingprovision andthe conditionsset outinthe reportto the Northern Area Planning Committee on 15 July 2015.

Russell Lamming and Peter Preston spoke in support of the application.

Michael Doran spoke in opposition to the application.

Cllr John Eley, Stanton St Quintin 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 a proposed single storeyand two storey extension to the rear of the propertyand front porch. It was explained that an extensive rear garden would be retained. The Planning Officer highlighted that concerns had been raised by neighbours and the Parish Council and that these were set out in the officer report. Attention was drawn to late items which summarised an additional neighbour representation.

The Planning Officer also explained that a plan had been submitted to demonstrate that suitable parking was available on site; Highways considered this plan to be acceptable.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions and it was confirmed that it was possible to add a condition requiring the extension to remain ancillary to the dwelling. It was also explained that the proposal would involve approximately a 40% increase in size beyond the original floor space. It was also highlighted that the site was not within the green belt and, as such, there were no national or local policies to restrict the size of the extension; the assessment was based on the development’s conformity to local and national planning policy and in particular the impact of the development on the amenity of neighbouring properties, parking provision and the development’s design and impact on the character and appearance of the area.

The Planning Officer explained that the General Permitted Development Order allows up to an 8m extension to the rear of the property at single storey level and up to a 3m extension to the rear of the property at two storey level. It was highlighted that the application was for a 4m two storey extension but that the applicant would be entitled to develop a 3m two storey extension without the need to obtain formal planning permission. The proposal was also considered to have an acceptable impact on residents, the streetscene, and the design of the existing property and existing properties within the locality.

The Planning Officer clarified that drainage on the site would be required to comply with the Building Regulations. It was explained that there was an informative in the officer recommendation highlighting to the applicant that they should be aware of the Building Regulations requirements.

It was confirmed that the applicant had submitted a plan to demonstrate that three off street parking spaces could be provided on the site. The Planning Officer noted that Highways considered this to meet all requirements and highlighted that, under permitted development rights, the applicant was able to develop the front garden into an area of hardstanding for additional parking if this was deemed necessary.

The Planning Officer also confirmed the location of the holly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

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.