Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Christine Crisp and Cllr Sheila Parker.

Cllr Crisp was substituted by Cllr Jacqui Lay.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 26 August 2015.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 August 2015 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a true and correct record and sign the minutes.

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 9 September 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.

Sue Webb, on behalf Kington Langley Parish Council, spoke in objection to application 6 b) 15/06571/FUL. The Chair allowed her representation at this stage, as Mrs Webb had indicated that they would not be able to stay later at the meeting.

To consider and determine planning applications as detailed below.

Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting and attached to these minutes, in respect of applications 6 a ) - 15/06571/FULand 6 b) - 15/05938/FUL as listed in the agenda pack.

Public participation:

Keith Bennett and Mark Edwards spoke in support of the application.

The Development Control Team Leader introduced the report, including late observations, which recommended that planning permission be refused.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions

Cllr Howard Greenman spoke in his capacity as the local member.

Issues discussed in the course of the debate included: the impact of the proposals on the character of the conservation area and the listed building; the setting of the listed building and the position of neighbouring properties; the impact of the proposals on the space between it and the listed building; the position, size and nature of the existing buildings including a single storey extension the height of the proposed two storey extension and its position in relation to existing buildings; the planning history and the pre-planning application advice given; whether there was any public benefit from the building that could outweigh the impact of the proposals; and the views of the consultees.

Councillor Peter Hutton proposed, subsequently seconded by Councillor Toby Sturgis, that the Committee should refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation detailed in the report.

Having been put to the vote, the meeting;

Resolved

That PlanningPermission isREFUSEDfor the following reason:

Theproposal isconsidered tohave an unacceptable detrimentalimpact tothe historicform andcharacterof the settingof the listed building andthe surrounding conservationarea.The proposal wouldcause harmto the significanceofthe designated assetsthat is notoutweighedbyanypublicbenefitwhichis contraryto Section 66(1)& 72(1)of thePlanning(Listed Buildingsand Conservation Areas)Act1990, to paragraphs17(10),131, 132, 134 and 137ofthe NPPF,aswellasthe aimsofCorePolicy58of theWiltshire Core Strategy.

Theproposeddevelopment, by reasonofitsscale,sitingand design would resultina crampedandcongestedplotuponthe southern boundaryand,therefore, the proposalwould have an unacceptable impact on the visual amenitiesand characterofthesurroundingarea,contraryto Core Policy57,criteriaiii and vi of the WiltshireCoreStrategyand Section 7,paragraph58 of the NationalPlanningPolicyFrameworkrequiring gooddesign.

INFORMATIVENOTE:Therecommendationherebyputforwardwasmadefrom thefollowingsubmittedplans:1166/02B,1166/05,Scheme2 upon1166/04and1166/06dated 03/07/2015.

Public participation:

Mrs Coleman spoke in objection to the application and Gillian Livock spoke in support of her application.

Sue Webb on behalf of Kington Langley Parish Council under the Public Participation item 5 as she had had to leave the meeting earlier.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that an additional condition and informative had been added to officer’s recommendation.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions

Cllr Howard Greenman spoke in his capacity as the local member.

Issues discussed in the course of the debate included: the planning history of the site and the relevance of previous planning permissions; the changes to the proposal made, and the advice given by the Planning Officers to the applicant; the position of the proposed extension in relation to neighbouring properties and its potential impact; the size and width of the proposals and how they differ to previously permitted applications; how drainage issues on the site would be dealt with by condition and land drainage consent; that conservation area consent is not required; the access to the site; the views of the consultees; the materials proposed to be used; the views of the Highways Officers that they had no objection to the application; the impact of the proposals on the Conservation Area;

Councillor Toby Sturgis proposed, subsequently seconded by Councillor Peter Hutton, that the Committee should refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation detailed in the report and the late observation.

Having been put to the vote, the meeting;

Resolved that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.    Thedevelopmentherebypermittedshall bebegun beforethe expiration of threeyearsfrom thedate ofthispermission.

REASON: Tocomplywith theprovisionsofSection 91of theTown and CountryPlanningAct1990asamended bythe Planningand CompulsoryPurchase Act2004.

2.    No developmentshallcommence onsite until theexact details andsamplesofthe materialsto beusedfor the external wallsand roofshavebeensubmittedto and approved in writingbytheLocalPlanningAuthority.Development shall becarriedoutin accordance withthe approved details.

REASON:The application contained insufficientinformationto enablethis matter tobe consideredprior tograntingplanningpermission andthe matterisrequiredto be agreedwiththe Local PlanningAuthoritybeforedevelopmentcommences in orderthatthe developmentisundertaken in an acceptablemanner, in  the interestsofvisualamenityandthe character and appearanceofthe area

3.    Noexternalstoneworkshallbeconstructedonsite,until a sample panel ofstonework,notlessthan 1metresquare, hasbeenconstructedon site,inspectedandapprovedin writing bythe LocalPlanningAuthority.The panelshallthenbeleft inpositionfor comparison whilstthe developmentis carried out.Development shall becarriedout in accordance withthe approved sample.

REASON: Inthe  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

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.