Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Chris Hurst.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 7 October 2015.

The minutes of the meeting on 7 October were presented and, subject to the amendment that ‘Cllr Howard Marshall was no longer a member of the Committee’ at minute no.106, it was:

Resolved:

To confirm as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 7 October 2015.

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

Cllr Bob Jones MBE declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of item 6a 15/07861/FUL - Meadowpark School, The Old School House, High Street, Cricklade, Wiltshire, SN6 6DD. Cllr Bob Jones MBE explained that he supplied services to Meadowpark School and noted that he would not speak as local member or participate in any way.

Cllr Howard Greenman declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of item 6c 15/07510/FUL - Hullavington Garage, The High Street 29A, Hullavington, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN14 6DP. It was noted that Cllr Howard Greenman would not participate in the debate or the vote for item 6c and would leave the room when it was considered.

To receive any announcements through the Chairman.

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 21 October 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.

Andrew Miles, Rajvinder Kular, and James Averies spoke in support of the application.

Nicholas Rose, Richard Sergeant, and Brian Parrish spoke in opposition to the application.

Cllr John Coole, Cricklade Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer drew attention to the late observations and introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused. The application was for the erection of a building to provide two classrooms. It was explained that the application also proposed an increase in pupils from 48 to 84. It was commented that the school itself and the neighbouring property were both Grade II Listed buildings and located within a conservation area. The Planning Officer highlighted that a parking plan had been provided by the applicant. There was a gravel parking area with 14 spaces, 9 of which were reserved for staff parking, and a tarmacked area providing an additional 12 spaces for use in pickup and dropoff times; this was also used as a school play area during the day.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions and it was confirmed that the parking provision met Wiltshire Council standards. The Highways Officer also noted that individual parking bays could be defined in a gravelled area using a plastic grid and inserts. It was highlighted that the gravelled area was under the control of Meadowpark School and, as such, any irregular parking could likely be monitored and rectified. It was also clarified that the site was considered to have a medium probability of flooding and had been categorised as a flood zone 2 area by the Environment Agency.

The Highways Officer clarified that the proposal complied with Wiltshire Council parking requirements but that it was not possible to force parents to use to allocated dropping off and setting down points. It was also commented that the current Travel Plan required the school gates to be locked during the day but, if the Committee were minded to grant planning permission, a renewed Travel Plan would likely require the gates to be kept open during the day.

The Planning Officer advised that the building in question did not reflect a historic burgage plot, due to its width being wider than a traditional burgage plot. It was advised that there may be the potential to reduce the width to that of a burgage plot.

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

The Highways Officer clarified that some highways concerns raised could be addressed through other enforcement avenues. It was explained that a planning application could only be refused if the effect on the network was severe which was not the case for this application. The Planning Officer also clarified that the scale of the building was roughly twice the size of the existing building in terms of width but similar in terms of height.

Councillor Peter Hutton proposed, subsequently seconded by Councillor Toby Sturgis, that permission be delegated to officers to grant permission. Following advice from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

Simon Chambers spoke in support of 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 replacement dwelling. The proposal was to build a replacement dwelling for the existing structure on the site that had been granted a Certificate of Lawfulness for use as a dwelling on 30 June 2015. It was noted that the replacement dwelling was larger but was considered to be a high quality design. The proposal invoked a contemporary approach and used modern materials.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions and the Planning Officer explained that the level of amenity space on the site was considered to be acceptable under central government guidance and local polices (Core Policy 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy).

It was noted that, under s.191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and s.4 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, any building that has been used as a residential dwelling for an uninterrupted period of four years was immune from enforcement action. It was confirmed that Wiltshire Council’s Legal team had been involved in this matter and that, in accordance with the legislation, it was considered that, on the balance of probabilities, the land subject to the Certificate of Lawfulness application had been in residential (C3) use for an uninterrupted period of four years or more. It was also explained that, the details of the property had been passed on to the Council Tax team who would take further actions as necessary; this was standard procedure on the grant of a Certificate of Lawfulness. It was also clarified that the mobile home identified in pictures of the site constituted operational development and that the Certificate of Lawfulness covered both the log cabin and the mobile home.

The planning officer explained that certificates of lawful existing use were considered on the balance of probabilities on the evidence submitted and the evidence held by the Council. In considering these applications local and national planning policies could not be taken into consideration.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the proposed roof was to be made of zinc which was of a good quality and, with sufficient insulation, would be sufficient to reduce noise caused by rainfall. It was also clarified that the same access served all the buildings on the site and that all land was under the ownership of one individual.

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

The Planning Officer responded to comments from the public.

The local member, Cllr Baroness Jane Scott, OBE, noted that the site in question was located on the edge of two parish council boundaries and expressed concerns about the process of consultation with parish councils for the Certificate of Lawfulness. The local member urged consultation with all proximate parish councils where future proposals were near to parish council boundaries. Concern was also expressed about the design of the proposal and its  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

John Welch, Andy Rowell, and Dudley Hewitt spoke in support of the application.

Tim Rothwell spoke in opposition to the application.

Cllr Maggie Bawden, Hullavington Parish Council, spoke in relation to the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused. The application was for ancillary accommodation to a garage, shop, and Post Office. The Planning Officer noted that the site was situated on a corner plot between The High Street and Frog Lane and was not in a conservation area. It was also explained that there were concerns relating to the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property at No. 29 High Street. It was considered that the proposal would significantly enclose the rear garden of the neighbouring property and result in significant harm to residential amenity from loss of light.

There were no technical questions.

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

The Planning Officer responded to comments from the public and explained that there was no evidence to directly demonstrate that the Post Office would shut unless this accommodation was provided. It was stressed that the current application was to be considered in terms of the impact to neighbouring properties and the streetscene.

The local member, Cllr Baroness Scott, OBE, explained that Hullavington Parish Council had supported the application in principle to protect the local shop and garage but that some concerns remained; these were addressed in the agenda pack. The local member expressed sympathy for the protection of local services but noted that there might be an alternative option for development that had a reduced impact on the neighbouring property.

In the debate that followed, the Committee discussed the impact of the proposal on the amenity space and loss of light to the neighbouring property.

Cllr Toby Sturgis proposed, subsequently seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton, that  planning permission be granted subject to standard conditions and an additional condition relating to the materials used on the wall facing the neighbouring property. Having been put to the vote, the motion was not passed. 

The Committee considered the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the light to, and amenity space of, the neighbouring property. It was also suggested that an alternative design might be able to achieve a balance between the community need for local services and the amenity and light to the neighbouring property, No. 29 High Street.

Cllr Terry Chivers proposed, subsequently seconded by Cllr Ernie Clark, that the application be refused in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

Following a vote, the meeting;

Resolved:

To REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:

1.    The proposed development would, by reason of its height, length of projection along the rear boundary line of the adjoining dwelling and orientation result in an unacceptable loss of light to the occupiers of the dwelling of No.29 High Street and an unacceptable loss of light, overshadowing and sense of enclosure to the amenity space of the same unit. Therefore, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

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.