Browse

Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Natalie Heritage  01225 718062 Email: Natalie.Heritage@wiltshire.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

20.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Cllr Crisp.

 

Cllr Crisp was substituted by Cllr Lay.

21.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 17 February 2016 .

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 February 2016 were presented.

 

Resolved:

 

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

 

22.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

 

 

23.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chairman.

Minutes:

The Chairman drew the meeting’s attention to the following matters: The evacuation procedures; the procedure for public participation; and the policy on recording and broadcasting of meetings.

24.

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 2 March 2016. 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 and that there were no questions submitted.

 

25.

Planning Appeals

An appeals update report is attached for members to note.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The Committee noted the contents of the returned planning appeals update report.

26.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine planning applications as detailed in the attached schedule.

27.

15/12096/FUL - 3 Witts Lane, Purton, Wiltshire, SN5 4ER

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Robert Owen spoke against the application.

 

Mark Camble spoke in support of the application.

 

Cllr Geoff Greenaway (Purton Parish Council) spoke against the application.

 

The planning officer, Lee Burman, introduced the report which recommended that the application should be granted permission subject to the conditions outlined in the report. The application was for the demolition of an existing derelict cottage and the erection of 4 residential dwellings; photographs of the area, a map, a block plan and blueprints were shown. Planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of four dwellings had previously been permitted, this application was a revision of the previous permission in respect of a 1.3m increase in the overall roof height of the new dwellings, inclusion of dormer windows to the rear elevations; erection of car ports instead of the previously approved attached garages and slightly varied mix of materials.

 

The officer explained that a new topographical survey had been conducted for the site; a slight reduction in surface level on parts of the site from the previous survey had been identified, however there was a variation in height across the site. It was outlined that there was no set vernacular or design character for the area and thus, the different design of the proposed buildings was not considered by officers to be out of character to the area. The officer informed those present that highways officers were satisfied that there would be sufficient off-street parking for the proposed dwellings, and no objections had been raised by design officers. The increase of 1.3 metres in roof height was not deemed significant enough to warrant refusal of the application, neither did officers consider the fence height to be overbearing. It was confirmed that ground floor slab levels would be a conditional requirement for permission.

 

Neither drainage engineers nor Thames Water had raised any concerns with the proposal. Members of the public had questioned the longer term maintenance of the proposed underground storage tank for water; the officer informed that the maintenance of the tank could either be through offer of adoption to the statutory undertaker (Thames Water) or to a management company for the joint responsibility of future occupants of the proposed 4 dwellings.

 

The Committee was then invited to ask technical questions. The officer confirmed that site levels were indicated on the layout plan and were the same levels as the approved site layout plan and the topographical survey showed that there was a variation in height across the site. The officer explained that this site, as a corner plot, had been designed according to its prominent location. It was confirmed that the proposed 1.8 metre high fence had not been deemed high enough by the planning officers to warrant the application’s refusal, nor had the proposed dwellings’ height increase of 1.3 metres.

 

In response to concerns of traffic movement through Witts Lane, the officer confirmed that a Construction Method Statement could be conditioned. A condition on landscaping could also be added,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

28.

Malmesbury St Paul Without 13, 16, 17 and Lea Cleverton 1A Diversion Order and Malmesbury St Paul Without 15 Extinguishment Order

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Alistair Millington spoke in support of the application on behalf of Malmesbury St Paul Without Parish Council and on behalf of SUSTRANS.

 

The case officer, Michael Crook, introduced the report which recommended that “The Wiltshire Council Malmesbury St Paul Without 13 (part), 16 (part), 17 (part) and Lea and Cleverton 1A (part) diversion order and definitive map and statement modification order 2015” and “The Wiltshire Council Malmesbury Without 15 Extinguishment and Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2015” be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with a recommendation from Wiltshire Council that the Orders be confirmed without modification.

 

A map of the current Rights of Way and proposed routes were shown. The officer explained that the current landowner wanted to change the RoW on his land; in exchange he would provide a license for the public to use a route along the disused railway track. Wiltshire Council wanted the disused railway line to be used as a pedestrian-cycle route and it was noted that the Council had taken a contribution from the nearby housing development at Cowbridge to achieve this. SUSTRANS was also supportive of this proposal. The officer informed those present that the diversion of the public right of way would remove access right next to the landowner’s farm and would divert 2 rights of way to the edge of one field. The proposed diversion would also correct an anomaly where the line of the right of way across the river was following the line of the old bridge rather than the new bridge, which is in a different location. It was stated that although some objections had been raised by the public, no issues had been identified that would challenge the legal tests of the proposed diversion order.

 

The committee were then invited to ask technical questions. The officer confirmed that the PROW would be diverted, but that the diversions were relatively small.

 

Members of the public were invited to speak, as detailed above.

 

Cllr Sturgis spoke on behalf of the local member, Cllr John Thomson, and commented that the proposed route was generally supported by the local community.  

 

In the debate that followed members supported the proposals, however, they encouraged the landowner to seek guidance from officers to try to avoid additional rights of way being claimed at some point in the future.

 

Cllr Sturgis, seconded by Cllr Chivers, moved the officer’s proposal. The motion was put to the vote and passed.

 

Resolved:

 

That “The Wiltshire Council Malmesbury St Paul Without 13 (part), 16 (part), 17 (part) and Lea and Cleverton 1A (part) diversion order and definitive map and statement modification order 2015” and “The Wiltshire Council Malmesbury Without 15 Extinguishment and Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2015” be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with a recommendation from Wiltshire Council that the Orders be confirmed without modification.

 

29.

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.