Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies had been received from:

·         Cllr Brian Dalton – substituted by Cllr Trevor Carbin

·         Cllr Jose Green – substituted by Cllr Robert Yuill

·         Cllr John Smale

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 19 October 2017, were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

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

The following declarations were made:

·         With regards to item 6 – Whiteparish Path No. 41, RoW Modification Order, Cllr Richard Britton noted that he was acquainted with the land owner of Mean Wood, but that his relationship was not prejudicial, so was able to take part in the discussion and vote on that application.

·         Cllr Chris Devine noted that he was not a land owner.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

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 by phone, email or in person no later than 2.50pm on the day of the meeting.

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

Members of the public will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

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 (4 clear working days, e.g. Wednesday of week before a Wednesday meeting) in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on (2 clear working days, eg Friday of week before a Wednesday meeting). 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.

To consider two representations and two objections received to the making of The Wiltshire Council Parish of Whiteparish Path No. 41 Rights of Way Modification Order 2017 made under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

It is recommend that the Order be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and that Wiltshire Council supports the confirmation of the Order as made.

Public Speakers

Andrew Lax spoke in support of the Order

Cllr Trevor King, Chairman of Whiteparish Parish Council spoke in objection to the order.

The Rights of Way Officer, Sally Madgwick introduced the report which set out the Whiteparish Path No. 41 Rights of Way Modification Order 2017. It was recommended that the Order be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and that Wiltshire Council supports the confirmation of the Order as made.

It was noted that there was already a public footpath in this area, which was well maintained. The suggested path had been featured on the internet on a walking website. There had been evidence from users, who claimed to have used the route without permission, with no force or secrecy. The period of use for consideration was 1992 – 2012. There were no signs to inform people to keep out. The parish council had always regarded it as a permissive path, however no reference from the parish minutes had been forthcoming to support this claim.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, it was noted that the committee were able to vote to either support of not to support the Order, however there would need to be supporting evidence not to support it.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

The Parish raised the point that there would be no reason to expect to see any reference in the parish minutes to the path, when it had always been private land with a permissive path. Before this application came forward, there had been no reason to discuss Mean Wood.

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Richard Britton then spoke, noting his frustration with the way the legislation disadvantages the land owner. Adding that after many years of free use by the public to enjoy particular locations, with seeming ease, a group of members of the public can put together evidence of use over a period and the land owner has no way to stop this. T

He felt that the fact that there was nothing in the minutes, echo’s that the land owner did nothing to stop the use. The members of the parish council did not need to record this in the minutes or discuss it.

Suggesting that maybe parish councils ought to minute any routes that seem as permissive, and make the land owners aware of it.

Cllr Britton chose to defer making a motion to the Chairman.

The Chairman, noted that there may be little value in debating the issue, unless Members could produce some substantial evidence. He then moved the motion to support the order in going forward to the Secretary of State for approval.

This motion was seconded by Cllr Mike Hewitt.

A debate then followed, where it was raised that there was a Rights of Way Act that lets people use paths like these.

The Committee then voted on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 223.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period 06/10/2017 to 03/11/2017.

The committee received details of the appeal decisions as detailed in the agenda for the period 06/10/2017 to 03/11/2017.

It was noted that the table detailed application 17/03525/FUL, which was in Tidworth and was not part of the Southern Area.

Resolved

To note the update.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Proposed demolition of existing buildings and its replacement with four tourist accommodation units together with associated works. (Amended scheme following withdrawal of application 16/10495/FUL).

Public Speakers

Mr Willis spoke in objection to the application

Suzanne Keen spoke in objection to the application

Kathryn Billing spoke in objection to the application

Rachel Yeomans spoke in support of the application

Mrs Kate Whyte spoke in support of the application

Mr Howard Smith spoke in support to the application

The Senior Planning Officer, Warren Simmonds introduced the report, which recommended that the application for the proposed demolition of existing redundant buildings and its replacement with four tourist accommodation units together with associated works (Amended scheme following withdrawal of application 16/10495/FUL).

It was noted that access to the site was from a public highway from the north.

The existing buildings on the site were in a dilapidated condition, with some falling down.

Each of the four dwellings would have allocated cycle storage and two parking spaces, with a further 3 additional car parking spaces to be shared by the site.

There had been 59 representations made by third parties, 35 in objection and 23 in support.

There had been no objections from Highways or Spatial planning, however the

AONB had raised a number of concerns.

There had been a deal of debate over how CP39 should be interpreted.

Attention was drawn to the late correspondence circulated at the meeting. A site visit was also held earlier in the day.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that there was currently no policy, on the use of redundant farm buildings. This site was in the AONB so excluded by the permitted development rights.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

The Chairman read a statement from the parish council which indicated support for the application.

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Jose Green (who was in attendance, but not sitting as a member of the Committee at this meeting). As a resident of Sutton Mandeville for 45 years, she was in attendance with an open mind.

Cllr Green pointed out that the AONB was the sixth largest in the country out of 46 across Britain, 380 square miles, with Tisbury as the largest settlement.

The attraction to the area was diverse. The landscape and nature, were some of the reasons for visitors to come and stay, including film work, with 2 films being made in the village.

As a tourist guide for 20 years and having sat on many committees in her role as a councillor, including the Vision, and the AONB Management Board, all had mentioned a need for more bed space.

The applicant had submitted 38 documents addressing the concerns raised.

The Night Sky document refers not to switching lights off, but instead, about the right lights in the right place at the right time.

There had been no objections from the statutory consultees or spatial planning. Cllr Green felt that the 25 conditions in the report covered all aspects of concern. With CP39, seen overall with CP34 and CP38, Cllr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 226.

This item has been withdrawn and will not be considered by Committee at this meeting.

This application had been withdrawn from the agenda following the withdrawal of the Councillor Call in.

The application would be dealt with under the remit of the delegated powers of the Planning Team.

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