Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies had been received from:

·       Cllr Sven Hocking – Who was substituted by Cllr Robert Yuill

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2018 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.

There were none.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman explained the meeting procedure to the members of the public.

The order on the agenda would be changed, with the applications from Wilton coming first.

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.

The Wiltshire Council Parish of East Knoyle Footpath No. 16 (Part) Diversion Order and Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2017.

The Wiltshire Council Parish of East Knoyle Footpath 16 (A) Creation and Definitive Map Modification Order 2017.

It is recommend that the Orders be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with the recommendation that they be confirmed as made.

Note: The reports relating to this agenda item have been removed from the website in accordance with data subject rights under Articles 16, 17 and 21, EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016.

Public Participation

Mrs J Hockham spoke in objection to the Order

Stephen Dawson spoke in support of the Order

Liz Reeve spoke in support of the Order

Adam Cleal spoke in support of the Order

The Rights of Way Acting Team Leader, Sally Madgwick introduced the report detailing two Orders. The Wiltshire Council parish of East Knoyle Footpath No.16 (part) Diversion Order and Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2017 and the Wiltshire Council East Knoyle Footpath 16(a) Creation and Definitive Map Modification Order 2017.

During the consultation, the responses received from the public were largely in agreement with the order.

The farmer and land owner had agreed to dedicate points a to b to enable walkers to see the view from the highest point.

The definitive line of the footpath pre-dated the residential property which was formerly a farmyard.  The path had been variously unavailable and available over the years and in recent times the public had shown a clear preference to not walking through the garden but instead had chosen to walk an alternative route provided in the field.

The neighbouring property owners had not objected to the diversion.

If the diversion went ahead it would require a minute of walking on a quiet lane.

11 representations had been received in support and 3 there were objections outstanding.

The committee were advised it must base the decision on the legal tests as detailed in the agenda.

The recommendation was that the Orders be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with the recommendation that they be confirmed as made.

There were no technical questions to the Officer.

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

The Division Member Cllr Wayman then spoke in support of the Officer recommendation. She noted that the proposed route was almost an elegant solution, however she was not sure about the spur point to the lookout.

Cllr Westmoreland moved the motion to support the Officers recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Smale.

The Members then voted on the motion to support Officer recommendation.

Resolved

That the Wiltshire Council parish of East Knoyle Footpath No.16 (part) Diversion Order and Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2017 and the Wiltshire Council East Knoyle Footpath 16(a) Creation and Definitive Map Modification Order 2017 be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with the recommendation that they be confirmed as made.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period 23/02/2018 to 18/05/2018 as detailed in the attached paper.

The committee received details of the appeal decisions as detailed in the agenda.

Resolved

That the appeals report for the period 22/02/18 to 18/05/18 be noted.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Two dwellings and associated access, car parking and landscaping.

Public Participation

Tony Allen (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Mick Brown spoke on behalf of Winterslow Parish Council

The Senior Planning Officer, Warren Simmonds introduced the report which detailed an application for two dwellings and associated access, car parking and Landscaping.

Plot 1 already built. Plots 2 and 3 were detailed in this application. The Back Drove was a byway which would be used as access to the site.

There were no consultee objections subject to conditions. There was one objection from a neighbour on the opposite side of the road, due to overlooking, however as the neighbour was over the road, it was considered that there was not an undue degree of overlooking, therefore, this was not considered sufficient to constitute a reason for refusal.

Winterslow was a large village and this site was outside of the settlement boundary.

The Winterslow Neighbourhood Plan (NP) was in a development stage and had not yet been adopted. It was understood that all of the housing allocations previously listed had been removed from the upcoming NP.

The application was recommended for refusal

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was noted that the proposed development was not considered as infill.

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

The Parish Council representative spoke in support of the application. He drew attention to the map which had been circulated within the late correspondence at the meeting. The Parish felt that the development should be considered on merit, on location, and the type of construction materials, as he felt the application ticked all of the boxes.

The Division Member Cllr Devine then spoke in support of the application, noting that small scale development was wanted in Winterslow, and that the development reflected what was in the emerging NP. This was a site that had already been chosen for development by the NP Group.

The school was under subscribed, and Winterslow needed family sized homes to bring more families to the village. The back drove could be upgraded.

Cllr Devine then moved the motion of Approval, against Officers recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

A debate then followed, where the key issues raised included the support of the village, and whether the development would help to make the local school and community more viable. However as the NP was in the developmental stage and had not been adopted, it could not be given any weight. 

The report noted that the track leading to the second property would require repair and construction, and that would be included as a condition, should the application be approved.

The Committee voted on the motion of approval against officer’s recommendation.

Resolved

That application 18/01233/FUL be approved against Officer’s recommendation, as the proposed development was considered to constitute a sustainable form of development that would align with local aspirations for the provision of small scale housing development in and around the settlement, s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 286a

Erection of single dwelling and detached garage - outline application to determine access.

Public Participation

Sally Kay spoke in support of the application

Diccon Carpendale spoke in support of the application

Tom Rossiter spoke on behalf of the Parish Council

The Planning Officer, Christos Chrysanthou introduced the report which detailed an application for the erection of single dwelling and detached garage – outline application to determine access. The application was recommended for refusal.

As part of the development, trees and frontage of the site would be removed, to create access, thus changing the character.

On a site opposite, approval had been granted for a new dwelling, and a further new dwelling at Donhead St Andrew shared similarities to the proposed development.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was noted the Highways had not raised any objections to the planned access.

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

Tom Rossiter of Donhead St Mary Parish Council spoke in support of the application, noting that the Parish considered the development to be infill. He drew attention to there being no objection from any consultees. He confirmed that during the 1950s the site had formed part of a deer park, the shrubs and trees to the front of the site, were immature elm trees and brambles. There were no large trees. The Parish Council felt that the development would enable the applicant to downsize and remain in a village she loved.

The Division Member Cllr Deane then spoke in support of the application, noting that the report refers to the village as a small village, however there was a shop and a school and only a technicality classed it as a small village.

The proposed development was in line with what Area Board Councillors in South West Wiltshire feel should happen in these villages, a smaller house for people to downsize thus freeing up larger houses for families.

He supported this outline application. This could add to the charm of the village in this part of the Donheads.

The Chairman then moved the motion of Approval, against Officers recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

A debate then followed, where they key issues raised included that the Officer

had considered the development was not infill.

There was some concern regarding the removal of the hedge to the front of the development site, however it was felt that Officers would have picked up any restrictions relating to hedge removal if there had been any.

The villagers and Parish Council were in support the proposals.  

The Committee then voted on the motion of approval.

Resolved

That application 18/01046/OUT be approved against Officer recommendation on the grounds that there was local and parish council support and the development could be considered as infill.

Subject to conditions:

1        The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 286b

Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 17/07475/FUL to allow for the garage roof to be linked to the house and loft room created in roof void above garage.

Public Participation

David Sharpe (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Stephen Gledhill spoke on behalf of Coombe Bissett Parish Council

The Planning Officer, Joe Richardson introduced the report which detailed an application for the variation of condition 2 of planning permission 17/07475/FUL to allow for the garage roof to be linked to the house and loft room created in roof void above garage. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The site was in an AONB. At present the dwelling was a 6 bedroom dwelling.

This further variation sought to join the detached garage to the dwelling to create a further room.

There had been four letters of objection on the grounds of over development, as detailed in the late correspondence circulated at the meeting.

There were no technical questions to the Officer.

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

The Parish Council representative noted that neighbours and the Parish Council (PC) had consistently objected to the development. It was felt that the scale of the development was wrong for the site, and did not fit with neighbouring housing.

It was noted that in July 2017, the Committee had unanimously refused the application. In October it then considered an amended application, which was still opposed by PC and neighbours. That application was approved by one vote.

In March this year a further application for a variation to add a sixth bedroom was put forward. Now there is a third variation to link the garage to the house creating another bedroom.

If approved the house would be larger than the original application which had been refused. The PC felt that this was exploiting the planning system.

The Division Member Cllr Clewer was not in attendance.

Cllr Hewitt then moved the motion of refusal, in line with Officers recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Britton.

Cllr Hewitt then spoke noting that the developer had come back after first refusal to add variations to the prop to increase the room size.

The Committee then voted on the motion of refusal against Officers recommendation on the grounds of over development.

Resolved

That application 18/03084/VAR be refused against Officers recommendation for the following reason:

The proposed works combined with the permitted works of the previous planning permissions would provide a substantially larger property in massing and scale, with the resultant proposal considered to be overdevelopment that would be unsympathetic to the modest traditional character of the settlement, and thus, sets an undesirable precedent for similar development within the surrounding Conservation Area and wider Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Energy Storage Capacity Mechanism Plant to Support the National Grid.

Public Participation

Joe Studholm spoke in Objection to the application

John Kirkman CPRE spoke in Objection to the application

Martin Giles spoke in Objection to the application

Rob Foster spoke on behalf of Durnford PC

Richard Soar spoke on behalf of Woodford PC

The Senior Planning Officer, Richard Nash introduced the report which detailed an application for an Energy Storage Capacity Mechanism Plant to Support the National Grid. The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

It was explained that a list of specific sites that the applicant had looked at had not been provided.  The applicant had tried to use the contours and existing plantations of the land to try and screen the site as much as possible.

The site was supported by an Ecology report, a Noise report, a Heritage Impact Assessment and Landscaping appraisal.

The site was currently mainly grade 3 agricultural land.

In addition to the security fencing to the boundaries, the Ecologist had requested some additional screening along one side.

The system worked by responding to variations in grid frequency. It was said to be able to deliver power to the locality as well as further afield, however this was not verified.

Late correspondence was circulated at the meeting.

There had been a high level of local objection. There had been amendments to conditions 4,6,7 & 8.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where he noted that he was not aware whether Highways had physically attended site prior to submitting their response.

The proposed installation was believed to be capable of directing the stored energy to wherever it was needs on the national grid.

Central Government was supportive in principle of installations such as this, however the applicant was not obliged to provide a list of alternative sites and the reasons for discounting them.

This type of installation was new in the south of the county however, some other sites had been approved in northern areas of Wiltshire.

Any extension of the site would require further planning permission.

Members of the Public then had the opportunity to present their views, as detailed above. Some of the main points included that many of the parishioners had written to oppose the scheme, not one had supported it.

The noise created by the equipment would be intrusive to all around, forever.

There had been no evidence of alternative local sites which had been considered. Such as brown sites or other pylon sites.

The proposed site was in a prominent rural location.

The gap between supply and demand with electricity continues to grow.

Battery storage systems like this play a good role in bridging that gap.

The Division Member Cllr Hewitt then spoke in objection to the application, noting that the applicant has not stated whether they had looked at other brownfield sites. He felt that there was no more prominent position than this.

He highlighted issues associated with the large vehicular movements required during construction.

Cllr Westmoreland then moved the motion for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 288.

Conversion of part of ground floor Hair & Beauty Salon into 2 bedroom flat, internal and external works including alteration to shopfront and changing rear window at rear to a pair of doors.

Public Participation

Peter Grist (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Ian Pratt spoke in support of the application

The Senior Planning Officer, Lucy Minting introduced the report which detailed two applications.

18/00842/FUL for the conversion of part of ground floor Hair & Beauty Salon into 2 bedroom flat, internal and external works including alteration to shopfront and changing rear window at rear to a pair of doors.

And 18/00652/LBC for Internal and external works including changing window at rear to a pair of doors & alteration to shopfront (replacement shop front and

separate door to FF flat approved under S/2005/0251) to facilitate

conversion of part of ground floor Hair & Beauty Salon

The rear outside area would be divided to enable both the flat and the retail space to have access to an outside space.

No off-street parking was provided, however Highways had not raised an objection.

The required marketing was carried out for a period of 6 months and had been unsuccessful.

The applications were recommended for approval with conditions.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was noted that there were no policies regarding density for flats, it would be a judgement call. All would have an outside area and officers considered the proposals acceptable.

The retail element of the development was 34m2.

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

The Division Member Cllr Church had declared a conflict of interest and was represented by Cllr Wayman. Cllr Wayman then spoke in objection to the application, noting that with the housing development at the Berskin barracks and the additional houses at St Peters Place to be built, the catchment area was increasing, it was important that Wilton had a selection of amenities for residents.

Wilton Town Council had a policy of not recommending any application for commercial to non-commercial. The application did not completely do away with the retail space yet the size of the provision was too small.

Cllr Dean then moved the motion of approval, in line with  Officers recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

A debate then followed, where they key issues raised included the applicants attempt to market the space for the required period. 

Although there were no parking spaces included in the proposals there would be parking available in the carpark further up the road.

It was noted that the nature of retail was changing, and small units did tend to find occupants.

The Committee then voted on the motion of approval in line with Office’s recommendation.

Resolved

That application 18/00842/FUL be approved in line with Officer’s recommendation, subject to conditions:

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 289.

Conversion of ground floor Hair and Beauty Salon into two residential flats, internal and external works including alteration to shopfront to create separate door to first floor flat and changing rear window at rear to a pair of doors (resubmission of 16/10286/FUL)

Public Participation

Peter Grist (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Ian Pratt spoke in support of the application

The Senior Planning Officer, Lucy Minting introduced the report which detailed two applications.

17/10715/FUL for the Conversion of ground floor Hair and Beauty Salon into two residential flats, internal and external works including alteration to shopfront to create separate door to first floor flat and changing rear window at rear to a pair of doors (resubmission of 16/10286/FUL).

And 17/11125/LBC for the conversion of ground floor Hair and Beauty Salon into two residential flats, internal and external works including changing window at rear to a pair of doors & alteration to shopfront (replacement shop front and separate door to first floor flat approved under S/2005/0251) resubmission of 16/10439/LBC.

The bedsit has a window over South Street, the window was required to be triple glazed.

Marketing evidence had been provided.

The applications were recommended for approval with conditions.

There were no technical questions to the Officer. 

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

The Division Member Cllr Church was represented by Cllr Wayman. Cllr Wayman spoke in objection to the application, noting that the population increase in Wilton associated with the extra new homes would result in an increase of catchment by a further 50% next year, and had already increased by 20% over the last 2 years. Once premises were converted from commercial to residential they were changed forever. The lack of parking in the town meant that the proposal would put further strain on the area.

Cllr Dean noted that the last application appeared to be a compromise, with the retail element kept. This application would remove the retail element entirely. The applicant did not have the ability to test the previously approved retail provision. He felt this application was over development. There was pressure on on-street parking in that area. The proposals did not enhance the conservation area or the listed building.

Cllr Dean then moved the motion of refusal, against Officers recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

A debate then followed, where they key issues raised included that the small retail unit should be marketed before the applicant attempted to change the use to residential.

The Committee then voted on the motion of refusal against Officer recommendation.

Resolved

That application 17/10715/FUL be refused for the following reasons:

(1) At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and the Adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy seeks to build resilient communities and support rural communities but this must not be at the expense of sustainable development principles. The Settlement and Delivery Strategies of the Core Strategy are designed to ensure new development fulfils the fundamental principles of sustainability. This means focusing growth around settlements with a range of facilities, where local housing, service and employment needs can be met in a sustainable manner.

Core Policy 49 is the policy of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy that is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 290.

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