Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

·       Cllr Mike Hewitt – who was substituted by Cllr Robert Yuill

·       Cllr Mary Douglas – who had asked Cllr Matthew Dean to speak on her behalf.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 26^th July 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26^th July 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 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 Thursday 13^th September 2018, 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 Monday 17^th September 2018. 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.

Two questions had been submitted in advance of the meeting and had been circulated as part of the agenda pack.

Questions:

Submitted by Dr Claydon, were in relation to application 17/10079/FUL: Nightwood Farm, Lucewood Lane, West Grimstead, SP5 3RN, considered by Committee on 10 January 2018:

Question 1.

With reference to The Town and Country Planning (Development

Procedure) England Order 2015 Section 39 paragraph 2 subsection (b):

There was no evidence submitted as was required to verify the

information included in the application because the information cannot

be verified. The whole basis of the application was that the land upon

which the bunds were sited was in effect within the permitted

development boundary and not outside the acknowledged and defined

boundary according to the Planning Officers’ own Report. The

application could not therefore be legally validated according to the

rules. Why, in view of the undisputed facts, was planning

application 18/05195/CLE validated by the Planning Department?

Response:

That the Council cannot refuse to validate or accept an application simply because a site or development may be contentious. We are duty bound to consider all applications submitted to the authority. Validation of an application does not however mean that we have accepted or agreed the contents of the application, simply that it meets validation requirements.

Permitted developments rights pursuant to Class A, Part 2, Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (means of enclosure) are not restricted to being within the curtilage of a planning unit even if the bund did fall outside of the authorised site.

Question 2.

What progress has been made in regard to pursuing enforcement action

at Nightwood Farm, following the SAPC decision in January 2018.

Response 2.

The Council initially waited for the Environment Agency’s (EA) response given that the disposal of asbestos would primarily fall within their remit and they subsequently decided that they would take no further action. An application for a certificate of lawfulness was then submitted to us (18/05195/CLE) and is currently under consideration and we will therefore await determination of this application before taking any further action.

Dr Claydon was then invited to ask a supplementary question. He then addressed the Committee with the following:

On the 10^th January 2018, the Southern Area Planning Committee made a unanimous decision to reject application17/10079/FUL: Nightwood Farm.

The answer provided in response is totally incorrect. I have been in touch with Karen Rosser at the Environment Agency (EA), who has confirmed that they were informed on January 11th and said that it was fine. The Local Authority (LA) do not need the EA support. That was back in January. The certificate of lawfulness was submitted in June. There is a gap between the two dates. There should have been enforcement on 12^th January.

With regards to the validation of a certificate of lawfulness, one requirement of the Town & Country Planning Act, is that evidence must be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 317.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period of 13/07/2018 to 07/09/2018.

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

Resolved

That the report on Appeals and Updates for the period of 13/07/2018 to 07/09/2018 be noted.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Create a new driveway to Watergate House and close off the existing. The new access will be located (in part) outside of the domestic curtilage, utilising part of a low grade pasture field (re submission of 17/12478/FUL).

Public Participation

Robyn Harper registered to speak in support of the application

The Planning Team Leader Adam Madge presented the application for a new driveway to Watergate House and close off the existing. The new access will be located (in part) outside of the domestic curtilage, utilising part of a low grade pasture field (re submission of 17/12478/FUL). The application was recommended for refusal.

A site visit had taken place earlier in the day.

Current vehicular access to the house was from the centre of Bulford, however the owners state there had been issues with flooding along that route, and so had decided to create an alternative access.

The proposal would not require any of the trees to be removed.

The building was a grade 2 listed building. The Conservation Officer had requested further information on the specifications of the proposed changes to the bridges, as they were in the grounds of the listed building, this information had not yet been provided.

Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was noted the agent had been asked for the information on the bridges, however this had not been provided. However, should the application be approved, conditions could be included to request the plans of the bridges.

No Technical advice on whether the tree routes would affect the ground below the new rote ad been sought, as a tree preservation order was not required for the quality of tree in place.

Evidence on whether the current driveway flooded, or not, was not required as this would not have a bearing on the consideration of the new route.

The Ecology report stated that all of the land was in the flood zone.

Cllr Devine moved the motion of deferral, to allow the applicant additional time to provide all the officers have asked for, so that the impact on the listed building could be properly assessed.  This was seconded by Cllr McLennan.

The Committee then voted on the motion of deferral.

Resolved

That application 18/06331/FUL be Deferred to allow time for the additional information on the bridge plans to be provided and assessed.

Resolved

That application 18/06327/LBC be Deferred to allow time for the additional information on the bridge plans to be provided and assessed.

Removal of Single Garage and Shed on Driveway and Replacement with a Double Garage.

Public Participation

Mr Sheldon spoke in objection to the application

Jenny Ritter spoke in support of the application

Clive Hazzard spoke on behalf of the Town Council

The Planning Officer Christos Chrysanthou presented the application for the removal of a single garage and shed on a driveway and replacement with a double garage. The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

He noted that there was no objection from Highways, subject to conditions.

Previous refusal of an application had gone to appeal, where it had been dismissed by the inspector.

The proposal included a reduction of 60cm to the driveway which would slope down from the road.

Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was noted that the other garage to the right of the applicants was owned by a neighbour.

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

The main points included concern of the size of the proposed garage, and the impact it would have on those living next to it, due to blocking out sunlight and the impact on the streetscene. The issue of possible future business use was also raised.

The applicant spoke to clarify some of the points surrounding drainage, windows, building height and proposed use.

Mere Town Council spoke in objection to the application noting that it felt this proposal did not address the previous reasons for refusal. It felt that the site would be readily visible in the streetscene and the proposed scale and mass would have an overbearing impact on 1 Duchy Cottages. Adding that whilst the proposed garage was an improvement, it was unnecessary to be so large. It was requested that if the application was to be approved, could a condition be included to prevent the garage from being used for commercial practices.

The Division Member Cllr George Jeans then spoke in objection to the application, noting that in the past the garage and its associated house had been to committee before, an application had been to an inspector regarding the garage. It was refused, on harm caused to the character and appearance of the area.

The building would not be reduced by 1m when you walk along the road. He felt that the proposal showed no respect for the Officers recommendation, and asked whether enough been done to overcome the inspectors refusal.

Cllr Jeans then moved the motion of refusal against Officers recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Dalton

A debate then followed, where they key issues raised included that the proposal included a 30% reduction in size, and whether that addressed the concerns of the inspector.

There was already a smaller garage on the site, and at some point it was likely that the garage would need to be replaced.

The Inspectors report noted the impact of the previous proposal, and the impact on the streetscene primarily and not the impact of the bulk, so to accept that as this was a smaller development,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 321.

Application WITHDRAWN

This application was withdrawn by the applicant, and not considered by Committee at this meeting.

Erection of 4 houses, garages, parking and access following the demolition of the 3 existing buildings (Outline application relating to access and layout)

Public Participation

Chris Ward spoke in support of the application

The Planning Team Leader Adam Madge presented the outline application for the erection of 4 houses, garages, parking and access following the demolition of the 3 existing buildings (Outline application relating to access and layout). The application was recommended for refusal.

It was noted that Highways had raised concerns.

The Officer drew attention to late correspondence that had been circulated at the meeting.

There were two reasons for refusal, one related to the narrowness of the lane, and the other was due to the site being part of the Site Allocations Plan, therefore it was felt that this application was premature.

Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was noted that the late correspondence detailed an error in the report, relating to the Parish Council, it was confirmed that the Parish Council objected to the application.

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

The Agent addressed some of the issues raised in relation to the adoption of the Site Allocation Plan, and stated that in time this site would be included in the settlement boundary.

He queried why this was the first he had known of the drainage concern, as it had not been made aware to them ahead of the meeting, he suggested a deferral to allow time for them to respond.

The Division Member Cllr Chris Devine then spoke, and apologised for calling this application in, adding that the application had no merit whatsoever.

Never on the neighbourhood plan. Witt Road was one of the most cramped roads in Winterslow, and was a single vehicle road. To put more vehicles on this road was the last thing we would need. This proposal was an inappropriate development. He supported the recommendation for refusal.

Cllr Devine then moved the motion of refusal in line with Officers recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Britton.

A debate then followed, where they key issues raised included that the drainage report had not been provided until now, and Highways object as the road was inadequate to take any more use.

The Committee then voted on the motion of refusal.

Resolved:

That application 18/02580/OUT be refused for the following reasons:

1. The application site is situated outside of the defined limits of development as set out within Core Policies CP1, CP2 and CP23 of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy and the associated policies maps. Whilst the application site has been included in the draft Wiltshire Housing Sites Allocation Plan (WHSAP), the WHSAP is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area. The proposal is therefore considered premature and contrary to the Plan-led approach for housing intended to be delivered through the Neighbourhood Planning and Site Allocation processes. As the Council is able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land, and there is no over-riding need at this time for development in this location, the presumption against  ...  view the full minutes text for item 323.

Removal of condition 11 of S/2009/1409 to allow reconfiguration of internal arrangements.

Public Participation

No speakers

The Planning Team Leader Adam Madge presented the application for the removal of condition 11 of S/2009/1409 to allow reconfiguration of internal arrangements. The application was recommended for approval.

The Officer drew attention to late correspondence that had been circulated at the meeting.

Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was noted that the extension to the rear of the property had been to Committee in September 2016.

The Division Member Cllr Douglas had sent here apologies, as she lived in one of the neighbouring properties effected by this proposal, and asked Cllr Matthew Dean to speak on her behalf in objection to the application.

Cllr Dean noted that Cllr Douglas had been contacted by a number of residents in objection to the application. This was a situation of overdevelopment. People that lived in the main house, which was split into flats, already parked elsewhere on the site. The design of the coach house originally included the garage. The site is constrained, and access is limited.

Cllr Devine then moved the motion of refusal, on the grounds of poor design, overdevelopment and insufficient parking. This was seconded by Cllr Dean.

Cllr Devine noted that the owner of the Coach House, also had a flat in the main dwelling as well, and intended to use his garage space from that to park in. He questioned what would happen if he sold the flat, as he would lose the garage and parking space. Where would the applicant park then?

Parking was limited and the original idea of the Coach House was that it was a small dwelling and now it has grown. It goes against what was originally approved.

A debate then followed, where they key issues raised included the changes made to the design, the space of the garage, and whether it was already being used as a living space.

Highways had not objected on parking or safety grounds.

The site was largely empty, there appeared to be ample spaces at the rear for parking several more cars.

The Committee then voted on the motion of refusal.

This motion was not carried.

The Chairman then moved the motion of approval in line with Officers recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Britton.

Resolved

That application 17/11212/VAR be approved with conditions:

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending those Orders with or without modification), no development within Part 1, Classes A-C, there shall be no other windows inserted in the dwelling, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority on submission of an application on that behalf. .

REASON: To ensure adequate privacy for the occupants of neighbouring premises.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended by the Town  ...  view the full minutes text for item 324.

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