Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

• Cllr Charles McGrath
• Cllr Trevor Carbin

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2022 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 no declarations.

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 no later than 10 minutes before the start of the meeting. If it is on the day of the meeting registration should be done in person.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are linked to 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 26 January 2023 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 30 January 2023. 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 the evidence submitted regarding an application made under Schedule 2(6) of the Commons Act 2006 to de-register buildings which it is claimed are wrongly registered as Common Land, the Pound, Whiteparish, (application no.2021/01ACR).

Public Participation

Trevor King spoke in Objection to the Application

Sarah Skeats (Applicant) spoke in Support of the Application

Attention was drawn to additional information as set out in supplements 1 and 2 to the agenda.

The Officer noted corrections to the report, which were:

·       Para 11 – (main report) – was amended to read “The closing date for applications made under Schedule 2 of the 2006 Act, is now the same as that made to a 2014 registration authority, i.e. 15 March 2027. In this case the application is made before the cut-off date and there is no material affect”

·       Paras 20 & 26 (Appendix 10) - the word ‘immediately’ had been replaced with the word “intimately” in the quotes from the Methuen-Campbell caselaw.

The Senior Definitive Map Officer, Janice Green, presented the Application to de-register buildings wrongly registered as Common Land at The Pound, Whiteparish.

It was proposed that the Application site be part de-registered, over the part of the application area covered by a building or the curtilage of a building, as set out in the report and detailed on the presentation slides.

Some of the main points raised included clarification of the site and its areas which had been numbered 1 to 4 in the report and shown on the screen.

The Officer explained how the legal tests set out at Schedule 2(6) of the Commons Act 2006 regarding the de-registration of buildings wrongly registered as common land, had been considered in relation to the areas of the application land, in that;

·       Area 1 was not registered common land and should be excluded.

·       Area 2 of the site was included in historical block plans for planning applications/consents for change of use and erection of workshop building at the Pound site in 1967.

·       Area 3 was an area of hardstanding, positioned outside of the1967 planning site.

·       Area 4 was a grass / wooded area at the north of the application area, also outside of the 1967 planning site.

The Legislation relevant to the application was presented and it was explained that on applying the tests, only one area, Area 2, met the criteria.

Attention was drawn to the reasons for the recommendation, which were set out in paras 40 and 41 of the report.

It was noted that three objections had been made to the application.

The Officer clarified that in relation to the late correspondence submitted by the applicant regarding the Ordnance Survey Mapping and a County Series map from 1952-1992, although these showed a change in surface over the site including Area 3, there was no evidence to demonstrate a relationship between the building and Area 3 necessary for it to form curtilage of the building.

It was also clarified that in relation to the visibility splay extending into Area 3, mentioned by the applicant, that the line on the mapping was the current hedge line rather than extension of the visibility splay northwards. The 1967 planning block plans do not record the visibility splay  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate.

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

The Planning Team Leader noted the consistent outcome of dismissed appeals as detailed in the update, adding that it was an indication of the amount of hard work the Officers put into each application.

The Committee commended the Officers.

Resolved:

That the Appeals update be noted.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Erection of 3 detached dwellings, garages, parking and access following demolition of 3 existing buildings (Outline application relating to access and layout)

Public Participation

Mike Jones spoke in Objection to the Application

The statement of Winterslow Parish Council was read by Cllr Rich Rogers

The Senior Planning Officer, Lynda King, presented the report on the application, which was for the erection of 3 detached dwellings, garages, parking and access following demolition of 3 existing buildings (Outline application relating to access and layout).

The main issues which were considered to be material to the determination of this application of the case were noted as:

• Principle and planning history
• Neighbouring amenities
• Highway safety
• Ecology
• CIL/S106

The application had generated an objection from Winterslow Parish Council and 25 letters of objection from third parties.

The application was recommended for Approval with conditions.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical question of the Officer.

It was noted that a 2019 application was refused on access into the site and drainage reasons, not on the layout or the number of dwellings. That application was dismissed at appeal due to a nitrate issue. The layout was found to be satisfactory by the Inspector.

The current application had overcome the nitrate issue as the applicant had reached an agreement with Wiltshire Council on purchasing credits to mitigate the nitrates.

The Officer noted that the absence of a response from the Drainage Officer, likely indicated that they were content.

As this was an outline application, the Officer could not confirm whether the properties would be 2 or 3 storey, however it was stated that it was expected that they would be standard 2 storey dwellings.

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on

the application. Some of the main points included the impact on Witt Road, the conditions of the surrounding area at the time of the Inspectors visit, which had taken place during an afternoon in winter, when the full experience of the walkers, horses, families and children etc that used the road was not present. The rise in the number of deliveries since the pandemic, resulting in more vehicular movements. The design of the proposal, being out of character.

The Parish Council statement noted that the layout on the site was not in keeping with nature of the area and adjacent properties and considered the proposal an over-development of the site. They noted concerns relating to overlooking on neighbouring properties and felt that the narrow nature of Witt Road and its use by walkers and horse riders to and from Bentley Wood, given that there was no footpath raised safety concerns.

The Divisional Member, Cllr Rich Rogers who was on the Committee spoke in Objection to the application, noting the narrow nature of Witt Road and its rural setting.

He felt that the proposal for 3 family homes was already provided for within the village. The limited detail in the outline application was noted, in particular as it was not known whether the dwellings would be 2 or 3 storey he stated there was insufficient evidence to make an informed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

Partial demolition, rebuild, extensions and internal alterations to the existing house and construction of a detached garage (part retrospective)

Public Participation

A statement in objection to the Application by Bill Symonds was read by Cllr Richard Britton

Matt Holmes (Agent) spoke in Support of the Application

The Senior Planning Officer, Joe Richardson, presented the report on the application, which was for partial demolition, rebuild, extensions and internal alterations to the existing house and construction of a detached garage (part

retrospective).

The Committee noted that due to the Applicant’s relationship to the Leader of the Council, Cllr Richard Clewer, the Council’s Scheme of Delegation required the application to be determined at the relevant area planning committee rather than under delegated powers.

The Officer also summarised the late correspondence which had been uploaded to the planning portal and circulated at the meeting, relating to conditions 1 and 2.

Condition 1 was advised to be disregarded as the proposal was retrospective and works on site had already started. Condition 2 was amended to include a correction to an incorrect plan.

The main issues which were considered to be material to the determination of this application of the case were noted as:

•         Principle of development, policy and planning history;

•         Design, scale, heritage/conservation matters and impact to the amenity of the area;

•         Parking/Highways Impact;

•         Ecological Impact and Protection of the River Test SAC

•         Other matters

The application had generated an objection from Whiteparish Parish Council and 10 letters of objection from third parties.

The application was recommended for Approval with conditions.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical question of the Officer.

It was noted that the application was almost identical to what had been approved in 2021, apart from the movement of the garage.

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application. The key points included a view that the location of the garage represented back-land development on the garden area and a request that a condition be applied to prevent further back-land development, should the applicant be approved.

The Agent noted that planning permission for the property to be extended was already in place and that the current application was for a minor change to the dimensions. The house at the front of the site was in the conservation area, however he proposed area for the garage was not and could be developed under permitted development rights.

Whiteparish Parish Council raised points in objection, noting concern in the works having been carried out beyond the scope of the existing consent. The proposed siting of the garage was felt to be in the wrong place on the site and would, in its current position, result in car lights causing an intrusion on neighbouring properties. It was noted that the permitted development rights could be removed.

The Divisional Member, Cllr Richard Britton who was not on the Committee, spoke in objection to the application, noting that he would have called the application in, even if not done so by the scheme of delegation.

Cllr Britton drew attention to the Conservation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

Demolition of existing 5 bed dwelling and erection of 4 bed dwelling with garage and parking

Public Participation

Ian Scaife spoke in Objection to the Application

Andrew Brighton spoke in Objection to the Application

Tracy Payne (Agent) spoke in Support of the Application

Whiteparish PC – Represented by Cllr Trevor King

The Committee noted a site visit had been arranged for earlier in the day.

The Senior Planning Officer, Becky Jones, presented the report on the application, which was for the demolition of existing 5 bed dwelling and erection of 4 bed dwelling with garage and parking.

The main issues which were considered to be material to the determination of this application of the case were noted as:

1. Principle for development of a replacement dwelling

2. Site history, character of the area and permitted development rights

3. Scale, design, impact on the character of the area and neighbouring amenity

4. Highway safety

5. Biodiversity

6. CIL

7. The Planning Balance

The application had generated an objection from Whiteparish Parish Council and 6 letters from neighbours both in support and objection.

The Officer noted the setting of the site in relation to the neighbouring dwellings on both sides. Several slides were show and explained, depicting the site from varying directions.

The application was recommended for Approval with conditions.

There were no technical questions of the Officer.

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on

the application. Some of the key points included reference to a difference between the reported height difference between the proposed development and the neighbouring properties, the cropping of photographs used in the presentation, which it was felt did not show the full impact of unobstructed views from a neighbour, the increase in size of the development in comparison to the existing dwelling on the site and the impact on neighbouring properties.

The Agent noted the Applicants aim in producing a high quality design which was considerate to the neighbouring properties, with windows placed to ensure no loss of privacy to surrounding dwellings. The site was in the settlement boundary and that the development was considered acceptable in principle. Dwellings in both Croft Heights and Common Road were varied and already included a mixture of designs. 

The Whiteparish PC representative, Cllr Trevor King noted the parish councils objection to the application, based on scale, visual impact and design. The number of bedrooms was not felt to be an issue, however the development would be significantly taller than everything else around it.

The Divisional Member, Cllr Richard Britton, who was not on the Committee spoke in Objection to the application, noting the objection of the parish council and the key arguments previously stated. 

Cllr Britton noted that despite the loss of one bedroom, there would be an increase to the ridge height and the property would be moving forward, making it more prominent from Common Road. In addition, he felt that the design was out of keeping and included a slate roof, whilst all other dwellings except one, had tiled rooves.

Cllr Britton suggested that the development was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.

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