Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Edward Kirk.

Councillor Kirk was substituted by Councillor Roy While.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on the 15^th November 2017

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2017 were presented.

In relation to a query raised at that meeting from the Codford Residence Group it was stated that subsequently it had been confirmed that an email sent by the parish council clerk to a council inbox had unfortunately not been forwarded to the Democratic Services Officer. Nevertheless, the committee had amended the minutes of its October meeting to further clarify that the parish council had taken a neutral position in relation to the Codford Path No. 15 Right of Way Modification Order 2016.

Resolved:

To approve as a true and correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2017.

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

Councillor Ernie Clark referred to his register of interest.

Councillor Jonathon Seed noted that he had been in contact with the applicants of item 10 during a public engagement, although he did not have an interest in the item.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no Chairman’s Announcements.

The Chairman gave details of the exits to be used in the event of an emergency.

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

The Planning Appeals Update Report was received for the period 03/11/2017 and 01/12/2017

Resolved:

To note the Planning Appeals Update Report for 03/11/2017 and 01/12/2017.

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 Wednesday 6 December 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 Friday 8 December 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 Chairman welcomed all present. He then explained the rules of public participation and the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

A question was received from Councillor Ernie Clark and a written response had been provided as detailed in agenda supplement 2.

A supplementary question from Councillor Ernie Clark was asked: Why is it taking so long to publish the information?

It was agreed that the Head of Spatial Planning would be asked to provide a response, to be circulated to all Members of the committee.

Public Participation

Susanna Isaac spoke in objection to the application.

William Stuart-Bruges spoke in objection to the application.

Dr William Scott, Friends of Great Lees Field, spoke in support of the application.

Brian Smyth on behalf of Semington Parish Council spoke in support of the application.

Janice Green, Rights of Way Officer, presented the report, which recommended that the committee appoint an independent Inspector to preside over a non-statutory public inquiry.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers, where no questions were asked.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as detailed above.

In response to points raised during the public forum the Rights of Way Officer informed the committee that the planning application had been submitted to Wiltshire Council as the Planning Authority on 14 June 2016, prior to the Village Green application which was received by Wiltshire Council as the Registration Authority on 24 June 2016. However, in order for the planning application to be a valid trigger event over the land, which would extinguish the right to apply to register the land as a town or village green, the planning application must be first published under s.65(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In this case the planning application was not published until 29 June 2016, therefore at the time the application was received no trigger events were in place over the land.

Upon receipt of the Town/Village Green application, the Registration Authority consulted with the Planning Authorities who confirmed that there were no planning trigger events in place over the land at the time  the Town/Village Green application was received by the Council. The Rights of Way Officer confirmed that where there is a dispute in the evidence provided to the Registration Authority, the holding of a non-statutory public inquiry would assist the Registration Authority in its determination of the application.

A debate followed, where the following key points were raised: the complex nature of the application and the publishing dates of the planning application on the parish list.

A motion was moved by Councillor Johnathon Seed to move the officers recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Ernie Clark.

At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved:

That Wiltshire Council, as the Commons Registration Authority, appoints an independent Inspector to preside over a non-statutory public inquiry, in order that a recommendation can be made to the Council as the Registration Authority, to assist in its determination of the application to register land off Pound Lane, Semington, known as Great Lees Field, as a Town or Village Green, as soon as is reasonably practicable.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Public Participation

Nicola Trumper spoke in objection to the application.

Malcolm Archer, Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Adrian Browning, Church Commissioners (vendor), spoke in support of the application.

Simon Ferris, Diocese of Salisbury, spoke in support of the application

Steve Sims, Planning Officer, introduced a report which recommended planning permission be granted subject to conditions for the change of use of a church to a 2 bedroom dwelling, with the external and internal alterations and the formal provision of two car parking spaces on land to the rear of No. 95 Staverton.

Key issues highlighted included the Principle of the development; Impact on the The key issues highlighted included the principle of the development; the impact on the setting of listed buildings (including the church itself); the impact on the character of the area; the impact on the living conditions and amenities of neighbouring residents; the impact on highway safety interests; ecology and drainage issues were also highlighted.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on the modified red line site plan during the planning process and the location and use of the access track.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the committee, as detailed above.

A debate followed, where the following key points were raised: acknowledging the subject property’s former use as a church and its lack of dedicated car parking and the recognition of finding a viable and suitable use for what is a listed building and appraising the consequential impacts of the development on neighbouring residents and highway safety.

A motion to approve the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Ernie Clark and was seconded by Councillor Sarah Gibson.

At the end of the debate is was;

Resolved:

To approve planning permission 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 in accordance with the following approved plans:

Amended Site Location Plan scale 1:1250 (dwg no. 0504 01 rev B)

Existing Floor Plans scale 1:100 (dwg no 0504 02A)

Proposed Floor Plans and Section B scale 1L100 (dwg no. 0504 03A)

Existing Elevations scale 1:100 (dwg no. 0504 04)

Proposed Elevations scale 1:100 (dwg no. 0504 05)

Amended Block Plan scale 1:500 (dwg no. 0504 07 rev G)

Proposed Section A-A scale 1:50 (dwg no. 0504 09 rev A)

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3.         No development hereby approved shall commence within the area indicated as the proposed development site until:

•           A written programme of archaeological investigation, which should include on-site work and off-site work such as the analysis, publishing and archiving of the results,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

Public Participation

Steve Yalland, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Ian Cradock spoke in support of the application

Steve Sims, as the senior planning case officer, presented the report which had recommended that the proposed agricultural workers dwelling be granted temporary planning permission for a period of three years subject to conditions.

Steve Sims, as the senior planning case officer, presented the report which recommended that the proposed agricultural workers dwelling be granted temporary planning permission for a period of three years subject to conditions.

Key issues highlighted included: the principle of the development; the visual impact upon the surrounding area; the design, bulk, height, general appearance and the environmental/highway impacts. The Committee was informed that Hilperton Parish Council objected to the application proposal. The committee was informed that the applicant had already moved onto the site with a different mobile home to that being proposed under the application after leaving their previous residency. Members were informed that the on-site occupation was unauthorised and that in the event permission was granted for the development being proposed, a condition could remedy the breach. The financial and functional agricultural justification was also summarised and members were informed that the Council’s appointed agricultural adviser had provided a report that was summarised in the committee papers. 

The committee presentation identified land that was owned and rented by the applicant to which the Council’s agricultural adviser duly referenced in his report. The committee were informed of the parcels of rented land the applicant asserted to have agreements in place with the requisite land owners, however on the day of the committee meeting a late representation had been shared with officers  questioning the accuracy of the submission which led officers to make direct contact with the applicant and agent in an attempt to seek clarification before the meeting to ascertain whether the extent of rented land available to the applicant had changed since the application was submitted and what land parcels could be evidenced to have formal rental agreements in place to support the claim that the farm enterprise could fully justify on-site residency for an agricultural worker.

The committee was informed that officers had not received the evidence or clarity being sought on the day of the meeting and out of fairness to the applicant, the committee was asked to consider a deferral until the information was shared and have the case reported back to committee for consideration. Members were furthermore advised that in the event that the land available for the use of the applicant had materially changed, it would be necessary to re-engage the services of the Council’s agricultural consultant to review any fresh submission and justification.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers which focused on: The confidential nature of the representation received; the nature of when proof of landownership is normally requested and the enforcement history.

It was also noted that there had been previous enforcement investigations relating to the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

Public Participation

Mr Healy, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Michael Park, Headteacher, spoke in support of the application.

Anthony Dixon, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The planning officer, Katie Yeoman, presented a report which recommended planning permission be granted for proposed extensions and alterations to Princecroft School including the construction of a new school hall. Key issues were stated to include the principle of the development, impact upon the host building, neighbouring amenity and highways safety, all of which were considered acceptable.

Members of the Committee were given the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the committee with their views, as detailed above.

The local Unitary Member, Councillor Pip Ridout, then spoke in support of the application.

A debate followed, where the impact upon local highways was raised, along with conditioning use of a school travel plan, construction statement, as well as details of the catchment areas and level of traffic in the area.

A motion to approve the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Ridout, seconded by Councillor Andrew Davis, and at the conclusion of discussion, it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following 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 in accordance with the following approved plans:

Site location plan – drawing no. 005 Rev A – received 15/09/2017; Existing location plan – drawing no. 010 Rev A  - dated 15/09/2017; Proposed location plan – drawing no. 011 – received 15/09/2017; Existing site plan – drawing no. 050 Rev A – dated 06/07/2017; Proposed site plan – drawing no. 051 Rev C – dated 15/09/2017; Existing ground floor plan – drawing no. 060 Rev A – 06/07/2017; Proposed ground floor plan new hall – drawing no. 061 Rev C – dated 15/09/2017; Proposed ground floor plan – drawing no. 062 Rev C – dated 15/09/2017; Existing elevations – drawing no. 2001 Rev A – dated 31/08/2017; Proposed elevations – drawing no. 2002 Rev C – dated 08/11/2017; Existing roof plan – drawing no. 0208 – dated 23/11/2017; Proposed roof plan – drawing no. 0209 Rev B – dated 08/11/2017; Proposed 3D views 01 birds eye – drawing no. 9401 Rev A – dated 29/08/2017; Proposed 3D views 02 birds eye – drawing no. 9402 Rev A – dated 30/08/2017; Proposed 3D views 03 street level – drawing no. 9403 Rev A – dated 29/08/2017; Detailed drainage layout – drawing no. 500C – dated 30/10/2017; Manhole schedule – drawing no. 510C – dated 30/10/2017; Construction details – drawing no. 520 sheet 1 – dated 30/10/2017; Construction details – drawing no. 521 sheet 2 – dated 30/10/2017; Construction details  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Public Participation

Clive Taylor spoke in objection to the application.

Angela Andrews spoke in objection to the application.

Daniel Gerber spoke in objection to the application.

Peter Maclaren, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Martini Freeman, Broughton Gifford Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

James Taylor, senior planning officer, introduced the report which recommended approval be granted for minor material amendment to planning permission W/12/02072/FUL (varying conditions 4 and 10) to facilitate the "as built" plans of the solar park. Key issues included the scale and visual impact of the as built development on the open countryside, conservation area and heritage assets such as the listed Gifford Hall, over and above the consented scheme. The report concluded the proposals addressed previous reasons for refusal on the variation application from 2014, including replacement of metal fencing and omission of CCTV proposals. Furthermore, that the as built scheme did not cause any substantial harm over the consented scheme.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the differences between the as built site and the extant permission, and it was confirmed that there had been an increase in the number of rows, but that the solar arrays were lower and narrower. It was confirmed that the number of solar panels and the surface area of the panels on the as built scheme was less than the consented scheme and were contained within the same site area.

The local unitary member, Councillor Philip Alford, then spoke in objection to the application.

A debate followed, where the visual impact of the present site was discussed, and whether the density of panels was significantly above that of the consented plans of fewer rows of greater height and width on the same site. The potential impact on the designated conservation area, heritage assets and landscape of the as built vs consented scheme were raised, but a site visit was proposed in order for the committee to consider the level of impact of the site in its present form before making any decision.

Upon the proposal of Councillor Alford, seconded by Councillor Ernie Clark, at the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

To undertake a site visit at approximately 1pm on 10^th January 2018.

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency.