Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from:

• Councillor David Vigar, who was substituted by Councillor Gordon King

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 9 October 2024.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 9 October 2024 were considered. Following which, it was:

Resolved:

The Committee approved and signed the minutes of the previous meeting held on 9 October 2024 as a true and correct record.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no specific Chairman’s announcements.

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 and others will have had the opportunity to make representations on planning applications and other items on the agenda, and to contact and lobby their local elected member and any other members of the planning committee, prior to the meeting.

Those circulating such information prior to the meeting, written or photographic, are advised to also provide a copy to the case officer for the application or item, in order to officially log the material as a representation, which will be verbally summarised at the meeting by the relevant officer, not included within any officer slide presentation if one is made. Circulation of new information which has not been verified by planning officers or case officers is also not permitted during the meetings.

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 30 October 2024 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 1 November 2024. 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 explained the rules of public participation and the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

There were no questions or statements submitted by Councillors or members of the public.

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

The Chairman invited Kenny Green, as the Planning Manager for Development Management, to update the Committee on the pending and determined appeals as per the appeals report included within the Agenda Pack.

The reported determined appeal was explained to Members pursuant to a Listed Building Consent application that had been refused under PL/2024/01084 for the widening of a door opening within and alterations to a masonry wall. It was explained that the Planning Inspector concluded that the proposal would not result in the loss of any historic fabric due to the development being conducted mainly internally which would not affect the significance of the listed building.

Members were then informed of a subsequent appeal decision at Siennas Valley Farm for the erection of a two storey dwelling located off Huntenhull Lane that had been issued after the agenda had been published, and which was of some material relevance to the consideration of Agenda Item 8: PL/2024/04800: Land South of 92 High Street, Chapmanslade, BA13 4AN. Members were informed that the Siennas Valley appeal was allowed despite a series of previous refusals and a dismissed appeal for a single storey dwelling, with Members being further informed that the decision included some irrational commentary which appeared to merit a letter being sent to the Planning Inspectorate to highlight specific concerns about the inconsistent decision making and the planning assessment made by the appointed Planning Inspector.

In response, Members expressed their dismay on the inconsistency of the Planning Inspectorate decisions relating to the appeal site and gave unanimous support to the officer in terms of drafting a letter to send onto the Planning Inspectorate.

On a separate matter, a query was raised on the procedure for arranging of Committee site visits. The Chairman again invited Kenny Green to explain the procedures followed with due reference given to Protocol 4 and Schedule 1 to Protocol of the Constitution.

It was explained that in the past, officers had always sought to arrange Member site visits for the scheduled day of the Committee meeting, but that two recent cases had merited site visits being scheduled for a different day. Officers also noted that all such officer requests were raised and agreed with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman prior to any invitations being sent to Members by the Democratic Services Team.

In response, Members formally requested that officers organise Member site visits directly prior to a Committee meeting, where possible.

Following which, it was:

Resolved:

• The Committee noted the appeals report for the period 27 September 2024 to 25 October 2024.

• The Committee endorsed the submission of a letter to the Planning Inspectorate by Kenny Green, Development Management Team Leader.

To consider legal advice requested by the Western Area Planning Committee (WAPC) 10^th April 2024, to assist in its determination of an application made under s.15(1) and (2) of the Commons Act 2006 to register land as a Town or Village Green (TVG), Southwick Court Fields, in the parishes of Southwick and North Bradley and recommend that the Inspector’s Advisory Report be accepted in part, and that the application be rejected on the ground that all the criteria for registration laid down in s.15(2) of the Commons Act 2006 have not been satisfied, for the reasons set out in the Inspector’s Advisory Report dated 9February 2024.

Public Participation

• Mr Francis Morland spoke in objection to the recommendation.
• Mr Geoff Whiffen spoke objection to the recommendation.
• Councillor Graham Hill, on behalf of Trowbridge Town Council, spoke in objection to the recommendation.

The Senior Definitive Map Officer, Janice Green, presented the report considering the Counsel’s Advice as requested by the Western Area Planning Committee on 10 April 2024, to assist in its determination of an application made under S.15(1) and (2) of the Commons Act 2006 to register land as a Town or Village Green (TVG), and which recommended that the Inspector’s Advisory Report be accepted in part, and that the application be rejected on the ground that all of the criteria for registration laid down in S.15(2) of the Commons Act 2006 had not been satisfied, for the reasons set out in the Inspector’s Advisory Report dated 9 February 2024.

Officers including Sally Madgwick (Definitive Map and Highway Records Manager), Claire Lovelock (Principal Legal Executive), and Trevor Slack (Solicitor), explained the background to the application including planning trigger and terminating events which extinguish the right to apply to register land as a TVG; the legislation which governs applications; the accepted application plan; and the previous referral to the Committee on 10 April 2024 which resulted in a deferral to seek Counsel’s Opinion on the question of whether the Draft Wiltshire Housing Sites Allocation Plan (WHSAP) formed a valid trigger event at the time of application.

The Counsel’s Advice, as prepared by Douglas Edwards KC of Francis Taylor Building, was summarised, and officers explained that whilst it was not open to the Inspector to consider the application dated 13 January 2020 in his Advisory Report, the Inspector’s conclusions as to the merits of the application would be the same for the period ending 30 November 2020, and therefore the Inspector’s recommendation can be relied upon by the Commons Registration Authority (CRA) in determining the application received on 30 November 2020. Members were reminded that although it was open to the CRA to reject the Inspector’s report and recommendation, it can only lawfully do so if the CRA finds that the Inspector has made a significant error of fact or law. As such, if the Inspector’s recommendation was rejected, the CRA must provide legally valid reasons, supported by evidence, of the error of fact or law, where the CRA’s decision is open to legal challenge.

Attention was drawn to Agenda Supplement 2 which detailed a series of questions and responses that had been submitted ahead of the meeting.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer.  Members sought further clarity on the timeline for the TVG applications; planning triggers and terminating events in line with Counsel’s Advice; the decision to instruct a non-statutory public inquiry; and if the applicant had been advised on their right to claim judicial review of the decision to return the application dated 13 January 2020.

In response, officers explained that the draft WHSAP was not a trigger  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Demolition of stables and construction of new sustainable self-build dwelling with associated works and change of use of land to C3. (resubmission of PL/2022/09808 and PL/2022/03190).

Public Participation

• Mr Terry Hulbert, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.
• Ms Dagmar Steffens, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.
• Mr Mark Foster, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.
• Mr John Foster, applicant, spoke in support of the application.
• Councillor Philip Holihead, on behalf of Chapmanslade Parish Council, spoke on the application.

Gen Collins, as Principal Planning Officer, presented the report which recommended that the Committee delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives and officers securing a completed Section 106 unilateral undertaking from the applicant to establish the proposals as a self-build development for the demolition of stables and construction of new sustainable self-build dwelling with associated works and change of use of land to C3.

It was noted that Members of the Committee had undertaken a site visit on Tuesday 5 November 2024, the day prior to the Committee meeting, with the Case Officer, Arboricultural Officer, and Highways Officers being present.

Key material considerations were identified including the principle of development; design and landscape; impact on trees; earthworks/land stability; heritage; residential amenity; highways; biodiversity; and drainage.

Attention was drawn to late representations that had been submitted following publication of the agenda, however it was confirmed by officers that the material considerations raised had already been taken into account within the report.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer. Members queried aspects relating to highway safety including traffic generation, potential conflicts with traffic movements, and the nature of the access as a private, unadopted road. Further queries were made in respect to fire safety and access to a suitable water supply, the width of the private lane being suitable for an emergency vehicle, and the minimum distances required pursuant to overhead power lines and new housing. Members also sought clarity on the separation distances between neighbouring properties and the proposed new dwelling with regard to overlooking and potential loss of residential amenity.

In response, the Case Officer and attending Highways Officers explained that the baseline existing land use was a material consideration in terms of the site being a previously developed site that had existing traffic generation currently used by one party, and with the site having three stables, there was the potential to have an even greater associated traffic generating on-site use. Members also heard from the attending Highways Officers who represented the Local Highways Authority, that the proposed single dwelling would not likely result in an increase in traffic generation when compared against the existing/potential stabling use. Moreover, the Highways Officers argued that the residential use would not result in substantive highway harm using the private lane and entering the public highway.

Members were also informed that the applicant had committed to relocating the stables to other land owned by the applicant which would be accessed from an existing agricultural access point and not through this proposed site, thus mitigating the risk of exacerbating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

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.