Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Graham Payne, Jonathon Seed and Magnus Macdonald.

Councillor Payne was substituted by Councillor Fleur de Rhe-Philipe.

Councillor Macdonald was substituted by Councillor Gordon King.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meetings held on 18 May 2016 and 10 August 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 May 2016 and 10 August 2016 were presented for consideration.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 18 May 2016;

That subject to amending minute 71 to state ‘a site visit attended by Committee members’ in place of ‘a site visited attended by all Committee members’ to approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 10 August 2016

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no Chairman’s Announcements.

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

In respect of Application 16/01633/OUT, Councillor Ernie Clark stated he drew attention to his register of interest.

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 in person no later than 2.50pm on the day of the meeting.

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. The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice.

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 (acting on behalf of the Corporate Director) no later than 5pm on Wednesday 21 September 2016. 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 rules of public participation were noted.

To consider and determine the following planning applications:

Prior to the meeting convening, elected members undertook an officer-led site visit following the deferment of the application at the meeting on 10 August 2016.

The case officer, Eileen Medlin (a senior planning officer), supported by Mark Wiltshire, (a Highways Development Control Officer for major projects), presented the report which recommended the application for 58 homes on the former district hospital site be delegated to the Head of Development Management for approval subject to conditions and the prior completion of a section 106 legal agreement as detailed in the agenda papers.

The key planning issues were identified as the principle of the development, highway safety, drainage and the impact upon residential amenity. The former use of the site as a district hospital and the consequential traffic generation levels impacting on the surrounding road network and residential amenity were highlighted as well as the fact that part of the site is a saved housing allocation site for 25 residential units under saved policy H13A.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officers. Details were sought on traffic levels in the area and how these would be affected.  Following a question raised by Councillor Trevor Carbin, Members also wanted to know whether the vacant building credit and the consequential lower affordable housing on-site provision was something that could be re-negotiated.

Public Participation

Erica Watson spoke in objection to the application.

Roy Holloway spoke in objection to the application.

Liz Workman spoke in objection to the application.

Mark Adams, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Chris Beaver, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Ian Cunningham, Westbury Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Members of the public, the applicant and agent and representative of the Town Council then had the opportunity to address the Committee as detailed above.

Councillor Gordon King, the local unitary member, then spoke in objection to the application, drawing attention to comments made on 10 August, and highlighting the current vacant nature of the hospital and that compared to the established circumstances, there would be a consequential and material increase in traffic. Safety concerns along certain access roads were also duly highlighted.

Video footage supplied by a local resident, in the form of a cd was presented to officers to review and Mark Wiltshire provided Members with an appraisal of the highway flows, traffic bunching as well as noting the interaction of pedestrians and traffic.  The highway officer also reflected upon his own knowledge and experience of the local road network and localised traffic flows to assist members in reaching a decision on understanding the highway impacts.

As the debate began, Councillor King moved a motion to refuse the application, which was seconded by Councillor Trevor Carbin.

Members discussed the application and the proposed motion, noting that any increase in traffic arising from the application would be less than the existing fall-back position of a district hospital. Members were also reminded that part of the site remains an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

The case officer, Matthew Perks (a senior planning officer), presented the report which recommended that permission be granted for the proposed change of use of an existing stable block to form 2 residential units and the erection of a two-storey extension to form one additional residential unit.

The key planning issues identified in the officer’s presentation were outlined and comprised:  the principle of the proposed development, the means of access, impacts on neighbours and the impact upon the character of the conservation area.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Following a question from Councillor Ernie Clark about the window arrangement and proposed obscure glazing to be fitted, the officer provided further details on the proposed fenestration and the proximity to neighbouring properties.  Members were further advised that the obscure glazing had been agreed with the applicant.

Public Participation

Pat Hayes spoke in objection to the application.

Alan Hayes spoke in objection to the application.

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

The local unitary Member, Councillor Dennis Drewett, then spoke regarding the application, highlighting the tight access to the existing property.

A debate followed, where the scale of the proposed extension was noted and that due consideration should be given to existing privacy and potential loss of light. A motion was then moved by Councillor Ernie Clark, seconded by Councillor Drewett, that the item be deferred so that a site visit could take place.

Separately, the committee passed an instruction to the officer to make contact with the applicant’s agent to ascertain whether there would be a willingness to delete the side extension and third residential unit from the application.

Resolved:

To defer the application in order to arrange a site visit.

It was noted that the motion to defer was unanimous.

The case officer, Jemma Foster (a senior planning officer), presented the report which recommended that outline permission be granted for the erection of up to 26 dwellings. The key planning issues identified in the officer’s presentation were outlined and comprised:  the principle of the application, the means of access and the impact upon neighbouring amenity. Members were reminded that the application before them was in outline with all matters reserved other than the location of the access.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought regarding the location of the access and traffic calming measures in the area.

Public Participation

Tina Jones spoke in objection to the application.

Aubrey Austin spoke in objection to the application.

Lucie Castleman spoke in objection to the application.

Christopher Dance, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Members of the public and the applicant’s agent then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The local unitary member, Councillor Ernie Clark, then outlined the reasons why he could not support the application. He criticised the continued lack of a five-year land supply leading to the recommendation for approval of inappropriate housing applications. Councillor Clark argued that the development proposal was contrary to Core Policy 29 as no additional secondary school provision was being proposed for the town; and that there was a clear conflict in allowing greenfield sites for residential development in addition to the allocated strategic site until further secondary school provision is provided.  In addition, the education officer’s consultation response was picked up on and criticised for failing to adhere to the aforesaid adopted policy.

Councillor Clark moved a motion of refusal, which was seconded by Councillor Dennis Drewett.

Members debated the proposed motion, and reflected upon the proposed reasons for refusal and noted the consultation response from the Council’s education officer in terms of not requesting s106 developer contributions for education in this particular case (but instead seek to obtain CIL receipts at a future date). Members also considered the appeal decision pursuant to the adjacent site.

Following a vote, the motion to refuse was lost.

A motion was then moved by Councillor Andrew Davis, seconded by Councillor John Knight, to defer the application and to instruct the spatial planning team to provide a clear direction in terms of the compliance of the application proposals with Core Policy 29.

The case officer, Jemma Foster presented the report which recommended approval be granted for an outline application for the erection of one detached dwelling on land outside of the existing village settlement limits.  The key planning issues identified in the officer’s presentation were outlined and comprised: the principle of the application and impact on the character and appearance of the area and duly referenced the fact that the site was sited within an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB).

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to queries it was confirmed that the site lay outside the limits of development and officers advised that due consideration should be given to the respective exemptions set out in the NPPF in the context of paragraph 14, whereby the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not automatically apply to protected sites such as the AONB.  The Council’s current housing land supply shortfall was still a material consideration and due regard should be given to the benefit(s) associated to delivering one additional dwelling.  Members were also advised that officers had reflected upon the AONB Management Plan and that it was a material consideration in the determination of the application.

Public Participation

Richard Cosker, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Simon Martyr, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Tom Thornton, Codford Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The applicant and his agent followed by the representative from Codford Parish Council then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

Councillor Christopher Newbury, the local unitary member, then spoke regarding the application, noting the concerns of the Parish Council and detailing the ongoing process to review the limits of development, but that at present the site lay beyond it.

A debate followed, and a motion to approve in accordance with the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Fleur de Rhe-Phillipe, seconded by Councillor Roy While.

The proposed motion was debated, and due consideration was given to site’s position on the edge of the village, the number and proximity of houses near to the site and the extent of the impacts the development may have on the protected countryside followed.

Following a vote the motion to approve the application was lost.

A motion to refuse the application was then moved by Councillor Christopher Newbury, seconded by Councillor Trevor Carbin.

The proposed motion was debated and due consideration was given to the Parish Council who have undertaken a recent housing needs survey which did not indicate that a house such as that proposed was required in the village. Further discussion was also undertaken regarding the visual intrusion the proposed dwelling would have on the wider AONB.

Following discussion, it was,

Resolved:

To refuse the application for the following reasons:

The site is located in the open countryside and there is no special agricultural, forestry or other overriding justification to allow such a residential development. Whilst  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

To receive details of appeal decisions and appeals pending.

In referencing the reported appeals update, Mr Francis Morland directed criticism towards the lack of detail pursuant to appealed application 14/09262/OUT which had been refused by the Strategic Planning Committee. Mr Morland expressed further criticism about the decision which was made not to proceed with a defence of the appeal, over-riding the decision of the strategic committee and furthermore, such a decision highlighted an apparent inconsistency in terms of the Council proceeding with the defence of a separate appeal around the same time pursuant to appealed application 14/11919/OUT.

Resolved:

To note the Planning Appeals Update Report and to refer the questions raised to the appropriate officers for a detailed explanation and clarification.

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.