Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from:

·       Cllr Seed who was substituted by Cllr Wickham

·       Cllr MacDonald who was substituted by Cllr King

·       Cllr Payne

·       Cllr While

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 216 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2016.

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 Chairman’s Announcements.

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

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 (4 clear working days, e.g. Wednesday of week before a Wednesday meeting) 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 (2 clear working days, eg Friday of week before a Wednesday meeting). 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.

Formal questions with answers included in the agenda were noted.

Mr Morland asked who had drafted the response and sought additional clarification pursuant to his formal question. In response, the Council’s senior spatial planning officer Christopher Roe, explained that Wiltshire Council did not include greenfield sites when calculating residential windfall opportunities as part of the 5 year housing land supply assessment.

Several Members expressed some concern about this and it was agreed that the Chairman, in consultation with the Vice Chairman, would discuss the possibility of having the issue as a future agenda item.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The case officer presented the report which recommended the application for the existing primary school to be extended in a 2 phase development with an  additional informal and formal hard play area added, be granted subject to conditions.

The key planning issues identified in the officer’s presentation were outlined and comprised: the principle of the development, impacts on the character and appearance of the area, impacts on neighbouring residential amenities, highway safety and parking and archaeology.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer, key points included; the status of the school travel plan and if parents had to adhere to the plan.

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

Public Participation

David Ross, on behalf of Bitham brook school, spoke in support to the application.

Cllr Ian Cunningham, Westbury TC, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr King as the local member highlighted the following points: - local residents were in support of the school but were anxious that the issues with parking and drop off would become worse, clear and consistent communication with parents was required to tackle the transport issues and the need for the transport plan to commence as soon as possible and not wait until the latter stages of the development.

A debate followed where a motion was then moved to approve the officer’s recommendation. The main focus of the debate was around the school transport plan and parking restrictions.

Members were informed that the school travel plan could be bought forward to the beginning of the development and that a transport regulation order could be negotiated

At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved:

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions and informatives:

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: Red Line Location Plan; Existing Site Plan Rev A; Phase 1 Site Plan Rev A; Roof Plan Existing and Phase 1; Roof Plan Phase 2 Rev A; All Phases GIFA (Gross Internal Floor Area) Plans Rev A; Ground Floor Existing and Phase 1 Plan and Phase 1 Section; Ground Floor Phase 2 and Sections B and C Rev A; Existing Elevations; Phase 1 Elevations ; Phase 2 Elevations Rev A; Elevations All Phases Rev A, received 30th August 2016. Phase 2 Site Plan Rev C, received 20th October 2016. Bin and Cycle Stores, received 03rd November 2016

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

3.               No development shall commence on site until:

- A written programme of archaeological investigation, which should include on-site work and off-site work such as the analysis,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

The case officer presented the report which recommended the application for a two bedroom bungalow with associated parking and amenity area, be approved.

The key planning issues identified in the officer’s presentation were outlined and comprised: the principle of the development, impact on heritage assets, impact on the character and appearance of the area, impact on the neighbouring residential amenities and highway safety and parking.

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

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

Public Participation

David Fennel spoke in objection to the application.

Robert Kerr spoke in Objection to the application.

Nigel King spoke in Objection to the application.

The local Member Nick Blakemore expressed his concerns and objection to this application and highlighted the following key points: the proposed development is overdevelopment of the plot and would be out of keeping with the area; an additional vehicle access being formed onto the narrow single road would be difficult and would likely lead to highway conflict; where the new access is being proposed, there is no hammer head for manoeuvring vehicle and the proposed development makes no provision for visitor parking which could lead to issues in the future between road users and vehicles trying to access private accesses..

The members were informed that the trees in the open space were protected trees with TPOs and that privacy, light and parking arrangements light had been assessed. A condition had also been included for surface water drainage.

A debate followed where a motion was then moved to refuse the application. Key points raised in the debate included: overdevelopment and loss of amenities, out of keeping with the area, the impact on the appearance and character of the area. It was noted that 4 Members of the committee had visited the site.

At the end of the debate it was:

Resolved

To refuse the planning application for the following reason:

The proposed development is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site resulting in a cramped form of development that is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policy 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy adopted January 2015.

The area team leader presented the report which recommended that the application for alterations to the existing dwelling and erection of one new attached dwelling with an associated new access, parking provision and demolition of an outbuilding and partial down taking of boundary wall, be granted, subject to planning conditions.

The key planning issues identified in the officer’s presentation were outlined and comprised: the principle of the development, impact on the conservation area/ heritage assets, impact on neighbouring amenity, impact on highways safety, impact on ecology and the impact on archaeology.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer, key points included; the changes made pursuant to permitted development allowances, the status of the neighbouring property at No. 138 becoming an end of terrace house rather than a semi-detached as well as the means of accessing the property and technical questions relating to the proposed entry and parking turntable.

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

Public Participation

Noelle Elstone spoke in objection to the application.

Tom Rocke (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Ed Gilling, Chairman of Winsley Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr MacDonald as the local member highlighted the following key points: Local residents were against the development and that the development was out of keeping with the area.

A debate followed where a motion was then moved to defer the application for a site visit to take place.

Resolves

To defer the application for a site visit.

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

The Planning Appeals Update Report for 20/10/2017 – 10/11/2017 was received.

Members were informed that the Fulmar Close application appeal was to be handled as a fast track householder appeal and that the Council did not have the right to submit an appeal statement.  The Council was only limited to highlighted flaws within the appellants grounds for appeal.  The area team leader acknowledged that the local ward member, cllr While was presently out of action and it was understood that his ward member duties were being dealt with by Cllr Seed.  Members were advised that officers would review the notifications to ensure that should any flaws be identified, before November 28th, the planning inspectorate would be informed.

It was also discussed and noted that for future refusal decisions made contrary to officer recommendation, detailed minutes would be necessary.

Resolved:

To note the Planning Appeals Update Report.

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