Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from

Cllr Seed – Substituted by Cllr Whitehead

Cllr While

Cllr Payne

Cllr Macdonald – Substituted by Cllr King

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 November 2016 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 23 November 2016.

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

Cllr Clark declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 6a due to knowing an objector to the application and would abstain from the vote.

Cllr Clark referred to his register of interest for item 7a.

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 Wednesday 7 December 2016 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 9 December 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.

No questions had been received from councillors or members of the public.

The Chairman welcomed all present. He then explained the rules of public participation and the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

The Rights of Way Officer outlined the report which recommended that the Order be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and that Wiltshire Council supports the confirmation of the order.

Members of the Committee were given 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

Steve Noad spoke in objection to the order.

The Rights of Way Officer informed the committee that they could make a modification to the application although it would need to based on evidence and that the recommended width of the bridleway was 4 meters.

A debate followed where a motion was then moved to approve the officer’s recommendation.

At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved

That Wiltshire Council supports the Wiltshire Council Great Hinton Path No. 34 Rights of Way Modification Order 2016 and for the Order to be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with the recommendation that it be confirmed as made.

Cllr Clark abstained from the vote.

The Rights of Way Officer outlined the report which recommended that the Order be forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for determination, with a recommendation from Wiltshire Council that the Order be confirmed without modification.

Members of the Committee were given 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

Jonathon Cheal spoke in objection to the order.

Mr GKS Tucker spoke in Objection to the order.

Christina Ashworth spoke in support of the order.

Jonathon Nibbs spoke in support of the order.

Cllr M Nicholson, Holt Parish Council, spoke in support of the order.

The Rights of Way Officer informed the committee that they could only take into consideration the evidence before them and that there was insufficient evidence of public use of an alternative route at the field edge to support any modification to the order.

A debate followed where a motion was then moved to approve the officer’s recommendation.

At the end of the debate it was:

Resolved

That “The Wiltshire Council (Parish of Holt) Path No.73 Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2016”, be forwarded to the Secretary of State for determination, with a recommendation from Wiltshire Council that the order be confirmed without modification.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The case officer presented the report which recommended the application for the erection of up to 26 dwellings (an outline application with all matters reserved other than access), be granted.

The key planning issues identified in the officer’s presentation were outlined and comprised: the principle of the development, including the 5 year housing land shortfall, archaeology, flood risk and drainage, the impact upon the character and appearance of the area, heritage assets, ecology and landscape, sustainable construction, the impact upon neighbouring amenity and access and highways.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer, with the development site being located outside the settlement boundary a central point for discussion.

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

Public Participation

Tina Jones spoke in objection to the application.

Audrey Austin spoke in objection to the application

Lucie Castleman spoke in objection to the application

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

Cllr Clark as the local member highlighted the following key points: the development was contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policies 1, 2 and 29; within the North and West Housing Market Area (HMA) Wiltshire Council are about 160 dwellings short which is a nominal amount.  However when one factors in the fact that the Council had granted planning permission for over 3200 additional houses across the HMA (included within Table 3 of the Housing Land Supply Statement - HLSS) since April 2016 (the base date used for the 2016 HLSS) the Council would be able to prove to any planning inspector (should the application be refused and appealed) that it can demonstrate having in excess of 5.25 years supply of housing; Core Policies 1 and 2 was therefore up-to-date; the development site was located outside the village policy limit for Hilperton thus being contrary to Core Policy 2; the development was also contrary to Core Policy 29 which required adequate secondary school provision to be in place prior to the approval and delivery of additional housing on unallocated greenfield sites; and, the lack of an objection from the Council’s education officer cannot and should not override adopted policy requirements.

A debate followed where a motion was then moved to refuse the application. 

Following a question raised by Cllr Whitehead about the 5 year housing land supply statement and position, the monitoring and evidence spatial planning manager advised the committee that the Council was  presently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, confirmed the base date used for the 2016 HLSS and advised that whilst the housing figures contained within Table 3 of the HLSS could be referenced by the Council in defending any subsequent appeal, in his professional opinion and experience, he advised that planning inspectors rarely take them into account. The officer furthermore confirmed that the 2017 Housing Land Supply Figures would have a base date of April 2017, but in recognition of the amount of work  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121a

A site visit was held prior to the meeting.

The area team leader presented the report which recommended the application for an erection of one new attached dwelling, alterations to the existing dwelling, access, parking and demolition of outbuildings, be granted.

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. The officer informed the committee that following the deferment on 23 November, the applicant had made material revisions to the application including the deletion of the originally proposed turntable to aid on-site parking and electric gates at the site frontage. The committee was also advised that an additional comparative site context plan had been submitted, which all formed part of the revised presentation.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer, key points included; clarification on planning notices on the site; at or near the site; the weight to be given to saved West Wiltshire District Plan Policy H18 in recognition that the development site is located within an area of minimum change.

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

Public Participation

Robert Drower spoke in objection to the application.

Ian Berry spoke in objection to the application.

Glyn Woolley (applicant) spoke in support of the application.

Heather Woolley (applicant) spoke in support of the application.

A debate followed where a motion was then moved to approve the officer’s recommendation. Key points raised in the debate included; the removal of the turntable; the impact on the neighbouring property and area and Policy H18. In response to a member question about Policy H18 of the former West Wiltshire District Plan, the officer advised the committee that whilst it was a material consideration, due regard had to be given to the more recent adopted Core Strategy, the fact that the Council was unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and in accordance with NPPF paras 14 and 49, such restrictive housing policies cannot be given full weight.  In addition to the above, the officer informed the committee that after a thorough review of the proposals, the report considers the impacts of the development and whilst the restrictive nature of Policy H18 is duly referenced, the case officer’s appraisal concludes that the proposed development would be an acceptable form of sustainable development which can be supported.

Following the debate it was;

Resolved

To grant planning permission 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

Cllr Knight took over as Chairman for the remainder of the meeting and Cllr Newbury left the meeting at 5.00pm.

The area team leader presented the report which recommended the application for 5 new dwellings and to incorporate a single bed cottage/flat within the existing building, be granted.

An update was given on receipt of a late representation from a neighbouring property (number 3 – opposite) and to inform the committee that within the representation section of the report, concerns had been received from the owner/occupier of No.3 Cleveland Gardens. Within the late representation which included photographs that were circulated to the committee, concern was raised about overdevelopment of the site, the parking provision, the consequential impacts on local residents including loss of light and privacy; the extent of the development site and proposals; and the impacts created from extra vehicles entering and leaving the site.

The key planning issues identified in the officer’s presentation were outlined and comprised: the principle of the development, impact on highways and parking, design, impacts on neighbouring amenity and core policy 41 which requires the development to be sustainable.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer, key points included; clarification on separation distances to neighbouring properties, the road width and the number of allocated and proposed on-site parking spaces.

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

Public Participation

Peter Sorisi spoke in objection to the application.

Geraldine Curtis spoke in objection to the application.

Alvin Howard (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Gianfranco Chicco (applicant) spoke in support of the application

Cllr Blakemore as the local member highlighted the following key points: issues with parking arrangements, the width of the road being smaller than average, the threat on the local bus routes, the suitability of the local convenience stores. Cllr Blakemore expressed a concern about the 5 additional units being too many for the site and invited the committee to consider deferring the application and to instruct the case officer to approach the applicant to see whether they would be agreeable to deleting the two semi-detached units in the rear of the plot and to bring such a revised application back to committee or the elected members to consider.

The committee was informed by the area team leader that a deferment was an option for the committee to consider but members were encouraged to have a discussion about the merits of the proposed extension to Greenacres House.

A debate followed where a motion was then moved to defer the application for further discussions.

Resolved

To defer the application and to instruct officers to contact the applicant to seek an agreement to delete the two proposed semi-detached units from the application to address site overdevelopment concerns and address parking provision concerns.

Cllr Ridout left meeting at 6.20pm

The case officer presented the report which recommended the application for a provision of 50 affordable homes over 4 land parcels within the Southview Park housing development, be granted.

The key planning issues identified in the officer’s presentation were outlined and comprised: the principle of development, including the extant nature of the previous approved development, the impact on the character and appearance of the area, impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, impact on the amenity of proposed occupants, highway issues, ecology issues, impact on Heritage Assets (archaeology), drainage issues and crime prevention

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer, key points included; clarification on the number of storeys of the flats and the design.

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

Public Participation

Tim Bruce spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Drewett as the local Member informed the committee that during the consultation concerns from residents principally concerned the manner the existing properties were managed.

A debate followed where a motion was then moved to approve the officer’s recommendation.

At the end of the debate it was;

Resolved

To Approve the planning application, 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:

Amended 3158_L_001 rev D (Proposed site plan)

Amended 3158_L_002 rev C (Landscape plan)

3158_L_003 (Location plan)

3158_L_005 rev B (Topographical survey)

Amended 3158_L_010 rev D (Parcel 2 site plan)

Amended 3158_L_011 rev C (Parcel 3 site plan)

Amended 3158_L_012 rev E (Parcel 4 site plan)

Amended 3158_L_013 rev C (Parcel 6 site plan)

3158_L_051 rev B (House type 1, 2, and 3)

3158_L_052 rev B (House type 4 and 4A plans and elevations)

3158_L_053 rev B (House type 5 and 5A plans and elevations)

3158_L_054 rev B (House type 6 and 6A plans and elevations)

3158_L_055 rev B (House type 6B plans and elevations)

3158_L_056 rev B (House type 8 plans and elevations)

Amended 3158_L_103 rev A (Street elevations 1 of 3)

Amended 3158_L_104 rev A (Street elevations 2 of 3)

Amended 3158_L_105 rev A (Street elevations 3 of 3)

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

3.       No dwelling hereby approved shall be commenced until the exact details and samples of the materials to be used for the external walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: The application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.

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

The Planning Appeals Update Report for 10/11/2016 and 02/12/2016 was received.

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.